Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

View Detail

Electoral Math

Electoral Math

Ok, let’s talk about the election so you don’t have to waste your time worrying about things like national polls or how 48 states might vote. Sadly, this election comes down to two states. That's right, two states -- unless something unexpected happens, in which event four whole states could become relevant. Get ready to have your mind blown. . .

Above is a chart provided by Yahoo which addresses which states are currently leaning in which directions and what that means in terms of electoral math. According to Yahoo, Obama has nineteen states and the District of Columbia in his pocket. Those give him 247 electoral votes. Romney has 23 states firmly in his column, which gives him 191 electoral votes.

The remaining eight states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, have an even 100 electoral votes between them. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. That means Obama needs 23 of those 100 and Romney needs 79 of those 100.

But here’s the thing, several of the states they’ve classified as toss-up states aren’t really toss-up states. History tells us that Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina are all but guaranteed to end up in Romney’s column. That boosts him to 225 electoral votes and means he needs 45 more.

Colorado, most likely, will go to Obama. . . grrr. That gives him nine more votes for a total of 256. That means he needs only 14.

Here’s what’s left:

Florida (29)
Ohio (18)
New Hampshire (4)
Iowa (6)

Now do the math. If Obama wins Florida OR Ohio, then he wins the election. But if Romney wins both Florida and Ohio, then he wins the election. New Hampshire and Iowa don’t matter in either of those scenarios. IF Obama loses Colorado but wins Ohio, then Iowa could matter because Obama could win by combining Ohio with Iowa. But New Hampshire never really matters.

What this comes down to is Florida and Ohio, with a slight chance that Colorado and Iowa could matter. Is that good or bad? It's good because those aren't strong states for Obama. But it's bad because it means it's going to be a close race, which means anything could happen.

Ok, let’s talk about the election so you don’t have to waste your time worrying about things like national polls or how 48 states might vote. Sadly, this election comes down to two states. That's right, two states -- unless something unexpected happens, in which event four whole states could become relevant. Get ready to have your mind blown. . .

Above is a chart provided by Yahoo which addresses which states are currently leaning in which directions and what that means in terms of electoral math. According to Yahoo, Obama has nineteen states and the District of Columbia in his pocket. Those give him 247 electoral votes. Romney has 23 states firmly in his column, which gives him 191 electoral votes.

The remaining eight states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, have an even 100 electoral votes between them. To win, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes. That means Obama needs 23 of those 100 and Romney needs 79 of those 100.

But here’s the thing, several of the states they’ve classified as toss-up states aren’t really toss-up states. History tells us that Virginia, Nevada and North Carolina are all but guaranteed to end up in Romney’s column. That boosts him to 225 electoral votes and means he needs 45 more.

Colorado, most likely, will go to Obama. . . grrr. That gives him nine more votes for a total of 256. That means he needs only 14.

Here’s what’s left:

Florida (29)
Ohio (18)
New Hampshire (4)
Iowa (6)

Now do the math. If Obama wins Florida OR Ohio, then he wins the election. But if Romney wins both Florida and Ohio, then he wins the election. New Hampshire and Iowa don’t matter in either of those scenarios. IF Obama loses Colorado but wins Ohio, then Iowa could matter because Obama could win by combining Ohio with Iowa. But New Hampshire never really matters.

What this comes down to is Florida and Ohio, with a slight chance that Colorado and Iowa could matter. Is that good or bad? It's good because those aren't strong states for Obama. But it's bad because it means it's going to be a close race, which means anything could happen.

Electoral Math

View Detail

Welfare Drug Testing Gains Ground

Welfare Drug Testing Gains Ground

“Ending welfare as we know it” was a great idea, partially-implemented. But many of the excesses have crept back into the body politic. The economic mess we are currently experiencing has driven up the number of families receiving food stamps and other government services and benefits. Some programs will indeed be temporary for many of the recipients until they can get back to work in a better economy.

But that doesn’t mean we should simply abandon all attempts to control government benefits. Among conservatives, there is a growing movement to make at least one small dent in the welfare rolls by requiring that all government assistance recipients submit to drug and alcohol testing prior to receiving assistance. Twenty-three states have passed testing legislaton, have legislation in progress, or are taking up the issue in upcoming sessions. On the far right, the thought is that all welfare recipients are cheats and most are drug or alcohol addicted. On the far left, welfare and unemployment compensation are considered some sort of constitutional right that can’t be interfered with by invading the recipient’s personal privacy.

Many people assume that the number of drug and alcohol abusers is much higher among welfare recipients than among the general public. Studies from the left, right and center have tended to prove this assumption false. In most studies, the general public is substance addicted at approximately the same rate as welfare recipients. The liberal argument, then, is that since the general public and welfare recipients are addicted at about the same rate, it would be “unfair” to test only welfare and unemployment compensation recipients.

That thinking fails the simple common sense test. If members of the general public can hold jobs, pay their bills, pay their taxes, and function normally, it’s nobody’s business but their own. But the same does not apply to welfare recipients. They are consuming taxpayer dollars in a miserable economy which the general public is not doing. In fact, that general public is paying its own way and paying for the welfare recipients as well. Even substance addicted members of the general public have the right to require that those who are taking money from the public treasury are truly needy and ready to take work as soon as it is available.

Every taxpayer has the right to demand that his tax dollars are being spent for programs that are necessary rather than merely convenient. Wyoming is the most recent state to take up drug testing for welfare recipients. Wyoming Republican House Speaker Ed Buchanan said: “The idea, from Joe Taxpayer is, ‘I don’t mind helping you out, but you need to show that you’re looking for work, or better yet that you’re employed, and that you’re drug and alcohol free.’” When a substance abuser in the work force loses his job because of the drugs or booze, that’s his problem. When a welfare recipient can’t get a job or hold one because of his substance abuse, that’s the taxpayers’ business.

Legal challenges in the past have resulted in the modification or abandonment of mandatory drug testing in the dozen or so states which had such legislation in place. But times have changed. We have a different Supreme Court. We have a terrible economy in which every penny counts. And we have a lot of people who are ready, willing and able to work but are out of work through no fault of their own. Of those, a large percentage of them must use up all their savings, investments and creditworthiness before seeking public assistance. This latter group is particularly angry that those who have never worked a day in their lives didn’t have to give up a thing to start collecting public benefits.

Michigan was the last state to have such a requirement, but after five weeks in 1999, it was suspended, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by an appellate court decision. Since that time, and as an explanation of why all these states are trying again, the courts have upheld mandatory drug testing, even for private companies screening their employees (that’s the simple version, there are other requirements for any legislation to be valid). Schools are allowed to require drug testing for students who wish to participate in athletics. Proponents of welfare (and unemployment) drug and alcohol testing are convinced that taking public funds is a far better justification for testing than those which have been allowed.

The ever-vigilant ACLU has hopped into the debate, crowing about its defeat of earlier measures in both Michigan and Florida. Its spokeswoman in Wyoming, Linda Burt, said it would challenge Wyoming’s law if it passes (which seems highly likely). But those were different times, different laws, and the ACLU argued very different facts. The main problem with past legislation is that it addressed a broad problem without citing why it was a problem. The ACLU argued that drug testing was found to be unconstitutional with absolutely no cause.

The current round of legislation cites non-welfare cases where drug testing has been allowed, and almost all tie the requirement to economic hard times, cutbacks in every area, and the estimated amount of money which would be saved by disallowing government benefits for people who are not ready, willing and able to obtain or retain a job. Most of the proposed legislation requires that a public official has first found that there is reasonable cause to believe the recipient is abusing drugs or alcohol. Previously (in the states where the earlier legislation has been stricken), all welfare recipient were required to be tested.

The proposal in California never got out of committee, and in Colorado, the Democrat-controlled legislature has pronounced the proposal dead on arrival, but at least the Republicans were able to get the debate started. Republican presidential candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have all stated support for some version of testing of welfare recipients. Paul has not, largely because he doesn’t much like welfare but he doesn’t think drug use is an issue the government should be involved in.

The momentum for such testing is growing. States are beginning to flex their muscles and challenge federal beneficence and pro-welfare court decisions. You can bet the debate will be heating up, and may even play a small part in the general election. Considering his admitted past use of marijuana and cocaine, and the fact that almost all Democrats in Congress seem to be permanently stoned, it’s very likely that President Obama will oppose testing as a violation of the right of privacy (yeah, that nonsense again) and Attorney General Holder will probably be filing briefs opposing the laws because they’re racist.

So what do you think? Should there be mandatory drug testing for recipients of unemployment and welfare benefits, and if so, under what circumstances? Do you think the majority of Americans will support this kind of legislation? We can talk about what the courts might do after we’ve gotten past the hurdle of passing the legislation in the first place.

“Ending welfare as we know it” was a great idea, partially-implemented. But many of the excesses have crept back into the body politic. The economic mess we are currently experiencing has driven up the number of families receiving food stamps and other government services and benefits. Some programs will indeed be temporary for many of the recipients until they can get back to work in a better economy.

But that doesn’t mean we should simply abandon all attempts to control government benefits. Among conservatives, there is a growing movement to make at least one small dent in the welfare rolls by requiring that all government assistance recipients submit to drug and alcohol testing prior to receiving assistance. Twenty-three states have passed testing legislaton, have legislation in progress, or are taking up the issue in upcoming sessions. On the far right, the thought is that all welfare recipients are cheats and most are drug or alcohol addicted. On the far left, welfare and unemployment compensation are considered some sort of constitutional right that can’t be interfered with by invading the recipient’s personal privacy.

Many people assume that the number of drug and alcohol abusers is much higher among welfare recipients than among the general public. Studies from the left, right and center have tended to prove this assumption false. In most studies, the general public is substance addicted at approximately the same rate as welfare recipients. The liberal argument, then, is that since the general public and welfare recipients are addicted at about the same rate, it would be “unfair” to test only welfare and unemployment compensation recipients.

That thinking fails the simple common sense test. If members of the general public can hold jobs, pay their bills, pay their taxes, and function normally, it’s nobody’s business but their own. But the same does not apply to welfare recipients. They are consuming taxpayer dollars in a miserable economy which the general public is not doing. In fact, that general public is paying its own way and paying for the welfare recipients as well. Even substance addicted members of the general public have the right to require that those who are taking money from the public treasury are truly needy and ready to take work as soon as it is available.

Every taxpayer has the right to demand that his tax dollars are being spent for programs that are necessary rather than merely convenient. Wyoming is the most recent state to take up drug testing for welfare recipients. Wyoming Republican House Speaker Ed Buchanan said: “The idea, from Joe Taxpayer is, ‘I don’t mind helping you out, but you need to show that you’re looking for work, or better yet that you’re employed, and that you’re drug and alcohol free.’” When a substance abuser in the work force loses his job because of the drugs or booze, that’s his problem. When a welfare recipient can’t get a job or hold one because of his substance abuse, that’s the taxpayers’ business.

Legal challenges in the past have resulted in the modification or abandonment of mandatory drug testing in the dozen or so states which had such legislation in place. But times have changed. We have a different Supreme Court. We have a terrible economy in which every penny counts. And we have a lot of people who are ready, willing and able to work but are out of work through no fault of their own. Of those, a large percentage of them must use up all their savings, investments and creditworthiness before seeking public assistance. This latter group is particularly angry that those who have never worked a day in their lives didn’t have to give up a thing to start collecting public benefits.

Michigan was the last state to have such a requirement, but after five weeks in 1999, it was suspended, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by an appellate court decision. Since that time, and as an explanation of why all these states are trying again, the courts have upheld mandatory drug testing, even for private companies screening their employees (that’s the simple version, there are other requirements for any legislation to be valid). Schools are allowed to require drug testing for students who wish to participate in athletics. Proponents of welfare (and unemployment) drug and alcohol testing are convinced that taking public funds is a far better justification for testing than those which have been allowed.

The ever-vigilant ACLU has hopped into the debate, crowing about its defeat of earlier measures in both Michigan and Florida. Its spokeswoman in Wyoming, Linda Burt, said it would challenge Wyoming’s law if it passes (which seems highly likely). But those were different times, different laws, and the ACLU argued very different facts. The main problem with past legislation is that it addressed a broad problem without citing why it was a problem. The ACLU argued that drug testing was found to be unconstitutional with absolutely no cause.

The current round of legislation cites non-welfare cases where drug testing has been allowed, and almost all tie the requirement to economic hard times, cutbacks in every area, and the estimated amount of money which would be saved by disallowing government benefits for people who are not ready, willing and able to obtain or retain a job. Most of the proposed legislation requires that a public official has first found that there is reasonable cause to believe the recipient is abusing drugs or alcohol. Previously (in the states where the earlier legislation has been stricken), all welfare recipient were required to be tested.

The proposal in California never got out of committee, and in Colorado, the Democrat-controlled legislature has pronounced the proposal dead on arrival, but at least the Republicans were able to get the debate started. Republican presidential candidates Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have all stated support for some version of testing of welfare recipients. Paul has not, largely because he doesn’t much like welfare but he doesn’t think drug use is an issue the government should be involved in.

The momentum for such testing is growing. States are beginning to flex their muscles and challenge federal beneficence and pro-welfare court decisions. You can bet the debate will be heating up, and may even play a small part in the general election. Considering his admitted past use of marijuana and cocaine, and the fact that almost all Democrats in Congress seem to be permanently stoned, it’s very likely that President Obama will oppose testing as a violation of the right of privacy (yeah, that nonsense again) and Attorney General Holder will probably be filing briefs opposing the laws because they’re racist.

So what do you think? Should there be mandatory drug testing for recipients of unemployment and welfare benefits, and if so, under what circumstances? Do you think the majority of Americans will support this kind of legislation? We can talk about what the courts might do after we’ve gotten past the hurdle of passing the legislation in the first place.

Welfare Drug Testing Gains Ground

View Detail

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

I’m sick of talking about Santorum. He’s a sleazy socialist hiding behind religion. But if Republicans want to ensure that Obama gets a second term by picking him, then there’s not much I can do about it. Nevertheless, one of our readers has sent me two articles worth discussing. Why? Because they show just how hypocritical Santorum’s being on the pro-life issue.

The two big attacks on Romney by conservatives are his support for RomneyCare and that he’s supposedly soft on abortion.

As you all know, the beef with RomneyCare is that it included the same individual mandate as ObamaCare, which violates conservative principles. However, the attacks on Romney for RomneyCare are highly hypocritical because (1) he’s stated he will repeal ObamaCare, i.e. he’s not proposing to bring RomneyCare to the rest of the country, and (2) all of the conservative contenders who claim his support for RomneyCare makes him suspect (i.e. Gingrich and Santorum) not only supported the same individual mandate as a “conservative” idea until 2009, but they also supported massive expansions of the government’s role in the healthcare system including the creation of new medical coverage entitlements. In other words, they did the same and worse.

But today’s issue is the second issue, Santorum on abortion.

