Monthly Archives: February 2012

Romney Wins! An Open Letter to the Republican Party

Okay Romney won.  (Even with Rick call in the Dems).  For those of us who support Romney (i.e. those of us who actually looked at his record instead of swallowing what the media is trying to force feed us) this is a good day…

Mr. President

But to the rest of the Republican Party, the Newt supporters, the Santorum supporters (those who aren’t Democrats), the Paul supporters, we need to talk.  Guys, look, you’re just not going to get it.  The wins tonight give Romney another boost and hurt your guys even more.  Before tonight he had 99 delegates.  Tonight he got 29 from Arizona and will probably get around 15 for Michigan.  Add to that he’s ahead in Puerto Rico (23 delegates), Maryland (37), D.C. (19), Delaware (17), California (172), New Jersey (50), and Utah (40) and those are all winner-take-all primaries.  That’s 501 delegates of the needed 1144.  Wisconsin is the only other winner-take-all state with only 42 delegates.  Now add in his commanding leads in Massachusetts (41) and Virginia (49) and Mitt’s already got over half of the votes he needs locked down.  (When you factor in all the proportional votes from Super Tuesday (480, counting MA and VA which we know Mitt’s going to win) and add in all the other winner-take-all states Mitt will likely have close to 700 (quite possibly well over 700, but I’m being generous to Newt and Rick) delegates locked down by the end of Super Tuesday.  Which would mean of the 1103 delegates up for grabs Mitt would only have to get another 444 (give or take how many off from 700 he has) .  Wow, only 40% of the delegates.  I’m sure that will be so difficult especially after Newt and Rick go bankrupt as they’re about to any day now.  Face it.  Romney is going to be the nominee.  There will be no brokered convention, there will be no split party.  Romney’s it.  He’s also the one that Obama is afraid of!

Now you have three options.  You can pout and do nothing.  You can continue attacking Romney and do Obama’s work for him.  You can work to make sure we win the House and the Senate.

I understand if you can’t get behind Romney (well actually I can’t in this particular case, but as I would not vote for Santorum if he were the nominee I’m not going to say you must vote for Romney or work to get him elected if he were the nominee…although my anti-Santorum stance is based on reason, facts, and patriotism…your anti-Romney bias is based on what again?  Lunacy?  Anyway…) .  But even if you don’t like Romney pouting helps no one.  Civic duty requires that you participate actively in government in any way you can.

And attacking Romney is also not a valid option as it only helps Obama.  Levin, Hanity, Malkin, Shapiro, Murdoch, Limbaugh, Michael Reagan* I’m talking to you.  Shut the hell up.  Don’t like him.  Fine, don’t support him.  But that doesn’t mean you help our mutual enemy.  Even all of the Newt and Santorum supporters out there need to get a clue that as many problems as they have against Romney (all of them justified by lies, half-truths and misinformation) he’s better than Obama.  If you don’t like Romney, please just spend the rest of the year until November attacking Obama and his cronies and ONLY Obama and his cronies.  Hell, day after the election I’ll join you in being a critic of President Romney when he does the wrong thing, as I will critique any president when they screw up…but until we get Obama out hold off on attacking Romney, please, for the good of the country—you know that thing you claim to love (although by supporting Santorum I’m not really seeing it).

The third option, the one everyone who doesn’t like Romney should be taking, is making sure you do everything in your power to make sure that the House stays in Republican control and that the Republicans  take hold in the Senate.  According to RealClearPolitics 5 seats up for election are safe Republican seats with another 8 in the toss up category (and 4 Democratic seats are in the Lean Democrat category).  The goal, for those of you who don’t want to back Romney should be to make sure that both House and Senate are staunchly conservative, Tea Party Conservative, not just Republican.  So, playing in your ball park for just a second, if Romney is the flip-flopping politician you claim he is (even though he’s not) then he will have no choice but to always veer conservative as that is the only thing he will be able to do with a conservative Congress.  Hitting Romney will only waste resources in getting what you want, conservative policies.  And to those commentators I mentioned, given that you’re all very well off and you’ve already hurt this party with you divisive rhetoric, you should be donating the maximum to every major Senate and House race you can—that is the only way you can make up for this draw out violation of the 11th Commandment (especially considering most of you are backing an extreme economic liberal like Santorum).

So it’s up to you.  Show you care about this country or continue hitting Romney.  Your choice.

*On a side note I would like to take the time to point out that Michael Reagan’s endorsement of Newt shows that intelligence may be more dependent on genetics than environment.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum, Democrat from Pennsylvania

Did you hear those words “Paid for By Rick Santorum for President.”  That’s right when Rick can’t win with the Republicans, probably because he’s a pro-union, big government, anti-capitalist piece of $&!#.  Vote Santorum.  It’s all like getting all of Obama’s economic plans, but the a heavy dose of theocracy thrown in for good measure.

I also like he seems to be suggesting that Romney was wrong to not support the auto bailout. Which is kind of odd because, back in June he said “Romney’s right” on the auto bailout!  And he’s right until you know Rick can use it as a talking point to enlist Democrats.

No, absolutely not. We should — we should not have had a TARP. We should not have had the auto bailout. Governor Romney’s right. They could have gone through a structured bankruptcy without the federal government.


All the federal government did was basically tip to the cronies, tip to the unions, gave the unions the company. If they’d have gone through the orderly bankruptcy process, gone through a structured bankruptcy, they’d have come out in the same place, only we would have kept the integrity of the bankruptcy process without the government putting its fingers into it.

As to the TARP thing.  Yes Romney supported TARP.  I don’t agree with that.  But I would also be a fool not to see that a lot of conservative economists said that it needed to happen because the immediate ripple effects would have been terrible.  I think they would have been worth it.  But I understand where sane people can disagree.  Now Santorum officially has always been opposed to TARP…but he was not in an elected office at the time.  His voting record is one of earmarks, budget increases, picking winners, having votes bought and paid for, raising the debt ceiling, and in general getting the government as involved as he could in the economy.  He may say he opposed TARP, however his voting record says that were he in the Senate at the time it had come through he would have voted for it.  I choose to judge a man by his actions not his words.  And his actions say he would have voted for it.  Which means both points of this call, TARP and auto-bailout are acts of utter hypocrisy on Santorum’s part.  Not to mention being so desperate as to ask for the help of the enemy.

