About Me

Name: Sean Engmann
Email: SMEngmann@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

It Ain't Over Yet: McCain's Last Opening

Posted by Sean Engmann on Friday, October 17, 2008 2:32:51 AM
Contrary to popular belief and reports, this election is far from over.  Last night, John McCain did enough to stay alive, finally placing a wedge between Obama and the center.  Whether he wins will determine how far to the left McCain can push Obama by leveraging that wedge.  The wedge that McCain used to keep the door open has a name, "Senator Government" and a face in Joe the Plumber.  Forget Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and ACORN, the situation on the ground dictates that McCain's strategy from here on in has to be what it always should have been, to isolate Obama on the left wing of the Democratic party and to seize the center.  In fact, McCain can now even run a more conservative campaign than he has been because the country is clamoring not for bigger government, but for more personal responsibility, less spending and lower taxes.
 
In the 1st two debates, Obama deftly painted himself as a moderate while blaming the incumbant party.  He claims to be a tax cutter, cutting taxes to 95% while protecting the little guy against the rich.  He cleverly defines many of his spending programs as tax cuts to account for the 95% and because he's such a smooth talker, he came across as sincere, while virtually indistinguishable from McCain, who also wanted to cut taxes, but supposedly just to the wealthy and corporations.  A tax cutting Democrat, especially in this day in age is a credible president.
 
In the 3rd debate, along came Joe the Plumber, the personification of the guy Obama seems to want to help the most.  Here is a guy who's not a rich guy, he's a hard working everyday blue-collar American who will see his achievement punished in the form of higher taxes by Obama's plan.  Further, Obama said he wanted to take Joe's hard earned money to "Spread the wealth" and repeated that in the debate.  McCain needs to do a portrait on Joe the plumber and illustrate exactly who he is and what Obama's "95%" will do to this ordinary American.  McCain's plan has to be themed, as he put it in a slip at the debate, as the policies of Senator Government.  He could use Joe to expose Obama as well as use him as a platform to promote his own policies of accountability, lower spending and more personal responsibility.  It could just be enough to save the White House.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Senator Government" Exposed. Is It Enough?

Posted by Sean Engmann on Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:18:49 AM
Tonight, for the first time in the three debates, John McCain began to expose Barack Obama for what he is, a socialist dressed as a moderate.  Every proposal Obama made was a new government program or more funding and more mandates.  The enduring line is when McCain had a slip of the tongue and referred to Obama as "Senator Government" a line, by the way, McCain should repeat for the rest of the campaign.  Bob Schieffer did a great job as moderator tonight because he allowed both Senators to illustrate their core beliefs, and at the core, McCain believes in the individual, Obama believes in government.  That needs to be the issue and the theme of the remainder of the campaign.
 
On points, who won the debate?  A lot of focus groups still say Obama because Barack was able to, in a deft, lawyerly way, deflect criticism and obscure his positions.  His answers were cool, calm and collected, but as McCain pointed out, they were eloquent and indirect.  Eloquent and indirect is a really good description of Obama's campaign.  On healthcare, what's more important, expanding coverage or reducing costs Obama was asked, his answer, both.  Never mind that the two are mutually exclusive.  How about Obama's idea of the need for restraint and fiscal responsibility, while at the same time proposing massive spending increases.  On abortion, Obama when presented with facts in his voting record simply changed the subject and on Supreme Court appointments, he said he opposed a litmus test and then explained for two minutes the need for one.  The biggest whopper remains that he continues to claim he will cut taxes for 95%, even when confronted with the Joe the Plumber scenario and a Wall Street Journal expose that says that Obama's tax policies would serve as a disincentive to work.  Obama though, came across as smooth, slick and very glib, though carrying little substance.
 
I think that this debate will serve John McCain well for the rest of the campaign.  Obama's demeanor on the stage when McCain was answering, his laughs and smirks made him appear to be very arrogant, and his indirect way of speaking could turn some people off.  More importantly, though, it lays the groundwork for the clear contrasts between McCain and Obama, the issue of government mandates versus personal responsibility.  While the American people blame the GOP for the state of the economy, by and large, they still have a much more Reaganesque vision of the economy, and want the government out of their lives and off of their backs.  The great irony is that a man with very socialistic views is benefitting as the American people want lower taxes and more accountability.  If McCain can tap into that sentiment and make personal responsibility and smaller government the centerpieces of his campaign, while contrasting that with Obama's vision of big government, he has a chance in this election.  Tonight he opened the door to do that, so it could prove to be a good night for McCain.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Race Factor

