Posts tagged “john kerry”

Executives > Legislators

November 1, 2012   2:30 am

In recent US Presidential elections, legislators typically lose to executives. Going back to 1952, this hasn’t always been the case, but since 1976, whenever a legislator has opposed an executive, the executive has won. As clarification, legislators are people who develop and pass laws; listed below is an impressive array of Representatives and Senators. Executives are people who are responsible for enforcing laws and for the direction the organizations they lead take; mayors, governors, and military or business leaders fall into this category. These two jobs are different branches in our government, so a legislator running for President, the chief executive office, is an attempt at branch-hopping. (This isn’t wrong - it’s just an observation.)

  • In 1952, Eisenhower, a military leader (executive), defeated Adlai Stevenson II, a former governor - twice.
  • Kennedy was a legislator, his 1960 opponent was Nixon, whose only executive experience was as Ike’s VP, so this was legislator v. legislator.
  • Kennedy’s VP, legislator Johnson, assumed the presidency when Kennedy was assassinated, and defeated legislator Goldwater in 1964.
  • Nixon then defeated former-mayor-turned-legislator and Johnson VP Humphrey in 1968, and legislator McGovern in 1972.
  • With Nixon’s resignation, legislator-turned-VP Ford lost to executive Carter in 1976.
  • Executive Reagan defeated executive Carter in 1980, and defeated legislator-turned-Carter-VP Mondale in 1984.
  • Reagan’s VP, George H. W. Bush, does not neatly fit into our categorization. He was a legislator-turned-VP, but he also served as the director of the CIA for the last year of Ford’s presidency, an executive position. However he’s categorized, he defeated executive Dukakis in 1988.
  • In 1992, executive Clinton defeated Bush, and he also defeated legislator Dole in 1996.
  • Legislator-turned-VP Gore lost to executive George W. Bush in 2000, who went on to defeat legislator Kerry in 2004.
  • 2008 brought legislator v. legislator again, with Obama defeating McCain (a rare pairing of legislator for President with executive for VP).

This brings us to 2012, where legislator-turned-President Obama faces a challenge from executive Romney. Of course, presidential political patterns are made to be broken, but they remain interesting just the same. This breakdown doesn’t fall neatly into one party or the other; both vacillate between nominating executives and legislators, sometimes choosing legislators over executives in the primary elections.

(And, just a quick note for Joe Biden - if Obama wins a second term, things don’t look too good for you. Pure legislators-turned-VP (Ford, Mondale, Gore) have done even more poorly than legislators running for the presidency.)

These Ads Can Get You Elected?

October 30, 2012   2:59 pm

I am absolutely floored by the three advertisements I’ve seen over the past week. All three of these ads are exploitative, and all three are not for my chosen candidate. So why am I, a Romney supporter, putting 3 Obama ads on my blog? Well, in a sane world, these ads should help Romney.

First up, one from the official campaign. This video has Lena Dunham, the creator of the HBO series Girls, comparing… well, see for yourself.

So, her “first time” was with Obama. Voting, that is. If she’s 26, and her first time was with Obama, that means she was 22 4 years ago, which means that her first time should have been with either John Kerry or George W. Bush. But hey, kids make mistakes, right? The ad, though - it’s just terrible. My comment, when I shared it on Facebook, was “I wonder if Michelle Obama approves of this message?” Does Lena want to have intercourse with the President of the United States? That’s certainly the implication (until the “twist” near the end where she reveals she’s talking about voting), and there is precedent for that.

Up next, we turn to the children. Goodby Silverstein & Partners, an ad group out of San Francisco, created this… uh… thing.

(Update - this video has been removed.)

Here are the lyrics, culled straight from the Future Children Project website.

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!

So, the mindset behind this is “Let’s get kids to sing leftist propaganda, and then blame their parents.” Now, some parents today are so weak and patronizing that this might actually be effective on them. This isn’t the first time children have been exploited in this way, but it doesn’t make it any less distasteful.

Finally, we have Michael Moore’s entry in the mix. If you are offended by strong language, do not play this video; I’ll address censored versions of their lines below.

There are a few things that get me about this ad. First off, it doesn’t sound like any of these people use these words in their day-to-day life. I’ve worked with crew chiefs, and been deployed with the Navy, so I’ve been around people who use the “shocking” words found in this video. The delivery was flat. However, the actual words are worse than their delivery. “We’re going to burn this [maternal copulator] down!” What are you going to be burn down - your retirement home? Seems like a strange way to celebrate recovery, but suit yourself; this video should help the arson investigators. “I’m going to track down Mitt Romney and give him the biggest [rooster] punch!” I believe some Secret Service agents might have something to say about attempting that on either the President-Elect or the President. I’m not even going to address the guy talking about watching his children have sex, except to say that incestual mental adultery probably isn’t the best way to inspire voters. Finally, what is with all the “stealing” the election charges? They must have Republicans confused with Democrats like Al Franken and Christine Gregoire.

