Category Archives: Rudy Giuliani

I didn’t settle for Romney, I support Romney…let me tell you why…

    This is the man I’m voting for…the man who said to a piece of scum OWS talking head “America’s right and you’re wrong.”

..fair warning, this is one of those ungodly long blogs I write where I channel the Founding Fathers ability to write in clear, simple, short 20 page essays. There was no other way. Either I could piecemeal it and everyone would pile on comments about well what about this and what about that and the complaints would drown out the fact that the 20 individual blogs deal with every objection…or I could do it as one long blog and deal with everything thus leaving nothing to hit Romney with or besmirch him…so go get a fresh cup of tea, maybe something to snack on…this may take a minute.

I have been fighting with Paul and Gingrich supporters for weeks. And in this time, while I have been warming up to Romney, I have noticed something about their arguments. When I was supporting Giuliani or Bachmann, I would point to reasons why I supported them, Paul and Gingrich supporters point to reasons why I shouldn’t support them. I have pointed out why I can’t support Paul or Gingrich, but I have also provided REASONS WHY I supported Giuliani or Bachmann at the time. I have yet to hear valid arguments for Gingrich or sane arguments for Paul. And I need a reason to vote for someone, just voting against someone isn’t enough for me, I need a reason to vote FOR someone.

And here is why I will vote for Romney. (And by the way, this is my last vote in this election. I cannot vote for a socialist like Obama. I cannot vote for anti-Semite Paul. I cannot vote for theocratic socialist Santorum. I cannot vote for characterless, principle-less, and immature Gingrich. They will all be equally bad for this nation. If I don’t get Romney it will be another year for a write in).

Now I will be honest I had a lot of preconceived notions about Romney coming into this. Back in 2008 he seemed to hype the Olympics more than Bain, which didn’t win me over. Plus back then I was working 60-80+ hours a week, plus trying to get Republicans and Reincarnation finished so I probably relied a little too much on media assessments and didn’t do my own research. That was my mistake, and my opinions have clearly suffered for it. Not that supporting Romney back in 2008 would have made much of a difference, but I now feel a little dumb for some (not all, but some) of the jabs I’ve taken at him in this blog.

So unlike Paul supporters whose argument boils down to “Drugs, and I’m a coward and don’t want to go to war, and the Gold Standard!” (as if they know anything about that) and Gingrich supporters whose argument boils down to “Uhhhh…uhhhh…he’s not Romney, and he did a few conservative things, once, many years ago….uhhhh….what affairs?”  I will give you reasons.

So in no particular order….

Romney on the 2nd Amendment

I’m going to start with some of the weak stuff. I’ve heard people say Romney is weak on the 2nd Amendment. Odd, given his B rating from the NRA.  Why a B and not an A? Well he seems to favor assault weapons bans, background checks (although as we now can do near instant background checks he doesn’t believe in the waiting period now), and stronger control in cities.  Kind of like my ideal candidate Giuliani. Honestly, reasonable people, are any of those things wrong?

Would I like someone who said something like it is the right of every American who is not a felon or mentally unstable to own a gun…and it is probably their responsibility to do so as well, or at bare minimum know how to use one. But I’m not getting that this year. The one bill about guns he signed in Massachusetts lessened state licensing laws for gun ownership…not exactly the gun control boogeyman he has been portrayed as…and certainly not the lunatics who tried to use a convoluted and criminal scheme to flood the cities with illegal guns as a justification to crack down on gun ownership.

So while I don’t think that puts him head and shoulders above any of the other candidates, he is certainly on par with them.

I wish the media would show more photos like this where he looks human...oh I forgot they want Obama.

Endorsements matter to me. Especially from politicians who actually know something about the person, because character matters to me. So when Newt gets the pseudo endorsement of that liberal RINO Sarah Palin, it says something to me about his lack of conservative credentials. When Newt gets the coveted endorsement of a 70 year old actor who deserved a Razzie for every role he ever did, and treats it like a major event…you have to worry. Besides Mitt has Gene Simmons and I’ll take the genius businessman of KISS over Norris any day.  Just think, KISS performs at the GOP convention.

And granted I wasn’t thrilled about the McCain endorsement. But McCain likes to be on the winning team, principle doesn’t matter, only that he’s on the winning team…like how much he sucked up to both Bush and Obama over the last 11 years.

Tim Pawlenty, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Ann Coulter. John Bolton!

You know Pawlenty, the guy who was bright enough to say we as a party need to ignore social issues right now because economic and foreign policy issues are what we need to address. Pawlenty who while he briefly ran for President, wasn’t so driven by his ego that when he saw he wasn’t getting traction immediately left. He’s a man of reason and character, thus his endorsement carries some weight with me.

Nikki Haley. Tea Party favorite. Enough said.

Chris Christie. Our favorite to challenge the unions, hold nothing back N.J. Governor.

Ann Coulter. Ms. Conservative herself.

Ambassador John Bolton the man we would all love to have yell at foreign nations and the U.N.

