Sometimes we get the result we voted for, but it's almost always a defensive vote. In 1980 we voted for the opposite of Nixon-Ford-Carter and got Reagan. In 1994 we voted for the opposite of Bill and Hillarycare, and got Newt. Since then, we've been getting less and less returns on our votes. We voted for the opposite of Al Gore, and got Bush 43. We voted for the opposite of Bush 43 and got Hugo Chavez.
The point is, we keep playing defense with our votes, and we are getting killed. It's time to go back on offense. That's where the Tea Party has been effective. While media tries to set up the two progressive parties as somehow representing a choice, the real wind of change is organizing on the horizon.
Even though the voters were smart enough to bring in the Republicans and their Contract with America In 1994, two years later the Republicans themselves threw out Newt. Near as I can recall, his only sin was being unlike the other Republicans. Perhaps Newt Gingrich was the original Tea Party politician; and seeing how the republicans treated him, and now treat Rand paul, it probably makes some sense. Newt took the blame for shutting down the government; even while many of us were loudly giving him kudos for that very useful exercise. Our only regret was that it didn't last long enough. Establishment Republicans think he led them astray. I think he was ahead of his time.
"Reduce the size and scope of the federal government?" Perish the thought! There was no room in either progressive party for a guy with such a command of history and economics on his side. Newt had to be marginalized, and so he was. I am quite sure the republicans will continue to fight the so-called tea parties. Big government republicanism is certainly more lucrative than small government leadership.
So, looking at 2012, who will emerge as the opposite of BHO? Can a real opposite emerge? Can it even be a Republican? Sometimes Newt looks like the best qualified, but since he tried to ingratiate himself with the progressive side of the party; including his ill-advised endorsement of Dede Scozzafava, he's pretty much fallen off the radar. Revolutionaries don't do that. And the Park 51 ground zero mosque dustup has exposed him as a populist who will have an opinion on a lot of irrelevant things...like state laws... Still, if the Tea Party recruited him to run in 2012, it would be a golden opportunity to present a contrast, and maybe even a choice.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Barry Obama and his legacy.
“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist, For the New Intellectual, 73
"About sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices, sacrificial animals think quite differently from those who look on: but they have never been allowed to have their say". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game" -- Barry H. Obama
I think it's fitting that the pull quotes about Obama here are now more from philosophers than from other types of people. Modern day philosophers from Dinesh D'Souza to Barry himself have finally and fully captured the essence of the man. There's little left to say, which is why I'm blogging today.
I want to walk through a mental process here, so we can all be clear where we are at this point. Right now, the damage that is being done is not going to be fixed in the next election. It's going to carry on until the middle of the decade. so while we are all wearing our tea party hats and joyfully voting out RINOSs and other progressives in this election cycle, the Fed continues to write bad checks, and Obama continues to sign them. I think while we are watching the train wreck that is the 111th congress, the real action is happening down the street at the Eccles building.
Rush Limbaugh often says that he is going to do his show until everyone in the US agrees with him. Well, as it turns out, he now agrees with us: RINOS are not the solution to our problem, RINOS are the problem (apologies to the great Ronaldus Magnus). This is a notable change in Rush's demeanor. He was as big a W supporter as you could find for Bush 43's 8 years, but he seems now to have moved out of neo-con territory. To see what I mean, read or listen to Rush's address in Philly. It sums up his change of heart to embrace the other side of his party (the liberty side). To that I say, welcome home Rush. Now that you agree with us, does that mean you are ready to retire? I'm okay either way, but I'll admit there are still a number of things you can teach us if you want to stay on the air. and There's still the troubling matter of leftover congressman of the two party type, and hopefully they can be identified and rooted out.
