Saturday, February 5
Wednesday, February 2
An Interesting Night In America
Tuesday evening was rather interesting if you cared enough to pay attention. Two events took place that I wish took place way more often.
In Washington DC, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean took part in a 90 minute debate hosted by the George Washington University College Republicans and College Democrats. If you watched the debate on C-SPAN, you'll probably agree with me that the issues and the substance covered was quite impressive. Obviously, your humble author here never agrees with Howard Dean, but he gave responses and opinions that allowed for substantive debate. Speaker Gingrich was, well, Speaker Gingrich. One of the top thinkers in our party, along with Paul Ryan who I will mention next, Newt offered a very sane argument for American Exceptionalism along with conservatism throughout many of his answers.
Congressman Paul Ryan, someone whose praises I sing (or blog) about regularly, hosted a nationwide conference call for his new Political Action Committee named the Prosperity Project. I joined the call and I heard Congressman Ryan hold court with callers across the nation. I was actually very impressed with the questions and I was even more impressed with Ryan's interaction as he would actually converse with the callers and he would offer real life stories to help relate the point he was trying to make.
The Congressman addressed issues from across the board, typically from the fiscal angle. There was a focus on retirement savings, real health care reform, national debt and taxes. In his usual fashion, Congressman Ryan gave answers that while complex, they made sense and they could be understood. Paul Ryan is very much the future of the conservative movement.
As I stated at the outset, this was an interesting night. In 1858, Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times for 3 hours each time. Can you imagine if we had anything similar to that today? Our Presidential debates have been dumbed down to "tell us in 90 seconds how you would handle Iran". That's not serious dialogue. We often see forums, and there is nothing wrong with forums, but typically there are 2 to 5 experts who already agree on the same thing, they just come about it different ways. The forums are often formal ways to compare notes.
We rarely see non-candidate debates between two people, just to talk out loud about ideas. Interestingly, the last debate like this that I can recall was about environmental issues in 2007, it also featured Speaker Gingrich, and he debated Senator John Kerry. I'd like to see more of this. We should demand it of our elected officials and of our political leaders who may not be elected officials. Notice that neither Gingrich or Dean is an elected official. Bravo to both of them.
In Washington DC, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean took part in a 90 minute debate hosted by the George Washington University College Republicans and College Democrats. If you watched the debate on C-SPAN, you'll probably agree with me that the issues and the substance covered was quite impressive. Obviously, your humble author here never agrees with Howard Dean, but he gave responses and opinions that allowed for substantive debate. Speaker Gingrich was, well, Speaker Gingrich. One of the top thinkers in our party, along with Paul Ryan who I will mention next, Newt offered a very sane argument for American Exceptionalism along with conservatism throughout many of his answers.
Congressman Paul Ryan, someone whose praises I sing (or blog) about regularly, hosted a nationwide conference call for his new Political Action Committee named the Prosperity Project. I joined the call and I heard Congressman Ryan hold court with callers across the nation. I was actually very impressed with the questions and I was even more impressed with Ryan's interaction as he would actually converse with the callers and he would offer real life stories to help relate the point he was trying to make.
The Congressman addressed issues from across the board, typically from the fiscal angle. There was a focus on retirement savings, real health care reform, national debt and taxes. In his usual fashion, Congressman Ryan gave answers that while complex, they made sense and they could be understood. Paul Ryan is very much the future of the conservative movement.
As I stated at the outset, this was an interesting night. In 1858, Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times for 3 hours each time. Can you imagine if we had anything similar to that today? Our Presidential debates have been dumbed down to "tell us in 90 seconds how you would handle Iran". That's not serious dialogue. We often see forums, and there is nothing wrong with forums, but typically there are 2 to 5 experts who already agree on the same thing, they just come about it different ways. The forums are often formal ways to compare notes.
We rarely see non-candidate debates between two people, just to talk out loud about ideas. Interestingly, the last debate like this that I can recall was about environmental issues in 2007, it also featured Speaker Gingrich, and he debated Senator John Kerry. I'd like to see more of this. We should demand it of our elected officials and of our political leaders who may not be elected officials. Notice that neither Gingrich or Dean is an elected official. Bravo to both of them.
