I agree with what Rabbi Pruzansky says. We are in big trouble here in America.



The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total. But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America. The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate “free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible. They didn't even care that Obama is anti-Christian and against Israel. Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet, all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it. That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Obama could get away with it because he knew he was talking to dunces waving signs and squealing at any sight of him.

Obama could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. He could do and say all these things because he knew his voters were dolts. One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is required – so what is the answer, i.e., an intelligent answer? Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted European immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Most Hispanics from Mexico do not have love and respect for the United States like the Europeans did. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won. Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups. The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American life.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values, have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved. A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love their individual Congressmen. Go figure.

The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied. One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously – during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have jeopardized the Obama re-election. One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects, because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic – fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing. Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan) Palestinian state. But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were predictable in retrospect. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

Two bright sides: Notwithstanding the election results, I arose the morning, went to shul (synagogue), davened (prayed)and learned Torah afterwards. That is our reality, and that trumps all other events. Our relationship with God matters more than our relationship with any politician. And, notwithstanding the problems in Israel, it is time for Jews to go home, to Israel. We have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to leave with dignity and without stress. Thinking that it will always be because it always was has been a repetitive and deadly Jewish mistake. America was always the land from which “positive” aliya came – Jews leaving on their own, and not fleeing a dire situation. But that can also change. The increased aliya in the last few years is partly attributable to young people the high cost of Jewish living in America. Those costs will only increase in the coming years. We should draw the appropriate conclusions. If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.

Happy Holidays,

Rabbi Pruzansky

I don't know what your intention is, but next time try posting a summary of an article followed by a link to it. All you've done is consume space; few (if any) Board members will read a post of length of yours.

The intention was to share an opinion, like anything else here it is free will to read what you want or choose not to read it. Me myself generally dont like going to "links" because in this day and age who knows where that will take you. Im the first one to admit, posting poliitics and religion are dangerous subjects to discuss or post. However, I personally enjoyed the article and I appreciated the post! It's obvious you disagree with its contents and that's fine. That's what makes this place great, there are so many different points of view! And like reading a lenghty post or selecting a link, it's up to the individual to make that choice.

The idea that conservatives lost because they don't give away "free stuff" is really powerful because it not unsurprisingly fits with conservative self-images. It's wrong though. And to the extent that conservatives believe it they will continue losing national elections.

And if conservatives really believe this:



Well all I can say conservatives must be surprised that that they can continuously insult growing portions of the American electorate and somehow not get their vote. Imagine that.

It bears repeating though that despite the changing national American electorate, Romney lost big in the upper Midwest and east-states that do not currently have large numbers of Hispanic or Asian voters-states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, etc. He could not get enough white Americans in those states to vote for him, likely because they perceived that their lives would be worsened by a Romney victory. Most of those states currently have Republican governors. So perhaps the national Republican party needs to stop running to the extreme right and review how Republicans won in the Midwest. Or they could just keep losing national elections and blaming it on the non-white voters who do not share "American values". Either way.

The above comments are a great example of why it doesnt make a difference of how many people read a post, how long the post is or whether you get it from a link. The debate it starts and the opinions we share are worth it! Im as Republican as you can get and enjoy reading what other parties share! I even agree with many of the points that were made above! Refreshing. We lost because Romney was a stiff who couldnt connect with "people" plain and simple. He never opened up his Brooks Brothers and let people get to know him. He didnt connect and he couldnt get people passionate enough to rally behind him! These are my opinions, not stating any facts. Just how I personally felt about him and his campaign!

EastHarlem, thank you bro. I think Oli could be one of them liberals. All I was doing is sharing an opinion of the Rabbi's and letting people know I agreed with it.

Whether he is a liberal, neo- con or whatever, this is a "forum" ! Its a place to share ideas, thoughts etc. Like I said above this is what makes this forum great, its takes all kinds to make the world go round. What I find disgusting is when others strongly fight the thoughts and ideals of others(within normal standards)

Very true!

First of all, Oli is a well-respected member of this forum who writes well-thought and intelligent posts. Second, he's right. The article was quite long and a short summary and a link would have been a better idea and may have encouraged more people to read it, therefore sparking a better debate. He never said you shouldn't share ideas, he simply suggested a better method of doing so.

As for the Rabbi's ideas, he is welcome to them. The reason that the Romney campaign failed is that he DID run a poor campaign. He proved himself so out of touch with the average American, so dismissive of almost half the country, that he stood no chance of winning them over.

And greed and materialism started in 2007? During the worst financial crisis this country has seen since 1929? Really? Did the rabbi never see the film "Wall Street"?

Sounds like the rabbi had his own agenda and rearranged the facts to fit it.