Posted by Sean Engmann on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:34:34 AM
I've had it, there's an 800 pound gorilla in the room (and no I don't mean that in a racial way), and it's race.  Everyone's tiptoeing around it in the mainstream media and almost everyone is predisposed to the position that it is an obstacle for Barack Obama.  It isn't.  Additionally, the prevailing wisdom is that there remains an air of racism in white America, that many whites would not vote for Obama simply because he's black.  Don't forget, that was the same prevailing wisdom that the same people had during the Democratic primaries, and the so-called "Bradley effect" never transpired.  The fact of the matter is that, among white Americans, race will not matter for the vast majority of voters, and for those whose vote is impacted by race, they are extreme outliers on each side, with some voters voting against Obama because he's black, and others voting for him to elect the first black President.  The fact that the race issue is being brought up as a reason Obama could lose is the height of media condescention towards the American people, as well as a slight to McCain as it implies that the only reason Obama would lose is because he's black, which is simply false.
 
What set me off about this topic is this week's Time Magazine, which examines race in detail.  On the cover, it states "Why the Economy is Trumping Race: How Worried White Voters are Turning Toward Obama."  That cover implies that the only reason any white voter would vote for a black guy is because they are too scared to do otherwise."  Let's consider the facts, about 50% of whites will vote for Obama, maybe 5-10% of whom were swayed by economic concerns or other policy issues.  So realistically, at a minimum 40% of white people will vote for Obama.  Now consider another article previewed on the cover of Time entitled, "How Black Voters Will Feel if Obama Loses."  In the article, Ta-Nehisi Coates says, "(When he bought an Obama t-shirt in Harlem) is when I knew, for the first time in my life, it would be a good year to be black," and follows that by saying that blacks would greet an Obama loss as "More of the same."  Now consider that in polls among blacks, Obama carries the black vote at a clip of around 95%. 
 
The media has, at its core, the belief that we are still living in a racist country.  If nothing else, the success of the Obama campaign should put to rest those doubts.  If white people, though, are labeled racist for being reluctant to vote for someone who happens to be black, shouldn't scrutiny be aimed at a black community that is voting for the black guy at a 95% clip?  To those who say that blacks vote Democratic anyhow, consider that in North Carolina's primary, the black vote went to Obama over Clinton at a 91% clip.  It seems to me that there is a double standard in play here in the popular wisdom.  Race supposedly hurts Obama when a few white people vote against him, but there is no examination of the trends of upwards of 90% of blacks going for Obama primarily because he's black.
 
If there's any mistrust or racism in this country, it is among the black community much more so than the white community and the numbers bear that out.  It is why black leaders have stepped out and condemned as racist any attack on Obama in this election.  This election will be decided on the issues, not on race and saying otherwise is seeking to stir up trouble if McCain wins.  The Obama campaign itself proves that the American Dream is alive, but like many Democrats, Obama seeks to bury that dream and the hope that his campaign supposedly emmbodies, in a sea of entitlements.  Let's leave race out of the final analysis, it's far too overblown right now.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Socializing of America

Posted by Sean Engmann on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 6:08:16 AM
It's sad to say, but Ronald Reagan is probably turning in his grave right now because of what's happening to this great country.  Reagan devoted his whole life to defeating communism abroad and preventing socialism from taking hold in the United States.  On the eve of what could be a landmark election in more ways than one, America teeters on the edge of socialism, and the Russian bear has reawakened in Vladimir Putin.  The only man standing in the way of this impending disaster is John McCain, a man who likely understands the situation, but not necessarily its gravity.
 
To put it simply, if Barack Obama gets elected, we will no longer be a nation grounded in risk and rugged individualism, rather, we'd be a socialist country in the model of Western Europe.  Replacing a generation of entrepreneurs will be a generation of bureaucrats, instead of equal opportunity, the government wll strive for equality of outcomes.  To those who don't believe that electing Obama will change the country dramatically and others who think that an Obama presidency isn't necessarily a bad thing because it will allow the GOP to reorganize, think again.  Obama will with near certainty have large majorities in the House and Senate, possibly even a filibuster proof 60 Senators.  Consider the two major social engineering experiments of the 20th Century, The New Deal and The Great Society, which have built the foundation of the nanny state that Obama seeks to build.  How many new government programs or departments that were created and permeated society have been repealed?  How about zero.  Once a bureaucracy is created, particularly an entitlement agency, it is virtually impossible to eliminate.  Social Security was a grand experiment, but by private sector standards, it's failed miserably and added considerable complexity to the tax code.  Consider also welfare and Medicare.  If Obama establishes universal health care, as he promises, that program will forever be with us.
 
