Dear Leader

 | 

I’m sure that the president's choice last night to rein in his brilliance and heart and allow Romney to “win” the debate is part of a brilliant strategy. I’ve understood Barack Obama’s brilliance from the very beginning — I bought a copy of The Audacity of Hope and Change in, like, early 2008. Before everybody else did. Some regular people are intimidated by his brilliance. And his heart. But I’m not. I understand it.

I mean, some people are saying that the president will have to lower himself to that liar Romey’s level and lie to get votes. But Barack Obama can’t lie. I mean, he just can’t — he’s too brilliant and has too much heart. Some people don’t understand that, but I do. I have an original Obama sticker on my Prius — not the Obama/Biden sticker and not a 2012 sticker, but the original “O” sticker that only charter supporters could get.

I know that some people are saying that Obama should have “hit back” at Romney in the debate. But those people aren’t true Obama supporters. They’re just pretenders who only care about the horse-race qualities of an election and don’t understand Obama’s brilliance. And heart. The man has so much heart that he can’t help being so much bigger than people like Romney. Romney and his mean-spirited dismissal of the 47%. What an elitist snob. I can’t believe he got the Republican nomination!

I realize that, at times like last night’s debate, Obama’s brilliance is a cross he has to bear. And his heart. I know that feeling — it’s something people like me and the president have in common. I mean, I’m not going to say I’m as brilliant as Barack Obama. Or have as much heart. But we do share a few similar traits.

I was on Facebook this morning, reading what Michelle had to say about how rude Romney was last night, just ignoring the rules and talking right over that weak moderator. I’m part of Michelle’s true friends circle on FB — not the one that’s open to the public, but the one where you had to have been a charter supporter to get invited. So I get to read what she really thinks. Michelle is so brilliant. Anyway, while I was reading what Michelle really thinks about the debate, I realized something: politics is beneath Barack Obama. His heart is so much bigger. And he’s so much more brilliant.

I understand something now that regular people probably don’t. You have to have been with Barack and Michelle from the beginning to get this — I mean, Michelle gets it. And Sasha and Malia probably get it, but regular people don’t understand. Barack needs a platform worthy of his brilliance and heart. If he chooses not to demean himself and pander in a vulgar popularity contest, it will prove that his brilliance and heart are just too brilliant for the common American voter.

I’ve kind of known that all along, before all the regular people started figuring it out.




Share This


Round One: Romney

 | 

The first of three presidential debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was held last night. New Jersey governor Chris Christie had boldly predicted that the event would be a “game-changer” for the Romney campaign. As it turned out, Christie was probably overstating things. Nevertheless, Romney’s energetic performance put new life into his quest for the White House, while Obama let slip an opportunity to finish off his Republican opponent.

The immediate post-debate analysis seemed to stress style over substance. Romney, pundits agreed, looked happy to be on the University of Denver stage, while Obama appeared to endure the 90-minute debate. Romney smiled; Obama scowled. Romney was aggressive and weighed in on issues with gusto; Obama was rather detached and professorial. Romney ran roughshod over moderator Jim Lehrer; Obama was more diffident in dealing with the aging and rather incompetent PBS journalist. The performances left MSNBC’s coterie of lefties in a state of near-apoplexy, while at Fox there was smug satisfaction.

This observer thought Romney started and finished strong, while Obama scored some important points in between. The debate was to be divided into six segments. The first three concerned aspects of the economy (jobs, the deficit and debt, and entitlements) followed by healthcare, the role of government, and “governing.” The first segment ran over time — no surprise, given the flabby moderator — and time pressure caused the segment on governing to be dropped. Romney scored substantive points on Obama’s persistent deficits, his energy policy (billions thrown away on green energy boondoggles, lack of oil and gas drilling on federal land), and feeble job growth. Indeed, during the first half of the debate he dominated the stage, despite the fact that some of his arguments and assertions didn’t quite pass the smell test.

