Shock and Awe

You know, I just don’t get it. I thought I did, but I guess I really don’t. I thought that I had a feel for this country; its moods, its political leanings, its desires and dreams. I thought that this country, a country I love dearly, had a natural pendulum that would swing back and forth socially, culturally and politically. Every few years there would be a massive, noticeable and shocking swing to one side, then, a few years later, the pendulum would swing back. Sometimes it would swing back just as noticeably as the previous swing, but eventually, things would go back to a sense of balanced normalcy, you know? The country would always find its true north and be set on a stable course to prosperity, or at least something that resembled it. You can all think of examples, I’m not trying to give a history lesson here. The heated rhetoric during the second Bush term was a point where the pendulum swung pretty drastically and people wanted something different. So, we got it; and the pendulum swung almost 180 degrees the other way. Fine. That’s how things go. But now that it had swung that far, I thought it would swing back and center itself. It. Did. Not.

I don’t understand why. I have some theories tied together with thoughts from some pretty smart people I know as to why the country re-elected Barack Obama (I have to admit though, that last part was really difficult to write). I, like so many others were convinced the country would right itself and elect Mitt Romney (though he wasn’t the end-all and be-all to our country’s problems, but he presented a reasoned, moderate approach that would address some of the fiscal problems we face). Though the election was close (popular vote), it was a drubbing in the Electoral College. It was a devastating repudiation of common sense and the ability of the American people to confront a problem head-on. But the damage wasn’t done simply on the presidential level. Democrats increased their number of seats in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. The Republican governor of Puerto Rico was defeated and the residents of that country voted overwhelmingly for statehood in a (thankfully) non-binding referendum. Two black House Republicans were defeated (though Allen West is still contesting the results), potentially leaving only Tim Scott of South Carolina. Don’t misunderstand me, the Republican party is NOT the savior of this country, but considering the problems we face, electing more Republicans nationally would have gone a long way towards righting this ship. There are viable policy positions from some of the third parties, but as of now we function under a two-party system so that’s what we have to work with.

In a previous blog entry, I had speculated that there would be a transformational shift towards a solid center-right populace at the end of this election. Romney, as a former (?) progressive Republican was well suited to mount a strong, aggressive campaign that would take the fight to the leftist progressives. Obama’s policies would be rejected and “balance would be restored to the force”. I was half-right. The country has been almost solidly consumed by the consumer-taker mentality, which, as of this election, makes up 50% of the electorate. Producer-givers make up only 48%. There is the transformation. President Obama made that same promise in 2008, but I didn’t believe him (at least not in the way he thought it would happen). That 48% is a large number no doubt, but still the fact that it is not a majority is highly disturbing. We have now become a nation divided, not along party lines, but along attitudinal ones. This will come as no surprise to many, but now, the future of the country will be fought between consumer-takers and producer-givers. No, these terms are not original, but it will be therapeutic for me to explain them.

The producer-givers are the people that Romney represents and who he seems to embody. He seems to be a caring, giving man who had a great deal of success in his life. Yes, he had advantages, but everyone has different types of advantages and it comes down to how you exploit them. He was successful in many things that he did and was rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong with that. He also seems like a noble man who loves his country and wanted to help make it better. The 48% who supported him have similar stories: hardworking people who don’t look to strangers (in government) to give them something for nothing. Now, Romney miscalculated about the 47% figure he quoted in that undercover “gotcha” video. He pegged the number three percentage points too low. There are, and we have seen it in stark relief, 50% of people, not 47%, who want something for nothing. It’s as simple as that. Fifty percent said “no” to self-reliance, personal responsibility, selflessness, and dare I say it: honor and love of country. That 50% were doing nothing but thinking about THEIR next meal, THEIR next bill payment, THEIR feelings of “hope” and “change” and how THEY are going to move “forward”. Not one single second was spent thinking about the trillions of dollars (can you even contemplate how much that really is??) our posterity is on the hook for; not one second thinking about the massive yearly deficits that are due NOW; not one second about increased inflation, taxes and gas prices; not a single second on the almost constant violations of civil liberties; and, most disturbing (at least to me as a military veteran), not a single solitary second on the lives lost by people in the service of this great country: service members, federal law enforcement officers, contractors and diplomats. Whether on the Mexican border, in Benghazi, at Ft. Hood, Texas, at recruiting stations in Arkansas, in Iraq or in Afghanistan (please forgive me if I’ve neglected to include any other incidences, I’m doing this from memory), their service has come to naught.

