The Clinton Brand

Thank God I have a co-worker who brings sanity into an office filled with love-sick liberals who adore every syllable that comes from the mouths of President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Pat walked into my office and asked, "Did you watch any of the testimony by Clinton over the Benghazi thing?"

To which I responded, "Not a chance I'd waste my time watching that circus."

As usual, he was fired up, air-punching my door and shaking his head.  "To show you how desperate I am, I watched her testimony on C-Span," he confessed, then added, "You wouldn't believe the lies she was telling."

"Yes, I would," I answered.  "She's a Clinton."

                                                            *                     *                    *

Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a "typical Washington performance" this past week while defending her department (and by bureaucratic fiat, herself) against any criticism in the Benghazi murder of four innocent Americans.

By "typical" I mean 1) weeping, wailing, pounding the desk, obfuscating and lying, 2) taking responsibility, but denying any accountability, and 3) blaming it on unrelated factors, like 1.43 million emails, which make ignorance acceptable behavior.  When Hillary's melodramatic performance was finished we had NO new information and NO one to hold responsible for this administration's failed foreign policy.

A lot of things bother me about Washington, but one of the biggest is the pompous attitude these politicians have and the lies they are able to get away with.  Hillary has a long history of lying, beginning with her defense of her husband against numerous affairs with Gennifer Flowers, Sally Perdue, Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick back in Arkansas.

Her lies continued once they got to Washington, claiming some "vast right-wing conspiracy" was trying to take down her husband.  Hillary and Bill would do anything to protect the Clinton brand, often blaming others along the way.  Hillary has used it to embrace greater political advancement, including becoming a senator and now the Secretary of State.

I don't know if there was ever an honest bone in her recently expanding body, but it's clear to see that Hillaryis used to getting away with it.  As soon as someone -- insert your favorite Republic or Fox News contributor -- she becomes indignant and swoons to the press for support.  This response was on full display during her committee testimony on the Benghazi situation.

This time however, the press not only bought her performance, they reveled in it.  They rolled in it like a dog digging up dead fish in the garden -- they couldn't get enough.  Their deification of Hillary is matched only by their reverential praise for Obama.

The Washington Post unashamedly reported, "For Hillary, the testimony was a triumphant capstone on her term as the chief U. S. diplomat.  If Hillary had not dealt with the Benghazi affair before she left office, she could have been viewed as a failure and a weakling.  Instead, she came blazing onto Capitol Hill in true Hillary style, concluding the Libya drama on her terms and exiting Washington to regroup for her next adventure -- a new book, global speeches or a presidential run."

The New York Times declared, Clinton was "professional and authoritative for hours in the witness chair."  She "stood up to the raging bulls with grace and fire of her own," gushed Joan Walsh.  She "served up a potent brew of righteous outrage," breathed Dana Milbank.

Unfortunately, the Republicans questioning of Hillary only made matters worse.  The Secretary of State should have been relentlessly grilled over her involvement, yet the closest anyone came to questioning her authority came from the inexperienced senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson.

"What caused the intelligence failures at the State Department," he asked,  "which said the attack was initiated by spontaneous protests stemming from an anti-Muslim video?"  He then asked why she didn't pick up the phone and get some answers.

"With all due respect," Hillary sobbed, "the fact is we had four dead Americans."  Raising her voice, she continued, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans?  What difference, at this point, does it make?"  Translation, "Don't question me.  I am above reproach and will not answer your question!"

For months the Obama administration, and that includes Hillary, have been obfuscating and stalling.  Let's blame the video, let's blame the CIA, or let's blame poor communication between our diplomats and Washington.  Now, because she has been delaying for months, she 's going to use the excuse that too much time has passed for this question to matter any more.

Seriously, what difference does it make?  That's her answer?  As if misleading the press and the American people isn't reason enough?

