![The Shot Sent Around The Internet]()
by | May 9, 2011
If you think that Republicans aren’t ready to engage with the newest generation of voters in 2012, you might want to think again. One of the most experienced politicians in the ranks of Republicans, with 20 years in the US House of Representatives, 4 of which were spent as Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich announced his intent today to run for President of the United States on Facebook and Twitter.
At least, it’s being seen that way… actually, kind of an interesting announcement.
Twitter:
Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States @seanhannity
Facebook:
I have been humbled by all the encouragement you have given me to run. Thank you for your support. Be sure to watch Hannity this Wednesday at 9pm ET/8pm CT. I will be on to talk about my run for President of the United States.
“… as I talk about my run …” seems like a fairly passive statement for a man like Newt. While the news wires are treating this as a formal announcement, I think I’ll treat it as an “in case you weren’t paying attention, I’m ready to run” kind of announcement. I’m expecting something more “formal” on Wednesday.
So, certainly watch Hannity.
But more importantly, he is expected to be in Des Moines on Monday, May 16, although a detailed schedule is not available yet. When we know more, we’ll let you know.
For those of you looking to find out how to support Newt, you can contact Will Rogers at [email protected], or call him at 515-669-1648.
Photo courtesy Andrew F. Kazmierski / Shutterstock.com
![The Shot Sent Around The Internet]()
by | May 5, 2011
If nothing else Mitt Romney is a man of firsts. Four years ago when he ran for President he became the first Mormon to make a serious run at the White House. His recent re-entry into the field for this go around has produced another, and far more unlikely one. For the first time in history we have a candidate who is simultaneously the front runner and a long shot. While his prior bid found voters faced with an assortment of unusual and unprecedented factors to consider, this run finds that list not only still in-tact, but even longer.
A look at his chances reveals a lot to like, but also a series of tough spots created for both the candidate and voters. In the following we will weigh each against the other, not so much as a comparison of pros and cons but more as a look at advantages verses disadvantages. This distinction is important because classifying in terms of pros and cons makes the presumption that the realities surrounding a candidate are good or bad. In some cases I would argue that such judgments are unsubstantiated, in others the opposite of conventional wisdom may be true, and in yet others certain considerations are neither, and frankly should not be a valid part of the debate. That being said, let’s start by looking at what is certainly a strong list of his advantages.
First and foremost, he is a serious man and a realistic candidate. He has a background of leadership in both the private economic sector and in government, a mixture that puts him in a nearly ideal position. While his background outside of politics makes it hard to clearly paint him as a life-long politician and part of the current “Washington†problem, his tenor as Governor suggests that he would not be overwhelmed if he wins the job. Another huge feather in his cap is that he can prove his skill-set and resume have transferred to success outside of business by pointing to his role in the Salt Lake City Olympics. All in all he meets the major qualifications and like him or not, he certainly does not struggle to seem Presidential.
In terms of the other areas, he also has many advantages. He is one of the most polished and well-rounded in the field, having a developed platform on the economic side and being well versed and credible on foreign policy issues. His prior candidacy showed his personal closet to be skeleton free, proved that he is a more than able debater, and demonstrated that he would have no trouble raising or, as the case may be, providing money.
His final two advantages are of note but for opposite reasons. The first is overplayed and is his business success and experience. This no doubt will be seen as a major positive, especially since so many Republicans feel down to their cores that government needs to be run as a business and not a bottomless social experiment. For Independents, Conservatives, and Libertarians alike, a business approach to government represents a realistic way out of our current financial disaster. While I agree, and unquestionably this will be his best selling point, my personal opinion is that his past business acumen will have little to do with potential future success or failure in this area.Â
Though it sounds good, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that making it big in business translates to overseeing a thriving economy as President, mostly because it rarely has had a chance to be proven. A look back at history, meaning back to George Washington, finds only one former President ever has had a prior occupation listed as “businessman,†and only one other that could make a case to join him…and they are both named Bush. Though probably surprising, Bush the elder stands alone as a former businessman and his son, founder/CEO of Bush Exploration and general partner in The Texas Rangers, is the only President to have a master’s degree in business. The fact of the matter is that the economy had problems under each Bush while it flourished under Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, neither of whom ever had a sniff of the business world.
