Ryan's "Highly Offensive" Remarks

I want to talk about Paul Ryan’s “highly offensive” gaffe. There are several angles that make this an interesting issue worth discussing. Let us begin.

● It Was Stupid To Say: For those who don’t know, Paul Ryan went on the Bill Bennett show and said something that has been deemed “highly offensive.” What he said was that there is

“a tailspin of culture, in our innercities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value of work.”

This is pretty much true. But in phrasing it this way, Ryan allowed the Professional Race-baiting Community (PRiCs) to start screaming about Ryan using “code” and saying something “highly offensive” about blacks. Ryan himself has called his own statement “inarticulate.”

So how can this be offensive if it’s true? Well, the answer is that he’s needlessly singled out black males for his criticism. Indeed, let me assure you that the exact same cultural problem exists (probably in even great numbers) among Appalachian males and females (or white trash generally wherever they nest), and among black women. By focusing on “inner-city men,” Ryan has injected race into an issue that is not race specific. The result is screaming PRiCs.

Had he said instead, “There is a tailspin of culture in the poorer parts of our country of people not working and just generations of families not even thinking about working or learning the value of work,” then his point would have been solid and non-controversial. Ergo, it was stupid to say this, because he needlessly caused controversy which deflected the point he wanted to make and which played into the image of the GOP as sneaky racists. A man who has spent his entire life in politics, where you must weigh your words carefully, should have known never to needlessly dance along a racial line.

● Wrong Answer: Making things worse, Ryan responded. First, he called his comment inarticulate, which is fine. But then he kept talking. What he said in a statement was this:

“I was not implicating the culture of one community, but of society as a whole.”

Let’s stop there. This is wrong. Society as a whole is not to blame. It is not the fault of hardworking average Americans that there are lazy, drug addicted sh*tbirds hidden in the bad parts of town. So don’t blame the country for these people. Moreover, stop talking about blacks as having a separate culture or being a separate community. Stop playing into this idea that they are different.

He continues:

“We have allowed our society to isolate or quarantine the poor rather than integrate people into our communities. The predictable result has been multi-generational poverty and little opportunity.”

Wrong! Society has not isolated or quarantined these people. That again implies that we are to blame for their sh*tiness. They have caused their own problems. They are not the victims here. In fact, the real victims are the taxpayers who pay to support their lazy lifestyles and the working poor who live nearby and find themselves robbed and assaulted by these sh*ts.

Moreover, the answer is not “to integrate” these people, unless you are talking about taking all their kids and giving them to responsible parents. Integrating these people only spreads them out and exposes more people to their criminal behavior. The answer is to force these people to start behaving responsibly.

In an effort to sound nice, Ryan has painted the criminals as the victims and the victims as the oppressors. Again, Ryan should know better.

● Don’t Acknowledge The PRiCs: The worst thing you can do with lunatics and fringers is to acknowledge them. Unfortunately, after the criticism hit and the PRiCs demanded a meeting with Ryan, Ryan agreed to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus. This was stupid. First, it lends the grievance credence. Secondly, it lends the CBC legitimacy as the judges of all things black-racism. If there was a need for an apology, Ryan should have issued it without ever mentioned the CBC or any other PRiCs and then moved on... leave them talking to themselves. By kowtowing to them, even slightly, he has simply perpetuated their self-anointed role as the arbiters of black-white relations.

● Fortunately, Ain’t Nobody Listening: Finally, I would like to repeat a point I’ve made several times now because it’s important. Americans have moved beyond race, and this is more proof. Had Ryan said this in the 1990s, every news channel and every newspaper would be awash in analysis of this issue. Jesse Jackoff and Al Sharpton and the other PRiCs would be holding rallies and there would be 10,000 calls already for Ryan to resign.

Instead, this is a non-issue. Outside of wonks, no one is talking about this issue. There are no rallies, no public hearings, and zero public outrage. Almost no one even knows about it. In fact, the only people who care about this issue are the ideological race baiters, left and right, who try to keep their own audiences clinging to them by screaming about race.

America just doesn’t care anymore about the grievance lobby. And that’s a good thing. Now let's hope Mr. Ryan wises up a bit.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The New Ryan Budget: Pros and Cons

Less than two weeks before Christmas, folks. Snow's on the ground, the presents are getting wrapped, there's more polls showing Obama lower than a snake's belly: Yep, that must mean it's time for another budget fight! Wait, what?

Yeah, I'll be honest; the new Ryan-Murray budget deal, removing the budget cuts from the sequester in favor of cuts at a later date, announced earlier this week caught me off guard. So did all the attacks immediately made by other conservatives, and the congratulating going around between Democrats and mainstream GOPers. (The latter probably has something to do with the former, I'd imagine.) I'm still working through what this budget has to say, and if you've seen something I haven't, feel free to call me out on it. As for what I have found so far, it's a mix of good and bad--but more of the bad, I'm inclined to think.

Pro: It Keeps Us Focused On ObamaCare. This one is pretty straightforward. The RMS Obama has finally met its iceberg, in the form of an awful ACA rollout, and the Prez's approval ratings are hitting new lows. (Smiles all around.) The bad news is still coming in, too, and each new piece of information makes the Democrats look worse. So why should we derail that train with a new fight over government funding and another threat of shutdown? As Jonah Goldberg points out at NRO, we would essentially be risking all the goodwill we might have built up in the past month or so "over what amount to rounding errors in the budget and the debt."

Pro: Mandatory Spending Cuts! (ish) The budget deal requires that increases in discretionary spending have to be balanced out by cuts to entitlements. Some of those cuts are kind of weak--federal employees have to pay more into their pension plans, for example, but only those employees hired after the fact--but they do still set good precedents. Hey, every little bit helps.

Con: Taxation Surprise! Taxation surprises are never fun, and this is no exception. One of the provisions in the budget deal is a procedural alteration that would allow Senate Democrats to pass tax increases and send them to the House with a mere 51 votes, not the usual 60. Now, it sounds worse than it is. The Senate can already do this via reconciliation, and in any case, it doesn't mean the House has to play ball--on paper. However, anything which makes it easier for Harry Reid to put the burden on House Republicans, especially where taxes are concerned, is hardly something to cheer about.

Con: The Budget Is Just Plain Screwy. Simple math: It approves the spending of $600 billion, at minimum, over a ten-year period while reducing the deficit by only $20 billion, and that through higher fees. There are real savings, further down the road; but not until 2022-23 and later. If we could trust that those cuts would in fact happen then, it might be different, but is anyone willing to extend that trust? Because I'm not. And, some of those "fees" are really egregious examples of intrusive government--like an increase in how much the feds can charge us for a passenger flight. Which I didn't even know they did, and isn't that creepy.

Final judgment on this plan? Eh, I don't have one. It's not a good budget, but then I don't think anyone on the Right, establishment, Tea Party, or whoever, is claiming that. What it really comes down to, I think, is whether you believe that under the present political circumstances, this is the best possible budget we can hope to pass right now. And there's a good argument that it is.

Mainly, where I think Ryan did screw up on this plan is by rolling it out on such short notice, and then by demanding a full vote on it so quickly. We talk a lot here about paying attention to the political realities; one of those realities is that when you blindside a large chunk of your own party (deliberately or not), they're not going to like it very much. By not getting everyone on the same page earlier, Ryan, Boehner, and other leaders caused a very visible divide in the GOP ranks, made worse by the intramural shouting match of the past couple days. Obama and his cronies are playing for keeps in this political game. We need to make sure our side is too.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Ryan and the Jackass

Joe Biden is a vile human being. He’s a liar, a fool and he won’t stop exploiting his dead wife. And last night, his plan was to lie and throw as much fake mud as needed to make the entire debate incomprehensible. In that, he was successful. Nothing of substance will be remembered from this debate. Sadly for Joe, what will be remembered is his crapulence.