And of course former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.  Hastert stated “During my years in the House, I was an advocate for balanced budgets and low taxes[.] Mitt Romney stands up for these principles.” Gee, Hastert was in the House in the 90’s, I wonder if by his statement about years in the House was to suggest someone else wasn’t for balanced budgets and low taxes. We like and we trust these people because of their intelligence and ability to make good choices…I can’t see why we shouldn’t give this choice at least some credence.

Now there are some conservatives I respect that I have yet to hear from—Bachmann, Giuliani, J.C. Watts, Steve Forbes, Scott Walker—but I’ll be honest, even if they came out against Romney it wouldn’t completely sway my vote when given everything else.

Romney on Foreign Policy


“A strong America – a strong America is the best ally peace has ever known. This is a president with the spy drone being brought down, he says pretty please? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding.” – Mitt Romney

Romney seems to get what our president doesn’t. There is good and there is evil and that America is a force for good in the world. Always has been, always will be. And he seems to get that evil needs to have its ass roundly kicked on a regular basis. And I assume that every Republican has learned the lesson about invading countries without a plan on how to rebuild them (I really hope they have).

Again I think in this respect Romney is probably on a par with Gingrich…but certainly above Paul (but who isn’t?)…as for Santorum, who the hell knows? He probably wants to reestablish the Crusade States or some other whack-job crazy religious idea (the man makes Jerry Falwell look stable).
Romney on Civil Rights

Santorum’s attempt in S.C. to portray Romney as a racist because he didn’t want to give back felons their right to vote was pathetic. It was pathetic because it meant that Santorum thought it might win him some votes with the African American community (apparently Santorum thinks they’re all felons…excuse me while I try to find a time machine to send Santorum back to 1870 which was the last time his ideas were mainstream in the GOP…that or he was trying to pick up some Ron Paul voters.) It was pathetic because it has such a low respect for the law…you don’t want people to lose their right to vote for drug charges Rick, then legalize them, don’t do this half-assed shit.

My personal favorite is the look on Romney’s face the entire time. “Are you kidding me? Of course felons shouldn’t vote! Am I really on a stage with this dipshit? How did Bachmann get voted off the island before this loser?” And I’m glad he came out with a simple and straight forward argument that violent criminals voting and not falling into the pandering for votes trap that Santorum was trying to set for him.

Romney as Capitalist
I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, “You’re fired.”…

…and I can’t wait for him to tell that to a good portion of the bureaucracy.

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you could fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone isn’t giving the good service, I want to say, I’m going to go get someone else to provide this service to.”

…I like firing people who provide me service too. In fact I want to fire everyone involved in some services. Like the sadists who provide the service called Internal Revenue, fire all of them. Or that service of providing that is laughingly called airport security. Yeah all of them, you’re fired. And what about the joke that is the United States Postal Service, well I’m certainly going to make sure the person delivering the pink slips is encased in Kevlar, but you’re all fired too. Now Romney was talking about creating a system where we would actually lower the price of private health insurance and be in a position to fire the carriers if they didn’t provide what we needed, but I trust he’ll take that mentality to all of worthless halls of bureaucracy.

Let’s be honest here, before we even get to Romney’s track record as a capitalist, we have to deal with the fact that Newt Gingrich attacked Romney for being a good capitalist. He attacked capitalism. Not only was it incredibly stupid  Politically it’s hard to think of a greater sin or clearer sign of being on the wrong side for any position. It is doubly a sin for a supposed Republican—we’re supposed to know better. That and that alone should be the hallmark moment of why Newt can never be allowed back into politics…or in the words of my hero Rudy Giuliani, “What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky. This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and the stuff you’re saying is one of the reasons we’re in the trouble we’re in right now, this total ignorant populist view of the economy that was proven to be incorrect with the Soviet Union, with Chinese communism.”

Now let’s deal with Romney as a capitalist. The man earned his investors a 113% on their investments!  Nobody has that kind of growth! In 77 of the deal that Romney was involved in 23 went bad. 30% of the deals went bad. In most venture capital firms it’s 30% of the deal work. I don’t know what he does, this aspect of business and finance is not my specialty, but whatever he and his people did, it worked.

Yes there were companies that failed and went bankrupt and everyone was let go. That’s capitalism. It’s called creative destruction.  We clear out the bad businesses that don’t work so that the new ones can grow. Without the creative destruction that clears away that which does not work you have the stagnation of the Soviet bloc nations, you have failure upon failure and no way to progress. It sounds cold to say that closing a business is a good thing, but which is worse closing GM because it makes crappy cars, letting all of its competitors buy up all the plants at fire sale prices, reopen them with the unions in an appropriate penitent state of begging to be let in, which means we can hire more people, which gives us cheaper cars which means we can spend more on other things …or subsidizing it at tax payer expense, keeping the unions powerful, giving the unions money to buy more politicians to help further drive up union power which drives up prices, fewer people employed, less money in the system at large. What do you say? You think creative destruction has its place…or should we dump another hundred million into Solyndra to keep it chugging along? I noticed no one complained when creative destruction kicked Enron and Bear Sterns in the ass as they rightly deserved. They needed to go. Lots of failing companies need to go so that capital and resources for new companies that work and are willing to innovate can grow. That is the only way you grow an economy. That is the only way you let it stay healthy. That is the only way you create jobs and the only way you help people.

