Author Archives: Lib-Whisperer

Unknown's avatar

About Lib-Whisperer

Hello and thanks for visiting the Lib-Whisperer blog site. The Lib-Whisperer is the expression of personal opinions. I hope to grow the site as time goes by and enthusiasm grows. I am sarcastic by nature, but always well intended. I am an admitted history & policy-wonk. I enjoy discussions with people who are curious, flexible and above all else, informed; willing to have their convictions tested through polite fact-based discussions. I’m informed through studying the works of giants like Bastiat, Montesquieu, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, our U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, the pamphleteers & landmark SCOTUS opinions to name a few. The Lib Whisperer site hopefully offers insight into the core principles & ideology of a segment of American citizens who believe urgent course changes are necessary to guide our country toward fiscal responsibility, national security, Federalism, conservative values and true representative government. A foundational belief I hold is constituencies constantly form & harden around single issues. History is replete with examples that prove these singular constituencies are routinely high-jacked by traditional established groups and purposely used to divide folks along narrow ideological lines. We must find ways to re-unite citizens who have allowed themselves to become labelled and isolated, and worse, conscripted & unknowingly aligned with larger ideological groups that espouse the need to destroy our country’s historical foundation. For example, witness the origins of the Tea Party and what it eventually became. Mocked & derided by the traditional Left, and then co-opted by the traditional Right. The high-jackings are not always sinister; rather, they are a more a consequence of natural human behavior. There is power in groups, and existing groups who are organized, funded and like-minded typically see new ones as either threats or opportunities. If they are threats- they need to be diminished and eliminated; if they are opportunities, they need to be purposely subordinated, conscripted and melded with the larger group. The intrinsic threat of a new group is it will siphon off members from the established ones. Power, money, prestige and influence moving en masse away from traditional groups is a powerful motivator. Our nation’s two party political-system is a perfect example of hardened constituencies. Labels- once adopted by individuals provide comfort but can induce a subtle intellectual laziness, diminish curiosity, and polarize the adopter. Fiscal cliffs, nuclear Armageddon, financial system instability and corruption, porous borders, the collapse of our public education system, endless wars on drugs, terrorism, polarized ineffective leadership…this is what we are greeted with each day. The future for our kin hangs in the balance; we cannot continue to do things the same way and expect different results. Better ideas are required to solve our problems. Agreeing on what hasn’t worked seems to be a good place to start. Thanks for joining me in the modern “public square” to make sense of all of this.

Why I Like TV Legal Dramas

Posted on by
Reply
The political pundits have been trying to unravel the mystery of Obama’s poor debate performance this past week.  I admit that it’s been funny to watch his supporters explain why he tripped on his cape.  The left boils it down to: It’s the moderator’s fault & Romney lied.  In kindergarten playground speak, their argument translates to “it wasn’t fair and he hit me”.  The right chalked it up to: Romney was supremely prepared and executed his plan.
 
I began thinking about this when the talking heads were wringing their hands wondering out loud why Obama didn’t take it to Romney over two “low-fruit” issues…the GM/Chrysler bailout, and Romney’s 47% gaffe.  Here’s what I think happened.  Pretend your watching Law & Order…imagine the part of the show when they get to the inevitable jury trial.  We the debate viewers are the jury, the candidates are the lawyers, and the moderator puts witnesses on the stand for testimony via debate questions.  As amateur legal experts well-schooled by countless hours of TV legal dramas we know that each side has to be very careful to not open up lines of questioning or testimony that hurts their case.  In the case of Obama v. His Record as President, there are myriad hot-button topics to avoid at all costs.
 
So, in this context, let’s look at each of the two topics that Obama supporters are disappointed he didn’t thrash Romney with:
 
First, one of the President’s proud & lauded achievements…the auto companies government bailout- versus a managed bankruptcy favored by Romney.  To see how this would have likely played out, (PLAY LAW & ORDER BONG TONES HERE)…you’ll have to assume that Romney’s preparation and hence his command of the facts, and ultimately his ability to clearly articulate his position on this topic would be equivalent to what we witnessed him do on other debate topics.  I posit that if Obama introduced the auto-co. bailout topic to gain advantage, Romney would have taken him out at the knees by pointing out in no uncertain terms the true cost to taxpayers for this decision, while at the same time explaining to the public that structured bankruptcy does not mean “put out of business” or picking winners and losers in the process.  For example, and imagine Mitt using his point 1, 2, 3, 4…style on this retort…as of this evening, GM owes nearly $30 billion of the $50 billion it received, and GMAC, the lending arm of GM still owes nearly $15 billion of the more than $17 billion it received. Foreign workers and overseas plants have soaked up billions of American bailout tax dollars. Some 20,000 Delphi non-union workers saw their pensions eroded and health benefits disappear as part of the deal you cut with United Auto Workers.  In an unprecedented example of Federal Government Executive Branch hubris, senior secured lenders where sub-ordinated and wiped out by executive order in favor of trade unions.  “How is this a success Mr. President?”  I don’t think Obama thought he could raise this topic and score.
 
Next, let’s say Obama tried to exploit Romney’s 47% comment. Ouch again…a no-win strategy for Obama…(PLAY LAW & ORDER BONG TONES HERE)…It was no coincidence that a week prior to the debate, damning video emerged of Obama in 2007, then acting in his dual role as absentee junior US Senator & budding US Presidential candidate, channeled Hillary and employed his best improvised “I’m O from the hood” speaking style while addressing black clergy at Hampton University.  His speech was racially inflammatory, laden with class-warfare invectives, and plain untruth’s.  For example, he railed against George Bush, portraying Bush as a racist for not immediately waiving Stafford Act provisions in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Waiving the Stafford Act would allow the Federal Government to ignore provisions in the act concerning mandatory communications and agreements between the State Governor and the Executive, and circumvents provisions in the act that dictate the proportional burden of expenses between the State and the Federal government. Sounds pretty compelling right?  WHOOPS- he exhibited amnesia when he forgot to tell his audience that he was one of 14 US Senators that voted against then recent legislation giving the Executive more latitude to waive the act in future calamities like Katrina.  Politics is nothing if not predictable…if your party is not in power at the Executive level, then at the legislative level you vote against all legislation that further empowers the Executive.
 
The emergence of the Hampton University footage had nothing to do with hoping that the media would broadly circulate it…are you kidding?…it had all to do with pre-debate strategy.  It was the right’s not so subtle way to signal to the left- go ahead, hammer us on the 47% comment, we’re ready.  And again…a red-light topic for Obama at the debate.  It makes you wonder if what he was reading as he repeatedly looked down at the podium was a bold-faced three-column list of “TOPICS TO AVOID”.
 
To conclude, it is no wonder that Obama seemed hamstrung at the debate because he was.  He now has to stand on and defend his record.  Imagine going into a prizefight and you’ve been prepared by your team- OK O- CAREFUL…don’t throw the upper-cut, you’ll get creamed by the hook; don’t throw the hook, you’ll get knocked on your ass by the uppercut; don’t go inside, but don’t stay outside either, both are dangerous….what are you left with…the jab and dance.  You can’t win jabbing and moving.  In the end that is all he had.  He was so pre-occupied with avoiding getting hit that he couldn’t win.  It’s tough running with a record when you have a glass-jaw.  This is what I think we witnessed.
 
LW