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...
Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 election. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The 2012 GOP field--Where does everybody stand?
It would be an understatement to say that the run up to the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination has been one of the most eventful, interesting, contentious, thought-provoking, surprising, and wacky buildups to a primary season that America has ever seen. Whatever you might say about the run for the 2012 Nomination, you certainly can't say that it's been dull.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
John Edwards was right (sort of)...there really ARE two Americas!
Remember John Edwards? He was the perpetual Democratic Presidential candidate who slept around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up a minimally attractive staffer. But, back before all of the scandal, he was a rising power in the Democratic party...many saw him as a future "face" of the Democratic party, and perhaps even the heir apparent to Bill Clinton (which, in retrospect, should have been our first clue that he'd end up sleeping around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocking up a minimally attractive staffer...hindsight really is 20/20, I suppose).
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Sarah Palin's Perfect Job: RNC Chairperson!
One of the curses of being a genius and a highly developed analyst of politics and culture, as I am, is that upon occasion I will say something incredibly brilliant that only a few people will ever hear or see. This is the case with what I am about to post--recently on a message board at www.wrestlingclassics.com I posted something that I feel is an incredible idea that could be hugely beneficial for the Conservative movement and the 2012 Presidential election. The problem is that only that particular message board got to see this ingenius idea, and let's face it, I'm pretty sure the movers and shakers of the GOP are not hanging out on a message board that discusses classic pro wrestling. With that in mind, I'm going to bring this brilliant idea over to this blog for the world to see.
Incidentally, if you are a fan of old-school, classic professional wrestling, there is simply no better place on the internet to discuss and learn about this topic than www.wrestlingclassics.com . You can find an answer to practically any question you have about classic wrestling, and even interact with some performers from the "glory years" of the sport of kings.
Ok, back to the topic at hand--many of us are Sarah Palin supporters, but realize that she could have a difficult time if she ran for President in 2012. It's not that Obama is popular (far from it), but there are many people out there who--for whatever reason--absolutely despise Sarah Palin. It's not just that they dislike Sarah--it's that they absolutely hate her. Irrational hatred to the point that some of them will shoot their TV with a gun when her daughter so much as appears on the screen! Now, an analysis of this hatred would make for quite a post of it's own, but for this discussion, let's just acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the American public who hates Sarah Palin and would take action (for example, showing up at a voting booth) to prevent her from being succesful.
Now look on the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won the Presidency on the heels of unprecedented turnout from "non-traditional" and "casual" voters. By any measure, the "rock star" status has worn thin since his election, and all of those rainbows and lollipops that he promised to those non-traditional voters who just didn't know any better haven't come through. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Obama won't be able to win on the same "smoke an mirrors, style over substance, massive non-traditional turnout" that he had in 2008. It's not that those voters would vote for the GOP candidate--I suspect that very few of them would "flip"--but that a certain dissatisfaction and malaise is likely to set in among voters who thought Obama would be the man that would change the world. So if those voters don't get fired up and turn out in droves, how does Obama win in 2012?
He doesn't.
So if it's clear that Obama can't win without a surge of casual and non-traditional voters (as he did in 2008), then one can begin to see the possible issues with a Palin candidacy. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is a magnficent public servant and ambassador of Conservatism, and I deeply admire her. But speaking strictly in terms of electoral strategy, the level of hatred that many of those casual and non-traditional voters have for her could drive voter turnout for Obama where it otherwise wouldn't have been. I'm not saying Sarah can't beat Obama--I think she could, but it would be one hell of a fight.
I am however saying that there could be another solution that could all but gurantee a Conservative Presidential win in 2012. From my post on www.wrestlingclassics.com , here is my proposal for that solution:
"I think I've mentioned it here before, but you know what would be the *perfect* job for Sarah?
RNC Chairperson.