And let’s not forget that creative destruction is what keeps companies from getting “too big to fail” as they would collapse long before they get to that level without goverenment help.

Romney, at Bain Capital, is the one who helped create Staples and dozens of other thriving businesses. Does Romney deserve credit? Yes. He is the one who personally managed some of these deals, he is the one hired (and if necessary fired) the people who worked there, he is the one who was where the buck stopped, and when it did it said profits, growth and jobs. And every one of those venture capital deals that worked out, every job they have created even after Romney left Bain, Romney had a hand in because he was the one who helped create it. Does he deserve all the credit? Certainly not. Bain has continued to grow even after Romney left…but the fact that he pulled off a major profit at the Olympics shows that Bain succeed because of Romney, not in spite of him.

I would also suggest you go to this Wall Street Journal article modestly entitled “Bain Capital Saved America” 

This is a man who knows how to get things done. He has shown it with Bain, at the Olympics and as Governor.

And more than anything he understands America better than most…

“I went off on my own. I didn’t inherit money from my parents. What I have I earned. I worked hard, the American way.”

That line, more than anything is what convinced me to love Romney. Now some liberals have already started whining that because his parents were well off they gave him good schooling all the way through his graduate degree that he did inherit his wealth…oh heaven forbid they did what every parent would love to do for their child, those terrible people. But you know what? I think there are lots of kids of wealthy families, families wealthier than the Romney’s, who did the same for their kids…when was the last time a Rockefeller did anything of value? A Kennedy did anything but make Joe’s ghost think ‘what the hell did I work so hard for?’…are you saying that by necessity the Gates children will do great things? You know, lots of people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth…not all of them choose to do something with it, hell very few do. Romney did. And that takes character, intelligence and drive. What more could I want.

Romney as leader

Okay this took me several days to get through everything between the pages, the articles it is linked to and verifying those statements through other sources. You can do one of two things. (1) You can take my word for the accuracy of this analysis or (2) you can go read the Wikipedia page on his Governorship  (when I read all of it and compared to all the linked articles and other sources there are a few things I wouldn’t have worded it that way, but it all seems a fair and accurate summary of his governorship, you may have a problem with WIkipedia, but trust me, you don’t want me listing 200 different links) and then judge for yourself if my analysis is correct. But here is what I see from Romney’s history in the executive branch of government. He is a businessman. And he approached everything like a businessman. He cuts costs, he cut bureaucracy where he could (Massachusetts seems to have a relatively weak governorship based on the obscene number of his vetoes that were overturned, 250 in a single year).

He ran the state on a principle of “Patronage will be replaced by professionalism, and secrecy will be replaced by openness.” And time and again he backed this up (if you want proof go look to see how he fired the idiot in charge of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.)

For instance he proposed indexing Massachusetts minimum wage to inflation. Yes is that an increase. Hell yeah. But let me ask you this…given the liberal nature of the Massachusetts legislature do you think that they would usually want to be limited by inflation? So, was the business call to index to inflation helping raise it or keeping it lower than it could have been?

Look, I spent four days researching his entire governorship. If you think I’m wrong do the research for yourself before you dismiss this evaluation. Every choice this man makes is based on a business decision of what can practically lead to long term savings and long term growth. I don’t agree with all of it on ideological grounds (Romneycare) but I see the pattern of his thoughts. Will it bring growth? Will it cut costs? Will it lower or keep taxes at the same level? Will it work? These seem to be the questions that drive the man. Don’t believe me, do the research yourself but he seems to always be pushing for the most fiscally conservative, pro business, pro growth, pro capitalism, pro freedom, policy he can get with the legislature he has to work with. His leadership is one of getting things done in a way that work, and not particularly caring about personal fame or aggrandizement. What a refreshing change that will be.
Now the fact of the matter is that I can’t remember if we’ve ever had a successful major businessman in the White House (Truman owned a few stores, but nothing major; Bush was a repeated failure at his businesses; and I don’t remember the bios of all the presidents from the 1800’s), it couldn’t hurt to try. Now the closest we’ve had in recent memory to successful businessman in the White House was that we had the former head of a major union in the White House in the 1980’s…and as I recall those were pretty good years.

Romney on Healthcare
Look I don’t like Romneycare. It has more problems than I can list. And I wouldn’t live in any state that had such a plan. However…like I said, he approached it like a businessman. He had a problem that Medicare was going to cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in the short term and more in the long term. And tax payers were going to end up paying for it one way or another. Like a businessman, he looked for a solution that solved this problem and didn’t raise taxes (you know unlike Obamacare). A lot of the really bad aspects of Romneycare, a lot but not all to be fair, were actually put in by the state legislature and Romney vetoed them, but his veto was overturned.  In his mind it was letting the state private insurance companies handle the problem rather than letting Medicare grow to take over all medical treatment at huge taxpayer expense (unlike Obamacare which is designed to drive private companies out of business). “It’s liberal in the sense that we’re getting our citizens health insurance. It’s conservative in that we’re not getting a government takeover.”


Hey notice how he acknowledges that there were parts that didn’t work, that he would not put in again if he could. Are we now critiquing the ability to learn from experience?

