Manatee Madness Debate Wrap Up

There was another debate last night. It stank. Yeah, even by the standards of recent debates, this was a turkey. Here’s what happened.

● Winner: Brian Williams. Williams manipulated the candidates like a chess master last night. He got them fighting each other. He tossed mud and they re-tossed it. He had them buying into leftist assumptions all night and pledging fealty to leftist ideals. He also did his best to prolong the horserace and thereby help Obama by making Romney and Gingrich look bad while making Santorum and Paul look good.

● Loser: Newt. Here’s why Newt should have lost. Newt lied through his teeth and proved repeatedly that he’s a slimeball. Here are some samples:

● Romney very accurately went through Newt’s baggage. Newt attacked him for telling “at least four lies.” What were these supposed lies? Newt sidestepped: “I’m not going to waste time going through them.” That’s because they weren’t lies and Newt knew it. But in making this kind of defense, Newt dodged his entire record and called Romney a liar, even though Newt was actually the one lying. This is a schoolyard bully tactic.

● Newt was sent packing by the House Republicans in disgrace. Last night, Newt actually tried to claim HE asked the Republicans to vote to censure him because he was becoming “a distraction to the cause.” How noble. Of course, this is a stunning lie and Ron Paul called him on it later. Newt also claimed he wasn’t fined, despite the $300,000 fine that’s on the record. Apparently, Newt is betting you’re too stupid to look it up.

● Newt claimed in prior debates that he created Ronald Reagan and Reaganomics. Anyone with a brain knows this is a lie, and last time, Romney countered that Newt is only mentioned once in Reagan’s Diary. Nevertheless, Newt repeated the claim last night and added a suggestion that he created Barry Goldwater too. This is Megalomania.

● Newt tries to pilfer supporters by talking about how much he agrees with certain candidates without ever actually saying how he agrees with them. Last night it was Santorum’s turn. He also pandered again to the Ron Paul people on the Fed and on gold by claiming views Newt has never held.

● Slimeball Newt keeps making smears while claiming he has no intention of smearing his target. For example, he said he wouldn't make an issue of the tax rate Romney paid. . . right before smearing Romney for not paying enough in taxes because he’s rich. This is the politics of envy and anti-capitalism.

● Newt lied big time and smeared Romney about lobbying. Freddie Mac’s lobbying office paid Newt $25,000 a month to act as a consultant, which apparently involved visiting Congressmen on its behalf. That’s called “lobbying.” Yet, Newt used a false technicality to claim he was never a lobbyist: he claims he was a “consultant” and not a “lobbyist.” Except lobbyists always call themselves consultants, and what really matters in determining whether someone is a lobbyist is what they do, not what their job titles are. Newt was a lobbyist and he knows it and he’s lying to hide it.

He also tried to turn a million dollar lobbying income into $30,000 by claiming he only got a small portion of the amount he was paid because the rest went to a business, which is wholly owned by. . . Newt.

Then he doubled down on gall by accusing Romney of being a lobbyist because Romney also worked as a consultant. Only, “consultant” is a generic title for anyone who performs special tasks under contract rather than as an employee. No evidence has been produced suggesting Romney ever lobbied or worked in the lobbying industry. Newt’s suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

He then also tried to claim that all of Bain Capital’s income was actually Romney’s income, even though the claim is ridiculous.

● Newt said he opposes the DREAM Act, but he again promptly said he supports its parts. Then he mis-described the act to make it sound palatable: Newt argued that it provides a path to citizenship for those who serve in the military. But that’s already the law. The DREAM Act gives citizenship for college attendance and uses taxpayer funds to pay for the tuition.

But conservatives are proving they aren’t smart enough to distinguish between substance and the Big Shiny, so that’s not why Newt lost. Newt lost last night because he didn’t deliver the Big Shiny. His attacks on the media fell flat, the audience didn’t whoop, he landed no blows, and he never looked commanding. And without the Big Shiny, he’s just an ass.

● Perfect Attendance: Romney. Romney gave a great defense of capitalism, refused to apologize for being successful, gave a great defense of English only (it’s the key to success to “speak the language of America” and teaching students in foreign languages leaves them unprepared for school -- when they changed the law in Massachusetts to require English immersion their schools shot up the charts), and he landed a few solid blows on Gingrich. But I don’t think conservatives were listening. They’re too busy proving the media’s meme about conservatives having crushes on whoever is hot at the moment.

● Winner: Santorum. Santorum is a noxious socialist and a liar. But Brian Williams helped package him as a “genuine conservative” by repeatedly touting his conservatism as a fact, by never asking him about controversial issues, by posing the questions as softballs, and by never following up on the answers no matter how ridiculous. For example, he didn’t even follow up when Santorum said there was good capitalism and “destructive capitalism.” He also let Santorum get away with implying he was opposed to illegal immigration because “they broke the law when they came here and every day when they work illegally” even though Santorum has actually worked to make it impossible to stop illegals from working.

● Winner: Paul. As with Santorum, Williams did his best to hide Paul’s crazy. He tossed out softballs and avoided anything truly controversial.


All in all, last night felt like a wash. There was no decisive win, no decisive moment, and I doubt any candidate helped themselves much. The one guy who was probably most hurt was Newt who failed to deliver the Big Shiny, but we’ll have to see how that affects his supporters. At this point, Florida will come down to a few factors: (1) Will more moderates or more conservatives turn out on the 31st? Florida always seems to shift toward the center from what the polls predict. (2) Will enough people who know Newt come out and explain why they aren’t supporting him. (3) Can Newt get a Big Shiny in Thursday’s debate and will people remember it when they vote? Apparently, 1/3 of Florida has already voted. And (4) who will Democrats vote for to cause the most problems?

Finally, let me ask this. The complaint about Romney is that he flipped from moderate to conservative. That’s a legitimate complaint. But how does it make sense for conservatives to prefer candidates who not only held the same moderate views Romney did, but have never made the flip to conservatism?


Don't Forget: There's a new Politics of Trek today at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Debate Wrap: Romney By A Length

. . . and the debates keep coming. Last night was the first of two debates this week from South Carolina. It was an interesting night and it will be interesting to see if this changes the race. Romney continues to roll and Perry helped himself a lot. Newt did well, sort of. The rest, not so much. Let’s discuss.

● Loser: Juan Williams. Juan was the biggest loser because he proved he’s a race baiter extraordinaire. All he talked about was racism: cutting taxes is racist, being white is racist, not offering money to poor blacks is racist, telling blacks they need jobs is racist, the word “poor” is code word for “black” and is racist, repeating Obama’s words is racist, and criticizing Obama is racist. Juan even suggested that Romney betrayed his own race (he’s part Mexican) because he’s opposed to illegal immigration and won’t pander to Hispanics on that issue. Juan needs therapy.

● Winner: Mitt Romney. Romney won the debate, hands down. Not only did he handle the other’s attacks on him well, but he continues to come across as increasingly more conservative (and thoughtfully conservative). For example:

When they attacked his Bain Capital record, Romney pointed out that Bain bought over 100 different businesses and turned most of them around (22 ended up in bankruptcy). The steel mill he shut down in South Carolina only closed after seven years of Bain trying to turn it around, it failed because of Chinese dumping of steel, and Bain later managed to open a newer mill in Indiana. This, he pointed out, gave him solid knowledge of how the economy really works and of the threat posed by China. He also mentioned that Bain’s companies created more than 120,000 jobs.

He then mentioned that his success as Bain led to him being asked to rescue the Olympics, which he did. And during his time as Governor of Massachusetts, the state had a 4.7% unemployment rate, a balanced budget, they reduced taxes nineteen times, and filled a “rainy day” fund with $2 billion. In effect, he went from success to success to success and proved he could succeed in the real economy, succeed at fixing bureaucratic messes, and succeed in running a state dominated by Democrats. That’s a solid sales pitch which easily defused the attacks on Bain.

