The final presidential debate last night was a victory for Romney. This is because the exchange completed his primary objective through this autumn of introducing himself to America as the competent alternative to an incumbent. The foreign policy subject matter served to round out the image of Romney as commander-in-chief. Obama had some well-rehearsed zingers, but those didn't hit as hard given the subject matter and came across as adolescent. Otherwise, the President looked like Fred G. Sanford, poking his fists in the air in a comical attempt to box the opponent who has pierced him with the truth.
The debate moderated by the far more competent Bob Schieffer was really a sleeper. One Tweeter said in the first 30 minutes, "I'm calling it for...Zzzzzzz." It's good our politics are returning to normal. But Obama had one line in there that aroused that deep, dark place inside me. I can banter with the best of'em about politics, philosophy, theology, etc., make dumb statements and foolish predictions, come up with sarcastic, crude insults all in a spirit of passing the time. But if you offend the history nerd in me, my face turns to stone and I'll consider arson.
Last night, this occurred when the President accused Romney of wanting to "go back to the 80s on foreign policy, the 50s on social policy and the 20s on economic policy." I felt a shudder at this statement. Why? Not because our idiot-in-chief attempted to oversimplify American history - that's no surprise. The soul sickness I experienced at this line by Obama was due to the fact that he was trying once more to ridicule our country's strengths. The President tried to deny his "apology tour"; with his terse reference to some of our nation's brightest decades, Obama revealed, unequivocally, that he hates America.
Yes, the 80s brought us Max Headroom, but they were a glorious period centered around celebrating our strengths with Ronald Reagan as the MC. This exuberance was what brought the Berlin Wall down, more than anything. Yes, the 50s subjected untold numbers to B movies containing atomically-enhanced insects, but it was a stunning era that saw black Americans organize successfully to overcome institutional racism. Backing them up were Eisenhower's Supreme Court and the 82nd Airborne, not Barack's lazy, pot-smoking professors. And while it's true the 20s saw the biggest failed experiment in moral legislation - Prohibition - it was also the era that proved the middle class could share in and benefit from the financial system until then utilized only by the elite. Yes, there were bumps in the road in this sharing, but Americans today would have no hope of growing their wealth such as we do without the low-tax vision of Calvin Coolidge.
Obama hates America because his father suffered from alcohol-fueled envy, borne of I truly don't know what. This negative, ungrateful spirit of covetousness was impressed upon him by a weak-minded mother who couldn't make sense of the polygamous man who abandoned her and their son. As such, Obama has pitifully bought the liberal line that America's strengths lie not in our innovation, courage and responsibility, but in our darker passions of domination, sloth and manipulation. What Obama calls good government, history calls the 1930s. What Obama would call liberty history calls the 1970s. What Obama calls success, history calls the dot-com era of the 1990s, a time of financial fakery that is like a stain on the dress of our past. This twisted perspective stirs in me another of Fred Sanford's reactionary statements. I want to cry out to the President, "You big dummy!"
It's time for him to go for so many reasons, but Obama's lame revisionist history demands we toss him over the side. Vote straight ticket Republican, starting yesterday if you live in Texas!
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Dreaming in Color Television
Last night's second presidential debate messed with my mind. Everyone's talking about the rough-and-tumble of it, which was exciting, but I was enshrouded by that old spirit of being turned off from the gobbledygook that our politicians seem stuck in. I actually failed to concentrate on the segment dealing with automatic weapons and the kids who love them, or some such. Romney's "binder of women" comment was his worst example of this - an as clumsy an answer to the pay parity myth as anyone could muster. For the President, it was his long-running onomonopoeia of rank dishonesty, basically making up his policy (oil and gas) and revising it (Benghazi) as he went along and deceiving everyone about his support of free enterprise. The old Obama was indeed "back" last night; it was the nauseating, Tyler Perry-melodramatic actor that has effectively tuned out the nation from our serious public problems. This is what Biden reminded us of last week. Democrats are just good at doing this. We used to say of Harry Reid and Tom Harkin during Senate floor colloquies: they're whining now, and frankly they're better at it.
I had an intense dream early this morning that I was helping the Romney campaign. I was corralled in a room full of fresh volunteers, where I seemed to get closer and closer in proximity to the Governor, hoping to respectfully proffer some advice. Then I saw him smoking a cigar, which is odd since he's LDS. I think because his performance two weeks ago reignited a long jaded pleasure center in my brain - the same spot that is stimulated by my pipe and the occasional cigar - that is why I followed him out of the volunteer room in my dream in the hopes of correcting some of his missed verbal opportunities during the debate. But then I felt in a rush to go pick up the kids from school and woke up.
But what discouraged me the most during the broadcast last night was the fact that simply by climbing back into this manufactured role he has as President, Obama's sychophant supporters cheered on the liar-in-chief as if nothing has happened in his campaign and to the rest of the country. This, Candy Kommissar the moderator, and that pathetic collection of so-called undecided voters (who were really upstate New York Democrats that were undecided only because they either supported Hillary last time and skipped the general, or they can't bring themselves to vote for a black man at all) all served to stoke the darkness again above my head about this election. Even if Romney wins - which I think he will - we will have four more years of the 47% howling and hollering that our ideas are worthless and that they should get more, that they need it to "make it."
I share the growing frustration of many of my friends about Romney not obliterating the underpinning of the left's ideology. Why is college so expensive? Because WE SUBSIDIZE it through loans and Pell grants. Why are food prices high? Because WE SUBSIDIZE ethanol production through the tax code and its feedstock through farm programs. Why is housing still in a slump nationwide? Because WE SUBSIDIZED the sub-prime lending market and ruined opportunites for modest earners who were credit-worthy. Why is crude oil high? Because we SUBSIDIZE its availability through the Pentagon and the blood of our young people. Why is health care expensive? You guessed it...and Obamacare is but the straw on the camel's back after decades of Medicare extending Americans' age longevity. Why doesn't Romney take on what's at the heart of these problems? We don't have to chuck these programs; we just need to require more skin from their participants.
I'm willing to roll the dice that Romney can do this if we can just get him and Ryan in the White House. This is my dream.
