Corporations are people, too.

My son Matthew sent me an email this morning that featured a brief comment from a former coworker at a mortgage banking company, who was pleased to see that Mitt Romney acquitted himself so well in the debate last night.

It reminded me of a brief conversation I had with my wife this morning about how, after working for a business for a while, you begin to absorb its values, including the way a business often views the world.

It was good to see a bona fide businessman onstage last night. And Mitt Romney reminded me that the too-often-conventional meme that businesses include people who are ravenous, ambitious, earth-destroying vultures is dangerously, hurtfully simplistic, and often untrue.

Because I was and am part of one of those businesses, and am proud to be so. It really was cool to see Romney up there last night. At times, he reminded me of highly-effective CEO's in business, men and women who lead large organizations of diverse people, who make a payroll each week, who create, develop and merchandise products which change our world for the better We are fortunate that such an effective and oft- proven leader may just be our next president.

Oh what a night

A few minutes after the Presidential debate began last night, I thought, "Romney landed a punch." And things, generally, continued to go his way over the course of 90 minutes. A little bored, I began to look at the tweets of Fox's Greg Gutfeld, and they got me laughing pretty hard. I began reading them to my wife.

This race isn't over. Far from it. But I've witnessed a few conservative victories over the last couple years, from the 2010 shellacking, to Scott Brown and Scott Walker, and last night's debate. There is reason to hope.

The best moment last night? When Romney referred to the words in the Declaration of Independence behind him. It was stirring to hear him refer to our God-given rights to life and liberty, particularly to religious freedom rights so recently trampled by O and Sebelius.

Why the outcome? Jim Lehrer did it. Obama wasn't prepared. Romney lied. O had an off night. Progressives missed the point, which is that their guy is tired, bereft of ideas and energy. O's sorry record, his lack of leadership, and the paucity of good ideas among progressive folk, absent the the ever-present media filter, told the tale of the tape.

In 2008, O was evanescent - no record other than a resume that was super-thin for him who would become the leader of the free world. The electorate was tired of war, tired of Bush, tired of economic crises, and many rolled the dice on one who promised "hope and change."

Last night, Charles Krauthammer said that Romney won the debate by two touchdowns. I thought it was apt. It ain't over, but the playoffs have at last begun.

National media not doing its job

I am each day disappointed, flummoxed and frustrated by the Obama administration, and the way that most of the national media portrays it is, well, disappointing. So the ongoing nonsense in Washington is of a piece with how and what is being reported. I'd like to think that the nonsense couldn't otherwise exist, absent the compliant media professionals who owe us better.

But maybe I'm biased. I don't pay attention to the mainstream media much anymore, and maybe the content that I do see, read or hear is itself biased.

But the news coverage of the assassinations in Libya, followed by official fudging and - dare I say? - cover-up by government officials has been extraordinary and disheartening to witness, as a journalist and as an American.

Our ambassador to Libya, by all accounts a fine man who worked very hard for the Libyan people, and three of our citizens were killed, in a conscious act of terror.

And why? Could this have been provoked by an Obama foreign policy that acts as if his personal charm, driven by his implacable narcissism, might have failed miserably?

No, the video did it.

I don't know which was worse: the analysis of what happened, which parroted the silly pronouncements by the White House, or the non-reporting that followed. And that I lay at the door of the national media.

A little Mark Steyn to get your motor runnin'

A couple paragraphs from "The President of the Future" (bolded italics mine):

"Two weeks ago in this space, I wrote that, in striking contrast to the official line, the Benghazi slaughter was not a spontaneous movie review that got a little out of hand but a catastrophic security breach and humiliating fiasco for the United States. Even more extraordinary, on September 14, fewer than two-dozen inbred, illiterate goatherds pulled off the biggest single destruction of U.S. airpower since the Tet Offensive in 1968, breaking into Camp Bastion (an unfortunate choice of name) in Afghanistan, killing Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Raible, and blowing up a squadron’s worth of Harriers. And, even though it was the third international humiliation for the United States in as many days, it didn’t even make the papers. Because the court eunuchs at the media are too busy drooling over Obama’s appearance as what he calls “eye candy” on the couch between Barbara and Whoopi."