Maybe we should be asking what difference did you make when you found out the Benghazi embassy was under attack?  Isn't that the question?  What was Hillary doing to keep our citizens safe, and at a minimum -- when asked -- what did she do to help them out of a deadly situation?

Clinton claims she takes responsibility for what happened in Libya.  Really?  Has someone been fired?  Has a single person been arrested?  Does anyone have a better idea what happened on September 11, 2012?  Why were the emails voicing concerns for their safety ignored?  Is Hillary stepping down from her position in disgrace?

It's politics as usual.  In typical Washington fashion, "taking responsibility" means saying something that shows concern, but doing nothing that indicates that you HAVE taken responsibility for your actions.  Other than the Kennedys and Obama, can you think of another political family that gets a pass every time they step in it?

                                                                 *                  *                 *

Clinton's response has got me thinking.  From now on, every time the press questions a Republican on some issue, they should respond with "What difference does it make?"  Remind the press -- and those supporting her answer -- that if refusing to answer the question is good enough for Hillary Clinton, then it should be good enough for our side.

     . What's the Republican position on the fiscal cliff?  Look concerned and say "At this late date, what 
       difference does it really make?  We're screwed!"

     . Who's responsible for the shooting of innocent children in our schools?  Slam your fist on the table
       and say somberly "Well, what difference does it make?  They're dead, aren't they?"

     . What should be done with the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States?  Angrily
       answer how unjust the situation is, but then say with remorse "Well, at this point, what 
       difference does it really make?  They're here, right?"

     . Don't the melting ice caps signal global warming?  Spread your arms wide and plead "What 
       difference does it make?  We can't stop it now."

Sports athletes like cyclist Lance Armstrong and Baltimore Raven's linebacker Ray Lewis could put it to good use, as well.

    . Lance, did you cheat in winning your seven Tour de France titles?  "Seriously?   And besides, even 
      if I did, what difference does it make?  That was like 13 years ago."

    . Mr. Lewis, did you use deer antler spray (HG1) to help overcome your latest injury?  "What are 
      you talking about?  I wouldn't even know where to get the stuff.  And if I did, what difference does it 
      make?  I'm better now and playing in the Super Bowl."

It gets easier the more you say it.  Try it sometime -- just not when four Americans lie dead in the streets of Libya.

America's 180

There is a grim vibe afoot in America today.  Our country is under assault by an ideology that is cloaked in class envy spun by power-hungry Washington elites and a sycophantic media that refuses to tell the truth.

The Orwellian speech given today by President Obama during his second inaugural event is in stark contrast to the one given by Ronald Reagan in 1981.  While the country faces many of the same challenges it did thirty plus years ago, the solutions presented by Obama for his second term has me thinking this country has really taken a 180 degree turn.  America has changed, thanks to a change in the American people.

This is best shown by highlighting a few passages from each president's speech.

 

President Reagan gave his first inaugural speech on January 20, 1981 when he said, "These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions   Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity."

He continued, "For too long, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present.  You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time.  Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

"The economic ills we suffer... will not go away in days, weeks or months, but they will go away.  They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom."

The president added, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem."

And finally, "From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government, for, by and of the people... all of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.  The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

At a time when our society was facing double digit inflation and interest rates, America chose Ronald Reagan to lead us out of turmoil and into unprecedented growth and prosperity.  We chose to embrace smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation to overcome Carter's disastrous policies.  The results were remarkable:  1) an economic boom lasting 92 months without a recession, 2) federal revenues doubling to more than $1 trillion by 1990, and 3) investments in national security ending the Cold War.

Reagan's, and America's, philosophy at that time was sharply different than the one currently espoused by Obama -- in which taxing the rich, always turning to government for answers, and "America causes the world's problems" -- are hallmarks of his presidency.

On Monday -- almost thirty-two years to the date-- President Obama called for a much different solution to our problems.  Rather than rugged individualism, he claimed no one person is responsible for their success.

He said, "Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways... and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.  Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.  Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life's worst hazards and misfortune."

