Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Uncle Sam: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Every year Tom Coburn puts out a list of the 100 most egregious examples of wasteful government spending. This year, he listed $6.5 billion worth. Let’s look at some of those. Then I’ll show you why our economy has stalled.

While $6.5 billion may sound like a lot, it really isn’t to a government that spends $3 trillion a year. Nevertheless, Coburn’s list is important because it shows our government’s attitude toward our money. And make no mistake, this is our money. When you go to work tomorrow, every hour you work, Uncle Sam is reaching into your pocket to fund these kinds of programs. What kinds of programs? Observe:
● $484,000 for a hippie-themed pizza restaurant in Arlington, Texas. This is part of a national chain called the Mellow Mushroom. Why are we giving money to a private business? And where is Commentarama’s grant dammit?!

● $764,825 to study the mobile phone and social media habits of college freshmen. Huh? Why should anyone pay for this? For one thing, we already know about their habits. Who needs this much money to study something you can look up for free on the net?!! And why does this require federal money at all?

● $136,555 to let a group of English teachers retrace Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales in England. W.T.F?!! Why are we paying for some a-holes’ vacations?!

● $175,587 to study how cocaine use affects the mating habits of quail. Yeah, you read that right. Cocaine + bird sex.... brought to you by you the taxpayer!

● A down payment of $130,987 on a million dollar study to determine whether “a dragon-shaped robot can enhance toddlers’ learning skills.” At least they’re not using cocaine this time. And wasn’t that a movie -- The Toddler With The Dragon Shaped Robot?
This stuff is mind-numbing. I don’t know if I should laugh or cry or sign myself up? I want a dragon or a federal-government supported pizza restaurant. Why can’t I have one? Heck, I'd even take a freezer full of blow-fed quail.

And this is just the tip of the largess iceberg. There’s money for a video game preservation center, salaries paid to dead employees, another bridge to nowhere, money to study online dating, money to pack butter, a Hawaiian chocolate festival, to build a magic museum, iPads for kindergarteners, and hundreds of billions of dollars to government employees who do nothing but grind the country to a halt.

I want my tax money back.

And while we’re talking about grinding the country to a halt, check this out. You know how regulations stall an economy just like higher taxes? Sure you do, unless you’re Paul Krugman.

Well guess who’s been burying the economy in regulation? According to George Mason University, the number of “economically significant” regulations being issued has been souring. An “economically significant” regulation, according to the government, is a regulation that imposes at least $100 million in annual costs on the economy. Clinton issued an average of 56 per year. “Conservative” George W. Bush issued on average 62 per year. And now his downgrade-ness is issuing on average 84 per year. Here’s a handy chart:

What this means it that during Clinton’s eight years, he added $44.8 billion in regulations to the economy. Bush added $49.6 billion. And Obama’s already added $25.2 billion in his first three years Add that up and we’re over $100 billion in new regulations in the past couple decades. If you’re a Keynesian, that’s half a trillion in damage to the economy every year. Using Krugman’s stimulus math, that means a loss of around six million jobs!

And keep in mind, these regulations actually cost well more than $100 million, we just don't know how much because that data isn’t available. These could well have been three, four or five times as expensive.

Also this is only the biggest regulations, this doesn’t count the thousands of regulations scored to stay just below the $100 million level. It’s likely those add up to way more than the numbers above. But let’s assume for the sake of argument those smaller regulations total another $100 billion. That’s another six million lost jobs for a total of twelve million lost jobs.

Now this may be purely coincidental, but you might remember that our economy is currently “missing” 15 million jobs over the past decade. Gee, I wonder where they went?

[+]

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Anybody But These Guys: Our Broken System

Two weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was cruising toward the nomination. His poll numbers were soaring and his advantage over Romney was growing. He became the inevitable candidate, and that was depressing. But then people actually started listening to him. Now Newt’s lead has collapsed and he’s headed in the other direction. Of course, that doesn’t help with the depression because none of the others are any better. Something is wrong with our system and I blame the media.

First, let us dispatch Newt.

There have been lots of signs Newt was in trouble. For one thing, there was the baggage he never managed to unload. It followed him everywhere. Then, when he started making his positions known -- things like amnesty for illegals and regulating global warming -- his upward moment stopped dead. Soon the nastiness reappeared and the crazy talk, and people were wondering if the old Gingrich was back. In truth he never left.

And that’s been the problem with Newt. The more you know, the more you fear the guy. Newt as nominee shoots from the hip and says stupid, offensive things. He comes across as nasty and is unpalatable to the independents we will need to win the election -- not because he’s a conservative, but because he’s nasty. Newt as President is even scarier. Newt thinks government can be used to remake society so long as the right people are doing the remaking. This is wrong. And with Newt’s ego over principle approach, it’s too dangerous to let him anywhere near the presidency.

The polls are reflecting this. Indeed, the last Gallop poll shows this:
In twelve days, Newt has gone from a 15% lead over Romney to a statistical tie and falling. Some Newt people claim this is only the result of negative ads being run by Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but those ads are only being shown in Iowa. The truth is, Newt is poison and conservatives know it.

But if Newt is poison, then Romney is white bread -- substance free and bland. He’s no conservative and even if he was, he wouldn’t have the fiber to act on those principles. The rest are even worse. . . idiots and clowns with no understanding of conservatism, no grasp of what America means, and no ability to lead.

How did we get to this point? There has never been a better moment in time to get a genuine conservative elected, and yet there isn’t one in the race. Instead, we have fools and weirdoes. . . conservative pretenders. Why?

I blame the MSM first and foremost. They have turned the election process into a game show designed to find the very people who should never be trusted with power. They seek to destroy, not reveal. They see the candidates as targets to be attacked with phony narratives and dirt dug up from lying sources and then critique their responses. They attack the candidates’ families and harass their friends and business partners. They have turned the primary system into a non-lethal version of The Running Man and no one but megalomaniac scum would subject themselves to that process.

And as if that weren’t enough, the MSM ensure that only those without integrity can win. Indeed, to prevail in this contest, you must be prepared to slander and liable all around you and absolutely must be willing to promise the unpromisable and declare soundbite solutions to the questions that have plagued mankind for millennia. In other words, only the liars and the fools can thrive in this environment.

What’s worse, conservatives are to blame for falling for this. They should know better, yet they go along with it. They lap up all the crap the MSM produces and some even gleefully join this witch-hunt process in the hopes of destroying the competition to help their preferred candidates. It’s like sports fan praying for penalties on the other team rather than excellence from their own.
Candidates should win this process, not be the last man standing!!!
It is despicable that burger companies wage their wars for customers with infinitely more integrity than our politicians handle the electoral process.


