Category Archives: Ronald Reagan

For President’s Day, A Look at What Might Have Been…The Best and Worst Losers

So last year I did a list of the best and worst presidents for President’s day.  Not much has changed in a year.  I still

Currently inhabited by an idiot.

Currently inhabited by an idiot.

won’t rank Obama until he’s not in office (but I’m sure we can guess which end of the spectrum he’s going to end up on). So this year I thought we would look at some of the people who wanted the office but didn’t get it.

 

Gosh...how can I best kill my base and help Romney's?

One day he will be on the list of worst presidents…but not today.

Now most presidents are forgettable at best (at worst the majority are terrible)…and the also-rans are worse for the most part.  I went over the list.  Seldom were there truly horrific candidates who were actually worse than the people they ran against. And only a few times has there been someone of real caliber who lost to a terrible president.  Most of the elections can be classified as a race between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber.  Most of the 1800’s is just semi-useless politicians for all parties, neither worthy of praise or dishonor, and just because there are bad presidents in the1900’s, the opposition didn’t always run particularly good challengers. Still let’s look at some of the people who could have been president.

I will cover the two groups, the bullets we dodged in not electing truly horrific candidates, and the great candidates we should have elected if we had had any brains.

 

(A quick disclaimer I tried going through all the history books I had and what reliable web resources I could get but the fact of the matter is that history tends to ignore the losers so I wouldn’t call this a definitive list because I’m sure there are issues and character traits I just couldn’t find out about.  It’s partly why the majority of the people on this list are from the last century, I know more about them…the other reason is that as we have gotten more towards a mob based democracy we’ve gotten a more erratic quality of candidate.)

 

Okay so here’s how I’m judging things.

 

 

1. Everyone on this list has not served as President. Yes we dodged a major bullet in getting rid of dim Jimmy Carter the 2nd time but we made the stupid mistake of electing him the first time and conversely another term of Quincy Adams would have been nice, but he served so he doesn’t get on this list.

2.  They must have been better for the greatest that “never were”  (and conversely worse in the “dodged a bullet” crowd) the person who did get elected. Whiny, idiotic, cowardly, and useless RINO John McCain would have been a horrific president, but disturbingly an even worse jackass got in.  Conversely Charles Pickney, Dewitt Clinton, and Rufus King would probably have made excellent presidents but they all lost to good presidents so it doesn’t really count.

3.  They must have actually run in the general election.  Rudy Giuliani and Steven Forbes would have made great Presidents, but they didn’t get the nomination…and I just can’t open myself up to looking at all the possible primary and convention candidates, it was hard enough doing the research I had to do.

4.  They have to have stood at least a semi-serious shot. I’m not going to count third parties that never stood a chance.  Yes Ron Paul would have let the world fall to evil and Ralph Nader would have been dumber and more corrupt than even Obama but we were never in any real danger.

 

 

So let’s start with the worst presidents that never were, the “Dear we Dogde A Bullet Candidate.”

 

WALLACE4. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. Different elections but they’re terrible for similar Strom Thurmondreasons, namely that they were racist pieces of offal.  Yeah I know it was a bit of a stretch that these idiots could win, but they did get further than they should have.  The unlikelihood of them actually getting elected is why they’re this far down, despite how bad their presidencies would have been.  Want to wonder what having racist idiots who believe in using big government to further their beliefs that people should be divided against so as to gain even more power for themselves…actually that’s not to hard to imagine what their presidencies would have looked like.  (O ring any bells?)

 

3. Walter Mondale.

“My opponent will raise your taxes. So will I.”

A special kind of stupid.

A special kind of stupid.

Walter you sweet talker, be still my heart with your soft words.

Now, Mondale, VP for anti-Semitic trash, ran on a platform in 1984 of trying to destroy what recovery had started after his former boss, Jimmy “There’s never been an Islamist terrorist I didn’t support” Carter had done a swell job of destroying the economy. Remember that economic growth in the 90’s?…that was to a great degree because of the Foundation Reagan created.  You would have had none of that if Mondale had been President.  Remember that Soviet Union collapse?…would have eventually happened just not for several years more and unknown world destruction.

 

2.  Al Gore.

Think of Obama’s economics mixed with having issued an unconditional surrender on September 11th…that he would

Al Gore, wouldn't sell to Beck because he didn't agree with his values...did sell to jihadists hellbent on the destruction of America.

Al Gore, wouldn’t sell to Beck because he didn’t agree with his values…did sell to jihadists hellbent on the destruction of America.

have sold the country to the Islamists…like he’s done with other things.  Al Gore is so abhorrently immoral and unfit for dealing with foreign policy issues if he had responded by doing something other than attempting full isolationism after 9/11 (only to find that would have done nothing to stop the attacks) is he would have responded with the usual liberal overkill of striking everything he can…idiot probably would have launched nukes before we even knew who to blame.  Yes I am saying there is a good chance Gore could have started WWIII, I really think he’s that dumb.

 

1.  Aaron Burr. The man was one vote away from being president.  He later was tried (and acquitted) of attempting a coup against the US government. He may have been

Worthless litte piece of scum.  I wish Hamilton had had better aim.

Worthless litte piece of scum. I wish Hamilton had had better aim.

acquitted because of weak evidence, but no one in their right mind thinks this man wasn’t up to something.  And anyone who is willing to commit treason against the US, kill Alexander Hamilton, and be someone so despicable that Hamilton would vote for his arch-nemesis Jefferson over Hamilton…yeah, that man would probably have ended the union in its early days.

 

 

Dishonorable mentions: Bob Dole (RINO), William Jennings Bryan (Populist hack), anyone running against Lincoln who would have kicked the can down the road even further, John McCain (yeah the other guy is slightly worse, but let’s be honest here RINO McCain would have done everything Barry did but the GOP would get the blame).

 

Okay so that’s the pack of losers we should be glad didn’t get what they wanted…now onto the men we should weep that didn’t get.

