Some questions to ponder:

 

Why does the American Revolution remain such an enduring, endearing, timeless story to everyone?

 

Why are Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln generally regarded as the two best Presidents of the 19th century?

 

Now moving up the timeline to the early 20th century: Why are the Roosevelts -Teddy and Franklin- held in such high esteem?

 

Next follows Harry S.Truman; then John F. Kennedy- and finally Reagan; why are all three regarded - depending on one's perspective - as being the best presidents of the 20th century?

 

But in every case the answer is almost self-explanatory. The very word "American" stands for courage; tenacity; intrepidness...being bold - the willingness to take on one's enemy.

 

Throughout our history, can anyone think of a POPULAR president who was NOT a strong and decisive leader - one who refused to back down? One who would meet head-on with a challenge- even if it meant paying a steep political price?

 

Of course not! 

 

Now let's examine the "lilies of the field"- Presidents who refused to take action, and will forever remain besmirched within the pages of our history:

 

In 1853, the highly-vilified Millard Fillmore refused to address the simmering issue of slavery- and it would later flare up into a catastrophic civil war.

 

After Lincoln's April,1865 assassination, a venomous mob, unforgiving of Fillmore's sympathy for the South, surrounded his house - draped it in black cloth- then vandalized it by splashing ink everywhere; a testimony to Fillmore's despicable partisanship. 

 

In 1894; "second-time" president Grover Cleveland refused to address the economic downturn caused by "The Panic of 1893". Soon after his election, the country went into a severe depression; but despite the suffering of the unemployed, Cleveland stayed true to his "hands off" government policy and would not intervene.

 

Three-quarters of a century later, in 1968- the tepid response of Lyndon B. Johnson will never be forgotten when the USS Pueblo was seized by the North Koreans 10 miles beyond their coast.

North Korean naval vessels had surrounded the ship, captured the crew, and charged them with spying- and violating North Korean territorial waters.

 

Johnson's mysterious failure to act caused Pueblo's crew to suffer a long, tortured, miserable captivity for a year, and it served to humiliate America beneath the heel of a far less powerful country.

Not surprisingly, history bears witness that the two least popular presidents of the 20th century were Lyndon Johnson & Jimmy Carter- both liberals; and both were politicians- rather than patriots - at heart.

 

On Nov 4, 1979, a crowd of Iranian "students" (terrorists) seized the U.S. embassy and took 52 American diplomats hostage. At once, the worm-spined Carter sprung into action - immediately deciding that the most feasible tactic was negotiation.

Iran refused to negotiate.

Carter severed diplomatic relations, and then "brutally" imposed economic sanctions.

Iran countered by marching our blindfolded hostages before TV cameras - mortifying America before the eyes of the world.

Carter then appealed to the UN Security Council, and the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini responded by stating that Iran's parliament would be the one to decide the fate of the embassy hostages.

President Carter (and his entire administration) were bullied by a country we could have EASILY intimidated. But Carter will forever be known as the president who "engineered" America's most humiliating period (444 days) during the ENTIRE 20th century.

 

CONCLUSION? American history does not shine favorably on the weak or indecisive- or any politician refusing to take on the opposition.

 

For simplicity, let's call it the politics of poultry-- the chicken syndrome.

 

Probably the most egregious current example of poultry politics is Arlen Specter.

 

When Vermont Senator James Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001, Mr. Specter railed against any senator who would callously change parties in mid-session.

 

Specter even went so far as to assure Pennsylvania voters that he would, "never  do such a thing"...declaring: "I am a Republican; I am going to run on the Republican ticket in the Republican primary."

 

Obviously, Specter is no profile in courage, and will forever be relegated to Benedict Arnold status hereafter, when he recently defected to become a democrat.

 

Next example: the odious Barney Frank:

 

For the last decade, Americans (particularly conservatives) wonder, "Why would the people of Massachusetts support such a dishonest, slimy liar as Barney Frank, and continually re-elect him to Congress?

 

But despite Mr. Frank's perfidy; he NEVER plays poultry politics.

 

Frank commands a perverse kind of respect from his constituents- the one vital trait that continues to enamor them-- he is a fighter.

 

Which leads us to the Republicans, and why--despite the brazen lies of the democrats- the GOP may lose the 2010 midterms, and even the general election in 2012.

 

But how you say? Haven't the lousy liberals (and Obama) already have blown it? Does it really seem plausible that the Republicans won't win?

 

Careful conservatives; there's one structural flaw -top to bottom- in the party; and its a fatal flaw at that.

 

Pitifully, the Republicans seem committed to be being the party of  the "fraidy cats"-- afraid to take a stand, and take the enemy head-on.

 

Ever since the presidential campaign of 2008, the Republicans have chosen to play poultry politics:

 

The Republicans were afraid of losing the moderate vote.

 

The Republicans were afraid of losing the black vote.

 

The Republicans were afraid of losing the women's vote.

 

The Republicans were even afraid of losing the Hispanic vote.

 

And they were campaigning in fear of losing the youth vote.

 

And surprise-surprise; in the last election- they lost them all - winning the only category expected ...the white vote.

 

The irony seems excruciating: 

 

When Obama was exposed as a disciple of Jeremiah Wright, the Republicans refused to exploit it...afraid of being called racists.

 

When Obama accused McCain of being "another George Bush" the Republicans had no response. They were afraid of reminding the moderate voters about the incredible unpopularity of their lame-duck President.