About halfway through the debate the subject of Medicare was introduced, and here Obama fought back by eviscerating the Paul Ryan voucher scheme. The president helped himself with seniors, a critical constituency that had already begun moving his way after the selection of Ryan to be Romney’s running mate. Obama also touched a populist chord with some well-chosen words regarding the regulation of Wall Street, and without having to explain or justify the absurd aspects of his main regulatory tool, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed in 2010.

That said, Obama muffed the chance to finish off Romney and end the race a month before Election Day. Obama never mentioned the notorious 47% recording, giving Romney free rein to express (which he did over and over) his love and compassion for everyone in America. He failed to mention the Republican-led House of Representatives, despite the fact that Congress is the most unpopular institution in America. He said nothing about Romney’s tax returns or overseas accounts — juicy populist targets that could have energized not just the Democratic base, but many white working-class voters who lean Republican. For Obama, this debate was definitely an opportunity lost.

Romney, down for the count coming in, picked himself up off the mat and is now back in the fight. For true conservatives — not to mention libertarians — his performance had to grate, for he tried (as usual) to be all things to all people. He was once again short on details about his major policy proposals. And he refused (understandably, since it would be political suicide) to make clear the stark choices America faces, particularly on the fiscal front. His success last night was not, with apologies to Governor Christie, a game-changer, but it does give him hope and the opportunity to make the race competitive again.

Was Obama rusty, as some pundits postulated last night, or did he hold back for fear of appearing to be an “angry black man,” something that he and his handlers have been concerned about since he first declared his candidacy for the highest office? We’ll probably never know, but the betting here is that he will be much more aggressive in the remaining two debates. That and the tendency of Mitt Romney to place his own foot firmly in his mouth will, this observer believes, lead to a second term for Barack Obama.




Share This


Europe’s Next Tax Horizon

 | 

If they weren’t so snide, smug, and supercilious, you would almost be tempted to pity the wretched Europeans — you know, the culturally superior members of the human race. I mean, they are more or less bankrupt, what with their “generous” and “compassionate” welfare states now running out of tax money. And, brother, do they have taxes — in the matter of taxation, they are the wet dream of Obama-worshipers. They have confiscatory income taxes (in France, now set at 75% for the highest bracket), massive property and gas taxes, and national sales taxes (aka VAT taxes) in the mid-20% range that is standard in the rapidly declining continent.

The idea of cutting the sickeningly bloated welfare state is unpopular in these benighted regimes, and normal tax sources are now taxed to the max. So the challenge to the welfare statists is to come up with new tax sources.

The Germans — ever keen and crafty — may have solved the problem. It was recently reported that the more left-wing German political parties (the Social Democrats and the Greens) are now suggesting a wealth tax of 1% on total assets of 2 million Euros or more. So even if you are retired or otherwise unemployed, but along the way you and your spouse have managed to buy a nice home, jewelry, perhaps a portfolio of stocks and bonds, maybe some artwork — the total value will be assessed (at no doubt inflated valuations — remember, the entity doing the assessment will be precisely the one that pockets the money), and looted.

Anyway, that’s where it will start. Remember, the original American federal income tax started very low (top rate of 7%). So did the VAT tax in all the European countries cursed with it. What happens is that the burst of new revenue always results in not just the expansion of existing social welfare programs but the creation of whole new ones, which — like bay cockroaches — will only grow and multiply further.

Indeed, one German “thinktank” has called for a one-time tax of 10% on all wealth over 250,000 Euros. This would likely bring in about the equivalent of 9% of GDP, and an eager exit of capital from the country.

But again, who believes it would be done just once? The same egalitarian arguments for doing it once will be used to justify doing it (say) every other year, or even every year, or even every 6 months, or even . . .




Share This


Two-Choice Tyranny

 | 

In these United States, we are proud of our nontotalitarian system. We call ourselves a “democracy,” and — good for us! — we have actual choices. But how many of us really know that?

