Newt Gingrich absolutely cleaned Matt Lauer's clock on the Today Show today. I love: Obama in danger of becoming Jimmy Carter rather than Ronald Reagan. Also note that Gingrich states that the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s was worse than what is going on now.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
President-elect Obama said we need a "new Declaration of Independence." Here is the quote from MSNBC: "He promised to bring the country 'a new Declaration of Independence.'" (Link to the story.)
What's wrong, I ask, with the Declaration of Independence that we already have?
As the fumes of the 2008 presidential election fade, political junkies are sizing up the potential field for 2012. Barring some major event, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. What about the Republicans?
Let's look back before we look forward. Who wins presidential elections for Republicans? Who loses? Since the end of World War II, every senator that the Republicans have nominated have lost: Barry Goldwater (1964), Bob Dole (1996), and John McCain (2008). In fact senators do not do very well in general. Only two senators have been elected since WWII: John F. Kennedy and Obama. I suggest that the Republicans not go down that road, again.
Who wins? Since WWII, Republicans have elected a war hero general (Dwight Eisenhower), two former Vice-Presidents (Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush), and two governors (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush). The only Republican governor to lose was Thomas Dewey to Harry Truman in 1948.
Look at the success of Republicans, what can we expect in 2012? War heroes? Unfortunately, there are none the caliber of Eisenhower. Colin Powell (a nominal Republican, at best) lost all credibility with the party when he endorsed Obama. There are simply no other high profile generals out there (sorry, Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf).
What about former Vice-Presidents? By 2012, the living VPs will include George H. W. Bush, Dan Quayle, and Dick Cheney. Bush has already been President. Dick Cheney has stated he will not run, and with his heart condition probably should not. Quayle has never recovered from his seemingly boyishness in the job of VP. (I would vote for him.) The whole "potatoe" thing has dogged him, despite the fact that Obama had no clue about how states were in the United States. VPs are a no go.
That leaves us with governors. One needs name recoginition. Here are few:
Sarah Palin: She is great, but I think she will suffer the same fate as Dan Quayle. No matter what, she will always be considered a lightweight. This is unfair, as is the case with Quayle, but that is life.
Jeb Bush: I think he would be a stellar candidate and an excellent President, but I think we have Bush-fatigue. I am also not convinced that he is conservative.
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota): He just seems like a slick used car salesman.
Bobby Jindal (Louisiana): A little young (will be 41 in 2012). A great VP choice, though.
Mit Romney: Where does he stand on the issues today? He is to wishy-washy.
Here is my early pick: Haley Barbour, governor of Mississippi. He has national experience as leader of the Republican Party (like the elder Bush). He handled the Mississippi side of Hurricane Katrina expertly. The only thing against him is his age (he will be 65 in 2012). It may resemble the youthful Clinton versus the aging Dole in 1996. If he were to pick Jindal as VP, that would offset the age difference.
Here is my early pick for 2012: Haley Barbour - Bobby Jindal.
As our elected representatives debate the wisdom of freely spending money confiscated from their constituents to bail out the auto industry, other industries continue to suffer. Now the Arena Football League has canceled the 2009 season. The Arena Football League is the league where they play football in basketball arenas. No one really pays attention, but people are losing their jobs. These people are suffering. Why can't we bail them out, too?
It has been ages since I posted, but thought I needed to vent a little on the election.
Some thoughts/predictions:
- The people have spoken.
- The country voted for change, and that is all we will wind up with in our pockets: change.
- By the time of the mid-term elections (Nov. 2010), gas will be approaching $6 per gallon.
- If the Republicans develop a solid conservative leader (like Reagan or Gingrich) the landslide in 2010 will drastically dwarf the Republican revolution of 1994.
- Hillary Clinton will be a Supreme Court Justice. (A huge payoff for keeping her mouth shut.)
- Again, a wishy-washy Republican flames out.
- The last truly conservative nominee to lose the presidency was Barry Goldwater.
- The last "moderate" Republican to win was Eisenhower.
- Jimmy Carter will no longer be considered the worst president in the last 100 years.
