Tag Archives: Romney

The Effect of BS

Words can elevate, they can inspire; they can call people to action. Words can also drag you down, they can make you look ignorant, they can make you look foolish. Worst of all, under the right circumstances, they can make you look disdainful and arrogant.

Recently, the President of the United States called his political rival a “bullshitter” during a campaign speech. Yep, profanity on the stump, uttered by the President of the United States, as part of his prepared remarks. We are not talking about someone who thinks his microphone is off, muttering to a campaign aide; or who just dropped a teleprompter on his foot and cut loose with an understandably colorful exclamatory metaphor. No, in this case, Obama used profanity to curry favor with his audience, he used it on purpose and in a calculated way.

The English Language has deteriorated over the last few decades to a point where profanity is now seen as little more than verbal punctuation. Our standards have so slipped that verbal obscenity is now actually so commonplace all over our media, from rap “music” to shows like “Family Guy” that entertainers who stay “clean” are news. All this has degraded our culture, coarsened our national discourse, gave us childish and imagination-free “entertainment,” and left us wondering where the line should be drawn, if it should be drawn anywhere.

Now the President, who has traditionally been above such things, has weighed in on the side of decay.

There was a time when we actually looked up the President. He was a kind of national father figure and we expected him to be better and wiser than we are. That lasted pretty much until George Bush I, when the country really began the process of polarization that has brought us to the political divide we face today. Now, we separate the office from the man, and pay lip service to the office while exposing and exploiting every human moment, every foible, every personal mistake, every difficulty faced by the man occupying the office.

In this environment, our Presidents have tried to maintain a level of dignity, staying above the fray and working to preserve the prestige of the presidency. Clinton did some damage, true, but most of his issues took place before his presidential term; and as for his transgressions during his presidency, they were dealt with in a constitutionally appropriate way.

On the face of it, you might consider the things that Clinton did to be worse than Obama’s profane description of Romney, and on many levels you would be right. However, we tend to expect lies and sexual bad behavior from our politicians, an expectation that has existed throughout human history, no matter how elevated the culture. What we don’t expect is for our leader to purposely embrace cultural decay to win political points, and that is what Obama did. True, he has no valid arguments to make on the economy, in foreign policy, or anything else, so he has to accuse Romney of being deceitful. Maybe Obama was simply running out of ways to call Romney a liar, but with that one word, he degraded himself, he degraded his office, and he has demonstrated profound arrogance in not addressing that issue.

Is that what we want in a president?


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Patrick Henry on Experience and How it Informs the 2012 Race

Patrick Henry—you know, patriot, founding father, revolutionary, etc.—once said: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” He was looking at the lot of the common man under European monarchies and he knew, like his fellow enlightenment thinkers Donne, Locke, and others, that it was time for a change. Of course, this was when the idea of representative democracy was coming into its own, and its great experiment, the United States of America, was about to erupt as a great beacon of hope in the West. Henry’s words were a call for change, in his case revolutionary change. In last night’s debate, we that same message, though not quite as simply nor as eloquently put.

As he has in his previous debates, Mitt Romney stuck to a simple, straightforward message: The foreign and economic policies of the past four years have left us weakened and unable to properly meet the challenges we face around the world. He backed up that assertion in a way that would make Patrick Henry proud; he cited the experiences of the last four years.

Obama had a slightly more difficult job: He had to defend his policies in the face of Iran’s constantly developing nuclear technology; our obscene levels of national debt, unemployment, and general economic ruin; the resolute resurgence of Russia and China; our inability to properly deal with Al Quida…in other words, the experiences of the last four years that were the direct result of his policies. As a result, he did his best to go on the offensive, citing apparent flip-flops on the Romney side and doing his best to criticize his proposals for the navy, at one point reminding Romney that we no longer use bayonets as much (he’s wrong about that), and describing the aircraft carrier in terms that made me wonder whether or not he’d actually seen one. I have to wonder whether or not that kind of snarky absurdity helped or hurt him.

