So much of what we hear about the Republican field is centered around whether or not the candidate in question is "electable" or not. Certainly since an undocumented illegal alien from Kenya currently holds the post, this electability questions should be moot.
But what exactly does "electable" mean? Does it mean the candidate has to be well spoken? Does it mean he or she must "look the part"? And what exactly does "looking the part" mean?
Abraham Lincoln was elected President not once but twice while sporting a beard that made him look like an Amish farmer. Robert Taft was so fat when he was elected that a special bathtub had to be installed in the White House to accommodate his girth. If you look through the gallery of Presidents, there have been pinheads, bald guys, mustachioed guys, clean shaven guys, guys in glasses, guys in wheelchairs, and no one anywhere would ever call Richard M. Nixon a "handsome fella".
So electability may have little to do with one's personal physical appearance. What about speaking ability?
Our current President, Barack Obama, is known as a powerful orator, that is until his teleprompter malfunctions. Then, as we have all seen, he's a slow, stuttering, extremely nervous speaker with a halting delivery and a tendency to mispronounce words like "corpsman" (repeatedly). He also has a disturbing habit of not knowing which state he is in. Or even how many states comprise the United States (hint: not 57).
So speaking ability is not critical.
That leaves only policy.
A Candidate's policies are the road map for the direction he wants to take the country should he or she be elected to high office. Questions as to the country's energy strategy, whether or not to go to war, what the immigration policy of the country should be and plans to curb or expand government spending are all indicators of a candidate's policies.
While it is a given that policies change as the conditions of the country change, policy statements are how voters should and have decided for which candidate to cast their vote. But which policies can make a candidate unelectable?
That is a question for those who claim that none or only one of the Republican field of candidates is, after all is said and done, electable. For example, would running up the government's debt with no real infrastructure improvements to show for all the money spent, would that make a candidate "unelectable"?
Would bailouts and sweetheart deals to prized constituents (a politically correct way of describing bribes and kickbacks) make a candidate unelectable?
Would an energy/conservation policy that drives up fuel prices and the costs of almost everything else make a candidate unelectable?
Would engaging in unconstitutional and illegal military actions make a candidate unelectable?
Would identifying with a very unpopular but very vocal group agitating for violence against their fellow citizens and destruction of private and public property make a candidate unelectable?
Would spending exorbitant amounts of taxpayer dollars on extravagant vacations and extraordinary perks, like a big black bulletproof bus used for campaigning but manufactured in Canada, during a time when most Americans are tightening their belts and canceling their vacations make a candidate unelectable?
And which Republican candidate has advocated for or predicted his acquiesce to any of the above mentioned policies? To my knowledge, not one. And which candidate for President has not only advocated for but actually imposed these dreadful policies? To my knowledge, only the incumbent.
So why or how could anybody claim that the Republican field of candidates is largely "unelectable"? Is that wishful thinking or just shallow prejudice?
You decide.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Iowa is Meaningless
I am disheartened by Michelle Bachmann's decision to suspend her campaign for election to the Presidency. I know it must be hard to work an entire state like Iowa only to come in sixth out of seven candidates. The time, effort, and money spent must seem like it was wasted.
But Iowa is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and even more so since the actual election day is still nearly 10 months away. So much can happen between now and then. Look at the fledgling campaign of Herman Cain. One week he was on top and talking tough. The next week he was back home trying to save his marriage.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Republican field has failed to follow Reagan's 11th commandment to their mutual detriment. Intuitively, they all know that their attacks will eventually be used by the Obama campaign to defeat whoever is the eventual nominee. But they just can't help themselves.
There is a dearth of good ideas. And in the absence of thoughtful problem solving, finger pointing takes center stage. Let's examine some possibilities.
1. The economy in the United States is in a doldrums. For months the mainstream media has broadcast that the recession is over, but that euphoria has yet to trickle down to the work a day man and woman heading the American households. Instead, gas is up, milk is up, utilities are up, and the costs of everything from school clothes for your children to your cable TV bill is increasing faster than your ability to earn money.
SOLUTION: If I were a Republican candidate, I would talk about repealing legislation and executive branch regulations that increase the costs of goods consumers need most. I would start by identifying specific regulations currently enforced by the EPA, NLRB, or the USDA that increase costs to producers without producing any real safeguards for the consumer or the environment. There are many many examples of this. Show exactly how these regulations reduce competition, or increase costs to producers and then show exactly how repealing these regulations would brings costs (and prices) lower.
NUCLEAR IRAN:
This is a problem that generates fear without anyone knowing for sure there is anything to fear. The first objective would be to gather the facts. That's what Intelligence gathering is for. Review the latest Intelligence with a common sense approach to this important policy. Ask, is it likely that Iran could create a nuclear weapon with the resources at their disposal? If so, how can we stop this from happening without committing troops to an Iranian invasion? Is there a supplier of this technology we can dissuade from sharing it with Iran? What would it cost?
Once the facts are known, then, and only then, can we spout off about what we are or aren't going to do to shape Iran's nuclear ambitions to our liking. It is bombastic and reckless to speak of invading or attacking a sovereign nation on the other side of the world especially if we would have to borrow money from an Iranian ally (China) to do it. So maybe there is a better way.
Perhaps fomenting a civil war in Iran? Assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists? Supporting their populations' desire to overthrow their present regime in favor of a less technologically bent Islamic Brotherhood regime? After all, there might be some strategic advantages to be realized from Iran being taken over by a religious regime that regards the 7th century as the pinnacle of man's technological achievement.
