Wednesday, November 7, 2012

A Glimpse of the Future

Now that we’ve had a day to digest the election, let me tell you why Obama won and why his followers won’t be happy with him.

Why He Won: A lot of people are giving a lot of reasons why this election went the way it did. And to a degree many of them are right at the margins. But at its core, this election turned out the way it did for one simple reason: “short-sighted self-interest.”

Our government is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment where people are enticed into investing with promises of unsustainably high returns. Those returns are paid for with the money taken from new investors. Essentially A’s benefits are paid using the investment of B and C. B and C’s benefits are paid using the investments of D, E, and F. And so on. As long as enough new people keep entering the scheme, the benefits will flow. But the moment the new money slows down, the entire scheme collapses. That is how our government is structured, as a fraudulent investment that pays out way more than it can afford because it is stealing from the future to pay the present.

Many people don’t understand this. They only see the high benefits they get, so they want the scheme to keep going. To them, it is manna from Heaven and they don’t want it to stop. These are core Obama supporters – progressives, welfare cases, minorities. Others understand the nature of the scheme but still invest in the hopes that the system won’t fail until they have made more than they invested. These are suburbanite Obama supporters – soccer moms, professionals. Others know the system will collapse any day, but also realize that so long as everyone else will get these benefits, they might as well get them too until the system collapses. These are union workers and government workers.

Here’s the problem for Obama. He can’t keep the benefits flowing. Why? Consider these problems Obama now faces.
The Deficit: In the past four years, Obama added more to the national debt than all prior presidents combined. Our debt ($16 trillion) now equals the size of our economy (102%), it was 51% in 1988. This means we can no longer spend money without risking a Greece-like meltdown. Moreover, we are still headed in the wrong direction. The deficit is now one trillion dollars per year. This means Obama cannot spend more because there is no more. But he has a problem. . .

Interest: Because of the deficit, our credit rating was downgraded already and we are warned of worse to come. The cost of servicing the national debt is already $450 billion at 2.8% interest (historic lows). That’s 12% of the budget. If we continue on this course, we will be downgraded again and again and our interest costs will rise. Every 1% rise in rates adds $160 billion to the deficit each year.

Military: Right now, the budget is balanced on the idea of taking about $200 billion a year from the military budget. This was always fake and will return to the budget. Moreover, war with Iran (or Syria) will add about $300 billion a year.

Medicare: Obama faces two problems with regard to Medicare. First, he’s promised to steal $700 billion from it (about $150 billion a year). That is a fake accounting gimmick and will return to the budget. Secondly, Medicare is becoming a worthless benefit because doctors will no longer take it because it doesn’t pay enough. Fixing this will cost around $100 billion per year, increasing by 20% per year.
So if Obama does nothing else, the deficit will increase by between $350 billion a year to $750 billion a year, plus interest cost increases. We could be looking at $2 trillion a year in deficits by 2015. And that’s just the beginning.....
Obamacare: If you assume a best case scenario, Obamacare is estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, or $176 billion a year. But you never get best case in government. The long-term reliable estimate for government spending is five times the initially estimated cost. That would be $880 billion a year. Moreover, this assumes most people will stay on private plans, but there’s no reason for employers to keep those plans. Also, health care costs, which were projected to go down, are going up 21% per year.

Unemployment: There are 23 million unemployed after the prior jobless decade. Another 20 million jobs will be needed just to stay level with population growth. Obama’s policies kill jobs. Moreover, estimates are that if taxmaggedon happens, we are looking at another 6-10 million jobs lost. All of those unemployed people will need benefits. Even if we give only $10,000 a year to these people, you are looking at adding $480 billion a year in support payments, not to mention the lost tax revenue from them not working. Black unemployment will remain in the 20% range as will youth unemployment.
So now we’re looking at deficits of $3-$3.3 trillion a year. And it gets worse.
Retirees: The federal government owes $2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to its workers. The state governments owe $5.2 trillion in unfunded retirement benefits to their workers. But that’s nothing compared to the coming Boomerpocalypse. The Boomers never bothered to save for retirement, choosing instead to rely on SSI. Over the next three decades, 81 million boomers will retire. That will create a $25 trillion unfunded liability in Medicare, plus another $21 trillion unfunded liability in Social Security. Moreover, these people will stop contributing to the tax base.

Further, there is strong evidence that all the economic bubbles we’ve experienced are actually the result of the boomer bubble itself. The boom of the 1990s appears to have been fueled with a massive spending binge by baby boomers. And now that the boomers have stopped spending, the economy may not recover. In fact, long term stock market trends predict that we are in a long term collapse nearly identical to the Great Depression. . . because of the boomers.

State Bankruptcy: Several states, with California taking the lead, will go bankrupt in the next 2-4 years. They have committed to spending too much and cannot raise taxes enough to cover their debts. They are hoping for a Federal bailout, but that won’t come because there is no money to give them. Look for the shock of this to push the economy into depression and to result in court ordered (1) breaking of state employee union contracts, (2) massive across the board tax hikes, and (3) slashing of benefits, which will worsen the death spiral.
So this is what Obama faces, an economic and fiscal catastrophe caused by the actions of his party over the past twenty-plus years, actions his own policies made worse. He now faces stark choices: bankruptcy or letting Medicare die as an effective benefit, bankruptcy or killing Obamacare, bankruptcy or letting the unemployed starve. His supporters will now face (1) a likely depression or deep, jobless recession, (2) broken state budgets resulting in jobs cuts for union workers and benefit cuts for core Obama supporters, and (3) a federal government that has no power to spend money to save any of Obama’s supporters from the problems they will face. The ponzi scheme has run its course and his drones will not be happy when the money stops flowing.

Moreover, Obama will need to go to war with Iran or watch as London or New York goes up in smoke. He will need to turn his back on Eurozone requests for a handout to save them from their folly – not to mention, our economy still drives the world and our depression will drag down everyone else. He will need to spend vast sums on military preparations to face down a China made aggressive by their own economic malaise and by Obama’s perceived weakness. The falling dollar will crush Mexico, Germany and China, who rely on exports to us. His policies will make gas, food and electricity costs more expensive. And he can’t deliver on any of his legislative promises.

And all the while, his people will be wondering why the ponzi scheme has stopped paying out.

It’s going to be an ugly four years.


Also, let me stress... I am NOT predicting doomsday here. That is not what this is. Each of these issues can be overcome, but they can't be overcome with Obama's policies or in ways that will leave his supporters happy.

That is the real point here, Obama faces a dilema: let the country sink and outrage his followers when the money stops OR fix things and outrage his followers by taking away their benefits.

So don't read this as an end of the world prediction.... leave that to the Mayans.

203 comments:

1 – 200 of 203   Newer›   Newest»
AndrewPrice said...

Since this is relevant and so many folks are hanging around the blog tonight, I published this early.

Kit said...

So. . . does this give the GOP an opening in 2014 or 2016?
What? I need some good news.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, If I'm reading this right, this will give an opening because the economic situation will get a lot worse and because Obama's ability to bribe his followers will fail because (1) he's out of money and (2) he's going to need to start choosing between them.

That's the end of the ponzi scheme and should strip Obama of all of his supporters except core supporters.

T-Rav said...

Great. So the GOP can take over just as all the bad consequences of his actions are taking effect. That should go well.

Yeah, I'm going to have a hard time looking on the bright side of anything right now.

StanH said...

Absolutely! The pyramid will begin to invert, sitting on it’s apex. Gravity will take over and the pyramid will collapse. Or put another way, the parasites will overwhelm the host, and the host will die, and in doing so the glue of the world, the USA, could perish.

One thing that we could do, is begin to function as a unit. When I would bring this up in early ’09 it was greeted with understandable conservative consternation…boycott. I hate boycotts, I think they’re stupid, that’s where I’m wrong however, they are still effective. If 43million producers (tea party size), or even a small percentage of the producers, we could bring company’s and institutions to a stand still. Things like business owners shutting down their businesses once a week in mass, go to a four day week. We are not slaves yet. The lost revenues both private, and public would be tremendous. Or do like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Push…shakedowns, except the people boycotting actually buy things with their own money etc. A company that is overtly leftist (GM Chrysler), we hit them where it hurts, in mass don’t buy their product. I guarantee this would be a horror in boardrooms across America. The federal/state government and municipalities would flip out. I could go on with ideas forever. Our greatest weapon IMO, is our ability to produce or not to produce, spend or not spend.

Your article this AM was spot on, with stiletto wit, sizing things up rather well. One thing that may have been overlooked, and I know this doesn’t apply to the ladies of Commentarama, but, I’ve heard a couple women say they voted out of fear. Certain groups have been putting out the “we will riot,” threat, if Barry is defeated. If you’re a woman, alone, in a major city, this could cross your mind, the security thing. What happened yesterday makes no logical sense, all political logic was turned on it’s head.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, As strangely as this may sound, this is good news for the GOP.

First, the impact will likely begin in the next 2 years and should be in full effect in four. So the blame will fall on Obama -- though the MSM will try to blame the Republicans, so they should help him out by doing things like approving tax hikes on the rich, which will make things worse but which the MSM will claim is a panacea.

Secondly, the people who will be hurt by this will be Obama's supporters. They will either stick with him or leave. They won't "defect" to Obama. So we won't lose votes because of this, but Obama will.

Third, this should prove to people that government cannot solve their problems because the further this goes, the more impotent and broke the government will become. Essentially, this is like to work like detox on government dependence.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, Thanks. I'm glad you approve of the article this morning. It's time we stop trying to protect liberals from themselves.

I totally agree about boycotts. I don't like them, but they can change the world. If even a small percentage of people boycott a company like GM or switch their business from a blue state company to a red state company, that will kill companies because bottom lines are so tight these days. That will starve those states of revenues and jobs and will shift the strength of our economy to the states that support our beliefs.

Add in the fact that because of the current economic/fiscal situation, Obama really needs to act perfectly just to keep us treading water and there is a lot of potential to leave him with the legacy of Jimmy Carter times 10.

Tam said...

I was going to ask about the clock...when will the SHTF? The sooner the better, I think. Let's get on with it already. Except, wait till after Christmas. My letter to Santa is full-on super-prepper items. We are reasonably prepared, but we're bracing for the worst, kids.

Tennessee Jed said...

powerfully stated. The problem, of course, is it is our country we are talking about. As we talked about briefly earlier, we have to go through the new great depression, worse than the first, and won't really be able to stop it. As I think about it, even if it feels good to tell Dems "told you so" that isn't much consolation.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, That's a hard question to answer because it's never clear how quickly things will happen or won't and what the effect will be on revenue. But the budget is at the limit right now and these things will happen immediately.