Sadly, I have no answer on how to fix this except to keep making the point and to hope that people listen. And maybe it’s time to consider serious electoral reform? Maybe it’s time to have all the primaries on one day to stop the endless horse race and pandering? Maybe it’s also time to let politicians sue the media for their tactics. . . no more reporting unsubstantiated rumors, no more stalking politicians’ kids? Maybe it’s also time to end the debates and replace them with interviews? Heck, even infomercials might be better.

What do you think?

[+]

Monday, December 19, 2011

AP Top 10: Politicized News

The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.

No. 1. The killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yawn. Let’s be honest. Osama meant nothing by this point. He wasn’t giving orders and he inspired no one. Subsequent events have shown his death changed nothing in the war on terror. I’m glad he’s dead, but he doesn’t belong atop this list.

No. 2. Japanese Disaster. Earthquake, tsunami, nuclear meltdown, 20,000 people dead, $218 billion in damage, 100,000 homeless. This one deserves to be on the list. It’s too bad so many Hollywood types thought this was a good time to crack racist anti-Japanese jokes.

No. 3. The Arab Spring. This one probably deserves to be the top story. Even The Economist is now worried that the thing “no one could have possibly foreseen” is happening, i.e. radical Islam taking power. Expect this one to cause a lot of carnage in the coming years.

No. 4. EU Crisis. Eh. Reality doesn’t quit. When you create a currency that anyone can print and you have no way to keep people from running up the bills, it’s only a matter of time before it all blows up. The real story would be if the Europeans learn anything from this.

No. 5. US Economy. Huh? They actually identify this as our economy growing and “unemployment rate finally dipping below 9 percent.” Don’t make me laugh. This recession will get worse before it gets better. Seasonal Christmas hiring won’t change that.

No. 6. Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal. If you care about Penn State, sure. But shouldn’t the bigger story be the recent arrests of Hollywood pedophiles? Oh that’s right, only some pedophiles are bad.

No. 7. Gadhafi Toppled. Wasn’t this part of the Arab Spring? Also, riddle me this: so what? Seriously, how does this change the world?

No. 8. Fiscal Showdowns In Congress. Kabuki theater at best.

No. 9. OWS. Morons crapping in the streets. More theater.

No. 10. Gabrielle Giffords Shot. Yeah, because this changed everything. Some crazed leftist shoots Giffords and the left blames Sarah Palin. The left calls for a “change in tone” while famous leftists joke about killing Palin and her family. Been there, done that.

Notice how they put this list together. First, they went liberal. Most of these are meant to aggrandize Lord Obama’s policies: Obama’s triumph over villains bin Laden and Gadhafi, Obama finally taming the economy, and the masses showing support for Obama through OWS. Several of the rest are meant to explain away Obama’s failures: the evil Congress that can’t fix the budget, the Japanese disaster that blasted our economy, and the murderous right-wing opposition that tried to kill Giffords and is determined to stop Obama. Of course, NONE of that is true, but truth doesn’t matter to leftist. They only care that it can be spun to make Obama look good or explain his failures. This is Obama’s campaign resume brought to you by the AP.

But even beyond helping Obama, look at the ludicrousness of this list. This entire list is aspirational, not based in reality. They hoped killing bin Laden would change the world. They hoped the Arab Spring and killing Gadhafi would bring peace to the Middle East. They hoped the Giffords shooting would end America’s love of guns. They hope the economy has turned around. They hope OWS finally means something.

And isn’t it interesting they ignored the elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”? I guess that didn’t turn out to be so popular with the public. They ignored the tornadoes across the Midwest and Southeast. Why? Because Obama never bothered to help those people because they don’t vote for him. They ignored Solyndra and MF Global and Fast and Furious. They ignored the Pelosi financial scandals and the retirements of dozens of Democrats. They ignored the attempt to force a union on Boeing. They ignored the left’s failure to recall Wisconsin Republicans. They ignored Climategate 2 and a bevy of global warming scandals. They ignored the courts striking down ObamaCare. . . something we were assured only lunatics could think would happen.

Gee, I wonder why?

Anyway, here’s a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012:
1. Tebow wins Super Bowl
2. Obama loses in landslide
3. Republicans capture 58 seats in the Senate
4. First case of cannibalism at OWS occurs in NYC
5. Egypt invades Libya
6. Mysterious explosion at Iranian nuclear plant
7. Germany quits the Euro
8. ????
[+]

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Time’s Person of the Year: The Idiot!

When I first heard Time had chosen “The Idiot” as its person of the year, I couldn’t help but scratch my head! Actually, I’m joking, but only a little. Time has chosen “the protester” as the person of the year. Which protester? The OWS protester, the whiny Greek protester, and the Arab Spring protester. Laughable.

The Person of the Year Award is supposed to be about people who actually influence the world. I can see picking the Arab Spring protesters because they really have changed the world. They’ve brought down corrupt repressive regimes and could, I suppose, usher the Middle East along toward becoming a responsible part of the world where you don’t have to worry about being executed for sorcery or store clerks molesting your vegetables. COULD is of course the operative word as they could just as well end up ushering in a new set of repressive veggie loving regimes. It will probably be the latter, but who really cares?

But the Greeks? The only reason they’re protesting is because they ran up their credit cards and now the bill’s showed up in the mail and they don’t want to bear the consequences of their own actions. They’re just whiny, overextended debtors. Why in the world would anyone honor them?

And choosing the OWS protesters is ridiculous. What have these dipships achieved? All they’ve done so far is rape each other, murder each other, sell each other drugs, endanger their own children and act out Animal Farm without any costumes. They have brought about 0.0% change in the universe. Not only have their demands not been met, they haven’t even been considered. Nor have they inspired sympathy in the general public. To the contrary, their single achievement has been to provide amusement to conservative bloggers and to annoy the liberal citizens of liberal towns who wasted tax money making sure these idiots didn’t rape anyone beyond their imaginary borders. These turds were so ineffective, even the Democrats won’t go near them anymore.

What would Time Man of the Year alums Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939, 1942) and the Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) say about these fools joining their elite club?

Even more ironically, there WAS a protest movement that actually did change the world a couple years ago. It was called the Tea Party. But Time didn’t honor them. Apparently Time didn’t think that millions of Americans rising up against a corrupt American government was all that interesting. Instead it honored Ben Bernanke who gave us the Great Recession.

You know, I’m starting to see a pattern here. Clearly, you have to be an idiot to win this award. Apparently, I was right the first time. So in that vein, let’s nominate some people who deserve it:

I nominate Obama for trying to let the morning after abortion pill be sold over the counter to teenage pranksters and creepy boyfriends everywhere. Here honey, drink this.

Alternatively, I nominate Fosdick Corporation, the inventor of the Snuggie.