If this man had any class or character or human decency (which he doesn’t, because he’s as corrupt and worthless a politician as they make) he would bow out tonight, no matter what the results. And if his supporters had any brains (Levin, Hanity, Limbaugh, I mean you) they would use every bit of media power they had to demand he leave the race right now for this disgusting attempt to bring Democrats into a Republican primary.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Mitt Romney, politics, Rick Santorum

Stupid quote of the day

This quote comes from an article I found on Big Government but was originally from USA Today, a news source I always turn to when I want weaker reporting and prose than I would find in the New York Times…or Pravda.

“If they used Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program as a guideline for the Obamacare thing, what’s the difference?”

I’m going to ignore giving you the name of the person who said this, or their profession, because I blame the idiot reporter for repeating this tripe more than I do the person for saying it.  (And shame on Big Government for repeating it without critique).

Now I’ve pointed out differences with Obamacare and Romneycare before, and they are numerous and important as they create radically different systems.  But let’s even ignore simple little things like facts…I’ve never known them to get in the way of most MSM reports anyway.

Let’s instead look at how silly that statement is in other historical contexts

“If they used Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence as a guideline for the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror Rights of Man thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used Darwin’s Origin of the species as a guideline for Nazi Germany’s systematic genocide thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used quotes from the Bible as a guideline for a that whole justification of slavery thing, what’s the difference?”

“If they used that “General Welfare” thing  for the entitlement state thing, what’s the difference? We should just do away with it?”

John Adams once said that “facts are stubborn things.”  And they are.  They will always come back to bite  you in reality.  Unfortunately, facts, and the context they exist in, do not seem to be stubborn enough to have an influence on the mainstream media or on the voting public.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Election 2012, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…our old friend Paul Krugman

So I tried to stay away from writing any political blogs for a few days, but as you can see that didn’t work.


Because Paul Krugman decided once again to spew his mentally challenged word out to the public. This time he tried to libel Mitt Romney. I’d even go as far as saying Romney should sue, but as I have serious doubts Krugman would be found mentally competent to stand trial for his actions, I know that won’t happen.

What did he say?

Well at the start of a long argument full of inane claptrap, he states:

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

He then goes on to use this quote and some other random facts to suggest that Romney is a closet Keynesian. I won’t bore you with the whole set of facts, I’ve frankly seen better arguments from rabid conspiracy theorists on the moon landing (just so no one takes that quote out of context, I do believe that we landed on the moon numerous times).

Okay so before I get to what Romney actually said (I know what a shock that this quote was grossly taken out of context) let’s talk about something that Paul Krugman knows less than nothing about: Macro-Economics.

There are three main schools that are relevant to this discussion. Keynesians who argue that when an economy suffers the government should infuse cash into the economy and fiddle around with the prime interest rate to boost growth. Then you have the Austrians (Hayek) and Monetarists (Friedman) who while they would argue on a lot of things would both agree that the government should have little to no influence in the economy (beyond providing a bare bones safety net at local levels…and for Monetarists too at a regular rate increase the amount of currency in the system to prevent deflation). (This is of course grossly simplified but you don’t want me to get into the math of it, it would just bore you to death).

Now our government, and most governments since the Great Depression, have embraced Keynes to one degree or another and most have yielded the same problems that Austrians and Monetarists said they would. The problem with infusing cash into the economy through stimulus programs is that it works great in the short run, but the minute you pull the money back it stops working. Stimulus is a lot like black coffee, as long as you keep drinking it, it works…but the longer you go the more you need, and the minute you stop, you crash. No Austrian or Monetarists I know of would say that stimulus doesn’t have an immediate effect. It does. What Austrian and Monetarist economists point out is that you need an ever increasing level of stimulus to keep having the same effect and with that comes an ever increasing amount of public debt (see Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland…and possibly most of Europe and China pretty soon). No sane person argues that it doesn’t have an effect in the short run. What Austrians and Monetarists do argue is that (1) that ever increasing debt is often worse than the recession where you spent money you didn’t have in an effort to avoid (2) that you can’t avoid the recession, but the longer you delay it, the worse it will be (again back to my coffee analogy if you just got sleep when you were first tired you would only need 6-8 hours sleep, but after a full all-nighter you will now need 9-11 hours sleep to recover) and (3) the government interference during your stimulus package actually hurts the mechanisms for growth and improvement within the economy making the long term effects truly disastrous. (All other things being equal). So if you have a massive spending program, say spending $4 Billion more than they take in every day, and you suddenly just cut that spending, even Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would say, yeah the economy would slow down in the short term. They would argue in the long term that would be a pro-growth plan (but long term is something Keynesians aren’t very good at, or seeing the big picture which is why no Keynesian has ever won a Nobel Prize for macro-economics…because Keynesian ideas don’t work long term in the big picture). Now Hayek and Friedman would probably also argue that to help mitigate this problem of short term loss, since any Keynesian government has probably also mucked things up with bad tax policies and too many regulations, that you should cut the regulation and improve the tax policy which hopefully will balance out the short term hit from cutting the stimulus. (…it’s a stretch of the analogy but think of when you cut the caffeine but immediately go to the gym and thus are able to push through to your second wind).

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

Now you know, unlike liberals I don’t like to give just clips and sound bites, but prefer to at least offer you the link to the whole speech or article…unfortunately I can’t find that…and I looked (if anyone has a full transcript please send it to me).

But it’s not really relevant because even what I could find is enlightening.

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.”

Now notice the second part of that statement. A statement one might hear out of Friedman or Hayek. Improve the tax policy to counter the immediate hit in the short term. And he tried (didn’t always succeed) to cut regulation and taxes in Massachusetts and has said he’s going to cut regulation and taxes when in the White House. So he sounds like a Monetarist, acts like a Monetarist and behaves like a Monetarist*…so Krugman and Santorum’s idiot followers say he’s a Keynesian. How does that work.

