President Obama Still Fantasizing

Posted in National Security,President Obama,World by Ryan on the March 26th, 2012

I just saw that our President is still advocating a position that extends beyond reality.

The president said he believes the United States has a “moral obligation” to act and lead the world in reducing nuclear stockpiles.  He continued, “I say this as president of the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons.  I say it as a Commander-in-Chief who knows that our nuclear codes are never far from my side.  Most of all, I say it as a father, who wants my two young daughters to grow up in a world where everything they know and love can’t be instantly wiped out.”

His comments build upon stuff he talked about in his Prague Speech a couple of years ago, and I mention it here.

I’m not sure what the end goal really is behind this kind of rhetoric.  It is hard to believe that the man occupying the Presidency actually believes that we can eliminate nuclear weapons.

As Bill Kristol says,

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war.

I would take it further.  To eliminate any kind of weapon that gives you any advantage, you have to remove human nature from humans.  Evil exists in the hearts of men across the world, and to deny that is to deny reality.  Past, present and future.  I know Obama said that the rise of the oceans began to slow during the primary last cycle, but can he really perfect us all?  Has the messianic vision of himself extended beyond his followers of 2008 and permanently affixed itself upon his mind?

More concisely explaining the general theme of that point of perfection, Jonah Goldberg was recently on Uncommon Knowledge and explained how progressives will never be satisfied because they believe in perfection.  Conservatives recognize that humans are flawed and that perfection is not attainable.  At least for the time being.  It is these diverging world views that drive much of the political debate.  (An unconstrained vision versus a constrained vision.)  Progressives believe that a utopia exists somewhere out there, and will enact policies in an attempt to achieve their vision of it.  Conservatives recognize the failings of humans and are more interested in establishing conditions through which imperfect beings can best thrive and prosper, despite their imperfection.  The US Constitution, traditional morality and ethics, etc…

This ambition to reduce nuclear armaments, with the goal of reaching zero, embodies this difference in vision of what is real, and what is not.

Super Tuesday & Expectations

Posted in Election 2012,Media Bias by Ryan on the March 7th, 2012

From the headlines and network analysis, you would get the impression that Mitt Romney didn’t have a very good night.  In reality, he won a majority of the contests, placing 1st in 6 of 10 states, 2nd in 3 and 3rd only in 1.

The narrative is that he somehow isn’t connecting with people, even though he now has more delegates than all the other candidates combined. And then some.  I think it is safe to say that Romney doesn’t have a “connection” problem, he has an “expectations” problem.  Expectations seem to have become Romney’s biggest challenge.

Some might argue that his inability to seal the nomination somehow represents a problem, irregardless of the fact that the current occupant of the White House was mired in a contested primary for months before becoming the nominee.

So when you take a step back and objectively look at what happened last night, Romney won the state that all eyes were on.  The rest of the races were essentially a wash.  Romney won everything he was expected to, with the exception of swapping North Dakota for Alaska, and Santorum won everything he was expected to.  And Gingrich of course won his home state of Georgia which really opens the path to the nomination for him because…..he has more delegates than Ron Paul or something.

A pattern has really emerged this cycle.  Romney is so far and away more polished, prepared, organized and funded than other candidates, that it isn’t that he can’t quite seal the deal with the voters, but instead he can’t seal the deal with the media that expects near perfection from him.  If he wins a state like Washington or Arizona by a huge margin, it is simple victory, unworthy of much attention.  If he barely wins his home state like Michigan, it is a near catastrophic miss.  And if he barely wins a swing state like Ohio, he apparently has fundamental problems with his campaign.

In every scenario presented, Romney wins, and yet, the reluctance to give him his due is palpable.  It is as though there is a new normal wherein Romney must pad with a sizable margin or else risk discredit for the victory.

If Romney wins the White House this November, expect the following possible headlines from these same political analysts and pundits distressed at how to explain Romney’s victory:

Thin Margin of Victory Raises Questions Over Mandate to Govern
Romney Won, But Unfavorables Still an Issue
Mitt’s Triumph Overshadowed by Narrow Win
Romney Wins, but do Voters Trust Him?

The media loves a horse race I suppose.