The night MSNBC went apoplectic

Did you watch the Presidential debate last night? I did. Then I watched the post debate coverage by Fox, CNN and MSNBC. First, I think it was very clear that there was a consensus that Mitt Romney soundly won the debate. Fox said so, CNN said so, and, believe it or not, the MSNBC talking heads conceded that the president didn't do too well while going toe to toe with Mitt Romney.

The folks on MSNBC typically defend the Democrat positions and demonstrate strong affection for Barack Obama. Hardball's Chris Matthews once said that when Obama speaks that he gets a thrill up his leg. First off, I don't think that I am familiar with this particular sensation. Chris may need to get a real life or try to stop fawning over politicians, president or not. I was a big fan of Ronald Reagan but, even on one of the Gipper's best days and best speeches, I can't say that I ever experienced anything magical in any of my limbs. But then again, I don't adore or worship politicians.

The usual Obama defenders and apologists on MSNBC like Ed Shultz, and the aforementioned Matthews were beside themselves after the debate. I thought one of them was going to stroke out. I am sure that the Obama advocates were very confident, leading up to the debate, that Obama would wipe the floor with Romney. I believe that they were genuinely devastated that the President didn't trounce Romney.

24 hours later, after their blood pressure dropped back down to more normal levels, most of the commentators that are clearly non-neutral have regrouped and are back in attack mode against the Republican candidate. But they can't just ignore or dismiss what happened on Wednesday night.

What I find the most amazing is that there are some "likely voters" out there that are still not sure which candidate they will vote for. CNN had a group of "independent" or undecided voters that have watched the various Republican debates and have now watched the first presidential debate and still have not made up their minds. The differences between these two candidates could not be more stark. I'm not sure what criteria these voters are going to use to choose their candidate. I do think that some of these undecided voters enjoy all the attention that they receive by virtue of their self described great open-mindedness and contemplation. Deep thinkers no doubt...at least much more so than we sheep who mindlessly follow the candidate of our professed party affiliation.

What I know is that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney embrace dramatically different strategies for how to get the country moving forward. As important, these two candidates employ dramatically different tactics in how they go about implementing their strategies. I know which one I prefer.

Stay tuned until the next debate between the vice-presidential candidates. And MSNBC? You might want to  think about the possibility that this next debate may not go the way you want it to. You know, like last night.

ap·o·plec·tic/ˌapəˈplektik/

1. of, relating to, or causing a stroke.

2. affected with, inclined to, or showing symptoms of a stroke

3. how Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews looked after the first presidential debate

Naïveté

The English language is chock full of interesting words derived from many different languages. It has always interested me how certain French words have been incorporated as-is into the English language with little or no attempt to "English-ize" them (OK, I know that isn't a real word.) Say what you want about the French language, it certainly is beautiful, as are the other Latin languages.

Naivete. Definitely a French word. Without considering the definition, the very sound of the word is so....appealing. But, this isn't a trait you would want  to be described as possessing. Being naive, while understood to be something limited to the young and innocent, certainly is not exclusive to that demographic. Being naive regarding some things can be relatively harmless. We usually believe that, in time,  that naivete will eventually be replaced by some base level of wisdom and worldliness.

I can accept the naivete of young boys and girls as something to almost expect. But, I have a real problem when it is possessed by the president of our country or other high ranking governmental leaders. Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not desirous of leaders that are full of cynicism, pessimism or unwillingness to trust. I would however, hope for a pragmatic, non-ideologue, experienced person with an acute leadership acumen.

In 1976, we elected Jimmy Carter, a former Georgia governor, as president. I understand that his victory was, in large part, a backlash to the corrupted Nixon/ Watergate, scandalous years. My impression, however, of Jimmy Carter was based on his years as governor and his rhetoric throughout his presidential campaign. I believed him to be a naive ideologue (nowadays he just seems to be a mean-spirited, petty, ideologue.) That impression was proven to be true based on his performance in almost all facets of his presidency, especially his economic and foreign policy. His lack of understanding of the real world or his belief that his leadership could cause that world to stop behaving the way it had predictably behaved was a significant problem. The "why can't we all just get along" sentiment while impressively optimistic, was dangerously naive.

Fast forward to today. I believe that the current president suffers from similar attributes as Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama believed (and maybe still believes) that if America had a leader that would extend the olive branch to other world leaders/countries that had historically demonstrated a hatred of America, that they would realize the error of their ways and embrace him and our country as a friend. Naive.

Beginning in December of 2010, uprisings began in several Arab countries. The people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya overthrew their dictatorial regimes in the so-called Arab Spring. Because of overtures communicated even before he was elected, I think Barack Obama believed that these and other countries would embrace the US and implement western style democracies when the opportunity presented itself. Why? Because he believed that by pulling US troops out of Iraq and saying the "right" things like he did in his Cairo speech, these nations would change their anti-American sentiment. At the end of the day, these nations are becoming more unfriendly to the US.

In Syria, for nearly a year now, the regime of Bashar al-Assad has been slaughtering its own people by the thousands. Just this week, the US Embassy in Damascus was ordered closed by the State Department because of the violence. In the UN, the US has twice been unable to get a resolution passed against Syria by the Security Council because of vetoes by Russia and China. And I believe that the Obama administration was surprised by that...both times.

In Egypt, 19 Americans working with pro-democracy groups are being threatened with prosecution and may be ordered to stand trial. All the while Obama's administration is reeling because of the rapidly deteriorating relationship between our two countries. One of the affected Americans is the son of Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The administration has grossly miscalculated these very complex world affairs.



Granted, these are incredibly explosive times right now. We need a president and leadership team that can quickly outgrow whatever naivete that they may have possessed. There is just too much at stake.

Get a job

Let me just proclaim up front that I am no economics expert. I spent many years in corporate America, about half of those years in an executive position, and have a pretty good idea of how large corporations operate and how they make business decisions. I have been a small business owner for almost 5 years and have learned (sometimes painfully) about what it takes to operate and try to grow your own business. Over my career I have hired and fired and laid off many people. Hiring people is pretty cool...the other two...not so much.

The President is going to give a speech later this week about his ideas for creating more jobs. I'm not sure why he has waited so long to release his plan. Like most of you, I will listen intently to what he has to say although I am not optimistic that he will present much that will actually be successful in creating more jobs. Again, I'm no expert but here's my opinion. Take it or leave it...

• Real job growth has to come from the private sector...that is the engine for job creation
• Adding government jobs is a stop-gap measure that, while providing some short-term relief, ultimately has a negative effect on our free market economy. However, this is the only way the Executive Branch can directly "create" jobs (assuming Congress will fund it,) but not a good reason to employ this strategy.
• The White House and Congress need to stimulate job growth by making the regulatory, monetary, trade and tax policy changes necessary that will create the incentive for businesses to move back down a path of spending with some confidence that the government is not going to do things that add to the inherent cost and risk of investing for the future. The White House seems to be in a punitive mode regarding business. It might satisfy some personal desire to "get back" at business but we all now are facing the consequences of that posture. Bashing business does nothing to enhance the economic environment. Helping businesses and workers that are non-union must carry as much priority as your union favorites.
• The passage of the "to hell with what they think" Obamacare has had a serious negative effect on the business world. Just look at what many companies say they are going to do...pay the penalties and drop their employer sponsored health plans. Of course, this fits well with the ultimate goal of the Democrats of a single-payer system. Those businesses that keep their health plans will be looking even more closely at their headcount.
• While we must provide some safety net, we have to be mindful that extended unemployment benefits, while keeping some people afloat, can do great harm to a person's psyche. The hope has to be in finding a job, not in getting an unemployment check. I have had people turn down jobs I offered because they could make as much, if not more staying home, watching TV and receiving a check. I was told, "if my benefits were about to run out, I'd probably take the job, but I'll just keep drawing unemployment as long as I can." I know most people probably don't have this mindset. But, the longer the benefit remains the more likely the person will eventually acquire this kind of attitude. This is a tough issue. I don't know the answer...more jobs is really the only answer. 
• It is going to take many years for the unemployment rate to drop to historically low levels...it may be never. The world has changed.
• The minimum wage should not have been changed. Minimum wage jobs are not intended to provide a living wage. Most of these jobs are targeted towards students, part time employees and the lowest skill level workers. Unfortunately, raising the rate hurts more than it helps.
• The progressive/liberal ideology that generates a particular view of "social/ economic fairness" has clouded, not only the view of the role of government, but has also made it convenient to stereotype the business community as greedy and evil. There has been and will always be parts of the business world that do really bad things and they need to be dealt with accordingly. But let's make sure the federal government isn't part of the problem by manipulating our very complex economy with unrealistic objectives such as home ownership for all. We see how that turned out.
• Overhaul the tax system. Period. I personally like the concepts of the Fair Tax but I'm open to anything that is better than what we have now....which would be just about anything. Neither party, however, wants to lose the power that is inherent in our current system. They can reward those they want to reward and punish those they want to punish...not a good system....completely corrupted. I doubt I will ever see this change in my lifetime without term limits.
• President Obama...give ONE speech where you do not blame our problems on the Bush Administration and where you do not attack the Republicans/ Tea Party/ Conservatives/ Talk Radio or any other group you disagree with. Do not talk as a partisan Democrat...talk like you are the President of the entire United States...because, at least for the next year or so...you are. Powerful, dynamic leaders have the ability to inspire others to do incredible things. Show us what you've got. But remember, it's not all about you or fulfilling your own personal agenda. It's about America and Americans. Be realistic but also be positive. In many ways, you set the tone.
• The reality is that some people do not like you and will never listen to you simply because you are black. They are ignorant, small  people and represent an insignificant portion of the population. They have always been around and, unfortunately, always will be. Those of us that do not agree with your policies resent being included in that group and are angered to be accused of being racist.

 President Obama, I continue to pray that God will grant you wisdom and courage to lead this nation. Millions of Americans need a job. Let's figure this thing out.