Obama disappointment

From the beginning when Obama spoke at the national Democrat convention and received the blessing of Ted Kennedy, I said I didn't get it. The first time I heard Obama speak, I knew he was clever and polished, but there was a superfical confidence which I took as lack of depth. Presidents don't have to be Great Wise Men or Women, but they should have depth. The last three Presidents have lacked the X factor, but Obama in particular has been a disppointment. Obama is educated, and he's clever, but his performance is marked not only by inexperience but by a lack of gravitas. This was a historic event, but Obama is a not a historic character. In fact, Obama is fairly banal in his constant partisan hackery, and no matter how he tries to hide the partisan hackery behind big ideas, his ideas are small. There's nothing original about Obama and much that's unbecoming of a President -- plus, Obama doesn't even try to resist the status quo.

I've never seen more of a President on tv and received so little in substance. Obama had a chance to face big challenges, but over and over Obama has taken a partisan, small, statist route, determined to pass a progressive agenda and willing to sell his integrity to maintain power to finish the few items left on the agenda -- most of the agenda is just favoritism to the Democrat base which appears strategical for long-term Democrat dominance. From the start of his administration, Obama had the opportunity to advance race relations and has failed. Obama had a chance to take on DC connections with favored corporations, yet he has Immelt as an advisor, and his economic team was a crony-fest of big bankers. Obama could have been a champion for small and medium sized businesses against entrenched power, thus inspiring a new generation of black entrepreneurs to enter a market in which Obama battles to even the playing field by ending all corporate welfare and unfair advantages through the tax code and costly regulations.

Obama could have fought to end the mideast wars and developed a doctrine of non-intervention, thus creating a vision for America's role in the world going into the 21st century -- he could have challenged the military/industrial complex to justify its expenses and outdated defense contracts which crank out obsolete weapons through political engineering.

Obama could have faced the financial crisis and transcended failed Keynesian policies by challenging the private sector to create and innovate and move forward. Obama could have resisted the tired, old attempt to nationalize healthcare by allowing the market to develope innovative solutions to healthcare. Obama could have refused to follow the progressive script written for him by the Left, and he could have been a great, transformational President. There is no longer any question that statism has failed, yet Obama doubled down on government intevention. A little foresight and understanding should have told Obama and his advisors that it's only a matter of time before the statist system implodes in a global meltdown, so this would be a great opportunity to take the lead and end the Left/Right divide and simply rely on good economics,  American ingenuity and the much-needed transition from Global Militarism to Global Free Trade with America leading the way, and, in the process, attracting investors from around the world.

Even if it's too much to expect Obama to abandon the welfare state in favor of private solutions, the welfare state will be much stronger in a healthy, growing economy with new wealth created than in a declining statist system drowning in debt.

Will Romney be forced away from the Center?

Can a candidate like Romney still fake to the Right then head toward the Center in the general election without alienating half his potential supporters? Much of it depends on what independents demand in 2012. Conventional wisdom says the independents are more moderate, but what is "moderate" in this political environment. Media analysts say Obama is moderate -- I kid you not. If Obama is moderate, and his poll numbers are low, then Romney will surely turn off voters if he takes the same positions.

I think in 2012 the voters who have to be convinced are voters looking to get government under control and cut the crazy spending. There appears to be a better understanding of the need for free market principles. My problem with Romney, Cain and Perry is not that they don't understand the need for a freer market but that they will mistakenly support our foreign policy of interventionism to save the world from terrorism. Yes, terrorism is a major concern, but we're bigger than the fear mongering and the nail-biting over rag-tag terrorist outfits who made one major hit and now have been scattered and weakened. Despite what Andrew McCarthy, John McCain and Lindsey Graham believe, I don't believe Iran will  attack the US nor will they attack Israel. Iran wants to make a point to Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other countries in the area that they are a major player. Iran has too much to lose to risk a war with the US -- their concern is the mideast, and there are other nations in the region who should take responsbility for dealing with mideast territorial concerns.

The US should produce energy full speed and move away from the mideast except when it's in our interests to trade there. If Romney would experience an awakening and realize that these times call for drastic measures and a rebirth of freedom, he could win hands down. If the Left accuses him of flip-flopping, Romney can admit that he's had a change of heart and mind because the serious issues of today demand serious solutions not pragmatic, technocratic tweaks. Sometimes leaders are made by the times in which they live -- who's going to meet the challenge? 

The warfare State

Yes, America should strive for the best defense system in the world. Yes, if we are attacked, or if an attack plan is uncovered, we should react swiftly with an appropriate, forceful and clear response. Yes, we have a great and intelligent military. But, what we don't need is a nation frightened into an unquestioning acceptance of the military/industrial complex and continuous war.

The 20th century model of Super-Power World Police is out-dated, and it's not something America should embrace in the 21st century. Global changes among many nations who were dependents in the 20th century make it important for America to adjust to these changes. The world is changing and America has to change with it, and it would be good if the change is intelligent and rational.

Isolationism is out of the question in our interconnected world, but a doctrine of non-interventionism is not the same as isolationism and protectionism. America can embrace free trade, cultural exchange, technological cooperation and an ongoing analysis of division of labor which reveals our manufacturing strengths and weaknesses without trying to forcefully shape the world in our image. The US can create a strong and highly effective defense system at home without spreading our military across the globe. If a real and dangerous situation arises which threatens world peace, we can make decisions based on what's required to address the situations as they arise, but we have to place limits on our military involvement in foreign affairs.

