It's Convention time - enthusiastic delegates with colorful hats, hours of tedious votes to elect the nominee, and speeches...and speeches...and speeches.
The Republicans have it easy; talk about Obama's performance - over 8 %
unemployment for 3 ½ years, 23 million unemployed or
underemployed, a federal debt
approaching $16 trillion, massive new government regulations, and 100 million
receiving some form of government assistance (not including Medicare and Social
Security). And...Obamacare; a socialized medical system a majority of
Americans do not want. Now the Republican's job is to convince voters how they plan to solve these problems.
Republicans will be bringing out their top guns for key speeches - John Kasic, Scott Walker, Bob McDonald, Condaleeza Rice, Chris Christy, Marco Rubio, Mrs Romney talking about the personal side of her husband, and of course Paul Ryan, and then Mitt Romney will make his speech introducing himself to the country. This will be politics in full bloom and for those of us that are political junkies, worth watching.
The Democrats don't have it so easy; do they get up and brag about their performance the past 3 1/2 years? I don't think so. But they don't have to introduce their candidate; everyone knows Barack Obama and his messianic rise to the presidency. He also has a Vice President that has provided more material for talk show hosts and late night comedians than any politician in history. So by now they are both well known to all Americans.
With such a poor record what can be the theme of their convention? "Smoke and mirrors", diversion, and fear: "Republicans will repeal Obamacare, they will end Medicare, they will 'deregulate' the environment resulting in dirty air and water, they will cut social programs like welfare and food stamps, they will make abortion illegal, they will lower taxes on the rich, etc., etc." We have heard these talking points before, and they DO work for a segment of the voters,
Democrats believe a key voting demographic for Obama are women, and their convention will focus on the Republican's so-called "War on Women". Speakers will include NARAL president Andrea Miller to remind us of women's right to choose, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards to remind everyone how much Republicans hate women. And then they will bring in the "big guns" - Sandra Fluke, the 30 year old graduate student activist who achieved her 15 minutes of fame by demanding the government pay her $10/month bill for birth control pills. She would have been a 'nobody' had not Rush Limbaugh (with his audience of 23 million), made fun of her and now she speaks at the Democratic Convention. And after her, another heavy weight - Eva Longoria, formally a "Desperate Housewife" and now a stalwart democratic operative. Where do the Democrats get this talent?
So we have two weeks of political posturing, then two months of what will be a tidal wave of television ads, personal attacks, debates and then the election on November 6th.
When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1979 many of us can remember the sad state of affairs due to the socialistic policies of the Carter administration. During the final debate Reagan asked this question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Many thought it was the turning point in that election.
And here we are in a similar, and even more serious situation. Maybe in the final debate Romney should ask: "Is this country better off now than it was four years ago?"
I believe we all know the answer to that question.
When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1979 many of us can remember the sad state of affairs due to the socialistic policies of the Carter administration. During the final debate Reagan asked this question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Many thought it was the turning point in that election.
And here we are in a similar, and even more serious situation. Maybe in the final debate Romney should ask: "Is this country better off now than it was four years ago?"
I believe we all know the answer to that question.
8 comments:
Very well put Chuck, as usual. You were a little hard on Sandra Fluke because Rush Limbaugh DID go well over the line there. She was just exercising her right as a citizen to push the system and she did it in a proper way, even if you don
t agree with her porition.
I don't think this race is even going to be close. NC, VA, FL, PA and FL are all swing states that will go to Obama. That will give him well over 300 Electoral Votes and a solid win. All of this crap the pundits are stirring up is just to sell products for sponsors of the coming debates. This time of year everyone tunes in to the news if things are happening, so the networks are making it seem like there is a real race when there isn't. It's all about selling products at this point........nobody in the know believes this is a real race because Romney has completely alienated white women, black and Hispanic men and women, and college students......basically the middle voters, plus any swing Democrats. He had to get those votes to even stand a chance.
