A Time To Engage
Well, that was certainly bracing. It appears Governor Romney has had quite enough from a President who preaches civility before swan diving into the gutter to infest the campaign with lies and vicious smears that leave even mainstream media jaws on the floor. Governor Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, after having been accused of cheating on his taxes by a President who appointed a tax cheat as Secretary of Treasury and of practically killing an employee's wife by a President who prides himself on his own "Kill List," signals that he is going on offense. Acting on the maxim to, "Either go bold or go home," Romney's decision will make this a sharply focused contest of ideas that will expose and challenge fundamental Democratic Party philosophy. Good. It's about bloody time.
Nowhere was the contrast between individual sovereignty and centralized federal authority more evident to this observer than during an appallingly pathetic exchange between a private citizen and the President of the United States during the Obamacare debate wherein Ms. Jane Sturm pleaded with the President for her mother's life. "My question to you," she said respectfully, "is outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?" How utterly mortifying! How destitute can the state of liberty in America be when a grown woman feels she must meekly assume the role of supplicant and petition The Sovereign for her mother's life, as if we had all been catapulted back in time to some moldy European monarchy and the old girl was about to be locked in the tower or have her neck stretched across the guillotine.
As heart wrenching and depressing as that dear lady's request was, the response from Barack the Munificent should send a chill down the spine of every citizen. He first tried euphemism:
...But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things we can all promote, and this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life. I don't think we can make judgements based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people. ...
And then, just in case Ms. Sturm didn't get the hint, the standard bearer for the party of the little guy continued:
...A lot of that is going to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests of additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking a painkiller. ...
Thus did the Emperor give a royal thumbs down to Ms. Sturm, to which any liberty loving citizen ought to have responded with a royal salute of their own. Obama is not quite on the level of Dickens' character Ebenezer Scrooge, who said, "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population," (Scrooge eventually had a change of heart), but he's close enough for government work, which after all is the gold standard in Obama's world.
For you see, beneath the veneer of hope and change, under the finery of compassion and progress, we see laid bare the cold, uncaring face of the government bureaucrat who will decide your fate, and to whom you are but a number to be balanced against dwindling resources and competing interests. This, ultimately, is the ghastly vision against which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must prevail. It is the vision which says that greed is the condition of private citizens who wish to retain the fruits of their labor, but never the condition of government functionaries who confiscate that which they didn't earn. This vision claims that it is fairness to redistribute monetary wealth across society, but that the wealth of political power must remain concentrated at the federal level. This vision makes a virtue out of violating most of the Ten Commandments while labeling differing opinions as "hate," and all in the ironic name of tolerance. It is a vision which chooses the term "fundamental transformation" because it sounds more plausible than, "destroying society just a little."
Mitt Romney has the opportunity to contrast this top-down, autocratic philosophy which wields an iron fist at home and a limp wrist abroad thereby leaving the citizen vulnerable to both domestic and international oppression, with a philosophy in which government exists to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizen and leaves him otherwise free to pursue his God-given talents and provide for himself and his family through free markets and free association. And no one on the national scene can make this contrast and advance the case for liberty as compellingly as Paul Ryan. Accordingly, Democrats and their stenographers in the media will savage him. They savaged Ronald Reagan too, and he went on to win in two landslide elections by drawing precisely the distinctions that Democrats wish desperately to obfuscate. Besides, if many in the media had been present two thousand years ago when Christ reportedly rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, they would have pilloried him and praised the ass.
When Barack Obama says that we tried free market economics and it didn't work, let him explain how over 12.5 million jobs created during Reagan's first term is the epitome of failure compared to Obama's 2.5 million jobs at a cost of trillions in debt to our grandchildren. Let him explain a cumulative GDP growth of 8.9 percent under Obamanomics versus 18.9 percent under Reagan. Perhaps he will explain the benefits of rising unemployment (8.3 percent) under his tutelage over an unemployment rate that had dropped from 10.8 percent to 7.2 percent by this point in Reagan's first term. Yes, please explain how we are better off ceding more money and more control to Washington Mr. President. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will help keep you on task.