Taxamaggedon is in December.

Obamacare begins next year.

Downgrades, trade war with China, war with Iran could happen any time. California bankruptcy is probably in two years.

His people will want their goodies now.

So when will things boil over? I don't know, but things are already in the red line.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Thanks. I think the issue is this... this is coming either way. If Obama were Reagan, I would think he could steer us clearly, but he's not. His plan is absolutely backwards for the current situation. So this is coming and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

So my point is only to point out that Obama is not about to have a great second term. Also, we need to chart a course that makes sure the blame for the inevitable lands on the Democrats and not on our side.

wahsatchmo said...

It was a bad day at the office today. My co-workers jokingly put a "4 more years" poster on my office door, thinking I'm just a paranoid crank who doesn't understand how little elections mean.

I laughed, then patiently explained the current precarious state of the world (as I've previously commented, and as Andrew has stated above), and the current state of our finances. I didn't even point out the $1 quadrillion in global derivatives that the big banks have on their balance sheets which is premised based on nothing. If you spend 20 minutes at zerohedge.com you'll quickly realize what a disaster the world governments are in. It didn't matter to my co-workers, though, because they know that Mormanism is a cult that wants to take away your ladyparts, and Republicans hate the poor and love the rich.

I had to tell a client (a Democrat who had become disenchanted with Obama) yesterday that US Treasuries should be considered less safe than high grade corporate bonds from now on. Money markets no longer afford any protection, as I fully expect another Lehman Bros to happen. Dodd Frank did nothing to prevent this; it just made the relationship between the government and big banks more incestuous.

I'll admit now that the election is over that Romney couldn't have fixed all of this, and there's a good chance he couldn't have fixed anything. But it's clear that Americans don't want it fixed, and that's why I'm angry. Romney is also a better man than I ever gave him credit for, and I am duly impressed by him.

I won't give advice like Ann Barnhardt and tell you to try to confound the IRS with false signals, because I believe that's silly. Tax receipts will naturally go down under Obama, and by a huge amount. I am advising my clients to consider recognizing gains on investments now (and reacquiring the same position) to avoid the new 23.8% rate on capital gains (up from 15%).

I'm advising them to consider Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts to warehouse the soon to expire $5 million gift tax exemption. And I'm advising them to be aware that physical gold and silver aren't necessarily the panacea that talk radio makes them out to be, because no matter what, they ain't readily fungible.

I think we could have worked our way towards a reasonable recovery if we'd allowed the exploitation of the massive natural resources in the US, but that isn't going to happen. We are done as a country once hyperinflation hits, and at this rate it'll happen sometime in the next eight years.

I read Cerebus many years ago, and it's disturbing how close author Dave Sim was to projecting the devolution of our society into a farce of premised wealth, fueled by misandry. He had a mental breakdown during its creation, which may soon infect us all.

Jen said...

"Let them starve". Just don't come messing around my place, or you will become a statistic.

Andrew, I like your idea of not buying from blue states, but, isn't your state blue? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I was just wondering what that means for you.

Tennessee Jed said...

wasatchmo - perhaps it is a distinction without a difference. I don't know if a majority of Americans want this, I just don't think they understand it. Most of the people who are alive today didn't live through the depression, and grew up in an era where nothing really bad ever happened. Wars were something to watch on t.v., the terrorists were always caught in the nick of time, and even the very poor in this country would not starve.

Koshcat said...

I don't mind the republicans agreeing to a tax hike on the rich, but they should not accept anything less than a 90% tax on those worth over $100 million. Hell, they don't support us anyway and state that. Make Obama explain why this can't happen.

Koshcat said...

I think I need a new gun or two and some ammo...just in case...the price goes up.

Screw you NSA!

Individualist said...

Andrew

History has had another out for hyperinflation and it is even more scary. This out was taken by Germany in 1930.

When a society faces a large overwhelming debt that it can't pay it can erase that debt by attacking their debtors and taking their stuff. Not just Nazi Germany has this happened. History is replete with Kings that have done the same thing.

America is declining but it still has a large military presence. God forbid a charismatic leader take over and beat the war drum for real. It may seem unlikely now but when things start to go south extreme solutions well ... they become the new normal.

The only question is will Obama still be blaming George Bush!

AndrewPrice said...

wasatchmo, Thanks for a truly interesting post.

Don't get me started on gold. There is so much people don't understand, from the fact that it really has no "intrinsic value" except as a paper weight, that gold certificates aren't gold, to the fact that gold isn't even priced the same in different countries. Talk radio bills this like it's some sort of magic hedge, but it's not that at all.

On the rest, I think US Treasuries will be "safe" in the sense of getting paid back, but when inflation hits (and I don't know when that will be) they will be worthless. If you buy them, buy very short term.

I agree entirely that the truly depressing thing about this election is (1) we knew all of this was coming and we could have fixed so much if anyone in Washington had the will 2-4-6-8-10 years ago, and (2) the public just voted to not even try to fix it!!!! They basically just voted to try to grab as much as they could before everything blows up. That is shocking to me.

And you are totally right about Dodd Frank. It made "too big to fail" into WAY TOO BIG TOO FAIL NOW WITH FEDERAL BACKING! The financial sector has eaten the economy.

Koshcat said...

My biggest concern with a complete collapse is that many knuckle-heads will call for a state of emergency and try to either rapidly change the constitution or "set it aside."

I can hear it now, "the situation is so dire that we really don't have time to go through a presidential election. It is just too important." or "we should let Obama run for a third term. People are scared and they need something to hold onto. Something like FDR."

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, It is and my parents have already said they will start mail ordering rather than buying locally from now on.

Koshcat said...

Is Obama brave enough to go to a full scale war just to alleviate the suffering from a depression?

Jen said...

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't eat gold, or gold certificates.

Koshcat said...

By the way, thanks for letting me rant and rave incoherently. My wife was getting upset.

Jen said...

Andrew, I'm sorry (about your state that is).

wahsatchmo said...

Jed,

Too true. I've had the good life, and while the 70's were a little tight, I never wanted for anything.

But the level of misinformation exhibited even by my "moderate" co-workers is astonishing. W's foreign policy was "bad", but Barack's is "good". How so? Barack has made and expanded upon the same errors as W, offended more countries, killed more civilians, and provided a less clear vision for the future. But that's now okay because he's a Democrat?

I don't want to be down. I want to see hope for this country, but there simply is none given this electorate's propensity to avoid information while the media lies to itself.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, If I had to guess, of the 54% who pimped for Obama.... 40% are oblivious. They think there is money to spare and they are voting to get their "fair share" of other people's money. They will be truly shocked when things go wrong.

I would say another 10% know things are unsustainable but don't think there is anything they can do about it, so they are voting to get what they can and they hope the system doesn't crash.

The rest are cynically trying to get what they can even as they know the scheme is collapsing. This group will then try to exploit the collapse.

On our side, I would think most know what is coming to a degree, though I doubt many understand how bad things could get -- we don't know anything for sure at this point.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I don't mind the republicans agreeing to a tax hike on the rich, but they should not accept anything less than a 90% tax on those worth over $100 million. Hell, they don't support us anyway and state that. Make Obama explain why this can't happen.

You have no idea how much I agree with this. If Obama wants to whack the rich... LET HIM! They support him. Let them pay the price. Moreover, this will destroy jobs quicker than a jobs plague and will teach everyone down the line how liberal policies really work.

I really hope the Republicans agree to let Obama soak the rich.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Good analysis, Andrew.

The majority of voters elevated their greed n' envy above liberty and success and they will reap the consequences without the valuable, free prizes they thought they could steal.

Romney did a superb job and his loss wasn't his fault.

Granted, IF those who sat out the vote had voted for him, rather than their apathy or pride or whatever stupid excuse they use and a bunch of other big IF's, Romney may have barely won.

However, the nation has been on this increasingly left course for awhile, and it's doubtful, especially without the Senate that Romney could've done much of anything.

Apathy is increasing and so is the entitlement (pirate) attitudes of the majority of voters so best to get this over as quickly as possible and help them fail while they are in power.

Only after the full, impending impact will there be any hope that folks will see the light and appreciate the value of freedom and the destruction their greed n' envy will cause (is causing).

Even then, if we don't manage to win back American culture and foster appreciation for success, honesty, high standards and love of truth, etc., then it's game over, man.

Sheesh! I really hate this Idiocracy Groundhog Day film we are in!

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, We can't do that for two reasons. First, Americans don't believe in aggressive wars. They would need to remake society and right now the country is too split to do anything like that.

Secondly, the joke's on us... most of the debt (I think around 80%) is owed to the American people, not some foreign power.

I think what they will try to do is inflate their way out of it, which will wipe our retirements/pensions.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, NO ONE will be calling for an Obama third term. When all this stuff started happening, Obama will lose his core supporters fast. They will HATE him.

The danger is other attempts to expand the government to solve "the crisis." I'm not sure what those will be yet, but politicians stay employed by promising "swift, decisive" (read: counter-productive) action. I could see attempt to impose a sales tax or a national property tax, or setting wage and price controls.

Individualist said...

I was listening to Laura Ingraham today and she was talking about the Romney not being agressive enough argument. I think there was not enough agression but I don't blame Romney. As the candidate he is not responsible to be the attack dog as he must remain Presidential.

The lack of agression was on the side of the GOP pundits and the RNC that did not counter Obama when he was attacking Romney on Bain Capital early on. she said Romney did not respond to it. There should have been ad after ad attacking OBama including what happened to Gibson Guitar.

Our side seems caught in this Gentlemens' Poker game without realizing that the banditos are the opponents at their table.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, No problem, that's why we're here!

And do remember America is resilient and we have a way to get things done without ever hitting the worse case, even with a dipshit in the White House.

These things are bad, but aren't insurmountable.

Individualist said...

Andrew

Maybe so but if a crisis can be used to make Hitler the leader of Germany I will not rule out something like that happening here.

It maybe a long shot but if things get bad enough there is no telling what people will accept if they think it will save us.

AndrewPrice said...

wasatchmo, That's the annoying thing about liberals and idiots... they believe what they are told without ever bothering to think about the facts. Obama's foreign policy has been everything Bush's was only more so, and yet Bush was evil and Obama has been all unicorns and ponies. It's amazing how much perception becomes reality with stupid people.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Ben. What frustrates me the most is that the public has basically voted to let the country fail rather than try to fix it.

It's very frustrating, especially since so many people who should have known better either sat out for reasons (un)known or went ahead and voted their own short term self interest over their long term economic/fiscal health. This was shamefully irresponsible.

