*********************************************************************

Joe Biden shows up at the debate and the media and Democrats declare such a victory

*********************************************************************

Woody Allen famously said “80% of success is showing up.” Little did he know that he was also describing the dumb-downed standard for Vice-President Joe Biden at the 2012 Vice-Presidential debate.

Smarting from last week’s sub-par debate performance by President Obama, Democrats and their media enablers set the standard for Mr. Biden’s success at the very high level of…….showing up and being boisterous, substance not required. This was reinforced today. Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of the magazine The Nation, so much as said that this morning on The Brian Lehrer Show on New York City public radio when stating “He helped [the Obama campaign]…..Joe showed up.”

Apparently, Joe Biden doing his smiling version of Al Gore’s huffing and puffing at George W. Bush’s comments in the 2000 Presidential debates is a worthy substitute for substantive debate. And this man is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Democrats say that the fact that the Vice-President found his way to the debates and flailed is victory in and of itself

________________________________________________________

But lo, the Vice-President met such low standard, with nothing more.

When Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Ryan pointed out the administration’s muddled foreign policy that sends mixed signals to our allies and foes, Mr. Biden responded “that’s a bunch of malarkey” (a good line for the movie The Quiet Man but not overly germane when discussing U.S. policy). When defending the administration’s fumbling of the Benghazi consulate attack, the Vice-President wandered off the path and said “Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world.” So Mr. Biden’s yardstick is the world media. Does such include Al Jazeera and the Chinese controlled state media? Kudos to the moderator, Martha Raddatz, for walking him back to the original topic of Libya and the attack (RADDATZ: “Can we talk — let me go back to Libya.” BIDEN: “Yeah, sure.”)

Mr. Biden went on to exclaim to further criticism “This is a bunch of stuff” and give a tutorial on Irish lexicon.

But perhaps the best exchange of the night was when Mr. Ryan said “I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way” to which the Vice-President replied “But I always say what I mean.” REPEAT: And this man is a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

All of which leads to how the Obama campaign cannot possibly win on the merits or the substance, and they know it. Hence its allegations of various Republican wars on women, the middle class and distant galaxies. Anything but discussing the past 4 dismal years or what Mr. Obama plans to do for the next 4 (essentially more of the same).

So it can be conceded that if non-substantive flailing is what won the debate, Mr. Biden is the victor. But the voters will likely see the seriousness and substance of Mr. Ryan as what matters, and they’ll reward him and Mr. Romney for such next month.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Democrats believe a good debate performance by Mitt Romney explains his resurgence in the polls; many Americans (especially the jobless) will say otherwise

*********************************************************************

Aside from a bump in the polls, one of the best things to come out of Mitt Romney’s perceived strong debate performance last week is watching Liberals like the MSNBC crew go into a full-scale panic (if Ed Schultz hasn’t yet soiled his undergarments, he will do so in short order).

The standard line that is being peddled by Democrats and unfortunately accepted by many Republicans is that Mr. Romney’s debate performance is the reason for his bounce in the polls. To be sure, he was near his A-game in delivery and form. And the fact that he finally got to describe Mr. Obama’s actual record in office (something the media will not do) as well as his own agenda certainly helped clear the air and show the true alternative to the status quo and not the caricatured one.

President Obama is more concerned about the well-being of Big Bird than the 23 million unemployed Americans

________________________________________________

But the dismal reality of what Mr. Obama has forced upon this country (ObamaCare,  job-killing regulations) resulting in the historical non-recovery we’re in seems to be the primary driver of why many are choosing to support the challenger over the incumbent.

And what is the Obama reality? 23 million people who can’t find work or have dropped out of the labor force, 43 straight months of unemployment above 8% until last month when it ostensibly fell to 7.8%, a meteoric rise in national debt (4 years of trillion dollar deficits) and, worst of all, an economy that is growing slower over the past 2 years. This is all a far cry from the “hope and change” that Mr. Obama promised in 2008.

Yet what has likely caused the most suppressed apoplexy amongst voters, especially those who voted for the President 4 years ago, is his utter nonchalance, if not detachment, to the reality he has created.

Specifically, in an economy where there are all too many people out of work, Mr. Obama and his surrogates have shown little interest in them and chosen to focus on phantom Republican wars on you name it, from women to the middle class to the planet Photon. Now Mr. Obama is running around claiming to be a defender of Big Bird from the PBS show Sesame Street. News flash, Mr. President: it’s tough for unemployed people to feel more sorry for Big Bird than themselves.

All of which shows a President who seems detached and and uninterested in listening to the vox populi: he and his fellow Democrats will tell us what we should be worried about.

The last person to occupy the White House who seemed as tone deaf to the concerns of the electorate as Mr. Obama was the one-term President George H.W. “Un-Dukakis” Bush.

It is said that when President Bush checked his watch in a debate in 1992, it confirmed with many voters that he was uninterested and no longer worthy of being President. Mr. Obama’s defense of Big Bird appears to be his watch-checking moment.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

If Liberalism and its accoutrements are so good, why exempt some from such?