In addition to defending his record, Romney continues to take solid conservative positions on taxes, regulations, deficits, foreign policy, military strength and even social issues. Moreover, he keeps making excellent conservative promises in each debate. This time he promised to (1) halt ALL “Obama era regulations,” effectively reversing Obama’s term, (2) push for voluntary self-directed retirement accounts, and (3) get rid of all campaign finance laws. It was another strong night for him.

● Winner: Rick Perry. Apparently, Rick Perry has a retarded twin named Goober Perry. For some strange reason, they let Goober handle the debates up to this point. Last night, Rick stepped in and the difference was remarkable. It’s not that Rick said anything substantive, he didn’t, but for once he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Indeed, he made it clear that he favors lower taxes and less regulation. He attacked the regulatory abuses of the EPA, Obama’s Labor Board’s attacks on Boeing, and the Justice Department’s interference in state voting issues. He attacked something he called Obama’s war against organized religion. He said Obama’s claim that the border with Mexico is secure is ludicrous and that traffic only slowed because this is the worst economy in 40 years. He defended the soldiers who urinated on the Taliban corpses by contrasting this with the Taliban killing and desecrating Americans. And most interestingly, he made the point that it’s not the government’s responsibility to fix housing and said (roughly): “the best way to get the economy going is not to think about how much we can push the government into the economy, but instead to think of ways to get it out of the economy.”

If this Rick Perry had showed up early on, he would be cruising to an easy win. But he didn’t. So now the question is, does this help Perry or not? Can he steal back voters who have fled to megalomaniac Gingrich or socialist Rick Santorum? It’s not clear, but Rick probably bought his campaign more life after the debacles of Iowa and New Hampshire.

● Sort of Loser: Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a frustrating candidate and last night really displayed why. He is capable of excellence in debating, especially at flipping sucker punches back onto hapless fools like Juan Williams and really taking them down. BUT there’s never any substance to his answers. Instead, he just makes a lot of noise attacking the questioner, mentions Ronald Reagan a dozen times, and then leaves an impression that he would do something different than Obama or the questioner. . . but he never actually tells you what he would do. Example:

Q. “Newt, should the government sell strawberry ice cream?”
A. “I find it insulting that you would ask such a blatantly biased question at a time when few Americans can afford ice cream of any type, and I certainly am not like Obama who doesn’t even realize that strawberry ice cream exists.”
Q. “But should the government sell it?”
A. “Look, I worked with Ronald Reagan and I’m not like Obama.”

Newt’s performance reeks of bread and circuses, but the clown act serves him well with a public that long ago lost the ability to spot substance. He was quite entertaining last night, but as you’ll see below, he lost because of Perry’s surge.

● Loser: Ricky Santorum. Ricky again exposed himself as a socialist and a liar. He spent the night denying his own votes and pretending he actually led the charge against the things he voted for. In one particularly galling moment, he tried to deny his vote to force states to let felons vote by (1) attacking Romney for being a governor of a state that lets felons vote (something Romney did not support or sign into law), (2) somehow wrapping himself in the Tenth Amendment and declaring this a state issue, and (3) suggesting it was racist not to let felons vote. In effect, he denied his own vote, accused Romney of doing what only Rick himself had done, accused Romney of not being a conservative because he lived in a state which did what Rick tried to force upon every state, and then flipped it around and accused Romney (and conservatism) of racism for not doing what Rick now denies that he himself did. . . by hey, it’s a state issue. This happened all night on issue after issue and I’ve come to believe Rick is a pathological liar with no sense of shame.

Rick was also rude, as usual, and debates like an angry child. He also has a habit of flip-flopping in the middle of answers. And even beyond that, Rick’s a socialist. He does not trust you to invest in your own retirement, he wants the government to do it for you. He wants to micromanage the economy and stated very clearly that he believes certain companies should be given tax breaks and others not depending on which competitive forces he thinks are at play. But don’t worry, he assured us, he is all for capitalism once he and the government have fixed the economy.

Worse yet, Rick will latch onto any liberal attack and run with it. Last night, he played the race card twice, first when he attacked Romney for wanting to keep felons from voting, which Rick suggested was racist against blacks, and when he played along with Juan Williams’ equation that “poor equals black” and thus not giving money to the poor equals racism. Rick also suggested very strongly that he supports affirmative action.

There is some speculation that Rick is playing for the VP slot, but only a fool would pick the toxic Santorum as a running mate, especially with Allen West saying yesterday that he’s open to being on the ticket.

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul is insane and last night was just too much. Once again he suggested our problems in the Middle East were because we started it by bombing these countries. Then he played the race card by suggesting that the war on drugs is racist and that our criminal justice system is racist. So not only is Paul’s foreign and military policy suicidal, and his economic policy little more than extreme platitudes, but now he’s playing right into liberal smears on conservatism.

Conclusion

Last night helped Romney once again. Not only did he continue to seem presidential, but the anybody-but-Romney camp will remain split and in disarray. With Paul draining away 15% of the vote and Romney earning a consistent 40%, the only hope of the anybody-but-Romney forces is for one of the other three to emerge as the ABR champion. But Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are all horrid candidates, which is preventing any of them from becoming the natural challenger to Romney. Moreover, with Perry showing actual competence last night, he will likely steal back lost supporters from Santorum and Gingrich and thereby stop either of them from pulling ahead.

And in truth, I must say Romney really is earning the nomination. With each passing debate he becomes a better debater and sounds more conservative. He has slowly but surely raised my comfort level with him.

Thoughts? (fyi, there’s another debate Thursday night. . . ugh.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Real Rick Santorum

With the implosion of everyone else, Rick Santorum is now being given his turn to run as the anti-Romney. And many conservatives are jumping on Ricky’s bandwagon with the idea that he’s more conservative than Romney. Don’t believe it. Let’s talk about Ricky.

● “Conservative” Rick: Rick claims to be an all-around, genuine, dyed-in-the-wool conservative. But would a conservative do this?

● Rick voted to create the Medicare prescription drug benefit entitlement.
● Rick opposes even the voluntary use of eVerify, which would keep illegal aliens from getting jobs.
● Rick voted for Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind.
● Rick voted to force states to let convicted felons vote.
● Rick voted to give $1 billion to bailout the steel industry.
● Rick voted for the ban on “assault weapons.”
● Rick voted to make it illegal to sell guns without a secure storage or safety device.
● Rick voted to fund anti-gun education programs in schools.
● Rick voted against the National Right To Work Act, which allows non-union shops.
● Rick twice voted against repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which is how the federal government supports union labor through government contracts.
● Rick twice voted to make it easier for unions to unionize FedEx. This bill was created by UPS and the Teamsters, and is essentially what Obama has done to Boeing, except it was done at the behest of a competitor.
● Rick voted to fund the legal services corporation, which pursues left-wing litigation around the country, e.g. suing cities to increase benefits or suing landlords to stop evictions.
● Rick voted to make fuel price gouging a federal crime.
● Rick opposed creating an independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
● Rick voted to require a union representative be placed on the IRS oversight board, and then voted to exempt the IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
● Rick opposed cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
● Rick supported a large number of liberal nominees including Sonia Sotomayor to the Circuit Court, Richard Holbrooke to be UN Ambassador, and Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.
● In 2004, Rick endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey and cut an ad telling voters “Specter is with us on the votes that matter.”
● In 2006, Rick ran campaign ads playing up his bipartisan work with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer: “Because it makes more sense to wrestle with America’s problems than with each other.”

● “Fiscal Conservative” Rick: Rick claims to be a fiscal conservative. Yet. . .