● Likeability: Between his constant interruptions and the whirlwind of bullsh*t he unleashed, Joe Biden basically made it impossible to take away any substance from this debate. Unfortunately for him, his performance was a disgrace. He smirked, snarled, scoffed, interrupted and condescended all night. He came across like a jackal. I have never seen a debate where one participant acted this shamefully. His behavior was honestly beneath the dignity of the office.

What’s even more bizarre are the things he laughed at. He laughed at Iran getting a nuclear bomb. He laughed at Ryan talking about Romney helping a family in need and giving money to charity. He even abused the moderator the one time she asked him a hard question and basically accused her of bias: “you be straight with me.”

His bad manners was all the talking heads talked about, and early polls suggest that it cost Biden the debate. CNBC has Ryan winning 56% to 36%. CNN’s poll has Ryan winning 48% to 44%.

● Ryan’s Failure: I don’t see Ryan as the winner however, so much as he’s just not the loser. Ryan’s made four mistakes. First, he essentially brought a textbook to a “yo’ mama so fat” contest whereas he needed a strategy to call out Biden on his lies and his disgraceful behavior. Secondly, he let the biased moderator push him around. He needed to stop letting her cut off his good answers mid-stream. Third, he lacked a unified theme to give the audience something to take home. Fourth, he needed to connect more dots to exploit his victories. For example, when Biden lied about Catholic hospitals being happy with Obamacare, Ryan countered with “then why are they suing Obama?” This was excellent, but he failed to press this point and explain it clearly. Never make the audience think!

● Stop Criticizing Jim Lehrer: I saw virtually no bias out of Jim Lehrer. Raddatz, on the other hand, was bias incarnate. She gave Joe free rein of questions, tossed him softballs, and advocated for Obama while throwing harsh, biased questions at Ryan. More importantly, she interrupted Ryan every single time he got on a roll. She also took attacks Biden made and demand Ryan answer those, but never once questioned Joe about anything Ryan alleged. This was an unbelievably prejudiced performance.

One particularly amazing example of a biased question was when she started her question on Afghanistan by claiming that Obama had succeeded in defeating al Qaeda, had all but wiped out the Taliban, had stabilized the country, and had basically won the war. Then she asked Ryan why he wanted to keep troops there indefinitely in light of that. The problem is, none of that is true, nor is Ryan advocating keeping troops there.

● Some things Slow Joe said: If Joe’s lips were moving, he was lying, and I mean that. He used fake numbers. He invented events. He claimed personal knowledge of things that didn’t happen and denied things that are on tape. He invented policy positions for Romney and attacked his own straw men. Here is what he said:

● Joe scoffed at the idea that the Democrats ever controlled both the White House and the Congress.

● Joe blamed Obama’s conflicting lies on Libya on the intelligence community. The same community he swears will tell us the precise moment Iran is ready to build a bomb.

● Joe said Iran isn’t building a bomb. Even the IAEA disagrees with this. His “logic” was that they are only making the radioactive material needed for the bomb, but not the bomb itself. That’s a logical and factual pile of crap. Joe also laughed when Ryan said that if Iran isn’t stopped, others in the area will try to build the bomb as well. This has long been acknowledged as true on both sides of the political spectrum.

● Joe said that they got the toughest sanctions ever on Iran (ignore all those tougher sanctions on Cuba and the Soviet Union). He laughed at the idea that Russia watered them down, which they did. He pretended that this would stop Iran from selling oil, even though they are selling directly to China.

● He promised Obama would get whoever killed our ambassador to Libya, which sounded extremely hollow and like fake bravado when he said it. And he actually claimed that Romney didn’t want to see Obama bin Laden killed.

● He said Israel was lying when they claimed Obama’s policies differed from theirs.

● He kept accusing Romney of wanting to start a war in Syria before claiming that Romney’s policy was exactly like Obama’s and that Romney couldn’t identify a single difference. When Ryan identified differences, Joe ignored those and falsely accused Romney of wanting to send ground troops.

● He claimed Obamacare does not force religious institutions to fund or provide contraception or abortion, even though it does and even though those same institutions have sued Obama to stop it. This was right after saying that Ryan wanted to force his views on other religions and claiming he would never do that. He also tried to attribute the comments of Todd Akin about there being different kinds of rape to Paul Ryan.

● Joe kept repeating the 47% line, which Romney has explained and disowned. He blamed Bush for Obama’s failures, and refused to address a single point in Obama’s record.

● He kept trying to scare seniors by claiming Romney wants to privatize Social Security or Medicare (something Romney is not advocating).

● He exploited his dead wife, as he shamelessly does in every debate he’s ever been in.

● He kept using long debunked claims about Romney wanting a $5 trillion tax cut. He lied about Obama’s own tax numbers, claiming Obama only wants to tax millionaires. He lied about the waste and fraud in the “green jobs” loans Obama made. He lied about Ryan passing budgets to slash education (education spending went up, not down).

● Joe kept claiming he spent his life fighting for Main Street against Wall Street, even though he used to be scoffingly referred to as the Senator from MBNA for his efforts to help big banks squeeze the middle class on fees and to make it harder to discharge credit card debt in bankruptcy.

● On the one trillion in automatic cuts coming from the military, the moderator first tried to take those off the table to help Joe, but he blundered right back into them. Then he bizarrely claimed that the Republicans asked for those (even though it was Obama/Reid), that Ryan even claimed “I’ve been looking for this moment a long time,” that Biden would never agree with those cuts and wanted to stop them, but that they were necessary and the military wants them because they want to be “smaller and leaner” and thus Joe supports them. . . but Ryan is evil for proposing them. Good luck figuring that one out. He also simultaneously claimed Ryan wanted the trillion in cuts while also wanting two trillion in new military spending. Hmm.

● Some things Ryan said: Ryan made some solid points, but I don’t think any of them will be remembered because they were buried in Biden-grade bullsh*t. Here is what he said:

● He said that we are seeing the unraveling of Obama’s foreign policy all across the Middle East. This is something even the left is admitting. Indeed, Der Spiegel had a run down of everyone making this point recently and it was a huge list. Unlike Romney, Ryan did not elaborate.

● Ryan said Obama has done nothing to slow Iran from getting the bomb. He said that taking the military option off the table, putting distance between us and Israel, allowing Russia and China to water down the sanctions the Congress wanted (fyi, a bipartisan bill), and granting 20 waivers on those sanctions has sent a green light to Iran to continue.

● He attacked Obama for letting Russia dictate policy on Syria, for waiting too long to take action and for calling Assad a reformer.

● He attacked Obama for giving a precise timeline in Afghanistan, though he and Romney agree with the general timeline, and for withdrawing American troops while still requiring those who are left to continue the same missions and level of effort. Biden countered that the Afghans are taking over those jobs, but that is not true.

● He said that Obama’s strategy of hope and change had turned into “attack, blame and defame” and he pointed out that Obama and Biden were smearing Romney because they had no record they could run on. And in that regard, he pointed out Obama’s list of broken promises, though he did not do this nearly as well as Romney: (1) no one loses their healthcare under Obamacare, even though 20 million will, (2) middle class taxes won’t go up for anyone earning less than $250,000 a year (“millionaires”), but Obamacare raises 20 taxes on the middle class, (3) healthcare costs will go down under Obama, but they are up $2,500, (4) the deficit would be cut in half, but it doubled in size, and (5) he would unite us. There’s a lot he missed here.

● He explained Romney’s tax plan, which is to lower rates across the board ($1.3 trillion in cuts) but to offset that by eliminating deductions which the rich use ($1.2 trillion) for a net change of zero dollars, with a shift of the actual tax burden up onto the rich and away from the middle class. He was going to explain how this will lead to 7 million new jobs, but let himself be cut off. He said they would not accept tax cuts that (1) increased the deficit, (2) increased taxes on the middle class, or (3) resulted in a downward shift of the tax burden.

● He pointed out that the average tax rate on business in the world is 25% and that Obama wants to raise the tax rate on small business form 28% to 44.8%.

● He pointed out the big lie in Obama’s class warfare rhetoric of “the rich paying their fair share” by noting that if we taxed the rich at 100%, it would only fund the government for 90 days. So when Obama says he will raise taxes on the rich to pay for more spending, he’s lying about the revenue source.