[+]

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Dems: “Obama Sucks and It’s Bush’s Fault”

California Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D), a Blue Dog Democrat known primarily for replacing murder suspect Gary Condit (D) in the House, has come out with an interesting article in which he blasts Obama as arrogant and alienating. He also blames everything on Bush. Dennis is retiring in 2012, so it’s perhaps not surprising he would finally work up a little courage to speak his mind about Obama. And what a little mind it is:

Dennis says Team Obama suffers from “idea disease.”
. . . because thinking is not considered a good thing in Democratic circles.
More specifically, Dennis thinks Obama “rolled out a new program for the country” almost every day, but then failed to prioritize or support these ideas. Thus, Obama could never develop a clear message because he kept stepping on his message each day.
. . . this is hard to believe since Obama really only rolled out five issues: Stimulus, ObamaCare, Cap’n Trade, Financial Reform, and gays in the military. Let’s see, divide 365 days by five programs. . . carry the one. . . yeah, not even close to “a new program almost every single day.”
Nevertheless, Dennis says this “tainted the president’s personal appeal.”
. . . right, because having ideas makes you unpopular.
It also made the Democrats feel like they were “drinking out of a firehose.”
. . . if five issues constitutes a firehose-like “blast” of water, then it’s no surprise that liberal cities like Chicago and San Francisco burned to the ground because their definition of “firehose” and mine are apparently very different.
This in turn made it easy for Republicans to block the agenda. Which they “did with relish!”
. . . it always comes back to the evil Republicans, doesn’t it? Oddly, the Republicans I remember were so far away from a majority in the House they couldn’t even introduce bills. And the Senate had a Democratic Supermajority that could do anything it wanted. Can Dennis really claim those powerless Republicans stopped the Democrats? Clearly, Dennis is at high-risk of being mugged by toddlers.
Oh, and the real problem for the Democrats was trying to fix the failures of the Bush administration.
. . . Dennis forgets the Democrats already controlled the House and Senate by 2006, so these were Democratic messes. Maybe he took too many hits off the firehose to remember?
Now we start making progress. Early in Obama’s presidency “Professor Obama” proved to be somewhat arrogant. “Obama projected an ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ demeanor that alienated many potential allies.” How so? “He would admonish staff, members of the Congress and the public, in speeches and in private about what they could learn from him.”
. . . yep, that’s narcissism for ya. I have no doubt Dennis is right that Obama is an assh*le, but how should that alienate allies? Would allies really give up their goals just because Obama is an ass to them? And if the O-ssiah was such an ass, why the continued hero worship until 2010? This sounds like after-the-fact whining to me. There must be more to this?
“The president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies with which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree.”
. . . that’s it! Obama’s a dictator. I almost forgot. And Dennis doesn’t like having a dictator in the White House. Strange though, Democrats usually love dictators. . . FDR, LBJ, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Saddam Hussein. But no love for the O? Must be racism because he is the only black guy on that list.
Dennis continues, “these areas have also been responsible for much of the president’s harshest critiques.”
. . . really? Who could have guessed that ideas forced on the public by a small cabal of arrogant narcissists would be the things the public likes the least? Perhaps the Democrats should rethink their platform, because that seems to be their governing philosophy.
“One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House ‘NEVER TALK TO REAL PEOPLE.’”
. . . obnoxious use of all caps. Anyhoo, three points. First, that’s how narcissist roll, Dennis: they don’t care what other people think. Secondly, if they weren’t talking to real people, were they talking to imitations? Is this something I should be worried about? Third, of course they weren’t talking to normal people because normal people tend to object to abject stupidity. If you want to do something truly stupid no matter how many people will object, then you purposely keep normal people out of the loop until after you’ve intercoursed the canine.
One Obama staffer “confided” in Dennis that Obama doesn’t mind giving speeches, but he just doesn’t like people: he “avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway” and he “avoids individual contact.”
. . . hey, who doesn’t? This is not news, Dennis. Anyone who wasn’t drinking Obama’s urine (yeah, that’s where the Kool-Aid came from) knew this guy was an unlikable bastard who hated people. And besides, he thinks he’s royalty, and royalty don’t mingle with us peasants. . . we stink on ice. Did you really not see this, Dennis?!
A TOP housing official (one of those guys who knows where the Ark of the Covenant is stored) told Dennis that despite the fact Obama “was responsible for crafting policies to stem the foreclosure crisis, he had personally never met with a homeowner who had been foreclosed on.”
. . . hmm. I’m of two minds on this one. First, this is pathetic logic. How can meeting a homeowner help? Policies require input on a statistically significant scale. Meeting one homeowner or two or even a 100 just isn’t relevant. This complaint is like saying “Obama tried to explain football without ever having met a football player.” That’s nonsense. Secondly, I don’t believe for a minute that Obama came up with any policy. The guy can barely read and there’s no way he could come up with a coherent polic. . . ah. Never mind, I stand corrected.
Finally, Obama is a horrible campaigner. He went to some must-win state and only told the local Senator about it the day before, causing this outburst: “He was totally off-message for what my people wanted to hear. Doesn’t the White House get it? I don’t need him, he needs ME!”
. . . well, no, they don’t get it. Obama thinks he’s king of the world and you idiots who can’t handle five bills a year are weighing him down. Also, I hate to break this to you, but telling people what they want to hear is what got you into this problem in the first place. Just sayin’.
Dennis thinks Obama still has time to improve his performance before November. But what are the odds Obama even can improve his performance? Pretty low. Yesterday David Axelrod spoke about Newt’s monkey-butt. Debbie Whatshername-Schultz denied reality. Obama fundraiser Jon Corzine perjured himself before Congress. And Obama spent the weekend whining that he “sure done wished he knew how bad the economy was before he took over.” Yeah, that’ll help.

[+]

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Fruits, Newts and Nuts

Let’s keep is simple today. Let’s do a bit of a news roundup mixed with some discussion questions. Feel free to add your own thoughts on anything else that comes to mind.

You Dirty Fruits: Check out the article Patti found (HERE) dealing with Islam’s war against the perverted fruits and vegetables that will lead women astray. Not coincidentally, Saudi Arabia just executed a woman for “sorcery.” The religion of peace, huh? Sounds like an Erectile-Dysfunction-Idiocracy.

Our Impotent President, Part 507: Speaking of impotence, the military lost a drone the other day over Iran. Obama failed to allow the military to destroy the drone. This news has gone virtually unreported, but here’s why it’s important. In the 1990s, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, a stealth fighter crashed. The US failed to recover most of that plane. It is now believed that Chinese agents acquired the parts and used them to engineer their own stealth fighter, which they recently showed to the world. Letting Iran have this drone was stupid. It gives Iran the capability to make very long range, cheap drones. If a fleet of these things appears over Israel in a couple years, think back on Obama’s decision.

Tebowmania: Is Tim Tebow for real? How far will Denver go? Is this the greatest story or what? Where does all the hate come from against this kid? And do you think God really is helping Tebow... maybe just a little?