● Rick supported every budget during the Bush years, despite their then-record spending and then-record deficits.
● Rick now claims he opposes earmarks, but he previously said: “The idea that earmarks are the problem in Washington, D.C., is just ridiculous.” He also sought more than a billion dollars in earmarks, including such ridiculous things as $300,000 for a bilingual health care study, $250,000 for an “African-American cultural center” in Pittsburgh, $96 million to build a light rail system into Pittsburgh, $2 million to renovate the Vulcan Monument in Alabama, funding of museums in Nebraska and Seattle, the Stand Up for Animals Project in Rhode Island, etc.
● Rick voted for the Bridge to Nowhere.
● Rick voted for mandatory federal child care funding.
● Rick voted to increase funding for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
● Rick voted to provide $2 billion in home heating subsidies.
● Rick voted to increase social services block grants from $1 billion to $2 billion.
● Rick voted to give taxpayers $100 rebates on gas prices.
● Rick voted to create a $140 billion asbestos compensation fund, and voted against requiring uniform medical requirements to ensure claims were legitimate. Think “Pigford.”
● Rick voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
● Rick opposed food stamp reform.
● Rick opposed Medicaid reform.
● Rick voted to divert gas taxes to pay for Amtrak.
● Rick voted to increase Amtrak funding by $550 million.
● Rick voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.
● Rick voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

● Rick opposed the flat tax.
● Rick voted twice for internet taxes.
● Rick voted four times to raise tobacco taxes to fund Medicare prescription drugs, to pay $8 billion in child health insurance, to increase NIH funding, and to provide health insurance subsidies to small business.
● Rick voted to raise taxes by $9.4 billion to increase student loans.
● Rick opposed repealing Clinton’s gas tax increase.

● Super Hawk Rick: Rick claims everyone else is weak on defense and he specifically attacks Obama for not doing enough about terrorist states like Iran and Syria. So why did Rick do this?

● Rick voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention and then voted against forcing the President to certify that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea and China have joined before the CWC would become effective.
● Rick voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
● Rick voted to give North Korea $25 million in foreign aid.
● Rick voted to ban landmines.
● Rick voted for the START II Treaty.
● Rick voted against requiring President Clinton to get Congress’s authorization for military action in Bosnia.

● Ricky the Lobbyist: While Rick claims to be an outsider, he served 16 years in the House and Senate. What’s more he is deeply immersed in lobbying culture and has traded influence:

● In 2006, Rick received the most contributions from lobbyists of any Senator.
● After Rick lost to Bob Casey in 2006, he became a lobbyist for multiple groups. One group was United Health Services. Rick sponsored two Medicare-reform bills while he was in the Senate which would have aided UHS. Rick also joined the board of directors of American Continental Group, a lobbying company. As a Senator, Rick got earmarks for many of ACG’s clients.
● Rick voted to require broadcasters to provide discounted broadcast rates to politicians.

Rick is not a fiscal conservative, not even close. In fact, he’s closer to Obama than Bush and Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative. Rick’s also no foreign policy conservative. Nor is he averse to influence peddling.

And when it comes to social policy, he’s either a moron or a cynic. He will often contradict himself on issues like gay marriage where he speaks in circles about states’ rights, and he’ll make vague pronouncements like his belief in “marriage,” which he treats as a policy but provides no details. Moreover, the things he does propose, like passing constitutional amendments, are non-starters because they simply can’t be passed. So what is he actually promising? It sounds like he’s more concerned with pandering than he is in achieving anything.

Moreover, his stridency about his social conservatism is a disaster waiting to happen. Of all the candidates left, Santorum is the only one who is guaranteed to attract 0.0% of the moderate vote. He will even turn off many conservatives as well because, to borrow a line from Ghostbusters II, “he scares the straights.”

Think twice before you decide this man is the conservative alternative to Romney.


** Don’t forget it’s Star Trek Tuesday at CommentaramaFilms!**

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Case For Romney

Romney’s not a conservative. He’s hardly exciting or inspirational. He’s flopped around so much it’s just not possible to say what he really believes. But strangely, the more I think about it, he is the Republican candidate who would probably make the best President. Here’s my take on the strange case for Romney (since I can't have Cain.)

Let me start by pointing out that other conservatives are now making a case for Romney.

● Charles Krauthammer invokes the William Buckley rule: vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. He says that’s Romney.

● Ann Coulter argues Romney is the only candidate we can trust to both repeal ObamaCare and stop illegal immigration. Her point about ObamaCare is an “electability” argument, but her point on illegal immigration is solid. Only Romney and Bachmann actually oppose amnesty. The others claim to oppose amnesty, but really support it in hidden form. Some go even further. Perry wants to give illegals more rights than Americans. Newt wants to grant illegals all the rights of citizens without the name “citizen” and thereby hand the Democrats a double victory -- new voters through amnesty plus a political charge that Republicans want Hispanics to be second class citizens. Santorum actually opposes voluntary use of the e-Verify system because his Big Business friends want the system gone so they can hire cheap illegal labor.

My take is different. Not only do I believe Romney is most electable -- in fact, he may be the only electable candidate -- but I think Romney may turn out to be an excellent President, something I cannot say about the rest. Here’s why:

Most Electable

The electability case is simple. This election will be an referendum on Obama. And as such, Obama is doomed. No President has been so low in the polls so consistently for so long. This tells us the public has reached its verdict and will not change its mind. In 2010, we saw the result of this when the public punished Obama’s party with an historic thrashing. Even now, Democrats see the writing on the wall so clearly that people like Barney Frank and Ben Nelson are quitting before they get tossed out. The Democrats know they’re doomed.

The only thing that can save Obama would be if we pick a Republican who makes the race about themselves rather than a referendum on Obama. Egomaniacal loose-cannon Newt Gingrich, gay-baiting Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, corrupt Bush-clone Perry, or the terrifying Ron Paul, would all make the race about themselves and the public would need to decide if it can trust these Republicans before it ever looks at Obama. That’s the only kind of race Obama can win because it distracts from his record. But Romney is mild, bland, and inoffensive. His background is competent and shows the right kind of experience. He isn’t someone the public will worry about. That leaves the election as a referendum on Obama’s record, and in that election, Obama goes down in an historic landslide. Thus, not only is Romney the most electable, he may be the only electable candidate on the Republican side.

The Best Potential President In The Bunch

But electability only goes you so far. The real question is, what kind of President would Romney make. In that regard, I’ve come to believe that for a very strange reason, Romney may end up being a really good President. Here’s the thing. Our two best Presidents in recent memory were Reagan and Clinton (after his disastrous start). What they had in common was a form of conservatism that just isn’t on display in any of the other candidates or in any of the recent Presidents. I think Romney has that.

The best way to explain what I mean is to first point out the problem with the other candidates: they all think they have magic bullets to fix the country. Santorum and Bachmann think they can fix America by ridding it of gays. Santorum now adds a new-found populism which mixes socialist ideas like favoring manufacturing with the middle-class-destroying policies of Big Business. Rick Perry thinks he can fix America by handing it over to his corporate donors. Huntsman thinks he can fix America by taking the partisanship out of politics. Newt thinks he’s God and can fix America by issuing grandiose ideas. And Paul thinks he can fix America by turning the clock back to an idealized 1776 that never was.

This is all destined to fail because it misunderstands why America and conservatism work. Genuine conservatism does not try to run an economy by fiat. It does not pick winners and losers and it does not look for magic policies to kickstart the country. Genuine conservatism recognizes that the government cannot fix America, only Americans can fix America. And Americans can only fix America if the government stops trying to organize the economy and lets people do their own things.

Reagan understood this. His goal in office was not to find some clever policy to spur something specific. His goal was to eliminate regulations and lower taxes and unleash the public to make their own choices. None of the candidates except Paul (who fails for other reasons) understand this because they aren’t genuine conservatives. . . they think they can tinker America to greatness by making its choices for it.