"...we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.  For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone.  No single person can train all the math and science teachers need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and research labs that will bring new jobs..."

 

He added, "Now more than ever we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.  For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it."

In conclusion he said, "We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few... the commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengths us.  They do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great."

In contrast to Reagan's belief that individuals in America could do anything, Obama's speech was a reminder of what we could not do (without government's help).

Yet, to Obama's credit, we've become a people of need.  It's now government's job to provide services (and incomes) that support minorities, immigrants, students, retirees and the unemployed.  In addition, we are now asking government to solve "perceived problems" whenever something happens.  Want safety in schools?  Get government to limit the availability of guns and bullets.  Not happy with your phone bill?  Get Washington to regulate cable companies.  Got a problem with concussions in the NFL or steroids in baseball?  Ask our senators to nominate a committee to stop it.  Not happy with your health insurance?  Allow government to devise a 2,000 page health care bill.

The trouble is that NONE OF IT WORKS.

How did we get the idea that government is a good thing?  They've bankrupted social security, medicare and the postal service, to name a few.  Almost everything they touch is a failure.  And yet, we gladly put our faith in them to solve more of our problems.

Like all great empires in the past, I think we have gotten soft.  Too many of us have gotten lazy and see an easy way out by waiting for a handout.  Being successful, owning a nice house and car, and having a good retirement is HARD work.  For decades, schools have taught the unfairness of success and hard work.  Our courts have made it easy to sue someone who has an unfair advantage over someone else.  And immigrants today receive government assistance before they become U.S. citizens.  So it's easy to see why we have more people dependent on the government than before.

Another change is the number of people working in government jobs.  It's created another type of dependency.  Like my brother who has voted for every democrat he can, because his job as MTU manager is dependent on government assistance to supplement his salary, maintenance of city buses and even offset low ridership.  Does it surprise you that we have more people working in government today than we had as American citizens during Thomas Jefferson's writing of the Constitution in 1776?  It's true that government never gets smaller, and I'm not just talking about its federal debt or deficits.

As I said earlier, America's view of small government has changed.  

Look at these comments from a web site that asked college kids "What are the results of Reagan's presidency?"

One person said:  "The positive results, if you can call it that, are that his policies enabled the rich to get richer.  The negative, during his presidency, the federal deficit increased dramatically, the gap between rich and poor increased, taxes increased for the middle class and his trickle-down policies were still used by the the two Bush presidents which led to the recession of 2008-2009."

Another said, "It would be pretty hard to write about positive results.  Negative results include the 2008 meltdown."

So there you have it.  Our children are being told nothing of the economic brilliance and success of conservative policies, including the economic power of lower taxes and higher incomes.  They now believe anything tied to Reagan's two terms in office led to the unfairness of today's harsh economy.  Instead of the truth --a Democrat-controlled Congress forced banks and lenders to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back -- they blame it on a president who turned this country around in 1981.

It's no wonder so many young people voted for Obama.  They actually believe the liberal lies he said in his second inaugural address.  Let's not focus on what made this country great -- the freedom to prosper and be free.  Let's focus instead on climate change, gay marriage and illegal immigration.

America truly has changed 180 degrees to the left.  God help us all.

I've Had it With Losing

"It's true that we don't know what we've got until we lose it, but it's also true that we don't know what we've been missing until it arrives," - Anonymous.


It hasn't been the best of times lately, with Mitt Romney losing to President Obama, the Badgers losing for the third time in the Rose Bowl, and the Packers losing to San Francisco in the NFC divisional playoff game.

There is an ache in my chest and pain in my stomach that defies description.  As someone who likes to write things down, I find it hard to put into words how it feels to accept defeat.  All I know is that I hate to lose.

Despite my best efforts, everyday I am reminded that my candidate lost the election for president.  Turn on the evening news and you hear Obama talking about how he won the election and as a result he is going to do things his way.  Don't like his agenda?  Too bad, get over it.