*I didn’t say Austrian, because Ron Paul is in the Austrian school of economics and I do see a few differences between the two.

But let’s take a larger look at this. Do you notice that YouTube clip is from a liberal group? And Krugman is trying to hit Romney for being a Keynesian. And this was also heavily reported on MSNBC and a few other liberal outlets. Now if he really was a Keynesian, and therefore one of the liberals, wouldn’t they keep this to themselves, wouldn’t they try to hide something that could be used against Romney. (You know, like their complete silence on Santorum’s long history of pro-union, big government, intrusive policies). I mean if he really was that liberal, they would want him to get the nomination, that way they would be guaranteed a liberal no matter what happened. It’s almost like they’re really afraid that this guy won’t take a pen-knife to the government in a few symbolic cuts but rather take the machete to the bureaucracy. It’s almost like they’re trying to help their big government friend Santorum in any way they can. Oh, but that would mean that Santorum supporters have to be the dumbest idiots in the world to play right into their enemies hands.


Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes

Per Capita Debt Reaches $1.5 Million For Every Child Born Today

Because this kind of debt isn’t the very definition of insanity…does any seriously still believe it’s only a revenue problem?

Bourbon Conviction

February 24, 2012 – Here are some disturbing statistics that involve the insane spending habits of Washington, D.C. that involve your children’s future:

  • Children born today will inherit a per capita share of the national debt exceeding $1.5 million, a new study reveals. Republican analysts on the Senate Budget Committee used figures from the Congressional Budget Office to calculate the relative share of the national debt–currently $16 trillion and counting–among different age groups.
  • The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that ‘America’s Per Capita Government Debt is Worse Than Greece,’ as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain.

  • Without much fanfare, US debt to GDP hit 101% with the latest issuance of $32 billion in 2 Year Bonds. If the moment when this ratio went from double to triple digits is still fresh in readers minds, is…

View original post 523 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A tale of two opinions on taxes

I know I said I wouldn’t do any writing on politics for the next couple of days (it’s proving difficult)…

But here are just two clips on the capitalist versus socialist view on taxes, I think they speak for themselves

From the capitalist…Sorry FOXNews makes it almost impossible to embed the clips, but the link works.

From the jackass who should be up on tax evasion charges…

Notice who is saying everyone should be equal and who is in a very subtle way threatening to strip people of their rights as Americans.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Taxes

Marriage, Religion and Society… (And in a roundabout way, another reason why Santorum’s a jackass)

Ugh…I hate social issues.  I would love it if everyone could just keep their personal lives personal and not worry about what other people are doing so long as they’re not hurting anyone.  And while I am quite the civil libertarian in caring about other people’s lives it might have something to do that my personal life could not be more bland and conservative…which may be why I couldn’t care about other people’s lives.

But because of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber (otherwise known as Obama and Santorum, I’m not sure which is which) and their ilk there will be no end to the discussion of these otherwise stupid topics for weeks if not months….no, no let’s not talk about saving the economy or dealing with absolute evil abroad, birth control and gay marriage is far more important than whether or not there will actually be a first world society in a generation. Far more important.

I’ve dealt with Obama’s overstep of executive authority in the guise of an attack on religious freedom so I guess it is now time to once again take on Santorum.  Of course that’s a whole mess of issues right there.  Well…let’s go to a few quotes:

“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.”

“Two people who may like each other or may love each other who are same-sex, is that a special relationship? Yes it is, but it is not the same relationship that benefits society like a marriage between a man and a woman[.]”

“The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It’s the family. That’s the basic unit of society.”

“Do they have a right? Should society do their best to make sure that that child has the best opportunity to be raised by that mother and father? The answer is yes.”

…and if you think those quotes have a distinct communist/collectivist call for 1984, Brave New World, or Anthem I wouldn’t blame you.  Really I’m fascinated to hear that marriage has nothing to do with love (makes you wonder what his home life is like…I’ve got an idea let’s see if his wife or daughters ever smile while on camera in a way that isn’t obviously forced to see how happy that home life is.)  So in Rick Santorum’s mind you are here only to have children to propagate society and we give special privileges to these breeders…(It makes you really frightened of his call to TRIPLE the tax credit for children…because in a time when any right thinking conservative wants to lower taxes and CLOSE all loopholes, he wants to open loopholes with a crowbar so as to encourage massive overpopulation because it’s working so well for the third world).   Okay we can agree that Rick Santorum doesn’t have a single neuron firing in that head of his.  But that still doesn’t put the general issue of marriage off the table even if I’m Santorum is lord high king of the idiots.  So let’s talk marriage…

Yes marriage is an important function of society.  Rick is wrong about it being the basis of society, that has always been and always will be the individual…but individuals need human companionship (usually in the form of friendship and marriage, and if they’re one in the same, then you’re blessed).  Now is marriage only for the “uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society”?  Not really.  People were having children and caring for them long before marriage, although marriage does help raising them, certainly, no one would argue that.  But it is not having a mother and father that helps, it’s having two parents that helps (increased income, increased ability for child care, increased experience) and anyone who thinks that gay people make bad parents isn’t just crazy, they’re flying in the face of a boat load of research (Just one example here).  But raising children isn’t the only thing marriage is for.  If Santorum wanted to ever crack a history book (which I don’t think he has ever done given his perverted views on the Founding Fathers view of liberty ) he might learn that property rights have traditionally had far more to do with marriage than children do…but that would require Santorum to care about property rights, which are an individual right and as he has much respect for individual rights as any communist or Asharite.  And while history is filled with moments where society progressed just fine without any strict government rules on marriage I would be foolish to say that marriage isn’t a great support for society.  However if Santorum and his followers think that gay marriage is a danger to marriage, or even if it’s that  relevant in the face of other government hits at marriage, then they’re idiots.