We’ll learn that as the dust settles and we look for changes in the polls. However, partisanship aside, this debate was instructive in one respect. Experience counts. We have all experienced the last four years, we have all seen what has happened both here and overseas, and we have all felt the direct consequences of Obama’s economic policies in our wallets. For true believers on either side, the actual results don’t matter, they will argue that their guy has won. Happily, neither group is enough of a voting block to elect a president. For the rest of us, this debate was a reminder to look at the experiences of the last four years and ask a question: Do we want more of the same?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.–Patrick Henry

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Honest Politician

Everyone likes to think that their guy is honest. If you are a democrat, odds are you thought that Joe Biden was more honest than Paul Ryan; if you are a republican, odds are good you took the opposite position. That goes to two things: the credibility of the candidate, and the bias of the audience.

In my October 4, 2012 entry, Romney and the Joy of the Simple Message, I discussed how a simple, straightforward message that can pass the test posed by Ockham’s Razor by relying on the fewest number of assumptions is best, and how Romney’s jobs first message, in passing that test, was the more credible, a fact that certainly contributed to Romney’s victory. We saw much the same from Ryan, though he dealt with more topics than Romney faced, and that approach served him well; but we saw something in Biden’s performance that can serve as an example to writers, orators, or anyone else who tries to convince others that their point of view is correct.

Early in the debate, the issue of the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, came up. When confronted with the issue, Biden made up excuses, including a slowly evolving intelligence assessment that began as the “riots against that anti-Islam film” story but eventually settled on the truth, that it was a terrorist attack that had nothing to do with any film, Islam-related or not. He claimed that no one asked for more security, and then went on to attack Romney for his reaction to the killings.

This exchange is so telling, and makes such a clear object lesson on the necessity of honesty, because the truth came out a week before the vice-presidential debate! The news has been filled with stories of the spin that the Obama Administration has tried to put on the Benghazi attack, along with proof that the embassy staff were begging for additional security as well as proof that those pleas fell on deaf ears in Obama’s State Department and, likely, elsewhere in the Executive Branch.

When so confronted, Biden had two choices: He could argue and lie, knowing that the truth was already out there; or he could admit everything and have a mea culpa moment on behalf of Obama and himself. Biden chose the former, and that was a fatal mistake. The history of politics has taught us that the cover-up is always worse than the shame or guilt being hidden; the lie is always more damaging to the liar. The old biblical canard, “the truth shall set you free” is true, and ought to be the watchword of writers, artists, and politicians alike.

For most folks who do not fall within the “democrat true believer” camp, the obvious lie about the embassy attack destroyed any credibility Biden had. Therefore, the question to be asked is, given the notoriety of the issue, and the fact that the truth is already out there, why not make the integrity move, take responsibility, and seek forgiveness? Also, why not do that on some of the other issues, where we already know the truth in spite of the Obama Administration’s various explanations. Biden would have done his ticket a real favor by being honest with the American People, and he would have bolstered his own credibility in the debate, perhaps to a point where his grins and grimaces would not be front page news this morning.

So, how does this apply to writers? Simple: Readers know when you are lying. Treat them with respect and tell them the truth, and you will be amazed at how your work takes off!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Some Musings on Tonight’s Vice-Presidential Debate

There can be little doubt that tonight’s debate will be a make or break event. If Ryan is, like Romney, the clear winner; especially if he uses the same simple message and honest delivery, then the entire Democrat ticket will be discredited and their cause set back even more than after Obama’s humiliation. If, however, Biden comes out on top, then there will be a lot to explain. How, for example, did the gaffetastic Mr. Biden manage to stay on message and articulate his points to gain an advantage over his opponent when Obama, billed as the master orator and the smartest guy in the room, failed so badly. In the first case, the entire democrat ticket is damaged; in the second, only Obama.

Does it really matter either way?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Shock and Dismay at the Daily Beast

I may have mentioned in one of my earlier blogs that when writing an expository piece, it is good to use actual data to bolster your argument. That way, you don’t seem to just be flapping your gums and praying no one notices that the only thing coming out from between them is hot air. Now that we have some distance from the first presidential debate, also known as the Night of the Living Dead for those expecting some animation from the Obama side of the stage, we can see how the Left has taken it.

Badly, to say the least.

Now, bear in mind that Romney did little more than what one might expect at a spirited board of directors meeting. It was not rocket science. The man had one message, jobs, and he stuck to it. His rhetoric was not even particularly compelling. He let the message itself carry the load, and it worked. Now, several days later, the leftist media has finally settled on a reason for his resounding win: He lied!

