... And For The People?

Cross-Posted From:

HERE I RAISE MY EBENEZER

Yesterday, the Obama administration and the Democrat party, in general, took what many in the press are calling a "victory lap” in celebration of reaching their goal of 7 million Obamacare signups prior to the midnight 3/31/14 deadline. As I saw this unfold, my immediate question was, “Whose victory is being celebrated here?”

Since the “Hollywood elite” are most often found alongside Obama, cheering every claim, I was a bit surprised to hear related cynical remarks come from Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon. However, I thought Fallon offered a pretty realistic perspective when he said,

“That’s right, the White House said that it surpassed its goal for people enrolled in ObamaCare. It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don't do it. And then keep extending the deadline for months. It’s like a Cinderella story. It’s just a beautiful thing. You make everyone do it. Isn’t it great how many people do it? But if you still haven't enrolled, you might have to pay a penalty called the individual shared responsibility payment, which is 1% of your salary. Then Americans said, ‘Man, good thing I don't have a job.’"

 

 

- READ MORE -

Dems Play 'Let’s Make A Deal' For Washington's 49th District Seat

This is being written to encourage voters in Washington State’s 49th Legislative District to immediately do all they can to have their voices heard about who they want to represent them in Olympia for the balance of 2011 and 2012. According to articles in The Columbian, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee is on the verge of making this selection and they plan to take this action by the early afternoon of Wednesday, April 13th … about 16 hours from now.


I had hoped to provide some depth of information on the seven applicants for appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks, to give voters in the 49th District an opportunity to express their preferences on this to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. However, in a meeting on Monday, April 11th, the Democrat group narrowed the field of applicants to three and stated their intention to make a final selection by noon tomorrow and to have their selected applicant sworn in by 12:15 p.m. With that being the case, the best I’m in a position to do is to provide some observations about the three final candidates, to encourage voters to do what they can to add information to what I can offer and to express their related views to the 49th District Democratic Central Committee.

Applicant #1 – Sharon Wylie, 61, is reported as a “former legislative lobbyist”. According to The Columbian, she has declared herself “an environmentalist and a huge fan of light rail.” Of course, most folks who love the Pacific Northwest could be considered environmentalists but voters should consider if Wylie’s definition adds up to her just being another Liberal fan of the government over-regulation that continues to stifle the economy of the Pacific Northwest. And, considering that Clark County voters have consistently rejected light rail, voters should consider how her pro-light-rail stance lines up with their no-light-rail stance. In describing her experience and qualifications, Wylie noted her two terms in the Oregon Legislature in the 1990s and working as a legislative lobbyist for eight years, beginning in 1998. Although she references other work, as a consultant, it’s hard to find any experience that Wylie has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Wylie has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #2 – Temple Lentz, 35, who is touted as Campaign Manager for Tim Leavitt, in his successful run for Mayor of Vancouver in 2009. Since many in Vancouver view Tim Leavitt as the Candidate who opposed tolls for funding the CRC Project (a key to his successful run), who flipped to favoring tolls after he was elected; voters should consider whether they can rely on Lentz to say what she means and to mean what she says. Also, on the subject of “tolls for funding the CRC Project”, it should be noted that it was Lentz and her Husband who filed a PDC complaint against David Madore and NoTolls.com. The PDC determined that complaint to be without basis. In addressing the 49th District Democratic Central Committee, Lentz vowed to “advocate for the Columbia River Crossing.” Considering her attempt to smear Madore, it seems she’s won’t let ethics or the will of the people get in the way of her advocacy. Lentz also stated that “the 49th District is the last progressive stronghold in Clark County.” I can only guess at how to define Lentz’s statement but, at least, it makes her sound like someone determined to legislate towards her perspective of “progressive” and to not particularly be concerned with the views of her constituency. Additionally, Lentz promised to “fight for women’s right to make decisions about their bodies.” Of course, that is code for favoring wholesale abortion in lieu of sexual responsibility. Obviously, individual voters can determine how this stance lines up with their own. Furthermore, Lentz also promised to favor Labor over “the rich.” Voters who are employers, using their wealth to create jobs in the 49th District, as well as voters who are employed by these “rich” employers, should give this serious consideration. Finally, it’s also hard to find any experience that Lentz has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, much the same as with Wylie, voters should consider what real-world experience Lentz has that would help her connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

Applicant #3 – Jeremy Zegas, 28, State Senator Craig Pridemore’s Legislative Assistant. Zegas noted that he has worked on four political campaigns. In fact, Zegas stated that “All I’ve done in Vancouver is campaign” since moving here in 2008. Beyond this, I can’t tell you much about Jeremy Zegas. Pretty obviously, what I’ve said about Wylie and Lentz also applies to Zegas – i.e. It’s hard to find any experience that Zegas has that doesn’t fall under “Public Sector.” With that in mind, voters should consider what real-world experience Zegas has that would help him connect with them, in order to accurately represent them.