I had an intense dream early this morning that I was helping the Romney campaign. I was corralled in a room full of fresh volunteers, where I seemed to get closer and closer in proximity to the Governor, hoping to respectfully proffer some advice. Then I saw him smoking a cigar, which is odd since he's LDS. I think because his performance two weeks ago reignited a long jaded pleasure center in my brain - the same spot that is stimulated by my pipe and the occasional cigar - that is why I followed him out of the volunteer room in my dream in the hopes of correcting some of his missed verbal opportunities during the debate. But then I felt in a rush to go pick up the kids from school and woke up.
But what discouraged me the most during the broadcast last night was the fact that simply by climbing back into this manufactured role he has as President, Obama's sychophant supporters cheered on the liar-in-chief as if nothing has happened in his campaign and to the rest of the country. This, Candy Kommissar the moderator, and that pathetic collection of so-called undecided voters (who were really upstate New York Democrats that were undecided only because they either supported Hillary last time and skipped the general, or they can't bring themselves to vote for a black man at all) all served to stoke the darkness again above my head about this election. Even if Romney wins - which I think he will - we will have four more years of the 47% howling and hollering that our ideas are worthless and that they should get more, that they need it to "make it."
I share the growing frustration of many of my friends about Romney not obliterating the underpinning of the left's ideology. Why is college so expensive? Because WE SUBSIDIZE it through loans and Pell grants. Why are food prices high? Because WE SUBSIDIZE ethanol production through the tax code and its feedstock through farm programs. Why is housing still in a slump nationwide? Because WE SUBSIDIZED the sub-prime lending market and ruined opportunites for modest earners who were credit-worthy. Why is crude oil high? Because we SUBSIDIZE its availability through the Pentagon and the blood of our young people. Why is health care expensive? You guessed it...and Obamacare is but the straw on the camel's back after decades of Medicare extending Americans' age longevity. Why doesn't Romney take on what's at the heart of these problems? We don't have to chuck these programs; we just need to require more skin from their participants.
I'm willing to roll the dice that Romney can do this if we can just get him and Ryan in the White House. This is my dream.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Why We Fight
Last week I wrote: "If the Democrats think tonight was bad, wait until Ryan gets a hold of Biden." What transpired last night was a bit of surprise to my prediction about how Ryan would handle the Senator from Plugaware, but Ryan's calm, solid performance was no less damning. Ryan had only one objective last night: reassure America that he could take over the Presidency at a moment's notice. Biden, on the other hand, was a washed-up, class warfare hack called on to save a second-rate politician who's in over his head - Obama.
What surprised me was how Biden assisted in his own damnation. Last night, the Vice-President was the old, rude, snobby, liberal jerk that, in my opinion is the purest form of the poison that has ruined our ability to have a discussion on anything in a rational manner. It's all about pushyness, not policy; deceit, not discourse. Esteemed presidential historian Larry Sabato tweeted, "Biden is treating this debate as a Sunday morning talk show. He's done them 40 yrs, knows how to dominate panel." You could almost add the media to the mix of "old, rude, snobby, liberal jerk," but that is too obvious.
I was concerned that the debate last night would be more like two Congress guys arguing on a Sunday talk show, people would get turned off and shrug, well, so much for the revitalization of our republic we saw last week. This kind of happened. But the saving grace was how Ryan stood in as the calm, competent Good Republican. This is in keeping with the R/R strategy of presenting the ticket as the adults in the room. This demeanor is what I signed up to be a part of in the GOP thirty-two years ago.
But more than campagin brass-tacks, Ryan also demonstrated why Republicans fight. We are the creative ones. We are the true problem solvers, remembering government is part of the problem. We are the ones who think freedom means responsibility, and that an extra $4300 a year for a wealthier senior's health care is reasonable. We are the ones who empathize with and honor the widow and the veteran and who want to bring them into a community - made up of ourselves - that can help them, as opposed to government. This is the Ryanesque order of battle.
We can do it!
What surprised me was how Biden assisted in his own damnation. Last night, the Vice-President was the old, rude, snobby, liberal jerk that, in my opinion is the purest form of the poison that has ruined our ability to have a discussion on anything in a rational manner. It's all about pushyness, not policy; deceit, not discourse. Esteemed presidential historian Larry Sabato tweeted, "Biden is treating this debate as a Sunday morning talk show. He's done them 40 yrs, knows how to dominate panel." You could almost add the media to the mix of "old, rude, snobby, liberal jerk," but that is too obvious.
I was concerned that the debate last night would be more like two Congress guys arguing on a Sunday talk show, people would get turned off and shrug, well, so much for the revitalization of our republic we saw last week. This kind of happened. But the saving grace was how Ryan stood in as the calm, competent Good Republican. This is in keeping with the R/R strategy of presenting the ticket as the adults in the room. This demeanor is what I signed up to be a part of in the GOP thirty-two years ago.
But more than campagin brass-tacks, Ryan also demonstrated why Republicans fight. We are the creative ones. We are the true problem solvers, remembering government is part of the problem. We are the ones who think freedom means responsibility, and that an extra $4300 a year for a wealthier senior's health care is reasonable. We are the ones who empathize with and honor the widow and the veteran and who want to bring them into a community - made up of ourselves - that can help them, as opposed to government. This is the Ryanesque order of battle.
We can do it!
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Good Television
Yes, it is true, the first Romney-Obama debate invigorated us GOPers. The Romney Campaign has been pursuing a simple, low-key strategy all along, which has been: present Mitt as the competent alternative. This was successfully done during the GOP Convention. It was executed magnificently last night. The plan will continue during the remaining debates, including the Veep forum one week from today. If the Democrats think tonight was bad, wait until Ryan gets a hold of Biden.
But in the words of Charles Krauthammer, a former clinical psychiatrist, "I don't expect [the President] to hold back next time" (I paraphrase). I don't either. However, what I do expect - and this is why this tired, old Republican hack is excited - is for Romney to do what he's been doing and doing well for the past 5 1/2 years: debate. He will rebut every false premise and falsehood Obama utters. If Obama is more forceful with prepped soundbites, Romney will deflate them. There is nowhere to hide.
