jump to navigation

Moving Forward, Remember to not Out-think the Room November 17, 2012

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

MetLife Stadium in the winter: does this look like ideal Super Bowl weather? It is a vital reminder to avoid “out-thinking the room!”

One of my favorite bits of advice to give to students and to friends alike is, “don’t out-think the room.”  Trying to come up with something you think nobody else is going to think up might show that you are more creative, but it could lead to an overall worse idea or product in the end.  Moreover, this bit of advice can apply to more basic scenarios, too.  If you go to a restaurant and you are not sure what you want to eat, it is usually wise to order up what the place is known for, not to order up some obscure menu item that is rarely served.  If the place is known for crab cakes, get the crab cakes.  If it is known for its pizza, get the pizza.  Don’t out-think the room.

The NFL was in danger of doing that his past Super Bowl when the 45th “Big Game” was awarded to — Indianapolis?  Traditionally, the Super Bowl is hosted in a warm-weather city that is built to handle big crowds.  Every time the Super Bowl is hosted in Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix or San Diego, things always turn out well.  Jacksonville may have relatively warm weather, but it’s not built to handle the big crowds that come in for the big game.  Late January in Indianapolis is hardly the ideal spot, either.  As it was, the city and the fans were very lucky in that the weather for the game was unseasonably mild.  The NFL dodged the bullet in trying to out-think the room, and should have learned their lesson.  Alas, they did not.  They awarded the hosting of the 2014 Super Bowl to…MetLife Stadium, as in, New Jersey, as in, across the Hudson River from New York City, as in, upper Twenties at nighttime in late January or early February.  Brrr!  The Super Bowl was never meant to be played in freezing weather, and yet the NFL foolishly overlooked this basic rule in awarding the hosting of the Big Game to the Meadowlands.  The Super Bowl always works in Miami, New Orleans, Phoenix, and San Diego, NFL:  do not out-think the room!

The reason I say all this is because, in light of the disappointing outcome for the Republican Party in the recent election (namely, we’ll have to put up with four more years of the incompetent B. Hussein Obama), many luminaries in the party have been calling for this change or that change to quickly occur so that the GOP does not gradually shrink to permanent minor party status.  Given what is at stake for the country, some of these ideas have been offered with considerable urgency, hence with start warnings about the future.  Some, such as veteran Republican strategist and Romney campaign adviser Ron Kaufman offered his thought at the Republican Governors Association Meeting in Las Vegas:

“We need to make sure that we’re not perceived as intolerant,” he said. “The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others.”  This is fine advice when it comes to philosophically complex and deeply emotional issues such as abortion.  But what about others that are less complex, more straightforward, and more salient, such as fiscal issues?

“Republicans have to start understanding that small business and entrepreneurs are important, but the people who work for them are also important,” said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster. “We’ve got to be compassionate conservatives.”

The first part of Bass’ idea sounds fine:  connect with the average Joe.  But the second part raises a few eyebrows.  Did we already not try this “compassionate conservatism” before?  Under George W. Bush, government spending went up, and that overall action trashed the GOP’s reputation as the grown-ups in the room when it came to fiscal prudence, a reputation the GOP faithful have been laboring ever-so diligently to repair over the past four years.

And of course, there were the calls one has been hearing so often these past ten days of appealing to more minority voters, namely Hispanics.  As I have mentioned before, this is an important issue, and one that must be delved into seriously and with the right ideas in place so that we can broaden our electoral base.

The point in all of this is, many of these issues can be solved in a single, large action by nominating a candidate whom more people believe in from the get-go.  It sounds simplified, sure, but it worked for Obama.  Byron York makes the compelling case that whatever facets of the overall problem party members are bringing up these days, many of them can be effectively addressed all at once with the right candidate in place, somebody whom people want to get around and support.

That is not to say that Gov. Romney was without his die-hard supporters.  The business-oriented among us, yours truly included, recognized that he has just the skill set that we need for a leader in these troubled times.  But sadly, the vast majority of the electorate has no concept of executive skill sets in leaders, hence it was a non-issue to them.  Mitt appealed to his supporters minds in a very big way, but not enough to the overall electorate’s hearts.

The point in all of this is, many party members and operatives seem to try to position themselves as the smartest person in the room in trying to come up with one unique solution to a particular facet of the overall electoral problem the party faced in the past election.  But if one focuses on a few small things among many and fail with their ideas on those fronts, then where will we be?  What York reminds us is that, overall, the solution is much simpler, and much more straightforward.  Find someone who can effectively connect with large swaths of the electorate early on (someone who can win hearts and minds), and much of the problem is solved.  We have less than four years to find that person.

The Opinion Index, 11-12-12 November 12, 2012

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Ted Cruz, the junior senator-elect from the Great State of Texas: of Latino ancestry, he is a new, rising star in the Republican Party.

As conservatives are trying to sort through the wreckage (moderate though it was) of Tuesday’s election, certain recriminations are bound to be exchanged within Party and ideological ranks.  Credit Charles Krauthammer for being the coolest head in the room.  He offers simple, straightforward solutions to the problems that the GOP faces – the problems that were made abundantly clear thanks to the hindsight of the election and of exit polling.

Was this election an overall rejection of conservatism and a full-throated endorsement of European-style social democracy?  Hardly.  Krauthammer reminds us that the demographic issue of Hispanics supporting Obama can be solved by taking the forefront on immigration policy reform.  He also reminds us that the GOP becoming a more moderate party is not the answer, but just becoming more effective in advancing good arguments.  This is no time to lose our philosophical anchor, according to the esteemed psychiatrist.  He hit the nail on the head by pointing out what some people have tried to say and need to keep saying over and over again:

“In a world where European social democracy is imploding before our eyes, the party of smaller, more modernized government owns the ideological future.”

