DrewMcKissick.com

Time for a stupidity tax

Drew Mckissick — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:43:44 +0000

As many of us spend time each day becoming more frustrated with the political news and our country’s direction, it is worth noting that our country is (for now) a self-governing democratic-republic, which means that the people who are ultimately responsible for our situation are those who participate in our wonderful little experiment.

Let's face it, self-government, whether in the personal or political sense of the term, requires some common sense. And our country suffers from an overabundance of stupid people – and too many of them have voter registration cards. There, I said it.

Just how stupid are we? Several years ago a Gallup survey found that: 43% don't know that the "judicial" is one of the three branches of government; 41% don't know that their state (and every other state) is represented by two US Senators; 53% don't know what the "Bill of Rights" is; and 66% can't identify the document containing the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

In 2006 and 2007, a multiple choice civics exam was administered to over 28,000 college freshmen and seniors by the National Civic Literacy Board. The freshmen (AKA, high school graduates) failed each year, and the seniors, after four years of higher education, failed each year as well. In 2008, the same group tested over 2,500 adults of all backgrounds and 71% of them also failed.

In addition to general civic ignorance, the study found that "college made graduates more liberal, while greater civic knowledge led adults to be more supportive of America's constitutional traditions", (which might explain why so many schools give civics short shrift, especially since so much of liberalism's gains come at the expense of the Constitution).

The study also demonstrated that greater civic knowledge was the leading factor in encouraging a higher level of civic involvement beyond just voting, such as attending political meetings, contributing or volunteering for a campaign, lobbying an elected official, or just writing a letter to the editor. (Again, not the type of thing the average liberal politician wants to encourage).

A study in the 2001 Annual Review of Political Science found that "Despite huge increases in the formal educational attainment of the US population during the past 50 years, levels of political knowledge have barely budged. Today's college graduates know no more about politics than did high school graduates in 1950". (This testifies to the fact that we have a “quality” problem, not quantity.)

Their shocking conclusion? That "the successful study of America's history and institutions is the key to informed and responsible citizenship".

All the while that we are teaching less civics, (half of the states don’t require it in high school), we are constantly encouraging the less civically inclined to engage in two of the most fundamental aspects of citizenship: voting and jury duty.

Of course it is politically incorrect to suggest (and no less true), but those who are unfamiliar with the basics of how our government should function are more easily “bribed” with their own money to vote for certain politicians, and are more malleable by trial lawyers in the hunt for big verdicts.

It's bad enough that the stupid among us do participate, to the degree that they do; but why on Earth would we continually make it easier? We almost force them to register to vote automatically when they apply for a driver’s license. At least when it comes to driving a car you have to study, take a test and demonstrate that you can do so. But not when it comes to driving the world’s oldest experiment in self-government.

Perhaps we need to do away with voter registration and current jury pool rules and institute a "citizenship volunteer registration" whereby the bearer volunteers to vote when called upon and serve on a jury when called upon. (Failure to do so could revoke said privileges for one year.)

Meanwhile, we are awash in tens of billions of dollars, spent on sports, Hollywood entertainment and video games. So, how about imposing a "stupidity tax" on such pass-times, much like the "sin taxes" we impose on alcohol and tobacco that supposedly fund healthcare and public awareness campaigns. Take money from the stupidity tax and fund civic education programs. Isn't understanding our freedoms and the government instituted to secure them at least as important as funding the latest preachy anti-smoking ad?

Or maybe we could just demand that our schools actually start focus on teaching the basic civics that prepare future citizens for self-government.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, once said, "A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people". We seem determined to test that notion.

Five resolutions for conservatives in 2012

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:08:57 +0000

Given that we all usually have room for improvement in our lives, resolutions are always a good idea. They are even more important when there is so much to be gained (or lost) for not bettering ourselves. So it is with this coming election year for conservatives.

With that in mind, the following resolutions are offered up for conservatives everywhere in 2012:

#1) Don't be a cannibal. No matter who you are for in any given race, don’t “go cannibal” on fellow conservatives over who they support. You might win for the moment, but you’ll lose productive relationships in the long run.

As for the presidential race, whoever the Republican nominee is, he will not be perfect and will probably be "high maintenance" from a policy standpoint. But as a movement, conservatives are much better prepared to deal with such politicians than in years past. And remember, ANY Republican president, no matter how squishy they may be, will have absolutely no choice whatsoever but to sign a bill repealing Obamacare. To borrow a phrase, keep your eyes on the prize.