Romney was downright thrilling last night because he provided so many things that Republican candidates - any candidate - have been lacking for so long: substance. He was a master of facts and figures without being boring. He was energetic without being hyper. He was heartfelt without that sweaty, fake passion that others try to muster up. He was sharp. He was, in short, a good Republican.
But what Romney accomplished last night was something far greater than just winning an important debate. For one key moment early on, he actually captured the voice of the American people. Jim Lehrer - who I am surprised hasn't been hung in effigy outside the White House yet, and was generally horrible - asked Romney to ask the President what he wanted to ask him about the economy. In one of those defining moments that Presidential campaigns are made of, Romney was the frustrated voice of the hard-working enterprise class, the folks in the country who "get it." He never lost my attention afterward.
Equally important was that, really for the first time, Americans saw that Obama and all Democrats absolutely don't get it. The heart of the debate last night was about getting the economy moving. Every domestic issue is tied into that. It is true that the best economy is a spending economy, as my high school economics teacher drilled into us. But where Democrats are lost on this principle is on just who the spender really is and should be. They seize upon somewhat isolated examples of the past (wars, the Great Society, the Clinton years, etc.) as the proper way to stimulate an economy. In their pseudo-economic way of thinking, they believe the household is the central economic unit. This is incorrect. The reality is that businesspeople - not households - are the true spenders. They spend on hiring, which then in turn stimulates the household. Obama doesn't understand this at all, and he said so in so many words last night. Romney does, and has the street cred to prove it.
Recently, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Governor Romney as a "Chamber of Commerce Republican." I couldn't agree more. There's a world title in his future if, like the Rangers, he can keep it up.
But in the words of Charles Krauthammer, a former clinical psychiatrist, "I don't expect [the President] to hold back next time" (I paraphrase). I don't either. However, what I do expect - and this is why this tired, old Republican hack is excited - is for Romney to do what he's been doing and doing well for the past 5 1/2 years: debate. He will rebut every false premise and falsehood Obama utters. If Obama is more forceful with prepped soundbites, Romney will deflate them. There is nowhere to hide.
Romney was downright thrilling last night because he provided so many things that Republican candidates - any candidate - have been lacking for so long: substance. He was a master of facts and figures without being boring. He was energetic without being hyper. He was heartfelt without that sweaty, fake passion that others try to muster up. He was sharp. He was, in short, a good Republican.
But what Romney accomplished last night was something far greater than just winning an important debate. For one key moment early on, he actually captured the voice of the American people. Jim Lehrer - who I am surprised hasn't been hung in effigy outside the White House yet, and was generally horrible - asked Romney to ask the President what he wanted to ask him about the economy. In one of those defining moments that Presidential campaigns are made of, Romney was the frustrated voice of the hard-working enterprise class, the folks in the country who "get it." He never lost my attention afterward.
Equally important was that, really for the first time, Americans saw that Obama and all Democrats absolutely don't get it. The heart of the debate last night was about getting the economy moving. Every domestic issue is tied into that. It is true that the best economy is a spending economy, as my high school economics teacher drilled into us. But where Democrats are lost on this principle is on just who the spender really is and should be. They seize upon somewhat isolated examples of the past (wars, the Great Society, the Clinton years, etc.) as the proper way to stimulate an economy. In their pseudo-economic way of thinking, they believe the household is the central economic unit. This is incorrect. The reality is that businesspeople - not households - are the true spenders. They spend on hiring, which then in turn stimulates the household. Obama doesn't understand this at all, and he said so in so many words last night. Romney does, and has the street cred to prove it.
Recently, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Governor Romney as a "Chamber of Commerce Republican." I couldn't agree more. There's a world title in his future if, like the Rangers, he can keep it up.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking
There is really only one story about the Cruz win last night: 130,000 Texans switched their vote. That is why Mr. Cruz, a virtual unknown in state politics and about whom MUCH is still unknown, beat a well-funded state official with widely established name ID.
So for the sake of quarterbacking after Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's stunning loss, all criticism should only be made in the light of one question about the one story: why did 130,000 Texans switch their vote? This is actually an amazing phenomenon - one that doesn't happen too often. Voting is like going through the drive-thru, we almost always buy the same exact thing. Rarely do we decide we don't want a burger and opt for the fillet-o-fish. But in the case of the U.S. Senate race, the Cruz campaign benefitted from a massive vote switch of the kind you only hear about in grammar school civics. How did this happen?
THE DELAYED PRIMARY SEASON -- Campaigning 101 requires that you build name ID. Tell 'em who you are, we say. Cruz was relying on the cult-like buzz of social media to do this, but it was nowhere six months ago. At that time, his social media support were a loose collection of malcontents, and even they were undecided, preoccupied with the Presidential race. Once the federal panel in San Antonio started delaying things last year, the drip-drip-drip of Cruz' social media efforts began to find a current. Smartly, he positioned himself as the TEA Party candidate, and began gathering up their pockets of online support. This took about three months just to congeal that group, which was around April. Had the regular March date been the Primary, Dewhurst would have broken 50% easily and Cruz' social media strategy would have left him stillborn.
"CONVICTION" -- One commentator last spring described Cruz' debate style and public speaking as "strong as garlic." Cruz does not inspire with his speech-making. Instead, he is simply "strong," and that is a style of campaigning that has been missing from the stump around here for many, many years. This skin-deep "conviction" animated a large slice of voters this summer in the same way a constable candidate named Clint Eastwood gets votes in a crowded field. This was a sharp contrast to Dewhurst's more low key style, which became sharper as the debates wore on. I am not faulting the Dewhurst campaign for agreeing to more debates; this tactic was not his fault. He had to do it. And as I wrote in my last post, these people who attack the Lt. Governor for being "timid" are mean-spirited and cruel.
MEDIA CONTENT BY THE DEWHURST CAMPAIGN -- I'm not going to go on and on about the mistakes here; the people in Austin will spend the next 72 hours doing that. It's not constructive. But from an academic point of view, and in response to my thesis of why did people switch votes, I encountered one overriding factor among many of the people I talk to out in the country who switched, and it was: "Those television commericals." Normally, negative campaigning is designed to suppress the opponent's support. Never does it persuade. In Dewhurst's case, the nightmare scenario of one's own commericals turning off a voter to you and toward the other guy occurred. The Lt. Governor in effect spent his own money on driving away those who had already voted for him! No one I talked to who "switched" was particularly excited about Cruz. They switched because they just were so up in arms about Dewhurst's commericals. The irony is they failed to specify any particular commerical - they just didn't like them for some reason.