*********************************************************************

This week, the New York City Council and the Bloomberg administration outlined a series of measures aimed at easing the regulatory burden on small businesses, including
eliminating obsolete violations and reducing the potential for fines.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Democrat who is preparing to run for mayor next year, said the new initiatives are aimed at changing what small-business owners perceive as the city’s “gotcha” approach to the enforcement of codes and regulations. The city needs to develop a more “let’s-work-together” ethos, she said.

The new measures include legislation to require city agencies to identify violations for which a business should receive a warning instead of an automatic penalty and the elimination of obsolete violations. While private industry quickly eliminates obsolescence in its product line, government is quite often native to “old and unimproved.” So the elimination of violations that are no longer of this time can be deemed progress.

Robert Bookman, counsel for the New York City Hospitality Alliance, said “For some time now, we’ve been hearing…government at all levels starting to talk the talk about the value of small businesses, about how we’re the job creators and the taxpayers, and the bread-and-butter of neighborhoods,” he said. Ms. Quinn added “Anybody who’s running for anything in the City of New York should care about small businesses—they should care about the future of them.”

All of this is mellifluous wind song and certainly welcome in a city whose government is constantly contemplating how to separate its inhabitants from their money. But when Ms. Quinn and Mssr. Bookman suggest that government must take care of small business, they immediately and undeniably lurch to the system in which government picks winners and losers, which inevitably brings less than the best from a society. Why is it justifiable to bury a corporate behemoth on Wall Street with endless government regulations but not to bury the sole proprietor or similar small business?

Liberals play a shell game when it comes to whom they will inflict their policies upon

_________________________________________

And not missed are exemptions from Liberal policies.

In the past year there have been a number of  “exemptions from Liberalism.” To wit, after Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law a 67% hike in the personal income tax rate while lifting the corporate tax rate to 9.5%, the fourth highest in the nation, he handed out more than $230 million in corporate subsidies to keep more than two dozen companies from fleeing the state. Then there is Mr. Obama’s exemption from the Liberal approach to the war on terror (Guantanamo, military tribunals, drone attacks) along with his administration’s handing out of waivers for parts of ObamaCare (i.e Accountable Care Organizations).

*********************************************************************

The Republican candidate rips a page from Walter Mondale’s 1984 campaign playbook

*********************************************************************

In 1984, Walter Mondale faced President Reagan in his bid for a second term. In part because of Mr. Reagan’s arms build-up, the deficit had reached (Gasp!) $185.4 Billion ($409.27 Billion in today’s dollars). Mr. Reagan was taken to task by Democrats for “mortgaging our future” (where are those deficit hawks now as we have had 4 straight trillion dollar-plus deficits under President Obama?).

At the height of deficit hysteria that year, Walter Mondale said in his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.” For both his honesty as well as lousy judgement, Mr. Mondale was rewarded that year by the electorate with a landslide loss to Mr. Reagan (Reagan won almost 59% of the popular vote and 97% of the Electoral College votes [a bygone era when people looked at the candidates and just didn’t stampede to the promise of “change” or “hope” only to be disappointed and wonder what happened).

Mitt Romney wants to emulate Walter Mondale’s tax “honesty” that earned the Vice-President a landslide loss in 1984

____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps given a speech by the same person on his campaign staff who slipped him the 47%  speech Mickey, Mr. Romney on Wednesday told an Ohio crowd that while he would work to lower tax rates on businesses and individuals, they shouldn’t “be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions.”

This was an emphasis on the deficit resulting from the Romney campaign reaching out to independent voters, who polls say remain deeply concerned about growing levels of government debt.

This position is a perfect strategy on the road to victory, for President Obama. By saying that he will not reduce taxes significantly, Mr. Romney does several things, none of which are good for him.

First, he angers (if not disheartens) the Conservative base that he will need to show up in force on election day. They are rightfully looking for and expecting someone who understands that the taxpayer (outside the 47%) is being soaked at the federal, state and local level. Second, he alienates Independents and even wavering Democrats who also think taxes are too high and who are desperately seeking an alternative to Mr. Obama. In short, Mr. Romney becomes a “tax collector for the welfare state.” If Mr. Romney wants to play President Obama’s game of deficit reduction by focusing on tax revenues and not spending, Mr. Obama will win every time.

Mr. Romney needs to focus his efforts on growing the economy by reducing regulations and taxes, a tried and true formula (see: Ronald Reagan, 1980s).

Governor Romney must not fret over his critics who see the world through static shades. This is the same crew that believes Reagan’s tax cuts will destroy the 1980′s economy despite the fact that we are over 20 years past the ’80s. It has been long shown that permanent marginal rate reductions on all kinds of income (ordinary, capital) allow the growth of a wider tax base resulting in more tax revenue, despite the lower rates. If Mr. Romney is really concerned about the deficit, he’ll “expand the pie” via tax rate cuts and even address spending.