All in all, I think this debate will be forgotten. Joe lost because he was extremely unlikable. But that won’t hurt Obama because no one will vote on the basis of liking or not liking Joe Biden. I think the left will be thrilled at Joe’s boorish behavior and the right will be incensed, and moderates will scratch their heads and wonder why they didn’t watch the football game. The theme I would hope conservative run with from this is the lengths to which Joe and Obama will go to avoid discussing their record.

Thoughts? Anything I missed?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Vice Presidential Debate Thread

As we get ready for the Bidenisms to start flying fast and furious, I'm turning the floor over to you, gentle viewer, to lend Slow Joe a hand! Tell us some of the Bidenism you hope to hear tonight! I hear he wants to be very aggressive.

(FYI, I will do my best to provide a summary tomorrow in addition to the film review.)

Also, by request, I've put the "follow" button on the bottom left of the page for those who would like to be able to follow the blog in Google reader.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Things Are Looking Bad For Obama

Things are not going well for Team Obama. The debate was a debacle and liberals are now beginning to ask if Obama even wants to win. Others are joking about him using their donations to buy pot (see, e.g. Bill Maher). Early voting is sending up huge warning signs for Obama, the polls are finally starting to show movement against Obama, and Biden is on deck. Let’s discuss.

● Early Turnout Leans Romney: Turnout is key to winning elections and right now the turnout is telling us that Romney has a significant advantage. Obama won in 2008 with a +7% Democratic turnout advantage nationally. That’s the high-water mark for the Democrats. In certain critical states, the turnout was even higher for Obama. This enthusiasm advantage translated into a large advantage for Obama in early voting, which made Obama's election day job easier. This year, everything is reversed:

● In Ohio, the early voting edge went to Obama over McCain by +14% D in 2008, and Obama won by 4.6%. Right now, the early voting is only +4% D, which means Obama needs to make up around 6% on election day to win the state.

● In North Carolina, which Obama won by 0.3% in 2008, early turnout is favoring Romney by a 2-1 margin, with GOP ballots coming in 44% ahead of the pace in 2008. Again, Obama will need to make up significant ground on election day.

● In Iowa, Obama had a 150,000 advantage in early voting in 2008 and he won by 9.5%. In 2004, John Kerry had a 60,000 advantage in early voting and Bush won by 2.4%. Right now, Obama has only a 77,000 advantage. That suggests a tossup.

None of this means Obama is losing or that he’s lost. What this tells us is that Democratic enthusiasm is indeed way down and Republican enthusiasm is way up. That’s really bad for Obama because this election will depend on turnout. It also means that the Democrats are not running as good of a ground game as they have in the past and Romney is way ahead of McCain in that regard. Indeed, his campaign has already met more people face to face than McCain’s did. So what this ultimately means is that Obama is lagging.

● Polling Bump: Meanwhile the polls are showing a significant bump for Romney following his debate performance.

● In Wisconsin, the famously liberal PPP poll shows Obama’s 7% lead (52% to 45%) falling to a mere 2% (49% to 47%). That’s a 5% bump for Romney. Romney’s biggest gains came among women in that poll.

● Rasmussen shows Romney with a 2% national lead (49% - 47%), for a bump of about 4%. Most other polls are showing a 3-5% bump. Gallup shows Romney with a 5% bounce.

● The Battleground Poll shows Romney winning independents 51% to 35%, Obama won them last time 52% to 44%, and it shows a 13% enthusiasm gap for the Republicans.

● Rasmussen also shows Romney only 1% behind in Ohio and 2% behind in Nevada, but 1% ahead in Virginia, 2% ahead in Florida and Colorado, and 3% ahead in North Carolina, Iowa and New Hampshire. And don’t forget, Rasmussen is mixing 2008 turnout with 2004 turnout... not 2010.

This is bad news for Obama because these polls are getting close to the point where they simply can’t be faked enough anymore to make the race appear competitive. When that happens, look for a sharp, sudden break in the race away from Obama. Moreover, this may be an indication of the beginning of momentum. If that’s true, then the race is over. The next couple weeks will be very instructive.

● Biden: Finally, they’ve hidden Joey Biden away for six days to prepare him for the debate Thursday night. Personally, I’m dreading this debate. I suspect the strategy Biden will use will be to avoid trying to meet Ryan on anything statistical or principled, and to instead keep countering Ryan’s points with “arguments” about individuals who will be hurt and with statements like, “man, you’re talking about millions of people who are going to go broke trying to pay for healthcare bills they can’t afford.” That will make for a messy, confusing debate as the two candidates basically talk past each other. Moreover, comments like that are impossible to counter because they are emotional in nature and people will either believe them or they won’t. Hopefully, Ryan will be prepared to handle this.

Personally, every time Biden tries that, I would counter with the identical attack Romney made on Obama’s record and I would phrase it in terms of:

“Talking about people hurting, how about the 23 million people who can’t find jobs, the 47 million on food stamps, the one in six Americans now below the poverty line, the two hundred million middle class families whose incomes crashed $4,300 during your administration, whose health care costs rose $2,500, who saw their gas prices double, who watched your administration double the deficit and waste the money on cronyism to nowhere, and who have no idea how their grandkids are going to pay off your debt. I think you and Mr. Obama have caused enough pain.”

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Campaign News

There has been a lot of interesting talk about the Romney campaign lately. From the manufactured claim the campaign is imploding to Paul Ryan slamming all the right-wing pundits who won’t stop smearing the campaign to more polling data. Let’s discuss.

● Polls: It seems almost obligatory that we talk about polling these days. So here are two things worth noting. A new Politico/GWU poll claims Romney has a 14% lead on Obama among the middle class. If true, that would not only put the lie to Obama’s class warfare strategy and claims to represent the middle class, but it would also mean Romney is blowing Obama away because 60% of the public is middle class. Interestingly, this figure doesn’t fit with Politico’s topline number of Obama leading by 3%.

The other interesting news was hidden within an article by Dick Morris on why you can’t trust the current polls. We’ve discussed this extensively here, but what Morris adds is that while most polls are using sample turnout identical to 2008, Rasmussen is using a combination of 2008 and 2004. . . not 2010. This explains why Rasmussen is better, but still calls the race a toss up. The electorate in 2004 was one of the most closely balanced in recent history and 2008 was a high-water mark for the Democrats. Neither of those scenarios is likely this time because there is a huge enthusiasm gap in favor of the Republicans and many Democratic voters (like college kids) haven’t even registered. Thus, any poll that incorporates the 2008 numbers will be skewed too far toward the Democrats. Moreover, 2004 is not a good balance for 2008 because it was also a low-Republican turnout election which gave the Democrats the House and Senate. Consequently, even Rasmussen’s numbers appear to be skewed left. I suspect that balancing the numbers against 2010 would show Romney with a 5-8% lead.

● It’s All Falling Apart: It’s been amazing to watch this false narrative being built about the Romney campaign falling apart. This started at Politico as a speculation piece on one of their back pages. The following morning, several MSM outlets and blogs ran with this story as if it were being reported as true rather than speculation. Suddenly, reporters were asking Romney about it and reporting his responses as him denying the truth of the supposed turmoil. Romney has all but laughed these off, but the MSM continues to run with stories about the troubles Romney is experiencing and how they are desperate for a re-set button, etc. They are also weaving in the fake poll narrative now, claiming that these polls are proof that Romney’s campaign is failing. In the latest incarnation, they are spinning it backwards by claiming the polls caused the panic, even though the panic story began before the polls they are talking about.

● Ryan Fires Back: This narrative of internal chaos has been pushed hard by many on the right. Leading the charge is RINO Peggy Noonan, who last week called the Romney campaign “incompetent,” and this week said:

“The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’ A lot of people weighed in. . . . [but] no one that I know of defended the campaign or argued ‘you’re missing some of its quiet excellence.’”