It's also troubling how uninformed or irrational the public was.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Let me also toss that back into Laura's hypocritical lap. It looks to me like the people who didn't turn out were conservatives. Those are the people who listen to the likes of Ingraham and Rush.

Ingraham, Rush, et al. spent the last several months smearing Romney at every opportunity they could get. They attacked him for everything he did and told conservatives that they shouldn't support him.

So who is to blame for how things turned out? Romney for not "fighting hard enough" in some nebulous way or talk radio conservatives for trashing him with conservatives? Gee, I can't imagine.

I put 100% of the blame on "anybody but Romney."

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, A crisis can always be used in that way, but I honestly don't see that happening. The bigger danger is just policies that keep making it worse and finally have the country limping along with a zombie economy for decades -- like Britain in the 1970s.

Koshcat said...

They will definitely try to inflate their way out of this. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 50% monatary devaluation.

What I have come to understand is most people really do not understand macro-economics nor do they understand how something in one part of the world effects them.

AndrewPrice said...

Update to the article:

Also, let me stress... I am NOT predicting doomsday here. That is not what this is. Each of these issues can be overcome, but they can't be overcome with Obama's policies or in ways that will leave his supporters happy.

That is the real point here, Obama faces a dilema: let the country sink and outrage his followers when the money stops OR fix things and outrage his followers by taking away their benefits.

So don't read this as an end of the world prediction.... leave that to the Mayans.

Koshcat said...

Andrew, what are your thoughts about Colorado and buying "local"? We are more a purple than a blue state although it is shifting.

Koshcat said...

Dec. 12 is coming. Maybe the Mayans were right but just off a couple of years.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, So true. I am amazed how many people think that they are immune to what is happening elsewhere. If we go into depression, the Eurozone is dead, China will likely end up with an intern insurrection, and Mexico will collapse.

I also agree about the devaluation. BUT there's a catch. Right now they can't do it because every other country is trying to devalue at the same time. That's like everyone trying to cheat the same amount in a footrace.

Koshcat said...

One thing I have to keep in mind is that although many people voted for Obama, far more districts voted for Republicans. As irritated as I am, and I will cool off soon, this gives me a glimmer of hope that most of the people who live in normal towns and try to live normal lives agree with us. We still have a chance.

Good night, everyone.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, On the one hand, I don't mind supporting local businesses that I know are conservative. On the other hand, I don't want to give the state another penny. I think I'm going to deal with local conservative El Paso County businesses and otherwise look to mail order everything.

Maybe the Mayans were right after all?

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, We do have a chance, and your point is exactly why I think we need to get more selective about dealing with red states and red companies. We need to shift the wealth in this country from the blue to red states.

Similarly, I want to see the Republicans start being very territorial about making sure red states benefit at the expense of blue states.

T-Rav said...

Hmmm. I think I just got an idea for Friday's post.

Meanwhile, I was pleased as punch to see the markets tank today. Wall Street contributed to this by lapping up quantitative easing; it serves them all right.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It was a sustained sell off too -- wide, deep and consistent. I think the market will drift up tomorrow and maybe Friday, but next week I think we begin a 10% plunge. They know what's coming and it's ugly.

Commander Max said...

Government the ultimate Hype, only on the day of payout does your money disappear. Quite frankly I would rather give my money to a internet hype. At least those guys are not going to waste the money. Even if they spent it on hookers and booze(at least it's not our tax dollars).

I was really bummed last night, I had a heck of a time sleeping. There are so many implications I'm sure most of us could type a book on our worries.
But I have to admit a fascination with seeing these financial events unfold.
Plus a lot of politicians running around like Muppets, all thinking they put this off till after they leave office.

K said...

If Obama wants to whack the rich... LET HIM!

Amen Andrew. Personally, I'd go with a 90 percent tax on anything over 10 million/yr. That would do more to change the Hollywood culture to something a lot more libertarian than a thousand "Big Hollywood"s.

Patriot said...

One of the better arguments (here?) that I've read dealt with the reality......and I see it all around me every day......that the majority of Americans are content with the status quo of handouts, social decay, victimization and hate. By appealing to our baser natures, zero and his monkeys have convinced a large cohort..starting with young adults <30...that Repugs are really evil and want to oppress and harm others, especially them.

To think that a "war on women" campaign would work, I thought would be insane! Yet, in talking with very educated professional women, young women, even older retired women, the war words worked. They were convinced, they KNEW, that those evil white religious zealot men, want to harm them. Not any particulars mind you, just that they KNEW they would be harmed, and they had to vote against them. Akin and Mourdock were perfect foils for this approach. With their pinched faces and Cotton Mather speech, the Dems had their poster boys. Perfect timing.

And oh yes, I believe this was the plan from the git-go....when George Stepalloverus brought up contraception in the primary debates, the game was on and the dems had their issue.

I remember railing out when the debates were announced and who the moderators were. When the stoopid party leaders agreed to the moderators, they handed the rope to the dems. If the repubs are THAT stoopid to keep agreeing to a format purposely, intentionally and publicly designed to advocate for their opponent and their policies, then you know what, they deserved every piece of rotten "Candy" and "Martha Rattz" they got. I imagine Lucy as the dems, the ball as the debates and the stoopid party as C. Brown every 2-4 years. "You promise you'll be fair and balanced this year..right? Oh yeah, trust us!"

Idiots.... Thank God I'm not affiliated with the Repubs. Even though I voted party line this year because of the alternative. Where do people like me go? (Face palm)

Anthony said...

Andrew,

If Iran was suicidal, they could have easily induced us or Israel to kill them a long time ago. Based on their past behaviour, Iran is seeking nukes as a shield, not a sword.

After 9/11, the US decided that we would take the fight to our enemies. Iran (high on that list of enemies) decided that the key to its survival is nuclear weapons. Complicating things is the quest for nukes is more popular than the regime itself (many developing countries see nukes as a sign of prestige).

Unfortunately, the fact that Iran isn't planning to atomize NY (Iran's leadership is happy to affiliate with suicide bombing, but they all seem to be content with existence this side of the veil) doesn't mean nukes won't translate into more deaths.

Iran likes to play lethal games (aggravating its enemies without doing something so bloody that it pushes them to put Iran out of their misery) so a more confident Iran would translate into more (and bloodier) terror attacks.

Last and but not least (probably formost in the minds of policymakers in the US and Israel) conventional war on Iran would make the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan look like the invasion of Panama unless they've developed an aversion to suicide bombing since the Iran-Iraq War.

StanH said...

Yeah, that’s my new smartass retort to star articles on BH, just a simple “Wealth Tax.” This was something Huey (Kingfish) Long wanted, anyone with a net worth of $10million or more would be taxed at a 90% wealth tax. I believe this is a mantra that we need to get started, and our liberal myrmidons (OWS) would jump right on the bandwagon, you know, “it’s not fair.” My goodness the turnaround from Wall Street to Tinsel Town would be swift, complete, and fun to watch.

Patriot said...

....and does anyone here think there was ANY vote fraud going on Tuesday? No....never! Heaven forfend!! As close as most "battleground" states were, it wouldn't take much to swing 2-3% one way to zero on the electronic voting machines. I know...I know...that would NEVER happen in the US! They are programmed infallibly!!

Patti said...

I said, right after the election was called,"At least we have December 21st to look forward to."

Talk about shovel-ready jobs. We're each gonna need a shovel to dig out of this mess.

Individualist said...

Patriot

There "may be" Fraud on the DNC side but I think the real issue is voter intimidation.

I saw it in 94 at the precint I was a poll watcher for a campaign. Their side showed up at 9 am and wrote down the names of everyone who had not voted. They gave this list to a guy giving "free rides" to the polls who happened to be the landlord of the Section 8 Housing project.

This is how they are able to "train" (their word) the poor to vote.

Individualist said...

Andrew

Inflation at levels of Jimmy Carter was 20%. We endured that.

I am almost certain the spending levels are going to exceed that level. At 50% it would really hurt but I think we might still be able to survive.

The question is does it get away from the "geniuses" at Gold man Sachs .. er .. I mean the Fed who are tweaking things with monetary policy to curtail this. If it does then we have levels that will skyrocket to Argentina in the 1990's levels where you had to be paid every day and then spend all your excess check on tolilet paper to have something to barter.

I don't have the faith that you do that they can't f this up even more or that they won't.

Individualist said...

the only talk radio I have been listening to is Levin and Andy Dean and at least in the General they did not appear to be so negative but I have not been following Religiously.

I think part of the problem is that during the general the "punditry" class spends all this time lambasting "conservative" candidates as too extreme or they go after them the way the did Cain. They annoint some Politico as the one "acceptable" enough to independents and piss off the conservatives who then return the favor in the general.

The party has got to stop this fear of the "moderates" and simply allow the candidates in the primary to make their case and trust the GOP voters to pick the right guy and this includes the negative spin on Paul I think.

obiwan2009 said...

Indi, my church (Catholicism) is going to be working overtime in the coming years on the charity work and service projects. I'm pretty sure just about all other nonprofit and charities either will or should be too. Because with the government projections of crushing debt, and handouts possibly limited due to inflation, well, guess who's left to help out: yep, you have it, those who can dish out food or shelter as opposed to actual currency.

As for war, not entirely beyond the president to stay out of it, however, the domestic spending will still be a trash heap in debt. It would make Mozart proud how an entire nation could accumulate debt proportionally better than he did.

Anthony said...

Individualist,

I don't think it makes sense to blame pundits for the loss. Obama got less support from Democrats and independents in 2012 than he did in 2008, but Romney got less support from Republicans in 2012 than McCain did in 2008.

Pundits/leaders matter, but they shouldn't have kept Republicans with two brain cells to rub together from supporting Romney. Individuals are responsible for their own idiocy.

StanH said...

I agree Anthony. When Rick Santorum went down the evangelicals said screw it. When Herman Cain went down conservatives said screw it. I read it on several blog sites, and heard it with callers to talk radio. 18million less voted in 2012 than ’08 and 14million less than ’04, this is significant.

BevfromNYC said...

You know, we know what the answer is because we saw it when Obama took office. He will concentrate on HIS agenda. And if that happens to align with creating an environment that helps with job growth, then great. If not, it doesn't matter. He can do whatever the hell he wants and there will be no one to stop him. Boehner?? Never gonna happen. He will cave like a professional spelunker just to make it look like he's a good little Republican bipartisan hack.

The Republican party is dead and rightfully so. It's full a bunch of idiots and religious fanatics who cannot see passed their own pinheaded agenda. That is why I will remain an independent until the day I day. News flash - Abortion ain't going away and neither is Gay Marriage. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!!! And those Catholic and other religious charities will have to pay for it if they have employees. Get used to it.