Granted, as I’ve said before, I would like the federal government and all the states to say that marriage is a religious institution and thus strike the term marriage from every law on the books…civil unions for everyone!  It’s up to your church whether to call what you have a marriage or not, not the government.  This has the advantage of A.) not letting government dictate what a religion can do (we’ll come back to this) (social conservatives get what they want) B.) Everyone will be equal (social liberals get what they want) C.)Nobody gets to win (because I hate people who think social issues are a function of government) and D.) Jackasses like Santorum will have to shut up (everybody on the planet wins).  All the legal privileges of the marriage could be easily transferred to these civil unions, but as it lacks the name it lacks the attack on a religious institution that expanding it encompasses.

But I will still admit that marriage, and a two parent family is important to a functioning society. You’d be a damn fool to deny that…but then again both social conservatives and social liberals are damn fools given how they act. Social liberals are idiots for what they’ve already done to weaken those social structures (and I’ll get to that in just a minute) and social conservatives are idiots for fighting a defensive war against gay marriage (which has nothing to do with the strength of the social institution, but it is very visible which suggest that their cause is more cynical demagoguery than heartfelt concern) rather than an offensive war against the liberal policies that actually have done harm to marriage and society.

But back to my statement about liberals actually having done some stuff have actually done to undermine the social institution of marriage (hint gay marriage isn’t going to be anywhere on this list).

Welfare and the Great Society.  Let’s pay unwed mothers money for having children.  That makes sense.  Because every economist from any school, be it Keynesian, Chicago or Austrian, will tell you that when you subsidize a behavior or product you get more of it.  Subsidize unwed children, guess what, you de-incentivize actually getting married or waiting until marriage to have children.  (This would also be tied to my opinion that Rick Santorum’s idea to triple the child tax credit when we have an over population problem is, well, brainless).  Really brain dead is that we pay for anything more than the first pregnancy.  I can see an argument for a safety net to help women who have had an accident, been dumped by the loser who got them pregnant, and need some help…one time is an accident (although I would prefer these to be run by counties and cities…not a distant bureaucracy in states and at the federal level).  But not two times.  And definitely not more than two.

Now if social conservatives really wanted to care about the well being of children and the defense of marriage as a social institution they would once again push for welfare reforms.  One that cut people off after the first pregnancy, ones that vigorously track down deadbeat dads (I wouldn’t mind upping what the minimum monthly payment is and bringing back debtors prison for those who won’t pay).  Or requiring the welfare recipients attend GED or job training to help ensure they get off welfare if they want to continue getting their check.  Or how about this one—we’ll keep track of every dollar you get in welfare payments you get from the government and the minute you start making over let’s say $25,000 a year the government will deduct 1% of your check until you’ve paid back what you took out, interest free because we’re not monsters (and the percentage of your check would go up slightly say 3% at $30,000 so forth and so on) this way no would ever view welfare as a free ride, thus removing many of the incentives for taking it.  But right now I’m hearing more about those evil, evil gays (who seem to be decent parents and no worse as couples than their straight counterparts) as what is ruining marriage.  Yeah couldn’t be the financial incentives against being married when having children.

Oh and speaking of financial incentives, why is that the call to end the marriage penalty at all levels has kind of disappeared?  As I recall the law passed under Bush to end the marriage penalty had a sunset date…isn’t that coming up?  How about this, offer a tax discount for those who get married.  Watch people get married and stay married when there are real financial incentives to do so.  Will some people get married for reasons other than love?  Probably, but how is that different from right now?  If you want to promote something don’t punish it.  But you haven’t heard that from social conservatives, now have you.  Hell, given the fact that children of single parent households have a higher likelihood of committing a crime, then financially incentivizing marriage would probably pay for the reduction in revenue via a drop in paying for imprisonment (among a whole mountain of secondary benefits, that was just the first one that came to me, trust me it would pay for itself ten times over).

I could go on, how Social Security and Medicare encourage people to dump bonds with their parents when they got old rather than bringing them into the household in a more stable extended family, how the government support for the liberal Teacher’s unions worked to destroy parental responsibility in raising their children, and a few other programs…but I think you get the point.  If social conservatives really cared about the state of marriage and the social benefits that the family brings there are things they could be doing that would be incredibly effective in strengthening the social institution.  But they would rather focus on something that has NOTHING to do with the strength of marriage.  (And liberals don’t go feeling self-satisfied about that last sentence, you actually have done some damage to the social institution of marriage, just because the conservatives are idiots and not calling you on it doesn’t make you less guilty.

Now social conservatives will probably come back with some stupid “gay marriage is the straw that will break the camel’s back” kind of argument.  But as we know in this case I think social conservatives are idiots.  If they really cared about the state of marriage and the need of married couple to properly raise children they would be attacking the liberal entitlement culture and not worrying about what gay people do.

Up next, why the Court decisions on Prop. 8 is actually the last thing the gay community should want because it’s going to hurt them…because the social liberal also need to be hit (with a peppering of insults against the right)

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Laws the GOP should pass, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Welfare

President’s Day reflections….

Now, I love a day off from work as much as the next person….however, I am not always a fan of what the holidays represent themselves.  And frankly there are few holidays I despise more than President’s Day.  Why, you ask?

First of all because it glorifies a single individual in a single post as worthy of admiration because of the post they hold, not because of the content of their character.  This is very disturbing…of the 43 men who have held that office I can think of 13 off the top of my head, without any research, that I feel completely content to see listed in the history books as having been charged, tried, convicted, and shot for their abhorrent behavior in office.  13 easily, if I did some research on some of the more forgettable ones I’m sure I could come up with another 9, which would make it half the people who have held the office worthy of execution (yes I have a very low opinion of most politicians).  Most of what is left is at best forgettable.

Further they are certainly not the most memorable men.  Even most of the great presidents had their best days before their term of office (when you’ve signed the Declaration or Constitution, serving a few years in an elected post is kind of an also-ran moment by comparison), not to mention men like Franklin and Hamilton who did more for this nation than most presidents could ever hope to.

Also it lends an air of power to a branch of government which is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  Yet we have no holiday for members of the Supreme Court…or god forbid the confederacy of dunces in Congress.

I have one last point but I’m going to save that for the end.

