The Perversion of Our Government.  It is now obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that we have a Charlatan in the White House and Drama Queens in Congress.  At a time in our nation’s being when leadership is dearly needed, there is none.  At a time when our nation should be turning to its founding principles, it is devolving towards social and cultural dependency.  At a time when our two political parties should be laying out fundamental agendas that are clear and concise, they engage in childish games of one-upsmanship and adolescent behavior.

Let’s start with President Glitz who, faced with a unique opportunity to meet a crisis armed with good will from the public and a semi-mandate from re-election, chooses instead to remain in perpetual campaign mode and continue governing through his selected media outlets.  Has any elected official ever done a better job of squandering an opportunity to make real changes?

Then we have John Boehner who gets partial credit for at least passing actual legislation and sending it over the Senate, but apparently only has sufficient principles in those areas strategically selected to retain his Speaker’s role.  He appears to be the classic example of the old saying …“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.

Then of course there is the one I consider the most culpable in the devolution of governmental function and that would be Harry Reid.  In spite of holding the most powerful legislative position in our country for an extended period of time, he seems determined to insure that no action of substance comes out of the Senate.  Failing to meet the bare minimum fiscal responsibilities assigned to his body, he continues to refine the parody of himself and fall deeper into senseless buffoonery.

When did we get to the point where the Senate does nothing, the House passes bills that appeal pretty much only to their regimented base, and the President plies his rhetorical style of administration by issuing ultimatums or populist pap and then, when crunch time arrives, heads out to the links?  Can we not get back to doing the people’s business in a statesman-like fashion and focusing on what the primary responsibilities of our government are?  My friends, hope is fading rapidly.

My wish for you this holiday season is a Christmas moment, like…..

·        On a long, hot summer day at sundown when the sun sinks in the west and that first cool breeze comes snaking through the trees like wisps of smoke…

·        Like when a child who has been tearing around like a tornado inexplicably becomes very quiet, lays their head against you, and says “I Love You”…

·        Like at the tail end of a long and trying day, week, or even month when you have been battle-tested and when looking back over what was accomplished, you can smile and say silently to yourself “Well Done”…

·        Like when you watch a sentimental Hallmark movie with the ever-expected happy ending and even though you know it’s corny as all get out, your eyes well up, confirming that you do, in fact, still have a heart and retain the ability to feel something real…

·        Perhaps you realize while sharing a meal, or a drink, or just a quiet moment with friends or family how very lucky you are to have these people in your life.  And if you can’t be with someone, your memories of them bring them there with you, if just for a brief time…

·        Or that day in the Kentucky fall when you see the ripened crops of the west, or the rolling hills of the north, or the beautiful mountains of the east and you realize how lucky you are to be living here…

·        Or you see someone in the world who is just trying to get by, just looking for a warm place or a bite to eat, and you are here with a job and a paycheck…

·        You might be putting hay out for the cattle, or just walking to the car in a parking lot, or maybe just stop on the parkway beyond the city lights, and you gaze on the heavens and the stars are scattered like diamonds on black velvet and they go on forever and forever, and you feel so very small…

·        Somewhere in your day you see someone do something out of the ordinary…open a door, pick up a paper, help with a coat, hold a package for a moment, give up their place in line, open a car door, put a dollar or two in the bucket or plate, speak kindly to a stranger, yield in traffic, and you realize there is some good left in most people and they have not forgotten how to use it…

·        Or you have survived a sufficient number of years in the business so that they put you out to pasture and you have time to enjoy some of the things you passed by earlier in your life and… you have time to write stuff like this…

And most of all….on Christmas Eve, when all the hustle and bustle has ceased, the house is quiet and dark, all those Christmas smells like evergreen, cookies, and wrapping paper are still in the air, and everyone but you is settled in for the big day to come…you reflect on things and realize how very blessed you are to have this life, your loves, your things, and….moments like these. 

A very sincere Merry Christmas to you and yours.

The Ghost of Christmas Future???   For this holiday season, when one’s hope for the world and the potential goodness in mankind is met with the least resistance, I am left with an empty feeling and disillusionment. I have just celebrated half of my family Christmas and my clan is fully blessed with life, love, and possessions.  For my young adults, young families, and children full of innocence, I see in their faces the promise of a wonderful world to come.  However, I cannot escape the nagging worry in the back of my mind that this country went down a rabbit hole early last month and the prospects of escape are frighteningly daunting.

I am certainly not the man I should be in a religious sense, but even I of diminished moral character can sense the erosion of simple values and ethics in our nation.  We have allowed our elections to become contests of wit, wile, and deceit; with the victor oftentimes not the best candidate, just the sharpest.  And this devolution of our founder’s principles has gone on for a sufficiently long period of time that now these victors openly embrace this strategy and have no compunction whatsoever about openly celebrating their skullduggery.  We, the voting public, have been, and are being, played for fools and have become pawns in a game of “shape the message”, rather than the recipients of serious debate and ideas.

With our nation facing perhaps the most serious financial challenge since the great depression, our President’s last three budget proposals have failed to garner even a single vote from his own party.  Our duly elected Senators have failed to pass a budget in over two years.  And how do we react to these performances?  We extend their contracts, of course.  We gladly fulfill the role of the fool who is told nonsense for the truth and then expected to actually become the fool. 

I fear for our nation.  I fear for my children and grandchildren.  I fear for the principles of self-reliance and accountability.  I fear for our future.

