“Republican Catfights – Obama’s Dream Come True”
Sydney M. Williams
Monday, in what seemed like a new low in stupidity and absurdity (in a year filled with both), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney traded barbs in what appears to be an attempt at mutual political suicide. Romney suggested that Gingrich return the $1.6 million he had received in consulting fees from Freddie Mac. Mr. Gingrich responded: “…if Mr. Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.” The Grinch, in the person of Mr. Obama who has turned a bad recession into a worse one, must have smiled.
There is, of course, a world of difference between using one’s years of government service in Washington in order to make a few bucks and operating as Mr. Romney did in the private sector. Mr. Romney’s success could only have been achieved by building a number of successful companies. Nevertheless, it is impossible to separate money from politics. Estimates are that President Obama will spend $1 billion on his bid for re-election. That doesn’t count his recent peripatetic meanderings around the hustings that we taxpayers are funding. So, whomever the Republicans nominate will have to spend a similar amount. In contrast, the billion dollars Mr. Obama will be spending is three times what George Bush spent for his reelection in 2004 and eleven times what all the candidates spent in 1980, an increase of more than six times the rate of inflation.
Money is a problem, but it is far from alone. The worst part of the Presidential cycle is that it subjects the populous to all sorts of extreme statements, as contenders vie for votes from their respective bases – visions of Socialism (frightening to me) from the Left, and irrelevant (to me) social issues on the Right. We are a secular nation whose founding fathers believed in their respective Gods, but were deliberate in not invoking any particular religion. After all, it had largely been a desire for religious freedom that caused so many to seek these shores in the early part of the 17th Century. What would those men and women think of a man like Texas Governor Rick Perry reading from the Bible and speaking at a gathering of evangelicals that excluded Catholics and Jews? Jon Huntsman is the only candidate to claim a “spiritual, not religious” mantle, an approach that would have been familiar to our founding fathers. Yet, Mr. Huntsman’s poll numbers suggest that “reasonable” or “sensible” are of little interest to early Republican primary or caucus voters.
We are supposed to be an inclusive nation, comprised of immigrants who are ecumenical or tolerant in their religious outlook, and we are supposedly a nation that believes in the liberty of the individual, and that it is the individual who is the power behind the state. Instead, we have become a nation divided between bigots and Socialists. Despite his promises of being a unifier, President Obama has heralded class warfare, blaming the wealthy for all the ills of the economy – his economy.
The debates leading up to the varying primaries and caucuses that will choose delegates to the two Parties’ respective conventions are supposed to help inform voters. Instead, they have become a referendum on who can be the most extreme. Listening to Mitt Romney, in reality a centrist, Rockefeller-style Republican, speak of building a fence along the Mexican border and rounding up eleven million illegal immigrants and shipping them home, would be laughable except for the earnestness with which he speaks. Michelle Bachman’s comment that her religion “commands” that she obey her husband (perhaps that is why my wife does not like her?) raises the question that not only must we worry about Presidential succession, but we must wonder: will it be necessary to provide a partner’s desk in the oval office? (In contrast to the self-described servile Ms. Bachman, Margaret Thatcher seemed to get along very well listening to Dennis, but not heeding his every word.)
The election is the Republicans to lose. The country is in a slough of despond. People have succumbed to the negativity that has permeated our society since the end of 2008. The President, who was always admired but never loved, has seen his poll numbers dip into the low to-mid 40s, due to his humorless, narcissistic aloofness. Yet watching the debates, the eight or nine Republican contenders (the exception being Huntsman) ignore the broad center that is now up for grabs, vying only for the votes of those on the far right. The country badly wants a leader with vision and humor who appeals to independents, a person who can extricate us from the morass that keeps us down.
While my favorite among the group of Republican contenders has been Jon Huntsman, Roger L. Simon of pjmedia.com makes a compelling argument that, for all his erraticism, arrogance and smart-alecky attitude, Gingrich is the only one who “dances,” the only candidate who inspires. Perhaps he is right. Peter Boyer of The Daily Beast points out that Gingrich has inspired in the past. “Freshman Republicans in 1995, like the Tea Party class of last year, we’re true believers in the revolution they’d been recruited into by Gingrich.”
