January 23, 2011
My Letter To A Presidential Candidate
Dear Mr. Candidate:
I’ve been following your campaign for awhile, and I might be willing to cast a vote for you. Over the last several decades, I’ve had the chance to live with presidents of both parties, and I’ve a learned a few things, particularly in the last two years. So I have some advice; I hope you’ll listen.
Remember when Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped that Mr. Obama failed? Remember how Progressives went berserk? “How dare he!” They cried. “He wants America to fail!” That situation clearly illustrates our current national dilemma. You see, Progressives equate Mr. Obama and America. They think he is our voice, our face. Some of them even think he’s some kind of a deity, a god who transcends such a petty office as the Presidency of the United States and whose destiny is to remake America in his image. They’re wrong, badly wrong. It's not about the man; it's about his policies.
Mr. Candidate, the President of the United States is nothing more than a man, and someday I have no doubt, a woman. He’s a man hired by We The People, to serve as America’s chief executive. He is not great. He is never worthy of worship. Any greatness that attaches to him is the greatness of the office. He wears it as a fine garment, a garment worn only as long as he holds the office. It, like every other trapping of the office, is something for which he has been allowed, by the people, to temporarily care. The office is great because of the greatness of America and her people, particularly those who have, for more than two centuries, sacrificed so much to build, secure and maintain that greatness.
So while you’re running, and particularly if you are fortunate enough to be trusted to be America’s temporary chief executive, there are some important things you ought to know, and more importantly, believe. I know that some of them will seem, well, elementary, but my experience of the last few years has taught me that some things likely need to be said.
* You must be personally humble. “I” should be a tiny part of your private vocabulary and an even smaller part of your public vocabulary. But in your representation of America’s values and interests, you must be proud, fierce, resolute and honorable, for the people you represent are all of those things and more. Those who are full of hubris never end well, nor does their nation.
* You must believe that America is the greatest, kindest, most free, just and generous nation ever to exist in the tide of time, because, well, because it is.
* You, as did Ronald Reagan, must believe that America is Mankind’s last, best hope, and that if we lose freedom here, there is nowhere left to run. All of your official actions must be informed by this sacred faith.
* Many disdain the idea of a “caretaker” presidency, but you must embrace it. If you are to honor your oath of office, if you are to truly be a public servant, that’s really your most important job--to take care of America. As with the Hippocratic Oath, resolve to do no harm, and leave America better and stronger than she was when you took office. History will take care of itself; you take care of America.
* Your job is also to pursue America’s interests, not those of victim groups, unions, billionaire donors, or those of a fictional, hopelessly utopian one world government.
* The UN does not share America’s interests. You must not share those of the UN.
* Global Warming is the biggest scientific hoax of all time. If you fall for that, you’ll fall for anything.
* When war is necessary, the Commander in Chief must wage it effectively and ruthlessly with speed, violence and overwhelming force. Half measures cost lives. Fight to win or don’t fight at all. The only “exit strategy” is unconditional victory.
* American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen deserve every bit of support and praise you can give them, that and far more. They know when a POTUS really cares about them, and they know when he values them only as props for photo opportunities. Despite what certain northeastern Senators think, they’re very smart. You don’t find the best and brightest in the Halls of Congress, but on the battlefield. You should thank God for that, Mr. Candidate.
* The POTUS bows to no man, figuratively and literally. This too, is part of our national tradition and faith.
* Evil exists. The leader of the free world is its primary and most important opponent in the world. If you don’t know that, if you can’t act on it, you’re worth nothing.
* The POTUS must know, without the slightest doubt, that socialism, and it’s uglier, more murderous relative--communism--are the eternal, irredeemable enemies of democracy, freedom, and particularly, America. Do I really need to tell you that you should not associate with or appoint people who are socialists, communists, or who admire communist tyrants and mass murderers? Didn’t you mother talk to you about running with bad crowds?
* America’s economic system is capitalism. Its expression is free enterprise. It’s engine is small business and the rest of the private sector. Do you notice that government has no part in that? Do you realize that government can only hinder and interfere?
* Ronald Reagan was also right when he said that the most horrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” He wasn’t kidding. Neither are we.
* You can’t save money by spending more money. You can’t repay loans by borrowing more money. The POTUS doesn't gain the power to alter reality--really.
* Government jobs don’t create wealth, they consume it.
