Republicans And The Vision Thing

Ah, the blame game among Republicans is alive and well.  Some are actually getting the reasons for their loss right.  It makes me wonder why they didn't see it before the election.  A lot of us did!

Romney has come up with a reason Bobby Jindal totally rejects.  Romney, displaying a classic case of tunnel vision, says it's because of the 'gifts' promised to special groups - everything from cell phones to interest on student loan forgiveness.  He is right.  Throwing those bones to certain groups did  buy votes. It is, however, not even close to the whole reason.

That's what Jindal is telling us.  He thinks the terminology is divisive.  Well, so was the action.  He goes on to point out, however, it as far more the writing off of the 'takers' rather than trying to embrace them  and present them with a path to escape having to 'take'. That would be a real vision and was totally missing from both the Republican and Democratic campaigns.

There are takers, real ones.  They make up no majority other than getting the bulk of slanted news coverage.  America did not get to be the most powerful nation in the world on the back of takers.  Doers.  Now that's a different story.

It's not the doers fault he lost.  They're too busy trying to keep it together.  Trying not to lose their jobs or businesses or homes.  Trying to put food on their tables and gas in their cars.  And a lot of them didn't vote.  They're tired of voting against a candidate rather than for one.

Those who did vote were the Democratic base under the direction of a superb 'get out the vote' strategy.  The Republicans left it to chance and failed.

I hope Jindal is representative of a new breed of Republican who realizes connecting with the people is important.  Articulating the problems and solutions to them is important. And in line with what Romney has said, rather than 'gifting' those with explicit needs, embrace them, listen to them and work with them to fulfill those needs. Not pitting one group against another.

I'm no longer an Obama fan.  I think he's obstinate and short sighted. He had no vision nor accomplishments on which to run, which is why he ran the dirty campaign he did. The irony of it is it wasn't really necessary.

Romney too was obstinate and short sighted.  The Republicans were arrogant and divisive and often condescending.  We talk a lot about the need for compromise in Congress.  The Republicans could use a bit within their own party.

In order to win they are actually going to have to find common ground with the Democrats when it comes to issues.  Their job then will be to convince the voters their solutions are better and more encompassing than the Democrats.  What's so hard about that?

The Democrats face the same problem not far down the road.  They too could use new leadership. In four years Hillary will be 69.  Biden, who also wants to run, along with Reid and Pelosi will be into their 70s.

Compare them with the up and coming Republicans.  They're a younger lot and capable of being nearly as 'cool' as Obama. Certainly as politically capable and in many case far more so. Hopefully their ideas and abilities will be as fresh as their faces.

One Step At A Time

Where there's life there's hope.  I hope.  Amid all the ugliness going on in the administration, Congress has it's own share.  First, Nancy Pelosi has decided not to retire.  Second, Harry Reid has declared he will not bring Social Security to the table. Swell.

Nothing new here.  I don't know about you, but I don't think the Democrats received any sort of mandate, especially for obstinance.

Perhaps, however, there is a faint light flickering at the end of the tunnel.  One lonely Democrat has said he will oppose Nancy Pelosi's bid to remain  minority leader.  He tried before and failed when he backed Heath Shuler who did not seek re-election this cycle.

But he's trying again.  Even though he expects to lose again, at least he is making a statement that all Democrats should heed.  He told The Salt Lake Tribune  that Pelosi contributed to the polarization by squeezing out moderates and that the Democrats need leadership that will work in a more constructive way.  Wow! Three cheers for Mr. Matheson! He is a brave man because it means he will be a target of Ms. Pelosi.

He won, narrowly, an interesting campaign against Mia Love.  Black. Female. Mormon. Republican.

I liked what I saw of her and had high hopes she would win.  She was the victim of some pretty nasty threats but I think not from the Matheson camp. He was a six term incumbent and she was - well, who she was.

I hope she will re-emerge somewhere along the way.  She's an inspirational story.  But for now Mr. Matheson holds the seat and has the courage to do what is right.  Oppose an obstructive leadership.  If only someone would do the same in the Senate!

Of course, if the Republicans had gotten their at act together, it would probably not have  been an issue in the first place. But it was and is. It's nice to see that a Democrat here and there also realize their party needs a push in a more productive direction. That it's not just the Republicans fault nothing gets done. One step at a time may be agonizingly slow, but it's a start.

Veterans And Their Families Who Also Serve

Veterans.  Many are old, having fought and survived wars long over.  Too many more are young.  They come home damaged, missing one or more body parts, blinded, burned, emotionally scarred.  They'd not have survived in wars past because the medical technology was not yet available. But now it is and home they come.

Forget the jobs that aren't here or the services we owe them that are so lacking.  They come home to families, wives and children.  What about those wives?  Their good bye embraces were with whole, physically and mentally sound young men.  Their welcome home embraces are to often broken bodies and minds.  Yet they are there.  Waiting with open arms and strong shoulders and fragile emotions.

It's a sad statistic that the divorce rate  for Iraq and Afghan vets is up some 42%.  I'd wager it isn't for the lack of trying to make those marriages work. The wives have been home bearing the responsibility of raising the family, managing a household and maintaining some semblance of normalcy while the husbands are 1000s of mile away in a strange lands fighting for a sometimes questionable reason.  How can anyone, no matter the training, be prepared for what they must do and what they witness happening not only to themselves but their comrades?  How could they not come back scarred? It's the price of surviving a war.  Everyone is scarred. The families as well as the soldiers.

Yes, those families  have their own battles to fight.  The wrenching fear of what might happen then the question of how they will cope when the worst does happen.  It takes a courage unto itself.  I salute them.  It takes a huge amount of love and devotion to focus on the man inside the wounded bodies.  They do though, you can see it in a touch or a look or even a moment of reflection.  It played out dozens of times as their stories were told time and again this Veterans Day weekend.

