A 1972 Jeep Wagoneer Costing $66,000

The Vermont General Assembly passed a bill which would shut off local taxpayers' choice to determine how to run their local schools, by placing a moratorium on local citizens' ability to close their local school and open an independent school, like North Bennington did last year. 

My husband and I bought a Jeep Wagoneer in 1972. It had the latest technology. We had four wheel drive, but we had to get out of the car and adjust each front wheel hub in order to engage the four wheel drive. Its average fuel economy was 11.4 MPG. We had a radio, but no tape player, no CD player, no blue tooth. We had lap belts in the front seat. There were no air bags, no navigation systems, no automatic windows, no rear window defrost, not even any cup holders. The vehicle began rusting after a year, and the rust became so bad after four years the vehicle would not pass inspection. The car cost about $4000, or, in today's inflation adjusted price: $22,384. No consumer today would buy a vehicle with so few amenities and such a short life span for $22,000.

In 1972, the cost per pupil from kindergarten to grade 12 was $9,800, or approximately $55,000 in today's dollars. The cost per pupil today, for that same education, is $165,000, three times the inflation adjusted 1972 cost.

Yet the achievement scores for American students have remained virtually unchanged since 1972. It would be like requiring consumers to buy a Jeep Wagoneer, with 1972 technology, for three times the price: an inflation adjusted $66,000.

The educational product for our children has not improved in 40 years, yet we are asked to pay three times the price for the same results.

That is why Vermonters are rejecting school budgets in droves.

Vermonters are generous people, but they are also savvy consumers. They understand that they are not getting a good product for the price of their children¡¦s education.

The Education Establishment has made excuses for this trend. Instead of taking responsibility for the high cost and mediocre results of their educational product, they blame the customers. St. Johnsbury Superintendent Randy Bledsoe, in a stunning insult to the children she works for and their parents who pay her salary, told Vermont Public Radio that "a lot" of St. Johnsbury students are not "socialized"; therefore it takes more money to teach them.

Really? Let's look back at 1972. We had just ended the Vietnam War. We were at the end of a turbulent era of desegregation of the public schools, anti-war and race riots, a huge increase in drug use and increasing crime. Indeed, the overall crime rate in 1972 was nearly 25% higher than it was in 2012.

Parents in 1972 had grown up during the worst depression in world history, and fathers of 1972 students had served in the most catastrophic war in history: World War II-- where 60 million people died, followed by two other major wars. Families struggled with death, disability and PTSD without the assistance of psychotropic and anti- depressant drugs or widespread availability of therapy. Poverty and hunger and poor shelter were far more widespread than today.

Yet despite the disasters and catastrophes that plagued many families in mid 20th century America, their children were able to achieve academic success comparable to today's students, at 1/3 the cost. Other consumer services and products have improved dramatically in quality, often at a lower cost, since 1972. Why not the education service sector?

Here are a few reasons:

•  Powerful teacher's unions have shifted the focus from education of their students to teacher compensation, benefits, lower class sizes and more teacher's aides and professional staff without any discernible effect on the academic achievement of their students.

• Washington and Montpelier have placed more mandates and requirements on both teachers and administrators, resulting in costly distractions from the job of teaching children. It is the unrelenting trajectory of government to discover never-ending problems for which more government money and control are always the solution. The Educational Establishment is Exhibit 1.

• The monopoly nature of our education system inevitably results in higher costs and lower quality. Americans have always recognized that monopolies are bad for consumers. We learned in school that the big oil and railroad monopolies of the early 20th century resulted in huge price increases, corruption in government, and over- concentration of power. Educational monopolies have similarly resulted in huge price increases, the corrupting influence of the teacher's unions on elected officials, and the concentration of power in Montpelier and Washington.