* The POTUS must secure equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The former encourages self-reliance and builds a strong work ethic; the latter destroys both.
* Fully developing and using America’s natural resources for the benefit of all Americans and for the freedom of the world is not an option but a sacred trust.
To make American’s energy costs “necessarily skyrocket,” is to purposely harm and betray those you are sworn to serve and protect.
* A vibrant free economy inspires innovation, invention and new technologies. Government takeover of industries, unnecessary regulation and taxes do not. Scientific breakthroughs are made by free men, not slaves of government. They are motivated by self-interest as well as altruism and can’t be mandated or bought.
* “Smart diplomacy” is diplomacy that faithfully and relentlessly furthers American interests. Doing otherwise is weakness, stupidity and sometimes, treason.
* The POTUS must know that in defending American interests, he is defending freedom everywhere, and that guiding foreign governments toward greater freedom by example and persuasion is far, far more important than hearing them say they like us. Nations don’t have egos or feelings which can be stroked or hurt. They have interests.
* Mr. Candidate, A POTUS must know that terrorism is warfare, not crime, and must approach it with the utmost resolve and ruthlessness. The terrorists are in it to win. Are you? Will you be?
* A POTUS must believe that he--and all branches of government--have only those powers granted them by the people. He must not cross that line, ever.
* The POTUS must respect all of the Constitution, including all of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, the rights of Americans, are not entrees on a buffet.
* He must believe that without the right to self defense--including the means to act on it--the other rights are meaningless, so he must see that the Second Amendment is honored, not infringed, everywhere and in every way.
* The second most important right is the right to be left alone by government. Will you do that? Leave us alone?
* Mr. Candidate, never insult the American people. They’re a lot smarter than you imagine, and they have much longer memories than you imagine.
* The American people are more than smart enough to determine if they need or want to go to college.
* A POTUS who does not sometimes doubt that he is up to the job is a fool. If he lets the public, and particularly our enemies, see that doubt, he is a dangerous fool.
* The American people know the difference between competence and justified confidence, and feckless arrogance.
* Teddy Roosevelt was right: The Presidency is a bully pulpit. Use it sparingly and only when it’s important. The people really don’t want to see you more than their favorite TV programs, their children or their spouses.
* When the POTUS is campaigning, he’s not taking care of America.
* A teleprompter is not a substitute for substance. The ability to read a script is not synonymous with intelligence or eloquence.
* When the people rise up against his policies, no POTUS should imagine that it’s a failure of “messaging.” It’s his policies. The people are smarter than you imagine, remember?
* The people believe that words have plain, understandable meanings, in speech and in the law. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
* Any POTUS who does not, every day, take a moment to say in sincere awe, wonder and amazement, “I’m sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office,” is not worthy to be there.
* Any POTUS who thinks anyone owes him anything is a fool. It’s not all about you. It never was and it never will be.
Well Mr. Candidate, that’s about it for now. We both know I could go on and on. The American people know these things. They have a hard time understanding why people like you--politicians--don’t. They figure that politicians are either not too bright, or are criminals, socialists, communists or all four. We’re hungry for a President who actually believes in America and is honored to defend her. We haven’t seen that for a few years. Give what I’ve had to say some thought. Maybe I’ll vote for you. We’ll see if your record and actions match your rhetoric.
Yours,
An American Voter
Well written. May I borrow this? I'd like to send it to a few potential candiates.
Posted by: Mike at January 24, 2011 09:58 AMYup, she's the only one who has shown any respect for these principles in the field.
Posted by: Phelps at January 24, 2011 01:58 PMI agree Phelps. She is the only one in the pack that has the stones to stand up for her principles. Maby it could be that she is the only one to HAVE priciples - the rest are professional politicians - who tend to shed their principles with every election won or lost!!
One can always spot who the libs/democrats/progressives fear the MOST - it becomes obvious rather quickly.
Posted by: mixitup at January 24, 2011 09:25 PMI had to look up the numbers, so this is an addendum to my previous post on "how to spot the real threat to libs." Data is from Google search results/hits:
Palin - 27,200,000
Romney - 3,280,000
Huckabee - 1,590,000
Pawlenty - 2,640,000
Patraeus - 2,170,000
Giuliani - 1,100,000
Gingrich - 1,490,000
Jindal - 653,000
I guess we can tell which potential candidate really scares the crap out of the democrats and their sycophant MSM.