Fiscal Cliff Observations.  You know, when I was a kid, we got a big thrill about standing at the top of a cliff and peering over the side; looking at the bottom, flirting with vertigo, and seeing who might get the closest to the edge.  As I got older, I became more wary of the edge.  Not sure why this happened.  It might be because I have come to realize that older bones take longer to heal.  It might be because the bravado of getting closest to edge has lost it value.  But I think the real reason is because I realized that I have a lot more to lose now if I were to slip over the edge.  We would all like to think that our Government would have grasped that same concept, but it appears they are still motivated mainly by those initial adolescent incentives.

I truly believe that among the many bipartisan failures of our Government over the last couple of decades, the most damning is the failure to do their jobs and let…government…work.  Whether we agree with them ideologically or not, credit must be given to the House for their record on passing legislation over the last four years.  The Senate on the hand has failed abysmally to function as a legislative body.  Even though I feel the President shares a good deal of the blame for this breakdown in primary function by failing to provide effective and practical leadership, I will confine my indictments to the legislative bodies.  It can be argued that the President’s proper role is post-passage and is therefore dependent on the performance of Congress. 

I have to think that the majority of Americans who care about such things would strongly embrace a return to a legislative process that was envisioned by our nation’s founders.  A very simple process where the House writes and passes legislation, the Senate then considers that document and either agrees or passes its own version.  In the case of two different bills, we go to conference and then back to each body for confirmation of the grand compromise.  The President then has his opportunity to veto and see just how broad and deep the support is or he can play his role of chief administrator and simply implement the new legislation.  My, what a wonderful system…House members elected every two years to insure they remain in touch with the people and pass legislation that is timely and relevant; a Senate where seasoned legislators can thoroughly vet the bill from the House and attempt to perfect the document; and an opportunity for the President to rarely use that veto power to test the validity of principle.  Why aren’t we doing this?

Show Me The Money.  Well Mr. Boehner…I guess the ball is in your court.  If you were to call time out and huddle up on courtside, hand me the clipboard and a marker, here is the play I would draw up: Tell them to show you the money.

Republicans have to face up to the fact that Obama was re-elected and that the Democrats held onto their majority status in the Senate.  Even though Obama’s victory was much, much closer (thin margin in almost every battleground state) than the Electoral College indicates, it was a victory nonetheless.  There is absolutely no way, if I were Boehner, one should allow the President to fight the upcoming legislative battles on the basis of rhetoric.  Mr. Boehner needs to keep his team together, communicate well, and do everything in his power to force the Democrats to put their ideas in writing.  This approach will result in one of two things.  First, nothing will happen because the Democrats will not create a paper trail of their positions that might come back to haunt them in two years and there will be endless discussion of blame assignment for the resulting gridlock, or….Second, Democratic proposals will be submitted to the floor, the Senate will pass them wholly, and the House will then grapple with the lost art of compromise.  Truly, therein lays the devil.  A certain amount of movement towards the President must be expected due to his successful campaign, but total capitulation will be almost impossible to swallow for most Republican Representatives. 

I would imagine the best approach for conservatives is a matter of conjecture; specifically, how will the economy perform under each scenario?  That, my friends, is truly the million dollar question.  Given the landscape we live in today, I would urge Mr. Boehner to boost team morale, know very well in advance what his limits on compromise are, and prepare for a long wait.

The Dilemma for Republicans.  Now that the election dust has settled, the big question for the markets, the business owners, and most everyone else who earns a paycheck is: Where do we go from here?  We had a divided government going into this cycle and there is nothing that has occurred that would lead one to believe that the division will be mitigated; in fact, it will likely worsen.  This President clearly feels empowered and mandated and shows every sign of pursuing full-bore his agenda; even to the point of heretofore never-seen explorations of executive privilege and power.  Perhaps the most important character to watch as this drama unfolds is not the President, but rather the majority leader in the House.  Mr. Boehner has a difficult job under the best of circumstances.  His rightwing group remains adamant in principle and unsatisfied with the performance of nominee Romney.  His moderate group has seen their credibility significantly diminished with the Romney loss.  His liberal group – well, he has no liberal group to speak of.  Mr. Boehner can continue to operate as he has over the past two years; seeking to derail any Administration or Senate action that he finds ideally objectionable through the use of majority levers or he can pursue a new tact of strategic surrender.   This new tact has been floated by a journalist or two and I find it to be quite interesting, if not well advised.  The thinking goes that the American voters clearly did not get the message that Democratic rule would ruin the country…economically, morally, and internationally.  It would continue that in order to conclusively drive this point home, House Republicans should basically roll over and let the Democrats have their way.  Certainly Ms. Pelosi, based on her recent comments, would gladly embrace this philosophy.  By doing do, Boehner and the Republicans lay the groundwork of clear accountability for the terrible consequences they see flowing from these Democratic policies.  By removing any semblance of Republican opposition, they will further clearly attach the practical results of the next two and four years to the Democrats.  It should also be carefully considered whether or not ceded ground in the name of accountability can be easily recovered in the name of consequence; that might be giving the American voter too much credit.  The other path would be to continue as he has over the last two years, operating within the limited bounds presented to a Republican House majority co-existing with a Democratic Senate and President; a formula that argues for a reactive rather than a proactive approach.  The problem with this approach, if doing your job as you were elected to do it is a problem, is that it leaves open the opportunity for the Democrats to claim obstructionism as the culprit if their agenda does not bear useful fruit. 

This situation is why I previously set forth that the best election results we could expect would be a single-party victory for Congress and the White House.  With that result, we would have eventually had a basis for clear accountability from a policy standpoint.  I fear what we will now have is a  continuation of the last two years; a muddled puddle of blame-shifting between the House, the Senate, and the President with each blaming the other for all the bad things that might happen and each falling over the other to take credit for the good things that might happen.  And…it will be left to the American voter to decide where the true blame or credit lies.  Good luck with that.

