Google+ Followers

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

GEORGE WILL'S PARALLEL OF OBAMA AND BASEBALL'S FRANK ROBINSON


George Will wrote an interesting column about a month ago concerning the topic of race when it comes to liking or disliking Obama.

With Obama we have a guy who has flopped at about everything he has attempted and seems hell bent on continuing that mentality if re-elected.

His biggie at the moment is the screw up in Libya.  Also, as of August, real disposable income has again declined.  Recent figures show a 13.2% drop in durable goods orders and that “nearly 25%, the highest in three decades, of Americans between 25 and 55 are unemployed.”  Here’s more from Will:  “The second quarter growth rate was adjusted down from an anemic 1.7% to the stall speed of1.3%.”

How about his investments regarding the ever popular “green” mentality?  Tesla received $465 million from the Department of Energy for an electric car. Then, there is Solyndra’s $535 million lost while Fisker, another “would be maker of high-end rides for rich people” received $529 million.  All have floundered.

To put it mildly, “Obama’s administration is in a shambles” according to Will yet somehow he still maintains a high degree of popularity.  It seems inconceivable that anyone of normal intelligence would ever vote for the re-election of this guy.

George has a theory about why Obama remains popular in spite of his failures and that theory involves a parallel to baseball and race.

On October 3, 1974, Frank Robinson was hired by baseball’s Cleveland Indians as the first major league black manager.  Frank was one of the all time best as a player but he was unable to improve the Indians so he was fired on June 19, 1977; not even three years into the job. 

Frank Robinson was baseball's first black manager
after his playing days.  Like most managers, he was fired.

Although the firing of managers is common in baseball, firing Robby was the first instance of a black manager getting the axe thus allowing another racial barrier to fall.  However, after the Cleveland firing, Robby went on to greater success in managing four other teams. “Henceforth,” says Will, “African Americans could now enjoy the God given right to be scapegoats for impatient team owners” without relying on the old saying “He was fired because he was black.”  The trauma of a black man being fired was eradicated by future success elsewhere.

In Obama’s case, many thinking adults realize that he has failed but hate to give up on the first African American president in spite of his failures.  It’s a scary position for the country that there are those who would vote more with their heart than their head and re-elect this guy.   Those people are called liberals.

I would have no problem with a black president and once Obama is gone, there will be more room for a black guy who is actually qualified to lead.   I see more success coming from that direction for someone like Allen West.

Great comments department:  A guy from Scottsdale recently sent this to the Republic opinion page:
“Someone said voting for Obama this time would be like the Titanic backing up and then hitting the iceberg again.  But, if he should somehow prevail in November, just think of the awful mess he will inherit.”

From Jimmy Kimmel:  “I think that Apple keeps releasing new products just to see if there is anything they make that we WON’T buy.” 

Monday, October 22, 2012

EXTRA! EXTRA! DON'T FAINT; AZ REPUBLIC ENDORSES ROMNEY! (Sunday 10-21-12) edition)


Editorial Endorsement for President


ROMNEY CAN LEAD ECONOMY FORWARD

The last U.S. president to attempt transformative social change on the scale attempted by President Barack Obama was Lyndon B. Johnson, who in 1964 launched his Great Society.

Times were different then. At the end of Johnson’s term, the national debt stood at just $353 billion, representing an annual growth rate during the five-plus years of Johnson’s presidency of just over 3 per­cent.
The nation’s debts then were under control.

Fair or not, the debt mon­ster since then has grown un­imaginably, forcing its harsh reality into every new dis­cussion about federal spend­ing.

Not counting long-term unfunded liabilities tied to Social Security and to many of those Johnson-era programs, the nation is more than $16 tril­lion in real-time debt, one of the greatest financial-debt burdens in modern history.

Our belief that Republican Mitt Romney should be elected the 45th president of the Unit­ed States is anchored in that
 tough reality. We believe the nation’s best opportunity to escape the com­pounding woes of spiraling debt and economic stagnation lies with a president who be­lieves in the free market’s capacity to heal its own wounds.

That leader is Romney. The nation’s economy now is in desperate need of the kind of jobs-creating animal spirits that President Romney would encourage.

The economy indisputably will benefit, perhaps signifi­cantly, from a flatter, fairer system of taxation along the lines proposed by Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.

It will benefit, too, from a regulatory environment that does not smother small busi­nesses with punitive, anti­competitive, hoop-jumping requirements that favor their bigger competitors. We expect a Romney administration to foster that kind of growth ­oriented, business-friendly environment.

But, more to the point, we expect better job growth in a Romney economy mostly be­cause
 Mitt Romney does not fear or dislike a free-wheeling, growing, free-market econo­my.

We cannot say the same of President Obama.

