"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born"
By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert
I wrote this booklet because I believe a strong country must rest on a solid family unit.Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."
I hope this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.
Please Buy My Booklet - Half The Proceeds Go To "The Wounded Warrior Project!"
You can now order a .pdf version from www.brokerberko.com/book that you can download and read on your computer, or even print out if you want.
The booklet only costs $5.99.
Also feel free to forward this to anyone on your own e mail list and encourage others to order a copy.
---
----
Now let's have a little humor from the young set! (See1 below.)
----
Newt is quirky but he is also bright, capable and insightful. (See 2 below.)
Not a bad idea either. Particularly vis avis Pat Caddell. (See 2a below.)
---
Can the West win against long term strategic thinkers with a mission? (See 3, 3a and 3b below.)
---
Would it not be nice if the upcoming debates were about something substantive. (See 4 below.)
And juicing the polls - why? (See 4a below.)
Certainly Obama can win but what kind of a message would that send even to ourselves, forget to the rest of the world?
It is fairly evident our nation is not better off than it was some four years ago by any objective valuation. Yes, the market is up but that is mostly because The Fed chose to increase our debt and with the prospects of increased, and maybe crippling, inflation down the road. Housing has started to recover and maybe it has truly bottomed.
Get past those two specifics and we have enormously increased debt, The Middle East is in flames, our nation has been more divided by Obama than healed. We find a world that no longer looks upon America as a nation capable of leading and thus no longer feared. Just about everything
Obama has tried in the foreign arena has failed.
We continue to flail in Afghanistan and Iran could care less about our empty threats. We have alienated Israel and perhaps that was Obama's goal in view of his Muslim empathy and background.
On the domestic front the picture is equally challenging. His policy initiatives have discouraged capital formation, created uncertainty and his own government spending selections have resulted in significant bankruptcies.
Consumers are conflicted and continue to shed personal debt as unemployment remains stuck well above 8%.
Would an Obama victory signal America has given up and is willing to go with the flow because it is reluctant to bite the bullet or does it signify Romney ran a campaign that was unconvincing and Obama's team were effective in painting him into a corner and trashing his character from which he never recovered?
Either way, will America be better off if Obama continues to take us down the same road we have traveled for the past four years? Obviously I do not think so. In fact I believe we will find our- selves significantly worse off and maybe beyond the point at which future presidents will be able to help restore our nation to greatness. Is that what we are about? Is that what we are ready to do to ourselves because the press and media have decided that is what they want for our nation as they circle the wagons in order to protect their 'man?'
Would an Obama election signify the man in the street is no longer able to reason beyond that which he hears and reads? Has our abysmal lack of the understanding of fundamental economics become an indelible blight on our powers to reason logically?
Have we become so single issue oriented that we have lost sight of how to prioritize and incapable of weighting? Have we become so dependent upon entitlements we are driven by self greed and have no hope of being able to lift ourselves or feel an obligation to even do so?
I believe Romney lacks charisma, has failed to articulate his message as clearly as I would have wished and has failed to build that bridge I write about that many are willing to cross but need their convictions elevated by a clearer reason to come to the other side.
Romney has proven he has the skill sets to solve gnarly and knotty problems. Obama had nothing in his resume or background to justify his election other than rhetorical hype and an adoring press and media which dumped their previous darling - Hillary! We have paid dearly for Obama's hope and change which proved to be mostly a mirage. The mirage I always saw and wrote about.
Do we really want four more years of the same? If so why? Is their anything empirical to prove we will be better off? Does being better off count for anything or have we become so dispirited we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to zombies?
Everyone is looking to Romney to present his solutions yet make few comparable demands of Obama. The press and media swallow the Obama line hook and sinker. They protect him in foreign matters as they have domestic. Daily we see everything Obama planned and/or promised turn to ashes,whether it be The Middle East, Afghanistan, domestic employment, the national debt and the list is endless. Yet, everything you read and hear tell you we want to re-enlist and give him four more years. For what? More of the same?
As the article below suggests according to Obama his election will send a message to Republicans. I am more concerned about the message it will send to ourselves and the world!
WAKE UP AMERICA! (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) 1. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHOM TO MARRY? (written by kids)
You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports, she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep the chips and dip coming.
-- Alan, age 10
No person really decides before they grow up who they're going to marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later who you're stuck with.
-- Kristen, age 10
2. WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
Twenty-three is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then.
-- Camille, age 10
3. HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
You might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.
-- Derrick, age 8
4. WHAT DO YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
Both don't want any more kids.
-- Lori, age 8
5. WHAT DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
Dates are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
-- Lynnette, age 8 (isn't she a treasure)
On the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.
-- Martin, age 10
6. WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
When they're rich.
-- Pam, age 7 ( Love her )
-The law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with that.
- - Curt, age 7
-The rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you should marry them and have kids with them. It's the right thing to do.