Go back and read for yourself all the stories. The way I read them is that the liberal legislature wanted to just put everyone on Medicare which would have killed private insurance and driven tax payer expenses into the stratosphere. His people came up with the mandate as a way to put everyone who could afford it on private insurance and cut tax payer payments. I have principled problems with it, but like I said he came at it from a business perspective, and found what at the time was the best way to save the private sector, keep costs down, and get it through the legislature. And though this be madness, yet there is method in it.

The fact remains he is campaigning on overturning Obamacare and has been since the moment any of us actually saw what was in it…he has said the federal government has no right to impose a personal mandate. And he has promised he will kill Obamacare if elected. At worst, if he’s just a politician, he will have to get it overturned…if, as I have come to believe, he is a man of principle he will definitely get it repealed.

Romney on the Budget


I love the liberal going “it’s all well and good” to have sane economic policy, with that condescending manner to reality only liberals have. And I’ve realized it’s his face that is winning me over. He has this look of “how did you escape the asylum and get here” as she is making her rambling statement/question. He has utter disdain for these morons and it’s killing him to not lay down the smack that this ditz deserves.

“The problem here is not revenues; the problem is overspending. The level of spending which we’re looking at would put us on the same road to financial crisis and ruin that our commonwealth has been down before.”—Romney on his veto of Mass. Legislature trying to spend money from the commonwealth’s rainy day fund.

Massachusetts had a $3 billion deficit when he took office, and a left the state with a surplus. And that was with a liberal legislature. Did he raise a few fees, yeah. Did he close a lot of loop holes? Hell yeah (which is a good thing). Did he raise the actual income tax rates? Nope. If he can do that again at the federal level we’ll be in good shape.

Romney on Education


“So, when I was governor, I fought for — actually, before I was governor, I fought for, during my election and thereafter, a program to have English immersion in our schools so our kids could learn in English. I think we agree on this, which is, you know what? Kids in this country should learn English so they can have all the jobs and all the opportunity of people who are here”

This is a man who proposed merit pay, shutting down failing schools and requiring English immersion. He vetoed the Massachusetts version of the Dream Act. What is not to like here?

Romney on Illegal Immigration

“It’s very simply this, which is for those who come into the country legally, they would be given an identification card that points out they’re able to work here and then you have an E-verify system that’s effective and efficient so that employers can determine who is legally here and if employers hire someone without a card, or without checking to see if it’s been counterfeited, then those employers would be severely sanctioned.”

Gee what a concept, go after the employers and you kill the very thing that brings illegal immigrants in. Yes this will not solve the drug cartel problems, but this is one of the first steps to getting rid of the illegal immigration problem in this country. (Clearly I’m going to support this as I already wrote on the fact that this is exactly what we need to do)

“Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for it. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.”

And as far as I know he’s the only candidate who is consistently bringing up the problem that illegal immigration has on funding for schools. So, bravo Romney.

The other little things.
I don’t trust charismatic people. I find charisma to be something I am very, very cautious about. Being charismatic doesn’t make someone a terrible person, but it does cause me to be very wary of them. Newt’s greatest virtue is that it’s fun to watch him dress down debate moderators…but when you get past that little of bit charisma, there’s not much there. And let’s be honest all Obama has is his charisma. I could go through history, but more often than not charisma leads to very bad leaders (Churchill and Reagan are the exceptions not the rule…Mao, Lenin, Hitler, FDR, George Wallace, Sarah Palin, they’re the rule for charismatic people…in case you’re wondering that list is put in order of evil from worst to just endlessly annoying). Romney has no charisma to speak of; this makes me trust what he says when he says it. (I’m going to get to that flip flop myth in a second, don’t worry).

He is not a man of warmth and charisma. He is a man of intelligence and drive. And I would rather have someone get the right thing done and do it in a poor way public relations wise than feel warm and fuzzy about doing the wrong thing. How about you?

This is the man I'm voting for.

My reservations

NDAA
I was less than thrilled when Romney defended NDAA in the S.C. debate. But here’s thing, look at what he says:

Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?
ROMNEY:” Yes, I would have. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda.
Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.
And I recognize, that in a setting where there are enemy combatants on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles.
But let me tell you, people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.”

I don’t think he knows what’s in NDAA. I don’t think he’s been briefed on the unconstitutional parts…his staff probably believes it would go over the heads of most voters, which may be a fair assessment. I think he has been on the campaign trail, doing so much that he hasn’t kept up on all current legislation. Who could? From his statements I think he thinks it just authorizes him to arrest terrorists—and what’s wrong with that? Let’s hope I’m right on this one.

And while I have problems with NDAA continuing such cowardly acts such as rendition…it would appear that the worst parts, the parts we were really worried about, with it applying to U.S. Citizens did not make it to the final bill, see sections 1021 e and 1022 b(1) of the final bill.  (Yeah I was a little dumbfounded by this as I didn’t hear when they took that part out either, but the applicability to U.S. citizens did not make it into the final draft).

 

Romney on Reagan

“Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

I’m not thrilled with that line about Reagan. Never have been. But then I looked at the context and it struck me as interesting.

