In the waning days of a presidential campaign, there is always talk of an October surprise engineered by the incumbent to hang on to office. Some are speculating that the Obama campaign will sign an agreement with Iran in which Iran agrees to halt its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.
If that is true, then Obama's objective is to pull the rug out from under Romney by showing that he, Obama, succeeded in drawing us back from the brink of war with Iran.
With less than 3 weeks to election day, the timing of such a surprise is critical to the engineers who want to save Obama: The surprise must be close enough to the election that there is no time for the Romney campaign to recover, but far enough from election day that the message and its impact will reach throughout the public consciousness.
What would be, then, a good time for revealing such a major surprise? I think Obama might announce such a surprise in tonight's debate, perhaps in response to a Romney attack on the president's performance on the issue of Iran in general, or his slight of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not only would such a stunning announcement on the debate stage meet the timing requirements for maximum effectiveness, it would make Romney look bad, and certainly throw him off the debate.
However, the reality of such an agreement with Iran is that Iran will not have any intention of abiding by the agreement. Obama knows this, of course, but if it will get him to Nov. 6 with the ace on the table, so be it.
Can Romney recover from that October surprise? Probably not. Swing voters will see an agreement as proof that Obama has solid control of foreign affairs, no matter that such an agreement will accomplish nothing more than securing Obama's reelection.
Obviously, concluding an agreement with Iran to stop its nuclear program, were it a real agreement on the part of Iran, as well as getting him reelected, are positive benefits for Obama, who will be happy with only the latter, if Iran is being disingenuous, but what are the benefits for Iran?
Iran will benefit from the lifting of economic sanctions, if only for the time it takes the administration to verify that Iran has breached the agreement, which, in any case will not happen until after the U.S. election.
But the long-term benefit for Iran is that it will continue to deal with a U.S. president who is indecisive as to what to do about Iran's nuclear program, and who does everything to keep Israel in check, giving Iran time to complete its nuclear weapons program.
That means that the answer to who won the American election is, of course, Iran.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Election Will Not Fix Anything!
There was a presidential debate last night, and all the pundits are saying Romney won, and that his performance will change the course of the campaign. What bullshit.
The pundits either ignore or don't realize that Obama will win re-election. Why? Because his supporters (who number more than Romney's) don't just think he should be re-elected, they worship him as a deity! They voted for him in 2008 because he is a black man, without regard for his background, attributes or capabilities.
Obama is glib, attractive and black. He is someone you would like to pal around with, go out to dinner with, drink a beer with. Unfortunately, that is all he has going for him. He certainly showed no qualification to be president other than his likable personal qualities. He had no business experience--unless you somehow contort "community organizer" into a business. He has no understanding of economics (like most Americans). He was involved in the corrupt politics of Chicago, the worst breeding ground for any president. And he is not really representative of most black Americans, because except for his skin color, he is an upper-middle-class white American.
His policies and performance in office, despite his supporters claims, have been disastrous, and have put the country into a worse situation that we were in when George Bush left office. No small feat, that.
No, his worshipful supporters (would they be embarrassed if they could see themselves fawning over a man who clearly is over his head) are practicing a perverse form of racism. Because he is black, they are willing him to be a competent, successful president to show those racist Republicans that a black man can be a great president. No matter how much they will it to be so, though, it simply isn't, in his case.
The point is this: It shouldn't matter what color a man is. What should matter are his beliefs, his policies, his conduct, and whether he has the experience, the integrity and the personal strengths and capabilities to perform well in what arguably is the most difficult job in the world. In 2008, Barack Obama did not possess the experience, the integrity and the personal strengths and capabilities to perform well in office, and he has proved that in the past 3½ years.
But his supporters are in denial. They worship him and will him to be great when he is pedestrian, and they can't see it. They will re-elect him, and after he is no longer president, history will paint him as among the worst presidents. How ironic that history will group him with George W. Bush.
So why are his worshipers so adamant in their support? Because they don't want the first black man elected president to be a failure. But a failure he has been, and it's unconscionable that his worshipers want to stick Americans with him for another four years.
But what about the alternative. Romney is certainly no better than Obama. Both of them support more government spending--listen to Romney hedge when he talks about government spending--and both of them are in the pockets of corporate interests. Romney is no real alternative, and his Republican supporters certainly don't worship him--they merely tolerate him. Not a good sign as to his potential performance.
