Friday's Thoughts: Debates Round-up, Christmas Songs, and Star Wars

By Kit

My last post before Christmas. What a year its been, trying to consistently write a weekly post for this site. It's been difficult, especially with schoolwork but I'm glad for the positive responses I've gotten from you folks.

Now, let's get on with the show.

Tuesday's Debate We had a debate this week. The expected (and possibly hoped for) Trump/Cruz clash did not occur. Cruz deflected from attacking Trump and Trump, interestingly, did likewise. Instead the big clashes were Bush/Trump and, the highlights for me, Cruz/Rubio.

So let's score the Top 8 Candidates.

Trump: Trump was Trump. Though slightly less than usual but still Trump with outlandish calls to kill the families of terrorists (WTF?!) and issuing proposals that, as Jon Gabriel of Ricochet once pointed out, nearly always seem to involve bigger government. He is a populist strongman with a nationalist streak in the vein of Huey Long.

He is also a clueless clown, flubbing a question on the nuclear triad. True, I didn’t know what it was but… I am not running for President of the United States.

However, he did gain a few points with me by promising not to run as an independent. For now, at least. He made He was at zero before (if not in the negatives) so it was not a huge bump. He is still at the bottom for me.

Cruz: Did ok but he made a flap, possibly fatal one (but fatal missteps are declared far more often than they occur) when he said he never supported legalization of illegals when in fact in 2013 he proposed a bill to do just that. He claims it was a poison pill but he advocated on several networks, including for some time after it failed. National Review is giving him hell on this, and, to a certain extent, Fox News as well, while his supporters are trying to craft him as some kind of Machiavellian genius —who lies to stop bills he doesn’t like.

Carson: Still not ready for primetime. Should be running for Congress. Next!

Rubio: My pick as “winner”, even though there really was not a standout winner. But I found myself leaning back to him. He took on an attack on immigration and handled it well. And, no, he did not “dodge” the immigration question, unless dodging means giving a clear and well-crafted answer that clearly outlines a position you don't like in a possibly appealing way. You can say you don't trust him, you can say you don't like his answer, but it was not evasive.

I have some problems with him, true, but he never seems off his game. He has handled himself incredibly well in the debates. He always knows his stuff. That requires some homework. In this primary system, that is sadly a huge plus. He also looked a bit older than in previous debates, where he unfortunately had a Chairman of the College Republicans look to him.

Christie: Rubbed me the wrong way. His butting in during the Rubio/Cruz debate on NSA and attacking them for “just discussing” instead of making decisions shad, to me at least, a stench of pro-executive, anti-legislature strongman Mussoliniism to it. Though it appears to have played well with most people.

Carly: Ok. Her campaign for VP continues apace. Her failed attempt to pull a Christie during one of the Rubio/Cruz clashes was rather sad.

Jeb: Had his best night but that is not saying much considering how poor his nights have been so far.

Kasich: Who? Oh, right, him. He was… there.

He kind of seemed like the Larry Gillmore of the night. He was there.

Any thoughts?


Bad Christmas Songs

First, my least favorite: “Last Christmas”, “Christmas Shoes”, “Grandma Got Run over by a Reinder”, and “Do They Know It’s Christmas” are at the top of my hate list. “Christmas Shoes” is probably my least loathed of them because I rarely heard it but, yeah, its awful. “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is annoying and “Do They Know Its Christmas” is “LOOK AT HOW CARING WE ARE” twaddle. At least “Last Christmas” has a cheesy, 80s so-bad-its-good vibe to it, even if it is annoying.

Good songs? Pretty much any of the classics and the hymns. There are some mediocrities such as “Rock a-Round the Clock” and “All I Want For Christmas” but for the most part this season is full of good songs; “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”, “We Wish You a Merry Christmas”, “Jingle Bells”, “Silver Bells”, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”,

Your favorites? Least favorites?

Star Wars

Well Star Wars premieres tonight, I plan to see it tomorrow. Anyone who dares spoil it for me will be force-choked. But not to death. No, for death they will be tossed bound and gagged into a Sarlacc pit to be digested over the course of a thousand years.

Merry Christmas.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Thoughts On Romney's "Run"

For a few weeks now, the conventional wisdom has been that Mitt Romney is running for the 2016 nomination. Not surprisingly, that raises a huge number of thoughts in my mind. Here goes...