 

The original Republican.

The original Republican.

4. John C. Fremont.  1856.  The first Republican candidate to run for President. None of Lincoln’s ambivalence about freeing the slaves (also none of Lincoln’s manic-depression).  Yeah he would have also caused a Civil War (and 4 years earlier) but I can’t believe he would have done things as ineptly as Lincoln (I know it’s an anathema to say such a thing but Lincoln couldn’t pick a general to save his life, couldn’t keep his cabinet or party under control, had no understanding of economics.  It’s truly a miracle we survived.)  I’ve looked over this and in a lot of ways I feel a Fremont presidency (in great part to circumstance out of his control) would have resulted in a Civil War that was significantly shorter, and probably less disastrous for the US.

 

3. Wendell Willkie.  1940. A pro-business, anti-isolationist, anti-New Deal candidate.  IWendell Willkie don’t agree with everything he believed in, but he was running against FDR, the man who sent a boat filled with Jews BACK to Germany to suffer and die.  Minor difference with Willkie compared to evil incarnate…oh, tough call.  A lot of Willkie support was hurt by the isolationist faction of the GOP (sounds vaguely familiar). To top it off the character in the great film State of the Union was loosely based on Willkie, which just make me like him more.

What would a Willkie presidency have looked like?  Well we still would have entered the war. He probably would have supported defeating the Communists in China after WWII ended (the benefits of that should be obvious) and hey there’s a fair possibility that he would have backed Patton’s idea to arm the Germans and head back in to take out Stalin (so the possibility that there would be no Communist or Fascist government after WWII). He was in favor of a world government body, but as president he probably wouldn’t have let it become from its inception the den of evil that it was and is.  And that’s just on the foreign front. He would likely have dismantled much, if not all of the New Deal apparatus which would mean that we would have been in an even stronger economic position before we entered WWII and a significantly stronger position after it.   Oh and he probably would have pushed civil rights even earlier than we did and we wouldn’t have had to wait for the Republicans in the 1950’s and 1960’s to do it (although Dems would probably still have taken the credit).

Would he have been conservative for my tastes on an objective level?  No.  But he was certainly more conservative than FDR and would have made a much better president.

 Barry Goldwater

2.  Barry Goldwater.  It should be obvious all the benefits here.  Better economy.  No War on Poverty, no slow down of the growth of the middle class, no welfare and Medicaid and Medicare driving us to debt.  A capitalist Vietnam.  A Soviet Union and China weakened even earlier.  Oh and to top it all off, no Nixon.  There are no downsides here.

 

Romney America1. Mitt Romney.  This should be obvious.  We have a treasonous, idiotic, tyrannical jackass in the office right now who dares to say we should protect our diplomats and intelligence officers overseas when he is the one who left them to die.  We are hurtling toward major economic problems and the growth of tyranny abroad.  Romney would have brought about an economic transformation that would have made Reagan look weak.  He would have held the line on tyrants overseas and driven back those who would impose their will by force. The nation and the world would have been a better place with Romney, it will be a worse place with Barry. I don’t think there has ever been a clearer choice in this nation where the people made the wrong choice. This will be viewed by history as one of the dumbest moments in history. And it pisses me off that those of us who aren’t idiots have to live through the incredibly bad choices of those of us who are.

 

Honorable mentions…no.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Conservative, Economics, Goldwater, GOP, Mitt Romney, Obama, Ronald Reagan

Happy Birthday Ronald Reagan

 

For me no better vision of America has ever been put forth than by Ronald Reagan in “A Time for Choosing”  and his birthday is as a good time to remember it.

It’s frightening how almost all of it is still relevant.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Goldwater, Patriotism, Ronald Reagan

An Open Letter to Libertarians: Something you should consider

Libertarians.  Look, we’re not going to get along on everything.  Let’s just admit this.  Now we can sling insults and hold a grudge match that will get neither of us what we want…or we work together.

Now before we get into my proposal, I would like to go over three basic points.

The first is that it is better to get half of what you want than to get none of what you want.  Yes moral superiority might feel good for a few seconds but when it’s dealing with pragmatic issues, actually getting half of what you want is always better psychologically and tangibly.

The second is that politics is a game of trying to convince people who might be open to you.  Romney’s 47% comment, despite the Democratic spin, was a pragmatic comment of “there is a percentage of the country that does not agree with me and pandering to them won’t work.”  Thus any group that makes it clear that they will never vote for someone because of this or that issue makes themselves politically irrelevant.

The third is that Romney’s going to win.  Wednesday’s debate shows that we are going to have 4 debates of Obama and Biden getting their asses handed to them.  Add to that the fact that when you consider what we all know, that all the polls (even before the debate) were being cooked and are still being cooked (they’ve now moved from over sampling Democrats to under sampling independents where Romney has a 7  to 8 point lead BEFORE the debates).  Then take that fact that the polls are skewed and add the fact that the remaining undecided voters invariably vote 2 to 1 for the challenger, even a conservative estimate makes it clear that Romney already has the electoral votes and 3 more debates like that plus Obama clearly just phoning it in at this point means, that without question, Romney’s going to win.

Now, Libertarians, as much as I have been frustrated with you and your party this year, I say with all honesty, I want you to have a larger influence in all levels of government.  I may not agree with you 100% on all things, but trust me there are a lot of issues I stand about halfway between you and the Republican establishment.  On a lot of things you are the intellectual foundation of the Tea Party, and I want to see that foundation strengthened, not weakened.  I loathe the social conservative branch of the Republican Party, and I was beyond giddy when their nearly Satanic candidate Rick Santorum went down in flames.  But guess what?  You’re not making it easy to get the Republican Party to embrace it’s Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan roots of libertarianism and kill this monster called social conservatism that is really just intrusive government under a different branding.

