Critical Thinking

The company that I work for has moved quite a few jobs to India and Mexico over the past few years.  They call it off-shoring.  The benefit is that labor rates off shore are less than half that of an American worker.  However, it is not the financial bonanza that it might appear to be for one reason - off shore workers are not as productive as American workers.  When a business function is moved off shore, the project starts with an equal number of off shore employees as was used on shore.  The business function rapidly fails due to the decrease in productivity, so additional off shore workers are hired.  In the end, the financial benefit is smaller than originally projected.  I have wondered why foreign workers are less productive than American counterparts.  My curiosity has sparked a few conversations with peers who have trained off shore workers.  Their answers are interesting. 

First there are cultural differences that lead to a loss of productivity.  A 40 hour work week and 8 hour work day are not customary in many societies.  But aside from cultural differences, my peer pointed to something else that he believes explain the productivity gap.  He explains it with an analogy.  When teaching a class of off shore engineers to perform a function, he would begin by saying that 1 + 1 = 2, and then ask the engineers what 1 + 1 equals.  They would enthusiastically respond 2!  He would then build on that by telling them that 2 + 2 = 4.  After asking the class what 2 + 2 equals, they would respond 4!  He would then test their critical thinking skills by asking what 4 + 4 equals.  The response would be “We don’t know because you haven’t told us yet”.  My peer’s point was that off shore resources must be told every minute detail on how to perform a function.  If the unexpected occurs, and it always will, they freeze until someone in authority tells them how to handle it.

Americans may be critical thinkers when it comes to their work, but the last election has proven that a majority of Americans wait to be told what to think about the federal government.  It is the only explanation of why so many voters could not parse facts and conclude that a liberal agenda is bad for the society.  Instead they wait for authority to tell them what to think.  The mainstream media has filled this authority for them.  They hear NBC/CBS/ABC tell them the Bush tax cuts favor the rich and have led to trillion dollar deficits and they believe it.  They hear NBC/CBS/ABC tell them the rich do not pay their fair share and they believe it.  They hear NBC/CBS/ABC tell them that conservatives wage war on women and they believe it.  Currently they are hearing NBC/CBS/ABC tell them that conservatives won’t compromise to reach a deal on the fiscal cliff and they believe it in spite of an Obama quote where he said he would not compromise. Senator Dick Durban says there will never be any meaningful deficit reduction until taxes are raised on the top 2%, NBC/CBS/ABC report it without challenging the utter absurdity of the statement, and the moron majority believe it.

The enemy of conservatism is liberalism, but we will never defeat liberalism until the moron majority hear truth from their authority, the mainstream media.  This means that conservatism must defeat the mainstream media before they can battle liberalism.  FOX News channel was a first step.  FOX did report news in a fair and balanced way, however seems to have changed course.  They now seem to believe it is their responsibility to offer as much conservative spin as the rest of the media offers in liberal spin.  For this they are demonized by the mainstream media.  The moron majority won’t believe anything from FOX simply because they are FOX.  This wasn’t the intent.  FOX has become the most watched news channel, but that is probably a consolidation of conservative viewers.  Conservatives watch FOX, while liberals split time by watching NBC/CBS/ABC.

This problem has no obvious answer, just as the republicans seem to have nothing to counter the disparity in minority and women voters.  Discrediting the mainstream media hasn’t worked.  Dan Rather reported on forged documents, ABC reported blatantly edited and  out of context sound bites, and the moron majority didn’t  care.  The only way to defeat NBC/CBS/ABC may be to turn them off.  Unfortunately there is a majority of Americans who believe the mainstream media is their source for truth.  Until that changes, conservatism will struggle to get a fair shake.

I Like to Listen - GP&N

In my opinion, 2012 has been a dry year for new musical talent.  I guess the Civil Wars would be the only exception, and what a disappointment they turned out to be.  However, I did discover an artist that is new to me.

It started late last year during a country music award show.  I typically don’t watch the Kenny Chesney performances, but rather take the opportunity to visit the commode or grab something from the refrigerator.  But I was late getting off the couch and once I heard Kenny and this blond named Grace Potter start singing “You and Tequila”, I couldn’t get up.

 

I am not a Chesney fan, but together their sound was unique.  Not to mention Grace Potter plays guitar well.  Not to mention it is hard to miss her legs.

So a couple weeks later, “You and Tequila” was still queuing up in my head every few days, so I decide to see if Grace Potter is an established musician, or just a Chesney acquaintance who sat in on a song.  A quick search of You Tube made it apparent that Grace Potter is a musician in her own right, and has a band called the Nocturnals.  What I found surprising is that Grace Potter and the Nocturnals are not country.  Her range is broad, and includes ZZ Top, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, Fleetwod Mac and Gillian Welch cover songs.  If I were to guess, Grace seems to have roots in Blues music, while the Nocturnals were born and raised as hard rockers.  Occasionally they pick up their acoustic guitars and sound a little county, but that is the exception.  GP&N music is mostly rock with the occasional ballad.  I really like the sound.

I then find that GP&N are coming to the Uptown Theater in Kansas City in October.

 –T was willing, so I bought tickets.  The Uptown is a 1920’s era movie theater that has become a concert-only venue for many years.  Acts that play the Uptown are those who can’t yet fill an arena, and have outgrown bars.  Acoustically, the Uptown sucks.  The domed ceiling ensures that every note from every instrument is focused at your head and arrives at many different times.  The sound board staff compensates for this phenomena by cranking the volume up a little higher.  –T listened to the concert through earplugs and said it sounded okay.  I listened to it without earplugs.  It was painful at times, but I didn’t mind so much after my ears quit bleeding. 

Two weeks later, AXS TV provided a live concert of GP&N from Stubbs BBQ in Austin Texas.  Same tour, same set list, better acoustics on my Bose 3.2.1.  I watched it live and recorded it on my DVR.  Since then, -T and I have watched it twice more and I still can’t bring myself to delete the recording.  GP&N start with songs from their new record, “The Lion, the Beast and the Beat”, and then play a couple of older ballads, “Stars” and “Apology”.  The ballads showcase Grace Potter’s world class voice and writing ability.  She is knocking on the door of the  exclusive Write-Sing-Play club. 

After a few rock numbers, the most compelling vocal of the night was delivered in "Big White Gate", a song short on theology, but rich in smokey, bluesy vocals.  At the end, you just have to say "Wow, that was good".  The encore continues with a rock number "Stop the Bus" and "Medicine" where all band members end up beating on one drum set.  The night concluded the GP&N encore signature – “Nothing but the Water I &II”.  “Nothing but the Water I” features Potter, sometimes acapella and at others just her and an electric slide guitar – either version her sterling voice silences the crowd. “Nothing but the Water II” immediately follows and is about the best feel good encore song I have witnessed.   

