The Right Guy Show

An old fashioned libertarian’s view on the world

Archive for the ‘bill clinton’ Category

What Worries Me Part 2

leave a comment »


As a continuation of a previous article, What Worries Me, I want to describe the flipside to Obama succeeding in a Fabian socialist agenda, which is Obama losing in 2012 as opposed to winning and succeeding in his agenda. What if the right drives over a cliff and we election another candidate that relies on the cult of personality? Below a definition of cult of personality from Wikipedia:
A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

I would say that this definition fits nicely with Obama, at least initially. Obama tries to be a modern day FDR, except even more Fabian in nature. This is evidenced not only but the absolute incredulous and irrational adulation of his supporters but the control he has so far been successful with over the mainstream media. He has done so not with fear, but of agreement in principle. This had helped create an image of Obama that got him elected. What he and his magical handlers did count on and what FDR did not have to deal with, is the nature of media today. It’s available to more people today and much, much more quickly. The opposition media in the country has served as a balance to what I like to call the “government run media”. In reality they are the government-controlled media through manipulation through likeness in alleged beliefs. The end result of this is that Obama, as of this date, has an approval rating of 44%, which is a record in terms of the speed of decline for a new president.

So, what worries me? What worries me is that the opposition in this case might use the same tools, the same methods to promote and elect a leader in response to Obama. The difference would be that instead of an alliance between the mainstream media and the democrat candidate, the alliance would be between the opposition candidate and a grassroots mob if you will that circumvents the mainstream media’s efforts. In this case, you could say I am talking about Sarah Palin, although it could be someone else that pops up between now and 2011, when candidates get serious about running.
Why worry about Palin you ask? I will tell you this much: I like Palin, but not for clearly rational reasons. I am intellectually honest enough to say so, whereas some of my colleagues on the right are not so honest, and winning is more important than results afterwards, that we have to live with. Sound familiar? Palin is attractive, communicates well, and connects with people in a way we haven’t seen since Clinton or Reagan. Obama is more of a media creation, and connects with TotUS better than people. Anyway, if I take a step back and analyze what I know about Palin, the picture is not as rosy as her supporters would seem.

Palin is a former governor of Alaska. Sounds good, but not even one full term. Before that she was a mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Before that…? Compared to Obama, she has much more experience as an executive (Obama has none), but she doesn’t have a lot of experience when you compare her to Reagan, Clinton or even W. I am not sure we need another candidate that sweet-talks the camera and appeals on an emotional level. I think this is dangerous and we have seen the results of such choices. I think considering our current problems we need someone that can hit the ground running, not someone that will need on the job training. We have that now. My treatise here isn’t to bash Palin, nor is it about finding the perfect candidate, just the observation that one, we can do better, and two, we need to be careful about who we pick, because it really counts this time, and we have one shot to get it right. I think if she does her homework and does the right things, in 10 years she could be a viable candidate.

So what to do? I would like to see the Tea Party and 912er people get a little more politically involved and spread the liberty theme around, making it mainstream. The GOP has to be made to understand that it is not going to be business as usual: Placate an internal constituency before the election and forget about them afterwards. Republicans are famous for this. If this happens in 2010, the GOP should go the way of the Whigs. The only two things that have been on their side in the last year are an incompetent president and a democrat congress that has been bent on turning our country into a socialist nation. What the GOP should not glean from this is some sort of mandate that allows them to take power like a fat kid gloms fresh baked cookies from his grandma’s kitchen table. Obama made a similar mistake in thinking he got elected because of a socialist mandate. Wrong. In this scenario, Palin would do well as she would say “bugger off, I am doing it my way”. It seems that the GOP is like an ADD kid that needs to be reminded of his responsibilities on a regular basis. After a while, you have to ask, do we really need this?

So, I do worry how this will play out. I am heartened at times, particularly today upon hearing that two large banks, Wells Fargo and Citi, are going to pay off the government loans and get the government out of their business. Bravo and long live capitalism. I am a patient sort, willing to wait and see, are you? What do you think?
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Advertisements

Hillary Agrees With Townhall Protesters

leave a comment »

In a speech when she was running for President, Hillary passionately argues for protesting against the administration and the government. I imagine she also agrees with the right of the Townhallers and the Tea Baggers to protest. She must, she said so. Hey, Barry, even your secretary of state agrees with us. What are you going to do, Channel Bill?

H/T Bernard McGuirk

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

August 11, 2009 at 6:16 am

…To the Shores of Tripoli…

leave a comment »

The Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star was captured by Somali pirates off the coast of Kenya. It seems the pirates are asking $10,000,000 ransom for the ship that is carrying $100 million in oil. Pirates are nothing new in this world, and I am not talking about black beard or pirates of the Caribbean (or Penzance for that matter). The United States fought two wars, the First Barbary Pirate War or the Tripolitan War, from 1801-1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. The countries that promulgated piracy at the time were Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli (for those not familiar with that name might know it better a Libya). At the time, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded a ransom from Jefferson in the sum of $225,000. This may not seem like much, but considering the total treasury had $10,000,000, it was quite a chunk. Some may ask why? Barbary pirates were nothing new, but they were kept in check by the Knights Of Malta. What happened was that Napoleon seized Malta in 1798 and this created a power vacuum in the mediterranean. Without the Knights Of Malta, the pirates went on a spree. The first Barbary War was the first international engagement of the US Marines. The US Navy and the Marines kicked ass, killing and wounding 2000 pirates, while suffering fewer than 100 casualties, and capturing Tripoli. 