Why are you making it hard? Because you aren’t accepting point one that it’s better to get half than none.  The Republican Party does admit that.  You tell the Republican Party composed of Milton Friedman monetarists that unless they embrace the most radical branches of Austrian economics you won’t vote for them.  And knowing you’re this intractable, if they want capitalists in the GOP to have any chance of halting full on Keynsian socialism, they have to make a deal with the mixed economy people.  The GOP is willing to make compromises and go to or three steps to the right or left to keep it centered around their beliefs…but since you demand they go five steps to the right (two or three further than their morals will go) the two steps to left, while repugnant, prevents ten steps to the left.  (Of course if you compromised and made the three steps we did you would get more of what you want and we wouldn’t have to constantly compromise with the left).  Same goes with social issues.  I saw a Reason ad this week hitting Romney/Ryan for being terrible social conservatives who are opposed to medical marijuana.  Is this true? Not really.  Paul Ryan came out and said that he and Romney wouldn’t personally vote for it if they had a choice, but they consider it a state’s rights issue and will not get the federal government involved.  But apparently the libertarians over at Reason are so rigid that unless you embrace both absolute states rights AND complete social liberalism you’re just another big government hack.  A pragmatic person would say, if the federal government isn’t getting involved, what does it matter if the people in that government hold a different opinion.  But no, unless libertarians get to eat their cake, have it, keep it and eat it again over and over again, nothing is good enough for them.

Libertarians make it quite clear, that unless you march 100% lockstep with them, they will not vote for you.  And then they bitch about the fact that the coalition that is the GOP doesn’t listen to them.  We may not have a parliamentary government like most of Europe, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have coalitions.  We just form them when we form the party not when we form the parliament.  And, I’m sorry, if you want to be in the coalition you have to work with the coalition.

And I want you in this coalition.  And I want more voice calling for less government in the economy and in my personal life.  I want government out of religion and business.  I want that to be a legitimate voice that holds sway.

But you have to work with us.

So how do we make the Libertarian vote a legitimate voice again?

Well this election provides a great opportunity.

The first thing I’m going to say that in any state that is clearly 10 point to the Romney or Obama side, if you want to vote for Gary Johnson, vote for Gary Johnson and get your libertarian friends to come out.  In these states where, let’s be honest here, your vote isn’t going to make a difference let’s at least make it count by showing that there is a huge number of libertarians out there.

However if you live in a state where theoretically your vote could swing things (remember how close some of these states have been in the last few years) you need to vote for Romney.  (In the second half of this blog I’ll show you Romney will give you half of what you want, where Obama will give you nothing, but let me finish this line of thought first).  By voting for the Libertarian in large numbers in non-swing states but voting for Romney (and I would hope the GOP Senate and House candidates in close contests if you can stomach it) in swing states you are showing that the Libertarian Party has grown up and is willing to work with the Republican Party.  That you are the swing voters the GOP needs to get* and that you are open to working with the GOP.

In addition to this, you need to get every liberal you know to not vote Obama but vote for Johnson.  This will give a better clue as to which voters do really care about economic conservatism and social freedom.  Let’s be honest you may not agree with Romney on a lot of issues…but is there one you agree with Obama on?

Again this will show the Republican Party you’re open to compromise, that we can drop the social conservatives sometimes, and it will increase the power of the Tea Party and the Libertarian view in federal government.  The GOP is probably going to take Congress and the White House, but a move like this will temper any social conservative urge for fear it might alienate the segment they picked up, and embolden them on the economic conservative front as they will believe there will be no backlash.  It’s a win for the Libertarians.  It’s a win for the Republicans.  And it’s a loss for big government.

But I understand you might have reservations.  You’ve heard for months that Romney is big government, that Romney is just like Obama.  I get it, I was once there myself.  But when I looked at facts, I found that just wasn’t the case. 

 

Let me put out a few common complaints by Libertarians and show you how these complaints are not the case.

If you listened to some in the Libertarian party, these two are to the left of FDR…sane people know there is a difference between these guys and their opposition.

As I pointed out above, the Romney and Ryan ticket believe in states rights…and unlike Obama they’re not going to waste federal dollars prosecuting medical marijuana cases.  It may not be full legalization, but the end result is the same.

Another claim is that he’s going to outlaw abortion.  No he’s not, he’s going to try to get rid of all funding for Planned Parenthood.  You’re libertarians, like me, even if you’re pro-choice you should support getting rid of government funding of abortion.  Now he has said he’s supporting an Amendment to the Constitution–1.  The president has absolutely no power and no role in the process of adding amendments and 2. There is no way you will ever see 38 states agree to banning abortion…thus him saying that he’ll support an Amendment is like saying “I’d support cold fusion if someone actually created it”, it doesn’t matter because it’s not going to happen.  But yes he can appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might do something conservative judges hardly ever do, overturn previous major decisions…which would make abortion a states rights issue again (the court has the power to make something legal, but it has no authority to make something illegal…all overturning Roe would do is make it a states rights issue)…hey aren’t you libertarians in favor of states rights issues?

Same with gay marriage.  The amendment won’t go anywhere and he’ll keep it as a state’s rights issue. However, if the libertarians follow my suggestion they might be able to get enough power to propose disentangling the state from religion as it currently is in its treatment of marriage. But Libertarians would have to have some power for that to happen.

Romney has said he supports auditing the Fed and will sign the bill if it gets to him.  You give Romney a Republican Senate and you will get the audit of the Federal Reserve you’ve always wanted. Will you get that with Obama?

