President Barack Obama and presidential challenger
Mitt Romney had the first of three scheduled debates
last week, discussing the issues of the economy, taxes
and health care. The debate looked in some ways like
one of the many boxing matches that George Foreman,
a legendary ex-champion known for his incredible
punching power which made it possible to end most
of his bouts quickly, had back in the day. The former
governor of Massachusetts gave a Foremanesque
performance in rocking the incumbent president
by verbally knocking him all about the place. It was,
in the minds of many seasoned political debate
observers, the strongest debate performance given
by Gov. Romney in this campaign season to date.
Your astonished but grateful Peasant caught the
debate on the radio and was both surprised and
delighted in the way that Romney took the fight to
Obama, staying on offense and never letting up on
him. A man known for giving tepid performances in
debates throughout his political career (Romney
blew a debate with the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy
when he challenged Kennedy for the senate seat from
the Bay State which the latter held for many years; it
was a debate which many thought Romney should
have won with ease, as Kennedy's communication
skills by then had noticeably faded. That poor
showing was pivotal in Romney losing the election to
the scion of Camelot), the GOP challenger performed
as a man on fire. It was a treat to see for those of us
who want so badly to send Obama packing!
Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN
contributor, said that Romney "rose to the moment"
and seemed to have been made sharp by the 22
primary debates he had been in on the way to the
Republican nomination. James Carville, Democrat
strategist and a CNN contributor himself, stated
"It looked like Romney wanted to be there and
President Obama didn't want to be there," adding
"The president didn't bring his 'A' game." That's
stating it politely. Obama at times during the veritable
massacre sounded peeved, annoyed, and frustrated,
even criticizing moderator Jim Lehrer for allegedly
not giving Obama enough time to get his points across
at one juncture. The prez that the young, hip contingent
among his flock of supporters hold to be the epitome
of "cool", of being the "coolest" president that our
country has ever had, nearly had a meltdown when
Mitt Romney brought the heat. The president need
not have worried as to his allotted time to speak;
moderator Lehrer failed to keep the pair within
time limits for responses, with Obama getting the
best of the deal --- he ended up speaking for four
minutes longer than Romney all totalled.
Romney's best moments came in stating that the
nation's high unemployment rate and lagging economic
recovery proved that the president's policies have
failed. At another point, Romney noted how $90
billion spent om programs to develop alternative
energy sources could have been devoted to hiring
teachers, which would have been helpful in reducing
unemployment. Obama, for his part, argued that his
policies were helping to bring the country back from
the financial and economic crisis he inherited (his
fallback position: when poor economic figures are
brought up, just blame "Dubya"!). Obama also
trotted out his stale class warfare phraseology,
claiming that Romney was interested only in cutting
the taxes of the rich and that this would not help
the country to economically recover. Romney
deftly countered with stating that his tax plan would
not add to the deficit, and he socked Obama for
his proposal to allow tax rates on income over
$250,000 for families and over $200,000 for
individuals to rise back up to the higher rates of
the 1990s.
Obama's best salvo was when he said that Romney
lacked the important leadership quality to be able to
say "no" when necessary; this is rich, coming from
a president who never uttered that word when asked
for political and economic goodies by his major cash
donors, items which the rest of us would never have
gotten and which few, if any of us would have dared
ask for. You may recall Solyndra, for one example.
Romney hammered Obama on the health care reform
bill, saying "I just don't know how the president could
have come into office, facing 23 million people out of
work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the
... kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion
for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting
for jobs for the American people," and when you
consider that most of the American people have been
strongly opposed to the plan from the start, it shows
Obama in a very negative light; a leader focused only
on what he wants rather than what the people want,
ignoring their repeated objections to his attempts to
pass and implement a program which they want no
part of. In many places in this world, such a leader
is called a "dictator" (these additional remarks from
your favorite Peasant).
There are two more debates scheduled for the candidates
for the presidency. The vice presidential candidates are
set to have at each other tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Obama
was supposed to be the strong half of the Democrats' ticket.
But after Obama's exceedingly poor performance in his first
debate, the Dems now are in the unenviable position of
having to rely on Vice President (and Gaffe Master General)
Joe Biden to make up for the president's tough night in his
own debate with Romney's running mate U.S. Rep. Paul
Ryan. And the prez will have to, in any event, improve on
his debating acumen and bone up on the social and defense
issues, which will be the subjects on tap for the remaining
two debates he'll have with Gov. Romney. The Dems'
ticket is in a deep hole which it may not be able to dig its
way out of. And this will bode ill for them, but will bode
well for those of us who want to have real hope and
change, as we hope to elect a team which will change
our method of governance back to one grounded in our
constitution. Your optimistic Peasant is certain that we
shall be successful!
MEM
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
In Case Anyone STILL Needs A Reason to Vote Against Obama
Your always-researching Peasant found a great article
in the September 10 issue of National Review which
gives some humor-coated reasons for denying
President Barack Obama a second term in the White
House. Titled "689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama",
NR gives some serious points as to why Obama is
not deserving of another four years as President in
the magazine's signature piercingly humorous style.
You can also find this delightful article at National
Review Online. The link: www.nationalreview.com/
In the meantime, here are some choice excerpts from
the piece for your enjoyment. The featured reasons
for voting out Obama are numbered as given by NR.
1) Because he was not the one we were waiting for.
(Peasant's comment: NR lead off with what I felt
was their best --- and wittiest reason --- to vote
against him!)
4) Because lots of people fail at their first real job.
5) Because "Winning the Future" was not a very
good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt's.
9) Joe Biden.
11) Because he didn't quite get the message in 2010.
12) For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.
13) And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.
14) To remind him that debt used to be, IN HIS OWN
WORDS (emphasis mine), "unpatriotic".
16) For blaming President Bush.
22) Because he listened to the Reverend Wright's
crackpot racist diatribes for years and then gave us
a lecture on racism.
