Some people are always grumbling because roses have thorns. I am thankful that thorns have roses.
Allophones Karr
Roger Simon, "President O'Carter? Nah": Thumbs DOWN!
Are we really surprised some overrated liberal columnist and Politico chief columnist would write a column like this? I mean, this is a guy whom literally said, "We will stipulate that [Obama is] the greatest orator of modern times..." Oh, PLEASE! In what sense? Style or content? In content, Obama's speeches are replete with trite observations; they lack anything truly substantive or novel in nature. They are formulaic, with the requisite anecdotal references to the guest of the moment but which come across, like the vast majority of his speeches, as professorial, abstract, even boring. There's also something I personally pick up which is a huge turnoff: he comes across to me as someone whom seems to take the exaggerated praises of his oratory by his suppliants (like Chris Matthews and Simon) as matter of fact. There is nothing wrong with being confident, but Obama goes beyond that; it's almost like I can hear him thinking, "Damn, I'm good!"
I've heard lots of people with better speaking skills--clergymen, motivational speakers, military personnel, actors, etc. I have mentioned in past posts that I've been in the zone on multiple occasions when I know I've had the attention of everyone in the room waiting on what I was going to say next; probably the most unusual performance I did at a Maundy Thursday joint reading of the Passion at a UH Newman Mass, where I read the part of Pontius Pilate. (I guess they just felt I was the right person to read the part...) The last thing I expected was to get comments about my part in the reading, but there was this slightly mentally challenged woman whom made a beeline for me right after Mass, gushing how my performance reminded her of miracle plays from her youth. (Yeah, I was confused: I was playing the role of arguably the worst villain in history: the man whom had Jesus Christ executed.) Also, I picked up a small number of awards for short speeches from a group like Toastmasters. Granted, these weren't political speeches, and some might even argue that some of my blog posts are almost as boring as Obama speeches--but seriously: how does Roger Simon's credibility stand up given the fact that Obama has never given a speech even in the same ballpark at Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in either style or substance? The Cairo speech? Are you kidding me?
In fact, I thought the two finest pieces of oratory during the 2008 campaign were not from Obama, but from an unlikely source--John McCain. During his acceptance speech at the GOP convention, he had two riveting moments: when he confessed how his North Vietnamese captors had broken him. For a legitimate American hero to say something like that was totally unexpected--something Obama's narcissism would never allow him to say. Then there was the electric "stand up and fight" ending, totally unlike Obama's snoozefest acceptance speech in Colorado. The second oratory of note was his gracious concession speech; McCain had to know being up against a telegenic, charming black politician right after an ill-timed economic tsunami raised issues of economic security, a traditional Democratic issue in a change election year where the incumbent had an approval rating near 30%, not to mention up against a massive war chest, that he wasn't going to win.
The current Roger Simon column really deals with a recent book by another author where Obama makes reference to being a policy wonk like Carter and Clinton. OH, BE SERIOUS! Mitt Romney puts all 3 of them to shame. Obama and Clinton are/were lawyers; Carter was a farmer. Romney holds Harvard law and MBA degrees; as a venture capitalist, he relishes in the kinds of detail in financial statements that glaze Obama's eyes over. Obama's last submitted budget to the Senate didn't get a single Democratic vote; that alone tells you everything you need to know. Even if you look at RomneyCare, Romney's approach was truly innovative. He was determined to head off HillaryCare, Massachusetts edition; he was facing a loss of Medicaid funding, he got across-the-board tax-free status (a cherished conservative reform); he headed off a public option; he didn't agree to payroll taxes. He also wanted to waive a mandate if you could show financial responsibility.
But here's the quote which really annoyed me: "Obama faces a bad economy but launched a daring military mission that killed Osama bin Laden, rescued the U.S. auto industry, prevented global economic collapse and passed a historic health care bill. He also will not face a primary challenger and nobody in the general election who is even the shadow of Reagan when it comes to campaigning." He earlier pointed out some of Carter's problems: facing a skilled politician in Reagan, stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and the decision to boycott the Moscow Olympic Games).
Where do we start with this? First of all, it's not true that Obama "rescued the US auto industry"; Ford Motor Company never filed for bankruptcy, Obama, in fact, delayed the day of reckoning (Simon either has bad memory or is intentionally forgetting the facts), arguing that no one would buy a car from a bankrupt company. Bankruptcy didn't necessarily mean that GM and Chrysler would stop producing cars; companies emerge from bankruptcy proceedings all the time (just like GM and Chrysler did, only with Obama's crony union stipulations). So why, after sinking taxpayer money into GM and Chrysler, did Obama do exactly what he said he wouldn't--file for bankruptcy? The UBL killing? Let's point out that UBL had been on the run for most of the decade, the key information leading to his whereabouts was developed during the Bush Administration, any Republican President probably would have executed UBL before Obama given the information, and UBL's killing had primarily symbolic, not substantive value. "Prevented economic collapse?" ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE. The key issue during the economic tsunami was a question of liquidity, which is the province of the Federal Reserve, not TARP funding. Moreover, the TARP legislation was passed several weeks BEFORE the election; Bush handed over the keys almost 4 months later after TARP was passed. "Passed a historic health care bill?" Note that this "historic" bill passed without a single GOP vote and was opposed by the American people for months before it passed, and it continues to be unpopular; multiple court rulings suggest the guts of ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Roger Simon also forgets a few other things: unlike Obama, Carter did not see an election flipping control of the House of Representatives. For those whom think the Olympics are important, how about the humiliation of Obama putting his prestige on the line seeking and losing (in the first round) Chicago as a host city? Carter may have lost Iran, but Obama lost Egypt. As for Kennedy's challenge and Iran, Simon forgets to mention Carter's ratings essentially doubled (a traditional American response to leadership in a crisis) after the Iranian international crime of taking embassy personnel hostage, while Kennedy's slipped after being unable to articulate why he wanted to be President in a nationally televised interview before the primaries came around. In terms of Reagan, once again, Roger Simon has selective memory: the Democrats were ecstatic that the GOP chose conservative Reagan over moderate Bush. They were in essence arguing (just like today) that the GOP had been hijacked by ideological extremists. Finally, let's recall that the unemployment rate around the time of the 1980 election was 7.2%. Over two years into a recovery, Obama is still around 9% unemployment.