Unlike the others, I suspect Romney understands this. For one thing, Romney’s background as the hamstrung governor of a liberal state tells us that Romney knows the limitations of political power. Secondly, his business experience is critical. Since he didn’t just run a company, but was instead involved in buying failing companies and turning them around, he is familiar with the vagaries and uncertainties of the business world and the degree of latitude business needs to function. Those are exactly the kinds of lessons that underlie Reagan’s beliefs.

But even if Romney doesn’t get this, there’s another reason to suspect he would make an excellent President, and believe it or not, it’s his lack of principles. Clinton was an awful President when he first arrived. His people were far-left radicals who planned to remake America. The backlash against their hubris gave us the first Republican Congress in forever. That’s when an interesting thing happened. Clinton, who apparently had no values of his own, decided the best way to govern would be to stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public wanted. Since the public was leaning right, Clinton ended up moving right and became one of the better Presidents in history because the public pushed him in the same direction Ronald Reagan had gone -- toward getting the government out of the way.

One of the concerns people have with Romney is that he lacks principle. This is true in a specific sense as he has been both liberal and conservative on almost every issues. But there is one overriding principle Romney does follow: he does what the public wants. Right now, the public is sending highly conservative, Reaganesque signals. Romney has adopted these and presents a platform that is easily the most conservative of any of the candidates. And there is good reason to believe he means it, because he thinks this is what the public wants and, thus, that is what he intends to deliver.

In other words, as strange as it may sound, Romney’s lack of principles may be what make him the most trustworthy candidate because he will do his best to please us, the public. And since the public is conservative in a Ronald Reagan sort of way, there is significant reason to believe Romney will adopt Reagan's principles. I don’t see that in any of the other candidates, each of whom seems more interested in legislating their own pet peeves.

That’s why I think Romney deserves support. Not only is he the most likely to beat Obama, who simply must be beaten for the sake of the country, but he also has the potential to become an excellent President. I understand the fear that a man without principles is unpredictable and that RINOs have too often lied about their views to sneak through the elections, but I think Romney is a different case because Romney isn’t a principled RINO who has adopted a conservative cloak, he’s a principle-less mirror who adopts whatever the public currently wants. And with the public channeling Reagan and Romney signaling that he understands that, I think he could well become a President in the conservative mold of a Reagan or the good-Bill Clinton years.

That’s my take on it. I guess we’ll see what Iowa thinks tonight?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Open Letter to Paul Ryan: Run!!

Dear Rep. Paul Ryan,

Run for President. We need you. And I don’t mean we need you so we can win the election -- both Romney and Gingrich can beat Obama. Winning isn’t the problem. The problem is winning isn’t enough. We need YOU to save conservatism, and frankly, save the country.

America is a conservative country. Polls show it. Sixty percent of Americans believe in conservative ideas. Yet we have no conservative party.

Instead, we have an establishment party with two branches. One branch calls themselves Republicans and they pretend to be conservative, while the other calls themselves Democrats and they pretend to be liberal. But neither is what they claim. They are just different factions of the same corporate/elite cleptrocracy that controls the country. And Romney and Gingrich and Obama represent that perfectly.

Obama we know. Obama is the guy who promised socialism, but somehow ended up passing a healthcare bill that takes from taxpayers and doctors and gives to insurance carriers and drug companies. He promised to fix “too big to fail” and ended up making the biggest even bigger. He promised to regulate Wall Street and then let Wall Street write the bill. He bailed out the bad bets of Wall Street and the most connected of the Fortune 500. He promised a cleaner environment but used that to transfer money to GE -- just as “eco-freak” Algore was a tool of Occidental Petroleum and made a fortune selling phony environmental indulgences to suckers, or as anti-business Pelosi has been getting rich riding the IPO train for high tech and natural gas companies, or “average” Joe Biden sold his soul to MBNA bank and tightened up bankruptcy rules to help credit card company profits soar, or Chris Dodd played footsie with Countrywide, and Maxine Waters milked the TARP for her husband, etc. They are thieves.

Now consider Romney. Romney comes to us from the world of finance, where all turmoil has come since the mid-1990s. He has no beliefs except that it is his turn to represent the establishment. He has stood on both sides of every issue he’s ever encountered. To him, principles are things that run schools, risk is a board game, and conservatism is a cloak he bought in 2008. He has a spine of Jello and an aluminum foil will to match. He uses his mind not to chart courses and provide leadership, but to chart the wind so he knows what to believe. He is the human equivalent of bologna on white bread and he believes whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the moment.

Newt’s worse. Unlike Romney and Obama, Newt has ideas. But he can’t distinguish between the good ones and the bad ones and he’s not ruled by his brain in any event, he’s ruled by his ego. Newt is a fraud. He’s the “conservative” who believes in combating global warming by having taxpayers support Big Business, who supports forcing people to buy insurance from Big Business, who believes Obama’s Wall Street regulatory head-fake was “too harsh,” who was for the TARP before he was against it and will be for it again, and who believes in stimulus spending and amnesty for illegals. If Romney is bologna, Newt is a spoiled hot dog marked “filet mignon.”

With Cain destroyed, these are our choices?! Why are there no real conservatives? Why are there no competent candidates? No common sense candidates? No candidates who don’t stink of the establishment.

To put it simply, Mr. Ryan, we have lost faith. We are sick of never having a real choice. We are sick of both sides being the same side. And we are sick of the phony theater the establishment uses to try to trick us into believing otherwise.

We are not stupid no matter what the establishment believes. We know the establishment lets corporations rape the Treasury to cover their bets: heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose. We know the establishment thinks illegal aliens should have more rights than Americans. We know the establishment cares more about the rights of terrorists than about the rights and safety of American soldiers. We know the establishment thinks we won’t notice they are forcing taxpayers to pick up the bill for companies shipping factories overseas. We know the establishment uses the power of regulation to protect its friends from the forces of capitalism. We know the establishment taxes the middle class to support its members. We know the establishment are liars.

We know that an increase in spending is not a cut. We know the big fight over 0% cuts was an obscenity. And no amount of both parties pretending this was significant will change that. You added a trillion in spending to the budget over two years. Now we have a trillion dollar deficit. The solution is easy, and no amount of the establishment calling this an impossible puzzle can hide that. We have NOT always been at war with Oceania!

I am not kidding when I say we are reaching a point where average Americans will no longer take this. And I’m not talking about voting out one group of establishment and replacing them with another. The establishment is playing a dangerous game.

If you care about America, Rep. Ryan, then it’s time to step up. Give us a real choice. Disclaim the Gingroromneybamas. Reject corporate socialism. Give us a flat tax with no corporate giveaways, promise us you will cut the regulatory code in half. Promise us you will open health and education to free markets and will use the power of anti-trust law to end too-big-to-fail by making them too-small-for-us-to care. Tell us you will defend American citizenship, protect our borders, slash the budget by a third NOW, not in 1,000 years. Promise us you will stop kowtowing to China and the twisted sensibilities of Europhiles. Promise us you will kill every single sacred cow and force our government back into the Constitutional confines from which it escaped. Give us a return to common sense.

Save America now, while you have the chance. Run, Mr. Ryan. America needs you.

Sincerely,
AndrewPrice

P.S. If anyone missed it, I profiled Ryan here: LINK.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Newt: “I’ve Changed.” Reality: “No, You Haven't.”

It’s easy to believe someone has fundamentally changed their thinking on a particular issue. People change, they learn new things or gain new perspectives all the time. It’s harder to believe someone who claims they’ve fundamentally changed their thinking on a lot of issues. It’s harder yet when those issues are the issues that stand in the way of them getting something they want. And it’s pretty much impossible to believe when their claims are buried in verbal trickery. By the way, Newt wants you to know he’s changed.