If we succeed in persuading more Hispanics to come to our side – not an insurmountable task – then we can win more elections and thus succeed in implementing smaller, more modernized government.

But how does one expand the demographic base?  Derek Hunter points out how we can bring in more Hispanics and other people, and does so from a different angle.  Yes, leading the clarion call for meaningful, simple immigration reform will surely help.  But Hunter reminds something I found to be somewhat reassuring.  Hispanics voting for Obama was not so much that demographic rejecting conservatism as it was a reflection on insufficient efforts to offer conservatism to them.  This naturally must change as we move, ahem, forward.

If that is not enough, Hunter also points out that ceding the culture to the left will doom conservatism as well.  He points out a few successful examples where small archipelagos of conservatism thrive in a vase ocean of liberalism (Adam Carolla being a good example), and how they succeed.  If conservatism is to succeed, we must emulate these models, and scale them into continents.
Speaking of the recent election, it was really a triumph of negative campaigning in key target states on the part of Obama’s team, according to Michael Barone.  Combine that with a diminished margin of victory in the popular vote compared to Obama’s numbers in 2008, and he hardly has a mandate to make government even more intrusive in our lives as we move forward.  Oddly enough, though, Barone hints that House Speaker John Boehner might have a slight mandate of his own.

Another thought:  Texas just elected a new junior senator in Ted Cruz.  He and Marco Rubio could effectively team up to lead the GOP in being proactive in immigration reform (a modified DREAM Act, perhaps?).  But even more importantly, Cruz’ election, one could make the case, could portend of positive things to come.  Hugh Hewitt points out that Senator-elect Cruz is, oddly and ironically enough, in the same position that Barack Obama was in 2004.  Both Cruz and Obama are/were rising stars in their respective parties in 2012 and 2004, respectively.  Both hail from states key to their respective parties.  Both were elected to Congress the same year that their parties lost an agonizingly close election.  What’s more, in both 2004 and 2012, a candidate from Massachusetts headed a losing presidential ticket. If that’s not enough, both men’s fathers were not born in America. Oh, and Cruz is said to be both a brilliant lawyer and orator.  Hmmm….

More Questions Raised than Answered November 7, 2012

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

When media outlets called for  Ohio narrowly going for Obama within the 11:00 hour Tuesday night, it became quite clear that Obama was to win re-election.  But the electoral results overall seem, at this point to hardly settle anything.  On the contrary:  the results of this election raise more questions than those that are answered.

For one:  given that, on the surface of things, the status quo regarding who controls the presidency and the Congress has not changed (Dems keep the presidency and Senate, Republicans the House), how are major issues facing this country to be effectively resolved, moving, ahem, “Forward?”

Given than Barack Obama won re-election with fewer states than in 2008, how can he consider this re-election is any sort of mandate going, ahem, “Forward?”  (North Carolina and Indiana are back in the red column, while ballots in Virginia and Florida are still being counted).
Credit Mitt Romney for recognizing that the economy was the chief concern among most voters this election cycle.  Indeed, news reports indicated that the exit polling among swing voters revealed that very thing.  Yet those very swing voters that were exit polled still blamed George W. Bush for the economic malaise.  Question:  at what point will Obama own this malaise?

Will stagflation come?  Given the “status quo” result of this election, it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion.  Will Obama then own the ensuing recession-within-a-recession?

What is to be done about the “tax bomb” that is about to come our way?  Once that “bomb” explodes, who is likely to take the political hit?

While it might be a tad too early for a postmortem on the Romney campaign, could it have been that the “October surprise” that many on the right side of the ideological spectrum feared was in fact a freak act of mother nature?  Hurricane Sandy did, after all, allow for Obama to act a bit presidential for once.
In historical perspective, not since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe has America elected presidents to two consecutive terms three times in a row.  I shall leave a competent Psephologist (paging Michael Barone!) to more effectively discern the deep meaning of this development.

These and other questions shall surely be answered as time unfolds.  In the meantime, pray for our great nation, for its duly elected leaders, and especially for the health of the justices on the Supreme Court.

A Time for Choosing November 3, 2012

Posted by intellectualgridiron in Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

For weeks, I was trying to think up the almost-perfect editorial essay explaining why Obama must go and why Mitt Romney is the best guy we have to turn our government and our nation around.  I could have given a whole litany of problems America has experienced under Obama, and just as big a litany of positives in favor of Romney as the real man for the job (as opposed to the narcissistic man-child with which we have saddled ourselves for [almost] the last four years).  And I may yet write such a piece between now and Tuesday.  But as the old saying goes, in the brevity lies the spice, and there is hardly a ‘spicier’ editorial out there in Romney’s favor (and Obama’s consequent disfavor) than Charles Krauthammer’s latest piece.  What makes this particular column so “spicy” is that it gets to the very crux of the matter regarding this upcoming election.  Are we to remain freeborn citizens of unlimited individual potential, or are we to degenerate into serfs, able to do little more than serve an increasingly Leviathan state?  So read that article, then watch Ronald Reagan’s historic speech that he gave 48 years ago.  While you watch it, forget about Goldwater vs. Johnson and imagine Romney vs. Obama, and the speech will seem even more timely today than it was almost five decades ago.