Ricochet Member Paules very eloquently summed up our choice this way:
Are we free men or slaves? Do we value personal liberty and embrace the requisite duties that maintain it, or do we prefer a government handout? Are we going to surrender and submit, or will we fight for the values espoused by our Founding Fathers? We're about to pass judgement on ourselves.
In choosing Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has already done the nation a service. An election based on character assassination, which is the President's preferred path, is beneath the dignity of this great country and the office to which these men aspire. That this country should remain great, …should remain exceptional, is the question under debate; a debate which Governor Romney has decided to vigorously engage.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: A Time To Engage
Doubtful. Petty stupidity is the order of the day.
Let's all high-five for President Obama!
Jun '10
Re: A Time To Engage
"Ms. Sturm, meet the IPAB..."
"Hello."
"IPAB, meet Ms. Sturm..."
"Goodbye."
May '12
Re: A Time To Engage
Dave-
Another great one!!
Did you select the photo? It is also spot on!
Thanks
Edited on August 13, 2012 at 6:00amRe: A Time To Engage
John Grier: Dave-
Another great one!!
Thanks · 1 minute ago
Ditto.
May '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Yippee ki-yay, you tell 'em, Dave!
Jun '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Wonderful as always, Dave! I've heard Ryan say on a couple of occasions that many of the issues that Congress grapples with, need to be "kicked upstairs to the American people." This is a man who knows that he's serving the nation. Obama...well, it's just the opposite, now isn't it?
Aug '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Dave, I love you, man! Just one quibble about some stats, where you unfairly made Obama look good. I must insist that you be fair. :-)
This didn't ring true for me, so I looked up what data I could (GDP History through 2010) and the results are pretty shocking.
Looking at Reagan's 8 years, GDP increased 83% (17% in the first two years), whereas in Obama's first two years GDP increased 1.1%.
I divided by population to get GDP change per capita, and under Reagan our GDP increased over $8500 (almost $1800 in first two years), whereas our GDP per capita under Obama's first two decreased over $300.
I just ordered my Romney/Ryan lawn signs and window decals!
Re: A Time To Engage
Charles Breiling: Dave, I love you, man! Just one quibble about some stats, where you unfairly made Obama look good. I must insist that you be fair. :-)
This didn't ring true for me, so I looked up what data I could (GDP History through 2010) and the results are pretty shocking.
Looking at Reagan's 8 years, GDP increased 83% (17% in the first two years), whereas in Obama's first two years GDP increased 1.1%.
I divided by population to get GDP change per capita, and under Reagan our GDP increased over $8500 (almost $1800 in first two years), whereas our GDP per capita under Obama's first twodecreasedover $300.
I just ordered my Romney/Ryan lawn signs and window decals! · 1 minute ago
It's nice to be loved. I got the stats from our own James Pethokoukis (linked in the article above). He's much better at deciphering the data and adjusting for inflation, etc., than I. I'm open to correction, of course, and assume he is as well. Thanks!
Oct '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Dave, we have yet to cross paths at a meetup, and remember I am never without a supply of grits for that time you unexpectedly show up in So Cal.
Meantime, sir, this piece of writing is exactly what makes Ricochet so over-the-top stimulating, fun and informative. I guess that we Ricos have the Federal limits on how many hours you can drive to thank for your having the time to conjure up such wonderful contributions.
We are delighted you are on board.
Jul '11
Re: A Time To Engage
I despise the fact that the debate is about our government making decisions about life or death. Our system is in so much trouble and how Americans deal with end of life issues is critical. In this sense, Obama is partially correct albeit in his arrogant fashion. The larger picture is government control over your health and an intertwined issue is the price tag we cannot afford.
Jul '10
Re: A Time To Engage
OK. Camera pans truck, then focuses in on you. And you begin to talk. The "script" is this post. Unfortunately tho, I timed it as I read it aloud and it does exceed typical political commercial length. But the gist of it, the honest and heart rendering statement of the issues - What a helluva' commercial! - from a helluva'guy.
Mar '11
Re: A Time To Engage
So, President Obama is a big fan of living wills?
Sounds like a living will to me. I expect he's packing already.
May '12
Re: A Time To Engage
As always a great piece. I think Ms. Jane Sturm's question about her mother isn't unreasonable. Is there care, expertise, and technology to make all of our lives quality, joyful, and comfortable until the end? Yes, we are Blessed as a nation.