Here is the Obamassiah's chosen running mate heaping scorn upon the Obamassiah. Geez! With friends like this, who needs the "Republican attack machine"?
Those opposed to drilling for oil, either offshore or in the barren ice-laden wilderness of Alaska, say that there will be no short-term benefit. They say it will be a decade before any of that oil will hit the gas station.
Last week, President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling, while encouraging the do-noting-Democratic-controlled Congress to lift their ban.
Look what happened last week. Oil dropped $16 per barrel. Gas dropped nearly $0.10 per gallon. Yes, this has all been very short term.
If just talking about drilling can have this result, imagine what would happen if (and, hopefully, when) drilling actually begins. Gas probably will never again be $0.99 per gallon, but it does not have to stay at the $4.00 range.
Drill Here!
Drill Now!
Pay Less!
It is not very often that you will hear a politician, even a Republican, say something like this. At a press conference today (7/15/08) President Bush was asked about conservation. Some pencil-neck reporter asked whether he would encourage/mandate conservation. Bush's response was priceless (from Politico.com):
"They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it's interesting what the price of gasoline has done," Bush said at a news conference in the White House press room, "is it caused people to drive less. That's why they want smaller cars: They want to conserve. But the consumer's plenty bright. The marketplace works."
"You noticed my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation and — you know, people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less," he said. "They can balance their own checkbooks."
"It's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives," the president added. "I've got faith in the American people."
Ugh! Just when you thought that there could not be more hot air in politics, you get this story from the ABC news blog Political Punch that former Minnesota Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura may enter his state's race for the Senate. Incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman is facing a challenger in the form of humor-challenged "comedian" Al Franken.
That is all we need, a hot air emitting former professional wrestler squaring off against a hot air emitting "comedian."
Conservatives are told that we have to vote for McCain even though his convictions are more in line with Barrack Obama than Ronald Reagan. The one area that seems to be a huge argument is in the arena of judicial appointments, especially on the Supreme Court.
Let's examine the record of Republican Presidents and Supreme Court appointments:
Thomas Sowell's recent column gives us something to think about in the upcoming election.
Election years always bring about questions regarding faith and politics. "How much should faith inform politics?" This really hit me the other day, when I saw footage of John McCain exiting his bus with Rod Parsley nipping at McCain's heels. I have been very uncomfortable with the way the so-called Christian Right has been in bed with the Republican Party. (One could even make the argument that the Christian Left--and it does exist--is in bed with the Democratic Party.)
I have been reading one of the great books of religious history in America. It is Revivalism and Social Reform by Timothy L. Smith. On page 16, Smith writes:
[Fletcher] Harper [of Harper's Weekly] complained that clergymen and laymen alike rejoiced when they could persuade a politician or "some old hero of a general" to "harangue on such utilities before the annual religious gatherings"--as though the testimonies of public men were necessary to vindicate the gospel. He warned that if these aspects of religion continued to be presented as the chief ground of its support, Christianity would cease to serve the republic. Instead of the church evangelizing the world, the world would secularize the church.I ask: "Is that not were we are today?" The church has sought its legitimacy from famous people--be they politicians, athletes, actors, etc. Does the church need John McCain (or some other famous person) to give Christianity legitimacy? Is not the church's legitimacy in Jesus Christ? He said, "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
A contrite Mike Huckabee has apologized for his ridiculous comments about Obama having to evade a would-be assassin. Every thing is hunky-dory now.
In our day and age, a politician can make the most outlandish comment, apologize, and resume his verbal diarrhea as though nothing happened.
Sure, we have all made dumb comments that we wish we could take back as soon as we utter them. Public figures should be more careful. The best way to avoid having to issue an apology is think before you speak.
Speaking about the potential attempt on the life a President or presidential candidate is morally reprehensible (or, the attempt on anyone's life, for that matter). Within the last fifty years, one President has been assassinated (John F. Kennedy), two more have had at least one attempt on their life while in office (Gerald Ford--twice--and Ronald Reagan), and two more candidates have been targets (Robert Kennedy--killed in 1968--and George Wallace--paralyzed in 1972). It not funny to joke about such things. As near as I can tell, not too many in the audience of the National Rifle Association laughed at Huckabee's remark.
