- Gingrich - Ready
- Romney - Waiting
- Perry - Late
- Huntsman - Frivolous
- Paul - Cracked
- Bachmann - Romney Veep
- Santorum - Gingrich Veep
Friday, December 16, 2011
I first came across Ron Paul when he ran in 2007. I saw a side-by-side comparison of the Republican primary candidates on all the main issues and for me, a veteran, it all fell apart on his foreign policy.
Since then I've seen him in these debates.
I've heard it said that Newt Gingrich never had an idea he didn't verbalize.
Ron Paul has never had a rambling, off topic, bring it back to the Fed and American Isolationism (anti-war), stream of consciousness monologue he didn't verbalize during the debate.
He's a verbal, ideological and intellectual train wreck and his anti-establishment, Libertarian groupies, the Ronulans need to stay home on primary day so we can get down to the serious business of picking a nominee to beat Obama.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
I believed all along that his inexperience in foreign politics would be his greatest liability. That was my issue from the get-go. The fact that he allowed himself to be so easily race-baited by the Obama campaign while still vying for primary voters or that he is still the only "Republican" on the campaign trail who is first and foremost stumping for new taxes are my other legitimate concerns; far outweighing anything to do with the allegations of a Clinton-esque sexual harassment scandal.
So Gingrich has popped up into that coveted ARBR spot. (Any Republican But Romney). And he has weathered some of the obvious early criticism and continued to excel in his arena, the debates.
What strikes me is that Bachmann has come after Gingrich most vociferously out of all the other candidates. But to what end? I guess she could be trying to brand herself as the true conservative but in that regard so could Rick Santorum.
This is just my theory but Bachman appears to be a second tier (polling in single digits) candidate who is acting as Romney's attack dog, allowing Mitt to stay consistent in his strategy of staying above the fray.
I called the first Republican debate "The Vice Presidential Debate" for good reason. There was no Romney, Gingrich or Perry in attendance. Straw poll winner Bachmann appears to be operating at that VP wavelength, still saying the same three or four things about herself, harkening back to my criticism of Santorum that night. She continues to sound a little too much like someone interviewing for a job and comes off as not very Presidential.
And maybe she still is . . . trying to impress a future boss.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
9% Corporate Tax, depending on how it's actually written will either unfairly reward companies with very few employees or provide further incentive to off-shore jobs. And perhaps a corporate flat tax will not in and of itself cause downward pressure but it will fail to fix the real issues of regulatory burdens and the ever-increasing cost on employers to fund their portion of entitlement programs (Obamacare). GE is paying Zero Corporate Tax this year, is off-shoring its workforce in the tens of thousands and the per share price is 1/3 of where it was less than 5 years ago. At least Rick Santorum's proposal to zero out manufacturer's tax addresses one of the issues behind joblessness and trade deficits directly by taking on a specific symptom head-on. I also like it because it is small and specific.
Cain may not realize that his 9-9-9 proposal is still big government, runs the risk of many unintended consequences and just peanut butter spreads the pain. In the end be mindful of the fact that you, the consumer will be paying this 9%. Corporations don't pay tax. They incorporate taxes into the cost of goods sold, passing that cost on to you and/or look for ways to save in the other line items of their business, ultimately spending less on tangible assets, quality materials and labor. This is why 9-9-9 really adds up to 24-27% Federal Tax (not including Social Security and Medicare) on middle-class, middle aged income earners who are spending the majority of their paychecks to make ends meet right now and who are the fuel in the engine of economic growth. That's a tax that is still too high and the economic tide will not rise if this downward pressure remains that high.
9% Income Tax is a non-starter. It raises tax on a bunch of people who currently pay little or nothing of "their fair share" while simultaneously lowering the taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" which is to say it will lower it on the many "thousandaires" who are really the ones in the crosshairs of this despicable liberal rhetoric. So short of a super-majority and probably even with a super-majority, this will never pass. Democrats will never vote to raise taxes on their core constituency: the Dependency Class. Republicans are too cowardly to face the likely attacks of cronyism and racism for lowering taxes on their core constituency of wealth earners and job creators while simultaneously increasing the burden on so-called minorities. So although I would personally benefit by seeing my Federal income tax go down, it is the least likely of the three to get any traction in tax reform legislation. But even before Cain get's that far let's review the fate of the last Republican who favored tax increases ("Read my lips"). Obama will demonize Cain into unelectability.