24) Because of an $800 billion stimulus bill.
25) "Shovel-ready" projects.
26) The non-existence of shovel-ready projects.
27) For joking about the non-existence of shovel-
ready projects.
28) Because "jobs created or saved" is Enron
accounting.
37) "The private sector is doing fine."
54) Revising his tune on the economy in December 2011,
he said: "It's going to take more than two years. It's
going to take more than one term. It probably takes
more than one president." We agree with that last part.
76) Because he values Joe Biden's advice.
91) Because he didn't let a crisis go to waste.
110) MSNBC could use the ratings help.
113) For Obamacare.
115) For passing it to see what's in it.
125) It's racist to say "Obamacare".
126) Except when he says it.
208) Dodd.
209) Frank.
210) Dodd-Frank.
230) Arguing that Bain Capital is the problem
with America.
231) While taking Bain Capital's campaign
contributions.
285) Joe Biden.
296) Joe Biden.
320) "Big f***ing deal."
325) Biden was asked by the manager of a
custard shop outside of Milwaukee if he was
going to lower taxes. He called the man a
"smartass".
331) "The war on women".
497) "Cash for Clunkers".
500) Gas prices up 100 percent since Inauguration
Day.
586) The czars.
587) The fundraisers.
593) Telling the SEIU: "We look after each other!"
True enough.
596) Janeane Garofalo is adorable when she weeps.
602) Have we mentioned Joe Biden?
689) Because you built that.
See the rest of the 689 reasons in NR in print or
online! Enjoy!
NOTE: Your perpetually-in-motion Peasant
is posting this piece a day before Thursday of this
week, as I am facing a rather uncertain day tomor-
row in terms of my schedule, and am not sure if I
shall have time to be online then. And, this item I
am sharing is much too good to hold for another
couple of days, let alone longer! I wanted SO much
to share this with you, my fantastic readers, at
the earliest opportunity. Thanks all!
MEM
in the September 10 issue of National Review which
gives some humor-coated reasons for denying
President Barack Obama a second term in the White
House. Titled "689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama",
NR gives some serious points as to why Obama is
not deserving of another four years as President in
the magazine's signature piercingly humorous style.
You can also find this delightful article at National
Review Online. The link: www.nationalreview.com/
In the meantime, here are some choice excerpts from
the piece for your enjoyment. The featured reasons
for voting out Obama are numbered as given by NR.
1) Because he was not the one we were waiting for.
(Peasant's comment: NR lead off with what I felt
was their best --- and wittiest reason --- to vote
against him!)
4) Because lots of people fail at their first real job.
5) Because "Winning the Future" was not a very
good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt's.
9) Joe Biden.
11) Because he didn't quite get the message in 2010.
12) For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.
13) And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.
14) To remind him that debt used to be, IN HIS OWN
WORDS (emphasis mine), "unpatriotic".
16) For blaming President Bush.
22) Because he listened to the Reverend Wright's
crackpot racist diatribes for years and then gave us
a lecture on racism.
24) Because of an $800 billion stimulus bill.
25) "Shovel-ready" projects.
26) The non-existence of shovel-ready projects.
27) For joking about the non-existence of shovel-
ready projects.
28) Because "jobs created or saved" is Enron
accounting.
37) "The private sector is doing fine."
54) Revising his tune on the economy in December 2011,
he said: "It's going to take more than two years. It's
going to take more than one term. It probably takes
more than one president." We agree with that last part.
76) Because he values Joe Biden's advice.
91) Because he didn't let a crisis go to waste.
110) MSNBC could use the ratings help.
113) For Obamacare.
115) For passing it to see what's in it.
125) It's racist to say "Obamacare".
126) Except when he says it.
208) Dodd.
209) Frank.
210) Dodd-Frank.
230) Arguing that Bain Capital is the problem
with America.
231) While taking Bain Capital's campaign
contributions.
285) Joe Biden.
296) Joe Biden.
320) "Big f***ing deal."
325) Biden was asked by the manager of a
custard shop outside of Milwaukee if he was
going to lower taxes. He called the man a
"smartass".
331) "The war on women".
497) "Cash for Clunkers".
500) Gas prices up 100 percent since Inauguration
Day.
586) The czars.
587) The fundraisers.
593) Telling the SEIU: "We look after each other!"
True enough.
596) Janeane Garofalo is adorable when she weeps.
602) Have we mentioned Joe Biden?
689) Because you built that.
See the rest of the 689 reasons in NR in print or
online! Enjoy!
NOTE: Your perpetually-in-motion Peasant
is posting this piece a day before Thursday of this
week, as I am facing a rather uncertain day tomor-
row in terms of my schedule, and am not sure if I
shall have time to be online then. And, this item I
am sharing is much too good to hold for another
couple of days, let alone longer! I wanted SO much
to share this with you, my fantastic readers, at
the earliest opportunity. Thanks all!
MEM
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Andy Williams, R.I.P.
Your sorrowful Peasant is breaking the sad news to you,
my wonderful readers, regarding one of America's
most beloved entertainers of all time, Andy Williams.
After a year-long battle with cancer of the bladder,
the crooner, who is known for his beautiful treatment
of "Moon River" and perennial Christmas favorite
"The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" passed to a
higher stage this week. Williams was 84.
I wanted to post this obituary and tribute to Williams
as soon as I heard the sad news, so this is a rare
occasion of your dependable Peasant posting twice
in one day.
Hugely popular in the 1960s, with a long-running TV
show, 18 gold records and 3 platinum records, Williams
was the veritable king of easy listening music.
Born in Wall Lake, Iowa, Williams sang in his family's
church choir along with his brothers Bob, Dick, and Don
--- as adults they would achieve renown as a singing
group, and would sometimes sing together on Andy's
show, and their experience gained singing in their church
would serve as fine training for their professional
singing endeavors. After WWII, the brothers joined
entertainer Kay Thompson in her sophisticated
nightclub act, and were coached by Thompson herself.