Let's face it. The grueling campaign, the long road and sacrifices necessary to gain political vetting (except in Obama's case), mean that no one will run who is not obsessed with power but who might be a good choice for president. So we are left to vote for the dregs, the ones who seek power, who are willing to manipulate us, and who do so relentlessly,
The problem is that the federal government no longer works, because its intended function has been so perverted over the years. And that is because Americans have become less well educated than they were years ago, less intellectual, just dumbed-down actually. Although we know less about our political process, our constitution and our government, we adopt an agenda and hold to it so tightly that we can't be moved. We so easily become polarized when we don't even understand the issues and are not willing to try to understand and debate them in a civil fashion. Without thinking of the consequences of political policy, we accept political points of view not because they make sense, but because they are popular. We jump on bandwagons without critical thought. We have become like children in our civil life. We just vote for whoever looks good, speaks well, and embodies the personal traits we like or the popular politics we blindly follow. And, of course, all this means that we are so easily manipulated by the leaders we worship.
Can we change all this and learn to think about ideas and debate policy without rancor, and with respect and civility to our fellow Americans? I wish so, but I fear not.
The pundits either ignore or don't realize that Obama will win re-election. Why? Because his supporters (who number more than Romney's) don't just think he should be re-elected, they worship him as a deity! They voted for him in 2008 because he is a black man, without regard for his background, attributes or capabilities.
Obama is glib, attractive and black. He is someone you would like to pal around with, go out to dinner with, drink a beer with. Unfortunately, that is all he has going for him. He certainly showed no qualification to be president other than his likable personal qualities. He had no business experience--unless you somehow contort "community organizer" into a business. He has no understanding of economics (like most Americans). He was involved in the corrupt politics of Chicago, the worst breeding ground for any president. And he is not really representative of most black Americans, because except for his skin color, he is an upper-middle-class white American.
His policies and performance in office, despite his supporters claims, have been disastrous, and have put the country into a worse situation that we were in when George Bush left office. No small feat, that.
No, his worshipful supporters (would they be embarrassed if they could see themselves fawning over a man who clearly is over his head) are practicing a perverse form of racism. Because he is black, they are willing him to be a competent, successful president to show those racist Republicans that a black man can be a great president. No matter how much they will it to be so, though, it simply isn't, in his case.
The point is this: It shouldn't matter what color a man is. What should matter are his beliefs, his policies, his conduct, and whether he has the experience, the integrity and the personal strengths and capabilities to perform well in what arguably is the most difficult job in the world. In 2008, Barack Obama did not possess the experience, the integrity and the personal strengths and capabilities to perform well in office, and he has proved that in the past 3½ years.
But his supporters are in denial. They worship him and will him to be great when he is pedestrian, and they can't see it. They will re-elect him, and after he is no longer president, history will paint him as among the worst presidents. How ironic that history will group him with George W. Bush.
So why are his worshipers so adamant in their support? Because they don't want the first black man elected president to be a failure. But a failure he has been, and it's unconscionable that his worshipers want to stick Americans with him for another four years.
But what about the alternative. Romney is certainly no better than Obama. Both of them support more government spending--listen to Romney hedge when he talks about government spending--and both of them are in the pockets of corporate interests. Romney is no real alternative, and his Republican supporters certainly don't worship him--they merely tolerate him. Not a good sign as to his potential performance.
Let's face it. The grueling campaign, the long road and sacrifices necessary to gain political vetting (except in Obama's case), mean that no one will run who is not obsessed with power but who might be a good choice for president. So we are left to vote for the dregs, the ones who seek power, who are willing to manipulate us, and who do so relentlessly,
The problem is that the federal government no longer works, because its intended function has been so perverted over the years. And that is because Americans have become less well educated than they were years ago, less intellectual, just dumbed-down actually. Although we know less about our political process, our constitution and our government, we adopt an agenda and hold to it so tightly that we can't be moved. We so easily become polarized when we don't even understand the issues and are not willing to try to understand and debate them in a civil fashion. Without thinking of the consequences of political policy, we accept political points of view not because they make sense, but because they are popular. We jump on bandwagons without critical thought. We have become like children in our civil life. We just vote for whoever looks good, speaks well, and embodies the personal traits we like or the popular politics we blindly follow. And, of course, all this means that we are so easily manipulated by the leaders we worship.
Can we change all this and learn to think about ideas and debate policy without rancor, and with respect and civility to our fellow Americans? I wish so, but I fear not.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Can We Affect Change Without Revolution?