 

When Obama was being pilloried for supporting infanticide as an IIlinois Senator, the Republicans again refused to exploit a hot issue; this time, being afraid of losing the women's "right to choose" vote.

 

But as the old saying goes..."if you play not to lose, you’ll never win" (another definition of poultry politics).

 

Ironically, the Democrats - not the Republicans themselves- are the ones taking notice.

 

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) recently affirmed this when he said, (quote) "If Republicans oppose Sonya Sotomayor (for the Supreme Court), they are doing so at their own peril."

 

Predictably, the Republicans WOULD become putty in Schumer's slithery hands, deciding to play nice during Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. 

 

Thus, on the Senate Judiciary Commitee, Republicans tossed one softball after another to the radical activist Sotomayor, who - once assuming the bench- will undoubtedly go on to become the most leftist jurist since Earl Warren. 

 

Schumer (perceptively) added, "I think the confirmation process will be more of a test of the Republican Party, than it is of Judge Sotomayor."

 

So what does Schumer seem to know, that Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michael Steele (and the other so-called party leaders) don't even realize themselves?

 

Simple; the Republicans have become caught up in the liberal trick of the self -fulfilling prophecy.

 

And why?

 

Because it's what Schumer, Obama, Frank. and all the liberals seem to know, but the Republicans have yet to recognize: as long as the GOP keeps running as "being afraid to lose votes" (poultry politics) they'll NEVER win; ergo, the chicken syndrome.

 

The Republicans keep saying..."We need to be the party of Reagan"..."Act more conservative"…"Have a bigger tent"...etc.

 

Sorry boys; you need to stop talking about Reagan, and start ACTING like Reagan- a man of COURAGE, who would stand up to the opposition, fearless of what others thought about him; and choosing only what he thought was good for the country - not himself. 

 

And no matter what liberals say about the old Gipper, they'll never admit it, but they probably hold Reagan in even higher esteem than conservatives, because the Gipper was fearless; a trait that few -if any- liberal presidents can claim. 

 

So who amongst the current GOP leadership could be described as brave? Who could be considered truly meritorious of the title of party leader?

 

Gingrich? Ron Paul? Mitt Romney? Michael Steele? Huckabee? Who? Anyone? 

 

Try as they may to look for a theme, the Republicans - although diametrically opposed in political philosophy- trail the democrats in the one inherent necessity to win an election: the courage to fight to the end, no matter the worthiness of the cause.

 

Examine why the undecideds in the last election went so heavily for democrats- both Congress and the Whitehouse.

 

Practically all of America knew Obama was not truthful; voters realized they would be electing someone who had not served in the military, and had come from a "less than typical" American backround.

 

But compared to McCain -despite the fact he was a Vietnam war hero -they chose Obama instead.

 

Again why? Because many Americans perceived Obama as the one willing to stand up for what he believed- as flawed a philosophy as it was.

 

Nowadays, its not patriotism, not truthfulness, and not righteous causes that win elections -despite surface appearances.

 

Underneath it all, today's elections are won by displaying courage; showing voters the zeal to win.

 

Remember seeing the old black and white film clip of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Mr. Roosevelt spoke in righteous indignation (quote)..."December 7, 1941-- a day that will live in infamy."

Now flash forward to August 18, 1976; a day-- as time progresses-- that will live forever in infamy, for both the Republican party and America. Hardcore political junkies can never forget it.

On that fateful day, one of the most electrifying floor fights in political history took place in Kansas City, Missouri, where Gerald Ford and  Ronald Reagan were virtually deadlocked in the delegate count going into the final vote for the presidential nomination.

Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, he lacked the amount necessary to secure victory. The convention had opened with both candidates pulling out "all the stops" to win.

But then Reagan committed his biggest career political blunder-- he alienated his core conservative support:

In a bid to attract liberals and centrists, Mr. Reagan nominated Richard Schweiker for his V.P-- the Arlen Specter of his day. The move immediately backfired, infuriating conservatives who despised the liberal Pennsylvania Senator.  Many of the crucial uncommitted delegates who were leaning to Reagan, now fled over to the Ford camp.

This would be Reagan's day of infamy, and it would indeed, have consequences...great consequences.

Had he gone with his first choice --conservative New York Senator, James L. Buckley-- political historians agree the nomination would have swung over to Mr. Reagan; but the blunder allowed Ford to gain the momentum he needed to win the nomination.

But yet, the final balloting for president was electrifying. As the first states began to declare, the drama and suspense were palpable in the air. Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1080 votes for Reagan; and despite his blunder, it was that close...107 votes .

Reagan endorsed Ford at the close of the convention, and delivered a truly inspirational and magnanimous declaration of "party unity", an eloquent stirring speech that far overshadowed Ford's own acceptance address.

In an ironic quote from a story in the August 20, 1976 edition of the "Kansas City Star," it read..."Some delegates left the convention wondering if they had voted for the wrong candidate".

SOME DELAGATES? All the delegates!

Anyone on that convention floor who had heard Reagan's reconciliation speech, immediately realized they had made a grievous mistake in picking Ford; and thus we ended up with Jimmy Carter- the smiling peanut farmer-- a disastrous 1-term president whose damage to America is still resounding to this very day.

Yes, the delegates had left the convention "wondering" (knowing) if they had voted for the wrong man.

And how 'bout 1996? The Republicans nominated Bob Dole. What chance did a meandering, plodding speaker like Dole have against slick Willie Clinton?