A totalitarian political system is, essentially, an exclusive operation: a done deal. What makes it totalitarian is that it serves a closed system of big-government power. But is our own, in its present condition, so very different? It certainly offers us a proposition more seductive than the mailed-fist slam dunk of power characteristic of North Korea, Nazi Germany, or the former Soviet Union. Since we get two choices instead of one, we are assured that we are truly “free to choose.”

Those choices are, however, very narrowly defined. We are pressed to choose only between the two offered by the powers-that-be. The state monopoly on legalized force still needs to keep us contained within borders enabling it to hold its power without any real opposition.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney . . . how many millions of people do we have in this country? Yet these are the two candidates between whom we have to choose? Obama and Romney can honestly be said to represent the best, the smartest, the highest to which our chief executive may aspire?

Excuse my sacrilege against popular piety, but I must revise a line from that Lee Greenwood song that’s played every national holiday to get us all glowy: “God help the U.S.A.”

My friends know I’m a libertarian, so they generally indulge my eccentricities. But lately they’ve been getting very tired of me. I simply won’t fall into line and declare my allegiance to either major party. I don’t like either one of them, and I refuse to accept that my choice must be limited to such a gruesome twosome.

I participate in a local group of gay conservatives, and this group generously embraces libertarians. Most of the time. They’re not so sure about us now. I’ve been stirring up trouble on our blog, and have been sternly chastised for being “rude.”

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney . . . how many millions of people do we have in this country? Yet these are the two candidates between whom we have to choose?

I probably could have been nicer to the commenters with whom I tangled — one of whom I’ve since met, and is quite nice — but my blood is up. I’m the oldest member of the group, and I’ve been hearing the same mindnumbing and intelligence-insulting “either/or” ultimatum in every presidential election for 24 years. Ronald Reagan (for whom I voted both times, in the first two elections in which I was old enough to vote) entered office with the very best of intentions. He was thwarted at nearly every turn, not only by those dastardly liberals but by big-government “conservatives” in his own party. George W. Bush was certainly no small-government devotee, but he might have been nudged farther in that direction had he not spent all his time being dictated to by war hawks and religious zealots.

Republicans’ choices are being dictated to them by Republicans, and Democrats’ by Democrats. There is no evil “other side” bewitching them into behaving like soldiers in an army of zombies. We are tyrannizing ourselves.

We get a feel for the narrowing of the funnel — the constriction of the process — in the constant reminders that “we could have been stuck with Rick Santorum,” the GOP’s runner-up for presidential nominee. “No,” I tell my Republican friends, “you could have been stuck with Rick Santorum.” I am only slightly more likely to vote for Mitt, come November, than I would have been for Little Ricky, so I may not choose to stick myself with either of them. But come November, we are all going to be stuck with somebody few of us can stand. Again.

I sense fatalism in my friends’ repeated rationalizations for their conformity. “This is simply the way it is,” they tell me. When I ask them why they think so, they look at me the way they might look at a 3-year-old who’s asked them why ponies can’t fly.

They seem to think that of the millions of Republicans in the United States, the only two of presidential timber were Romney and Santorum. The multitude was scared away from even considering Ron Paul, the evil Doctor No. And Gary Johnson couldn’t get the media to ask him about any subject other than marijuana, so the country has never found out why he would be a possible choice (and, I still believe, the best one). For three and a half years, Republicans have been gathering forces to battle the Obama Antichrist, yet this is the best they can do?

The choice, as always under a two-choice tyranny, comes down not to a fight for principles but to the preservation of power. The only principle that big government mandarins care about is power. Citizens of the former Soviet Union were unhappy because they knew they had no choices. We are pacified in our servitude by the myth that two choices mean freedom, simply because two choices are — theoretically — better than one. But if both choices serve a closed big-government system, we may rightly ask whether our victory in the Cold War was truly all it’s been cracked up to be.

Eventually, Soviet citizens grew so unhappy that they forced a revolution. We may well question what’s become of it, but at least they’ve replaced their old tyrants with some new ones. Perhaps, when people live for too long under tyranny of any sort, they lose the will to be truly free and are content with the illusion of freedom. Like frogs in water brought to a boil too slowly to perceive the rising heat, will we make the leap out of the kettle before we’re cooked?




