President Obama's Post "Shellacking" Speech

The White House YouTube channel not only has the entire speech and press conference from the day after the midterm election, but an interactive transcript. Wish I'd seen that before I started trying to transcribe what the president was saying. Here's the video in its entirety:


One of the parts I found most telling came at the 50 minute mark. The reporter asked the president "Are you willing to make any changes in your leadership style?" This is what the president said:

Folks didn’t have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year and they got a pretty good look at me up close and personal. They were able to lift the hood and kick the tires. I think they understood that my story was theirs. I might have a funny name and I might have lived in some different places, but the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and lookin’ out for one another that had been instilled in them by their parents those were the same values that I took from my mom and my grandparents. So the track record has been that when I’m out of this place, that’s not an issue. When you're in this place it is hard not to seem removed. And one of the challenges that we've got to think about is how to I meet my responsibilities here in the White House which requires a lot of hours and a lot of work but still have the opportunity to engage with the American people on a day-to-day basis and give them confidence that I’m listening to them.

So the president admitted what many of us have been saying for years -- that he is a better campaigner than he is a president. He admits that he was successful in Iowa, shaking hands and giving speeches, but not as successful in the White House. Interestingly, this seems similar to his experience in Harvard Law School, where he first showed his talent at campaigning and also showed that, once elected, he leaves the actual work to others.

Unfortunately, while we have a political system that requires a person be a good campaigner as a prerequisite to getting into office, we will often have people running the government whose talent stops at the point that they are sworn in. It would be nice if we as a voting public weren't so swayed by personality and charm and poise and looks, but we are. We often wrongly conclude that if you are good enough and smart enough to run a good campaign, that will translate to your talent once you've taken office. But as our current president has proved, this is a false syllogism.

Barack Obama had no policy ideas, no plans for America, no solutions. What he had was the ability to tap into the national zeitgeist at just the right time. Plus, the Republicans helped him out with a lackluster campaigner in John McCain and a divisive lightning rod in Sarah Palin. And George Bush did much to inflame the anti-Republican passions with his disconnected affect and inability to articulate. This plus the excitement that Obama engendered led to his big win in 2008. But this win was misinterpreted as a shift to the left in America -- and the election Tuesday confirmed that the country does not want to move in that direction.

Many in America have been feeling buyer's remorse since Obama was sworn into office and Tuesday was the first chance to demonstrate that dissatisfaction. They had believed his campaign rhetoric about change only to discover that their trust was misguided. His was as one-sided an administration as Nixon's, distrustful and rejecting of the other side, patronizing the opposition, full of hubris. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thought they could belittle and marginalize the Republicans and restructure the government in their image, regardless of what the American people really wanted.

Their liberal agenda received the shellacking -- his word -- that it deserved. Now it's up to the Republicans to take their mandate and turn it into some real change in government. Go back to the original Republican values that were abandoned during much of the Bush administration. Bring spending down, help businesses create jobs, streamline the government, and keep our nation safe. They have two years to make good on their promises and to justify the faith the American people have placed in them.

Republican Party Moving Toward Greater Diversity

As a Jewish female it has often bothered me that my party of choice is mostly led by a collection of old White guys. When Michael Steele became the new face of the Republican Party, I was happy with the change, yet worried that he was still the exception that proved the rule.

Yesterday’s landslide victory for Republicans may be the big story, but lost in that headline is the fact that the Republicans elected a number of candidates outside the usual white, male stereotype. With the election of Marco Rubio, Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley, Mary Fallin, Kelly Ayotte, Tim Scott and Allen West, the Republican Party is starting a move towards looking more like America.

Marco Rubio, a second-generation Cuban American, was elected Senator in Florida, fending off both the Democrat opponent but also a run by independent Charlie Crist. In Nevada, while Democrat Harry Reid held on to his Senate seat, Republican Brian Sandoval defeated Reid's son to become the state’s first Hispanic governor. In nearby New Mexico, Susana Martinez became the first female governor of her state and the first Latina governor in the country.

Allen West’s win in South Florida’s 22nd Congressional District makes him the first African-American Republican to represent Florida in Congress since the 1870s. Similarly, in South Carolina, Tim Scott -- who defeated Strom Thurmond's son -- became the first African-American Republican to represent that state in Congress since the Reconstruction.  Speaking about their historic wins, Timothy F. Johnson, the founder and chairman of The Frederick Douglass Foundation, told an interviewer last night that "we can say with pride that America is a diverse and unique country. Its people are not monolithic looking, thinking, or voting." But in an effort to deflect attention away from race and on to policy, he added, "The best candidates won, and that includes the black Republicans who will take their seats in the U.S. House of Representatives January 2011."