But despite the obvious mismatch, the Republican delegates again had voted for the wrong man, nominating Mr. Dole on the basis that "it was his turn," and because of his staunch loyalty to the party, he "deserved to be nominated."

Predictably, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" (as they had done to Ford) ridiculed the dignified Dole to no end, portraying him as an ancient, senile, clumsy, and bumbling dolt, who could not even maintain his balance on a stage.

After the liberal media had sliced and diced Dole to pieces, Clinton won in a landslide.

So as before, the Republicans--in their vain attempt to "be fair" to a party loyalist-- we again harken back to that quote..."wondering if they had nominated the wrong man."

Ever since the untimely death of the political genius, Lee Atwater in 1991, the Republicans inexplicably have lost their ability to survive media attacks from the left, and it has cost them dearly.

Atwater was George H.W. Bush's media guru, who crafted the controversial Willie Horton campaign ad, and suggested that a video clip of Michael Dukakis--looking foolish riding atop a tank-- be incorporated in to a second negative campaign ad, that almost overnight saw the liberal Dukakis give up a nine-point September lead in the polls, to a turn-around where Bush won in a November landslide.

But if it hadn't been for Atwater, again it would have been a case where the Republicans would've nominated the wrong man, and the weak, meek Dukakis would have been in the Whitehouse, and in plenty of time to appease the blustery Saddam Hussein, and his 1991 takeover of Kuwait may have gone unanswered.

But what if Reagan had won in 1976? There would have been no Jimmy Carter's destruction of the CIA; no disastrous Community Reinvestment Act; no stagflation; no gas lines;  no Iranian hostage crisis; no Russian invasion of Afghanistan; and probably, no rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Other than that, Carter would have been a legendary president.

But consider if the Gipper had won:

Reagan would have strengthened the military, shored up the economy; and unlike Carter, would have been no naive whipping boy, genuflecting before our Mideast enemies.

But it was not meant to be. If only it were not for those misguided 107 votes on August 19 of 1976, how different would our nation be today?

Even as late as spring, 2008, the litany of Republican political stupidity has continued on unabated.

Last year, in the initial primary days, the Republicans were on the verge of nominating Mitt Romney--an honest, experienced, self-made, super rich businessman-- who had an actual plan to re-invent America's economy using traditional means: fiscal responsibility, tax cuts to stimulate private investment in new plants, and create new industry.

But despite him being perhaps the most accomplished man to ever run for president, Romney was lampooned unrelentingly by the other Republican candidates for his religion, his 1994 "flip-flop" on abortion; and his stellar economic and political achievements were marginalized by a carping, jealous, liberal media.

Romney was shamefully victimized by his own party, and the very man the GOP needed most to shore up a sinking economy, had himself been sunk by sheer Republican folly, who got just what they deserved: death by stupidity-- political party suicide-- the nomination of  the boring, stodgy, John McCain, who had practically zero chance against the youthful magnetism of Barack Obama.

And if that were not enough, the shining charisma of Sarah Palin, who's brilliant acceptance speech for VP had won her legions of both partisan and non-partisan support, was mishandled so badly (stupidly), that within 4 weeks, she had been annihilated politically, with the public led to believing that she was little more than a female Homer Simpson: a dismayed, chuckle-headed, moose-hunting housewife, who just somehow happened to win the governor's seat of Alaska.

Of course, once again it was all courtesy of a jealous liberal media, borne of Republican political stupidity.

But only if Lee Atwater had been around for the last 20 years... who knows? This late, brilliant media strategist may have gone on to guide the Republicans to victories in 92, 96, and 2008; but the former architect of George Bush's victory in 1988, died of a brain tumor at the age of 40-- the peak of his political success and power.

Atwater-- considered the Republican Party's best political tactician of the last century-- was feared for his readiness to skewer democratic opponents, and his skill in carrying out those attacks.

But ever since his passing, the Republicans have done just the opposite -- played fair 'n square, and have been the party of the nice guys-- a surefire way to lose every election.

If the Republicans insist on being nice guys, they've gotta be smart; innovative; win on ingenuity-- try something different-- start the 2012 nomination for president right now.

That’s right...start now! It would capture the political spotlight; it would force the liberal media to see the Republican stars in action, firing away at the inexperienced arrogance of Barack Obama, and professing smart political and economic solutions of their own.

Imagine Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney on a national speaking tour: Palin for her expertise in energy, and Romney for his brilliant ideas to revive the economy.

Imagine Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor speaking together-- another dynamic duo, who now serve in the House of Representatives. Cantor for his brilliance on budgets and numbers, and Bachmann for her fiery patriotism, both denouncing the treasonous liberals in the Obama administration.

All four of these Republican stars, given a national forum, could outshine the false, "tele-prompted" popularity of Barack Obama, and expose him for what he is-- a shameless, supercilious liberal, who has but one agenda-- tax and spend America into socialist oblivion.

Picture a touring Republican cavalcade of stars-- a premature primary campaign-- warning America that the media is out to subvert all conservatives, and every voter must trust their own instincts, because there is no truth anywhere in American politics; only lies; only traitors (Arlen Specter), with liberal democrats strictly out for themselves.

Or it could be known as "the Republican Truth Squad of the Stars," revitalizing the party, re-energizing the nation; and demonstrating that there is hope--yes hope-- for the United States to once more be great; or as Reagan so artfully professed..."morning in America again."
 