People have died due to the negligence of this administration and their worldview. People have died. Apparently that does not mean anything to the 50%.

But I digress.

Those 50% that voted to continue on the same path are the consumer-takers. This term is pretty self-explanatory. They are focused on and dedicated to enriching themselves with the least effort possible. They are no better than the fat-cats they rail against. The only difference is they won’t put in the hard work to one day become a CEO, CFO or COO. They simply want what they want and expect everyone to give it to them. They had a candidate who promised to do just that. The shift has taken place in such a resounding way I am still in a bit of shock. I was shocked when Obama was elected, but chalked it up to Bush fatigue. Re-elected? No way in hell. Never happen. The American people can throw a fit every once in a while, but they are balanced, common sense people. When Americans see a problem or something not working, they will try to fix it. Not this time. There’s no way they didn’t see it. They FEEL it everyday for crying out loud! Then what was it? The country has shifted. It’s not a pendulum swing thing anymore. It’s a honest-to-God shift. The fundamentals of this country have shifted from producer-givers to consumer-takers. Of course, there are still people who are willing to give of their time and work hard, but I have to say, this must be the first time in the history of this country where the consumer-takers have out-numbered the producer-givers. That is a devastating realization.

If faced with the fiscal, cultural and political problems that we have confronted over the past few years hasn’t awoken a spirit of basic common sense to stop the train while we still can, I’m afraid their may be no turning back. Maybe we can chip away at the edges and hope for the best, but the fears of turning into France or Greece may actually be realized soon. I’m not trying to be tin-foil hat guy and scream about the end of the republic, but France, to Greece, to Venezuela to Go-knows-what is not an impossible thing to happen. Americans have a special type of outlook, but, considering this past election, they are increasingly susceptible to falling down the civilizational cliff towards a totally statist society. Some may argue we are already there. I don’t think it is complete, but much of the evidence points in that direction. Maybe it will be a “new” brand of statism, a sort of “socialism American-style”. Regardless, it will still be a system that has never worked and has led to the deaths of countless millions of people and the subjugation of those still living. That is a truly scary thing, but the foundation has been laid. The 48%, like me, loves this country and wants the best for it. It is so demoralizing to see it go in a direction that most reasonable and rational people see as dangerous. Forget ideology and just look at the numbers: trillions here, trillions there. We can’t sustain this. Then, look at history, and not just ours. Finally, look around the world. Where do financial crises lead? These problems are not solely ideological, though there are “Democratic” and “Republican” economists (which makes no sense), but the numbers are the numbers. I would only tell the new 50%: Be careful what you wish for…

God save the Republic. 

It’s Friggin’ Over (I guess)

I’m thinking way ahead with some of this, but since the Iowa caucus is over, I think it’s appropriate. First though, the final result of the caucus probably caught a lot of people by surprise. I was one of them. I really thought Santorum and Paul would run away with it considering Romney didn’t spend too much time there and didn’t seem too interested. That may have been because he was content in letting the conservative candidates beat each other up over the social/religious voters. He did, however, spend a lot of money, but the grassroots-style of campaigning needed in Iowa, I thought, would make it more competitive for Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann. The fact that Romney only won by 8 votes, yes, VOTES, showed (1) the conservatism of the state and (2) that Republican voters are still not wholly satisfied with Romney as the frontrunner (surprise!).

Moving on from Iowa, Romney will probably crush everyone in New Hampshire. Santorum shouldn’t even waste any time there and make a stand in South Carolina (with an eye on Nevada and Florida as well). Perry will make his stand in SC, Bachmann is out and Gingrich will be working the state hard as well. Paul will keep going due to the fact that his young libertarian base on college campuses will continue to energize him.

Unfortunately, all of this strategic planning and horserace analysis will mean nothing. Romney will be the nominee. He has been methodically “campaigning”, not saying anything controversial and hoping the conservative vote will split itself at every turn (which it is and will). He has access to great sums of campaign cash and looks like a presidential character from central casting. He’s got some policy baggage, but that won’t matter. He’s the nominee. So, looking ahead, who should he pick for VP?

