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.

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...

What's *really* deplorable about Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Rhetoric

By now, most of you are familiar with the comments of Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who recently stated in reference to The Tea Party, that he'd like to help Barack Obama "...take these sons of bitches out". Now, almost every Conservative within the last couple of days has taken offense to these comments, and has pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of the Left using rhetoric of this nature after trying to paint the Right with the same brush during the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.

However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.

I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.

So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.

However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.

Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.

To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.

Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.

Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.

However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.

Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.

And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.

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?

Explaining England's Riots...and those coming to America

Some quotes from some of the hoodlums that are currently rioting in England:

"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"

"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"


"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"

"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."

(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809

Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.

All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).

Can America be far behind England?

When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.

Am I talking about England, or America?

I'm talking about both.

We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.

A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:

How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?

My reactions to the Libyan situation (and some kudos for Obama???? WTF???)

Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?

The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.

My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.

So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.

And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".

America leads. It does not follow.

So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.

To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.

Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.

GOP pursues Healthcare repeal--White House begins playing "Roll out the Victims"

With the GOP beginning the follow-through of their campaign promise to attempt to repeal Obamacare (an effort that passed the House and will now go to the Senate), the Democratic party--and more specifically the White House--has gone into overdrive with their favorite play in their playbook. Rolling out the victims!

Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal

As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.

Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.

And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"

You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:

I don't care.

Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.

On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.

So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.

If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!

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.