Let me set the scene. 1994. Massachusetts. Democrats might not be beloved but memories of Bush and his idiot policies are still rightfully loathed. Senate race between Sen. Ted Kennedy (1 confirmed kill) vs. Mitt Romney.

Sen. Ted Kennedy: “Under the Reagan-Bush economic programs, under the economic programs you want to return to, the total number of children that are living in poverty, the total number of children out of wedlock — this has happened, you know we’ve had Republican presidents during this period of time and the cutting back of support systems for children and most of all for families to get jobs. If you’re not going to provide a climate and an atmosphere for men and women to be able to work and provide for their children, you’re going to see the breakdown of the family as well.”

Mitt Romney: “I mentioned nothing about politics or your position at all. I talked about what I’d do to help strengthen families, and you talked about Reagan-Bush. Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

Would I want to distance myself from Bush? Yeah. Still do. And to his credit he wasn’t dumb enough to fall into Kennedy’s trap of changing the phrase Kennedy used “Reagan-Bush.” If he had changed it to “Bush” or “the last administration” Kennedy would have used that in front of a Massachusetts audience not to just demand he be placed into the Senate for the entirety of his existence but that, in a Massachusetts tradition dating back to 1692, the non-conformist must be hung for his heresy. Should he have phrased it better? Yes. However, as I would point out Polifact states “In our fact-check of the DNC ad, we couldn’t find any other references to Romney distancing himself from Reagan beyond the 1994 debate comment.” 18 years and that’s the only anti-Reagan quote you can find…hell the fact that he made it through the Reagan diaries wipes that out (I love Reagan and his writing style and I love thick books, but every time I look at that thing on my shelf I still can’t seem to bring myself to wade through it).

My response to his the most common attacks.

Flip-flopping. Most of his flip-flopping was on the abortion issue. As any regular reader of this blog knows there are about a trillion and one issues that I find more important than abortion—some of them involve discussion of the lint I find in my belly button. I couldn’t care less what his position on abortion is or if it changes regularly with the tides.

And then there is the fact that I like attack ads, not because they work all that well against the attacked, but they show you how desperate the opposition is and what their values are. But they can also show you what a candidate does stand for

So let’s take this video apart quote by quote…

  • For instance they have a clip of Romney saying “I think we do need economic stimulus”

His actual statement was:

“Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.
I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.
[italics added]

Wow, so his stimulus is across the board tax cutting! Exactly why are we opposed to that? And while we have become rather jaded when Obama says infrastructure repair, because I’ve yet to see a single pot hole fixed, let alone real work done…it’s not a bad idea in theory. Also notice in this January 2009 interview he predicted that we would have BS like Solyndra.

  • Then there’s all that stuff on abortion. As I said, I couldn’t care if I tried.
  • The Reagan thing I’ve dealt with.
  • Then they want to hit him for being a good capitalist…and the most legitimate source they can find, nut job extraordinaire Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (or Pravda as I call it). The rest is bizarre innuendo, followed by him saying he doesn’t want Congress to control the Fed…I don’t trust the Fed, but I have to agree I wouldn’t want Congress in control either, it would be even worse than now.
  • Okay the health care thing. He endorses an exchange. Okay I’m not thrilled with the insurance exchanges…but it’s not the health care mandate….you know the part we hate, the unconstitutional part. You couldn’t find video of Romney endorsing that? Not even tied to his statement of “you try and do better with the legislature I had”? And I also love that the state is “is putting together an exchange” future tense as if this was still in the planning stages (I love how they don’t include dates on this video) so probably before we had an idea of how horrible it was going to be. Also notice the tone of “I’m glad he’s doing that…everything else sucks.”
  • The immigration thing. Really? That’s the best you can do, that he hired someone who hired someone else and when he found out about it he told them to stop. Oh yeah, this man is weak on immigration.
  • The global warming things. Ummm. I don’t believe in global warming as a man caused problem is real (Also notice his word “contribute” not “cause”) but I live in Phoenix which gets to 120 every summer not because I live in the Arizona desert but because the concrete keeps the Sun’s heat in during the night creating a heat bubble that doesn’t end until October. So it is possible for humans to contribute to it getting hotter without “climate change” in the chicken-little doom and gloom way Al Gore means it to be true. And yes this is probably my weakest defense in this whole article, I admit that. But I don’t see clips of him endorsing cap and trade. And I don’t see him sitting next to Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Al Gore version of global warming.
  • Oh, the union thing. “I’m not speaking about” to “I endorse.” How is that a flip-flop? I oppose then I endorse is a flip-flop? “I’m not speaking about” is I believe political talk for, “look I haven’t done any research into this yet and I know how you guys ask me a loaded question and I’m not going to fall into that trap.”
  • The tax pledge thing that first picture has to be from his Senate race against Teddy, which means “I’m not going to sign a new tax pledge and give that damn Kennedy something to use against me” to 2 decades later.
  • The guns. How is signing a law and then saying we don’t need any more after that a flip flop?
  • Again not thrilled with his endorsement of TARP, but it’s hard to find anyone who didn’t support it. But notice he says he supports it because the funds were paid back…you know as if the program is over, it did its thing for its time and that it is no more. And then Obama kept using it as a slush fund for whatever bullshit he wanted to do. Are you surprised that someone who even supported the initial TARP program might have a problem with it being used past its usefulness?
  • The Auto industry thing. I can’t find the whole text of the statement…but let me take a guess here. He was probably talking about loosening regulation and lowering taxes that would have let it come back on its own which is actually in line with saying don’t get the government involved, and if the only way to save it is to let it die, then let it die, (and again I’m speculating here) but if you had a business environment conducive to growth it wouldn’t