Williams won an Oscar for his rendition of "Moon River",
the hit song from the celebrated 1961 film "Breakfast at
Tiffany's". The song became his TV show's theme song
and for many fans became Williams' own theme song as
well. He would get his TV show in 1962, a show which
would air until 1971.
The Wall Lake singing sensation would go on to host the
Grammys and the Golden Globes over the years, and
would host Christmas specials in which Williams would
wear his distinguished trademark red cardigan sweater,
becoming an annual presence in many American homes.
Williams was survived by his wife Debbie, his three
children Robert, Noelle and Christian, and his his
ex-wife, French-born dancer Claudine Longet. His
birthplace is a tourist attraction, and in the 1990s he
opened the Moon River Theater in Branson, Missouri,
having named it for the song that he made so famous
three decades earlier.
Andy Williams was a great favorite in my family,
and my parents and I always made it a point to watch
him on TV at every opportunity. They don't make
entertainers like Andy Williams anymore, and that is
to our detriment.
Godspeed, Andy. Thanks for all the fun.
MEM
my wonderful readers, regarding one of America's
most beloved entertainers of all time, Andy Williams.
After a year-long battle with cancer of the bladder,
the crooner, who is known for his beautiful treatment
of "Moon River" and perennial Christmas favorite
"The Most Wonderful Time of the Year" passed to a
higher stage this week. Williams was 84.
I wanted to post this obituary and tribute to Williams
as soon as I heard the sad news, so this is a rare
occasion of your dependable Peasant posting twice
in one day.
Hugely popular in the 1960s, with a long-running TV
show, 18 gold records and 3 platinum records, Williams
was the veritable king of easy listening music.
Born in Wall Lake, Iowa, Williams sang in his family's
church choir along with his brothers Bob, Dick, and Don
--- as adults they would achieve renown as a singing
group, and would sometimes sing together on Andy's
show, and their experience gained singing in their church
would serve as fine training for their professional
singing endeavors. After WWII, the brothers joined
entertainer Kay Thompson in her sophisticated
nightclub act, and were coached by Thompson herself.
Williams won an Oscar for his rendition of "Moon River",
the hit song from the celebrated 1961 film "Breakfast at
Tiffany's". The song became his TV show's theme song
and for many fans became Williams' own theme song as
well. He would get his TV show in 1962, a show which
would air until 1971.
The Wall Lake singing sensation would go on to host the
Grammys and the Golden Globes over the years, and
would host Christmas specials in which Williams would
wear his distinguished trademark red cardigan sweater,
becoming an annual presence in many American homes.
Williams was survived by his wife Debbie, his three
children Robert, Noelle and Christian, and his his
ex-wife, French-born dancer Claudine Longet. His
birthplace is a tourist attraction, and in the 1990s he
opened the Moon River Theater in Branson, Missouri,
having named it for the song that he made so famous
three decades earlier.
Andy Williams was a great favorite in my family,
and my parents and I always made it a point to watch
him on TV at every opportunity. They don't make
entertainers like Andy Williams anymore, and that is
to our detriment.
Godspeed, Andy. Thanks for all the fun.
MEM
An Avoidable Obituary
Your favorite Peasant received a rather shocking
essay from a friend and fellow conservative just
this week, but the piece has great value in that
it serves as a wake-up call for those Americans
who are either still undecided as to which presi-
dential candidate to vote for in November, are
thinking that Obama is not as radical as many
accounts have him pegged and are not keen
on Romney, or perhaps are dead-set against
Obama but can't warm up to Romney and are
thinking of voting Libertarian or some other
third-party that leans right --- or, worst of all,
are considering staying home on the day of
the most important election our country faces
in many years, maybe ever.
I'll just post it here for your perusal, my grand
readers, and let you make of it what you will.
But as for your beloved Peasant, I find the item
a sobering and most timely call to action for
those of us who want our country to remain
free and prosperous for our generation and
for the generations to come. Here it is:
SCARY OBITUARY
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history
professor at the University of Edinburgh, had
this to say about the fall of the Athenian
Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist
up until that time that voters discover that they
can vote themselves generous gifts from the
public treasury, with the result that every demo-
cracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy,
(which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civili-
zations from the beginning of history has been
about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following
sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage"
The Obituary follows:
Born 1776 Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline
University Law School in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting
facts concerning the last presidential
election:
Number of states won by:
Obama 19
McCain 29
Square miles won by:
Obama 580,000
McCain 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama 127 million
McCain 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama 13.2
McCain 2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned
by taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompasses
those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms
of government welfare ... "
Olson believes the United States is now
somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy, with some forty
per cent of the nation's population already
having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship
to twenty million criminal invaders called
illegals --- and they vote --- then we can
say goodbye to the USA in fewer then five
years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means,
delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help
everyone realize just how much is at stake,
knowing that apathy is the greatest danger
to our freedom.
This is truly scary.
MEM
essay from a friend and fellow conservative just
this week, but the piece has great value in that
it serves as a wake-up call for those Americans
who are either still undecided as to which presi-
dential candidate to vote for in November, are
thinking that Obama is not as radical as many
accounts have him pegged and are not keen
on Romney, or perhaps are dead-set against
Obama but can't warm up to Romney and are
thinking of voting Libertarian or some other
third-party that leans right --- or, worst of all,
are considering staying home on the day of
the most important election our country faces
in many years, maybe ever.
I'll just post it here for your perusal, my grand
readers, and let you make of it what you will.