● He’s Not Actually Running: My first thought upon hearing the news was that he’s not actually running. His wife seemed surprised by the idea and made it clear she won’t agree to another run; and I don’t see her changing her mind, not after the very firm stance she took. Romney will not ruin his marriage over this fool’s errand.

Moreover, Romney hasn’t done any of the intense effort it takes to be a viable candidate, e.g. fundraising, speeches, creating an agenda, door to door greetings, assembling of local, statewide and national teams, etc. With his prior Boy-Scout-like preparation efforts, this screams out that he’s not running.

“Ah hah! But don’t you see, Andrew?!!” scream the ideologues. “That’s the clever part! This is his shot at vengeance... he doesn’t care if he wins so long as he stops the Bush family from running again.”

//shakes head.

Look, I know the conventional wisdom storyline (Fox presented it all weekend): obsessively hating the Bush family, Romney decides to jump into the race to throw the election to someone other than Bush! Huzza! And with everyone knowing that Romney is obsessed and only cares about stopping Bush, the theory continues that we can dismiss things like his lack of a legitimate organization. Indeed, to the twisted contrary, his lack of preparation becomes self-serving proof of his obsession and his plan to run.

But that’s garbage.

First, this doesn’t fit his personality. Romney is not a guy who acts emotionally, and he lacks the Machiavellian instincts that would let him try to harm another person. Nor has there ever been any indication of any sort of obsession in his personality.

Secondly, to make even a fake run will require something like $100 million. There is no evidence anywhere that Romney would be willing to spend that kind of money just to tweak the son of someone he dislikes.

Third, even a fake run requires basic campaigning, which means subjecting Romney and his family to a death-march level of travel, appearances, meetings, speeches, dinners, etc. This could destroy his family. Would he do that just to tweak some guy?

Forget it. The onlyTHE ONLY reason Romney would run would be that he honestly thinks he can win, and he knows that’s not happening. Why? Read on.

● America Hates Losers: With America’s obsession with winners, Romney has no chance. Basically, when you fight in some sort of head to head competition, America judges you on the outcome. Win and you can do no wrong so long as you keep winning. But lose and you are shunned and pushed aside for the next best thing. Indeed, ask the Super Bowl losers, each of whom are forgotten, having been dismissed as the biggest loser of the year, even if they dominated the league until a last second dramatic loss in the Super Bowl itself. This is no different.

When politicians lose the big one, they are finished. They aren’t given a second shot at the nomination. They may get a cushy job on Crossfire or they may become respected elder statesmen and are slowly ushered off to pasture, but no one on their side wants to fight the powerful American impulse to write them off as losers. Why pick a candidate who faces such an uphill struggle before even saying a word? That’s just not smart.

● Why Else Would Romney “Run”: So if Romney isn’t running, what is he doing? He could just be trying to raise his status again now that the election is upon us. It wouldn’t surprise me if this was all followed by a surprise book. It also wouldn’t surprise me if he’s just messing with the media.

● Finally, Would I Support Romney?: Absolutely, but there are caveats here. Despite my initial misgivings about Romney, it soon struck me that he could very possibly be the genuine Reagan II. His lose was a true lose to the country and the cause of conservatism. So I would wholeheartedly support getting him into the White House. That said, however, being a prior loser is just such a huge burden to overcome that I simply don’t think he can win. So, to me, it makes no sense to back him.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Bush Will Win The Nomination

In 2008, John McCain won the Republican nomination handily. I was shocked. How could this be? “The base” hates McCain because he opposes everything they stand for and he’s disloyal; indeed, he’s one of the few to whom the label RINO actually applies. Even worse, he’s unstable. Yet, he won. How? Well, I spent a good deal of time trying to figure that out. What I learned was shocking, and it tells me that Bush has already won our nomination.

Let’s start with McCain. How did he do it? Well, there were many “conventional wisdom” possibilities. Chief among these was the idea that the party simply prefers old guys “whose turn it is.” But conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. It tends to mistake correlation for causation. In fact, even worse, what it often tags as THE “cause” is more typically actually caused by the truth the conventional wisdom has missed.

This is like the misleading “running yards” indicator in the NFL. It has been observed that teams that run for more yards win more games in the NFL. Hence conventional wisdom says that having a solid running game causes teams to win. The reality, however, is that the teams with the most running yards tend to get those running yards in the fourth quarter at a point where they are way ahead and simply want to eat up the clock. Thus, in reality, being a winning team causes teams to run more, which gives them higher running averages. Ergo, the conventional wisdom is entirely backwards: winning causes teams to get more running yards, running yards do not cause wins.