9% Federal Sales Tax is the worst of the three. Let me count the ways. 1) The last thing we want to do in the current climate is give the Federal government more control over our lives and add an entirely new method of raising taxes. This is the camels nose under the tent. 9% becomes 9.5 or 9.9% very quickly when the Federal government finds itself in a bind to pay for something that was under-budgeted and overspent. And just because the Pizza Tycoon is in the White House don't think that all too common problem goes away. It's in the DNA of government to do such things. Bad fiscal practice is not a recessive gene in the Federal government. Until that species of politician and bureaucrat is extinct, that very real risk remains. 2) I feel that there is even greater risk that the tax will not merely go up but that the structure will change to a European style VAT. Argue for VAT as you may I personally want to emulate Europe less not more and VAT equals big government on steroids. If I ran a business the first thing I'd do to keep my VAT burden in check would be to buy less and build less. Over time this equals a lack of surplus in all things and I can't think of anything more anti-Capitalist except maybe Obama himself. 3) Regardless of whether you give credence to #1 and 2. the rule that still applies is: If you want less of something, have government tax it. I already pay a 9% State Sales tax which is only acceptable because I (just like every other Texan) pay Zero State Income Tax. At the point where I am having to pay roughly 20 cents on top of every dollar spent . . . let's just say that my family will be getting even more creative in our ways to exist and have fun without unholstering the wallet.
As much as the Tax Code needs reform, the proposals in the Primary and General Election seasons need much more thoughtful branding. The Tea Party wants to hear how you are going to starve the beast of Big Government, not how you are going to change it's diet yet keep on feeding it a rich source of our tax dollars.
So it starts striking me as a little naive that Pizza Man and Head of the National Restaurant Association would propose a tax structure that would certainly lead to a whole lot fewer of us eating out. Just think what happens to that $6 burger when it shrinks by anywhere from 9-27% due to all these taxes. You and I will surely be saying, "where's the beef?"
Sunday, October 2, 2011
reminded me not only that John Holdren is Obama's (psuedo)-science Czar (read more here)* but also reminded me of the likelihood that the Main Stream Media will predictably use this attack-line. You are bound to see this one once the primary race tightens up a bit and these shills for Obama start launching a whole array of "new" editorial memes.
Feel free to add this one to your Bingo Board:
|science czar||Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy||Holdren, John||2009–present||President nominated, Senate confirmed||Barack Obama||✓|
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
People are saying that the Republican Primary is now at a whole new level and proof of that to me is what we saw during the debate Thursday night. Ron Paul's sputtering and muttering captured some attention and a few positive lines of press in the South Carolina debate earlier this year but Thursday night he just looked small and continued to shrink every time he spoke.
I know there are Paul-iaks/Paulistas/Ronulins out there (used to work with one of them) that are holding out hope that this is the year for their guy to win the Republican primary. First and foremost, Ron Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian and that is a zebra of a different stripe.
Set aside the fact that most of his answers are far too wonky for most voters to get excited about them. In U.S. elections over the last two centuries the winners are able to encapsulate their platforms in a few pithy campaign slogans. Any idea coming from Ron Paul requires a college degree, a 15-page thesis and a liberal dose of footnotes and other reference material to really understand.
Set aside the fact that he's about as eloquent as a Mister Magoo on Novacaine. A recipe for abject failure in a debate against Obama.
Set aside the fact that he says things like "bad scene" which makes him sound like he time-traveled out of the 70's (from his first Congressional term - ironic for a guy proposing term limits). Set aside that his "thin silver dime" reference to illustrate some point about monetary policy made him sound like a homeless loon, off his meds accosting someone at a bus stop.