As a nation, we sorely need inspiration. A dozen years ago, the internet-tech bubble collapsed. Ten years ago our nation was attacked by terrorists, who the politically correct are still afraid to identify by name for being seen as prejudiced. Six years ago the great housing boom began to unwind. Three years ago our financial system came close to total collapse. Household net worth has declined $9.4 trillion to $57.4 trillion over the past four years – 4% in the third quarter alone! As a nation we have been traumatized. We are in a funk and there seems no way out. It is well and good for commentators and politicians to tell us that “Americans,” as Winston Churchill once said, “can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” But we can no longer wait. We need a leader who looks upon us as one people of myriad backgrounds, means and abilities. We do not need a divider. That is what we have in Mr. Obama, and that has been the message from most of the Republican contenders – appealing to one group and the hell with the rest – except for Gingrich who, until the Romney blast, managed to keep above the fray.
A partial solution may lie in changing the primary and caucus system we use to select our candidates. We let extremists at both ends of the spectrum dictate not only the message, but the tone and medium in which it is delivered. The country is facing serious financial and sociological problems. As a nation and individually, we have borrowed too heavily. Too many have become overly reliant on government, a government that is largely financed by too small a group of people. Public sector employees, including union members, no longer understand that they work for the people – not the other way around. A cavalier and arrogant attitude in Congress manifested in the 2010 healthcare debate – what applies to the people does not apply to Congress – became pervasive. Social Security is no more than an intellectual exercise for those in Congress, as they have a separate and far more attractive retirement program. The insider trading scandal in Congress, brought to our attention in a November 13th 60-Minutes expose, was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday by Yale Law School professor, Jonathon Macey: “On closer examination, it appears that what Congress really wants is to keep making the big bucks that come from trading on inside information, but to trick those on the outside of the Beltway that they are doing something about this corruption.” Government has become “them” and the rest of us “us.”
But Republicans appear to be ignoring their opportunity. With their focus on issues like gays in the military and keeping immigrants out, they ignore the monumental issues of debt and entitlements. Republicans are playing to their base; they risk losing the election.
Thought of the Day
“Republican Catfights – Obama’s Dream Come True”
December 14, 2011Monday, in what seemed like a new low in stupidity and absurdity (in a year filled with both), Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney traded barbs in what appears to be an attempt at mutual political suicide. Romney suggested that Gingrich return the $1.6 million he had received in consulting fees from Freddie Mac. Mr. Gingrich responded: “…if Mr. Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, I would be glad to listen to him.” The Grinch, in the person of Mr. Obama who has turned a bad recession into a worse one, must have smiled.
There is, of course, a world of difference between using one’s years of government service in Washington in order to make a few bucks and operating as Mr. Romney did in the private sector. Mr. Romney’s success could only have been achieved by building a number of successful companies. Nevertheless, it is impossible to separate money from politics. Estimates are that President Obama will spend $1 billion on his bid for re-election. That doesn’t count his recent peripatetic meanderings around the hustings that we taxpayers are funding. So, whomever the Republicans nominate will have to spend a similar amount. In contrast, the billion dollars Mr. Obama will be spending is three times what George Bush spent for his reelection in 2004 and eleven times what all the candidates spent in 1980, an increase of more than six times the rate of inflation.
Money is a problem, but it is far from alone. The worst part of the Presidential cycle is that it subjects the populous to all sorts of extreme statements, as contenders vie for votes from their respective bases – visions of Socialism (frightening to me) from the Left, and irrelevant (to me) social issues on the Right. We are a secular nation whose founding fathers believed in their respective Gods, but were deliberate in not invoking any particular religion. After all, it had largely been a desire for religious freedom that caused so many to seek these shores in the early part of the 17th Century. What would those men and women think of a man like Texas Governor Rick Perry reading from the Bible and speaking at a gathering of evangelicals that excluded Catholics and Jews? Jon Huntsman is the only candidate to claim a “spiritual, not religious” mantle, an approach that would have been familiar to our founding fathers. Yet, Mr. Huntsman’s poll numbers suggest that “reasonable” or “sensible” are of little interest to early Republican primary or caucus voters.