But in the spirit of the day…and in the spirit of how much I loathe some of our Presidents…I’m going to go through my favorite 5 and least favorite 5 presidents.

My criteria.

1)    That the president overall actually improved the nation/world from when they entered office by actions they actually took.  (Or conversely made it worse).

2)    That they took action rather than having it foisted upon them.

3)    The totality of their character and/or the acts outside of their presidencies should not be considered.

So let’s start with the worst.

#5  Andrew Jackson


“King Mob” as he was unaffectionately referred to.  Some historians refer to him as the first president to be truly democratically elected…I prefer to think of it as first time mob rule of the rabble that the Founders tried to prevent was brought back into style.  Not only is this a man who unconstitutionally invaded Florida (without orders from anyone) and then executed foreign nationals in a show trial as a General, he didn’t do so great a job as President either.  Ignores a Supreme Court order, unconstitutionally saying the Supreme Court can enforce it’s ruling when it sends its army to enforce them (because in Jackson’s mind, might makes right).  Then of course there was what that case was about, illegally moving Indian tribes into Oklahoma in a genocidal forced march that would make Bataan look like a Sunday stroll.  And in addition to the man thinking he was a monarch above the Constitution rather than a public servant under it, he also in my mind had no understanding of economics in any way, shape or form.

He is also Newt Gingrich’s favorite president.

#4  Woodrow Wilson

A man who used a war to vastly expand government powers and didn’t pull them back.  A progressive’s progressive, and a virulent racist.  I quote a New York Times opinion piece trying to defend Wilson “He was opposed to female suffrage. He supported Jim Crow. He wrote about Anglo-Saxon racial supremacy. He makes a good bad guy.”  Wow, with a defense like that who needs a prosecution?  Granted, Teddy had bigger dreams of federal encroachment, but luckily he wasn’t able to get them passed.  And while I’ve always loved Wilson’s line about making the world “safe for democracy” his vision of democracy (as a socialist paradise under a single world government) is very different from my definition (a world of independent capitalist republics).  Oh, and his League of Nations and his utterly incompetent diplomacy laid the ground work for WWII.  Thanks Woodrow.

As a cherry on top his Secretary of State was a politician who usually makes my list of most hated non-presidents in U.S. history, William Jennings “The Cowardly Lion” “I do not think about things I do not think about” Bryan.  The man has been dead for almost a century and I still hate him.

#3 Dim Jimmy Carter

Most decent people don’t smile when holding up as book a vile as Mein Kampf in its anti-Semitism

Where do I begin?  Letting Afghanistan fall to Russia, because that didn’t start any long term problem.  Letting Iran fall to fanatics, no long term problems there.  Creating the worthless Departments of Energy and Education…Education especially seems to have turned out great!  Ruining the economy?  The boycotting of the Olympics—i.e. the single most inane and idiotic move in the history of foreign diplomacy.  It would be hard to imagine coming up with a president more inept at his job (but it looks like the Democrats did just that in 2008).  And how could I forget to point out that this piece of shit is a vicious Anti-Semite.

#2 LBJ

Any other bright ideas in how to ruin society?

The Great Society.  A typically bigoted liberal move that believe that minorities were incapable of helping themselves thus they needed to be helped.  Which is bad enough, until you consider it doesn’t actually work but actually makes the problem worse.  Oh, and by the way, I love sending thousands of troops over to a country, but telling them it’s a police action and they can’t actually fight back with the usual force the U.S. military can muster, making them little more than sitting ducks for the Vietcong.  Good call on that one.  Remind me how many countries fell to communism because this man didn’t want to actually fight a war?

And of course, the worst president of all time…

#1 FDR

What kind of man sends a boat load of Jews back to Nazi Germany knowing what will happen to them?  FDR.

What kind of man promises half of Europe to a butcher named Stalin? FDR.

What kind of man shreds the Constitution to create a socialist state and make people dependent on the government by preventing real growth?  FDR.

What kind of man has the hubris to be the first person to ever take 4 terms in office?  FDR.

What kind of man creates internment camps for loyal American citizens who just happen to be Japanese?  FDR.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt not just the worst president in the history of the United States, but in the running for worst American ever.

Dishonorable mentions: Nixon (do I need to explain why?), Teddy (progressive lunatic), Ford (worthless sack of well you know), Bush (pick either one)

A note on Obama.  While he will certainly be making the bottom 10, it’s unfair to judge his actual impact until, at the very least, his term of office is over.


Okay so the foul taste of that bunch of losers is done let’s move onto the top 5

This is a little harder because for #2, 4, and 5 all did their best work before their presidencies (and numbers 4 and 5 were certainly not perfect in their presidencies…but no one is perfect so I must be lenient)


Thomas Jefferson

Granted, nothing he did in his presidency compares to writing the Declaration of Independence.  Nothing.  However, Jefferson held the nation to a usually strict diet of limited government, which luckily is a policy that the nation continued for the next few decades and wasn’t completely abandoned until the 20th century.  And I cannot chide him for the preemptive war against the Barbary pirates that established U.S. power abroad.  And while an un-Constitutional move, it’s hard to critique the Louisiana Purchase.

However, his pro-French bias is unforgiveable.  France during the Revolution and Napoleon was pretty much the worst nation on Earth, and to not recognize that is just a little insane and almost unforgivable.  That’s why he gets put down at #5.


John Adams

Like Jefferson, his best days were during the Revolution.  And the Alien and Sedition Act, while understandable in the context of dealing with the insanity of the French Revolution was still wrong.  However, Adams kept the U.S. out of a war when we most needed to not be in a war.  He also appointed John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court…that point alone gives him a position at the top of this list, as the Marshall Court is almost entirely responsible for establishing the capitalist nature of this nation which in turn created all of the prosperity for this nation.  Thank you John Adams.

Oh and one last thing.  Adam’s last act.  After losing re-election, he left Washington.  The first time there was a transfer of power from one party to the next in this nation, Adams offered no challenge.  That seems second nature to us in this country, but think about a lot of other nations.  Leaving peacefully when you lose is the exception not the rule for most of human history.  John Adams, while not exactly graceful in his exit, set the precedent that would allow this nation to exist for over 200 years.