Finally, someone needs to tell Governor Romney that there’s only 6 weeks, not 6 months, to the election. The closer we get to election day, the less likely Mr. Romney will be able to shovel up these messes he habitually deposits on the campaign trail.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

How dare taxpayers follow the law!

*********************************************************************

Politics is perhaps the only place where utterly absurd  statements can be made and somehow taken seriously.

The latest such example resulted from a series of reports, issued by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, that addressed corporate tax practices. The reports indicated that corporate behemoths like Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard used accounting strategies to minimize their U.S. tax bills by shifting profits in and out of the U.S.

“Major U.S. corporations are increasingly earning their profits here but shipping them overseas to avoid paying the taxes they owe,” lamented Senator Carl Levin.

Above: Senator Carl Levin is aghast that taxpayers adhere to the tax code he has helped write

______________________________________________________

Presumably, Sen. Levin does not mean that the corporations legally owe and are liable for taxes on such profits under the laws of the U.S. What he likely means is that, as a politician and not legislator, he sees a honey-pot that he wishes he could tap into but the Internal Revenue Code, as written by him and his colleagues, does not allow he and the rest of the spendthrift congress to get their paws on it.

Mr. Levin is likely using the “fairness” trope, as in “if the corporations were fair, they would just keep the profits in the U.S. and pay the taxes on it.”

Putting aside that one person’s “fairness” is another’s misguided Robin Hood redistribution, businesses as well as individuals have every right, as Justice Learned Hand so eloquently stated 80 years ago, to exercise tax avoidance: “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Good luck to the Chairman of a corporation who decides that his duty is not to increase shareholder wealth but fatten the coffers of government by remitting more corporate taxes than legally required.

And when last checked, there was nothing in the Constitution or any law ever written, including those sponsored by Mssr. Levin, that stipulates that more than the legally required amount of taxes should be remitted to the government if people of the good senator’s ilk don’t think the law doesn’t prescribe enough of a tithe to Uncle Sam. Thus, Mr. Levin’s call for corporations to pay more taxes than they should under existing law is effectively chastising them for following the law.

Which gets us to what Mr. Levin really meant. It is no surprise that HP and Microsoft are not a major presence in his home state of Michigan. Thus, he is in full-throated disgust with the perfectly legal tactics they use and he’s ready to storm the tax code Bastille.

Have at it, Senator! Conservatives and economists of all stripes have long said that the social engineering that is baked into the tax code (via credits, exemptions and other goodies), is inefficient and distorts the flow of capital and makes us poorer as a society. But don’t be surprised if your tax reform prosthelytizing falls on deaf ears within your chamber. The dirty little not-so secret is that the carve-outs and other giveaways in the code are a result of lobbying and pet ideologies by none other than your fellow congress-mates, from both sides of the aisle.

With a little luck, the senator will also carry his crusade on to other government subsidies, like those of the auto industry, at which point he will have not only preached but practiced the virtue of consistency (a rarity for any politician).

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Like the Wizard of Oz, President Obama wants us to ignore his failures; hence the rhetorical pistol-whippings of Mitt Romney when he stumbles into the truth

*********************************************************************

If this Fall’s presidential election were to be decided on policy, ability to lead or even vision for the country, Mitt Romney would win, hands down. But if the campaign is to be decided by billowing rhetorical smoke and mirrors, as it appears it might be, President Obama will not only retain the White House but for overcoming such a weak case to re-elect him, he might earn king-for-life status.

The latest verbal faux pas (which in this campaign means telling the truth) that Mr. Romney stumbled into was saying at a fundraiser this past May “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That, that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.” Romney went on to say that “these are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans who pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” He said his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Above: Like the Wizard of Oz, President Obama wants us to ignore his failures behind the campaign rhetoric

___________________________________________________________________

One of the problems with what he said is that it is predominantly true. Despite the harried discussion about taxes and “fair share,” a large portion of Americans do not pay any income tax, which is well below the 15% rate that Mr. Romney pays and has been burned at the public stake for.

And when it comes to entitlements like social security, medicare or even unemployment benefits, the vast bulk of the “99%” fully expect and feel entitled to everything they get and then some. Try convincing blue-hairs, clutching their social security check and a picture of FDR, that they have taken more from the system than they paid into and that perhaps benefits should be pared back. That alone will cause a trip to the emergency room, paid for by the government. So, too, with government workers who in many cases get rich medical and pension packages along with wages above private industry norms.

The tough truth of the matter is we have become an entitlement society. So Mr. Romney can be accused of his usual in-artful delivery, but certainly not for telling mistruths.

Still, Mr. Romney, one of these months (with only 1 to go before the election), must understand that Democrats will do anything to change the subject from the reality of a lackluster economic recovery, caused by their policies. Hence, the fabled Republican wars on [fill in the blank]. Think of it as a variation of the Wizard of Oz’s “ignore the man behind the curtain”: ignore the anemic recovery behind our campaign demagoguery of the Republicans.