This is pathetic logic: “I’m right because I nobody bothered to tell me I’m wrong.” You can prove anything that way. She even claims that an unnamed source inside Romney’s camp secretly agrees with her! Yeah, right. But Noonan is not alone. Others on the left and right ends of the conservative spectrum have been just as harsh. Romney is swinging too far right, not far enough right, hasn’t said enough, says too much, needs to provide specifics, should avoid specifics. Mostly, he just needs to do “better.”

The truth is that our pundit class are idiots. They don’t know what they are talking about, so they try to fake having knowledge by criticizing the campaign while careful avoiding actually saying what the problem is. They do this because criticism is easy and they win no matter what. If Romney loses, they warned him. If he win, it was only because he followed their advice and “did it better.” Moreover, they make their living by drawing attention to themselves. Thus, they look for ways to be controversial and to sound smarter than they really are. This is not helping. These people should be attacking Obama’s myriad of failures, flaws and outrages, but they know they will sell more copies attacking their own side.

Paul Ryan put his finger on this when he said these commentators were wrong and that “I think that’s just the nature of conservative punditry is to do that – to kind of complain – about any imperfection they might see.” Sadly, that is correct.

● Return of the Tax Return: Finally, Romney released his 2011 taxes and the media is frustrated. They have no idea how to smear Romney with these because Romney gave $4,020,722 (29.4% of his income) to charity. Obama gave only $172,130 (21%) of his income and Joe Biden gave $5,540 (1.5%) of his income to charity.

There are also no strange surprises or deductions the MSM have been able to attack. So the best they’ve got now is Harry Reid whining to the Las Vegas Sun, “He’s hiding something! He’s hiding something! It is so evident he’s hiding something!” Which makes me ask again why Harry won’t tell us where he buried the children he molested. . . it’s evident he’s hiding something.

Thoughts? Additions?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Grown Ups Are Back!

Today, let’s focus on a couple things that have been said by some very bright Republicans at or around the convention in the last few days. These are key points we should all remember.

● Paul Ryan: Paul Ryan spoke last night and laid out pretty much what every Presidential candidate from either party should say, which is why it’s sad his words are so rare.

Naturally, he called for a repeal of Obamacare, which he described as “more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines” and which he said has “no place in a free country.” He also promised 12 million jobs, which I take with a grain of salt. But more importantly, he said this:

“Before the math and the momentum overwhelm us all, we are going to solve this nation’s economic problems. And I’m going to level with you: We don’t have that much time. But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this.”

It’s about time someone said this. As far back as I can remember, politicians have assured us that everything was fine when we knew it wasn’t. They pretended they had generations to save Medicare, balance the budget and pay off the debt. This was always a lie. The American public knows the truth, we just want to hear that our leaders understand this. And now we’ve found one. And Ryan does.

He also said this:

“Here is our pledge. We will not duck the tough issues – we will lead. We will not spend four years blaming others – we will take responsibility. . . The work ahead will be hard. These times demand the best of us – all of us, but we can do this. Together, we can do this.”

This statement packs a lot more than I think people realize. This strikes me as a declaration that Ryan intends to complete broad-based reform and will not shirk issues just because they are hot button issues that upset the public. To me, this sounds like (1) reform of the healthcare system, (2) reform of Medicare, (3) reform of Social Security, (4) education reform, and (5) comprehensive immigration reform. I base this list on the other things the campaign has spoken about in the last few months. And if I’m right, and if they achieve their goals, Romney/Ryan could very well end up remaking America in a much more fundamentally conservative, free market manner that Reagan even attempted, much less achieved. They could also solve the four glaring problems that still plague this country, outside of the black/white racial divide – education, fiscal sanity, an out-of-control medical system, and what to do about the eleven million illegal immigrants.

● Ann Romney: After her rousing speech at the convention, where Ann Romney was largely seen as winning over women and humanizing Mitt, she went to the Latino Coalition luncheon, where she made a direct appeal to Hispanics on a basis other than ethnic appeals:

“I spoke to women last night and I wanted women to understand how important this election is for their children, but as I was sitting backstage listening, I thought, it's also very important that the Latino community recognize how important this election is for them. And they are mistaken if they think they are going to be better off with Barack Obama as their president. There really is only one way for prosperity, for small business, and that is, this is the simplest way I can say this: If Mitt Romney wins, America wins.”

Notice, her appeal was based on prosperity and small business. It’s about time. I’ve been saying this for a long time. Republicans need to stop seeing Hispanics as a monolithic race which needs to be wooed with promises of racial spoils. They need to learn that Hispanics are people, just like everybody else, and we need to give them they should join us. . . reasons why their lives will be better off.

Ann Romney points out that women should think about the things Mitt will do for America which will make America better for their children and now she’s pointing out how Romney offers the only path to prosperity for the Hispanic community. Compare that with the Democrats who offer only fear, hate and a lifetime of living on government benefits in poverty.

She also went further and took Hispanics to task for not being open to the truth, and the Democrats for trying to trick Hispanics:

“It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don't care about this community. And that is not true. We very much care about you and your families and the opportunities that are there for you and your families.”

This is a critical message. The first step in breaking anyone out of a cycle of dependency is to stop telling them they are doing fine when they aren’t. And here Romney makes it clear that Hispanics are not doing fine and that they are not being honest with themselves. They are instead acting on bias, a bias the Democrats feed.

I think messages like this combined with Romney’s plan to bring prosperity to all corners of America in a color-blind way will go a long way to waking people up in these communities. And then they will see, as Ann Romney said, that they should “naturally be voting” for the Republicans.

This approach is so much better than Bush talking about how he speaks Spanish or prior Republicans trying to out-pander the Democrats. This is an approach that promises people the truth, a better life, and respect.

● Chris Christie: The MSM is tearing Christie apart for his speech. Using the usual “unnamed Republican sources told us” approach, the MSM is claiming that everyone thought Christie’s speech was self-centered. Frankly, I just don’t see that. His speech was strong and highly partisan and went straight at Obama’s failures. For example, he said this about Obama’s leadership:

“There’s only one thing missing now. Leadership. It takes leadership that you don’t get from reading a poll. You see, Mr. President, real leaders don’t follow polls. Real leaders change polls.”

He also spoke of making the right decision, even when it’s hard, and he attacked Obama for not doing that:

“Our leaders today have decided it is more important to be popular, to do what is easy and say ‘yes,’ rather than to say ‘no’ when ‘no’ is what’s required.”

And he attacked their policies:

“Our ideas are right for America and their ideas have failed America.”

But what struck me again was the straight talk aspect of his speech. As with Ryan, he made the point that the American public is smarter than the political class wants to believe:

“They believe that the American people don’t want to hear the truth about the extent of our fiscal difficulties and they believe the American people need to be coddled by big government. They believe the American people are content to live the lie with them. They’re wrong.”

And he finished by refusing to sugarcoat what needs to be done:

“We all must share in the sacrifice. Any leader that tells us differently is simply not telling the truth.”

Ryan made these points better, but I think it’s vital that these points are being made at all. For the last 12 years, our government has gone on a spending binge, trying to buy our loyalties. They have added massive entitlement programs and drowned us in debt. They have destroyed the future to cover up the mistakes of the present. The Democrats have played a hateful, divisive strategy of race baiting and economic spite. The Republicans have gone along to placate the media. I get the sense from the speeches above, that those days are over.

The grown ups have returned.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Yet More Election News

Lots of little things to catch up on today, but nothing really big. So let’s do a news round up and whip some of these out. Then we can all move on with our lives. :)

● Issue One: Everywhere you look, the MSM is smearing Paul Ryan. The Democrats too are focusing almost exclusively on Ryan. This suggests two things. First, they know that Ryan is very important to this ticket and they are desperate to stop him. Unfortunately for them, their attacks on him have been pathetic. They’ve found no damning votes, no skeletons in the closet, and no close associates looking to make a name for themselves by turning against him. Nothing they’ve tried has touched him.