#2) Focus on voter turnout. It's almost a cliché to say that "this is the most important election of our lifetime", but clichés are usually clichés because they're true. In this case, it's really true. It's really important in terms of building on the 2010 elections and taking the next step to advance the conservative agenda. But it's critically important in terms of stopping the Obama agenda. We sincerely hope to do the first, but we absolutely MUST do the second.

Elections are about turnout, plain and simple. If we don’t turn out the votes and we let conservatives stay home, we will lose. We can’t let that happen.

#3) Get local. Remember, the presidency isn't everything, and neither is Congress. Who do you think ends up running for Congress anyway? It's usually the guy (or gal) who has already served on a school board, city or county council. If you want to have a long term impact on the upper levels of politics, then you need to have a greater impact over who's playing at that level to begin with. And that means you need to get local.

The local levels are important in their own right, (you pay property taxes, right?), but they also serve as the farm team for the big leagues. Don't ignore them. Plus, races at that level have the benefit of being easier to influence. A little money and organization in these races goes a long way. A coordinated effort by conservative groups to let their members (whether they live in such a district or not) know who they have endorsed and where to send their money can have a bigger impact on Joe Smith for State House than it ever could on Suzzie Smith for Congress.

#4) Focus on the Republican Party. It's great to have conservatives start their own local groups, protest and be heard, but it's even better when those same folks also make an effort to influence the Republican Party by joining the local precinct organizations, run for precinct office, run for delegate to the county conventions, county office, state delegate spots and so on. Volunteer to serve on committees. Local party organizations are usually borderline desperate for volunteers. If you're willing, and you've got a pulse, you're usually welcome, (and if there are enough of you, it doesn’t matter if you’re welcome or not).

The more conservatives who flood party meetings and are elected to party positions, the fewer problems we will have with “the establishment” when it comes to pushing the conservative agenda. Just get involved! Then encourage other conservative activists to get involved as well, and network with them to have an impact on anything that matters.

#5) Coordinate, coordinate, coordinate! In the last two years or so, the conservative movement has grown tremendously. Many people have gained valuable experience, and new networks and connections between activists have been created. But what is needed now is to leverage that muscle with greater emphasis on sharing information and coordinating activity.

Start a web page listing your endorsements and local candidates’ information and donation links. Or start a listing of key dates and locations for the Republican Party organization process in your area. Add any details you can about how the process works and what positions are up for grabs. Email it to every conservative you know. Start an online group (use Google, Yahoo or Facebook) and coordinate with others to decide who wants (or is willing) to do what.

The bottom line is to leverage our muscle by coordinating and focusing on places where that muscle can be overwhelming and have a long term impact.

To conservatives everywhere, I hope this year is full of resolution to have a greater impact on the things we all care about. And that we do a better job of keeping those resolutions than we do in losing weight.

***

Be sure to sign up to receive my latest updates on politics and conservative activism - right in your inbox!

Good ground rules for lobbying groups

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:48:07 +0000

When you're putting together a group of individuals to try and have an impact on anything, you need to have rules. Some general understandings in order to keep everyone on the same page stop problems or misunderstanding before they begin.

What good does it do to have a group that doesn't get along or where everyone isn't paddling in the same direction?

Establishing a clear set of ground rules regarding how the group will make decisions is a must. Without a good upfront understanding of how things are supposed to happen you run the risk of having the group splinter when a decision is made that everyone doesn't agree with.

This doesn't mean they need to be overly complicated, (no need to get all Robert's Rules on everyone!). But they do need to exist and be understood by everyone.

Here are a few examples of how the decision making process could work:

No action without group consensus, (unanimity): (Advantage: may be the only way to handle “hot potato” issues; Disadvantage: hard to move forward)
Majority vote or two-thirds vote: (Advantage: defines what consensus means, other than unanimity; Disadvantage: for those groups outvoted, it can put their organization’s goals at odds with the group’s goals)
Opt out: If there is a conflict of goals, all groups that can, should take coordinated action. Those groups that can’t would disqualify themselves from that action item only. (Advantage: a way of solving the above problem; Disadvantage: the group does not act at full strength)

Again, the most important thing, (after your mission of course), is to make sure that everyone has an understanding of how things will work from the beginning...not when there's an argument.

