Daily Archives: January 27, 2011
Dear God help the Republican Party if it is dumb enough to elect any of the following losers and frontrunners as its candidates.Let’s go down this list of losers and dimwits.
A successful businessman who mainly made money off investments and buyout—i.e. “in other words, you don’t do anything, you don’t make anything” (without any of the redeeming qualities from the movie I pulled that quote from).He managed one of the most corrupt Olympics after scandal broke and didn’t let it go completely to hell…which qualifies him as a good detail oriented kind of person…history tells me that detail oriented people made terrible presidents.They try to get into the details of everything and accomplish nothing.The only model that ever works is a president who has 1). Vision and principles and 2). selects competent detail oriented people below them to whom they can give orders of “Get this or that accomplished, I don’t care how.”
But Romney supporters then like to pull out his governorship of Massachusetts.What gets called Republican in Mass. generally qualifies for the definition of socialism anywhere else in the world.Second what was his big accomplishment in that office? Health Care that was used as the model for ObameCare (and we as conservatives all just love that little piece of legislation don’t we).He also presided in Massachusetts over an increase in capital gains taxes (because I’m sure that always stimulates an economy).He also proposed indexing the minimum wage tax to the inflation rates—I’d be hard pressed to come up with a more astounding idiotic idea.
When it comes to Romney he’s a liberal and that’s all there is to say about that.I can’t image how conservatives think that putting this bleeding heart in the White House will in any way shape or form help the country.
You know on some domestic ideas I agree with Paul (although if I had to make a choice I prefer his son).The problem is that despite having a clearly rational economic policy his foreign policy…well…sucks doesn’t quite cover it.Basically he’s an isolationist.He doesn’t understand that the American is now and forever will be intractably tied to the economies of the world from now on.Just as no state’s economy is separated from the U.S. economy, the U.S. economy is equally inseparable from the rest of the world.And Paul doesn’t get this.And tied to that he doesn’t get that it’s not only practical policy to take out tyranny and support the world over it is a moral imperative.
I like having Paul in the House.He belongs in a legislative body to provide it with correct economic vision.But he has no conceivable place in the White House.
She’s a hypocrite, a demagogue, and completely without morals or standards.She will sell out any idea if she feels it will get her political gain.The only difference between her and other politicians isn’t intelligence, it’s that she’s a better showman and can sell her con better.
This guy is all but a liberal in economics.No thank you.
Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum
On most issues I don’t necessarily disagree with these guys in the broad strokes (broad strokes, both have done things I can’t begin to condone in policy).The problem is that both don’t see reducing the size of government, improving the economy, and blowing up terrorists as the three primary issues for this nation.They would prefer to focus on things that don’t even make my top million things to deal with.DeMint is boycotting CPAC because he thinks it’s too “gay” and “libertarian.”Santorum is on the record as being equally concerned with using the government to regulate our private lives.These two should never be allowed near the White House.And again I will repeat my previous statement DeMint needs to shut his mouth.