Calvin Coolidge

A through and through economic conservative.  A man who broke the Klan’s influence in government.  A man who limited the scope of government.  And if it hadn’t been for Hoover the economy might have only had a slight hiccup in the late 20’s instead of a massive depression (which FDR only made worse).  If only we could have more like him.


George Washington

The indispensible man.  Like Adams and Jefferson, who can doubt that his best days were during the Revolution?  But while his presidency was actually a little unremarkable it set a tone and style for all who would follow.  Need I say more?


Ronald Reagan

I’m conservative, are you surprised about this one?  But let me justify this.  Reagan did something that almost no other president ever did.  Almost every other president did things in a reactionary nature.  Something went wrong, a President tried to fix it (or didn’t).  To a lesser degree every president before and after Reagan lived out Rahm Emmanuel’s statement of “never let a crisis go to waste,” although maybe not so cynically.  But Reagan did something no one else did.  Unlike the 14 other presidents before him who, to varying degrees, recognized the evil of communism and the danger it posed, Reagan didn’t just sit by and wait for a problem to fix to come up.  He out and out declared war on the greatest evil on Earth at the time…and he did it “without firing a shot” as Thatcher observed.

He did something because it was right, not because he was responding to an immediate problem.  This is long term thinking seldom seen in leaders or the general public.  Go on, name for me a president, who during their term showed this kind of long term thinking.  Yeah Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison all showed it in creating the nation, but not necessarily in their presidencies.  There is no question that the world is a better place for what he had done.

Oh, and for all the compromises he had to make with the Democrats in Congress, he cleaned up a lot of government spending and taxation problems.

Honorable Mentions:

James Madison, Grover Cleveland (called the last libertarian president), McKinley (if for no other reason than he saved us from a Bryan presidency), John Quincy Adam (for starting a plan of infrastructure to help the growing economy, although I would have preferred more private investment).


A note on Lincoln and why he’s not in the Top 5

He did the right thing…but when the right thing was the only option open to him.  It’s like praising Obama for ordering bin Laden to be taken out…no sane person would have done differently.  Why would I praise someone for taking the only logical option open? No sane president would have let half the union go.  I have a hard time praising Lincoln for doing the sane thing.  I prefer to look at what else he did.  He couldn’t pick a competent general if he tried.  The best he did was when he offered the post to Lee…but there he botched the job at convincing Lee to take it, and I think that this was not an impossible argument to make (but I may be wrong)…that still doesn’t forgive the fact that the rest of his choices were subpar.  What were his best choices? Grant (a drunk’s drunk) and Sherman (who by any modern standard, a major war criminal).

And then there are his massive violations of the Constitution.  Which were necessary for the time and the crisis.  But while forgivable, violations of habeas corpus and the rule of law in some cases should not be praised.

His economic policy during the war was questionable at best…but what I can tell of his economic beliefs as a whole however suggests to me that if he had just let the South go, then after a year of living under his quasi-socialist leanings the Northern states would have probably joined the confederacy leaving Lincoln ruler of D.C. and nothing else.

There is his cynical attitude to slavery (free them in the Confederacy but not in W. Virginia) that makes me wonder if the 13th Amendment would have passed under a Lincoln presidency.

And then there is that little phrase “for the people.”  I cannot find that phrase anywhere in the notion of U.S. government before Lincoln.And that phrase is the justification for the entitlement state, for the gross expansion of power, for every modern attack on capitalism.  Government FOR THE PEOPLE, like it’s a service.  Thank Abe.

He saved the union, but I’m not sure it’s something any other president would not have done.  He responded to a crisis, but not particularly well.  He encouraged Sherman’s bloody war crimes across the South and I’m not convinced would have tempered the vindictive nature of Reconstruction (given the accusatory tone of his Second Inaugural).

He is considered great because people have a knee jerk reaction to making saints out of martyrs.  But he wasn’t a saint…or a particularly great leader.  He was a good leader, but not the best.


Filed under politics

International Liberty

Every so often, I write about what makes libertarianism special and different.

In the future, though, I think I’ll simply share this excellent cartoon.

By the way, I actually think the cartoon is a bit unfair to conservatives. Unless I’m missing something, the right-wing position on birth control is to resist subsidies and mandates. As I recently wrote, that’s the economically sound and libertarian point of view.

That being said, one of the most obvious distinctions between libertarians and conservatives is that the latter do sometimes favor laws restricting private behavior when there is no harm imposed on third parties. The misguided War on Drugs is a good example, as illustrated by this Gary Johnson speech,this video, and this AP story.

The libertarian message isn’t that drug use is good, but rather that prohibition is ineffective and that the net result of the drug war…

View original post 6 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stupid Quote of the Day….SANTORUM AGAIN…and he kinda calls Protestants Satanists…

Okay the title is a little overblown to attract attention. (And Liberals must be so happy that I don’t have them to bash while Santorum is around because hell his comments are so out of left field I can’t call them liberal, socialist or progressive—they’re just dumb.)

But, in a 2008 speech on how Satan is waging war against America (and I’ll put the whole speech at the end here, so yes he is really talking about Lucifer himself in a war against the U.S.A., not some detached conception of evil, but a very real, very personal, very evil being known as Beelzebub working to personally destroy the United States…that alone makes me very worried about Santorum, but I realize there could actually be well meaning people who believe that and I’m not going to quibble over the finer points of theology here).

“[O]nce the colleges fell and those who were being educated in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

Now people I respect have said that I’m reading too much into this, that he is not saying Protestants are not Christians, but I think this opinion is wrong. Look at what he says.

“[M]ainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it [mainline Protestantism] is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

I find it hard to say that something is gone from the “world of Christianity” and still be within the concept of Christianity. But of course one wonders what “non” mainline Protestants are still within the “world of Christianity”? (Why I do I feel like looking in Westboro to find what Santorum considers good Protestants? Cheap shot, I know, but am I wrong?) And of course in the context of the speech about how Satan is destroying the U.S. from within, this basically implies Protestants are, at worst in league with, and at best have been corrupted by the Devil…and, while I don’t want to insult Catholics in general, I don’t think they’re the incorruptible force that Santorum seems to suggest they are. They’ve had their era where they are better than other religions, and eras where they are worse, Catholics are human and have good days and bad…but no incorruptible ones.