IMMIGRATION LAW REFORM:
For several good common sense reasons, Amnesty for illegal immigrants is a very unpopular policy in the United States. But the legal alternative of legal immigration is too costly and cumbersome a procedure for many to undertake. Since we have no control over the desires of foreigners to immigrate to the United States, we should instead focus on what we do in fact have control over, our immigration policy.
For this, I would borrow a page from the Department of Transportation's policy on licensing of Truckers to carry Hazardous materials across this nation's highways. In order to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement, a trucker must first obtain a legal driver's license. Then he goes through a Department of Transportation physical examination to ensure physical competence. Then he goes through an extensive background check and finger printing procedure. The whole process costs about $195.00 and takes about three weeks.
Simply apply the same standard to immigrants. Shorten and cheapen the process of obtaining citizenship (get the lawyers out of it) and illegal immigration will decline. The high cost and long legal procedures for legal citizenship act as a prohibition to immigrants. As with any and all prohibitions, its existence creates a black market.
This black market becomes a source of misery and crime. And it makes second class citizens of anyone who part takes in it for the duration of their stay in the United States.
Simplify the process, and many of the immigrants who enter the United States will gladly submit to the procedure, will pony up the money for the costs of the physicals and the background checks, and go on to become productive Americans. Simple is almost always better.
SUMMATION:
During the election debates, none of these points ever came up. And there are many many more any of the Republican candidates could address to his or her benefit. This early in the race, it is just too soon to throw in the towel before the meat and potato issues have been vetted by all the candidates. The dog-and-pony show debates were all structured by News media pundits, most of whom have a vested interest in defeating any Republican candidate for President.
But Iowa is meaningless in the grand scheme of things and even more so since the actual election day is still nearly 10 months away. So much can happen between now and then. Look at the fledgling campaign of Herman Cain. One week he was on top and talking tough. The next week he was back home trying to save his marriage.
The problem, as I see it, is that the Republican field has failed to follow Reagan's 11th commandment to their mutual detriment. Intuitively, they all know that their attacks will eventually be used by the Obama campaign to defeat whoever is the eventual nominee. But they just can't help themselves.
There is a dearth of good ideas. And in the absence of thoughtful problem solving, finger pointing takes center stage. Let's examine some possibilities.
1. The economy in the United States is in a doldrums. For months the mainstream media has broadcast that the recession is over, but that euphoria has yet to trickle down to the work a day man and woman heading the American households. Instead, gas is up, milk is up, utilities are up, and the costs of everything from school clothes for your children to your cable TV bill is increasing faster than your ability to earn money.
SOLUTION: If I were a Republican candidate, I would talk about repealing legislation and executive branch regulations that increase the costs of goods consumers need most. I would start by identifying specific regulations currently enforced by the EPA, NLRB, or the USDA that increase costs to producers without producing any real safeguards for the consumer or the environment. There are many many examples of this. Show exactly how these regulations reduce competition, or increase costs to producers and then show exactly how repealing these regulations would brings costs (and prices) lower.
NUCLEAR IRAN:
This is a problem that generates fear without anyone knowing for sure there is anything to fear. The first objective would be to gather the facts. That's what Intelligence gathering is for. Review the latest Intelligence with a common sense approach to this important policy. Ask, is it likely that Iran could create a nuclear weapon with the resources at their disposal? If so, how can we stop this from happening without committing troops to an Iranian invasion? Is there a supplier of this technology we can dissuade from sharing it with Iran? What would it cost?
Once the facts are known, then, and only then, can we spout off about what we are or aren't going to do to shape Iran's nuclear ambitions to our liking. It is bombastic and reckless to speak of invading or attacking a sovereign nation on the other side of the world especially if we would have to borrow money from an Iranian ally (China) to do it. So maybe there is a better way.
Perhaps fomenting a civil war in Iran? Assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists? Supporting their populations' desire to overthrow their present regime in favor of a less technologically bent Islamic Brotherhood regime? After all, there might be some strategic advantages to be realized from Iran being taken over by a religious regime that regards the 7th century as the pinnacle of man's technological achievement.
IMMIGRATION LAW REFORM:
For several good common sense reasons, Amnesty for illegal immigrants is a very unpopular policy in the United States. But the legal alternative of legal immigration is too costly and cumbersome a procedure for many to undertake. Since we have no control over the desires of foreigners to immigrate to the United States, we should instead focus on what we do in fact have control over, our immigration policy.
For this, I would borrow a page from the Department of Transportation's policy on licensing of Truckers to carry Hazardous materials across this nation's highways. In order to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement, a trucker must first obtain a legal driver's license. Then he goes through a Department of Transportation physical examination to ensure physical competence. Then he goes through an extensive background check and finger printing procedure. The whole process costs about $195.00 and takes about three weeks.
Simply apply the same standard to immigrants. Shorten and cheapen the process of obtaining citizenship (get the lawyers out of it) and illegal immigration will decline. The high cost and long legal procedures for legal citizenship act as a prohibition to immigrants. As with any and all prohibitions, its existence creates a black market.
This black market becomes a source of misery and crime. And it makes second class citizens of anyone who part takes in it for the duration of their stay in the United States.
Simplify the process, and many of the immigrants who enter the United States will gladly submit to the procedure, will pony up the money for the costs of the physicals and the background checks, and go on to become productive Americans. Simple is almost always better.
SUMMATION:
During the election debates, none of these points ever came up. And there are many many more any of the Republican candidates could address to his or her benefit. This early in the race, it is just too soon to throw in the towel before the meat and potato issues have been vetted by all the candidates. The dog-and-pony show debates were all structured by News media pundits, most of whom have a vested interest in defeating any Republican candidate for President.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)