All in all, Cruz did not engineer a victory in the tradtional sense of campaigning. He did have a plan, which was simply to play to the non-establishment right, but that was it. He benefited from favorable winds, which he smartly exploited here in our unusual runoff season. Still, the Cruz win exposes a fault line in the state party that is regrettable. We now apparently have two groups in the state party, and they are not "moderate vs. conservative." The best description is one of "haves and have-nots." It's difficult to want to work between the two groups, as the leadership of the have-nots are driven by bald fear, envy and self-righteousness, for the most part. And these two groups are further defined by attitudes. It's the attitude of being content with incremental change, as our constitutional systems are defined, and demanding Bastille-like change.
Well, we all know what happened the last time folks demanded change. Now let's make sure Cruz beats Mr. Sadler and retake the White House with him.
So for the sake of quarterbacking after Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's stunning loss, all criticism should only be made in the light of one question about the one story: why did 130,000 Texans switch their vote? This is actually an amazing phenomenon - one that doesn't happen too often. Voting is like going through the drive-thru, we almost always buy the same exact thing. Rarely do we decide we don't want a burger and opt for the fillet-o-fish. But in the case of the U.S. Senate race, the Cruz campaign benefitted from a massive vote switch of the kind you only hear about in grammar school civics. How did this happen?
THE DELAYED PRIMARY SEASON -- Campaigning 101 requires that you build name ID. Tell 'em who you are, we say. Cruz was relying on the cult-like buzz of social media to do this, but it was nowhere six months ago. At that time, his social media support were a loose collection of malcontents, and even they were undecided, preoccupied with the Presidential race. Once the federal panel in San Antonio started delaying things last year, the drip-drip-drip of Cruz' social media efforts began to find a current. Smartly, he positioned himself as the TEA Party candidate, and began gathering up their pockets of online support. This took about three months just to congeal that group, which was around April. Had the regular March date been the Primary, Dewhurst would have broken 50% easily and Cruz' social media strategy would have left him stillborn.
"CONVICTION" -- One commentator last spring described Cruz' debate style and public speaking as "strong as garlic." Cruz does not inspire with his speech-making. Instead, he is simply "strong," and that is a style of campaigning that has been missing from the stump around here for many, many years. This skin-deep "conviction" animated a large slice of voters this summer in the same way a constable candidate named Clint Eastwood gets votes in a crowded field. This was a sharp contrast to Dewhurst's more low key style, which became sharper as the debates wore on. I am not faulting the Dewhurst campaign for agreeing to more debates; this tactic was not his fault. He had to do it. And as I wrote in my last post, these people who attack the Lt. Governor for being "timid" are mean-spirited and cruel.
MEDIA CONTENT BY THE DEWHURST CAMPAIGN -- I'm not going to go on and on about the mistakes here; the people in Austin will spend the next 72 hours doing that. It's not constructive. But from an academic point of view, and in response to my thesis of why did people switch votes, I encountered one overriding factor among many of the people I talk to out in the country who switched, and it was: "Those television commericals." Normally, negative campaigning is designed to suppress the opponent's support. Never does it persuade. In Dewhurst's case, the nightmare scenario of one's own commericals turning off a voter to you and toward the other guy occurred. The Lt. Governor in effect spent his own money on driving away those who had already voted for him! No one I talked to who "switched" was particularly excited about Cruz. They switched because they just were so up in arms about Dewhurst's commericals. The irony is they failed to specify any particular commerical - they just didn't like them for some reason.
All in all, Cruz did not engineer a victory in the tradtional sense of campaigning. He did have a plan, which was simply to play to the non-establishment right, but that was it. He benefited from favorable winds, which he smartly exploited here in our unusual runoff season. Still, the Cruz win exposes a fault line in the state party that is regrettable. We now apparently have two groups in the state party, and they are not "moderate vs. conservative." The best description is one of "haves and have-nots." It's difficult to want to work between the two groups, as the leadership of the have-nots are driven by bald fear, envy and self-righteousness, for the most part. And these two groups are further defined by attitudes. It's the attitude of being content with incremental change, as our constitutional systems are defined, and demanding Bastille-like change.
Well, we all know what happened the last time folks demanded change. Now let's make sure Cruz beats Mr. Sadler and retake the White House with him.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Ted Cleon?
My fellow Republican and acquaintance, Ken Emanuelson, recently posted a very good question on his FB page asking, “Where is David Dewhurst’s support?” This is a valid inquiry deserving a thoughtful answer. Mr. Emanuelson is an East Dallas activist who I have respected for many years, and he represents the light side of the Force when it comes to the TEA Party movement. He is also a senior member of the Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate campaign.
An empirical answer to Mr. Emanuelson’s question is that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst’s support exists in the form of the more than 624,000 Texans who voted for him during the Primary. This number was a solid 10% greater than Mr. Cruz’ vote total of 479,000, and I cannot find a case in recent memory where that much of a spread has been overcome in a runoff, notoriously low turnout in such races notwithstanding.
Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has the mathematical support to win the runoff on July 31 simply by showing up. Runoffs are won by one strategy and one strategy alone: re-amassing the total of votes (or a derivative thereof) one had on Primary Day. There is no reason to believe Dewhurst’s voters will not turn out; NONE whatsoever (the usual Primary turnout driver, the Presidential race, was a non-factor this year in Texas). Cruz’s fatal problem is that he cannot add to his total given the nature of his candidacy, whereas Dewhurst has some wiggle room even if his total may be suppressed by any number of factors (ads, debate performance, summer vacation, the Rangers, the planets, etc.). Cruz’ only mathematical hope would be for a Leppert endorsement, which is highly unlikely. Conversely, a Leppert endorsement of Dewhurst would be like sending in an Airborne platoon to attack a brigade that has already has been disintegrated by photon guns.
