The pick of Paul Ryan to join Mitt Romney as the representatives of the Republican party for the general election this November was inspired. I think this has had a profound impact on the race already and has the progressives in the Democrat party scrambling. They are already scared and will now have to do so much more than what was already a daunting task--getting Barack Obama reelected based on his dismal failure as the President of the United States.
The Ryan pick forces the progressives to defend so much more ground than just 72 hours ago. Mitt could be attacked for Romneycare, his wealth, his time at Bain Capital (all positives, if you ask me) but they could not attack him on character issues. This front was narrow and could easily be defended by many who could resort to class warfare and implied racism. That is no longer the case. Ryan brings a voice of great intellect, breadth and depth to a host of issues that has now forced the progressives to argue issues that, up until this weekend, could be put on the back burner. Now spending, the debt, deficits, taxes, medicare, medicaid and defense are now on the table and up front. Just like a football team that has a burner at wide receiver and a passer who can chuck the football, the Romney team has forced the Obama defense to now cover the whole field. With already a strong ground game gaining strength, now we have a deep threat that can score at will.
The Obama administration and campaign is completely flumoxed by this choice. They were not counting on having to spend money in the Midwest and having to come up with something other than Mitt is Rich as an argument. As my callers pointed out this morning, they think that Mitt is Rich is a positive, not a negative. They want to work for someone who has been successful. They want someone who has signed the front of a check as the person guiding this nation. The last half hour of my program was filled with small businessmen calling to say how pleased they were with the choice and that Mitt was a guy who could be trusted with the economy of the nation.
We get a twofer with Ryan. We have a guy who has been successful in everything he has done, been married to the same woman for over 40 years, has raised five wonderful sons and knows how to get things done. He picked a guy who is faithful, pious, dedicated, smart, articulate and bring a blue-collar work ethic to public service. It probably doesn't get much better than this.
For those who tuned into the launch of the internet show yesterday, thanks so much. I think we have great potential for this. Hoping we can generate some sponsors so we can keep this going.
The purpose of this brief post is thank all of you for making IMPACT with Sam Clovis the success it has become on our local radio station. This website, though I do not update and post as often as I really should (staff of me), our monthly hit rate has increased by 70% over the last year. According to folks who are supposed to know, we have an incredible traffic rate for a site associated with a local radio program. As we expand offerings in other media, I am hopeful the traffic rate will continue the phenomenal growth we have experienced in the past year or so.
You will soon find links here to the seriouscivics.com website, Facebook, Twitter and LATalkRadio.com. On Sunday, the 12th of August, 5-7 pm central, I will be broadcasting on LATalkRadio. This will be my first venture into internet radio. We are getting support for the program and would love to have as many people as possible listen to the program. The broadcast will be recorded, available as a podcast and will have iTunes alerts for those who subscribe. Also, LATalkRadio has an app so you can access their programming at any time. It is eclectic and entertaining. Without FCC filters, listeners are likely to hear just about everything.
The companion seriouscivics.com website will provide access to a host of educational materials that will, hopefully, advance our understanding, and exercise, of citizenship. I hope you will join us on this incredible journey into new frontiers. Again, thanks so much.
One had to be aghast at the pronouncements of the President a couple of weeks ago in Roanoke, VA. His notion that individuals do not gain success or achievement on their own is frightening at the very least. According to Obama (and Elizabeth Warren) everyone of us must owe whatever success we have attained to the government for building roads and providing the internet. The remarks would be hilarious if they did not reflect what is clearly the most striking difference between liberty-loving individuals and those who feel that only the collective of the government can provide for all of our well-being. The pernicious, intrusive and freedom-smothering collective has a great deal to do with what is draining the very spirit out of the American people. Progressives know no other way and freedom-lovers find such ideas abhorrent on every level.
I have been doing a lot of reading in the work on my latest writing endeavor. I have found a recurring theme in tracing the history of conservative thought in America and the constant battle that has arisen between conservatism and progressivism. If one traces political thought back to just the middle of the 19th Century, we see the watershed of thought occurring with the
writings of utilitarian Mills. When utilitarianism is linked to Darwinism, one easily sees how one can rationalize behaviors that cannot be allowed except for the denial of God and the covenant that people have with each other and between people and their government. Utilitarianism allows individuals to rationalize that the collective is far more compelling than allowing for individual liberty. In collective thinking, there is no accountability, because no one can be saddled with responsibility for decision-making. No one can be identified as the leader. No one, thus, needs liberty because there is no need for individual action. Collective actions are preferred because everyone shares responsibility for what has happened—or more likely, no one accepts responsibility for behaviors.
As bad as the economy is and as bad as this president’s performance has been, why have we not heard more about the character of the two presumptive candidates running for president? Does character still matter in American politics? I fear it does not but am hoping that among those who really care about this country that a man’s character would matter. If character does matter, then why would we not want to vote for the person who is the most honest, who reflects the most integrity and who has been the most consistent in his behavior over his lifetime? I am hopeful more and more Americans will take character into account when they go into the voting booth in November.
Let us compare the two men seeking the highest office in the land. First, we will start with Mitt Romney. He has been faithful to his wife, a great father to his five children, an accomplished businessman, a successful politician and person who has been accountable in everything he has ever done. He is compassionate and has shown great empathy for the American people. His Mormon religion is profound, compelling and convincing. He believes in God and is unashamed of his faith. In essence, he practices what he preaches. Now let’s look at the current president.
By all accounts, he is a good husband and great father. These are both commendable and should be celebrated. After that, however, his character comes squarely into the focus of many. He has, over the decades, worked tirelessly to shape a narrative for public consumption is that is quite opposed to the reality that has been his life. Why in the world would a person who is, and wants to continue to be, the leader of the free world work so hard to keep his past under wraps? What do we really know about the current president and is what we are finding out going to be a millstone that will be a drag on his campaign?
Before we exhaust ourselves trying to ascribe motives to the justices who voted for or against the Affordable Care Act, let’s accept the facts and consequences that have evolved in the past two days. I could care less about Chief Justice Roberts or Associate Justice Ginsberg or Associate Justice Kennedy. The opinions on both sides are now part of the public record, so we need to move on to deal with the aftermath. And before we take that fatal step off the ledge because we think the Constitution has been shredded by idiotic inside-the-beltway operatives, let us count our blessings that we have four justices that see the world the way most of us do. The most significant outcome of the decision is that the individual mandate is now forever classified as a tax. This makes the entire Affordable Care Act a house of cards that can be taken down floor by floor. Whether the act is ever repealed is no longer important. The runaway costs, the intractable administrative challenges and the outrage of voters will spell the demise in due course.
Declaring the mandate a tax places the administration on the wrong side of this issue for the first time. There can no longer be any discussion of Republican heel dragging, obstruction or interference in advancing healthcare reform. The people of the United States will now go to the polls in November and do what Justice Roberts suggested—elect people who will do the will of the people. To this point, the Affordable Care Act has been one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in the history of the country under this Constitution. Now that the mandate has been declared a tax—and the magnitude of that tax is now public—the people will be ever more outraged. On top of the mandate tax, citizens are now learning of the seven major and 14 ancillary taxes that are present in the bill as it goes into effect. Worst of all for the administration, the taxes are for the most part regressive. That is, the level of application is the same regardless of income. This is antithetical for most Americans on its face. The fact that everyone—or nearly everyone—will now see their “taxes” increase, most Americans will find greater consonance with the Tea Party. Now, those Bible-hugging, gun-toting anti-big-government people may not be so scary.
Page 4 of 43