On spending Libertarians keep going off on Romney’s budgets in Massachusetts and the Ryan plan.  Did you miss that both cases were budgets designed to pass legislatures controlled by liberal Democrats?  Yes those things didn’t solve all the problems.  But they were as close as these two conservatives felt they could reasonably get past liberal legislatures.  (Romney’s did…and if Harry Reid wasn’t illegally stopping the bills from coming up, the Ryan plan would have passed as well.).  The actual outline of the budget (and it’s only an outline because Romney understands it is the House that is the only body with the Constitutional authority to draft the specifics of a budget). There is nothing in the Romney plan, or the 59 points of that plan that will not lead to cuts in government spending.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

On taxes this is the most bizarre one of all.  Romney didn’t raise a single tax as Governor of Massachusetts.  Taxachusetts.  That’s impressive.  That shows commitment to keeping taxes down.  Libertarians scream that he did raise taxes.  This is either a lie or insanity.  What Romney did do was raise fees for government services.  Why libertarians are upset with this, I’m not entirely sure…for decades I have heard and read capitalists from the more moderate Sowell, Freidman and Hayek to the extreme of Rand in the later years (after she had completely gone off the deep end) and every shade of capitalist and libertarian in between say that it would be better if the government raised revenue through fees rather than taxes.  Then someone does that…and libertarians scream he’s a bleeding heart liberal…for doing what they suggested.  WTF?  Are there some in the libertarian party (those with the pulpit) suffering from Romney-derangement syndrome?  I think so.  Yeah it would be better if he lowered taxes (you know like he wants to at the federal level) but let’s see how many taxes you could get lowered with a legislature that’s 87% Democrat?

Gun rights…the NRA endorsed Romney-Ryan…they don’t always endorse candidates, lots of elections go without an NRA endorsement…go on tell me Romney’s anti-gun.

RomneyCare is 70 pages and protect the private sector.  Obamacare is 300o pages and destroys the private sector.  A mandate is constitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution…it is not Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution (shame John Roberts has never read it).  Romneycare looks like what the Heritage Foundation proposed…Obamacare looks nothing like that. But please tell me how they’re the same.

The Patriot Act and NDAA…look we’re not going to agree on this one.  And you’re not going to get what you want out of either Romney or Obama.  What you will get is that Romney won’t sue courts to put back indefinite detention of captured foreigners (the bill that passed didn’t include indefinite detention of U.S. citizens who have not already committed an act of treason (which technically you could already hold them even without NDAA) (Libertarians are now going to throw a hissy fit and tell me I’m wrong….here’s the link to the bill    find for me the text that says otherwise…I’ll save you some time, it’s not there).  And yeah, Romney will use what parts of the Patriot Act haven’t been overturned by courts to go after terrorism (and most of you do realize that the majority of the Patriot Act was just extending the powers the federal government had against organized crime to terrorism, getting rid of the Patriot Act won’t get rid of the powers if you have someone like Obama who is willing to abuse every law for personal gain.)  I can say that, unlike Obama, Romney will keep to the letter and spirit of the law.  You don’t like it, and we won’t agree…but you have to admit one is better than the other.

Defense.  Again you’re not going to get what you want here. But would you prefer someone like Goldwater and Reagan who understand peace through strength and keep conflicts to a minimum….or someone like LBJ, Carter, and Obama who through gross incompetence spark conflicts that eventually draw us in whether we want them or not.  Further, I know you want the defense budget cut…Romney’s not going to cut troops or arms or the size of the Navy…but this is the genius of Bain.  Do you really think he’s not going to have some very good people go through every department and go line by line looking at all the worthless bullshit and eliminate that? Romney, will give you cuts in every department’s budget.  Big ones.  If you let him.

Look, like I said at the beginning it’s better to get half of what you want than nothing.  Romney will give you that half.  Obama won’t.  Romney believes in smaller government, Obama doesn’t.

I said that to be relevant you have to show that you’re willing to work with us.

And Romney’s going to win.

It’s up to you.  You can do what I suggested, vote for Romney in the swing states, vote for Johnson in the non-swing states and get every libertarian leaning liberal to vote for him too.  This will show the Libertarians have numbers but are also willing to work with the GOP, thus they can and should be courted as a voting block.

Or you can hold to your rigid stance that Romney and Obama are the same.  Attack both of them. And keep your ideas marginalized, keep the GOP beholden to social conservatives, and make it that much harder to get big government off our backs.

I hope you chose the win-win-win plan I’m suggesting, and not the lose-lose-lose plan of just holding rigidly to anti-Romney.

(Oh if there is some issue you truly feel Obama and Romney are the same on, let me know and give me a chance to dissuade you…but first please ask yourself if they really are the same…or it is just that Romney will only give you part of what you want and Obama will give you none.)

*Some might say that alienating the social conservative base will cause Republicans to lose.  But if you actually look at polls endlessly like I do, you’ll see that what turns a lot of moderate Democratic voters off of the GOP is not the economics but the social issues.  It’s a gamble I know, but if the GOP moved a little away from social conservatives I think they’ll win 3 blue dog Democrats for every social conservative radical (Santorum) who leaves the party.  But there has to actually be more than just Ron and Rand Paul advocating for this in the party.

2 Comments

Filed under Ayn Rand, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Goldwater, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Tyranny, War on Terrorism, Welfare

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part I

“They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” –Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So I was actually worried that with all the chaos of work and my untimely writer’s block I would miss my chance to comment fully on Obama’s “You didn’t build that comment”…but thankfully for me the Democrats haven’t just admitted that he said what he said and he keeps making it worse and worse for himself.

Also the fact is that this was perhaps the dumbest thing to say in a campaign (next to admitting you’re getting foreign policy advice from a five-year-old)…and as Charles Krauthammer has rightly pointed out, this line should be played over and over again to make it absolutely clear where Obama stands.

 

So let’s deal with the first claim that Obama was taken out of context.

Now I have the whole speech here, but let’s pull the whole section, of the “You didn’t build that “speech out.  [Emphasis added]

Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts.  Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation, cut education, cut basic research, voucherize Medicare, and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea.  I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently.  Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.  But you know what; I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them.  So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.  There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.  If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.  The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires; we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Now I figure most of my readers are bright enough to see that yes he is quite blatantly saying that government is the reason you are successful, but let’s tear it apart line for line just in case someone didn’t get that.

 Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit.  My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts. 