***

You can find more great tips for effective grassroots activism in my Grassroots Training Series. Check it out!

Follow @DrewMcKissick

Obama's need for class warfare

Drew Mckissick — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:13:10 +0000

King Solomon put it best when he said “there is nothing new under the sun”. And so it is with politics.

Even now, political history is repeating itself. We have a Democrat in the White House giving speeches about how America is losing its spirit in the midst of a recession and high unemployment – just like Jimmy Carter in his “Malaise speech” in 1979. And we have polls indicating that what Americans are really getting tired of is the President. Again, just like with Carter.

According to the latest Gallup poll, only 42% of the public approve of Obama’s job performance – fewer than any other president at this point in office since the dawn of polling. And the opinions are pretty strong.

According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, only 23% “strongly approve”, while 38% “strongly disapprove”, leaving Obama fifteen points in the hole when it comes to those who have any passion to their opinions. Further, 3/4ths of voters think that the nation is on the “wrong track”, and over half of the country still opposes his biggest legislative success, ObamaCare, and want to see it repealed.

Of course none of this bodes well for re-election, which explains Obama’s reach for another historical retread – class warfare.

For decades, liberal political strategy has been built around buying large segments of the electorate with government largesse and, more often than not, doing it with borrowed money. Obama’s problem is that his administration comes at a time when most everyone has realized that the national credit card is maxed out, and that the bank won’t increase the limit.

This is creating political turbulence.

Whether with the Tea Party or the Occupy movement, what we are seeing is just a taste of the social and political upheaval that is the inevitable result of the financially inevitable rollback of the bloated welfare state. The Tea Party is tired of paying for it and having liberties trampled under the feet of big government, and the Occupy crowd demands that the coddling nanny state continue to grow and that the checks keep coming.

Someone is in for a disappointment.

Keep in mind that it was the philosophy of Obama and the Occupy crowd that helped get us here. Liberals (with an occasional assist from big government Republicans) grew government and pushed us deeper in debt. They pushed reckless policies which inflated the housing bubble that supported the credit card economy, and then led to its popping. Now they are upset with having to reap the fruit of their own philosophy, so they angrily demand more of it in order to fix the problems it has created. (I’m drunk! Give me another drink!)

In a cosmic justice kind of way one is tempted to let the baby have its bottle, but for the fact that we have to live here too – and they want to stick the rest of us with the tab.

The political result is Obama’s need to dust off the old class-warfare, divide and conquer strategy, where you seek to define “us” as being an overwhelming majority being set upon by a small “them”. (Giving us the 99% vs. 1% rhetoric)

But the rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

One presumes that in a down economy, many of the so-called “99%” want economic growth, which means jobs, but those are easier to come by in a capitalist economy where the 1% - or anyone for that matter – can put their capital at risk in the market, as opposed to having it at greater risk of government confiscation.

For their part, the “rich” finally seem to be catching on to the political game the left has been playing.

For decades, liberals have been politically biting the wealthy hands that have fed them. The question has been how long those hands would keep feeding them. It seems that we now have an answer. Recent reports suggest that many of Obama’s wealthy donors have had enough, what with his class warriors camping out in public, beating drums and demanding that their wealth be re-distributed.

Democrats are desperate for the Occupy movement to have the same electoral impact for them that the Tea Party did for the GOP in 2010, but Republicans benefited only insofar as they adopted much of the Tea Party’s agenda, which is conservative. And given that almost half of Americans self-identify as conservatives, the result was success on Election Day.

The problem for Democrats is that the Occupy movement is united on very little other than being militantly liberal, but since liberals make up only about 20% of the electorate, publicly promoting those views won’t help at the ballot box.

Hence Obama’s need to use class warfare to change the subject.

Republicans will be fools insofar as they allow the upcoming election to be about anything but Obama.

Picking a leader for a lobbying effort

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:34:34 +0000

When you're working on a lobbying campaign by way of committee, it's just like any other group effort. Someone has to be in charge.

This means that it's all the more important to do things right on the front end when deciding on "who" should be in charge.

You may want to pick a chairman who is strong and who can speak on behalf of the group without having to speak with everyone else first. Or you may want a chairman who merely organizes the meetings, makes sure the discussion doesn’t wander and keeps track of "who" is doing "what". That's not necessarily the same person. In fact, it usually isn't.

