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?