Hoping to defuse the many problems with his candidacy, Newt Gingrich has put a question and answers section on his website where he tries to explain his biggest mistakes. In this section he points out that the media will try to smear him. He mentions he’s cast over 7,000 votes, given over 1,500 speeches, written thousands of articles and 24 books, and made thousands of television appearances, each of which will be scoured for dirt. He then tries to defend 15 areas where he previously molested the canine:

● Paul Ryan Plan: Newt undercut Paul Ryan’s budget/Medicare plan by calling it “right wing social engineering.” He says he agrees with Ryan now, BUT he wants to undercut Ryan by letting seniors stay in the present plan if they want. Why? Because he’s “opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed.” Translation: Being loved is more important than achieving results.

● Health Insurance Mandate: Newt now believes imposing a mandate to buy health insurance is an unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty. In the 1990s, he favored such a mandate. His excuse is other conservatives advocated it too! Nah nah! He also says he wants to find a better way to achieve “the goal of healthcare for all.” Translation: The only part of ObamaCare Newt opposes is the individual mandate.

● Ethanol: Newt remains pro-ethanol as part of an “all of the above” approach because he loves Iowa and South Dakota more than Saudi Arabia. This is a false dichotomy. Translation: Pandering trumps principle.

● Fairness Doctrine: Newt thinks the Fairness Doctrine is “prohibited government censorship.” But he supported it in the past because back then the media was dominated with liberals. Translation: Principles are malleable depending on who benefits.

● Global Warming: “Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to warming of the atmosphere.” (Hedge words in italics). He does oppose cap and trade but doesn’t want “conservatives to be absent” from offering solutions. Newt then says: “this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives and entrepreneurs creating better... products.” Translation: Newt doesn’t care about the science, he will stop climate change through less obvious ways than a carbon tax.

● Immigration/DREAM Act: Newt opposes the DREAM Act, BUT supports what the DREAM Act does. He opposes amnesty, but thinks local communities should be given the power to make illegal immigrants legal. . . they just can’t call them citizens. Translation: Newt believes in stealth amnesty.

● Farm Subsidies: Newt supports subsidies for farmers. Translation: Business as usual.

● TARP: Newt didn’t really support TARP when he supported the TARP, he supported some version of it you would have liked, except Paulson lied about how TARP would work. . . don’t ask him to explain the difference between good and bad TARP. Translation: Newt thinks you’re stupid.

● Foreign Aid: NEWT BELIEVES IN ZERO FOREIGN AID (as a baseline from which we will then decide how much foreign aid to give). Translation: No change in foreign aid.

● Dept. of Education: When Newt voted for the creation of the Department of Education, he thought it would only collect data. Imagine his surprise. Now he will “dramatically shrink the agency to a research and reporting overview agency.” Translation: Newt wasn’t wrong, the world lied to him. How was he supposed to know a bureaucracy would grow?

● Dede Scozzafava: Newt made a “mistake” endorsing Scozzafava, BUT he will always endorse the Republican against an independent, i.e. he made no mistake. Newt blames the locals for putting him in a bad situation. Translation: Newt is very sorry you are mistakenly upset.

● Government Shutdown: Newt thinks the media was unfair about the government shutdown because he improved the government and economy. Translation: Newt doesn’t grasp what it was about his handling of the shutdown that bothered people.

● Ethics Problems: Newt never “violated any tax laws.” Translation: Newt was technically right about a small portion of one of the corruption claims against him, please ignore the rest.

● Freddie Mac: Newt is not a lobbyist! He just gets paid to provide advice to government agencies about programs that will help his other clients, who just happen to earn a living off the government. Translation: Newt thinks technicalities are wonderful things.

● “Personal Life”: Newt had an affair, but it wasn’t as bad as Clinton’s. His daughter has debunked the claim he ignored his sick wife while she was in the hospital. No mention is made of recent spending scandals involving jewelry and his wife and the overuse of private jets. Translation: Newt thinks that by comparison, his corruption ain’t so bad. . . and that one thing was a lie so he’s completely vindicated on all points.

This article did not turn out at all like I expected. When I first read about this, I figured Newt would list how he was wrong in the past on various topics and explain his new mindset. I could maybe, possibly accept that. Instead, I found a series of smokescreens, stunning evasions and huge red flags about Newt’s integrity, his understanding of the problems people have with him, and his intentions once he gets into office.

I have been trying very hard to get over my concerns about Newt but this just brings them back with a vengeance. Newt is proving to be Romney without the integrity.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Jokers To The Left of Me, Clowns To The Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Analysis: Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

A couple of you have asked that we provide more detail on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. With another debate tonight (join us for another play by play), now is a good time to discuss the Hermanator’s plan.

Here’s how the plan works:

● Businesses would pay a flat 9.1% tax on gross income less purchases from other US located businesses, capital investment and net exports.

● Individuals would pay a flat 9.1% tax on income, less charitable deductions.

● A 9.1% national sales tax would be created to make up lost revenue.

Here are the reasons this is a good plan:

● The elimination of deductions ends the incestuous relationship between Big Business and government where Big Business buys politicians who insert deductions into the tax code to allow companies like GE to declare record profits and yet pay $0 in tax.

● This plan ends the economic misallocations caused by the current code because it eliminates the deductions which encourage people to hide their income. It does not give preferences to savings or consumption, capital or labor, or dividends verses income growth. In effect, the government gets out of the business of telling people how to structure their economic lives.

● It reduces the disincentive to work because it lowers payroll taxes. And it boosts the incentive to work, hire and buy new equipment because it lowers the overall tax rates for those activities.

● It encourages spending on American goods and services as only those can be deducted. And it encourages exports.

● This forces everyone to pay taxes, i.e. it broadens the tax base. Right now 47% of the public pays no tax, but gets government benefits. That needs to change to change the incentive these people have to keep demanding bigger government. Making them pay taxes goes a long way toward that.

Here are the arguments against:

● This will create a hidden Value Added Tax! Europe uses the VAT because VATs can be raised without people knowing. But this isn’t a VAT. This is a sales tax and would only apply to the sale of new goods or services to end users. In other words, whereas a VAT gets added at each level, a sale tax only gets added once. Moreover, you would see this tax on your receipts -- something you don’t get with a VAT.

● This weekend Cain admitted that some people will pay more under his plan. So what? Finding a plan under which no one pays more but revenues remain about the same is an impossibility.

● Idiot liberal: “Poor people will pay more!!” Idiot progressive: “The evil rich will pay less!!” A lot of information is being produced to claim this plan shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, but that's all fake -- it's based on unreal assumptions about what the rich and poor pay now (like assuming GE actually pays taxes) and it assumes neither rich nor poor will change their behavior in response to the plan. The truth is the 47% of people who currently pay no taxes will pay more. The others (the productive 53%) will pay less. And frankly, that doesn't bother me in the least.

● Grover Norquist: “This raises taxes!!” Grover is again equating the elimination of all those deductions with tax hikes. But if we accept Grover’s logic, then we are trapped in the current tax code forever. What a tool.

● The plan doesn’t raise enough money! Opponents scored the plan and claim it will only raise $2 trillion, not $2.2 trillion as Cain claims. Frankly, that’s more accurate than anything else proposed by Congress. But more to the point, this is standard static scoring where they just take current spending/ income and apply the new rates. They did not determine whether people would work more once they can keep more of their income (they would) or whether people would spend more once they have more income to spend (they would). (They did the same thing to criticize Reaganomics.) No one knows what this plan would actually bring in, but if the critics are claiming $2 trillion, expect it to do much better in reality.

But there is one more problem with the plan. . . this plan ain’t happenin. Our government is specifically designed to prevent radical ideas from being implemented and this plan is deeply radical. This plan would require a complete change in the way Washington works, and that will upset too many vested interest. For example:

● K Street will lose most of its business with the end of the deductions in the tax code.

● The poverty lobby will lose its cherished progressive tax.

● Most tax attorneys and tax accountants would lose their jobs.

● All the people who currently use deductions (everything from home owners to GE) will try to save their own deductions.