This was the case with the “next old guy in line” theory. These guys (McCain, Dole, etc.) didn’t win because the party felt they were owed the nomination because of their seniority, they won because their experience taught them what they needed to do to win, something the young guys hadn’t learned yet. Thus, the conventional wisdom took a correlation (their seniority) and wrongly called it the “cause” of their victory, even though the real cause was something completely different but which correlated to their experience.

So how did McCain win? McCain won the nomination in 2005 and 2006. He did it by going to every single state in the union and campaigning for every Republican he could find at the local, state and national levels. He gave money and advice. He gave endorsements. He held fundraisers. He even donated to guys who were unopposed. And in so doing, he won the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of the most important, most connected, and most respected Republicans in every single state.

When the primaries began, these people returned the favor. They endorsed him... much to the shock of conservatives everywhere: “Why are these real conservatives endorsing HIM?!!” Many also helped organize his campaign in their states or even ran the campaign for him. This meant they used their own networks/contacts to help him. They even fundraised for him. The result was that his campaign became a juggernaut in state after state. And while talk radio toyed in 2007 and 2008 with choosing which “real” conservative they would back, they totally failed to notice what McCain had done and that he was jumping to insurmountable leads everywhere. They didn’t realize the race was over before it even began, it was just a matter of waiting for the votes to confirm it.

There was one more key aspect to his victory too, which I never realized until the recent talk radio civil war: the “base” that hates McCain and which make it “impossible” for guys like him to win are only about 20% of the party. Another 20% could be considered swing conservatives, who vacillate between wanting to win and making ideological statements. And the other 60% of GOP voters are much more moderate and prefer competence and a strong resume to ideological purity. That means the idea that the base will reject moderates as talk radio claims is simply wrong.

Enter Jeb Bush. For the record, I hate dynasties (it’s un-American) and I loath the idea of voting for another Bush. His family has all but destroyed conservatism twice now. G.W. stopped the Reagan revolution cold by ceding the moral high ground to the left by repeatedly characterizing Reaganism as something cold, uncaring, harsh, destructive and in need of being replaced by something kinder and gentler. He also never once defended Reagan against a campaign of slanders from the left. Moreover, he blurred Reagan’s common sense, middle class-ism with the New World Order of international governance, and he called that conservatism. The end result was the total halting of the Reagan revolution and the handing to the Democrats of a chance to become the permanent majority party. Only Hillarycare saved our butts.

W was a million times worse. He was sold to us as “don’t worry, he’s not like his old man... conservatives have nothing to fear... he’s one of you!” But right away, his administration reeked of corruption and robber baronism, which he falsely claimed was “pro-business conservatism.” His economic policy was disastrous Keynesian crap, which he falsely claimed was “free market conservatism.” He did stunningly liberal things, like create new Medicare benefits, which he called conservatism with a heart... again suggesting that conservatism is somehow immoral, cold and harsh. He totally embraced nation building, got caught lying to get us into a war with Iraq -- which let the left equate conservatism with war mongering. Add to that torture and his attempt to strip the Gitmo detainees of guaranteed human rights. He won the war itself (at first) but proved utterly incompetent in managing the peace, which resulted in thousands of lives and trillions of dollars lost. Katrina incompetence. The financial crisis. Wall Street bailout. Etc.

Each of these things destroyed Bush’s reputation with the public, especially as he never fought back, no matter how bad the political damage. Even worse, because he hid behind conservatism like a cloak or shield, conservatism became tarred with his sins even though he never once acted like a conservative. Consequently, by the time he limped away from office, conservatism was all but dead in America. The only thing that saved conservatism was Obamacare. Without Obama’s horrible presidency, the US would have become center-left akin to Germany or modern Britain.

So along comes Jeb. Jeb was an OK governor of Florida, though he proved not to be very conservative. Since leaving office, he has continuously criticized the GOP and conservatism. Yet, we are told not to worry because this Bush isn’t like the prior two. All I can think is, “Fool me twice, shame on me... fool me three times, WTF is my problem?”

In any event though, none of that matters. The race is over and Bush has won. Consider this...

The right is disorganized. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and a number of lesser figures all want to be the talk radio champion. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, and a few others are trying to win both the talk radio right and the more moderate mainstream right. This means that fringe 20% and the swing 20% are scattered among many potential candidates. The moderates are not.