But as for your beloved Peasant, I find the item
a sobering and most timely call to action for
those of us who want our country to remain
free and prosperous for our generation and
for the generations to come. Here it is:
SCARY OBITUARY
In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history
professor at the University of Edinburgh, had
this to say about the fall of the Athenian
Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist
up until that time that voters discover that they
can vote themselves generous gifts from the
public treasury, with the result that every demo-
cracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy,
(which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civili-
zations from the beginning of history has been
about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
nations always progressed through the following
sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage"
The Obituary follows:
Born 1776 Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline
University Law School in Saint Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting
facts concerning the last presidential
election:
Number of states won by:
Obama 19
McCain 29
Square miles won by:
Obama 580,000
McCain 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Obama 127 million
McCain 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents
in counties won by:
Obama 13.2
McCain 2.1
Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory
McCain won was mostly the land owned
by taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompasses
those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms
of government welfare ... "
Olson believes the United States is now
somewhere between the "complacency
and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy, with some forty
per cent of the nation's population already
having reached the "governmental
dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship
to twenty million criminal invaders called
illegals --- and they vote --- then we can
say goodbye to the USA in fewer then five
years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means,
delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help
everyone realize just how much is at stake,
knowing that apathy is the greatest danger
to our freedom.
This is truly scary.
MEM
Friday, September 21, 2012
Three Fantastic Years!
My dear and wonderful readers, your beloved
Peasant wants to take a moment to thank you all
for your taking time out of your busy workaday
lives to examine the political and economic news
from across our land each week, identifying those
who serve the cause of the preservation of freedom
in these United States and those who serve only
themselves at the expense of our freedom, praising
the former and castigating the latter.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure for your
humble Peasant to get together with you each
week over the past three years since establishing
this blog! You all mean more to me than I can
ever say with any words!
May we have even more reason to celebrate
come November, when we will have the
opportunity to reestablish what our great
country stands for, not only for ourselves but
for generations of Americans to come. Let us
capitalize on this great opportunity, for if we
fail to seize this moment we may never get
get another one; the established elites will have
then become more entrenched and will make
very sure that such an opportunity will not
come again for many years, if at all!
God bless you all, and God bless America!
MEM
Peasant wants to take a moment to thank you all
for your taking time out of your busy workaday
lives to examine the political and economic news
from across our land each week, identifying those
who serve the cause of the preservation of freedom
in these United States and those who serve only
themselves at the expense of our freedom, praising
the former and castigating the latter.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure for your
humble Peasant to get together with you each
week over the past three years since establishing
this blog! You all mean more to me than I can
ever say with any words!
May we have even more reason to celebrate
come November, when we will have the
opportunity to reestablish what our great
country stands for, not only for ourselves but
for generations of Americans to come. Let us
capitalize on this great opportunity, for if we
fail to seize this moment we may never get
get another one; the established elites will have
then become more entrenched and will make
very sure that such an opportunity will not
come again for many years, if at all!
God bless you all, and God bless America!
MEM
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Is Telling the Truth a Gaffe?
The word "gaffe" means a misstatement, usually a spoken
mistake, an verbal miscue. In politics, the word is
understood to mean an inadvertent and unscripted
truth which when uttered sends certain key consti-
tuencies into a raging froth which abates only when
its members vote en masse to punish the politician
and/or his party in an election. Republican presidential
nominee Mitt Romney uttered one of these in a
recent post-convention speech, and has tongues
wagging all around the country as a result.
Romney's comments? "There are 47% of the people
who will vote for the president, no matter what ...
All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are
dependent upon government, who believe that they
are victims, who believe the government has a
responsibility to care for them, who believe that they
are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to
you-name-it ... that the government should give it
to them. And they will vote for this president no
matter what ... These are people who pay no income
tax."
Let us examine the content of Mitt Romney's words
and see what we can learn as to the truth of his
message, shall we? Now, democracy in these
United States has deteriorated into a perfectly
legal means for us to steal from each other,
that is, for some of us to vote to confiscate the
hard-earned rewards of those who do the required
hard work to earn and receive them. And it is not
so simple to identify all those in the former group
who so prey upon those in the latter; this goes
beyond those who just want an big enough
subsistence to keep them housed, clothed, fed,
medicated, and perhaps entertained (going to
bars or to racetracks, for example), this includes
those who want their college education underwritten,
their businesses subsidized, or financial support for
whatever some people want to build, purchase,
rent, fund, expand, maintain, create, experience,
or who knows what. It ranges from idle slobs
on street corners to business CEOs, from
artists to teachers, from single mothers to
Planned Parenthood clinics, from community
organizers to practitioners of identity politics
seeking redress for some perceived grievances,
often in the form of good old fashioned cash.
What candidate Romney was getting at was
a simple truth that most, if not in fact all
Americans have long been aware of; that
there are some among us who think, for
whatever reason, that they are entitled to
a portion of what we strive and sweat to
obtain for ourselves and our families. And
these people say it with votes, voting for
those politicians who promise to deliver
the goods by taking them from those who
produce them to distribute them to those
who would consume them and come back
demanding more.
The 47% figure has been disputed by some
conservatives, including your favorite Peasant.
We feel that the percentage is too high, that
if it were accurate then our country would not
only be in still more serious economic trouble
than it now is but that the state of things would
be irrevocably in disrepair. But there is, to be
sure, a not-that-small minority of Americans
who do think and behave this way, and there
are politicians in both major political parteis
who happily cater to their whims, sensing
easy votes. Romney is sending a clear signal
(let's hope) that he won't be one of them if
elected President.
Romney also presumed another simple truth:
People vote their economic interest. Always
have, always will. Politicians have to concen-
trate their time, energy, and resources on
where they can get the most for their expen-
ditures of these assets. This is not, it must be
pointed out, a dismissal of half the country;
it is merely an acknowledgement that elections
are not won by the partisans or extremes in
either camp but by the people in the middle.
this is also not an admission that it is fruitless
to campaign on an unvarnished conservative
platform, but is a nod to the idea that while
a conservative office seeker can offer his
conservative ideas to the electorate, he
has to find a way to appeal to the electorate
in a way that will attract the most of that body
to his conservative ideas. Some give and take
must take place. Liberals do this too, by the
way; it's just that when they get elected they
then brush aside their campaign rhetoric and
promises and govern as they really are with
little if any regard for the wishes of those who
voted for them. Remember Obama's saying
that there was no reason to raise the taxes
of the middle class (for just one example!)?