Your saying if this article was connected via link it would have sparked a better debate? Let me ask a question, had Rachel Maddow wrote this article would you have cared how long it was?
Are you really using Wall Street as a argument point!

Sicilian Babe, you never heard of Rabbi Pruzansky before. He is a great speaker and is very smart. he runs a blog I follow. Below is the link you asked about. You being from back east but never heard of him before is crazy.

abbipruzansky.com/2012/11/07/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-american-empire/

I will make some popcorn and watch this one play out!

You seem intent on turning this into an attack on the contents of the article. Nobody is doing that, although I happen to disagree with the views expressed. However, that has nothing to do with it. You are focusing on minutiae instead of the original comment, which was that long posts tend to be ignored, and that more people might have paid attention to it if you had posted a short summary and a link. Therefore, more people may have actually clicked on it and commented. So, yes, that would have made for better debate.

And, yes, I am using the film "Wall Street" to make a point, because there was no era that embodied greed and materialism better, and that film captured it perfectly. Saying that it started in 2007 is, to me, quite ludicrous.

And, for someone who registered here less than a month ago and has made about 100 posts, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about my viewpoints and what I would or wouldn't read, think or do. You shouldn't.

For someone who is as distinguished as yourself you should read profiles better, I registered over a year ago. Not to long, but your referring to the person who posted the article not me. You also made another incorrect statement blinded by you semi- rage fit. I didn't post the article. What I did was point out that anytime a differing point of view comes here the Internet bullies attack and that's a joke.
Getting back to the article, I'm assuming you have a way to knows how many people actually read it? Do you know? If it had been a link would it have made a difference? I ask again if Rachel Maddow wrote this piece would you have applauded it?
To use the '07 Wall Street is a shit example, I could use the '87 Wall Street as an example also. Wasn't the 80's a "greed" era? That's right we didn't start thinking of others until the Mesiah Clinton came out of Arkansas in '92 and we cared about others and started giving it all away, while he was getting "Stress Relief" and smoking cigars in his office!
Intimidate someone else with your scorned views!

Maybe if Rosie O'Donnell wrote it, too. Somebody said something about popcorn and now I'm hungry, lol.

Then read on the Ellen Degeneras show it would be a grand document!

A. I wasn't in a semi-rage. You're not important enough.
B. No, I don't have a way to know how many people read this, but considering that more comments have been made on the link/not link debate than actually debating the content of what was posted, then I'm making an educated guess that not too many people actually read it.
C. There was no bullying. There was a suggestion made about future posts and how to improve them.
D. I was referring to the original "Wall Street", because, as you correctly pointed out, it was an era of greed. Therefore, I think that the rabbi was quite silly in writing that greed and materialism in America began in 2007.
E. I wouldn't care who wrote this. I would still disagree with it because it was, IMO, just plain wrong.
F. I wasn't trying to intimidate anyone, just expressing MY views. Apparently, only those that agree with you are allowed to do so.

I expressed some legitimate views on why I disagreed with what was written. I would be happy to engage in legitimate debate on those points.

Normally I would go point by point, however we're getting way of topic. Had you read MY posts and not assumed I posted the article you would know I was advocating the ideas of an open forum such as this. Had you read my posts you would have noticed I also agreed with a few left leaning points, another good thing about these forums. I gave you the '87 Wall Street because you didn't make your own point!
If I'm not important enough your spending an awful lot of time responding!

Ladies and gents, feel free to throw fathersson's popcorn at each other, but don't fling poo. It stinks up the joint!

PLEASE stick to the merits of your arguments.

A sincere question SicilianBabe, do you agree that whike most hard working mothers and fathers are out working there tails off its fair that others sit home and get it for free? Do you not think this "free" mentality erods pride, self worth and ambition? Believe me I am not saying cut all programs. What i am saying is we cant afford to pay for all these "lefers" while the rest of us are just trying to make it better for our own families.

First off, quit being so defensive by stating an opinion. Of course those are your opinions. YOU POSTED THEM. Yes alot of liberals/Democrats swarm these boards, and I would chalk that up to where most residents are from. Should I go to a redneck board and play that defensive game with the right-wingers there? Hell no. I state my opinions, I fight for my beliefs, and that's that.

Self-Victimization is never a winning strategy. Drink wine, don't whine. Archie Bunker would agree.

Anyway I would argue it was both message (i.e. blame Dubya still seems to work) and messenger that sank Romney in a year that he could've won, but let's just say you're right for debate's sake and it was Willard's fault for losing. Well consider that he really was the best egg from that lousy primary field. Santorum was a religious lunatic who lost a public debate on Catholicism with a President (a well-liked one) dead for 50 years. Herman Cain...you know I still don't understand why Cain was popular in the first place other than his name wasn't Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrinch if nominated would've only won a handful of Southern states in a landslide defeat '64-style.