- - Howard, age 8
7. IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
It's better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to clean up after them.
-- Anita, age 9 (bless you child )
8. HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T GET MARRIED?
There sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
-- Kelvin, age 8
And the #1 Favorite is .......
9. HOW WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?
Tell your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump truck. -- Ricky, age 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
HOW TO DEBATE PRESIDENT OBAMA
The elite news media is doing everything they can to convince Romney’s supporters that the election is lost.
Americans will be tuning in that evening to see if Governor Romney turns this media narrative on its head.
This will be the first time Americans will see President Obama and his challenger side by side.
This will be the largest audience to watch the two men side by side without editing or distortion by the media. If Romney wins this debate, the next debate will have an even larger audience. If he loses it, the elite media will be giddy in its intense reporting of an Obama victory and the Obama team will be giddy and energized by the proclamation of victory.
The media will attempt to pounce on a strong Obama debate and try to bring back up Bain Capital, 47 percent, income tax returns and a host of wounds as perceived by the left.
On the other hand, a Romney victory will destroy the false media narrative that is determined to avoid President Obama’s failure. Suddenly, unemployment over 8 percent, gasoline rising from $1.89 when Obama was elected to $3.89 today, massive deficits, Obamacare, weakness in foreign policy and a host of other failures will rush to the forefront.
Obviously a lot depends on this debate.
And much of the outcome depends on events and actions which are not part of normal debate preparation.
I have been observing Presidential debates since the very first debates in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
Sometimes the outcome of a debate can turn on the most trivial thing.
Richard Nixon vs. John Kennedy
In 1960 then-Vice President Richard Nixon turned down professional makeup.
Television was still black and white and the lights were often harsh. Nixon thought a light application of a roll on makeup stick would suffice. His judgment was further flawed by two realities he ignored. First, Nixon naturally had a strong beard and the absence of makeup would give him a five o’clock shadow even if he shaved just before the debate. Second, he had hurt his leg, gotten infected, spent several days in the hospital and lost weight. The result was that he looked gaunt.
The result of these random factors was devastating. People who heard the debate on audio thought Nixon had won decisively. People who watched the debate on television thought Kennedy (who used make up and had a good tan) looked much better and more fit to be President than did Nixon.
Nixon entered the first debate the front runner and left it neck and neck with Kennedy. The Democrats capitalized on the failure by hiring an older woman who stood at the foot of the plane for Nixon’s first post-debate stop and said, “It’s ok, you’ll do better next time.” He did, but it wasn’t enough and Kennedy went on to become President.
Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter
In 1976 President Gerald Ford asserted that the United States did not recognize Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Ford was thinking of the legal status – the United States insisted that Poland and other Eastern European countries were technically sovereign. The press interpreted it to mean that Ford was out of touch with reality and simply didn’t know what he was asking about. This fit into a general media theme that Ford was clumsy and dumb (the Saturday Night Live skits with Chevy Chase as Ford were devastating and made Chase’s career while crippling Ford’s).
Ford was a very well informed president who had a generation of service in the House and knew far more about foreign policy than did Jimmy Carter. However, the news media felt it had an angle of attack and worked on Ford for days. Finally his staff convinced him that he could never get his campaign back on track until he withdrew his words. The damage had been done and a campaign that had been catching up to Jimmy Carter lost enough momentum to lose the election by a narrow margin.
Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Reagan
In 1980 President Carter was in trouble but he had easily defeated Sen. Ted Kennedy for the nomination. The Carter team had contempt for Gov. Ronald Reagan and he was the candidate they most wanted to run against. They got their wish.
Two things happened in the one debate between Carter and Reagan which no one on the Carter team expected. First, Governor Reagan developed “There you go again” as a simple signal that Carter was not telling the truth. It worked like a charm. Without being impolite to President Carter, Reagan defined every one of his attacks as untrue.
Second, strangely, Carter decided the country would be deeply moved by his recent conversation with his teenage daughter about nuclear war. Instead of being seen as a sign of sincerity and humanness it came across as another example of Carter being strange.
After the Reagan-Carter debate the race widened and ultimately Reagan carried more states than Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had carried in 1932 against President Herbert Hoover. The post-debate Reagan surge was so powerful it gave the Republicans control of the Senate when six seats were won by a combined goal of 75,000 votes.
Ronald Reagan vs. Walter Mondale
Reagan repeated his debate dominance in 1984 with a remarkable second debate performance. At the end of the first debate there had not been enough time for the closing that had been planned. Reagan had stumbled badly trying to edit a long story into a short period of time. He had looked lost and bewildered. People worried about whether he was losing his grip. Even his supporters worried about his upcoming second performance.
In the last debate prep meeting just before the second debate, Roger Ailes (then a campaign consultant and now, of course, the creator of Fox News) turned to Reagan and said, “What are you going to do about the age question?” Reagan was startled. None of his traditional advisers had felt comfortable confronting him with how bad the first debate had ended and how concerned the country was about his basic competence.