Roger Simon overestimates the role of charisma. Consider Mitt Romney: he has credible administrative experience in both the public and private sector. He has proven himself to be a first-rate debater, and he looks and sounds the part as President. He has a detailed knowledge about the issues and can think on his feet. He's also several years younger than either Reagan or McCain when they ran for President. What Mitt should be able to say is that Obama simply tries to repackage various spending proposals, none of which have significantly improved labor utilization. Obama has not engaged in much-needed entitlement reforms, bringing the day of reckoning sooner. I think next year what people will vote for in results, not rhetoric. I think voters will look for competence, not "words, just words".
Lightening Round
- Ugandan Intervention. Thumbs DOWN! Say, Nobel Prize committee, how is that Peace Prize you awarded a couple of years ago working out? Obama continued his stealth scope creep intervention policies which have expanded drone attacks beyond the Pakistan autonomous region and multiple insertions of ground troops in Libya recently. John Glaser notes, "Obama’s military interventions were difficult to count even before this latest engagement. But his administration’s martial proclivities are proving to be vastly more wide-ranging than his hawkish predecessors." However worthy the purported humanitarian aims, our national security interests are not at stake.
- Romney Staking Out a Strong Military Policy. “I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple. If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president. You have that president today." I understand the importance of appealing to the military conservative base. There are several substantive grounds for criticizing Obama as unquestionably the worst commander-in-chief in decades: at the same time Obama has been bloating the federal budget with domestic spending priorities (hence exposing to all concerned the sham rationalization of fiscal austerity), he has made asymmetrical significant cuts in next-generation military investments, effectively consuming the seed corn of our nation's future security. Obama's cuts are based purely on ideology. Moreover, his decision making (e.g., the Afghanistan surge) has been inconsistent, reflecting not intrinsic mission risk but extraneous factors. Finally, he has sought to expand dubious national security missions (e.g., Libya and Uganda: cf above). The US military has been overextended, with an undue amount of resources devoted to missions beyond its core competencies (i.e., nation building and humanitarian missions). Romney needs to point out what we already know: federal spending is out of control, and we need to live within our means. including domestic and military spending. This means choosing our fights more carefully; unlike Obama, this doesn't mean adherence to a political ideology, but on putting the nation's legitimate national security interests first. It is time for other nations to step up, particularly in various regions. I also want to hear less of a strident, jingoistic tone and more of an optimistic, confident tone.
- Iran and the Saudi Ambassador Assassination Plot. I am very concerned about hawks seeming to agitate for military action against the theocratic dictatorship. I do support the concept of regime change, including support for the green movement in Iran, but the kind of crime being described is not an act of war against the US. It's more of an international criminal act and arguably an act of war by Iran against Saudi Arabia. We should reassure the defense needs of our regional allies.
- Axelrod Tips His Hand Over Romney Candidacy. It's very clear next fall we won't be seeing any remakes of Reagan's famous 1984 "It's Morning Again in America" campaign, despite Obama's disingenuous sudden affection for Ronald Reagan. I've been saying in this blog for some time now I expected the typical negative campaign for reelection that we saw for Gray Davis in California and Rod Blagojevich in Illinois. (Of course, attack ads are fairly standard political fare, but in the case where the incumbent has mediocre approval ratings, it's the only real option.) Axelrod seems to correctly recognize, despite Cain's rise in the polls, that the real threat to Romney's attainment of the nomination is Rick Perry. In fact, until the recent debate performances, Perry seemed in a particularly strong position to sweep the southern states except perhaps for Florida. Axelrod would love nothing better than a prolonged battle for the nomination with Romney's rivals handing Obama's reelection campaign ammunition for the fall campaign. The longer the activist conservatives and Tea Party operatives force Romney to defend his share of the conservative base, the better opportunity for Obama to try to hoodwink moderates and independents of his "centrism". Axelrod seems anxious for Perry to rediscover Romney's view shifts on things like abortion. (I've already pointed out these are less potent than Axelrod wants others to believe. For example, when Romney unsuccessfully ran against Kennedy for his Senate seat, Kennedy questioned Romney's then pro-abortion choice view. Romney explained his position reversal during his gubernatorial term in terms of making his public policy view consistent with his personal view. It is not unusual for one's personal view to be different than a public policy view. I don't approve of flag-burning or recreational drug usage, but I'm concerned whether prohibition is prudent public policy.) I think Axelrod's analysis is fatally flawed for a couple of reasons: first, that card was played by McCain and Huckabee campaigns back in 2008 and wasn't really that successful, and Romney's views have remained consistent since then. Second, Obama has far more glaring examples of broken promises and flip flops, e.g., halving the deficit, the stimulus' effect on unemployment, Gitmo closing, the KSM trial, class warfare tax hikes, etc.
Moody Blues, "The Voice". One of the most glorious arrangements and performances of any song in the rock era, certainly the 70's. My favorite overall Moody Blues tracks came in the 1980's (upcoming). On my 70's shortlist: "Nights in White Satin", "I'm Just a Singer in a Rock 'N Roll Band" and this song.