The Reformed Poser pointed this out. It is from those insightful political commentators, RUN-DMC. Click the link to view, unfortunately the embedding feature has been disabled for this video.
I went and cast my ballot for a plethora of positions, today. As a registered Republican, I did not participate in Rush Limbaugh's ingenious "operation chaos." I went counter to conventional party line voting on a couple races. Most notably, I could bring myself to vote for the Democrat-in-elephant's-clothing, also known as John McCain. Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes were on the ballot. I was surprised to see Keyes there. Huckabee is a McCain wannabe. Ron Paul is just nutty. So I filled in the little oval next to Alan Keyes. I know he will not win, but it is principle. Keyes is for limited government.
As much as I hate to admit it, Barrack Obama is right. Suspending the gas tax for the summer would not bring down gas prices long term. The savings would not really amount all that much for the average American. While I am all for cutting taxes, the temporary suspension of the gas is a ridiculous idea. It is nothing more than a campaign ploy by those advocating it, namely McCain and Clinton. It amounts to buying votes.
While Obama is right about that, his energy policy is wrong. Energy independence means drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. One thing confuses me about the debate over drilling in Alaska. Somehow, it is environmentally unfriendly. What environment are we trying to protect. This semester I had a student who lived in Barrow, Alaska, which is as far north as one can get in the United States. (The next thing after Barrow, Alaska is Santa's house.) She commented that there is noting up there but ice and mud. There are no trees, bushes or anything green. On top of that it is night for about two months each year.
This is a symptom of our time. Everyone wants an easy answer. Everyone wants an immediate solution. Everyone wants the fix now. NOW! I tell, you, NOW! In an era of the Internet, microwaves and other tools that give us instant gratification, we need to realize that some answers take time.
We also need to realize that gas prices will never again be $1.00 a gallon. Those days are gone, along with the horse and buggy.
As I mentioned previously, all three major US presidential candidates believe that government is the solution to various real or perceived ills. When they are asked a question about health care, jobs, gas prices, trade, etc., they have the start to the answers, "The government would..." They go on to list what the government would do, or how the government would spend money--for which they often use the word "invest."
Here is something that will help you understand what they really want to do. Whenever they say, "The government will pay for" something, substitute the phrase "you tax payers" for the word "government." Then it will read, "You taxpayers will pay for..."
Promises are so abundant during political season. Be smart and realistic about what the candidates are promising. Ask yourself, "Who is going to pay for this?" The answer is that you will pay for it, if you have a job. The government's money is confiscated from the taxpayers. If you would not pay for it on your own, why should the government.
In a statement of the incredibly obvious, a reporter from our local daily rag, made the following observation:A slip of the tongue seems to provide better ammunition nowadays than policy differences in the race for the United States presidency, officials say.
My initial response to that statement was, "Duh!" Every election year we groan and complain about the lack of substance in political campaigns. Everything is mudslinging, name calling and personal attacks. What else is there? Can Obama and Clinton debate on policy? They agree on everything as far as policy. A Clinton administration would look almost identical to an Obama administration. The reporter acknowledges that there are few differences between the two Democratic hopefuls.
My thought is concerning McCain. No matter who the Democrats nominate, one could use this quote in reference to the general election. Is there really any substantial difference between McCain and Clinton or Obama? I submit that the answer is no. McCain is Democratic-Lite. Every problem that McCain addresses has the solution being more government action, another government agency or government based solution. Where are the candidates that say we need less government, not more?
If you were ever picked on as a child, someone (parents, teacher, or someone else) probably told you not to worry what others think.
I had a conversation with someone yesterday about the upcoming presidential election in the context of how Europeans are watching the election. He commented that western Europeans really do not like President Bush, although eastern Europeans tend to like him. My thought is, "Who cares?" He is not the President of any European country. Sure, each countries foreign policy impacts other nations. We should not elect a President on the basis of whether or not some foreign country like or dislikes a candidate.