When Ailes explained the problem Reagan got a big grin. “I know just what to do,” he reassured his staff. “I briefly did a Las Vegas comedy routine and I know what will work.”
Callista and I included this moment of artistic history in our documentary “Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny.”
The very first question of the second debate was about the “age issue.”
Reagan pauses, takes a deep breath as though he is cornered, and says “I will not take advantage of the youth and inexperience of my opponent.” In our documentary you see the look in former Vice President Walter Mondale’s eyes as he joins everyone else in laughing and clearly realizes he just lost the election.
George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis
Vice President George H. W. Bush had a good presidential debate. President George H. W. Bush did not.
In 1988 the moderator asked Vice President Bush what his attitude would be towards someone who raped and murdered his wife. Bush responded in a very human way saying, “How could you ask something horrible like that?” He seemed accessible and approachable and a decent person. Dukakis, asked the same question, came across as cold, pedantic and a professor answering a policy question. The gap between the two men was never wider.
Sadly, by 1992 the world had changed and President George H. W. Bush seemed tired. That image was really reinforced when during one of the debates he looked at his watch. It was as though he was tired of applying for the job and just wanted to get it over. The contrast with the young, enthusiastic, energetic and engaging Gov. Bill Clinton could not have been clearer.
George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
Eight years later, his son, then-Governor George W. Bush won a debate by doing nothing.
Vice President Al Gore had apparently been coached by some behavioral consultant to be an “alpha male.” It apparently had not occurred to anyone in the Gore team, that if you are being coached into alpha behaviors, by definition you aren’t an alpha male.
In one of the funniest moments in presidential debate history, Gore walks over to Bush and gets so close he is clearly crowding his personal body space.
Bush, in a wonderful moment of theater, quits talking and simply turns and looks at Gore as though he has lost his mind and is wandering around the stage.
Gore can’t take the tension and backs off, leaving himself looking goofy and guaranteeing that his strange behavior will be a key part of analysis of the debate.
Newt’s advice: Relax and be prepared
I tell the stories to make the point that too much debate preparation is cognitive, fact-filled, rational and focused on verbal game playing.
The most important aspect of a debate is how you feel.
Mike Deaver, the great media adviser to President Reagan, used to assert that television is 85 percent visual, 10 percent how you sound and 5 percent what you say.
In every Presidential debate I participated in I always remembered Deaver’s rule.
More important than what Romney knows is how he feels.
Is he confident?
Is he relaxed?
Is he in command of himself?
Can he stand up to both the media and the president?
These body language issues are far more important than the specific things he says.
Be assertive and be on offense against both Obama and his media
You can be on offense without being offensive.
The strongest reactions I got to my debates came from people who were desperate for someone to stand up to the media and redefine the questions and reframe the assumptions.
Americans are sick and tired of the unending liberalism and suffocating groupthink of the elite media.
If you look at my strongest applause lines virtually every one was taking on the media.
It is inevitable the media will ask Romney about “the 47 percent.” Instead of answering it, Romney should pivot and say, “Let me tell you about the 100 percent. Obama has failed the 100 percent who have to buy gasoline. Obama has failed the 100 percent who will be paying interest on the Obama national debt for the rest of their lives. Obama has failed 100 percent of those who want to get a job and move on with their lives. Obama has failed everyone in the Middle East who had hoped the Arab Spring would lead to freedom by allowing it to turn into an Islamist winter.”
The country would be electrified.
Be honest
There are things Romney has done wrong.
Admit it.
There are things he would like to do better.
Admit it.
People can smell dishonesty and disingenuous efforts to sell or hide.
Use humor
Reagan and Kennedy both had this wonderful knack of using humor to make points.
President Obama is a detached, often stiff person who overestimates his competence (the next time you see a story on the Middle East remember he got a Nobel peace prize for having done nothing).
No president in my lifetime has been as vulnerable to humor as President Obama.
Enjoy the evening
My dad was a career infantryman in the Army.
I have always enjoyed being a citizen because it is such a privilege to be an American.
Mitt Romney ought to walk into that first debate as a remarkably fortunate man.
God has given him a wonderful, loving wife, five great sons, wonderful daughters in law, loving grandchildren.
His mother and father gave him a fabulous American upbringing.
His Church has taught him faith and faithfulness and serving others.
His hard work and intelligence have made him a wealthy man.
Now he has a chance to share with the freest and most successful people in history.
He should relax and bring to bear a lifetime of experience at decency, honesty, determination, applied intelligence and hard work.
He will do just fine.
2a)
2a)
There's an old saying that if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. Proving the point, the Obama administration has put national employment statistics on the Procrustean table, and the poor numbers remarkably now "confess" to an improving jobs situation with an 8.1% unemployment rate -- even as fewer and fewer Americans are actually working each day. Obviously, if fewer folks are working, the jobs stats can improve only if the calculus is severely flawed. And it is. (More on this later.)