International What?: With Climategate 2.0 heaping fresh disgrace upon climate change enthusiasts, the UN has gone on the offensive and proposed an International Climate Court of Justice to make Western governments pay for their climate crimes. This would impose a mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” and to pay a “climate debt.” If you ever had doubts about the motivates of these enviro-fascists, this should settle it.

Liar of the Week: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the vile DNC Chair proved yesterday that she’s delusional as well. In an interview on Fox, Debbie Dumbass actually claimed that it is a myth that unemployment went up under Obama. She repeated this several times, finishing thusly:
“Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it's dropping. You just said it's been increasing and that's not true.”
For the record, unemployment was 6% when Obama took office, it’s 9% now and that’s after millions of people stopped looking for work and thus stopped counting against the number. So is Debbie Dumbass that stupid or is she just a pathological liar?

Newt Watch: I have resigned myself to Newt being our nominee. Hail Nero! But some conservatives and moderates (and whackos) are trying to warn us:
Glenn Beck: Beck said yesterday he would support Ron Paul in a third party bid before he would vote for Newt.

Rep. Pete King (NY): King credits Newt with winning back the House for Republicans in the 1990s. What does he think about Newt as our nominee? “He’d be a terrible nominee.” Why? Because Newt’s destructive and he’s in it for himself: “It’s not like, with Newt, you end up dying for a noble cause. You end up dying for Newt Gingrich, because he puts himself in the center of everything.”

New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu: Sununu gave the most direct warning:
“He has a personal priority over all else. The country comes maybe second or third. Philosophy comes maybe fifth. This is a man who is unable to prioritize needs in a constructive way. And frankly, his colleagues saw that when he was leader. . . This man is not stable.”
Former Gingrich collaborator Marvin Olasky: “Wisdom is knowing the difference between good and bad ideas. Newt is very intelligent; he has lots of ideas. But I’m not sure he always distinguishes between good and bad.”

NYT RINO David Brooks: “Gingrich loves government more than I do.”

National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru: “The people who know Gingrich best — the ones who worked for him, or worked with him, or watched him closely as journalists in the 1990s — have almost all concluded that he is a bad fit for the presidency. That judgment is shared by conservative and moderate congressmen, by people who support Romney and people who want an alternative to [Romney]. The common denominator is alarm at what Gingrich would do to the Republican party as nominee and to the country as president.”
Write Ins/Drop Out: Finally, a question. Several readers (looking at T-Rav and Indi) have said they will write in the name of a suitable candidate when they get to vote. The Elves seem to be contemplating moving to Singapore. I’m buying a new pitchfork. Anyway, given the other available choices in this primary, it’s hard to say a write in would be a wasted vote. But do you think writing in someone’s name helps?

[+]

Monday, December 12, 2011

Debate Wrap: We’re Doomed (with bonus rant)

For those of you fortunate enough to miss it, we had another debate on Saturday night. To put as positive a spin on this as possible, at least we now know six people who should not be President. The debate summary and a bonus rant follows! :)

Overall Impression: What?! For the first half of the debate, I wondered whether I had damaged my brain. Everyone was speaking, but no one made any sense. They seemed to spout random thoughts, mindless slogans, and pure idiocy. It was nonsense. Sadly, it turns out my brain wasn’t the problem.

Loser: Newt/Romney/Perry/Bachmann. Childish, petty and vile. They spent the night calling each other names: serial hypocrites, liars, whatever. There was NO (0.0%) substance in this debate, there was no order in this debate. It was like listening to a group of whiners trying to tell you everything they hate about their boss in 20 seconds.

Loser: Diane Sawyer/ABC. Sawyer either has a drinking problem or mental health issues. Her questions were rambling, confused and pointless. And most of them were borderline-retarded, like when she wondered aloud: “why can’t people who disagree just come together to agree for the good of the country.” Gee, I don’t know Diane. Why don’t we agree for the good of the country that you will hand me all your money while I beat you with a Jack Daniels bottle? Maybe that will help you answer this seemingly intractable quandary?!

Winner: Pandering. The level of pandering was pathetic. It truly was a dignity free night. They all heaped fake praise on Iowa, calling its crappy colleges and cities the best in the nation and identifying their subsidy sucking politicians as personal heroes. In hindsight, it’s a bit of a shock none of the candidates wore overalls or tried to eat corn on stage.

And that was only the beginning. Newt tried to claim Libertarian instincts when he favored forcing people to buy health insurance and he tried to win over Perry’s supporters by telling us how Perry taught him about the Tenth Amendment. Perry thinks he’s the only Christian. Santorum and Romney laughably made plays for Paul’s supporters. And Michelle Bachmann took the cake when she kept praising Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan which she had previously derided as his “6-6-6 plan.” She even came up with a catchy new name for her plan: “the win-win-win plan.” Now she just needs a plan to go with the name.

Loser: Yo’ Momma So Po’ Contests. At one point, Diane Sawyer slurred a question about whether or not the candidates had ever been poor. This was a stupid identity politics question, but that didn’t matter. The idiots were off to the races.

Rick Perry grew up in a septic tank. . . Mitt Romney wasn’t poor, but by God, he had a father who taught him how to be poor! Rick Santorum not only had a father who wanted him to be poor, but he had a mother who wanted him to be poor too. . . Michele Bachmann was raised by a single mother, below the poverty level, who put Michele to work in a mine at age 13. . . Ron Paul grew up during the Depression and had to have a real job (until his wife paid for his medical school). . . and Newt didn’t always fly in private jets and get lobbyist-created $500,000 expense accounts at Tiffany’s. This was like watching stereotyped “old rich white people” in films pretending they like rap.

Least Loser: Ricky Santorum. Rick Santorum won in the sense of someone winning a nuclear war: he came across as least radioactive.

Double-Down Loser: Perry/Romney. Perry claimed he read Romney’s book, which we know is impossible. He claims he read something offensive in it. Romney denied that. Perry said, “yuh huh!” Romney said, “Wanna bet $10,000 on it?” Perry looked panicky and thereby proved he’s a coward who doesn’t believe the things he says. Romney looked way-out-of-touch and came across like some jerk trying to buy a poker pot. What’s worse, they were arguing about a technicality in a book no one takes seriously.

Winner: Herman Cain. This was our first post-Cain debate. And the utter childishness we endured is a testament to the power Cain had to keep these career politicians acting like adults. I guess the presence of a businessman makes all the difference. Essentially, Cain is to the other candidates what Peyton Manning is to the 0-16 Indianapolis Colts.

Loser: Us. Not one of these clowns should be allowed to visit the White House, much less live there. And if it weren’t for the fact Obama is 100 times worse, I would probably endorse him at this point. . . that’s how bad the performances were last night. These people are clueless, gutless panderers with no ideas, no leadership ability and no sense of self-respect. Our democracy is becoming a joke.