The more pressing issue is the economy. Right now, all the energy in the country is focused on fixing the government, since that has the biggest effect on economic fortunes and misfortunes; however, waiting for one election cycle or the next will just take too long. Are we going to wait for January 2013 to fix the spending problem? We need a solution that does not depend on Obama doing the right thing. Therefore, we need to stop obsessing about him and begin looking for solutions that do not depend on this. The real problem is productivity. We are one of the least productive societies in the western world. It's been 16 years since we ended welfare as we know it, and longer than that since we did any serious deregulation work. What is it that is going to create more "wealth" to "spread around". We need a productivity boost. More people working. Maybe even more people learning or re-learning how to work. You want temporary stimulus? How about eliminating the minimum wage for one year?
Since Obama is no longer credible as a solution, I don't find him an interesting blog topic any more. His legacy may not be complete, but the direction of his path is quite clear, and for the purposes of this blog, everything written about him is now enough. The rest of us need to move on.
"About sacrifice and the offering of sacrifices, sacrificial animals think quite differently from those who look on: but they have never been allowed to have their say". ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game" -- Barry H. Obama
I think it's fitting that the pull quotes about Obama here are now more from philosophers than from other types of people. Modern day philosophers from Dinesh D'Souza to Barry himself have finally and fully captured the essence of the man. There's little left to say, which is why I'm blogging today.
I want to walk through a mental process here, so we can all be clear where we are at this point. Right now, the damage that is being done is not going to be fixed in the next election. It's going to carry on until the middle of the decade. so while we are all wearing our tea party hats and joyfully voting out RINOSs and other progressives in this election cycle, the Fed continues to write bad checks, and Obama continues to sign them. I think while we are watching the train wreck that is the 111th congress, the real action is happening down the street at the Eccles building.
Rush Limbaugh often says that he is going to do his show until everyone in the US agrees with him. Well, as it turns out, he now agrees with us: RINOS are not the solution to our problem, RINOS are the problem (apologies to the great Ronaldus Magnus). This is a notable change in Rush's demeanor. He was as big a W supporter as you could find for Bush 43's 8 years, but he seems now to have moved out of neo-con territory. To see what I mean, read or listen to Rush's address in Philly. It sums up his change of heart to embrace the other side of his party (the liberty side). To that I say, welcome home Rush. Now that you agree with us, does that mean you are ready to retire? I'm okay either way, but I'll admit there are still a number of things you can teach us if you want to stay on the air. and There's still the troubling matter of leftover congressman of the two party type, and hopefully they can be identified and rooted out.
The more pressing issue is the economy. Right now, all the energy in the country is focused on fixing the government, since that has the biggest effect on economic fortunes and misfortunes; however, waiting for one election cycle or the next will just take too long. Are we going to wait for January 2013 to fix the spending problem? We need a solution that does not depend on Obama doing the right thing. Therefore, we need to stop obsessing about him and begin looking for solutions that do not depend on this. The real problem is productivity. We are one of the least productive societies in the western world. It's been 16 years since we ended welfare as we know it, and longer than that since we did any serious deregulation work. What is it that is going to create more "wealth" to "spread around". We need a productivity boost. More people working. Maybe even more people learning or re-learning how to work. You want temporary stimulus? How about eliminating the minimum wage for one year?
Since Obama is no longer credible as a solution, I don't find him an interesting blog topic any more. His legacy may not be complete, but the direction of his path is quite clear, and for the purposes of this blog, everything written about him is now enough. The rest of us need to move on.
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Half Term President
When we passed a bill earlier this summer to help states save jobs -- the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers and nurses and police officers and firefighters that were about to be laid off, they said no. (Applause.) And the Republican who thinks he’s going to take over as Speaker -- (boos) -- I’m just saying that’s his opinion -- (laughter) -- he’s entitled to his opinion. But when he was asked about this, he dismissed those jobs as “government jobs” that weren’t worth saving. (Boos.) That’s what he said, I’m quoting -- “government jobs.” Barry H. Obama
"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" Barry H. Obama
Hey, give me some of that "R" there, Mr. President. I always have to chuckle when Obama and his crowd say that two years is not enough time to turn an economy around. It's not that I don't agree with that. It arguably could take over 2 years. However, when you are driving south, the chances of ending up north are not that good no matter how long and how far you drive.