Which leads to what Governor Romney should be talking about if he wants to win the election: economic growth which brings jobs. Lamenting the cultural lineal descent since the 1960s, resulting in the entitlement mentality so prevalent, is a great idea: for a white-paper or think-tank debate. But it does nothing to inspire the electorate to cast a vote for the messenger of such somber news.

What people wish to hear is how Mr. Romney will set the conditions so that there is no longer a need or desire for entitlements. To wit, Mr. Romney must show how he will implement policies that allow growth, of the kind of the Reagan ’80s, that will bring prosperity which everyone will aspire for.

If Mr. Romney only wishes to bemoan American decline, the voters will rightfully pick the candidate who does such best (as well as promotes it): President Obama.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

President Obama’s policy intransigence allows the country to debate the degree of government in our lives; Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” merely deferred the matter for the ignoble cause of prolonging his career

*********************************************************************

Of all of the mind-melds that President Obama and his policies have put on this country, from class warfare to promoting national self-doubt, perhaps the most notable consequence from them has been a blossoming nostalgia for the days of Bill Clinton.

Predictably, stalwart Democrats look back wistfully at the 1990s and see an America that was set right after what they see as the disastrous Reagan years. But what to make of conservative precincts who also share a desire for a president with the governing style like Mssr. Clinton’s?

To refresh memories, Bill and Hillary Clinton (recall their “2 for the price of 1″ sales pitch in the 1992 campaign) rode to power thanks to a perfect electoral storm: a strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot who disproportionately sapped votes from the incumbent, George H.W. Bush, who was lackluster and befuddled as a candidate for his re-election. Ever the opportunists, the Clintons saw that the country might have tired of the tapped-out incumbent, so they beat the campaign slogan drum of “change” and won the White House.

What followed was a heavy-handed governing style by them that resulted in 8 years of internecine warfare predominantly with congressional Republicans but even with his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate.

As President, Bill Clinton was a political chameleon who cared first and foremost about his own fortunes; Barack Obama is the opposite

_____________________________________________

When Mr. Clinton entered the White House, his focus was on health care and he dispatched his co-president/wife to formulate a sweeping health care bill on their terms, for congress to rubber-stamp. The proposed plan that they had was very similar to ObamaCare’s command-and-control program. When Democratic Tennessee Congressman Jim Cooper came up with a more free-market based approach that attracted wide bipartisan support which still would have achieved the Clinton’s ostensible goal of bringing more people health care coverage, it was summarily rejected by Team Clinton and brought Hillary Clinton’s wrath; Mr. Cooper was lucky he was not fished out of the Potomac (or found in a park like Vince Foster). Any chance of a health care law died by late summer of 1994 and given the fallout, Democrats lost both houses of congress in a historic defeat and the Clintons holed up in the White House plotting their political survival.

In came the policy-smart but politically tone-deaf Newt Gingrich leading the House majority Republicans along with the honorable but equally tin-eared Bob Dole in charge of the Senate. Probably not believing their luck, the Clinton’s proceeded to play rope-a-dope with them on everything from delaying welfare reform until right before the election in 1996 to the government shutdown and culminating in the ill-advised impeachment of President Clinton (given the slippery nature of Mr. Clinton, Mssrs. Dole and Gingrich should probably be happy that they did not wind up being convicted instead of Clinton).

And though long forgotten, the 500 or so FBI files, many on political adversaries of the Clintons, which the White House inappropriately requested (“Filegate”, as opposed to “Travelgate”, “Whitewater,” and the other imbroglios too numerous to list) were a not so subtle reminder that the Clintons knew how to play hardball, and not the lucidity-lacking brand of Chris Matthews. Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman of the Nixon White House could’ve been students, and not teachers, of the Clintons.

All the while this was happening, President Clinton claimed to be governing under the guise of bi-partisanship via “triangulation”: that Nirvanac ground that placed him between what he characterized as partisan congressional Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, such was not the case. Mr. Clinton clung to high tax rates (39.6% for ordinary income and 20% for capital gains) as well as balancing the budget through steep defense cuts, justified by the end of the Cold War (“the peace dividend”). And when it came to military matters overseas, he oversaw the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa and the bombing of the USS Cole, with little but symbolic responses. At a moment when he could have had Osama bin Laden liquidated in the late 1990s, he swung into his U.N. mode and called in the lawyers for debate while bin Laden got away only to be heard from a few years later on 9/11. These were all Liberal machinations, albeit costumed in post-partisanship. So the assertion that Bill Clinton somehow learned from his mistakes is, to adapt a phrase from George W. Bush,  fuzzy history. The Clintons merely went sub rosa with their Liberal predilections. In short, an appropriate synonym for “triangulation” is “duplicity.”

All of which contrasts with President Obama.

For anyone who doubts Mr. Obama’s convictions (clearly Liberal), his statement a few years ago that “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term  president” says it all. This is a man who believes what he believes in and does not make major policy changes for political expediency, let alone survival.

****************************************

While President Obama’s inflexibility may cause discomfort for many, it has achieved, for Conservatives in particular and the country in general, what Bill Clinton’s ballroom dancing never did: bringing the debate of the size and degree of government front and center.