Running against this collection of dwarves was Chris Christie. Unlike the others, Christie positioned himself as a moderate who could attract moderate and even Democratic votes. This makes him appeal to the 60% of moderates and some of the 20% of swing conservatives. Only, Christie is too bombastic, and has too many flaws. Bush does not. By entering the race, Bush automatically wipes out Christie and takes that 60%-80% support.

Further, so far, the dwarves have only played around with the idea of running. They’ve given speeches at various gatherings. They’ve tried to stake out some issue(s) that they think will set them apart, and they’ve pandered to the talk radio hosts. A few have sought out donors, but nothing on a grand scale. In fact, there seems to be this idea that they should do nothing until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Only Rick Perry and Rand Paul seem to be doing more.

Bush, by comparison, has spent the past few years following McCain’s lead. He has quietly helped leading Republicans everywhere he could. He spent his time distancing himself from the nasty conduct of the fringe right in recent years, and he’s sold himself to party insiders as Christie without the flaws. He’s also built a massive donor base – something Rush ignorantly pooh-poohed the other day. In fact, Rush bizarrely warped these people into the enemy of conservatism by describing Bush’s appeal to them as being his ability to “win the party nomination without owing anything to the tea party. Their wildest dream is to render the tea party conservatives an irrelevant factor.”

The result of this is that Bush has essentially sealed up the “moderate” vote which Romney proved was around 60% of GOP primary voters. He’s also got enough promises of endorsements and the such to make sure this support remains firm throughout. He’s collected enough money and promises of money to be able to stay in the race until the end no matter how things start – this means he can survive the early primaries, which are geared toward the fringe, until he can sweep states like New York and California. And he’s done all of this without talk radio realizing what he’s done, which means they will be fighting the wrong battle, i.e. they think the battle has yet to begin when in reality the end game is playing out now.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Cynicism Reigns Supreme At CPAC

Tomorrow, I’m going to start the Agenda 2016 stuff. By way of contrast, I thought I would discuss CPAC today. CPAC depresses me. CPAC seems to be broken into three groups: (1) those who understand the problem, but not the solution, (2) drooling idiots/cynical liars, and (3) a couple people who might actually get it.

The first group consists of people who understand the problem conservatives are facing, but have no actual solutions to offer:

● Jed Bush. I HATE saying anything nice about Bush, so you better read this closely. Bush very accurately puts his finger on the GOP problem:

“All too often we’re associated with being anti-everything. Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”

Bingo. But Bush offers no actual solutions because he’s a worthless turd. What Bush is doing is a con. He’s stolen the rhetoric of brighter people and he’s using that rhetoric as a cover for doing what the Bushes always do when they get into office.

● Scott Walker. Like Bush, Walker gets that the party has an image problem. It’s seen as a party of old white guys. But also like Bush, he offers no solution. His “solution” was this: “I’m not an old white guy” (actual quote). In other words, just like the insiders who label themselves outsiders, Walker hopes to convince you that HE is the answer you are looking for by telling you that he understands the problem and by assuring you that he is not the problem. . . or he suffers from gender/race dysphoria. Poor gal.

These guys get the problem, but they don’t have a solution. The next group, however, are snake oil salesmen. That group doesn’t want you to understand the problem because it doesn’t suit them to have you waking up to reality. So they play the victim card to keep you from using your brain and to deflect blame by trying to convince you that the reason conservatives keep losing is that we keep being betrayed by “establishment Republicans,” and if only we could wipe out the RINO pestilence, then victory will follow:

● Honey BooBoo Palin. Palin first repeated what thinking conservatives have been trying to get through the thick heads of people like Palin:

“As conservatives, we must leave no American behind. And we must share our message of freedom and liberty to all citizens, even those who may disagree on some issues. . . they’re not our enemies, they’re our sisters and brothers. They’re our neighbors and friends. It’s time we all stop preaching to the choir.”

True. But apparently, she doesn’t mean it, because she then did the exact opposite by claiming we need to overcome the “establishment Republicans” so we can purify the party and finally present a conservative message to the public. Yeah, nothing says “big tent” like purging moderates. More importantly, notice the idea that we are losing because “establishment Republicans” control the party and are undermining us. You’ll see this again and again.

