Is it okay to "dis" the President? The Congressman and the Hockey Player

Congressman Doug Lamborn has announced that he will not attend the President's State of the Union Address tonight in protest. He says it will be little more than a campaign speech, so he will instead watch on television.

Tim Thomas, 2011 Stanley Cup MVP, skipped out on his invitation to the White House with the rest of his team. He was protesting what he believes is the erosion of freedom and constitutional government by the administration.

Are these men wrong to pass on invitations from our Commander in Chief to spotlight their political beliefs? Yes and no, in that order.

Doug Lamborn is a Congressman. The State of the Union is an annual address from one branch of government to the other two, as well as to the people. Yes, it has evolved into a mostly ceremonial presentation of what a great job the current administration thinks it's doing, but it is a government ritual and one that the Congressman should bite his lip and attend. If others were to follow his lead, future addresses by Presidents might only be attended by members of their own party. This does nothing to further productive debate and discourse.

Mr. Thomas, on the other hand, is a hockey player. As a private citizen he is under no obligation to attend a White House photo op, just because he was asked to. If you are genuinely disturbed by the direction the President is taking the country in, why would you show up to exchange pleasantries on camera for any reason? This is not North Korea. Individuals cannot be compelled to bow or even shake hands with a politician they'd rather not be associated with.

If you enter the field of politics, you put yourself in a position where you must deal with people with whom you disagree. You have to keep the lines of communication open to be effective for the people you represent. You don't have to be submissive, but you have to be present. If you're in most any other profession in America, you don't. Citizens don't worship elected officials here. We just agree not to throw eggs at them...mostly.

America on the decline? Don't bet on it.

The unemployment rate is still at 9% with no signs of improvement in sight. Economic growth is anemic. The hippies are back on Wall Street. Regulators are going berserk. It certainly seems like things are going downhill. So why am I not worried? Because in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the people demand results. They may not always choose the right approach at first, second or even third try, but failure will not be tolerated for long.

Americans are not on the same page politically. In tough economic times, socialist policies and mega-regulation always get a new look, even in the United States. the tide will turn though, because they don't work. Eventually these policies start to impact individuals at the personal level and individuals will demand something different.

Free markets and capitalism got a black eye when, over a couple of decades, the dreaded business/government partnership came up with a scheme to maximize home ownership by essentially mandating that everyone with a pulse qualify for a mortgage. Naturally home sales soared and lots of folks got rich. Also naturally, it was unsustainable and the bubble eventually burst. We'll be cleaning up that mess for a number of years yet. In the interim, people think they want government to step in and prop up markets, subsidize home-buyers, bail out and then restrict banks and somehow artificially fix things. This too shall pass, because it doesn't work.

We've had good times and bad times in the United States, but the trend as far as quality of life in this country, if you look at it objectively over the long run, has been upward. The reason for that is that we have maintained freedom of speech, freedom of association, peaceful transistion of power and value our individual freedom. Many people may not understand the dynamics or mechanics of a free marketplace, but they do understand when someone tries to stop them from doing what they want to do, or achieving what they'd like to achieve. They know when they're not satisfied and they'll keep voting for change until somebody gets it right, or at least more right.

The overall success of this country lies in our individual ability to debate, evaluate, innovate and repeat. So, while your advocating for this candidate or that, remember to take some time to promote the essential fundamentals that are fairly easy to get most people to agree upon. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, no matter how wrong. Everyone has the right to vote, anonymously and absent intimidation. Everyone has the right to the enjoyment of their property whether they have a lot, or a little. Government exists to protect the individual, not to rule over him or her. And if your favored agenda or candidate doesn't win out this election cycle, keep in mind there will be another one soon enough.

Our strength doesn't lie in getting everyone to agree on everything. It lies in maintaining an atmosphere where non-violent difference of opinion can can be expressed and tested on a continual basis. I have confidence in the controlled chaos that is the American way. Advocate passionately for your agenda, your ideals, your candidate. But as long as we remain free, there's no need to panic.

It's the Candidate Stupid

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, a New Hampshire man stated that while he doesn't like Herman Cain's 999 plan, and disagrees with him on some other points, after watching the New Hampshire debate, he's decided to support Herman Cain. You might think this is contradictory. How can you support a candidate when you disagree with his signature proposal? Because we aren't electing a proposal. We're electing a President.

While there is a segment of the voting population that is single issue focused or so dedicated to their party, that they will support whoever carries their banner, regardless of the candidate, elections are decided by the 40% or so who actually consider and weigh the pros and cons of the individual. Who will be the best leader among the available candidates?

MIchele Bachmann is on the right side of virtually every issue when it comes to Conservatives, Tea Party supporters and Republicans in general, yet she's plummeted in the polls. Why? I think the last straw was when she made a big production out of acknowledging Elvis Presley's birthday, to the extent that her bus was blaring an Elvis Presley song as it pulled up to the stop. Trouble was, it was actually the anniversary of his death, not his birthday. If this had been an isolated mistake, she probably could have skated by. But this was one of a string of innaccurate statements over a period of months. Her demise wasn't that she made a mistake. It was that she was unable or unwilling to correct an obvious weakness in her own campaign; fact checking. She demonstrated incompetence as a leader, to a degree the voters found unacceptable.