Romney claims to be pro-life. He wasn’t always. He says he became pro-life as a matter of conscience. Specifically, he states that after he got into office as governor, he was faced with an embryonic stem cell bill and decided, “I simply could not sign on to take human life.” He vetoed the bill, which would have authorized embryonic cloning, would have defined human life as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization, and would have made the morning-after pill available without a prescription. He thereafter promoted abstinence education and vetoed a bill which would have required Catholic hospitals to offer abortion-inducing drugs to rape victims.

But that’s not enough for Rick Santorum. Rick argues that Romney can’t really be pro-life because he wasn’t always pro-life. . . forget that Reagan and George W. Bush both claimed similar conversions on abortion. Think about the illogic of this: unless you are pro-life your entirely life, then Rick would forever tar you as pro-choice and therefore untouchable to Republican voters. That’s wrong and self-defeating on a great many levels. Indeed, how in the world can such an approach win anyone over when you’re telling people you will always view them with suspicion?

More importantly, let’s take a look at Rick’s own history on this issue.

On October 28, 1990, the Pittsburgh Press put out an article about young Rick Santorum, who was running for the House of Representatives. Rick was about to be elected in a huge anti-incumbent wave which wiped out people who supported the Bush/Darman budget ("no new taxes"). To fuel his campaign, Rick relied on religious conservatives to whom he promised he would outlaw abortion. So he was always pro-life, right? Actually, no.

Prior to the campaign, Rick put out a campaign manual in which he described himself as a “progressive conservative” who took no position on the issue of abortion. And a few months before that, Rick put out a paper in which he said that his opposition to abortion was limited only to the final three months of pregnancy, when the fetus was considered viable. That paper was quietly withdrawn when Santorum changed his mind. Said Rick: “For me, it was just a lot of education, a lot of soul-searching.”

In other words, he had a Romney moment. So why should we trust Rick any more than Romney? And how in the world can he argue that Romney’s conversion isn’t genuine?

There’s more.

In 1998, Bill Clinton tried to appoint a pro-abortion liberal activist to the Second Circuit. This appointment was considered important because conservatives believed it would put this person on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh noted that Clinton was “putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court.” Consequently, conservative Trent Lott delayed this person’s confirmation vote for more than a year, hoping to get the votes needed to block her. That ultimately failed when only 29 Republicans voted to oppose the nomination. These 29 include all the usual conservatives, including people the Tea Party now hates like Mitch McConnell and John McCain.

Ricky. . . staunchly anti-abortion Ricky. . . supported the Democrats and voted to confirm this person. That’s right. He went against the conservatives in the Senate to support a pro-abortion liberal activist, knowing she would likely end up on the Supreme Court. Who was Ricky’s friend? Sonia Sotomayor, who now sits on the Supreme Court as a reliable leftist -- just as conservatives predicted. Call me crazy, but I think Ricky would be beside himself with (self)righteous indignation if Romney had been the one supporting Sotomayor.

And Rick’s pro-abortion credentials aren’t finished there. In 1995, Rick endorsed pro-abortion “Republican” Arlen Specter in his run for President. Significantly, Specter made being pro-abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. Indeed, he referred to pro-life activists as a “fringe” group who had hijacked the Republican Party. Yet, Rick endorsed him in the primaries.

Rick then endorsed Arlen Specter again in 2000 against Tea Party conservative Pat Toomey. Ricky even did television ads for the pro-abortion, pro-big government, soon-to-switch parties Specter.

The point here is simple. Rick is a hypocrite. He’s denigrating Romney’s beliefs on a basis which applies equally to Rick himself, and he’s doing it so he can keep people from seeing the real sleazy, insider, influence-peddling, Big Government progressive that is Rick.

Support him if you want to, I won’t.

I’m sick of talking about Santorum. He’s a sleazy socialist hiding behind religion. But if Republicans want to ensure that Obama gets a second term by picking him, then there’s not much I can do about it. Nevertheless, one of our readers has sent me two articles worth discussing. Why? Because they show just how hypocritical Santorum’s being on the pro-life issue.

The two big attacks on Romney by conservatives are his support for RomneyCare and that he’s supposedly soft on abortion.

As you all know, the beef with RomneyCare is that it included the same individual mandate as ObamaCare, which violates conservative principles. However, the attacks on Romney for RomneyCare are highly hypocritical because (1) he’s stated he will repeal ObamaCare, i.e. he’s not proposing to bring RomneyCare to the rest of the country, and (2) all of the conservative contenders who claim his support for RomneyCare makes him suspect (i.e. Gingrich and Santorum) not only supported the same individual mandate as a “conservative” idea until 2009, but they also supported massive expansions of the government’s role in the healthcare system including the creation of new medical coverage entitlements. In other words, they did the same and worse.

But today’s issue is the second issue, Santorum on abortion.

Romney claims to be pro-life. He wasn’t always. He says he became pro-life as a matter of conscience. Specifically, he states that after he got into office as governor, he was faced with an embryonic stem cell bill and decided, “I simply could not sign on to take human life.” He vetoed the bill, which would have authorized embryonic cloning, would have defined human life as beginning at implantation rather than fertilization, and would have made the morning-after pill available without a prescription. He thereafter promoted abstinence education and vetoed a bill which would have required Catholic hospitals to offer abortion-inducing drugs to rape victims.

But that’s not enough for Rick Santorum. Rick argues that Romney can’t really be pro-life because he wasn’t always pro-life. . . forget that Reagan and George W. Bush both claimed similar conversions on abortion. Think about the illogic of this: unless you are pro-life your entirely life, then Rick would forever tar you as pro-choice and therefore untouchable to Republican voters. That’s wrong and self-defeating on a great many levels. Indeed, how in the world can such an approach win anyone over when you’re telling people you will always view them with suspicion?

More importantly, let’s take a look at Rick’s own history on this issue.

On October 28, 1990, the Pittsburgh Press put out an article about young Rick Santorum, who was running for the House of Representatives. Rick was about to be elected in a huge anti-incumbent wave which wiped out people who supported the Bush/Darman budget ("no new taxes"). To fuel his campaign, Rick relied on religious conservatives to whom he promised he would outlaw abortion. So he was always pro-life, right? Actually, no.

Prior to the campaign, Rick put out a campaign manual in which he described himself as a “progressive conservative” who took no position on the issue of abortion. And a few months before that, Rick put out a paper in which he said that his opposition to abortion was limited only to the final three months of pregnancy, when the fetus was considered viable. That paper was quietly withdrawn when Santorum changed his mind. Said Rick: “For me, it was just a lot of education, a lot of soul-searching.”

In other words, he had a Romney moment. So why should we trust Rick any more than Romney? And how in the world can he argue that Romney’s conversion isn’t genuine?

There’s more.

In 1998, Bill Clinton tried to appoint a pro-abortion liberal activist to the Second Circuit. This appointment was considered important because conservatives believed it would put this person on the fast track to the Supreme Court. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh noted that Clinton was “putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court.” Consequently, conservative Trent Lott delayed this person’s confirmation vote for more than a year, hoping to get the votes needed to block her. That ultimately failed when only 29 Republicans voted to oppose the nomination. These 29 include all the usual conservatives, including people the Tea Party now hates like Mitch McConnell and John McCain.

Ricky. . . staunchly anti-abortion Ricky. . . supported the Democrats and voted to confirm this person. That’s right. He went against the conservatives in the Senate to support a pro-abortion liberal activist, knowing she would likely end up on the Supreme Court. Who was Ricky’s friend? Sonia Sotomayor, who now sits on the Supreme Court as a reliable leftist -- just as conservatives predicted. Call me crazy, but I think Ricky would be beside himself with (self)righteous indignation if Romney had been the one supporting Sotomayor.

And Rick’s pro-abortion credentials aren’t finished there. In 1995, Rick endorsed pro-abortion “Republican” Arlen Specter in his run for President. Significantly, Specter made being pro-abortion a centerpiece of his campaign. Indeed, he referred to pro-life activists as a “fringe” group who had hijacked the Republican Party. Yet, Rick endorsed him in the primaries.

Rick then endorsed Arlen Specter again in 2000 against Tea Party conservative Pat Toomey. Ricky even did television ads for the pro-abortion, pro-big government, soon-to-switch parties Specter.

The point here is simple. Rick is a hypocrite. He’s denigrating Romney’s beliefs on a basis which applies equally to Rick himself, and he’s doing it so he can keep people from seeing the real sleazy, insider, influence-peddling, Big Government progressive that is Rick.

Support him if you want to, I won’t.

Rick Santorum’s Abortion Hypocrisy

View Detail

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a healthy margin, and walked away with all the Florida delegates under the winner-take-all system. Or did he? Contender Newt Gingrich says "not so fast." The Republican National Committee (RNC), in an attempt to keep primaries from being held too long before the general election, imposed Rule 15(b)(2) in 2008. That rule provided that with named exceptions, delegates chosen before March 1 must be allocated proportionately.

Rule 16 provides that any state that does not conform with the "early primary" rules must lose half its delegates at the nominating convention. But neither Rule 15 nor 16 provides for an immediate enforcement mechanism regarding proportional allocation of delegates. What Rule 16 does is leave the issue open, unless and until a "proper contest is brought." In that case, the Committee on Contests of the RNC may hear the contest, then decide on the proper course of action. Well, Newt Gingrich has launched a "proper contest."

The RNC enforcement provisions did not stop Florida from moving its primary to a date before March 1, and it seems unlikely that it will be any more successful in telling the states what to do by attempting to proportionalize the results of the recent primary. Case law favors a state's right to choose its own rules for picking delegates. As recently as California Democratic Party v. Jones (530 US 567, 2000) the US Supreme Court held that a state political party has the inherent right to choose its own method of electing and apportioning delegates. The Court specifically said that in matters of state political party organization, "any outside attempt to preempt the right of a [state] party to choose its own leaders is functionally both severe and unnecessary."

The Court followed a long line of precedent establishing that the First Amendment right of freedom of association protects the integrity of state political procedures. Gingrich will be fighting an uphill battle, even if the RNC should hear the contest and decide that Florida must affirm its convention delegation proportionately. Florida is highly unlikely to give up its winner-take-all system because of a nebulous and muddy RNC rule with wide-open enforcement provisions.

The issue seems to come down to that old philosophical question: Just because you can do a thing, does that mean you ought to do that thing? Gingrich has every right to launch his contest of the winner-take-all primary. But should he? My personal opinion is that he should not. Not only does it further divide a party which can only win in November with strong unity, but it slaps a major swing state in the face. It seems like just another chapter in Gingrich's peckishness and increasingly personal vendetta against Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Gingrich himself would benefit somewhat from a proportioned delegation, but the cost seems far too high.

Not only does the contest potentially cause problems in a swing state which has already lost half its delegates to the convention, but it would also likely cause dissension and disarray within the RNC as well. The likelihood that the contest will benefit Gingrich in the long run is also in doubt. Republicans don't like sore losers, and at a time when the Party is attempting to resolve its conservative/moderate dichotomy, this action just muddies the waters even more. This will just be another sideshow in an already-contentious candidate selection process.

Thoughts?

Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a healthy margin, and walked away with all the Florida delegates under the winner-take-all system. Or did he? Contender Newt Gingrich says "not so fast." The Republican National Committee (RNC), in an attempt to keep primaries from being held too long before the general election, imposed Rule 15(b)(2) in 2008. That rule provided that with named exceptions, delegates chosen before March 1 must be allocated proportionately.

Rule 16 provides that any state that does not conform with the "early primary" rules must lose half its delegates at the nominating convention. But neither Rule 15 nor 16 provides for an immediate enforcement mechanism regarding proportional allocation of delegates. What Rule 16 does is leave the issue open, unless and until a "proper contest is brought." In that case, the Committee on Contests of the RNC may hear the contest, then decide on the proper course of action. Well, Newt Gingrich has launched a "proper contest."

The RNC enforcement provisions did not stop Florida from moving its primary to a date before March 1, and it seems unlikely that it will be any more successful in telling the states what to do by attempting to proportionalize the results of the recent primary. Case law favors a state's right to choose its own rules for picking delegates. As recently as California Democratic Party v. Jones (530 US 567, 2000) the US Supreme Court held that a state political party has the inherent right to choose its own method of electing and apportioning delegates. The Court specifically said that in matters of state political party organization, "any outside attempt to preempt the right of a [state] party to choose its own leaders is functionally both severe and unnecessary."

The Court followed a long line of precedent establishing that the First Amendment right of freedom of association protects the integrity of state political procedures. Gingrich will be fighting an uphill battle, even if the RNC should hear the contest and decide that Florida must affirm its convention delegation proportionately. Florida is highly unlikely to give up its winner-take-all system because of a nebulous and muddy RNC rule with wide-open enforcement provisions.

The issue seems to come down to that old philosophical question: Just because you can do a thing, does that mean you ought to do that thing? Gingrich has every right to launch his contest of the winner-take-all primary. But should he? My personal opinion is that he should not. Not only does it further divide a party which can only win in November with strong unity, but it slaps a major swing state in the face. It seems like just another chapter in Gingrich's peckishness and increasingly personal vendetta against Mitt Romney. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Gingrich himself would benefit somewhat from a proportioned delegation, but the cost seems far too high.

Not only does the contest potentially cause problems in a swing state which has already lost half its delegates to the convention, but it would also likely cause dissension and disarray within the RNC as well. The likelihood that the contest will benefit Gingrich in the long run is also in doubt. Republicans don't like sore losers, and at a time when the Party is attempting to resolve its conservative/moderate dichotomy, this action just muddies the waters even more. This will just be another sideshow in an already-contentious candidate selection process.

Thoughts?

Newt Opens A Can Of Worms

View Detail

Obama Offers Republicans Key To The Future!

Obama Offers Republicans Key To The Future!

By now you may have heard that Obama is proposing to “eliminate,” “shrink” or “trim” some agencies. Well, no. In reality, this is just an attempt to look like someone who is concerned about making the government smaller. Nevertheless, the Republicans have a key opportunity here and they should seize it. Here’s the dealio:

● The What: Obama proposes to consolidate agencies that focus on trade and commerce. Basically, Obama wants to merge the Department of Commerce’s core business-related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency.

However, what he’s really proposing is that Congress give him broad power to reshape the federal government. This power was initially granted to FDR during the Great Depression and was something every President had until the Democrats let it expire in 1984 to stop Reagan from using it. That is what Obama is asking Congress to give him, with the idea being he will use it to perform the consolidation mentioned above.

● The Why: Obama’s stated reason for doing this is that consolidation saves money:

“No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it okay in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”

It’s too bad Obama doesn’t really believe that. In any event, to give you a sense of how laughable his proposal is, by Obama’s own count, this would result in the elimination of only 1,000 jobs along with a supposed savings of only $3 billion over the next decade. That works out to $300 million per year, or 0.008% of the federal budget, about 8 cents out of every thousand dollars spent. Aim high my Kenyan Overlord! Of course, this comes at a time when his A-holiness is asking for an increase in the debt ceiling of $1.2 trillion and an additional $447 billion jobs bill.