Tuesday, February 1
Nine Words That Could Change The Debate In America
This past week I heard possible Presidential candidate Herman Cain say something a couple of times. I wanted to elaborate on it, and describe what I think it means. Mr. Cain is not shy about taking questions when he is speaking with a group of people, or even while hosting his radio show. People frequently ask things such as "how will you get Congress to pass this bill" or "how do you expect to get this done when other Presidents have failed". Cain is very quick to say nine simple words, "when the people understand it, they will demand it". I think there is great power in those nine words.
I hear the nine words and immediately think back to Ronald Reagan. One could argue that Citizen Reagan made his first big foray into national politics in 1964 when he gave his speech on behalf of Senator Barry Goldwater, a speech dubbed "A choice, not an echo". If one goes from 1964, then counts Governor Reagan's years leading California, his campaign in 1976, his speeches in 1977 and 1978, and then his Presidential run that started in 1979 and ended when he left the Oval Office in 1989, that is 24 years that Ronald Reagan, Governor Reagan and President Reagan was telling the tale of America. I call it a narrative, and I'm not alone.
Many times, Reagan did not just give speeches, he told a story that captured attention, he got people to believe in what he had to say, and he had the citizens of America on his side in many of the policies he pursued. Reagan never really stopped telling the story, as a public figure, he told the story until he left office. Though he may have never actually said the nine words "when the people understand it, they will demand it", Reagan obviously lived by the idea.
In modern day politics there is not much time to explain issues and policies. There is no such thing as a candidate educating the public. Not for lack of trying, but there never seems to be enough interest in it. Political campaigns too often turn into popularity contests and big media wars with tv ads and radio commercials than tell us who they are, but little else. Then, at some point in the campaigns, it becomes time for the ads to turn negative, and at that point, civil discourse turns bad, and we are more likely to hear why a candidate is bad, not why the candidate is worth voting for, and we certainly aren't getting educated about issues and policies.
Enter Herman Cain. A man not willing to let a question go unanswered. If he doesn't have an answer, he'll be forthright enough about that to tell you, and then tell you he will find an answer. He's not about to blow smoke or improvise. Take issues like the Fair Tax, immigration reform or health care. Issues with no easy, simple answers. But they are issues where Mr. Cain is able to really elaborate on specific points, tell us why we should want it, and then rally us to want it for America. If America is understanding and then demanding, a President is doing his job. It will take another great communicator to right the ship as it currently sails.
Voters will eventually go the polls to determine the Republican nominee for President. I hope the voters will get beyond some of the trivial questions we often ask ourselves, and instead will ask themselves which candidate will do the best job of challenging America to be better, which candidate will do the best job of communicating our message to America and which candidate will do the best job of putting "us" back into the process.
For me, these questions trump the questions about which candidate can raise the most money, which candidate can invest the most personal wealth or which candidate looks the best with a rifle in their hands. I want to win. Let's choose the candidate with the best chance to reach, inspire and convince the most Americans. In my opinion, that man is Herman Cain. With nine words in his arsenal, the rest of us can now get to work.
Monday, January 31
Ed Martin for U.S. Senate - Missouri
This morning Ed Martin of Missouri announced he will be running for the United States Senate. This is great news for Missourians, and America. Ed Martin would be a great addition to the U.S. Senate in 2013. Ed ran one of the smartest campaigns I've ever seen in 2010, but he came up a little short. The district in which Ed ran for congress was not designed for a Republican. It leans heavy democrat, yet Ed almost pulled off the victory.
There is a lot of time between now and November 2012. Ed Martin is worth watching now. Get involved, donate money and spread the word, let's start taking back the Senate by starting with Missouri.
There is a lot of time between now and November 2012. Ed Martin is worth watching now. Get involved, donate money and spread the word, let's start taking back the Senate by starting with Missouri.
Thursday, January 27
Newt Gingrich Responds To Obama SOTU
By Newt Gingrich
When I first heard that President Obama was using "winning the future" as the theme of his state of the union I thought it was ironically funny.
I wrote a book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" in 2005. I used the title "Winning the Future" to make the case that the future was not automatically ours, that we Americans were not winning the future with our current policies and that we would have to make real changes to win.
My book was also a warning to Republicans. It was a serious critique of the Republican failure to thoroughly rethink and replace failing government policies and institutions. I was suggesting the Republican Congress, after a decade of power, and the Republican administration were not being bold enough, creative enough or conservative enough.
They didn't listen and suffered the consequences in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I looked forward to the State of the Union address to see how President Obama would build on this theme of winning. Winning implies a real contest. Winning implies losing is possible.