If nothing else, at least voters will be able to say they had a clear and important choice to make this election. And with some luck, more thought will be given than in 2008 before the lever is pulled in the ballot box.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

The Democrats’ campaign slogans “We inherited this mess” and “It could be worse” do not inspire confidence nor make the case to elect them and could wind up defeating them

*********************************************************************

With the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Democrats have adopted a message that they, and President Obama specifically, inherited a mess. And to reinforce such thought, they state that without Democrats in power the past 4 years, it could have been worse. This theme has been amplified this week at the Democratic National Convention.

It is indisputable that the financial meltdown of 2007-2009 was one of the worst in many decades and Mr. Obama clearly did inherit a lousy economy. Regardless of what anyone says, there is plenty of blame to spread to both parties. But for those of us who can recall Candidate Obama’s message of “hope and change” in 2008, the failure to allow the economy to recover and the rationalization that he shouldn’t have been expected to preside over a healthier economic rebound is a marked contradiction from what he promised 4 years ago.

Democrats claim that they inherited a mess and thus have effectively been street-cleaners after a horse parade

_________________________________________________

More importantly, such is not a posture taken by prior successful presidents who did not inherit optimal situations.

Addressing just a few prior “presidential fixers”:

• President Reagan clearly did not inherit a good situation as his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, along with a Democratic Congress, left the economy in tatters (high inflation, high unemployment, low growth [sound familiar?]). Yet he miraculously turned things around instead of whining and blaming the prior administration. Conversely, Mr. Carter also inherited a lousy economy from the Nixon/Ford administrations and proceeded to make things even worse, resulting in his one-term status.
• FDR inherited the Great Depression and while he had policy mistakes, no one can fault him for not trying and succeeding to some degree in turning a bad situation around.
• President Lincoln, if history teachers and books can be trusted, did not throw up his hands and claim that he inherited an intractable mess which could not be solved. He met the challenges of his day head on, with rather positive results.
• George Washington was handed a nascent republic with many problems. Officially inaugurating what would become a great American tradition, he rose to the occasion and saw his two terms through that ended with a better situation than what he started with.

And there’s many less celebrated examples of other presidents also “earning their pay” by tackling the tough jobs that inherently come with the position.

The Democratic position of the backward-looking view of “it could be worse” is not what this historically can-do country is all about. America’s attitude and approach is more aligned with the Reaganesque forward-looking philosophy of “things should always be better,” as they progressively were under President Reagan’s reign. To contrast with Mr. Obama’s “gut-it-out America” message, 28 years ago Mr. Reagan’s re-election theme was “morning in America,” as Mr. Reagan sailed to a landslide victory.

An irony that could result from Democrats’ incessant reminders of the “mess” they inherited will be to create an even crankier electorate that was unhappy to begin with. When voters are disenchanted, the incumbents, in this case President Obama and Democrats, are the big losers of such a sour mood.

Democrats should be careful about the defeatism they now sow as such could result in reaping the bitter fruits of electoral loss in November.

-I.M. Windee

*********************************************************************

Thanks for pointing out your alleged Republican Wars on Humanity but may we talk about jobs?

*********************************************************************

Dear President Obama-

I know you are preparing for the Democratic convention next week and a fierce rebuttal to the Republican convention that just occurred so I will make this “fairly” quick.

First, thank you for your public service. While I may not agree with many of your policies (more later), there’s no question that you wish to serve this country and do what you believe is best for it. Given the grief that you have to endure from opposing politicians, the media and even your own party, you are to be commended for showing up in the Oval Office each day with the sunny demeanor you have. I don’t think I could do it.

Above: I.M. Windee writes a letter to the President

Still, as stated prior, I take exception with many of your policies, and not just because I am a Conservative and Republican.

Let’s start with health-care. It’s great that you want to see everyone have coverage but as you found out when you cut over $100 billion from Medicare to pay for such, your aspiration has a price. If it didn’t, Republicans would be all for universal coverage quicker than you could say “Hillary-Care.” I guess that’s one of the big differences between you and your Liberal colleagues versus Mr. Romney and Conservatives: recognizing that if you wish to give to Paul, you must take from (tax) Peter. That’s just the way it is. The government coffers are not some magical horn of plenty that wealth is magically belched out from. Government relies on the people it governs (read: the taxpayer). Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it must be recognized so that there is no surprise when some parts of the citizenry get cramped feelings over what government does with the resources it has.

Which gets us to the unfortunate phenomenon this world (and perhaps the universe) is gripped in: limited resources. When you say with too much ease that “the rich” should pay more in taxes (I believe “fair share” is your justifying term), some think you are a bit too blithe in such thinking and don’t realize that the people you are targeting, while perhaps wildly wealthy, only have a finite amount of resources. And when you take away a portion of their wealth, they have that much less to use in such things as investment that creates jobs. Perhaps it’s an eccentricity that the wealthy need to be cured of, but that’s how they operate at this point in evolution. So maybe more care and thought should be given before using higher taxes willy-nilly to balance your budget deficits. Just a thought.