This ad was done with some money and decent access to media clips. And this is the best they could find. And this was the best ad I could find after 2 hours of searching. Cherry picked statements taken out of context. Mixed with comedians and pundits. Yeah they keep saying the Romney has a reputation as a flip flopper, except for that abortion thing I’m not exactly seeing proof so much as hype to back up that assertion. You know kind of like Obama having a reputation as an intelligent human being, when all evidence suggests he’s really rather dumb. And Ron Paul having a reputation for believing in small government when in reality he is a major porker for useless spending his district. George Bush has a reputation as a Neo-Con…trust me that man knows nothing about spreading democracy nor has he ever believed in it…he just didn’t have anything else to latch onto for dear life on September 12th.

There is reputation and there is fact. Show me the anti-business laws he proposed to the Massachusetts legislature. Show me the socialist executive orders he signed. Show me bills he authored calling for a removal of constitutional rights. Or is all you have to justify your position of him flip-flopping cherry picked statements taken out of context? As someone of Newt Gingrich’s currently high reputation once observed “”Reputation is an idle and most false imposition, oft got without merit and lost without deserving.”

Has he changed his beliefs over time? Yeah. He’s said so himself. It’s called learning from experience and growing. But in everything Romney has had the attitude of looking at everything from a business perspective of solving the problem. He has admitted he’s wrong on things, but he has never shown the constant second-guessing himself that Obama touts as a virtue (when a major vice is trumpeted as a virtue you know there are problems… , he has acted with determination and followed through and when things didn’t work he tried something new. You know, he was a leader.
***

Some other attacks. There have been a lot of attacks on Romney’s investments with Fannie and Freddie and this or that. As he stated time and time and time again his investments are in a blind trust. Blind Trust. He doesn’t know where the money is at or what it is invested. He is actually paying someone to keep him ignorant of where his money is that way he doesn’t know if a position he is advocating is actually helping or hurting that company. Every other politician or hopeful politician should try it…in fact Congress should be required to have them instead of their rampant insider trading deals. He is doing by his choice what should be done by everyone with control over the laws and people are hitting him for this, it’s insane.

And then there’s tax BS. Yeah he makes a lot of money. It’s taxed at about the 15% rate which all investments are taxed at. (If you think he’s paying too little for investments, you’re insane because to raise that rate would kill what is left of the economy. What we need to do is lower the other taxes to be at that level, and the only way we’re going to do that is by electing a real conservative, like Romney. Then you have the 15% percent he gave to charity. Did you give 15% last year…well he’s rich…Obama’s making good money on his book sales, and he gave 1% to charity …and there is the 10% tithing he gave to the church. Go on, hit the Mormons….let that little bigot out. Meanwhile, obviously as a New Ager I have doctrinal issues with the Mormon Church, to put it mildly, and I might even have some questions about how the church is run, but I will never critique a person for giving to their church. And if there is one thing to be praised about the Mormon church, it’s that they use the 10% to help their own when they need…argue theology with them all you want, but you have to concede there is a church that has not set up as wonderful a system to help and aid their member when times are tough as the Mormons have. So in total it apparently came to around 42% of his income went to someone other than himself. Go on; tell me capitalism breeds avarice and heartlessness. Tell me he needs to be taxed more. Oh, and by the way, did you forget he didn’t take a salary when Governor of Massachusetts. And don’t even get me started about what this would all look like if considered the issues of double taxation.

And if you want to show your ignorance of investment by bringing up the Swiss and Cayman accounts, go here.

A final word.
Ron Paul supporters constantly perplex me. Their argument seems to be that the executive branch is too powerful and power needs to returned to legislature…so let’s elect an egomaniac to the executive and I’m sure he’ll give power back to the legislature. Uh-huh. But despite their faith in their lunatic messiah, they are right that power does need to be returned legislative branch. But let’s say we get what we want, that we get everything we want, we make gains in the House, we take a filibuster proof Senate, with lots of Tea Party blood in both…how would the candidates fair?

Santorum would get nothing done with that Congress as he would veto everything until his bill making abortion and homosexuality a death penalty crime was passed and himself named high priest of America.

Paul. Not quite sure. I know you’d have the executive order to switch to the gold standard, thus killing the U.S. economy, and probably the world economy with it. Then there would probably be an executive order for forced relocation of all undesirables. I’m pretty sure he’d demand the Sudetenland be turned over to his control. And maybe then the invasion of Poland. After that who knows. There might be some finality to the solutions he comes up with.