Secondly, it suggests that the Democrats really have no idea how to win this election. Poll after poll shows the public worried about jobs and the economy, and they aren’t happy with Obama’s record. But rather than defend that record or come up with some new plan the public will believe (his latest involves hiring more teachers), they are trying to smear Ryan. . . the number two guy on the ticket. This is horrible strategy. When November rolls around, Ryan won’t even be an issue in the voting both, so attacking Ryan is nothing more than a waste of time. That the Democrats don’t understand that is fascinating.

● Issue Two: Swift Boat Boogaloo. Obama really stepped in it when he tried to claim credit for killing bin Laden. Not only was it unseemly for a President to try to steal the credit which belongs to the troops who did the actual deed, but it soon became apparent that our Kenyan Overlord did little more than cower in the corner while others pushed the decision buttons. Yet, Hollywood is intent on making a pro-Obama propaganda film about the event. So it’s rather hilarious that a group of Navy SEALs is putting together an advertisement attacking Obama for his mishandling of this as well has his administration’s penchant for leaking secret documents which harm the troops in the field. Of course, the Democrats are furious about this and they are calling it another swift boat attack, but that won’t change the fact that an ad like this will prove to be highly effective against our arm-chair warrior in Chief.

● Issue Three: Gallup now shows Romney with a small but growing lead over Obama – 47% to 45%. I can’t get to Gallup’s underlying data, but you can guess it’s probably biased at least 3% to the left. That means Romney’s support may have crossed the magical 50% mark.

● Issue Four: Priorities. Last week, Gallup released a poll showing voter priorities for this election. In the top spots by far are (1) creating good jobs, (2) reducing corruption in the federal government, and (3) reducing the federal budget deficit. Each of these is a notable Obama failure – with the corruption thing being the most ironic since Obama claimed to want clean and transparent government. Obama’s main selling point, “increasing taxes on wealthy Americans” ranks last on the list with only 49% support – 43% behind the jobs issue. This tells us that Obama is in real trouble and is plan to save himself is deeply flawed.

● Issue Five: The Boston Globe has now become the first left-leaning editorial board to demand an apology from Biden for his "chains" comment. They noticed that if Romney or Ryan had said that, they would have been attacked for "racial insensitivity" and they think Biden should not be excused merely because he's on the left. Imagine that!

● Issue Six: Finally, there is this issue about appointments. You may have heard that the Congress has decided to give the president more power to get his appointments. Specifically, 170 posts which needed Senate approval in the past will no longer need Senate approval. Some people are upset about this because it gives Obama more power, but let’s get real. A President should, by and large, be able to appoint the people he wants to fill most posts. And for decades now, the Senate has done a horrible job of make decision on appointments, leave some slots empty for years after a President is elected. This decision will be a good thing for Romney who should be able to hit the ground running that much faster now, despite what I expect to be Democratic attempts to grind the Senate to a halt. It’s too bad the parties couldn’t come together to give Obama more power to restructure the Executive Branch as well because Romney could have used that very effectively.

Thoughts? Anything I missed?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Paul Ryan Effect

We’ve now have a couple days to think about Paul Ryan and to see the reactions all around. This is a phenomenal pick. So let’s talk about the polls and how this changes the electoral map. Also, I’m quoting a piece from the Onion that is well worth reading.

● Enthusiasm: More evidence of an enthusiasm gap. Gallup now reports the Republicans are showing a +13% enthusiasm gap. They caution that it’s too early to tell anything until after the conventions, but this is enough to suggest problems for Obama. His 2008 victory resulted from a +7% enthusiasm difference in favor of Democrats and lots of independents voting for Obama – close to 60%. That +7% has now morphed into a -13% and that’s been fairly constant since 2009. I don’t see how the convention will change that.

As for independents, Zogby just put out a poll that should scare Obama greatly. According to Zogby, Romney was losing and Obama had momentum until Ryan was chosen. Now they are tied at 46% each with 8% undecided. But more importantly, Romney/Ryan leads Obama/Biden by 45% to 40% among independents. Politico has Romney leading among independents by 10%, 47% to 37%. These numbers are death for Obama, who needs about 60% of independents to offset the lack of Democratic enthusiasm. Also interesting from the Zogby poll, Ryan helped boost Romney among 18-29 year olds.

There’s also another interesting issue which has arisen in the past couple days: crowd size. Everywhere Ryan and Romney have gone, they’ve been swamped by crowds. They’ve been speaking to 10,000-15,000 people typically and turning away others. Obama has been talking to crowds in the 1,000 range. Biden just spoke to 600. This is becoming such bad PR that Obama is actually trying to claim he intended this, though half-empty auditoriums tell a different story.

● Where He Helps: So where does Ryan help or hurt Romney? Here are some ideas:

● Conservatives: Ryan has solidified Romney’s right flank in a matter of minutes. Romney no longer needs to worry that evangelicals will stay home or that Tea Party people will view him with suspicion.

● Catholics: Ryan brings a fairly strong Catholicism to the ticket which supposedly will play well with Catholics. In effect, he should appeal to some of the same Catholics who liked Santorum.

● Wisconsin: It’s not clear how much Ryan helps in Wisconsin, except that (1) the local boy almost always gets a couple points added to his score, and (2) Ryan will ignite the activists who turned out to help Scott Walker. If this happens, then the electoral map will shake up a great deal. Wisconsin is only worth 10 votes, not the 18 of Ohio, but if Romney wins Wisconsin, then he could win by also getting New Hampshire and Iowa while losing Ohio. This could be huge.

● Pennsylvania: Ryan’s support among Catholics could be key to winning Pennsylvania, which is awash in Catholics and Tea Party types. And if Romney wins Pennsylvania (still difficult, but doable) then Romney wins in a landslide.

● Florida: Supposedly, Ryan hurts Romney in Florida because of his Medicare plan. But polls show Ryan being popular with old folks. That would seem to put the lie to the idea that Ryan will be a drag in Florida. Where Ryan does help in Florida is the evangelical North and panhandle, and that could well be the difference because turn out will be key in this election.

● Virginia: Believe it or not, a lot of people think Ryan will help Romney win Virginia because he brings a charisma that suburban moderates like, and Northern Virginia is very suburban moderate. I can’t disagree. The thing I heard most about Palin (before she imploded) was that she was the kind of woman any mother would want her son to marry. Well, Ryan strikes me as the kind of man any mother would want her daughter to marry. So if mommy politics counts, then this will help.

● In His Own Words. . . Sort of: Finally, I leave you with this. It’s long, but it’s worth the read. This comes from the Onion and is presented as an editorial written by Ryan himself. I present this because it’s funny, and also because it fairly accurate about Ryan’s charisma advantage:

Admit It, I Scare The Ever-Loving Sh*t Out Of You, Don't I?

When Mitt Romney selected me as his running mate, I knew the Democratic attack dogs would come out in full force. They would say I’m a right-wing ideologue. They would say my views on entitlement programs are far too radical. They would say putting me on the ticket immediately kills Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming president because I’m a liability. But if we’re being honest with each other—if we’re able to put aside the talking points for a few minutes and say what we’re all actually thinking and feeling—I believe we can acknowledge the real truth here.

I’m young, I’m handsome, I’m smart, and I’m articulate. And that scares the ever-loving sh*t out of you. You can pretend like you have this thing in the bag, but you know good goddamn well that this race just got real interesting, real fast.

It’s okay to admit it. You’re frightened to death of me. It might actually be healthy for you to face your fears now rather than later, when Mitt and I are leading by a few points in the polls and it looks like this thing might end badly for you. Face it: I’m not some catastrophe waiting to happen, like a Sarah Palin or a Dan Quayle. On the contrary, you have the exact opposite fear. I’m a solid, competent, some might say exceptional, politician.

Did you get nervous when you read that last sentence? Is it because you know in your heart of hearts that it’s 100 percent true? Is it because, even if you strongly disagree with my beliefs on Medicare, Social Security, women’s rights, and marriage equality, you know my talent as a speaker and my well-thought-out approach to these issues—no matter how radical and convoluted you find them—might just be enough to win over independent voters?

Do you get chills just thinking about how strong my appeal actually is?

