Obama in a recent NBC interview "acknowledges that the fall elections could amount to a referendum on his stewardship of the nation's affairs."
One can only hope. Let's ask the over 3 million additional unemployed since Obama took office whether employers have confidence in Obama's stewardship. Let's ask investors, including foreign investors, how much faith they have in a strong dollar under Democratic trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Let's ask small business owners whom are facing possible health care tax penalties and sharply higher tax rates at year end and increasing mandates from the government whether they have confidence. Let's ask bondholders how they feel about the Obama Administration's overt cronyism on behalf of lower-standing union interests during the auto company bankruptcies. Let's ask senior citizens if a smoke-and-mirrors health care plan based on phantom Medicare cuts doesn't put their health security at risk, never mind guarantee their access to a shrinking supply of willing providers, whom already lose money even with "doc fixes". Let's ask citizens how they feel about Obama forcing layoffs in the Gulf of Mexico region and in shaking down a corporation to pay benefits to other companies' workers. Let's ask the people how credible Obama is on economic affairs after selling a nearly $1T stimulus bill on the promise it would cap unemployment at 8%...
Obama further said that the midterm congressional elections could come down to "a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess." Say what? Obama wants to take credit for expanding on Bush's economic intervention--TARP came from the Bush Administration. Ask the Republican incumbents whom this year lost races because of their TARP vote is between Bush and Obama or against both Bush and Obama. Ask the Tea Party members what they think about Bush's spending record. Nobody on the right is running on behalf of creating yet another unfunded mandate, like Bush's Medicare drug prescription benefit. Nobody on the right is proposing government expansion in the fashion of the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know who the hell Obama thinks he's running against, but we conservatives are running on a different set of policies.
In fact, both administrations faced the results of asset bubble collapses--Bush faced a huge stock market correction, not to mention the financial scandals and 9/11, which almost took out the travel industry. What does Obama do? His one biggest decision is who heads the Federal Reserve, and he picked Bush's replacement of Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanki. Both administrations benefited from easy money, both of them funded large government growth and massive benefits, and both of them bungled disasters--Katrina and the BP oil spill.
The real choice involves recognizing the boundaries between the private sector and government. Bush, who had a Harvard MBA and ran businesses before becoming a 6-year governor of one of the largest states in the country, at least knew his limitations; Obama has only managed to meet a payroll on budgets with more than trillion dollar deficits (which would send any private sector business into bankruptcy) and creates 2500-page bills which by their very nature violate the rule of law. He asserts that HIS policies, i.e., the stimulus and his meddling in the economy, have worked and have bettered the economy. We conservatives believe that he is in a state of denial and will face his day of reckoning. He has lost a long string of high-profile elections, and even Democrats who are winning are keeping their distance.
Political Potpourri
Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio, favorites of Tea Party groups, have dropped even with or below their main challengers. I have this love-hate relationship going with the Tea Party; I generally agree with them philosophically, but picking idiosyncratic candidates like Sharron Angle can be counterproductive. I have very clear principles and convictions, but I'm also a problem solver, a pragmatist. I would have handled social security reform and immigration reform much differently than Bush did.
It's a subtle point but I'll give an example. Over 10 years ago, I tried to get onto a high-profile IT project for my company; key analysts on the project resisted, distrusting my influence and motivation. They spent months designing and testing their approach; the end result was to generate a mailing list of several million people over the Fourth of July weekend. After they kicked off the job, they generated about 1 person every 15 minutes. I got a call on the Fourth for help. Two days later, they had their mailing list, on schedule, despite the fact I had not attended a single project meeting. I built credibility and influence; I didn't have to attack other people. You see, I didn't win when I delivered the mailing list. I won when they called me. I didn't tell them, "I told you so." I know I could deliver for the customer, and what was important was the customer. If I took care of the customer, the other stuff would work out to my benefit. It never was a zero-sum game for me. But like every great baseball pitcher, I wanted the ball with the game and the season on the line. But if I didn't get the ball, I would do whatever it took for the team to win, even if it meant catching in the bullpen.
Sharron Angle has almost 4 months to make up the difference with Reid. The Tea Party folks who put the ball in her glove have their credibility on the line: if they can't beat Harry Reid, they are finished. Now the good news is an incumbent senator with less than 50% public approval is dead man walking. Losing 44-37 is a lot better than losing 54-46. It means 19 percent are undecided. If people are undecided about whether to vote the Senate Majority Leader back in, chances are, those votes are going to break heavily for the challenger. Sharron needs to understand two basic things going into this November's election: First, she doesn't need to throw red meat at conservatives. She has the Tea Party vote, she has my endorsement, etc. There's a lot to be said about motivating your base to get people out to vote, but she's pushing on a string. Conservatives would walk through a blizzard to vote against Harry Reid. Second, she has to soften her image, sound more pragmatic, and make Harry Reid eat every deficit dollar he has spent as Senate Majority Leader, every Cornhusker Kickback, Gator-Aid and Louisiana Purchase. She should ask each of the 12% unemployed Nevada residents if they feel better off with Harry Reid in the Senate.
Political Cartoon
Chip Bok probably should have also included a very frustrated Barack Obama. You see, when he was dreaming of building a vast progressive government empire as a candidate, he really liked what one Founder, Benjamin Franklin had to say: "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Love and marriage, death and taxes... He of course thought by that, progressive governments were entitled to a payout when a person dies. Here we are; the latest thing Obama is sure to bash Bush for--not making Uncle Sam the biggest beneficiary at the reading of George Steinbrenner's will.
No doubt if ABBA, like McCartney, won a prize from the Library of Congress, Obama would join them on stage during the singing of his favorite song "Money, Money, Money", with slightly modified lyrics: "In my dreams I have a plan, if I got me a wealthy man, I wouldn't have to settle small, when I could tax and spend it all."
Quote of the Day
It is less important to redistribute wealth than it is to redistribute opportunity.
Arthur Vandenberg
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1996
Joan Osborne, "One of Us"
Los Del Rio, "Macarena"
Céline Dion, "It's All Coming Back To Me Now" (my second favorite Céline song) ["To Love You More"]
Donna Lewis, "I Will Love You Always Forever"
The Tony Rich Project, "Nobody Knows"