Yahoo annoys me. Not only do they hide stories written by their ignorant, borderline- illiterate bloggers among wire-service stories, but they’ve started messing with their news headlines. Instead of the reputable headlines you find at other places -- things like “Romney Challenges Perry to Wager” or “Bachmann Praises Cain,” which are informative and tell you whether you might find the article interesting -- Yahoo has gone to headlines like: “The Shocking Thing Romney Did” and “Bachmann’s Amazing Claim.” These are headlines for stupid people. These are headlines you see at gossip rags: “Clooney’s Humiliating Mistake”. . . “Is Famous Star Gay?”. . . “What Matt Damon Doesn’t Want You To Know.” This is crap. These are teases spit out by celebrity gossips who get off on self-importance. They are designed to trick you into opening the article. They are a declaration by Yahoo that they think their audience are suckers. This is what the MSM is becoming now that it’s lost our trust.

In Aliens Sigourney Weaver asks: “Did IQs drop sharply while I was asleep?” I get that felling all the time.

[+]

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:
● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.
Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

[+]

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Of Idiot and Egomaniac

OMG! Obama’s right about something. . . sort of. How the heck did that happen?! Also, bad, arrogant, delusional Newt is back, just in time for Christmas! And you won’t like what he said.

Dateline: Obama’s Brain(sic). As Obama stopped over in Kansas (while telling the crowd he was in Texas. . . “hello Cleveland!”) on his way to his vacation in the coolest of the 57 states -- Hawaii, which is now in Asia, Obama actually said something mostly correct. He noted that people have been losing their jobs not because of “the business cycle,” but because of technology: “you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet.” Ya don’t say?!

Ok, let’s think about this for a moment. Could it be that the big enemy isn’t China or decades of Reaganomics or those evil rich just not paying enough in taxes? Could it be the real reason people lose their jobs is technology?

Actually, yes. The sad truth is the biggest job killer is technology. The tractor killed the farm hand. The robot killed the factory worker. The computer killed the typing pool. The internet is killing retail. It is a cycle. And this cycle will never stop. That’s why it’s so vital that America always remain a land of innovation and opportunity. We need to keep making new jobs to replace the ones that will disappear because of technology. That means companies need to be free to take risks. If companies are prevented from taking risks, the only way they can survive against the competition is to find efficiencies, and efficiencies means layoffs. It is a simply truth: risks = jobs, efficiencies = layoffs.

Yet, the Democrats do everything within their power to kill risk. They regulate business to the point it becomes impossible to take risks. They tax those who earn “too much” and thereby eliminate the reward that comes with taking successful risk. And they saddle the economy with trial lawyers and easy litigation to make risk just too risky. This is how liberalism destroys economies. It destroys the ability of “those who would” to generate new jobs to replace the old ones that naturally disappear over time.

For possibly the first time in his life, President AAAhole is onto something. Too bad he doesn’t understand the implications.

Dateline: Newt’s Brain. The only thing bigger than the gaps in Obama’s knowledge is Newt’s ego. And we’ve just been treated to yet another classic example of this. Said Newt to fellow blowhard Larry Kudlow:
“I was part of Jack Kemp's little cabal of supply-siders who I think, largely by helping convince Reagan and then working with Reagan profoundly changed the entire trajectory of the American economy in the 1980s. You could make an argument that I helped Mitt Romney get rich because I helped pass the legislation that —”
Uh..... To use a slight paraphrase of a famous and devastating debate line from Lloyd Benson, “I knew Ronald Reagan, Mr. Gingrich, and you should shut the hell up about teaching Reagan anything you like punk.”

Newt was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978. By that point, Ronald Reagan had already been Governor of California for two terms and had run twice for president (1968 and 1976). He had advocated conservatism since the 1950s. He endorsed Barry Goldwater a year before Newt got his college degree. So F-you Newt if you’re going to claim that YOU had to convince Reagan of anything, least of all his signature idea, which he was already advocating when you were still in diapers. . . you turd.

This is the problem with Newt: he’s insane. And I don’t mean in an endearing way like crazy uncle Ron Paul and his gold-standard flying saucers. Newt is insane in the way that serial killers are insane. He’s a bigger narcissist than Obama. He doesn’t think God speaks to him, he thinks God comes to him for advice. And he genuinely believes the fantasies he invents. And it gets worse. . .

Dateline: Trump This. Newsmax is stupidly teaming with Donald “the fraud” Trump to put on a Republican debate on December 27th. Would our candidates really crawl on their bellies to this fraud? Oops, I mean, is this really a good idea?

Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait long before Jon Huntsman to his credit became the first to discover his sense of self-respect and refused to go. Ron Paul immediately followed suit, adding that “the selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate. . . is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity.” With the course firmly set by the others, Romney made the bold decision to follow the crowd. So we’re all agreed, right?

Well, no. Newt’s going. In fact, the shameless egomaniac flew to Trump’s side to blast the evil Ron Paul. . . by denigrating Ronald Reagan. Indeed, when asked to respond to Paul’s claim that Trump’s participation would be beneath the dignity of the office, Newt actually said:
“This is a country that elected an actor who made two movies with a chimpanzee to the presidency.”
WTF?! And like that, I have ruled out another candidate.

[+]

Monday, December 5, 2011

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.


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

[+]

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Up Your’s, Honkeys!

The Democrats are the party of the “working man.” They represent that core of America that builds things, which makes things, which toils in the dirt, which keeps America running. These are the hardworking people of this great land who looked to FDR to save them. Yep. That’s the Democrats. . . right? Well, no. Those people vote Republican now, and the Democrats are about to concede that.

The biggest myth in politics is that the Democrats are the party of the working man and the Republicans are the party of the rich. In reality, the Democratic party consists of welfare cases who live off the state and white millionaires who inherited their wealth or live off trading political favors. They have no middle. And lest you doubt they are the party of the corrupt rich, check out these statistics:
● According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2007, the fifty biggest companies in the country gave 60% of their political donations to Democrats.

● According to, in 2008, Obama raised $145.7 million from corporate America. Of this, $42 million was from Wall Street and $46 million was from lawyers and lobbyists (K Street).

● The Democratic Party took in another $166.7 million from corporate America, of which $44.4 million came directly from Wall Street banks and $35 million came from K-Street lobbyists.
And this is direct contributions only, it does not count independent spending or PACs, where the real money gets spent. Moreover, the Democrats are awash in influence peddling scandals and they regularly move between government, K Street and Wall Street. Yet, we’re supposed to believe the Democrats are the party of middle-class America. . . of workers? Hardly.

Anyway, things are about to change.

According to Democratic analysts Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira, for decades now, the Democratic Party has been bleeding white, working class voters. This trend started in the 1960s, accelerated in the 1980s and continues today despite the Democrats’ best efforts to woo these voters. How bad has it gotten? In 2004, John Kerry lost the white working vote by 58% to 41%. Obama improved slightly to 55% to 43%, but in 2010 this gap reached an all time high of 63% to 33%.