Share This


Observations on a Leaking “Social”

 | 

In a recent piece I had a bit of fun with the notice that the Social Security Administration (SSA) had purchased 174,000 rounds of hollow-point .357 caliber ammo, which the SSA later said was for “target practice.” I speculated that the SSA was gunning up to gut-shoot granny when she comes to complain about her benefits being cut, owing to America’s spending and (lack of saving) problem.

Two recent reports provide an interesting new take on the story.

The first conveys the news — totally ignored in the mainstream media — that this year marks a record high for Social Security retirement and Social Security disability benefits paid out. And the fiscal year has a month left to go!

In Fiscal Year 2011 (which ended September 30 of that year), the feds shelled out a record sum: nearly $592 billion in benefits (from the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund). But as of the end of last month, they had already spent about $3 billion more than that — $595 billion in total so far in FY 2012.

Again, in FY 2011, the SSA paid out $128 billion in disability benefits. As of last month, it had paid already paid $129 billion for FY 2012.

As of now, there are a record 45,505,287 retirees or survivors receiving regular Social Security payments, and an additional 10,786,510 workers or their dependents on Social Security Disability. And the wave of retiring baby boomers is just getting underway.

Then there is the fascinating story out of Louisiana of a dude who was denied emergency food stamps. This citizen — one Mark Knight — allegedly returned to his truck and pulled out his handy AR-15 “assault” rifle, apparently to petition for redress of grievances. He was nabbed by national guardsmen before he could use it.

All this conjures up the vision of granny herself gunning up with an assault rifle . . . against SSA agents with .357 magnums . . . not really a fair fight.

My suggestion: the SSA needs to bring in tanks, with hollow-point ammo for the .50-caliber machine guns. This will help the citizenry achieve true moral clarity.




Share This


Three Ways of Reacting to the Obvious

 | 

At this writing, no one can say what happened in Benghazi on September 11, when Ambassador Chris Stevens was brutally murdered by a mob of Muslim fanatics, driven to frenzy by an obscure YouTube feature. Or was he murdered by a Muslim army, conducting a well-planned attack? Or was it an inside job, perpetrated by Libyan employees of the embassy? Or perhaps all three?

The administration’s account of the enemy has frequently changed. But what about America’s arrangements to defend its people and property? What about our own operations? What happened with them? Mrs. Clinton’s State Department clearly wants everyone to assume that adequate security was in place. But . . . but . . . what about the obvious? The ambassador is dead.

The badly named Buck McKeon (R-CA), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, made that point. It’s an obvious point, but he made it, and he did a little something with it: “It’s pretty obvious he did not have adequate security. Otherwise he would probably be here today. . . . I’m really disappointed about that. I think when we put our people around the world at risk and don’t provide adequate security, shame on us.”

This is one kind of response to fact. It’s banal, it’s obvious, but at least it recognizes the obvious. It recognizes things as they are, and allows for some further investigation, and perhaps some redress of grievances.

A second kind of response is represented by President Obama’s bizarre remarks of Sept. 20, about what he had learned as president: "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."

In making this comment, Obama assumed a general recognition of the obvious: he had not managed to fulfill his promises of hope and change. An obvious response would be, “Well, maybe somebody else can fix things.” But that’s not the tack Obama took. That’s not what he said he had learned. He said he’d learned that you can’t change Washington from the inside, that you have to be an outsider to do that.

There’s no way you can make sense out of that. Obama couldn’t be farther inside, and he’s campaigning to stay that way, despite the fact that insiders can’t change anything. But obviously, when he was on the outside, he didn’t manage to change anything, either — because otherwise why would he have campaigned to get on the inside?

This dilemma has no exit. It’s a radical form of conservatism: since no one, either inside or outside, can do anything about anything, we need to stay exactly where we are right now. Obama happens to be in the White House, so that’s a good deal for him. As for the rest of us . . . we’ll always have Social Security to fall back on.