We will get nothing but more taxes, more debt, and more whiners on the dole. I am of the opinion that if this is what people want then so be it. And when we run out of other peoples' money, then Timmy Geithner will just print more for us.

T-Rav said...

Patriot, there was undoubtedly fraud going on, but there's a certain point at which even that can't throw an election. If Republicans had turned out at 2008 levels, two or three states would have gone our way, fraud or no fraud. The core problem is within our own side.

BevfromNYC said...

Oh, and the layoffs have begun - Boeing is closing it's plant in California and layoff it's workers in anticipation of cuts in military spending. And there is one business owner who warned his staff if Obama was re-elected, he'd have to lay off workers and did yesterday. He laid off a third of his staff. He said he has to protect his business from the coming healthcare mandates and other taxes coming his way.

BevfromNYC said...

Patriot - There was no voter fraud in NY, just massive polling incompetence on every level. It was astounding how incompetent the people running the polls were. One of my friends told me that her ballot got jammed in the electronic scanner and they told her that it was okay, that they'd count her vote later. She was furious and refused to leave until she knew her vote would be counted. Scanners broke down at every polling place, three hour waits to vote, chaos, and incompetence. I couldn't stop laughing at how breathtakingly stupid it was. And to top it all off, only 45% of registered voters voted!

tryanmax said...

I had nearly forgotten that the world is ending on December 21st. That allays my fears quite a bit! LOL!

Stan, I think that perfectly illustrates how the Republican vote was winnowed away. In the case of Santorum and the Evangelicals, I say 'good riddance' but in the case of Herman Cain, I cast a lot of blame on the radio talkers.

To my knowledge, none of the claims against him have yet to be substantiated, but all the radio hosts immediately to the "if it's true..." track at the first word.

If there is one thing conservatives are abysmal at, it's defending our own against nonsense. All the left has to do is put a hint of sex on the allegation and our side scatters like rats. It's pathetically predictable.

tryanmax said...

Oh, and BTW, for those serious about gravitating toward red-state companies for your purchases, you won't go hungry. ConAgra is based in Omaha and they make pretty much everything.

AndrewPrice said...

Max, It's going to be interesting to see all of this gets handled. These really are "hard limits" which the political class now faces, meaning these things will happen and they need to handle them. For generations now they've been able to put these things off, but no longer really. I don't think they have the ability to deal with them, but we'll see. A business could deal with this easily, but I don't think our political class can.

Totally agree about the hookers and booze too.

AndrewPrice said...

K, Thank you! That's exactly my point. These people are Obama supporters and they know he will never raise their taxes, it's just rhetoric. So let's call his bluff and make him raise their taxes and then we'll see much they like it. I'd love to see Matt Damon lost 90% of his income and see how happy is to pimp for leftists after that.

If this is what Obama's supporters want, and it will only hurt Obama supporters, let's give it to them!

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, The thing is, it's not just Akin and Mourdock and it didn't start with the debates. The Democrats have been pushing the "war on women" idea since at least the 1990s, and the Republicans play into it.

For a generation or two now, women have heard a large number of Republicans and affiliated religious leaders rail against women in the work place and unmarried women, while pushing the idea that they want to constitutionally ban contraception, abortion and gays -- most single women I know have gay friends and here is an entire political party calling them immoral and claiming they want to limit their rights. That doesn't fly. It is very easy for women to believe the Democratic talking points when the Republicans themselves are out there living up to those.

And while most us can dismiss this as "the crazy uncle" wing of the party and point out that nothing they want will ever happen, it must be troubling to see every single candidate in the primary pledging to do crap like giving fetuses 14th Amendment rights, breaking down into tears over other people having abortions, and nodding their heads with constitutional bans on gay marriage combined with Michelle Bachmann's husband running a gay "reprogramming" program.

This is a party whose members are either obsessed with controlling young women's sex lives or who are unwilling to stand up to the people who are.

And then add in the fact they impeached Clinton over having an affair -- again lifting the bedroom over everything else. And I can name at least four Republicans who've said truly offensive things about rape.

If you are a young woman and you hear Obama promising to make sure you get "work place equality" while all the Republican candiates foam at the mouth to force you have kids if you get raped and suggest they want to drive you from the workplace and make you get married or else you don't matter... who would you choose?

AndrewPrice said...

Also, let me add, when you find yourself splitting hairs about what people "really meant," you've lost. A lot of conservatives will say, "well, that's not really what these people mean." That doesn't matter. The public does not sit down and try to analyze statements to get to intent. They take the most obvious meanings of things. And when you get an Akin or a Mourdock and they fit right in with a Falwell, a Pat Robertson, a Gary Bauer, a Michelle Bachmann, and their political goals are identical to every Republican contender on stage, only a fool would think the public is going to dismiss those statements as not being part of a pattern.

Speaking objectively, it is a more than reasonable interpretation to believe that the Republican Party is obsessed with the sex lives of young women.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, Here's the problem as I see it with Iran.

1. Their people want nukes because they think it will make them the big regional power, which is something they have wanted for decades. So they won't stop.

2. Their leaders are desperate people. That makes them unpredictable. And they believe that hurting us will help them with their people.

3. The Arab world would see them as heroes if they blew up a crusader city like London or New York. AND they don't need to do it with a missile to get the credit. Basically, it just needs to happen and they will get the credit on the Arab street. BUT if they used a proxy, then the Western World has shown it doesn't have the nerve to blame them. So it would make a lot of sense to Iran's leaders to build a bomb and then give it to an "unaffiliated" terrorist group to put it on a boat and blow it up in a harbor. They get the credit in the Arab world but the West won't do anything about it because they can't point the finger 100%.

4. Making this even more likely, is that if Iran gets the bomb, then Saudi and others in the region will follow. When 4-5 powers there have a bomb, it becomes impossible to trace who set off the terrorist bomb, meaning it's easier to get away setting off a bomb. It also raises the likelihood of someone like Saudi setting one off to try to blame Iran.

That's the danger, not a suicidal missile strike.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I think it makes sense. Right now they are using this "tax the rich" rhetoric because it works for them and they know it won't happen because the Republicans will stand in the way. I say we make it happen. Watch their rich supporters freak out. Watch as they suddenly have a lot less to donate and their lifestyles crash.

Moreover, watch as jobs vanish and the economy tanks and the deficit doesn't close.

This is a good idea to let the public see what happen. Elections have consequences and we need to make sure the left bears the consequences of this one.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Voter fraud is a red herring. Yes, it may have cost us a bit at the edges, but make no mistake that this was a genuine defeat. Don't lose track of that by worrying about voter fraud. There is a MUCH bigger problem here.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, It's going to be interesting to see how things play out, isn't it?

Joel Farnham said...

Well, I say, let's sell to blue states but buy nothing from them. Sell everything except food. Buy only from Red States.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Voter intimidation is not the problem. The problem is that we lost because more of the public wants things to continue this way than doesn't.

In terms of the media, look first at the underlying problem. The conservative media was unable to spot who was conservative and who wasn't, and they went on this stupid 9-month rampage where they smeared candidate after candidate and made massively confusing statements about who believes what and why. How can you win when your won side spends months tearing down your own people.

By the time the MSM was ready to help Obama, our guys were already blown apart. That's where the blame lies.

AndrewPrice said...

obiwan, I suspect war is inevitable.

The big problems charities are about to face is that the public will give a lot less when they have less and were looking at a recession for sure.

Jen said...

Bev, Your comments sound a lot like what my sister was telling me last night (gay marriage, etc.). She was crying the night of the election because we were on the phone for over 5 hours! She updated me with vote counts, and I was reading comments from here. Like T-Rav, she had a very hard time voting for Akin, but wasn't about to vote for McCaskill.

Andrew, et al, I'm all for the red state support idea. Is there anyway for those of us in red states to come up with a list to support businesses in those kinds of states? Kind of like Bev's "Commentaramanary", where it can be updated? It was just a thought.

I was informed of something last night from my sister. My brother, who was wanting all the collapse to happen in this country by supporting Obama has been delivered the prize--he longer has a job. He was pissed at my mom because of who she voted for, and I told him "Careful what you wish for". Whoops. Talk about poetic justice? It's not really funny because now he will be siphoning more money off my parents to pay for his home, etc.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony and Stan, I blame conservative pundits, not the MSM.

I think the real failure here was that talk radio spent months WHINING about everything and then more months smearing Romney and whining how he's no different than Obama. They all but told conservatives "don't vote."

That is where the blame lies here. This election is on Rush, Laura Ingram and the rest. They elected Obama.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I generally agree. The Republican Party needs to wake up from its fantasy. It has been lying to itself too long about its ability. It needs to rebuild itself as the party of personal freedom and it needs to get over its hangups and its delusions.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Exactly. Fraud is a red herring and talking about it only distracts from the real problem: we lost because we couldn't get the support of the public.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I expect more to come.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think talk radio bears a ton of blame in this election.

They spent months smearing every single candidate in the primary, jumping from one leftist fool to the next as "the genuine conservative" with no idea what that even meant. Then they jumped on the Anybody But Romney bandwagon and never got off. They basically spent a year telling conservatives, "don't vote any of these people."

They should have been finding reasons to vote FOR the candidates, not tearing them down.

I blame them to a huge degree for this.

BevfromNYC said...

Jen - I will be happy to keep a list going. We need to put the C-nary somewhere where people can access it too.

Let's start by charging a premium for oil/gas to Northeast Blue states...just like in the '70's. Because it's going to be an usually harsh winter this year. Let 'em freeze to death, if they won't frack for their own gas then charge them double for privilege. I'm seriously planning on moving back to a Red State within the year and hoping that this Red state will secede. I'd much rather be a Texas than an American these days

AndrewPrice said...

FYI, if anyone is interested, check out

http://www.benefits.gov/

This site may help you find some benefits. If you qualify, take them.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Very mercantilist! LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, That is ironic. I hope there's a direct connection between the election and his losing his job.

K said...

Patriot: ...zero and his monkeys have convinced a large cohort..starting with young adults <30...that Repugs are really evil

It didn't start with BHO. I have children's books from the 80s where Republicans are identified by name as bad and unhip people. Unfortunately, this kind of cultural propaganda was ignored by the right just as they ignored the left taking over the schools.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I'd love to see a blue state tax!

AndrewPrice said...

K, Yep. This has been going on for a long time. Since the 1930s, the Republicans have been called the party of the rich. In the 1960s they were the party of conformity. In the 1980s they became the racist party of white rich people. In the 1990s they became anti-woman/religious zealot party. In the 2000s they became the anti-immigrant party.

