You Might Be a Liberal Page 7

  Step one in the sales process is that someone freely chooses to market a product or service. They may provide the product or service, or perhaps they simply sell it, but in either case they choose to sell it from a position of freedom. They believe in the product and they price it so that they can profit off of it while making it attractive to the customer.

  On the other side of the table is the customer, who freely chooses to be separated from his or her money in exchange for the product or service. At the point the sale is made, both parties decide that it is in their best interest to make the deal. It’s a win-win. This is what we call free enterprise.

  Sales for the liberal are totally different, however. The liberal wants to have power to force the sale. Think Obama Care and Justice Robert’s Obama tax. Think Solyndra. Think GE and those damned stupid curly-que light bulbs that require a Haz-Mat team to clean up. Or think the Chevy Volt, which requires a bribe. For that matter, think public sector unions and the “services” they extort—er, sell—to the tax paying public. Liberals can sell, as long as they have the IRS or the EEOC or the DMV or the EPA and the force of law behind them. Want to see a typical liberal sale close? Shut up, sit down, sign here and be a good little subject.

  Thus, when confronted with the challenge of actually selling to someone who has the freedom to say ‘no,’ liberals often run into a problem.

  Think back to the first real public humiliation of the Obama Presidency. You know, the one that inspired the Drudge headline “The Ego Has Landed.” This was the disastrous attempt made by team Obama to sell Chicago to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Keep in mind, Obama was still riding his international election honeymoon high. Even the oceans were still considering receding at this point, as I recall.

  Still, the ego crashed. Obama and his wife failed.

  Which was utterly predictable, by the way. Their sales strategy could not possibly have succeeded. In their liberal academic arrogance, they thought they could sell a product they clearly do not believe in (the United States) and, moreover, they could do so by stressing the benefits to the seller (Chicago) and not the buyer (the IOC). And to top it off, they committed the faux pas of talking too much about the sales force (themselves) and not about the product or the buyer.

  Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?

  Anyone who has had to succeed in the real business world—and that includes few, if any, in the Obama Administration—instinctively knows that, to get business done, you have to believe in what you are doing, and offer a product or service that is focused on the benefits to the customer. In the Obama World of Chicago pay-to-play power, business gets done by flexing political or union muscle and clearing the field of your competitors. You don’t really have to sell anything in the sense that you create voluntary customers. You don’t really have to believe in anything. It is fine to be self-focused. You simply have to apply the power of the applicable political machinery and you win.

  Which could explain why the First Couple was so obviously lost in their attempt make a sale to the IOC. The IOC was an audience not cowed by Chicago-style clout, nor inoculated by our fawning Jurassic media, nor remotely interested in the Obama life stories. Perhaps that is how and why they so quickly rejected team Obama.

  That is not to say that Chicago was a slam-dunk in the first place. I have no way of knowing what Chicago’s ultimate chances were of landing the 2016 games. But the embarrassing first round knockout was a definitive rejection of both the Obamas and their approach. Their hearts were in selling the Obama brand, not U-S-A.

  Which reminds me, has anyone ever heard the “U – S – A” chant at a Democrat rally?

  But back to the Obama’s sales pitch, which was awful by any definition. The whole thing begs the question: How could a person who has made his political fortune at the expense of the reputation of the country possibly sell our country to the IOC with a straight face?

  The answer is, he could not. And although it would have been an out of body experience for him to do so, I still thought he would at least attempt to fake some love for America, and perhaps mention some notion of our logistical competence and love of sports and so on. I didn’t think he would believe it, but certainly thought the teleprompter would sneak in something good about the country for him to read.

  Nope.

  He and the First Lady did not even pretend to be proud of us. As you might remember, they went on an unseemly, surreal begging campaign that mixed in uncomfortable bits and pieces of their personal histories with platitudes about what the Olympic Games could do for the children of Chicago. Oh, BTW, the Obama family did mention that they would personally find it kind of a cool thing for the neighborhood.

  To paraphrase their approach, it was ‘ask not what our country can do for your Olympics—ask what your Olympics can do for our city.’ That is not an exaggeration. That was the exact tone of the First Lady’s closing argument:

  Chicago’s vision for the Olympic and Paralympic Movement is about so much more than what we can offer the Games—it’s about what the Games can offer all of us.

  That was how she ended her speech. That was her “please sign here” moment. For the record, her talk failed to mention a single advantage the United States or Chicago could offer the Games. Not a word. No wonder they didn’t sign on the dotted line.