Or will we? On September 20, Paul Ryan addressed the convention of the American Association of Retired Persons, otherwise known as the world’s greatest purveyor of direct mail, and said what is obviously true and admitted by all: Social Security is broke, and getting broker, and if something isn’t done about it, the system will fold. This non-news should, theoretically, be of the first importance to the AARP. The AARP should want to do something about it. But what it did was to boo and hiss Paul Ryan.

This is the third kind of reaction to the obvious — an impassioned resistance to knowing or doing anything. It’s a conservatism so militant that even Jerry Falwell, were he still on earth, might pause and admire it. It’s the kind of conservatism that one sees everywhere in the campaigns of incumbents (and this year, the Democratic Party is the chief incumbent). Every Obama sign and sticker is like a giant billboard reading SO WHAT? The failure is obvious; the intention to fix it, nonexistent. The program is, keep everything exactly the way it is. The fact that this program will probably win is an even ghastlier reflection on American politics than the Republicans’ tedious gyrations between truth, untruth, and sort of truth.

“Fact checks” almost always hurt the Republicans, because the Republican campaign is predicated on the idea that facts exist and must be faced. But they do nothing to hurt the Democrats — and that’s the really awful thing.




Share This


Dead Cat Bounce

 | 

The Democratic National Convention produced not much of a bounce in the polls for Obama, and the bounce was soon gone. A big part of the reason was the continuing economic bad news that rained on the propaganda parade. This news is worth analyzing, because most people don’t see its significance. Certainly the mainstream media don’t.

First, early in the week of the convention, the feds announced that we officially hit the $16 trillion mark in national debt. This happened during the administration of a man who questioned his predecessor’s patriotism for having spent much less in eight years than his own administration has spent in less than four. The media ignored this, of course.

But much worse were the job figures. The jobs report showed a measly 96,000 net jobs created in August. And the numbers for the previous two months were revised downwards — 41,000 fewer jobs were created in the previous two months than had been reported earlier.

The unemployment rate “dropped” from 8.3% to 8.1%, but only because an incredible 368,000 people simply left the labor force. Yes, four people quit searching for work for every one who found it.

In fact, if the labor participation rate were what it was on the day Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 11.2%. Hell, if the labor participation rate had just stayed the same as it was last month, the unemployment rate would have gone up to 8.4%. Count in the underemployed along with those who have given up looking for work, and the rate is really 19%.

Meanwhile, in the last month for which data are available, the number of Americans on food stamps rose by 173,000. Yes, about two Americans applied for food stamps for every one who got a job. More than 45 million Americans — i.e., roughly 15% of the population — are now on food stamps, almost double the 7.9% rate that was the average from 1970 to 2000.

The number of people on SSI (Social Security disability) has now hit 11 million, half signing up under Obama’s enlightened reign.

The fruits of neosocialism are bitter, except for the neosocialists themselves.




Share This


The 47% Solution

 | 

Earlier this week Mother Jones released a video in which Mitt Romney, standing in front of a gathering of prospective donors (that is, rich people whose lives are so impoverished they have nothing better to do than listen to another rich person beg for money), all but conceded the election, announcing that no matter what he did, 47% of the nation would be voting for his opponent. Setting aside how imprecise and impolitic his remarks were — did he really need to make himself appear even more out of touch with the public? did he really mean to lump minimum-wage earners in with the professionally unemployed as “moochers”? — his response to the footage that shows how poor a candidate he is, and how incompetent his campaign has been.

Straight off, Romney took to his domesticated media outlet, Fox News, to answer softball questions that would allow him to get back on message. But he botched even this: saying his remarks were “not elegantly stated” because they were “off the cuff” was an admission that he could neither handle anything approaching a crisis, nor tailor a message to this specific audience while keeping up the phony populist image all politicians are expected to maintain.

Can you imagine Reagan casting aside half the nation at the start of a campaign?