 

If music artists sold stock, I would be a buyer.  GP&N have a lot going for them.  The first thing I noticed is they all seem to be having fun.  It’s not just a 2 hour a night job.  Each band member looks like they are doing exactly what they want to be doing.  The second thing noticed is just how physically demanding their concerts are.  The band is in constant motion.  Potter especially uses the time for an intense aerobic workout, dancing and head banging through each song.  Finally, the music is substantial.  Lyrics have a meaning - nothing sappy or too heavy.  And Potter may be the best female rock vocalist in the business.  Her vocals trigger memories of Janis Joplin, Grace Slick and Nancy Wilson.  She is that good.

Messaging

Simple messaging is a goal in business.  Advertisers strive to plant a clear positive message in your brain with just a few words.  Got Milk?  Just Do It.  Can you hear me now?  Like a Rock.  Short slogans that convey a single, simple idea is the best kind of messaging a business can use to sell their products.  Likewise, short slogans are effective at selling political ideas. I suspect the majority of Americans prefer a short message that won't cause them to think to deep or hard.

The democrats understand this far better than the republicans.  Think about the presidential campaign and the ongoing fiscal battle.  The democratic messaging has been short and simple.  Forward.  Fairness.  Balance.  Fair Share.  These slogans paint a picture that is far larger than the word.  It doesn't matter if the picture is untrue as long as it beneficial to their cause.

The republicans don't message well.  It could be they aren't clever enough, or maybe their ideas are too complex for short messaging.  While Obama repeats the word balance over and over, the republicans try to explain why we have a spending problem.  We also use arguments that don't seem logical to the moron majority, such as cutting taxes increases tax revenue.  So while one side says balance and fairness, the other gets into deep discussions on how economies and tax systems work.  Its no surprise that conservative messaging doesn't play well on Twitter.

While Obama tweets that he only wants everyone to pay their "fair share", conservative counter the tweet with data, such as the top 10% earn 20% of the wages, but pay 40% of the income taxes.  That is fair, and definitely a fair share, but hard to communicate in a simple way.  Also remember that Obama has never defined what a fair share is.  If he did, the republicans could message on that.

Obama insists he wants a "balanced" plan.  The conservative counter is that we have increased spending far faster than the supporting economy has grown.  That taxing the rich at 100% would not balance the budget.  That after spending over a trillion dollars in stimulus and bail outs, Obama has retained those funds in subsequent budget years.  That we have a fair, progressive tax system.  That we have a spending and an economic growth problem, not a tax fairness problem.  That entitlement growth is the most significant threat to future prosperity. 

The democrats won in 2012 largely based on their messaging and usage of social media.  In addition to the mountain of problems conservatives face in regaining the White House and senate, they must also find an effective way to communicate to the moron majority.

Have we Already Lost?

The scenario I painted a few days ago is coming true.  The republicans have painted themself into another corner.  They did it by trying to do the right thing.  Instead of letting Obama have his way as a method of pinning the economic performance to him, they have tried to act like the adult in the room and put forth a plan to avoid the so called fiscal cliff. 

That was a mistake.  Their plan was called "magic beans and fairy dust" by the White House spokesman.  The mainstream media has piled on, as they continue to provide cover for this failed presidency.  The result is the repuiblicans are again villified for putting forth a plan while Obama gives speeches.  When the fiscal cliff arrives, Obama and the press will blame the republicans.  For those keeping score, that's 0-2.

The only way the republicans can emerge from the current political situation without a loss, is to walk away.  The message to Obama, Pelosi and Reid should be - "Call us when there is a bill to vote on".  The republicans must force the administration to come up with their own plan and send it to the legislature. 

This is the nightmare scenario for Obama.  Until this happens, he can continue to campaign with his class warfare message and demonize the republicans.  To actually write a bill , have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and send it to Congress for a vote would force him reveal his intentions to the public. Even worse, if the bill passes Congress, the baton would finally pass from George Bush to Barack Obama. 

Obama would finally own the economy he has blamed on Bush for the past 4 years.  If you believe we are heading toward a new recession, this is bad news for Obama.  I think he is fine with the U.S. entering a new recession. That is seen as another opportunity to draft more citizens into the dependancy state.  What Obama would hate is losing the ability to blame the republicans for the recession.

Champion of the Middle Class?

Imagine this.  A very wealthy CEO of a large national corporation schedules a three week vacation in Hawaii.  He loads up the family and close associates on his custom 747.  So that he can watch over his business while on vacation, he charters  a couple of additional planes to carry his entourage, helicopter and limousines.  In Hawaii he rents several beachfront homes and an entire floor in a nearby business district for his business associates and their equipment.  While on vacation, he and his entourage  live the good life frequenting the best restaurants and golf courses.  His family shops at the high end stores. Once the vacation ends, he tallies the cost:  $4,000,000 of his own hard earned money.     

The CEO fancies himself as a champion of the poor and middle class.  Is his claim believable or is he just another rich hypocrite?

Now imagine the CEO is not a CEO, but rather the president of the United States.  The $4,000,000 isn’t from his personal wealth, but from the taxpayer.  He also claims to be a champion of the poor and middle class.  Is his claim more or less believable, more or less hypocritical?

Let Them Rule

Congress is a mess.  Not news, is it?  But now we have democrats thinking they have a mandate to raise taxes and republicans showing signs of capitulation.  Recent history has shown the democrats are far better and spinning any situation into their own advantage.  It doesn’t hurt that they have a strong ally in the mainstream press.  Nothing about this will change soon.  The sooner the republicans accept this, the better.

If you accept it, you should accept this.  The republicans should back off an let Obama and the democrats have their way.  They should only insist that the democrats lay out a plan and write it down in legislation.  They should allow a vote.  There should be no attempt to block votes, twist arms or amend the democratic plans.  Each bill should pass or fail based on its own merits.  Each member should vote their own conscience and not party line.

Sound like surrender?  Possibly, but remember the republicans are in a no-win situation.  Take Obamacare for example.  The republicans have done everything in their power to defeat Obamacare at every turn.  What has it gotten them?  Nowhere.  Obamacare begins to go into effect in January.  It will be either a huge success or a new disabling entitlement.  If it becomes a success, Obama will get the credit.  If it fails miserably, the republicans will be blamed by the media, the administration, and the morons. The excuse will be that failure is the result of the republican resistance.