I have another question for you: How scared are you that I can convince people I’m right? Because I’m good at it. No, I’m really good at it. You see, I know how to turn up the charm and charisma without putting people off. Then I back up what I’m saying with arguments that, when they come out of my mouth, sound completely accurate and well-reasoned. And I do it with such passion that people automatically recognize me as a man with deep convictions he will stand up for, no matter what.

The American people love that sh*t. They love it.

Passion, intellect, and a magnetic personality. Pretty damn intimidating combo, if I say so myself. You want to talk about polish? Man, I’ve got polish for miles. Oh, and by the way, I’ll go ahead and say this next thing because, if we’re being honest, why the hell not, right? In case you haven’t noticed, I’m white. Hoo, brother, am I white. Yup, you should be scared sh*tless of me, because guess who isn’t?

The people of Wisconsin. They love me. Republicans and Democrats there love me. Hell, I get Democrats to vote for me even if my policies make zero sense when it comes to their livelihoods. Do you know why? Because they like me. They like my story. Young, good-looking kid who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to make something of himself. Christ, I'm a storybook candidate. I balance out this ticket so well it’s almost too perfect. The people of Ohio are going to think that. And seniors in Florida—the state we supposedly lost when Mitt picked me—won’t be so scared as soon they know that my mother lives in Florida, and that all I want to do is reform the health care system so she can receive care that makes good fiscal sense.

Boy, I’m going to sell the sh*t out of that talking point. And I’m going to do a great job of it. Why? Because I’m Paul Ryan. That’s what I do.

And if we’re having trouble getting Pennsylvania on board, just wait until I absolutely wipe the floor with Joe Biden in the vice presidential debates. Don’t think for a second that I don’t know you’re terrified of us facing off, because in the back of your mind you know it could be a bloodbath up there.

Well, that’s 77 electoral votes, and by my math that means you can kiss your golden boy goodbye after four short years. All that promise. All that energy. All that potential. Gone in one November night.

I’m your worst f*cking nightmare.

Oh, and by the way, don’t even try to pretend you haven’t imagined me being elected president one day.

P.S. Don't forget, it is Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Paul Ryan Pick

Let’s talk about the Paul Ryan pick. I would have preferred Rubio because I think the GOP needs to romance Hispanics, but putting that aside, the Ryan Pick is excellent. And indeed, we’re seeing that already both in the glee on the conservative side and the fear on the Democratic side.

● Why This Pick Was Great: The Ryan pick was great on many levels. For one thing, Ryan is one of the few politicians people trust. He’s unassuming and he’s wonkish, so he doesn’t appear prone to exaggeration or lying. He’s also willing to tell people the truth rather than trying to give people a false sense of happiness, which allows him to get things done. And he’s not someone who scares people. That will make it difficult for Obama to use Ryan to agitate his own base or upset independents.

Ryan also excites the base of the party. He is seen as the “intellectual leader” of the party these days, especially by fiscal conservatives, because of his efforts at fixing the budget and entitlement reform. His ideas have become those of the party. He’s also very much liked by the Religious Right, who remain queasy about Romney because of his religion -- and this is despite Ryan’s support for extending employment protections to gays. Ryan also is very much liked by the establishment wing who see him as a steady hand.

In effect, Ryan unites the various wings of the party and brings tremendous energy to the base. He guarantees GOP and Tea Party turn out, without scaring the moderates and without increasing Democratic turn out. Moreover, he will prove invaluable in reforming and reshaping the government toward a more conservative, more sane and more sustainable structure once Romney/Ryan are elected. That makes him a great pick.

● The Democratic Response: Naturally, the Democratic response has been shameless. It has also been instructive for how disorganized and how ineffective it has been. Basically, they are attacking Ryan along all the standard hypocritical and propaganda grounds whether they fit or not:

● “Journalist” Andrea Mitchell said Ryan was “not a pick for suburban moms, not a pick for women.” This is the standard “war on women” meme which assumes that women only care about birth control and which ridiculously contends that Republicans want to drive women from the workforce. Only idiots believe this.

● Some Democrats and The New Yorker said Ryan was a bad pick because he lacks private sector experience! Seriously! Think about that. Obama and Biden together spent 0.0 minutes of their lives in the private sector yet somehow this is only a problem for Ryan, who did work in the private sector. Not to mention that the left has been telling us that Romney’s private sector experience makes him unacceptable for the job.

● Many Democrats, and again The New Yorker, are calling him “risky” and “totally a Palin-redo” because he lacks experience. Yeah, right. Palin was a first time governor of a small state that is entirely dependent on federal money. She had about a year of political experience and none of it at the national level. Ryan has been in Congress since 1999, he’s risen to become budget committee chairman, and he’s gone toe-to-toe with Obama on ObamaCare and took him down handily. Ryan is media savvy, policy wise, and a seasoned and skilled political operator. Palin was none of those things. This is the standard Democratic “he’s stupid” attack they always use and it won’t work here because Ryan’s intelligence is obvious. And let’s not forget that these are the same people who thought Obama was qualified because he knew how to read from a teleprompter and cast a handful of votes in the Senate. The “lack of experience” charge is wishful thinking on the left.

The New Yorker also laughably thinks Biden will rip Ryan apart in their debate because of his votes for the Iraq War, TARP and Medicare Part D. Of course, they conveniently forget that Biden voted for all of those things too -- and more. Plus, Obama/Biden can add bailouts, stimulus packages, ObamaCare and financial regulation to that their list of failures, not to mention 9% unemployment and trillions in debt.

● They’re working hard to demonize Ryan on his Medicare reform proposal as well, which is rich coming from a party that plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. CNN’s Candy Crowley was the first to use the old tactic of pretending that anonymous Republicans are nervous about this, stating that she has spoken with “Republicans” who claim this pick “looks a little bit like some sort of ticket death wish.” Yeah, right, find me an actually Republican who said that you hack.

Running with this, the AP is turning out articles how this pick will likely cost Romney Florida. Once-relevant liberal Michael Kinsley refers to Ryan’s proposals as “Ryan’s slasher novels” and the blogosphere is full of leftists whining about Ryan trying to kill old people and poor people. Too bad for them, nobody will listen.

● Following Crowley’s lead, Politico tells us that unnamed Republican strategists have “misgivings” about the pick because Ryan is little more than a “random Heritage Foundation analyst,” and someone “close to the campaign” supposedly “grumbled” that Ryan would now be dictating policy for the campaign. This is standard leftist prattle as well. When they can’t find a reason to attack a conservative, they invent unnamed sources supposedly on the conservative side who are despondent or outraged or just generally upset by the candidate or policy. It’s bull.

● Dumbass Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to link Ryan to the “failed policies of the past” and for wanting “tax breaks for the rich.” Neither line will work with Ryan as he was never the face of the Bush years and because their class warfare attacks haven’t worked yet even against Romney. As an aside, Politico also points out that Ryan is rich. . . something they never seem to mention about all those rich Democrats.

● Politico also worried that the Ryan pick was a desperation pick for Romney, which will force him to change his entire campaign strategy in ways which Politico doesn’t actually explain. They also had a couple articles on how Romney “lost control” of the picking process and was thus forced to pick Ryan because the public forced Ryan on Romney -- which contradicts the polls which show Rubio was the more popular choice and which flies in the face of the argument that Ryan is unpopular.

Conclusion

All in all, Ryan is an excellent pick. He’s a solid fiscal conservative with solid social conservative credential, though he doesn’t display the hate of someone like Rick Santorum. He’s got the backing of every Republican who has spoken. His budgetary brilliance is unmatched. He’s not Tea Party, but his views align with them very closely and he should excite them. And as you can see from the above, the Democrats can’t find anything to attack him with except his entitlement reform proposals, and I don’t see those as a problem. For one thing, they make Ryan the one guy in Washington who isn’t afraid to try to save the current system. For another, the party which plans to rob Medicare of $500 billion is hardly in a position to criticize, and Ryan is smart enough to point that out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Elective Thoughts

Lots of little things in the news again, but nothing huge. Romney’s VP choice is being discussed extensively, as is Obama’s latest gaffe. A few “conservatives” are still trying to bring down Romney, and there’s more evidence Obama is doomed. Let’s roundup a few campaign thoughts, shall we?