Set all that aside and then look down at the incredible shrinking man; the man who looks less and less presidential, the only one on stage on Thursday who was taking the NBC bait and going after his fellow Republicans without hesitation and with a little too much zeal; take a look down at that isolationist Lilliputian and ask him how he'd run the country and it would sound an awful lot like we'd be living in log cabins wearing tri-corner hats and carrying muskets to hunt for food in the vast absence of supermarkets.
So all of the Ronulins need to go back to their Revolutionary War reenactments and stop flash mobbing the non-scientific polls with your overenthusiastic votes for Paul, thinking you are going to attract enough Republicans to your cause. The longer Paul stands on stage, the taller he makes the rest of the real candidates appear. Eventually this sideshow distraction must go because he doesn't appear to be embodying the one absolute fact of this primary so eloquently articulated by Newt Gingrich when he said,
Sunday, August 21, 2011
So to make it interesting and even entertaining I've concocted a game.
Play with me. Watch carefully for all these tired tropes by the liberal attack dogs.
Shout out BINGO!!! when you can cover the whole card. Now that the Iowa Straw Poll is over and we are entering the true Primary Season, the media that has been bridling against the clock to come in and start swinging, . . . well, it appears to be in full swing.
Click the picture for the whole card.
Monday, August 15, 2011
With Hypno-Vision to stun and mesmerize your Liberterian friends
(who will then willingly follow this doll off of a cliff)
Amaze & Entertain Your Friends By Pulling the Neck String to Hear Two Patented Life like Catch-Phrases
"Close the Federal Reserve. The Fed is at the heart of all America's economic problems. When you understand business cycles and you understand the gold standard and Ben Bernanke equals Woodrow Wilson. I should know, I voted for both of them. Did I mention pi R squared? Follow the Yellow Brick Road or be at peril of attack by flying monkeys."
- and -
"America needs to get out of all wars everywhere. War scares me. War is bad and most of all it costs money the Federal reserve should not be printing. Our Founding Fathers had muskets and a Navy of a handful of ships that would take weeks, nay months to cross the oceans. We need to return to those simpler times so we don't feel compelled to fight wars with our fast jet powered military that reminds me of Buck Rogers that I use to see at the picture show for a nickel when I was in my twenties. Did I mention that we should pull our troops out of everywhere including our own domestic bases? If I were President I'd be so anti-war that the movie Star Wars would be illegal."
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
American Liberty is not easy. It is, however, completely worth the effort and the price . . . particularly when you consider the alternatives.
Thinking even more about how aptly named the Tea Party is, the candidates who wear that monicker as a badge of honor are willing to sacrifice the little bit of political power they've gained along with reputation and wealth to defend the American ideal. They are surrounded on the Hill by so many others that embody the descriptor "turncoat".
By the very nature of our nation's founding and the dynamic created by The Constitution, it seems the American Revolution is bound to be played out again and again and again.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Tea Party members of congress who refused to vote for this mangy dog of a debt deal could, if they wanted, say I told you so. Perhaps they won't. On their behalf, I will.
While they were being chided by all the "experts" who wanted them to close ranks with the rest of the Republicans and vote yes for the watered down compromise struck by Boehner, instead they held firm on their principles. Many said that their reasoning was this bill didn't go far enough to avert the impending credit downgrade and guess what, S&P just confirmed they were right. Standard & Poor's is telling all of us, "I told you so" or perhaps S&P just said, "Mr Obama, don't call our bluff."
What is really unforgivable about the way the pundits and political careerists acted is they all set aside their own logic to embrace this deal. They showed a willingness to violate the following principles that many of them espoused over the past two years.
- Q: When is it ever a good idea to respond to an Obama imposed, arbitrary deadline for legislative action? A: Never. -- I submit to you that the only thing that would have happened on August 3rd if we didn't pass some piece of debt limit legislation is that Obama would have looked like an even bigger $hit-heel having a birthday party with an unresolved, self-inflicted crisis.