The republicans should learn from the corner they are now painted in and change tact.  By allowing Obama and the democrats to act on their perceived mandate, they will for the first time in recent memory become accountable for their own plan.  If their plans become successful, great for the country.  If not, they must own the result.   

Unfortunately, I don’t see the republicans taking this approach.  They appear to want to limit any tax increases and focus on spending reduction.  From my perspective, this is the responsible action, but will simply pain them into another corner.  This will give Obama and the liberals what they need once the democratic plans fail.

Imagine 2016 with a depressed economy, a $25 trillion national debt and even more takers relying on government assistance.  The story told by democrats will be that republican spending cuts and tax protection for the wealthy are the cause.  The media will foster this narrative and the moron majority will believe it.  The result will again be that democrats and liberals win.  Republicans must protect themselves from the attack by allowing Obama and the liberals to have their way.  If they are not seen as roadblocks to the democratic legislation, they might be able to hang the results on the liberals.

Thanksgiving Traditions

Traditions in general are dying.  I go to a church that replaced the traditional organ with electric guitars, and a steepled building with a movie theater.   I wear jeans to work fairly often as traditional business attire has almost vanished.  Thanksgiving hasn't been spared.  Today, many businesses will open in the evening to get a head start on Black Friday.  The traditional turkey dinner will live at my family's gathering, but in many homes, turkey has been replaced by barbeque, prime rib, or another dish. 

I wonder if traditions are really that important?  My gut tells me that tradition for tradition's sake is not a good enough reason.  Turkey and thankfulness is all that remains from the original Thanksgiving, but today football is as much of a modern Thanksgiving tradition as anything else.  New traditions form and replace or augment old traditions.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I like the electric guitars, a theater setting, jeans at work, and prime rib Thanksgiving dinners.  They may soon become the traditions of our children.

I am not crazy about the new Thanksgiving shopping opportunities, but that may just be an old Carpe Dealum wound.  I do sympathize with the retail workers who must sacrifice their Thanksgiving for a wholly commercial purpose.  I hope their voices are heard this year, but in the end, the consumer owns it.  If we shop, this will also become a tradition.  If we don't, it won't.

The only Thanksgiving tradition that should never wane is the reflection and thankful spirit the holiday should encourage in all of us.  We have so much to be thankful for.  I have nobody in my circle of family and friends who will go to bed hungry tonight.  The poorest of our neighbors are rich when compared to much of the world, or even American life just a few decades ago.

Thanksgiving comes this year just in time.  I have been discouraged by the state of our nation, yet, there is none other to which I would rather hold citizenship.  In the midst of our national bickering and polarization, there is a sense that we will be fine - that we are not in control - there is a greater purpose.  We are a blessed nation just as I belong to a blessed family.  Our basic needs are met and we have a few bucks left over to spend and to give.  I have a wife, two daughters and three grandchildren that I have done nothing to deserve. Life is good and I am thankful.

I wish you and your family a happy Thanksgiving.

Thankful

Looking for something to be thankful for?  Here's one.  Be thankful you were not a child of the 1930's. 

Earlier this week I watch a Ken Burns documentary on PBS titled "The Dust Bowl".  I love history, but hadn't spent any time reading about this particular period.  The PBS special really caught my attention for a couple of reasons.  First, the proximity of the Dust Bowl to my hometown, and secondly, the fact that my parents and grandparents lived through it.  It was an incredible, calamitous time. The hardship and suffering endured by those folks is quite amazing.  Consider this string of events:

The economic system fails and America enters the great depression.
The price for wheat and corn falls dramatically.
The middle of the country enters a 10 year drought.
Dust storms plague the Midwest at the rate of dozens each year.
Dust piles up on home like snow drifts.
Everything inside and outside homes is covered with dirt.
Farmers can no longer feed their herds and kill them off.
Thousands of children and elderly die of dust pneumonia.
Thousands of rabbits invade populated areas as they look for vegetation.
Swarms of grasshoppers invade eating everything is sight.

Beginning in 1939, the climate changed back to a more normal pattern with rain and seasonal temperatures.  But the respite was sort-lived.  In 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked and America entered a period of violent world war. 

What a terrible time in our history.  I don't remember my family talking about it much even though they lived through it.  I do remember my grandmother and my father telling me they survived for years on fried potatoes.  Now I have a glimmer of understanding why.  I am thankful for the comparative easy life we have.

Makers and Takers

I am slowly coming to terms with the new normal in America, where those who want to be supported by the government outnumber and dictate to those who fund the government.  Many are now calling this delineation the makers and the takers.  Immediately the liberals pounce upon those who dare to call some in the society the "takers".  Their usual line is to point out retirees or the disabled on Social Security and lump these people into our "taker" definition.  Not true.  Takers can be easily defined.  A taker is a capable person who pays no federal income tax and would rather take a permanent government check than earn one in the job market.  Retirees collecting Social Security are not takers - they are receiving funds previously paid in.  Disabled are not takers either - we still live in a society that take care of those who cannot.  The liberals who denigrate those who point out the obvious, are the real threats to the retired and the disabled.  Our current fiscal trajectory is not sustainable.  We need more makers and fewer takers.

I don't like where we are, and it's not because I am selfish.  I hate to see the takers taken advantage of.  You have heard the reasons.  Any government large enough to meet your every need is large enough to take it all away.  Unfortunately, this logic doesn't resonate with the taker.  They see the government trough as unlimited.  Whether it is or isn't shouldn't be the conversation.  The conversation should be simplistic.  

Why do they put "Don't feed the Bears" signs in Yellowstone? 
Is it because the bears would become reliant on the food given by tourists?
When the tourists don't show up, would the bears starve?
Why would we care more about bears in Yellowstone than the takers in society?

FREE HOME FOR ANYONE WHO WILL TAKE IT!

Lazy blogger day. I liked this.
---------------------------------------

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had more than enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Why Benghazi is not Obama's Fault

As I accept the fact that takers now rule our country, I must become more open to their point of view.  For that reason, this post will become more Obama-friendly.  We must learn to understand and accept those who pay no attention.  If we don't, we will all go crazy during the next 4 years. In that vein, here are the top 10 reasons why Benghazi is not Obama's fault.

1. Obama wasn't in Benghazi at the time of the attack.
2. Obama wasn't within 100 miles of Benghazi, so how could he be held responsible?  George Bush was probably closer.
3. Obama was much too busy focusing on jobs and the middle class to care about some embassy half a world away.
4. Benghazi is in Europe, Asia, or maybe Africa.  Why would anything that happens in Benghazi be Obama's fault?
5. NBC didn't say it was Obama's fault.
6. The Benghazi Arabs probably were just reacting to Bain Capital moving jobs to China.
7. The Libyan embassy was there long before Obama took office.  George Bush or Ronald Reagan probably built it. If they hadn't built it, the Americans would not have been killed.
8. Free healthcare, free phones.  
9. David Petraeus did it.
10. The attack was in response to a YouTube video that nobody has seen.