Next, Romney pointed to Obama’s notorious remarks in the 2008 campaign about rural voters “get[ting] bitter and cling[ing] to their guns or religion.” While he’s right about this revealing the president’s (undoubtedly ongoing) contempt for a large percentage of the electorate, he’s wrong that the effect is in any way comparable, or that Obama’s later victory proves that this election is still salvageable. Obama’s remarks came in April, much earlier in the cycle, when he was still battling Hillary Clinton for his party’s nomination; at that time he was running left, trying to gain support from likely primary voters in the Democrat base. Obama still had plenty of time to spin the remarks for a wider audience (and is still doing so today), especially when faced with yet another weak GOP candidate.

Romney is not facing a lame duck candidate, and he does not have months to spare. He may have had that chance if the video had surfaced in May, when the donor event was surreptitiously recorded, but with the tape emerging only now, it’s as if he gave them just last week. And even so the situation was still different: by then Romney was the nominee in all but name; his message should’ve been about how he was going to carve out hunks of that 47% for the GOP. Can you imagine Reagan casting aside half the nation from the very first? Romney's comparison of his callous remarks with Obama’s shows he does not understand the gravity of his misspeak.

Meanwhile, Romney, as well as Paul Ryan, has also tried to call attention to taped footage of Obama speaking in 1998 — 1998! — about how he believes in “redistribution” of wealth. Back then Obama was just finishing up his first term as an Illinois state senator in a very safe seat; he had no reason not to say he believed in the same thing 99% of Democrats have believed in since FDR’s day. The move smacks of sheer desperation; worse, it suggests that this video clip from 1998 — 1998! — was something the campaign had been holding in reserve, a hidden weapon the Romney crew hoped would push their guy over the hump. What’s next, a tape from Obama’s childhood where he would like to get the world singing in perfect harmony?

There are so many ways to hit Obama’s first term performance, yet Romney has missed with every swing.

If Romney had proven himself competent at any point during this campaign, he might’ve been able to mitigate the damage, or at least issue a semi-believable retraction. But this is a candidate who somehow contrived to offend even the English — the Tories, even, past masters at giving offhand offense — when he stated London might not be ready for the Olympics. (It was.) And, to pick just one more among many, he’s also the candidate who, when he was asked how much “middle-income Americans” make, gave a range between $200,000 and $250,000.

The Fox News fools, of course, are trying to rally behind this, encouraging Romney to stick with that line of attack—a great way to lose not only the White House, but any chance of retaking the Senate, as well. Which could be the point: it was enough early on that no Republican with any genuine chance at a two-term presidency wanted anything to do with the 2012 election; I suspect the smart ones among them (and the intelligence of anyone in the GOP should from this point be measured by the speed at which they distance themselves from Romney) realize what a mess the world will be by 2016: global recession, mushrooming unemployment, massive debt burdens, neverending wars . . . how could anyone tossed into that not improve things at least a little?

Which, again, highlights the unfathomable failure of the Romney campaign. There are so many ways to hit Obama’s first term performance, yet Romney has missed with every swing. Obama extends Bush’s imprudent wars, pursues new ones, prosecutes whisteblowers for treason, executes American citizens extrajudicially, and kicks bin Laden’s corpse up and down the campaign trail; Romney calls him soft on terrorism. Obama maintains Goldman Sachs’ disastrous control of American economic policy, bails out underwater companies while deriding solvent ones, exacerbates global starvation through continued agricultural subsidies, and puts forward an unworkable piss-take of a budget; Romney refers everyone to Ryan’s almost equally unworkable budgetary scheme. Obama presides over a prison gulag filled with consensual criminals and an unconscionable percentage of America’s young black men; Romney says nothing on criminal justice reform. Obama holds up trade agreements to benefit his union cronies; Romney calls for trade war with China. It just goes on and on and on.

Going by the president’s approval ratings, this is an election that the Republicans could have won — but not by this candidate, and not with this campaign. Now there’s just one good thing the GOP can hope to take from the Romney campaign: getting a couple months’ jump on the postmortem.



