Obama & Prince Harry Perform Trans-Atlantic Hypocrisy
The View from the Middle
Sometimes I wonder if the media is paying attention to what politicians around the world are actually saying. Are they just stupid, incompetent or totally bias? I think these are the only choices, especially when you listen to the pile of rubbish that was recently spewed by President Obama and Prince Harry in their interview back in September. I’ll let you be the judge.
Here’s a quote from the President as he discusses the concerns he has about the use of social media. He said:
“One of the dangers of the Internet is that people…can be “cocooned” in information that reinforces their current biases.”
What is amazing is that he has shown no concern about the “safe spaces” on our college campuses today that allow the very same thing to happen. Is this selective outrage? Is this intentional blindness or is it equivocation, which is the deliberate deception of people through the use of ambiguous language or the withholding of crucial information? He SHOULD be outraged at both.
He then went on to say that we should:
“Harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices (and) allows a diversity of views”
Is anyone actually “hearing” what he is saying instead of just listening to the sound waves that he is creating with his vocal chords? How can he make a statement like this without also condemning the “one view fits all” approach that is infecting our college campuses today? When brilliant, accomplished conservative speakers like Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State under George W. Bush), Ray Kelly (former NY Police Commissioner) and Ann Coulter are either disinvited or shouted off stage (the heckler’s veto) their free speech is prevented and their viewpoints are lost to the students. THIS is what the President should be enraged about.
Finally he said that it is “hard to be as obnoxious and cruel in person as people can be anonymously on the Internet.” I guess he forgot how obnoxious, cruel and even violent the Antifa clansmen and women have been around the country as they wore their black masks and hoods to hide their identities.
My problem is not what the President condemned. It is that he did it selectively. He should be condemning “cocooning” everywhere. He should be espousing free and diverse speech everywhere, and he should be condemning crude, cruel and violent behavior everywhere, even when it occurs in his own back yard. Alas, he does not! And the lame stream media is complicit in this hypocrisy.
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
The Death of the Middle
The Death of the Middle
The View from the Middle
As I sat and watched the vote come in for the tax reform bill yesterday I was actually a little disheartened. While I am in favor of nearly every aspect of this bill, especially the major elements, I was disappointed that not a single Democrat was able to break ranks with their ideologically extreme leadership and support a decrease in taxes.
This is particularly disappointing when you consider that almost every Democrat has endorsed the major elements of this plan. Barack Obama favored a reduction in the corporate tax rate. I can’t think of a Democrat who wouldn’t advocate the doubling of the standard deduction and the child tax credit as these provisions have their highest impact on middle and lower income families. And who could object to lowering every tax bracket. These were also the most expensive elements of this tax bill, which every one has supported in one-way shape or form in the past, yet not a single Democrat could muster the slightest support for this bill.
And it’s not about taxes. It’s about how our citizens are being divided and lured to the extreme edges of the ideological spectrum. The moderate, centrist, middle component of our country is being squeezed out of existence.
The Pew Research Center shows that the extreme elements of our liberal and conservative factions have doubled from a total of 10% in 1994 to 21% in 2014. Liberal extremism has quadrupled in that same period from 3% of the population in 1994 to 12% in 2014. They also showed that in 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat. That number rose to 92% in 2014, and the numbers are similar on the Democratic side. In 1994, 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican. In 2014 that number had exploded to 94%. This would suggest that the old blue dog Democrats and moderate Republicans are almost extinct.
And our love / hate relationship with our Presidents have become very ideologically extreme. In the 1950’s, 88% of Republicans supported Eisenhower, as you might expect, but 49% of Democrats did also. That’s a difference of 39 percentage points. This ratio held steady until Ronald Reagan took office when the split hit 52%, and with Obama, the difference was 67% (81% favorable amongst Democrats and only 14% amongst Republicans). The polarization is clearly getting worse, but why?
First, our rhetoric is appalling. Whether it is Hillary Clinton calling everyone she disagrees with “the enemy” or “deplorable”, or Donald Trump’s demeaning labels for everyone in his way, we need to clean up our speech. Also, our politicians plug billions of dollars into negative advertising against their opponents every campaign year. Democrats suggest that Paul Ryan actually wanted to throw his grandmother off a cliff and imply that Republicans want people to die. This hyperbole is intended to inflame the political bases, which is does, but it also angers the other side which tends to drive both moderate liberals and conservatives to the extreme edges of their ideologies.