His real reason for doing this, of course, is political. He knows the public is outraged at the government binge on his watch and he needs to show he can actually cut the government. But at the same time, he has to do it without offending any of the leaches who live off the government, i.e. his supporters. By shuffling the chairs around at Club Fed, he can tell the gullible part of the public that he’s so conservative he did something Reagan couldn’t -- he cut an agency. But at the same time, his backers can laugh at the rest of us because nothing will actually change.

Of course, giving him broad power to reshape the federal government could allow him to do more, but that seems unlikely because he can’t ADD to the government using the reorganization power. Thus, I wouldn’t expect him to do much.

● The Why Not: Believe it or not, some people are upset about this. Specifically, Big Business is concerned that their favorite vending machines would be moved to more responsible agencies. They are particularly concerned about the loss of prestige/influence of having their favorite programs jammed into other agencies rather than remaining standing alone as separate agencies. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed this concern, as have their spokesmen Max Baucus (D-Mont) and Dave Camp (R-Mich), who claim this will hamper the government’s ability “to aggressively open new markets to American-made goods and services and create US jobs.”

Yeah, sure.

● The Reason We Should Do This: The Republicans absolutely should support this proposal and give Obama broad powers to reshape the federal government and to trim/eliminate programs. Here’s why:

1. Obama won’t be President in 2013. A Republican will. And the Democrats will never give this power to a Republican. But they will give it to Obama. Thus, the Republicans should pass this now, while they can, so President GenericRepublican can use it to slash the federal government in 2013.

For those concerned that Obama might misuse this power, consider this. First, Obama can’t “grow” the government using this power, he can only shrink it. Secondly, by the time it passes, there will only be maybe eight months left in his administration. That’s not enough time to do anything in Fed-land. That means whatever he does can be undone by President GenericRepublican before it ever takes effect.

2. Republicans claim to be reformers, but that claim sounds hollow if they won’t create the tools that will allow reform.

3. This is the sort of thing Republicans can do to show moderates that they aren’t just opposed to Obama. Being seen as positive reformers could be worth 1-2% in the general election and could mean a couple critical seats.

4. The Republicans need to show they are willing to make changes which upset corporate welfare types. If they keep protecting everything Big Business wants, even when the only complaint is a loss of prestige, then the Republicans might as well quit pretending they represent anyone who isn’t incorporated.

5. Finally, the Republicans should pass this with some additional reforms attached. In other words, they should call Obama’s bluff. Give him what he wants, but cut deeper: eliminate programs, consolidate administrative staff, and genuinely wipe out redundancies. If Obama wants to pretend to be a real reformer, then offer him real cuts and put him on the spot with his own people. Challenge him to put up or shut up.

This is one of those bill that could be a game changer in the future if the Republicans have the vision to see it.

* * *

Update: For those who recall the SOPA issue from last week, Obama has signaled that he’s opposed to this Stalinist bill. Amazingly, Obama is on the right side for once. Naturally, the usual suspects are now freaking out, including Hollywood, the Record Companies, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Also, Lamar Smith is beside himself at the public’s outrage and can’t understand how the country is suddenly full of dirty communists. Up yours, Lamar!


P.S. There’s a debate tonight, so join us and tell us how much you miss Jon Huntsman!

By now you may have heard that Obama is proposing to “eliminate,” “shrink” or “trim” some agencies. Well, no. In reality, this is just an attempt to look like someone who is concerned about making the government smaller. Nevertheless, the Republicans have a key opportunity here and they should seize it. Here’s the dealio:

● The What: Obama proposes to consolidate agencies that focus on trade and commerce. Basically, Obama wants to merge the Department of Commerce’s core business-related functions with five smaller agencies: the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency.

However, what he’s really proposing is that Congress give him broad power to reshape the federal government. This power was initially granted to FDR during the Great Depression and was something every President had until the Democrats let it expire in 1984 to stop Reagan from using it. That is what Obama is asking Congress to give him, with the idea being he will use it to perform the consolidation mentioned above.

● The Why: Obama’s stated reason for doing this is that consolidation saves money:

“No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. So why is it okay in our government? It’s not. It has to change.”

It’s too bad Obama doesn’t really believe that. In any event, to give you a sense of how laughable his proposal is, by Obama’s own count, this would result in the elimination of only 1,000 jobs along with a supposed savings of only $3 billion over the next decade. That works out to $300 million per year, or 0.008% of the federal budget, about 8 cents out of every thousand dollars spent. Aim high my Kenyan Overlord! Of course, this comes at a time when his A-holiness is asking for an increase in the debt ceiling of $1.2 trillion and an additional $447 billion jobs bill.

His real reason for doing this, of course, is political. He knows the public is outraged at the government binge on his watch and he needs to show he can actually cut the government. But at the same time, he has to do it without offending any of the leaches who live off the government, i.e. his supporters. By shuffling the chairs around at Club Fed, he can tell the gullible part of the public that he’s so conservative he did something Reagan couldn’t -- he cut an agency. But at the same time, his backers can laugh at the rest of us because nothing will actually change.

Of course, giving him broad power to reshape the federal government could allow him to do more, but that seems unlikely because he can’t ADD to the government using the reorganization power. Thus, I wouldn’t expect him to do much.

● The Why Not: Believe it or not, some people are upset about this. Specifically, Big Business is concerned that their favorite vending machines would be moved to more responsible agencies. They are particularly concerned about the loss of prestige/influence of having their favorite programs jammed into other agencies rather than remaining standing alone as separate agencies. The Chamber of Commerce has expressed this concern, as have their spokesmen Max Baucus (D-Mont) and Dave Camp (R-Mich), who claim this will hamper the government’s ability “to aggressively open new markets to American-made goods and services and create US jobs.”

Yeah, sure.

● The Reason We Should Do This: The Republicans absolutely should support this proposal and give Obama broad powers to reshape the federal government and to trim/eliminate programs. Here’s why:

1. Obama won’t be President in 2013. A Republican will. And the Democrats will never give this power to a Republican. But they will give it to Obama. Thus, the Republicans should pass this now, while they can, so President GenericRepublican can use it to slash the federal government in 2013.

For those concerned that Obama might misuse this power, consider this. First, Obama can’t “grow” the government using this power, he can only shrink it. Secondly, by the time it passes, there will only be maybe eight months left in his administration. That’s not enough time to do anything in Fed-land. That means whatever he does can be undone by President GenericRepublican before it ever takes effect.

2. Republicans claim to be reformers, but that claim sounds hollow if they won’t create the tools that will allow reform.

3. This is the sort of thing Republicans can do to show moderates that they aren’t just opposed to Obama. Being seen as positive reformers could be worth 1-2% in the general election and could mean a couple critical seats.

4. The Republicans need to show they are willing to make changes which upset corporate welfare types. If they keep protecting everything Big Business wants, even when the only complaint is a loss of prestige, then the Republicans might as well quit pretending they represent anyone who isn’t incorporated.

5. Finally, the Republicans should pass this with some additional reforms attached. In other words, they should call Obama’s bluff. Give him what he wants, but cut deeper: eliminate programs, consolidate administrative staff, and genuinely wipe out redundancies. If Obama wants to pretend to be a real reformer, then offer him real cuts and put him on the spot with his own people. Challenge him to put up or shut up.

This is one of those bill that could be a game changer in the future if the Republicans have the vision to see it.

* * *

Update: For those who recall the SOPA issue from last week, Obama has signaled that he’s opposed to this Stalinist bill. Amazingly, Obama is on the right side for once. Naturally, the usual suspects are now freaking out, including Hollywood, the Record Companies, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. Also, Lamar Smith is beside himself at the public’s outrage and can’t understand how the country is suddenly full of dirty communists. Up yours, Lamar!


P.S. There’s a debate tonight, so join us and tell us how much you miss Jon Huntsman!

Obama Offers Republicans Key To The Future!

View Detail

Crony Capitalism Targets The Internet

Crony Capitalism Targets The Internet

The internet has shattered monopolies everywhere. Journalists have discovered to their horror that the public can now find information without them, and doesn’t need their “analysis.” Self-publishing is killing publishers and is about to hit record companies. Retailers are horrified that you can buy anything from anywhere in the world without going through them. Hollywood is horrified that because people have greater choices, their attendance is crashing. Oh my! What to do?! Answer: call the government!

The issue in question is called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Its Senate fellow-traveler is called the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Ostensibly these bills are aimed at stopping “online piracy” by “rogue foreign websites.” But in reality, they’re aimed at controlling the web. And it’s no surprise they’re backed by a bevy of Big Business monopolies: Hollywood, record companies, media companies, drug companies, unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Sadly Republicans are in this up to their necks. Rep. Lamar Smith wrote SOPA because it’s a “good policy that protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit goods and American business from having their products and profits stolen from foreign thieves.” Conservative (read: “idiot”) Marsha Blackburn actually claims this bill is conservative and that: “The same radical left-wing special interests groups that advocated for Obama’s so-called net neutrality regulations are trying to hijack conservative principles and mislead the public about SOPA.”

By the way, radical left winger Patrick Leahy wrote the Senate version, which should tell you all you need to know this... and Marsha’s judgment.

In any event, here’s why the bill is bad and anything but conservative.

This bill allows the US government and corporations to require internet service providers to block access to websites which they allege infringe on intellectual property rights. It also allows the government and these corporations to force companies like PayPal to block payments to websites which they claim infringe. And it allows copyright holders to sue these websites AND to sue sites like Google which link to them and sites like Facebook which host them if they don’t do enough (whatever that means) to block access to copyright-protected content. That’s like being able to sue the phone company because it gave a phone number to someone who stolen your film idea.

How does “conservative” Marsha Blackburn respond? “The fact is SOPA only applies to dedicated foreign rogue sites that are harming American consumers and creators.”

Except, that’s not how it works. The practical effect of this bill will be that search engines like Google will be forced to monitor the content of the sites to which they link. If the content could potentially violate a copyright, then Google must exclude it from the search. Think about that. That’s asking the phone company to make sure you aren’t doing anything illegal so long as they supply you with a phone number.

But hey, who needs Google? You can still get there if you know the name of the website, right? Nope. Your service provider can be sued if it doesn’t stop you from going there. In fact, the bill originally required your ISP to redirect you to a warning page if you tried to visit one of these sites. That language has been taken out and a “voluntary” provision has been put in its place. Of course, “voluntary” is just another way of saying “mandatory” when people can sue you to enforce it.

But wait, this only apply to foreign websites, right? Hardly. The law does say foreign websites, but how does Google know what’s foreign and what’s not when people can post on proxy servers? And if Google develops the skills to exclude copyright violating material in foreign websites, do you really think US courts won’t hold them liable for not doing the same for US websites? Don’t forget, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act is still out there. It provided a safe harbor for ISPs and search engines on the basis that so long as it wasn’t possible to filter these things out, then they didn’t need to do it. Once they show they can do it on foreign websites, that safe harbor goes away for domestic sites.

It’s no surprise that Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, AOL, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Mozilla, PayPal and many, many more object to this. Even Wikipedia founder Jay Walsh says this will threaten the way the Wikipedia works. Flikr will apparently be shut down. I would suspect Blogger will too because Google (owner of Blogger) could be sued if, for example, we uploaded illegal content here.

What’s more, while retard Marsha Blackburn thinks this bill is conservative, ask yourself if ANY conservative would ever set up a legal system where you are guilty until you prove your innocence in court. That’s what SOPA does. Once an allegation is made that a site contains copyrighted material, the Big Business complainer goes to court and gets an order shutting you down. Once the order is entered, they send a copy to your ISP, to search engines and to money-processing companies like PayPal. They are then required to shut you out or they face liability themselves. That’s when you finally get involved in the process. Now that you’ve been found guilty, and you are suddenly kicked off the net, you have the right to go to court and prove that you were wrongly black-listed. A year or two later (and minus mucho legal fees), you’ll probably be back on line. That’s a great way to take out a competitor at a crucial time.

I guess Marsha Blackburn learned conservatism at the knee of Joseph Stalin. And for the record, this puts our government in the same company as China, Iran, Libya and Tunisia.

Lest you think I’m blowing this out of proportion, BOTH leftist and conservative bloggers have gone to war against the idiots who are sponsoring this assault on the internet and freedom on behalf of Hollywood, the music industry and drug companies. They are particularly outraged that this could destroy political blogging because it is so easily abused. Erick Erickson of RedState is actually leading the charge. He’s promising to fight to unseat any of the Stalinists who support this thing:

“I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress. And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 reelection bid due to her co-sponsorship for SOPA. . . . If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them.”

Fortunately, much of the corporate backing for this bill is starting to collapse. GoDaddy just found out how stupid it was to support this when people began boycotting GoDaddy en mass. They’ve since withdrawn their support, as have other large corporations and scores of law firms.

Paul Ryan ran into this issue when he gave a noncommittal response when asked if he supports it and found himself blasted. He now firmly opposes it. Naturally, Ricky Santorum, champion of the (non-gay) common man supports it. Newt apparently does too. Romney doesn’t, which makes him the only conservative on this issue.

Sadly, too many Republicans are little more than whores who do the bidding of Big Business. The list of companies who favor this reads like a who’s who of monopolists who have failed to innovate, failed to embrace technology, and simply don’t want to spend time or effort rectifying their past failures. Thus, they have called their minions in Congress and asked the government to cover up their mistakes.

It’s time Republicans stop this crap! CONSERVATISM DOES NOT SUPPORT GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO PROTECT LARGE COMPANIES! And since Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Smith apparently don’t understand that, they need to be voted out.

The internet has shattered monopolies everywhere. Journalists have discovered to their horror that the public can now find information without them, and doesn’t need their “analysis.” Self-publishing is killing publishers and is about to hit record companies. Retailers are horrified that you can buy anything from anywhere in the world without going through them. Hollywood is horrified that because people have greater choices, their attendance is crashing. Oh my! What to do?! Answer: call the government!

The issue in question is called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Its Senate fellow-traveler is called the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Ostensibly these bills are aimed at stopping “online piracy” by “rogue foreign websites.” But in reality, they’re aimed at controlling the web. And it’s no surprise they’re backed by a bevy of Big Business monopolies: Hollywood, record companies, media companies, drug companies, unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Sadly Republicans are in this up to their necks. Rep. Lamar Smith wrote SOPA because it’s a “good policy that protects American consumers from dangerous counterfeit goods and American business from having their products and profits stolen from foreign thieves.” Conservative (read: “idiot”) Marsha Blackburn actually claims this bill is conservative and that: “The same radical left-wing special interests groups that advocated for Obama’s so-called net neutrality regulations are trying to hijack conservative principles and mislead the public about SOPA.”