Because of the geographical importance of politics (even when governors pick running mates), Romney needs to look south and/or west. In addition to geography, what Obama does will (and should) play a role in Romney’s selection. If Obama dumps Joe Biden and places Hillary Clinton on the ticket, that will be the definition of a “game changer”. Without looking at any polling data, I would say that Obama would get a 5 – 7% bounce in his numbers after the announcement and Hillary would probably be good for 2 – 3% on Election Day. The leftist base would be fired up, Biden would get his dream job (Secretary of State), Hillary would be one step closer to the presidency and Bill Clinton would be able to be in the news even more often. It’s a no-brainer for Obama to do this. Sure, Biden may have his feelings hurt for a while, but he can spin it into being a “hero for the party”, blah, blah, blah.

With respect to geography (along with experience, appeal and electoral success) and Romney’s choice for VP, there are three potential running mates who would help balance Mitt’s Moderation:

• Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Young, attractive, conservative Tea Party favorite. May not necessarily be “ready” to be president, but wasn’t there a young senator from Illinois of whom we said the same?

• New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez. First woman governor of New Mexico (a democrat state in the southwest). Again, not too much experience, but executive experience none the less.

And last, but not least, my choice would be:

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Conservative. Re-elected in a landslide. Southern state. Extremely capable and popular. He endorsed Rick Perry (who should also get a mention for VP) because they are neighbors, but would balance out the ticket perfectly and, in my view, is ready and able to be President of the United States*.

If Obama makes the switch, Romney and the Republican Party have to inject some drama and excitement of their own. They must show a burning desire to lead and offer the country a capable combination while also satisfying conservative voters who have been known to cut of their noses to spite their faces when not happy with a candidate. The speculation about the switch has been going on for some time, but I think we will know if/when it’s going to happen: watch for the signage, bumper stickers and buttons the Obama campaign is using. If it just says “Obama 2012”, look out Joe!

(*Don’t think that I’m looking at ethnicity here either. I hate that. I’m looking at position and ability).

What If Occupy Really Wanted Change?

Let's assume that the Occupy protesters have good intentions to actually change the system they feel is onerous and tyrannical and is not just a means to create havoc for the sake of havoc. What could they do to actually make their case for substantive difference in our system?

1. Stop acting like spoiled brats and remember that they aren't the only ones with rights to move freely. There are people in the areas they are protesting in that have rights as well. Those people want to live and work in peace. It's tough for them. They couldn't take TWO MONTHS out of their schedule to sit around and meet. What about their rights??

2. Actually have some stated goals, not just "the 1% sucks". Squatting in a park on Wall Street did not affect one trade or bond deal. If they wanted to get a media hit out of it, they could have gotten a permit to march for a couple of days with their "hand-made" signs and 1960s slogans to start things off. Then, more substantive actions could have been taken: for example, there was an activist in California, I believe, that pushed the idea of moving one's money from the national banks to local credit unions. What better way to get the attention of major companies that hitting their bottom line and making them compete for your business?

3. Don't treat PRIVATE property as your own personal outhouse. Come on people! Really? Defacating on police cars and sidewalks? Public urination?

4. The most outrageous of the behaviors is the outright crime going on in these areas. The supporters of the "movement" don't want to talk about this, but the idea that rapes, child molestation, drug use, murder, assault, theft and any combination of these is going on in these supposedly peaceful protest areas is sickening. Why would anyone listen to your demands when you have basically created an outdoor prison environment?

5. Of all the places in the country where the Occupy movement should have been protesting is Capitol Hill, Washington DC. The traders and banks on Wall Street could care less what you people do because Congress will continue to fund their largess. Go to Capitol Hill and ask the congressional leadership (both Democrat and Republican) why they gave billions (if not trillions) of dollars to companies that were "too big to fail". After that, march on over to the White House and demand the answer to the same question. THOSE are the people that made this system the way it is. Why would you blame the recipient of ill-gotten gains and not the donor?

6. Don't be partisan. If you really want to change things, become an anti-incumbent movement and throw all the bums out! The Tea Party flirted with this idea, though they are largely a Republican organization, but they started out of dissatisfaction with both parties and their spending habits. Actually, there could be some solidarity with the Tea Party (if you drop all of the communist, union support, oh, and the rapes and drug use) on some issues if the Occupiers were so inclined.

Those are just a few things that the Occupiers could have done to make their movement more effective. But, we all know there is no interest on their part to actually change anything. They are bored, overwhelming white, middle to upper class kids that don't like homeless people and want to "do something". I guess every generation has to have their college protesters who think they are the best and the brightest, but turn out to be nothing of the sort.