Post-Mortem Election Comment.  In my previous post, I made my election predictions and indicated my preferences.  My predictions were pretty terrible, as some (apparently the majority of those voting) might also categorize my preferences.  Whatever the case, here is a comment or two on the Tuesday outcome.

Regardless of your position on the policy debates that played out over this cycle, a very persuasive argument can be made that this presidential race was not won on the basis of policy, but rather on the basis of campaign aptitude.  That is not to say that many of the Obama voters did not embrace his policies; they did and they do.  I am simply suggesting that the “deciding” votes in the election were not based on policy questions that rise to the top of the national priority scale.  The plain and simple fact is that the Obama campaign was better at executing a winning strategy than was the Romney team.  Obama has the weight of his record to carry, but he also had the powers of incumbency to help bear the load.  Romney had the unenviable position of challenging an incumbent, but he was fighting an incumbent that was badly wounded by the state of the economy.  It could well be argued that the playing field was level.

Obama’s success in this race is tragic in the sense that it validates some of the worst aspects of the American electoral system.  As mentioned above, the “War on Women”, Romney’s record at Bain, and all the other misdirection that was thrown into the race likely resulted in the winning margin.  The fact that factual dishonesty, intentional deceit, unwillingness to directly address issues of top priority, and most of all, the shameful performance of the national media, resulted in this victory will do nothing to discourage its application in future political endeavors.   Rather, it will only encourage its future use.

This race, more than any other in my lifetime, placed two opposing views of our nation’s legitimate government role in clear and distinct contrast.  It is a monumental loss of opportunity that we did not have a straight and honest debate on these differing positions, both of which are valid in their own right.  I don’t think I am the only one wondering that had that more honest debate occurred, would the result have been the same.

State of the Race, 2 Days Out.  In my lifetime, this is certainly the most uncertain presidential race I have ever witnessed.  Being a rank amateur at election prognostication, I certainly don’t expect anyone to put much stock in what I predict.  Having said that, I will go ahead and state my expectation that Romney wins on Tuesday with 315 electoral votes.  I think he will win the popular vote by a count of 52 to 47, and I believe the Republicans will fall just short (a seat or two) of gaining control of the Senate.  The Republicans will retain control of the House.  If true, it is deeply regrettable that we will face the specter of a Republican President and House repeatedly knocking heads with a Democrat Senate; continued gridlock is not the electoral solution that I and many others were seeking this cycle.  It will certainly put the bipartisan skills (so highly touted by himself) of Romney to the test and will essentially guarantee (not a bad thing, in my opinion) that any legislation that passes will be center-right and not far-right.

For all of its venom, hypocrisy, and factual ineptitude, this campaign has served this nation well.  Two distinctly different visions have been set before the American voting public and any voter who has made any attempt to be self-informed has no excuse for not understanding the consequences of their vote.   We will get the Government we deserve. 

I personally believe that Romney clearly represents the best opportunity for this nation to get back on the right track towards attaining fiscal stability and vibrant economic health; I leave foreign policy status to those who are more informed and more intelligent.  However, for all of its pitfalls and clumsiness, our election process works.  If Obama is re-elected, with the likelihood in that instance of a Democrat Senate, the Democratic Party will be held clearly and directly accountable for the state of this nation over the next four years and that will establish the tone of the 2016 election cycle (notwithstanding the 2014 cycle).  Whatever your policy position, this is as it should be.  A party should be held accountable for its agenda and stand ready to accept either the benefits of success or the recriminations of failure. 

The puzzling thing to me is this: Given that Obama had a Democrat Senate and House for his first two years in office, along with the overwhelming good will of the American voting public, why would anyone expect any different agenda for a second term?  And if the foregoing statement is true, why in the world would anyone want to lock-in the current condition for the next four years?

“1980 In Slow Motion.”  That is a quote I read today from some professional pundit; I find it to be quite accurate.  The 2012 presidential race seems to be wrapping up and barring any totally unexpected event from left field, the cake would appear to be baked.  There is a momentum that has been gathering for the Romney campaign since the first debate and even though it has ebbed a bit here and there, it has nonetheless continued unabated and shows no sign of letting up.  It appears to be sweeping not only the nation, but more importantly the acclaimed swing states.  When I look at the campaign pictures on the internet and television, I am struck by the images of President Obama.  He seems to be like the struggling, frustrated, and tiring man trying to hold back the overwhelming weight that threatens to crush him.  The harder he struggles to combat it, the more frantic he becomes and the more desperate he appears.  Romney is increasingly more energetic and relaxed.  As we all know, both campaigns have the best pollsters in the business and have a very good idea where this whole deal is headed.

As I had written a few blogs back, the recognition is slowing sinking in that Ohio is quite possibly more essential to Obama than it is to Romney.  The current state of play begs the question: What if Romney now wins Ohio?  If, in fact, Romney wins Ohio, then it is quite likely that he will also win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (perhaps Michigan as well?).  Rather than the popular notion of a “razor thin” victory for one side or the other, we could very well be looking at a big win for Romney.  It is only reasonable to expect that if that big win occurs, then the close Senate races that will determine control of that body will tilt Republican.  Romney might very well be coming into office in January of 2013 with Republican control in the House and the Senate, and a big elector count, thus setting the stage for some very significant first-term legislation.