Post Election Blues

I purposely did not do an election post the day after Romney was defeated.  I was a little too far down.  It was a long campaign, one that I was convinced would be won by conservatism.  Tuesday evening began with hopeful expectation, and ended with deep pessimism.  Looking back, a few questions remain.

There were too many anti-Obama indicators for him to win.  Did the Chic-fil-a appreciation crowd stay home?   Obama got nearly 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008.  Romney got nearly 3 million votes less than McCain.  This election was win-able.  Something isn't right.  Either conservatives stayed home, or there was widespread fraud.  Not wanting to believe a conspiracy theory, for now I'll assume the former rather than the latter.

I really think the 2012 election has three harsh lessons for conservatives.

• Conservative cannot win with hardline immigration principles in an increasingly brown country.  Any talk of defending borders or arresting illegal immigrants will lose the Hispanics and liberals in general.  We should not compromise our principles with amnesty in an attempt to win a percentage of the Hispanic vote, but how do we retain our principles and win an election?  Is it even possible anymore?
• Conservatives must realize there are now more takers than contributors.  Last Tuesday, the takers proved they rule the land.  When given the choice between a better job market or more hand outs, they chose more hand outs.  We cannot afford more hand outs.
• Once the press were the guardians of freedom.  They stood ready to call out lies and unethical behavior in government.  They are no longer on guard.  Instead, they have their own agenda and promote it in what they do and do not report.  They don't believe in conservative principles and will continue to denegrate those who do. 

Unfortunately I do not believe there is anything a conservative can do to overcome these.  If we open our borders, more and more takers enter the country.  As the entitlement class of takers grow, we go broker and broker.  The press is hopelessly corrupt. They will not change.  The country and the economy may need to completely collapse before conservatism gets another chance.

If my pessimism is correct, Atlas Shrugged has become the new reality.

I'm Tired

I'm tired today.  I expected to be tired, but was hoping for a happy tired.  Instead I am a sad tired.  There are lots of thoughts running through my head. The thoughts are what kept me up late last night and wouldn't let sleep come quickly.

I am also feeling emotions.  Shock, loss, disappointment, discouragement, denial, trepidation, foreboding.  It's all kind of silly really.  The Civil Wars aren't the first band to break up.

Voting is the Best Revenge

When hearing what Obama said, my first reaction was "What?".  Next reaction was "Huh?".  Why would a president present as his closing message something so negative and divisive?  Voting is the best revenge.  Really?  But what is most fascinating is trying to understand what was going on inside his head.

Just like "spreading the wealth around" and "you didn't build that", "voting is the best revenge" was an unscripted, ad lib comment.  These, more than the words fed from a teleprompter, tell us the most about Obama's psyche.  To even think of voting as revenge means that he believes that someone has been wronged - there are victims.  Who? Obama himself, or the campaign crowd that was listening?  Believing that Obama is a panderer, I think he was speaking directly to the crowd.  He was playing on their victim mentality.  In doing so, he basically validated Romney's 47% comment by identifying his base as those who believe they have been victimized and depend on the government for sustenance. 

Why would they vote for Obama in the name of revenge?  Obama has been in charge for the past 4 years.  If his supporters believe they are victims, shouldn't they vote Romney?  They should, but they aren't that smart.  Actually, Obama's comment won't change many votes on either side, but it sure provided a frightening glimpse of what goes on in his mind.

October Surprise

Everyone who follows the presidential campaign have expected an October Surprise that could shift support from one candidate to the other.  Dirty tricks are often used during the latter stages by the candidate that believes they are losing.  This year, that would be Barack Obama.  The news today is not good for them.  For the first time, Ohio appears to be breaking to Romney. Both campaigns have pointed to Ohio as the state that will dictate the winner.  Rasmussen now shows Romney with a 2 point lead and continuing momentum.  And it gets worse for Obama.  Gallup and Rasmussen have shown Romney leading for more than 5 consecutive days.  That addresses the statistical test of a bonafide lead in a rolling 7 day average, versus a temporary uptick.  Plus Romney has hit and maintained 50% in many polls while Obama hasn't hit 50% in any poll.  The trend is that in just over a week Romney will become president-elect Romney.

But there is still time for a dirty trick or two.  I don't think they will come from the Obama team.  They are exhausted their arsenal.  Romney is a murderer, Romney is a felon, Romney is a dunce, Romney has Romnesia, Romney is a BS'er.  They have thrown everything at Romney without success.  Their tricks don't work because most people have zero confidence in what Obama says.  Even the most ardent democrat will admit that Obama lies constantly, they will just claim it is necessary since that Romney lies too.

My concern is what the mainstream media has up their sleeve.  Over the past month, the MSM has calmed themselves by claiming that Obama was ahead and in control   That calmness is now eroding.  Panic is setting in.  They are coming to the realization that Romney may well win.  They are apoplectic.  Newsrooms across America are nowplotting how they can boost Obama into a second term.  I am guessing they will use Sandy.

Over the next few days, you will no doubt seem plenty of stories on how Obama is taking control of the government response to Sandy. They will tell how he works without sleeping to ensure the feds help anyone in need.  They will paint Obama as compassionate and caring.  You will see how his response contrasts with the perceived Bush response to Katrina.  Due to the late date, expect the MSM to paint it on thick.  They are trying to change thousands of minds in order to preserve what they believe is righteous - an Obama win.

Why the Confidence?

Almost 3 months ago I first blogged that Romney and the republicans seemed to be on the path to victory during the upcoming election.  The risk in early August was that so much could happen to change the trajectory from where I thought we were on.  As it turned out a lot did happen, but most of it benefited Romney.

What I saw then was that Romney had the trends in his favor.  He was slowly catching Obama in the early polls, and republicans seemed to be far more energized than democrats.  The polls were not showing Romney was even close, yet I was fairly confident that  he would eventually win.  What I saw then I still see. 

The polls are not a good barometer on who is ahead.  Polls are easily skewed because nobody, even the best pollster, knows who will show up to vote on election day.  We all know that most republicans vote for a republican, and democrats vote for democrats.  With that being true, it all comes down to turnout.  Which party will get more voters to vote on election day.  Each pollster can only make their best educated guess on turnout.  Back in early August, many pollsters were expecting a turnout that closely matched the turnout in 2008, when 7% more democrats voted than republicans.  There were more registered democrats than registered republicans in American, and the democrats were highly motivated to vote for Obama. This led to the 7% turnout advantage that ultimately led to Obama's victory.