- Weren't we supposed to have the chance to read all bills for five days before a vote? I believe the new Republican controlled House even made a commitment to this notion and proposed legislation or at least rules changes. And before they make the rationalization with themselves that this was a case of special circumstances; that a crisis was looming and time would not permit the nicety of a 5 day waiting period, see #1. Arbitrary, meaningless deadline and the clock was ticking months ago when they did the first debt limit extension in April.
- When did it become a good idea to write bills behind closed doors with Harry Reid or pass a bill so we could find out what was in the bill? The super committee selection process is a big mystery. Some were even speculating that non-elected persons could be members of the committee. Perhaps the rules are in there but see #2 and then tell me where it was posted for 5 days or even 2 days where any of us would have time to read it.
- When is it NOT a good idea to put automatic defense spending cuts on the table? I wasn't a General when I was in the Army but I am guessing that one of those times is probably when you are in the midst of an ongoing global war against terrorists and fighting intense conflicts with large military deployments in not 1, not 2 but 3 separate countries. This is tantamount to setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Our enemies have to be giddily awaiting the trigger option to be pulled so they can launch new attacks when the Pentagon loses it's check book and has to budget their response to the threat matrix.
- When is it a conservative or even Republican (see definition of "republic" below) idea to cede, consolidate and fundamentally alter Constitutional power? The super committee in effect does all three of these. The Republicans who voted for this bill have essentially abdicated their authority and representative powers. If they are so willing to do so and so reluctant to govern, perhaps they should just leave political office.
So in this case, it's not even me saying, "I told you so." It is all of you pundits and politicians who should look yourselves in the mirror and say, "I told myself so . . . and I didn't listen."
Friday, July 29, 2011
and by advocating against what has been called the Boehner plan he stands apart from many of his fellow conservatives.
We've been disappointed to watch Republicans lose their nerve and cave in as recently as this year in the negotiations over the debt extension in April and May. Now that the Tea Party members in their midst are standing firm I see long time conservative pundits losing their nerve, talking in fear of the political outcome for the Republican party and not talking about saving the country -- country before party affiliation. This is a real crisis of faith and frankly many of them are sounding self-contradictory.
In the end, win, lose or draw, Republican party members will still be the only alternative to Obama and his ultra-radical, leftists Democrats. The Republican nominee for President will likely bear little or no responsibility for the outcome of the current debt crisis and the resulting economic aftermath. The Republican nominee will also be the only alternative to the true owner of this accelerated decrepitude, Barrack "Don't call my bluff - never let a crisis go to waste" Obama.
There is currently NO plan in play that will move us in a direction away from still being a debtor nation. Cut-Cap & Balance was killed by the Obama lapdog, Harry Reid and no alternatives were offered by Obama Democrats. Paul Ryan's Medicare plan already met a similar fate and the Mack Penny Plan, yet another alternative is not gaining any traction for all the same reasons.
Andrew McCarthy's piece spotlights that the nation's debt is the ongoing, existential threat and the driving issue in our national debate since before, during and now, well after the 2010 mid-term elections. There is currently no course of action that will eliminate this issue.
So in 2012, unless voters are all bonked on the head and have amnesia, get worn down by the dithering and current gridlock only to consign themselves to a fate worse than that of a Greek, or if they all just have an A-D-D moment at the ballot box and change their minds, the debt will still be a driving issue. Voter concern or not, the debt itself will exist and threaten the state of our present day existence and not only our future.
As long as the debt remains front and center in the election debate the Republicans have every chance of making greater gains in the House, likely win the 6 or 7, perhaps 12 out of 20+ Senate seats to garner a majority, as well as be living in the White House. And in January of 2013 . . . the debt will still be an issue.
So in 2014, on the heals of some dramatic legislative action to cut spending, close business/job killing government agencies, repeal Obamacare, revise Medicare and Social Security and rewrite the tax code, the Tea Party will become an official political party. At this point more than 100 2nd and 3rd term congressmen and several Senators will break ranks and change their party affiliation. The remaining weak (RINO, moderate, careerist) Republicans will be forced to go along with the newly formed Tea Party; the Party that won't be afraid to lead or, as an alternative, these remaining Republicans will join the ranks of Democrats legislatively and/or otherwise. In either case, the Republican party will be driven into exile.