● Newt Gingrich. Like Palin, private-jet-and-decades-of-insider-status Newt thinks that attacking the GOP is the way to go. First, he says the GOP needs to stop being “stupid” and “start framing its principles in a positive way that appeals to voters,” but he doesn’t define those principles. . . because he can’t. Why can’t he? Because if he tells you the principles he’s talking about, you will see that we have been running on those principles for decades and that would interfere with his victim strategy when he says, “The dominant wing of this party has learned nothing. It is as stupid as it was in 1976.” Yep, we are controlled by RINOs.

● The Superduper Magic Rush Limbaugh. Quoting Pat Caddell, Rush blames the “consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex” for stopping the GOP from having a conservative message. This is a pretty clever bit of conspiracy theory logic because it allows him to escape the problem of not being able to name any politician who actually does what he claims the secret RINOs are doing. Basically, he’s attacking a phantom “THEY”. As an aside, he also claims we should stop trying to win over independents because we can win with conservatives alone. To back this up, he uses an inspired dose of delusion and bad math.

● Brent Bozell. Bozell told us, “Our days of playing second fiddle to moderates are over!” Drang nach osten! According to Bozell, we need to get rid of all those Republicans who “said all the right things to conservatives,” but then supported Obamacare (fyi, the total number of Republicans who supported Obamacare is 0.0). He also thinks that if we could just defund Planned Parenthood (or HHS) then something something victory!

There are more.

Ok, so the problem, according to these brainiacs and luminaries is that the GOP is dominated by RINOs who won’t let us poor, helpless conservatives ever present conservative positions to the public. Is this true? Consider this:

The platform is a Religious Right wet dream and Phyllis Schlafly is trying to get the GOP to refuse to fund any candidate who won’t support it dogmatically. The number of serious presidential candidates in 2012 or 2008 who didn’t sign all the abortion and anti-gay pledges the Religious Right wanted: none. Number who didn’t sign the Norquist anti-tax pledge: none. Number who didn’t try to outdo each other talking about defunding Planned Parenthood or the EPA: none. Number of Republicans in the House or Senate leadership who haven’t signed those same pledges: none. Number who advocated for amnesty for illegals (prior to this year): none. Number who voted for Obamacare: none. Number who supported any part of Obama’s agenda between 2008 and 2012: none.

See the problem? There are no RINOs, not in the leadership, not in the nominees, not in the rank and file. Sen. Rob Portman this week became the first GOP senator to endorse gay marriage. The Club for Growth has targeted all of eight House Republicans who they think aren’t sufficiently conservative enough on economic issues. . . 8 out of 232. Are McCain and Graham a pain in the butt? Sure, but they don’t control the party, nor are they liberal on most issues. And frankly, it conservatives can’t overcome two men, then conservatism is worthless.

The truth is this. These people are lying to you. Their agenda IS the agenda the GOP has been pushing since the late 1990s, and each year that agenda loses more people. But they don’t want to change because these issues are obsessions with them. So to keep you on board, they invented this phantom army of moderates who haven’t existed since Reagan changed the GOP and they lie to you about the moderates betraying their ideas. Just like liberals falsely claim liberalism has never failed because it’s never been tried, Rush and Palin and Newt falsely claim their agenda has never failed because it’s never been tried. That is garbage. Their agenda is identical to the agenda of every single presidential candidate, all of the leadership, almost all of the elected rank and file, all of talk radio, and all of the pundits (except a couple at the NYT), and it dominates the platform. Where is this RINO menace?

These people are pushing a paranoid conspiracy theory to keep you from thinking about the truth: “It’s not our fault, we’ve been undermined by secret enemies.”

If you want to know who at CPAC gets it, the guy is Artur Davis. Davis is a Democrat turned Republican and he laments the fact that many voters “think like us” but won’t support us. This is what I’ve found in talking to moderates as well. Here is the problem as he sees it:

“They just need to hear it from our politicians that our values will work for their lives and their circumstances. . . . for all that money [spent by Romney], we couldn’t find the language to tell enough Americans why our conservative politics and policies would work in their lives? We became the first Republicans since the ’30s who didn’t talk about middle-class tax relief. The first Republicans in my lifetime who didn’t have the self-confidence to talk about how our policies reduce the poverty and lift the poor out of dependency. The first Republicans since World War II who didn’t seem to get that in this competitive world, education is part of promoting the common defense. So is it any surprise that we are the first conservatives in the modern era to see the number of conservatives fall?”

