Searching for Signs

The difference between confidence and arrogance, to me, can be summed up rather simply. Confidence is walking the walk; not only trusting your beliefs but acting them out. It does not step on toes or send mixed signals because words and action intersect. Arrogance is all talk and little action; failing to follow through on overbearing or overblown rhetoric because of the sheer impossibility or impracticability of it. It confuses and tramples on our basic sense of reason instead of inspiring true belief.

President Obama exhibited lots of arrogance in his State of the Union speech tonight. It many instances, it was a roller-coaster ride that defied logic. On the one hand he decries the excessive spending of the past decade, then on the other goes ahead and lauds Stimulus 1 as he lays out plans for Stimulus 2. That’s the same Stimulus 1 that has done little (putting it nicely) to even begin solving our economic problems. Obama talks about all the jobs Stimulus 1 has created, yet ignores the fact that we’re still losing, not gaining, jobs. All this delivered with a smirk that was matched by his #2 and #3 sitting behind him (oh how I pine for the days when Nancy Pelosi looked downright mortified sitting next to Dick Cheney and behind George W. Bush).

President Obama talked about a need for bipartisanship, especially on health insurance reform. “Stop saying no, give me some ideas and I’ll listen”, he basically challenged Republicans while willfully ignoring the bills Republicans literally waved in his face last summer. Just a thought, but perhaps Obama should take his own advice on the “not saying no” part. And that’s not even considering how Obama appears to be hunkering down when most Americans want him to back off (don’t be fooled by the cooling down he mentioned…he won’t give up on health reform).

Obama criticized special interests and Washington itself for the lack of trust in government. That’s fine and well, but let’s start with the pro-Obama special interests in the health care debate. Or we can start with opening up hearings the way he promised us a year ago.

And let’s not even get into his “no tax increases on 95% of working Americans” line. Lots of talk, no substance or proof of results. That’s arrogance.

The height of Obama’s arrogance, however, had to be when he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance reform, right in front of the justices themselves. So much for that partnership and leadership he calls for, but fails to practice when the teleprompter is turned off.

Filed under: Politics | 6 Comments »

No, I’m not referring to the Miami-bound Indianapolis Colts. I’m talking about political independents.

Myriam Marquez’s most recent Sunday column tackles the Florida Senate race and attempts to draw a parallel to Massachusetts independents driving Scott Brown to victory and the critical role of Sunshine State independents in deciding who will be Florida’s next junior senator.

Independents, according to Marquez (who is one, BTW):

(d)ecide on issues, not on platforms created by corporate America or labor unions or religious leaders. And most independents are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are gut voters looking for new ideas, for leaders to crack the partisan divide, which is why Barack Obama was so attractive to independents.

Marquez, to her credit, admits her disappointment at falling for Obama’s empty rhetoric:

Then, as president, he left it up to the most liberal Democrats in Congress to come up with the specifics, but not before selling out to insurance companies. So much for change. Labor unions got their protection from the proposed tax on Cadillac insurance policies while the rest of us are expected to pay up if the reform becomes law.

Wall Street? Blah, blah, blah. Obama talked the game, but didn’t demand a change in bank rules. The bankers are getting multimillion-dollar bonuses on the backs of the public bailout, and now the president is talking tough again.

Unemployment? Obama let Congress do the dealing, which meant the public unions got theirs. Money poured to public-school teachers, fire departments and cops — all absolutely necessary expenses to avoid ever-more crammed classrooms and unsafe streets.

But the unemployed construction workers, secretaries and small-business people didn’t get much. A little more money in their unemployment checks and food stamps. They want jobs, not welfare.

Again, Obama missed a chance to push for more money for public works projects in which private contractors could hire workers for tax cuts focused on small businesses — not Fortune 500 companies. All of this he should have done his first year.

Should have. But it’s not in President Obama to do them. He’s not fiscally conservative. Never was. He is, however, most definitely partisan. Something independents run away from like the plague.

This all gets to something that has always struck me as somewhat curious about some independents, and I get the feeling Marquez exhibits some of the following characteristics. They (some) proclaim to march to the beat of a different drummer, and even relish in their disdain of partisan, ideological yahoos to the point of being smug about it. All this in the name of centrism.

However, as the 2008 presidential elections demonstrated, these same proud independents (some), somehow lost their “independence” and failed to match Obama’s rhetoric with his record. In their permanent desire to go against the flow, they voted for someone who so far has taken us down the stream towards the waterfall instead of upstream towards high ground.

Now, I’m not slamming all, or even most, independents.  Just the ones that like to point out how dumb people are for having an established ideological ground despite how well or poorly formed that foundation is. The fact is, it would have served independents like Marquez to put aside their inclinations and listen to the real and genuine concerns many Americans had and continue to have about Barack Obama. Results like the one in Massachusetts prove that most independents are indeed capable of acting out their label. Let’s just hope they don’t lose their way. We’re going to need them later this year and beyond.

Filed under: Politics | 1 Comment »

How conservative IS Scott Brown? That’s the question I and many others are asking the day after Brown’s stunning upset in the Massachusetts special Senate election. Google the title of this post, as I did, and you’ll see numerous articles and blog posts asking that same question.

The answer? Probably somewhere between John McCain and Mitt Romney. In other words, center-right. He’s pro-choice; and he supported a cap-and-trade-like measure in Massachusetts in 2008 supposedly because he thought it would reduce costs. His conservative appeal lies mostly in his support of reduced spending and lower taxes, not to mention opposition to ObamaCare.

Which leads to another question: how much of a factor was Brown’s ideology in the election? 50/50, at very most. Those of us on the right are undeniably and understandably encouraged by his victory. Nevertheless, Brown’s victory was less about ideology and much more about people being fed up with Washington establishment politics and the Obama administration’s blatant disregard for the will of the people. Let this be as much of a sobering reminder for Republicans as it is for Democrats. A reminder that, in this country, the people can still be heard when they shout loud enough.

Filed under: Politics | 2 Comments »