So let me get this straight.  Obama is in favor of TARP.  He’s in favor of stimulus.  And he’s in favor of even more spending.  Trillions of dollars worth.  Supposedly because spending money will help the economy. But cutting out the hideously inefficient middle man of the federal government will make putting more money in the system less efficient.  But taking money out of the system to spend it (and sending billions of those dollars to terrorist like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).  This is the thing I never get about liberalism or Keynesian  ideas, the market is known for creating businesses that create wealth (Staples, Burger King, AMC theater…yeah that selection of businesses might not be that random) whereas the government builds bridges to nowhere, spends money on Solyndra, and sends money to despots to help them kill people and a thousand other ways that actually work to destroy wealth…on a very good day government spending leaves the amount of wealth created as neutral…on most days it destroys wealth.  On the same average day capitalism creates wealth.  So if I have a choice of where that money should go, to the private sector which has a history of creating wealth or to government which has a history of destroying it…hmmm tough call.

And does anyone else notice the sheer insanity of this portion when weighed against the next central point of the speech.  Here Obama is touting paying down the debt (that would be the debt that, if he tries really hard, he could very well double before he leaves in January) and in the next section he’s talking about the need to build more infrastructure projects.  I know liberals have problems with math but you can’t spend a dollar on both infrastructure and the deficit.  Doesn’t work.  At least Republicans have the argument of the Laffer Curve: that if you decrease the tax burden the economy will grow and your tax revenue will be the same as when it was at a the higher tax burden…you may disagree with the idea of the Laffer Curve (to hell if it’s been proven over and over again in country after country ) but don’t you dare make fun of my understanding of economics when you’re saying you can spend the same dollar in two (hell, with Obama 10) different places at the same time.

Of course pointing out this basic contradiction in the message from one part of the speech to the next I’m sure is taking it “out of context.”

 

Well, first of all, like I said, the only way you can pay for that — if you’re actually saying you’re bringing down the deficit — is to cut transportation,

Cut transportation?  Great.  Let’s sell the boondoggle that is Amtrack.  (Which has lost almost a billion over the last 10 years on food alone ).  And hell I’m sure if we privatized the TSA the whole system would be cheaper and more efficient and people might fly more.

cut education,

Cut education?  Good. The federal government shouldn’t be involved in education spending because it either goes to utterly useless research, the coffers of the unions or for programs that have nothing to do with education of children.

 cut basic research,

Basic research? Wouldn’t that be the responsibility of the private sector?  Oh yeah, we always tout the advances of the space race as government funded research gone well…but we ignore that those were the days we either outsourced everything to the private sector or to Nazi war criminals…the private sector can do research on its own and while there aren’t any particularly bright war criminals left, I’m not sure it’s worth the cost even if there were still a few lying around.  In the last 40 years what has government research given us?  Not much.

voucherize Medicare,

Cool!   You mean actually make it efficient and provide what people want?  Cool.

and you’re still going to end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut.

Again, you cut taxes and revenues stay the same.  It’s why Clinton had enough money to start paying down the deficit, because Reagan cut taxes and let the next three presidents ride on the benefits…and before him Kennedy cut taxes and found the exact same thing to be true.

  That’s not a deficit reduction plan.  That’s a deficit expansion plan.  I’ve got a different idea. 

“I’m going to spend another trillion on worthless green companies that are going to fail and lose all your money.  That’s my plan and I’m sticking to it!”

 I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. 

And if you believe that he’s made a trillion in cuts while the deficit has grown by almost six trillion…well  (A) you are very stupid and (B) call me I have a bridge to sell you.

If I cut my budget by a $1,000 during the year and find myself $6,000 further in debt by the end of the year…I didn’t really cut much did I?  (Especially when your revenue has been increasing over that time,  even in inflation adjusted dollars…yes there was a revenue dropoff from FY 2008 to FY 2009, but there have been increases in revenue every year since and the jackass’ spending keeps outpacing that growth in receipts)

 We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. 

You had 4 years. You expanded the scope, size and power of every single department with the exception of defense.  Go on…name for me a program that you want to cut.  Name one.  Hell name one non-defense program you have cut.  Pardon me if your attempt at sounding like a conservative rings hollow.

Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to.

Name one that does.  They all need to be cut.  Every single department could do with a 10% budget cut right off the top (even DOD which, if nothing else, has billions in useless pork construction and research projects).

  And frankly, government can’t solve every problem.  If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them.  Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.

This line should actually be more disturbing than “You didn’t build that.”  You’ll notice here that is not just a government power to help, but it appears to be the government’s primary function to help people, and if you don’t succeed it’s because you didn’t let government help you…you dirty, disrespectful, evil child….how dare you refuse to let government help you.

Notice the implication here is that we’re all children and bratty ones at that if we don’t allow government to run our lives.

Also the line about schools and money is just out of place.  Yes, money makes no difference to education.  Kids can learn from low income schools, or not learn from schools rolling in dough…but this would have to be the first time I’d ever heard Obama talking about parental and student responsibility over shoveling more money to the teacher’s union—this would be the first time I’d ever heard Obama not view tax payer money as the panacea of all problems…but isn’t this the Obama who berated us all for wanting to cut federal funding for education like two minutes ago?…oh I’m sorry looking at the whole of the argument and the contradictions throughout must again be “taking things out of context.”

  But you know what; I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. 

Again are you spending money (liberals say “invest” when they mean waste taxpayer money) or are you going to pay down the deficit, one or the other.  Also taking money from people seems to have done so well during the last 4 years, I’m sure taking more will do even more wonders.  You know Barry you should listen to this guy who said raising taxes in a recession would be a really dumb idea…oh, that was you.  Inconsistency is a big thing with Barry.

So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. 

Again didn’t just a sentence ago wasn’t he talking about “investment.”  PICK ONE, GOD DAMN IT!

 We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.

Even if this lie were true…they weren’t enough.

  We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more.