● Businesses will whine about the sales tax hurting their sales.

● Foreign countries will complain about “predatory taxation” designed to steal businesses.

That’s too much opposition for Congress to do something this radical. The Democrats will cling like grim death to the old system, as will many Republicans. Still, this plan tells us a lot about Cain and his goals and it is a worthwhile goal.


P.S. Check out Herman Cain singing about pizza: Not, I'm not kidding

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Yet Another Debate Wrap Up

Last night saw yet another fascinating Republican debate. Most of the attacks were on Cain or Romney. Perry attacked Romney as did Bachmann. Paul and Santorum attacked Cain. Huntsman focused on Perry. Gingrich focused on the Fed. Romney focused on Obama. Cain focused on his own plans. And the moderators attacked Romney, Cain and Perry. In the end, I think Cain was a huge winner, even though that may not be immediately apparent, and the race is now between Romney and Cain.

● Cain: Cain needed to show he could take the pressure of being number two. He did. At no point did he fall flat on his face or lack for answers. His two worst moments came:

● When a moderator asked why he told the unemployed it was their own fault they didn't have jobs. This mischaracterized Cain’s comment, which was aimed at the idiots squatting on Wall Street, but it still sounded bad and his explanation wasn’t particularly strong.

● When Ron Paul attacked him for being on the Kansas City Fed, Cain gave an ok (not great) answer that the Fed didn’t act then like it does now. That won’t satisfy Fed-deniers.

Cain defended other attacks quite nicely, such as:

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for raising only $2 trillion in revenues instead of the $2.2 trillion claimed, Cain shot back with one of the best lines of the night: “The problem with that analysis is that it’s incorrect.”

● When a moderator attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being “regressive” and making “food and milk and beer” more expensive, Cain made the solid point that eliminating the payroll tax would more than offset that. I like that he didn't apologize for imposing a “regressive” tax.

● When Romney attacked Cain’s 9-9-9 plan for being too simple and claiming simple is not good, Cain turned this on Romney by asking him if he knows all 59 points in his own plan. Romney didn’t and instead came up with the “7 pillars” of his plan and thereby proved that simple is better.

● Several of the underlings jumped on the idea Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would give Congress a new source of revenue by creating a national sale tax, but this only emphasized how deeply entrenched in the system their mindsets are. Following their logic, we shouldn't try anything.

Cain had a brilliant line too: “The capital gains tax is a wall that stands between people with ideas and people with money.”

Cain didn’t blow anybody away, but he did show solid skills and he proved he won't trip himself up. He also did such a masterful job of selling his 9-9-9 plan that every other candidate talked about it constantly, as did the moderators, and it even came up in questions that didn’t involve him. He made his 9-9-9 plan THE take away from this debate and that will prove to be a huge win, even if it isn’t immediately obvious.

● Romney: Romney just needed to be smooth and for the most part he succeeded. BUT the problem with Romney was on full display again last night. He would say something great and then he would keep talking until he backtracked out of it. He also imploded during the TARP question because he danced so long around whether he would do another Wall Street bailout that it became clear not only that he would do another bailout, but it was also clear he was trying to lie to us.

Newt also had a solid hit on Romney by pointing out that “on page 47” of his plan (a slap at Romney’s inability to describe his 59 point plan) Romney plays into Obama’s class warfare argument by promising capital gains tax cuts “to people who don’t have capital gains.” Romney missed Newt’s point and tried to defend this by saying he favors the middle class because the rich can take care of themselves. . . conceding Obama's case.

In the plus category, Perry took a shot at Romney over RomneyCare being like ObamaCare, but Romney’s defense was even better this time than last: (1) we didn’t raise taxes like Obama does, (2) we only insured poor people, we didn’t try to force everyone onto it, (3) this is a state issue, and (4) Massholes like the system 3-1. Whether those are true points or not, they remained un-refuted and made this a dead issue.

Romney also had a great shot at Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman when he said, “I would not be in this race if I had spent my whole life in government.” He then detailed some of the companies he founded.

● Perry: Perry really needed to shine to stop his nosedive. He failed. He barely spoke last night and when he did it was all generic. In particular, he mishandled his pending economic plan. He didn’t seem to know what’s in it and he just kept promising that he would release it soon as if he didn’t want to spoil the surprise. When it was pointed out that he should be able to tell us what’s in it, he responded with a very bad answer, claiming he’d only had eight weeks to work on it, whereas Romney’s had six years. Frankly a candidate who understands what they believe can detail an economic plan off the top of their head.

The moderators also smacked Perry by saying that the way Texas develops business is similar to Solyndra. Perry’s response was basically “everybody’s doin’ it,” which will only add more fire to the cronyism charge.

● Paul: Ron Paul had another bad debate. He had little to say as Newt stole his thunder. When he spoke, he made good points, but they weren’t memorable.

● Gingrich: Newt was the most interesting last night. He repeatedly tried to win over Paul supporters with angry broadside attacks on Ben Bernanke and the Fed, and he tried to win over Palin supporters by defending her even though no one else had mentioned her. Neither group are traditionally Newt people, so he’s clearly trying to branch out. Paul seemed a little stunned by this.

● Santorum: Santorum needs to go. He kept interrupting and he bizarrely continues to paint himself as an outsider. He also did things like blast everyone at the table as insiders and then (in the same sentence) attacked Cain for his lack of experience. Huh? Also, after blasting all the horrible insiders, he bragged how his years as an insider would let him pass his plan. . . whatever that plan actually is. Then he said he wanted to go to war with China, though I think he meant he wanted to fight a trade war, which isn’t much smarter. And his economic plan seems to be to make people get married.

● Bachmann: Bachmann and Santorum came across as lifer politicians with bland platitudes and repeatedly using candidate speak, e.g. “I just spoke to a man who told me blah blah blah.” This is something annoying people do when they've been in politics too long. Bachmann also needs to stop telling us she has 5 biological kids and 24 foster kids and that she was an attorney for the I.R.S. It's become like Al Bundy talking about scoring 4 touchdowns in one game.

Bachmann's attack on Cain's plan also struck me as a negative. She said if you turn Cain’s 9-9-9 plan around, “the devil is in the details.” Ha ha ha. First, that's trite and she has no comedic timing. Secondly, how does that make sense? The beauty of Cain’s plan is the lack of hidden details, it’s the tinker-with-the-current-system advocates who are playing with details. Third, what does she know of details as her “plan” (a term I use loosely) has none -- it's pure platitude. She should join Santorum on the short bus back home.

● Huntsman: Huntsman remains a sniveling jerk. He takes hypocritical cheap shots and radiates smugness, and he continues to adopt Democratic rhetoric to attack the candidates. Last night he said Cain’s 9-9-9 plan sounded like a pizza price, which is a standard attack you’ll find in the leftist blog world.

● Speculation: Finally, there was more evidence for my theory that Cain and Romney have a deal. Cain inexplicable bailed Romney out on TARP and then while seemingly criticizing Romney in the direct question section actually gave Romney an open platform to discuss his economic plan. Romney then used his question against Bachmann, when tactically, he should have blasted Cain. My guess is Cain doesn’t think he’ll win, so he’s agreed he will eventually bow out and endorse Romney in exchange for becoming the VP.

Thanks to everyone who participated last night and thanks to T-Rav and his sockpuppets!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Tuesday Night At The Debates!!

In case you haven’t heard, there’s another Republican debate tonight -- 7:00 pm EST, on BloombergTV. So watch for periodic interruptions from Hugo Chavez Bloomberg himself as he tries to declare himself President. Tonight’s debate will be in New Hamster and could be fairly interesting. This will be Cain’s first test as the field’s punching bag. Perry needs to prove he’s not finished. Romney needs to find Waldo. And the rest need to find graceful exit strategies. Join us here for a play by play. . . join us.. In the meantime, here’s an update on recent events and some bad boxing nicknames:

● Mitt "the Rambler" Romney: Romney has been mocking Obama for creating a “Where’s Waldo economy” in which “finding a good paying job in this economy is harder than finding Waldo in one of his books.” This is of course a horrible analogy made about a book that hasn’t been culturally relevant in 15 years. Nice work Romney. . . way to show us groovy cats that you’re the bees knees.