Posted by: mixitup at January 24, 2011 09:41 PM* You must be personally humble. “I” should be a tiny part of your private vocabulary and an even smaller part of your public vocabulary. But in your representation of America’s values and interests, you must be proud, fierce, resolute and honorable, for the people you represent are all of those things and more. Those who are full of hubris never end well, nor does their nation.* You must believe that America is the greatest, kindest, most free, just and generous nation ever to exist in the tide of time, because, well, because it is.
~snip~
* The POTUS bows to no man, figuratively and literally. This too, is part of our national tradition and faith.
Wait, what? Two of those things are not like the other. Don't the last two require some significant measure of hubris to accomplish?
Posted by: SkeeredLibrul at January 26, 2011 06:59 PMDear SkeeredLibrul:
Hubris? Not at all. Hubris is excessive pride. And while the term "greatest" and "kindest" must be assessed with some degree of subjectivity, American is certainly all that I asserted and by any measure and comparison with all other nations, past or present. All of this can be confirmed objectively should you care to do the research.
The President does not bow because he thinks highly of himself, but because of our Constitution and democratic traditions and because he represents and is responsible for upholding them. The Founders wanted no marks and titles of royalty and no symbols or traditions of submission to the same. For that reason, American presidents have never bowed to foreign kings. This has nothing to do with hubris and everything to do with equality and the common dignity of all men.
Consider too that every act of our President abroad is representative of America and Americans. This is particularly true in nations that do not have our classless society and our traditions of the equal value and dignity of all men. The citizens of those lands are very sensitive to such behaviors and protocols. When Mr. Obama bowed deeply to Hu Jintao, the Chinese Premier on their first meeting, it was not interpreted in China, by the Chinese, as being polite, but as subservience and weakness, of the weaker man and nation showing proper respect to the stronger man and nation. This is not what any rational American would desire, and again, does not involve hubris or anything like it.
That said, thanks for taking the time to read and comment! It's much appreciated.
Posted by: mikemc at January 26, 2011 07:28 PM"Global Warming is the biggest scientific hoax of all time."
Virtually every single reputable scientist in the field says otherwise - as do all those lying socialist weather satellites & thermometers around the globe, & the crypto-Marxist disappearing glaciers & icecaps. Go tell the Inuit or the Pacific Islanders or the Bangladeshis about what a "hoax" AGW is - what with their homelands literally disintegrating before their eyes, I'm guessing they could use a good laugh right about now.
"terrorism is warfare, not crime"
No, terrorism is a tactic. The Muslim world spent years treating Al-Qaeda as warriors while their numbers swelled & the body-count rose. Once they started treating them as criminals, their influence waned & attacks dropped off. Bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan in 2001 because he liked the scenery - he was driven there by the desire to avoid arrest. In Islam, a just Holy War is noble but crime is offensive to Allah. Martyrs go to Paradise, murderers go to hell. Defeating a determined enemy requires understanding how they think, why they think the way they do, & anticipating their next move.
Posted by: jim at January 26, 2011 09:45 PMDear Jim:
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. We do appreciate our readers very much here. Please keep in mind the purpose of my letter. I certainly wasn't producing a peer-reviewed article with appropriate citations on each of the issues I raised, so of necessity, generalization was required.
However, if I was to cite some significant issues, among them would be the fact that the UN's IPPC report has been substantially discredited, as have many of its co-authors. They've had to strike entire sections that were so obviously wildly false, for so many reasons, such as the claim that entire glaciers were going to melt. Skeptics discovered that some of their "research" was nothing more than supposition from articles in popular magazines. And even the IPCC has had to admit that if every nation in the world spent untold trillions and did exactly what the UN wants, it would lower the global temperature a bit less than one degree--maybe--in a decade or more. Add the Climategate scandal where the main climate research institutions in the world had to admit that they lost entire data sets, that others never really, you know, existed, that the Medieval Warm Period, which was far warmer than our current temperatures, was covered up (see the infamous "hockey stick" graph), skeptical scientists were harassed and intimidated, the global warming advocate scientists refused to share their data sets (which apparently, for the most part, never existed anyway) or methodology with others, and the case for global warming is, rather than being proved, in disarray at best. Even Al Gore is laying low. Besides, even if we acknowledge that some degree of warming is occurring--much less than has been the case in the past--warmer temps. are far better than colder temps. around the world, and the question of what-if anything we can do to affect it and at what cost, is another matter entirely. My comment was aimed at those who accept as a matter of faith that AGW will, in 5, 10, 30 years doom the planet, so any measure and any cost must be immediately employed to stave off doomsday. The situation isn't anything like that. I'm old enough to have read about the Ice Age that was going to doom us all in the media of the 70's. In thirty years, people will likely be reading about AGW that didn't happen either.