As for Legitimate Democrats, they are already extinct. The Progressives/Socialists liberal body snatchers have replaced them years ago. They may choose to call themselves Democrats. But knowing their socialist leanings, I'll be calling them the Anti-American Party.
And before you decide that this is a not possible I'll remind you that in our nation's history there once was a Federalist Party, a Democrat-Republican Party and a Whig Party. Where are they now? Like their ideas, their platforms and their leaders, they have run their course and become obsolete.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Now why would this be?
I suggest that it is because limiting him to how much internal revenue he can raise and how he can use these dollars would be detrimental to his campaign in 2012. The $timulus was a massive pay-off and payout to his biggest liberal constituencies: Wall Street cronies and Union thugs. I've picked up on some chatter that he plans to raise $1B dollars of campaign funds for his 2012 campaign but let's be clear that too much is never enough for this guy and when you are suffering the disapproval ratings of this presidency you have to be concerned that these campaign funds in the hundreds of millions will not be enough to drown out a bad public record utterly lacking in popular accomplishment, not to mention the genuine ideas coming from one's opponents. He's a lot of things but he's not a gambler. Rather than leave it up to voters, all of whom (conservative and liberal) he despises and disrespects, he'd rather buy the necessary votes to secure reelection.
With a limit to the debt ceiling there is an ever increasing unlikelihood of another slush fund like the $timulus. His most loyal constituents, government employees will be made to sacrifice and suffer and his most scorned political enemies, the contributing class of free-market American workers will not be punished with new tax increases (as if we haven't suffered enough already in this economy).
Obama also gets the benefit of creating another crisis that he and his Chicago-land thugs have all too openly admitted they look to exploit for political gain.
But this is how Obama has painted himself into his own corner. On one side, in creating another crisis he, at the very least, has co-ownership and responsibility to resolve the crisis. On another side, he will have to choose whether to limit himself from his resources (our tax dollars) and his political tactics of bribery and coercion (pundits can paint it up with whatever thesaurus they want to use, this is what we call these things in the middle of the country). On all other fronts Obama is facing a very public set of decisions less than 18 months before the election -- voting present, his preference, is not an option.
So again, Republicans have made it well known what the rules are in this negotiation. They have told the President and the Democrats what is on the table and what is not on the table. Anyone in business knows that until you make those determinations you aren't really negotiating, you're just having a conversation.
According to all the experts, the clock is ticking . . .
. . . your move, Mr. President.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
So before that addict in your family goes past that point of no return you have to get together and have an intervention, even though the radical behavior will be heightened, perhaps frenzied even and the emotions will get very raw.
But all of you who voted for Obama and your representative Democrats are just the drug dealers who pushed the drugs (spending) on these weak souls.
Not just the junkies but a lot of other people are going to be effected and perhaps hurt and even changed forever. But what's the option? Do you turn your backs on that family member? Do you let them get more drugs and overdose?
Monday, June 27, 2011
The story in question involved a Comedy Central mainstay. Jon Stewart jumped the shark tank. He filled it with water and put his own shark in the tank then . . . he jumped it, or rather into it by saying his job (as a comedian) was harder than that of professional news man Chris Wallace in an interview being conducted by Chris Wallace.
Stewart, who is only mildly funny to begin with, disarmed himself of his only weapons: hipster irony and insouciance. He did so when he allowed his own arrogance to get the better of him. He disarmed himself when he took his personae and his show so seriously by making this ridiculous proclamation of self-importance. Think about it -- the guy who's one-trick-pony is to attack everyone in the political and entertainment sphere as being too serious and self-important told us how serious and important he is. No longer can he be seen floating above it all in a too-cool cloud of detached comedic commentary. Now he's swimming with the sharks; sharks who's biting criticism he must endure now that he has set himself on that same level of importance.