And while we’re on the subject of “the rich,” we unemployed (and perhaps much of the citizenry) don’t care what Mitt Romney and his ilk pay in taxes, whether he is waging some “war on [fill in the blank],” or any other superfluous demagoguery that may serve you politicians in a campaign but does nothing for us. All we care about is whether the “1%” plan to hire any of us, and if so, when?

I realize you probably cringed when I mentioned the unmentionable: jobs. I’m sorry and do not mean to create discomfort. We’ll quickly change the subject to Mitt Romney’s taxes and the fabled gastro-intestinal distress he had from a bad bean burrito late one night while in college but a few words on this thorny subject of (un)employment are a must. If it makes you feel better, such term makes me feel queasy as I am a member of your “Hope and Change Brigade” (the unemployed). While I can only speak for myself and not my jobless brethren, it just seems that getting gainful employment is likely near the top of all our concerns and is what we most want you and Mr. Romney to speak about. Yes, yes, I fully agree with your campaign and MSNBC allies that the many Republican wars on you name it should be foremost in the campaign discussion. Yet the bill collectors that call me each day don’t seem to care about such; they just want money from me which I can only get from a job, which I don’t have. So here’s what I think is some good advice (if I’ve yet to offer any): at least feign some concern about us jobless.  You don’t even need to take any responsibility for the lackluster recovery. Just blame George Bush (either one, your pick) or Richard Nixon or even Herbert Hoover (2 always-reliable scapegoats for Democrats); most of us are so punch-drunk that we won’t give it much thought so long as you speak somewhat within our zone of concern.

And speaking of jobs, there are those of us who think you might have put the cart before the horse. To wit, you did a lot of Liberal social policy engineering before you allowed the sputtering economy to recover and pay for your agenda. Again, I don’t wish to cause any heartburn for you but I’m just giving you a heads-up as to what’s happening outside the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Perhaps if you win a second term, you can focus on the economy and letting it grow. Maybe not.

One final word on…..jobs (last one, I promise). When you can have upwards of 20,000 jobs created and increase oil supplies which will lower energy and consumer prices, take the opportunity (and run). Yes, I’m talking about the XL pipeline. If you don’t believe me on this, ask the unions who would’ve filled such jobs. I know they have your ear. Realize that as Ronald Reagan timelessly put it: recession is when  your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose yours. There are a lot of us in a Depression.

Finally, please do something with Vice-President Biden. All of my concerns above are magnified whenever I hear him speak. He seems like a decent fellow but he does not give me the comfort zone of someone who can get an adequate handle on officiating the White House Easter Egg Roll, let alone major policy matters. Add him to the list above of reasons why you should be commended for not holing up at Camp David and taking multi-month vacations each year.

I hope some of this helps and if you could, please extend the unemployment benefits for several more years. I understand better now that just like much of ObamaCare is interdependent upon each other, so too are your fiscal, tax and regulatory policies intertwined with your plan for prolonged unemployment benefits. It all makes sense now, and I’m sorry for ever questioning such wisdom.

An aspiring taxpayer,

-I.M. Windee

**************************************************************

The following, published here every 4 years during the Republican National Convention, is President Reagan’s final major speech, given at the 1992 Republican convention. It is considered his political valedictorian message as he issued a public statement 2 years later declaring he had Alzheimer’s disease, thus receding from the public eye physically but never spiritually. The video of such speech can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxL3OU1dwmI

**************************************************************

Thank you, Paul for that kind introduction. And Mr. Chairman, delegates, friends, fellow Americans, thank you so very much for that welcome.  You’ve given Nancy and me so many wonderful memories, so much of your warmth and affection, we cannot thank you enough for the honor of your friendship.

Over the years, I’ve addressed this convention as a private citizen, as a governor, as a presidential candidate, as a president and now, once again tonight, as private citizen Ronald Reagan.

Above: President Reagan delivers his political valedictorian speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention.

Tonight is a very special night for me. Of course, at my age, every night’s a very special night.  After all, I was born in 1911. Indeed, according to the experts, I have exceeded my life expectancy by quite a few years. Now this a source of great annoyance to some, especially those in the Democratic party.

But, here’s the remarkable thing about being born in 1911. In my life’s journey over these past eight decades, I have seen the human race through a period of unparalleled tumult and triumph. I have seen the birth of communism and the death of communism. I have witnessed the bloody futility of two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. I have seen Germany united, divided and united again. I have seen television grow from a parlor novelty to become the most powerful vehicle of communication in history. As a boy I saw streets filled with model-Ts; as a man I have met men who walked on the moon.

I have not only seen, but lived the marvels of what historians have called the “American Century.” Yet, tonight is not a time to look backward. For while I take inspiration from the past, like most Americans, I live for the future. So this evening, for just a few minutes, I hope you will let me talk about a country that is forever young.