At the heart of Obama's plan is his myth of a 95% tax cut to working families.  As the Wall Street Journal explains Obama's plan is very deceptive and actually counts as a tax cut refundable tax credits to people who pay no taxes.  This plan creates disincentive to work, as people see a significant marginal tax hike as their salaries go up and they lose their tax credits.  America has never been about income redistribution and the American Dream has always been about hard work paying off.  Obama's plan represents a fundamental lack of faith in the American people as he seeks to "Make government cool again" by doling out handouts. 
 
In addition to the policy impact, consider what could happen to our courts.  Obama will make appointments to all courts on the basis of ideology, appointing activist judges by litmus test.  With clear majorities in Congress, there will be no oversight.  What would stop Obama from doing what FDR wanted to do during his Presidency after Supreme Court decisions he didn't like, and simply appoint two more judges to the Supreme Court to give him a 6-5 majority?
 
John McCain needs to attack Obama's tax plan and make a renewed call for traditional American values in order to win this thing.  He needs to call a spade a spade and tell America about the threat it faces if we elect the hip and cool Senator from Illinois.  Here's to hoping he starts in the debate on Wednesday.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debate a Disaster for GOP

Posted by Sean Engmann on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:56:20 AM
Tonight's debate was an absolutely abysmal failure for John McCain, who may now have irrepairably harmed his chances of winning the Presidency.  Time after time, McCain had opportunities to focus the harsh glare of the national spotlight onto Barack Obama's economic policies, and time after time he failed.  Though slightly better on foreign policy, McCain had opportunities to paint Obama as the neophyte that he is, yet he failed to do so.  The strategy of "I have experience" and "I have a record" is a failed strategy, as everyone already knows that.  In order for McCain to win, the election must be a referendum on Obama, and any opportunity where Obama can glibly blame the Bush Administration represents a win for Obama.  More astonishingly though, in this debate, McCain allowed Obama to paint himself, unchallenged as the candidate of fiscal responsibility, while McCain risked alienating his base by proposing a whopping 300 billion dollar mortgage buy-up on top of the relief package.  Unreal.
 
Like a masterful thespian, Obama played to the audience, telling them, in Clintonesque terms, that he feels their pain.  He played into resentment, by continuing to assert, unchallenged, that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  Not once did McCain mention the capital gains tax, and not once did he challenge the 95% figure, which assumes that millions who pay no federal income taxes will somehow get a tax cut.  McCain did not speak in simple terms of the devastation that a tax hike would bring in this economy, particularly a hike in the capital gains tax.  Not once was FICA mentioned.  Most importantly, though, McCain did not press Obama on how he would pay for the myriad of new entitlement programs and spending that he has proposed, nor did he challenge Obama when he claimed that he was actually going to reduce spending.  In fact it was OBAMA who accused McCain of being the candidate, "With lots of great ideas, but no plan on how to fund them."  Obama, amazingly, came out as the candidate of fiscal responsibility.  Again, unreal.
 
In terms of health care, McCain had his opportunities to rip apart the plan in the context of the financial crisis.  McCain gained traction when he spoke of Obama's mandates, but he did not articulate in simple terms what the mandates would mean to the quality of healthcare.  McCain was absolutely correct when he said healthcare is a responsibility, while Obama claimed it was a right granted by the government.  The housing crisis is a perfect example of what happens when the government says that something market driven is a right, as subprime loans, given to people without adequate credit and pushed by the government in the name of "affordable housing" crippled the financial markets.  McCain missed an opportunity to talk about personal responsibility.
 
Finally, on foreign policy, Obama stated the desire to pursue freedom around the globe in places like Darfur, yet he expressed firm opposition to the war in Iraq.  McCain could have easily used this as a chance to defend our going into Iraq and the good that our troops have done there in removing a brutal dictator.  Further, he could have used that as an opportunity to boast of the success of the surge and explain that we were indeed treated as liberators at the beginning while accusing Obama of inconsistency and naivity.  President Bush tapped into the sentiment of praising the efforts of our troops in 2004 to great success against the pessimism of Kerry and McCain could've done the same.
 