This obvious data corruption renders the employment metric useless for its stated purpose, of course, which is to provide a realistic snapshot of the health of the economy. It is now merely a tool of political expedience. If Americans had even a rough understanding of the true employment situation, Obama and liberal economics would be guaranteed a generational defeat this November. This is Team Romney's opportunity, and our future depends on them taking advantage.
Mystifyingly, however, Mitt and his campaign are actually collaborators in this peculiar fiction, repeating the line in their ads and campaign speeches that headline unemployment (U3) "remains over 8 per cent." And of course, U3 is over 8 per cent. In fact, U3 is a shocking 11 percent-plus according to numerous serious students of the history of unemployment. And the concept that explains why it is really 11 and not 8 is relatively simple to understand -- so simple that even a liberal comedian and his audience can do it.
In fact, last week on Leno, they did.
And yet, Team Romney is still loath to mention the real U3 rate. I suppose it's an interesting commentary on the insulated nature of political consultants that Jay Leno thinks more highly of his liberal audiences' ability to see through the preposterous 8.1 figure than Romney's media sorcerers think of everyone else's ability to do the same. Getting two enlightened responses from his audience last week, Leno said the following during his opening monologue:
Well, according to the Labor Department, unemployment fell from 8.3 to 8.1 percent last month. But that was because only, that's because, rather, 368,000 Americans gave up looking for work. (NERVOUS AUDIENCE LAUGHTER)And today, President Obama said that's a step in the right direction, and he is encouraging more Americans to give up looking for work so the numbers will come down a little bit. (ROBUST AUDIENCE LAUGHTER).
Let me translate: Leno and his audience get it. Leno was accurately mocking our boy president and the bizarre machinations used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to push our official unemployment rate down to 8.1%. And his audience was tracking. They understand not only who put the BS in the BLS, but how they did it.
And why shouldn't they? The explanatory concept is almost Occupy Wall Street easy. This is not really a matter of the confusing seasonal adjustment ruses -- nor is it even related to the somewhat confusing "UN and UNDER employment" rate, known as U6. No, this is simply a matter of "shrinkage in workforce participation." So how technical is "workforce participation"? Not very. What Leno used as his first punch line -- "because, rather, 368 thousand Americans gave up looking for work" -- more or less defines the concept. I think the technical term is that more Americans are "sitting on their butts."
Yet this notion is now deemed too risky by Romney's wizards. They must figure this is too confusing of a concept for the campaign to even mention it.
So how ill-advised is this strategy? Extraordinarily so. Pat Caddell, who as a Jimmy Carter adviser in 1980 knows a thing or two about trying to re-elect a failed president, put this particular aspect in perspective last week. "This is, I've said all along, Romney's election to lose and by God he's losing," said Caddell. "I swear to God...this is the worst campaign in my lifetime. Hundreds of millions of dollars, they're still not on the air explaining to people that with the labor participation rate, if it was the same as he came into office the unemployment would be 11.2%."
What Caddell is saying is that if we kept score for Obama the way we kept it for Bush, the rate would be 11.2%. Under Bush, the participation rate of adults was 67.5%. Now it's only 63.5%. That's a four-percent grading curve for Obama in effect. Without getting too deep into the weeds here, what it means is that a full 4% of the would-be work force is simply vaporized out of the math equation for all intents and purposes -- and for Obama's benefit.
But that 4% reduction is not good news for those who care about reality. That 4% is still here, and its members are still eating and still living somewhere and still talking on cell phones. We are paying for most of that.
And with due respect to Romney and his advisers, I maintain that it is not too technical to explain. Remember, the explanation is a Leno punchline, for crying out loud! James Pethokoukis of The American Enterprise Institute has real U3 at about the same rate as Caddell, and the website Zero Hedge has it at 11.7%. The point is this: Obama cannot possibly be re-elected if Team Romney will but tell the simple 11-percent story. And yet, they won't.
One can only guess that in the groupthink world of the consultant bubble, they have taken the path of least resistance. Conventional wisdom says that no one gets re-elected at over 8 percent, so let's just leave it at that. Easy, shallow, infantile calculus like that is what passes for political genius these days in the strategist class. That's their story, and they are sticking to it.
But betting the farm on these crazy eights -- as in the 8% figure -- will backfire.
Obama and his BLS will manage to get the official U3 rate down below 8 percent. You know they will. If they can lose a quarter-million jobs and still drop 0.2 in a month, getting below 8 next month will be a piece of cake. Rush Limbaugh has been predicting this for many months. Why is this so hard for the consultant class?
Moreover, why is this so hard for the man who would be CEO of the United States? Why won't Mitt lead on this issue? He showed a great anti-groupthink daring streak with the pick of Paul Ryan. He has shown even more refreshing resolve by refusing to back down on his correct "47%" comment captured on video. Compared to those strokes, explaining this should be easy.