There was a time when empires were defined by land mass, subjugated peoples, and military might. But the United States is unique because we are an empire of ideals. For two hundred years we have been set apart by our faith in the ideals of democracy, of free men and free markets, and of the extraordinary possibilities that lie within seemingly ordinary men and women. We believe that no power of government is as formidable a force for good as the creativity and entrepreneurial drive of the American people.

Those are the ideals that invented revolutionary technologies and a culture envied by people everywhere. This powerful sense of energy has made America synonymous for opportunity the world over. And after generations of struggle, America is the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul itself into bondage.

Within a few short years, we Americans have experienced the most sweeping changes of this century: the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the global economy. No transition is without its problems, but as uncomfortable as it may feel at the moment, the changes of the 1990′s will leave America more dynamic and less in danger than at any time in my life.

A fellow named James Allen once wrote in his diary, “many thinking people believe America has seen its best days.” He wrote that July 26, 1775. There are still those who believe America is weakening; that our glory was the brief flash of time called the 20th Century; that ours was a burst of greatness too bright and brilliant to sustain; that America’s purpose is past.

My friends, I utterly reject those views. That’s not the America we know. We were meant to be masters of destiny, not victims of fate. Who among us would trade America’s future for that of any other country in the world? And who could possibly have so little faith in our America that they would trade our tomorrows for our yesterdays?

I’ll give you a hint. They put on quite a production in New York a few weeks ago. You might even call it slick. A stone’s throw from Broadway it was, and how appropriate. Over and over they told us they are not the party they were. They kept telling us with straight faces that they’re for family values, they’re for a strong America, they’re for less intrusive government.

And they call me an actor.

To hear them talk, you’d never know that the nightmare of nuclear annihilation has been lifted from our sleep. You’d never know that our standard of living remains the highest in the world. You’d never know that our air is cleaner than it was 20 years ago. You’d never know that we remain the one nation the rest of the world looks to for leadership.

It wasn’t always this way. We mustn’t forget–even if they would like to– the very different America that existed just 12 years ago; an America with 21 percent interest rates and back to back years of double digit inflation; an America where mortgage payments doubled, paychecks plunged, and motorists sat in gas lines; an America whose leaders told us it was our own fault; that ours was a future of scarcity and sacrifice; and that what we really needed was another good dose of government control and higher taxes.

It wasn’t so long ago that the world was a far more dangerous place as well. It was a world where aggressive Soviet communism was on the rise and American strength was in decline. It was a world where our children came of age under the threat of nuclear holocaust. It was a world where our leaders told us that standing up to aggressors was dangerous — that American might and determination were somehow obstacles to peace.

But we stood tall and proclaimed that communism was destined for the ash heap of history. We never heard so much ridicule from our liberal friends. The only thing that got them more upset was two simple words: “Evil Empire.”

But we knew then what the liberal Democrat leaders just couldn’t figure out: the sky would not fall if America restored her strength and resolve. The sky would not fall if an American president spoke the truth. The only thing that would fall was the Berlin Wall.

I heard those speakers at that other convention saying “we won the Cold War” — and I couldn’t help wondering, just who exactly do they mean by “we”? And to top it off, they even tried to portray themselves as sharing the same fundamental values of our party! What they truly don’t understand is the principle so eloquently stated by Abraham Lincoln: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

If we ever hear the Democrats quoting that passage by Lincoln and acting like they mean it, then, my friends, we will know that the opposition has really changed.

Until then, we see all that rhetorical smoke, billowing out from the Democrats, well ladies and gentlemen, I’d follow the example of their nominee. Don’t inhale.

This fellow they’ve nominated claims he’s the new Thomas Jefferson. Well, let me tell you something. I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine. And governor, you’re no Thomas Jefferson.

Now let’s not dismiss our current troubles, but where they see only problems, I see possibilities — as vast and diverse as the American family itself. Even as we meet, the rest of the world is astounded by the pundits and finger pointers who are so down on us as a nation.

Well I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — America’s best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. America remains what Emerson called her 150 years ago, “the country of tomorrow.” What a wonderful description and how true. And yet tomorrow might never have happened had we lacked the courage in the 1980′s to chart a course of strength and honor.

All the more reason no one should underestimate the importance of this campaign and what the outcome will mean. The stakes are high. The presidency is serious business. We cannot afford to take a chance. We need a man of serious purpose, unmatched experience, knowledge and ability. A man who understands government, who understands our country and who understands the world. A man who has been at the table with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. A man whose performance as commander-in-chief of the bravest and most effective fighting force in history left the world in awe and the people of Kuwait free of foreign tyranny. A man who has devoted more than half of his life to serving his country. A man of decency, integrity and honor.

And tonight I come to tell you that I — warmly, genuinely, wholeheartedly support the re-election of George Bush as president United States.

We know President Bush. By his own admission, he is a quiet man, not a showman. He is a trustworthy and levelheaded leader who is respected around the world. His is a steady hand on the tiller through the choppy waters of the ’90s, which is exactly what we need.