On the other hand, if Obama prevails in what would likely be a narrow electoral victory, he will be facing, at best, a Republican House and a Senate with a small Democrat majority; a perfect formula for gridlock and executive action adventures.  This same scenario might apply to Romney if he squeaks out a win and is unable to extend sufficient coattails to the Republican Senate candidates engaged in competitive races.  Either way, it is difficult to see how continuing tensions between our Legislative branch and our Executive branch bode well for dealing with the major issues facing our nation; issues such as the expiring Bush tax cuts, the continuing deficit and debt problem, immigration reform, and the Middle East tinderbox. 

If you look at the possible outcomes based solely on an “ability to govern” basis, I submit that the preferable outcome is a big Romney win.  Romney may not be the panacea that his campaign makes him out to be, but there is little doubt that his first two years in office will give the American voting public a glimpse of what Romney and Republican philosophies can or cannot do for the country and come November of 2014 and 2016, establish a good basis for how we would like to go forward.

Three Things To Improve Baseball.  I’ve been a baseball fan my whole life.  I was never a great player, but they never kept me from imagining (like millions of kids before me) being the hero in the bottom of the ninth inning.  I must say, however, that today’s game suffers in comparison to some of its sports competitors.  NFL games move much more quickly.  College basketball is much more passionate.  Even NHL playoffs, with their low scores, rate higher on the “action per minute” dial than major league baseball these days.

At the risk of showing my ignorance, I will suggest three things to improve the game for its many viewers; both in the parks and at home on the screen:

1.      Speed the game up.  How you do it is up to the folks who write the rules.  The constant stepping in and out of the batter’s box; the eternity between pitches; the deep thought processes that seem to occur between plays…all of this is dragging the game out.  Baseball is a game of anticipation leading up to action to begin with; we need more action and less anticipation.

2.      Implement instant replay.  Now how you do this, once again, is up to the rules makers.  There might be a replay official in the booth to view the film; there might be a limited number of challenges per team; it could even be discretionary for the umpires.  Whatever the circumstances of the process, there is far too much invested in potentially critical calls to rely on the fallible judgment of umpires who are not always that reliable; especially when a better system is readily available.

3.      Finally…what is up with the strike zone?  I swear there are some umpires who call more strikes balls than strikes strikes.  As I understand, the umpires have long claimed their unalienable right to call balls and strikes according to their own strike zone.  What possible purpose is there for having a strike zone in the rule book if it going to be adjusted by each and every different umpire that calls a game?  Whether or not the strike-trackers that we see on television are accurate, they clearly show that each umpire has their own ideas about high, low, and off the plate.  In my humble opinion, the game would be much improved by an increased effort to uniformly enforce a universal (see rule book) strike zone and to grade umpires on how accurately they call balls and strikes.

America’s pastime is still the great game it always was, but it has taken some hits over the last few years with strikes, lockouts, prima donna players, and Gordon Gecko owners.  A bit of tweaking around the edges might serve to bring some lost love back to the game that this type of drift has resulted in.

Both Sides of the Tolerance Coin.  There are moments in life that pass us by and we do not realize until later how very significant they might have been.  I’m not certain about this, but we (America) may have just had one of those moments.

 “The Book of Mormon” is a popular play currently on Broadway that satirizes the Mormon faith and Christianity in general.  It has either won or been nominated for, I think, nine Tony awards.  There are numerous instances over the last couple of decades where the National Endowment for the Arts has not only sponsored, but openly supported anti-Christian works of art all across this nation (Loveland?).  Hardly a month goes by without a State, County, or Local school board taking some type of action to make certain that our children are learning the valuable lesson of religious and cultural tolerance, yet we continue to see many of the tenets of the Christian faith, the faith that nourished the founding of our nation, removed from our schools and public facilities.  Now don’t get me wrong; I heartily support the separation of church and state when governing is considered in practice.  What I do not understand is how we give awards to a pair of gentlemen who produce a play that ridicules the Mormon faith while we drag a man out of his home in the dark of night in front of his family and friends for producing a trailer that ridicules the Muslim/Islam faith.  And now, to cap it all off, and following a litany of apologies for even feigning to defame the Muslim/Islam faith, our government officials are spending $70,000 to produce an apology film for any offense that “may have been” perpetrated by any particular Muslim-related piece of film, satire, or documentary emanating from America.  What the #$@* is wrong with this picture?

Webster defines tolerance as “being tolerant of others’ values, beliefs, practices, etc.”  How can we, as a nation, accept a premise that on the one hand demands tolerance beyond all reproach and question and, at the same time, practices extreme intolerance of any beliefs other than its own?  That is what we are seeing with the Muslim/Islam issues today.  While Muslim/Islam believers openly practice their faith in America, build their abodes of worship, and recruit newcomers to their beliefs, Christians across the Middle East are being persecuted.  That persecution extends not only to public distain and ridicule, but to the point of open hostility to the extreme of homicide and the destruction of their houses of worship.  Maher, Leno, Daly, Letterman, Saturday Night Live, Mad Magazine….the list goes on and on.  We have not only a history of tolerance in this country; we have a history of extreme tolerance.  Why is it that we demand anything less from the governments that we prop up with our foreign aid and political capital? 