  Before that, some 40% of her speech was about her dad and his battle with multiple sclerosis. Apparently the IOC didn’t see the relevance. I’m sorry about her dad, but I don’t see the relevance, either. When she wasn’t talking about her dad, she was fantasizing about what a Chicago Olympiad would mean to her and the children of the city:

  But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago... that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

  Now what does Michelle think the Olympics are—one of those “everybody gets a trophy” leagues? Unmoved, the IOC’s answer was something like “get them ESPN 2 and ESPN 3 if they need to be exposed to new sports and role models. And by the way, we’re not so sure about that ‘regardless of ability’ concept either.” Only liberals think the entire world is clamoring for a no score league at all levels.

  She was then followed by the President, who, in all fairness, did shelve some of his blatantly anti-American sentiment for the time being. Of course, he would only couch positive things about the nation in terms of diversity or Obama-ness.

  Nearly one year ago... people from every corner of the world... gathered to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals.

  Let me translate: our very experiment in democracy was hanging on by the thread of whether he won the election or not. That was his main point, not to mention the breathtaking narcissistic assumption that the world was interested only because he was involved. But there’s more. His premise that modern history started with his inauguration continued:

  Now, that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest... (and) there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family’s home, with Michelle and our two girls, and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.

  Well, where do I sign? How can I possibly turn down an opportunity to make the 2016 Olympics so convenient for family Obama? After all, they are the family that has finally started, in earnest, the work of, well, whatever it is they are transforming in America.

  Amazing.

  When you consider these words in light of what Obama said about the United States to the U.N and the G20, it is clear to see that this is a man who really does think history started when he was born, and America’s greatness started when he was elected. These thoughts dominate any sober analysis of the written words of
his speeches. He also thought the IOC would be motivated to give Chicago the Olympics because it would be cool for family Obama. That is everyone’s focus, is it not?

  While our own Jurassic media is totally under his spell, the IOC and the much of the rest of the world media was not. They saw the Copenhagen sales pitch and rejected it out of hand. It came in fourth place out of four. There was no ‘everyone gets a trophy’ in Copenhagen. Obama was dead last. Period.

  There was analysis out of the D.C.-Manhattan corridor, of course, that the racists in the United States and the Republicans and talk radio and Fox News and the right leaning blogosphere were to blame for this disaster. They were not.

  Neither was George Bush or Dick Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld.

  Elsewhere, there was talk that it was not-that-big-a-deal and that Chicago was done a favor by not getting the games. That may be true, but the Obamas and their Chicago buddies wanted it badly—and thought they had it in the bag. Valerie Jarrett, who one day will be uncovered as the real President from 2009-2012, was set to cash in big with her business connections from the Games.

  And yet these liberals, ever the sore losers, were saying “well, I really didn’t want to win anyway.” Typical.

  The bottom line is this: This was an Obama epic fail, period. The Obamas were the sales force, they were the focus of the sales presentation and they were the product. The Obamas were there to sell the Obamas with the Obamas. All Obama, all the time.

  And the world said, “No thanks.” Perhaps even “Hell no!” And there was no union thug or EPA bureaucrat or IRS agent to change the world’s mind. Which is the way liberalism is. It is only the way a society organizes itself when it has the power to force their misguided notion of government on buyers desperate for an alternative.

  YMBAL’S #9

  If you have ever bitched about corporate America so wildly that you spilled your Ben and Jerry’s Chunky Monkey all over your union tee shirt…24

  If you can’t actually locate Fox News on your TV…

  If it took the statements by Barack Obama in Roanoke that “you didn’t build that” to inform you of Obama’s view of the economy…

  If you were a participant in the “flash mob / robbery” in the Jacksonville Wal-Mart in summer of 2012…25

  If you thought, “yeah, this will fix everything” when the Government announced in July of 2012 that it was going to become more involved with the credit rating agencies…

  If you thought prior to July of 2012 that the government wasn’t already deeply involved in the credit rating agencies…

  If you fight school choice tooth and nail for DC while sending your child to a private school…

  If you are more worried about hunting rifles owned by the likes of Sarah Palin than you are automatic rifles given to drug lords in Mexico by our Justice Department…

  If you think the nice union folks who built the bridges and the roads for the evil rich businessmen who think they “got there on their own”—built those roads and bridges for free and did so only to help future business people…

  If you think Wonder Bread Girly Man Mitt Romney is really a felon…

  If you think it is a good idea to run all the millionaires out of New York with higher taxes…

  If you are a NY state taxpayer and are happy that Rush Limbaugh left the State…

  If you think Obama is “a nice guy” who is merely “over his head”…

  If you think Jon Corzine really doesn’t know where all the MF Global money is…

  If you think that Fort Hood is an merely example of workplace violence…26

  If you have ever participated in campaign event theater, like pretending to get hit by Tea Party folks, while getting paid from your no show union job…27

  If you took the time to bring up a proposition to burn Olympic uniforms on the floor of the Senate but haven’t gotten around to passing a budget for four years…

  If it hadn’t dawned on you that the US Olympic Committee is a private organization and not a government entity…

  ...you might be a liberal. (YMBAL)

  “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for (Putin) to give me space. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

  —Barack Obama caught on hot mic to Dimitri Medvedev

  “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

  —Medvedev in reponse to Obama

  “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

  —Ronald Reagan, to Mikhail Gorbachev and the world

  “BERLIN WALL TUMBLES”

  London Herald headline, Nov 11,1989

  10: LEMONADE STANDS VERSUS CITY HALL

  If you’ve ever shut down a lemonade stand because the eight year old proprietor didn’t have the proper form…

  “It’s just a made up word… so that young fella’s like your self can wear a suit and a tie and have a job…so you just go on stamp your form sonny and stop wasting my time…”

  —Red in Shawshank Redemption.

  Liberals love the bureau. And I don’t mean the FBI. I mean the massive bureaucracies that are part of all levels of government. These bureaus are full of folks who get to stamp a form so they can have a job. Moreover, if you are in the private sector and don’t get the proper forms stamped, these little microbes can keep you from having your job.

  We don’t need to ask the wizards of the Ivy League why liberal policies are not working for the economy. Everything we need to know can be explained with lemonade and cookies. Or more specifically, a couple of news items involving lemonade and cookies pretty well demonstrate why the economy is doing well in a few select places, while being in the tank overall. Two little anecdotes define conservative versus liberal economic thinking, not to mention the inevitable failure of the Obama regime.

  In Bethesda, Maryland in early 2012, parents were fined $500 when their kids had the temerity to run an “unauthorized” lemonade and cold drinks stand. That is not a misprint. “Unauthorized lemonade stand: is the formal charge. It is Orwellian, and it happened. Talk about killing incentive, or put another way, making lemons out of lemonade. Now, if you’re scoring at home, this stunning tale makes it Bureaucrats 1 Entrepreneurs 0 in blue-state Maryland.

  Meanwhile, in Texas, Governor Rick Perry signed into law SB 81, making it legal for kids and grandmas to bake cookies and cupcakes for sale at home. Before this law was signed, it was technically against an ordinance unless they had the proper license. Again, that is not a misprint. Orwell was at it again. But thanks to Perry and Texas’ conservative legislature, it’s Entrepreneurs 1 Bureaucrats 0 in red-state Texas.

  With these very different thought processes at play in Maryland and Texas, I wonder which state might have performed better over the past few years with respect to private sector job creation.

  The answer, of course, is Texas. There are less liberals per capita in Texas which in a related story, generally means a relatively smaller government footprint. And it’s not that just that a couple of drink stand jobs here, or home baking jobs there, will result from the ordinances and laws. It’s about the entire notion of the role of government intervention in our economy. In Texas, and all over red-state America, the idea is that government’s role in the economy is merely to foster an environment where businesses can prosper. This is a good thing, allowing businesses to create jobs and economic opportunities for the owners and employees and investors through the production of attractive goods and services for consumers. This win-win-win equation explains the engine that has fueled the economy of our nation for decades. This is Milton Friedman’s compassion theory in practice. He would no doubt like SB 81.

  In blue-state America, the notion is that government must manage every aspect of business to make sure rules are followed and that no one is taken advantage of by anyone at any time. It’s the idea that highly educated central planners can create a better economy by empowering armies of unelected and unaccountabl
e bureaucrats who will interpret and enforce all of these wonderful ivory tower edicts from the smartest among us. As Friedman would ask sarcastically, just who “would be these angels” that could deem fairness from on high?

  The answer, of course, would be those same unnamed, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats in faraway government buildings. Well, there are angels and then there are angels.

  The bureaucratic mindset regarding lemonade in blue-state Maryland stands as a microcosm of the Obama administration. This is what all liberals want out of government. The Bethesda authorities’ penalizing of the kids’ drink stand is simply a type and shadow of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s attempt to prevent Boeing from opening up their massive Dream Liner plant in North Charleston, SC. It’s also much like the EPA running Shell Oil out of Alaskan waters after Shell had invested four billion dollars in exploration in those waters. These are the same battles as the Maryland lemonade stand, just on a scale of billions of dollars.

  It’s the idea that central planners and government statists know what’s best for our economy and our population. For the record, central planning and government statism is liberalism. These folks actually think that the cumulative decisions made by free peoples and free enterprises acting in their own best interests are not to be trusted without bureaucratic supervision. This is chilling the business climate everywhere. Entrepreneurs recognize this, and they are on strike, à la Atlas Shrugged, and for the same reasons.