In our judgment, the econo­my will not fully revive under Obama. Certainly not to the degree it would thrive if Wash­ington, D.C., would only get past its current “Dodd-Frank” frame of mind, its free-mar­ket- fearing sense that the terrible times will come crash­ing back if Washington lets those scalawags of the private sector loose again.

The president’s proposals for a second administration project scant hope that the
 economy will do much more than stumble forward at the current, anemic, sub-2 percent rate of growth. The 23 million Americans either unemployed, scraping by in part-time, low­paid jobs or not looking for work anymore need to see a commitment to revival. And, simply put, Obama isn’t of­fering them much. Not in his vision of the future as illus­trated in debates thus far. And certainly not in the record of his first term as president.

The reason Obama’s infa­mous “You didn’t build that” comment on July 13 in Roa­noke, Va., resonated among his political opponents wasn’t because it revealed some great secret.

It resonated because it vali­dated a suspicion that the president has done little to dismiss. He has consolidated federal power and reach in health care, banking, the auto industry and energy produc­tion. He has fostered the view that all good economic things flow from Washington.

Obama’s very first proposal to revive the economy — initi­ated in February 2009 when
 the economy was shedding more than 600,000 jobs a month — in fact was highlight­ed in large part by his plans for government-centric health-care reform. That, re­member, was when we learned how crises were too valuable to waste.

Mitt Romney, certainly, would not a perfect president make. But he is far, far re­moved from the grotesque caricature of the heartless plutocrat created by the Oba­ma campaign and its allies.

Democrats from Bill Clin­ton to Cory Booker defended Romney’s work at the much­maligned Bain Capital for a reason: because it has been financial engines like Bain that have helped power the American economy.

America needs a return to that kind of economic power, that kind of jobs-creating ener­gy.

The nation’s best chance for reviving those spirits lies with Mitt Romney.
The Arizona Republic recom­mends Mitt Romney for presi­dent of the United States.



It looks like Benson, Valdez, and Montini aren't the only ones working for the Republic!


JM

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

THE DEBATE: ROMNEY V. OBAMA

The Romney-Obama debate of 10-16 was a bit of a snoozer for me.

I disliked the Town Hall set up and Candy Crowley.  She wasn’t extremely partial but like most CNN people, she had a special place in her heart for Obama.  That is probably why she gave him an extra three minutes for the night.

First we get a liberal in Jim Lehrer for the first debate but at 78 he was no match for handling Romney and Obama so it went well.

This time we got Candy who, instead of asking the questions and getting the hell out of the way, felt she had to interject her own opinions into the fray.   Like, who cares what she thinks?

Candy, Barack, and Mitt. Who is squeezing 
the hardest?
Both guys got in some decent licks.  For Romney it was pretty easy pickings as he only had to pick a few items from a large laundry list of Obama failings from his 2008 promises.

For Obama, he managed a dig at Romney’s Detroit comment about letting Detroit autos go bankrupt and got after him about outsourcing.

Obama also couldn’t resist getting in the obligatory 47% crack during his summation but Romney beat him to the punch as he mentioned it during his summation a couple minutes before when he said it was sad that 47% of Americans are on food stamps.  I thought that was a good move and a miss on Obama’s part.  Actually, Obama should have mentioned it in Denver but he didn’t mention much of anything else that night either.

One funny point that kind of diminished Obama:  On a couple of occasions, he followed Romney’s moves.  At one time, Romney got up from his chair and Obama followed.  Another time, they were standing next to each other when Romney took about four steps forward.  Like a good puppy, Obama followed again. 

Both instances may be more subliminal than anything but it came across as kind of odd to me.

There was a lot of bantering but not much new since the Denver debacle.  If I had to give the debate a score, I would say it was about 50-50.  Romney was about as good as the first debate in Denver but Obama improved enough that at least he didn’t look half asleep this time around.

I doubt if the prez will gain any ground from this round.  Romney matched up good with him at a time when Obama needed a knockout.

Next comes the third and final debate; this time from Boca Raton, Florida.  It will be Bob Schieffer of CBS moderating and the format will be the same as Denver.  Foreign policy will be dominate so expect some fireworks since the mere mention of Libya got some blood flowing tonight.

No word yet on whether Hillary will be there since she has taken the fall for Libya hence being dispatched to Peru.  How would you like to be a mouse in Bill’s house and hear his reaction to that move?

Thursday, October 11, 2012

THE DEBATE.....


When Mitt Romney walloped Obama last week in their Denver debate, he was cordial and polite as he dissected the president and easily won the night.

Although Obama fans were not happy with the thrashing their man took, I didn’t hear anything about Romney being rude or impolite during the process.

There is no substitute for class and Ryan proved it. 
Unfortunately for Joe Biden, I think he set a record tonight for being one of the rudest, most ill mannered, boorish debaters I have ever seen in the political arena and I have been watching this stuff since 1960 when Nixon and Kennedy started TV debates.