And let's just put this in perspective. Stewart's entire argument about his job being more difficult than that of Chris Wallace, a fallible individual as we witnessed a week later in his Bachmann interview, but a man with a much larger viewership and a reputation as a serious journalist . . . well his argument is one of those sports-talk canards. It is that false debate when die-hard fans compare the baseball dynasty of the one fan's allegiance to the hockey dynasty of the other fan's devotion in a battle for which team is the greatest of all time. There are no winners, only opinions. Comparing a serious news program that stands for something and doesn't shrink from it's political bias to a comedian doing a skit and who falsely prides himself on standing for nothing but the laughs (when he clearly has a bias of his own), a show we are often reminded is "Not a News show" but merely "entertainment" is, well, a poor basis for comparison.
The big difference here is that Chris Wallace doesn't measure his significance by the number of Facebook followers who "Like" him. Because he admits to standing for something, he measures himself on that basis. Is he fair and accurate and do his interviews and panel discussions illicit responses that illuminate certain topics?
What's really comedic about this episode is how Stewart's audience, mostly trend lemmings have to make a choice. They either choose to stand for something even if that something is the guy who stands for nothing or they have to abandon their thought leader, choose not to defend their guy's arrogant gaffes so they can stay devoted to their own hipster detachment . . . and all because they'd rather never be wrong about anything. A bit of a conundrum -- the type that some people recognize as a sign that it is time to grow up.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
No, I am not behind the times. I am not talking about Libya, even though Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act, And that guy Qaddafi, who Obama said, "Must go" is still there. But no. There's another No-Fly zone the White House wants to enact.
It's Texas v. DOJ on the topic of enhanced searches at airports. The Texas state legislature is on the move this session, passing bills regarding parental notification, requiring voters to have picture identification and most recently an attempt to criminalize random pat-downs. If the pat down is conducted without a justifiable cause (read: illegal search) the TSA agent could face a fine or go to jail.
These type of groping, probing searches would still be permitted but probable cause would need to exist. That means old ladies and Iraqi war vets would typically be exempt but the sweaty, nervous guy with a one way ticket to Dulles who has trouble answering some basic questions about who he is, where he lives and whether he's staying in a hotel or with friends after he lands -- he is going to have to step out of line and behind the privacy curtain.
The thuggish DOJ (Eric Holder) and TSA are trying to block passage of this bill by threatening that Texas flights won't be permitted out of Texas air space . . . ironically putting the Lone Star state one step closer to the status of sovereign nationhood. You think the U.S. economy is bad now. Subtract Texas from the balance sheet and you will move the U.S. that much closer to the Thracian brink.
Texas State Legislator, David Simpson (R) was on Fox News this morning and has my vote for the quote of the week. "You Can't Go To 3rd Base Without A Good Reason."
Friday, May 20, 2011
On the other end of the spectrum you have bold anti-party pronouncements being launched from the tongue of a Newt . . . Gingrich that is. Perhaps there was some calculation on his part too; with some pundits saying he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Medicare voters. Either that or he is just the stupidest politician of the 21st century. Regardless he has ended his run before it was able to somersault through the first five or six 24-hour-news cycles. The pained explanations and public and private apologies have done nothing but give more fodder to those who were already slightly or extremely skeptical about him.
On Monday, April 12, 2010 in So What Now?
I had written "Let's start by saying Gingrich is off my list for many reasons. God forbid he becomes our only alternative to Obama in 2012. He sounds good when he knows he's in front of a conservative audience but he has demonstrated poor judgment and an over-eagerness to coalesce with the Democrats on too many occasions."
And that means events of this past week return us to the question: So What Now?
I will continue to be on the lookout for that winning, Reagan-esque characteristics: Sincerety and Leadership. These two guys have been political animals for far too long and are completely lacking in those personality traits.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
This is the file cabinet containing all of the character assassination stories culled by the liberal main stream media as they've geared up for the 2012 election. Just like Obama, they've been punching air for months in their not so quiet desperation. They've needed a real target and with several Republicans making formal declarations to enter the race they both have their targets and the file cabinet drawers are swinging open.