But Mr. Emanuelson’s question is interesting because the sentiment behind it reflects the heart of what’s been going on within the Party nationally for about five years and now locally. I am a serious Dewhurst supporter (I have been acquainted with him for 13 years and had the privilege of working with him and his staff on a state-federal policy matter when I was a staffer on the Hill), and I’m tempted to ask the same question: why don’t we hear from his people? Why am I not more “vocal.” The answer has to do with styles of participation in the body politic. And the best example of this contrast comes from Ancient Greece.
The democratic system of Athens in the 5th Century B.C. utilized a two-tiered system for picking its leaders. The “ecclesia,” which was everyone, picked a “boule,” which was a massive executive council of 500 men. And it truly was a democratic system (if you were a free male); it was only republican on a rotating basis. The principle behind this system of government was to attempt to break up oligarchies and cliques which naturally form any place there are more than two people with beating hearts. Even the generals, or “strategoi” were elected annually and closely scrutinized by the boule during their term. For example, if a strategos lost a battle, he could be fined, imprisoned or even executed!
Times of war made being a strategos difficult, even though he was elected to fight. This is what happened during the Pelopennesian Wars (431-404 BC), when the Greek city-states of the Pelopennesian peninsula, led by Sparta, got cross-ways with Athens and its allies. Thanks to Hollywood, we are all aware of the virtual invincibility of the Spartans as a land army. The Athenians knew this too and so barricaded themselves and their port behind an equally unscaleable wall, also relying on their superior navy. In the process, Athens protected its commercial system across the Aegean Sea and thus its supplies and wealth. This “conservative” defense policy was put in place by the popular and longtime strategos, Pericles, who was like the George Washington of Athens.
But staying safe behind the walls wasn’t enough for some Athenians, notably those who did have land around Athens which would get ravaged by the Spartans every year. These more hawkish elements called for Pericles’ dismissal as strategos, and they were organized and led by an eloquent, radical non-aristocrat named Cleon. Cleon was a constant, haranguing vocal critic of Pericles, giving little deference to the latter’s admiration by the people and service over the years. He was articulate, but Cleon would have likely had no sway had it not been for the support of some of the landed elite who were being affected by Pericles’ policies (which were put in place in everyone’s best, if uncomfortable, interest). Today, Cleon would have been a blogger or serial tweeter, no doubt about it. But Pericles knew best, and the Athenians endured with him. Still, Cleon eventually managed to get his way temporarily over Pericles when epidemics began to break out in overcrowded Athens behind those protecting walls. Under pressure, the ecclesia dismissed Pericles, but later reinstated him as he undertook a naval expedition to raid the coast south of Sparta. Ironically, Pericles died as the result of one of these mass illnesses afflicting refugee Athens, thus clearing the way for Cleon to become strategos.
But Cleon proved ill-equipped to be a general. His attempts to take on the Spartans in the open resulted in failure, just as Pericles insisted. Cleon was also paranoid and intemperate. Driven by envy and a lust for power, he cut off all contact with the Athenian aristocrats even after they initially supported him. He brutally suppressed a rebellious Athenian province by killing 1000 of its men in cold blood. Cleon used Athenian money to pay the city’s citizen jurors for the first time, in effect buying votes. He also employed a system of informants on his fellow citizens.
Strangely enough, Cleon himself died while conducting one of his ill-fated military expeditions, along with the opposing Spartan general. The result was for both sides to eagerly make peace.
I support David Dewhurst for many reasons. And I don’t have to be vocal about it. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is in a position that many established office holders get into: their representation is solid because their work is solid. 624,000 Texans think his work is solid and want to promote him. Dewhurst is not a career politician; he is almost 67 years old and has only held office for 14 of those years. He is good at public service, and there is no shame in staying in office as long as one is doing a good job. His supporters don’t have to stand up, yell and act like fools because that’s not our style, nor is it his. Calling Lt. Gov. Dewhurst “timid” is mean-spirited and the equivalent of a bully calling someone sensible enough to walk away from a rapid dog, “chicken.” If Dewhurst is “unable to articulate conservatism,” then so is John Cornyn. They have exactly the same speaking styles.
People like Mr. Cruz have the luxury of throwing bombs because they have NO RECORD and have never had to make a tough decision affecting the lives of millions – that’s their style.
Mr. Cruz has never had to get his hands dirty in public policy. And I don’t mean dirty like many in our era want it to mean, as in crooked. Mr. Cruz has never ONCE had to craft a public budget that tries to help as many of Texas’ most vulnerable citizens as it can, all the while making sure every kid gets a decent education and crime is fought. Mr. Cruz has basically been a legal contractor with the State of Texas as Solicitor General. He hasn’t been bad at it; it’s just that he’s no conservative hero, because he hasn’t had to test that conservatism in the fires of the legislative arena. He’s only had to present arguments to a handful of judges here and there – that is the full extent of his public policy experience. Even Ronald Reagan had to work within a very anti-enterprise, unruly actors’ union before becoming Governor of California.
Mr. Cruz’ candidacy, like the 50+ other failed GOP Primary challenges this year which could be characterized as “anti-incumbent,” is fueled by anger in search of a victim. He and his supporters are simply in Hulk-Smash! mode. THIS DOES NOT WIN ELECTIONS. Furthermore, to get elected on a tide of envy and anger is just as bad as winning with Democrat votes, in my opinion. It’s not who we are as Republicans, definitely not Texans.
The truly odd thing about this Senate race is that Cruz and Dewhurst truly disagree on VERY, VERY little. Instead, Cruz has been forced to attack Dewhurst for doing his job. The Texas Senate’s version of the Sanctuary Cities bill, which would have held up better in court, was no good because it wasn’t “ours” (the TEA Party’s). The Texas Senate’s version of the TSA anti-groping bill was no good because it wasn’t “our version.”
But there is another important consideration to be made on why Dewhurst MUST be chosen over Cruz, and this involves U.S. Senate Committee assignments. Article I of the Constitution requires the Senate and House to organize with committees. John Cornyn already sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguably the most powerful committee today in Congress when one considers their role in approving judicial nominees. The Senate GOP leadership, Cornyn included, will never allow two Texans from the same party to serve on the Judiciary Committee. It doesn’t make sense, and it’s unfair to the other states. If Ted Cruz’ attractiveness is because he’s a Constitution super-lawyer, why would we send him to Washington if he’s unable to serve on the committee that best matches his skill set? I know of no plans about Cornyn’s departure from that committee, let alone the Senate. And besides, Cornyn is already a super-Constitutional lawyer who could litigate Cruz into knots. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER LAWYER FOR A SENATOR.