Barack Obama tonight proved to be a puppeteer and a chameleon.  He was pulling all the right strings on all the issues and getting the American people to see things his way.  He knew what his weaknesses were going in, particularly lack of fiscal responsibility, and he used clever words to make them strengths.  In fact he directly addressed his lack of fiscal responsibility and his inexperience and used them to attack McCain.  Obama is the worst kind of politician, he shapes his words and changes his positions to define himself and mold himself into a palatable candidate for the American people.  Worse yet, he can never admit any mistake and he says he's always had the answers, even when the opposite is clearly true.  Nobody knows what he stands for, and by allowing him to define himself and pass the referendum, he will likely find himself in the White House.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the Rush to Regulate???

Posted by Sean Engmann on Monday, October 06, 2008 3:11:39 AM
Regulate, regulate, regulate, that's been the drumbeat that we've been hearing the last two weeks.  Wall Street needs more regulation, the banks need, "strict oversight" and all in all, we just need more government to look out for us.  We've even heard very unlikely sources pushing for more regulation, from Sarah Palin, to Bill O'Reilly to John McCain.  And with these cries for more regulation and a bigger government, we've seen the Democrats make tremendous strides in the polls, not just in the Presidential race, but in House and Senate races.  Here's a scary thought, Al Franken, United States Senator.  Why are the Democrats benefitting?  Because Americans know that they are good at writing regulations, and since everyone has the same message, they might as well vote for the experts.  The sad thing is, I don't think Americans want more regulation and oversight and a more intrusive government through increased oversight is absolutely the wrong prescription for our country.
 
For those calling for increased oversight and regulation as a remedy, consider who will be doing the oversight.  For those who think the government "should be looking out for you," consider who you'd rather rely on, yourself or some government bureaucrat.  The reason we got into this economic crisis was not for lack of regulation or oversight, the necessary regulation was in place, the problem was that the people actually doing the oversight did not understand the situation and therefore could not act.  Congressmen and government bureaucrats are not economic experts, and the dizzying array of data combined with the lethargic pace of government makes it virtually impossible to take action.  Consider the 150 billion dollars of earmarks attached to the relief package in order to get such a critical bill passed.  What good do more regulations do when you don't have the ability to enforce existing regulations?
 
In fact, government intervention is largely responsible for a lot of what has happened with this economy.  The idea of politically correct loans, or loans to poorer people for housing that are beyond the means of the borrower were actively encouraged by Congressional leaders.  In fact, the notion that "everyone is entitled to a home," is very reminiscent of the idea that everyone is entitled to all inclusive healthcare.  This social engineering does not work with the free market, and it is this type of regulation, regulating outcomes, that helped cause this mess.
 
John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly do not understand the issue, and by ceding the point that we need more regulation, they are essentially conceding the election.  According to Frank Luntz's focus group, the line that resonated the most of the entire VP debate was when Palin spoke about personal responsibility.  Palin's line was the only time any of the major candidates mentioned the people who borrowed above their means and used their homes as ATM machines, fully confident in a government safety net.  America's not about social engineering or safety nets, it's about personal responsiblity, and personal accountability.  To get back in the race, McCain and Palin need to take a stand against government handouts, Obama's patronizing tax plan and against more regulation and vow to bring back the American spirit of personal accountability.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hoodwinked: Article a Good Summation of Election

Posted by Sean Engmann on Saturday, October 04, 2008 3:24:53 PM

Thomas Sowell in this article writes a great analysis and illustration of the election.  It does seem that Americans are being hoodwinked by Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media.  It is amazing that the Democrats, whose hands are all over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose policies many have said have propped up the companies, escape this scandal with virtually no culpability.  It's further amazing that a man like Obama, the second highest funded politician by Fannie Mae, with its CEO as a policy advisor, who advocates similar policies as those that got us into this crisis in the first place, benefits.  It speaks to the lack of political capital of the Bush Administration and the inability of the GOP to communicate to the public about who Obama really is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Youth Support of Obama a Product of Negativity toward America in Schools

Posted by Sean Engmann on Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:21:57 AM
As a young person, I am amazed at the virtually unanimous support for Barack Obama in this election.  The fact that the support exists is one thing, most people who I went to college with supported Kerry in 2004, and there was support for Gore in 2000, but the level of interest and support is different for Obama.  Many people my age who have never cared or been into politics before have gone hook, line and sinker for Obama, and on the surface it's hard to understand why.  More people are interested in the debates, and many of these same people have taken to ripping apart Governor Palin.  I coach high school baseball, one of my former players is now working for Obama, a co-worker who couldn't have cared less about politics in 2004 is constantly sending me links showing Palin's gaffes and was eager to see the debate last Friday.  Recently, a video came out, showing school kids almost brainwashed singing about Obama changing the world.  Kinda reminded me of when I was in 3rd grade and a substitute teacher made us write to President Bush opposing the 1st Gulf War.
 