This is exactly right. As you will see starting tomorrow, the problem with the “conservative” agenda is that it’s crap. It speaks to no one except pure ideologues. It offers nothing to average people who aren’t on a religious crusade or don’t own international corporations. It provides no jobs, no security, no opportunity. It does nothing to help people get ahead or keep what they’ve earned. It offers no help to people who’ve stumbled.

Rush, Palin, Newt, etc. are wrong. They are blind to reality and they have invented boogeymen to keep them from seeing the truth about what they offer. Tune in tomorrow and we’ll start talking about a better way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Just Say No To More Bushes

There was an article at Politico the other day by some Republican strategist about the GOP’s elitism problem. He actually claimed that both parties suffer from this, though his reasoning against the Democrats was misplaced – his reason was their ideology rather than their people even though they are rife with nepotism and millionaire lawyers. The truth is that both parties suffer from an elitism problem and the GOP needs to fix theirs.

Elitism has long been a problem for the GOP. As far back as I can recall, our side has been represented by wealthy old men who were the sons of wealthy old men who held political office themselves. This is where the image of the country-club Republicans came from as these people were all from old-money and old-power. The Democrats were the same thing, but they were better at hiding it because:

(1) They claimed to represent the poor,

(2) They were smarter about highlighting their women and minorities to give the appearance of a meritocracy, and

(3) The Republicans never leveled the charge of elitism. Why didn’t the Republicans level the charge of elitism? Because the Republicans were elitists and didn’t really see elitism as being a bad thing. Who could object to young Winthorp following in daddy’s footsteps after all?

Reagan changed the image of the party, but he couldn’t change the mindset. Yes, modern Republicans all claim to be outsiders, but few of them really are. To the contrary, they keep picking Washington insiders for everything they do. The problems with elitism are this:

(1) Bad PR. Americans love merit, not accidents of birth. Elitism is unAmerican. Electing elitists turns our ideology into nothing more than a vehicle for entitlement, and that is death with American voters.

(2) The public knows the inbred kids of rich people are over-privileged morons who can’t be trusted with responsibilities. Moreover, elitism keeps out the smart and the capable in favor of the connected. That means the more of these people we have, the lower the brainpower of the party – essentially, we are surrounding ourselves with deadweight. Also, elitists cluster in bubbles so they don’t understand America or its citizens, which means they are a liability waiting to happen and they make our image problem worse.

(3) It’s impossible to point out how elitist/nepotistic the Democrats are when our side is the same thing.

Sometimes, it shocks me that anyone could seriously consider voting for another Bush. How many disasters does it take before conservatives get the message? And why would anyone vote for the son of Quayle? The wife of Dole? The GOP needs new blood. Seriously, no more Bushes. No more Doles. No more Quayles. No more Cheneys. No more Kristols. No more spouses or kids of people in power. No more political lifers. If you spend your life in politics, what can you possibly know about the real world?

The Republicans need to remake their image. They need to be seen as the party of small business, the party of entrepreneurs, the party of young workers and young families... the party of aspirations and the American dream. To do this, we need to get more people who fit that image and stop picking people who scream “privileged” and “nepotism.”

No more Bushes.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You're Doing It Wrong!

Alright, a couple points then we can all get on with our days. First up, Jimmy Carville is “worried” about Obama. Second up, we have some polls showing why Jimmy is right to worry. Finally, we have a reminder why we should be done with the Bush family once and for all. Let’s do this.

● Jimmy Carville: James Carville is a partisan hack, so when he tells you that Obama is eeah, doin’ sumtin wrongg, you better believe Obama’s doing something wrong. And in this case, Jimmy C is upset that Obama is telling everyone the economy is great. Said Jimmy C on Good Morning America:

“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine and people don’t feel they ought to believe that.”

In other words, by telling people everything is fine when the public clearly knows better, Obama is squandering what little trust he has left and is telling voters that he “doesn’t get it” and has no plans to address their concerns.

As proof that Carville is right, think back to last week when Obama said at a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” Really? Perhaps he forgot that four million private sector jobs have vanished under his Reign of Error? The Republicans (led by Romney) pounced on this so strongly that Obama had to “clarify” his comments a few hours later by telling reporters, “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.” Nice, complete reversal “clarification.”

Carville once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps he was talking directly to Obama?

● Polls: I’ve said before that this election really comes down to Florida and Ohio. In Ohio, Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. In Florida, Romney leads Obama 46% to 45%. With undecideds typically breaking for the incumbent, this tells us Obama will lose. Iowa, which I see as irrelevant, is also trending Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And if that isn’t enough, get this. . .