So how do the Democrats plan to respond. Apparently, the Democrats have decided they can’t win white working voters, so they’re giving up on trying! Verily. In 2012, they intend to treat these honkus-escapuses as “unobtainable.” Instead, they plan to cobble together a coalition of over-educated whites (professors, lawyers, artists, social workers, teachers, therapists, human resources manager, journalists and librarians), single women, blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Millennials.

Now let me make a few observations about this:
● First, this strategy relies on groups who historically don’t turn out for elections. Good luck with that. Moreover, this strategy depends on Hispanics out-breeding whites. As I’ve mentioned before, that’s not going to happen.

● Secondly, this strategy depends on the gap in the white vote not growing worse -- anything above 17% is fatal for Democrats. But it will grow worse. Once the Democrats embrace being the party of snooty-whites and minorities, they will lose all the rest of the working class whites. That’s how it’s always worked. This is how the South became Republican and this is how places like Ohio and Michigan will follow.

Also, the idea of a race-based party of rich and poor simply will not play well with most Americans. Americans ALL like to think of themselves as non-racial, middle-class, working types. . . exactly the opposite of what the Democrats will be. This should lead to middle-class flight to the Republican Party, leaving only the angry left for the Democrats.

● Third, this is going to kill them with their union friends, who are the source of their ground game and a good portion of their financial strength. And ironically, they have chosen to do this now just as manufacturing is about to rebound in this country because the comparative advantage Asia has is ending. Whoops.

● Fourth, the biggest flaw in this plan is the idea that Hispanics will mimic blacks. If the Republicans can win even 40-45% of the Hispanic vote, the Democrats will be doomed. And here the Democrats have given the Republicans the perfect way to do that -- Hispanics, like everyone else, want to become middle class Americans. It’s time for the Republicans to offer them that chance.
The Democrats are about to hand the Republicans an historical opportunity here to rebrand the party and truly become the party of middle class America. The Republicans need to seize this moment and expose the Democrats for the frauds they are.

[+]

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The “Right” Tax Hikes

Before Turkey Day, Pat Toomey and Jeb Hensarling were taking a lot of heat for a tax proposal they made as part of their supercommittee work. Let’s talk about why their proposal actually is something conservatives should adopt. The proposal in question involves either capping or eliminating both the state tax deduction and the home interest deduction. Here’s why you should support this.

The arguments against this are that it would constitute a broad-based tax increase. In other words, most taxpayers would see their taxes go up as a result of this. And if you phase this out above a certain income, then you are playing into the Democrats’ class warfare arguments. Also, eliminating the home mortgage deduction would hurt the home industry by eliminating the incentive for people to buy homes, which conservatives see as promoting personal financial responsibility.

The MSM argument for this is that eliminating these deductions would result in a pretty massive increase in tax revenues, and something on this scale will be needed to reduce the deficit or pay off the debt.

Sounds like a loser, right? Well, not so fast. Consider these points.
● As a conservative, the idea of helping a particular industry through the tax code should be anathema to us. We should not be picking winners and losers no matter how much we like particular industries. And we should not look favorably upon social engineering.

● The complaint that this would broadly raise taxes can be offset by lowering rates as part of the agreement. Some people would end up paying more and some would pay less, but overall lower, flatter rates without distorting deductions should always be the conservative goal.

● The class warfare point doesn’t really support the idea of leaving the current system in place either. Instead, it argues against phasing out the deduction for the rich. But if we eliminate these deductions entirely or simply cap them at some amount, then everyone is treated equally and there is no support for class warfare.

● And in favor of capping these deductions, if not eliminating them entirely, consider this. The purpose of the home mortgage deduction is to encourage home ownership because that’s fiscally responsible, but does this argument still make sense when we are talking about people who are buying million dollar homes? Presumably, they don’t need the government trying to tell them where it’s best to put their money.
Those are the preliminaries. Now it gets interesting. See, it turns out that both the state tax deduction and the home mortgage deduction disproportionately benefit liberals and support liberalism.

By allowing state taxes to be deducted, lower tax states are essentially subsidizing higher tax states and making higher taxes more palatable. In other words, through the state tax deduction, the federal government will effectively pick up about a third of the tax burden imposed by the states. Thus, if State A taxes income at 6% and State B taxes income at 12%, the federal government gives State A a hidden 2% subsidy and State B a hidden 4% subsidy by reducing the federal taxes it demands from the taxpayers of those states. Because federal spending is a zero sum game, meaning it is finite, that extra 2% is basically money transferred from other states to State B, i.e. lower tax states are subsidizing higher tax states.

Why should a responsible state like Texas be forced to subsidize an irresponsible state like New York or California? If New Yorkers want to pay 12%, let them pay 12%, don’t let them pay only 8% with tax money from Texas going to make up the other 4%. Make these liberal states experience the full consequences of their stupid policies!

And make no mistake, liberal states are the ones benefiting from this.

Moreover, “the rich” who benefit the most from this deduction and the home mortgage deduction are disproportionately supporters of liberals. In fact, according to Michael Barone, voters in high-tax, high-income states overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Nationally, those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Obama by 6% more than voters below $200,000. And in the high-income-tax states, Obama blew McCain away: Connecticut (55%), New York (56%), New Jersey (52%), Maryland (55%), Illinois (54%), California (57%).

Why should a middle class worker in Kentucky be forced to send tax dollars to Washington so that Washington can support the spending habits of rich liberals and rich liberal states?

It’s time to eliminate these deductions or cap them at a low level which doesn’t subsidize liberal states.

Toomey and Hensarling are right in this. Eliminating these deductions is solid conservative economics and philosophy and it’s solid conservative politics.

[+]

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Debate Wrap: Of Icebergs And Dissemblers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[+]

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Liberals to Obama: “Quit!”

There have been rumbles for some time about Obama dragging down the left. . . as if they need help. But nobody reputable has said anything publicly, until now. In an editorial in The Wall Street Journal two Democratic pollsters, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, have openly asked his Messiahness to step down and let someone competent replace him in 2012. Specifically, they want Hillary. Ha! While I LOVE the sentiment, the argument is actually pretty ridiculous.

Caddell and Schoen first state that they think Obama can win re-election, “but the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern.” Then they invoke both Truman and Johnson as Presidents who “accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election.” Both took what Caddell and Schoen call “the moral high ground” of not running for re-election. Thus, since Obama cannot campaign in a way that will let him govern, they call for him to step aside and let Hillary run in his place.

Good times.

Entertaining though it may be, this argument is completely flawed. For one thing, Obama can’t win re-election. Not only is he historically low in the polls, but he’s been there so consistently no matter what’s happened that it’s clear the public has stopped listening. In other words, he’s run out of second chances. And running the negative campaign they think is necessary for him to win won’t help either. This election will be a referendum on Obama and Obama only -- attacking the other guy can’t help him. Not to mention, going negative will only fire up the Tea Party who want to ship his lazy *ss back to whence it came.