Today we find ourselves in a similar place with Somali pirates. International forces seem to be unwilling to go after them, even in this latest fiasco with the Saudi tanker. The Saudis must want it that way, but paying ransom is never a good thing, or as James Madison put it, peace is preferred to war, and war is preferred to paying tribute. The problem is that with paying tribute to anyone is that the criminals will have you over a saddle like Marcellus Wallace with the orange ball in his mouth. No fun at all. Better to fight than switch, but I digress. The right answer here is a couple seal teams on the tanker and it’s all over but the crying. In the long run, naval ships from various countries need to patrol these areas terminate the pirates with extreme prejudice, setting the tone for what is inevitable. We’ll have to see what happens. The last time we got involved with Somalia, President Clinton showed a lack of nerve and fortitude, folding like a cheap camera. This sets a bad example for the men. 
Thank you for reading this blog. 

…To the Shores of Tripoli…

leave a comment »

The Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star was captured by Somali pirates off the coast of Kenya. It seems the pirates are asking $10,000,000 ransom for the ship that is carrying $100 million in oil. Pirates are nothing new in this world, and I am not talking about black beard or pirates of the Caribbean (or Penzance for that matter). The United States fought two wars, the First Barbary Pirate War or the Tripolitan War, from 1801-1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. The countries that promulgated piracy at the time were Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli (for those not familiar with that name might know it better a Libya). At the time, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded a ransom from Jefferson in the sum of $225,000. This may not seem like much, but considering the total treasury had $10,000,000, it was quite a chunk. Some may ask why? Barbary pirates were nothing new, but they were kept in check by the Knights Of Malta. What happened was that Napoleon seized Malta in 1798 and this created a power vacuum in the mediterranean. Without the Knights Of Malta, the pirates went on a spree. The first Barbary War was the first international engagement of the US Marines. The US Navy and the Marines kicked ass, killing and wounding 2000 pirates, while suffering fewer than 100 casualties, and capturing Tripoli. 

Today we find ourselves in a similar place with Somali pirates. International forces seem to be unwilling to go after them, even in this latest fiasco with the Saudi tanker. The Saudis must want it that way, but paying ransom is never a good thing, or as James Madison put it, peace is preferred to war, and war is preferred to paying tribute. The problem is that with paying tribute to anyone is that the criminals will have you over a saddle like Marcellus Wallace with the orange ball in his mouth. No fun at all. Better to fight than switch, but I digress. The right answer here is a couple seal teams on the tanker and it’s all over but the crying. In the long run, naval ships from various countries need to patrol these areas terminate the pirates with extreme prejudice, setting the tone for what is inevitable. We’ll have to see what happens. The last time we got involved with Somalia, President Clinton showed a lack of nerve and fortitude, folding like a cheap camera. This sets a bad example for the men. 
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Who is to blame?

leave a comment »

This might settle it.  What do you think? Comments welcome.

Written by James Lagnese

September 26, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Jim Leach – The Strunza from Iowa

with 2 comments

Jim Leach, former republican representative from Iowa, endorsed Barack Obama for president. This turncoat, and he is, suggests that Obama is attractive because of a “ new era of non-ideological, bipartisan decision-making”. What this means is that rather than having a backbone, and values, he’d rather find new ways to make sure politicians like himself stay in power. Let me explain. If politicians “work together”, without ideology,  I can guarantee the only thing they will want to do is to get your vote by bribing you with your own money, or worse. Their perception is to get things done. Change. Give people what they want. The problem with that is it doesn’t matter what it is. Bipartisan means they don’t stand for anything. So out of one side of their mouth, they will tell you they are pro-life, but out of the other, they will fund abortion clinics. Guys like this just want to make double dealing more palatable. By having no moral compass, they can’t be pigeon holed and their appeal will be broader. Think of Bill Clinton. In the case of Leach, which is a fitting name, some say he is angling for the presidency of the University of Iowa. The democrats control the government in Iowa, so by endorsing Obama, he is doing them a great favor and possibly expects one in return. Leach was a RINO republican anyway (in reality, now he’s a democrat), and this isn’t much of a surprise. His reasoning shows lack of principles, loyalty and a lack of common sense. Democrats do not do favors for republicans in this state, or any other. He’s in for a big surprise if he doesn’t get it, and if the republicans have any principles, they will tell him to go to hell. Strunza is a perfect word for him. Look it up. And with that, I leave with a quote from Samuel Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

August 12, 2008 at 8:50 pm