I do not want to live in an America where people are positively persuaded by ads like these three above. Show me I don’t, America - 7 days from today, make it such an overwhelming Romney/Ryan victory that the only thing left for these people to do is go home and lick their wounds (or, maybe that old guy can watch others lick their wounds).

Ruminations on the News of the Day

July 17, 2005   8:15 pm

Several issues making news in the last few weeks…

Karl Rove – Allegations are flying about Karl Rove revealing a CIA agent’s name to a reporter. As is standard procedure for the left, facts don’t particularly matter. Rove did not reveal a name, only that Joe Wilson’s wife was an employee at the CIA. Even if he had, she is not a covert agent, so laws against naming her identity do not apply. However, none of these facts are keeping the Democrats (and their more-than-willing accomplices in the press) from mounting what can only be described as a feeding frenzy, calling for Karl Rove to be fired.

The media is behaving particularly despicably in this. Check out the transcript of a recent press briefing at the White House. This is nothing short of desperation, and they know it. If Karl Rove were guilty, they would just be quiet and wait for the indictment - the longer Rove is around, the better for them. Of course, this is the way Democrats work. Remember, when George W. Bush ® was certified as the winner of Florida’s Presidential election, it was the Supreme Court enforcing existing law; when Christine Gregoire (D) was declared governor of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court invented new law.

Iraq - If the Democrats had to donate $1 to the Federal government every time they said something like “everyone knows there’s no link between Iraq and Al-qaeda,” we wouldn’t have a budget deficit. This technique is called the “Big Lie” - repeat it often enough, and people start to believe it. However, saying it three times does not make it so (unlike certain TV shows). The Weekly Standard published an article this past week called “The Mother of All Connections,” that details the links between the administration of Saddam Hussein and the terror network of Osama bin Laden. It’s quite lengthy, but well-researched, and demonstrates conclusively that Iraq was the next stop in the war on terror, and not just for the benefits of introducing freedom to the Middle East.

"Support the Troops" - This is another fave from the anti-Bush left. Even John Kerry got in on this when he was running for president. The logic is basically summed up like this - “Support the troops - bring them home.” This sounds good, all nice and touchy-feely (once again, the left’s preference for feelings over facts is evident), but would actually be the worst possible thing to do at this point. Our nation’s troops have worked hard to get Iraq and Afghanistan free, and we’re still working to get them trained on maintaining their freedom. Pulling out now would be very disrespectful to the over 1,000 folks who have died in this war to date. (Again, why should that surprise me?) Think about it this way [ when a player on a sports team becomes injured, do they tell the other players “Hey man, we just need to quit - this is too dangerous!”? Of course not. We’ve seen, time and time again, these guys saying “You guys stay in it!” Seeing this through to its successful completion is the only way to honor and, yes, support, our troops.

I’ll wrap this one up with a link to an excellent Dennis Prager column entitled, quite bluntly, “The Left Doesn’t Support the Troops and Should Admit It.” He puts the issue in quite plain terms that anyone should be able to understand.

Debunking Democrat Demagoguery (Economically)

October 17, 2004   8:25 pm

John Kerry and John Edwards (“Kedwards” hereafter) are making some significant claims about their plan for this country, and using some pretty strong but rather hackneyed rhetoric to get their point across. The term “demagoguery” is defined as “impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.” Democrats are renowned for this, from the “New Deal” to Clinton’s famous “I feel your pain,” Democrats base a lot of their policies on what they can spin to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Let’s take some of these areas, specifically some of those having to do with economics, and see why, I believe, Kedwards is wrong for America.

Tax Cuts for the Rich - This has been a favorite claim of Democrats for ages, and it shows a basic lack of understanding regarding basic economic principles. The biggest thing that Democrats have wrong is their belief that taxes are the governments, to be “given back” to the people. Taxes are the people’s money, given to the government to fund needed programs, such as national defense, highways, etc. Tax cuts are not “giving back,” they are letting people keep more of their money.

Another problem with their rhetoric is that speaking of taxes in dollar amounts is inherently going to sound skewed to someone who isn’t paying attention (which, sadly, represents a lot more of our current electorate than we’d like). Imagine that there are two people - one makes $10,000 a year, and the other makes $200,000 a year. In this imaginary world, everyone pays 10% taxes. This means that person A pays $1,000 in taxes a year, and person B pays $20,000. Now, here come the media reports about a budget surplus, and Congress and the President decide to cut taxes by 1%. Person A saves $100, and person B saves $2,000 - in both cases, a 10% reduction in the total amount of taxes they have to pay. If you use Democrat thinking, person B got 95% of the tax cut.