Yeah because taking more money out of the system is a great idea.  Even Keynes would slap the shit out of you for suggesting raising taxes during a recession…in case you’re wondering I think Friedman would get a crowbar and Hayek would get a pair of pliers and a blowtorch and both would go medieval on his ass.

  And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it.  We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine.  We created a lot of millionaires.  There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. 

I’m sure if Clinton was being really honest right about now his first words would be “who is this ‘we’ shit?”  Second, let us not forget that the great Clinton economy, which again more because of the long term effects of Reagan, was also partly due to the low regulation, better (not great) spending of the Republican controlled congress, and that Clinton put a lot money in short term loans that cut the deficit temporarily but screwed us in the long term…and welfare reform (which, Barack, you just gutted) http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/

 They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.

You didn’t build that. Keep this point in mind.

  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. 

Oh, Barry, no one with a brain thinks you’re smart.  In fact I think you’re so fucking dumb you make Carter look competent by comparison.

There are a lot of smart people out there.

Well, there are if we’re using you as the standard for smart.

  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.

Again, I’m not entirely sure if you’ve ever worked a day in your life.   But the government still didn’t come out with idea of

  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. 

Yeah and they loathe you taking money out of their wallets and destroying opportunities with your oppressive policies.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. 

Yes, dipshit, everyone receives help.  Everyone has people around them willing to help them.  The question isn’t whether there was someone there to help you, the question is did you have the intelligence, the will and the work ethic to use that help.

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

Okay, as a teacher let me deal with this part in a little more detail and this will require a bit of tangent…but it will have a point.

I am a great teacher.  Not good.  Great.  I have the rarest of rare abilities in teaching to be able to get students to push themselves to their limits and push their own limits farther than they could ever believe themselves possible of.  Any teacher can “teach” higher level students and have them learn facts and skills; I can push them and force them to think.  One student once said “You have taught me more in 9 weeks than I have learned in 17 years.”  And if you track down some of my students, they will tell you that this paragraph is actually quite humble.  Why do I bring this up?  Because as good as I am, if any of my students ever become successful, I know I am not responsible.  I have helped, I have probably made it easier for them to succeed, made it possible to achieve success a little sooner, or perhaps aided in pushing their success just a step or two further…but I would never claim responsibility for any of my student’s success.  Their success is because of their will, their virtue, and their work.  And Obama disgraces and cheapens, my work, and the work of every good teacher, by saying we are responsible for our student’s success.

  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. 

Yeah, the American system: capitalism.  You provide a system of laws that prevent theft, fraud and protect the earned property gains of work, and you get out of the way.

Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. 

Ah the great sentence.  And you know what I love about this?  I copied this directly off the White House transcript.  They are the ones who made these two separate sentences.  Thus basic rules of grammar the “that” in the second half of the sentence refers to the “business” not the “road and bridges” in the previous sentence.  But maybe the person typing it up is as dumb as the person who delivered it.  Maybe they were supposed to be one sentence: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges–If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”  Nope that doesn’t work either.  “That” is singular, like “a business”—“road and bridges” are plural, if he had been referring to the roads and bridges he would have said “you didn’t build those.”  The nature of parallelism in the use of pronouns is kind of built into the brain (even if it’s not hardwired at birth, by the time you’re as old as Obama it’s hardwired) and if he had meant the road and bridges he would have said “those.”  He didn’t.

So he really did say “You didn’t build your business.”

Somebody else made that happen. 

No.  Again the THAT is referring to the business, and no, no one else built a business but themselves.  And this argument completely ignored the fact that those road and those bridges, and those teachers*, and whatever else the government provided were there for everyone.

And that these benefits exist because of those business for creating the wealth and providing the jobs.

 The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

And it sat there. The networks he talks about were created in the early 70’s. Just as the silicon chip was created in the early 50’s.  And both were sponsored by government research and they both did nothing for two decades under government control.  Just silicon chips had Steve Jobs who realized you could make money off it. And the personal computer was born. And for the same reason, the modern internet was born out of a capitalistic desire to create wealth.

But but but, they wouldn’t have been able to do that if the government hadn’t laid the ground work, some whiner will say…I’m going to go into this in more detail in the second part of this series, but please keep in mind the early electric grid infrastructure was private, AT&T built an entire private infrastructure that was so good that the government felt it needed to be broken up in the 1980’s, that all the baby bells created a private cell phone tower infrastructure.  If those crappy networks the government had created weren’t around to build off of, I promise you some computer geek would have developed it on their own because there was money to be made in the idea.

  The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Actually human psychology says it has more to do with competition and the drive that comes from it.

But yes most human success is because people willingly join together to achieve a common goal…notice the willingly, a concept opposed to the government which is designed around a principle of coercion.

  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. 

Not hard to imagine.  History is filled with it.  Also there were town fire brigades, long before there was federal government.  People can do things without you Barack, in fact, while there are a few things that the federal government should do, I can safely say that this entire planet can do just about everything better without Barack…and it can do most things better without the government, than with.

 So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. 

The founders of this nation would loathe everything you do, jackass.

That’s how we funded the GI Bill. 

Not to be overly cynical here, but I think we helped fund the GI Bill by (A) not driving up the cost of college to insane levels as we’ve done in recent years and (B) by bombing the shit out just about every other industrialized nation on Earth, thus making the U.S. the only ballgame in town for a road to economic growth.  I don’t mean to say there was anything unethical in our bombing of the Axis, there wasn’t (in fact I think we should have done some more, again for ethical reasons*), but it certainly didn’t hurt our economic outlook for the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.

 That’s how we created the middle class. 

Again, who is this ‘we shit?  The middle class created themselves through hard work, intelligence, and will.  It is the government that has at every turn in the last century hampered their growth.

 That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.

I find it interesting that he mentions the Golden Gate.  A project conceived entirely by a state legislature (no federal funding at all) and mostly bankrolled by Amadeo Giannini, founder of Bank of America.