We are supposed to be an inclusive nation, comprised of immigrants who are ecumenical or tolerant in their religious outlook, and we are supposedly a nation that believes in the liberty of the individual, and that it is the individual who is the power behind the state. Instead, we have become a nation divided between bigots and Socialists. Despite his promises of being a unifier, President Obama has heralded class warfare, blaming the wealthy for all the ills of the economy – his economy.
The debates leading up to the varying primaries and caucuses that will choose delegates to the two Parties’ respective conventions are supposed to help inform voters. Instead, they have become a referendum on who can be the most extreme. Listening to Mitt Romney, in reality a centrist, Rockefeller-style Republican, speak of building a fence along the Mexican border and rounding up eleven million illegal immigrants and shipping them home, would be laughable except for the earnestness with which he speaks. Michelle Bachman’s comment that her religion “commands” that she obey her husband (perhaps that is why my wife does not like her?) raises the question that not only must we worry about Presidential succession, but we must wonder: will it be necessary to provide a partner’s desk in the oval office? (In contrast to the self-described servile Ms. Bachman, Margaret Thatcher seemed to get along very well listening to Dennis, but not heeding his every word.)
The election is the Republicans to lose. The country is in a slough of despond. People have succumbed to the negativity that has permeated our society since the end of 2008. The President, who was always admired but never loved, has seen his poll numbers dip into the low to-mid 40s, due to his humorless, narcissistic aloofness. Yet watching the debates, the eight or nine Republican contenders (the exception being Huntsman) ignore the broad center that is now up for grabs, vying only for the votes of those on the far right. The country badly wants a leader with vision and humor who appeals to independents, a person who can extricate us from the morass that keeps us down.
While my favorite among the group of Republican contenders has been Jon Huntsman, Roger L. Simon of pjmedia.com makes a compelling argument that, for all his erraticism, arrogance and smart-alecky attitude, Gingrich is the only one who “dances,” the only candidate who inspires. Perhaps he is right. Peter Boyer of The Daily Beast points out that Gingrich has inspired in the past. “Freshman Republicans in 1995, like the Tea Party class of last year, we’re true believers in the revolution they’d been recruited into by Gingrich.”
As a nation, we sorely need inspiration. A dozen years ago, the internet-tech bubble collapsed. Ten years ago our nation was attacked by terrorists, who the politically correct are still afraid to identify by name for being seen as prejudiced. Six years ago the great housing boom began to unwind. Three years ago our financial system came close to total collapse. Household net worth has declined $9.4 trillion to $57.4 trillion over the past four years – 4% in the third quarter alone! As a nation we have been traumatized. We are in a funk and there seems no way out. It is well and good for commentators and politicians to tell us that “Americans,” as Winston Churchill once said, “can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” But we can no longer wait. We need a leader who looks upon us as one people of myriad backgrounds, means and abilities. We do not need a divider. That is what we have in Mr. Obama, and that has been the message from most of the Republican contenders – appealing to one group and the hell with the rest – except for Gingrich who, until the Romney blast, managed to keep above the fray.
A partial solution may lie in changing the primary and caucus system we use to select our candidates. We let extremists at both ends of the spectrum dictate not only the message, but the tone and medium in which it is delivered. The country is facing serious financial and sociological problems. As a nation and individually, we have borrowed too heavily. Too many have become overly reliant on government, a government that is largely financed by too small a group of people. Public sector employees, including union members, no longer understand that they work for the people – not the other way around. A cavalier and arrogant attitude in Congress manifested in the 2010 healthcare debate – what applies to the people does not apply to Congress – became pervasive. Social Security is no more than an intellectual exercise for those in Congress, as they have a separate and far more attractive retirement program. The insider trading scandal in Congress, brought to our attention in a November 13th 60-Minutes expose, was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday by Yale Law School professor, Jonathon Macey: “On closer examination, it appears that what Congress really wants is to keep making the big bucks that come from trading on inside information, but to trick those on the outside of the Beltway that they are doing something about this corruption.” Government has become “them” and the rest of us “us.”
But Republicans appear to be ignoring their opportunity. With their focus on issues like gays in the military and keeping immigrants out, they ignore the monumental issues of debt and entitlements. Republicans are playing to their base; they risk losing the election.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 4:55 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home