What is even scarier is that while this Pew research confirms my suspicion that our country has become more polarized, it doesn’t even include Trump’s first year in office which I am convinced has divided us even more deeply. So, how do we get back to a place where we can disagree on policy without impugning each other’s motives and questioning the other side’s humanity?
The solution is simple. Don’t vote for the manipulative, narcissistic egomaniacs in Washington. If you hear someone demean and condemn millions of people because of their party affiliation, recognize it for what it is – prejudice. When you hear people use hyperbolic rhetoric, like an entire party “wants people to die” or suggesting that passing a bill will result in “Armageddon”, see it for what it is – manipulation.
Next, since our politicians won’t do this, I’m asking you to reach across the aisle and discuss the issues with someone of the opposing party. If you are a conservative, you may just find that your liberal friend isn’t an acid dropping communist sympathizer, but just a patriotic citizen who wants the very best for America. If you are a liberal, you may find that your friend is not a knuckle-dragging, uncaring moron, but a pretty decent person. I’ve done it, and I can attest to the fact that you will find good, caring intelligent people on both sides of the political divide.
The View from the Middle
As I sat and watched the vote come in for the tax reform bill yesterday I was actually a little disheartened. While I am in favor of nearly every aspect of this bill, especially the major elements, I was disappointed that not a single Democrat was able to break ranks with their ideologically extreme leadership and support a decrease in taxes.
This is particularly disappointing when you consider that almost every Democrat has endorsed the major elements of this plan. Barack Obama favored a reduction in the corporate tax rate. I can’t think of a Democrat who wouldn’t advocate the doubling of the standard deduction and the child tax credit as these provisions have their highest impact on middle and lower income families. And who could object to lowering every tax bracket. These were also the most expensive elements of this tax bill, which every one has supported in one-way shape or form in the past, yet not a single Democrat could muster the slightest support for this bill.
And it’s not about taxes. It’s about how our citizens are being divided and lured to the extreme edges of the ideological spectrum. The moderate, centrist, middle component of our country is being squeezed out of existence.
The Pew Research Center shows that the extreme elements of our liberal and conservative factions have doubled from a total of 10% in 1994 to 21% in 2014. Liberal extremism has quadrupled in that same period from 3% of the population in 1994 to 12% in 2014. They also showed that in 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat. That number rose to 92% in 2014, and the numbers are similar on the Democratic side. In 1994, 70% of Democrats were more liberal than the median Republican. In 2014 that number had exploded to 94%. This would suggest that the old blue dog Democrats and moderate Republicans are almost extinct.
And our love / hate relationship with our Presidents have become very ideologically extreme. In the 1950’s, 88% of Republicans supported Eisenhower, as you might expect, but 49% of Democrats did also. That’s a difference of 39 percentage points. This ratio held steady until Ronald Reagan took office when the split hit 52%, and with Obama, the difference was 67% (81% favorable amongst Democrats and only 14% amongst Republicans). The polarization is clearly getting worse, but why?
First, our rhetoric is appalling. Whether it is Hillary Clinton calling everyone she disagrees with “the enemy” or “deplorable”, or Donald Trump’s demeaning labels for everyone in his way, we need to clean up our speech. Also, our politicians plug billions of dollars into negative advertising against their opponents every campaign year. Democrats suggest that Paul Ryan actually wanted to throw his grandmother off a cliff and imply that Republicans want people to die. This hyperbole is intended to inflame the political bases, which is does, but it also angers the other side which tends to drive both moderate liberals and conservatives to the extreme edges of their ideologies.
What is even scarier is that while this Pew research confirms my suspicion that our country has become more polarized, it doesn’t even include Trump’s first year in office which I am convinced has divided us even more deeply. So, how do we get back to a place where we can disagree on policy without impugning each other’s motives and questioning the other side’s humanity?
The solution is simple. Don’t vote for the manipulative, narcissistic egomaniacs in Washington. If you hear someone demean and condemn millions of people because of their party affiliation, recognize it for what it is – prejudice. When you hear people use hyperbolic rhetoric, like an entire party “wants people to die” or suggesting that passing a bill will result in “Armageddon”, see it for what it is – manipulation.