Nikki Haley, of South Carolina, and Mary Fallin, of Oklahoma, became the first female governors of their states. Haley, an Indian-American, became the second Republican of Indian heritage to win a major election, joining Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Kelly Ayotte adds her name to the growing list of female Republican senators which also includes likely write-in winner Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. While they were unsuccessful in their bids last night, other women running as Republicans included former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California and Tea Party favorite, but polarizing, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

Before yesterday’s election, Republican Party chairman Steele discussed his party’s move towards greater diversity, running ten African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and more than 100 women for Congress. "I think we've made great strides in that regard." He added a hopeful note, "I think we will see - and have seen over the course of the past year - more and more people of color, people of diverse backgrounds, identifying with our party."

I share that optimism and welcome more people to join us under what will increasingly become a much bigger tent.

Vote Tomorrow!!!

One of the more interesting biennial occurrences in America is the midterm election. It is usually not so much about the candidates or issues of that election cycle, as much as a response to what happened two years earlier. The midterm election is the electorate’s response to the President and Congress’ symbolic “How’s my driving?” bumper sticker.

We’ve had the “contract with America” election of 1994 in which the voters told Bill Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress we’re not happy. In 2006, it was the Republican president and representatives who heard the deafening “NO!” from the voters. It’s time again for the disgruntled and disillusioned to have their say, and pollsters and prognosticators are predicting a landslide victory for Republican candidates in the house with strong gains in the Senate and the State houses.

I would think that this year, it would be hard to find a voter who wasn’t angry with those in power. On the Liberal side of the spectrum, you voted for “change” only to see most of your key issues not addressed. Yes, a form of health care restructuring was passed, but it was not as extreme as the Liberals wanted. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is still being supported by this administration in the courts, we’re still in Iraq and Pakistan, even Gitmo is still open.

Moderates who believed that Obama would bring bipartisan change to Washington have seen him lock Republicans out of meetings and promote divisiveness. They’ve seen money poured into solve every problem, the administration giving more handouts than a pedophile at Halloween.

Conservatives have seen every core value they hold dear come under attack and they’ve been ridiculed and marginalized as crazy extremists. Those who wanted limited government and tax relief have been labeled as evil or uncaring. Our president has recently told Republicans, they can get on the bus, but they’ll have to sit in the back.

So if no one is happy with the direction this President and this Congress are taking America, what will happen tomorrow? Much depends, as it always does, on voter turnout. There is no clearer way to make your opinion known that to vote. For all the water cooler talk, blogging, posting, tweeting, calling into talk radio, it is only what you do tomorrow that really matters.

I live in California where Republicans have put up two candidates for the major contests that have failed to ignite voter excitement. Meg Whitman has run a confusing campaign for Governor, spending too much time trying to court unlikely voters rather than rallying the Republican base. This is not the year to pander or run as a moderate. Carly Fiorina could have won in a landslide if she just ran commercials of Senator Boxer talking. Whether she was a godsend at Hewlett-Packard or just another overpaid executive, she would be infinitely better for California than the “reliably liberal” Boxer.

As a Republican, I hope the turnout of other Republicans in California will be great enough to overcome the less than electrifying campaigns these two women have run. And if they have to win by virtue of anti-Obama, anti-Brown and anti-Boxer votes, rather than based on any voter enthusiasm for them, I’ll take it.

If you want to have your voice heard, if you are not happy with the direction the country is moving, then say something where and when it counts. VOTE tomorrow.

Republicans and Happiness

A new Pew Research Center survey shows that Republicans as a group are happier than Democrats. And this is not, as some might assume, because Republican are wealthier than Democrats (one need only look to Hollywood to see that money does not always equate with Republican Party identity). Adjusting for income, Republicans, whether rich or poor, were happier than their economic counterparts in the other party.

I’m not surprised. Being a Republican means having a clear set of values devoid of the moral relativity that plagues the Democrats. When you fail to have a clear concept of good and bad or right and wrong, it can leave you ungrounded and unsure. You have no touchstone on which to rely, no way to assess the merit or worth of anything. If there is no clear better or worse, then how do you know if you’ve achieved a satisfying result? How can you ever be happy if there is nothing you value as superior to something else? If everything is relative, then nothing is special.

This is why having a leader who represents Democratic Party values is a mistake. If you believe that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Il-Sung are merely friends we haven’t yet made, you don’t understand friendship. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Gordon Brown are not more important to you than the Castros, then you have no clear cut values. If everyone is treated the same, with no accounting for their character and behavior, then we have moral chaos. This is not the road to peace, it’s a path to our own destruction.