The early 2012 polls continued to use a model that over sampled democrats by 7% when projecting the election.  This over sample consistently showed Obama in the lead. I didn't believe that democrats would turn out to vote at a 7% greater rate than republicans and still do not..  Republicans are far more motivated and excited to vote for Romney (or against Obama) than democrats are to vote for Obama.  A few of the polls are now factoring in the republican excitement into recent polls.  Hence, Romney is now tied or ahead of Obama in nearly every poll.

Even so, the pollsters still over sample democrats by a percentage, usually between 1%-7%.  Rasmussen seems to be the most thoughtful on the sample rate that will be most accurate in 2012.  Rasmussen believes the democrats will turn out at roughly a 3% higher rate even though his internal numbers indicate that republicans might turn out at nearly 3% higher rate.  What if republicans turn out at a higher rate?  The result would be a Romney landslide.

So which scenario do you think is more likely than the other?  I believe that republicans might turn out in higher numbers than democrats.  I believe the likelihood that democrats will turn out at a 7% greater rate is virtually impossible this year.  This is what I have based my prediction of a Romney win on.  Unskewedpolls.com is a site that shows what could happen if I am right.  They currently project Romney will win 54% of the popular votes and 359 electoral votes.  In these polarized days, that is a landslide.

November 7th, 2012

So we conservatives got what we wanted.  With the republicans holding the House and taking the Senate, president-elect Romney will have one-party rule for at least the first two years of his first term.  We turned the corner, right?  It starts getting better now, right?  We can only hope so.  I have two worries.  Call them concerns. 

The first concern is short term.  Obama was a divider.  This country is more polarized that it has ever been in modern history. Obama accomplished this by using emotion.  His followers love him, not for what he has done, but for what he said.  The rich want to stay rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.  You cannot succeed without government assistance.  If one person gets more wealth, someone else must get more poor.  He has appealed to emotion and created a bond that cannot be broken by logic.  The 47% who voted for Obama are now devastated by his loss.  They will be enraged by media reports of an election stolen by republicans.  His followers will believe their lives will get worse without Obama looking out for them.  I expect sporadic instances of violence, and possibly major riots in urban areas.  Threats of rioting and assassination are prevalent on Twitter.  This will pass relatively quick.

The second concern is longer term.  Politicians will continue to be politicians.  Just because the House and Senate are now under republican control means little.  They will still be biased toward the easy thing to do instead of the right thing to do.  They will continue to look at the next election instead of solving problems.  And their democratic peers will not make governing easy.  With a new majority, Romney will be able to get a budget debated and voted on.  But the budget will be lambasted by the left as helping the rich at the expense of the poor, young, sick, and elderly.  Romney will get at least two opportunities to nominate Supreme Court justices.  Each will be denigrated as anti-women and pro-business.  Romney will make progress toward North American energy independence.  The left will claim that he is letting big oil ruin the environment.

Success will come with difficulty.  I am optimistic that the next four years will be better than the last four.  If Romney is successful, he must be Reaganesque.  He must communicate with all Americans.  He must make his case to the people, and force the politicians to listen to their constituents.  He must grow the economy as he shrinks the federal government.  He must narrow if not eliminate the deficit.  He must do this in four years, and make significant progress in two.  If he doesn't, the republicans will lose their congressional majority in 2014 and the presidency in 2016.

Reveiw of the FInal Debate

Cher was a fifty year old alcoholic.  She was physically abused by her father who was dying of prostrate cancer.  Her alcoholism worsened when her mother died 20 years prior.  She just wanted to be loved. Cher agreed to go into a 30 day treatment and came out sober for 92 days.  She began drinking again the day after finishing treatment.  That is how Intervention went last night.

Okay, I did watch the debate also.  Boring.  Both told a few tales and dusted it up a bit, but in the end nothing changed.  Romney did a decent job at portraying himself as a competent Chief Executive.  That is all he needed to do.

Today's polls will still show Romney with a small lead.  Rasmussen has Romney up by 4%, Gallup will have him up by 5% or 6%.  What will be interesting is what the polls do over the next 2 weeks leading up to the election.  This is "go" time for pollsters.  The worst thing that could happen to them is to be the most inaccurate poll based on the results of the election.  All pollsters will tighten up their process and ensure their sample rates for republicans, democrats, independents, blacks, whites, Hispanics, old, young, rich, poor, etc. are in line with the projected turnout.  As they adjust, Romney's lead will grow.

The Final Debate

After countless republican debates, 2 prior presidential debates and a single vice-presidential debate, we are at the end.  The final debate occurs tonight.  They have been consequential.  My favorite republican candidates fell out during the republican debates.  The single vice-presidential debate proved to America what a creep Joe Biden is.  The first debate between Obama and Romney enlightened the nation that Obama's description of Romney was a falsehood (lie).  Since then, Romney has all the momentum. 

So what will tonight bring?  After all, tonight's topic is foreign policy.  Obama must have drooled when the agenda was set months ago.  He would be the only person on stage with a foreign policy.  Osama was dead, we had not been attacked by Al Qaeda, and Muslims now loved America.  He must have thought he would dominate tonight's debate.  But then came 9/11/2012.  The Muslims didn't love us so much.  And despite repeated attempts to blame a stupid video and hide the truth, much has now come to light.  And none of it is favorable to Obama.  So what will happen tonight?  Nothing.  Why?  Several reasons. 

Because there aren't that many undecided voters left.  You would need to live under a rock for the past couple of years to not have decided at this point. 

And there is a football game on.  And the Chicago Bears are playing.  More than half of Obama's base will be watching ESPN. 

And viewers to the second debate dropped radically.  Same will happen tonight.

So Obama can repeat his first debate performance and it will have no impact.  Or he could affirm his membership to the Communist Socialist party without worrying whether it would cost him the election.  He could mutter "There is no God but Allah" (or read from his ring), without anyone noticing.  It might be a good time for him to come clean on his college transcripts and birth certificate also.  Nobody will notice.

I think I will watch Intervention.

Creating a Monster

It was 1975.  Large production Hollywood movies were just becoming highly anticipated events.  The movie Jaws was one of the first.  It played exclusively at the downtown Midland theater in Kansas City for nearly a year.  There wasn't a cable TV movie channel.  There wasn't pay-per-view or a local Blockbuster.  It was a difficult time filled with such hardships.   Big movies played at the same theater until people stopped coming.  The Midland is where I first saw Jaws. 