Next, since our politicians won’t do this, I’m asking you to reach across the aisle and discuss the issues with someone of the opposing party. If you are a conservative, you may just find that your liberal friend isn’t an acid dropping communist sympathizer, but just a patriotic citizen who wants the very best for America. If you are a liberal, you may find that your friend is not a knuckle-dragging, uncaring moron, but a pretty decent person. I’ve done it, and I can attest to the fact that you will find good, caring intelligent people on both sides of the political divide.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
No Moore, no more
No Moore in Alabama, Thanks to Deplorables
The View from the Middle
Let’s face facts. Alabama hasn’t supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1980, and only one since 1964, and that was their neighbor and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. You couldn’t get a Democrat elected dog catcher in Alabama without crossover vote from those despicable, deplorable, irredeemable Republicans. In fact, Alabama is clearly one of Hillary’s most despicable, deplorable and irredeemable states in the union since she was thrashed there by Trump by 28 points (63% to 35%). Arkansans are nearly as despicable since Trump won here by 27 points and our neighbors in Oklahoma must qualify for the deplorable hall of fame since Trump won there by a 36-point margin. According to Hillary Clinton and anyone who believes her, I’m surrounded by pretty awful people. Is it OK if I disagree with that?
So, my question is, since it was the deplorables who got Doug Jones elected to the Senate in Alabama on Tuesday, are they no longer deplorable? Are they allowed to be considered full, patriotic, decent American citizens again, or is this just a temporary pass to rub elbows with the truly noble Americans like Al Franken, Harry Reid and Anthony Weiner. Wow, what a privilege!
Also, before the lame stream media tries to convince you that this election signifies some sort of seismic shift in the hearts and minds of the voting public, let’s visit the world of reality for just a minute. Doug Jones is a big government, abortion on demand, tax and spend liberal in a small government, pro-life, low tax state. If this election had been about policy proposals and had even run a mystery, un-named Republican candidate, that Republican candidate would have won. Luther Strange would have won. Mo Brooks would have won, but they were defeated in the primaries before the accusations against Roy Moore were made public.
In fact, it will be interesting to see how Doug Jones performs in Washington DC. He will need to run again in 2020 and if he pushes an agenda that totally aligns with the Democrat party, he will alienate his constituency and will likely be replaced in 2020. If he tries to be a moderate force in his party he will be shunned by Democratic leadership and accomplish nothing. Larry Sabato, political analyst from the University of Virginia, suggests that when Doug Jones moves to Washington, he should “rent, not buy”.
And, here’s a warning to Republicans. While I believe that the policies they are pursuing will deliver positive results, that doesn’t necessarily translate to victories in November. Even if the economy grows, which I think it will, and congress passes a DACA bill that secures the border and resolves the “dreamer” issue, Republicans still have to field good candidates. Roy Moore was not a good candidate and that’s why he lost. He could even write a book entitled “What Happened”, but the bottom line is that he lost because of him.
Donald Trump too is at risk. He could deliver a growing economy, a path to a balanced budget and real immigration reform including a DACA fix, and still lose. He could deliver on all his promises and replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with… well, with about anyone, and he could still lose. If the people of The United States get tired of his 3rd grade playground antics and if he continues to reduce the prestige of the Presidency, he could deliver all the results he promised and still lose. Mr. President, please take the high road, if you can even find it at this point.
The View from the Middle
Let’s face facts. Alabama hasn’t supported a Democratic presidential candidate since 1980, and only one since 1964, and that was their neighbor and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. You couldn’t get a Democrat elected dog catcher in Alabama without crossover vote from those despicable, deplorable, irredeemable Republicans. In fact, Alabama is clearly one of Hillary’s most despicable, deplorable and irredeemable states in the union since she was thrashed there by Trump by 28 points (63% to 35%). Arkansans are nearly as despicable since Trump won here by 27 points and our neighbors in Oklahoma must qualify for the deplorable hall of fame since Trump won there by a 36-point margin. According to Hillary Clinton and anyone who believes her, I’m surrounded by pretty awful people. Is it OK if I disagree with that?
So, my question is, since it was the deplorables who got Doug Jones elected to the Senate in Alabama on Tuesday, are they no longer deplorable? Are they allowed to be considered full, patriotic, decent American citizens again, or is this just a temporary pass to rub elbows with the truly noble Americans like Al Franken, Harry Reid and Anthony Weiner. Wow, what a privilege!
Also, before the lame stream media tries to convince you that this election signifies some sort of seismic shift in the hearts and minds of the voting public, let’s visit the world of reality for just a minute. Doug Jones is a big government, abortion on demand, tax and spend liberal in a small government, pro-life, low tax state. If this election had been about policy proposals and had even run a mystery, un-named Republican candidate, that Republican candidate would have won. Luther Strange would have won. Mo Brooks would have won, but they were defeated in the primaries before the accusations against Roy Moore were made public.