Here are some thoughts to keep in mind when looking for someone to put in leadership.

Attributes of a successful lobbying coalition chairman:

Trustworthy
Well spoken
Wll organized
A people person
Won't abuse power for personal benefit
Knows how to run a fair and structured meeting

Remember, you can't have it all. Just focus on what the group needs...then find someone who fits as many of the criteria above as possible.

***

You can find more great tips for effective grassroots activism in my Grassroots Training Series. Check it out!

Follow @DrewMcKissick

Laying a good foundation for a lobbying coalition

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:19:11 +0000

When it comes to creating a good lobbying coalition, it pays to start off on the right foot. With that in mind, here are some tips:

Have a mission statement

It is very important to have a written mission statement for the group. It should clearly set out the purpose of the group for everyone to see and abide by. In addition, it lets potential new recruits know what they are joining.

Most important, a good mission statement provides a yard-stick you can refer to when making and evaluating plans. If something doesn’t serve the mission, then you shouldn't do it.

Identify specific tasks

The reason for forming a lobbying coalition to begin with is to pool resources and take coordinated action. Some highly structured, formal coalitions even raise money and hire staff; but you don’t need to be that large to be effective. Just organized.

If your group is large enough, one option is to create committees, and then assign each task to a specific committee. Each committee chairman could then serve on a "steering committee" that sets the agenda and makes decisions for the whole group.

But if you're not that large, don't worry. The most important thing is for everyone to have a clear understanding of "who" will do "what".

Fundamental Tasks of Lobbying Coalitions:

Lobbying
Research
Grassroots organization
Communications (coordination)
Recruiting (of other allies)

***

Click here and get updates from my site in your inbox via Feedburner!

Related:

***

You can find more great tips for effective grassroots activism in my Grassroots Training Series. Check it out!

Follow @DrewMcKissick

Occupy entertainment

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:58:15 +0000

One of the great things about American politics is that it often doubles as entertainment. Given that most of network and cable television has devolved into so-called reality TV, it is getting pretty hard to distinguish between “entertainment” programming and political “news” coverage – especially where the occupy Wall Street protests are concerned.

On one hand we have strangers living in a house together with hidden cameras, arguing and having casual sex, and on the other we have what looks like a bunch of camping trips gone bad – complete with no showers, drugs and casual sex.

The former are usually paid to display their foolishness, so they know why they are there. But the later really can’t give a cogent explanation of why they are there and what they want to accomplish, other than that they are mad at “the man” and that they won’t leave until they get what they want.

Some members of the media, along with helpful liberal politicians, have compared them to the Tea Party, but there is very little in the way of comparison. The Tea Party protests were large, law abiding and about something other than sleepovers, specifically a political agenda of limited government and less spending. The Occupy crowd is smaller, mob like and unfocused. Further, their campsites have been the scene of assaults (sexual and otherwise), theft, drug abuse and sanitation hazards. And yet, the Tea Party was compared to “angry mobs”, while these people represent America? Please.

Recently, Democrat pollster Douglas Schoen conducted the first extensive survey of the Occupy protesters and, among other things, discovered the following:

Only 15% are actually unemployed, (meaning the other 85% must have union jobs giving them time off to protest). And 98% say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, while 31% went even further, saying they would support open violence.

75% supported Obama in 2008, but now 51% disapprove of him, (since he’s obviously not radical enough). 65% think that government should provide everyone with health care, college education and retirement benefits, no matter what it costs. Oh, and they support raising taxes on “the rich”, which they refer to as the “1%”, while claiming that they represent the other “99%” of America, (obviously having very little understanding of just where the bulk of tax revenue comes from, much less job creation).

Schoen also points out that what is binding them together is “a deep commitment to left wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies…” In other words, they are the heart and soul of the modern Democrat Party.

It has been entertaining to watch some of them develop at least a little respect for private property when their own computers, phones and other comforts of home were stolen by fellow campers. They even got their noses out of joint when homeless people started showing up in the chow line looking for a free lunch. (Why, the very idea!)

It is worth noting that this “movement” appeared at about the same time that Barack Obama is trying to (re) kick-start his flagging political fortunes by proposing a tax increase on “the rich”. And isn’t it strange that these would-be class warriors so readily embrace all of the benefits brought to us by the evil corporations and the establishment that they want to bring down? Or that their protest marches to evil Manhattan billionaire’s homes managed to skip liberals like George Soros?