The villain was a shark.  The movie was half over before you ever saw the shark.  That is how the director built suspense, fear and dread.  Early scenes would show a swimmer splashing about from the surface and from the shark's perspective.  Then the swimmer would react surprised as the unseen monster bit their leg.  They would be pulled underwater briefly, only to reappear with a look of sheer terror.  Then they would go under for good.  It was masterful.  That movie scared me as much as any movie ever had, or has since. 

It is exactly what the democrats tried to do to Mitt Romney.  Even before the republican convention was over, the attacks began.  Romney is a rich dude who doesn't pay taxes.  Romney is a rich dude who doesn't care about the middle class.  Romney may be a felon.  Romney killed a guy's wife.  Romney moves jobs overseas.  Romney is at war against women.  And on and on.

The democrats should have learned from the movie Jaws.  You can build fear and terror, as they did by telling such lies repeated by a willing press.  What they didn't see coming were the debates.  At the first debate, Romney looked competent.  Romney looked caring.  Romney looked intelligent.  Romney did not look like a monster.  Obama looked bad.  Obama looked disinterested and clueless.  Obama looked more like the villain for many people. 

The undecided decided.  They were looking for an alternative to Obama and they found it.  Romney didn't appear to be a bad guy.  After all, he has a wife and 5 sons.  They all seem pretty normal.  That fact alone left many wondering why the democrats would attempt to destroy him.  Maybe the uniter was really a divider?  It all began to unravel for the democrats .  Undecided voters quickly moved to Romney and the polls (still skewed to high democrat sampling) suddenly reversed.  Romney moved to the front.  Romney's lesser performance in the second debate only continued the movement. 

Now there seems to be two possibilities.  A dirty trick or a global event could reverse the current trend and help Obama win - but here, Obama isn't in control.  Or Romney could win in a landslide.  I'm betting on the latter.

Reviewing Debate #3

Debate #3 brought a feistier Obama, however this description is relative.  A less feisty Obama would have been an unconscious Obama.  My observations of last night's third debate was that Romney was virtually unchanged from the first debate - cool, collected, articulate and presidential.  Obama was augmentative and interrupted often even though he received more time than Romney.  Obama would not answer the questions that were asked of him.  Was his energy department's role to keep energy costs low? How much did he cut drilling rights on federal land?  Did he call Benghazi a terrorist attack the day after?  Obama was asked these and other questions but refused to answer.

While both sides claim victory, the truth was more neutral.   Both scored a few points.  Both botched a few answers.  I call it a draw - all that Romney needed.  I switched to MSNBC briefly just to see their reaction.  Chris Matthews was calling it an overwhelming Obama victory.  I had the sense that he had written his statement earlier in the day.  FOX was more balanced.  Some called it a narrow Obama victory, others believed Romney won. 

Of interest were the focus groups on both FOX and MSNBC.  Both claimed to have gathered undecided likely voters.  FOX added that each person had voted for Obama in 2008.  Surprisingly, both focus groups indicated they were swayed by Romney, and both groups did so by a substantial margin.  So give the debate to Obama.  It appears that remaining undecided voters are looking for a reason to not vote for Obama.  That means that Romney wins.

Debate #3

Since Romney made Obama look bad in their first debate, the tide has turned.  Remember way back, say 3 weeks ago?  The mainstream media was all but calling the election over.  Obama had won.  His lead nationally and in certain swing states was insurmountable.  The Left was giddy.  Four more years!  Barry must have been listening to MSNBC and felt he didn't need to show up to the first debate.  Romney steamrolled him with facts while Obama watch his podium and took the beating. Now the skewed polls are saying the race is close.  Romney is still the underdog, but "the race has tightened".

I call BS.

The democratic oversampling of the "tightened" polls continues.  If they say the race is neck and neck, the truth is Romney is ahead - handily.  Second proof point.  Do you hear anyone saying that Romney MUST win Tuesday's debate?  Nope.  In fact, we hear the opposite.  MSNBC's Chuck Todd, citing private polling information acknowledges that structural changes in the electorate have occurred and that Obama MUST win.  Translation: Obama is behind and falling behinder.  He needs to win big.  He needs a win of the same magnitude as Romney's win in debate #1.

Ain't gonna happen for several reasons.  First, a win of that magnitude has happened exactly once - two weeks ago.  Never before has a presidential debate been so one sided.  The likelihood that it would happen again - in consecutive debates - is nearly impossible.  Second, Romney knows what Obama will bring.  Bain Capital, 47%, 15% tax rate, blah, blah, blah.  Heard it all before.  They are all straw men.  Romney will be well prepared to address each.

On the other hand, Romney will have plenty of ammunition.  Obama countered nothing Romney threw at him 2 weeks ago, and will hear it all again.  Plus Romney can recount the troubling amateurism of the Obama administration's foreign policy response in Cairo and Benghazi.  

I see debate #2 ending as a draw or another Romney win.  Either way, Obama is finished.

Reviewing Debate #2

If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.

Proverbs 29:9

Debate #2

Tonight is the first and only vice-presidential debate.  After Obama's catatonia last week, the democrats have more to lose tonight, than win.  Their expectations of Joe Biden are huge.  They hope his performance will change the dramatic move in recent polls that now show Romney ahead nationally, and in many swing states.  Romney's lead may be even larger due to the democratic over-sampling that continues and will up until the last couple weeks of the campaign.

Joe might be a bulldog and will definitely be more aggressive than Obama was, but does he have a chance?  Not really.  The reason is the Obama-Biden ticket has this huge problem they did not have in 2008. They have a record they really can't run on.  Sure, Biden will bloviate on how the economy is turning based on an unemployment rate that has dropped below 8% for the first time during Obama's administration.  But that will be in Ryan's wheelhouse.  Ryan is at his best when making the complex simple.  I am positive he will destroy the unemployment report that nobody really believes with a couple of sentences.

And then there is always Joe's propensity to say something stupid, like when he asked the paralyzed veteran to stand up and take a bow.  Or when he characterized the campaign as being about a three letter word, J - O - B - S.  Or when he said the middle class has been buried the past 4 years.  Biden isn't smart enough to outwit Ryan.  Ryan may not win as convincingly as Romney did, but a trouncing of that magnitude has never happened before and may never again.  But in the end, Ryan will be perceived as the winner based on the poor record of his opponent.  Biden is taking a knife to a gunfight.  He doesn't have the weapons needed to win.