Clearly this story could have been started years ago and awaited the eventual release to coincide with a campaign announcement: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/us/politics/10gingrich.html
Monday, May 9, 2011
His comments about his experience in the Situation Room was that "it was the longest 40 minutes" of his life "except maybe "the possible exception of when Sasha got meningitis when she was three months old."
As I wrote to one of my favorite radio shows.
"I don't know about his forty minutes in the Situation Room. I can only suspect how long four hours awaiting care for a sick child in a future Obamacare Emergency Room will be. I know with certainty, though, that this Presidency is the longest 4 years of my life."
Facing them from Left to Right as they stood on Stage
Ron Paul a.k.a. Dr. No loses me every time on matters of foreign policy and national defense. It would seem that in his want of returning us to Constitutional Federal government he wants us to have collective amnesia about 235 years of American history and simply withdraw from our place in the world because it is fiscally inconvenient. His consistent point around fixing the Federal reserve made my eyes glass over which tells me he lost 99% of the non-Accountants in this country as well. And then there was the delivery . . . not mellifluous . . . not ready to take down Obama in a war of words.
Herman Cain is not quite "The Rent is Too Damn High" party. I've heard him speak on a couple of occasions before the "debate" and he appears serious enough. I can't get past the fact that he's going to apply his experience from corporate America. A little like trying to teach an indigenous people about calculus and advanced electronics. The current DC government is so far removed from sound fiscal theory that it's going to take more than a quick discussion about the nation's balance sheet. His lack of real foreign policy experience ranks right up there with the Donald Doctrine of taxing imports at 25% and laying claim to another country's oil fields. Once we get past the national threat of our debt and deficit and the malaise of our no-jobs recovery we will have very ominous threats from North Korea, Russia, China, etc. You can't privatize or outsource those solutions.
Tim Pawlenty, maybe by virtue of the lighting but almost certainly because of the odd angles in the underlying bone structure of his face, looked like the Tin Man. His unnatural hand gestures weren't helping either. I honestly can't recall much of what he said because I kept wondering which Media Consulting firm had been working with him for all of about 1 week on his "presence". It was so obviously forced that it was distracting. By the way Unnatural Hand Gestures spells UHG and that about sums it up for Pawlenty.
Rick Santorum was taking a little while to get his comfort level but once he did I think he started gaining momentum over the rest of the candidates. On one hand I like the "fire" he showed when asserting he was the guy for the job . . . the job being to beat Obama. On the other hand I am not sure that looked entirely Presidential. It looked more like the end of so many job interviews I've conducted as a hiring manager where I ask, "why should I hire you" and I get the stock response "because I'm a hard worker, a fast learner and a people person."
and then there was Gary Johnson. Did he really come out in this non-partisan, largely conservative forum and say he would pander for votes? His selling point, other than he has 3 more big mountains to climb on various continents which are mostly not in North America (apparently that's his Porous Border Foreign Policy Doctrine), was that he was okay with abortion so if he miraculously coasted past everyone in the primary after openly admitting that he's squishy on the topic of when life begins (read your history Gary, particularly the chapter on Rudy G's 2007 primary run) he was in a better position to win the general. But if you were a jobless, free-love twenty something and that wasn't enough for you well, hey, he's pro-drug legalization too. Gnarly dude.
And there you have it, and it is early yet, except if your Obama who has been campaigning hard for six months in a non-primary election.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
May-June special on
And I can't fill my tank with Change"
Of course everything, not just gas costs more right now. And that is the Carter-esque inflation that comes from a stagnant economy and monetizing debt a.k.a. having the treasury print money.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
You lost me at “Jeb Bush . . . Can-Do Conservative”. The name Bush is a four letter word to most conservatives and there is no love-loss between members of the Bush family and true conservatives either. I may be a short time reader but I am a lifelong conservative and I am pretty sure I am not in the minority of your readership when I say I am unwilling to ever think of any Bush as a true conservative.