These are people who rail against the county’s most productive and wealthy “1%”, but whose own lifestyles would make them part of the “1%” in the vast majority of countries on Earth. They have no thanks, only contempt for the free market system that billions of others would die for a chance to be a part of.

These are the kids who borrowed big to get into over-priced universities and got degrees in English, ‘60’s French Radicalism, or Women’s Studies, and now can’t find a job, so they protest to have their student loans forgiven. These are the union members who pushed for ever more bloated benefits packages, virtually guaranteeing that they will never receive them.

What a cruel world.

So why protest Wall Street fat cats instead of their local members of Congress? Why not show up at town hall meetings like Tea Party supporters did? Because in the end it is all about histrionics. It is political theatre, community organizer style.

But it is entertaining.

Republicans need to focus on Obama instead of each other

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:06:56 +0000

To all of the current (and potential) Republican Presidential candidates, here’s a tip: focus on Obama. When we do, we win.

Remember, we are living in a country that is rejecting Obama and everything he stands for. Poll after poll show him at the lowest ratings of his career, and election results from Scott Brown’s upset Senate win in Massachusetts, to November 2010, to the recent special elections in New York and Nevada prove that over and over.

Just as they say that the number one rule in real estate is “location, location, location”, the number one focus of this election should be “Obama, Obama, Obama”. Period. End of strategy. As we evaluate the candidates, conservatives should choose the one who does the best job of doing just that.

Recently however, our candidates have been too focused on each other, instead of staying focused on Obama and how they would draw a distinction between his failures and conservative principles.

But Republicans don’t need the candidates to tell us what their opponent’s weaknesses are. We’re all too familiar with them. And as the process continues we’ll all have to come to grips with them and decide which of them we each feel does the least offense to our principles. No one is perfect and we’ll all compromise somewhere in choosing a candidate.

But the important point here is beating Obama.

Make no mistake, this process is not about making a statement, or insisting on 100% orthodoxy and then going down in flames. In that case, all we will have done is hand liberals the political means to continue remaking America in their own image.

ObamaCare won’t be repealed without a Republican in the White House. Period. So we have to win – and our candidates have to do their part and stop attacking each other.

For example, we don’t need one candidate suggesting that they have forgotten more about Israel than one of their opponents has ever known; or giving the impression that another is dragging little girls off to inject them with mental retardation drugs.

We don’t need any of the candidates buying into liberal talking points that it is somehow a heresy to refer to Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme”, especially when it is obvious to every conservative in America that it is; and we don’t need any candidate telling those of us with certain convictions about illegal immigration that we “have no heart”.

We don’t need any of them telling us how much we need to be upset with another one for mandating health insurance while he was governor; or that he may have changed positions on some important social issues. We know.

We don’t need any of them reminding us that any of their competitors used to be a Democrat. We know. But some of our conservative best friends “used” to be Democrats – including Ronald Reagan.

They need to stop looking for the “gotcha” moments and not allow the media to bait them into attacking one another. Whenever they let Brian Williams or Chris Wallace sucker them into talking about their opponents instead of Obama, they are playing into Obama’s hands. If the question is “what do you think about what your opponent said about so and so”, the answer should be, “I’m not here to talk about my opponent, they can speak for themselves, I’m here to talk about Barack Obama…”

The nomination process is an audition for an effective conservative spokesman who can make the case against Barack Obama and sell themselves and conservatism as an acceptable alternative. And win.

But it will be hard for us to choose unless and until they stop focusing on each other and start focusing on Obama, and show us if they’ve got what it takes. Then we can decide who can take the banner into battle and remind the country – over and over and over – about everything it doesn’t like about Barack Obama.

To paraphrase a famous bit of scripture, they have all sinned and come short of the glory of Reagan…and conservatism. Even Reagan wasn’t a perfect conservative, but what he did do better than anyone in modern times was to be an effective spokesman for conservatism. He did a better job of optimistically communicating conservative values as an alternative to liberalism, and focusing the nation’s attention on liberalism’s failures.

That’s what we are looking for. And if we have it, we will win.

What to look for in a legislative ally for lobbying

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:52:27 +0000

So, you're trying to lobby an issue and you want some help from someone in government. Maybe a city or county councilman? A state legislator? Member of Congress? Well, there are a few things you should give some thought to when you're looking for someone to approach.