Moreover, Texas is losing its Appropriator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. Someone responsible has to be prepared to fill the void in a couple of years. If this were Ted Cruz, he would find himself having to make all those tough spending decisions which he has ZIP experience doing. He would be eaten alive by that committee, and Texas would be crippled in the process. I’d like to see Ted Cruz’ justification for cutting V-22s out of Ft. Worth and Amarillo, or for not supporting a badly needed rehabilitation wing at the Waco VA. I’d like to see Ted Cruz say no to fixing an impoverished East Texas town’s failed sewer system after they’re rejected for an EPA grant. I’d like to hear Ted Cruz explain why he zeroed out an NIH cancer research program that is saving lives in Houston. Bob Dole put Phil Gramm on Appropriations – even making him a subcommittee chairman -- in an effort to make the budget hawk eat crow on spending and thus cripple a potential Presidential rival. It worked. Gramm once said, after bringing the leanest Commerce-Justice-State Departments' Appropriations bill he could make to the Floor, “Mr. President, my bill is carrying so much pork that I’ve got trichinosis.”
I will admit that many of Dewhurst’s supporters might be “quiet” out of resentment. We are giving the Cruz camp the silent treatment. There are many of the Dewhurst 624,000 who have been carrying the torch of conservatism for a long, long, long time, and we resent it when people come smashing into the China shop we have worked so hard to wrest from the Democrats. This is wrong for us to be resentful, but the Cruz camp, which is an alliance of TEA Partiers and Ron Paul supporters, needs to start taking yes for an answer.
I voted for Ron Paul last month, because I am somewhat acquainted with him, not unlike my relationship with David Dewhurst. I wish I knew Ted Cruz better, and maybe I wouldn't be so hard on him. This is how I make my voting decisions: I try to get to know the candidate in addition to his policy positions. Both Dr. Paul and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst are great men of integrity, and their policy positions are most in line with mine for the office sought. I don’t have any real disagreements with Mr. Cruz on policy. But I do take issue with his style, and ESPECIALLY that of his supporters. How a man leads others is a HUGE indicator of his character. I have been grateful to see that Mr. Cruz tends to leave a lot of self-righteousness at the door, even in the heat of a campaign. However, I will never vote for someone who appears to be exploiting the angry and envious, who in turn want to kill whoever does not agree with them 100%. Our state and party cannot afford a Cleon.
No, I’m not vocal. But I do blog every so often. :)
An empirical answer to Mr. Emanuelson’s question is that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst’s support exists in the form of the more than 624,000 Texans who voted for him during the Primary. This number was a solid 10% greater than Mr. Cruz’ vote total of 479,000, and I cannot find a case in recent memory where that much of a spread has been overcome in a runoff, notoriously low turnout in such races notwithstanding.
Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has the mathematical support to win the runoff on July 31 simply by showing up. Runoffs are won by one strategy and one strategy alone: re-amassing the total of votes (or a derivative thereof) one had on Primary Day. There is no reason to believe Dewhurst’s voters will not turn out; NONE whatsoever (the usual Primary turnout driver, the Presidential race, was a non-factor this year in Texas). Cruz’s fatal problem is that he cannot add to his total given the nature of his candidacy, whereas Dewhurst has some wiggle room even if his total may be suppressed by any number of factors (ads, debate performance, summer vacation, the Rangers, the planets, etc.). Cruz’ only mathematical hope would be for a Leppert endorsement, which is highly unlikely. Conversely, a Leppert endorsement of Dewhurst would be like sending in an Airborne platoon to attack a brigade that has already has been disintegrated by photon guns.
But Mr. Emanuelson’s question is interesting because the sentiment behind it reflects the heart of what’s been going on within the Party nationally for about five years and now locally. I am a serious Dewhurst supporter (I have been acquainted with him for 13 years and had the privilege of working with him and his staff on a state-federal policy matter when I was a staffer on the Hill), and I’m tempted to ask the same question: why don’t we hear from his people? Why am I not more “vocal.” The answer has to do with styles of participation in the body politic. And the best example of this contrast comes from Ancient Greece.
The democratic system of Athens in the 5th Century B.C. utilized a two-tiered system for picking its leaders. The “ecclesia,” which was everyone, picked a “boule,” which was a massive executive council of 500 men. And it truly was a democratic system (if you were a free male); it was only republican on a rotating basis. The principle behind this system of government was to attempt to break up oligarchies and cliques which naturally form any place there are more than two people with beating hearts. Even the generals, or “strategoi” were elected annually and closely scrutinized by the boule during their term. For example, if a strategos lost a battle, he could be fined, imprisoned or even executed!
Times of war made being a strategos difficult, even though he was elected to fight. This is what happened during the Pelopennesian Wars (431-404 BC), when the Greek city-states of the Pelopennesian peninsula, led by Sparta, got cross-ways with Athens and its allies. Thanks to Hollywood, we are all aware of the virtual invincibility of the Spartans as a land army. The Athenians knew this too and so barricaded themselves and their port behind an equally unscaleable wall, also relying on their superior navy. In the process, Athens protected its commercial system across the Aegean Sea and thus its supplies and wealth. This “conservative” defense policy was put in place by the popular and longtime strategos, Pericles, who was like the George Washington of Athens.
But staying safe behind the walls wasn’t enough for some Athenians, notably those who did have land around Athens which would get ravaged by the Spartans every year. These more hawkish elements called for Pericles’ dismissal as strategos, and they were organized and led by an eloquent, radical non-aristocrat named Cleon. Cleon was a constant, haranguing vocal critic of Pericles, giving little deference to the latter’s admiration by the people and service over the years. He was articulate, but Cleon would have likely had no sway had it not been for the support of some of the landed elite who were being affected by Pericles’ policies (which were put in place in everyone’s best, if uncomfortable, interest). Today, Cleon would have been a blogger or serial tweeter, no doubt about it. But Pericles knew best, and the Athenians endured with him. Still, Cleon eventually managed to get his way temporarily over Pericles when epidemics began to break out in overcrowded Athens behind those protecting walls. Under pressure, the ecclesia dismissed Pericles, but later reinstated him as he undertook a naval expedition to raid the coast south of Sparta. Ironically, Pericles died as the result of one of these mass illnesses afflicting refugee Athens, thus clearing the way for Cleon to become strategos.