By the way, radical left winger Patrick Leahy wrote the Senate version, which should tell you all you need to know this... and Marsha’s judgment.

In any event, here’s why the bill is bad and anything but conservative.

This bill allows the US government and corporations to require internet service providers to block access to websites which they allege infringe on intellectual property rights. It also allows the government and these corporations to force companies like PayPal to block payments to websites which they claim infringe. And it allows copyright holders to sue these websites AND to sue sites like Google which link to them and sites like Facebook which host them if they don’t do enough (whatever that means) to block access to copyright-protected content. That’s like being able to sue the phone company because it gave a phone number to someone who stolen your film idea.

How does “conservative” Marsha Blackburn respond? “The fact is SOPA only applies to dedicated foreign rogue sites that are harming American consumers and creators.”

Except, that’s not how it works. The practical effect of this bill will be that search engines like Google will be forced to monitor the content of the sites to which they link. If the content could potentially violate a copyright, then Google must exclude it from the search. Think about that. That’s asking the phone company to make sure you aren’t doing anything illegal so long as they supply you with a phone number.

But hey, who needs Google? You can still get there if you know the name of the website, right? Nope. Your service provider can be sued if it doesn’t stop you from going there. In fact, the bill originally required your ISP to redirect you to a warning page if you tried to visit one of these sites. That language has been taken out and a “voluntary” provision has been put in its place. Of course, “voluntary” is just another way of saying “mandatory” when people can sue you to enforce it.

But wait, this only apply to foreign websites, right? Hardly. The law does say foreign websites, but how does Google know what’s foreign and what’s not when people can post on proxy servers? And if Google develops the skills to exclude copyright violating material in foreign websites, do you really think US courts won’t hold them liable for not doing the same for US websites? Don’t forget, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act is still out there. It provided a safe harbor for ISPs and search engines on the basis that so long as it wasn’t possible to filter these things out, then they didn’t need to do it. Once they show they can do it on foreign websites, that safe harbor goes away for domestic sites.

It’s no surprise that Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, AOL, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Mozilla, PayPal and many, many more object to this. Even Wikipedia founder Jay Walsh says this will threaten the way the Wikipedia works. Flikr will apparently be shut down. I would suspect Blogger will too because Google (owner of Blogger) could be sued if, for example, we uploaded illegal content here.

What’s more, while retard Marsha Blackburn thinks this bill is conservative, ask yourself if ANY conservative would ever set up a legal system where you are guilty until you prove your innocence in court. That’s what SOPA does. Once an allegation is made that a site contains copyrighted material, the Big Business complainer goes to court and gets an order shutting you down. Once the order is entered, they send a copy to your ISP, to search engines and to money-processing companies like PayPal. They are then required to shut you out or they face liability themselves. That’s when you finally get involved in the process. Now that you’ve been found guilty, and you are suddenly kicked off the net, you have the right to go to court and prove that you were wrongly black-listed. A year or two later (and minus mucho legal fees), you’ll probably be back on line. That’s a great way to take out a competitor at a crucial time.

I guess Marsha Blackburn learned conservatism at the knee of Joseph Stalin. And for the record, this puts our government in the same company as China, Iran, Libya and Tunisia.

Lest you think I’m blowing this out of proportion, BOTH leftist and conservative bloggers have gone to war against the idiots who are sponsoring this assault on the internet and freedom on behalf of Hollywood, the music industry and drug companies. They are particularly outraged that this could destroy political blogging because it is so easily abused. Erick Erickson of RedState is actually leading the charge. He’s promising to fight to unseat any of the Stalinists who support this thing:

“I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress. And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 reelection bid due to her co-sponsorship for SOPA. . . . If members of Congress do not pull their name from co-sponsorship of SOPA, the left and right should pledge to defeat each and every one of them.”

Fortunately, much of the corporate backing for this bill is starting to collapse. GoDaddy just found out how stupid it was to support this when people began boycotting GoDaddy en mass. They’ve since withdrawn their support, as have other large corporations and scores of law firms.

Paul Ryan ran into this issue when he gave a noncommittal response when asked if he supports it and found himself blasted. He now firmly opposes it. Naturally, Ricky Santorum, champion of the (non-gay) common man supports it. Newt apparently does too. Romney doesn’t, which makes him the only conservative on this issue.

Sadly, too many Republicans are little more than whores who do the bidding of Big Business. The list of companies who favor this reads like a who’s who of monopolists who have failed to innovate, failed to embrace technology, and simply don’t want to spend time or effort rectifying their past failures. Thus, they have called their minions in Congress and asked the government to cover up their mistakes.

It’s time Republicans stop this crap! CONSERVATISM DOES NOT SUPPORT GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO PROTECT LARGE COMPANIES! And since Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Smith apparently don’t understand that, they need to be voted out.

Crony Capitalism Targets The Internet

View Detail

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”

It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:

“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:

“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”

Yep.

Some people never learn. These people are called failing Republican candidates. This time the media smeared Mitt Romney and like a pack of jackasses these candidates bought into it hook, line and sinker and promptly set about blasting Romney. . . and capitalism. Ug.

Here’s the set up. The Washington Post and other liberal outlets reported the other day that Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. In fact, as presented by the leftist Post, the quote reads: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

That sounds kind of Grinchy. But it’s not actually what Romney said. Here’s what Romney said:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

This is not what the Post described it as. Romney is not saying he likes firing people. He is saying he likes having choices as a consumer. He likes having the ability to change companies when he doesn’t like the service being provided and he wants Americans to have that power when it comes to health insurance companies. This is how all Americans think.

Of course, this didn’t stop the idiots from jumping on the liberal smear-version.

Rick Perry, who really is proving to be a total dipsh*t, turned the “I like to fire people” portion of the quote into a ringtone that people could download. Then he channeled Karl Marx and said this about Romney’s time at Bain:

“Allowing these companies to come in and loot the, loot people’s jobs, loot their pensions, loot their ability to take care of their families and I will suggest they’re just vultures. They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton. I don’t think they want someone who has killed jobs in South Carolina on the altar of making more money for themselves and their company.”

It doesn’t even make sense what Rick is saying, how could Romney make money buying companies and letting them fail? This is Oliver Stone “I know nothing about finance but I hate it” thinking. But even worse, this is Marxism. Rick is criticizing the very idea of capitalism here. He is saying that somehow it’s wrong (1) to buy another company, (2) to fire employees, and (3) to seek profit.

Gingrich piled on, saying: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” This is, of course, nonsense as well because no one gives a company away for nothing so someone else can suck millions of dollars out of it. Huntsman jumped on this too just as stupidly.

The Club for Growth, the driving force behind much of modern economic conservatism, blasted these attacks:

“[The] attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting. Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Ron Paul also has properly defended Romney.

“I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works. . . You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.”

Gingrich, by the way, finally backed away from attacking the “I like to fire people” quote claiming that he didn’t know it had been taken out of context, but he has yet to repudiate his sudden embrace of Marxism.

This is frustrating. Once again, these candidates fall for an MSM smear without ever bothering to ask whether there is any truth to the smear. What’s worse, they knee-jerk attack Romney by blasting capitalism. All this does is reinforce liberal propaganda -- capitalism is evil and heartless and profit is bad. This is shameful and it hurts conservatism.

It’s no wonder 58% of Republicans want more choices.

Romney, by the way, had a devastating response to Gingrich and Perry:

“It is no surprise that, having spent nearly half a century in government between them, Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry have resorted to desperate attacks on a subject they don’t understand. We expect attacks on free enterprise from President Obama and his allies on the left — not from so-called ‘fiscal conservatives. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry seem to think that running against the private sector is the way to revive their floundering campaigns.”

Yep.

Republican Candidates Fall For Smear, Again

View Detail

My New Year's Revolution

My New Year's Revolution

Campaign year 2012 is now officially upon us. As a conservative who deeply wants to send Barack Obama back to his job as a Chicago South Side community organizer, I have to look at the current Republican field with more than a little trepidation. By tomorrow, the Iowa vote will be in, and I'll know if I have even more reason to worry.

I haven’t been this excited about anything since my mom decided to give me a dose of cod liver oil. The “excitement factor” will play a big part in defeating the snake-oil salesman currently occupying the White House. I don’t subscribe to the idea that any Republican nominated can automatically beat him. I’m not even convinced that any of the current front-runners in the Republican Party can beat him. I’m just one person. But if someone as determined as I am to beat The One can’t get enthusiastic about the chances of the current field, I suspect there are millions more like me.

Now don’t get me wrong. I haven’t missed a vote since I came of age (which was 21 at that time). I have voted in every presidential election since 1968, sometimes twice, back when I was a Democrat (the statute of limitations has long since run out on that confession). But not everyone is a political junkie like me. And not everyone who feels as unenthusiastic as I do has that same track record of voting. Many vote simply because they are habitual party voters. A great many others vote because they see a clear and viable alternative to the incumbent. And a huge number of voters do so solely because there is a candidate they can actually get enthused about, thus overcoming the lethargy factor.

John Huntsman—cold oatmeal. Rick Perry—master malapropist. Ron Paul—crypto-anarchist. Newt Gingrich—idea-a-minuteman, a few of which might actually work. Michelle Bachmann—likeable opponent of “forced vaccination.” Herman Cain—gone with the wind. Gary Johnson—gone to the Libertarians (if they’ll have him). Rick Santorum—running for moralist-in-chief. Mitt Romney—here-we-go-again.

So here’s my New Year’s Revolution. Time for those who could actually generate excitement, beat Obama in debates, and appeal to thinking independents to get into the race. Aw, to hell with promises not to run. Part of the fun of being a politician is you can break promises that get in the way of the public good. At PajamasMedia, Zombie has even gone so far as to print up an Absolution Coupon—Good for One Broken Promise. It’s awfully late in the process for the excitement candidates to get into the race. But it’s not too late.

We'll probably have a good idea of what's going to happen in Iowa by the time this article posts. New Hampshire looks like a Romney victory. That only leaves forty-eight states (though many of those at this point would require a write-in candidate, if the state law even allows it). My list of top revolutionaries would include Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie. Of these, I only have serious reservations about Christie, and I would still find him to be a candidate I could get behind with more enthusiasm than I could with any of the current candidates.

Clinton should have been an easy victory for Republicans in the reelection campaign, but it was Robert Dole’s turn, so we lost. Empty-suit Obama should have been an easy victory for us, but it was John McCain’s turn, so we lost. Socialist Obama should be an easy victory for us, but it looks like it’s Mitt Romney’s turn. God help us all. As I said earlier, I’ve never missed a vote. And I wouldn’t miss this one. I’d vote for Romney since voting for Obama would be a rejection of everything I’ve come to believe, and voting for a third-party candidate is a waste of a vote.

I’m not as worried about Republicans staying home on election day as I am about independents staying home. Independents are a major force these days, and without a party commitment and/or a strong Republican candidate to get enthused over, they might just sit this one out. In which case, Obama wins. If Romney had a strong, anti-statist platform and could generate excitement with his political record (and get past the Evangelical anti-Mormon sentiment), our chances would be a great deal better. He has the smarts, and he seems to be improving daily. Let's hope he has the will and the guts to do what needs to be done.

What I see with Romney versus Obama is a strong similarity to the Nixon-Kennedy election. Unlike most of my “revolutionaries,” Romney has as many similarities to Obama as he has differences. Big government doesn’t seem to bother him much. He doesn’t see the graduated income tax as a serious problem in itself, and only wants to tinker around the edges. In a very dangerous world, roiling with Islamic extremism, he doesn’t seem to have the fire-in-the-belly necessary to put America back in charge of the defense of the West.

Romney doesn’t seem to comprehend the difference between strategy and tactics, which will be a major factor in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of returning regularly to the strategic theme of smaller government, fewer taxes, fairer taxes, and cutting wasteful government spending, he talks about the tactical details. It is absolutely necessary to have a command of those tactics, and Romney does seem to have that.

But touting the details instead of promoting the basic concepts tends to put voters to sleep. I want to hear you tell me you will cut government and get the bureaucracies off our backs, and I’ll leave it to you to figure out how. In other words, when I ask you what time it is, don’t tell me how to make a watch. Which is part of why I see the Kennedy-Nixon similarity. Kennedy had bold concepts. Nixon said “me too.” I don’t want to hear Romney saying the kinds of things Nixon said. “I agree with Mr. Kennedy (Obama) on those issues. I only disagree on how we should implement them.” Romney (or whoever the candidate is) must present a clear alternative view of government, not merely seeming to say that he will do the same job, only better.

What I (and millions of others) want to hear is: “This administration has been leading us down the road to a socialist disaster. I disagree deeply and completely with Mr. Obama’s entire philosophy of government. There is no way that this President can modify his views to fit into even the most basic of American beliefs. Any politician who does not believe in American exceptionalism should not be living in the White House.”

I can see my list of revolutionaries saying just that. So come on you guys. Break that promise. We’ll forgive you. Help! And that’s my New Year’s Revolution. Wait a minute. It’s supposed to be a New Year’s Resolution? Oops. Never mind.

Campaign year 2012 is now officially upon us. As a conservative who deeply wants to send Barack Obama back to his job as a Chicago South Side community organizer, I have to look at the current Republican field with more than a little trepidation. By tomorrow, the Iowa vote will be in, and I'll know if I have even more reason to worry.

I haven’t been this excited about anything since my mom decided to give me a dose of cod liver oil. The “excitement factor” will play a big part in defeating the snake-oil salesman currently occupying the White House. I don’t subscribe to the idea that any Republican nominated can automatically beat him. I’m not even convinced that any of the current front-runners in the Republican Party can beat him. I’m just one person. But if someone as determined as I am to beat The One can’t get enthusiastic about the chances of the current field, I suspect there are millions more like me.

Now don’t get me wrong. I haven’t missed a vote since I came of age (which was 21 at that time). I have voted in every presidential election since 1968, sometimes twice, back when I was a Democrat (the statute of limitations has long since run out on that confession). But not everyone is a political junkie like me. And not everyone who feels as unenthusiastic as I do has that same track record of voting. Many vote simply because they are habitual party voters. A great many others vote because they see a clear and viable alternative to the incumbent. And a huge number of voters do so solely because there is a candidate they can actually get enthused about, thus overcoming the lethargy factor.

John Huntsman—cold oatmeal. Rick Perry—master malapropist. Ron Paul—crypto-anarchist. Newt Gingrich—idea-a-minuteman, a few of which might actually work. Michelle Bachmann—likeable opponent of “forced vaccination.” Herman Cain—gone with the wind. Gary Johnson—gone to the Libertarians (if they’ll have him). Rick Santorum—running for moralist-in-chief. Mitt Romney—here-we-go-again.