Secondly, they are sadly mistaken if they think narcissist Obama will EVER step down. Buddhist monks could literally be setting themselves on fire on the White House lawn and his majesty would still believe the people love him.

Moreover, there’s a huge flaw in their assumption that Obama resigning would somehow change the calculation. Indeed, this concept highlights several of the problems with liberal thinking. For example, they don’t grasp that it’s his policies that have been the problem, not the man. Sure, Obama is a turd as a human being, but people don’t hate him because he’s a turd, they hate everything he’s done. Hillary wouldn’t do a thing differently and we know that. So why should anyone think changing the figurehead for a hateful, pathetic bowel movement like liberalism will somehow make liberalism acceptable? That is frankly stupid.

Further, they argue that Obama resigning “would put great pressure” on Republicans to compromise. <<== That right there is why liberals lose wars, folks. These bozos actually think Obama’s complete surrender will suddenly get Republicans to compromise?! That’s not how reality works. The consistent human instinct for thousands of generations has been to crush an enemy when they are down. . . not cater to their desires.

They also argue this would be constructive because it would “change the dynamic from who is more to blame – George W. Bush or Barack Obama – to a more constructive dialog.” Uh. . . no. Only hardcore leftists think this is still the dynamic. Obama has been the leader for three years. He shoved the federal government up our collective rumps over and over, he tried to unionize private companies, spent the country to death, crushed our medical system, gave aid and comfort to our enemies, abandoned our friends, and otherwise soiled and ruined everything for which the United States stands. The only question people will ask now is: “do you want this to continue or not?” And the dynamic will be those who work for a living versus those who leech for living. That’s it.

Finally, they contend Hillary could reach “an historic agreement” with Republicans just like her husband did, but Obama can’t. And they claim this is important because it’s the best way to “preserve Obama’s achievements.” Hardly. The public wants Obama rousted and the country fumigated. The Republicans get this and they will not cut deals with Hillary or anyone else to preserve Obama’s “achievements.” This goes back to the surrender fantasy.

Obama stepping aside is fun to talk about and I love the demoralizing aspect of this on the left, just like I LOVE how Chris Matthews’s tingle has turned into the burn of an STD, but forget Obama stepping aside to save the Democrats. . . that will never happen. And definitely forget the idea the public would forgive the Democrats if Obama does step aside. The Democrats spent the last few years raping the American dream and the American public is in no mood to forgive them.

[+]

Monday, November 21, 2011

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

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

Hoping to defuse the many problems with his candidacy, Newt Gingrich has put a question and answers section on his website where he tries to explain his biggest mistakes. In this section he points out that the media will try to smear him. He mentions he’s cast over 7,000 votes, given over 1,500 speeches, written thousands of articles and 24 books, and made thousands of television appearances, each of which will be scoured for dirt. He then tries to defend 15 areas where he previously molested the canine:
● Paul Ryan Plan: Newt undercut Paul Ryan’s budget/Medicare plan by calling it “right wing social engineering.” He says he agrees with Ryan now, BUT he wants to undercut Ryan by letting seniors stay in the present plan if they want. Why? Because he’s “opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed.” Translation: Being loved is more important than achieving results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● “Personal Life”: Newt had an affair, but it wasn’t as bad as Clinton’s. His daughter has debunked the claim he ignored his sick wife while she was in the hospital. No mention is made of recent spending scandals involving jewelry and his wife and the overuse of private jets. Translation: Newt thinks that by comparison, his corruption ain’t so bad. . . and that one thing was a lie so he’s completely vindicated on all points.
This article did not turn out at all like I expected. When I first read about this, I figured Newt would list how he was wrong in the past on various topics and explain his new mindset. I could maybe, possibly accept that. Instead, I found a series of smokescreens, stunning evasions and huge red flags about Newt’s integrity, his understanding of the problems people have with him, and his intentions once he gets into office.

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

[+]

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Tea Party Is THE Middle

So many self-described moderates or independents whine about the disappearance of the center. They want people to put “ideology aside,” to reject both the leftwing and rightwing view of the world and to come together “to get something done.” The Economist laments the absence of these people a lot. But the truth is, they’re already here. . . they’re called the Tea Party.

Whenever groups like The Economist lament the left-right divide, here is how they describe the two sides: On the right, you have an intolerant group beholden to social conservatives. They worry about gays and abortion and little else. They won’t touch a penny in military spending and they will never accept a tax hike of any sort. The ideological left is described as beholden to unions, in particular teachers unions, and won’t accept a penny in cuts or any change in labor laws to make the labor market more efficient.

Let’s accept this dichotomy as true, despite some obvious errors. Now let’s see how the Tea Party fits into this structure:
1. The Tea Party is clearly not beholden to unions.

2. The Tea Party is willing to eliminate the types of regulations that protect teachers and government workers from competition.

3. The Tea Party has consciously ignored social conservatism. They have in fact repeatedly made the point that now is the time to deal purely with economic issues.

4. The Tea Party is willing to slash military spending, provided the cuts are sensible.

5. The Tea Party is willing to accept higher taxes on some in exchange for a more efficient, cleaner, less corrupt tax code for all, i.e. an elimination of deductions in exchange for a flat tax or Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.
Thus, the Tea Party specifically rejects everything The Economist uses to describe the left AND the right. In other words, the Tea Party does not fit into the stereotype The Economist has of the right, nor does it fit into their soft-pedaled version of the left. They are, in effect, the very people The Economist keeps calling upon to bring a new “non-ideological” focus to politics.

So why won’t The Economist recognize this?

The answer simple: this isn’t “the middle” they were hoping for. The Economist and their ilk wanted to believe the middle looked exactly like RINOs. They thought the middle would be people who trust the government, who don’t mind regulation but maybe want to tinker a bit here and there to make the regulations run smoother, and who don’t mind tax hikes to balance the budget. They figured the middle would be people who were willing to accept higher taxes and fewer services but otherwise wanted business as usual. . . people without strong views about anything who simply want to make the left and the right split every baby.

But the reality is the middle has very definite opinions and they aren’t at all what The Economist was hoping. The middle wants a government they don’t have to worry about. They want a government that leaves them alone except where absolutely necessary. They want a government that taxes less, spends less and does less. They want a government that stays within the boundaries set by the deal we’ve all struck called the Constitution, and they want a government that rejects everything about the current state of business as usual.

This is not the middle The Economist or anyone else really expected to find. But this is what you get when you bring together all the non-ideological people in the country. And thus, another leftist fantasy comes crashing down.

