Monday, July 23, 2012
Actor Anson Williams, best known for his work on the 70's sitcom, "Happy Days", posted this on his Facebook page today.
Being involved in the entertainment and product business has given me a clear understanding of how commerce, job creation, a long term, solid economy, etc, is created. Our country's founding and future was always dependent on innovation. The November election has to deal with the greater good, not party loyalty. I voted for President Obama. He is not only intelligent, but also a really good man. However, I'm not voting for him come November. He does not inherently possess the tools that this country needs to monetarily survive. Innovation and invention needs to prevail. Without this, we will DEFINITELY lose the middle class and more. The entrepreneurs need all of the inspiration and help possible to succeed. This is the only way jobs are created for long term growth, and a solid, healthy economy. Without it, we lose our country as we know it.
Anson doesn't mention his party affilliation, political, philosophical or theological predispositions and, both refreshingly and remarkably, refrains from casting any aspersions on anyone.
He has, simply, thought it through, considered his options and made his decision.
A process at the core/heart/center of what was intended when the Founders created our system of government.
Reflection, consideration, weighing of options and thoughtful decision.
Without malice or mayhem.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Enjoy this and then I'll be back to offer my two shiny Lincoln pennies about it.
Ever since the last Republican convention thousands of Americans have asked me to seek the Republican presidential nomination in ----. I withheld a decision until now, not because of any attempt to be politically coy, but because I have been giving every aspect of such a decision the most serious consideration.
Today, here at our home, in this State I love, with my family and with the people whose friendship and political interests have placed me where I am, I want to tell you this: I will seek the Republican presidential nomination. I’ve decided to do this because of the principles in which I believe and because I am convinced that millions of Americans share my belief in those principles. I decided to do this also because I have not heard from any announced Republican candidate a declaration of conscience or of political position that could possibly offer to the American people a clear choice in the next presidential election.
One of the great attributes of our American two party system has always been the reflected differences in principle. As a general rule one party has emphasized individual liberty and the other has favored the extension of government power. I’m convinced that today a majority in the Republican Party believes in the essential emphasis on individual liberty.
I’ve been spelling out my position now for 10 years in the Senate and for years before that here in my own state. I will spell it out even further in the months to come. I was once asked what kind of Republican I was. I replied that I was not a “me-too” Republican. That still holds. I will not change my beliefs to win votes. I will offer a choice, not an echo. This will not be an engagement of personalities. It will be in engagement of principles.
I’ve always stood for government that is limited and balanced and against the ever increasing concentrations of authority in Washington. I’ve always stood for individual responsibility and against regimentation. I believe we must now make a choice in this land and not continue drifting endlessly down and down for a time when all of us, our lives, our property, our hopes, and even our prayers will become just cogs in a vast government machine.
I believe that we can win victory for freedom both at home and abroad. I believe that we can be strong enough and determined enough to win those victories without war. I believe that appeasement and weakness can only bring war. I’ve asked and will continue to ask: Why Not Victory–why not victory for sound, constitutional principles and government–why not victory over the evils of communism?
I’m convinced that in this year ---- we must face up to our conscience and make a definite choice. We must decide what sort of people we are and what sort of world we want–now and for our children.
My candidacy is pledged to a victory for principle and to presenting an opportunity for the American people to choose. Let there be a choice–right now and in clear, understandable terms. And I ask all of those who feel and believe as I do to join with me in assuring both the choice and the victory.
No reasonable person (and, admittedly, the case can be compellingly made that, these days, that term is a raging oxymoron) can deny that this declaration of candicacy is a thoughtful, insightful, sincere and heartfelt expression of a desire ot offer a genuine alternative to the status quo, an alternative to which politicians traditionally aspire.
The Republican campaign of 2012 seems to have opted to embrace, rather than a central theme, a single obsession.
Anybody but Obama.
Because, at this writing, even the most perceptive of the political pundits, even those who see four more years of Democratic rule as apocolyptic, can't seem to discern the candicacy of Mitt Romney as offering anything more substantial than its being...
Anybody but Obama.
This strategy is going to fail.
Not only as a means of getting Romney elected, but also as a political strategy as a whole.
But, more regrettably, it's going to fail not only Republicans but all of us.
Because all of us, regardless of political stripe, deserve clear, concise alternatives any time we are asked to choose.
Last time I checked, lesser of the evils still doesn't count.
And "anybody but" is an affront, a mentality that replaces pondering with pandering, reflection with reactionism, legitimate debate with illegitimate dogma,cheapening the process and cheating us of a reasonable and reasoned choice between two different paths to walk.
Any one reading this and assuming it to be a pro-Obama epistle is missing the point.
Because it is not.
But just as we were offered "a choice, not an echo" a long time ago, we are entitled to a choice this time around, as well.
And any candidate who, essentially, is saying "well, I can't tell you in any great detail what I will do, except to say that I won't do anything that the other guy is doing" is not offering us up much of a choice.
History buffs will have already recognized the year those heartfelt words were spoken and the candidate who offered them up.
And that, remarkably, he was considered, at the time, a radical.
Makes you wish that somebody had put that speech in Mitt Romney's hands sometime before the New Hampshire primary, doesn't it?