So here’s my New Year’s Revolution. Time for those who could actually generate excitement, beat Obama in debates, and appeal to thinking independents to get into the race. Aw, to hell with promises not to run. Part of the fun of being a politician is you can break promises that get in the way of the public good. At PajamasMedia, Zombie has even gone so far as to print up an Absolution Coupon—Good for One Broken Promise. It’s awfully late in the process for the excitement candidates to get into the race. But it’s not too late.

We'll probably have a good idea of what's going to happen in Iowa by the time this article posts. New Hampshire looks like a Romney victory. That only leaves forty-eight states (though many of those at this point would require a write-in candidate, if the state law even allows it). My list of top revolutionaries would include Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Allen West, Paul Ryan, and Chris Christie. Of these, I only have serious reservations about Christie, and I would still find him to be a candidate I could get behind with more enthusiasm than I could with any of the current candidates.

Clinton should have been an easy victory for Republicans in the reelection campaign, but it was Robert Dole’s turn, so we lost. Empty-suit Obama should have been an easy victory for us, but it was John McCain’s turn, so we lost. Socialist Obama should be an easy victory for us, but it looks like it’s Mitt Romney’s turn. God help us all. As I said earlier, I’ve never missed a vote. And I wouldn’t miss this one. I’d vote for Romney since voting for Obama would be a rejection of everything I’ve come to believe, and voting for a third-party candidate is a waste of a vote.

I’m not as worried about Republicans staying home on election day as I am about independents staying home. Independents are a major force these days, and without a party commitment and/or a strong Republican candidate to get enthused over, they might just sit this one out. In which case, Obama wins. If Romney had a strong, anti-statist platform and could generate excitement with his political record (and get past the Evangelical anti-Mormon sentiment), our chances would be a great deal better. He has the smarts, and he seems to be improving daily. Let's hope he has the will and the guts to do what needs to be done.

What I see with Romney versus Obama is a strong similarity to the Nixon-Kennedy election. Unlike most of my “revolutionaries,” Romney has as many similarities to Obama as he has differences. Big government doesn’t seem to bother him much. He doesn’t see the graduated income tax as a serious problem in itself, and only wants to tinker around the edges. In a very dangerous world, roiling with Islamic extremism, he doesn’t seem to have the fire-in-the-belly necessary to put America back in charge of the defense of the West.

Romney doesn’t seem to comprehend the difference between strategy and tactics, which will be a major factor in the upcoming presidential election. Instead of returning regularly to the strategic theme of smaller government, fewer taxes, fairer taxes, and cutting wasteful government spending, he talks about the tactical details. It is absolutely necessary to have a command of those tactics, and Romney does seem to have that.

But touting the details instead of promoting the basic concepts tends to put voters to sleep. I want to hear you tell me you will cut government and get the bureaucracies off our backs, and I’ll leave it to you to figure out how. In other words, when I ask you what time it is, don’t tell me how to make a watch. Which is part of why I see the Kennedy-Nixon similarity. Kennedy had bold concepts. Nixon said “me too.” I don’t want to hear Romney saying the kinds of things Nixon said. “I agree with Mr. Kennedy (Obama) on those issues. I only disagree on how we should implement them.” Romney (or whoever the candidate is) must present a clear alternative view of government, not merely seeming to say that he will do the same job, only better.

What I (and millions of others) want to hear is: “This administration has been leading us down the road to a socialist disaster. I disagree deeply and completely with Mr. Obama’s entire philosophy of government. There is no way that this President can modify his views to fit into even the most basic of American beliefs. Any politician who does not believe in American exceptionalism should not be living in the White House.”

I can see my list of revolutionaries saying just that. So come on you guys. Break that promise. We’ll forgive you. Help! And that’s my New Year’s Revolution. Wait a minute. It’s supposed to be a New Year’s Resolution? Oops. Never mind.

My New Year's Revolution

View Detail

Merry Christmas Everybody

Merry Christmas Everybody

As we inch ever closer to Christmas, it’s time to reflect on this past year and the coming year. More importantly though, it’s time to cheer everybody up before we start the annual Commentarama Christmas vacation. Read on. . . and smiles everyone, smiles.

Politically, 2011 was a bit of a dud. With a record number of conservatives hitting Washington, there were big hopes for change. But alas the Democrats still controlled the White House and the Senate and they stopped anything real from happening. But don’t despair! Change is coming.

● The Supreme Court looks likely to strike down ObamaCare.

● The voters will give the Republicans a huge majority in the Senate, which means undoing the Obama years can begin soon.

● Obama looks finished as President and his crappy ideology is in disgrace.

● Climategage I and II (electric boogaloo) have disgraced the enviro-socialist movement.

● Crying “racism” no longer has much power (if any) with the public.

● The corrupt unions are finished outside the government and now people are targeting the government unions too.

● The next wave of Republican leaders (Ryan, Rubio, West) are genuine conservatives and fighters to boot.

● MSM journalism has reached an all time low in the public’s perception and no longer controls the debate or the flow of information.

● MSNBC is failing.

● And we can look forward to more liberal on liberal sniping like this:

Matt Damon: “I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’ You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.”

Obama responds: “I’ve even let down my key core constituency: movie stars. Just the other day, Matt Damon – I love Matt Damon, love the guy – Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance. Well, Matt, I just saw The Adjustment Bureau, so – right back at-cha, buddy.”

Life is good too. We live in a time when we complain about our wants rather than our needs. Every day brings something new and wonderful from new medicines to new-found planets to new ways to hang out. And speaking of the internet, it just keeps getting better and better. It lets us communicate with long lost friends and people we’d never have met, we can buy anything, find anything, and it even entertains the heck out of us. Moreover, we are on the cusp of a truly free age as the internet is finally starting to give people ways around the roadblocks set up to keep the system in place. . . publishers, record companies, movie companies, retailers, even journalists have all lost their monopolies.

Blogging has been fun too. It’s often hard to tell why some people blog. Some do it for publicity, some are just narcissists. Some. . . I have no idea. I do it because I love the community we’ve created. I love hearing your thoughts and insights and humor. And you all have made 2011 great! Hopefully, 2012 will be just as great. Also, next year. . .

● Bev will be joining the CommentaramaFilms Debate series on Sunday mornings, so make sure you join us for those.

● CommentaramaFilms will be adding a regular Tuesday morning article -- Star Trek Tuesdays. Some of these will be political (the Politics of Trek series) and others will be Scott and I debating everything Star Trek. Tell your nerd friends!

● The Conservative Guide To Films should be finished by the end of summer and will be both in real book form and e-book form. I’ve even got an illustrator working on some cool pictures you’ll like.

So all in all, that’s not bad. And while sometimes things may seem a little depressing, don’t get down because we have much to be thankful for and even more to look forward to. Unless the Mayans are right, 2012 should be a pretty darn good year.

So Merry Christmas to everyone and let’s make it a great New Year!

.... and tell us anything you’re looking forward to below.

As we inch ever closer to Christmas, it’s time to reflect on this past year and the coming year. More importantly though, it’s time to cheer everybody up before we start the annual Commentarama Christmas vacation. Read on. . . and smiles everyone, smiles.

Politically, 2011 was a bit of a dud. With a record number of conservatives hitting Washington, there were big hopes for change. But alas the Democrats still controlled the White House and the Senate and they stopped anything real from happening. But don’t despair! Change is coming.

● The Supreme Court looks likely to strike down ObamaCare.

● The voters will give the Republicans a huge majority in the Senate, which means undoing the Obama years can begin soon.

● Obama looks finished as President and his crappy ideology is in disgrace.

● Climategage I and II (electric boogaloo) have disgraced the enviro-socialist movement.

● Crying “racism” no longer has much power (if any) with the public.

● The corrupt unions are finished outside the government and now people are targeting the government unions too.

● The next wave of Republican leaders (Ryan, Rubio, West) are genuine conservatives and fighters to boot.

● MSM journalism has reached an all time low in the public’s perception and no longer controls the debate or the flow of information.

● MSNBC is failing.

● And we can look forward to more liberal on liberal sniping like this:

Matt Damon: “I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’ You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.”

Obama responds: “I’ve even let down my key core constituency: movie stars. Just the other day, Matt Damon – I love Matt Damon, love the guy – Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance. Well, Matt, I just saw The Adjustment Bureau, so – right back at-cha, buddy.”

Life is good too. We live in a time when we complain about our wants rather than our needs. Every day brings something new and wonderful from new medicines to new-found planets to new ways to hang out. And speaking of the internet, it just keeps getting better and better. It lets us communicate with long lost friends and people we’d never have met, we can buy anything, find anything, and it even entertains the heck out of us. Moreover, we are on the cusp of a truly free age as the internet is finally starting to give people ways around the roadblocks set up to keep the system in place. . . publishers, record companies, movie companies, retailers, even journalists have all lost their monopolies.

Blogging has been fun too. It’s often hard to tell why some people blog. Some do it for publicity, some are just narcissists. Some. . . I have no idea. I do it because I love the community we’ve created. I love hearing your thoughts and insights and humor. And you all have made 2011 great! Hopefully, 2012 will be just as great. Also, next year. . .

● Bev will be joining the CommentaramaFilms Debate series on Sunday mornings, so make sure you join us for those.

● CommentaramaFilms will be adding a regular Tuesday morning article -- Star Trek Tuesdays. Some of these will be political (the Politics of Trek series) and others will be Scott and I debating everything Star Trek. Tell your nerd friends!

● The Conservative Guide To Films should be finished by the end of summer and will be both in real book form and e-book form. I’ve even got an illustrator working on some cool pictures you’ll like.

So all in all, that’s not bad. And while sometimes things may seem a little depressing, don’t get down because we have much to be thankful for and even more to look forward to. Unless the Mayans are right, 2012 should be a pretty darn good year.

So Merry Christmas to everyone and let’s make it a great New Year!

.... and tell us anything you’re looking forward to below.

Merry Christmas Everybody

View Detail

We'll Never Forget Ol' What's-His-Name

We'll Never Forget Ol' What's-His-Name

I was shocked to hear that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is leaving the Republican primaries. Almost as shocked as I was to find out that he had been in the Republican primaries in the first place. He was not so much a dark horse as an invisible horse. He will leave the GOP and run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party. I wonder if they know about it yet.

Johnson was regularly excluded from the Republican candidate debates because he couldn't get enough apparent support to justify adding yet another unexciting candidate to the already-full panel. So Johnson decided to pick up his marbles and leave. The GOP's loss is the Libertarians' loss, er, gain. Johnson is the most exciting candidate to come along since John Huntsman.

Maybe the Republicans should have taken a little better look at Johnson before excluding him from the debates. Republicans harp on the idea of future presidents having some business experience. Johnson built businesses from the ground up. In 1976, he founded Big J Enterprises (a construction firm), starting with one employee--himself. He built the business rapidly, and within a few years landed a lucrative $38 million contract with Intel to build its adjunct facilities in New Mexico. He sold the company in 1999, at which point the company employed over 1,000 workers.

In 1994, largely self-funded with $500,000, Johnson entered politics. He ran against a popular Republican in the gubernatorial primary, and eked out a narrow victory. That was his last narrow win. He won the Republican nomination for governor, and defeated the Democratic incumbent by ten percent. In the next gubernatorial election, he ran against a Latino Democrat in a state with one of the largest Hispanic populations (percentage-wise) in the nation (40 percent). Again, he won by over ten percent. In fact, he was so popular in his first term that the New Mexico term-limits legislation (one term only) was modified to allow him to run for a second term.

Republicans want candidates with executive experience. Johnson has that experience in both the private and public sectors. But what about fiscal responsibility? During his first term alone, he vetoed 200 out of 424 spending bills, and gutted many others using his line-item veto. He kept his promise to reduce the state's budget by 10%. He attempted to cut taxes deeply, and succeeded in many of his fights with the Democrats in the legislature. Yet he also managed to increase spending on core subject education while fighting the good fight for school vouchers. When test scores improved only marginally with the public school expenditures, he went full-bore for the voucher program.

Among his accomplishments in office were shifting state Medicaid to an efficient "managed care" system, fired over 1200 public employees, set a record for budget vetoes, balanced the state budget for 6 out of 8 years, and left New Mexico with a $1 billion surplus. He was less successful with his school voucher program, but he never stopped trying. He vetoed or line-item vetoed nearly 2000 bills during his eight years in office, and of those, only two were overridden by the legislature.

His Libertarian side also showed during his two terms. He attempted to decriminalize and legalize marijuana use and distribution. He pointed out that half of New Mexico's law enforcement resources were devoted to drug-related offenses, and said that the problem should move from the criminal arena to the medical/social arena. That is a Libertarian stand, but one that was also supported by such notable conservatives as William F. Buckley.

In the 2000 elections, the Libertarian Party attempted to recruit him to run for president, but he demurred, saying that he was a lifelong committed Republican. Nevetheless, in 2008, he endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, seemingly setting up his own status as a Republican/Libertarian. That now seems to have come to full fruition with his abandonment of the run for the Republican nomination in order to court the Libertarians.

This could get interesting (or not). There have been strong rumblings of a Ron Paul third-party run at the presidency on the Libertarian ticket. How Paul would treat a rival who previously endorsed him is entirely unknown at this point. In any event, it certainly raises the specter of a "spoiler" election in 2012. How badly that might hurt Republicans remains to be seen. For the time being, Paul has said he will not run on a third-party ticket because it might hurt his son's political future in the Senate.

In a third-party scenario, absent Ron Paul as a candidate, Johnson's is one of three candidate names proferred with name identification between 1% and 10%. Public Policy Polling puts him at 9%, as opposed to New York City liberal mayor Michael Bloomberg at 8% and Independent/Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In the same poll sampling, without Johnson, Republican Mitt Romney beats Obama by 47% to 45%. With Johnson in the race, Romney beats Obama 43% to 41%.

At this early stage, I have no idea what to make of that. It's certainly well within the margin of error in what promises to be a much closer general election than most people think. New Mexico's five electoral college votes could determine the outcome, either giving Obama a victory or throwing the election into the House of Representatives, thereby giving the Republican the victory.

To add to the confusion, New Mexico is one of nine states (along with Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Washington DC, Vermont, and Maryland) which may enter into the "national popular vote" compact which gives its electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally even if a different candidate wins the popular vote in New Mexico. The bill passed the New Mexico House, but has been hung up in the Senate. The other nine states have already passed the bill in both houses and it has been signed by the respective governors.

Johnson's entry into the race as a third-party candidate may have an effect that is more apparent than real. Still, this will be a general election in which almost anything could happen, and small shifts in voter preferences could make for some wild results.

I was shocked to hear that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is leaving the Republican primaries. Almost as shocked as I was to find out that he had been in the Republican primaries in the first place. He was not so much a dark horse as an invisible horse. He will leave the GOP and run as a candidate for the Libertarian Party. I wonder if they know about it yet.

Johnson was regularly excluded from the Republican candidate debates because he couldn't get enough apparent support to justify adding yet another unexciting candidate to the already-full panel. So Johnson decided to pick up his marbles and leave. The GOP's loss is the Libertarians' loss, er, gain. Johnson is the most exciting candidate to come along since John Huntsman.