Republicans tend to believe in the inherent ability and value of each person and to trust that people can achieve if they are free to do so. Democrats view people as victims of some wrong or another who need to be taken care of and shown what to do. This is why the Democratic Party proposes the golden handcuffs that come with the welfare state. They don’t want to see individual achievement; they want to have their hand in whatever anyone accomplishes. They need to justify their existence and their continuing control over our daily lives.

The Democrats love the story of Robin Hood and have taken it upon themselves to take from the rich and give to the poor, in some twisted notion of nobility. In reality, they are trying to make the successful feel guilty about their success and the unfortunate believe that their situation is beyond their control and they own the government their very life. This is a dysfunctional relationship that any therapist would encourage you to run from – but it is the basic economic and social platform of the Democrats.

Republicans have no trouble prioritizing, Democrats cannot choose. Republicans put their country first and their family first. Democrats think this is arrogant, biased and uncaring – we should treat all nations, all people the same. It must be hard to figure out if you’re happy or not if you don’t consider one thing more important than another.

Despite the campaign rhetoric from last year, it is the Republicans who believe in hope, the Democrats who believe in doom and gloom. The Democrats ignore any evidence that the world is not coming to an end – scientific studies that dispute the global warming hysteria, for example. The more diseases we get a handle on, the more new threats the Democrats raise (high fructose corn syrup follows second-hand smoke as the scourge of the world). Carbon emissions! Saturated Fats! There’s a new calamity just around the corner for the Democrats.

Republicans aren’t putting their heads in the sand, but they are willing to be satisfied. Republicans can be content, without being complacent. We can appreciate the good, without ignoring the bad. But it takes discernment and a willingness to make value judgments to do that. So, if the Republican Party is on its way out as many in the media are saying, does that mean that happiness is also endangered?

If you see yourself as an optimistic person, with clear values and morals, and you’re not yet a Republican, maybe you should rethink that decision. You might find some happiness here.

Tea Party and the Liberals

The conservative's attempt to show that they can rally people to their cause was not a rousing success this past Tax Day. The nationwide tea parties were a sparsely attended affair in most locales. Still, the thought behind the protests -- a retro, grassroots effort to speak out about unnecessary and excessive government spending and taxation -- was a noble one.

Traditionally, it has been the left that galvanizes its supporters to sing songs and carry signs (to paraphrase The Buffalo Springfield) while the people on the right has been relegated to "silent" status. The right stay at home and watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but seldom march or chant. So it was refreshing to see an effort to unite and inspire that group not to sit and grumble, but to make their voices heard.

At least that was my take on it. The always reliably anti-Republican militant Janeane Garofalo had a different take. Speaking to the like-minded Keith Olbermann -- friend to Conservatives everywhere -- Garofalo maligned and slandered the Tea Party protesters in the most vicious way possible.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Garofalo then continued her tirade equating conservatives with "average white power activists," and accused Republicans of having a serious mental deficiency.

And, in case her racism charge against the protesters -- who were, mind you, carrying signs saying "Stop Big Government" and "Taxation is Piracy" -- she continued. "Again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House."

It is disturbing enough that this woman holds such irrational thoughts, but the fact that she was given a national platform to spew them, while been egged on gleefully by her conspiratorial pal, is even worse. Liberals like these do not debate issues -- they just make unfounded, hateful allegations knowing they won't be challenged. Indeed, Olbermann brought Garofalo on precisely because she wouldn't discuss the issues raised by the protesters, but would turn the debate into an open attack on everyone who dared to come out and speak their minds against the president's budget.

It's ironic, I suppose, that the same liberals who wouldn't say a cross word against real evil in the world -- excoriating Bush for using phrases such as the axis of evil against totalitarian regimes that deny their citizens basic rights -- have no trouble at all calling their fellow Americans the most vile things possible.

The protesters were motivated by the economic changes they see in America, not by racism or any other evil motive. They object to liberal efforts to move this country towards vastly increased governmental expansion, greater government spending and greater burden on a smaller number of taxpayers.

Garofalo and Olbermann owe them an apology.

You May Be a Republican If...

According to a recent Rasmussen survey, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is currently hovering around 33.6%, compared with 40% who identify as Democrats. There are a number of reasons the Republican party is currently the minority party, not the least of which is the public's perception of what a Republican is -- a white, middle-aged, right-wing, Evangelical, gun-toting, uneducated fascist.

But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.

Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.

You might be a Republican if:

You love and are proud of America.

We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.

Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.

You don't hate the wealthy.

Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.

Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.

Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.

You believe charity begins at home.

Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.

Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.

Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."

It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.

You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.

One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.

Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.

You don't expect government to have all the answers.

You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?

The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.

What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?

Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.

The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.