There is political pragmatism and there is rank hypocrisy; I fear that what we are now seeing play out in this current Middle East crisis is not only the latter, but a total and unashamed abandonment of some of this great nation’s most precious principles.  The widening chasm between the political parties is another symptom of this trend.  Somehow, someway…a leader(s) must emerge to bridge the gulf and bring some semblance of function back to our government.  And we, as individuals, must further accept the fundamental truth that, as espoused by  liberals, there is a fundamental role for government in our lives and there are things that can be better served by government than the private sector.   There is also the right to live one’s life, as long as it does not infringe on the lives of others, in the legal fashion that they might choose to be personally and morally appropriate.  By the same token, liberals must better accept the fact that many conservatives value the founding documents of this nation dearly and would like to see a much greater adherence to those documents than we are currently witnessing.  The government is not the answer to all of society’s ills and America is heading towards a nanny-state condition.  Much like some middle-eastern governments, liberals must understand that if they demand tolerance for cultural decisions, they must in turn tolerate those who choose not agree with decisions.  I think the word I am looking for here is “civility”.  The tragedy is not so much that it has ceased to exist in America; the tragedy is that nobody seems to be looking for it.

Playing “The Game” to Win.  My life has been spent registered as either a Republican or an Independent.  I register Republican because my personal philosophies on government align more closely with their party; but I switch over to Independent when some of the influential idiots in the Republican Party forget that only the winners get to govern and start going their own way.

It is my opinion that one of the most inaccurate concepts in this election is that Mitt Romney is a weak candidate.  For the life of me, when I look at his resume and his overall (not individual) performances on the campaign trail, he is certainly not one of the weakest Republican candidates I have ever seen.  The truly amazing thing is that a great deal of this “weak candidate” chatter is coming from the Republican Party.    I don’t believe there has been or will be a more significant election cycle in my lifetime than the one coming up in November and I view the process as deadly serious and significant.  It infuriates me personally to see many Democrats take a more casual approach to the election, but I have realized that they have a much more effective strategy to win.  Each national party is composed of disparate groups and it is a continuing challenge for each to unify their groups behind their national candidates.  The Democrats seem to better understand this requirement and what some may call blind loyalty and irrational support would be classified by them as “playing to win the game”.  Republicans on the other hand seem to relish the role of being “political experts” and continue to dissect their candidates far past the point of good advisement (like now).  The taking heads on the blogs and radio are so very certain of their conservative principles that they do their utmost to wield whatever self-perceived influence they might have to continually fine-tune the Republican candidate.  In reality, this amounts to dithering while the Democrats long ago accepted their candidate and all his/her flaws and focus on the true point of elections…winning.  The truly amazing thing is that given these two approaches, the Republican Party stands to hold the House, has a decent chance to take the Senate, and is running neck-and-neck for the White House. 

An objective analysis will show that the majority of voting Americans agree more with Republican philosophies than with Democrat philosophies; it has been this way for awhile.  The simple truth, however, is that Republicans think it is sufficient to be more right than the Democrats and the candidate is just a vessel for the Party.  It might very well be the ultimate truth that the party is the vessel for the Candidate.

Is He Really “That” Good?  Under the watch of the President who was going to stop the rise of the oceans, heal the planet, write better speeches than his speechwriters, who knew more about foreign policy than his foreign policy experts, who would bring us the most transparent administration ever, who would have nothing to do with lobbyists and crony capitalism, and who would instantly, with his inauguration, heal all the outstanding wounds between America and the Muslim world…we now have the current middle east crisis and a simultaneous meltdown of  the U.S. economy.  If Obama is correct in saying that his lack of successful policy implementation is the mess he inherited from Bush, does that mean that if Romney wins in November, he will be totally unaccountable for all he heirs?  Because one can make a strong case that his legacy would be far more flawed than the one waiting for Obama.

There has been a theme woven throughout the Obama presidency; a theme of arrogance.  We have all seen those movies where the character can move at super-speed and this is illustrated by them moving through the room while everyone else remains still.  I honestly believe that this is how our President perceives himself in his current position.  He truly believes that he is “so” good, that all he has to do is show up for work, listen politely, and grace others with his glorious prose on selected occasions.  He moves through the room oblivious of those around him and cognizant only of himself and his purposes; ridiculing others at will and with no consequence.  Once the Democrats passed their health care legislation and Obama signed it, he gave up on governing and has put our government on auto-pilot in order to seek re-election; to do otherwise would have required lowering himself to deal with less stellar individuals, such as Senators and Representatives and Voters and that, no doubt, is challenging work.

What we have seen in the failure of both our national economy and foreign policy isn’t so much a sin of commission, but rather a sin of omission.  As Condi Rice so aptly stated at the Republican convention, when leadership is not exerted, it creates a vacuum...and that vacuum will be filled.  History may record that Obama’s auto-pilot methods were successful; the verdict may not yet be complete.  It has been argued on occasion that government is best that governs the least.  However, it also the hard truth that our greatest regrets involves not the things we did, but the things we didn’t do.  Another hard truth is that the Presidency is hard work, it requires making hard choices, and it requires taking actions in clear and unequivocal terms.   Whatever verdict history may deliver on the merit of Obama’s policies; the verdict is clear on his leadership…MIA.

Dueling Icons of Deniability.  My, but those Democrats do love them some Clinton; very much like those Republicans do love them some Reagan.  You would think that given their enshrinement in party lore, their records would reflect the bedrock principles of their respective parties.  I submit to you that a closer and broader reflection on their accomplishments tells a different story and that each party, in their loving embrace of the two icons, is in a state of denial.

One would think that each man’s record would reflect a “party platform’s worth” of conservative or liberal principles, but is that really the case?  A close examination of each President’s record shows that their most significant and effectual benchmarks were in fact products of bi-partisan actions; great examples of the two parties compromising in order to fashion legislation that truly reflected the “will of the people”.  Is it any surprise that both men started out their first terms as “firebrands” for their parties and encountered, in some form or fashion, a high degree of gridlock and resistance from the opposing party?  But each man, in his own way, learned to function in their office as a leader and producer of results.  This ability to evolve and grow resulted in some historical accomplishments for each man.  The American People recognize and respect results.