Why? Because all politicians are not created equal, so to speak. They all have different strengths and weaknesses that they bring to the table. Here are some questions to ask.

What to look for in a government ally:

Belief: Does the legislator really believe in your issue?

Energy: Will that person work hard?

Power: Is the legislator on the right committee? Does he have seniority? Please note that belief and energy trump “power”. It is better to have a lowly freshman who will devote a lot of time to the cause than a committee chairman who is merely sympathetic.

You know them well: Legislators don’t often do favors for strangers. If the right person is not someone you know, get to know them.

Reputation: Does the legislator have the respect of colleagues, or do they view him or her as extremist or inflammatory?

As you answer these questions, do so knowing what YOUR strengths and weaknesses are. What do YOU (or your lobbying coalition) need in a political/government partner? Then find the one who has what you need.

Good luck!

Follow @DrewMcKissick

For Obama, it's all about the politics

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 23:11:57 +0000

During the 1992 Clinton campaign there was a famous sign hanging in the campaign headquarters exclaiming “It’s the economy, stupid!”, reminding everyone that the focus of the campaign was that the economy (George Bush sr.’s economy) was terrible, and that it was all his fault.

Fast forward sixteen years and Obama ran his campaign on a similar notion, but now, three years into his first term and looking towards re-election, things are worse and blaming George W. Bush just won’t cut it. So, for Obama, it’s all about the politics.

His recent “jobs” speech to Congress was, at its root, about just one job: his own, and his attempts to keep it. The whole point was to have a prime-time TV opportunity to set the lay of the land for the coming re-election campaign. His reading his “plan” from a teleprompter on national TV to members of Congress who are capable of reading it for themselves was neither capable of nor meant to accomplish anything else.

But why the sudden urgency on Obama’s part? That the economy has been awful is nothing new. Quite the contrary, it is something all Americans have seen and experienced first hand for several years (except maybe those who work for the government).

So again, why now? As it turns out, it wasn’t a set of new economic indicators that drove Obama’s need to look busy, but rather new political indicators.

Obama ended the month of August with the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, (Gallup put him at just 40% approval). The same held true for his standing with young voters, Hispanics and women, three voting blocs that were crucial to his 2008 election. Only 40% of Independent voters approve of the job he’s doing, while 54% disapprove: putting him upside-down by -13%. The most recent bi-partisan “Battleground Poll” reported that only 26% of voters said they would “definitely” vote to re-elect him. And the Rasmussen poll’s approval index put those who “strongly approve” of Obama at just 19%, while 45% “strongly disapprove”: a difference of -26%, which means that there are a lot of people who are really passionate about seeing him lose next year.

You can almost overlay Obama’s poll numbers on a timeline along with the introduction or enactment of his policies. The more he has proposed or done, the worse he does in the polls. It seems that the “new” has worn off and Obama fatigue has set in.

Things have gotten so bad that there is a new iPhone app, called the “Obama Clock”, which keeps track of what can only be viewed as negative metrics: Obama’s approval rating, the national debt, the unemployment rate, the price of a gallon of gas and the housing price index. It’s currently the number one reference application for iPhones. How fitting that the tech-savvy 18-35 year old voters who gave Obama two-thirds of their votes in 2008 now have an app to keep better track of his failings.

In the end, Obama’s jobs speech delivered nothing new, only his intention to double down on more of the same. “Why?” can only be chalked up to one of two reasons (or both): 1) a personal belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, more of the same that hasn’t worked is the only thing that will work; or 2) a desire to propose something that conservative Republicans will certainly reject, in the hope that he can paint them as such bad actors that the public will re-elect him next year. The problem with option one is, again, all evidence to the contrary, and option two is a vain hope that the public will forget about all the evidence to the contrary for option one.

The speech was also an attempt to lessen the impact of being judged on the results of what he’s done so far. As if to say, “Hey, I didn’t get to try everything I wanted yet, so you really can’t judge me by the results.” Because to simply stand by what he’s done and the results so far is political suicide, which is something most politicians don’t commit consciously.

Despite his attempts to look tough, the polls suggest that it is becoming more difficult for him to shake the building impression that he is a loser. It is a process that feeds on itself and is almost impossible to stop.

As General Patton once said, “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”. He was right. Just ask Jimmy Carter.