Tax cuts benefit everyone. Those who make more, by virtue of simple mathematics, will receive a larger amount reduction whenever tax rates are lowered. However, these are also people who will use this money to reinvest in our economy, either through business expansion (which leads to more jobs), investments in stocks and bonds (which helps fund the economy), or through charitable donations (which improves the quality of life in local communities).

Another point on tax cuts - sometimes a reduction in the tax rate can actually increase tax income. If done correctly, tax cuts don’t have to be “paid for,” they pay for themselves. If a gas station lowers its price for unleaded gasoline by $.02 a gallon, they will more than make up for their $.02 loss with their increase in volume. Taxes work the same way - when the rates are reduced, the economy grows; so, while we all pay less rate-wise, we pay more in real dollars. Everyone wins.

Minimum Wage Increase - Yet another favorite topic, and another place that Democrats don’t understand economics. A wage is a negotiated contract between employee and employer. Most often, all negotiating is done on the part of the employee, as an employer would say “Here’s a job, and here’s the pay - want it?” Very few people are raising families on minimum wage, and in their “average annual minimum-wage salary” statistics, the Democrats are including teens, college students, and spouses who work as secondary wage earners in their household. When the government interferes in business by forcing them to pay their entry-level workers more, what do the businesses do? There are either fewer entry-level jobs, or the products and/or services the company produces begin costing more.

There is one segment of the population who benefits from minimum-wage increases - union members. Many union contracts stipulate their wage in relation to the minimum wage - when it increases, their wages increase as well.

Corporate Tax Loopholes - Again, more cries of how these evil corporations are trying to get out of paying their taxes. And, yet again, this is a place that the Democrats don’t just get it. They miss it because, economically, there is no such thing as a “corporate tax”. There is a finite amount of money in this country, and corporations only have money if they extract it from the general public. The most common method is by providing a good or service for which people will give their money. With this money, they have to cover their operating expenses, the cost of the good or service itself, the cost of paying their employees, and what is left is called “profit.” Under the current structure, they also have to pay taxes with that money, which eats into profits. The company sets their price based on a few factors, two of which are desired profit, and the market value of their good or service.

With that, what happens when the government takes more money from the corporation? Who pays that tax? The general public, that’s who. Corporate taxes make everything cost more, while giving no benefit to the economy whatsoever. All they do is penalize success.

(Things have been pretty crazy here lately - lots of work and family events, with little free time. I hope to have time to attack some other lines from Kedwards in the next few days.)

So Much to Say...

August 26, 2004   8:15 pm

And so little time to say it!

  • John Kerry - I can’t believe that we have an anti-war activist running for President who is actually being taken seriously. I also can’t believe that the self-same anti-war activist is running for President on his war record. I guess now that the military is back in vogue, the Democrats like it.
  • Gov. Jim McGreevey - At least he has more respect for the state of New Jersey that Bill Clinton had for the nation. Although it’s now coming out (no pun intended) that the cause is corruption more than his penchant for those of like gender, his stepping down is the right decision. (He is muddying the issue with his “I am a gay American” schtick - that link has a very interesting take on that part of the situation.) I think he should step down immediately, though, rather than his political ploy of not stepping down until after the election.
  • The Olympics - Go Team USA! And congratulations to all the folks who, through their individual and team accomplishments, have made our country proud. Check out the medal count on NBCOlympics.com.
  • Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - Keep on keepin’ on. McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, and will be ruled as such by the time the next election rolls around. It’s amazing that no one was upset when these 527 groups accused President Bush of poisoning pregnant women (a charge that is repeated on the Democrats’ own web site [scroll to the bottom]), but let them use facts to challenge something a Senator says, and now they need to shut up. (Still no call for moveon.org to stop their ads…)
  • President Bush vs. Catwoman - Sharon Stone recently said that because of President Bush, there wasn’t a lesbian kiss between she and Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman. I’m not quite sure I buy that - why would arch-enemies be kissing in the first place? And, if our President could control Hollywood, wouldn’t he be using that control to silence the hateful drivel from Michael Moore and his ilk? Sharon Stone has had plenty of opportunities to play oversexed bisexual characters (in fact, wasn’t that her first big role, in Basic Instinct?).

There are lots of other things I’ve thought about over the past month, but they fail to come to me now. I did have a letter to the editor published in the Montgomery Advertiser about how racial quotas are only serving to deepen the racial divide.