As I mentioned to you in an earlier email, Romney choosing Paul Ryan was as big a mistake as McCain choosing Sarah Palin..........John McCain didn't win because she is dumber than a post and carried no votes; and all Romney did with his choice was assure his campaign wouldn't cut into the family bank account to pay his election debts. All of the wealthy conservatives and Tea Party folks really ponied up the cash when Ryan was picked. I am certain that was Romney's reason for doing it because he knew by then that the election was lost. Paul Ryan's best place for the Party was in Congress where he had some power and influence. The VP is like a tit on a boar hog....the VP only has one real purpose and that is to break a tie in the Senate (unless the President dies).
In my opinion, Romney is a really smart guy, who didn't want to end up like Hillery, begging for cash to pay her primary bills after the election. He knew that Ryan brought no votes, only money, to the ticket. By picking Ryan, Mitt gets the bills paid after the election is lost AND Paul Ryan goes back to Congress where he can do some good for the Conservatives. Always follow the money Chuck.....that will tell you why these guys do what they do.
I am quite cynical when it comes to politics. When these guys get to that level they all owe somebody and those debts are a lot stronger than their allegiance to the American people. I have also lived amongst Mormons for the past ten years and they are "ALL ABOUT MONEY"........they serve the LDS Church, their family and their personal interests....in that order.....everything else comes behind those priorities.
A good example is Romney's comment that he donated 10% of his income to Charity.........THAT is his personal tithe to the Mormon Church............he basically gave nothing to the Red Cross.....etc. The Mormon Church is not my image of a Charity, unless you are a Mormon.
I have also been in Sales and Marketing for over 30 years and I can "smell" a marketing operation at work, even if it looks like something else. You just watch where Romney and Ryan put their Campaign focus..............it won't be with the voting blocs where they can get votes to win, because they can't get them with their record to date. They will focus on the money crowd. They are both young enough to go for it again when they fail this time, so getting a huge war chest and learning how to run a Campaign is what is going on. In 2016 the Dems will have a whole new ballgame and I don't think they will be stupid enough to put that idiot Biden up, but they might. If they do, Romney/Ryan can take him out without even missing a heartbeat. However, its unlikely it will be Biden in 2016 because he is too old, too stupid with his comments, and has no credibility with even the dumbest American voter outside his own State.
You certainly are cynical John, so we will have to wait and see. If Romney/Ryan is a "marketing campaign" what do you call Mr Golden Voice and his merry men...nothing but talk and campaigning. Not even a budget in three years, for a country that is going bankrupt. I don't share your pessimism, of course history tells us the incumbent has a huge advantage. But I promise not to make you eat your words if Romney wins :)
You will get no arguement out of me in favor of Obama's performance. Unfortunately, the Republican Party hasn't been able to field viable candidates since Reagan and Bush 1. The Party is too polarized and disconnected from the mainstream. Mitt is a perfect example of a disconnected candidate. He was priviledged at birth. His Father was Governor of Michigan, and ran for President. I doubt that little Willard (Mitt) ate many beans or collard greens as a boy. He also didn't get any Stafford Loans or Pell Grants as assistance going to Harvard....Daddy paid for it and Mitt wasn't saddled with $100-200K in student loans at Graduation. It's not hard to make a success in Wall Street when your name is Romney, you Graduated from Harvard, and you are debt free. So, lets add some realism to the Romney Story....Romney started a hundred yards farther down the track in life than most prople.
There is no doubt that Mitt is basically a decent and very, very smart man. I was in First Class on a Delta flight with him from SLC to Chicago a couple of years ago. He is a concerned, well informed, and well focused person who takes a real interest in people. He looks right at you and listens. On the other hand....he didn't get where he is by being a pussycat...there is a point where "It's Mitts way or the Highway". That's not all bad for a President but don't think he will try to find any common ground to get legislation through Congress. He will be as stalemated by the Dems as Obama was by the Republicans.
My main concerns are these:
1. The President is basically a useless job this time. It doesn't matter who wins because with a polarized split Congress nothing meaningful will pass. The Republicans will dominate the House and pass ridiculous Conservative Legislation that has no chance in the Senate. The Senate will pass ridiculously Liberal Legislation that will not get through the House. It will be 4 more years of a stagnated Congress. So, the real election will be in 2016, and the game will be "Who Gets The Blame".