In closing, I want to share that in looking at this situation and this field of applicants, I’ve been reminded of the old TV show "Let’s Make A Deal." If you’ll remember, that show featured Monty Hall getting audience contestants to choose a prize from behind Door #1 or Door #2 or Door #3. Typically, the prize packages were made up of a nice prize behind one door, a very nice prize behind another door and a booby-prize behind the remaining door. A Contestant was said to have been “Zonked” if they selected the door with the booby-prize. My concern for the present status of the process to make the appointment to replace resigned Rep. Jim Jacks is that it seems highly likely that there is a booby-prize behind all three doors in this metaphorical game of Let’s Make A Deal and the result will be the voters of Washington State’s 49th Legislative District getting thoroughly Zonked (of course you can fill in your own euphemism here) through 2012. Apparently, I’m not the only one with this concern. State Rep. Jim Moeller (D), who occupies the other position in the 49th District, urged a more deliberative process than the one being taken by the 49th District Democratic Central Committee. Moeller and I see eye-to-eye on very little but we do agree on this one.

Comments

Zonk!


Submitted by Rab L Rouser (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-12 20:26.

+1

+-Since the voters of the 49th district were foolish enough to elect Jim Jacks they deserve whichever big-spending liberal the Communist Party selects on their behalf.

It's Door #1


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Wed, 2011-04-13 17:43.

0

+-Well, the 49th District Democratic Central Committee submitted their three finalist to the Clark County Commissioners and, they appointed Sharon Wylie. You can read the specifics in The Columbian's report on this: http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/apr/13/jim-jacks-replacement-be-announced-today-noon/. Hopefully, for the sake of voters in the 49th, I was wrong about there being a booby-prize behind every door in this deal. I doubt it but time will tell

Something's missing


Submitted by Chad Minnick on Mon, 2011-04-18 13:30.

0

+-The County Commissioners were the ones responsible for actually appointing legislator, from among the Party's three finalists. Why didn't the Commissioners, which has a 2-1 GOP to Democrat majority, take more time and consider the candidates more carefully?







It looked to us on the outside like the Republican County Commissioners simply rubber-stamped the local Democrat party's decision rather than doing their Constitutional duty of making the best possible choice. So now we have professional lobbyist from Oregon?

Is Our Choice Bush-McCain or Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi?

“Bush-McCain!” … the Democrat’s one consistent mantra, since John McCain became the Republican’s apparent nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Although McCain is obviously his own man and his presidency would be significantly different from that of President Bush, you can understand why they want McCain to be saddled with Bush’s unpopularity … currently ranging from 25% to 33%.

Since, according to the National Journal, Barack Obama (D) has the Senate’s most liberal voting record and Joe Biden (D) has the Senate’s 3rd most liberal voting record, isn’t it more appropriate to link Obama/Biden with the current liberal (D) congressional leadership … Reid/Pelosi? In 2006, the Democrats became the majority party in both houses of Congress, establishing the Reid/Pelosi administration. The Democrat’s winning campaign strategy was summed up, at that time, by the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, when he said, “The days of the do-nothing Congress are over,” adding that Americans spoke “clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction.” Considering that the current unpopularity of Congress ranges from 14% to 18%, it appears that the “new direction” Reid/Pelosi had in mind was a level of “do-nothing” where no man has gone before. Now, aside from “Bush-McCain!”, the central Obama/Biden theme has been “Change!” It boggles the mind to consider the depths of “New Direction”/“Change” an Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi term will mean.

Waving the Redstate Flag in the Bluestate's Face

Last week, Figgins and I decided to try a social-political experiment. We wrote an article on "... the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama." Then we posted the same content on both a very conservative blog site and a very liberal blog site. Some of the results were pretty dramatic and some were to be expected but, in this process, we saw one aspect in a new light that was quite revealing and educational for us.