Now the monopolists in Montpelier want to shut down any competition. Vermont has had a competitive educational structure for 150 years with independent schools like St. Johnsbury Academy and Lyndon Institute, school choice for 90 towns in the state, and local options to choose to turn government schools into independent schools. The Educational Establishment started to push this year to shut off those options, and have partially succeed with the General Assembly vote. Why? The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that independent schools provide better education at lower cost than many government schools in Vermont. Independent schools are certainly not "problems" that government needs to solve. The reason Montpelier wants to shut off these options is that the bureaucrats and politicians believe that the local voters and parents should not be making decisions about education. After all, their children are not even "socialized¨.

Monopolies hate competition. It causes them to work to be more efficient and produce a better product at lower cost. That takes hard work.

We need to not only keep the competitive nature of Vermont education system, but expand voters' and parents' options for Vermont children's education. The Educational Establishment has won round one with this latest vote. Voters need to let their Senators and Representatives know that they want to keep educational choice in Vermont schools.

Rep. Michelle Fay Slanders Her Constituents

 

In a June 25th article in the Caledonian Record, St. Johnsbury Representative, Democrat  Michelle Fay, was asked the reasons why there is a higher ratio of registered sex offenders in the Northeast Kingdom. 　Other elected officials had indicated that the reason was likely as a result of the services provided to furloughed and paroled offenders in the area because of the location of the correctional facilities in St. Johnsbury and Newport--thus attracting such offenders to the area for treatment. 　Rep. Fay would have none of that explanation. 　In a remarkable slam against the people who voted her into office, she said that "violence against women and children is cultural" and the "NEK's [poverty and] isolation seem to nurture the 　underlying beliefs and attitudes of these crimes." Ms. Fay's sentiments spoken to the Caledonian Record were not offhand remarks. 　They are precisely the views she has espoused since she became CEO of Umbrella, Inc., a domestic violence prevention organization, more than ten years ago. Indeed she doubled down on those sentiments in an letter to the editor on July 3^rd, exhorting us all to "get serious about making our communities safe".

There are two problems with St. Johnsbury's Representative's statements. First, 　Rep. Fay's statement reflects her fixed belief that "violence against women and children" is an integral part of the culture of the district she represents. 　This is symptomatic of those who, like Ms. Fay, earn their living from government grants or government employment. 　Unlike the private sector, the people and organizations funded by taxpayers have an disincentive to eradicate or even reduce the problems they are paid to solve; 　otherwise if they did, they would be out of a job. 　Thirty years ago organizations helping abused women and children, like Umbrella,　were volunteer groups with no public funding. 　Fast forward to thirty years later, and Umbrella's budget alone (as of 2010--there is no more recent public information) for domestic violence is nearly $600,000, almost all of it in government funding. 　 If the problem of domestic violence were reduced or eradicated, that $600,000 would be decreased or disappear. 　Hence Ms. Fay and the thousands of others who work in the domestic violence field have no impetus to report any progress in the reduction in 　domestic violence. Not surprisingly, they have claimed no progress. Nationwide domestic violence statistics show that for the year 2012, $4 billion—paid mostly by taxpayers-- was spent on prevention. Yet Department of Justice statistics also show that in 1994-1995, "about 25 percent of women and 7.6 percent of men are raped or physically assaulted by their spouse, partner, or dating partner in their lifetime." In 2012 a New York Times article on domestic violence reported exactly the same statistics. Nothing has apparently changed in nearly 20 years. Moreover, in 2008 Human Rights Watch claimed that the rates of domestic violence in the United States were "soaring". 　Despite the multiple billions spent over the last 30 years to reduce domestic violence, the problem has, to those in the field, remained intractable, and even increased. 　If a private company had that track record, it would have been out of business long ago.

However, not surprisingly, Ms. Fay does not blame herself or her organization for these dismal statistics. She blames the community. According to her, we all need to get serious about domestic violence.

The second problem is related, and even more troubling. 　Notice who Rep. Fay considers victims: 　Women and children. 　 Men are not victims; ergo, they are the violent predators in Rep. Fay's worldview. 　 In this chilling perception of her constituency 　where men are the perpetrators of violence and women are ignorant victims, Rep. Fay deprecates 　the male half of those whom she represents and belittles　the female half.