The thing I have trouble resolving is the notion that we've only been heading in this direction for two years. There are two ways to look at it, as far as I can see: Either you collect the last ten years, and put them in the Bush-Obama recession bucket, or you go back to 2006 when the current House and Senate leadership was put in place, i.e., when the Bush-Obama recession was put on an unrestrained rocket sled.
Many pundits want to say if you push the clock back two years, you get the republicans all over again. Actually, what you get is Nancy and Harry all over again. I agree with Barry, we certainly don't want that. I don't think any of us are too keen on going back to W and his boys, or to Hillary and hers, either. If we're going back to anything, my vote is Coolidge.
This media push of Barry only being at it for 2 years is a little weak. Nancy was pulling thousands of pages together, long, LONG before that, and for any old president to sign. Barry won the honor of signing her slush party invitation list. Not saying George wouldn't have, mind you. He was gullible enough. I mean, he bought into big government in the '80's (yes, I know, everything is bigger in Texas)
If we are sufficiently lucky in November, Congress has a more rational charter going forward, and Obama's agenda is merely stitched into the carpet. Queen Nancy's 4 year term will expire, and Barry brushes up on his stand-up routine. Ironically congress, this time, gets the four year term limit, and BHO effectively becomes the nation's first half-term president.
"You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" Barry H. Obama
Hey, give me some of that "R" there, Mr. President. I always have to chuckle when Obama and his crowd say that two years is not enough time to turn an economy around. It's not that I don't agree with that. It arguably could take over 2 years. However, when you are driving south, the chances of ending up north are not that good no matter how long and how far you drive.
The thing I have trouble resolving is the notion that we've only been heading in this direction for two years. There are two ways to look at it, as far as I can see: Either you collect the last ten years, and put them in the Bush-Obama recession bucket, or you go back to 2006 when the current House and Senate leadership was put in place, i.e., when the Bush-Obama recession was put on an unrestrained rocket sled.
Many pundits want to say if you push the clock back two years, you get the republicans all over again. Actually, what you get is Nancy and Harry all over again. I agree with Barry, we certainly don't want that. I don't think any of us are too keen on going back to W and his boys, or to Hillary and hers, either. If we're going back to anything, my vote is Coolidge.
This media push of Barry only being at it for 2 years is a little weak. Nancy was pulling thousands of pages together, long, LONG before that, and for any old president to sign. Barry won the honor of signing her slush party invitation list. Not saying George wouldn't have, mind you. He was gullible enough. I mean, he bought into big government in the '80's (yes, I know, everything is bigger in Texas)
If we are sufficiently lucky in November, Congress has a more rational charter going forward, and Obama's agenda is merely stitched into the carpet. Queen Nancy's 4 year term will expire, and Barry brushes up on his stand-up routine. Ironically congress, this time, gets the four year term limit, and BHO effectively becomes the nation's first half-term president.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Wizer One-liner #25
My town hosted a march against pancreatic cancer this week. There is no confirmation yet on whether Al Sharpton hosted the march in favor of pancreatic cancer.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Bill Clinton and Chris Ruddy, sitting in a tree
Former President Bill Clinton took a break from his busy schedule in South Florida Monday to visit Newsmax Media and its founder and CEO, Christopher Ruddy. Clinton was in the area while making several stops to support Democratic candidates. -Newsmax Breaking News, August 17, 2010
This positively floored me. I mean totally sent me for a loop. Chris Ruddy is a guy who made a name for himself investigating Clinton escapades from Whitewater to TrooperGate, and on to the Vince Foster incident. And now, Bill and Chris are hanging together and doing photo-ops.