As you might expect. there was a difference in the volume of responses from the respective sides. Since the theme was obviously more inflammatory to liberal readers, we expected more of a reaction from that side. However, we were a bit surprised with how dramatic the difference was. The posting on the conservative site has elicited one (1) comment from last weekend to this weekend. On the other hand, I posted the article on the liberal site just as I left for church last Sunday morning and there were 97 comments by the time I got home from church. Of course, there are many possible reasons for this disparity, including my writing talent or lack thereof. The possibility that concerns me most, as a conservative, is that liberals are just more "on fire" about this election than are conservatives. Regardless of my writing ability, Obama's rhetoric is a topic that should rouse significant conservative interest. If conservatives are, generally, as disinterested as this experiment seems to indicate, we should just start adjusting to the thought of seeing liberal Democrats in the White House for at least the next four years.

And, you might expect that we received some just plain rude comments. We're encouraged to say that those were surprisingly few. There were at least as many thoughtful comments that led to some healthy dialog. However, there was one particular quality we were looking for from the responses that was glaringly missing ... Obama's much-trumpeted change.

Although I see little, if any, substance to Obama's oratory, I accept that many are believing, as one Commenter put it, "(His) message of unity to solve America's problems." Obama's campaign often positions him as a "post-partisan politician" in this regard. If that's the case, based on the comments I received from Obama supporters, that doesn't seem to be bearing fruit, or even taking root, in them. There I was, boldly "crossing the aisle" to express my views and I wasn't generally finding Obama supporters who were looking for common ground where we could connect. So, while it may be appropriate for Senator Hillary Clinton to be asking, "Where's the beef?", relative to the substance of Obama's message, I think it's even more appropriate and certainly more poignant for all of us to be asking, "Where's the change?"

With that said, I want to, again, go on the record in saying that I'm very much a fan of change along these lines. That was the focus of my earlier posting, entitled "Rediscovering America's Strength." In fact, at that time, I was hoping that the candidate I was supporting (Governor Mike Huckabee) would pick it up, as a main theme to his campaign. In spite of the fact that Governor Huckabee accomplished far more in the current campaign than was generally expected, its obvious that this "isn't going to be his day." So, I'm rooting for this theme to be picked up by the candidate who will be the Republican nominee ... Senator John McCain. Of course, I think this remains a great theme but I think its a particularly good theme for Senator McCain. He could put the much needed substance to this and do something for our nation that is truly heroic. How fitting that it be done by a man who is, in fact, a genuine hero of our nation?!

We gotta keep callin' it what it is - BO-loney!!!!!!!

One aspect of the current Presidential Campaign Season has continued to cause Figgins and I to regularly cock our heads and look at each other with facial expressions that obviously say, "What the heck does that mean?!" This aspect is the passion-evoking, yet vacant, rhetoric of Barack Obama.

Actually, we touched on this subject in an earlier posting entitled The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?. Although that posting addressed Senator Ted Kennedy's old-style-politics approach to whip the crowd into a frenzy when he endorsed Obama (ironically, quoting the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln), the theme is the same ... words that evoke virtually overwhelming inspiration, but void of meaning in reality. Figgins and I have coined a word to use between us to sum this up. The word is ... BO-loney. One reason we chose this is because it incorporates the slang word "baloney", meaning "nonsense". The "BO" part is for two reasons ... (1) Of course, these are the initials of the one who has been uttering these empty phrases and (2) Like another meaning of "BO", this is nonsense that stinks.

In his most recent column in the Washington Post, The Audacity of Selling Hope, Charles Krauthammer addresses this matter more thoroughly than Figgins and I could possibly do. For us, his most ominous words are the ones in his closing paragraph:

"Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."

The only words we can think to add to this and in fact, we feel compelled to add are: The best thing we conservatives can be doing for our country between now and November is to call it what it is ... BO-loney ... and to do so every time we see it!!!!!!!

The Better Angels of Our Nature?!?!?!?

Yesterday, Figgins and I heard Senator Ted Kennedy endorse Senator Barack Obama, as his choice for the Democrat Party's 2008 Presidential Nominee. Kennedy did an expert job with what I recognized as an old-style-politics approach to whip the audience into a frenzy. To me, this approach magnified the irony of the current "Change Candidate" exulting in the endorsement of a man who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1962. But, whip them into a frenzy he did. The challenge for Figgins and I, as we listened, was trying to find substance in Kennedy's passion-evoking rhetoric. For us, this reached its peak when Kennedy described Obama by saying, "... he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to the better angels of our nature." At that, we just cocked our heads and looked at each other. Though neither of us said a word, you could tell we were both thinking, "What the heck does that mean?!"