Americans know what they want: Socialism. Despite what they say, and from time to time how they vote, in the end, it always comes down to destructive selfishness. They have learned the New Deal lesson well: Government will provide; it's your right.
Over the years since 1933, Americans have become accustomed to the national government taking over more and more aspects of their lives, to the end that they cannot be weaned from this accepting behavior. Although seemingly rejecting Barack Obama's socialist health care program, polls show that many Americans still think Obama and the Democratically controlled Senate are on the right track in proposing massive government spending that adds to an overwhelming deficit because we are "entitled."
To the rights specified in the Constitution, collectivists want to add the right of citizens to have equal incomes regardless of ability, education or training. The new class-ism says that the rich folks obviously stepped on the poor to get their resources, so they must, through government taxation (theft), give it back. Any opposition to a government program designed to give money or other advantages to racial minorities, regardless of whether the program makes any sense, is branded as racism. Rather than a classless society, America now is made up of special classes of racial or economic minorities that demand special rights not available to the society as a whole.
Americans like to pretend that they still are the rugged individualists who fought for their freedom against repressive government and built a great nation; really, though, they are fearful sheep willingly giving over their individualism to collectivism. Even those who strongly disapprove of our political, social and economic circumstances just live their daily lives using their comfortable circumstances as their paper shields against government repression, in the vain hope that things will change without them having to do anything to help.
Why do we who believe in constitutional government go along with this? Do we want to live in an Atlas Shrugged world? Not I. I want change I can believe in: a return to constitutional government along with some new amendments that will fix some flaws; a return to capitalism and fiscal sanity; and above all, an end to a socialist entitlement system that cannot be sustained anyway, thus avoiding the economic collapse that will result from that system.
How? It only takes a determined, organized corps of individuals to effect change, as we saw in the 1960's in both the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. A new movement to restore constitutional government could, like the 60's movements, be mainly peaceful although with some violence to be sure. There already is a minority of Americans who will not accept the political and economic situation that we're in. That minority, like the 60's civil rights and anti-war movements may peaceably demand change. But it may also determine to act in what it decides is the only way left: revolution.
At this point I don't see a revolution as the only way to affect change. I want Americans to wake up and demand that the federal government live within its means and follow the Constitution. I do not want a violent revolution. But if it comes down to it as the only way correct the impossible situation that we're in, and it happens, then I will embrace it. Let the drums roll.
Over the years since 1933, Americans have become accustomed to the national government taking over more and more aspects of their lives, to the end that they cannot be weaned from this accepting behavior. Although seemingly rejecting Barack Obama's socialist health care program, polls show that many Americans still think Obama and the Democratically controlled Senate are on the right track in proposing massive government spending that adds to an overwhelming deficit because we are "entitled."
To the rights specified in the Constitution, collectivists want to add the right of citizens to have equal incomes regardless of ability, education or training. The new class-ism says that the rich folks obviously stepped on the poor to get their resources, so they must, through government taxation (theft), give it back. Any opposition to a government program designed to give money or other advantages to racial minorities, regardless of whether the program makes any sense, is branded as racism. Rather than a classless society, America now is made up of special classes of racial or economic minorities that demand special rights not available to the society as a whole.
Americans like to pretend that they still are the rugged individualists who fought for their freedom against repressive government and built a great nation; really, though, they are fearful sheep willingly giving over their individualism to collectivism. Even those who strongly disapprove of our political, social and economic circumstances just live their daily lives using their comfortable circumstances as their paper shields against government repression, in the vain hope that things will change without them having to do anything to help.
Why do we who believe in constitutional government go along with this? Do we want to live in an Atlas Shrugged world? Not I. I want change I can believe in: a return to constitutional government along with some new amendments that will fix some flaws; a return to capitalism and fiscal sanity; and above all, an end to a socialist entitlement system that cannot be sustained anyway, thus avoiding the economic collapse that will result from that system.
How? It only takes a determined, organized corps of individuals to effect change, as we saw in the 1960's in both the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. A new movement to restore constitutional government could, like the 60's movements, be mainly peaceful although with some violence to be sure. There already is a minority of Americans who will not accept the political and economic situation that we're in. That minority, like the 60's civil rights and anti-war movements may peaceably demand change. But it may also determine to act in what it decides is the only way left: revolution.
At this point I don't see a revolution as the only way to affect change. I want Americans to wake up and demand that the federal government live within its means and follow the Constitution. I do not want a violent revolution. But if it comes down to it as the only way correct the impossible situation that we're in, and it happens, then I will embrace it. Let the drums roll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)