Watching the party conventions transpire over the last few days and reading their official platforms, one would think that the extreme factions in each control the policy apparatus of the organization; I would hope this is not the case.  Rather, I would  hope that each nominee, if fortunate enough to reach the magic 270 number in November,  will realize history has shown us that the only meaningful accomplishments of past Presidential icons have been of the bi-partisan nature; the kind that reflect the best thinking of both parties and their respective leaders. 

Like many others, I was hopeful that after the Democrats were soundly rebuked in the 2010 election cycle, Obama would turn towards the center and we would see some actual legislative progress over the last two years.  That obviously did not happen and, I am sure, there is sufficient blame for that failure on both sides of the political aisle.  However, the ultimate challenge lies with the ultimate leader and that is the President.  Of all the things that one might fault Obama for, this to me is the most damning.  The colossal expenditure of political capital on Obamacare in his first two years was, in hindsight, a huge miscalculation; a squandered opportunity.  But, a case can perhaps be made that the cause it represented was sufficiently important to Obama and the Democrats that they should spend whatever it took to get it done.  However, following the unambiguous message of the 2010 mid-term elections, President Obama would clearly have been served much better by finding some way to work with Boehner and McConnell to pass some good law and begin to clean up the mess this country is in.

This Is It?  I was thinking about a title for this note and Kenny Loggins solved the mystery for me.  The title applies to the three nights of Republican Convention I have just witnessed, concluding with tonight’s Romney acceptance speech.  And…it is not meant in a disparaging fashion; rather one of disappointment.

I have read with amusement that Romney is a weak candidate.  Per the media, this must be so because the economy is historically bad and the President is tied with Romney in the polls.  A Republican of better timbre would surely be several points ahead of a sitting president with such a dismal record.  I haven’t bought into this logic and still do not.  As presidential candidates go, I find Mitt Romney quite impressively qualified.  I have often wondered how it would work out to have an effective CEO for President and see if our government might function better if it is run as a business.  Agree or not with this proposition, one must admit that it is an interesting thought.  I think that Romney’s perceived (by some) weakness as a candidate is a result of media bias and the Republican Party’s eternal quest for the perfect candidate.    But I digress; back to the topic at hand.

Anticipating a business-like acceptance speech from this recently-crowned nominee, I was frankly looking forward to a refreshingly detailed approach to setting this country’s economy back on the path to prosperity.  Instead, I heard a fairly unimpressive regurgitation of highlights from the Romney Campaign for President Organization to date.  Now, I still believe that Romney is clearly the right choice for this election based simply on Obama’s poor performance and Romney’s clear qualifications for the job, but I must express significant disappointment in not hearing Romney totally buy-in to a business-like approach to government in tonight’s speech.  I heard nationalism, personal history, swipes at an all-too-easy-to–hit Obama record, and recycled platitudes to a convention hall full of ready-made disciples.  This will be an interesting 60+ days of Presidential campaigning to come and I wait with anticipation to see how the Democrats will rebut this Republican show next week.

Panic In the (Washington) Streets?  This has got to be a very scary time for the Obama campaign.  After waves of anti-Romney advertising at a cost that ran the campaign coffers into the red for a month, after several bad hits for the Republican party (nude swimming, idiotic remarks, imminent hurricanes), and the continuing “firewall” protection of the mainstream media, the Obama campaign now finds itself trailing and/or at best, even with the Romney campaign heading into the Republican National Convention.  Additionally, polls now seem to verify that the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate has propelled the Romney candidacy ahead in Wisconsin and Michigan and closing rapidly in Iowa.  All of a sudden, the conventional wisdom that no Republican can win the White House without Ohio is being questioned.  A mid-west scenario that puts Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa in the Romney column is shifting the complete dynamic of this presidential race.  If you do the electoral math, it is indeed conceivable that Romney could win this election without winning Ohio.  Or, to put it differently, suddenly there is the notion that Obama cannot win this election without winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa.  This new urgency to protect territory that was only yesterday considered to be safely tucked away is an added campaign expense and concern that an already embattled (or battling internally?) campaign really does not need at this time.

With new found momentum following the Ryan selection, this Romney surge in the polls going into Tampa has got to be the explanation for some of the bizarre actions being taken by the Obama campaign; such as stationing Biden at the Republican Convention on opening day and ignoring the traditional principle of lying low during your opponent’s convention.  Facing the prospect of actually being outspent in the remaining days of the campaign, it will be interesting indeed to watch how the Obama campaign spreads its already-diminished financial resources to cover these new battleground states.  One can only wonder what will happen if Romney goes into his convention with a one-or-two point lead in the polls, gets the traditional bounce following his convention to boost that lead to five-or-six points, and Obama’s convention bounce is effectively foiled by the immediately following employment and economic data release.  Acts of desperation may know no bounds and we may get an up close and personal view of how they do politics in Chicago.

The Most Significant Aspect of a Second Obama Term.  Even though the first two years of the Obama administration was blessed with control of Congress, and did in fact pass major legislation during that time; it can be argued that the most significant actions taken during this administration have been the executive initiatives it has pursued since the Republicans took control of the House in 2010.  At that time, it would appear obvious that the President gave up on any further legislative accomplishments and began to focus on two things: First, getting himself re-elected, and secondly, implementing his agenda through administrative and executive fiat.