Being the pattern-recognition kind of guy I am, I had to come up with some scenarios why this would make sense to either side. I came up with this:
Newsmax is branching out to the "moderate" democrats, most of whom still like Bill, and most of whom probably have no further love for BHO. The Newsmax readership has to compete with a lot of other media, and Chris Ruddy is certainly the type of personality that would do something completely different, even shocking. (it worked!)
Bill is no doubt eager to have all the messy elements of his and Hillary's past encapsulated in some Arkansas mausoleum, and if he and Chris are now Ruddy-buddy, the chances of that happening are much better.
Not that you heard this here first, but I can already visualize the HRC 2012 bumper stickers.
This positively floored me. I mean totally sent me for a loop. Chris Ruddy is a guy who made a name for himself investigating Clinton escapades from Whitewater to TrooperGate, and on to the Vince Foster incident. And now, Bill and Chris are hanging together and doing photo-ops.
Being the pattern-recognition kind of guy I am, I had to come up with some scenarios why this would make sense to either side. I came up with this:
Newsmax is branching out to the "moderate" democrats, most of whom still like Bill, and most of whom probably have no further love for BHO. The Newsmax readership has to compete with a lot of other media, and Chris Ruddy is certainly the type of personality that would do something completely different, even shocking. (it worked!)
Bill is no doubt eager to have all the messy elements of his and Hillary's past encapsulated in some Arkansas mausoleum, and if he and Chris are now Ruddy-buddy, the chances of that happening are much better.
Not that you heard this here first, but I can already visualize the HRC 2012 bumper stickers.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Happy Trails, John Paul Stevens
To show a "well-founded fear of persecution," an alien need not prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted in his or her home country. -- John Paul Stevens
Happy trails, Justice Stevens. You left us with the strongest ever commerce clause, weakest ever property rights, and Elena Kagan. Some legacy.
Happy trails, Justice Stevens. You left us with the strongest ever commerce clause, weakest ever property rights, and Elena Kagan. Some legacy.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tippecanoe, and Tyler -- but not as much
Every time I hear someone in the media comment on "great presidents", I have to wonder what criteria they could possibly use to make the claim. How could FDR be considered great by some historians, and among the worst by others.
It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.
A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.
William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.
I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.
Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt
It's clear that there would be differences of opinion sometimes big, and sometimes small, and most of those split along ideological lines. So, no list is going to be correct. That said, I did find one (from this posting by Justin Buell ) that has a lot of potential; mostly because it is derived from entirely objective measures.
A couple of observations: I had been going along with the notion that Ronald Reagan was easily in the top 5; only to see him in this list as #17 overall. Was he merely the best in our lifetime? That gives me pause. If in the future we could count on the statistical likelihood of having more presidents better than Reagan, there would indeed be hope for the shining city on the hill.
William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) is the best ever. He was in office one month, and thus did not do enough damage to fall down the list. All present and future presidents should learn from this.
I have to agree, possibly even endorse this list, but would add the 44th one somewhere in the bottom 5. It certainly didn't take him long to find his place.
Here is the complete list.
1. William Henry Harrison
2. Grover Cleveland
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. John Tyler
5. Franklin Pierce
6. James Buchanan
7. Warren G. Harding
8. Zachary Taylor
9. James Monroe
10. William Howard Taft
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Benjamin Harrison
14. John Quincy Adams
15. George Washington
16. Rutherford B. Hayes
17. Ronald Reagan
18. Gerald Ford
19. Chester A. Arthur
20. James Garfield
21. Dwight D. Eisenhower
22. John Adams
23. James K. Polk
24. James Madison
25. Andrew Jackson
26. William McKinley
27. Jimmy Carter
28. Herbert Hoover
29. Millard Fillmore
30. John F. Kennedy
31. Andrew Johnson
32. U.S. Grant
33. Bill Clinton
34. George H.W. Bush
35. Richard Nixon
36. Theodore Roosevelt
37. Harry Truman
38. George W. Bush
39. Woodrow Wilson
40. Lyndon Johnson
41. Abraham Lincoln
42. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Steven's Dilemma
We’re pretty happy with the antenna design … we’re not feeling right now that we have a giant problem that we need to fix. -- Steve Jobs
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
A lot of people saw Jobs' tone at the press conference on the iPhone 4G's "AntennaGate" flap as contempt for his customers. His attitude seemed to be: look at all that I’ve done for you people — and now you quibble over some trifle? -- Michael Malone
I really thought lightning had struck with the original iPod, and that (mostly) it was because Apple made it accessible to the masses, not because there was much that I thought was special about it. I had MP3 players that worked as well and were less expensive. But Apple always had the inherent promise that they would make it as painless for the masses as possible, including making the necessary arrangements to make the music accessible for a reasonable price.