An effective leader must set the tone for his team. Perhaps Mitt should fire some of his Boston wunderkinds. They are not up to the job. Hell, hire Jay Leno and Pat Caddell. At least they understand basic unemployment math.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)East is East and West is West
We Are Not Allies, We Are Still (and always will be) The Infidels
By Major General Jerry Curry, USA, Ret. The great British poet Rudyard Kipling, understanding today's situation in Afghanistan better than our State Department wrote, "I have eaten your bread and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have watched beside. And the lives ye led were mine." There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real life happenings. Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten month course of instruction were from foreign countries.
For about half of the course my tablemate was an Arab. We studied together, completed homework assignments together, got to know each other's families and generally enjoyed each other's company. Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into my mind and without evaluating it I said, "I have a question to ask you, but you may find it a little impertinent . or, perhaps, offensive."
"That's quite alright," he replied. "We know each other well enough to be honest with each other. So go ahead and ask your question." "Well," I began. "Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your socks off. Why don't you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?" The words hadn't passed my lips before I knew that I shouldn't have asked that particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didn't get angry. He didn't even think before replying. "My dear friend," he said in his British accent, "You are absolutely right. Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war before." Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said, "Sometime in the next thousand years . we will win!" Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I don't think I'm very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of years. Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in victory there was a celebration in the officer's club with everyonecongratulating each other. A lot of handshaking andhugging was going on. It was a time of displaying real brotherly love. Seeing this, one of the senior Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. "Look," he said to a small cluster of American generals. "We have fought together and some of us have died together. I know you feel that makes us brothers. But that is not the way it is in my world." He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. "I don't want to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country - and you came and helped us when we desperately needed your help - and no matter how friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. I'm sorry but, to us, you will always be - Infidels!" And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made their countries nor their peopledepositories of freedom and liberty. No matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure, educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they need our help - as the Arab general pointedly noted - we can never be brothers to each other. Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote, "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims, we Christians will always be infidels!
3a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)
It's Always the Economy, StupidBarack Obama wants to talk about his windmill economy. Next week's debate should discuss the one we've got now.By DANIEL HENNINGER
'Stupid," in the famous quotation from 1992's Clinton vs. Bush campaign—"It's the economy, stupid"—is whoever thinks a U.S. presidential election is about something else. All presidential elections are about the economy. Yes, there are other issues, but it's also true that a whale has pilot fish. Still, most politicians would rather talk about anything but the economy, which they see in one of two ways—as a personal piggy bank or a mystery. Neither is discussable in public. This is the sixth presidential election since "stupid" was first identified, and nothing has changed.
Barack Obama has reduced the whole economic record of his first term to one word: Bush. He's talking about the next U.S. economy, in which, he says, some people will be making windmills. Or capturing the rays of the sun.
His rebooted challenger, Mitt Romney, led an audience in Nevada last week through his plan to revive the economy. Mentioned first, and so presumably most important, he'd pursue "energy independence." Second most important: Crack down on trade "cheaters." That would be China, which is a long way from Vegas.
Next Wednesday night, these two will be hauled onto a stage in Denver for their first debate on "domestic issues," a euphemism for the economy. Nothing—and that includes Jim Lehrer—can make these two talk about the economy as it's understood by the average American voter. But the odds are Mitt Romney will talk about it and Barack Obama won't.
Mr. Obama will stay on message in Denver, redirecting his opponent and interrogator to the economy before he was president (or even in politics)—"challenges that have built up over decades"—and about the wind-driven economy that will exist after he's re-elected. But not about the economy in between. If this were an episode of "Homeland," Mitt Romney's first question to his evasive competitor would be: "Mr. President, what are you hiding?"
It's true, as Mr. Obama argues, that the numbers of unemployed Americans began to rise abruptly after September 2008 when the financial crisis erupted, and that the president's name then was George W. Bush. What Mr. Obama won't say is that the financial crisis resulted from the implosion of a housing market transformed into a toxic landfill by Congress, regulators, Fannie, Freddie and mortgage packagers. The Bush presidency was a bystander.
Also left unsaid by Mr. Obama but free for the telling by Mr. Romney is that as the U.S. unemployment rate hit 9.5% in June 2009 and a shocked public was looking for a response, the new president introduced the Affordable Care Act. Whatever else one may say about ObamaCare, it has nothing directly to do with U.S. employment. For the next nine months, as unemployment ran between 9.5% and 10%, Congress at Mr. Obama's insistence worked on his health-care legislation. When Mr. Obama signed the bill into law in March 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.8%. If an opponent wanted to describe this in partisan terms, he might say that the president legislated an entitlement dream while the economy burned.
|
Last Sunday in his "60 Minutes" interview, Mr. Obama referred vaguely to "some emergency actions" he took to deal with the post-2008 economic crisis. His primary emergency measure was the $831 billion stimulus bill, which was written by House Democratic committee chairmen and passed in February 2009, a few weeks after his inauguration. As a partisan might put it, the Obama-Pelosi stimulus was a fire-and-forget ballistic missile shot into the economic ozone. Even today, no one knows where the stimulus landed. There was also cash-for-clunkers.