Since this is Figgins' first time around with a Presidential campaign, I knew we would need to draw on my experience, in order to try to answer that question. As I thought back and as I considered that much of the endorsement event's rhetoric made allusions comparing Obama to JFK, I realized something about this comment did seem familiar. It did remind me of feelings that had been stirred up in me by JFK's Presidential candidacy when I was just a young teenager. Though I probably couldn't have pointed out a single thing I objected to with the Eisenhower administration or with the heir-apparent, Richard Nixon, there was just something excitingly appealing about that handsome young Kennedy, his beautiful young Wife, their idyllic young family and the emotions he aroused with his rhetoric.

Reflecting on the time of JFK's Presidential candidacy ... what that time was like and how I felt then ... was an interesting reverie for me. But, of course, looking back, I couldn't limit my consideration to just that "moment in time". I, also, had to consider what followed that time. In my view, much of what followed that time causes me concern for what could follow the present time. A time when, like those days of "Camelot", we elected a President who's rhetoric was inspiring but, in many significant instances, it lacked substance.

With these things in mind then, I knew it was important for me to respond to this question with advice for Figgins. Advice I'd like to pass along to all of America's youth, who are getting involved in Presidential politics for the first time. Advice that comes from lessons I didn't begin to fully grasp until I was nearly thirty years old. My advice would encourage our youth to be as fully involved as they can be in the Presidential election process and that there is nothing wrong with getting excited about a particular candidate. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with looking to a leader for inspiration ... in fact, the ability to inspire is an excellent leadership quality. But, most importantly, before you commit yourself to a candidate, be sure they have the substance to match. If they inspire you by talking about "change", demand to know in detail "change from what and to what". And when they use rhetoric that makes your pulse race, discipline yourself to ask, "What the heck does that mean?!" and don't rest until you have a crystal clear answer.

It ain't over 'til ... it's Beginning?!

Iowa Caucuses?! Wyoming Caucuses?! New Hampshire Primary?! Now there are some events Figgie and I have had trouble getting our minds around! I don't think we could really understand it without doing something like moving to Iowa and participating in the caucuses directly. Since I moved away from the Midwest 30 years ago and have no desire to return, that's not likely to happen.

Although we don't fully understand these events, we sense something a bit quaint about them and perhaps, somewhat fitting, in approach, for those localities. Otherwise, they seem rather archaic and good examples for our nation's need to revamp our approach to Presidential Elections, if we truly want to have a representative government.

Before getting into the things we'd like to see changed, we should point out that there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained ... no need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". One of these qualities is that a Presidential candidate who isn't more wealthy than Solomon or who doesn't already have a national reputation can get a place on the Iowa caucus stage and establish themselves as a credible contender. It reminds us that what Jimmy Stewart portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is still attainable ... an average, down-to-earth person, doing their level-best to represent their average, down-to-earth fellow citizens.

With that said, though there are some good qualities of the current process that we would like to see retained, there are many aspects that we believe greatly miss the mark, if a representative government is the goal. At the beginning, are the Iowa Caucuses and their impact on the Presidential Election process in other States. The State we live in considered canceling this year's Presidential primary, usually held in May, to avoid the great expense of an event that would be meaningless by the time it was held. So, its been moved up to February 19th and if the political pundits have their way, it may still be a meaningless event. That doesn't seem right for a representative government. Why should fewer than 100,000 Iowa Republicans and fewer than 200,000 Iowa Democrats have such sway over the 300 million of us living in the U.S.?

So, we see the Iowa Caucuses as a flawed beginning to the current process. Certainly, there are many other flaws in the process, sorely needing change. But none is greater than the flawed process at the end ... the Electoral College. To us, there's nothing even quaint about this. Its just archaic. Maybe it made sense for the first generation of U.S. Americans but it just doesn't fit today. We were keenly aware of this during the last Presidential Election, when we lived in Orange County, CA. Many, outside of the immediate area, are surprised to learn that Orange County is the "reddest" county in the nation. At least it was in the last Presidential Election ... that's right, more people, per-capita, in Orange County, voted for President Bush than in any other county in the nation. And yet, not one Elector, representing the State of California in the Electoral College cast a vote for President Bush. If you're saying "So what?!" so far, consider that the population of Orange County is over 3 million. That's a greater population than in 20 States, DC and four U.S possessions. Even if your car is still sporting a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker and you're pleased to know that the "reddest" county in the nation went unrepresented in the last Presidential Election, you have to admit, that doesn't seem right for a representative government.