And I hate to quibble, but terrorism--as it is currently practiced as opposed to the way it was practiced in the 70's, for example--is a form of warfare. Among the tactics employed to further that form of warfare are IED's, suicide bombing, attacks with firearms and hand grenades, truck bombs, and the tactics employed on 9-11. Jim, you do know that the Muslim terrorists engaged in a global jihad against us (they certainly believe they're doing that and often speak of it) commit all manner of offenses against Islam, including killing other Muslims, yet there are more than sufficient fatwas that not only support, but encourage that kind of warfare, including one recently issued by a very influential Egyptian Mullah supporting jihad outside Muslim lands. Indeed, it's essential to know one's enemy.
Thanks again!
Posted by: mikemc at January 26, 2011 11:55 PMHave you seen the DOW lately? It;s going to kiss 12,000 next week. Two years ago it was 8,800.
So I hope your future, presumably anti-science, anti-abortion, anti-intellectual candidate is as nice to Wall Street as much as this president has been. In a future economic meltdown, you might wish you had Barry in charge.
Posted by: Dhalgren at January 27, 2011 01:32 AMthis letter is so well written. its a very good example to follow. thanks for posting it!
Posted by: ernie at January 27, 2011 08:11 AMMikeMC: Certainly you are free to criticize climate change theory, and even disagree with scientific findings. But the UN's IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) was never discredited. The scientific community agrees with nearly all of its findings and conclusions. Was there internal dissent and disagreement? Sure, It was a big, multinational study. But the study is anchored by this rather generalist, almost no-brainer conclusion:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The scientific community knew this back in 1990. So blemishes on the IPCC don't do a thing to change the scientific consensus that has been in place for at least 20 years.
I'm not saying you must acknowledge the report's findings. But to say that the report has been 'discredited' is more like wishful thinking or embellishment.
Posted by: Dhalgren at January 27, 2011 09:06 AMVirtually every single reputable scientist in the field says otherwise
whoop whoop whoop TAUTOLOGY ALERT
Every reputable scientist says A.
Some scientists say B.
Scientists who say B are no longer reputable.
Every reputable scientist says A.
Here's a hint: When your confirmation is based on lots of people thinking it is a good idea and not on falsifiable hypotheses and predictions, you're not doing science.
Posted by: Phelps at January 28, 2011 04:12 PMDear Dahlgren:
I'm afraid I must disagree with you about the IPCC report. As I pointed out to Jim, substantial portions of that report have, in fact, been discredited and the authors have had to remove and/or retract large portions of the report. For example, see this article regarding their problem with glacier melting predictions: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html. This is only one of the serious problems that particular wish list has experienced and all of them go directly to the heart of the "science" used to reach its conclusions. These problems are surely not blemishes, wishful thinking or embellishment.
Please remember that virtually the entire AGW case rests on computer models, models built using three databases. Those using these data bases have admitted that they lost one, that one probably never existed, and they have steadfastly refused to produce the third, or their methodology, for other scientists to replicate. This is not science. Also keep in mind that many of the "scientists" purporting to support these matters have no expertise in meteorology or any other related discipline, hence they have no greater authority to opine than any other layman.
Also please remember that "very likely" is hardly proof, nor is "most believe," or "consensus," or even "most of the really smart people believe," particularly when they do things like trying to label carbon dioxide, one of the handful of gasses without which life cannot exist on this planet, a greenhouse gas and try to regulate it.
The IPCC report, like virtually every other report that tries to leap from a narrow set of potentially verifiable, scientifically valid findings to AGW to spending any amount of money = returning lifestyles on a stone age level = saving the planet from imminent destruction, is not a matter to acknowledge or ignore, but an example of unwarranted hysteria in the pursuit of unconstitutional and unsupportable power over the lives of others. And of course the primary mechanism by which this will be accomplished is redistribution of wealth. Sorry. Tax time is around the corner and I don't have any to spare.
Posted by: mikemc at January 28, 2011 07:21 PM