At the Citadel, he gave a foreign policy speech in which said: “This century must be an American Century.”.... which is a mutual fund. After that it got a little confusing. He has four principles that he claims he will follow in foreign policy, but these were extremely generic. He will use American power with clarity and resolve to support our friends and promote capitalism. He intends to be a leader in multinational organizations, and he wants a strong military. You tell me what that means.

● The Herminator: Cain continues to surge in the polls. Most national polls have him in second place and climbing, though a couple had him in first place. Two separate polls released this week have him moving into second place in liberal New Hampshire: Romney 38%, Cain 20%, Paul 13%, Perry 4%. This will make Cain the candidate all the other conservative will shoot at, just as they attacked Perry before him. How he handles the heat could well determined his future. A failure tonight would likely stop his momentum dead and kill his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in establishment land, The Washington Post is trying to mock him as the “flavor of the month” and scoffs that “conservatives will tire of him at some point and once again search for the next big thing.” Thus proving that the Post is indeed clueless about conservatives. We are looking for a good candidate, we don't have ADD like liberals do.

It also scoffs that Cain can't fool the Post about his lack of foreign policy experience and it notes that candidates who don’t know foreign policy always fail. . . assuming you ignore Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama, each of whom had squat in the way of foreign policy experience when they took over.

● Texas Trainwreck Rick Perry: Most pundits are saying Perry needs to win big tonight or he’s finished. For his part, Perry is taking this debate very seriously. He has reportedly been practicing against a stand-in for Romney. . . who did indeed dress like Waldo. He also apparently intends to follow Commentarama’s advice and issue a “significant economic plan” next week. Personally, I’d release it right now, before the debate, but what do I know?

Perry went through a bit of an embarrassment last week when Perry supporter Evangelical leader Robert Jeffress decided to tell the world that Mormonism is a cult and thus, we should not vote for Romney. Perry’s campaign quickly issued a statement disavowing this comment: “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult,” and urged us to vote for Romney. Jeffress is now being compared to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

● St. Ron Paul: In a bit of a shocker, Ron Paul won an informal straw poll at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. He won 37% of the vote. Cain came in second with 23%. Perry got fourth with 8% and Romney scored sixth with 4%. Paul isn’t exactly known for being a darling of the Religious Right, so how do we account for this? FRC leaders say Paul's support came from younger FRCVVS attendees. . . which doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Could Paul have more supporters than we think? Should we prepare for a Paul Presidency? Tune in November 2012 and find out!

● Jon Super-Butch Huntsman: Huntsman continues to pound his chest to prove to us that he’s not an effete liberal. He’s now promising to bomb Iran, and no, I’m not really kidding: “I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If you want an example of when I would use American force, it would be that.” To quote the late Al Davis, “just nuke ‘em baby!”

● Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and the other guys whose names I’ve forgotten, all continue to exist.

● The End Is Nigh: Finally, nothing you’ve just read matters. The Detroit Lions are 5-0, which means the world is ending. The Mayans were right. We’re screwed.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Herman Cain Gets Noticed

Herman Cain is all over the news now. He was on Leno. Dennis Miller endorsed him. Leftist comic D.L. Hugley is making racist comments about him. Janeane Garofalo and Bill Maher are babbling that Republicans only like him because they’re racist. Now the establishment is noticing Cain.

Michael Barone is a smart guy. He’s an election geek with a solid grasp of politics and a deep understanding of voting patterns. But he’s also an establishment conservative. And that means he's blind to things that aren’t considered viable by the establishment. That’s why his article this weekend is so interesting.

Barone first notes that Cain has none of the traditional experience required of Presidential candidates. In the eyes of the establishment, that disqualifies him. Barone then notes that Cain has been largely ignored by the media. Even after his solid performance in the Fox cave debate and after crushing Perry in the Florida straw poll, he was still ignored. But now there’s evidence the public is responding to Cain, so the establishment is grudgingly taking notice.

Indeed, a Fox News poll last week shows Cain surged from 5% support to 17% support. A SurveyUSA poll shows Cain trailing Romney 27% to 25%. And Rasmussen reports that Cain trails Obama by only 5% in a head to head contest. Sunday he won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll with 49% compared to 14% for the next highest vote getter.

This finally forced the establishment to take note. Indeed, Barone notes that Cain must now be considered a genuine contender. The Wall Street Journal has reached the same conclusion. On September 29, Journal columnist Daniel Henninger wrote that: “Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead.” And that, according to Henniger, makes him a "plausible candidate."

Here is what Barone thinks is drawing conservatives to Cain. See if you agree:

● His 9-9-9 tax plan and his generally conservative stand on issues.

● His youtube clip debating Bill Clinton on health care in 1994.

● His likability compared to Romney’s awkwardness and Perry’s “charm [being] lost on most non-Texans.”

● He being black. “In this, white conservatives resemble white liberals. . . white conservatives like to hear black candidates who articulate their views.”

● Cain’s claim that he can get 1/3 of black voters.

I don't buy it. I think these are side issues. Conservatives like candidates who share their views. And right now, Cain's the one guy really doing that. I also think what Cain has going for him is something the establishment is lacking entirely -- the ability to speak with us common folk in ways we understand, like and remember. Cain is not speaking wonk-speak and he's not talking at us. This is a lesson the Republicans must learn.

Of further interest, Cain took Christie down pretty hard this weekend. He said what we've been saying, Christie is "too liberal." Cain said this on Fox:

I believe that a lot of conservatives once they know his position on those things that you delineated, they’re going to not be able to support him. Most of the conservatives believe that we should enforce our borders. They do not believe people should be here without documentation. They do not believe global warming is a “crisis” or a “threat” — yes it might be a little bit out there but they don’t see it as a “crisis” or a “threat” and as you go right down the line, he’s going to turn off a lot of conservatives with those positions.

Then on ABC, Cain said that Christie does not pay enough attention to the very real threat of Islamic influence:

Some people would infuse sharia law in our court system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. I’m sticking to it — American laws in American courts, period.

I'm glad somebody's finally saying it! FYI, at the same time Cain was making these policy-bases points, the left was attacking Christie over his weight. How substantive.

Cain's new-found higher profile has brought the Paul crowd out of the woodwork. They spent the weekend crawling the net reminding people that, as we told you before, Cain joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992, and became its chairman in 1995-1996. Clearly, Cain is a Trojan Fed horse. Make of that what you will. . . you'll be seeing it everywhere.

In the meantime, expect the attacks to intensify on Cain. How he handles it will tell us a lot about his chances.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Last Night At The Debate

Last night saw yet another Republican debate. Who won? Who lost? Who should quit now? And a couple surprise thoughts! All this and more will be yours in this very special episode of Last Night At The Debate.

● Winner: Romney came across as confident and conservative. He ran to the right of Perry on immigration and states rights. He had a solid control of the facts and some seriously pithy moments. For example, he latched onto one of Perry’s backtracks and said: “there’s a Rick Perry out there saying [the opposite of what you just said,] you better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.” Everyone laughed and Perry had no idea how to respond. Romney won a lot of people last night.

● Winner: The Hermanator was brilliant. He’s got a strong set of ideas and a compelling personality. His 9/9/9 plan is so well designed from a marketing perspective that it’s the only plan anyone remembers. His discussion of his cancer truly personalized why ObamaCare needs to go. His attack on the EPA “regulating dust” was one of the best received moments all night. And he offered a strong, clear and moral foreign policy. He not only had a command of the issues, he had a commanding presence. Cain should leapfrog Bachmann and maybe Perry if Perry falls as far as seems likely.