Romney went on to say that his job as a
candidate for the White House is to appeal
to the independent 5% or so who are not
in either party's camp but could turn the
election in Romney's favor. Of course, it
follows that Romney will thus ignore those
who just want an existence as fully subsidized
as possible, and therefore will never support
him. In this way, politics is about giving and
getting, often giving to get. But this very set
of facts so upset so many in the nation's
electorate that no one will openly admit this,
and few will actually act in accordance with
same. Political parties are, therefore, not
about ideas but interests, pitting those of one
party against those of the other(s). This
begets the endless assaults on our earnings,
our property, our liberties, our very freedom.
And this is why we cannot rely upon any
political party to truly protect our interests.
Instead, we must work to keep our earnings,
our property, and our liberties from the
grasping clutches of the political parties
and their politicians. Is it any wonder that
so many people who are active in the Tea
Party are not Republicans or Democrats?
Your faithful Peasant left the GOP six years
ago just for these reasons. We can work
for the election of our candidates from the
Republican Party, but once they are in office
we cannot walk away thinking that we have
done our part, and our elected candidates
will automatically do what we elected them
to do without fail. We have to keep an eagle
eye on them, and for the reasons given here.
Mitt Romney spoke the truth, albeit a bit
clumsily. He should not be castigated for
being open and honest about what every-
body knows but will never oepnly acknow-
ledge.
MEM
mistake, an verbal miscue. In politics, the word is
understood to mean an inadvertent and unscripted
truth which when uttered sends certain key consti-
tuencies into a raging froth which abates only when
its members vote en masse to punish the politician
and/or his party in an election. Republican presidential
nominee Mitt Romney uttered one of these in a
recent post-convention speech, and has tongues
wagging all around the country as a result.
Romney's comments? "There are 47% of the people
who will vote for the president, no matter what ...
All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are
dependent upon government, who believe that they
are victims, who believe the government has a
responsibility to care for them, who believe that they
are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to
you-name-it ... that the government should give it
to them. And they will vote for this president no
matter what ... These are people who pay no income
tax."
Let us examine the content of Mitt Romney's words
and see what we can learn as to the truth of his
message, shall we? Now, democracy in these
United States has deteriorated into a perfectly
legal means for us to steal from each other,
that is, for some of us to vote to confiscate the
hard-earned rewards of those who do the required
hard work to earn and receive them. And it is not
so simple to identify all those in the former group
who so prey upon those in the latter; this goes
beyond those who just want an big enough
subsistence to keep them housed, clothed, fed,
medicated, and perhaps entertained (going to
bars or to racetracks, for example), this includes
those who want their college education underwritten,
their businesses subsidized, or financial support for
whatever some people want to build, purchase,
rent, fund, expand, maintain, create, experience,
or who knows what. It ranges from idle slobs
on street corners to business CEOs, from
artists to teachers, from single mothers to
Planned Parenthood clinics, from community
organizers to practitioners of identity politics
seeking redress for some perceived grievances,
often in the form of good old fashioned cash.
What candidate Romney was getting at was
a simple truth that most, if not in fact all
Americans have long been aware of; that
there are some among us who think, for
whatever reason, that they are entitled to
a portion of what we strive and sweat to
obtain for ourselves and our families. And
these people say it with votes, voting for
those politicians who promise to deliver
the goods by taking them from those who
produce them to distribute them to those
who would consume them and come back
demanding more.
The 47% figure has been disputed by some
conservatives, including your favorite Peasant.
We feel that the percentage is too high, that
if it were accurate then our country would not
only be in still more serious economic trouble
than it now is but that the state of things would
be irrevocably in disrepair. But there is, to be
sure, a not-that-small minority of Americans
who do think and behave this way, and there
are politicians in both major political parteis
who happily cater to their whims, sensing
easy votes. Romney is sending a clear signal
(let's hope) that he won't be one of them if
elected President.
Romney also presumed another simple truth:
People vote their economic interest. Always
have, always will. Politicians have to concen-
trate their time, energy, and resources on
where they can get the most for their expen-
ditures of these assets. This is not, it must be
pointed out, a dismissal of half the country;
it is merely an acknowledgement that elections
are not won by the partisans or extremes in
either camp but by the people in the middle.
this is also not an admission that it is fruitless
to campaign on an unvarnished conservative
platform, but is a nod to the idea that while
a conservative office seeker can offer his
conservative ideas to the electorate, he
has to find a way to appeal to the electorate
in a way that will attract the most of that body
to his conservative ideas. Some give and take
must take place. Liberals do this too, by the
way; it's just that when they get elected they
then brush aside their campaign rhetoric and
promises and govern as they really are with
little if any regard for the wishes of those who
voted for them. Remember Obama's saying
that there was no reason to raise the taxes
of the middle class (for just one example!)?
Romney went on to say that his job as a
candidate for the White House is to appeal
to the independent 5% or so who are not
in either party's camp but could turn the
election in Romney's favor. Of course, it
follows that Romney will thus ignore those
who just want an existence as fully subsidized
as possible, and therefore will never support
him. In this way, politics is about giving and
getting, often giving to get. But this very set
of facts so upset so many in the nation's
electorate that no one will openly admit this,
and few will actually act in accordance with
same. Political parties are, therefore, not
about ideas but interests, pitting those of one
party against those of the other(s). This
begets the endless assaults on our earnings,
our property, our liberties, our very freedom.
And this is why we cannot rely upon any
political party to truly protect our interests.