It is during this second half of his term that we have received a very clear picture of the Obama vision for America.   For some, this is a celebration of sorts and a good reason to extend his authority for another four years.   For others, it not only borders on an abuse of executive power but also provides a troubling glimpse into what an unfettered President Obama may try to accomplish in a second term.  Unfettered?  Yes, unfettered by the concern of standing for another election and having to trifle with the representatives elected by the people and, for that matter, by the people themselves.  It would present to him an opportunity to work the vision that he is so very sure of into reality.  As convinced as he is that he is the best candidate for president, he is far more confident that he alone has the clarity of sight and the benefit of extraordinary wisdom to shepherd this country to the place it should be. 

Regardless of who we elect as our next president, it is essentially guaranteed that the House will remain in the hands of the Republicans.  The Senate will either remain under Democratic control clearly or by default due to a pair of Independents who caucus with the Democrats.  If the Republicans were to gain control of the Senate, it will only be legislatively relevant if they also gain control of the White House.  If they achieve majority Senate status and lose the White House, we will essentially have the same environment of stalemate that currently exists.  On the other hand, a Republican sweep of both the White House and the Senate will indeed usher in a term of significant change in this country’s leadership and, quite likely, in its policy direction.

So it would seem that come January of 2013, we as a nation will be heading down a very different road.  Either we will have a new Republican philosophy implemented that essentially wipes the slate clean and begins anew…or…we will have an emboldened Obama administration that will test as never before the ability of the Executive branch of government to exert its influence over the way this nation does business.  Is it any wonder that our economy is reflecting uncertainly about what tomorrow holds?

Agriculture Subsidies: How Much is Too Much?  There is likely as much misconception about government support of agriculture in this country as there is about any federal program.  A lot of that misunderstanding is due to the fact that even though the Department that serves as the vessel for ag subsidies is called Agriculture, the majority of the money it spends would be better identified as belonging under another federal cabinet.  In reality, the actual farmers in this country receive a fairly small percentage of the entire USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) budget.  So, the first point I would like to submit is that when you consider the very small percentage of total federal expenditures dedicated to supporting active farmers and relate that to the fact that our country enjoys the most diverse, affordable, and abundant food supply on the planet….well, that is a bargain in anyone’s mind.  On the other hand, if you want to disagree about exactly how those limited funds are actually spent or the policy that drives the payments, then that can be fodder for a very long and worthy discussion.

The role of government in agriculture is as essential as the money we spend on defense.  The best equipped soldier in the world is subpar if they are hungry.  Food and fiber, the elements supported by USDA, are a critical part of each American’s life and our ability to feed ourselves and a large part of the world’s population gives our country strength and leverage that could be obtained in no other fashion.  The tricky part is this: It is the government’s goal to insure the survival of agriculture while not insuring the survival of each individual farmer.

While business investment is as varied as our culture, farming certainly is one of the most unique of all.  It is the only business I can think of where the owner/operator buys inputs at retail and sells their finished product at wholesale.  And even though there is some safety net available through government programs and federal crop insurance, the ability to make an annual profit is pretty much dependent on the fickle lady herself…mother nature.  It is a lonely feeling indeed to borrow on all you have to plant a crop and then have to sit back and pray for the right weather to bring in a decent harvest. 

Probably the second largest misconception about agriculture is the environmental attacks that it constantly endures.  Not to say that there is not any criticism warranted; there certainly is.  Pesticides that are absolutely essential to obtaining adequate crop yields for reasonable profit need improved research prior to commercial release.  Even though the overwhelming majority of farmers are the world’s greatest conservationists (they HAVE to be, their livelihood depends on the land), the stewardship of our natural resources requires constant vigilance.  There are certain feeding practices in the livestock industry, especially the feeder operations out west, which could use a bit more scrutiny and transparency in regards to guaranteeing a wholesome product.  But all things considered, the people who till the land to produce food and fiber and the people who manage livestock to feed so many do so in the context of a business that finds rewards hard to come by but is riddled with risks.  Most farmers farm because they were born into that profession and because they have a deep, abiding love and respect for the land and what it can produce.  They love the independence of the profession and take pride in surviving the personal trials it entails.  You have to realize this: Once we lose a farmer (once they sell out and move to another vocation), they are typically not replaced.  It falls to the other men and women in agriculture to pick up the slack and to increase production accordingly. The average age of the American farmer is not 20-something, it is late 50-something.  The 20-somethings are their children that hopefully decide to stay with the family operation rather than move out of agriculture into another sector of our economy.

Once again, I do not advocate that a farmer be guaranteed business success by our government simply because they feed our nation and much of the planet.  Like all business, farming is choice and there are inherent risks that go along with the potential rewards.  But it would be the height of foolishness to cut all support for American agriculture and run the risk of the industry failing.  You think the banks were too big to fail?  You think the oil shortage, gas lines, and high gas prices were painful?  Let this country get in a position where it is unable to feed itself and we will all quickly learn how another country’s will can be exercised when they have something you need.

So the next time sometime comments to you about a rich farmer driving a new pickup truck, living in a big house, and using all new equipment….well, just don’t buy into that.  It ain’t the real world.  Those boys are out there, but they don’t last too long. It’s the ones that have some holes in the shed walls and roof, some rusted sheet metal on their equipment, somewhere north of 100,000 miles on their pickup, and depend on their wife’s help to get the work done and her job to keep health insurance; those are the ones toting the load.  They need their kids and friends to lean on when a crisis hits through weather events or health failures.  They have to dig deep every spring and convince themselves, once again, to mortgage all they have in order to put out a crop on a promise of rain showers and sunshine.  They have to trust that if everything breaks their way and they actually bring in a good harvest, they will actually receive a fair price for their product when they sell….hopefully for more than they have in it.  Folks…farming is everybody’s bidness…and THAT is the truth.  Argue about the policies and the programs; argue about the efficiency of the government support delivery systems; argue about the balance between subsidy and free markets; but never doubt the wisdom in the small government investment that insures that each of us and our children will be able to eat today and tomorrow.    