In fact, it will be interesting to see how Doug Jones performs in Washington DC. He will need to run again in 2020 and if he pushes an agenda that totally aligns with the Democrat party, he will alienate his constituency and will likely be replaced in 2020. If he tries to be a moderate force in his party he will be shunned by Democratic leadership and accomplish nothing. Larry Sabato, political analyst from the University of Virginia, suggests that when Doug Jones moves to Washington, he should “rent, not buy”.
And, here’s a warning to Republicans. While I believe that the policies they are pursuing will deliver positive results, that doesn’t necessarily translate to victories in November. Even if the economy grows, which I think it will, and congress passes a DACA bill that secures the border and resolves the “dreamer” issue, Republicans still have to field good candidates. Roy Moore was not a good candidate and that’s why he lost. He could even write a book entitled “What Happened”, but the bottom line is that he lost because of him.
Donald Trump too is at risk. He could deliver a growing economy, a path to a balanced budget and real immigration reform including a DACA fix, and still lose. He could deliver on all his promises and replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg with… well, with about anyone, and he could still lose. If the people of The United States get tired of his 3rd grade playground antics and if he continues to reduce the prestige of the Presidency, he could deliver all the results he promised and still lose. Mr. President, please take the high road, if you can even find it at this point.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Donna Brazile and her book "Hacks"
To Donna Brazile on Her New Book - Hacks
The View from the Middle
If you’re not a political junky like me, your first question may be, “Who is Donna Brazile, and why do I even care about her?” Donna Brazile is the now disgraced former Chairperson for the DNC (Democratic National Committee) during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She admitted to sharing debate questions with the Clinton campaign while withholding them from the Sanders’ campaign and now she has written a book entitled Hacks.
A hack can be a person who works solely for mercenary reasons with mediocre professional standards, like the commonly used term “party hacks”. I thought for sure that was what her book would be about; the party hacks who botched the Hillary Clinton campaign for presidency. Instead it was an excuse filled, opinion stated as fact, pity party in which she couldn’t even admit or deny her horrendous mistake of sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton. Now, it seems, her position is that she can’t remember. Isn’t that the amnesiatic explanation that Hillary Clinton invoked 41 times in her interview with the FBI about her computer server? Donna, you’ve learned from the best, or worst depending on a person’s perspective.
Obviously, I do NOT recommend her book for a number of reasons and in fact I’ll be sending my copy back asking for a refund. First, her opinion (which she constantly positions as fact) is that the Russians (if they were behind the hacking) only went after the Democratic Party, actually thought Donald Trump could win the election AND preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Let me suggest another set of possibilities.
Whoever hacked into the DNC server, and it may well have been the Russians, was trying to hack into everyone’s emails trying to compromise our entire system so that our citizens would lose confidence in our Democratic process. It just so happens that the Democrats were grossly negligent (sorry, extremely careless) with their handling of sensitive data. John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager, responded to a phishing expedition and changed his password to “password”. What an idiot. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg in a party that put servers in closets, bashed phones with sledgehammers and stored emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer.
Donna also theorizes that Vladimir Putin actually thought Donald Trump could with this election and preferred him to become president. This is opinion piled upon opinion. Let me offer you another notion. I would suggest that Vladimir Putin believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election like 99% of Americans, according to the Princeton Election Consortium. I don’t even think Donald Trump thought he was going to win the election on the morning of November 8th. Putin was sure that Hillary would be President, and he wanted to deal with a damaged President once the election was over.
Donna even defended Hillary’s famous “basket of deplorables” statement, which I believe actually cost her the election. Remember, this is where Hillary called half of Donald Trump’s voters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic”. She suggested that Hillary should “own” this despicable statement. She even supported Hillary’s stance that she had to say this because “her opponent’s campaign had been built on prejudice, hateful views and cruel voices”. Isn’t calling tens of millions of Americans racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes prejudicial, hateful and cruel? Donna, this is what Americans hate about our politicians. They are hypocrites, constantly talking out of both sides of their mouths and this definitely includes Hillary.
Donna, if you ever get around to taking your ideological blinders off, you’ll realize that it wasn’t the Russians who caused Hillary to loose the election. It was just Hillary. When the first three words that people use to describe your candidate are “Liar, Dishonest and Untrustworthy”, according to Quinnipiac, you have a problem. I have stated before that we had two terrible candidates representing our two parties in this election, and Hillary ended up being the worse of those two.