Who-- besides the lying liberal media--says the Republicans don't have any ideas, and lack any true leaders? Let them be seen!

Stop the defeatist myth that there is no one who can defeat Obama in 2012. Stop it dead in its tracks! The democrats are behind it all--joined at the hip with the leftist media-- and the Republicans must put an end to their lies, or they will once again be victimized by their own naive stupidity.

Elections do matter; and not the best candidate, but the smartest political party, invariably wins; and not always to the benefit of the country as a whole.

The Republican fairness and "decency" doctrine continues to yield disastrous results in the form of 3 liberal presidents, who have appeased our enemies, and supported calamitous socio-economic policies, where America's long term survival as a great nation may actually be in doubt.

Lee Atwater--wherever you are-- what would you do?


www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

 
“Throughout the world, freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They're doing so on almost every continent populated by man... in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America...They are the freedom fighters.”

Although the above sounds eerily like a call to jihad (holy war) taken from an Osama bin Laden fatwa, this glowing speech was proudly enunciated by President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985.

Back then, Reagan was referring to the bravery of the Afghan freedom fighters--the Mujahadeen-- who had single-handedly stalemated the Russian army after their Christmas day 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.

Reagan and his CIA chief, William Casey (from a classified report) had determined the Soviets would never be able to beat the Mujahadeen, even with 50,000 additional troops.

Casey hatched a covert plan to enable Saudi Arabia to finance these fierce, Afghani warriors, and provide additional recruits.

Thousands of young Muslim men-- in their desire to claim their "booty" of 72 virgins-- streamed out of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, and all over the Middle East to join the conflict.

Enter Osama bin Ladin, then 22, the eldest son of a very rich Saudi construction titan. The CIA blundered by not realizing that the crusading bin Laden could have cared less about helping America win the Cold War, and didn't consider the long-term implications of supporting a network of Islamic fundamentalist rebels.

As it turned out, it was siding with one devil to fight another.

By 1984, the CIA  reported that the Soviets were no closer than they were in 1979 to achieving their goals. Gleefully, Reagan and Casey now decided to step on the gas, and proceeded to up the ante:

Soon, word was out that the Mujahadeen had received so many weapons from the U.S. that they were selling them to third parties.

But the Reagan administration responded by going completely overboard, as if the Mujahadeen were a NATO ally. Classified military intelligence, training, and even satellite reconnaissance data-- all were funneled into Afghanistan through Iran.

Also included were sophisticated sniper rifles, timing devices for C-4 plastic explosives, antitank missiles, and other equipment. For the Mujahadeen, it became an Islamic version of Christmas.

"Stingers" were also sent--portable, shoulder-fired infrared-guided antiaircraft missiles-- and were used very effectively, with a hit rate of 89 percent.

And as if this were not enough, CIA records indicate 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage, and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

While back in America, young Muslim CIA recruits went to Camp Peary in northern Virginia-- "The Farm"---where young Afghans and Arab nationals from Egypt and Jordan learned about sabotage and explosives, and eventually filled the ranks of the Mujahadeen.

Of couse these “lend-lease” bomb-making skills would haunt the US down the road, and eventually blossomed into the al-Quida resistance in Iraq.

Car-bombs, truck bombs, vest bombs, I.E.D. roadside bombs...ironically all these horrors can be traced back to the overzealous, misguided training of the Mujahadeen recruits by our CIA.

Because we had no agents on the ground in Afghanistan, America made one of its most grievous misjudgments, not realizing that the Mujahadeen's fierce resistance was purely cultural --not political.  It was less about siding with the US, and more about a jihad to defend Islam from invading Russian infidels.

After running the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was given the Muslim equivalent of the Congressional medal of honor, and then returned home to fester away about his next adventure.

Back in Saudi-land, the "diabolical Wahabi" Bin Laden began to single out the U.S. as a grave peril, because he instinctively sensed our modern culture threatened the 7th century foundation of the traditional Holy Islamic state.

From his observations of U.S. military forces (who were staging in Saudi Arabia for Desert Storm) Osama went ballistic over the way Americans acted toward Saudi women.

Bin Laden also recognized the threat from American pop culture as it was projected from abroad onto his home satellite dish…(quote) "If we were to embrace the values of this nation, it would undermine belief in Allah, destroy the Muslim family, and corrupt the innocence of Muslim girls and  children."

And with all the U.S. troops stationed on the Saudi peninsula, Bin Laden resented it as an "American invasion of Holy Muslim territory," and began to plan his revenge on America-- culminating in 9-11.

Predictably, the US government refuses to admit its role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague the West—and of course, the eventual disaster that befell New York.

Ironically, the name "Al Qaida" was created in the CIA  offices in Washington. In Arabic, it is literally defined as 'the base' or data base-- the title for the computer file of the thousands of Mujahadeen who were recruited by the CIA to serve as a proxy army versus the Russians.

As one unnamed senior CIA investigator said after 9-11, (quote) "We set up the very system of Islamist terrorism we are now trying to dismantle.... people forget that we invented al-Qaida, and that Bill Casey was getting the Saudi fundamentalists to assemble all these fanatics to kill Russians.... No one asked what would happen when it was over."

In short, al Qaida became a classic Dr. Frankenstein's monster situation, largely due to the cunning and logistical genius of Osama bin Laden.

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge (he has a degree in civil engineering), bin Laden built “training camps” dug deep into the sides of mountains, where the Mujahadeen could be trained by their fellow Sunni brothers-- the Taliban.