More Gun Control?  In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre tragedy, there is new energy in the debate about laws regarding gun ownership in America. An old saying goes something like….”you can compromise on practice, but never on principle”.  There is lot of truth to this nugget, but the rub comes when we try to distinguish practice from principle.  The far left on this issue wants guns out of the hands and homes of citizens and the sole property of law enforcement and the military.  The far right demands that it is our right as Americans to own any type and just as many of any gun that we choose.  Once again, the sensible solution lies somewhere in between.

There is no question that Americans have a right and privilege, guaranteed and provided by our founding fathers, to own guns for their self protection.  This right should be further extended to the areas of hunting and sport shooting.  On the other hand, it is hard to justify exactly why any common man or woman should want to won an automatic weapon such as an AK47 or similar firearms designed for assault and attack.

I was born and raised in a rural area.  I hunted as a youth and even though I no longer participate in hunting, I allow my friends to hunt on my property and have no objection to it.  I own several guns, but none would be considered assault or attack weapons.  My home is somewhat isolated in the country and there have been occasions in my adult life when the rifle or shotgun has come off the wall when something strange goes “bump in the night”.  On the occasions when I have had to travel overnight from home, I have taken comfort in the fact that wife has a handgun within reach and knows how to use it if the need presents itself.

Obviously, I have no objections of gun ownership.  However, I do believe that it is absolutely reasonable to expect gun owners to be accountable for this privilege and deal with it responsibly.  I have no problems with outlawing commercial sales of certain types of assault or attack weapons that have no practical application in hunting or sport.  Further, I have no problem with registering my firearms and being held responsible for their control and management.  I know that many gun rights folks say that gun registration is simply a “foot in the door” and the next step will be outlawing guns entirely.   Unfortunately, there is some validity to this concern.   There are people in positions of power who will use gun registration as a stepping stone to a higher goal.  However, the issue at hand today is not that higher goal.  The issue today is trying to strike a balance between the right to own private arms and the common sense use of laws to protect society.  Even though it certainly will not solve all of our gun control problems in this country, outlawing certain types of guns and requiring responsible ownership through registration are two very good steps in the process.

The Fiscal Cliff.  Once again, our Congress is nearing an impasse on a critical element of necessary governance: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.   The common sense solution to this issue is clearly to extend the current tax rates for one year; giving “whomever” is elected President in November an opportunity to work out some type of tax reform with the new Congress.  It is difficult to understand why the Democrats do not understand the wisdom of this course.  Perhaps they have gazed into their crystal ball and see that with little or no chance of regaining control of the House, increasing the upper tax rate is the best outcome they can hope for in the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, Republicans are likely relishing the notion they will retain the House and possibly gain the Senate and White House, thus giving them relatively free reign to rewrite the tax laws.   If we accept both of these assumptions, the largest negotiation margin must lie with the Republicans.  If they now concede to an increase in the higher rates in return for continuing all others and preventing a trip over the cliff, they should have an opportunity next year to rewrite the agreement more to their liking when they assume greater control of government. 

A case can be made both to leave the rates intact until after the coming election in order to allow the “will of the people” to made evident and to pursue the Democratic position of raising the upper rates for now and dealing with the “larger” reform issue later. 

For me, rationality dictates that the simplest course is the best course; and that course is to simply extend the current rates.  It has become such an ordeal for this Congress to agree on anything that adding necessary civility to the formula does nothing more than to guarantee stalemate and likely failure. 

IMMIGRATION REFORM.  Ours is a nation of laws; so very many laws.  It can be argued that religious freedom is the founding principle of our country; perhaps so.  But equally essential is our fundamental belief that the every man, woman, and child has a right to the "pursuit of happiness" and all the other privilege bestowed by our Bill of Rights.  Adherence to law as it is properly promulgated is required for our Bill of Rights to remain vital and effective.  If this premise is accepted, there can be salient points to be made regarding immigration reform.  First, we must define and enforce the immigration law in its current form;  that is clearly one of the proper roles of Government.  Second, if that law is found wanting, we, through our Congress and President, must change that law to better reflect the will of the people.  Once that law exists, then we must allow our Judicial branch of government to independently enforce the administration of that law.  Regardless of their feelings about the wisdom or parity found in our current immigration law, the Obama administration is wrong to try and change that law via selective enforcement.  The office of the President is blessed with many powers and authorities that should permit it to work its will, to the extent permitted by the Constitution, on existing law that it finds issues with; this is the proper route for the Administration to pursue.  Once exercised, this demonstration by them of their beliefs and principles will stand the test of the electoral process and the will of the people (at least those who choose to participate) will be worked.  What the Obama administration is doing by choosing to ignore selected portions of current law is a perversion of our Constitution and the premises upon which this nation was built.  It is fair and proper to argue the merits of an issue; it is not fair and proper to change the rules of the game (when the opportunity presents itself through a sheer powerplay) in a fashion not originally prescribed in an effort to foist personal standards of  moral and ethical behavior on the people our government represents.

If the Obama administration chooses to elevate immigration reform to a high level of political contention, it is incumbent upon them (and anyone else who makes that same choice) to not only talk about the changes it desires but to properly seek those changes through the constitutional process.  It should be the course of this Administration to either allocate its legions of talent and resources to the task of authoring an immigration reform bill for consideration by Congress or work that same process through a surrogate representative on Captiol Hill.