Fixed beliefs are often false, and Ms. Fay's beliefs about her NEK constituents are no exception. 　 I have been working with families in crisis in the NEK for almost 35 years--far longer than Rep. Fay-- and the Vermonters I have met and worked with over the last three and one half decades are far different than Rep. Fay's sour and patronizing portrait of her constituents. 　Here is what I have observed of the families I have had the privilege to meet and represent: 　Men and women who moved here not for its "isolation" , but to raise their children in a quiet, small town environment close to nature--and many more men and women who grew up here and stayed because they love our beautiful state and the family and community values they want to impart to their children. 　 Vermonters live here because it is a place to raise a family.

　Families who live here are not victims or violent predators, as Ms. Fay believes, but, in my experience, overwhelmingly extraordinary people. 　 　Men and women who struggle with a family member’s mental illness, physical disease, emotional distress, or death of their loved ones with grace and courage. 　 Men who raise children alone, and men who work with their children's 　mothers with 　decency and honor. 　 Women who have been left with responsibilities at a too young an age with no one to help, who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and gone on to successful careers. 　 Countless men and women who have overcome 　seemingly insurmountable obstacles. 　 People who have quietly performed innumerable acts of extraordinary kindness and charity towards family, friends and strangers. 　 Men and women who work hard to support their families and make sure their children live a better life than they have experienced. Enterprising men and women who contribute countless benefits to their families, employees and communities. Grace, decency, courage, kindness and an independent spirit permeate the culture of the Northeast Kingdom.

Ms.  Fay's beliefs reflect today’s orthodox liberal ideology. 　 　Liberals view Americans as immature victims needing a nanny state to regulate how they live, raise and educate their children, take care of their health, protect their families, and plan for their retirement. 　Ms. Fay's blindness about the kindness, strength, courage, independence and resourcefulness of her constituents is no coincidence. 　If she and her liberal allies truly recognized Vermonters’ strengths, they would be providing opportunities for them to prosper, not burdening them with countless regulations, mandates, requirements and obligations.

Rep. Fay should get serious about helping her constituents realize their hopes and dreams for themselves and their families instead of lecturing us on our alleged defects.

Words Matter

During inaugural week, Lyndon State College’s new President, Dr.  Joe Bertolino, presented a lively sketch he and his partner have performed all over the country entitled “When Gays Move into Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood”.  Dr. Bertolino did a one man version of the presentation at the college on April 15^th as a part of the week long celebration of his inauguration. The presentation was billed as a “funny, interactive, and challenging program to get today’s college students thinking about important ‘community issues’ such as diversity appreciation, homophobia, and heterosexism.”

The presentation was spirited and enlightening.  Dr. Bertolino’s theme was that we need be inclusive and tolerant of people who are different from ourselves—to get to know people for who they are so that myths and stereotypes can be dispelled.   That is a superb goal, and Dr. Bertolino should be commended for having the courage to bring the issue of intolerance before the community in such a public way.  By dong this, he is fulfilling the highest calling of an educator.

Tolerance and respect for people of different backgrounds and perspectives are lessons our children ought to be learning all their lives, and particularly when they enter the world of post secondary education.  Academia is where our children should be exposed to different ideas and viewpoints, because that exposure fosters critical thinking skills so important to a meaningful and productive life.

President Bertolino has just hired Dr. Kellie Bean as LSC’s new provost.  A provost is the senior academic administrator of an institution of higher learning.  It is the second most powerful position in the college.

 

Here are some excerpts from Dr. Bean’s writings which reveal how she feels about diversity appreciation:

On military veterans and military contractors:    “Wives and girlfriends face the implicit (and sometimes very real) violence imported home by their veteran loved ones and our government panders to the rapist, old boys club culture of military contractors.”