As an example, the Bush's in their political dynasty have been pushing amnesty as a solution for illegal immigration. I am not satisfied that George H.W. Bush (41) really ever successfully defended allegations regarding Trilateral leanings. Regardless of how conspiratorial that may seem to the average reader it is far easier for me to reconcile a bent of “one-worldism” in the vast majority of Bush family policy. Craig Shirley’s tome on the Reagan campaign tells me all I need to know about what the Bush’s think of me and other NR readers. The Bush family finds real conservatism so odious that W felt the need to dress it up with the adjective "compassionate" which I've always found offensive as if he were apologizing for someone's race or religion. It is as if he's been saying he's one of the "good kind" of conservatives and not one of those "mean spirited, close-minded, nativist, racist, yadda, yadda types."
And before I hear that common argument about how W kept us all safe those eight years after 9/11 lets be honest with ourselves and acknowledge a good dose of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bolton in our anti-Islamist extremist and overarching foreign policies. 2001 may seem like another lifetime ago but the Obama-supporting Colin Powell was setting the tone for the Bush foreign policy until the 9/11 attack.
And recent interviews, appearances and activities by George2, Barbara and Jeb tell me they would rather see another four years of Obama then see a true Reaganesque conservative in the White House or even anyone near that end of the spectrum that gets the support of the Tea Party. And for W perhaps there is no better reason than Obama makes George look all the better by comparison and helps to cover over eight years of minor and not so minor blemishes; at the very least, helpful in cementing his legacy.
So as much as I am having a hard time coming to grips with a Newt Gingrich presidency, even though I relish Gingrich reducing Obama to a puddle of nonsensical bromides in a debate, the amount of mental gymnastics necessary for a conservative to accept a Jeb Bush run is outside of my comfort zone. I doubt any conservative is really all that limber.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
In other news, Chicago elects Rahm Emanuel to his first term as mayor over that failed city.
Stay tuned for more coverage of the democratic protests in the Middle East.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am really concerned about the rhetoric coming out of Washington this week, particularly the rhetoric about civility. I truly hope that no one considers changing their tone. Let ME be clear why.
- Jared Loughner is a nut-bowl in the extreme. 70 year old manifestos by fascists and communists, the Constitution and a Democrat Congresswoman who couldn't make sense of his psychotic babble might have been the recipe for this fruit cake to explode. If the pantry had been lacking in those ingredients I am sure he would have found something to use as a substitute. Let's be clear that political rhetoric in the mass media wasn't even in the spice rack when Loughner baked up his own pan of crazy.
- You were all elected because of failed, anti-business, anti-American policies and a political process that has been subverted and polluted by the leftists in the Democrat party. You were elected to attack, disrupt and dismantle their agenda. Concerns about rhetoric from either side is so low on the list that it doesn't even make the top 10 reasons voters turned 2010 into an historic landslide in your favor.
- Joe Wilson was disciplined when he acted disrespectfully in the SOTU after yelling, "You Lie". Joe Wilson received overwhelming support of constituents and out-of-state donors. Joe Wilson was reelected in 2010.
- Alan dis-Grayson said some of the most caustic, vitriolic and nonsensical things ever uttered in the Capitol building. There were times during his verbal barrages at Republicans he sounded like a member of the Jared Loughner fan club. He was never disciplined by the Pelosi Congress. He was also NOT reelected.
- The American people don't want self-censuring politicians who adhere to some phony call for civility by a President whose own language has been thuggish, openly disrespectful and filled with rather violent imagery.
- There has been a drought in Washington. The American people are thirsting to hear good ideas regardless of the rhetoric used by either side.
- Most of all we want leadership in the mounting fiscal crisis. Some leaders like Patton use harsh language. Regardless of language though, the best leaders are doers who get the job done.
Because Obamacare is not merely "bruising" job creation. It is not "harming" the middle class. It is not "rubbing up against" the American dream. It is KILLING all of the above.
Respectfully until required to behave otherwise,