This has been a long process and unfortunately, too many Republicans have been happy to play into it at each step.

Commander Max said...

Let's hope the political class is smart enough to realize we have a problem. I know some will, but a lot of them quite frankly are not equipped to handle this situation.

It makes me think of the movie, "Eric the Viking", the island of Hy-Brasil is under water while King Arnulf is denying anything is wrong(while he is drowning).

Tennessee Jed said...

1) future bleak* Fully realizing this may be informational detail you didn't need, I went for a colonoscope this morning, so if it seemed like I was full of crap yesterday . . . well, . . . Talking with the young lady at registration. They have been told they will probably start to lose hours because people are foregoing tests because of increased premiums and co-pays because; you get the idea if yout though "OBAMACARE." We didn't build that for damned sure.

T-Rav said...

Jen, you mean your brother voted for Obama because he was hoping there would be collapse and a revolution? That's twisted.

T-Rav said...

Jed, I have a friend (from east-central Tennessee, incidentally) whose father is a doctor, and she was telling me Tuesday night that he may just take retirement in a few years instead of trying to continue his own practice. The regulations and payments just make it not worth it anymore.

BevfromNYC said...

Commander Max - Sadly, our political class is not smart enough to do much of anything useful. As they say military jargon, we've got a classic S.N.A.F.U. - Systems Normal, All F'ed Up- government/political class...

Jen said...

Bev, thanks! I agree with your thinking on oil/gas thing. I (and I think my sister as well) feel much better after reading the comments here. I'm wanting to share the info here, and if you get something done up for a list, I'll be happy to pass it along. And, if you are seriously thinking of going Texas style, pick me up on the way by--I'll fit right in! My ex has an uncle in Fort Worth. Him and I got along real well.

Andrew, I'll have to find out more details, but the job he was doing relied on him picking up things to used in heart valve replacements. He told me a while back that things were starting to slow down. The procedures were going to be something that won't be done very much (help me out here if you know more info on it)due to Obamacare. I have not talked to him yet, but he can't tell me I didn't say "I told you so".

tryanmax said...

Andrew, and they did it all under the guise of "strengthening the candidates." What a bunch of malarkey (to borrow a term)! You don't train for battle the same way you fight the war. If your idea of "strengthening" is to maim your own and see who still walks, you end up with a champion wounded before the opponent even strikes. Idiots!

Jen said...

T-Rav, Yes, that's what he was thinking. It's to fulfill is own twisted prophecy. And if you and I were corresponding by email, I'd be more than happy to tell you. I think you'd understand what I mean.

AndrewPrice said...

Pike, I think they are unable to respond because (1) they live in fear of giving bad news, (2) they don't believe/understand things are this bad, and (3) they are safe districts and they understand that they can blame everyone else to avoid getting hurt. They will only be punished for their actions, not their inactions.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I have to doctors basically and one is retiring because he's sick of dealing with the Obamacare changes and the other said Obamacare made it impossible for him to practice independently, so he sold his practice to the hospital and now works for salary.

obiwan2009 said...

Andrew, first of all, thanks for this post, the numbers answered most of what I asked yesterday regarding CA, budgets, debt, and so on. I seem to see a surge on the news network this morning of buying shares of gold and silver, doesn't sound good, but at least the dealers and pawn shops might be happy because of this.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, "All F'd" up is right, only it's not the word you think, it's "fed'd".

AndrewPrice said...

Obiwan, You're welcome. People need to know what is out there. Like I said, none of this is insurmountable. If, for example, we really opened up drilling across the country, we could beat most of this with almost no pain. But Obama isn't going to do the right things because it will hurt his core supporters, so we are headed toward a wall.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It's all been cynical self interest. They have been trying to gain audience share by tearing down the candidates. And the idea that they are strengthening them is nothing more than PR meant to deflect from the harm they were doing... and they knew that.

And now that the election is over, they will start pointing fingers at everyone else because so that their listeners don't get the idea that they caused this.

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Bev: I too have decided to leave Pennsylvania for a red state. It makes me sick to continue paying property taxes to the liberals in Pittsburgh and state tax to the liberals and RINOs of Pennsylvania. I never would've considered leaving for political reasons until election night. That was the final straw.

tryanmax said...

Well, on the subject of boycotts, I've decided that since we're all socialists for really real now, I'm switching to NPR.

NOTE: This is really a call for help. Put me on suicide watch, please!

AndrewPrice said...

Somebody send tryanmax a catalog... he wants a watch he can use to kill himself with.

A Swiss Army Watch perhaps?

AndrewPrice said...

Pitts, Excellent choice. Pennsylvania strikes me as a lost cause.

Anthony said...

Andrew,

1. Very true.

2. Starting a war to trigger a rally round the flag impulse is a time honored tradition, but not with opponents that could easily kill you.

3. A proxy wouldn't be enough if there was that much bloodshed. Its worth bearing in mind that nation states doesn't need to meet burdens of proof (as Saddam Hussein could attest if he wasn't too dead to talk).

Being the most obvious culprit of a bloody terror attack isn't a healthy place to be, even if you cut the throats of everyone that could implicate you in a court of law.

Also, credit on the Arab street is fine and good, but that pretty much amounts to other midgets on the sidelines applauding your 'courage' as the big guy you just pinched stomps you to death.

4. Yes, if Iran gets the bomb, the Saudis and others will follow, greatly increasing the danger.

There is little appetite in the US for another big war in a Muslim country (barring provacation) so the most likely scenario is that the US and Israel bomb Iran's nuke facilities. That wouldn't wipe out the program, but it would set it back years.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - Israel will bomb Iran, but the US will publicly condemn them along with everyone else in the world. However they will privately applaud Israel for doing what had to be done when no other country has the balls. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear sites in 1980 to the great public condemnation/private congratulations from the world. But then again, it's popular to hate the Jews again, so maybe they'll just be condemned.

Yes, it is pretty clear that we will not be coming to the rescue of any Middle East conflicts. However we will continue to give Egypt and Hamas millions so they can bomb Israel and continue to give millions to Israel to not retaliate and to buy information from the Mossad. If only the CIA were as competent as the Mossad.

rlaWTX said...

We're screwed.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, In a technical sense you are correct that no court-of-law level proof is required. But think about this from the perspective of the Iranians. They look at the west and they see a people who HATE and disowned Bush for attacking Iraq. They saw NO response to the bombing of our embassies by Clinton. They saw no response to the bombings in London or Spain. They saw no response from Obama to what happened in Africa. In Libya, he's talking law enforcement "find them, bring them to justice."

They hear the Europeans whining in their skirts at the prospect that any of their soldiers might get killed in action in Afghanistan -- most won't even send combat troops and run home the moment their troops get caught using harsh language.

They know they have nothing to fear from Europe and probably nothing to fear from the US unless there is overwhelming proof they did it.

At the same time, 9/11 made bin Laden famous and brought him love, respect and about 100,000 die hard followers in the middle east. All the Iranians want is to be recognized as the leaders of the region and feared. This would do it. And if they blew up London or Madrid instead of New York, then they know the Euros not only won't respond militarily, they couldn't respond militarily and they won't let us respond for them.

The math totally favors a terrorist style attack on a European city.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Very succinct. LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I don't think Israel can do this one alone. Iran is too far away and the sites are too well protected. It will take a week of bombings to give this a chance.

Anthony said...

Andrew,

Bush had problems because the given reason for the invasion (WMDs) didn't hold up, he never really formulated an endgame, and American bodies stacked up. Assuming that one could kill thousands or millions of Americans and benefit from a similar attitude strikes me as profoundly optimistic.

A fact that probably didn't escape the notice of the Iranians is how quickly the Iraqi army was crushed and how, while the occupation has been bloody for us, all of Saddam's top goons (and Saddam himself) wound up dead or in jail. Like I said, Iran's leadership seems happy with existence this side of the veil.

Also, scale and location matter (timing factors in as well). Killing a small number of Americans abroad is one thing (the Iranians got away with killing on a massive scale in 1983, but we were distracted by the USSR at the time) killing thousands or millions on American soil (I know embassies and consulates are technically on American soil) is another.

Anthony said...

Its also worth bearing in mind that Bin Laden has been in the run/hiding since 9/11. You can do that if you are leading an army of mobile goons, that's impossible if you are running a state.

Look at the difference between Hamas's and the PLO's behaviour before they won power and their post-power behaviour. They aren't necessarily less crazy, but they do spill a lot less blood, because they know they are easy to find.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I don't think Israel cares whether they can do this alone. They WILL do it alone if they have to. They cannot count on ANY country to help them since the US has been Israel's ONLY true ally ever. And it was pretty clear to me that Obama was just putting on a show for the American Jews so they'd continue to vote for him. He will NEVER authorize a pre-emptive strike on Iran. If he does, then I will shave my head and walk on my knees through glass. Obama no longer has to prove how tough he can be, because he isn't and he won't.

But let's hope he proves me wrong and I can shave my head...

But the good news is that when Israel is finally destroyed the Palestinians will finally have their UN sanctioned country. And the world can finally breathe a collective sigh of relief that The Final Solution of the Extremination of the Jews is complete and the world can finally be at peace...

Pardon my bleak outlook, but Israel and Jews are toast (no sick Holocaust pun intended). I have known it every since Obama was elected and the stark and most frightening rise in unanswered Anti Semitic rhetoric and physical attacks around the world afterwards. It was almost immediate. It's war on Jews again. Frankly, I stopped wearing my Star of David a few weeks ago...

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, In my opinion, it's a mistake to put too much faith in these guys being rational. I agree that "the regime" is largely rational, but (1) rational does not mean peaceful, they have benefited a lot in the past from doing nasty things as a regime and have never been punished for it, and (2) not all of them are that rational. Indeed, they the fact they are fighting each other internally only increases the likelihood of someone taking a more risky strategy.

Also, don't discount the idea of someone else doing to blame Iran. It would be an easy way for Pakistan to wipe out a regional competitor.

In terms of attacking US soil, that's why I think the target will be London. For one thing, there would be no fall out over Arab lands. For another, we would not be the ones in control. Look at the response of Spain when they got hit -- they announced they were leaving the coalition. Why would Iran believe that any European country would authorize us to attack Iran in retaliation? I just think the math adds up in favor of Iran thinking they could get away with it.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I don't know what to tell you except that the Jews do remain the world's scapegoats and the left is increasingly antisemitic. I do tend to believe the US will defend Israel no matter what, but it can't be a good feeling for the Israelis that they need to depend on Obama.

As for him proving he's tough, I have to disagree. I think the truth is that Obama is petulant and he will use the military when he is offended... not to prove anything.

tryanmax said...