On our military heroes who liberated Iraq:  “What to say to women facing the misogynist fallout of the violence of war? ‘Step away from the fight, protect yourself’ may work as a temporary tactic, but cannot suffice in the face of institutional misogyny and systemic indifference.  …And as long as this is the case, the boys of Iraq and Washington will continue to be boys--and the women around them will continue to pay the price.”

On President Bush (and the tens of millions who voted for him)   “Americans live under an illegitimate leader, who was and is demonstrably unfit for office. A man whose most noteworthy accomplishments previous to his appointment [sic.] as President had been avoiding military service, drug addiction, not making a killing in oil on his own, and signing record numbers of death warrants as governor of Texas. Ours is a President with an appetite for torture…”  Dr. Bean’s venom is so poisonous that she defames our President with no regard for the truth.  President Bush was a military veteran, was never a drug addict, and never signed one death warrant. (The Texas constitution does not allow a governor to sign a death warrant.)

On Sarah Palin (and the tens of millions who voted for her):  “She is a walking stereotype, an abomination: all dressed up and hollowed out, a pin-up, or blow-up doll … upon which men and women alike project their ugliest fantasies of women.  Sarah Palin is …confused, mean-spirited, and kinda [sic.] dumb.  Palin endorses a movement proud to call for a return to Jim Crow laws, that places spunk above political experience, and sees truck ownership as a necessary qualification to hold public office.”  The Jim Crow reference in Dr. Bean’s statement is rich in irony:  no modern movement advocates a return to Jim Crow laws, and Jim Crow laws were in place for 100 years because elected Democrats enacted and enforced them.  The Republican Party, of which Sarah Palin is a member, vigorously opposed those laws.

On Fox News (and the millions who watch):  “Consider: pornography is visual entertainment which appeals to the visceral needs or drives of its audience; it offers a pleasure in looking, in watching the domination or degradation of one category of individual by another. see: Fox News”

On the tens of millions who voted for Republicans:  “My impulse is to say they get what they deserve, have gotten the obscene war, the rotting economy, the repressive culture they deserve.”

In her many writings, Dr. Bean frequently uses the word “misogynist”  to describe our country, our voters, our culture and the academic world she has been in for over a quarter century.   Her views are not confined to her writings.  It is surely no coincidence that one of her students who rated her on the “Rate My Professor” website recommended her class to others “unless you are super conservative misogynist”.   The definition of misogynist is a person who hates or mistreats women. 

Dr. Bean’s tweets and Facebook postings about those with whom she disagrees are too vulgar to be printed in a newspaper.

This is what passes for diversity appreciation and tolerance in institutions of higher learning.  The new provost believes that our community is inhabited by people who hate or mistreat women, that those of us who vote Republican, are politically conservative, or who admire Sarah Palin and President Bush are evil, stupid and racist, that those of us who listen to Fox News have a thing for pornography, and that the military veterans of our community are violent and dangerous. 

Dr. Bertolino emphasized in his April 15^th presentation that “words matter” and “words hurt”.   Yet Lyndon State College’s new provost has published many words that are defamatory and wounding —and certainly not inclusive or accepting of those who disagree with her.    Dr. Bean’s belief that people who have viewpoints different from hers are dangerous, violent, evil, racist, dumb and even criminal demonstrates a lack of tolerance and a fear of diversity.

In his presentation, Dr. Bertolino said: “Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect,” and he urged the audience to “create an atmosphere of acceptance.” Dr. Bertolino is right.  Yet Dr. Bertolino’s new provost treats with disdain, disrespect and intolerance those with whom she disagrees.

Dr. Bertolino ended his April 15th presentation with a poem about Rosa Parks.  The poem states that Ms. Parks said one word that changed the nation.  That word was “no.” 

It is time to say “No” to academic leaders who disrespect and defame people of divergent views.  Dr. Bean’s narrow minded and illiberal view of millions of Americans and their viewpoints does a profound disservice to the young people who are coming to college to widen their intellectual horizons.   