The last thing working in his favor is something I view as much underplayed—his wife. Conventional wisdom says this barely rises above a non-factor, but my sense is that liking a person’s spouse and getting a good vibe from their marriage provides a deep, hard to define, and powerfully sub-concious level of comfort. Now I’m not saying this can win it for a candidate, but I am saying that it can help lose it. In proving this I would point to 2004 and the cold, aloof, and elitist public perception of Teresa Heinz-Kerry. This perception made it hard to imagine her as a first lady, and I would argue is one of a handful of things that cost John Kerry a razor close election.
In this regard the Romneys have no such trouble. They seem naturally happy together and she is a very impressive woman who you don’t have to squint too hard at to picture as a first lady. Anyone doubting that a candidate’s marriage and spouse has some impact can either check out a “man on the street†segment to get a true sense of some of these voters, remind themselves of Newt Gingrich’s situation, or if these fail just take a quick glance at Donald Trump and his current wife.
Wow! With all that going for him how could he possibly be a long-shot? Looking at the other side of the Romney ledger leaves one channeling their inner Yogi Berra by saying, “He is the perfect candidate…except for all his flaws.â€Â While this list is indeed shorter, it’s also heavier. Included here is his much talked about implementation of state-run, mandated health insurance in Massachusetts, a clumsy reversal on abortion (is there any other kind?), and the fact that he is a Mormon.
These particular hang-ups could not be any more damaging considering how high profile an issue health care will be and that he likely has to place relatively well in Iowa. The devastation comes not only from their existence but from how he has chosen to address them, and how they all converge to create an ominous cloud of skepticism.  As much as Romney Care and abortion work against him they have been made worse by him making parsed, nuanced arguments to try and explain them away. His distinction regarding health care, that it was perfectly fine and Constitutional to address it on a state level, is technically accurate. In spite of this it simply will not play and puts him in the same camp as another prominent Massachusetts politician.
Once again going back to the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry was immensely damaged by saying in regards to war funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.â€Â Much like Romney on health care Kerry’s statement actually had validity in the context in which he was saying it, but in neither case will that matter. Romney’s attempt to talk his way out of a past “achievement†will puzzle some, turn off even more, and provide a generous portion of blood in the water for his primary opponents. Being forced to repeat his equivocations in every debate will continually leave him victim to a saying usually applied to more serious political misdeeds—“The cover up is almost always worse than the crime.â€
If even one of these disadvantages was not present I would be tempted to think that the others could be overcome. As it stands though, the combination of Romney Care, his reversal on abortion, the fact that he does not share the same faith of the vast majority of his potential voters, and his insistent equivocations all congeal in one area to create a feeling, for most Republicans, that they simply can’t trust or rely on him. Not exactly a formula for winning primaries, especially when at the moment so many Americans are starving for blunt honesty.
Complicating matters for Republicans is that “The Romney Predicament†is not his alone. His problems have the potential to be equally damaging to the Party, as he may very well be the candidate with the best chance of beating President Obama. If he is eventually able to win the nomination it will be because of a mixture of voter pragmatism and a very weak Republican field, likely more of the latter.Â
As the process plays out don’t be surprised if he increasingly becomes more of a long-shot and less of a front runner. As a general rule voters do not want to feel like they have to “settle†for a candidate, and for many that is exactly what they would be forced to do in supporting Mitt Romney. In spite of his impressive past and its long list of advantages, his disadvantages are heavy, untimely, and loud. The strikes against him are not only the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but one that instead of sitting there just happens to be throwing a temper tantrum. While muting this beast and claiming victory is possible, it is more likely that this man of many firsts will ultimately find himself in second.
![The Shot Sent Around The Internet]()
by | May 1, 2011
On national television this evening, President Obama informed the public that bin Laden had been killed in a firefight with a small team of America forces who had attacked a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan in an effort to capture the Al Queda leader. There were no American casualties.