So, what do we recommend, as the "flawless alternative?" Frankly, we don't have a complete plan to suggest and if we did, it wouldn't be "flawless" ... none will be. But, we think what we've pointed out here are clear examples of the acute need for change. We see this as an ideal opportunity for the sort of thing we pointed out in our posting entitled Rediscovering America's Strength - i.e. moving from the politics that just pit one candidate against another, based on their differences, to the politics of courageous leaders with the common sense to embrace the synergy of the best of our differing ideas. Unlike the first generation of U.S. Americans, we have the infrastructure in place to support a vastly improved Presidential Election process. The lacking key ingredient is having the political leaders with the courage to step up and promote a different and better process instead of finding ways to utilize the flaws in the current process, as leverage for their special interests.

Rediscovering America's Strength

This past weekend, Figgie (Figgins) and I had a few discussions about the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It seems that this campaign has already been going on forever and its not even 2008 yet. The election itself is still about 11 months away. Its all pretty new to Figgie though and while he hasn't registered to vote, he has seemed pretty keenly interested.

Our level of interest seemed to ramp up over the weekend, as a result of media focus on a certain "Celebrity Endorsement." This isn't a topic that generally carries much weight with me. However, Oprah Winfrey was at the center of this and though neither Figgie nor I are fans, we recognize her unique celebrity status. The factor that stirred my interest most was that she wasn't just lending her name, as an endorsement for a candidate, she actually showed up at a few campaign events to say why. So, we tuned in.

I ended up telling Figgie that I was disappointed with what I heard. Generally, there were comments about need for change, followed by the name of the candidate she is endorsing, as the preferred change-agent. This is a theme I've heard countless times, for numerous candidates (both real and fictitious), since before I was old enough to vote. What I didn't hear was much substance about the need for change or details of the "something better" we need to change to or specifics of plans for accomplishing these improvements.

So, there we were, with our interests stimulated but not gratified. What were we to do? Well, the first step was pretty obvious ... we needed to face the fact that, going into it, we knew better than to expect much from a celebrity endorsement. And, frankly, we had to admit that our critique of the event was pretty obvious and easy. Those steps taken, we decided to check a source with a track record of fulfillment for us, when it comes to political observation ... Charles Krauthammer ... a Syndicated Columnist who, when I see him on TV, I spontaneously shout, "My hero!"

To my astonishment, we came away from reading Krauthammer's column for this past Friday, in The Washington Post, with a sense of disappointment too. His comments were about one Presidential Candidate's Evangelical Christianity and how he had used that to "manipulate" another candidate into having to discuss his Mormonism. As usual, Krauthammer expressed his views intelligently and interestingly but, at the end of it all, he just pitted one candidate against another, based on their differences.

But then it struck us! Ironically, we realized that "My hero", Charles had actually come through. He had pointed us in the right direction by pitting one candidate against another. We realized ... that's what they all do. Regardless of the forum, its Democrat against Republican, Left against Right and Pro versus Con on: abortion, energy, environment, immigration, Iraq, taxes and pretty much any issue you can think of. How does that make us better? I don't think that's what led to our success, as a nation, in the first place. At the outset we pitted ourselves against Britain to gain our independence but we didn't do it just one person's way. I seem to recall that we drew on the best of the differing ideas of those we now honor as our Patriots ... John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, etc. These were all very different guys. Where would we be if all they did was pit themselves against each other, based on their differences? ... In a place where there is only a Union Jack and no Old Glory, that's where! ... So, why is it that that's all we do today? Although Oprah didn't persuade me to support her guy, I'd bet that he does have some good ideas and that he, genuinely, wants to do his part to better our nation. Likewise with both the Evangelical Christian and the Mormon. As a matter of fact, that's probably true of all the current mainstream candidates. So, why is it that not one of them seems to have the courage to offer what we do need ... not just change but leadership, with a vision aligned with the beliefs of the majority and with the common sense to embrace the superior ideas of others, even if the "others" are political opponents. Now there's the candidate I'm looking for! One who can lead us to rediscovering the strength that made America great in the first place ... the synergy of the best of our differing ideas.

After basking for a few moments, in the illumination of the "Aha moment" we'd had, it occurred to me that I'd recently heard a similar point of view. As I reflected on this, I realized it was what I'd heard about a new book called Common Ground - How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America., by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. If these two, literally, political polar-opposites have come to this conclusion too, we're more encouraged, we must be on to something!

As a relative newcomer to considering Presidential politics, this all seemed to be a bit convoluted for Figgie. But I sensed it was sinking in and beginning to comfort him. As soon as we came to today's conclusion, he wandered off to one of his favorite spots ... the living room couch. There, he was able to look out and enjoy the sunny, though chilly, mid-December day. No doubt, it was that comforting view, along with the enlightened vision, resulting from our examination of today's topic, that had him peacefully snoozing in no time. I was thankful he could do that so easily. He is such a good listener but I know that takes a lot out of him.