There are a great variety of issues I’d like to blog about today, from the George Zimmerman indictment to Hilary Rosen’s apparent, to borrow language used by the administration and their allies in the legacy media, War on Stay-at-Home Moms (perhaps of particular interest to our readers given that she’s a lesbian, attached to to the former head of HRC), but, am quite busy right now (to be explained in my next post).
I’m actually writing this post from the Sharing Shelf in Port Chester, New York, a charity my sister founded. For our conservative readers, you should donate because she’s my sister and they do good work. And for our liberal readers, you should donate because my sister doesn’t share my politics and they do good work. Click here to support a group which recycles “gently used children’s clothing” and distributes them “directly to those in need”. (When you donate, please specify that it’s for the Sharing Shelf.)
Now, to the subject of this post. As I reported earlier today, the president is bound and determined to run against Mitt Romney as if he were the “reincarnation of Barry Goldwater, an extremist extraordinaire both on the economy and foreign policy.”
There are three major problems with this approach, each of which merits a more in-depth exploration–and perhaps that will come out in the comments:
- the public mood has changed in the past fifty years, with the American public more skeptical of the power of the government to do good.
- government has grown by leaps and bounds since 1964, particularly as a result of that election and Americans don’t want it to grow any bigger; if anything they want to see it scaled back.
- Barry Goldwater did a better job of criticizing why government was too big than in offering a positive vision of a world with smaller government. This time around, it’s the incumbent Democrat, not the out-of-power Republican, who is waging the more negative campaign.
Do hope in the future to back up each of those points with more links and greater elaboration.