Before all of you spit your adult beverages all over your computer screen, think this through: What are the most important functions of a party chairperson? Raising funds and appealing to the base. There is, of course, some responsibilities in terms of agenda and strategy for the party--but it appears to me that the biggest (or at least the most highly visible) part of the job is 1) Convicing the base that the candidate isn't "leaving them behind" and 2) Convincing that base to open their checkbooks and financially back that candidate.
Nobody appeals to the base of the GOP like Sarah does, and she's among the best fundraisers we have (maybe Karl Rove is slightly ahead of her at this point, but I'd say she's right up there with him). A party chairman is there to rally the base of the party while the candidate is out there trying to rally everyone else--and it's role that Sarah's made for!
You know who else has done a pretty good job in a similar role? Howard Dean. And as scary as it might be to say this, there are some similarities between Dean and Palin:
**Dean appeals to the "true believers" of the Left as much as Sarah does to the true believers of the Right (perhaps only Al Gore gets more love from the committed Left than Dean does)
**Both scare the pants of the opposite party and much of the centrists (making it more difficult for either to win on a national level)
**Both can "fire up" the base and get people to open the checkbooks.
**The media will give both of them all the airtime they want, because they know that either one of them will be good for a juicy soundbite virtually on command.
And the best part--all of the "Palin Haters" who would come out strictly to vote against her would likely stay home. After all, *she* wouldn't be running for anything, and would have no real power (at least in a governing sense), so attacks on her--a mere party chairperson--during a Presidential campaign would fall flat. Seems to me that you'd get the best that Sarah has to offer (ability to fire up and appeal to the base, ability to raise money, and perhaps some efforts at nudging the party platform more to the Right) with none of the negatives (all of the nitwits and crazies who think Sarah is "evil incarnate" would likely stay home--and as I've said a million times, low or moderate voter turnout would work against Obama regardless of who the opponent is).
I do think Palin would make a magnificent President, and would support her wholeheartedly if it came down to her or if she were the only truly Conservative candidate. However, if we can find another True Conservative to run (and that might be a rather large "if") then Sarah as RNC Chairperson might be the brilliant move that puts it over the top."
Now, the key to all of this is for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012 while Sarah handles the fundraising and firing up of the base. As I've said before, in 2012, I will back the most Conservative candidate, I will not back a moderate simply because they have an (R) after their name. But with that having been said, a Conservative candidate--even one with relatively little experience--could beat Obama in 2012 if our poltical machine is humming along at it's highest efficiency. And I think Sarah Palin could be the perfect person for the job.
Unfortunately, the GOP establishment hasn't figured this out (no big surprise there), and they continue the charade of Micheal Steele desperately trying to hang onto his job while several others--who don't have the recognition or potential for grabbing donations as Palin does--challenge him for it. It has become a common theme of the GOP over the last 20 years: Yet another brilliant idea going to waste.
Incidentally, if you are a fan of old-school, classic professional wrestling, there is simply no better place on the internet to discuss and learn about this topic than www.wrestlingclassics.com . You can find an answer to practically any question you have about classic wrestling, and even interact with some performers from the "glory years" of the sport of kings.
Ok, back to the topic at hand--many of us are Sarah Palin supporters, but realize that she could have a difficult time if she ran for President in 2012. It's not that Obama is popular (far from it), but there are many people out there who--for whatever reason--absolutely despise Sarah Palin. It's not just that they dislike Sarah--it's that they absolutely hate her. Irrational hatred to the point that some of them will shoot their TV with a gun when her daughter so much as appears on the screen! Now, an analysis of this hatred would make for quite a post of it's own, but for this discussion, let's just acknowledge that there is a significant percentage of the American public who hates Sarah Palin and would take action (for example, showing up at a voting booth) to prevent her from being succesful.
Now look on the other side of the coin, Barack Obama won the Presidency on the heels of unprecedented turnout from "non-traditional" and "casual" voters. By any measure, the "rock star" status has worn thin since his election, and all of those rainbows and lollipops that he promised to those non-traditional voters who just didn't know any better haven't come through. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that Obama won't be able to win on the same "smoke an mirrors, style over substance, massive non-traditional turnout" that he had in 2008. It's not that those voters would vote for the GOP candidate--I suspect that very few of them would "flip"--but that a certain dissatisfaction and malaise is likely to set in among voters who thought Obama would be the man that would change the world. So if those voters don't get fired up and turn out in droves, how does Obama win in 2012?