The disrespect, interruptions, mugging to the camera, and laughing while Representative Ryan presented his side of the debate, was unconscionable.  It’s one thing to disagree with your opponent; it’s something else to exhibit your bad manners.

Fortunately, Paul Ryan held his ground and let Biden bloviate which was a good strategy.  It showed that he wasn’t going to let the guy get under his skin.  Instead the condescending Biden just dug himself further into a hole as the debate went on.

Whether Biden was trying to kick it up a notch after Obama’s lackluster performance and show what he might interpret as a “personality,” I don’t know.  He could have used some time with a good coach who I’m sure would have told him to “cool it.”

Notes:  The time each candidate got was about the same; approximately 41 minutes…..Funny moment:  After Biden complained that Ryan got 40 seconds more than he did on one item Martha Raddatz said , “No, he didn’t.”

 Some comments from left leaners:  MSNBC’s S.E. Cupp:  “Biden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, and nuclear Iran segment.”

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.”

PBS’ Jeff Greenfield: “Biden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.”

Jennifer Rubin, “The Washington Post”:  “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

On the other side:  Chris Wallace:  “I’ve never seen a candidate as disrespectful as Biden.”

A CNN Poll gave the win to Ryan 48%-44% so it was pretty even by their reckoning.  Charles Krauthamer said if it was only on radio, Biden would probably be the winner.  If it was written on paper, it would be a tie, and if you watched it on TV, the winner was Ryan.

As far as personalities, I was pretty sure Joe would act the way he did.  That is his nature to be outgoing, loud, and garrulous.  He probably overdid his shtick tonight trying to save something for the two weeks after the poor showing of his boss.

Ryan was the soft spoken intellectual I expected and was a nice relief from Biden.  He had his facts down and disregarded the nonsense from his right as much as possible.

As far as how much this debate affected the election, I would say it was negligible.  However, the Democrats could have used a shot in the arm tonight which they didn’t receive. 

Next week its Romney-Obama again.   If Obama makes another showing like his last, he could be in big trouble.  

Comments?

Saturday, October 06, 2012

SOMETHING NON-POLITICAL TO GIVE US A REST UNTIL RYAN-BIDEN NEXT THURSDAY


I rarely go to movie theaters anymore.  Not only do most films look too ignorant in the previews (How many times do we have to see a car explode) but I am so tired of the Hollywood phonies in films that I will not pay $7 to watch them.  Are you listening to me George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin and the rest of you losers?  Not you Clint, You’re still a good guy and I will be seeing “Trouble With the Curve” soon.

Luckily, there are some good British films around.  Not only are the British stars superior in talent but they give us the opportunity to see stories enacted that don’t require sex or violence.

Has anyone seen “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”, “The King’s Speech”, or “My Week with Marilyn”?  They have all come out within the last few years and are great viewing with great casts.  You’ll spit in George Clooney’s eye after seeing those films and others from the UK.

Speaking of theaters, I recently ran across a list of things that an employee of a movie theater will not tell you but will tell me.

For example, have you ever wondered why popcorn smells so good when you are in a theater?  According to our snitch it’s because it is loaded with chemicals to make its aroma fill the theater.

Take it from a pro, you don't want 
these at your local Bijou!
Did you know that for the first month or two of screening, money from ticket sales goes to movie studios? Theaters rely on concession stands to make money. That’s why concessions are overpriced. Popcorn costs almost nothing to make.  

Theaters hate me.  I never buy anything there, popcorn or otherwise.  I laugh when I see people with barrels of popcorn and quarts of soda.  Are they there for the movie or to eat junk food?

Our snitch knows all the methods you may use to sneak in. He (she?) just doesn’t always care enough to kick you out for it, though.  Have you ever sneaked into an indoor show?  I haven’t but I snuck into many drive-ins.

Our snitch says that “The only foods I trust are the popcorn, drinks, and boxed candy. I wouldn’t eat the pretzels, hot dogs, or nachos.”  Me either!

“Chances are, if you complain to the manager and he sides with you, he’s just putting on a show to calm you down. The manager might pretend to yell at employees for a minute, but he’ll pat them on the back the moment you’re out of sight.”  Who would have thought?

“No, I can’t give you extra cups. Everything is inventoried at the end of the night” says our guy.  I’ve heard that happens at other places too.

If you think the ushers don’t always sweep out the theater, your suspicions are correct. Sometimes they sweep excess food under the seats. Movies often end every few minutes. Sometimes, three or more screenings end at the same time so they don’t always have time to clean everything up.

Do you ever wonder why movies start late?  Here’s why:   “Yes, movies start late. But they almost always end on time – otherwise, the ushers wouldn’t know when to clean up. Theaters tell you to come in early so you have time to watch commercials and previews.

Last but not least we are told that Popcorn keeps for a day or two. Many customers confuse warm with fresh.  Yum!

See you at the movies.  I will have my own provisions!