But Cleon proved ill-equipped to be a general. His attempts to take on the Spartans in the open resulted in failure, just as Pericles insisted. Cleon was also paranoid and intemperate. Driven by envy and a lust for power, he cut off all contact with the Athenian aristocrats even after they initially supported him. He brutally suppressed a rebellious Athenian province by killing 1000 of its men in cold blood. Cleon used Athenian money to pay the city’s citizen jurors for the first time, in effect buying votes. He also employed a system of informants on his fellow citizens.
Strangely enough, Cleon himself died while conducting one of his ill-fated military expeditions, along with the opposing Spartan general. The result was for both sides to eagerly make peace.
I support David Dewhurst for many reasons. And I don’t have to be vocal about it. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is in a position that many established office holders get into: their representation is solid because their work is solid. 624,000 Texans think his work is solid and want to promote him. Dewhurst is not a career politician; he is almost 67 years old and has only held office for 14 of those years. He is good at public service, and there is no shame in staying in office as long as one is doing a good job. His supporters don’t have to stand up, yell and act like fools because that’s not our style, nor is it his. Calling Lt. Gov. Dewhurst “timid” is mean-spirited and the equivalent of a bully calling someone sensible enough to walk away from a rapid dog, “chicken.” If Dewhurst is “unable to articulate conservatism,” then so is John Cornyn. They have exactly the same speaking styles.
People like Mr. Cruz have the luxury of throwing bombs because they have NO RECORD and have never had to make a tough decision affecting the lives of millions – that’s their style.
Mr. Cruz has never had to get his hands dirty in public policy. And I don’t mean dirty like many in our era want it to mean, as in crooked. Mr. Cruz has never ONCE had to craft a public budget that tries to help as many of Texas’ most vulnerable citizens as it can, all the while making sure every kid gets a decent education and crime is fought. Mr. Cruz has basically been a legal contractor with the State of Texas as Solicitor General. He hasn’t been bad at it; it’s just that he’s no conservative hero, because he hasn’t had to test that conservatism in the fires of the legislative arena. He’s only had to present arguments to a handful of judges here and there – that is the full extent of his public policy experience. Even Ronald Reagan had to work within a very anti-enterprise, unruly actors’ union before becoming Governor of California.
Mr. Cruz’ candidacy, like the 50+ other failed GOP Primary challenges this year which could be characterized as “anti-incumbent,” is fueled by anger in search of a victim. He and his supporters are simply in Hulk-Smash! mode. THIS DOES NOT WIN ELECTIONS. Furthermore, to get elected on a tide of envy and anger is just as bad as winning with Democrat votes, in my opinion. It’s not who we are as Republicans, definitely not Texans.
The truly odd thing about this Senate race is that Cruz and Dewhurst truly disagree on VERY, VERY little. Instead, Cruz has been forced to attack Dewhurst for doing his job. The Texas Senate’s version of the Sanctuary Cities bill, which would have held up better in court, was no good because it wasn’t “ours” (the TEA Party’s). The Texas Senate’s version of the TSA anti-groping bill was no good because it wasn’t “our version.”
But there is another important consideration to be made on why Dewhurst MUST be chosen over Cruz, and this involves U.S. Senate Committee assignments. Article I of the Constitution requires the Senate and House to organize with committees. John Cornyn already sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguably the most powerful committee today in Congress when one considers their role in approving judicial nominees. The Senate GOP leadership, Cornyn included, will never allow two Texans from the same party to serve on the Judiciary Committee. It doesn’t make sense, and it’s unfair to the other states. If Ted Cruz’ attractiveness is because he’s a Constitution super-lawyer, why would we send him to Washington if he’s unable to serve on the committee that best matches his skill set? I know of no plans about Cornyn’s departure from that committee, let alone the Senate. And besides, Cornyn is already a super-Constitutional lawyer who could litigate Cruz into knots. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER LAWYER FOR A SENATOR.
Moreover, Texas is losing its Appropriator, Kay Bailey Hutchison. Someone responsible has to be prepared to fill the void in a couple of years. If this were Ted Cruz, he would find himself having to make all those tough spending decisions which he has ZIP experience doing. He would be eaten alive by that committee, and Texas would be crippled in the process. I’d like to see Ted Cruz’ justification for cutting V-22s out of Ft. Worth and Amarillo, or for not supporting a badly needed rehabilitation wing at the Waco VA. I’d like to see Ted Cruz say no to fixing an impoverished East Texas town’s failed sewer system after they’re rejected for an EPA grant. I’d like to hear Ted Cruz explain why he zeroed out an NIH cancer research program that is saving lives in Houston. Bob Dole put Phil Gramm on Appropriations – even making him a subcommittee chairman -- in an effort to make the budget hawk eat crow on spending and thus cripple a potential Presidential rival. It worked. Gramm once said, after bringing the leanest Commerce-Justice-State Departments' Appropriations bill he could make to the Floor, “Mr. President, my bill is carrying so much pork that I’ve got trichinosis.”
I will admit that many of Dewhurst’s supporters might be “quiet” out of resentment. We are giving the Cruz camp the silent treatment. There are many of the Dewhurst 624,000 who have been carrying the torch of conservatism for a long, long, long time, and we resent it when people come smashing into the China shop we have worked so hard to wrest from the Democrats. This is wrong for us to be resentful, but the Cruz camp, which is an alliance of TEA Partiers and Ron Paul supporters, needs to start taking yes for an answer.