We need George Bush!
Yes, we need Bush.

We also need another fighter, a man who happens to be with us this evening, someone who has repeatedly stood up for his deepest convictions. We need our vice president, Dan Quayle.

Now it’s true: a lot of liberal democrats are saying it’s time for a change; and they’re right; the only trouble is they’re pointing to the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue. What we should change is a Democratic congress that wastes precious time on partisan matters of absolutely no relevance to the needs of the average American. So to all the entrenched interests along the Potomac — the gavel-wielding chairmen, the bloated staffs, the taxers and takers and congressional rule makers, we have a simple slogan for november 1992: clean house!

For you see, my fellow Republicans, we are the change! For 50 of the last 60 years the Democrats have controlled the Senate. And they’ve had the House of Representatives for 56 of the last 60 years.

It’s time to clean house. Clean out the privileges and perks. Clean out the arrogance and the big egos. Clean out the scandals, the corner-cutting and the foot-dragging.
What kind of job do you think they’ve done during all those years they’ve been running the Congress?

You know, I used to say to some of those Democrats who chair every committee in the House: “You need to balance the government’s checkbook the same way you balance your own.” Then I learned how they ran the House bank, and I realized that was exactly what they had been doing!
Now, just imagine what they would do controlled the executive branch, too!

This is the 21st presidential election in my lifetime, the 16th in which I will cast a ballot. Each of those elections had its shifting moods of the moment, its headlines of one day that were forgotten the next. There have been a few more twists and turns this year than in others, a little more shouting about who was up or down, in or out, as we went about selecting our candidates. But now we have arrived, as we always do, at the moment of truth — the serious business of selecting a president.

Now is the time for choosing.

As it did 12 years ago, and as we have seen many times in history, our country now stands at a crossroads. There is widespread doubt about our public institutions and profound concern, not merely about the economy but about the overall direction of this great country.

And as they did then, the American people are clamoring for change and sweeping reform. The question we had to ask 12 years ago is the question we ask today: What kind of change can we Republicans offer the American people?

Some might believe that the things we have talked about tonight are irrelevant to the choice. These new isolationists claim that the American people don’t care about how or why we prevailed in the great defining struggle of our age — the victory of liberty over our adversaries. They insist that our triumph is yesterday’s news, part of a past that holds no lessons for the future.

Well nothing could be more tragic, after having come all this way on the journey of renewal we began 12 years ago, than if America herself forgot the lessons of individual liberty that she has taught to a grateful world.

Emerson was right. We are the country of tomorrow. Our revolution did not end at Yorktown. More than two centuries later, America remains on a voyage of discovery, a land that has never become, but is always in the act of becoming.

But just as we have led the crusade for democracy beyond our shores, we have a great task to do together in our own home. Now, I would appeal to you to invigorate democracy in your own neighborhoods.

Whether we come from poverty or wealth; whether we are Afro-American or Irish-American; Christian or Jewish, from big cities or small towns, we are all equal in the eyes of God. But as Americans that is not enough we must be equal in the eyes of each other. We can no longer judge each other on the basis of what we are, but must, instead, start finding out who we are. In America, our origins matter less than our destinations and that is what democracy is all about.

A decade after we summoned America to a new beginning, we are beginning still. Every day brings fresh challenges and opportunities to match. With each sunrise we are reminded that millions of our citizens have yet to share in the abundance of American prosperity. Many languish in neighborhoods riddled with drugs and bereft of hope. Still others hesitate to venture out on the streets for fear of criminal violence. Let us pledge ourselves to a new beginning for them.

Let us apply our ingenuity and remarkable spirit to revolutionize education in America so that everyone among us will have the mental tools to build a better life. And while we do so, let’s remember that the most profound education begins in the home.

And let us harness the competitive energy that built America, into rebuilding our inner cities so that real jobs can be created for those who live there and real hope can rise out of despair.

Let us strengthen our health care system so that Americans of all ages can be secure in their futures without the fear of financial ruin.

And my friends, once and for all, let us get control of the federal deficit through a Balanced Budget Amendment and line item veto.

And let us all renew our commitment. Renew our pledge to day by day, person by person, make our country and the world a better place to live. Then when the nations of the world turn to us and say, “America, you are the model of freedom and prosperity.” We can turn to them and say, “you ain’t seen nothing, yet!”

For me, tonight is the latest chapter in a story that began a quarter of a century ago, when the people of California entrusted me with the stewardship of their dreams.

My fellow citizens — those of you here in this hall and those of you at home — I want you to know that I have always had the highest respect for you, for your common sense and intelligence and for your decency. I have always believed in you and in what you could accomplish for yourselves and for others.

And whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.

My fondest hope for each one of you — and especially for the young people here — is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here.

May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism.

And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill.

Before I go, I would like to ask the person who has made my life’s journey so meaningful, someone I have been so proud of through the years, to join me. Nancy

My fellow Americans, on behalf of both of us, goodbye, and God bless each and every one of you, and God bless this country we love.