(quote)...Fool me once, shame on you; but fool me twice...

Right now, in our current Afghan conflict, is the U.S. about to get fooled again? Will Richard Holbrook and the Obama administration make the same intelligence blunders of a generation ago as did the Reagan administration?

Presently, Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zadari, has called on America to provide his country with American drones (and classified intelligence) to target Taliban militants, telling US officials that… “continuing independent drone attacks inside Pakistan’s territory are counter-productive.”

Mr. Zardari continued: "President Obama once said that ‘he would act if we weren't willing and able'. We certainly are willing, and with international support (drone technology), we will become even more able. ...the bottom line is the question of trust.”

Zardari went on…“These drone attacks by the U.S. are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignity, and cannot be condoned, even when they are done by allies and friends"…."We would much prefer that the US share its intelligence and give us the weapons, drones and missiles that will allow us to take care of this problem on our own."

Is this guy an expert con man or what? Would you buy a used car from him? It seems as though Mr. Zardari has missed his calling.
 
(repeat)...“The bottom line is the question of trust”.

But could we trust Pakastani scientists? How soon would it be before they would take our drones apart and steal the technology? Would that mean another spin of the India-Pakistani war in Kashmir? Would it later come back to haunt America in some future “asymmetrical" war?

Stay tuned.

But how many times do we have to repeat history? Whenever we give an ally weapons to fight our enemy—they become OUR enemy!

Today’s allies are tomorrows insurgents.

So far Richard Holbrook—Obama’s crackerjack regional envoy--seems to have taken Zardari's sucker bait, saying…"The United States and Pakistan face a common strategic threat… a common enemy and a common challenge, and therefore a common task.... By letting them call the shots on final actions against foreign militants, then they we will truly be fighting their own war, and not America's War."

While the Obama administration seeks to re-energize the engagement with Pakistan, throwing money at problems is one way, but naively transferring sensitive technology may comeback to haunt America, in the same way the bomb-building camps at the CIA "farm" near Washington once did.

Near the end of the Vietnam War, Walt Kelley, writer of the comic-strip character 'Pogo', spoke words as applicable now as they were then... “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Here's a pertinent observation one might find interesting: Comparing government employees with workers in the private sector.
 
When the St. Anthony Bridge (I-35 West) collapsed in Minneapolis, killing 13 people, it had severed a major artery into Minneapolis. At the time, it was feared it would take three years to rebuild it at an astronomical cost.  When Governor Tim Pawlenty announced that he wanted it rebuilt within 17 months, everyone scoffed at such an improbability.
 
Pawlenty guessed incorrectly. It took less than 14 months to rebuild the bridge. And it came in under budget. Why? The job was turned over to the private sector.The team of FIGG Engineering, Flatiron Constructors, and Manson Construction, won the bid for the project and delivered a new bridge in what turned out to be an unprecedented time frame.

But how? It was pure motivation.
 
Construction began well before the final design was completed. Teams of contractors worked 12-hour shifts in brutal subzero temperatures. By shaving off more than 12 weeks from the 17 month deadline, FIGG, Flatiron and Mason earned themselves hefty bonuses, which no doubt played a part in the bridge's early completion.
 
Now let's shift our story to Boston- home to the infamous "Big Dig."
 
When excavation began in 1991, it was heralded as a jewel of engineering and vision. Then after many years of cost overruns, delays, and myriad construction-related problems, the most expensive highway project in U.S. history was finally completed, save for an array of nettlesome side projects.
 
One big source of its delay-- faulty bolts throughout. Tests showed more than 1,100 bolt assemblies that used epoxy, and more than 300 other areas in the connector tunnel complex were unreliable. All had to be retrofitted-- flaws typical in every government project.

Throughout its lengthy construction, the Big Dig stood up to nationwide ridicule for its delays, faulty design, cost overruns, and overall general incompetence.

Of course when it comes to anything involving the government, competence is a foreign word.
 
The $14.6 billion Big Dig took 14 years to construct-- the most expensive highway project in U.S. history. And the Dig's overall cost exceeded double the Panama Canal's price in today's dollars.
 
And can you guess why? Of course; 60 percent of the project's tab was federal-- meaning the "drone factor" was involved--and nearly every American taxpayer has felt the impact of the Big-Dig's price tag.
 
So what is this mysterious government drone factor? Simple; it all boils down to one thing--motivation-- the essence of all human behavior.

One fact of our human nature is that if were not challenged to take things to a higher level, a person may get a little lazy, and slack off into drone-ish mediocrity. And government programs often inspire most workers into achieving new heights of mediocrity.

Why do successful football coaches make the big bucks? They are the ones capable of pushing their players to a higher level. Coaches are motivators.

And motivators are worth it. They boost productivity. It's basic to our human nature. If people are not challenged to take their lives to a higher level, they tend to remain in a sea of mediocrity-- only the motivated are the ones who standout. Motivation is the one essential of all human achievement.

If there's a behavioral-political lesson to be gleaned from all this, it can be summed up in a nutshell- the basic reason why government programs never work-- there is nothing to truly motivate anyone to do anything properly.

Example: let’s use the dreaded state auto bureau registrar as your typical government drone agency. Let's say your job is to mail out license plates, and let's say it’s Friday at 2 p.m. and you're not interested in working any longer. What would happen if you just dawdled around, and then left at 3:15, citing the excuse, "I'm not feeling too chipper". What would be the consequences?