In 2009, Mr. Obama's economic forecasters said the economic growth rate would be 3.2% in 2010 and 4% each year the rest of his first term. That would have been great. Even partisans would have been happy with 4% growth. That is closer to the average U.S. growth rate of 3%, which, as the politicians say when claiming credit, made America strong.
We didn't get that growth rate from 2010 to 2012. Instead, it has averaged just above 2%. In the first quarter of this year, growth dropped below 2%. In the second quarter it fell further to 1.5%. That Barack Obama simultaneously was president is a coincidence.
In May 2010, someone in Washington decreed a moratorium on deepwater oil-drilling in the U.S. The unemployment rate that month was 9.6%.
In July 2010, Mr. Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act, which he said would prevent Wall Street from ever "writing its own rules." Or doing much of anything productive. The unemployment rate then was 9.5%. A year later it was 9.1%.
In August 2011, Standard & Poor's released its historic downgrade of U.S. debt. It's hard to remember who was president then, but the unemployment rate was still 9.1%.
U.S. unemployment is now flatlined at 8%, at 17% for young workers and at infinity for everyone who has given up looking for a job during the nearly four years Mr. X has been president.
This isn't George Bush's economy. It isn't the windmill economy. It's the economy we've got right now. With luck, someone in Denver next week will think it's worth talking about.
4a)JUICED: PRO-OBAMA POLLS RELY ON RECORD DEM TURNOUT
By John Nolte
If you're going to believe the polls released from CBS/New York Times this morning -- you know, the polls the media's currently using to beat Romney senseless and to depress Republican enthusiasm, you have to believe that the turnout advantage for Democrats over Republicans will blow away every previous record and common sense.
It's that simple. Because these polls are not only telling us that Romney is losing OH, PA, and FL by insurmountable margins; these polls are also telling us that Democrat turnout is projected to blow away every modern record.
But these media polls don't headline what they're seeing as far as the Democrat turnout advantage because no one would believe it. In fact, no one believes Obama will match the D+7 nationwide advantage he enjoyed in 2008. And no one certainly believes he will surpass it.
Oh, except this non-stop litany of media polls being wielded like weapons by the corrupt media.
Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:
Florida:
In 2004 the vote was R+4.
In 2008 the vote was D+3
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.
Ohio:
In 2004 the vote was R+5
In 2008 the vote was D+8
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9
Pennsylvania:
In 2010 the vote was D+3
In 2008 the vote was D+7
CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.
-
Again, why won't the media report the dramatic news that Democrats are expected to turnout in record numbers against Republicans?
Because the media doesn't believe it.
And yet, that's exactly what media polls claim will happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Register exclusive: Obama says re-election will send message to Republicans
Despite the trillion-dollar deficits that keep piling up and recent American deaths in hot spots around the world, President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that Iowans should have confidence that he can whittle the debt and maintain peace and security throughout the world.
Obama said if he’s fortunate enough to win a second term, his re-election will send a message to Republicans that Americans want them to follow his strategies, and that includes aiding the economy by spending on education and roads and bridges.
“What I think most Iowans certainly believe,” the president said in a telephone interview with The Des Moines Register, “is that if the majority of the American people have said, ‘This is the direction we need to go,’ and the Republicans in Congress say, ‘No, we’re going to go in the exact opposite direction,’ that’s probably not going to leave them to keep that majority too long.”
Earlier Tuesday, Obama was in New York to speak to the United Nations General Assembly and to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Asked how he addresses critics who say the turmoil unfolding in the Middle East signals impotence in U.S. policy, Obama said Americans realize the region is “going through incredible transformations.”
“What we have consistently done is stood on the side of democracy, human rights, opportunity for ordinary people to control their own destiny,” he said.
“And at the same time, we’ve been very clear about certain red lines and our national security interests, and send a message to everybody in the region that when those red lines are crossed, they’re going to have problems with us,” he said.
“Red lines” is a term the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has used in pleading with the Obama administration for clear policy regarding Iran. He’s asked Obama to establish “red lines” that Iran could not cross with its nuclear program if it wants to avoid an American military response.
“We’re not going to be able to control every aspect” of Middle East conflicts, Obama said. “What we can make sure of is our core interests are protected and that in our interactions with these countries that we’re always upholding our core ideals and our core values,” he said.
Obama cites support across Middle East
Concerns about America’s standing in the world have risen in recent weeks as tensions have proliferated around the globe.
Four U.S. diplomatic personnel were killed in Libya on Sept. 11. In the days after the assault, the Obama administration blamed an American-made anti-Islam movie but last week acknowledged that the attack was likely an act of terrorism.