The hard thing to believe is what got us to this point, how could a guy who's the most liberal guy ever to run for President on a major ticket gain such support.  There are several reasons.  Perhaps the biggest reason is because of branding, Obama has used his logo extremely effectively to present an image and give him instant recognizability.  The logo is extremely complex and represents a serene image of a rising sun over a plowed field.  When I first saw it, I was struck by how similar the imagery was to communist images, and how it seemed to placate people.  There are portraits made of Obama that are similar to those made by communist leaders as well, with messages of "hope" and "change."
 
These images work particularly well with the youth of this country because of the state of the educational system.  Ronald Reagan warned in his farewell address about the failure to re-institutionalize patriotism in our schools, and his fears are being realized by the Obama campaign.  Additionally, traditional American values, such as competition and individualism have been systematically phased out of schools, resulting in a much softer youth.  Young people now favor internationalism and collectivism, and scorn our ancestors for our misdeeds such as the treatment of Indians and blacks, rather than recognize the fact that they created the best system of government in the history of man.  More and more, the military is being scorned by schools, as evidenced by San Francisco kicking the JROTC out of schools, and by colleges like Columbia that refuse to have JROTC programs on campus, yet invites Ahmedinijad to speak.  My generation looks on America's past negatively, and has been taught to value equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity.  Obama's logo in essense represents adopting the values of Western Europe, values that the youth of this country are ready to accept.  More than anything, the sun rising over the field represents an image of the workers rising up, and it does nothing to speak to capitalistic or individualistic values.
 
America is a great country, founded on rugged individualism and freedom.  It is still the only place where anyone with a good idea and hard work can make it.  Class mobility here is a reality.  We need to reinstill these values in our schools rather than focusing on the negative, and Obama's campaign, and his success with young people, ironically, is the culmination of all of the negativity about America that exists in our schools. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bailout: Domestic Politics, Global Paradox

Posted by Sean Engmann on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:20:44 AM
The financial crisis has turned the Presidential campaign on its head, but it has also significantly shaken up the political climate in other nations.  While Barack Obama and the Democrats have benefitted considerably from the current crisis, ironically, in the UK, the conservative Tory party which has long been the minority in Britain has seen considerable gains.  The contrast is staggering, in that the Americans trust the left to manage the same crisis that the British are moving to the right to address.  This phenomenon suggests two things, first that moving to more liberal economic policies will not resolve the crisis here and secondly that the issue is toxic, and that the party in control of government bears the brunt of the blame.
 
The whirlwind of activity in Congress these past few days is illustrative of just how political and toxic the bailout has become.  The only thing that is clear is that all involved are putting partisanship and politics ahead of doing what's right for the people.  First it was Harry Reid saying that the Democrats would not pass a bailout plan not approved by John McCain.  Why?  The public is fed up and has come out 80% against the bailout plan, and the Democrats are afraid to pass the bill and have their members attached to such an unpopular bill in November when the GOP votes against it.  They have gone to lengths to say that this is a Bush GOP bill.  Nancy Pelosi's speech on the floor as Democratic strategists talked on TV about how they'd use the bill against Republicans underscores this.
 
So since the Democrats are too scared to pass the bailout, the logical leader to push the bill through would be President Bush.  Unfortunately, Bush has used up all of his political capital, and he is an equally toxic figure politically.  The American people didn't buy what I thought was a very lucid assessment of the financial situation, and because of his inability to communicate, he is virtually politically impotent when it comes to getting a bill done.
 
It is a time of crisis in this country, and this bailout could arguably be more important than anything that either Presidential candidate does in the next four years.  What better time to show leadership than to get to Washington and become the standard bearer on a bill that the public can support.  John McCain tried last week and was roundly criticized.  Barack Obama, in a time of peril, has demonstrated his true sense of leadership and principle by staying away from Washington and the process, campaigning and Monday morning quarterbacking every decision that's made.  He keeps saying he's laying out the answers, but where is the guy?  He talks about what he said a couple years ago, but does not mention that as a community organizer he helped coach activists on how to pressure companies into giving politically correct subprime loans.
 
This is a time for John McCain to demonstrate true leadership.  As I said last week, he needs to go to Washington, get in front of the issue and get something passed that does everyone proud and contrast that with Obama's hands-off approach.  If he doesn't own the issue, the change in focus and the vitriol directed at the GOP brand will cost McCain the election.
 
As an aside for an interesting discussion of the financial bailout strategy, check out this site.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »