Fruitcake

At the risk of being labeled a fruitcake, yesterday on a Skype call with friends, I suggested that Sarah Palin might be a good Presidential candidate for the Republicans in 2016.  Here is my logic:

American voters, as a rule, are clearly “uninformed.”  In 2008, they emotionally chose Barack Obama because he was, to use Harry Reid’s words, a “light-skinned African-American with no Negro dialect.”  This was to prove to themselves that this country was no longer racist … and that, by electing Obama, the stain of slavery would be forever cleansed.  And then they re-elected him in 2012 … despite the fact that he had proven himself of poor Presidential timber … using much of the same mindless naivete.

Now as we approach 2016, I believe that emotion will once again rule the American electorate … and this time they will feel that it is a woman’s turn to be President … independent of any consideration of competence or character.  I think that this will be the Democrat party’s strategy in putting forward Hillary Clinton.  It is her turn … and, barring any major scandal (maybe even with one), she should be a shoe in. 

I believe them right and the only defense against such an emotional appeal would be for the Republicans to also proffer a woman … perhaps Sarah Palin.  Yes, I know that much of the American media would have a field day sniping at her … much as they did in 2008.  But then they did exactly the same when Ronald Reagan was nominated … painting him as a know-nothing thespian … and he was elected in a landslide.  Since 2008, Ms. Palin has been annealed in the oven of national politics and has made virtually no blunders.  I’m sure she has even read some periodicals.

Ms. Palin clearly is a true-blue conservative … much like Reagan was … and unfortunately, no male Republican candidate would be able to debate Hillary on even terms.  Even Chris Christie, I’m afraid would be hobbled in his confrontational style when pitted against Hillary.  All she would need to do would be to mist up and Christie would be toast.  On the other hand, Sarah Palin would be on level ground and would be able to point out Hillary’s many fault lines without appearing sexist.  She should be able to hold her own in any debate ... and Hillary would get mushy at her own peril. 

Sometimes political parties need to go with the popular flow … and actually eat some of last-Christmas’s fruitcake.  It might even taste good.

Afterward: If Sarah Palin were to run, she obviously would have a long row to hoe ... if this brickbat is an example ... see: Breitbart Reference.

The Uninformed Voter

Even with the stock market hitting a new high, I think that there is a reasonable chance that the U.S. economy will experience a slow-down, if not a double-dip recession, this year.  The fourth quarter of last year's GNP growth has been revised up to a still-anemic +0.1% and four significant economic events have occurred since then: 1) as a result of the fiscal cliff, an increase of the tax rate on high-earners to almost 40% and on dividends to 20%, 2) an increase in the payroll tax rate on everyone by 2 percentage points, 3) the real start of the myriad taxes and regulations associated with Obamacare, and 4) the $43 billion reduction in federal spending that came with the recent sequestration.  With the continuing government spending resolution due to occur in Congress at the end of this month, there is still another element of uncertainty facing American companies ... causing them to approach any business expansion with caution

OK, given that an economic slow-down might occur, how will it be viewed by the uninformed voters in the U.S.?  Obviously, the Obama Administration will be beating the demagogic drums and blaming such a slowdown on the sequestration events.  But, as can be seen from above, three tax increases will be taking considerable money out of the economy and giving it to the government (see: Breitbart Story) whereas the sequestration might slightly ease the pressure on the Federal Reserve Bank to fund America's crippling deficits ... which, I think, might even be a plus for our economy.  And, given that this country will still be running close to a trillion dollar fiscal deficit this year and the Federal Reserve Bank will still be printing about $85 billion of monetary stimulus each month (with "quantitative easing"), by all logic an economic slowdown should not occur.  So, if and when it does as I predict, it should be fully the responsibility of the Obama Administration and its hostile business and taxing environment.

But do you think that uninformed voters will understand this logic?  Or will they give the Democrats even more (destructive) economic leverage in the Congressional elections of 2014?

Weasel Words

Last night, Mr. Mendacity gave his State of the Union Message. I could not bring myself to listen to his modern-day equivalent of “War is peace.  Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” (George Orwell, 1984).  But there were listeners, some of whom found that Obama was stretching the truth well past the breaking point.  Even NPR this morning  found many of his more audacious remarks to be questionable.  To catch up on his speech, I found the following fact-check listing of many of Obama’s truth-twistings.  It is well worth a read:  Breitbart Analysis.  (Actually, even the Lily Ledbetter analysis is incomplete.  There have long been laws that guarantee equal pay (for women) for equal work.  The Lily Ledbetter law did nothing more than extend the period over which lawyers could sue employers for such misfeasance.)  After pulling out your hair over these whoppers, you might consider a stiff martini.

I have also heard that, last night Obama bragged that his administration has created six million jobs since he took office … an oft-repeated misdirection.  This may be true in the sense that six million Americans have found new jobs.  But what he doesn’t enumerate is how many Americans have lost jobs during this same period.  When His Royal Highness took office in January of 2008, there were 145.4 million workers.  Now, there are 143.3 million workers in this country … which means that there are now 2.1 million fewer workers … while at the same time our population has grown by 10.9 million (Source Bureau of Labor Statistics).  Basically, 6 million Americans may have found jobs, but 8.1 million have obviously lost jobs.  If one were measuring the height of the tide last year this way, it would be 2 miles high because one would never count for all its ebbs.

The real sad part of this narrative is that obviously maybe half of all Americans are taken in by this claptrap … the uninformed voter if you will.  Are you one of them?