Hot and Cool

 

 

Depending on which generation you are from, the Republican Party is the hottest or the coolest political party on the planet. The primordial magisterial classes, supported by establishment churches, media and universities, would have you believe otherwise. But they, like their counterparts in societies throughout history from the Roman Republic to pre-revolutionary France, to the Soviet Union, want to keep their power and prerogatives, so they project their own moldering ideas and reactionary qualities on Republicans.  But the empirical facts support how hot and cool the Republican Party is:

 

• Republicans believe that people can run their own affairs without the ancien regime telling them what to do.  Republicans support parental choice for education, retirement choice for Social Security, individual choice for family health care.  Think about it:  no other major political movement in world history has at its core tenet the belief that individuals can run their own lives.  All other political movements proclaim they are the saviors of the benighted masses.
• Because Republicans believe that people are intelligent enough to run their own affairs, we believe in small government.  This idea is truly revolutionary and very hot—or cool.  Dispersing power to the people, rather than amassing power to one’s own political party is so radical that no other major political movement has embraced the idea.    
• Republicans believe, like Martin Luther King, that individuals must be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin or their station in life.  Republicans appreciate individuals, whereby the antediluvians in the American Establishment judge people by their skin color, ethnic background, gender, or sexual orientation.  Judging individuals by the color of their skin, their gender or ethnic heritage is so nineteenth century.  
• Republicans believe in freedom.  Other political movements may talk about freedom, but Republicans actually believe in individual freedom.  We believe that our First Amendment rights should be vigorously defended. People should be able to practice their religion without being sued by the government for discrimination, or punished by the government for failing to follow government regulations that violate an individual’s religious beliefs. We believe in free speech, and oppose university speech codes, government regulation or subsidy of broadcast media, or jailing dissidents who dare question the prophet Mohammed.  We also believe that the freedom given to us by the Second Amendment should also be vigorously defended against government infringement.  
• Republicans believe that people, not government, can solve the problems of our day.  The magisterial classes continually find “outrage” and “catastrophe” occurring, for which amassing government power and imposing government regulations are the only solutions. The result is a 21^st century Puritanism, far more rigorous than the 17^th century version, where nearly every aspect of our personal lives is regulated by the government in the name of safety, environmental protection, or fairness.
• Republicans believe in private enterprise, not government subsidized and controlled industries. This is truly revolutionary.  Governments have favored certain businesses through subsidies, tax preferences, regulations and outright ownership since governments began, from the dynasties of Egypt and the patronage system of ancient Rome through the medieval guild system to modern day Nazism and communism.  This ancient idea that governments favor certain businesses is supported by the aristocrats in Washington and opposed by  Republicans. 

 

• Republicans believe that civil discourse and civilized debate, and not name calling, should be the norm, not the exception in the 21^st Century.  The establishment would have you believe that it favors civil discourse.  The opposite is true.  Vicious attacks, cheap shots, and ridicule on those men and women who dare question the aristocrats in Washington are de rigeur for the establishment.  Republicans and conservatives are called greedy, stupid, racist, liars, crazy and unpatriotic.  Our own Sen. Sanders, for example, has used these terms repeatedly when speaking about Republicans and conservatives in his speeches, his memoirs, and on his website.   

 

• Finally, survey after survey over the decades has come to the same conclusion: Republicans or political “conservatives” (the establishment’s name for people who love freedom) are happier, more generous and even have a larger circle of friends than “liberals”.   

 

So, if you are into revolutionary politics, or just want to be hotter, cooler, or happier, the Republican party is the place for you.

Shifting Sands -- Why Republicans Lost in 2012

This is in response to my Facebook friend's inquiry.  So bear with me if it seems overly sweeping -- it is my humble attempt to respond to her, and I thought it easier to post as a general blog than to post as a Facebook "status update".  

The Republicans do embrace all people -- no matter their race or gender.  They believe that all people have inherent value and have equal rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  They agree with the Declaration of Independence, in other words -- "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Republicans who deny God but are libertarian in belief, also believe in the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Why did the Republicans lose, then, if they are such a welcoming party, embracing such a broad view, and more specifically, why did they lose among minorities and women?  