The President’s speech covered just about every aspect of the situation, and reflected on the history of bin Laden and his murderous mayhem on the world. He also keyed in on an important fact: Al Queda has not been shut down. There will likely be continued attacks along with targeted reprisals for today’s successful operation.
Although the details are still sketchy, it appears that the terror leader was killed earlier in the day, and presumably verification and notification of certain world leaders was necessary before notifying the public at large.
Although there will doubtless be days and weeks of analysis of bin Laden’s killing, the events leading up to it, the aftermath, the statement it makes to terrorists, the statement it makes to leaders like Gaddafi (who just lost his own son in a NATO attack that appears to have targeted him). As the President said, it is important to remember that a large number of people in the military, intelligence, domestic security, foreign partners and our elected leaders have worked hard for the last 10 years to search out those responsible for 9/11 and to protect our interests, and they have done a magnificent job despite occasional problems.
The President deserves congratulations and appreciation for his role in continuing to lead our resources in apprehending bin Laden (dead or not). Both he and President Bush have done well in working to bring Osama to justice.
So, let’s keep the partisan bickering to a minimum for just a day, can we? This is a time to celebrate, even if there is more work to be done. This is a landmark achievement for America at a time when some were ready to give up and throw in the towel. It is immensely gratifying to see that our efforts have not been in vain.
Celebrate, and remember those who lost their lives in 2001, and who have given their lives since then in the effort to protect us all from the scourge of terror.
![The Shot Sent Around The Internet]()
by Brian Nygaard | Apr 21, 2011
With the long overdue federal budget negotiations continuing to, well — continue — the vitriol spewing out of every crevasse of Washington is stunning in both its scope and in the absolute levels of personal animus that is on display. Even more stunning than the differences of opinion are the even more spectacular distortions of both the facts and the pertinent arguments attached to elements of the debate. It is one thing to have a contrary set of opinions. It is yet another to deploy a confrontation strategy of “justifiable-deception†(what used to be called “liesâ€) into that debate. The proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood that was announced last week (for their use in providing abortions) brought out vast quantities of this type of pernicious and despicable political deception.
The emotionally driven hate-speech coming from the self-described and sole protectors of women (the liberal legion in Washington), came so fast and furious that one might have been concerned that someone might have gotten hurt in their stampede to the cameras and microphones. It was a scene reminiscent of the chaos of a rock concert or a soccer game where all of the adolescent fans have designs on the front row.
Of the entire list of distortions associated with the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the one most hideous is the characterization that conservatives are both anti-women, and anti-women’s rights.  These liberal “megaphones†should be ashamed of themselves for stooping to this level of civility and discourse. Actually, it is not discourse (and it is obviously not civil); it is just the spewage of unfiltered sewage. Here are some examples:
- Reid (D-NV) said Republicans had placed a “bull’s eye on women in America,” preventing them from getting “health services they need.”
- Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) said: “The real reason that the right-wing extremists in Congress orchestrated this outrageous government shutdown is to try and defund Planned Parenthood as part of their ideological assault on women’s health care.â€
- Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) explained that “This is a war on women. They’re trying to inject their politics and their religion into local family planning.” California liberals are a special lot, are they not? The level of hypocrisy captured in these two brief sentences is revolting to all people of intelligent thought. But we move on.
As the “viability of the fetus†argument has now been effectively discredited, both morally and technologically, the abortionist’s last redoubt is the rights-of-women argument. The absurdity of this version of the pro-abortion argument is that the issue has never been simply and singularly about the rights of women. Everyone, on all sides of this issue, is committed to the rights of women. The fact that the extremist (to use their word) liberals seem to deny that the issue is much broader than women’s rights is the reason their comments are so entirely and patently offensive. This is a much more expansive human rights issue.
The battle lines around the abortion issue are not found on the political map in an area marked “the rights of women.†The debate is rather a long-standing and well-defined issue that pits the interests and rights of women against the interests and rights of unborn children. We all wish this did not have to be so. But to say that one party in the debate favors the rights of women, and the other does not, is at least disingenuous and likely much worse. It is reflective of a lack of character that manifests itself in a willingness to sacrifice base levels of honesty and core human decency in pursuit of their already dubious goals.