Share This


Bernanke’s Thanks

 | 

Among the myriad other disputes between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a deep disagreement about Fed head Ben Bernanke. Obama loves Helicopter Ben, who is as prodigiously profligate monetarily as Obama is fiscally. Romney has already said publicly that (if elected) he would look to someone else when Bernanke’s term expires.

I have no doubt that’s a big reason why Bernanke announced a massive and open-ended new “QE3.” The Fed will pump $40 billion into the economy (buying mortgage-backed securities) every month until jobs are finally created. Given that the past massive injections of fed cash into the economy — you know, QE1 and QE2 — have not exactly created an employment explosion, the Fed may be buying those securities forever.

Short-term, the Fed’s announcement has resulted in a boost to the stock market. When you keep interest rates near zero, you basically drive capital into stocks. Raising the stock market higher is Bernanke’s gift to Obama, a big, wet, sloppy monetary kiss he hopes will get Obama reelected (and guarantee himself another term as well).

The bad thing, for everyone else, is that the value of the dollar will plummet downward. Both gold and oil prices therefore went up on the news.

The ratings agency Egan-Jones responded by dropping America’s credit rating from “AA” to “AA-“. In April, the agency had cut the rating from “AA+” to “AA.” In both downgrades, the agency cited concern about the rapidly growing deficit and declining dollar.

Egan-Jones VP Bill Hassiepen has said that the Fed’s “massive monetization” of debt is causing “sluggish to stagnant economic growth.” Hassiepen expects a rapid increase in the prices of energy and food, but, he wryly noted, “Unfortunately, we have a Federal Reserve that simply does not recognize the inflationary impact of food and energy prices any longer.”

No, what the Fed recognizes is that if Obama isn’t reelected, heads will roll, starting at the top. It will spend as much of our money as it feels it needs to do the job.




Share This


Talking to an Empty Chair

 | 

I keep hearing some people say that Clint Eastwood’s hilarious skit at the National Republican Convention was in poor taste. I am reminded of Marshall McLuhan’s famous quip that "good taste is the last refuge of the witless."

Indeed, I found it comical watching media insiders, even conservative ones, agonizing over Clint Eastwood's "disrespect" to President Obama as he mimed him telling Mitt Romney to perform an anatomically impossible act.

This is disrespect? To the president who by proxy or surrogate has accused Mitt Romney of schoolyard bullying, murder, lying, felony, dog-whistle racism, and income tax evasion, and who ran a video that showed Paul Ryan pitching granny into a ravine? When did we get so finicky and reverential about the president, particularly this president, who was tutored in the political graces in the corrupt down-and-dirty precincts of Chicago?

The insider campaign wonks who are expert in the art of manipulation claimed that Clint interrupted the touching emotional sweep of the painstakingly choreographed narrative leading up to Mitt Romney's acceptance speech. Mika Brzezinsky, co-anchor of "Morning Joe," said that Clint's shtick was "absolutely disgusting." And even Ann Romney claimed she "didn't know it was coming."

Such sensitive souls!

Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's speech made him “cringe,” and Roger Ebert added that he found Eastwood’s performance “sad.” But as the cameras scanned the convention floor I didn’t see anyone cringing or sad. What I saw was the uproarious laughter of an audience previously about to die from an assault of cloying sentimentality. The majority rose to their feet in cheering approbation, and many were laughing so hard they seemed on the verge of crying, if not rolling in the aisles. I have a hunch that many of these embarrassed and shocked TV newsmen were secretly laughing up their collective sleeves as well, and will wake up in the middle of the night and burst out with geysers of uncontrollable laughter.

There was a subtext to Eastwood’s funny, roguish skit: it covered some pretty deplorable behavior of President Obama and his dysfunctional administration; it was, in fact, a serious bill of indictment. But what Clint Eastwood really brought to the proceeding was some much-needed irreverence in a too carefully scripted presentation. It's called comic relief.




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.