As a result of losing last November, I've seen those dumb-ass senators and representatives pass legislation that raises my taxes, puts me and my children in greater debt, and ignores the U.S. Constitution by proposing gun control through executive order.

The problem with losing in politics is that it keeps coming back time and time again.  And it's usually shoved in your face.  Don't like higher health insurance premiums, a record-setting number of abortions, legalized pot and a growing number of welfare recipients?   Stick your head in the sand, you lost!

And thanks to our state-controlled media, we have to listen to ABC, NBC and CBS tell us that losing is good.  Moronic shows like Comedy Central, The View, 60 Minutes and just about everyone in Hollywood remind us that they know what's best for us.  We need gun-free zones to keep our children safe.  Extend unemployment benefits through the end of 2013 because people are hurting.  Gay marriage isn't a threat to traditional marriage, just another type of loving relationship between two people capable of raising healthy children.  Quentin Tarantino is expressing his artistic freedom in "Django Unchained" because movie violence has no effect on society.  And his movies are so cool.

Ughh!  So not only did I lose, but now I have to change my opinion about why I lost.  I lost because I was wrong, ignorant, bigoted, homophobic or racist.  I think my head is about to explode.


                                  *                                         *                                         *


Fortunately, sports isn't as bad as politics when it comes to losing.

Instead of a life-altering moment, it's more of a major disappointment.  Something you can get over in a few days.  Probably because there's another game to be played (and hopefully won).

Sometimes I don't realistically think we have a chance to win, but it still hurts to lose.  Take the Badgers losing three games this year, all in overtime.  I didn't think we'd beat Ohio State, but to be so close, force the game into overtime and then lose...it SUCKS.

I remember being in Eau Claire, WI  for a school event when the Badgers lost to Michigan State on a Hail Mary pass as time expired.  Prior to knowing the score, I was enjoying myself, laughing and thinking about picking up the paper the next day to read about another Badger win.  (We were the better team, I reminded myself.)

Around 10 o'clock, a friend texts me a message about the game -- "Can't believe what happened to the Badgers!  Unbelievable!"

I felt like someone had reached inside my chest and squeezed.

"No!"  I imagined people around me thinking it's time to get away from this strange guy banging his head against the wall.

Suddenly all I could do was think about how everything had changed -- no newspaper, no checking the internet, no checking highlights on ESPN Sports Center and no watching the game on BTN the following week.  All I wanted to do was remove all discussion of the game.  My emotions were headed in one direction only to be jerked back in another.  Up and down all in a matter of seconds.

The other thing about sports is that sometimes you lose in the first quarter, other times in the fourth.  The Seattle/Atlanta football game last weekend is a prime example.  Seattle had come back from being down by 20 points only to triumphantly take the lead with 35 seconds left in the game.  All right -- what a comeback!  Atlanta has a habit of losing these playoff games, so I was imaging them feeling here we go again!

But then within 25 seconds and two long passes by Atlanta, they kicked a field goal to win the game.  I was asking my son who must feel worse -- Atlanta (who had led the entire game only to lose it with 35 seconds left) or Seattle (who was behind the entire game only to take the lead with 35 seconds left).  And then losing it with that final kick.

I think it feels worse when you get a taste of victory only to lose it again.  As in life, perhaps it's better never to have loved than to have loved and then lost it.  You can't miss it if you've never had it.

So I've had it with losing.

I go to sleep only to wake a few hours later mad as hell.  I relive the blown pass defense that allowed the other team to complete a Hail Mary pass at the end of the first half.  Toss and turn a few more hours then finally fall asleep only to wake up again thinking about the tipped pass that could have been a touchdown.

I've been known to go outside -- in the pitch dark -- to rake leaves just to vent my frustrations over a bad loss.