Colorado, an Obama state, is tied 45% each. Michigan, a clear Obama state, has Romney leading 46% to 45%. Wisconsin, another Obama state, has Romney leading 47% to 45%. That’s 36 electoral votes slipping through his fingers. Winning will be virtually impossible for Obama if that happen.

● RINO-dynasty: It is time America was finished with the Bush clan. Two disastrous Presidents who did their best to tar conservatism is enough. Sadly, there’s one more out there and he’s no better. This week old Jeb reminded us again why we want no part of him. What did he do this time? Get this. . . despite the election coming up, he decided now would be a good time to call us all a bunch of extremists. Specifically, he said this:

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.”

In other words, Reagan and Bush Sr. couldn’t have been nominated if they ran today because the party is now too extreme to accept them.

First of all, this is false. This is the same party which just nominated Mitt Romney, who was viewed by conservatives as a RINO and whose record as a governor is clearly moderate. This is also the same party which has made RINOs like Chris Christie and, regrettably, Jeb himself into stars. Secondly, saying this now is disloyal as now is the time to rally around the nominee to defeat Obama. Finally, it’s ultra-disloyal to say this particularly because this has been a Democratic talking point for years now, and only true RINOs adopt Democratic talking points and lend them credibility.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will never vote for another Bush.

OT: I was planning to do a book giveaway promo later in the year, but for various reasons beyond my control, it's moved. So next Tuesday, Without A Hitch will be FREE on Kindle. Please pick it up if you haven't and read it and then leave a review! :)

Also, if you have already read it or Wrongful Death, please do me a favor and try to leave a review before Tuesday. People judge books by the number of reviews these days so it would help me a lot if you all posted one (and no, they don't need to be 5s... be honest). Thanks! Here's the LINK
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Reforming Education

For years, the Democrats have held the edge with the public on the issue of education. This has been for a variety of reasons. But now that’s fading because GOP governors are actually changing the world of education with stunning success. And strangely, the credit belongs to Jeb Bush.

Between 1999 and 2007, Jeb Bush was governor of Florida. When he was elected, Florida’s schools were the worst in the nation. Against the total opposition of the Florida teachers unions, Bush instituted the following reforms:

● First, Florida began grading schools -- A through F -- based on student progress on proficiency tests. Students at schools which failed were allowed to transfer away.

● Secondly, they stopped “social promotion,” i.e. graduating kids to the next grade even though they were failing. (i.e. incentives for students)

● Third, they created a merit-pay system where teachers got bonuses if their students passed certain exams. (i.e. incentives for teachers)

● Fourth, parents got greater choice. They could use state vouchers to choose from public, private, charter and even on-line schools. (i.e. incentives for schools)

● Fifth, they changed the certification requirements to allow other professionals to become teachers even without having the noxious and useless “education” degree.

Each of these are things the teachers unions all over the country have been fighting for decades with the most ridiculous claims. Like how in Michigan, for example, the Michigan Education Association is whining how new reforms they are fighting would mean a 44-year-old teach who was hoping to retire in three years now would not be able to retire until she turns all of 60! The horror. They've also screamed racism, classism, and all the usual crappola.

So how did Bush’s plan work? Florida’s schools are now statistically among the best in the nation. That’s right, worst to near first in eight years. And black and Hispanic students have made the biggest gains. Moreover, Bush did all of this without massive increases in spending -- per pupil spending rose slightly, but not as much as in other states.

You would think this would open some eyes on the left, right? Hardly. Republican governors are now doing the exact same things in Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, and a host of other Republican leaning states with Republican governors. And guess what? The unions and the Democrats continue to fight tooth and nail to stop these proven reforms. Isn’t it amazing that they simply don’t want things to get better?

Well, according to researchers at Stanford University, voters increasingly see the Democrats as servants of the teachers unions and the failing status quo. So maybe things are changing?

Of course, that won’t change any Democratic minds. I’ve mentioned before how it’s being proven that liberals are stupider than conservatives, are less well-informed, and are more likely to avoid people who disagree with them (LINK, LINK). Well, it also turns out that liberals distort their beliefs to help their own side. Indeed, consider this fact from the liberal Washington Post: while 73% of liberals said the White House could control gas prices when Bush was in office, only 33% claimed to believe that with Obama in the White House. That means two out of three liberals either changed their beliefs or lied about their beliefs to help the Democrats. Imagine that! So don’t expect them to recognize the improvements in the world of education.