● Thought No. 1. Village Grade Idiocy. Obama really is a fool. Check out this quote: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t built that. Somebody else made that happen.” W.T.F.?? This is the kind of ignorance only a man who never created a single thing could possess.

When you start a business, you take your own risk. Unless you’ve got a crooked financier behind you (like a certain “first black President” and his worthless wife), then you take your own money and your own time and your own labor and you bring them all together to create something that you hope to sell. If you do it right, and there is a market for what you are offering, then your business grows. Soon you hire other people to help expand. But you need to manage them, and everything is still your risk, your money, and your time. Only a man who thinks there are 57 states could suggest otherwise.

This actually gives us insight into why he’s failed as president, because this is how he understands leadership. He thinks you sit your skinny ass in a big leather chair or hide on a golf course as other people make things happen. That’s why ObamaCare became a cluster fudge, why he didn’t get card check or cap and trade, why financial regulation became such a mess, and why he can’t get any budget deals. Pathetic.

● Thought No. 2. Just Shut Up Already. I’m really sick of “conservatives” attacking Romney and offering retarded advice. Charles Krauthammer wants Obama to issue an apology for RomneyCare so Obama finally has something to attack. HotAir does too. Bill Kristol is demanding that Romney release his tax returns because that's what Obama wants. This needs to stop. How about these people go after Obama instead of Romney?

Interestingly, of all the clowns in the circus, Donald Trump had the best take on the tax issue. He said that Romney should agree to release his taxes only when Obama agrees to release his college applications and records. Yes! He then said, “I'll tell you what — the Republicans have to get a lot tougher. They have to get down and dirty also, because that's what's happening to them.” I never thought I’d agree with Trump, but this is absolutely right. It’s time that guys like Kristol learn that you can't win by crawling on your stomach to meet the politicized demands of your opponents.

● Thought No. 3. VP-arama. Romney is supposedly getting close to naming his choice for VP. I don’t think he can hurt himself with any of the names mentioned so far, but he can waste an opportunity if he picks the wrong person. I’ve said it before that I think he need a minority to send a clear message that the Republican Party has changed. In that regard, the short list includes Rubio, Jindal and Rice. I would prefer Rubio or Jindal to Rice, but I’d take Rice too. Also on the list apparently are Ryan and Pawlenty. I respect both men greatly, but picking either would probably make the ticket easy to lampoon as Dull and Duller. Both would be excellent once in office, however.

I would prefer Rubio (Allen West actually), but my money is now on Kelly Ayotte. She represents New Hampshire in the Senate and was previously the state’s Attorney General. She’s strongly conservative across the board. I’ll profile her if she’s chosen.

Whoever he chooses, it’s worth pointing out just how great Romney’s search has been. Rather than do the usual thing of trying to get a couple weeks of national exposure by dropping names, Romney has spent months now going from state to state, being seen each week with a possible candidate from that state. In the process, he’s generated buzz at the state level in key states (for himself and the local Republicans), and he’s used this as a way to deflect all of Obama’s attacks by each time suggesting he was getting close to making his choice. It’s been brilliantly done. Let’s hope his choice is as brilliant.

● Thought No. 4. The Bain of Obama’s Existence. I was a little confused this week when Romney strategist Ed Gillespie suggested that Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital were working. This clearly is not the case. For one thing, there’s nothing to attack. Bain bought and sold businesses, big deal. That hasn’t been controversial since the 1980s. For another, once you say the word “finance” people’s eyes glaze over. For yet another, Obama’s attacks have been esoteric, “lost in the weeds” attacks. Indeed, does it matter to any voter exactly what level of control Romney had as Chairman? Hardly. And if you want proof, look at the number of MSM types who have NOT dug into Bain. They know no one cares.

So why suggest these attacks are working, especially as there’s no evidence Romney is working to counter them? The answer is simple: Team Obama doesn’t seem to realize they’re beating a dead horse, and this was an attempt to make them think they were on to something so they would continue with this useless attack. Nice.

● Thought No. 5. Money Troubles. Obama made news last week by whining that Big Bad Romney has so much more money than poor little Red Obama. Interestingly, that’s not actually true. Since this election cycle began, Romney and the RNC have taken in about $425 million all told. Obama and the DNC have taken in $550 million.

So why the whining? Because in the past few months, Romney has blown Obama away. In June, Romney took in about $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. And apparently, Romney is now getting increasingly bigger checks as GOP whales are starting to give. Obama, meanwhile, isn’t. Obama is worried by the trend and acted desperately.

● Thought No. 6. DOOMED!! Finally, we have more evidence that Obama is doomed. One of the key demographics Obama need is young people. They are the one group he carries overwhelmingly and he needs them to make up for all the oldsters who will be turning out to toss him out. But the news isn’t good for Obama on the youth front. Gallup tracks enthusiasm by age group. In 2004, young people (age 18-29) turned out at 6% below the national average. In 2008, contrary to popular belief, they turned out 7% below the national average. If what they told Gallup is to be believed, they will turn out 20% below the national average in 2012!!! At the same time, old people who turned out 1% below average and 2% below average in 2004 and 2008, intend to turn out 7% above average in 2012. That’s the group that hates Obama the most. All of this will crush Obama and suggests that we are looking at a blow out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Primary Plus Election Thoughts

The primaries are over, even if Rick Santorum won’t admit it yet. We see this in the sudden rush to endorse Romney, in the fact Rick is free-falling in the polls, and in the fact that even the Obama-supporting media is finally giving up on pushing the idea Rick can win. So here are some thoughts about the future.

● Rick’s Done: There are three primaries tonight and Romney should win them all. In Wisconsin, Ricky is losing by 13% in the most recent polls -- though Democrats are allowed to vote so it will be closer. In Maryland, Ricky is losing by 25%. And Romney is winning with all groups -- Tea Party supporters, registered Republicans, self-identified conservatives, women, men, and everyone else. . . except evangelicals. Even in Ricky’s home state of Pennsylvania, they are now tied.

Equally interesting is the recent HotAir poll. For those who don’t know, HotAir has become a hotbed of retardism as they and their Kool-Aided followers have spit out every conceivable conspiracy theory known to man about Romney -- everything from Romney paying his endorsers to Romney causing the 2008 financial meltdown. I keep waiting to hear that Romney is the real Alinsky Trojan Horse Obama was supposed to be. . . or the love child of Hitler and Eleanor Roosevelt.

In any event, they did a poll of their readers the other day and lo and behold Romney won by 61% to 20%. Imagine that. Naturally, the comments are full of claims that Romney must have rigged the vote because the HotAir poll is soooooooo influential Romney knew he had to win it. Stupidity and self-delusion aside, this is pretty strong proof that even though talk radio hasn’t come around to Romney yet, their listeners very much have and conservatives are overwhelmingly behind Romney now.

(FYI, we’re not covering the primaries tonight, but I’ll check the comments here if you want to share your thoughts.)

● Ann Romney: There was an article yesterday about Ann Romney being the Romney the Democrats fear the most. I think that’s right. Part of the whole package of judging candidates comes down to judging their wives. The wives give us an insight into what kind of person the man is behind the public relations package. And in that regard, Ann Romney is great. She’s warm, she’s funny, she’s an excellent public speaker and appears to be a great mom. She’s June Cleaver meets Maggie Thatcher. By comparison, Madame O is this:

She’s angry, nasty, judgmental, hypocritical, and all around a lazy, power-abusing POS. And she will suck the salt right out of your body. Ann Romney will win people over, Madame O will turn people off.

● Moderates Ready To Turn On Obama: There seems to be a human need among many people to feel they have been forced into making decisions. This is why your last girlfriend/boyfriend suddenly decided that all the things about you which were once cute suddenly became annoying right before they dumped you -- because they didn’t want the responsibility for dumping you, they wanted to feel like you forced them to dump you. The same is true in politics, especially among moderates.