Joking aside (but that’s all Santorum and Paul deserve), Gingrich has a long standing history of being hated by everyone. EVERYONE. People in Congress especially. That man has burned more bridges than he has dollars in his Tiffany’s credit account. At a time when you need a conservative to work with conservatives he will block anything that isn’t his idea and demand that whatever is his idea be unchanged and passed in the exact form he wants it or it will be vetoed. And his attacks on capitalism reveal that his plans will not be the pro-business, pro-growth, small government we need. It’s not that he believes big government is the problem, Newt just believes that big government not controlled by him is the problem. If you give him a fully Republican Congress he will not work with them, he will as usual play the petulant child and not get anything done, and then the GOP and only the GOP will take the blame for the failure. If you give him a mixed Congress he will not do anything to gain the few conservative Democrats we need to overturn Obamacare, get rid of the unconstitutional portions of NDAA, scrap most of the unnecessary regulation and get things done. God help us if you gave him a liberal Congress…there’s a fifty percent chance he would lock himself in the White House and pout…and a fifty percent chance he would back stab us all and cozy up to his next wife Nancy Pelosi (they seemed so cozy on the that video…maybe it’s the bills 418 they cosponsored together that leads me to make that statement).

No matter how you play it a Gingrich presidency is as much a disaster as Obama.

Now, on the flip side, if you have a liberal Congress, as with Massachusetts experience tells us he will work with them to lessen the blow as much as possible. With a split Congress he would likely be able to reach out to the Blue Dog Democrats and get some real conservative fiscal and economic policy passed. And if we can take both houses of Congress and put Romney in. I see regulation cuts. I see bureaucracy cuts. I see massive spending cuts. I see the end of Obamacare. I see less regulation. I see strong military, stronger state government working with not against the federal government, real growth, real jobs, real prosperity and real freedom.

***
So Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Obama supporters? What do you have? And don’t just tear apart my arguments. Give me a reason to vote for your guy. I gave you reasons for mine; I didn’t just tear down yours. Can you provide the same level or proof that your guy will be better? I doubt it.

And keep in mind, I could have gone on longer on a lot of these issues than I did…it’s just I had to cut this off somewhere…

This is the man I’m voting FOR.  I’m not voting against someone else, I’m voting for Romney.

4 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Ann Coulter, Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rudy Giuliani, Taxes, Unions, Welfare

Why I support Bachmann

So the other day a friend of mine posted the following insightful comment on facebook:

Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?

It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:

maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…

Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)

Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).

Then there is her religion. Yes she went to a religious school for her J.D. and passed the bar…oh and then she got another Masters Degree from William and Mary…you try getting into William and Mary see how easy it is (all this while raising children).

But she’s religious! Yeah, so are a lot of people. Is she wrong in her opinion on the nature of homosexuality? Of course she is. But you’ll notice that unlike lunatics like Perry or Santorum she doesn’t feel the need to legislate it. In fact she said:

In New York State, they have passed the law at the legislative level, and, under the 10th Amendment, the states have the right to set the laws that they want to set. […]
That is up to the people of New York. I think that it’s best to allow the people to decide this issue. I think it’s best if there is an amendment on the ballot, where the people can weigh in.

Yes, she has said that there should be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage…but you’ll notice that she only mentions that when she’s directly questioned, all she wants to talk about, given the choice, is the economy and national defense…and really do you think she’s so stupid as to think that such an amendment has a snowball’s chance in hell of passing? I doubt it. Listen to what she says, it’s a throw away line to keep the base happy, she doesn’t seem to put major energy into promoting it…not like the amount of energy the media puts into keeping this issue alive.  And keep in mind I have very little reason to support a highly religious candidate (being a Pagan and all), so if I’m not worried about her religious beliefs, you shouldn’t be either.

And yes her husband is nuts. But we’re electing a President not their spouse…if we judged presidents by their spouses…uh…well that might not be best the policy…and don’t just think of first ladies for the last century…think of the spouses of some of the people who lost. If we choose presidents by how likeable and honorable their spouses were, we’d have President John Edwards right now. I want you to think about that.

But let’s see here what has she said that’s made sense:

Well there was:

“I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it’s a dollar.”

Yes, not caring about “fair share” but actual justice, what a concept.

“I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.”

“Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn’t end with the tax code. It’s the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it’s more than that cost. It’s jobs that are lost. “

“ So we need to repeal “Obama-care,” repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama’s plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure. “

Clear understanding of classical liberal economic policies…much better than any of the other candidates with maybe the exception of Newt.

“I will build it on the entire border, and I’ll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can’t afford that.

“ I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government. “
“And every — every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen…

No tap dancing and a clear understanding what it needed to fix the problem.

She is also the only candidate who seems to understand the difference between what the President does and what Congress does. Other candidates make claims about what Congress will pass, they give specifics on legislation they will have no control over, this leads to some of her statements being a little vague, but only because unlike the rest of these losers she seems to understand the President is not a law unto himself (or herself). And she seems to understand what the Constitution says and what can be legislated and what can’t without first getting an Amendment.

She understands that Israel is our “greatest ally” and that the President of Iran is a “genocidal maniac.” Something the current occupant of the White House has no clue about.