Maybe the Republicans should have taken a little better look at Johnson before excluding him from the debates. Republicans harp on the idea of future presidents having some business experience. Johnson built businesses from the ground up. In 1976, he founded Big J Enterprises (a construction firm), starting with one employee--himself. He built the business rapidly, and within a few years landed a lucrative $38 million contract with Intel to build its adjunct facilities in New Mexico. He sold the company in 1999, at which point the company employed over 1,000 workers.

In 1994, largely self-funded with $500,000, Johnson entered politics. He ran against a popular Republican in the gubernatorial primary, and eked out a narrow victory. That was his last narrow win. He won the Republican nomination for governor, and defeated the Democratic incumbent by ten percent. In the next gubernatorial election, he ran against a Latino Democrat in a state with one of the largest Hispanic populations (percentage-wise) in the nation (40 percent). Again, he won by over ten percent. In fact, he was so popular in his first term that the New Mexico term-limits legislation (one term only) was modified to allow him to run for a second term.

Republicans want candidates with executive experience. Johnson has that experience in both the private and public sectors. But what about fiscal responsibility? During his first term alone, he vetoed 200 out of 424 spending bills, and gutted many others using his line-item veto. He kept his promise to reduce the state's budget by 10%. He attempted to cut taxes deeply, and succeeded in many of his fights with the Democrats in the legislature. Yet he also managed to increase spending on core subject education while fighting the good fight for school vouchers. When test scores improved only marginally with the public school expenditures, he went full-bore for the voucher program.

Among his accomplishments in office were shifting state Medicaid to an efficient "managed care" system, fired over 1200 public employees, set a record for budget vetoes, balanced the state budget for 6 out of 8 years, and left New Mexico with a $1 billion surplus. He was less successful with his school voucher program, but he never stopped trying. He vetoed or line-item vetoed nearly 2000 bills during his eight years in office, and of those, only two were overridden by the legislature.

His Libertarian side also showed during his two terms. He attempted to decriminalize and legalize marijuana use and distribution. He pointed out that half of New Mexico's law enforcement resources were devoted to drug-related offenses, and said that the problem should move from the criminal arena to the medical/social arena. That is a Libertarian stand, but one that was also supported by such notable conservatives as William F. Buckley.

In the 2000 elections, the Libertarian Party attempted to recruit him to run for president, but he demurred, saying that he was a lifelong committed Republican. Nevetheless, in 2008, he endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency, seemingly setting up his own status as a Republican/Libertarian. That now seems to have come to full fruition with his abandonment of the run for the Republican nomination in order to court the Libertarians.

This could get interesting (or not). There have been strong rumblings of a Ron Paul third-party run at the presidency on the Libertarian ticket. How Paul would treat a rival who previously endorsed him is entirely unknown at this point. In any event, it certainly raises the specter of a "spoiler" election in 2012. How badly that might hurt Republicans remains to be seen. For the time being, Paul has said he will not run on a third-party ticket because it might hurt his son's political future in the Senate.

In a third-party scenario, absent Ron Paul as a candidate, Johnson's is one of three candidate names proferred with name identification between 1% and 10%. Public Policy Polling puts him at 9%, as opposed to New York City liberal mayor Michael Bloomberg at 8% and Independent/Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In the same poll sampling, without Johnson, Republican Mitt Romney beats Obama by 47% to 45%. With Johnson in the race, Romney beats Obama 43% to 41%.

At this early stage, I have no idea what to make of that. It's certainly well within the margin of error in what promises to be a much closer general election than most people think. New Mexico's five electoral college votes could determine the outcome, either giving Obama a victory or throwing the election into the House of Representatives, thereby giving the Republican the victory.

To add to the confusion, New Mexico is one of nine states (along with Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Washington DC, Vermont, and Maryland) which may enter into the "national popular vote" compact which gives its electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationally even if a different candidate wins the popular vote in New Mexico. The bill passed the New Mexico House, but has been hung up in the Senate. The other nine states have already passed the bill in both houses and it has been signed by the respective governors.

Johnson's entry into the race as a third-party candidate may have an effect that is more apparent than real. Still, this will be a general election in which almost anything could happen, and small shifts in voter preferences could make for some wild results.

We'll Never Forget Ol' What's-His-Name

View Detail

A Gift of Christmas Light

A Gift of Christmas Light

Buried in the thousand or so pages of the much-debated and much-delayed compromise spending bill was a small Christmas gift for most of us. The House passed the bill last Thursday, while the Senate voted favorably on Saturday. As the bill currently stands, the upcoming ban on good old-fashioned incandescent lights was overturned. The President is expected to sign the bill after bellyaching about it for awhile.

It seems that the light bulb will not be one of the points of contention when the next last-minute "government shutdown" spending bill comes up. It also seems that even a lot of Democrats hate that ghastly pall cast by the compact fluorescent bulbs, and few of them want to call a hazmat team if somebody drops one of the ugly little buggers.

Some of the newer conservative House members objected that the bill only funds the government through the end of the fiscal year, thereby once again kicking the budget can down the road. But at least that's one unnecessary crisis averted until September 30 of 2012. The Republicans gave up many of their proposed restrictions on government regulation and policy, but wouldn't budge on the light bulbs.

Not only is the ban on incandescents little more than ill thought-out green weenie nonsense, but its deeper meaning is another bureaucratic nanny-state interference with the market and the personal choices of millions upon millions of Americans. Although the issue wasn't as big and obvious as cap 'n tax and other leftist bureaucratic schemes, the issue of what kind of light bulb the American consumer should buy became a freedom of choice issue that doesn't involve taking an innocent human life.

Pro-incandescent bulb advocate Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) led the original charge to end the ban with specific legislation. But his bill was defeated when it went to the Senate through parliamentary stalling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-La La Land). Burgess has vowed that he will hold his troops together to retain the provision in any future Congressional action.

In order to be added as a rider to the bill firming up the spending budget, the bulb provision does not actually amend the 2007 law banning incandescents which was scheduled to occur in increments starting with 100 watt bulbs and eventually extending to all incandescents. What it does is effectively the same thing, only with an additional slap at the eco-wackos. The new provision prohibits the administration from spending a single dime on enforcing or in any manner carrying out the idiotic standards. Your house can now remain free of lightbulb mercury poisoning a little longer.

It's a shame the Republicans had to use trickery to get a common sense bill past the ecofreaks in the Senate. And in this case, it happened largely because the administration was getting heat about the Democratic Senate failing to act on the year-end spending bill which had not so long ago seemed to be hopelessly deadlocked. The Republicans had also attempted to add riders to cut back the administration's nuclear waste policy, "family planning" policy and environmental policy, but for multiple reasons (most of them good and logical) decided to defer those actions for a later time.

Buried in the thousand or so pages of the much-debated and much-delayed compromise spending bill was a small Christmas gift for most of us. The House passed the bill last Thursday, while the Senate voted favorably on Saturday. As the bill currently stands, the upcoming ban on good old-fashioned incandescent lights was overturned. The President is expected to sign the bill after bellyaching about it for awhile.

It seems that the light bulb will not be one of the points of contention when the next last-minute "government shutdown" spending bill comes up. It also seems that even a lot of Democrats hate that ghastly pall cast by the compact fluorescent bulbs, and few of them want to call a hazmat team if somebody drops one of the ugly little buggers.

Some of the newer conservative House members objected that the bill only funds the government through the end of the fiscal year, thereby once again kicking the budget can down the road. But at least that's one unnecessary crisis averted until September 30 of 2012. The Republicans gave up many of their proposed restrictions on government regulation and policy, but wouldn't budge on the light bulbs.

Not only is the ban on incandescents little more than ill thought-out green weenie nonsense, but its deeper meaning is another bureaucratic nanny-state interference with the market and the personal choices of millions upon millions of Americans. Although the issue wasn't as big and obvious as cap 'n tax and other leftist bureaucratic schemes, the issue of what kind of light bulb the American consumer should buy became a freedom of choice issue that doesn't involve taking an innocent human life.

Pro-incandescent bulb advocate Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) led the original charge to end the ban with specific legislation. But his bill was defeated when it went to the Senate through parliamentary stalling by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-La La Land). Burgess has vowed that he will hold his troops together to retain the provision in any future Congressional action.

In order to be added as a rider to the bill firming up the spending budget, the bulb provision does not actually amend the 2007 law banning incandescents which was scheduled to occur in increments starting with 100 watt bulbs and eventually extending to all incandescents. What it does is effectively the same thing, only with an additional slap at the eco-wackos. The new provision prohibits the administration from spending a single dime on enforcing or in any manner carrying out the idiotic standards. Your house can now remain free of lightbulb mercury poisoning a little longer.

It's a shame the Republicans had to use trickery to get a common sense bill past the ecofreaks in the Senate. And in this case, it happened largely because the administration was getting heat about the Democratic Senate failing to act on the year-end spending bill which had not so long ago seemed to be hopelessly deadlocked. The Republicans had also attempted to add riders to cut back the administration's nuclear waste policy, "family planning" policy and environmental policy, but for multiple reasons (most of them good and logical) decided to defer those actions for a later time.

A Gift of Christmas Light

View Detail

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

Last night’s debate was interesting. It may have changed the race too, though we won’t know for a week or two. First impressions are that Newt probably shot himself in the head Rick Perry-style. Paul lost a few friends. Cain stopped the bleeding. And I never want to work at the Heritage Foundation.

● Imploder of the Week: Newt. Last night, Newt reminded us exactly why he makes us nervous. When Rick Perry got called onto the carpet in his second debate for subsidizing the education of illegal immigrants, he pointed a cow-pokey finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. That was the moment Ricky hit the iceberg. Newt was fully aware of Ricky’s tale of woe. Yet, when he was called onto the carpet for supporting the DREAM Act and amnesty, he proceeded to dissemble, telling us that he hates the DREAM Act and amnesty but would happily support both by any other name if they could be set up so he wouldn't be blamed for implementing them. Then he pointed a lobbyist-pocket stained finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. If arrogance, stupidity and gall had a child, it would have been that moment.

Moreover, Newt was rising in the polls because he seemed to be smart, conservative and firm in his opinions. Last night, shifty Newt was back. To borrow a word from tryanmax, Newt came across as a chameleon, shifting positions to please the crowd without ever saying anything substantive or pinning himself down. And while he was definitely emphatic to the point of arrogance about everything he said, the only good and firm answers he gave were the ones he cribbed from Herman Cain – handling Iran, handling social security, the biggest threat to the nation, etc.

This will probably stop Newt’s momentum cold and may even throw him into a Rick Perry nosedive. Who will benefit? Odds are 46% Cain, 44% Romney, 10% other.

● Winner: Cain. Cain is most likely to benefit from Newt’s implosion because he did two important things last night. First, he stopped the bleeding by stopping the narrative that he’s an idiot. There were no gaffes. His answers were solid and thoughtful and showed remarkable judgment. Indeed, everyone else was stealing his answers, which tells you something. And when it came to explaining his judgment, he proved why we should be looking to business rather than politics for leaders. He accepted no sacred cows and said he would make decisions by looking at everything we do and asking if we are getting the benefits we want from our efforts. Clear, concise, correct.

Secondly, he re-energized his supporters with a strong showing that highlighted why people liked him before the scandals, and by showing broad knowledge on a range of topics. This probably earned him a second look when Newt collapses.

● Winner: Romney. If Cain doesn’t benefit from Newt’s collapse, Romney will. Here’s why. Romney said nothing. . . diddly over squat. He didn’t even sound like he was saying anything. In fact, I honestly cannot tell you anything he said except that every single sentence staked out firm positions on both sides of the issue. But what Romney has going for him is a stamp of approval and just enough fibbing to make you think he’s to the right of Gingrich on illegal immigration. That stamp of approval has generated the “electability” canard and the “maybe it’s time for conservatives to give up and support Romney” meme. This makes him well-placed to benefit from Newt’s implosion if Cain can’t capture Newt’s supporters.

● Loser: Ron Paul. I’ve debated where to put Paul. As usual, he was brilliant at times, but also said things which simply disqualify him with the Republican Party base and the public at large. So I call him a loser because while he made good points, I doubt he reached anyone who didn’t already support him.

● Loser: The Heritage Foundation. What a bunch of stiffs.

● Loser: Perry. Old Rick spent the last two weeks trying to get noticed by challenging Pelosi to a debate, declaring he would make Congress part time, pulling the ears off a gundark, and promising to set up a no-fly zone over Denver Broncos football games and Syria. He didn’t Tebow during the debate, but it might have helped. Instead, the other candidates took turns gut punching the hapless Texan. Bachmann in particular made him look like a fool, as did Paul, when they slapped down and dismissed every one of his ideas. And Perry didn’t help himself with disjointed and nonsensical answers, e.g. at one point, he suggested that Iran is trying to conquer Mexico and his solution to stopping this was another Monroe Doctrine, which he defined as building a fence between the US and Mexico. Monroe was not amused.

● Winner: CNN. Wolf Blitzer did an excellent job keeping the debate moving and being unobtrusive. He had a couple minor gotcha questions, but rarely felt like he was manipulating the discussion.

● Whatever: Bachmann seemed more knowledgeable, but still just floods you with trivia. I’m not sure I heard her enunciate a single principle except repeatedly saying, “we’ve got to do something,” which sounds like the woman in The Simpsons who always yells: “what about the children!” Santorum wasn’t a jerk and almost made sense a couple times, though he remains about as relevant as the furniture. Huntsman continues to say smart things and smug things. His slappy fight with Romney made them both look effete.

● Security: Finally, let’s highlight a particularly interesting area last night. Ron Paul made the smart point that we should not trade our freedoms for false promises of security. He’s 100% right. The cry of “crisis” and “I’ll protect you” have been the bait tyrants have used for generations to get power handed to them willingly.

When Paul said this, the other candidates (except Cain), stumbled all over this issue. Each recognized the danger of openly saying “screw the Constitution,” so they proclaimed a love for the Constitution before they said the Constitution shouldn’t stand in the government’s way when the government screams “security.” This is dangerous thinking. Rights exist for a reason and if the government can simply declare an emergency and terminate those rights, then we have no rights, we have privileges at the whim of the federal beast.

Paul again countered, this time by asking if this meant these candidates supported the government groping old people at airports. Each tried to evade this by attacking Obama for letting those workers unionize. Several suggested privatizing this “function” was the answer. But this is ridiculous. When someone shoves a flashlight up your rear under government authority, it doesn’t really matter who they work for, it’s the government authority that’s the problem.

Newt and Romney tried to slide around this by mixing the issue of foreign invaders and criminals. Both basically said that foreign invaders, i.e. enemy agents, have no rights. Correct. Then they said we need to keep criminal and “security” issues separate. Ok. Then they wiped out these distinctions by claiming that whenever a terrorist act could be stopped, the Constitution should not stop the government from using any tool to uncover that terrorism. In other words, when the government says security, there is no Constitution.