The best way to tell when a politician is losing moderates is when the moderates start to find personal reasons to dislike the politician. That’s happening now. Indeed, this week, Peggy Noonan suddenly discovered that Obama is “creepy.” She didn’t mention anything new or anything that wasn’t already obvious. What she did instead, was to re-characterize his record in personal terms. She lumped together his attack on the churches about contraception, his lies to church groups, his making the Trayvon Martin case “about himself,” and his focus on things other than economics at a time when the public supposedly only wanted the economic crisis solved. And she defined these incidents as a pattern of behavior showing that Obama is “devious” and “dishonest” and an “operator who’s not operating in good faith.” And this makes him “creepy”: it’s not me. . . it’s you. This is how moderates change their minds. Obama is toast.

● Paul Ryan’s Future: Many are now pushing Ryan for VP, but I think that would be a mistake. VP is nothing more than a glorified organ-donor position, a spokesman who cuts the ribbons at bank openings and waits like a vulture for his boss to die. Ryan does more good in the House. But someone raised an interesting point the other day: what if Ryan got appointed to be head of OMB (the Office of Management and Budget)? That actually makes sense. As the guy who writes Romney’s budget, with a willing Congress, Ryan might have a lot more power and lot more freedom to put his skills to use. That said, I wonder if the other bozos in Congress could get budgets through without him? Good question.

● No Condi Rice: There is a renewed push. . . again. For Romney to pick Condoleezza Rice as VP. Please do not do this. Rice has never impressed me. She got run over at the State Department by weak-links like Colin Powel and power-players like Dick Cheney. She is not an effective speaker and she lacks the one skill modern VPs need -- attack dogginess. Please do not choose her.

● Still Rubio: BTW, I still think it will be Rubio. All the signs are there including a non-rejection rejection. But I would also accept Bobby Jindal, Allen West, or Herman Cain.

Thoughts?

Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the Film Site!

[+] 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...

2012 (non)Contender: Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan is not running for President, and I’m not happy about it. Not at all. Ryan is the kind of guy we need in the White House right now to set the agenda this country will follow for the next 20-50 years. But he’s not running. Still, T-Rav has requested that I profile him, so here goes.



1. Economics: Ryan is a fiscal conservative who generates a lot of respect among conservatives. He got his start as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp’s 1996 presidential bid and became an economic analyst for Empower America, a group set up by solid conservatives Kemp, Bill Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Vin Weber. He got elected to the House in 1998 and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

● He favors privatizing Social Security to let people invest their own retirement.



● He proposes a two-tiered flat tax, with a 10% tax on income up to $100,000 and 25% thereafter, with no deductions.



● He proposes eliminating the capital gains tax, abolishing corporate income taxes and replacing them with an 8.5% consumption tax, abolishing the alternative minimum tax and eliminating the estate tax.



● He proposes freezing spending now, not in the future. In April 2009, Ryan proposed a budget that would have (1) eliminated the Stimulus Bill, (2) imposed a five-year freeze on discretionary spending, and (3) changed Medicare so that it pays for private insurance rather than providing government insurance. The government’s Medicare actuary endorsed Ryan’s plan as the best way to save Medicare from bankruptcy.



● He voted against the first $825 billion stimulus (Jan 2009) and the third $60 billion stimulus (Sept. 2009), but voted for the second $192 billion stimulus (July 2009).



● He favors a Balanced Budget Amendment and the line item veto.



● He voted to require partial debt repayment in bankruptcy.



● He voted for the Bush tax cuts, voted to eliminate the marriage penalty and the estate tax.



● He voted to terminate federal mortgage programs.



● He favors free trade.



● Ryan did vote for TARP in 2008 and the GM bailout, but he actually has good explanations for this. He voted for the TARP to stop what he (probably correctly) believes would have been a depression. Here is his explanation:



TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have — which are restoring the principles of this country — I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.



And he voted for the GM bailout so Congress could put restrictions on the bailout, because Obama stated he would otherwise hand GM a blank check from the TARP:



Auto. Really clear. The president’s chief of staff made it extremely clear to me before the vote, which is either the auto companies get the money that was put in the Energy Department for them already — a bill that I voted against because I didn’t want to give them that money, which was only within the $25 billion, money that was already expended but not obligated — or the president was going to give them TARP, with no limit. That’s what they told me. That’s what the president’s chief of staff explained to me. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want them to get TARP. We want to keep TARP on a [inaudible]. We don’t want to expand it. So give them that Energy Department money that at least puts them out of TARP, and is limited.’ Well, where are we now? What I feared would happen did happen. The bill failed, and now they’ve got $87 billion from TARP, money we’re not going to get back. And now TARP, as a precedent established by the Bush administration, whereby the Obama administration now has turned this thing into its latest slush fund. And so I voted for that to prevent precisely what has happened, which I feared would happen.

2. Social Conservative: Ryan, a Catholic with three children, is a social conservative.

Abortion: Ryan has a 100% pro-life record according to the National Right to Life Committee:

● He voted to ban federal health coverage that includes abortion.

● He voted to ban federal funds from being used for abortion overseas.

● He voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

● He voted to criminalize taking a minor across state lines to get an abortion.

● He voted to criminalize injuring a fetus during a crime.

● He voted to ban partial-birth abortion.

● He voted to extend the 14th Amendment to fetuses.

● He voted to forbid human cloning.

● He voted against embryonic stem cell research.

Gays: He gets a 0% rating by gay groups:

● He voted to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation, but opposes hate crimes laws.

● He voted for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. . . or a donkey and a walrus.

● He voted to prohibit gay adoptions in Washington, D.C.

Cultural Issues: Ryan voted to allow school prayer, to protect the Pledge of Allegiance, and he supports an anti-flag desecration amendment.

3. Environmentalism: I haven’t found a specific statement on global warming, but Ryan gets near zero marks from environmental groups:

● He wants to bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

● He favors offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and building new refineries.

● He opposes tax incentives and subsidies for alternative energy and conservation, but has supported subsidies for the oil and gas industry -- though he did oppose Bush’s national energy policy.

● He opposes CAFE standards.

4. Guns: An avid bow hunter, Ryan gets an A rating from the NRA.



5. Immigration: Ryan gets a 0% rating from pro-illegal groups:

● He voted to build the fence between the US and Mexico to prevent all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, unlawful aliens, narcotics, and contraband.

● Ryan favors worker verification systems for employers and deportation of illegal immigrants.

● He has stated an opposition to anchor babies, but has not specifically addressed the issue.

● He opposes giving illegal aliens in-state tuition and welfare, but has voted against requiring hospitals to report illegal aliens who receive treatment.

6. Other: He has voted to curtail frivolous lawsuits, to limit attorneys fees in class action suits, to stop lawsuits against gun makers and food providers. He favors whistleblower protection for employees. He voted to require voters to show identification. He tried to stop earmarks in 2005. He wants all laws to cite their Constitutional authorization. He favors reforming the UN by restricting its funding. He has a mixed record on campaign finance reform (voting for some restrictions and not others). He voted against Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. He voted to deploy SDI. And he voted to allow commercial airline pilots to carry guns.



One of the early endorsers of Marco Rubio, he also challenged the Bush administration on their lack of fiscal conservatism (though he did vote for the Medicare prescription drug benefit). In 2009, he wrote an interesting essay in Forbes entitled “Down With Big Business” in which he attacks lobbyists and crony capitalism.

Conclusion

I don't agree with all his views, but all told, Ryan is the kind of solid, serious, smart conservative we need. He understands conservatism and knows how to explain it. He's got unmatched fiscal conservatism in the mold of Jack Kemp. Though he is a social conservative, he doesn't seem obsessed by those issues. He's got Pawlenty's nice, but without the meek. He has a wonk's attention to detail and yet he is surprisingly gripping as a speaker. He has made mistakes, but he's not a guy who will rely on others to tell him what to believe or how to implement it, nor is he half a package pretending to be the full serving. Too bad he's not running.



[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...