Dreaded Concern and the 2012 Negative Campaign

I was a Perry guy before he got into the race. I thought he had the best record and resume to go up against Obama. I still do think that. However, I'm a bit concerned about this performance thus far. Not in the debates, those are largely run by liberal media organizations that look for any opportunity to define the Republican field. I had a vision that the Perry campaign would be rolled out with such force and immediacy, that other candidates would fade into the background and it would be down to one or two others. Perry held things that way for a few weeks, but then "weak" debate performances had people freaked out. I hate debates and don't think they provide much information. What can you get from 60 second answers and 30 second responses (particularly when asked by ideological opponents)?

So, I'm still for Perry as my main candidate, but I've looked at Cain as well. Yes, he could win the nomination and would be better than Obama (who wouldn't?). However, I'm not really ready to go all-in for him at this point. Now, the one candidate who I've admired for years is: Newt Gingrich. Yes, he has baggage that would be relentlessly pushed by Obama 2012, but think about it: which Republican candidate wouldn't be pilloried next year? Can anyone possibly admit that if Romney is the candidate, Obama and the Democrats will be nicer to him than to Gingrich? People are scared to death of supporting Gingrich because of his personal issues because they're afraid of them being used in the campaign. What do you think will be done to Perry, Cain or Romney if/when they are the nominee? There are probably REAMS of research material on Romney's every business and political decision sitting in the Obama campaign headquarters. They will be brutal. Same goes for Perry and Cain. Obama is probably more scared of Romney than the others, so they will have every last bit of opposition research available.

This campaign will probably be one of the most brutal, negative and underhanded we've seen in a while. Granted we have a history of negative and sinister campaign tactics used in presidential races (Washington was "senile", Jefferson had illegitimate children, Lincoln was half-black, etc.), so I don't mean to overstate the almost-certain negativity next year, but why should that force us to support or not support a particular candidate? I was guilty of thinking the same thing about Gingrich, but looking at a complete package of experience, knowledge, technical competence and ability (along with the requisite conservative ideals), the best candidates have to be Perry and Gingrich. Hell, a Perry/Gingrich ticket would give us the best of both worlds. If people think Perry is a loose cannon cowboy type, let's marry him with a brainy intellectual. Unlike the current occupants of the White House, at least a Perry/Gingrich team would know how many states there are!

Here's a "deal" for ya!

According to PolitickerNJ.com, State Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean (R) has not dismissed out of hand the possibility of making a deal with weakened State Senate President Dick Codey (D) to ensure Codey's re-election to the senate presidency. Senator Stephen Sweeney, a south Jersey Democrat is challenging Codey and it looks like his challenge will be successful.

Codey may be looking to Kean to bring in some Republican votes with promises of chairmanships and other goodies. There's nothing new about deal-making in New Jersey politics, but I for one would like to see the Republican Party take a different tact for once. But first, here's the background by the numbers:

There are 23 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the State Senate. Nine Democrats are supporting Codey and 14 have come out publicly to support Sweeney. Do you see where I'm going with this?

What would motivate Republican voters more than a good ol' fashioned fight that would give them an opportunity to see their leaders show some gumption? Senator Kean needs to throw his hat in the ring for the Senate presidency and force the Democrats to make a choice. Obviously the Democrats wouldn't countenance a Republican senate president so they would have to make deals of their own (and that's what they're best at) to secure the presidency for Sweeney or Codey.

Why not throw a monkey wrench into the Democrat caucus for once? Why not show some fire and leadership and prove to the average Republican voter that there's someone in Trenton willing to go all in?

If the Republicans are concerned about angering the Democrats, who cares? What are they getting now? The Republicans are in the minority and don't look like they'll be out of it any time soon, so why not use this opportunity to show their differences?

And when I mean "all in", I really mean "ALL IN". This effort needs to be a full-fledged campaign. Chairman Jay Webber and the whole party establishment can use this opportunity to connect with solid and wayward Republican voters alike. Phone calls, mail pieces, etc should be sent out to demonstrate a new level of aggressiveness from the New Republican Party. This can be a catalyst for true change in how Republicans are viewed.

What's the downside? No chairmanships. So what, do you think Bill Baroni was going to get Judiciary? Or Tony Bucco was going to get the Budget Committee?

The collegial working relationship that is supposed to be the order of the day in the Senate won't be irrevocably damaged by Kean and the Republican caucus fighting for their beliefs and their voters. They actually may gain a new level of respect.

Give it a shot Mr. Minority Leader, you never know.