Bev, but sick Holocaust jokes are the best! ;-) j/k

Seriously, I am worried about the fate of Israel and Jews myself, and aside from present company, I don't know any Jews. It's always stunned me how otherwise rational people can get entirely stupid when it comes to Israel/Palestine if they happen to be antisemitic.

I once went through every possible claim a people can make to a piece of land and demonstrated how the Jews have every single one in regards to Israel to show a guy he was wrong on the issue, but to no avail. Left with no arguments that he could even compel himself with, he told me the Jews just don't deserve any land anywhere because they are too intolerant. I bid him, "Heil, mein F├╝hrer!" and haven't spoken with him since.

BevfromNYC said...

It is possible that we may defend Israel with words, not with physical support or actions...

I am not saying that Obama is not petulant OR weak, I'm just saying that he was making a show for the American Jews and to prove that he can blow stuff up and kill people just as well as anyone. I'm saying that he WON'T because he doesn't have to pander anymore to anyone. And he dislikes Israel and Jews just as much as anyone. Why else would he continually shun and belittle Netanyahu, not in words, but in deeds. Snubbing him during UN General Assembly in September and making sure that Netanyahu is photographed exiting the WH from the back door through the garbage cans...

Commander Max said...

Bev, I'm well aware of SNAFU, and Murphy is a close personal friend.

I have just as much confidence that this government will solve it's problems. As convincing a lib that it wasn't Bush's fault.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I don't understand antisemitism, but it seems to be a huge part of the human condition the world over. It's ironic to me too that at the same time the left squeals about "racism" everywhere, they have gone whole hog on antisemitism.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, shifting gears here, I agree with your sentiments on the social issues, but as a practical matter, I don't see the conservative movement putting the abortion issue fully aside. For too many, it's legal murder. So, asking from a purely pragmatic perspective, how does the conservative movement alter that part of its message to not be so scary?

My thinking is to take the religious angle off of it. "Because the Bible says so" is not a compelling political argument. I think it could be reframed as a civil rights issue, which detoxifies it greatly. Also, in doing so, the argument necessarily shifts focus away from the procedure and onto the unborn baby. Keep the procedure legal from an "all options" standard of medical care. If folks want to argue about a foot-in-the-door, let them, but keep it out of the party platform. Let that be the end of the talk of abortion. Same goes for contraception.

As for questions about rape and incest, those become much more easily deflected because the person asked can very rightly say they aren't talking about those issues. Thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Obviously we can't say for sure, but I really can't believe the US would not treat an attack on Israel as an attack on the US.

On Obama, I get your point. I'm just saying, don't think he's afraid to use the military when it suits him. He's no pacifist.

I do agree he does appear to be anti-Israel, but I'm not sure how much that will affect his policy if push came to shove because his party is heavily dominated by Jews and they will push him when it counts... I think.

tryanmax said...

I think the universality of antisemitism--aside from other religions whose doctrine it is to simply hate Jews--stems from the fact that the traditional Jewish value system is simply at odds with what we currently label liberalism and liberalism would seem to be the default setting for most humans.

AndrewPrice said...

Max, They'll try the "it's Bush's fault" game, but I can't imagine that will keep working for another four years. At some point, even liberals will demand results.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, The point you make is rational, but can't work. Here's why.

People like Akin are nuts. To them, abortion (and their hate of gays) IS THE REASON for the party. And these ARE religious issue and nothing else. So asking them to tone it down or to stop quoting the Bible just won't work. They see this as their mission on the planet and they honestly think the rest of us admire them for it... not to mention the Biblical arguments work with everyone they know.

To them, this is an obsession and your suggestion that they stop citing the Bible is like telling an accountant to stop worrying about how much something costs -- a "logical" absurdity and an undermining of the very purpose of what they are doing. To the Akin crowd, the Biblical argument is undeniable logical perfection and the problem is the rest of us dirty sinners just don't get it... we are wrong, not them.

Moreover, as I said, to these people, abortion (and their hate of gays) IS THE REASON for the party. So they won't accept anything less than 100% fealty on this issue. And if they don't get it, they will either fight to get such fealty or they will leave the party.

And if they will inevitably leave if we do this, then it makes a lot more sense to change the party position to a more mainstream position like restrictions, no government funding, but legal -- a position that I would bet you the vast majority of Republicans hold.

Commander Max said...

I'm sure the Obama administration will maintain it's bend over and let the sunshine in policy.

It will always be Bush's fault, even Micheal's eating habits(big butt) will be Bush's fault.

AndrewPrice said...

Max, I have no doubt they will try to keep it all Bush's fault, but at some point, that just doesn't work anymore.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - "A Glimpse of the Future" is Safari Reader enabled :) l.o.l.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, LOL! I have no answer for you. It really it beyond my power to explain anything related to blogger!

Joel Farnham said...

I think going "Forward" we should start to clarify that fear was dominate in this year's election.

Fear of the Mormon.
Fear of losing Abortion rights.
Fear of having to leave momma's basement to actually look for a job.
Fear of actually having to be responsible for one's success and failures.

None of these were addressed by the Republicans.

No one was allaying any fears about Mormons.

Akin and Mourdock successfully articulated a Republican intent to stop all abortions.

Romney always talked about putting people to work.

Obama even took away the need for a job for welfare.


Democrats played up these fears.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I get all that. I revised my question and proposal a couple of times before I hit send, and I think what got left out is that I am predicating the whole thing on the idea that the Akins can be ejected. I think even without that faction, there are still a lot of Republicans who think a conservative worldview includes opposition to abortion for non-religious reasons.

So I guess my question boils down to, can non-religious opposition to abortion work politically? Or is it really that frightening to too many people?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I am having a hard time answering that because I don't think it's possible to get there from here.

By this point, the issue has become entirely premised on religion, i.e. everyone sees this as a religious matter. So I don't see the Akin crowd stopping the religious rhetoric (or allowing it to leave the platform) and I don't think anyone on the other side will buy that a change in rhetoric isn't just a ruse to hide "the real intent," which is to impose a theology on the US.

If... if you could somehow convince people that you oppose it on non-religious grounds, then I don't think that would bother people very much because I don't think abortion is the issue. I think the issue IS the fear that these people want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us and use that to oppress women, Jews, gays, atheists, people who are indifferent to religion, etc.

In other words, I agree with you if it was possible to convince people that your reasoning was not religious, but I don't think that's even remotely possible.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I would add that fear of Mormonism was pushed both by the MSM and by the Religious Right. And it appears it was the Religious Right who didn't turn out.

Also, as I just said to trynamax, I don't think the issue is actually "the right to have an abortion," I think the issue is "fear that some whackjob religious nut wants to use the Republican Party to impose his religious views on me."

Commander Max said...

I can use a lot words to describe Obama. But smart isn't one of them.
The only problem, his condition is contagious.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

As I read the Republican Platform from the convention that Nominated a Mormon, that is exactly what the Republicans wanted to do. Now, you and I KNOW that is not the case, but how do you explain it away when it is part of the platform?

Joel Farnham said...

Oh, one more thing, when the Democrats got rid of God and something else, I forget, from the Democrat Platform The Leadership went against the will of the people there and forced it back in.

We thought it was typical of Democrats to force something down the people's throats. Nope, it was to allay the Religious Right's fears of Godless Democrats and give no ammunition to the Republicans.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's even worse than that.

1. The platform obsessed with abortion, and even bans it in the case of rape.

2. Several candidates got deep into the abortion/rape thing.

3. Every presidential contender pledged to seek a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, one to give fetuses rights, and one to ban gay marriage.

4. Despite every presidential candidate signing up to those pledges, the Religious Right accused several of them of being "too moderate."

5. Rick Santorum literally foamed at the mouth (as did others) and cried over the issue.

6. Talk radio attacked women who wanted abortion rights as "sluts."

If you are a 25 year old woman who had an abortion after she got raped and you heard all of this... what would you think Republican Party thinks of you?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's exactly right. The Democratic leadership knows what the public wants and pays it lip service. The Republican leadership caves in to its most fringy-fringe, even signing up to things that have a 0.0% of passing.

AndrewPrice said...

Max, "Smart" is not a word I would use to describe Obama... not even "smart-ass."

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

What the Republican Leadership did to get the Religious Right on board was give them the opportunity to write the platform. What they didn't realize is that the Democrats would use it to get out their base. What Republican Leadership didn't know was the Religious Right leaders involved in the process wasn't speaking for all the Evangelicals.

If you know anything about the Evangelicals, you would know that each small church is a nation unto itself. My wife's church had a schism a few years back. Split up the congregation.

T-Rav said...

Declaration of Independence says people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." When conception happens, the new embryo has all the qualities that define it as human, therefore inheriting the right to life. So there's your non-religious answer. Now can we find someone besides religious conservatives to whale on for a while?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, The problem is that the people who have become the leaders of this group (about 3% of the party) now dominate the party and they are irrational.

T-Rav said...

Hm? Who's been making sick Holocaust jokes? Can't believe I missed that.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The problem is that there is no definition of when life begins and it tends to become a religious question.

I'm happy to whale on whoever deserves it, and I think there is a lot of blame to go around:

1. Talk radio in particular did amazing damage to our party and our candidate(s).

2. The Tea Party tossed out candidates they should not have.

3. The conservative media did a horrible job of giving a reason why people should vote for our side -- all they did was attack Obama and whine about Romney, and they missed the issues the public cares about so they could go after things like Fast and Furious and Libya which meant nothing to people.

4. Republican politicians have done a miserable job with Hispanic outreach and with appointing non-whites to positions of power.

5. Conservatives turned off minorities with their rhetoric.

6. Moderates turned off moderates by calling conservatives extremists.

7. Romney should have been bolder in moving to the center when it was clear that religious conservatives would not support him.

How's that for a list?

Jen said...

Since I can't stick around the whole day, the topic at the moment is one I can't comment on. Is it okay to go back to something mentioned earlier?

I wanted to go back to the "red state blue state" thing with buying/selling. How about an expansion to non-union vs. union in the red states? Andrew, that means no more doughnuts from Kroger. I can't imagine that they don't have representation by the UFCW like they do around here.

I know it would be harder to do as far as carriers (UPS, USPS, etc.), and it was already mentioned about buying from conservatives in blue states.

What about people who buy off eBay? I know people who do that, and wanted to know how that would work out (involves the carriers too).

T-Rav said...

Andrew, sounds good to me. As for Evangelicals, it's very possible that their early attacks on Romney did some damage. Given the info from the exit polls, though, Romney increased his share of the Protestant/evangelical/regular churchgoer vote over what McCain got, so they did turn out to vote for him.

