Sunday, April 17

Barack Obama wants to make me a better person. Donald Trump wants to make me rich. Guess who'd get my vote for U.S. President?

Trump Tower Chicago, 10th tallest building in the world

During his presidential election campaign Barack Obama promised Americans that his administration would reflect hope; instead we got a bunch of pall-bearers. He promised us change. We got a dirge for America.

It's not possible to socially engineer a nation out of a debt crisis and I'm tired of hearing Obama say it can be done. I can't stand politicians who mix up concepts to argue a position. Ending a debt crisis = being a better person. Ending a debt crisis = being healthier. Ending a debt crisis = bouncing balls off the moon. A high school debating club could shred Obama's nachos-and-grapes comparisons but no, Congress wastes millions arguing about the nachgrape.

Enough already.

I've had it with anal-retentive Obamaviks telling Americans to ask for less, to sacrifice more. And I'm tired of Tea Partiers demanding small government and Republicans talking about debt reduction as the road to prosperity. I've come to despise the words "reduce" and "small" as much as the term "social justice." I don't want to be a victimized anymore by compromises in Washington that amount to political anorexia.

For years Donald Trump ran a budget deficit larger than the GDP of many nations but instead of trying to reduce himself, make himself smaller, he made himself bigger: he expanded and kept expanding and got richer and richer in the process.

Don't lower the boat, bring in the tide. That's the Trump philosophy. Translated into a governing philosophy it means making the United States an attractive place to people who know how to create real wealth. Then see where America's budget deficit stands.

As to Karl Rove's claim that Donald Trump has become a "joke candidate" by asking to see Barack Obama's birth certificate -- Rove is a political strategist, not a negotiator, and from his criticism I question whether he'd recognize a negotiation tactic if he tripped over one.

There is an alternate theory about why Rove tried to discredit Trump as a GOP candidate, and which Mediaite spelled out:
Rove and the Republican establishment have an added reason to keep Trump at bay: if he does, indeed, land the nomination, Trump has made enough connections and kept enough of his money over decades to depend significantly less on the party structure to fund his campaign. In other words, a President Trump would owe significantly fewer favors to Republican fundraisers than other candidates of less luxurious backgrounds.
But if Karl Rove takes in the first 15 minutes of Sean Hannity's interview with Donald Trump on Friday night, April 15 on FNC, maybe it'll dawn on him why Trump is harping at this time about the birth certificate and several other questions about Barack Obama and his associations -- questions that Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and the mainstream media avoided asking during the presidential primaries and campaign.

Or Rove can resolve the mystery simply by waiting; if Trump runs against Obama in the presidential race it'll be clear by then that by asking early on about the birth certificate, Trump had offered Obama and Obama's political strategists a deal. They could run a reasonably clean campaign against Trump. Or Trump could bring into the national presidential debate every question about Obama that's ever been raised and the results of every investigation into the questions. The latter would mean a hollow victory for Obama if he squeaked out a win. It would also mean that if Obama lost, he'd be lucky to land a job lecturing at a college in Mashed Potato Falls, Wyoming.

As to whether I'm so desperate for a Trump presidency I'd support what seems to be his position on Afghanistan (immediate and complete U.S. pullout) -- I think I could demonstrate to him that the United States has a right to a piece of Afghanistan's fabulous natural resources, and that we get to there from here first by abandoning Obama's Afpak strategy, then by pulling off a fast, decisive and lasting victory in Afghanistan.

The way to work the seeming miracle is almost childishly simple: install Amrullah Saleh in Hamid Karzai's stead, then order the U.S. military command and Department of State to do everything Saleh recommends about dealing with Pakistan.

Shazam! Easy as pie -- except for having to wear body armor when breaking the news to State that its social engineering experiments in Pakistan were over.

However, I don't want to think about all that stuff right now. I just want to get to the part where President-elect Trump is sitting in his boardroom at Trump Tower Fifth Avenue on the morning of November 7, 2012, and he looks into a TV camera and says to President Obama .....


Madhu said...

Oh no! I'm totally a tea partier! Hey, one of the reasons we have State the way it is, is because we have a swollen government.

We have corruption because we have too much of too much.

You are my favorite blogger along with zenpundit but I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this.

On the other hand, Larry Kudlow has been saying the same thing and he says Ryan's plan is progrowth.

I agree with the progrowth part of it.

But I think Tea Partiers are really about corruption. And reduced expenditures can lead to reduced corruption.

At any rate, fun post!

Madhu said...

Oh, but you'll like these comments I made, I bet : )

Or not. I can get carried away sometimes!