Example #2: let's say you work at a privately-owned UPS franchise store, and your job is to wrap and ship customer packages promptly. What if you decided to walk out at 3:15 on a Friday, citing the same "I don't feel good" excuse? Would you...

a) be questioned by the mgr.
b) be told by the mgr. "to tough it out" till closing
c) be told by mgr. he's calling owner to say, "you went home early"
d) be fired

Answer=All the above

Here's the salient point: without consequences there can be no rule; no order of any kind. And without order there can be no discipline. And without discipline, there can be no accomplishment.

So analyze just about any government position. You just show up. You can be mediocre; you can slack off... watch the clock... do a crossword...surf the net. Who cares? There's really no urgency to get anything done promptly because there are no consequences, other than maybe some type of minor murmur from your supervisor.

But the supervisor isn't the owner; the supervisor isn't the one PAYING you. It's the government, which is a faceless, paper-shuffling bureaucracy running on the taxpayer's time and money.

Thus, nothing tangible ever gets accomplished on time, because there are no consequences. Once again --who cares! It's the government stupid! What did you expect-- something done on time? Something done right the first time? Something finished ahead of schedule? Work harder for the government? Hah! For what?

This is why big government has never been (and will never be) the answer to our nation's problems. Can anything positive ever be accomplished if mediocrity is the norm, incompetence is tolerated, and excellence is non-existent?

There have only been two greatly successful government programs in our modern history:

First-- the 1942 national transformation from peacetime to wartime economy. This was because Americans had the most powerful motivator of all--survival-- the country was united under president Roosevelt. Factories ran 24/7. Inspired people worked 12-hour shifts. We out-produced our enemies and won the war.

In the 1960's, we achieved what seemed impossible at that time ...we landed on the moon, and safely returned our men. Once again our nation was united under President Kennedy who had set one goal--win the space race over the Soviet Union.

Recall the great legacy of Ronald Reagan, an inspirational, patriotic motivator. He was instrumental in guiding 1980's America to a wildly successful peacetime decade of prosperity.

But now, we ignore American history at our own peril. We've seen roller coaster times ever since. There have been no great motivators. The White house has been sorely lacking for its next great inspirational leader.

Presently America has arrived at a fork in the road; we can retain our free market heritage-- or we can progress down the pathway to Barack Obama's socialist neo-democracy-- a change we all have been deceived in.

It all harkens back to the Marx-Engels concept -- The State vs. The Individual. The individual exists for the State. Everyone in effect, becomes "government employees"...drones subservient to the State.

And socialism is the same old Marxist theory. Tax the rich; give to the poor. Class distinction. Class envy. That's Obama's neo-communist America. Remove all incentive; crush the entrepreneurs; set income limits with the ceiling of taxation. The more you earn, the more severely you will be penalized.

Examine all the socialist countries in Europe. Except for Ireland (a low tax-high growth economy), the other nations could be best described as mediocre performers. If wealth is equalized by redistribution, and the government takes charge of everything else, who amongst the masses has the desire to perform at a higher level ?

Barack Obama...are you listening?

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Now the hard part. The din from the historic  inauguration has fallen silent, and the real business of getting America back to work lies at hand.

President Barack Obama says... "The nation can't afford "distractions" or "delays" when it comes to the economic stimulus plan working its way through Congress". He also promised... "My administration would be the most transparent in history".

 

Fiddlesticks.

And how about this little tune from our idolized 44th new President..."We are going to bring a long-overdue sense of responsibility and accountability to Washington."

Seriously? And there were more solemn promises:

"We're going to be investing an extraordinary amount of money to jump-start our economy...but we can't expect the American people to support this effort unless we take extraordinary steps to ensure that the investments are made wisely". 

Sage words indeed.

But throughout the 20th century, the legacy of America's best presidents was their judicious use of government money for achievements which greatly benifited the nation, and sometimes, the entire world.

When FDR left office,  his great legacy was the Hoover Dam.

When Truman left office, his great legacy was the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt a war-torn Europe and saved its western countries from going over to communism.

 

When Eisenhower left office, his great legacy was the Interstate Highway System.

 

When Kennedy's Apollo project reached the moon, it ended the costly space race with the Soviet Union.

 

Under Ronald Reagan, we won the cold war, a legacy where we bankrupted the Soviet Union in their futile attempt to keep pace with the U.S. in the costly arms race of the Cold War.

 
And Barack Obama is well on his way to becoming the great budget master of the 21st century: ''We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."

In 1961,  President Kennedy promised we would put a man on the moon. And in 2009,  Barack Obama seems to be promising the moon.

But his great legacy may lie right here, within the confines of his 850 billion stimulus package:

- $79 billion to fund schools and other education programs.
- $18.5 billion for renewable energy improvements to buildings.
- $5 billion for public housing construction
- $13 billion in education spending for disadvantaged students.
- $1 billion to build new public health centers.
- $1.2 billion for state and local summer jobs programs for youth.
- $1 billion extra for Head Start, preschools.
- $1.5 billion for services and shelters for the homeless.

These items total $137.7 billion-- and how most of it has anything to do with stimulating the economy, lies only within the great wisdom and foresight of the Obama mindset.

But somehow, in a great display of "partisan non-patriotism," the republican opposition in Congress was not impressed with the plan. House minority leader, John Boehner, called for ..."fast acting relief; not slow-movement government spending".

And Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) warned..."before we agree to it, the American public need to see the details..."
 