Jen said...

As an aside, I shared the information in yesterday's article with the first person I saw today, and I'll continue to share it.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, you can pin the whaling on me. I'm egging Andrew on. And it's not for lack of a dog in the fight, as I consider myself religious if not necessarily a religious voter. I also think that conservatism that fails to be pro-life fails to be conservatism. So, again, I'm doing it.

BevfromNYC said...

Jen - It can be anything we want the list to be. Nothing is absolute. I am sure there will be many at Commentarama who will not want to forgo union-made Hollywood blockbusters either. We can only provide information and leave the choice and conscience to the individual to decide. How's that?

Koshcat said...

I completely agree with you Andrew regarding the real fear behing the anti-abortion stance. My wife and I, especially my wife, feel that abortion is wrong because it is a life. We are not particularily religious. From a medical standpoint, if you believe in the basic tennent of "Do no Harm", abortion, especially for birth control, is counter to this. Now, occassions have come up where I have had to assist a woman going through an abortion. I wasn't performing the abortion and in her case it was appropriate. But more appropriate was that she was my patient and I wanted to everything to protect her from harm while she went through the procedure. What I really hate is paying for someone else's abortion.

Somehow we have got to get the "beliefs" out of the platform. Perhaps that is the way to go. The GOP has basic beliefs:
-Responsibility for yourself and your family
-Best place to raise a child is in a healthy family with a mother and a father.
-The Bill of Rights is an incredible document; not an outdated relic put together by white men.
-ect.

And leave the platform for truly political issues, especially those that are exactly counter to the democratic. Instead of a progressive tax, we want a tax code that is straight forward and easy to understand. One that doesn't arbitrarily reward one person and punish the next. One that is predictable and stable.

It is nice to talk about this kind of thing but the only way to really change it is to try to get more involved with the party.

Koshcat said...

One last thing. There is a good side of some of these senate loses. We did get rid of some squishy republicans that at times did more harm to our brand than good. In addition, since none of these idiots got elected we don't have to contend with them either. We must continue to purge the leadership of progressive republicans and zealots. This is why I am optomistic of our future. Rubio and Ryan and the kinds of leaders I am looking for. Hopefully we can encourage them to use their influence to make these kinds of changes.

Jen said...

Bev, that is kinda what I was referring to. I know the choice is up to the individual, I was just trying to broaden the scope (I think GM was already mentioned, but that also falls under the government). It sounds like there are some here who are already on board. I haven't seen any complaints.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I too blame tryanmax. LOL!

Seriously though, I'm happy to share what's on my mind. You can agree or disagree, from there. And I do think there is a TON of blame to go around.

I also think the idea that the Republicans will never win again, as I'm hearing a lot of people say, is quite stupid. But they do need to change if they want to win again, and I think that's coming.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I think the answer is that you do what you can, realizing that even little bits can matter. If you have a non-unionized grocery store, go ahead and use it. If you don't, don't sweat it. It doesn't need to be 100% to be effective. Margins are so tight these days that even a few thousand dollars can make a big difference.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. We should call this "The Blue State Boycott".

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I haven't had a chance to check out the exit polling. Right now I'm just going on things I'm hearing -- lots of people telling "my friend didn't vote because they think Mormons are cultists."

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, As I mention above, it doesn't take 100%, even a small percentage shift in people's spending would matter. What we really need is for Rush to pick this up and tell people.

Jen said...

Andrew, for short, how about the "BS Boycott".

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I really do think the issue isn't abortion itself. I think abortion is a proxy for what people think is really going on. Unfortunately, it will be impossible for abortion opponents to separate the religious issue because they've spent so long wrapping abortion in it.

And I don't think the Republican Party can do the unraveling either because they have become a party that people suspect is theological. What would work best for abortion opponents would be to go the race/eugenics angle and get blacks and gays to oppose abortion on the grounds that they're being aborted away.

Jen said...

I wish I wasn't milking during Rush's show (but that's why I milk at that time) because I would call him up again. I've gotten through two times already, and didn't want to be on the air either time, but agreed to on the second call. He was all for the "Chick-Fil-A" day, why not this?

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Yep. "Boycott BS...."

Jen said...

Andrew, it works either way you say it!

I sent a congratulatory email to the guy that won for my state district. He answered back with this:

Yes, Thank you. We have 69 of the 100 seats in the Republican caucus. The Democrats couldn't walk out if they wanted to. Well they could, but we could still conduct business. In a sad note, the national election didn't Go our way, so we'll just have to work harder. And, nominate Marco Rubio from Florida in 2016!.

rlaWTX said...

I know some seriously intense pro-life people, and for most of them the religious side is important. However, I am pretty sure that most of them would accept a "religion-lite" version/argument if it would continue to be an important part of the party. However, how would you publicize that - get the rank & file on board? That I don't know. But I doubt that you can truly have a viable GOP without the religious right. We need a big meeting where some leaders say, OK, folks, here's what we're doing, where we're going, what arguments we are going to use to INCLUDE. Also, at the meeting, all pledges, oaths of fealty, and candidate-badgering-for-no-flipping-good-reason will be outlawed!!!!!!!

rlaWTX said...

and OT: Apparently, Herman Cain will be speaking at UTPB on 11/28, for free, open to the public. I happened to see a flyer today. I am kinda excited.

*UTPB = The University of Texas of the Permian Basin in Odessa
This is where I am getting my Clinical Psych Masters; not a top-tier school by any stretch, but it is only 20minutes away, and they accepted my GRE scores from 1993! YAY!

Tennessee Jed said...

saw some of the comments re abortion and conservatives. I am just too into the economic issues to get into the other right now. What I can tell you is this. Having had an extremely close experience with this issue, I believe abortion is very complex involving ethics, spiritual, and a myriad of other emotions. I don't approve of abortion for convenience, and Hawk helped get my thinking against late term abortions. That said, I think the decision is better made by the parents than the government. And yes, I understand and respect those who feel differently, but I think that hurts us politically, and yes I agree with Koshkat, I may believe it is the parents' decision, but that I should not have to pay for somebody else's procedure.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, This is a messy issue. In terms of trying to do this by just keeping people quiet, forget it. You have to remember, this is a fund raising issue. These people (RR leaders and politicians) make money based on telling people how extreme they are on this and how hard they are fighting. Thus, the only way to "go silent" will be a position change.

Thus, the Republicans need to ask this question:

How many voters will they lose if they strip this stuff from the platform entirely? OR How many voters will they lose if they put in a compromise position (legal but hard).

versus

How many voters will they gain under either scenario.

Based on polls, it looks like they would lose somewhere around 3% of voters tops. And they probably won't lose all of those because they really have no where else to go. The gains could be a lot bigger than that, but I think it would take more than just the one change too.

I think the real place to start looking for new people is with Hispanics and gays and "soften" the abortion position only for now.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Well said.

darski said...

Quote---- And they probably won't lose all of those because they really have no where else to go.

They can go home and stay there. And it looks like that is just what they will do.

You're right that you don't need people who won't kill babies for fun and profit but you will never get stupid dem women to come to your side because you have too long a history of "Hating Wymyn". You already have the honest hispanics; who else do you expect to bring into the fold?

Joel Farnham said...

There are stories of people who are getting fired after Obama won. Some of them are voters for Obama. Targeted even.

AndrewPrice said...

darksi, There is this swath of 20% of the electorate that tends to be undecided. Those are the people the Republicans need to attract and they can't do it if they are actively turning those people off. Political parties need to make choices about who they want and who they don't. And it makes no sense to give up 20% to keep 3% and then end up never in power.

Getting 80% of what you want is better than getting 0%.

And I don't buy your Hispanic argument at all. We got 25% of Hispanics. That used to be 40%.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have no problems with that. It's also perfectly legal.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I don't have a problem with that either. I didn't know it was legal.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, You can't fire someone for race, gender, religion, age. You CAN fire them for political views. There is no right to a job based on the First Amendment.

tryanmax said...

Joel, Andrew, too bad there wasn't more of that in '08.

If I'm reading the room right, the thinking is that the GOP really can keep the anti-abortion position if the religious angle is dropped.

I know exactly what rlaWTX is talking about: there are some people who won't accept an anti-abortion candidate unless he's thumping a Bible. Anti-abortion for it's own sake isn't good enough (oddly).

Thing is, I was listening to NPR on the drive home (I wasn't kidding, I've really switched) and they had some Evangelical guy admitting that they aren't the king-makers anymore. He pointed to the current lack of a Graham or a Dobson, but it doesn't really matter why. Objectively, it's true.

Graham backed Romney near the end, but earlier they splintered behind literally everybody but Romney. One by one, every other candidate fell and Romney was standing alone. So, no, they aren't the king makers while they are splintered.

I just hope some GOP strategists were listening.

Tennessee Jed said...

I know Ann Coulter can be a bomb thrower, but I think she often gets it right. If you haven't seen her latest column, I urge you to do so. A nice tribute to Romney, a mea culpa on why she had the brief love affair with Christie, a scolding of Repubs who blamed Romney, her thoughts on idiot candidates, and her thoughts about abortion. It's a good read and echoes lots of what we have been dicussing here.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You raise two points...

First, I think the party can keep the anti-abortion stance if they can lose the religious angle (though I think the rape exception needs to be there and they need to drop all the Constitutional talk as well), BUT I don't think that can be done. For one thing, so much effort has been put into combining the two that I think it will be impossible to separate the two in the public's mind. Secondly, I don't see abortion opponents being willing to separate the two. You will spend billion in marketing to try to separate the two and then Rick Santorum will run for President in 2016 and will ram them right back together in the public's mind because that is what he wants.

Secondly...

Although publicly everyone said the right thing, I suspect there was a lot of behind the scenes sabotage. My evidence? An e-mail "mistakenly" sent out by Newt two days before the election in which he tells his donors that Romney has no chance to win and they need to focus on 2016.

Now, admittedly, he got loony in the e-mail -- talking about Obama running for a third term, but I think this was either direct, open sabotage or it is evidence that while people like Newt and Santorum and Graham said the right things in public, they were telling people behind the scenes to abandon Romney.

I suspect the real story of this election will be one of backstabbing.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Thanks! That's a great read and it sounds very familiar! She even mentioned O'Donnell like I did the other day.

Here is what she says about abortion:

No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney's momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.

The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women's "reproductive rights," not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.

After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public's mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.

While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90 percent of the country agrees with us -- such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws -- Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.

In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.

No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it's every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.