The only other "serious" candidate that wasn't a joke or a Fox News/radio personality was Huntsman, who the White House feared. Like Romney a former Governor and Mormon, but with some sense of humanity and not a walking stereotype of indifferent Wall Street moneymen. But Huntsman torpedoed his own campaign when (1) he stated he believed in evolution and (2) was Ambassador to China under Obama. That "feared" theory has legitimacy why they gave him that plum diplomatic posting. Because that evolution backlash, its why Marco Rubio claimed the Earth wasn't billions years old, placating that (dumbass) Evangelical base.

Come to think of it, notice how soft the White House was on Wall Street. Why the GOP gave away that issue, about letting the assholes who crashed our economy get away with slaps on the wrists because they're too big to jail, I don't understand. Well actually I do: Because they agreed with that stance. And because they gave that issue away, the Democrats used it against Willard.



Funny but such a post (if the Internet was around back then) would've been posted 10 years ago...20 years ago...30 years ago...40 years ago...50 years ago...60 years ago..70 years ago...

What next, those damn kids won't work hard as we did 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago...



Even more remarkable considering Ohio, Obamacare was still unpopular with over 50% of the residents there. I suppose '12 in retrospect will be seen as the price tag for the '10 midterms. Yes the GOP base was resurgent and won back the House. But stretching outside of local House races, which entitled many people to believe how self-righteous they are and represent "real" America, well we saw what happened.

For all the right-wingers/Republicans whining about the growing minorities and shrinking Whitey....OH GROW THE FUCK UP. I seem to remember Democrats in '04 whining about Republicans and their "Jesus Land." How about that Jesus Land now? Elections come and go, Republicans will win the White House again. But they can't win it again by replaying the Lee Atwater playbook used since 1968. Those days are over when Romney won the highest white voting % since 1984, the biggest landslide victory in national election history, and Romney didn't even come close to winning.

I know it'll be hard to win back those Latino voters that once were reliable Republicans (if they haven't died off already) because the base (and the party followed suit) in doubling down against them in rhetoric and policy. People remember resentment for a long time, and it might even define what they think of them for decades to come. (Look at campaigns running against Hoover and Carter long after both men left the political scene.)

But you gotta start somewhere. Why give away all of immigration reform to the Democrats? They only have it out of default. Take hold of it, pass it on the local/state level instead of those short-minded electoral vote changes. I would suggest the same on Pot legalization/decriminalization. The White House is staffed full of old unimaginative Drug War zealots (including the Vice-Preisdents). Use their disadvantage against them.

To save myself time, to spare myself having a discussion with someone who won't discuss a topic with any degree of dignity when they have an opposing view I am taking the advice of many here when it comes to you RonnieRocket! I will ignore this and any other post you so generously give to the rest of the uninformed. However my final parting shot would be a suggestion as you've been good enough to make them for me. I know a new screen name is against house rules. However, "Master of the Silly Statement" would be a good fit for you! See when a person lets their views and opinions blind or cloud any rational judgement they have I realize it's not worth my valuable time crafting a respone! And for that simple reason I again will take the advice of many and ignore you.

The most sensible thing in this thread.

If you have an ongoing issue with another member's views and feel them annoying you the best course of action is to simply ignore them. Don't bring yourself down to a level beneath you.

How about those Red Sox!

Yeah good offseason, signed Drew to play ShortStop, dealt for Hanragan to closer(slick move) still no signed contract for Napoli? They agreed to terms now there is a medical problem! I'm told it's a bad right hip. If he plays First he is all set, no more catching!
Go Yankees!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a friend from South Boston, total Irish boy and Redsox fan. I say boo. Never liked the Sox.

I'm a bigger fan of the Boston Braves.

Very good so far....good punch lines....I thought I had seen this one before, but it changed in midstream and there were a few twists I didn't see coming. I put on some more popcorn, but please do not waste it by throwing it at each other.

Reading that essay in the OP, I noticed this:



Then why did the GOP toss Willard quickly away after the election like they did and pretty much try to blame the defeat wholly on him? He has less influence on the party now than Dan Quayle. If they're right that it wasn't the message but the messenger that bombed with the electorate, then apparently the top of that ticket wasn't clearly a man of substance, depth, or ideas.

If he was, he would've won. Willard was the Republican John Kerry, his whole campaign was I'M NOT THE PRESIDENT. Well OK, what else? That's when he (and his party) ran into trouble and allowed a President to be re-elected with the highest unemployment rate since FDR.

Man I leave for a few months and people are still continuing to fight.


My view is the GOP never fully got behind Romney & Ryan, the GOP can't seem to get their sh*t together too damned much infighting