That is the explanation we find all over the media, now that Al Gore’s altitude excuse and the “magic hankie” excuse have been debunked, and it is peppered throughout Andrew Sullivan’s latest rant at The Daily Beast called Did Obama Just Through the Entire Election Away? True, the brunt of his dismay and anger is aimed squarely at Obama, but he does accuse Romney of lying his way to victory, saying in one part, “Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage,” to try and explain the massive swing in support away from Obama. Later on in the piece he laments Obama’s inability to recover from the debate losses by adding, “…when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it’s hard to see how a president and his party recover.”

The problem that Sullivan and his cohorts in the Left Wing have is that they cannot pinpoint Romney’s great lies. When you call someone a liar, it helps to actually describe the lie. They have not done that. Let me, therefore, give them a hand:

  • Was it when Romney said jobs were his priority? He is a businessman, a jobs guy, if you will, so that seems pretty much in character.
  • Was it when Romney linked jobs to energy production? Any first year economics student can tell you there is a connection between low energy costs and higher economic output.
  • Maybe it was when he said Obamacare would destroy jobs? That is a tricky one, since few people if any have actually read all 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act and fewer still understand it. However, since it includes a large number of tax increases, and we know taxes on business inhibits hiring, it makes sense.

The bottom line is that Romney looked at Obama’s first term through the lens of a businessman and simply reported what was wrong with what he saw. If he actually was lying, I would love for someone on the Left to point out the lie. Until then, it is little more than whining and fingerpointing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Romney and the Joy of the Simple Message

There has been a lot of chatter today about last night’s debate. From the left the reactions range of excuses and good reasons for Obama’s performance to outrage over it. From the right, grins and gloating. The one thing that all and sundry agree on is that Romney won the debate. Why?

Consider Ockham’s Razor, the maxim that teaches us that when faced with differing and conflicting hypotheses, the truth will come from the one with the fewest assumptions. Last night, Romney’s performance was predicated on one—yes, one—assumption: The American people need jobs and it is the role of the government to foster an environment where jobs can be created. That was it. That was Romney’s message. Obama’s, on the other hand, was based on a variety of assumptions ranging from the old chestnut, “It’s Bush’s fault” to “taxes promote economic growth” to “Obamacare is identical to what Romney installed in Massachusetts” to “coal is evil and green energy is the way to go regardless of cost” to “the rich need to pay more in the name of fairness.” These are merely the ones that come to mind, but you get the idea. One assumption informs Romney’s economic views; many assumptions inform Obama’s.

I will leave it to you to choose which one is right, but the reactions this morning tell me that hitting that single, basic idea of job growth, and making that idea the centerpiece of his economic plan gave Romney an edge that Obama could not beat.

Trust in Ockham and his razor, it hasn’t let us down in over 660 years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Your Programs Failed: Some Thoughts on Tonight’s Debate

I was having a fairly animated conversation with a friend of mine who is so far to the right he makes me seem almost liberal. He was smug about how Obama’s policies have entirely failed and how that is all he has to run on. I asked him, “What makes you think his policies failed?”

After a moment of sputtering, he answered, “Look at gas prices! Look at the unemployment rate! You know the only reason it’s so low is that so many people dropped off the unemployment lines. Look at the taxes, the way businesses are going down the tubes, Government Motors….” he went on like this for a while and eventually wound down, finally asking me how I could find even a little achievement, a little victory, in anything this man has done since taking the presidency.

At the heart of this issue is the fuzzy, imprecise language that Orwell was railing against. People keep talking about Obama’s policies as if they actually know what those policies are. They assume that what they hear in the media is the truth, rather than propaganda, that Obama is trying and that his hands are tied by Republicans and the problems he inherited from Bush are so much worse than anyone could have imagined. They accept all this and fail to ask the one question that would explain everything we have seen since 2008. That question is, simply put, “What are the actual policies that has Obama been pursuing since his election in 2008?”

If we assume the man is not stupid, which he clearly is not; and we assume that he had a plan for the nation, which he did (remember Joe the Plumber and “spread the wealth” or “energy prices would skyrocket under my plan” from the last election?) then it has to be assumed that what we are seeing is part of an overall vision that Obama has for the country. I will leave it to you to decide what that vision is, but tonight I will be listening for Romney to ask the right question, and to demand the honest answer.

I hope he does, but I have my doubts. After all, isn’t he a politician, too?


Filed under Uncategorized