Reveiwing Debate #1

As I am watching the first Presidential debate last night, my mind tried to find the correct analogy.  Sports analogies were dominate.  Was I watching a string of touchdowns or home runs?  Was it a knockout?  Did Romney blow the doors off of Obama?  Then the perfect analogy hit me.  It wasn’t a sports analogy, but rather a business analogy that I have seen dozens of times.  Last night, I saw seasoned executive matching wits with a new manager.  

The analogy fits perfectly.  Romney is an executive with over twenty years of experience.  Obama is a community organizer thrust into the presidency without the needed executive experience.  He is tackling the job as a manager, not an executive.  This became apparent when he repeatedly asked for details on Romney’s plans.  That is how a manager operates.  Romney was completely correct when he pointed out the job of a president is to lay out his principals, gain consensus by working with both parties in congress, and make the case with the American people. That is how an executive gets things done.  An inexperienced manager will dictate how something must be done, and push it through based solely on the strength of their own will power - sort of how Obamacare was passed through the congress.  

Romney did a great job of making all the key points, and doing so without blatant ridicule of Obama’s performance over the past few years.  By the end of the debate, I was pretty confident that Romney won it handily.  But knowing that I can be biased, I decided to watch a couple of NBC channels to see how their bias was reported.  I first tuned to NBC.  Wow, they were agreeing with my judgment!  As hard as it must have been for their news department to report, Romney had done well, in fact, much better than Obama.  For the ultimate test, I then tuned to MSNBC with Racheal Maddow, Chris Matthews, and a few more from the looney left.  Same story.  Romney wins.  The only detectible difference was the sense of rage I noticed.  Chris Matthews was angry.  He spewed venom on Obama for his lackluster performance.  I guess the thrill was gone from Mr. Tingle’s leg.

It really isn’t hard to understand why Obama did so poorly.  He wasn’t prepared for the job, and since taking it the press has not challenged him.  Obama doesn’t do press conferences, preferring soft news interviews with friendly hosts.  When you are never stretched, you get lazy.  Romney directly challenged Obama for the first time in 4 years.  Obama crumbled.

I suspect that Obama will come out swinging in the next debate, but also confident that it will hardly matter.  Obama is out of his depth.  He is no match for Romney's experience.  The next debates will end much like the first. Romney wins.  His election is almost certain.

Debate #1

Tonight is the first of three debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  The mainstream press has it completely wrong.  To win, they believe Romney must increase his likability and avoid gaffs.  What they are really saying is that Romney shouldn’t attack Obama on his record.  They are trying to steal Romney’s inherent advantage.

Mitt has the advantage in these contests.  All he needs to do is stick to facts, call out Obama on his lies, and draw Obama off script.  Teleprompters are off, so Obama will ad lib to his disadvantage.  Here are the Romney touchdown plays I hope to see:

• Point out that Obama claimed that if the first stimulus was passed, unemployment would not go over 8%.  We have seen unemployment greater than 8% for 40 consecutive months.
• Tell America that family income has dropped by 8% and that gas prices have doubled since Obama took office.  This make it hard to say that anyone, black, brown or white, is better off than before.
• Obama will blame others for his lack of success.  Romney should point out that Obama has been president for nearly four years, he wanted the job, had a democratically controlled congress for two years, is not the first president forced to work with a divided congress, and George Bush is not running this year.
• Call out Obama on his promise to halve the deficit in his first four years.  Obama called George Bush unpatriotic for running up $4 trillion in new debt during his 8 years, while Obama has run up $6 trillion in just four years.
• Obama promised to change the tone in Washington and pledged a return to unity and bi-partisanship, but has been nothing but uncompromising and divisive.
• Noted economists now believe we are not in economic recovery, but headed for a new recession.
• Tax Armageddon on January 1 will surely return the economy to recession, and is mostly due to Obama’s pigheadedness over raising taxes on the “rich”.
• Obama’s plan to increase taxes on those earning more that $250,000 a year would fund the government for 11 minutes.

The coupe de grace could be if Obama dares to repeat his fabricated lie about Romney wanting to raise middle class taxes by $2,000 per year.  Romney should calmly ask Obama to point out where in his plan that fact would be found.  He should do so in such a manner that requires Obama’s allies (the press) to follow up.  He could say “Mr. President, I would be satisfied if any undecided voter made their choice based on whether your statement is true or completely fabricated.  If you are lying to them about this, they should be curious about what else are you lying about.”

The Next, Next Four Years

Yesterday I expressed my fear that a second Obama term could catastrophic for America.  Sounds grim, and maybe a little overstated?  Not really.  I base my rational fear on Obama’s actions during his first term.  Consider the facts.  During his first term, Obama has:

• Forced a government controlled healthcare system through Congress by bribing certain members for their vote and using a questionable tactic (reconciliation) so that he would only need a simple majority in the Senate.
• Redirecting over $700 billion from Medicare to Obamacare in an attempt to make the financials look better.  Regardless, the Congressional Budget Office now believes that Obamacare will add $2.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years. 
• Obama made recess appointments while the Senate was still in session, avoiding Senate augment over the qualifications of his appointment.  This was a clear violation of the powers given to the president by the constitution. 
• Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed Congress and granted amnesty to illegal aliens.  His way of purchasing Hispanic votes. 
• Obama bullied Chrysler's secured creditors into accepting 30 cents on the dollar, while junior creditors such as labor unions received much more. This ignoring of creditor rights violated not just bankruptcy law but also the federal constitution. 
• The Department of Health and Human Services granted nearly 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare's regulations. Nearly 20 percent of these waivers went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district. Nevada, home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while Republican-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. 
• Congress approved and president Clinton signed welfare reform into law. Obama did not have the authority to waive the work requirement, and by doing so he violated the constitution.  Presidents are not allowed to rewrite existing legislation.

The blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and the balance of power should strike fear into all Americans.  Maybe these things don’t mean much to you personally, but Obama has gotten away with it so far.  Imagine how far he might go if he had no fear of another reelection campaign?  Or even worse, might he believe that a two term limit doesn't apply to him?  It's not hard to imagine.

The Trinket

A bright and shiny trinket was held up in front of the masses.  They stood in awe of its dazzling brilliance.  They couldn't take their eyes from it.  Many entered a hypnotic state where nothing could be perceived except the bright shiny object.  They placed their faith and hope in the trinket thinking that something so brilliant would ensure their well-being.  They followed the trinket.

And so the trinket led.  Being only a trinket, it led poorly.  Soon the people under the trinket's leadership began to suffer.  Many of them lost jobs and fell into poverty.  Others relinquished control of their lives by accepting unearned gifts from the trinket.  Yet, many still believed the trinket gave them the best hope for better days.