I voted for Ron Paul last month, because I am somewhat acquainted with him, not unlike my relationship with David Dewhurst. I wish I knew Ted Cruz better, and maybe I wouldn't be so hard on him. This is how I make my voting decisions: I try to get to know the candidate in addition to his policy positions. Both Dr. Paul and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst are great men of integrity, and their policy positions are most in line with mine for the office sought. I don’t have any real disagreements with Mr. Cruz on policy. But I do take issue with his style, and ESPECIALLY that of his supporters. How a man leads others is a HUGE indicator of his character. I have been grateful to see that Mr. Cruz tends to leave a lot of self-righteousness at the door, even in the heat of a campaign. However, I will never vote for someone who appears to be exploiting the angry and envious, who in turn want to kill whoever does not agree with them 100%. Our state and party cannot afford a Cleon.
No, I’m not vocal. But I do blog every so often. :)
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
How to Turn 40
Long time since the last post. Work is to blame.
Today is the 149th Anniversary of the accidental shooting of T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson, a great American and Christian who stands unequalled in Trey Bahm’s pantheon of heroes. Although we are commemorating many sesquicentennial events of the Civil War these years, the 149th shooting at dusk on Day Two of the Battle of Chancellorsville is significant because of the General’s age at the time of his death: 39. I have 26 days remaining on this number.
Turning 40 is a big deal, simply because it’s happening to me. We make much of aging and dying young in America. And if you don’t have the vain honor of leaving a good-looking corpse, there’s always the Mid-life Crisis to fall back on, or more aptly for 2012: playing out one’s health drama on Facebook.
I don’t know that I would have been close to the General had I been a contemporary and in his peer group. He himself was admittedly misanthropic. Some historians even believe he had Asperger’s. He certainly had a quirky, really aloof personality. And yet I’ve always been drawn to those types of folks, so maybe we would have at least become well-acquainted. But what makes the General undoubtedly a brother in Christ, and informs my faith that I will absolutely see him standing alongside my Lord to welcome me into eternity, was a special blessing of peace that he seemed to have been given from on high. Jackson had a measure of serenity that seemed to have been given to him by Providence during an unbelievably difficult childhood of fatherlessness and poverty. Even before he began his spiritual journey as a young officer stationed in Mexico, Jackson seemed to possess a mind-boggling peace that stunned his fellow soldiers. During Winfield Scott’s assault on Mexico City in 1847, Lt. Jackson and a sergeant, their battery shot to pieces, single-handedly held a position against Mexican soldiers pouring lead into them from Chapultepec Castle. Jackson attempted to rally his command with, “See, there is no danger! I am not hit!”
Although he later confessed it was the only instance during which he lied to his subordinates, God’s truth merged with the peace He seemed to have already installed in him when Jackson embraced the salvation of Christ not long afterward. His coolness in battle and life are well known, in no small effort informed by his Reformed interpretation of God's word - it is the very source of his nickname. Of course, he was human and a perfectionist – he demanded of his sweet wife, who he loved dearly, that his home life “swing on golden hinges” (meaning it had to be super-organized). This peace that passed all understanding built up in Jackson a faith that carried him through a lifetime of hard tragedy (his first wife and child died) and one of the grimmest wars known to humanity.
So, Stonewall comes to mind as 39 ends. After being shot by his own men, suffering severe blood loss, an amputation and pneumonia, the General died on May 10, 1863. In his passing fever, he started to shout out orders then suddenly stopped, saying, “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.” This is how I plan to turn 40: by allowing God to give the orders and pursing peace – even with some of those clowns who irritate me.
I’ve also cranked up the morning workout. I am a now a jogger, like my father before me. I think subconsciously I want to run by my birthday.
Today is the 149th Anniversary of the accidental shooting of T.J. “Stonewall” Jackson, a great American and Christian who stands unequalled in Trey Bahm’s pantheon of heroes. Although we are commemorating many sesquicentennial events of the Civil War these years, the 149th shooting at dusk on Day Two of the Battle of Chancellorsville is significant because of the General’s age at the time of his death: 39. I have 26 days remaining on this number.
Turning 40 is a big deal, simply because it’s happening to me. We make much of aging and dying young in America. And if you don’t have the vain honor of leaving a good-looking corpse, there’s always the Mid-life Crisis to fall back on, or more aptly for 2012: playing out one’s health drama on Facebook.
I don’t know that I would have been close to the General had I been a contemporary and in his peer group. He himself was admittedly misanthropic. Some historians even believe he had Asperger’s. He certainly had a quirky, really aloof personality. And yet I’ve always been drawn to those types of folks, so maybe we would have at least become well-acquainted. But what makes the General undoubtedly a brother in Christ, and informs my faith that I will absolutely see him standing alongside my Lord to welcome me into eternity, was a special blessing of peace that he seemed to have been given from on high. Jackson had a measure of serenity that seemed to have been given to him by Providence during an unbelievably difficult childhood of fatherlessness and poverty. Even before he began his spiritual journey as a young officer stationed in Mexico, Jackson seemed to possess a mind-boggling peace that stunned his fellow soldiers. During Winfield Scott’s assault on Mexico City in 1847, Lt. Jackson and a sergeant, their battery shot to pieces, single-handedly held a position against Mexican soldiers pouring lead into them from Chapultepec Castle. Jackson attempted to rally his command with, “See, there is no danger! I am not hit!”
Although he later confessed it was the only instance during which he lied to his subordinates, God’s truth merged with the peace He seemed to have already installed in him when Jackson embraced the salvation of Christ not long afterward. His coolness in battle and life are well known, in no small effort informed by his Reformed interpretation of God's word - it is the very source of his nickname. Of course, he was human and a perfectionist – he demanded of his sweet wife, who he loved dearly, that his home life “swing on golden hinges” (meaning it had to be super-organized). This peace that passed all understanding built up in Jackson a faith that carried him through a lifetime of hard tragedy (his first wife and child died) and one of the grimmest wars known to humanity.
So, Stonewall comes to mind as 39 ends. After being shot by his own men, suffering severe blood loss, an amputation and pneumonia, the General died on May 10, 1863. In his passing fever, he started to shout out orders then suddenly stopped, saying, “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.” This is how I plan to turn 40: by allowing God to give the orders and pursing peace – even with some of those clowns who irritate me.
I’ve also cranked up the morning workout. I am a now a jogger, like my father before me. I think subconsciously I want to run by my birthday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)