She insulted even more people than Donald Trump did, and that isn’t easy to do. She took the wrong states for granted and was not able to energize her base, which was evident in her pitiful campaign rally attendance and lack of enthusiasm. Her platform was “I’m a woman” and “It’s my turn” which didn’t resonate with the public. If you keep blaming the Russians, you’ll never learn the real lesson.
By the way, I do agree with you about one thing, Donna. The average American (Democrat and Republican) is honest, hard working and patriotic. Americans will put the good of the country ahead of themselves. That is what they are looking for in our politicians, but people like that are a rare commodity in Washington DC. THAT is the biggest issue we have right now, and we should be working together to fix it. How many times can I suggest Term Limits!!!
The View from the Middle
If you’re not a political junky like me, your first question may be, “Who is Donna Brazile, and why do I even care about her?” Donna Brazile is the now disgraced former Chairperson for the DNC (Democratic National Committee) during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She admitted to sharing debate questions with the Clinton campaign while withholding them from the Sanders’ campaign and now she has written a book entitled Hacks.
A hack can be a person who works solely for mercenary reasons with mediocre professional standards, like the commonly used term “party hacks”. I thought for sure that was what her book would be about; the party hacks who botched the Hillary Clinton campaign for presidency. Instead it was an excuse filled, opinion stated as fact, pity party in which she couldn’t even admit or deny her horrendous mistake of sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton. Now, it seems, her position is that she can’t remember. Isn’t that the amnesiatic explanation that Hillary Clinton invoked 41 times in her interview with the FBI about her computer server? Donna, you’ve learned from the best, or worst depending on a person’s perspective.
Obviously, I do NOT recommend her book for a number of reasons and in fact I’ll be sending my copy back asking for a refund. First, her opinion (which she constantly positions as fact) is that the Russians (if they were behind the hacking) only went after the Democratic Party, actually thought Donald Trump could win the election AND preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Let me suggest another set of possibilities.
Whoever hacked into the DNC server, and it may well have been the Russians, was trying to hack into everyone’s emails trying to compromise our entire system so that our citizens would lose confidence in our Democratic process. It just so happens that the Democrats were grossly negligent (sorry, extremely careless) with their handling of sensitive data. John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager, responded to a phishing expedition and changed his password to “password”. What an idiot. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg in a party that put servers in closets, bashed phones with sledgehammers and stored emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer.
Donna also theorizes that Vladimir Putin actually thought Donald Trump could with this election and preferred him to become president. This is opinion piled upon opinion. Let me offer you another notion. I would suggest that Vladimir Putin believed that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election like 99% of Americans, according to the Princeton Election Consortium. I don’t even think Donald Trump thought he was going to win the election on the morning of November 8th. Putin was sure that Hillary would be President, and he wanted to deal with a damaged President once the election was over.
Donna even defended Hillary’s famous “basket of deplorables” statement, which I believe actually cost her the election. Remember, this is where Hillary called half of Donald Trump’s voters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic”. She suggested that Hillary should “own” this despicable statement. She even supported Hillary’s stance that she had to say this because “her opponent’s campaign had been built on prejudice, hateful views and cruel voices”. Isn’t calling tens of millions of Americans racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes prejudicial, hateful and cruel? Donna, this is what Americans hate about our politicians. They are hypocrites, constantly talking out of both sides of their mouths and this definitely includes Hillary.
Donna, if you ever get around to taking your ideological blinders off, you’ll realize that it wasn’t the Russians who caused Hillary to loose the election. It was just Hillary. When the first three words that people use to describe your candidate are “Liar, Dishonest and Untrustworthy”, according to Quinnipiac, you have a problem. I have stated before that we had two terrible candidates representing our two parties in this election, and Hillary ended up being the worse of those two.
She insulted even more people than Donald Trump did, and that isn’t easy to do. She took the wrong states for granted and was not able to energize her base, which was evident in her pitiful campaign rally attendance and lack of enthusiasm. Her platform was “I’m a woman” and “It’s my turn” which didn’t resonate with the public. If you keep blaming the Russians, you’ll never learn the real lesson.
By the way, I do agree with you about one thing, Donna. The average American (Democrat and Republican) is honest, hard working and patriotic. Americans will put the good of the country ahead of themselves. That is what they are looking for in our politicians, but people like that are a rare commodity in Washington DC. THAT is the biggest issue we have right now, and we should be working together to fix it. How many times can I suggest Term Limits!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)