As you can imagine my conservative vision of winning the future by replacing failing, left wing bureaucracies with conservative, free market alternatives was radically different than President Obama's.
After telling us government is failing (with a cute story about three different departments dealing with salmon) he then proposed more power and more money for the very institutions he has just suggested were ineffective and inefficient.
However, what was most depressing about President Obama's State of the Union address was not its big government liberalism, its clever maneuvering to keep all the big government of the last two years, or its failure to admit how much liberalism had failed to create jobs.
What really saddened me about the President's State of the Union address was its shallowness and lack of serious dialogue.
For three years we have been in the worst economy since the great depression. Millions of Americans are suffering from unemployment. We just learned that first time applications for unemployment benefits jumped by 51,000 last week. Housing prices are continuing to struggle.
What has the president learned from these three years of failure? What should we change to get back to job creation? Why should we expect more spending by failing bureaucracies (President Obama's version of investment) to work?
The world is becoming more dangerous. The Bush strategies did not stop the dangerous North Korean and Iranian regimes from pursuing nuclear weapons. Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda are still killing innocents in brutal terrorist attacks. The Obama strategies have been no more successful than the Bush strategies. What has the president learned from the failure of "engagement"?
The United States continues to send $400 billion plus overseas even though we have huge energy reserves here at home. Instead of proposing immediate steps to use American energy to create American jobs, the president repeated his fantasy of jobs in the future created through bureaucratic spending on technologies that are currently unavailable.
What serious plans does the president have to control spending and balance the budget? Freezing spending at its current unprecedented high levels will barely make a dent in the projected deficit. The deficit is now almost twice as large as the entire government was in 1983 when I proposed a freeze on spending to President Ronald Reagan.
Sadly, there is no Obama plan for winning the future.
There is an Obama plan for protecting big government, for pouring more money into broken bureaucracies, for borrowing several trillion more from the Chinese dictatorship.
President Obama is on a path to lose the future while pretending to change things.
The Republican House of Representatives should aggressively move forward and propose a scale of change to genuinely win the future.
Let the American people see the contrast and let the American people decide if they want big government, high taxes, economic decay and dangerous cuts in defense.
I believe the American people want to genuinely win the future and will prefer a future of smaller government, more entrepreneurship, more genuine investment within a free market, more replacement of failing policies and institutions and a lot more honesty about the real change we need.
Let the debate begin.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and is a potential Republican presidential candidate.
When I first heard that President Obama was using "winning the future" as the theme of his state of the union I thought it was ironically funny.
I wrote a book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" in 2005. I used the title "Winning the Future" to make the case that the future was not automatically ours, that we Americans were not winning the future with our current policies and that we would have to make real changes to win.
My book was also a warning to Republicans. It was a serious critique of the Republican failure to thoroughly rethink and replace failing government policies and institutions. I was suggesting the Republican Congress, after a decade of power, and the Republican administration were not being bold enough, creative enough or conservative enough.
They didn't listen and suffered the consequences in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I looked forward to the State of the Union address to see how President Obama would build on this theme of winning. Winning implies a real contest. Winning implies losing is possible.
As you can imagine my conservative vision of winning the future by replacing failing, left wing bureaucracies with conservative, free market alternatives was radically different than President Obama's.
After telling us government is failing (with a cute story about three different departments dealing with salmon) he then proposed more power and more money for the very institutions he has just suggested were ineffective and inefficient.
However, what was most depressing about President Obama's State of the Union address was not its big government liberalism, its clever maneuvering to keep all the big government of the last two years, or its failure to admit how much liberalism had failed to create jobs.
What really saddened me about the President's State of the Union address was its shallowness and lack of serious dialogue.
For three years we have been in the worst economy since the great depression. Millions of Americans are suffering from unemployment. We just learned that first time applications for unemployment benefits jumped by 51,000 last week. Housing prices are continuing to struggle.
What has the president learned from these three years of failure? What should we change to get back to job creation? Why should we expect more spending by failing bureaucracies (President Obama's version of investment) to work?
The world is becoming more dangerous. The Bush strategies did not stop the dangerous North Korean and Iranian regimes from pursuing nuclear weapons. Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda are still killing innocents in brutal terrorist attacks. The Obama strategies have been no more successful than the Bush strategies. What has the president learned from the failure of "engagement"?