But, you know what let’s assume I am reading too much into this. That actually reading the basic syntax, grammar and logic of Santorum’s speech is going too far and I shouldn’t take his bigoted remarks at face value.

No matter what, you have a man, who wants to be President, making very public statements about the inferiority of other religions. That’s very clear there. Even if you give this the most lenient reading, he is still not having a private view on his religion, he is publically insulting another faith…claiming that whatever corruption there is in America is because of the it’s Protestant heritage.

This, and so much of what Santorum has to say, might be appropriate for a fire-and-brimstone preacher from the pulpit…but not from a Presidential candidate. We have had very religious men in the presidency, and we have had men who are ordained serve in other public offices (before you ask, I’m honestly not sure if we have had any women who were ordained serve in office, I couldn’t find an answer in a brief search on the web)…but never have we ever had a man who acts like a preacher serve in the highest office in the land. Why? Because we’re not Iran. Even though I will argue atheists and the ACLU see a wall of separation between church and state that isn’t in the Constitution, there has always been a fear of letting a single religion rule over this nation, which is why there were laws for religious freedom in the original colonies and why the First Amendment was drafted. We, as a nation, believe that people should be deeply spiritual, but were never going to be so arrogant to say we know the mind of God with absolute certainty. An arrogance that Santorum demonstrates in spades. An attitude I’ve certainly seen in history during the religious wars of the late Renaissance and early Enlightenment…but certainly not common in the modern world, and certainly unfit for the head of a free nation.

One must wonder if, as one could reasonably conclude from these statements, his beliefs are so antithetical to the principles of the First Amendment, how warm and fuzzy he must feel about the rest of the document. I don’t care that this speech was made a Catholic college to a friendly audience–this is behavior unbefitting the head of a free nation.

And I’ll be honest as a New Ager, a follower of a pagan belief, I have to ask if he’s willing to imply a relationship between Satan and the Protestants…what do I have to look forward to? Am I actually going to have to join the ACLU if this dipshit gets elected? Probably.

As I said here is the whole speech…

And please understand this is not an attack on Santorum’s Catholic beliefs or Catholicism in general. I have numerous leanings towards the Thomist philosophers of Catholicism, and a deep respect for the actual doctrine and traditions of the church (even many of the ones I don’t agree with). But Santorum is not representative of the best in Catholicism…and I would argue not even representative of the middling level of Catholicism.

[Update 2-21-2012.  Well after 3 days since I found out about it, and 4 years since he gave the speech, Rick’s comments are now the #1 story on the Drudge Report…I think the MSM now will cover it, but only because Drudge forced them to, not because they want to.]


Filed under Election 2012, Free Will, God, politics, Religion, Rick Santorum, Spirituality, Tyranny

Stupid quote of the day…Santorum again…

Before I put the quote up, let me say that yes I know this is a gaffe–I know what he’s trying to say, I know he’s saying we should always have  system of meritocracy where people have the ability to rise and fall based on their effort, achievement and will.  He says as much himself if you follow the link there is a nice video with his whole statement.  I agree  that going to some kind of socialist state where everyone would be the death knell for this nation.

However, if Romney had said this it would be the top story on every news outlet on Earth.  And this is further proof that the media is working to make sure that Santorum is the candidate, because unlike Romney, he can easily be destroyed in the general election.

Okay, here’s the quote

“There is income inequality in America, there always has been, and hopefully, and I do say that,  there always will be.”

Rick, please, stop trying to defend capitalism.  You’re no good at it.  Probably because capitalism requires a belief in individual freedom and individual happiness which we all know you’re opposed to.  You’re just not qualified to talk about a philosophy that is at odds with your core values of collectivism and subservience/submission to a higher power.

But let’s talk about the truly stupid part of that statement is.  “Hopefully[,] there always will be [income inequality].”  Uh….No.  Hopefully there will always be capitalism, free trade and meritocracy.  But if by some miracle of miracles we had a whole generation of Teslsas, Da Vincis, Lorenzo D’Medicis, J.P. Morgans, Vanderbilts, Rockerfellers, Carnegies, and Jobses that would be awesome!  Think of it a whole world of exceptional people, each exceptional in their own way, but a whole collective society of makers, doers, and thinkers.  F!@#ing Awesome!  Ayn Rand’s Galt’s Gulch on a global scale!  There wouldn’t be much income inequality because everyone would have earned everything they wanted! And I’m not the first one to think about that…

Let me quote to you from the first book of Aristotle’s Politics, where right after he comes off a discussion of the greatest income inequality in the ancient world (the difference between masters and slaves) he envision the possibility that everyone could be essentially equal in terms of wealth, everyone their own master…he states:

“For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which says the poet, “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;” if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre, chief workmen not want servants, nor masters slaves.” (1253a34)

Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle could imagine the idea that technology reach a level were all the necessities of life could be automated and everyone by nature make equal and their own master.  So, while I understand what he was trying to say and agree with Rick that capitalism should always continue, I would, like Aristotle, love to see a world where everyone has earned equality of wealth.  I’m not quite delusional enough to think it’s going to happen, I know I will never live to see it, but it’s a nice little hope that one day humanity could evolve to that level.

But again the main purpose of this is the fact that I doubt you will see all the major outlets for news rip Santorum a new one over this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aristotle, Capitalism, Economics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…when liberals tell the truth…

Chris Matthews had an interesting quote…

“Steve Schmidt, my friend, you talk to a lot of Republicans out there. Are they aware that the media is basically rooting for Santorum out of sheer fear of the ennui, the boredom that will set in if it looks like Romney locks this thing up? At the moment he locks this thing up we face a long, dull summer of Mitt Romney.”