Other troubling developments include the suspension of some joint patrols with Afghan soldiers amid fears of insider attacks, civil war deaths in Syria, unrest across west Africa’s Sahel region, violence in Iraq and other hostilities.
Across the Middle East, Obama said, the United States continues to have “extraordinary support and cooperation throughout the region when it comes to going after folks who would try to do us harm.”
“I think that people recognize that although they may have differences with us on particular issues, that we still stand for something that is important and that we continue to be the one indispensable nation around the world when it comes to not just underwriting our own security, but helping to maintain peace and security throughout the world,” he said.
Obama’s comments were more electioneering than substance, said James Jay Carafano, director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“These are the kinds of platitudes that are the bread and butter of what American presidents are supposed to say, and they might well be sufficient to reassure those that don’t closely follow foreign policy,” he said.
But many people in the Middle East interpret the president’s policies as disengagement and ambivalence, Carafano said.
“The reality is the president only had three objectives in his Middle East policy — withdraw from Iraq, engage with Syria and Iran, and distance the U.S. from Israel to broker a peace between Palestine and Israel. None of those objectives bore fruit. Iraq is troubled, engagement failed and the peace process is dead.”
Four U.S. diplomatic personnel were killed in Libya on Sept. 11. In the days after the assault, the Obama administration blamed an American-made anti-Islam movie but last week acknowledged that the attack was likely an act of terrorism.
Other troubling developments include the suspension of some joint patrols with Afghan soldiers amid fears of insider attacks, civil war deaths in Syria, unrest across west Africa’s Sahel region, violence in Iraq and other hostilities.
Across the Middle East, Obama said, the United States continues to have “extraordinary support and cooperation throughout the region when it comes to going after folks who would try to do us harm.”
“I think that people recognize that although they may have differences with us on particular issues, that we still stand for something that is important and that we continue to be the one indispensable nation around the world when it comes to not just underwriting our own security, but helping to maintain peace and security throughout the world,” he said.
Obama’s comments were more electioneering than substance, said James Jay Carafano, director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
“These are the kinds of platitudes that are the bread and butter of what American presidents are supposed to say, and they might well be sufficient to reassure those that don’t closely follow foreign policy,” he said.
But many people in the Middle East interpret the president’s policies as disengagement and ambivalence, Carafano said.
“The reality is the president only had three objectives in his Middle East policy — withdraw from Iraq, engage with Syria and Iran, and distance the U.S. from Israel to broker a peace between Palestine and Israel. None of those objectives bore fruit. Iraq is troubled, engagement failed and the peace process is dead.”
Predecessor blamed for running up debt
Obama blamed others for the inability to shrink the debt over the last 3½ years.
“When you look at why the debt exploded under my watch, it’s because somebody else ran the tab before I got into office,” he said.
“Essentially 90 percent of the increase in debt is two wars on a credit card, two tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for and massive recession that required extraordinary measures, brought much less revenue in and required a lot more revenue going out in the form of things like unemployment insurance.”
In response, David Kochel, Iowa strategist for GOP rival Mitt Romney’s campaign, said that “instead of spending our money wisely, President Obama has burned through taxpayer dollars at a record pace.”
Iowans take pride in having the lowest per capita credit card debt in the country, Kochel said.
“The president could learn a thing or two from us,” he said, adding, “His plan for the next four years? More of the same. But we don’t want more debt. … We don’t want more Solyndras (a solar energy company that received a half-billion-dollar federal loan before going bankrupt). We don’t want more credit downgrades.”
Obama said Iowans should feel confident he can tackle the debt.
“I’ve already cut a trillion dollars out of our spending, which was the highest cut in discretionary spending in American history,” he said. “The pace of growth for the federal government has actually been slower under me than it was under George Bush or Ronald Reagan. We are on pace to shrink discretionary domestic spending in the United States to is lowest level percentage of GDP since Dwight Eisenhower.”
“When you look at why the debt exploded under my watch, it’s because somebody else ran the tab before I got into office,” he said.
“Essentially 90 percent of the increase in debt is two wars on a credit card, two tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for and massive recession that required extraordinary measures, brought much less revenue in and required a lot more revenue going out in the form of things like unemployment insurance.”
In response, David Kochel, Iowa strategist for GOP rival Mitt Romney’s campaign, said that “instead of spending our money wisely, President Obama has burned through taxpayer dollars at a record pace.”
Iowans take pride in having the lowest per capita credit card debt in the country, Kochel said.
“The president could learn a thing or two from us,” he said, adding, “His plan for the next four years? More of the same. But we don’t want more debt. … We don’t want more Solyndras (a solar energy company that received a half-billion-dollar federal loan before going bankrupt). We don’t want more credit downgrades.”
Obama said Iowans should feel confident he can tackle the debt.