Theories abound.  Some think they lost because Romney was too moderate; he did not stand up against Obama, for example, regarding the Benghazi disaster in which our own president stood by while our American ambassador was murdered.  He was too moderate, because although he stated he would repeal Obamacare, Romney did not explain why it was wrong – and how it would lead to the ultimate loss of freedom and to an economic disaster for Americans.  Some friends, conservative, but more pessimistic than I, chose not to vote because they felt Romney, as a moderate Republican, was not conservative enough, and they believed a Republican would do little different than a Democrat in office.  

Other theories are that the Democrats played victim politics – and scared women into believing that Republicans wanted to take away their health care and, particularly, their birth control and abortions, although Romney stood for none of these goals. Ad campaigns tended to play on this scare tactic theory that Republicans hate women.  Then there’s the mantra from the Democrats that Republicans are racists – people believed that too, maybe.  I certainly heard someone at the polls on election-day grumble that Republicans hate Hispanics. It’s ironic that the Democrats have claimed to be non-racist, given history, but the tag “racist” sticks, proof or no proof.  There were the ads that tried to show that Romney cared for nobody and actually killed people.  Those ads may have worked, at least on some people.  There were the claims that Romney did not provide enough specifics, heard from the Democrats, particularly from Obama.  I heard friends making that claim.  It was bizarre, considering that Obama had no plan and that Romney did have specific plans (and Ryan, for that matter, could not have provided anything more specific than he did on economic policy).  Perhaps Romney did lose because he did not provide enough specifics in other areas: schools, immigration, foreign policy.  Others think Romney lost because the Democrats ran a smarter campaign -- targeting individuals with the issues they deemed important -- whether that was abortion, gay rights, Sesame Street, or health care.  

Why do I think they lost?  All those theories played a part.  I have my own theory: the public school system has relentlessly educated our children (starting with our generation – and instituted by our parents – the Baby Boomers) that the United States of America is not special; that Americans are bullies; that Americans are racists; that America is a country full of wrong-headed bigots who victimized swaths of people.  That the United States of America founders and subsequent American citizens never followed God, and even if they did, that God is a myth – believed in by simpletons, not by serious-minded smart folks. Because of the indoctrination by government schools, many Americans today have no interest, understanding or appreciation for the underlying principles of our nation, nor do they see how or why we should preserve these principles.  They don’t know or they don’t agree on what freedom means – that freedom is meant to be the freedom to live your own life as you see fit – and that government is there to protect you, not to provide for you, and that government is inherently dangerous to individuals and so must be limited.  They believe freedom means the freedom to be provided for -- by the government.  They don't see that reliance on the government by definition erases their individual freedom.  

I went to school and I was immersed in that education.  I see it in the public schools today – where comprehensive American history is not taught – only the history of American victims.  If you believe you are a victim or that people you know are victims and that the United States of America is a country fraught with errors, governed by bigots, and that the government is there to serve you or to make up for wrongs it committed against you, not protect you and allow you to make your own choices, then you will vote for someone who represents you.  I found the election disturbing because it made clear that a large group of Americans now believe the latter, not the former, about our country.  

Of course there have always been competing views within our country about the purpose of our government, but in recent years, the country has shifted so that more and more people no longer believe in the original definition of freedom.  I do not and will not fear the future, but I see darkness for a country with diminishing individual freedoms.  Government is not known for relinquishing power once attained.  

Presidential Leadership: A Comparison

President Obama laments that he has been unable to accomplish his goals because of the "Republican Congress".  (President Obama seems to forget that he has a Democrat majority in the Senate) Does he have a legitimate argument?  Let's look at recent past Presidents.