Instead, we must work to keep our earnings,
our property, and our liberties from the
grasping clutches of the political parties
and their politicians. Is it any wonder that
so many people who are active in the Tea
Party are not Republicans or Democrats?
Your faithful Peasant left the GOP six years
ago just for these reasons. We can work
for the election of our candidates from the
Republican Party, but once they are in office
we cannot walk away thinking that we have
done our part, and our elected candidates
will automatically do what we elected them
to do without fail. We have to keep an eagle
eye on them, and for the reasons given here.
Mitt Romney spoke the truth, albeit a bit
clumsily. He should not be castigated for
being open and honest about what every-
body knows but will never oepnly acknow-
ledge.
MEM
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Thoughts on the 2012 Democratic Convention
With the conclusion of the Democrats' convention in Charlotte,
the presidential campaign season goes into its counterpart to
football's fourth quarter, the final session of a game in which
a winner and a loser will emerge. From this final portion of
the campaign, there will be a winning candidate and a losing
one. Your probing Peasant has expounded on the Republicans'
convention in Tampa and shall now do the same on the Dem's
party confab.
Having heard some of the speeches given, and followed some
of the drama centered on some key happenings such as the
removal, and quick replacement, of certain content in the
Democrats' party platform as well as the removal of the
gathering to a smaller venue in terms of seating capacity,
your bemused Peasant has found some entertainment along
with much predictability in the convention's proceedings.
Regarding the speeches, Vice President (and Gaffe Master
General) of the United States Joe Biden actually delivered
a first-rate speech (!). No gaffes for which he is (in)famous;
Biden was in reality passionate and sincere in his words.
No, really! He did make an interesting statement regarding
the American people, saying that one cannot sell them short.
Most interesting, coming from a pol from a party that has,
especially in the past four years, consistently sold us short
on many things, especially our ability to make choices
concerning our health care and living whatever religious faith
we adhere to (especially Catholics). Your dependable Peasant
has discussed these topics in past postings here, and shall have
still more to say on them in the near future. But congratulations
to Joe Biden for giving a stellar speech, perhaps the most
stellar speech in his entire career to date.
First Lady Michelle Obama gave an OK speech. Your thorough
Peasant praises her and her speech not so much for what she had
to say but for what she did not say; unlike four years ago, she
didn't promise that her husband would fix our supposedly broken
souls, nor did she again state that she is at last proud of her
country for one of its major political parties nominating her
hubby to run for the Presidency. Small but appreciated
mercies!
Former President Bill Clinton gave the nominating speech for
President Obama, and did what he often does when at a podium;
he droned on and on and further on (remember the 1988 Demo-
crat Convention?).
And a Hollywood liberal got to give a speech as well (any surprise
here? Perhaps she earned the privilege by writing a fat check to
the Obama campaign); Eva Longoria, an actress who has appeared
in the TV show "Desperate Housewives" gave a supportive speech
for Obama, focusing on his economic policies. "The Eva Longoria
who worked at Wendy's needed a tax break; the Eva Longoria
who works on movie sets does not." Well, bully for her. But she
does not realize, and likely does not grasp nor cares about the
very fact that there are many people at many income levels who
do need a tax break, especially those who establish businesses
which employ people as Longoria has been employed, first as
a hamburger-flipper at Wendy's and later as an actress in TV
shows and movies. If business owners are going to be subjected
to ever-increasing taxes on their income from their enterprises,
then their ability to employ people to assist them in producing
and marketing their products and services shall be diminished.
Workers will lose their jobs and with them their own incomes.
Many of these workers make nowhere near the kind of money
that Longoria makes. But if this airhead wants to pay more in
taxes to shore up the nation's budget deficit and reduce its
debt (not that either will ever happen under an Obama
administration) then let her write a larger check to the IRS,
above what she owes. If the vapid Vuitton-accessorizing vixen
wants to fund her candidate's programs which are designed to
poke into every aspect of our lives with the intent to micromanage
us and create a society of dependence and acquiescence to replace
our society of independence and initiative, then let her make the
financial sacrifice that she and her candidate exhort the rest of us
to make. If the Gucci-wearing goofball actually believes that this
is preserving the American Dream, and she does seem to so
believe, then let her take the lead and pony up that extra cash.
Your skeptical Peasant won't hold his breath waiting for this
to happen, but with her speech Longoria is surely a smash
from Rodeo Drive to Hollywood and Vine! Isn't it grand
to be a lefty show biz celebrity?
The Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry,
put his two cents in. All Kerry did with his moment in the sun was
attempt to paint Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a fat cat
elitist who waffles on issues. He'd talk, eh? Perhaps the senator was
exhibiting a bit of self-loathing while standing in the limelight? My
money, and I certainly don't have nearly as much as this fat cat, is
on Kerry simply being a hyper-elitist, hyper-hypocrite. Hey,
at least Romney EARNED his money through his own enterprise;
Senator, while you married into yours, you stiff!
Sandra Fluke, the Democrats' "It Girl", the over-privileged white
liberal activist and self-proclaimed champion of the downtrodden
(here defined as women deprived of free birth control devices),
gave a shrill, lame diatribe about a non-existent "war on women"
her party claims that the GOP is waging. All people want her and
others of her mindset to do --- and these are both men and women
saying this --- is to grow up and take responsibility for themselves
and cease demanding that we as a nation subsidize her sexual
adventurism, especially since birth control devices are easily and
affordably obtained at many drug stores, even at (so I'm told)
Target department stores! And besides, don't most, if not all
county hospitals still give these items out gratis to anyone who
asks for them? There are lots of women around the country who
would love nothing more than to see this fool take a long walk off
of a short pier, as she does not speak for them and can never do so!