But Mr. Obama need not fear if the republicans do succeed in sabotaging his package, because the one thing that will undoubtedly cement his great legacy will be-- the great "Obama brand" itself.

Yes indeed, stimulating the economy may prove to be a cinch for Mr Obama. He’s now the czar of popularity; and a certified celebrity on the world stage. Right now, the way the Obama brand is selling across the country, we may see an economic stimulus in merchandising that would make retail titan J.C. Penney look like someone in a soup line at a rescue mission.

Up to now, consumers have already spent over 600 million on their beloved president- turned- hero, and the numbers are rising fast; and all within the teeth of America's worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

But why?

Initially, Obama shrewdly allowed himself to be positioned as the best-marketed presidential candidate in history, bearing the sophisticated branding of a John F. Kennedy, and the media magnetism of a Franklin D. Roosevelt

First came the magazines-- Obama has been on more front covers than J-Lo, Brad, Angelina, Jen, and Tom Cruise combined. Then there were the spinoffs from the publishers-- like posters, plaques, books, coffee mugs and reprints. And there are the Obama handbags, book bags, and doo-rags.

And on online stores by the thousands are selling Obama merchandise. There are Obama T-shirts from web sites, and Barack Obama commemorative photos. The "iconization" of Obama is underway full speed, with no end in sight for the next four years.

And how's this for spreading around the wealth-- there are coins layered in 24 carat gold being issued bearing the profile of Barack Obama's smiling visage. The Danbury mint has even gotten in on the action, advertising two different "patriotic" medallions, and a historic commemorative plate with 22 carat gold rim.

How about a designer line of suits? Obama is definitely the GQ president if there ever was one. And let's not forget athletic wear. Since his election, Barack Obama always spends Sunday mornings skipping church and working out in the gym.

So can you just picture it now? Air Obama sneakers-- or  running attire emblazoned with "yes we can"? Look out Under-Armour...move over Nike...here comes Barack Obama! Can anyone say "designer logo"?

And autographed Obama basketballs are a cinch to be all the rage. And don't forget--  for all those who insist on authenticity-- Mr. Obama is a lefty.

And what about building new highways and streets? Yes we  can! The Obama name-game will no doubt be ubiquitous on future freeways, airports, schools, parks, federal buildings, biking trails, dog walks, bus stations, harbors, military bases, and even public swimming pools.

And probably in the next 4-8 years, the only new construction venues that may escape the Obama moniker are rifle ranges, and bowling alleys. And of course, be aware that Mr. Obama is one of the few people on earth who looks completely dignified while bowling a gutter ball (and chalking up a score of 37).

But in getting back to countries' business--- stimulating the economy and saving or creating 3.5 million jobs--the difficult task lies ahead.

Obama said. "Our first job is to put people back to work, and get our economy working again."

And recall Obama on the stump from last fall. In his campaign speech entitled, "A Metropolitan Plan For America's Future,"  Mr. Obama spoke of the challenges to our infrastructure that he would address as president...

..."You see the crumbling roads and bridges, the aging water and sewer pipes, the faltering electrical grids that cost us billions in blackouts, repairs, and travel delays."

But now, it seems as though all the crumbling bridges have been put on hold, and judging by the allocations of his stimulus package,  Mr. Transparency has decided that there's more important work at hand-- like getting RE-ELECTED in 2012.

 
"We are going to go through our federal budget, page by page, line by line, eliminating those programs we don't need-- and insisting that those that we do need operate in a sensible, cost-effective way."

But if the details of the Obama stimulus plan ever do become available for the American public to read on the "internets" (as he promised), they may be rather dismayed to find vote-buying measures galore:

-100 million for "compassion funding"
-750 million for periodic census and communication support
-1.5  billion for green rehabilitation of public housing
-500 million for Native American housing
-100 million for lead paint removal of public housing
-1  billion for reducing wildfire threats
-1  billion for low income energy assistance
-300 million for the national fish hatchery program
-650 million for the national forest service

But lo-- the great legacy of the Obama era may well lie within the above categories, and forever deemed by history to have been wise and well-planned stimulus spending:

-Maybe 2010 will prove to be "the greatest census of all time!"
-Maybe the Obama administration will experience, "The fewest forest fires of all time!"
-Maybe his administration will hatch "the healthiest, heartiest, tastiest fish of all time"

Or maybe Obama will have succeeded in "removing the most lead paint flakes of any previous president". Or..."put more Native Americans backs back to work, building the energy-efficient habitats of the future, than any other previous president".
 
Or maybe even Barack will go down in history with a foreign policy grand slam, and ensnare the likes of O-sauna bin-Laden.

And to all you doubters--it's what Hillary and John McCain had to learn the hard way-- never, ever underestimate Barack Obama, and what he can accomplish-- except when it comes down to bowling.

Barack Obama has good intentions for America, but could his naivete and callow idealism spell danger for our country?
 
If he attempts to make friends with dictators who despise America, it could be interpreted as a sign of weakness. And weakness is provocative. It invites attack.
 
Obama sees himself in a different light. As president-elect of the United States, he has access to the international stage, and he knows the whole world is watching his every move. So he’ll have the platform to launch his grandiose idea of a new role for America, where everyone can now look to the United States as no longer the arrogant policemen of the world, but as a nation eager to play the role as friend to all mankind.
 