2. Mitt will try to peal back 40 years of beneficial regulations. Remember LOVE CANAL, Remember Thalidomide Babies.......Remember the housing bubble and the reason for this recession.......Remember the smog in LA so thick it made your eyes water to drive on the freeway..........those are the Rules he will repeal. All Government Regulations are not bad, some of them keep us healthy and the air & water clean. I have been to China, where they have no regulations and it is a pit of pollution, with dead babies from uncontrolled substances in baby formula to battery acid dumping next to houses. That is not how I want America to go. If you get rid of the EPA, the FDA and the SEC you will see things go to crap before the end of the decade...BUT it will save some money!!
3. I am also troubled by the blatant misrepresentations of what has been going on in the Campaign. I think the measure of the man is the honesty with which he conducts his Campaign and Mitt is not doing very well. He needs to reign in the spin doctors that are fabricating things. It doesn't matter if the other side does it, I want my candidate to tell the truth and to make sure his Campaign does also. If he will lie to us now, what will be do when he becomes President?? I don't want another Nixon in the White House.
4. He needs to show his tax returns for the past ten years. He is not an "average guy" and the country has a right to know how he made his money and where he has invested it. His Father was not ashamed of his financial dealings....why is Mitt?
Why people are focusing on the Presidency is beyond me........its the SENATE that we have to win, and we have to win 60% of the Senate, while retaining control of the House. The Presidential race is a distraction.
If you are right I'll send you something from my woodshop to grace your beautiful home. If I Romney/Ryan loses I get a superb bottle of Strickland Cellers wine....is it s BET!
Chuck,
I read some of the comments that you received and have to say that I do not agree with most of them. One in particular says that it is the senate that we have to worry about. I don't think so because for the last 3 years Obama has had his forces getting rid of his need to communicate or cooperate with Congress. The executive privilege is going to rule this country if Obama wins this year and then look out!
I'm also amazed by the media relative to how they pretend that they can't figure out why the poles show such a close race. Hell, when half of the population is getting one form or another of government aid does anyone really think they would not vote for Obama? It is the old union mentality that says to hell with the company I work for. If the company goes broke I don't care as long as I get what I can from the company before it goes under. Apply that mind set to the country and you have the present day problem where people actually think that the subsidies will never end. What is confusing about the word "unsustainable"?
You can add this to your comments if you think it might be worth while.
Thanks for sticking to your guns,
Roger
John - It's a bet! I'll even give you a bottle if I lose. I don't agree with many of your comments in the second posting, but I am out of time for now.
I can hear the sounds of Fox News echoing through the house as I type:) While all this political talk is interesting, I find that I am more stressed out than anything as I think about the pending election process.
Grandpa, I hope that Romney does ask whether people are better off than they were four years ago. I think it could potentially do considerable damage to the Democratic party by forcing the general public to consider what Obama has or has not accomplished. This question, if asked, could very well change how people vote in November.
If I were asked how I am different than I was four years ago, I would say that four years I was only aprehensive about Obama's win, and concerned about his vision for the future of our country. Now, I am thoroughly displeased with the way it seems our country has fallen, and very worried about my generation's future.
It seems to me that young people should look hopefully into the future. Rather, I am currently dreading what's ahead. And I am not a pessimist. I'm not super politically inclined; however, as I consider the presidential candidates for this election year, Romney seems to restore the hope I have for our great country while Obama continues to squelche it.
Thank you for your comment Mac. I wish more young people would take as much interest as you do. Ironically, it's people in your generation that have the most to lose if this country is not turned around. As you can see by some comments, not everyone is a Romney fan - I am. I am also an optimist and believe that Romney/Ryan will win even though the next few months will be a barrage of negative ads against them. The solution to this country's problems are not simple, but that's what managers are for - to solve problems, and that is Romney's talent in my opinion. As compared to a President that gives wonderful speeches but simply is incompetent.
Your anonymous writer of Aug. 30th irritated me when he said Sarah Palin was "dumber than a post". When she was governor of Alaska she was Commander in Chief of the 49th Missle Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.
This is the only National Guard Unit on permanent active duty as Alaska has more than half of the coastline of the entire United States ! She was routinely briefed on highly classified military issues & homeland security. At that time she had a higher security rating than Hussein Obama who couldn't be an FBI agent because of his background. She was no "dumb post". Louise Strickland
Post a Comment