The difference between those of us who support the lives of the unborn and the Reid’s, DeGette’s and Lee’s of the world has nothing whatsoever with differences of opinion opposite the rights of women. It has everything to do with the rights of children. For liberals to state the contrary, or to state only one element of the argument, is morally and intellectually reprehensible. For those who choose to support abortion as a simple function of the rights of women there exists a deep moral responsibility to pursue the issue on its merits…whatever those merits might be. Spewing unrepentant lies as a means of support for their argument is, very unfortunately, on the same moral plane as the abortionist’s morally asymmetrical argument itself.
We need look no further than this to see why Americans are so completely disgusted with the whole political process. Without honesty there can be no trust. Without trust, there is no opportunity for the democratic form of governance to continue.
Process check: If you read this and see it as polemic in favor of the rights of children, please read it again. It is an argument in support of honest political discourse. This article could have been written with the federal budget, health care, educational funding, judicial activism or food safety labeling as the backdrop.
![The Shot Sent Around The Internet]()
by Dr Bob Stouffer | Apr 19, 2011
Unions.
There is a word which is currently stirring much thought and commentary.
With all due solemnity and respect for the people of Japan, I would say that Madison, Wisconsin is the epicenter of an earthquake which is sending tremors into every state capital of our country.
What’s all the hubbub, bub?
In case you have been living in a cave, allow me to enlighten you. Desperate economic times have apparently called for desperate measures. State legislatures are looking for ways to cut spending, and they have uncovered a very interesting phenomenon. Government unions have been very adroit in negotiating excellent financial compensation for their members, including fringe benefits which are outpacing the benefits of many employees in the private sector.
Governors, emboldened by the example of their counterpart in Wisconsin, are attempting to change collective bargaining laws, so, in the very least, unions do not have as much, if any, control over wages and benefits. Asking government union employees to pay more of their “fair share†of benefits has resulted in millions of dollars of proposed government savings.
Well, you would think that mass murderers have been cornered in the town square, because lynch mobs have formed against “both sides†of this dispute. Protests have gone on unabated for days. Teachers obtained false doctor’s notes excusing their absences from school, since some of these states are no-strike states. Re-call elections have been proposed in multiple states, and no mercy is being shown to bold governors or legislators who chose to leave their jobs and cross state lines for several weeks of – shall we say – “vacation.â€Â (What’s up with that?! Both Wisconsinites and Indianans sought “refuge†in Illinois!)
Please allow me to share my experiences with and views about unions. At their inception, unions served very useful purposes. Especially during the Industrial Revolution, managers were responsible for horrific abuses of working hours, conditions, pay, and benefits. Employees formed unions to present united fronts to their bosses, so they could negotiate reasonable conditions.
While I am not naïve – and I know that management abuses do still exist today – those behaviors are very rare, and I believe unions – in the form that they were conceived – have outlived their usefulness. In an age of shared decision-making, and participative leadership, no manager of a reputable organization could get away with abusive behavior in even the most subtle of forms. Cries of “foul†regularly ring out, and news outlets are only too happy to capitalize on the crisis d’jour.
I have often wondered about the efficacy of unions during my thirty-plus years as a professional educator. During my 7 years of teaching, I was miffed by what I believed to have been exorbitant fees and disproportionate percentage of my income to join the local, state, and national unions. (In case you didn’t know, the National Education Association is the biggest and most powerful union in Washington, D.C.) I was always threatened with the “need’ for insurance in case I found myself a defendant in litigation, and the administrators were always portrayed as the “bad guys†in these scenarios.
As a teacher, I was also frustrated by the issues taken up by the NEA and Iowa State Education Association. Why were the delegates to these conventions spending so much time and money discussing the non-education-related dynamics of homosexuality and abortion?! Even before I was a believer in Jesus Christ, I somehow inherently knew that these topics were superfluous to the school building. (Don’t get me wrong. I don’t dismiss these issues. They are VERY important issues, but the more important issues for EDUCATIONAL unions are those related directly to the EDUCATION of students in classrooms.)