Those who benefit from a powerful military will always finds need for military intervention -- we can't be led blindly by generals, contractors and hawkish politicians, because they'll always push for more rather than less military action. This is one role of a President which is vital to our health as a nation, so it's important who's put in command of our military, This should go without saying, but with the lack of discussion regarding foreign affairs among the Republican candidates for President, this might indicate we have a problem. Have Americans shifted military concerns to the Pentagon with no need for oversight? How many people know what we're doing in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc? How many people consider the real need for military bases in Europe and Asia? How many people know where their tax dollars are going in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do Americans care about our warfare State?

It's very dangerous to put all our trust in the military/industrial complex and turn a blind eye to it -- this is one area in which we can't afford apathy. When electing representatives and a President in 2012, it's never been more important to choose wisely with national defense concerns in mind. We can't afford to become sheep frightened by each report of terrorist plots, plans and posturing. It's vital that we have rational, clear-headed represenatives in DC who will oversee our giant miltary machine and use it wisely, and who will fund it appropriately. The 21st century demands a much more intelligent approach, because history shows us what unchained interventionism can cause-- and for those who don't know the history, perhaps some reading is in order.

OWS and the fading light of reason

For the most part, I don't care one way or the other about the OWS movement, but as media present us with the recurring theme of bankers and the evil 1%, I feel a need to respond. When the Tea Party started, my main concern was whether this movement focused on limiting the power of government or if they simply wanted government power for their pet concerns. We'll see how many limited government/free market representatives are elected in 2012.

The OWS movement appears misdirected, because Wall Street speculation, rent-seeking and cronyistic bail-out manipulation during the housing crash were only symptoms of a much larger, fundamental problem. For decades government pushed the private sector in the direction of a housing boom, and the Fed fueled the housing boom with artificially low interest rates, as Fannie, Freddie and the FHA did everything within their power to push the boom higher and higher, with FHA raising their maximum to over $700,000 at one point -- low down payments for low income home-buyers at $700,000!

OWS should direct bipartisan rage at our statist, interventionist government which provides the bully-muscle for a powerful State that's wreaking havoc on our economy, has us bogged down in war in the mideast and moves ever closer to sacrificing American sovereignty to a new global order under neo-liberal/neo-conservative/State capitalist control.

I get the impression that OWS is being led by forces which are a part of the problem the protesters are supposedly fighting against.

Morning Joe 10/10/11 -- Maybe it's a systemic problem

After many of us have been crying out loud, "It's the system, stupid!", Scarborough, Harold Ford and John Heilemann suspect this morning during the first part of Morning Joe that our problems in government might be systemic. There was no analysis beyond this recognition, though, except that stubborn Republicans have to talk to the Democrats and "get things done". Getting things done is big in the political class, as is talking to one another, but I would suggest that first they decide what  to talk about and what to get done. As long as Obama and Democrats are determined to raise taxes and manage the economy, there is little to talk about.

Scarborough was actually to the left of Harold Ford. Ford understands that regulations and central planning have created uncertainty in the market, even if Ford ultimately promotes clear intervention that doesn't cause consequences, whatever that is -- clear stimulus efforts to rebuild America, I suppose. Scarborough fell into a trap a long time ago, just like all Centrist Republicans, when he embraced the idea of working with Democrats to help shape a new economy. The Centrists made the same mistake that Republicans have made for decades -- they thought this time it will be different -- they thought Obama would reach across the aisle and bring everyone together in a smart government to "get things done." Scarborough and Centrists criticized the new breed of Republicans who held their ground regarding cutting spending and limiting government power, and now the Centrists can't criticize Obama and the Democrats fullthroatedly because they don't want to be associated with New Republicans, yet the Centrists are realizing just how politically vicious and statist the Democrats have become under Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

I will be the first to admit that both Republicans and Democrats are flawed, and the two party statist system is seriously flawed, but the degree to which Democrats are attempting to change the system to hardcare statism represents America's greatest systemic problem. Paul Ryan is not not the obstacle, as Scarborough suggested -- the problem is a statist system pushing a progressive agenda -- it has killed our economy, and until systemic changes are made to free up the economy, there will be no recovery.

I agreed totally with Scarborough and the Morning Joe gang later on when they called for an end to the Afghanistan War. Although the public is war weary and ready to bring the troops home, an alliance of neo-liberals and neo-cons remind us of the dangers of Pakistan and Iran and their nuclear efforts. So, what are we going to do, take over these countries and destroy their nuclear facilities? How is staying in Iraq and Afghansitan solving the nuclear problem as it relates to Pakistan and Iran? It would be like battling the Amish in Pennsylvania because Canada has nukes. Both Iran and Pakistan would likely collapse economically if we pulled out of the mideast, stopped all aid and started producing our own energy. Would this make them more dangerous? These countries aren't suicidal -- they are playing a dangerous Game -- one they've played for centuries -- but they are not suicidal. There are other countries close to Iran and Pakistan who are better suited to play the Game -- America needs to quit playing the Game and get serious about stopping our own government from destroying America, forget about Pakistan and Iran.