● Toast: Put a fork in Rick Perry, he’s done. Seriously. . . he’s the Hindenburg of candidates. Perry came across like he was drugged. He looked intimidated and sleepy. He sounded pissy. He never answered a single question, choosing instead to make whining attacks on Romney. All that was missing was Nixonian sweat to make the total implosion complete. I honestly expect this debate finished him. Consider these self-inflicted wounds:

● He stands by giving illegal aliens instate college rates. Perry tried to argue these people would be an economic burden unless they got education. Then Santorum slapped him down by pointing out that Perry was subsidizing illegals at rates people in the other 56 states can’t get. Zap.

● Perry tried to claim opponents of subsidizing illegal aliens “have no heart.” Well, f@#$ you, sir. Frank Lutz’s focus group HATED that.

● Perry had a couple good attacks on Romney but they fell flat because he kept tripping over his words. All night, he sounded a lot like Bush when Bush got into trouble in debates.

● Perry’s attempt to dodge his horrid answer on Social Security was a disaster. Now he claims he was only talking about creating state programs for government workers rather than privatizing the whole system. . . which Romney pointed out isn’t what Perry said in his book.

● Loser: Fox News. The acoustics were horrible, like the debate was held in a cave. Everything echoed and was hard to hear. Their format was horrible and created a dull, disjointed debate: (1) they asked individual questions of candidates, which prevented any sort of back and forth, and (2) they took so long getting to each you all but forgot about people. And they wasted time on stupid and confusing Google promotions. CNN made Fox look like amateurs.

● Toast: Michele Bachmann all but vanished last night, and she had problems. In particular, they re-opened the vaccine wound by questioning her story about the Gardasil vaccine causing retardation in a 12 year old. She tried to distance herself from that by claiming she was just repeating what she had been told -- not a good answer. She was also asked why she avoided answering a question at the last debate about how much of a person’s income they should be allowed to keep. She responded first by saying she wanted to answer and her answer would have been “all of it” (implying a 0% tax rate). Then she immediately said that “of course” some of it is needed to run the government. . . and then she dodged the question a second time.

● Winner/Loser: Gary Johnson had a couple good moments, including the best line of the night: “my neighbor’s dog has produced more shovel-ready jobs than this administration.” BUT he came across as highly uncomfortable and he said he would cut the military budget by 43%, which probably kills him. He’s like a less refined, less smooth version of Ron Paul.

● Winner: Ron Paul not only gave some brilliant answers (and some paranoid ones), but he easily fended off the possibility that Johnson would replace him with the Paul crowd. The USS Ron Paul sails on.

● Winner: Newt continues to impress. His answers are smart and workable. He reminded people that he balanced the budget and millions of jobs were created when he was Speaker. He’s pushing states’ rights strongly and he focuses on Obama.

● Winner: Joe Sixpack. Once again, the questions from the audience were great (except for one whiner from Michigan). I love Americans.

● Loser: Santorum collapsed on the don’t ask don’t tell repeal. Not only did he seem scared to even talk about gays, but he ended up suggesting the policy had to be put back in place to protect the military. . . except he would allow those currently in the military to stay. Huh? Basically, he lost both sides.

● Winner: Bev. Bev nominated herself for Vice President and that seems to have gone over well with Commentarama fans.

● Interesting Thought: At one point, Romney seemed to flirt with Cain. . . no, not in that way. This raises the suggestion of a Romney/Cain ticket. That might be enough to win over conservatives to Romney. Let’s see if there are any signs of a follow up.

Thoughts? Predictions?

P.S. Thanks to T-Rav and everyone else who participated last night. You all made a rather dull debate much more entertaining.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

That's (Republican) Debatable! With 12% More Players!

There’s another Republican debate tonight. If we ask nicely, perhaps T-Rav, Emperor of Sockpuppets, will do a play by play? If not, we’ll mock him mercilessly. Anyhoo, this debate will be in Florida, and given the outcry surrounding Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme,” expect that to be a big issue. Also, welcome a new player! Here's what you need to know.

First, the race has turned into a two man race: Perry and Romney. The others are still technically in it, but the polls are beginning to coalesce around these two: Perry holds a 28% to 24% lead over Romney, with no one else in double digits. That’s not surprising, as that happens once front-runners emerge. What is surprising is that Romney is catching up. Perry's 11% lead is down to 4%.

More surprising, Tea Party people in South Carolina apparently are shifting away from Perry toward Romney. I think there are two primary reasons for this. First, Romney has done an effective job of defusing the RomneyCare issue. Whether his defense is true or not, he presented what sounds like a very credible distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. That makes him less toxic, especially as he promises to repeal ObamaCare.

Secondly, Perry is suffering from an unending assault over cronyism -- and has yet to do a good job explaining this away. Cronyism is an issue that sticks in the craws of most Tea Party people. And with Warren Buffett, Solyndra and LightSquared dominating the right-wing blogosphere, cronyism remains a hot button issue. This hurts Perry, especially as no one has made a cronyism charge against Romney.

Does this mean Perry is finished? Hardly. It means Romney will be a stronger competitor than expected and rather than watching Perry run away with the nomination, either one can win this thing. Romney needs to pound away at the crony issue if he wants to win. Perry needs to disarm that issue and find a way to point out that Romney isn't really proposing conservatism.

The other candidates are probably done at this point unless Romney or Perry slips up and falls out. Alternatively, they need to find a way to shock everyone to such a degree they become “buzz-worthy.” Newt is planning to give the intellectual speech to end all speeches. . . but we’ll see. It’s hard to get traction when people assume you can’t win.

One guy who actually has an outside chance tonight is Gary Johnson. He’s the libertarian-leaning former governor of New Mexico. He will be allowed to participate because he cleared the 1% hurdle in the polls (McCotter didn’t). If he comes across as a sane version of Ron Paul or simply as a genuine conservative, he could literally surge into the race as voters still don’t seem happy with Perry or Romney.

The other issue that is hurting Perry is his description of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. It is a Ponzi Scheme, but you can’t say that. Even Mitch Daniels, who is known for being truthful and breaking bad news to the public, described this as “too truthful.” A Ponzi Scheme (named after Charles Ponzi) is a fraud that takes the form of an investment that promises each investor more money than they put in, but which doesn’t earn enough money to pay what it promises. So long as enough new people get suckered in, the fraudster is able to pay what he promised to those already in the investment. But once the flow of new people slows, the whole thing collapses.

That’s exactly how Social Security works -- it pays people more than they paid in and it makes no money on its own. That was fine for decades, but when the baby boomers didn’t have enough kids, they triggered its collapse. Now we face a series of bad choices: cut the promised benefits, raise taxes, add more taxpaying workers (i.e. immigration), or let the system collapse. Unfortunately, voters are unwilling to accept any pain in finding a solution to this pending disaster. That hurts anyone who raises this issue, i.e. Perry.

But the real problem for Perry came when he proposed handing Social Security off to the states. Not only does this set off alarm bells for people who think they are going to get their benefits cut, but it sounds like an accounting gimmick that will crush state budgets. Romney is already pounding away at Perry on it. Indeed, Romney has asked Perry six questions, including how a state-run program would be administered or funded and how people could move from state to state under his plan. Look for this to come up a lot tonight (as the average age in Florida is 107).

Finally, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Israel as well, with Obama making such a mess of it, with Rick Perry using that issue to discuss foreign policy, and with Florida being heavily Jewish. Also, expect Perry to play to Hispanics tonight, who dominate parts of Florida. Perry did a fundraiser with Hispanic businessmen this week and is actively courting them. Other than that, expect a LOT of Bernanke bashing after he broke the stock market yesterday.

Bring your popcorn!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...