Interestingly, this also tells us why the Tea Party people and the Republicans haven’t meshed so well. The Republican Party is based on several interest groups. Social conservatives care about gays and abortion. Neocons want big government and foreign adventuring. Big Business Republicans and K-Street want the government handing out goodies to corporate America. Libertarians have spent the past few decades trying to legalize drugs. And the grumpy Republicans simply want whatever the liberals don’t want.

The Tea Party people reject all of this. They don’t care about the desires of these factions and they want no part of business as usual.

Will the Tea Party people eventually win or lose? It’s too early to tell. But the Presidential primary has been interesting. Romney is the choice of Neocons and big business, and he’s stuck at 20% support. Bachmann and Santorum are Religious Right darlings and they’ve collapsed. Perry was your standard K-Street Trojan Armadillo and he’s collapsed. Ron Paul isn’t doing as well as he has in the past either. Right now the guys with the momentum seem to be the two guys who don’t fit into any of the traditional Republican interest groups.

Fascinating, isn’t it?

[+]

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Libya Gaffe: This Was No Boating Accident!

I owe Herman Cain an apology. This “Libya gaffe” thing is just another smear, and sadly, I bought into it. Mea culpa. Here’s what really happened, along with my thinking on what really matters with the candidates.
Issue One: The Libya “Gaffe”
When Cain’s candidacy started taking off, the media smeared him with bogus sexual harassment allegations. Brought as anonymous and non-specific allegations, the MSM obsessively savaged Cain for failing to satisfy some undisclosed moving-target standard to acquit himself. Yet, within only a week, it became clear there was no substance to these allegations. The accusers aren’t credible: a serial complainer and a money-desperate liar. They have ties to David Axelrod, who has a history of this type of smear. The media witch hunt was overplayed. And polls continue to show Cain at or near the top. The scandal is D.O.A.

But just as Cain appeared to be recovering, a new allegation appeared: that he’s stupid. This allegation was based on his supposed “Libya gaffe,” and has again been pushed by the MSM and useful idiots like Byron York at National Review. But this is a smear too.

According to people like York, the Libya gaffe is this: A reporter asked Cain if he agreed with Obama’s policy on Libya. Cain had no idea what that policy was. He eventually mumbles something about Obama opposing Gaddafi, and then has to ask the reporter if what he’s just said is true.

IF this is true, then Cain really isn’t all that bright. Only. . . it’s not true.

Commentarama reader tryanmax sent me a link with the full interview. Here’s the link to the interview (LINK) and here’s a link to tryanmax’s thoughts on the subject (LINK). The interview is a lengthy discussion of many topics. About 20 minutes into the interview, they turn to the question of whether or not Cain would support democracy movements abroad. Cain tells the reporter he would support democracy movements, but he wouldn’t try to create one. Up to this point, Cain has come across as knowledgeable and relaxed.

The reporter then asks whether Cain thought Bush’s foreign policy was effective in this regard or if Cain has “a major critique” of how Bush handled the balance between American interests and democracy movements. Cain thinks about this and says he believes Bush ultimately struck the right balance. Cain repeats that where a democracy movement exists, he would support it, but he “won’t try to talk people into democracy.”

The reporter then says: “so you agreed with President Obama then on Libya or not?” Note first, that this is a strange question and it assumes much that has not been said by Cain or the reporter up to this point. They were talking about Bush’s foreign policy and suddenly the reporter asks this statement-question which assumes what Obama’s policy was and assumes that Cain has just provided an answer consistent with it. I am not saying this is a “gotcha” question, but it is a vague and ambiguous question with an uncertain subject. It is the kind of question a lawyer would object to and make the reporter rephrase.

Cain again thinks for a moment. Then he says:
“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘yes, I agree’ or ‘no, I don’t’.”
There’s the supposed gaffe. This is what is being portrayed as Cain asking the reporter to help him with the facts. The MSM is saying Cain’s use of the word “correct” means Cain needs the reporter to assure him he guessed right what Obama did in Libya. BUT that’s a blatantly false interpretation. Watch the video and it immediately becomes clear that Cain is neither confused nor is he asking the reporter to confirm the facts. Instead, Cain is asking the reporter to confirm that this was the topic the reporter meant with his odd question. Cain is using the word “correct” as a rhetorical device to make sure they were talking about the same thing. The fact both Cain and the reporter remain calm and continue the interview without any sense a gaffe has occurred confirms this.

There is NO reasonable way you can interpret this video as Cain being unsure what Obama did in Libya or asking the reporter to help him get the facts right. To assert that, as supposedly-reputable conservatives like National Review have done, is to adopt yet another smear, just as they did with the sexual harassment allegations. It is to intentionally pretend there is confusion, where there is none – just as they continue to wrongly claim Cain was confused about the difference between pro-life and pro-choice or as they tried to turn his verbal slip about China’s nuclear capability into evidence of ignorance.

I have also heard claims Cain must be stupid because he took time to consider his answer before responding. That is simply ridiculous. To expect someone to provide rapid-fire soundbites throughout an informal, 20+ minute conversation style interview on a variety of topics, rather than gather their thoughts, is disingenuous at best.
Issue Two: Dissecting Candidate Brains
Finally, I want to explain why I don’t care if Cain makes gaffes or Perry freezes up occasionally or Romney sounds prissy. Those things don’t matter. They are style over substance. What matters is understanding how the candidates think because what is truly critical is understanding how each candidate will approach whatever problems they face on the job. In other words, whether or not they know the capital of Mexico doesn’t matter, but knowing how they would analyze an invasion of Mexico by Venezuela does. Here is what I’ve seen so far (you may see things differently):
Cain: Cain thinks like an executive. He’s hands off when it comes to details and he expects “his people” to carry out his orders. This is similar in style to Ronald Reagan. However, Cain lacks Reagan’s strong knowledge base and fundamental theoretical understanding of conservatism, and he has yet to show solid political instincts. His biggest flaw appears to be an assumption that those around him will work toward the goals he sets.

Gingrich: Gingrich is the smartest man on stage. He is also politically savvy. BUT his history tells me he will often base his decisions on the wrong motives, such as ego or a desire to be loved. This overrides his intelligence and makes him unpredictable.

Paul: Paul is a smart man with deep knowledge and a generally solid decision making process. However, he is prone to erroneous conspiracy theories and is fundamentally wrong on certain issues.

Romney: Romney is afraid of decisions. He avoids them at all cost and immediately backtracks at the first sign of disagreement.

Perry: Perry wants to let others make decisions for him. This means we don’t know who will actually be making decisions.

Bachmann: Bachmann has failed to demonstrate any independent thinking. She follows bandwagons and believes knowledge of trivia is a substitute for analysis.

Santorum: Santorum is a disaster. He only wants to hear people who agree with him and he simply does not understand the issues or people.
Some of these problems I can overlook, others I can’t. But one thing is clear: most of the things the MSM focuses on are irrelevant to understanding these people.

[+]