Now I’ll admit that I have a bit of an issue rooting for underdogs. I wanted Giuliani because I found him to be the perfect mix of conservative economics, moderate social policy, and neoconservative foreign policy. But I can’t get that so what choices do I have left:

Conservative Economics Neo Conservative Foreign policy Moderate Social Policy
Romney Theory yes, practice ? Yes No
Perry No No No
Santorum Yes No Hell No
Cain Yes He doesn’t even know what foreign policy is No
Huntsman No No ?
Paul Yes Hell No Nothing about this man is moderate
Newt Yes—kind of Yes—kind of Kind of, I guess
Bachman Yes Yes Not really, but it doesn’t seem to be her main thrust

And as Meatloaf said, “two out of three ain’t bad.” So I will continue to support Michele until I can’t.

But the fact that she wants to flatten the tax code ( I can’t trust Romney in this), remove regulations, overturn ObamaCare, abolish the Department of Education, drill for oil, close the border (I certainly can’t trust Perry for this), change anchor baby status, blow up the bad guys (Cain would screw things up, Huntsman would bow down to his Chinese overlords, and Paul would support starting up Auschwitz again), reform Social Security, and stay within the actual boundaries of the Constitution (I can’t trust Santorum for this). Michele is my candidate.

But please, if you think I’m stupid give me a reason.  Show me why I as a fiscal conservative and foreign policy neoconservative should support any other candidate on ethical and policy reasons.  I don’t want to hear about the fact that she can’t be elected, because she could be if people dropped the she can’t be elected argument.  And I suspect that in terms of policy you have nothing but misogyny.  But please prove me wrong.  I dare you.

5 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Gay Rights, GOP, Individualism, Michele Bachmann, Patriotism, politics, Rudy Giuliani, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism

A Voice of Reason

Follow this link

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, Rudy Giuliani

A weekly roundup of the Republican Candidates

Newt Gingrich

Newt claims that despite claims to the contrary his presidential run is “not dead”. “You’re not fooling anyone, you know.”

Herman Cain
So on the one hand he comes across as not knowing much about foreign policy with his folksy “I don’t have all the information right now” excuse for not having a lot of opinions, and clearly not knowing what the Green Line is (which is a little sad given how it has been in the news this week) but on the other hand he seems to understand the general concepts of right and wrong in foreign policy.

Cain needs to hire some foreign policy experts, brush up on all the details, and take some position or he needs to drop out.

Ron Paul
While the Congressman probably agrees with Obama on how to deal with Israel, he still has yet to show me he knows the first thing about foreign policy.

Tim Pawlenty
I have to admire a man who will call for the end to ethanol subsidies, while in Iowa.

Of course he just wants to phase them out instead of just killing them. Still, Pawlenty has yet to really impress me.

Mitt Romney
Otherwise known as the moderate who thinks he’s a Republican. Pardon me if I’m not thrilled with those options.

Rick Santorum
I love how his response to being called a homophobe is to attack the media and not even offer a half hearted denial. Guess he must not be a very good liar. Which means I would love to play poker with him…oh and I would hate to have him in the White House.

Sarah Palin
Has bought a house in Arizona and is supposedly looking into taking John Kyle’s seat. This is good news in that it means she’s not running for President. Praise the Lord! This is bad news that now this hypocrite is living only a few miles from me.

John Bolton
I like him. But I don’t think he’s serious about running. If he does it will only be to make a point.

Michele Bachman
Like Giuliani she’s keeping quiet for the moment. But the more savvy political watchers see her as a force for this election. Giuliani/Bachman? That would be nice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michelle Bachmann, Rudy Giuliani

A quick GOP Presidential score card as it now stands:

It’s too early for polls to be relevant. Right now it’s just weeding the losers out of the field and looking to see who still might enter.

Trump—Not running. Thank god.
Huckabee—Not running. Thank the dear lord almighty for this blessed miracle and deliverance from evil.

Romney—still running. Damn! This moderate in Republican clothes as you will recall came up with the basis for Obama Care and defends the unconstitutional mandate to buy healthcare.

Newt—as of this weekend also backs the unconstitutional mandate. We hope he can leave the party and never come back for all I care.

Ron Paul–A fun guy to have in the legislature, a nightmare to have in the executive branch.

Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels—I keep getting these two mixed up. This is not a good sign for either. I’d critique or praise them, but as I said I don’t exactly find them memorable. ( And I have heard that people from Daniels’ home state think he’s another John McCain, so clearly he’s out).

Herman Cain—Good CEO common sense. However I feel he lacks the charisma needed to win and would rather see him as Secretary of the Treasury or in charge of the FED.

Palin—I think she’ll run for a little while to keep her name out there but isn’t serious because she likes the paychecks too much — Good! She’s a bloody hypocrite and doesn’t deserve any public office.

Santorum—This man feels legislating gays and abortion are more important than the economy and foreign policy. Clearly this man does not belong in any office, let alone the presidency.

Bachman—I hear she’s started raising money and that makes me happy.

Alan West: His name keeps getting thrown around but he hasn’t made any announcement…and while I think one term in the House might not be enough experience before the White House I could live with him in there.

Chris Christie—I would love having him in office, but he won’t run.

John Bolton—I loved this man as Ambassador to the UN; I would love him in the White House.

Giuliani—Run Rudy Run! My dream candidate. God I hope he runs again.

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michelle Bachmann, Rudy Giuliani