 That’s how we invented the Internet. 

The private sector invented the internet. The government invented a system that sat for 20 years doing nothing.

That’s how we sent a man to the moon. 

Again, mostly due to the genius of private contractors…who were backed up by corrupt deals made by the government.

We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea.

I keep reading this sentence and I keep failing to see how the basics of economics (principles which Obama regularly ignores) has anything to do with his running for president.  Yes, with the nature of economics we do tend to rise and fall together (which begs the question why do you want to over tax the successful causing them to fall…which would cause everyone to fall).  But even if you ignore that it’s Obama, who loathes capitalism, saying this it still makes no sense.  The first point doesn’t demand the second point, no matter who is saying it…at least for anyone in U.S. history.

  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. 

Well, jackass, if you’re president, I am on my own, or damn near it, because the entire apparatus of the government will certainly be against me.

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Trying To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws of Victory

Is the Republican Party out to kill itself?

I am perpetually bothered by the simultaneous lack of pragmatism and idealism in the GOP when it comes to campaigning this election.

Oh where to start?

(And let’s just ignore that I could get a whole blog off of all the Republicans who complained about the Tea Party that put them back in power in the House.)

Well let’s deal with Mitt Romney.  Nothing this man does makes conservatives happy…which is odd as we have been saying for years we need the common sense and wisdom of the private sector brought to government (check), we need someone with character (check) we need a fiscal conservative (check) we need a foreign policy conservative (check) we need someone  who will stick to their guns but make tactical concessions to achieve the larger goals (check again).  His record and his words are everything we have said we’re looking for (I’ll admit that the reality might fail, but I choose to hope for the best).  But somehow not only are liberals attacking him but our own party seems hell bent to do their job for them.

Now, as any reader of this blog is well aware I loathe the uberliberal RINO team of John McCain and Sarah Palin.  Really hate them.  Bleeding heart liberals and mindless populists who stand for nothing, every inch of them.  But I remembered the 11th Commandment during the election and didn’t publicly hit them every chance I got.  I had hopes of publishing Republicans & Reincarnation before the 2004 election, didn’t work out that way, but there isn’t a single word condemning either McCain or Palin because as much as I loathe them you don’t destroy your party’s brand and reputation over a single person.  But Republicans right now can’t hit Romney fast enough.

Romneycare!  A call which is ignorant of what was included by Romneycare and why Obamacare needs to go.  I’d like to remind Republicans we hate Obamacare for not just the mandate but for all the aspects of it: the loopholes, the creation of the massive bureaucracy, the restrictions of freedom of choice, the worsening of medical care, the destruction of the private sector, the intent to turn us into a single payer system…it’s just the mandate was the easiest thing to attack it on Constitutionally. The only one of those Romneycare has is the mandate (in fact Romneycare was designed to stop the Massachusetts legislature from doing all of that)…but the mandate, you know, the mandate which is unconstitutional to anyone who actually is capable of reading the Constitution (Roberts clearly does not belong in that list) but actually fully constitutional at the state level.  (This is even more ironic that the same people who hit Romney over the constitutional mandate at the state level, will also rightly scream about the federal government overreach in Arizona and that federalism demands that states have powers to act independently of the federal government….oh I see you only like federalism when it matches your beliefs…why are you a conservative again?)

Or “He raised taxes in Massachusetts!”  No he didn’t.  He raised fees (which is how a good libertarian and conservative government raises money) and he closed loopholes in the tax code (again something we conservatives want to do).  Yes it would have been nice if rate reduction had accompanied, but the pseudo-socialism of trying to give breaks to certain groups but not others is just as evil as high taxes.  Better only one evil than two.

I could go on but the fact of the matter so far is that any and all policy attacks on Romney at Bain, at the Olympics or as Governor turn out to be bullshit if you do the research.

But let’s get to the problems of Republicans saying he’s not campaigning hard enough, he’s not hitting Obama enough, he’s not on the attack.  That’s right.  Because we all know how history works.  Did Reagan win against Jimmy Carter by letting Carter always put his foot in his own mouth and then just calmly going “There you go again”?  No, he did it by attacking Carter every minute of every day and calling Carter out as the socialist and anti-Semite that he is.  Oh, no, I got those backwards, Reagan ran a fairly low key campaign constantly jabbing Carter, but letting dim Jimmy do most of the work by constantly talking like the f’ing moron he is…you know, much like Obama is doing.  In fact there are a lot of comparisons to be made between Romney and Reagan. 

But is history enough?  No.  Why should Romney take a national holiday off to spend time with his wife and family, thus showing character, and regaining energy for the push of this coming month.  Why should he take the day off when Obama once again humiliates himself by trying to use the 4th to push legislation no one wants.  No Romney should have been on the campaign trail,  “Get off the jet ski!”  Yes he should be out there politicizing the 4th as well, thus mitigating how much of a jackass Obama looked like making statements about the DREAM Act on the 4th.  Yeah that would have been brilliant.  (And if Romney had been on the campaign I’m sure the same people would be bitching how a real man would spend the holiday with his MS stricken wife and family).

Or in perhaps my favorite move, from Breitbart.com, the site that praised Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy as being defenders of conservatism for saying it was an unconstitutional mandate not a tax but chided Romney as not being a conservative for saying it was an unconstitutional mandate not a tax…you have this lovely hit piece ROMNEY WATCH: WEBSITE NOWHERE ON LATEST UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES (which I give you as  a screen shot because this is just too good to have claims I edited it)

So, ignoring that Romney gave an almost immediate statement

This message was carried on C-SPAN, Fox News, CNN, Drudge, and RealClearPolitics…he made similar comments on Twitter and Facebook.  So I’m not sure what the statement “Where is the Romney campaign?”  Where are you nameless Breitbart writer?  How did you miss all of this?  “Meanwhile Obama’s campaign’s website, Obama’s economic plan is near the top of the page.”