Paul is the only one to remain true to the Constitution on this. The others (excluding Cain) were hypocrites and showed a total disregard for the rights of citizens. Cain is the only one who split this baby by stating that he was willing to look at each power given to the government, demand proof of its effectiveness, and tweak the system to reduce the government’s powers. You can decide where you come down on this issue, but it is highly instructive of the mindset of the candidates when it comes to the issue of respecting the limitations of government power.

Last night’s debate was interesting. It may have changed the race too, though we won’t know for a week or two. First impressions are that Newt probably shot himself in the head Rick Perry-style. Paul lost a few friends. Cain stopped the bleeding. And I never want to work at the Heritage Foundation.

● Imploder of the Week: Newt. Last night, Newt reminded us exactly why he makes us nervous. When Rick Perry got called onto the carpet in his second debate for subsidizing the education of illegal immigrants, he pointed a cow-pokey finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. That was the moment Ricky hit the iceberg. Newt was fully aware of Ricky’s tale of woe. Yet, when he was called onto the carpet for supporting the DREAM Act and amnesty, he proceeded to dissemble, telling us that he hates the DREAM Act and amnesty but would happily support both by any other name if they could be set up so he wouldn't be blamed for implementing them. Then he pointed a lobbyist-pocket stained finger at the rest of us and told us we ain’t got no hearts. If arrogance, stupidity and gall had a child, it would have been that moment.

Moreover, Newt was rising in the polls because he seemed to be smart, conservative and firm in his opinions. Last night, shifty Newt was back. To borrow a word from tryanmax, Newt came across as a chameleon, shifting positions to please the crowd without ever saying anything substantive or pinning himself down. And while he was definitely emphatic to the point of arrogance about everything he said, the only good and firm answers he gave were the ones he cribbed from Herman Cain – handling Iran, handling social security, the biggest threat to the nation, etc.

This will probably stop Newt’s momentum cold and may even throw him into a Rick Perry nosedive. Who will benefit? Odds are 46% Cain, 44% Romney, 10% other.

● Winner: Cain. Cain is most likely to benefit from Newt’s implosion because he did two important things last night. First, he stopped the bleeding by stopping the narrative that he’s an idiot. There were no gaffes. His answers were solid and thoughtful and showed remarkable judgment. Indeed, everyone else was stealing his answers, which tells you something. And when it came to explaining his judgment, he proved why we should be looking to business rather than politics for leaders. He accepted no sacred cows and said he would make decisions by looking at everything we do and asking if we are getting the benefits we want from our efforts. Clear, concise, correct.

Secondly, he re-energized his supporters with a strong showing that highlighted why people liked him before the scandals, and by showing broad knowledge on a range of topics. This probably earned him a second look when Newt collapses.

● Winner: Romney. If Cain doesn’t benefit from Newt’s collapse, Romney will. Here’s why. Romney said nothing. . . diddly over squat. He didn’t even sound like he was saying anything. In fact, I honestly cannot tell you anything he said except that every single sentence staked out firm positions on both sides of the issue. But what Romney has going for him is a stamp of approval and just enough fibbing to make you think he’s to the right of Gingrich on illegal immigration. That stamp of approval has generated the “electability” canard and the “maybe it’s time for conservatives to give up and support Romney” meme. This makes him well-placed to benefit from Newt’s implosion if Cain can’t capture Newt’s supporters.

● Loser: Ron Paul. I’ve debated where to put Paul. As usual, he was brilliant at times, but also said things which simply disqualify him with the Republican Party base and the public at large. So I call him a loser because while he made good points, I doubt he reached anyone who didn’t already support him.

● Loser: The Heritage Foundation. What a bunch of stiffs.

● Loser: Perry. Old Rick spent the last two weeks trying to get noticed by challenging Pelosi to a debate, declaring he would make Congress part time, pulling the ears off a gundark, and promising to set up a no-fly zone over Denver Broncos football games and Syria. He didn’t Tebow during the debate, but it might have helped. Instead, the other candidates took turns gut punching the hapless Texan. Bachmann in particular made him look like a fool, as did Paul, when they slapped down and dismissed every one of his ideas. And Perry didn’t help himself with disjointed and nonsensical answers, e.g. at one point, he suggested that Iran is trying to conquer Mexico and his solution to stopping this was another Monroe Doctrine, which he defined as building a fence between the US and Mexico. Monroe was not amused.

● Winner: CNN. Wolf Blitzer did an excellent job keeping the debate moving and being unobtrusive. He had a couple minor gotcha questions, but rarely felt like he was manipulating the discussion.

● Whatever: Bachmann seemed more knowledgeable, but still just floods you with trivia. I’m not sure I heard her enunciate a single principle except repeatedly saying, “we’ve got to do something,” which sounds like the woman in The Simpsons who always yells: “what about the children!” Santorum wasn’t a jerk and almost made sense a couple times, though he remains about as relevant as the furniture. Huntsman continues to say smart things and smug things. His slappy fight with Romney made them both look effete.

● Security: Finally, let’s highlight a particularly interesting area last night. Ron Paul made the smart point that we should not trade our freedoms for false promises of security. He’s 100% right. The cry of “crisis” and “I’ll protect you” have been the bait tyrants have used for generations to get power handed to them willingly.

When Paul said this, the other candidates (except Cain), stumbled all over this issue. Each recognized the danger of openly saying “screw the Constitution,” so they proclaimed a love for the Constitution before they said the Constitution shouldn’t stand in the government’s way when the government screams “security.” This is dangerous thinking. Rights exist for a reason and if the government can simply declare an emergency and terminate those rights, then we have no rights, we have privileges at the whim of the federal beast.

Paul again countered, this time by asking if this meant these candidates supported the government groping old people at airports. Each tried to evade this by attacking Obama for letting those workers unionize. Several suggested privatizing this “function” was the answer. But this is ridiculous. When someone shoves a flashlight up your rear under government authority, it doesn’t really matter who they work for, it’s the government authority that’s the problem.

Newt and Romney tried to slide around this by mixing the issue of foreign invaders and criminals. Both basically said that foreign invaders, i.e. enemy agents, have no rights. Correct. Then they said we need to keep criminal and “security” issues separate. Ok. Then they wiped out these distinctions by claiming that whenever a terrorist act could be stopped, the Constitution should not stop the government from using any tool to uncover that terrorism. In other words, when the government says security, there is no Constitution.

Paul is the only one to remain true to the Constitution on this. The others (excluding Cain) were hypocrites and showed a total disregard for the rights of citizens. Cain is the only one who split this baby by stating that he was willing to look at each power given to the government, demand proof of its effectiveness, and tweak the system to reduce the government’s powers. You can decide where you come down on this issue, but it is highly instructive of the mindset of the candidates when it comes to the issue of respecting the limitations of government power.

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

View Detail

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Another debate is in the books. We learned little. CNBC made fools of themselves. One candidate imploded spectacularly. A couple impressed. And the rest were there too!

●Epic Loser: Rick Perry. Do you remember the “agony of defeat” guy from Wide World of Sports? Rick Perry just topped him. For the first half of the night, Perry proved he doesn’t realize that being President won’t be like being Governor of Texas where even the Democrats are solid conservatives. Then it happened. Perry proudly claimed he would eliminate three departments if elected. He named two. . . and then he froze. For about a minute, he was unable to tell us which agency he passionately wanted to eliminate, and he couldn’t think of a way to end his sentence either. He just stood there stunned like Wiley Coyote with his arm pointed at Ron Paul and two fingers stuck up in the air. Finally, he said, “Oops.” Then someone suggested “the EPA” and he heartily agreed, only to admit a moment later that wasn’t the agency and he still couldn’t think of the name of his nemesis. Rick. . . quit.

●Winner: Newt Gingrich. Newt was the big winner, just edging out Cain. Newt was on fire. He was calm and brilliant. He showed both the breadth and depth of his knowledge and he took down the CNBC hacks with devastating wit:

● He took down Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer with: “it’s sad the media doesn’t report accurately on how the economy works.” Both Cramer and Bartiromo had shown a lot of economic ignorance, like when Cramer demanded from each candidate: “do you really believe a company can make a profit and create jobs at the same time!!!” Uh. You pretty much have to Jim or you fail and all the jobs go away.

● Or when he blasted Maria’s ridiculous question asking the candidates to tell her in 30 seconds how they would fix health care (18% of the economy): “My colleagues have done a terrific job of answering an absurd question!!” Maria didn’t like that.

● Or when he crushed a sleazy question by John King on what Gingrich told Fannie and Freddie (King wrongly implied Gingrich was paid $300,000 by Fannie and Freddie to act as their lobbyist): “I gave them advice which they absolutely didn’t follow.”

Ultimately, Gingrich won because he gave the strongest performance. This will continue to solidify him as the alternative to Cain for conservatives, which will keep him in the race and may let him overtake Cain when Perry/Bachman/Paul and Santorum start quitting. Don’t be surprised if he draws neck and neck with Cain soon.

●Winner: Herman Cain. Everyone wanted to know how Cain would handle THE question. He was brilliant. He tossed it away by pointing out the public wants to hear about important matters and said America deserves better than character assassination. An upset Maria Bartiromo immediately tried to assassinate his character with the sleazy tactic of asking Romney if he would hire Cain given Cain’s answer. The audience booed her. This is significant because it tells us Republican primary voters despise the gotcha game the media is playing with Cain and want to move on.

Beyond that, Cain explained why his 9-9-9 plan works: (1) it eliminates $430 billion Americans waste manipulating the tax code each year, (2) it eliminates hidden taxes, and (3) it gets Washington out of the game of picking winners and losers. He argued it would make America more competitive against China: “the tax code is what sends jobs overseas.” He also shot down the argument it would result in higher rates by first questioning the stupidity of the idea that this was a unique problem to his plan (this argument can be used against any plan) and then by saying the transparency of his plan would make it harder for politicians to get away with raising rates -- an argument against the tax code tinkerers.

Cain was jovial and knowledgeable -- something which tells us he’s not affected by the harassment issue. My one criticism is he needs to speak more broadly than just his 9-9-9 plan or it will start to sound like snake oil... it can’t cure everything.

●Winner: Ron Paul. Ron Paul was excellent. He made the great point that the areas where we have problems (housing bubble, student loans, stock market bubbles, health care) are all the direct result of government intervention and government money. And when the government helps one group it often hurts another, such as when the government keeps interest rates low to help banks, it cheats the elderly who rely on interest for income. The CNBC crew were oddly stunned to hear this. Call it a teachable moment.

●Draw: Romney. On one hand, Romney’s a clear winner because he continues to come across as acceptable. But I suspect he’s actually a loser. His current strategy is like a prevent defense in football: rather than trying to win the nomination, he’s just trying to survive while the others all lose the nomination. The problem with this strategy is he’s letting others decide his fate for him. Right now, that works because people haven’t made up their minds -- so 25% support keeps him tied for the lead. But once the other 75% begin to settle on one or two candidates, 25% won’t be enough and he will have blown his chances to win people over.

This strategy also confirms the fear conservatives have that Romney has no leadership skills. You see this whenever he gets criticized because he starts to dance because he’s afraid to defend his beliefs. He had no response when CNBC pointed out that his tax plan accepts the Democratic premise that progressive taxes are good and the implicit class warfare arguments. At one point, he firmly agreed with Ron Paul about health care, only to turn to Jello moments later when he was asked if that means he no longer believes there’s a role for government to provide insurance to the uninsured.

His answer to the Cain question also demonstrates the problem. Bartiromo sleazily asked him to attack Cain (“would you hire Cain as a CEO given his answers”). A leader would have seized the moment: “I don’t know what Herm did or not, BUT I think it’s obscene the way the media.....” Romney didn’t do that. Instead, he said it wasn’t his place to comment. If he doesn’t think it’s his place to comment when an American citizen is being slandered by the media, then why would we want him as a our leader?

Last night, it struck me for the first time that this prevent defense wasn’t working anymore. Romney seemed a lot less relevant than before. So I suspect he may eventually look back on last night as the moment his candidacy started to slip away.

●Loser: Maria Bartiromo/CNBC. CNBC sells itself as a no-nonsense pro-business channel. Their claim is based on having more knowledgeable reporters and deeper analysis than others. Last night was full of nonsense “gotcha” questions, cheap shots, and whiny, abusive and shrill comments. Maria and Jim Cramer were particularly rude and proved they don’t actually understand economics.

●Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann continues to talk about her tax plan, which doesn’t exist. If you ask her any question, she whines her way through all of her talking points, always in the same order, and she’s never seemed less relevant than last night.

●Loser: Rick Santorum. Rick can’t win the nomination. So presumably, he’s playing to raise his profile for fundraising purposes. But Rick is not helping himself. In the last couple debates he was simply obnoxious, talking over people and making unfair attacks. Last night, he smugly fell in love with himself. Then he declared himself an advocate of the poor by throwing the Republican Party under the bus. He didn’t understand what “picking winners and losers” means or why it’s bad. He also chastised the others for wanting to cause problems with China, after saying last time he wanted to start a trade war with them. He also promises subsidies to his favored industries while saying his plan (which also doesn’t exist) would eliminate subsidies. And yet, Mr. Inconsistent attacks the others for not being consistent in unspecified ways.

●Loser: CNBC. Finally, CNBC gets a thumbs down for not streaming this over the net.

Debate Wrap: The Education of CNBC

View Detail

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

Yesterday was exactly one year from the upcoming 2012 presidential election. With history and the polls running against him, Barack Obama will have to pull off a surprise of epic proportions to save his presidency. Republicans should not let their guard down, however, because even with the odds against him, the beleaguered president could still pull it off.

The majority of polls show Obama’s approval ratings in the low 40s. The Democrat-leaning Gallup poll puts him at 43%. Ironically, the only president since the Second World War to hold onto the presidency with favorable ratings that low was Richard Nixon. Nixon was at 49% until the Democrats nominated Jellyfish George McGovern and handed Nixon a landslide victory. At this point in their presidencies, Jimmy Carter had a favorable rating of 32% and Lyndon Johnson was at 42%. Carter went on to lose to Ronald Reagan, and Johnson withdrew from contention as his poll numbers continued to plummet.

On the other hand, at this point in his presidency, Republican George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) had a 59% approval rating, and still lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in a three-way race. However unlikely the entrance of a third party candidate may be at this point, anything is possible, and H. Ross Perot proved it could tilt an election. Clinton was a minority president, garnering only 43% of the total votes, but winning in the Electoral College. Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln were both minority presidents, but won their reelections thanks to third party candidacies.

Obama is in the low 40s, but the old rule of thumb of needing 50% or more was disproved with George W. Bush (Bush the Lesser) in his reelection bid. Bush was at 48% just prior to the election, but still squeaked out a victory.