“I’ve already cut a trillion dollars out of our spending, which was the highest cut in discretionary spending in American history,” he said. “The pace of growth for the federal government has actually been slower under me than it was under George Bush or Ronald Reagan. We are on pace to shrink discretionary domestic spending in the United States to is lowest level percentage of GDP since Dwight Eisenhower.”
(Independent fact checkers have repeatedly disputed the claim that spending is at the lowest-level percentage of GDP since Eisenhower. The Washington Post wrote: "To have any credibility, the White House should be citing a real analysis by the Congressional Budget Office or career officials at the Office of Management and Budget…")
Obama was asked why he said on David Letterman’s late-night talk show last week that people don’t have to worry about the debt “in the short term.”
That’s the case because interest rates are extraordinarily low and people still want to buy U.S. Treasury bonds, he said.
“They consider us very safe, and they consider us to be among developed countries still the cornerstone of the global economy,” he said.
But “over the medium and long term, we definitely have to worry about it,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path.”
The good news, Obama said, is “the changes we have to make are not by any means radical.”
That’s the case because interest rates are extraordinarily low and people still want to buy U.S. Treasury bonds, he said.
“They consider us very safe, and they consider us to be among developed countries still the cornerstone of the global economy,” he said.
But “over the medium and long term, we definitely have to worry about it,” he said. “We’re on an unsustainable path.”
The good news, Obama said, is “the changes we have to make are not by any means radical.”
Experts question debt-cutting plans
Obama said he has put forward a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan “that tells you what programs we’d be willing to cut and what taxes on higher-income individuals we’re willing to raise.”
Curtis Dubay, a Heritage Foundation economist, said the deficit plan Obama is referring to is from a year ago and has failed to make any progress in Congress.
Obama’s numbers include spending cuts that have already gone into place, a drawdown of spending on Iraq and Afghanistan that wasn’t intended to be permanent anyway, and other “budgeting tricks,” Dubay said.
The major driver of debt increases is growing spending on Social Security and Medicare, but Obama’s plan addresses neither, Dubay said.
“The bottom line is that most of his deficit reduction comes from higher taxes,” he said.
Curtis Dubay, a Heritage Foundation economist, said the deficit plan Obama is referring to is from a year ago and has failed to make any progress in Congress.
Obama’s numbers include spending cuts that have already gone into place, a drawdown of spending on Iraq and Afghanistan that wasn’t intended to be permanent anyway, and other “budgeting tricks,” Dubay said.
The major driver of debt increases is growing spending on Social Security and Medicare, but Obama’s plan addresses neither, Dubay said.
“The bottom line is that most of his deficit reduction comes from higher taxes,” he said.
Independent fact checks have come to the same conclusion. “The repeated claim that Obama’s budget reduces the deficit by $4 trillion is simply not accurate,” a Washington Post fact check found. “… Virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting.”
David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general who spoke in Iowa last week, also disputed some of Obama’s statements, saying that interest rates are at a historic low only because they’re being artificially held down to prop up the economy. Walker said the president doesn’t have a plan to “defuse this ticking debt bomb.”
“I believe that he wants to achieve a grand bargain. I do not believe that he’s got a credible plan,” said Walker, who now leads the Comeback America Initiative, a nonpartisan group focused on debt reduction. “The biggest deficit we have right now is the leadership deficit.”
Obama, asked why he thinks Republicans in Congress will work with him during a second term, said: “Because the American people, folks from the outside, are going to help me.”
“All the changes that we’ve made, from health care reform to ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ to the work we’ve done to expand college affordability for young people, was not only because we put forward good policies here in Washington, but because people were active in promoting and supporting those issues around the country.”
Obama said if he’s re-elected, “the voters will have sent a clear message” on the approaches they want to cut deficits and grow the economy.
On deficit reduction, that means “a balanced approach” of tax increases and spending cuts, he said.
“What they want with respect to economic growth is middle class-out strategy as opposed to a top-down strategy, which means we’re continuing investments in education and putting people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges.”
“I believe that he wants to achieve a grand bargain. I do not believe that he’s got a credible plan,” said Walker, who now leads the Comeback America Initiative, a nonpartisan group focused on debt reduction. “The biggest deficit we have right now is the leadership deficit.”
Obama, asked why he thinks Republicans in Congress will work with him during a second term, said: “Because the American people, folks from the outside, are going to help me.”
“All the changes that we’ve made, from health care reform to ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ to the work we’ve done to expand college affordability for young people, was not only because we put forward good policies here in Washington, but because people were active in promoting and supporting those issues around the country.”
Obama said if he’s re-elected, “the voters will have sent a clear message” on the approaches they want to cut deficits and grow the economy.
On deficit reduction, that means “a balanced approach” of tax increases and spending cuts, he said.
“What they want with respect to economic growth is middle class-out strategy as opposed to a top-down strategy, which means we’re continuing investments in education and putting people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges.”
No comments:
Post a Comment