He doesn't.
So if it's clear that Obama can't win without a surge of casual and non-traditional voters (as he did in 2008), then one can begin to see the possible issues with a Palin candidacy. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is a magnficent public servant and ambassador of Conservatism, and I deeply admire her. But speaking strictly in terms of electoral strategy, the level of hatred that many of those casual and non-traditional voters have for her could drive voter turnout for Obama where it otherwise wouldn't have been. I'm not saying Sarah can't beat Obama--I think she could, but it would be one hell of a fight.
I am however saying that there could be another solution that could all but gurantee a Conservative Presidential win in 2012. From my post on www.wrestlingclassics.com , here is my proposal for that solution:
"I think I've mentioned it here before, but you know what would be the *perfect* job for Sarah?
RNC Chairperson.
Before all of you spit your adult beverages all over your computer screen, think this through: What are the most important functions of a party chairperson? Raising funds and appealing to the base. There is, of course, some responsibilities in terms of agenda and strategy for the party--but it appears to me that the biggest (or at least the most highly visible) part of the job is 1) Convicing the base that the candidate isn't "leaving them behind" and 2) Convincing that base to open their checkbooks and financially back that candidate.
Nobody appeals to the base of the GOP like Sarah does, and she's among the best fundraisers we have (maybe Karl Rove is slightly ahead of her at this point, but I'd say she's right up there with him). A party chairman is there to rally the base of the party while the candidate is out there trying to rally everyone else--and it's role that Sarah's made for!
You know who else has done a pretty good job in a similar role? Howard Dean. And as scary as it might be to say this, there are some similarities between Dean and Palin:
**Dean appeals to the "true believers" of the Left as much as Sarah does to the true believers of the Right (perhaps only Al Gore gets more love from the committed Left than Dean does)
**Both scare the pants of the opposite party and much of the centrists (making it more difficult for either to win on a national level)
**Both can "fire up" the base and get people to open the checkbooks.
**The media will give both of them all the airtime they want, because they know that either one of them will be good for a juicy soundbite virtually on command.
And the best part--all of the "Palin Haters" who would come out strictly to vote against her would likely stay home. After all, *she* wouldn't be running for anything, and would have no real power (at least in a governing sense), so attacks on her--a mere party chairperson--during a Presidential campaign would fall flat. Seems to me that you'd get the best that Sarah has to offer (ability to fire up and appeal to the base, ability to raise money, and perhaps some efforts at nudging the party platform more to the Right) with none of the negatives (all of the nitwits and crazies who think Sarah is "evil incarnate" would likely stay home--and as I've said a million times, low or moderate voter turnout would work against Obama regardless of who the opponent is).
I do think Palin would make a magnificent President, and would support her wholeheartedly if it came down to her or if she were the only truly Conservative candidate. However, if we can find another True Conservative to run (and that might be a rather large "if") then Sarah as RNC Chairperson might be the brilliant move that puts it over the top."
Now, the key to all of this is for a CONSERVATIVE candidate to win the GOP nomination in 2012 while Sarah handles the fundraising and firing up of the base. As I've said before, in 2012, I will back the most Conservative candidate, I will not back a moderate simply because they have an (R) after their name. But with that having been said, a Conservative candidate--even one with relatively little experience--could beat Obama in 2012 if our poltical machine is humming along at it's highest efficiency. And I think Sarah Palin could be the perfect person for the job.
Unfortunately, the GOP establishment hasn't figured this out (no big surprise there), and they continue the charade of Micheal Steele desperately trying to hang onto his job while several others--who don't have the recognition or potential for grabbing donations as Palin does--challenge him for it. It has become a common theme of the GOP over the last 20 years: Yet another brilliant idea going to waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)