Rick Perry could have overcome opposition to his stance on illegal immigration. But rather than displaying confidence and passion, he displayed confusion as to why people didn't already agree with him and scorned his detractors. His inability to confidently address his critics showed poor leadership characteristics and he's paying the price.

Ron Paul is almost a one issue guy. He hates the Federal Reserve. He's right about a lot of things, but when you look at his delivery and imagine him negotiating with world leaders during a crisis, well, let's just say it's not a pretty picture. As a Presidential candidate, he makes a good Congressman.

Rick Santorum has some good ideas and seems like a nice enough guy, but his presentation screams "Why won't anybody listen to me." Again, not a vision of a strong leader of the most powerful country on Earth.

John Huntsman is running his primary campaign as if he's in a general election contest. He seems to be trying to appeal to moderates. Trouble is moderates are folks who are not particularly passionate and probably wont go out of their way to vote in a primary. You can't be a champion moderate. You can be a champion that's acceptable to moderates. There's a big difference.

Mitt Romney is the safe candidate. A lot of Republicans have issues with Romneycare in Massachusetts, but they're willing to put that aside because he does display leadership skills. He looks confident, passionate, and can handle critics without losing his cool or being dismissive. He may not be the most free market guy on the bill, but they perceive him as better than the current occupant of the White House and reasonably adequate, if not their dream candidate.

Cain presents an image of a man who's lived the American dream. He's a likable guy, he's been in leadership positions during times of crisis and has a track record of success. Even when people disagree with a particular proposal, his ideas are at least well thought out and reasonable enough to merit consideration. They seem to be okay with his though process if not every one of his thoughts.

I think Newt Gingrich is running the best example of a candidate presenting himself as himself. He's very relaxed, yet passionate and confident in the ideas he supports. He is uncompromising and unapologetic, yet cool under pressure. He makes you believe that he believes every word he says. Essentially he's saying "This is me. Here are my ideas. Vote for me or don't." A pretty fair proposal I'd say. He may not win, but it wont be because he made a lot of mistakes, it will simply be because the voters liked someone else better.

It's fun to get on the candidates social pages and read the Jerry Springer like back and forth. It's heated and people go at it as if adherence to every word their candidate says is imperative or a bad idea from an opposing candidate will be their swan song. But we're not electing a king and the people who decide the next election aren't going to be voting for a tax plan, or a foreign policy position, or a stance on this issue or that. They're going to be voting for the person they believe will be the best leader of the United States, from among the available applicants over the next four years. They're going to be voting for a candidate.

Faster than light is not time travel

You may have heard that the folks at CERN have reported initial findings of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. Naturally lots of commentators immediately start talking about the ability to go back in time. Just so you know, that's not what faster than light suggests.

It would be a problem for physics and for time pieces, both of which are based on the premise that nothing goes faster than light. However, consider this scenerio:

Boy throws baseball faster than the speed of light at a window. You see the window break before you see the ball released from the hand. The boy cannot not throw the ball at this point. It's already been thrown, or else the window would not have broken. You just haven't perceived it yet.

Perhaps, if confirmed, it could lead to early warning systems of some sort, or be used for long distance communication, but no, you can't go back in time.

For the record...

I told my wife, shortly after Obama was elected that we may well witness the first mental breakdown of a President of the U.S. live on TV. Two reasons: I was confident his economic policies would make a bad situation much worse and the level of constant scrutiny is unprecedented.

Politicians in general crave attention and positive feedback. If Obama faces Carter-like approval ratings in a 24 hour news cycle for over a year, I'll be impressed if he can keep his head on straight.

Spiking Their Own Kool Aid

Yet another member of the Congressional Black Caucua has suggested that Tea Party folks are crazy racists who want to "see us hanging on a tree." First of all, The Tea Party isn't an organization that issues membership cards. It's a movement that believes in lower taxes and smaller government.

People who also believe in smaller government know that they're not racist or crazy. The CBC and others who are taking this tack, only appeal to those who have already drunk the Obama Kool Aid. They just sound desperate to everyone else. If you want to promote Mr. Obama, tell us about all the great things he's done and what he's going to do.

There's a legitimate split in this country between those who believe government should be the caretakers and overseers of their constituents and those who believe they should not. Name calling and hyperbole don't advance either side and actually make those who engage in it sound nutty and/or ignorant.

If you want to make the case for the Progressive movement, make it. If you think people will abandon capitalism because they don't want you to call them names, you really are crazy.

Debt Debate - Politicians are still negotiating with the wrong audience

The House of Representatives has actually passed two debt ceiling plans and sent them to the Senate. Both were killed on arrival because they contained a requirement that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states. Even some Republicans voted against the idea, not because they oppose the amendment, but because they've resigned themselves to the idea that the Democrats wont go for it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 70+% of Americans polled are in favor of a balanced budget amendment. Why are supporters in Congress not taking this case to the people instead of bickering with other lawmakers and media pundits?

It seems to me a good strategy would be to pass a debt ceiling hike with the provision that a vote be taken in both houses on the balanced budget amendment within 60 days. Take those 60 days to appeal to the public to put pressure on their representatives to pass the balanced budget amendment. If public sentiment is where the polls say it is, Democrats will come around. If it's not, so be it.

In any case, helping to kill your own proposals because you assume you're going to lose before you even start the fight is weak. Give yourself time to make your best pitch to the masses. If they aren't moved, you did all you can do.