Although I figured they would hold the market for a good long time, I thought that their niche was already cast, and they'd be in maintenance mode.
The iPhone surprised me, as did the iPod touch. I'm still figuring out all the things my touch can do. I've had it for a year or so, and until recently, I was only vaguely aware that I could surf the web on it.
Remarkable stuff...and clearly another stroke of lightning in the same spot. So, now the world expects to be delighted and thrilled with Apple.
I have now seen the iPad, which as near as I can tell is iPod for the eyesight impaired. The numbers of units sold simply floors me. It's probably a better form factor for what a lot of people were doing with the iPod (i.e., sitting at their breakfast table or in front of TV scanning email and facebook), but it can't be considered a breakthrough product. Some people were conditioned to buy it. Others saw it as a solution to their needs. Clearly a home run for a product engine like Apple. But the buzz has died down quickly on that product. An iPod on steroids, and that's it. Yes, yes, very nice. So, Steve, what's the earth-shaking followup?
Maybe that's where the iPhone 4 comes in. Mostly mature technology, diffferent package. Some nice enhancements. What all is there to talk about? Gizmodo (1) and Antennas (2). Both of those focused more on the company and it's processes than the product itself. If they really want the next lightning bolt, it's going to have to come from somewhere else. People are bored with their smart phones.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Why the republicans need to embrace (and fear) the tea parties.
---
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.-- Samuel Adams
We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them. -- Fmr Sen Trent Lott
The problem with the Tea Party, I think it's just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out -- Sen Lindsey Graham
I'm not sure I should be participating in this story. -- Sen Bob Corker
From this vantage point, it does appear that the country's "regular people" identify with the tea parties. The tea party-goers invariably ask for less government (which is exactly the same as asking for more freedom). If the republicans are not "on" with that, the tea partiers will find someone who is. It may be a brave new world out there. I think people are genuinely tired of the left progressive party and the moderate progressive party being the only two choices. Experienced political observers are becoming the vocal majority. Unless something changes in the republican party, this powerful train leaves without them.
Tea party attendees are asking for a halt to unsustainable economic policies. Democrat and quasi-democrat parties don't want to sign on to that. Tea party types want government transparency and accountability. No more bailouts, and are without a doubt very tired of compassionate progressivism. Yet these two parties continue to glide that path together.
In the product development business, we have an axiom that says: If we follow the ideas of brand X, the brand X customer will always choose brand X over our version of brand X. They will pick Nike vs any other swoosh. If we instead make a superior product that is unabashedly Brand Y we have a chance to cut our own path. If we want big government, the way to get that is to vote democrat. No question.
There is nothing more useless than a big government republican (Wizer One-Liner #16 for those of you keeping score), yet it is the only kind younger voters (all those under 30) have ever seen. They likely wouldn't recognize the tea partiers as republican anyway. So, the risk is great that the republican party will "miss" this train.
Senator Graham doesn't see the coherent vision, yet it's as plain as every tea party sign in the rally: The "new" coherent vision for running the government is less government, Senator Graham, and if you don't see that, it might just result in your untimely retirement.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)