Obama is relying on his mythical powers of persuasion, and is confident that he can tread where no president has gone before; and that he can convince everyone (including the most implacable of our enemies) to be nice to America, just because of who he is...the Chosen One!
 
Yes-- Mr. Obama knows best about foreign policy; um-hmm; he's seen it all before. He's going to take a novel diplomatic approach...show everyone that it's a brand new shiny-happy world out there, because HE is the one that the whole world has been waiting for! A star on the world horizon has been born, and now all the world sees America in an all-new affirmative light.
 
Barack maintains that the old ways of diplomacy are out of touch with today's reality. He wants America to disarm unilaterally... stop all the space weaponry...ban all the missile-defenses. Just be nicey-nice to everyone, and the world shall forgive America for all its "misdeeds" of the past.  Apologists are in; tough negotiators are out. No more of that EITHER-OR  tough-stuff from the warmongering Bush.
 
But look back in American history at the presidents who rate the highest. No-nonsense, bare-knuckle negotiators like Harry Truman And Ronald Reagan, knew you don't take the nice-guy approach to totalitarianism and aggression. The original liberal, Franklin Roosevelt, tried that with Stalin near the end of World War II at Yalta, and disastrously brought upon the onset of Iron Curtain, and prolonged the bitter 40-year Cold War. Neville Chamberlain tried being accommodating to Adolph Hitler in 1939, and thus has gone down in history as the lily that appeased the despot, and ignited the Second World War.
 
At Yalta, Roosevelt naively succumbed to the "charm” of Josef Stalin, who had promised post-war elections in eastern Europe. It resulted in one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. The lesson we learned was simple...leaders from countries, not based in Christianity, have no reason to EVER tell the truth, or live up to diplomatic agreements.

DIctators have no moral standards. They deal in the either-or. Like Stalin at Yalta, they are quite willing to tell the Big Lie, and stall America into pacifism and inaction.  They only understand force. They consider only consequences.
 
Obama (he of the Second Camelot) is often compared to John F. Kennedy. But is this a fair comparison to a World War II hero, and a president who acted decisively under the extraordinary duress of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? At that time, Kennedy was faced with the threat of nuclear missile attack by Nikita Khruschev.
 
But John Kennedy had seen and experienced bloody war before. His will of iron stood as a warning to Mr. Khruschev, and caused the Russian premier to blink during a time when an actual threat of a nuclear exchange hung in the balance. It was a shining moment in U.S. foreign policy history. Could Obama be as decisive in a touch-and-go situation?
 
Obama (the Arrogant One), has set upon a total contrarian path to all the historical lessons we've had to learn the hard way. Does he actually believe he could charm away the implacable positions of Moslem extremists; or that he could sweet talk a Hugo Chavez into a pro-American stance? Would his imperial ego countermand the level-headedness required of a president when the stakes are high, and decisive action (or inaction) is at hand?
 
As our next president who has never served, Mr. Obama must grasp the cold reality of wars; and he must be cognizant that an enemy plays for keeps...it's victory or defeat, no middle ground exists with a determined foe. You can't negotiate with fanatacism. In war, nice guys don't win. Defeat awaits the weak and the meek. Diplomacy begins only after you state your mission with all your pieces poised on the chessboard, with all your forces in position. THEN you play your cards from the side of strength, because the stronger player always holds the upper hand.
 
So, does Mr Obama realize diplomacy is NOT at all like running for office? Or does he ominously (and naively) believe in his own fairy tale, and that he alone could solve a foreign crisis merely because he's "cool enough", and so very worthy of admiration. Does he actually feel his rock-star persona would be preferable to the forceful will of a Kennedy or Reagan in a critical foreign situation?
 
Obama's energy policies are grounds for grave concern. They portend disaster. He professes radical environmentalism. He wants to abandon oil in favor of alternative energy. This all works great in an election campaign, but the grim reality is that America relies on OPEC for much of its oil, and any Mideast flare-up (or worse) will be undoubtedly accompanied by a supply disruption from the Persian Gulf. This would leave America vulnerable, and cripple our military in its most critical need-- the fuel to power our weapons and fly our planes!
 
But will his idealism be eclipsed by the realities on the ground in the Middle East? Does he believe that he, unlike any previous world leader, could smooth talk a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse? What if the phlegmatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a missile strike at Israel, what would (or could) Obama do?...send a strongly-worded message?...or call the Iranians and tell them to be nice?

Could his pacifism put us in an even more perilous energy position, and leave our military in the lurch without enough jet fuel, and high octane gasoline in a time of emergency?

Would his domestic stances (raising capital gains taxes... taxing the rich) for reasons of "fairness,” illustrate how he'd comport himself as the nation’s chief commander... always first deciding what would the FAIREST way to conduct a military conflict?
 
Conflict among humans never changes. It will always boil down to the haves vs. the have nots, be it between countries or within a nation. Life itself is never fair. But does Mr.Obama believe that war and conflicts should be treated as politics; and that in dealing with conflicts, America must always be fair?
 
Mr. Obama must examine his inner soul. He is now responsible for the entire western world. Should a crisis arise, there may be no time for talk. A president must always be ready to answer that out-of-the-blue, zero-hour call, for either decisive action, or inaction, to avert war. There may be no time to negotiate. You can't vote "PRESENT"; appeal to the U.N, or hide in the Whitehouse.

Mr Obama, that's the critical decision that you, the new president, may one day soon be forced to make. And we pray for your resolve to be able to rise to the occasion, should that time ever be at hand.