Oh really?  At the top I was greeted with an opportunity to share a meal with Joe Biden if I donate and I get a picture of Joe.  I’ll pay you to keep the dumbfuck away, but not to actually meet him (unless I get to slap him for every dipshit thing he’s said during his term as VP).

Scrolling down I see more begging for money…

And then,  I go up to the “Issues” category and find “Jobs and the Economy”

Now a look at Romney’s campaign…(a note I did not get around to getting these screen shots until 7pm Pacific Coast Time…but I will say this  is the typical kind of stuff you will see on Romney’s site any day).

Hmm…on the top of the Romney page…yeah can’t see a “Jobs & Economy” plan anywhere (A.  Yes it’s the forth slide in a series, but it is there if you’re even there for only a few moments B. This was there last week)

And if I scroll down a little (three things on the economy, one which, The Best of America, I know has been there since Wednesday)

And finally, yep the Jobs & Economic Growth in the same place, under the issues categories.

In other words, the Romney site is three time as blatant about the economic situation as the Obama page.  (Not to mention he’s right about the economy).

Of course my favorite part of the Breitbart hit piece is” The jobless statistics came out nearly three hours ago. Voters looking for answers from Mitt Romney are going to go to his campaign website—“  Three whole hours.  Wow, way to sound like a whiny liberal who needs instant gratification constantly.  Yeah, because for a written piece we should consider what Obama said, construct a well thought out response that attacks it on points…but no, we need an immediate knee jerk prewritten general piece.  Oh and I love how voters on Romney’s site don’t know how he will respond…you know because the 160 page plan with the 59 point plan and the 5 laws he will send to Congress and 5 executive orders he will sign (on day one) hasn’t been there since the early part of the primary…I’m so glad the writer of this piece has taken the last 10 months do his research and not found something that is staring him right in the face.

And to top it all off the Breitbart website let this trash be published without a name.

And you wonder why I think since Breitbart’s death his website has degraded into an MSNBC-esque Romney hit machine.

Oh, and to top it all off…

Then I was told by three people today that this morning’s review of how we stand in the Senate races was overly optimistic. (And two of them were Republicans!)  I’ll grant you the optimistic part, but not the overly.  I made the point that we could win all of the toss up states.  Unlikely but not impossible.  I pointed out a few races that were very likely but with the right set of circumstances (money, boots on the ground donating time and utterly demoralizing the opposition early) we could win them.  With the exceptions of the extreme long shots I posted all the relevant polling data.  I didn’t try to hide anything.  I trust my readers to be able to read and make conclusions on their own.  But apparently the “I’m overly optimistic “ thinks I should not show that we are in a position to win.  Oh yeah that will work.  Let me publish a headline.  “Our odds of winning the Senate is maybe 30%” (Honestly, with the currents winds of change and Obama poisoning the Democrat brand, our odds of taking the Senate are around 90%, but you get the point) …but let’s go with that really cautious line. I’m sure that will bring out the money and the volunteers, I’m sure of that.

“Well that’s not a balanced and dispassionate look at things” I was told.  This isn’t a balanced and dispassionate blog!  I’m sorry if you’ve missed this, but the reason I write is to hasten the demise of ideologies I abhor.  Until Communism, socialism, progressivism, Islamofascism, social conservatism, and isolationism  have all been thrown on the dust heap of history ranking up there with Carthage as moments in history  that not only failed, but failed with everyone involved being destroyed I will keep not being “balanced and dispassionate.”  Now don’t read into that I have illusions that I currently have a huge following or great sway—I have no such illusions—but I’m a high school teacher, I’ve learned the value saving one mind at a time (in case you’re wondering my politics don’t come into my classroom).

I’m sorry but people have to believe that they CAN win.  You have to be truthful, but tell them the good stuff.  Don’t lie, but downplay the weaknesses…because anything dealing with human beings has the risk of becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.  If the Republicans believe that they will win and that they have candidates who will wipe the floor with the liberal scum, then guess what, they’ll donate time, they’ll donate money, they’ll challenge friends and neighbors who insult their candidates and they’ll win a few converts along the way.  However, if you just hit your own side and say that “you’re being overly optimistic” you’ll kill morale and prove that you’re right we can’t win, because if people believe they can’t win, they’ll stay home, keep their money and may not even vote.

But let me be clear about some facts.

Fact 1: Romney is a fiscal and foreign policy conservative and if you say otherwise you’re either ignorant, an idiot or a liar.

Fact 2:  The Republican Party is in the position where it can win a majority in the Senate.

Fact 3: Put Fact 1 & 2 together and you have at least 2 years of very conservative policy and extreme economic growth.

Fact 4: That is worth fighting for.  With words.  With money.  With time donated.

Fact 5: If you’re just going to naysay and complain and speak against Facts 1 & 2 you’re not helping.

I don’t know what is wrong with this part of the Conservative party that seems hellbent on self-destruction, but I do know I will not give in.  We will fight and WE WILL WIN in November.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, NeoConservative, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Tyranny

Some thoughts on Foreign Policy

Sad how this is still very relevant (just add Beijing and Teheran to Moscow)(sorry about the music, I couldn’t find this part of the speech on it’s own)


Over the last 4 years:

A dictator has returned to the Russian Presidency

China is building it’s Navy and saber rattling

Pro-Democracy forces were slaughtered in Iran and the U.S. did nothing

Anti-American Islamists have taken over Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and are about to take over Syria (and yes these psychos

are worse the bastards they booted out)

We abandoned Iraq

Israel backstabbed at every opportunity

Pakistan is actively supporting Islamists

We are in talks to give Afghanistan back to he Taliban

But, it’s not our problem…just like Kaiser, the Red Army, the Fuhrer, the Ayatollah, Mao, Tojo, Ho, the Khmer Rogue, all of Africa were never our problem.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Goldwater, GOP, Individualism, Israel, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, NeoConservative, Obama, philosophy, politics, Ronald Reagan, War on Terrorism