I hate being so nervous about a game that I won't watch it or will turn the channel when the other team gets some momentum.  I hate being down in the dumps for a day, not appreciating my wife, kids or even taking Bailey for a walk.

Some of you would say I take things too seriously.  It's just a game, you say.  Uh huh.  Or wait until the next election when the Republicans get it right.  Maybe.

The trouble is, I'm getting older and I realize that I don't have as much time as I used to.  Maybe it will take the Packers another 15 years to get back to the Super Bowl.  Do I have another 15 years?  Will I care in another 15 years?  Will I know a democrat from a republican?  Will the country be the country I love in another 15 years?  Or will Obama be in his 5th term as President?

Sometimes there is never a "next time," which is kind of depressing.  There have been some horrible losing streaks that would drain the green and gold out of any loyal fan.

The Minnesota Vikings are still waiting to get back to the Super Bowl after losing to Terry Bradshaw and the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1975.  Northwestern University of the Big Ten has never tasted the sweet nectar that is known as March Madness in basketball.  Equally depressing was their football team which finally won a game after 34 tries with a win over Northern Illinois on Sept 25, 1982 in Evanston.  The win was so monumental that the students rushed the field, tore down the goal posts and tossed them into Lake Michigan.

There's the Cal Tech Beavers basketball team who ended a 310-game conference losing streak -- a streak that spanned 26 years -- by beating Occidental College 46-45.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers joined the NFL as an expansion team in 1976 and it took nearly two seasons for the team to win its first game.  The Bucs lost every game in the 1976 season and the first 12 games in 1977.  The team's first win came against the New Orleans Saints, who promptly fired their coach after losing to the lowly Bucs.

The Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns have never been to the Super Bowl, which isn't exactly a losing streak, but it certainly IS humiliating.

Of course the granddaddy of them all is the Chicago Cubs who have a 104-year championship drought in baseball.  Could you imagine going an entire lifetime and never see your team win it all?   Well, you could live 1.5 lifetimes and never celebrate a championship pennant in baseball if you were a Cubs fan.

So despite my recent losing streak, it could be worse.  And perhaps that's why losing hurts so much.  Because we're used to winning.  We expect to win.  We're not the Detroit Lions or Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  I've never been tempted to put a grocery bag over my head.  The objective of this post (as with most of my comments) is to provide a cathartic outlet for venting my anger and frustrations.  A chance to keep those tormenting spirits that haunt my sleeping hours at bay.

Of course the best way to get over losing is to win.  A quick smile and high five at the joyous conclusion of a game of basketball, baseball or football..  For me, it's like someone gave me a shot of adrenaline straight to the heart..  There aren't too many things that are better (Liz, you are the exception).

Earlier this year we had Wisconsin Gov. Walker pull out a win after being recalled by a bunch of sore losers and union thugs.  That was awesome.   Sometimes it's more about watching  who lost -- I couldn't wait to tune in the MSNBC to watch their sorry-ass announcers declaring Walker the winner.

Maybe my losing streak is coming to an end.  The Wisconsin Badgers basketball team just beat the Indiana Hoosiers late Tuesday night 64-58, extending the Badgers dominance over Indiana, dating back to 11 consecutive games.  During a season that was expected to be down in the dumps, the Badgers have managed to put together some recent wins, including this one which is their highest rated win over a home team -- at the time, ranked #2 in the country.

So let's hear it for the victors.  Be it those football players who walk into the locker room -- bloodied and torn -- with a victory after 310 loses, or the second string bench warmers who only get into the game with a minute and 1/2  left .

It's much harder winning than it is losing.  So even though Romney lost the election, I'm still going to fight for everything I believe in.  Let's try a conservative next time and see what happens.  And the Packers and Badgers will be back next year with a better team and hopefully a higher finish.  New coaches, new players and faithful fans will take our teams to the promised land.

You see, one of the things all losers must have is never-ending optimism.  Never give up, never back down.  Because winners always think their glass is half full -- and so do I.