"Eye candy is in the eye of the beholder. And to the baying mob from Tunis to Jakarta those dead Americans and al-Qaeda flags over U.S. embassies and an entire USMC air squadron reduced to charred ruins are a veritable Willie Wonka production line of eye candy. To the president, they’re just “bumps in the road” to the sunlit uplands of “the future.” Forward! Obama has lived on “the promise of the future” all his life — Most Promising Columbia Grad of 1983, Most Promising Community Organizer of 1988, Most Promising Fake Memoirist of 1995, Most Promising Presidential Candidate of 2008 . . . The rest of us, alas, have to live in the present that he has made, which is noticeably short of promise. The Chinese Politburo get it, Czar Putin in the Kremlin gets it, and even the nutters doing the “Death to the Great Satan!” dance on the streets of Cairo and Lahore get it. On November 6, we will find out whether the American people do."

Sometimes internal domestic politics seems like a game, amusing but the consequences aren't immediately clear. Beyond the United States' borders, however, our world is a dangerous place. O has handled the aftermath, and is accountable for its death and destruction, in a hamhanded, disappointing, stunningly inept manner. We deserve better, especially those who perished.

Dissecting a decision

I made up much of my mind about this November's election a while back, but I realized after thinking a bit about why I made the choice, that the stage was set for me over 30 years ago. After voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976, I realized two or three years later that I'd made an awful mistake. Good man, terrible leader.

I've voted for the Republican presidential candidate ever since, beginning with Reagan. At times over the years, I wasn't always enthusiastic with my choice, but I saw it as the best option available at the time. I figure that, if the last time the New York Times newspaper would endorse a Republican candidate for president was over 50 years ago, then I'm a piker by comparison.

This year, I searched for the basis of my conclusions after examining my long-term choices, and applied it to the candidates. So much political argument stems from basic premises, and I think it's important to examine them, instead of caterwauling about something in today's news.

I concluded my political choices were typically based on three things, in priority order, but all three criteria play in important role in my political decision-making:

1. Political philosophy: I've had an affinity for fiscal and political conservatism since high school, when a co-worker at the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper suggested I read "The Fountainhead," Ayn Rand's novel about individualism. Since then, I've leaned in that direction more and more as time passes, and I've read a bit more since then as well. With respect to ideas and hopefully to behavior, I'm a sucker for small government and self-reliance.
2. Morality and trustworthiness: Is the candidate a good person? Is he or she courageous? Can I trust what he or she says regarding their values and how they will govern? Do they behave reasonably well in their personal lives? Are they kind? Can they sometimes make a decision, after having accounted for their values, that contradicts those values because it's the right thing to do, albeit politically unpopular or politically unwise?
3. Leadership: Is the candidate a good leader? Does he or she have the courage and the strong personal convictions to stand up to tyranny and the daily pressure of politics?

It's fun to articulate why you think in a certain way. First comes the thinking, the inquiry, followed by testing your premises, followed by articulation. Quite a process.

Our president is a poser

O made a remark the other day about not being born with a "silver spoon" in his mouth, for a twofold benefit: 1) establish a connection with others in his audience who weren't born into wealth, who had worked for a living, and 2) to distance himself and his audience from Mitt Romney, who many believe was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

The family into which Romney was born was indubitably wealthy. His dad was George Romney, highly successful auto industry businessman and Michigan's governor. But I read recently in an Ann Coulter column that Mitt gave away the wealth he had inherited, and the fabulous wealth he has today - he earned it. He worked for it.

Coulter points to O's young adult years as a counterpoint to Romney. She points out that O moved from Occidental College to Harvard University, when O has said that much of his time at Occidental was spent smoking marijuana, and points to affirmative action as being the silver spoon that aided O's career.

Sounds credible. But it's just one more attempt by O and his campaign strategists to buffalo everyone who's prepared to be buffaloed, particularly those who don't pay sufficient attention to public issues, and will blithely return to the fold in November, still hopeful for hope and change.

The other day, I heard for the first time O referred to as an empty suit, a politician with undeniable charisma, grace and speaking skills, with a fairness and equality agenda that is the hallmark of the community organizer, achieved byusing other people's money.

O is an empty suit into which David Axelrod, admittedly a very smart man, poured an image. And, without much additional information about candidate Obama to support an informed decision, and a compliant media to further reinforce the fanciful tale, Axelrod exploited our preoccupation with rock stars to elect one as our president.

Listen, I remember the disillusion with eight years of Republican rule, and the economic mess that we were in before O stepped into the White House. Hope and change is a powerful mantra when things were as bad as they still are.

