A few observations about last night's Republican Primary election results.
Rick Santorum really struck a dulcet chord with his opening line about "Three states, three winners, what a great country." The inevitable winnowing of the primary field has occurred. Not fast enough for the pundits. Certainly too quickly for primary voters in states four through forty-seven to have a say as to whether or not they thought the other five candidates were viable alternatives. But with three different winners, even though a lone frontrunner hasn't emerged, it makes a few other things clear. This Primary is different from 2008. The pundits and establishment are not going to steer the outcome as easily as they did last time. The spirit of 2010 which was characterized by a diverse, engaged and better educated voter making decisions for reasons that matter to them and not based on the agenda of the "experts"; that spirit appears to be alive and well in 2012. What a great country indeed.
The pundits are clearly bothered that the people of this great country are not listening to them. They are bothered that their conventional wisdom is a broken tool when attempting to apply it to another unconventional election season. They've prodded, pushed and insulted us because we aren't on board for the establishment candidate. The Not-Romney sentiment is making enough of a difference and with last night's results the pundits are being forced to admit it even though as Krauthammer observed about his own fallibility, "humility isn't easy" and National Review editor Steve Hayes felt the need to insert some snarky comment about Newt's many falls and so far, equal number of resurrections. The establishment (Right, Left and indifferent) is on notice. The status quo must go. The change feared by the establishment may very well be coming soon.
And what about the fourth candidate, you ask?
Ron Paul is still untethered from reality when he speaks to his supporters. And yet there is a realist underneath, a realist who is skipping the Closed Primary state (declared Republicans only) Florida because he knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance there. Keep in mind that Florida is a very populous (read: lots of electoral votes) swing state. If you aren't ready to take on your own party there to gain the nomination, what will be your strategy in the general election when Obama is looking for places on the "57-58" state Roulette table to place over one billion dollars of casino chips?
Message to all of you who are not 19 year old boys in fear of being drafted to fight the wars against America's enemies, disaffected Obama supporters and disingenuous Democrats lurking in Republican Primaries in an attempt to torpedo the outcomes in the selection of our candidate: Ron Paul is not getting the Republican nomination and does not care if Obama gets reelected as a result of his persistence in this campaign. He took fourth place in a four man Open (that means Democrats could vote) Primary. Do not bother giving him any support. Ron Paul needs to go home along with voters who are confused about his intentions and his viability.
Finally, let none of us forget that the campaign is really about removing Obama and his "transformational" wrecking crew from D.C. and out of our lives. Gingrich, once again delivers the rallying cry. In a center-right country with a shrinking Democrat voting base there is the potential of a landslide in November if the nominee runs "an American Campaign."
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Bain of Conservatism
I am reading this story in the Washington Examiner after what was obviously a Mitt Romney loss to Newt Gingrich in last night's debate
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/will-frontrunner-romney-keep-debating/317361
Ever since Reagan cleaned Carter's clock in that final debate before the election the conventional wisdom is front runners only lose ground in debates so why risk it?
In this case, if he doesn't show up, Mitt is going to look like the Bain analyst who is crunching the numbers and playing the short odds instead of looking like a leader who gets going when the going gets tough. Which is to say his absence will make him look increasingly arrogant, impatient for the "coronation"; in short, stands to lose more than he will gain by not being in attendance.
I've worked around these Bain guys and it's not the free market capitalism that offends people. It's all the gutlessness and shrewd calculus that people are sensing. It comes across as cold, almost reptilian. This is what makes Mitt the perennial 24 percenter; the loser to the loser.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/will-frontrunner-romney-keep-debating/317361Ever since Reagan cleaned Carter's clock in that final debate before the election the conventional wisdom is front runners only lose ground in debates so why risk it?
In this case, if he doesn't show up, Mitt is going to look like the Bain analyst who is crunching the numbers and playing the short odds instead of looking like a leader who gets going when the going gets tough. Which is to say his absence will make him look increasingly arrogant, impatient for the "coronation"; in short, stands to lose more than he will gain by not being in attendance.
I've worked around these Bain guys and it's not the free market capitalism that offends people. It's all the gutlessness and shrewd calculus that people are sensing. It comes across as cold, almost reptilian. This is what makes Mitt the perennial 24 percenter; the loser to the loser.
Time to go big or go home
Friday, December 16, 2011
Primary Candidate - Debate Word Association
- Gingrich - Ready
- Romney - Waiting
- Perry - Late
- Huntsman - Frivolous
- Paul - Cracked
- Bachmann - Romney Veep
- Santorum - Gingrich Veep
Day of Wreckoning
Ron Paul is unelectable.
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.
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
The Romney-Bachmann Ticket
It would appear that primary voters have come to grips with the simple reality that Herman Cain is not going to somehow neutralize the race factor from the Presidential election nor provide African Americans a conservative alternative to Barrack Obama. That fatuous infatuation appears at an end.
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.
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
The New Cain's-eyenism: 9-9-9 = No, No, No
I suspect that all you Cain-eyaks are in for a lot of disappointment in the coming months because plain taking and simple to understand is going to be easily attacked by both sides for lacking in experience and too simplistic to provide a real fix for the issues we are facing.
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?"
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
MSM Trash the GOP Candidates Bingo
This article (good quick read)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/new-luddites/
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:
*
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/new-luddites/
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[126] | 2009–present | President nominated, Senate confirmed | Barack Obama | ✓ |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)