Pundita said...

Madhu -- Thank you for your comments.

BTW Donald Trump is a big fan of the Tea Partiers or at least that's what he told Hannity during his interview, which was aired on two nights (April 14 and 15th). And at least according to the Mediaite article I quoted from, the Tea Partiers like Trump.

However I came down hard on the Tea Partiers in this post because the battles between small- and big-government advocates are keeping the nation's attention riveted on political solutions rather than creative ones.

And I would be cautious about assuming that all Tea Partiers want small government.

Sarah Palin attached herself to the Tea Party -- she's even considered by many to be the leader of the TP. Yet check out her statements regarding U.S. foreign policy and defense. Just read her statements about Libya. And look into her foreign-policy mentor, Randy Scheunemann, who accompanied her to Hong Kong on her first speech about U.S. foreign policy after the presidential campaign ended. That was when she was being considered as a possible candidate for the 2012 presidential campaign.

You might want to read Patrick J. Buchanan's 2008 essay, "And None Dare Call it Treason," which was picked up by several Republican-oriented publications. The essay is just the tip of the iceberg about Scheunemann but it's a good starting point if you know nothing about Scheunemann and his associations.

As with so many of today's self-described political Conservatives, Palin has given evidence that she's a foaming interventionist and a supporter of the 'Get Russia' crowd. Both translate into a continued large role for the U.S. Department of State. I fear this is also the case with other political notables who've wrapped themselves in the Tea Party flag. They want small government in certain areas, but not others.

Yet just because the Tea Partiers are so diverse it's hard to get a handle on exactly where the movement stands regarding U.S. interventionism, although I view phrases such as, 'America must lead' with caution. I always ask, 'Just what do you mean by that?'

Of course many Tea Partiers are genuinely small-government advocates; Rand Paul is an example. But again, the emphasis on small government has created a kind of stalemate that only an approach such as the Donald Trump advocates, which is essentially to circumvent the stalemate, has any hope of resolving America's crisis.

On a personal note I'm very disappointed that the Tea Party is now so greatly politicized that what I'd assumed and hoped would be a broad social movement quickly narrowed to a platform that made 'budget cutting' the centerpiece of the movement, and reducing the national debt its primary focus.

I understand the argument for this: America is in a crisis because of the debt. But this argument has only hardened the opposition's stance that the crisis can't be resolved by drastic budget cuts. And its limited solutions to problems such as, Once you've cut hundreds of thousands of Americans off the government payroll, then what?

Re the other comment you left here -- thanks for sending the links to Small Wars Journal. I'll read your comments there this evening. Have to run now.

Anonymous said...

"narrowed to a platform that made 'budget cutting' the centerpiece of the movement, and reducing the national debt its primary focus. "

If you want to accomplish anything, narrow your focus. The two linked items above would be an enormous victory, and might save the Republic.

The Republic faces 3 mortal threats.

There are two self-inflicted mortal threats, the first is the debauching of our currency which will lead to hyperinflation and a national and global crisis, the second is the runaway debt and spending it enables. The Tea Partiers and now the Congressional Republicans are focused on the debt now, and are willing to touch the 3d rail of entitlements to get it under control.


The Third mortal threat is the Jihadi provoking massive violence in the US by whatever outrage. That's the only realistic way they can prevail in any fashion. And if they turn over one spadeful of earth at the GZ Mosque site - and they want to do it on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 - Sept 11, 2011, they'll get it.

That's the Amiriki equivalent of the bombing of the mosque of the Golden Dome in Sammara.

And it'll work.

Pundita said...

Elf - Re your interesting analysis: "Maybe" is the operative term. I'm going to put up links to both nights of Trump's interview with Hannity when the second one becomes available (sometime today). I think then my points about Trump will be clearer.

While the Tea Partiers and GOP and Dems wrangle over spending cuts, Trump plans to shake down foreign governments that can and should be doing more investing in the USA. He's intent on quickly bringing in revenue streams that all the budget trimming in the world can't produce.

This approach hasn't been tried by the Obama administration because it simply doesn't have the experience and negotiating skills necessary to pull off what Trump is suggesting.

Trump does have the skills and experience and just as importantly he's got a huge roster of great negotiators to draw on to assist him.

The question is whether Trump's help (assuming he becomes President) would come in time.

Right now America's fate is hanging not on Congress or the Executive Branch but on the ability of the Federal Reserve and BIS (group of key central bankers including the Fed) to keep pulling rabbits out of the hat. They are greatly motivated because if the USA crashes it will bring the rest of the world down with it.