The questions is how do we define 'certain joy of living' and when is 'end of life'. We have the ability to extend life, but joy becomes more uncertain.
I agree that the federal government has no role in this decision, but we are obligated to understand who pays for this outstanding care. I may want to live to be 100 and see my great grandchildren, but if I don't buy a tiffany insurance policy that covers the care required to achieve that who gets the bill?
I am not advocating IPAB, death panels, or anything of the like; I do commend Ms. Sturm for having the courage to ask one of the hardest questions of our time.
Edited on August 13, 2012 at 1:35pmRe: A Time To Engage
BrentB67, I don't doubt the validity of Ms. Sturm's question, but the fact that she feels compelled to plead with the President is simply horrific.
Dec '11
Re: A Time To Engage
BrentB67:
I agree with you that the federal government has no role in this decision, but we as a nation are obligated to understand who pays for this outstanding care. I may want to live to be 100 and see my great grandchildren, but if I don't buy a tiffany insurance policy that covers the care required to achieve that who gets the bill?
That Ms. Sturm had to ask a government representative her question is only what is most appalling. Whenever we cede financial control of healthcare (or any service for that matter) to a third party, we end up asking permission to obtain those services. At least with a private insurance company, I can take my business to someone who might say "yes" more frequently. When the third-party is the government, though, expressing my displeasure is now a political act, requiring a political solution. That will be ugly.
May '12
Re: A Time To Engage
Agree, but if she doesn't appeal to the President or the federal government does the answer to her question become: "Ms. Sturn, the end of your Mother's life will be only so long and comfortable as she or your family can afford."
It is a difficult question with possibly very uncomfortable answers, that is why I think Ricochet is such a good forum to ask them.
May '12
Re: A Time To Engage
Last Outpost on the Right
BrentB67:
I agree with you that the federal government has no role in this decision, but we as a nation are obligated to understand who pays for this outstanding care. I may want to live to be 100 and see my great grandchildren, but if I don't buy a tiffany insurance policy that covers the care required to achieve that who gets the bill?
That Ms. Sturm had to ask a government representativeher question is only what is mostappalling. Whenever we cede financial control of healthcare (or any service for that matter) to a third party, we end up asking permission to obtain those services. At least with a private insurance company, I can take my business to someone who might say "yes" more frequently. When the third-party is the government, though, expressing my displeasure is now a political act, requiring a political solution. That will be ugly. · 20 minutes ago
Haven't we already ceded financial healthcare control to our government and our neighbors via taxation and medicare?
I am for individuals saving/insuring themselves for end of life care. Unfortunately that doesn't ensure equal outcomes.
Jun '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Of all the dastardly deeds Obama has committed in these last four years, and they are legion, IPAB is the scariest. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, succinctly and much more appropriately named by "Stupid Girl" Sarah Palin almost immediately upon it's inception as DEATH PANEL is the ultimate in government control of our lives. Beautifully written, Dave. I particularly loved this sentence:
"It is the vision which says that greed is the condition of private citizens who wish to retain the fruits of their labor, but never the condition of government functionaries who confiscate that which they didn't earn."
Jun '10
Re: A Time To Engage
Re: The Photo
Can the man be so unaware, so un-self-conscious, that he doesn't know what he's doing? This is not the only example we have. He used the same gesture during a campaign event when referring to Hillary Clinton. He did it again to Paul Ryan during a panel discussion with members of congress. It's deliberate. The president reveals himself as crass, callow, and arrogant all in one moment. It's who he is: a spoiled man-child with delusions of grandeur.
God save the Republic!
May '11
Re: A Time To Engage
BrentB67
Agree, but if she doesn't appeal to the President or the federal government does the answer to her question become: "Ms. Sturn, the end of your Mother's life will be only so long and comfortable as she or your family can afford."
It is a difficult question with possibly very uncomfortable answers, that is why I think Ricochet is such a good forum to ask them. · 7 minutes ago
BrentB67: I am for individuals saving/insuring themselves for end of life care. Unfortunately that doesn't ensure equal outcomes.
Me: Exactly.
Chasing after "equal outcomes" may be the pithiest way to say what's wrong with this administration and the direction our country has been taking the last couple decades.