Caroline Kennedy, daughter of long ago President and enduring
party icon John F. Kennedy, defended the current president
on his stand on women's rights (herein being and read as:
contraceptives and abortion) proclaiming that as a catholic
she takes these rights seriously, and that they are today under
attack from the Republicans led by Mitt Romney. Caroline,
like so many of her fellow Kennedys, have never understood
their professed faith's teachings on these matters, let alone
have ever stood in agreement with same. The Kennedy
clan has long seemed to practice a Catholicism of their own
invention, Caroline's father included, especially regarding
women and their treatment of them, i.e. John's affairs that
continued even after moving into the White House, and
Teddy's (Sen. Ted Kennedy) Chappaquiddick catastrophe
with a female Bobby Kennedy presidential campaign worker
being but two examples.
And as for the star of the show, President Obama gave a speech
that had little, if any, resemblance to his 2004 speech at this bash.
Although Obama , I'm sure, tried to sound optimistic, his sounded
pessimistic, tired, and had a very left-wing flavor. Giving no
specifics as to action, he spouted platitudes. Talking ad nauseum
about his health care plan, education, and the environment while
scarcely mentioning workers, families and jobs, he excited the
party faithful but likely made the nation's vast ranks of
jobless people roll their eyes.
Weather was the reason given for the Democrats moving their
event, but the stadium which was their first choice of venue
would have had lots of empty seats which would have looked
quite embarrassing on national TV. The seats were left vacant
by people who have "voter's remorse" after having been so
badly let down by the very candidate that only four years earlier
they had such joyous and soaring expectations in.
And how about the flap over the removal of mention of God
and the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
The announcement of these changes in the Dems' party
platform, followed by bedlam on the convention floor, then by
public needling from GOP candidate Romney, caused the Dems
to reinstate these items. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,
the convention chairman, called three different times for a voice
vote on reinstating with the "yeas" and "nays" seeming to cancel
each other out for balance. After the third go-round, however,
Villaraigosa ruled that the reinstatements were approved, getting
boos from many of the delegates. One delegate, when interviewed
by a reporter, stated that there was no discussion about whether
or not to make these removals, that they were blindsided by it all.
Other delegates who were supportive of the removals were
enraged at the reinstatement of the items heretofore removed.
This was a clumsy way for the Dems to save face over their
attempted deletions of references to God and not recognizing
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which only ended up in
cheesing off many of the convention delegates.
Now, the language in a political party platform does not at all
directly affect the country's domestic or international policies.
But while this is true, the Democrats' trying to enact these changes
in their platform signal an unmistakable break from both their
acknowledgement of a higher being giving people their potential
to be and to do whatever they so desire to become and to
achieve, as individuals and as a nation, as well as the party's
commitment to the security of Israel and its supporting the
status of Jerusalem as its capital in the face of our ally's
regional enemies who are sworn to eliminate Israel from
existence. The Democrats reinstated the removed language
concerning these points after internal and external opprobrium,
clumsily trying to explain away the flap as, stated by DNC
Chairwoman U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
"essentially a technical oversight." Really. All of this
inspired challenger Romney to comment "I think this
party is veering further and further away into an extreme
wing that Americans don't recognize."
And your observant Peasant couldn't put it better. The con-
ventions held by the Republicans and the Democrats, having
been markedly different in both content and tone through
the years, now make for the starkest study in contrasts one
could ever hope to see. And these conventions give us a
comprehensive view of exactly what these political parties
stand for. Now we must decide whom we stand with.
MEM
the presidential campaign season goes into its counterpart to
football's fourth quarter, the final session of a game in which
a winner and a loser will emerge. From this final portion of
the campaign, there will be a winning candidate and a losing
one. Your probing Peasant has expounded on the Republicans'
convention in Tampa and shall now do the same on the Dem's
party confab.
Having heard some of the speeches given, and followed some
of the drama centered on some key happenings such as the
removal, and quick replacement, of certain content in the
Democrats' party platform as well as the removal of the
gathering to a smaller venue in terms of seating capacity,
your bemused Peasant has found some entertainment along
with much predictability in the convention's proceedings.
Regarding the speeches, Vice President (and Gaffe Master
General) of the United States Joe Biden actually delivered
a first-rate speech (!). No gaffes for which he is (in)famous;
Biden was in reality passionate and sincere in his words.
No, really! He did make an interesting statement regarding
the American people, saying that one cannot sell them short.
Most interesting, coming from a pol from a party that has,
especially in the past four years, consistently sold us short
on many things, especially our ability to make choices
concerning our health care and living whatever religious faith
we adhere to (especially Catholics). Your dependable Peasant
has discussed these topics in past postings here, and shall have
still more to say on them in the near future. But congratulations
to Joe Biden for giving a stellar speech, perhaps the most
stellar speech in his entire career to date.
First Lady Michelle Obama gave an OK speech. Your thorough
Peasant praises her and her speech not so much for what she had
to say but for what she did not say; unlike four years ago, she
didn't promise that her husband would fix our supposedly broken
souls, nor did she again state that she is at last proud of her
country for one of its major political parties nominating her
hubby to run for the Presidency. Small but appreciated
mercies!
Former President Bill Clinton gave the nominating speech for
President Obama, and did what he often does when at a podium;
he droned on and on and further on (remember the 1988 Demo-
crat Convention?).
And a Hollywood liberal got to give a speech as well (any surprise
here? Perhaps she earned the privilege by writing a fat check to
the Obama campaign); Eva Longoria, an actress who has appeared
in the TV show "Desperate Housewives" gave a supportive speech
for Obama, focusing on his economic policies. "The Eva Longoria
who worked at Wendy's needed a tax break; the Eva Longoria
who works on movie sets does not." Well, bully for her. But she
does not realize, and likely does not grasp nor cares about the
very fact that there are many people at many income levels who
do need a tax break, especially those who establish businesses
which employ people as Longoria has been employed, first as
a hamburger-flipper at Wendy's and later as an actress in TV
shows and movies. If business owners are going to be subjected
to ever-increasing taxes on their income from their enterprises,
then their ability to employ people to assist them in producing
and marketing their products and services shall be diminished.