I'd like to think their sacrifices have been made for a grateful country.  They have if it's those of us who sit here free and safe and warm because of them.  I cannot help but wonder, however, about the contempt of the government when records are lost, diagnoses nit picked and basic needs denied.

I cannot help but wonder when it is rumored that the next Secretary of Defense is likely to be a man who has nothing but contempt for the military.  Senator John Kerry.

If it comes to pass it should be proof positive as to whether or not the this administration has the backs of those serving overseas, be it military or civilian posts. Benghazi raised the question.   John Kerry as Secretary of Defense would answer it.

Our military and their families who face not only the horror of war in real time but also the horror that can be the aftermath, deserve better.  Don't we all?

Valerie Jarrett - Power Behind The Throne

Is it possible we have a stealth presidency?  Someone other than the front man is actually calling the shots?  How's that for a conspiracy theory?  Or is it?

Just who is Valerie Jarrett?  She's Michelle's best friend and Obama's closest advisor.  She is the last one to leave the oval office after meetings, all of which she is privy.  She has dinner with them in the family quarters. She vacations with them.  She is his backbone. She is his Svengali without credentials.

Early on in Chicago she was one of a group who recognized Obama's potential and maneuvered his entry into Daly's political circles while she was fighting allegations of her own corruption.  Messy.

It is said she is the one who pushed Obamacare and Solyndra, was instrumental in forcing out Larry Summers and after he balked three times in fear of his political future if it failed,  convinced Obama to take out Bin Laden.  This is one powerful woman.

When bits and pieces of stories start oozing out of Washington, it's a good bet there is something to them.  The current buzz is that she's holding some sort of talks with Iran.  It will be interesting to watch this flesh out.  It also might explain a lot about Obama's mercurial policies around the Middle East.

Ms. Jarrett shares a common ground with Obama.  The mix of Muslim/Americanism and the intellectual and societal conflicts that seem to come with it.  She was born in Iran and though was only there for five years, obviously has maintained some very close ties.  If she didn't it seems unlikely that iranian.com would have named her "Iranian of the day" as recently as August, 2008.

I'd be interested in knowing just what her role concerning Iran is if indeed she has one.  I suspect where there's smoke there's fire.  It could be a plus I suppose though there is no evidence she is guided by nor responsible to anyone other than herself. Are we merely to "trust" Obama's judgement in utilizing this woman? In any vein including domestic issues?

No wonder Israel is nervous.  They know Obama has no taste for military action to keep nuclear arms out of Iran's hands. It appears at this point nothing we've put forward has been a deterrent.  Thus Israel's position.

If there is any substance to this story I'd be very concerned that our national security may well be in the hands of an unelected, unconfirmed confidant of the President who's greatest credential is being an advisor on subjects in which she has absolutely no background nor experience.

Something I'd Like To See - Pragmatism

There are four years ahead of us in which both political parties can redefine themselves and end the polarization within.  Both have factions within that are constantly tugging against one another. That would open the door to compromise which is the pragmatic way of solving our problems.

Somewhere there has to be some common ground on how to revitalize our economy.  It's not by spending money we don't have.  The money that is spent, or invested as Obama likes to say, needs to go toward viable, market ready solutions rather than nebulous dreams not ready for prime time.

The tax code does need to be reworked.  Taxing the rich will not raise the necessary revenue to do much of anything.  As presented it's more of a token punishment for success than an answer to any problems.  Raising the rates will more likely curb ambitions rather than raise them.  Closing loopholes and capping deductions is a more reasonable and less punishing approach.

Student loans have gotten prohibitively high because the cost of education has too.  It would be okay with me if professors were actually required to teach, requiring fewer assistants, thus costing less money.  This is simplistic, I know, but you get the gist. The loans should not be forgiven.  A loan is an obligation and obligations are to be honored. We can use a refresher course in honoring obligations.

Obamacare still needs reformed but I do not disagree with those who say some parts of it are good. Take another look.  Reform is not a dirty word.

Roe versus Wade is the law of the land.  Get over it.

I have no objection to same sex marriage, if they are afforded the same rights as marriage between a man and a woman. Why get hung up on semantics?  The point is having the same rights. It's a states issue and shouldn't be a litmus test for national office.

The Republicans need to learn how to state their position on social issues so as not to offend those who may mostly agree with their point of view on other issues but are put off by their 'holier than thou' posture.  We're not bad people because we don't subscribe to your religous beliefs.

There needs to be a reshaping of the electoral college so that a mere handful of states can no longer hold elections hostage regardless of the popular vote.

We need a defined foreign policy so the rest of the world knows where we stand.  If we are no longer willing to be a player, admit it.  We'll be sorry, but that's merely my opinion.  Albeit a strong one.

The media needs to take a long hard look at itself.  Are they to promote their self interests or keep the public informed of all sides of issues? They are failing miserably at being objective.  Even FOX who is the singular proponent of conservatism let their candidate down by focusing more on what he wasn't doing right in their opinion than what he was doing right.  You know the saying, "With friends like that who needs enemies?"  All sides could use some pundits who have a better grasp of reality than the Sean Hannities and Ed Schultzes, to name but a couple.

We as the electorate  also need to open ourselves to more than self interests and focus more on the country as a whole.  Ditto for Congress and the Presidency.

If we learn from the election just past we can mend much of what's broken before we have to totally reinvent ourselves. If you are of the school that nothing is broken so don't fix it, I hope you're in the minority.  Because our country is broken.  We can all contribute to fixing it though, if we give a little as well as take.  It's called being pragmatic.