The United States continues to send $400 billion plus overseas even though we have huge energy reserves here at home. Instead of proposing immediate steps to use American energy to create American jobs, the president repeated his fantasy of jobs in the future created through bureaucratic spending on technologies that are currently unavailable.
What serious plans does the president have to control spending and balance the budget? Freezing spending at its current unprecedented high levels will barely make a dent in the projected deficit. The deficit is now almost twice as large as the entire government was in 1983 when I proposed a freeze on spending to President Ronald Reagan.
Sadly, there is no Obama plan for winning the future.
There is an Obama plan for protecting big government, for pouring more money into broken bureaucracies, for borrowing several trillion more from the Chinese dictatorship.
President Obama is on a path to lose the future while pretending to change things.
The Republican House of Representatives should aggressively move forward and propose a scale of change to genuinely win the future.
Let the American people see the contrast and let the American people decide if they want big government, high taxes, economic decay and dangerous cuts in defense.
I believe the American people want to genuinely win the future and will prefer a future of smaller government, more entrepreneurship, more genuine investment within a free market, more replacement of failing policies and institutions and a lot more honesty about the real change we need.
Let the debate begin.
Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and is a potential Republican presidential candidate.
Wednesday, January 26
Paul Ryan Dominates
The title here says it all. Congressman Paul Ryan dominated with his speech Tuesday night. The whole speech could be viewed as a highlight. But, two sections particularly struck me:
"We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative – not political clout – determines who succeeds."
And this:
"We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation – not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.
Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.
These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced and defended over the centuries."
Saturday, January 8
Arizona And Discourse In America
Because of the political nature (by this I mean that a politician was apparently targeted) of the shootings that took place in Tucson on Saturday, I have been thinking about politics for most of the day. As we have learned more and more about the murderer, it has become apparent that he was a very troubled person. One of the things most apparent to me in the aftermath of the shootings is the heated, rhetoric filled dialog from everyone. This has really had me thinking a lot about discourse in this country, and I have taken that a step further in looking at the 2012 Presidential election.
Since July of 2010 I have firmly been supporting Herman Cain for President in 2012. I saw Mr. Cain speak at an event in Austin hosted by American for Prosperity on July 4th weekend. His speech that day from the beginning to the end was filled with hopeful comments. But beyond the "hope" I heard, I heard unconventional rhetoric, new ways of saying sold things. I started following Mr. Cain's radio show and his writings again, as I had in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.
Mr. Cain has said something that has made me a believer of his, and I'll paraphrase, but when he's been asked about his conservative views, he says "Conservative? You bet, I call it common sense." Touche.
Recently on his radio show, Mr. Cain released and read what he called Common Sense Solutions: The People's Platform for America. If you don't know Herman Cain, you have some catching up to do. But Herman is a thinker, it's part of what made him a business success for many years. The People's Platform for America is a well thought out, intelligent list of issues in America, but it's a list with real solutions, smart solutions.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to Herman Cain during the day today. I believe now, more than ever, that Herman Cain could start a level of national discourse that we need, and a level of discourse that lifts America up, rather than one that polarizes and places blame. If you agree with me, enlist to help Herman if and when he files for Presdident at www.DraftCain.org
Since July of 2010 I have firmly been supporting Herman Cain for President in 2012. I saw Mr. Cain speak at an event in Austin hosted by American for Prosperity on July 4th weekend. His speech that day from the beginning to the end was filled with hopeful comments. But beyond the "hope" I heard, I heard unconventional rhetoric, new ways of saying sold things. I started following Mr. Cain's radio show and his writings again, as I had in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia.
Mr. Cain has said something that has made me a believer of his, and I'll paraphrase, but when he's been asked about his conservative views, he says "Conservative? You bet, I call it common sense." Touche.
Recently on his radio show, Mr. Cain released and read what he called Common Sense Solutions: The People's Platform for America. If you don't know Herman Cain, you have some catching up to do. But Herman is a thinker, it's part of what made him a business success for many years. The People's Platform for America is a well thought out, intelligent list of issues in America, but it's a list with real solutions, smart solutions.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to Herman Cain during the day today. I believe now, more than ever, that Herman Cain could start a level of national discourse that we need, and a level of discourse that lifts America up, rather than one that polarizes and places blame. If you agree with me, enlist to help Herman if and when he files for Presdident at www.DraftCain.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