The trinket gave them hope that if given another chance, it would move forward with the change they wanted.  Many of the people succumbed to the shiny brilliance that remained.  How could the trinket let them down twice?  Their devotion to the trinket even increased.  They became willing to tell lies about how much better they are under the trinket's leadership.  They were also willing to lie about anyone who opposed the trinket.  This is the country we now live in.

Four years ago, I blogged that we would survive an Obama administration.  I wrote "the greatest danger of the Obama presidency will be the Supreme Court nominations he will no doubt make. Currently the court is slightly tilted to the conservative. With at least 2 justices on the verge of retirement, this balance will quickly reverse. This change will be the lasting damage of our collective mistake."

It was brilliantly written, but wrong.  While Obama did name two Supreme Court justices and both were hard left, the only real damage done by the court was done by a Bush appointee.  The most devastating impacts of Obama's first four years are the massive deficit spending that has raised the national debt to $16 trillion, and the expansion of poverty under his watch.  It is simply unbelievable that 8% unemployment is now considered the "new normal".  It is criminal that we have saddled future generations with debt.

After four years under the trinket, America is like a massive, powerful battleship that once ruled the ocean, but has taken multiple torpedo hits and is beginning to flounder.  Survival of the battleship is not certain.  One more blow could send it to the bottom.  That blow could be a second administration for the trinket. 

Love Mia

The Republican convention began a day late in Tampa on Tuesday.  While I only watched the prime time speeches, the best speech of the evening happened early.  So early that it was not covered by anyone but Fox News.

I doubt whether MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC would have televised it regardless of when it occurred.  Mia Love, delivered a speech that I can only describe as democratic poison. The Obama security team, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC, wouldn't risk airing the speech because it made so much sense and effectively attacked the foundation of modern socialism.

For those like I who missed it, here is the transcript:

Praise, in support for Mitt Romney.

Let me tell you about the America I know.

My parents immigrated to this country with ten dollars in their pocket,
and the hope … that the America that they had heard about … really did exist.
When tough times came, they didn’t look to Washington, they looked within.

So the America I grew up knowing ... was centered in self reliance,
and filled with the possibilities of living the American dream.

The America I know is grounded in the determination found in patriots and pioneers,
in small businesses with big ideals.
It's found in the farmers who work in the beauty of our landscape, and our heroic military.
It's found in the Olympic Athletes
and every child who looks at the seemingly impossible and says, “I can do that.”
That is the America I know!

President Obama’s version of America is a divided one --
often pitting us against each other bases on our income level, gender, and social status.
His policies have failed us!
We're NOT better off than we were 4 years ago,
and NO rhetoric, bumper sticker, or Hollywood campaign ad can change that.

Mr. President,
I'm here to tell you the American People are awake
and we're not buying what you're selling in 2012.

The American Dream isn't just my story.
It isn't just your story.
It's our story.
It's a story ... of human struggle, standing up and striving for more.
Our story has been told for over 200 years … with small steps and giant leaps;
from a woman on a bus ... to a man with a dream;
from the bravery of the greatest generation, to the innovators and entrepreneurs of today.
This is our story.
This is our America.
This is the America we know … because WE BUILT IT.

Thank you.
Yes we did.
Thank you. With Paul Ryan,
With Mitt Romney as President,
and Paul Ryan as Vice President,
we can restore and revive that America,
that American Story we know and love.
The world will know it.
Our children will tell it and our grandchildren will possess it for years to come!

God bless America.

This is our time.
We are truly THE ...BEST ... LAST ... HOPE ... ON ... EARTH !

Thank you.

I especially liked her mention of Dr. King and Rosa Parks.  You see, Mia Love is a Black female conservative.  She has the authority to say "They were talking about me!  They were speaking of a day of equal opportunity, and based on personal responsibility, not entitlement!"  Mia wins day one.

Center of the Political Universe

Kansas and Missouri became the center of the political universe yesterday.  So much so, that NBC spent the first 11 minutes reporting 2 stories during their nightly news.  It was really incredible when considering what they reported.

First, Kevin Yoder, a tea party conservative from the house district where I once lived, was reported by the Politico to have skinny dipped in the Sea of Galilee a year ago.  Second, Todd Akin, a conservative running to unseat Claire McCaskill in the Missouri Senate race, informed us again that he is pro-life even in the case of rape, and that he is ignorant of women's physiology.  Let's break these scandals down.

Kevin Yoder is now one of billions of people who have skinny dipped in their life.  I suspect that a large number of these skinny dippers skinny dipped in the Sea of Galilee.  Yoder profusely apologized and admitted that congressmen should be held to a higher standard.  "I feel incredibly remorseful that I have caused embarrassment to my constituents and I have caused folks who believe in me to be disappointed.  The gravity of the situation and the actions I've taken are not lost on me, and I feel certainly regret at what has occurred. Part of the reason I made that decision at that moment was there was really nobody in the vicinity who could see me, I dove in, hopped right back out, put my clothes on and, regardless, that was still not the behavior people expected out of their congressman."  The Kansas Democrat Party leader is calling for his resignation.

Todd Akin believes that life begins at conception and that even in the case of rape, a child's life must be protected.  Pro-lifer's will sometimes disagree on this point, but Akin is by no means the only politician to hold that belief.  Akin has articulated the position before, and remains consistent.  His sin was saying "legitimate rape" instead of "forcible rape".  He also claimed that a woman's body could avoid conception in the case of rape.  For the unfortunate gaff followed by a very stupid statement, Akin has also apologized repeatedly: "Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way, and for that I apologize. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness,"

We can conclude that both were stupid and both seem contrite. What we can also learn for these two events is that when a republican screws up, they apologize.  History tells us that when a democrat screws up, they lie, stonewall, obfuscate, and very rarely apologize.  You don't need to look back much farther that Anthony Wiener.  Or Joe Biden.  Or Charlie Rangel.  Or Bill Clinton.  Akin's and Yoder's crimes are misdemeanors when compared with these felonies.

Of the two "scandals", only the Akin issue is newsworthy because it may turn the election in Missouri - not because of his words.  Akin had a double-digit lead over McCaskill in the polls, but that may change.  I would hope that Akin would decide quickly if he can still beat McCaskill and withdraw if he cannot.  The majority control of the Senate could be at stake, and with Obamacare set to take effect in 2013, conservatives must win control of the Senate.

Yesterday, NBC News again diverted attention from a failed presidency.  Otherwise, they might have asked Obama why he chose yesterday to hold a press conference - the first in over 2 months.  A press conference he used to get his whacks in on Akin and attempt to tie Akin to Romney-Ryan.  NBC is guilty of Obama-favorable reporting.