As a part of my Master’s degree program in school administration, I was trained by a Western Illinois University professor in the “art†and “science†of collective bargaining. Looking back on the content of that course, I can now accurately point out that this was a class on gamesmanship more than determining what was in the best interests of students, educators, and parents.
The relationship between the Pleasant Valley Education Association and administration was the most adversarial in my experience. Outrageous financial proposals were put on the bargaining table every year. The teachers asked for too much. The administration offered too little. All of this blustering and caucusing did nothing to bring “unity†from either the “union†or the administration. (I am at least pleased to add that THE BEST union in my working experience has been the Urbandale Education Association, which cooperated well with administration in a non-adversarial model of bargaining in which every penny was put on the table for discussion, and no outrageous proposals drew battle lines. Also, the UEA did not automatically defend poor teachers who were asked to resign or to complete intensive assistance plans for the improvement of their teaching.)
During my last year of teaching, no one would run for the presidency of the Pleasant Valley union, so I unabashedly ran unopposed as a “let’s get something done together†platform. I was elected. If someone had a different platform, they should have run a write-in campaign! Everyone knew where I stood. After all, I was the son of a school administrator. I remember the calls my Dad took at home. I remember he had the best interests of his staff members in mind. I remember when he was no longer a member of the union, because the collective bargaining laws of Iowa had precipitated rancor between teachers and principals and the end of union membership for school administrators.
As the PVEA President, I wasn’t exactly the “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along†leader. I wanted to fairly represent the teachers, and I was willing to make tough decisions on their behalf. But I also didn’t want to fall lock-step into a union mentality which always immediately distrusted the intent of administration. How ironic that one year I was the union president – 1986-1987 – and the very next year – 1987-1988 – I was Associate Principal of Pleasant Valley High School. Needless to say, I was no longer a member of the PVEA as a school administrator! And I can imagine that several of my teaching colleagues believed I had “sold out†to the “dark side of administration.â€
I am pleased to report that I am now the Superintendent of a non-public school which does not have a union. To be frank, there are times when I have unintentionally not acted in the best interests of the staff in this school, but there has generally not been a “need†for a union, because I want to intentionally do everything in my power to fairly compensate them for their work and to create working conditions which are favorable to student learning. As a private school, our school will go out of business if we are not giving a good return on our “customers’†investment, and teachers need to be unencumbered to do their jobs.
But the school must also be unencumbered to end contractual relationships with teachers who are not helping students to learn. I can honestly say that I have loved 99% of the teachers who have left our school for any number of issues. While I can love people, I can also, even and especially as a Christian, expect employees to do their very best to honor and glorify God through their work. We can love each other and still agree that parting ways would be the best course of action for students, parents, administrators, and especially the underperforming or misplaced teachers themselves. I understand the emotion attached to losing employment, but can’t we also agree that the teachers themselves will be miserable in positions for which they are not suited?
This is all to say that I am not AGAINST unions. But I am against unreasonable union leaders and managers. And I am FOR government employees needing to pay a reasonable share of fringe benefits, especially with rising costs of health care. Union leaders in some of these feuding states have indicated that they have “passed†on negotiating for higher wages to secure these excellent fringe benefits. That may be true, but I would venture a guess that such an argument is sometimes/often a “white lieâ€Â (aka intellectual dishonesty).
Right now, I am most incensed by the behavior of many (but not all) National Football League players and owners. One of our school’s parents is a federal negotiator, and he rightly pointed out that greed is at the heart of “millionaires arguing with billionaires.â€Â And, all along, a family cannot afford to attend an NFL game featuring players who have (obscenely) compared the current situation as “slavery,†thus implying they are “slavesâ€! Ah, to be that kind of “slave†who has that kind of talent and earns that kind of money and has the right at any time to walk away from that kind of work!
Unions have garnered a lot of attention lately, haven’t they? You can no longer be ambivalent. You’ve got to get into this discussion and game. Unions are affecting all of us, whether you care to admit it or want to live in a state of denial.