But others are waking up. And little by little, the Democrats are losing their association with being the party of education. And that will benefit the nation's children.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

GOP Establishment Keeps On Disappointing

There are three problems with the GOP establishment class. First, they mistake K Street for the public and they mistake K Street’s crony-capitalism for genuine capitalism. Secondly, they are technocrats who don’t understand the fundamentals of politics. And third, they are cowards who would rather lose than upset anyone. In the past week, we’ve received some classic examples of this.

Example One: Peggy Noonan

The first example relates to Rick Perry and comes from Peggy Noonan. Noonan is a former Bush I speech writer who wrote the obnoxious, backhanded attack on Reaganism: “a kinder, gentler nation.” She also wrote the ultimately foolish “read my lips: no new taxes.” She spent the 2008 election attacking Sarah Palin. Now she’s after Rick Perry.



There are good reasons to be concerned about Rick Perry. He seems to be a champion of crony capitalism, and I am concerned he will wrap Big Business socialism in the mantle of conservatism, just as Bush and Obama have done. And I am hearing similar concerns from other conservatives and Tea Party people everywhere. But that’s not Noonan’s concern. Nope, she unquestioningly takes him as a “natural conservative.” What troubles her is his style:

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged.

Really? So she doesn’t even see or care about the danger that he might be a Big Business Trojan Horse, but she’s worried that mushy centrists might not like him speaking confidently about his beliefs? Indeed, she equates having strong beliefs with being angry. This is a clear example of what is wrong with the establishment: they don’t see any conflict between conservatism and cronyism, yet they worry when the crony doesn't appear meek enough. Pathetic.

Example Two: Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush’s supporters tell us that he’s not like the rest of his family. “He’s a genuine conservative,” they say. His record doesn’t reflect that, and sure, he supports teachers unions and open borders and RINO candidates and his son is now a Jon Huntsman supporter, but "trust us," they say. Well, I’m not buying it. The Bush family are RINOs to the core and I will not support another one. I will vote for Satan before I vote for Bush.



So what did Bush do now? On Fox Business News, Bush warned the 2012 GOP contenders that they should not attack Obama. According to Bush, they can talk about his policies, but they need to steer clear of attacking Obama himself and “ascribing bad motives to the guy." Why? Because "that’s wrong” and it "risks alienating voters."



This is so fundamentally wrong. Elections that involve incumbent Presidents are referendums on the President. They are not contests of equals. In other words, with a few exceptions, it doesn’t matter who we pick as a candidate, the public will be voting based on whether or not they want to retain Barack Obama. . . that's it. And the only way to win an election against an incumbent is to turn the public against the incumbent. That means pointing out their failures, their flaws, the things they’ve done and said that the public has not liked. It means pointing out why their motivations are bad, i.e. “ascribing bad motives to the guy.” And it means attacking them personally over all the little things the public doesn’t like about them. That is how you beat an incumbent.



What Bush is proposing is for losers. It is the rules for some country club debating society, not a political campaign to lead the country. And the fact he would try to disarm his own side, once again shows why no one should ever trust another Bush anywhere near the White House.

Example Three: Stop Praising The Bad Guys!

Finally, we come to a series of Republicans going out of their way to give aid and comfort to the Democrats:

● Chris Christie tells us that global warming is real.



● Jon Huntsman called Republicans who reject the false science behind global warming “anti-science.”



● Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says that we shouldn’t repeal ObamaCare because 70% of it is good.



● Massive RINO Tom Davis, former Congressman from Virginia who supports DC statehood, can’t bring himself to point out the Obama Justice Department’s sudden investigation of S&P is retaliation for making Obama look bad. The best he can suggest is that “it almost looks retaliatory.” Right, and World War II was kinda, sorta a shooting thingy.



● John McCain and Lindsey Graham are giving the President aid and comfort on Libya, saying that the United States should be “proud of the role our country played.” McCain had previously stated that Obama made “a strong case” for the use of the military in Libya. . . even as everyone else was calling the war illegal.

This is exactly what angers average Republicans with the establishment. These are issues on which the Democrats blew it. Yet, this group of weak-kneed, "can't we all just get along" Republicans cannot stop themselves from offering aid and comfort to the struggling Democrats. This must stop. They need to learn from the Democrats that you never praise the other side and you never bail them out of their messes. And you certainly NEVER attack your own side. Until the establishment learns these lessons, they are no better than Democratic collaborators.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...