My point: O is not the answer. He has become instead a very large part of the problem, and it will get much, much worse if he wins re-election. So go with the guy who gave away his inherited wealth, who not only managed but grew successful businesses.

O reminds me more each day of the last year or two of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Nothing seemed to go right. Carter was a big champion for human rights in countries that don't recognize such things, but it didn't net us much. Other countries need to respect us, and many of them need to fear us.

With O, you get the $820,000 GSA party in Las Vegas, replete with stunning video. With O, you get the spectacle of Secret Service agents whoring around Cartagena. Who's in charge?   Not O, that's for sure.

Let's give the job to someone who appears to be a good person, who loves this country and the ideals on which it was founded, with a proven track record of being able to manage large operations, like our fine nation.

The view from Belleville Lake - the rich are different

Much ado lately about wealthy folk in our land, and whether they deserve all that money. And part of the answer to that, goes to 1) how they earned it, and 2) whether others have a claim on it, because - why? - I guess because they don't have as much money. And the word used to justify it is fairness, or fair share - that floats off O's lips like honey during his speeches recently.

O has lately been making much of the Buffett rule, the notion that a secretary of a wealthy man like Warren Buffett should not pay more in taxes. In fact, she probably does not, although neither Buffett nor his secretary have released their tax returns, to my knowledge. That wouldn't fit the narrative. 


Now, Buffett's effective tax rate may be less than hers, because of laws we consciously have put in place to encourage investment. Capital gains taxes, which comprise a considerable share of Warren Buffett's annual income, are taxes on increases in the value of investments. It is in fact money that as ordinary income has already been taxed, so in paying capital gains taxes Buffett is paying taxes on the income twice, albeit at a lower rate the second time. 


We put these laws in place for reasons, and then politicians like O use use them as targets when it is politically advantageous. It is the worst sort of pandering, because it assumes that you, John or Judy Q. Public, is ill-informed and gullible. That you don't pay attention. That even if you did, you wouldn't understand complicated issues like taxes or subsidies for oil exploration.

Understand this: the top 10 percent of earners pay 70 percent of the taxes in this country. O is not looking for fair; O is instead looking for equality of outcome, though he dare not say it, particularly in an election year - particularly when less than half the populace thinks he's doing a good job.

Equality of outcome allows government to re-position the contestants after the race has begun. Your imagination, drive and hard work go for nought, in the name of - again, that word - fairness.

So much of the appeal of this proposal, and doubtless more to follow, depends on how you view the rich. If you view them as having arrived at their station in life through dumb luck, then maybe you wouldn't be opposed to taking more of their money. "It is easier for a wealthy man to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven," is how your reasoning might go. Or the Marxist saw: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I view it differently, and some of it derives from pontoon boat rides on Belleville Lake. I've been lucky enough over the years to have had several friends who live on the lake, and once in a while during the summer we get together for a leisurely, sun- and water-filled ride around the lake, accompanied by delicious snacks and cold drinks.

As we ride, we look at the lakefront homes on the shore, many of them 20 or 30 feet above us.

The houses are large and handsome, and I've wished more than once that I had a home on the lake. In fact, one of my favorite "the one that got away stories" is the lakefront home on East Huron River Drive that I let get away.

During our sojourn, we sometimes talk about the families who live in the homes. Invariably what they do for a living comes up in the conversation, and I've never once heard, "Oh, he's fabulously wealthy, and it's all inherited. He himself is an indolent, self-serving drunken scalawag with no redeeming values."

No, what I hear is that "He's a dentist." "She owns a store in town." "He's a successful real estate agent." "He's general manager of a company. "She's a chief engineer at Ford." And so on. The talk is about people who are hard-working, who get up every day at the crack of dawn, or work well into the evening, on holidays - whatever it takes to be successful. You can rest assured they've earned their money. And good for them.


And the people with whom I ride in the boat? Same good story.

But O would confiscate a "fair" share of their earnings, and hand it to someone. People who are smart enough to have earned this money are also smart enough to shield it from the government, using the government's own rules, or to simply wind down their daily production in some manner, creating less wealth for all of us.

That, my friends, is what happens with confiscatory tax rates on the wealthy. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world - 35 percent - but it's not enough. It has the third-highest capital gains tax rate in the world - before the implementation of the Buffett rule - and still it's not enough.

When is it enough? It is enough when you rise up and vote in November, deny O's underlying philosophy that the vision of our beautiful country has never worked, really, and that we must transform it into his vision. Yeah, I say - when pigs fly.