When President Reagan was elected to his first term, he had a Republican Senate, but an overwhelming Democratic House led by Tip O'Neill, a strong ideologue for his party.  Yet President Reagan was able to push through his economic growth agenda that led to an unprecedented recovery from much worse economic circumstances than Obama inherited.  In addition, he famously worked with Tip O'Neill to pass social security reform.    At no time did anyone hear Ronald Reagan blame anyone for any failure.

When Bill Clinton was elected, like President Obama, he had Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.  Also, like Obama, during the mid-term elections in 1996, the House went Republican, but unlike, Obama, the Senate also went Republican.  Bill Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House of Representatives - an ideologue, basically, a right-wing Tip O'Neill.  Bill Clinton most likely wasn't happy, but he nonetheless set out to work with Newt Gingrich and his colleagues and accomplished major welfare reform as well as spending cuts that led to a surplus.

George Bush had a Republican majorities in his first term and Democrat majorities in his second term.  He famously worked with Ted Kennedy to push through bipartisan education reform. He never complained that the Democrats blocked his economic agenda during his second term and attempts at reforming the federal mortgage system.

Now to the current President.  President Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress when he came to office in 2009.  He worked with the Democrats to pass an $800 billion stimulus package that ended up costing over $300,000 for each job it supposedly created.  (Although according to Bob Woodward's book, he apparently did not take a leadership role.)  He is credited with pushing through Obamacare, although it might be better-named Pelosi care as he never proposed his own plan, but allowed Congress to come up with a plan.  He presided over TARP II which led to more bailouts including the government becoming an owner of the General Motors.   Obama had no trouble passing his agenda during the first two years and our ballooning debt and deficits are a testament to that fact..

Then the midterms came at the end of 2010 with voters soundly rejecting Obama's agenda through an election of an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House.  President Obama's first foray into working with the new House was to state, "The Republicans can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back."   A leader doesn't lead by marginalizing an elected opposition.  A President leads by reaching out.  Yet there are many instances of Obama lashing out from the beginning.  Bob Woodward in his new book speaks about how Obama failed to lead during the debt deal negotiations.  During the negotiations with Boehner (an ideological midget compared to Gingrich, O'Neill and Kennedy), Boehner had agreed to revenue increases put forth by Obama, but Obama reneged on his offer and asked for more.  Boehner threw up his hands at the bad faith and Obama became enraged.  The debt talks failed.    Not only can Obama not reach out to Republicans, he cannot reach out to his own party in the Senate to get his budget passed.  Obama sent a budget which was defeated 97-0 by the Senate.  Moreover, his Democratic Senate has failed to pass any budget for over three years in contravention of the law.  Even one of his own Democrats said that Obama is alienating and arrogant.  Now, during the campaign we are hearing that its all the Republicans fault, he can't change Washington from the inside.  President Obama's lament is really an admission of failed leadership.   And he wants us to re-elect him?

So would Mitt Romney fare any better?  Consider that Mitt Romney was governor of a state whose legislature was 85% Democrat.  However, he managed to work with the Democrats to eliminate a billion dollar deficit, end with a surplus and a "rainy-day" fund of over 2 billion, lower unemployment to 4.6% and raise Massachusetts' credit rating.

He was called in to save a corrupt and debt laden Olympics in Salt Lake City.  The Olympics ended up being successful financially and otherwise. 

Obama has demonstrated that he is not a leader.  He has demonstrated that he cannot work with ideological opponents or even those who tend to agree with him.

Romney, on the other hand, has a history of working successfully with political opposition even when such opposition is overwhelming.  He has a history of problem solving, both in the private sector and in the public sector.  And unlike, Obama, he brings to the presidency executive experience.  I am confident that if he is elected President, you will not hear Romney blaming Democrats for their or his shortcomings.  You will see Romney working with Congress toward solutions to improve America's woeful economy and debt problems.

This is hilarious

The Great Communicator Speaks:

Obama: A genius for metaphor    

I wonder if any of the late night comedians will pick this up. Or maybe Good Morning America?   Hmmm.


Hat tip:  http://www.powerlineblog.com/