Enthusiasm for the out-of-power party candidate also plays a role. As low as Obama’s approval ratings are, no Republican currently in the field has generated enough enthusiasm to clearly overcome the advantages of incumbency. Reagan generated considerable excitement among conservatives, moderate Republicans and the “Reagan Democrats.” No current Republican demonstrates that kind of energy. In the case of “generic” Republican candidates, the Republicans tend to match or slightly exceed Obama’s numbers.

But when it comes to actual Republican candidates already vying for the nomination, Obama generally comes out on top, albeit within the margin of error. In state matchups, battleground states are essentially even matches with no clear victor. Ohio and Florida may determine the final election results, and there is no strong leader in Ohio. In Florida polls, only Mitt Romney tied Obama with all the others behind (but some still within the margin of error).

The economy is likely to be the most important factor in the election. And it will come down largely to unemployment numbers and whom the public trusts to bring those numbers down. Economists can play their intellectual games of declaring the recession over by using figures showing a quarter of improvement, which would seemingly help the incumbent. But economists don’t win elections. Voters do, and right now the unemployment rate still hovers officially at 9% or above. On the subject of trust, Obama takes a big hit for having promised much lower figures at this point..

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression aside, no Twentieth Century president has won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. Both Roosevelt and Reagan were charismatic leaders who were able to overcome high unemployment numbers. Reagan entered his second presidential campaign with a 7.2% unemployment figure, but convinced the American people that if they stayed the course, those numbers would improve (as they did, dramatically in his second term). There’s serious doubt that Obama’s fading charisma will be enough to pull off the same thing.

Obama’s Treasury Secretary faces the reality of a long-term unemployment rate of 9% plus, but says “[Obama] could still be reelected with that because he has got a better strategy for helping heal the wounds of this country.” Better than whose? This is another Obama-style dance around the real issue. Obama promised that by the end of his first term, the unemployment rate would be at 6% or lower. Even if there is a downtick in unemployment, it would take more than Obama can deliver to reach those levels.

To go with the empty suit, Obama has made empty promises, and then stood aloof from the fray. Only now has he begun to enter the battle personally. But his newfound executive efforts are not playing well with the general public. He demands that the Congress pass his latest big government jobs bill “right away.” And Congress yawns. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered no less than 27 different plans for creating jobs in the private sector, and have been rebuffed by the Democrats and their president at every turn.

It does not look good for Obama, but counting him out would be a fatal error. One thing that will be absolutely essential to beat him is that once the primaries are over and a candidate has been chosen, Republicans rally enthusiastically around the candidate. Obama still has the ability to raise huge chunks of money (as much as an estimate of a billion dollars). He already has a fifty state election network in place, which has been in campaign mode since the day after his inauguration. No Republican yet has such a sophisticated network. He has an e-mail list of more than nine million supporters. No Republican candidate thus far has shown the ability to maneuver social networks and the internet the way Obama has.

So before you put your feet up on the coffee table and relax, remember that Obama is counting on Republican lethargy and cocksureness about his “inevitable defeat.” It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. With overconfidence, continued in-fighting, and jabs at “RINOs” and moderates, we could all wake up the day after the election and find that grinning community organizer still sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Yesterday was exactly one year from the upcoming 2012 presidential election. With history and the polls running against him, Barack Obama will have to pull off a surprise of epic proportions to save his presidency. Republicans should not let their guard down, however, because even with the odds against him, the beleaguered president could still pull it off.

The majority of polls show Obama’s approval ratings in the low 40s. The Democrat-leaning Gallup poll puts him at 43%. Ironically, the only president since the Second World War to hold onto the presidency with favorable ratings that low was Richard Nixon. Nixon was at 49% until the Democrats nominated Jellyfish George McGovern and handed Nixon a landslide victory. At this point in their presidencies, Jimmy Carter had a favorable rating of 32% and Lyndon Johnson was at 42%. Carter went on to lose to Ronald Reagan, and Johnson withdrew from contention as his poll numbers continued to plummet.

On the other hand, at this point in his presidency, Republican George H. W. Bush (Bush the Elder) had a 59% approval rating, and still lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in a three-way race. However unlikely the entrance of a third party candidate may be at this point, anything is possible, and H. Ross Perot proved it could tilt an election. Clinton was a minority president, garnering only 43% of the total votes, but winning in the Electoral College. Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln were both minority presidents, but won their reelections thanks to third party candidacies.

Obama is in the low 40s, but the old rule of thumb of needing 50% or more was disproved with George W. Bush (Bush the Lesser) in his reelection bid. Bush was at 48% just prior to the election, but still squeaked out a victory.

Enthusiasm for the out-of-power party candidate also plays a role. As low as Obama’s approval ratings are, no Republican currently in the field has generated enough enthusiasm to clearly overcome the advantages of incumbency. Reagan generated considerable excitement among conservatives, moderate Republicans and the “Reagan Democrats.” No current Republican demonstrates that kind of energy. In the case of “generic” Republican candidates, the Republicans tend to match or slightly exceed Obama’s numbers.

But when it comes to actual Republican candidates already vying for the nomination, Obama generally comes out on top, albeit within the margin of error. In state matchups, battleground states are essentially even matches with no clear victor. Ohio and Florida may determine the final election results, and there is no strong leader in Ohio. In Florida polls, only Mitt Romney tied Obama with all the others behind (but some still within the margin of error).

The economy is likely to be the most important factor in the election. And it will come down largely to unemployment numbers and whom the public trusts to bring those numbers down. Economists can play their intellectual games of declaring the recession over by using figures showing a quarter of improvement, which would seemingly help the incumbent. But economists don’t win elections. Voters do, and right now the unemployment rate still hovers officially at 9% or above. On the subject of trust, Obama takes a big hit for having promised much lower figures at this point..

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression aside, no Twentieth Century president has won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. Both Roosevelt and Reagan were charismatic leaders who were able to overcome high unemployment numbers. Reagan entered his second presidential campaign with a 7.2% unemployment figure, but convinced the American people that if they stayed the course, those numbers would improve (as they did, dramatically in his second term). There’s serious doubt that Obama’s fading charisma will be enough to pull off the same thing.

Obama’s Treasury Secretary faces the reality of a long-term unemployment rate of 9% plus, but says “[Obama] could still be reelected with that because he has got a better strategy for helping heal the wounds of this country.” Better than whose? This is another Obama-style dance around the real issue. Obama promised that by the end of his first term, the unemployment rate would be at 6% or lower. Even if there is a downtick in unemployment, it would take more than Obama can deliver to reach those levels.

To go with the empty suit, Obama has made empty promises, and then stood aloof from the fray. Only now has he begun to enter the battle personally. But his newfound executive efforts are not playing well with the general public. He demands that the Congress pass his latest big government jobs bill “right away.” And Congress yawns. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered no less than 27 different plans for creating jobs in the private sector, and have been rebuffed by the Democrats and their president at every turn.

It does not look good for Obama, but counting him out would be a fatal error. One thing that will be absolutely essential to beat him is that once the primaries are over and a candidate has been chosen, Republicans rally enthusiastically around the candidate. Obama still has the ability to raise huge chunks of money (as much as an estimate of a billion dollars). He already has a fifty state election network in place, which has been in campaign mode since the day after his inauguration. No Republican yet has such a sophisticated network. He has an e-mail list of more than nine million supporters. No Republican candidate thus far has shown the ability to maneuver social networks and the internet the way Obama has.

So before you put your feet up on the coffee table and relax, remember that Obama is counting on Republican lethargy and cocksureness about his “inevitable defeat.” It ain’t over ‘til it’s over. With overconfidence, continued in-fighting, and jabs at “RINOs” and moderates, we could all wake up the day after the election and find that grinning community organizer still sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Can Obama Turn The Tide?

View Detail

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Last night’s debate was a disgrace. Newt tried to blame CNN at the end for using a back and forth format that encouraged bickering. He’s wrong. CNN had nothing to do with it. Several candidates (including Newt) made conscious decisions to act like jackasses. They acted disgracefully and honestly need to drop out.

● Winner: Obama. The big winner last night was Obama as the Republicans as a group came across like liars, fools and angry children. Also, our biggest idiots (Santorum, Bachmann) both fell for Obama’s Iran-Mexico diversion even as everyone else on the planet has decided Holder made it up. Bravo.

● Not Loser: Mitt Romney. If you look at Romney in isolation, he came across as knowledgeable and well-briefed, and defended himself well. On the minus side, I don’t recall anything he said and he never came across as conservative. But the real problem last night was the nastiness of the entire debate. This was a debate filled with cheap shots, lies, unprofessional conduct and childish behavior. Even though his performance was solid, Romney gets downgraded for guilt by association because no one looked good. I do, however, give Romney a slight win over Cain because Romney seemed more in control.

● Not Loser: Herman Cain. Cain was smart, knowledgeable and relentlessly positive. He defended himself well and always remained a gentleman. He displayed his sense of humor about electrifying the fence to Mexico and during the unfair attacks on his 9-9-9 plan. He proposed a real healthcare solution (not just “repeal ObamaCare”), i.e. allowing insurance across state borders, loser pays laws, and allowing patients and doctors to make decisions. And he refused to apologize for telling the OccupyWallStreet kids that it’s their own fault they don’t have jobs -- he said they should blame Obama, not bankers.

But the mud was too thick last night. Each of the others used numbers from a leftist think tank and liberal arguments to attack his 9-9-9 plan. It was bizarre to hear conservative Ron Paul defend progressive tax rates. Bachmann and Santorum falsely claimed Cain’s sales tax is a VAT. Newt pretended it was hopelessly complex. And Romney and Perry tried to mix in state taxes to confuse the plan. Essentially, seven supposed conservatives either knowingly lied or used the liberal ideas they have themselves criticized to attack a solidly conservative plan. Even worse, these attacks were done in smarmy, condescending ways. It was shameful. I thought the pile-on effect hurt Cain, though CNN's Gloria Borger thought Cain defended himself extremely well.

A bigger problem came when he suggested he would negotiate with terrorists. He actually said he would consider a hostage trade for a captured American soldier depending on the circumstances -- and the truth is every leader negotiates with terrorists. But since this was hypocrite night, the others jumped on this even though they would do the exact same thing. Cain backpedaled. He should have stood his ground. The public can accept views with which they disagree, but they don’t like backpedaling. Cain also seemed to backpedal on the TARP issue. He says he supported the concept, but not the execution. Personally, I don’t think that plays well for a man who is known as a straight shooter.

● Ron Paul: Not much new to report here. Paul wants to bring the troops home from Korea and Japan, causing an arms race in Asia. Other than that, he was mostly right all night, but still 10% insane. Last night’s secret word was “inflation.”

● Loser: Newt. Newt reminded us why people don’t like or trust him. He claims to be an outsider, yet he attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and then advocated “targeted” tinkering with the current code instead. Welcome back to K Street Newt, we missed you.

Then he got caught lying about supporting the individual mandate for health insurance when he attacked Romney for including such a mandate in RomneyCare. Romney shot back saying he got the idea from Newt. Newt acted outraged and called that “a lie.” Except it wasn’t. Newt danced for a while and then had to admit he did in fact support and advocate the idea. And he tried to explain his lie away by saying Romney had falsely said “Newt” came up with the idea when it was really “Newt AND the Heritage Foundation.” Only a corrupt politician would think that’s a valid distinction.

Newt also pandered to the Religious Right by saying he wouldn’t trust anyone who doesn’t pray. . . though he didn’t specify how many minutes of prayer are required. Finally, he tried to blame Anderson Cooper for his own misbehavior and that of the other children.

● Total Loser: Rick Perry. Perry’s performance was pathetic. He interrupted and spoke over people. He took nasty cheap shots all night and even went back to the same ones after they were discredited. He got booed repeatedly. He kept talking about his “plan,” which he apparently released last week or might release next week, depending on which Perry you believe. The only economic idea he could mention was drilling for oil. He tried to attack Romney for hiring illegal aliens, which turned out to be a contracted lawn service and then tried to leverage this into making himself sound tough on illegal immigration -- until Romney pointed out that Perry wrote an editorial supporting amnesty. Perry also got caught lying about supporting TARP. He tried to blame all of Texas’ problems on the federal government, but offered no solutions. He smugly tried to redefine conservatism to fit him. And he tried to go toe to toe with Romney in verbal gotcha and got destroyed. The boy is stoopid. Rick needs to find an exit strategy pronto.

● Total Loser: Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is proving to be a politician in the worst sense. She's a clueless hypocrite who doesn't understand the Constitution. She's incapable of answering direct questions. Her whole platform depends on emotional appeals based on irrelevancies. And worst of all, she speaks in disingenuous generalities and then attacks anyone who won’t ante up to her pandering. Here are some examples.

She attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too extreme and then proposed eliminating the entire tax code. Huh? And as usual, she gave no hint what she would replace it with. Why? Two reasons. First, she doesn’t have a clue. Secondly, the only thing it could be replaced with is a sales tax. . . like the one she keeps slamming Herman Cain for proposing. Also, despite being a former attorney for the IRS (which actually means nothing -- she was just a debt collector), she doesn’t understand the difference between corporate income tax, a sales tax and a value added tax. And after attacking Cain's 9-9-9 plan for “raising taxes on millions of people,” she then said she wants 100% of Americans to pay taxes -- which would raise taxes on at least 145 million people. Also note that she hasn't proposed even a hint of a plan how she would do this.

Bachmann jumped on Cain for the supposed “negotiate with terrorists” thing even after he clarified his statement and denied that’s what he meant. Then she tried to one-up herself by stupidly claiming she’s so tough she wants to demand “reimbursement” from Iraq and Libya for what it cost us to invade both countries -- that's how World War II started.

She also dubiously claimed she will ban immigrants from getting “any government benefits” (which would violate the Constitution) and she equally dubiously claimed she could fix the “anchor baby” problem through legislation without changing the 14th Amendment.

● Total Loser: Rick Santorum. Santorum is a disgrace. He's a whiny fake who tries to disrupt the other candidates by talking over them, by mischaracterizing their statements and plans, by hitting them with liberal talking points, and by making illogical, disingenuous, contradictory and hypocritical attacks. All he’s done is poison the debates. And for the record, while Rick claims he’s the only one ever to win in a swing state (cough cough Romney and Bachmann) and he claims he did better than Bush, let me remind you how his last election went: 2006 Bob Casey 59%, Rick Santorum 41%. Get bent Rick.

Conclusion

What really struck me last night was the difference between the professional politicians and the businessmen. The businessmen kept trying to promote their ideas and tried to stay positive, though Cain succeeded more than Romney at that. The professionals (excluding Paul) used gotcha questions, false logic, cynical emotional appeals, lies, distortions and distinctions so fine they were nonexistent. They were angry. They offered nothing but the same old, same old. And frankly, it made me sick watching them. Am I wrong?

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

View Detail