Workers will lose their jobs and with them their own incomes.
Many of these workers make nowhere near the kind of money
that Longoria makes. But if this airhead wants to pay more in
taxes to shore up the nation's budget deficit and reduce its
debt (not that either will ever happen under an Obama
administration) then let her write a larger check to the IRS,
above what she owes. If the vapid Vuitton-accessorizing vixen
wants to fund her candidate's programs which are designed to
poke into every aspect of our lives with the intent to micromanage
us and create a society of dependence and acquiescence to replace
our society of independence and initiative, then let her make the
financial sacrifice that she and her candidate exhort the rest of us
to make. If the Gucci-wearing goofball actually believes that this
is preserving the American Dream, and she does seem to so
believe, then let her take the lead and pony up that extra cash.
Your skeptical Peasant won't hold his breath waiting for this
to happen, but with her speech Longoria is surely a smash
from Rodeo Drive to Hollywood and Vine! Isn't it grand
to be a lefty show biz celebrity?
The Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry,
put his two cents in. All Kerry did with his moment in the sun was
attempt to paint Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a fat cat
elitist who waffles on issues. He'd talk, eh? Perhaps the senator was
exhibiting a bit of self-loathing while standing in the limelight? My
money, and I certainly don't have nearly as much as this fat cat, is
on Kerry simply being a hyper-elitist, hyper-hypocrite. Hey,
at least Romney EARNED his money through his own enterprise;
Senator, while you married into yours, you stiff!
Sandra Fluke, the Democrats' "It Girl", the over-privileged white
liberal activist and self-proclaimed champion of the downtrodden
(here defined as women deprived of free birth control devices),
gave a shrill, lame diatribe about a non-existent "war on women"
her party claims that the GOP is waging. All people want her and
others of her mindset to do --- and these are both men and women
saying this --- is to grow up and take responsibility for themselves
and cease demanding that we as a nation subsidize her sexual
adventurism, especially since birth control devices are easily and
affordably obtained at many drug stores, even at (so I'm told)
Target department stores! And besides, don't most, if not all
county hospitals still give these items out gratis to anyone who
asks for them? There are lots of women around the country who
would love nothing more than to see this fool take a long walk off
of a short pier, as she does not speak for them and can never do so!
Caroline Kennedy, daughter of long ago President and enduring
party icon John F. Kennedy, defended the current president
on his stand on women's rights (herein being and read as:
contraceptives and abortion) proclaiming that as a catholic
she takes these rights seriously, and that they are today under
attack from the Republicans led by Mitt Romney. Caroline,
like so many of her fellow Kennedys, have never understood
their professed faith's teachings on these matters, let alone
have ever stood in agreement with same. The Kennedy
clan has long seemed to practice a Catholicism of their own
invention, Caroline's father included, especially regarding
women and their treatment of them, i.e. John's affairs that
continued even after moving into the White House, and
Teddy's (Sen. Ted Kennedy) Chappaquiddick catastrophe
with a female Bobby Kennedy presidential campaign worker
being but two examples.
And as for the star of the show, President Obama gave a speech
that had little, if any, resemblance to his 2004 speech at this bash.
Although Obama , I'm sure, tried to sound optimistic, his sounded
pessimistic, tired, and had a very left-wing flavor. Giving no
specifics as to action, he spouted platitudes. Talking ad nauseum
about his health care plan, education, and the environment while
scarcely mentioning workers, families and jobs, he excited the
party faithful but likely made the nation's vast ranks of
jobless people roll their eyes.
Weather was the reason given for the Democrats moving their
event, but the stadium which was their first choice of venue
would have had lots of empty seats which would have looked
quite embarrassing on national TV. The seats were left vacant
by people who have "voter's remorse" after having been so
badly let down by the very candidate that only four years earlier
they had such joyous and soaring expectations in.
And how about the flap over the removal of mention of God
and the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
The announcement of these changes in the Dems' party
platform, followed by bedlam on the convention floor, then by
public needling from GOP candidate Romney, caused the Dems
to reinstate these items. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,
the convention chairman, called three different times for a voice
vote on reinstating with the "yeas" and "nays" seeming to cancel
each other out for balance. After the third go-round, however,
Villaraigosa ruled that the reinstatements were approved, getting
boos from many of the delegates. One delegate, when interviewed
by a reporter, stated that there was no discussion about whether
or not to make these removals, that they were blindsided by it all.
Other delegates who were supportive of the removals were
enraged at the reinstatement of the items heretofore removed.
This was a clumsy way for the Dems to save face over their
attempted deletions of references to God and not recognizing
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which only ended up in
cheesing off many of the convention delegates.
Now, the language in a political party platform does not at all
directly affect the country's domestic or international policies.
But while this is true, the Democrats' trying to enact these changes
in their platform signal an unmistakable break from both their
acknowledgement of a higher being giving people their potential
to be and to do whatever they so desire to become and to
achieve, as individuals and as a nation, as well as the party's
commitment to the security of Israel and its supporting the
status of Jerusalem as its capital in the face of our ally's
regional enemies who are sworn to eliminate Israel from
existence. The Democrats reinstated the removed language
concerning these points after internal and external opprobrium,
clumsily trying to explain away the flap as, stated by DNC
Chairwoman U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
"essentially a technical oversight." Really. All of this
inspired challenger Romney to comment "I think this
party is veering further and further away into an extreme
wing that Americans don't recognize."
And your observant Peasant couldn't put it better. The con-
ventions held by the Republicans and the Democrats, having
been markedly different in both content and tone through
the years, now make for the starkest study in contrasts one
could ever hope to see. And these conventions give us a
comprehensive view of exactly what these political parties
stand for. Now we must decide whom we stand with.
MEM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