Yes, yes the media is rooting for him. How do I know? Because unlike Romney, who they’re insulting on a daily basis, they’re treating Santorum like he’s a Democrat and not vetting hit at all. Of course it’s kind of easy to make that mistake. I mean with the earmarks,  the peddling influence, the corruption, the being in bed with unions and PETA, the not supporting troops, the hatred of women…I can see where you might mistake him for a liberal.  Easily mistake him for a liberal.  In fact if a story comes out showing him in bed with ACORN I’m not going to be surprised.

But they’re not telling you how much they seem to love Santorum.  Let’s be honest here we know that Media Matters (you know that really sane organization), Alexrod, Soros and now Krugman have all come out against Romney, saying he’s weak, saying he’s liberal saying that he is not a threat.  Why would Democrats come out and say this during a primary.  After all if you had a weak candidate in the lead the last thing liberals would do is come out and say how weak he is as that might hurt him and put a stronger candidate in place….oh wait!  It’s because Santorum will be so easy to beat that they want Santorum to be the nominee.  Duh!  Yet someone how Santorum supporters don’t seem to get this.  The Left is hitting Romney and leaving Santorum alone because Santorum is the weaker candidate.  He’s the candidate that will scare the middle…why?  Because while the middle hates Obama’s mandates forcing religious people to go against their principles and give out contraceptives, they’ll hate Santorum’s desire to ban contraceptives altogether even more.  Much more…whereas Romney is going to take the middle ground and not force anyone to not do anything they don’t want to do.

They know that Romney speaking passionately and knowledgeably about the Founders and quoting from them directly is much more of a danger than Santorum talking about his wacky idea that the Founders didn’t believe in personal happiness.

Matthews is right, the media and Left want Santorum because it will guarantee an Obama victory.  And I don’t know if he’s dumb for admitting this, or just accurately confident that Santorum voters (who repeat the McCain and Mainstream Media lie that Romney isn’t conservative, and make no mistake it is a lie, a big one) won’t be clever enough to see that they’re being played.



Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, liberal arrogance, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, politics, Rick Santorum, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Unions

International Liberty

While I’m obviously not a fan of big government, I have mixed feelings about why the public sector is so blindly wasteful.

Is it because politicians and bureaucrats are well-intentioned morons who accidentally do damage (as illustrated by this cartoon), or is it that they are venal vultures looking to grab as much loot as possible before the house of cards comes crashing down (powerfully demonstrated by this example)?

The answer is probably a combination, so the real challenge is figuring out whether specific examples of government stupidity fall into one category or another.

Let’s look at three recent examples.

First, we have a story from the surveillance state known as the United Kingdom.

On a cold, dark night on the mean streets of the UK, an undercover police officer was radioed and informed that a potential suspect was close by. Keen to do the right thing…

View original post 829 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

An open letter to those who oppose Romney

Dear Romney Opponents,
I get it. I really do.
In 2008 I was splitting my time between an 80 hour a week job and trying to write a book…I’ll bet you have a personal life and job and didn’t have a lot of free time on your hands also…who did, the economy was collapsing and we were all working our hardest to make sure that if cuts came wherever we were working we would be the last man standing and our lazy coworkers would not. So while we all knew we hated McCain we just got into the habit of buying his statements that Romney was a liberal, a flip-flopper, or whatever else we hate him for.

And this election cycle came around and we just fell into the pre-worn habit of disliking the man. I understand. I wanted Rudy. And when he didn’t run, I wanted Michele Bachmann. And because of this I just fell back on my preconceived notions of Romney without doing any research.

But after Iowa I had a choice to make. I knew I couldn’t support Paul, I love his statements on economics, but the man is psychotic. So who was left? And then I started doing some research.

I really began learning that I really hated Newt and Santorum. But I’m not going to go into why I dislike them. I’m the kind of person who if I don’t like candidates I don’t vote or I do write-ins. I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, I only vote for people I support.

So I begrudgingly started looking into Mitt Romney fully expecting all my worst suspicions to be confirmed. That he was Obama-lite, that he was a flip-flopper on every issue, that he was not a conservative in any way.

But as I started doing research. I started with the all videos that show the things I knew I would dislike about him. His support of liberal policies and big government.

And strangely I found that this wasn’t the case. I found that Romneycare was a much more conservative alternative to what the liberal legislature in Massachusetts wanted to do with the state, which was basically put the whole thing under government control and just eliminate the private sector. I found that the worst aspects of it were done over his objection and veto or put in after he left office.

I found that the “flip flops” were all quotes taken out of context and when I went back to find the full speech or full statement his ideas were always consistent and logical, it was simply taking sound bites out of context with a man who has an inability to talk in sound bites (and is that really a bad thing? A man whose thought can’t be reduced to a little quip?)

I found every action, every choice, every move and every decision was a conservative one. I found that a man of character and experience who doesn’t come off with oodles of charisma because he’s got a secure hold of his personal psyche that he doesn’t need to seek self-aggrandizement. I found a man of achievement who can get things done that is simultaneously pragmatic in the long term and conservative.

And here I am going to challenge you. Do real research yourself. Go back and find the actual articles printed at the time of his governorship, find the whole speeches, discover what really happened. I promise you if you do, even with the compromises he made with liberals you will see that no conservative in history could have gotten a better deal given the circumstances.

I get it. I bought the McCain BS too out of lack of time and habit. But I promise you, take a day, one whole day of real research and reading, and you won’t find yourself settling for Romney, or holding your nose and voting for him because we need to get rid of Obama. If you do the research and really look over what this man has done, you will vote FOR him, not just against someone else.

I could include a lot of links in this post, but I don’t want you going to, what some will claim are, my cherry picked sources. I want you to do the research yourself. Don’t go to blogs, or opinion articles, or new articles written in the last few months. Really do some research, go and find the real information on Bain, on the Olympics, on his time in Massachusetts. Find the full speeches and read the full text. Pull up all the Paul/Newt/Santorum attack ads and look for the information they’re hitting Romney on. I promise you every single time you leave liking Romney more and hating the others as cheap mudslingers.

Romney is a conservative. Romney is what this country needs.


Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, politics