Just because I need iron to live doesn't mean I have to accept 100,000 milligrams, which will kill me. If we give the guy who passed bad checks a prison furlough, that doesn't mean we have to give one to Willie Horton. I like a tablespoon of sugar in my coffee, but not a pound.

The overwhelming majority of people -- including me -- are going to say the law shouldn't force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.

Is that so hard for Republicans to say?

Purist conservatives are like idiot hipsters who can't like a band that's popular. They believe that a group with any kind of a following can't be a good band, just as show-off social conservatives consider it a mark of integrity that their candidates -- Akin, Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell -- take wildly unpopular positions and lose elections.


Here's the link: Coulter

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Andrew, that's a good list, but I would also add the crazy libertarians (not all, but a significant number) such as the hardcore Paulbots and the ones who won't back a conservative unless they are willing to legalize drugs and dismantle every federal agency and go back to the gold standard, etc.

Between them and the fringe fundamentalists (again, not all the religious right), they have enough to make a huge impact in a close election.

Sadly, they would rather see America burn unless they have a candidate that puts their desires above everything else.

Thus, I think the GOP should never count on them again for votes and we should never, ever give them a say in the GOP platform.

As you said, we have a greater chance of picking up votes from hispanics and independents with a sane platform (without compromising our first principles) than we do of getting the fringe votes (that is, if we ever wanna win again).

IMO the fringenuts are not conservatives anyway. They may hold many conservative views, but anyone willing to aid the democrats to teach us all a "lesson" or who are willing to make the future of our children and grandchildren (and theirs) so bleak are anti-American.

The only thing those retarded idiots should get from conservatives is scornful shunning.
I consider them to be more traitorous to American ideals of liberty than the left and the apathetic, because at least they know better.

Besides, we can't trust people that are willing to throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat because they can't get 100% of everything they want.
Good riddance, I say!

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Well said! I couldn't agree more and yes, I should have included libertarians/constitutionalists/etc., but I forgot. I think Coulter said it right in the article Jed mentioned (see link above) -- the problem is the purists. These are people who would rather see us get nothing than not get 100% of what they want. They are essentially obsessed and they will scare away the very people we need if we want to win and keep winning. I also think a lot of them like being martyrs and honestly prefer to lose rather than face the reality that what they want won't really change the world.

It is insane to cater to them, no matter what the issue is. Indeed, for every crazy we take on (no matter what the issue) we probably lose 2-3 normal voters.

I think it's also time to set realistic policy goals. We need to stop advocating things that just can't happen -- like deportation of twelve million people. All we do is make ourselves seem bigoted and stupid for pushing something that will never happen.

It's time to get smarter about the party image. And if that means tossing out the people who hurt our image, so be it.

Tennessee Jed said...

Ben - I understand that everyone has certain values where they need to draw a line in the sand. For me, my issues are so clearly centered around fiscal responsibility, and not social issues. I suppose if I was gay, I would be more attuned to their issues. In 2008, Obama was never pressed with tough questions, and he pandered to everybody (running up the deficit by Bush was "unpatriotic.") making himself almost appear to be a uniter and centrist in a divided country. But his financial agenda is so clearly catastrophic, that an "anybody but Obama" vote became mandatory. There is a good article at Real Clear Politics about the missing white vote. It particularly hurt in rural Ohio where people are really hurting. Apparently, all the negative ads about Romney being only concerned about the rich resonated. Many of those people are relatively unskilled and were vulnerable to thoughts of stock prices going up while corporations continued to lay off people. Romney tried to address that during the debates, but even I don't feel that came through enough. So they voted for the benefits not realizing that it is ultimately a sham.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - maybe if Ann keeps it up, she can earn a link here :)

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, She's one of the few pundits who I believe actually thinks clearly. In other words, I don't think she's just bloviating.

I agree about the Ohio problem. The Republicans have let themselves be seen as heartless as concerned only with the rich and with corporate profits. That's another reason I wish Boehner would let Obama blast the rich right now. We need to switch the focus to "small business" and "working Americans."

Joel Farnham said...

Here is something very interesting. Rubio passes on NRSC chairmanship. Normally I would think that would be stupid, but now I don't think so. I am starting to think that being the NRSC chairman is more of a "token" position and doesn't have any real power. I think it was offered to Rubio because he is Cuban/Latino and Rubio knows it and doesn't want to appear a sell out.

Also, look for the Republicans to appoint people they think they lost to "token" positions. I think that was how that joke of a Republican Platform got passed. It was given as a sop to the Religious Right.

Commander Max said...

In order to be a smart-ass, you have to have something resembling a sense of humor.

There is nothing funny about Obama.

wahsatchmo said...

Not that it matters, but this was my prideful example of civil disobedience this year, but it wasn't really disobedient, since it was done properly within the context of law and adhered to procedure. But we had to write off about $10K of fees to a client that we knew couldn't pay for this protest, yet we also knew that state taxpayers needed this precedent. My client, my protest, but my partners' contributions to this protest were indispensable.

The damned hearing office doesn't show the cases we cited and argued, but if anybody needs our write up, I'll send it.

The gist is that my state was trying to reclassify schedule c losses as hobby losses even without an IRS audit. We pushed back using federal definitions of the law. They said they don't have to abide by that. Long story short, we won without having to head to court, and since there were no state cases to refer to, we cited federal cases.

We killed the state, so if anyone is defending a writer, photographer, or artist from reclassification into a hobby loss, we have a framework for you. For free, because balls to this administration.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Jed, I hear you.
I was pretty ignorant when I was younger and some of those ads sound very convincing, especially the ones that appeal to emotions.

However, as politically ignorant as I was, even when I was a teenager I could tell that Carter was a disaster and no one needed to point that out to me.

What I don't get is the people who say they voted for Obama knowing he has made the economy worse, but they voted for him because they though Romney was out of touch or because he said something they didn't like.

For example, several commenters I read today (and apparently someone made the same argument on Rush's show) didn't vote for Romney because he said he was willing to reach across the aisle.

To me, that ain't a line in the sand issue that's sheer stupidity.
I mean, do these people really think we can get anyone eected if they say they ain't willing to reach across the aisle?
Heck, even Obama said he would do that, and we all know he won't negotiate, but he did say it to appeal to those not in the know.

Or the 'devil I know is better than the devil I don't know' argument.
Really? How do you know? Can these geniuses give me just one example of how Romney could've done a worse job than Obama?

So yeah, most who vote based on political ads or feelings are frustrating to say the least.

Another thing that frustrates me and I'm probably not alone is when I try to explain to a relative how Obama has screwed up the economy and how his policies will make it worse.

Then they say they don't have time to research the issues or fact check the candidates so they don't vote or, if they do they base their vote on what their favorite celebrity said. Argh!

One relative got mad at me because I said "you will wish you had found the time when, someday soon you realize you have lost more of your liberties and prices are going through the roof."

Again, it's the apathy. Look how many people don't vote. They put their liberties, their pay checks, even their very lives in the hands of those who do vote and wonder what went wrong when a Reid, Pelosi or Obama gets elected.

Sadly, I know far too many folks who ain't stupid, but they use this stupid excuse a lot.
Hell, I used to say the same thing about loco elections, but nationally I always voted.

Since then I have learned that local and state elections are vitally important, as well as nat'l.
Yes, it's a pain in the ass but the alternatives are much worse.

We really need to work on reaching the apathetic voters or the "don't have time" voters.
Our GOTV is pretty weak and the leftists have always had a strong ground game.
We better learn to catch up, fast.

Incidently, it seems that ORCA was an unmitigated disaster. We need to ensure that fiasco doesn't happen again.

Anthony said...

AndrewPrice said...
Koshcat, I really do think the issue isn't abortion itself. I think abortion is a proxy for what people think is really going on. Unfortunately, it will be impossible for abortion opponents to separate the religious issue because they've spent so long wrapping abortion in it.

And I don't think the Republican Party can do the unraveling either because they have become a party that people suspect is theological. What would work best for abortion opponents would be to go the race/eugenics angle and get blacks and gays to oppose abortion on the grounds that they're being aborted away.
--------
That has been/is being tried (often by black anti-abortion types such as Alveeda King). It doesn't work. Planned Parenthood doesn't drive through black neighborhoods forcing abortions on the unwilling. The people responsible for abortions are the woman who choose to get abortions.

I think the most effective way to oppose abortion to make the case directly to women.

As I've said before, I was in Latin America (Guatemala and Colombia) for a couple of years and there are some incredible strict anti-abortion laws on the books, but Latin America has a higher abortion rate than the US because woman don't agree with the law. Its easier to preassure a small group of people (legislators) than a big group (women) but if anti-abortion types actually want to make an impact, that is what they have to do.

Anthony said...

Correction: I said preassure when I should have said preassure/convince.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I have no idea what Rubio made that decision. It could be a position that only takes blame too?


Max, Isn't that the truth!

AndrewPrice said...

wahsatchmo, Nice work! I need to find some deductions personally.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I think the answer to your questions, sadly, is that people are stupid. There's really no other way to say it.

I have a friend in California who is a conservative, but for decades he's voted for the Democrat because his test is "do I like the conservative." If not, then he stupidly votes for the Democrat. It's insanely stupid, but he doesn't see that. He's also one of those who wonders how California got so liberal and so stupid. I have no sympathy for him.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I think that's probably true ultimately, but try telling that to people who think that if only the right leader would "finally" tell people that abortion is wrong and everyone will magically stop. It's idiocy, quite frankly, and it's idiocy that is hurting the party. I think the issue needs to go away.

Jen said...

Andrew, Rush has taken your position. He just said a few minutes ago that Boehner and company should let the Dems have their way. Things are going to crash anyway, so why should the Republicans get blamed (but they will anyhow).

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, That's good. Let's hope they listen.

Individualist said...

Aftermath of the Ron Paul Wing of the Party

Andrew

This is Mike Church and Paulian Libertarian talk show host on Sirius Patriot. I am unsure if you are familiar with him but he is a big Ron Paul supporter and spokesman.

In thinking about why the white conservatives did not come out on election day. Do you think the majority of those were Paul supporters who listened to this individual and if so what could we possibly do about this.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I think the people who didn't vote are a mix of extremists. I think some of them were libertarians, as evidenced by the 6% in Montana who gave the Democrats that seat. I think some of them were evangelicals who decided to vote against the pro-choice, pro-gay cultist. I think some of them were "moderate extremists" who wanted to see the Tea Party take the blame.

All in all, this election showed to me that the party needs to abandon the extremists in all directions because they are too childish to rely upon and strike out for the solid center-right on the issues where the party has tried to cater to these people.

AndrewPrice said...

P.S. A bit of trivia, Mike Church did the theme song for Kelly's Heroes!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 203   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment