Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Old Lies About Romney Make a Come Back with Populists…Time to Slap Them Down (AGAIN)…

By The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager

Paul Ryan

The look on our faces every time these anti-Romney lies keep coming back.

So recently we’ve been seeing a string of complaints coming out the less intelligent, less thoughtful, and more populist/progressive quarters of the Right once again attacking Romney. And the problem is that the vast majority of these arguments boil down to two problems. The first problem is that they’re trotting out the same complaints that they used 4 years ago and were shown to be utterly without fact, basis, or sanity 4 years ago…and the second problem is that if you had a candidate to actually put up you would be singing their praises and not attacking the only competent candidate there is.   But the clearly the kind of people who prefer populists and progressives are the kind who like to repeat lies that have already been struck down, we might as well cover why these lies are horseshit once again…

Romneycare So the first thing that all small minded people claiming to be conservative like to point to is Romneycare. They claim it’s the origin of Obamacare.

romney5

The appropriate response to hearing that Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing.

Let’s look at this claim. In reality the actual history of Romneycare is that the Massachusetts legislature proposed a universal healthcare measure. It was a measure that would have completely nationalized all healthcare in the sate of Massachusetts and made Obamacare look like a dream come true. Governor Romney knew he couldn’t just veto the bill (he vetoed 844 bills and line item measures, 707 of those vetoes were overruled…he must have known just vetoing it would have been a fruitless measure). So rather than just give a pointless veto that would be overruled and result in the death private healthcare (which would result in actual death) Romney went to the Heritage Foundation and they gave him the outline for what we now call Romneycare (individual mandates and all…which by the way are Constitutional under the Massachusetts constitution). So if Romney is a liberal for taking the advice of the most conservative think tank in America to stop a far more liberal bill…then what exactly qualifies as conservative? Are you only conservative if you get results? Then Reagan’s a filthy liberal for not destroying the Department of Education. Now the final bill that passed the legislature was not exactly what Heritage suggested and because of that Romney vetoed 8 portions of the final bill. These vetoes were overturned. There were further changes made after he left office (those are the really bad parts). But I’m sure that’s all Romney’s fault. And it gets worse if you get into the details of Obamacare and Romneycare, any attention to details shows that they are nothing alike. Add to that the promise last time to give immediate exemptions to the entire US via executive order and then work to repeal Obamacare…it is a simple fact that to attack Romney for the healthcare system in Massachusetts can only be made if you are completely ignorant of all the facts involved.

He’s a flip-flopper on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. 

more lies

Lies. The only thing the Romney side has going for them.

To call Mitt Romney a flip flopper on the issue of abortion is to say that no man may have a change of mind or heart in the span of nearly 2 decades. A flip flop is something that Obama does. A flip flop is when a politician says one thing and six months later they deny that they ever said it, while stating the exact opposite. What a flip flop is not is a politician who believes something in 1994 or in 2002, but receives a shocking change of heart in the year 2004 due to some new information or even just a new view on the issue(in this case Romney changed his view because of the stem cell research debate), and admits in 2011 that he no longer believes his previous position to be true or the best possible position for him to hold. Mitt Romney is no more a flip flopper on the issue of abortion than a woman like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a flip flopper on the issue of her religion. As for the issue of gay marriage, another issue that Romney is consistently called a flip flopper on, the accusation bears very little merit as his opinion that gay marriage is a state’s rights issue has not, to my knowledge, ever changed. The only accusation that can be leveled on the issue is that he implemented the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court when it gave it’s verdict in 2003 on the subject. His position before and after that moment has remained much the same when it comes to state’s rights.

He’s for Gun control House retort Then clueless critics want to hit Romney over his stance on gun control. 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 slightly stronger control in cities.   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.

He increased taxes in Massachusetts

romney3

Seriously? The populists feel comfortable making such a claim?

The claim is that Romney was a tax raiser is also outrageous when you consider where the actual $300 million in increased tax revenue came from. The concept of closing tax loopholes is not one unfamiliar to conservatives who want to fix the tax system. That is precisely what Romney did in Massachusetts, closing several loopholes in the state tax code which raised revenue.  Romney also reduced taxes in several ways, but was unsuccessful in convincing the state legislature (which was held by Democrats by a wide margin) to reduce the state income tax to the promised 5% from 5.3% where the legislature froze it, regardless of the fact that voters had successfully voted for a decrease to 5%. Like at so many other turns during his governorship, Romney’s hands were tied in fully accomplishing his goals by a Democratic legislature. Admittedly Romney’s administration did shift costs over to fees and licenses for many services, but this is more a libertarian solution to raising funds than a tax increase in any case, as it puts the fees directly on those using the service rather than taxing an entire populace to run a program.

He’s for Amnesty emma swanThen of course there are those that object to Romney’s realistic opinion that even after we shut down the border and put in e-verify that it’s simply not economically realistic to try and deport everyone who is here and came here illegally…nor is it legally sane to leave them as illegal immigrants. Yes, after we put in real border security, e-verify and reform the system to have the appropriate visa and worker program we still need to deal with the people who are here. Anyone who thinks the conservative answer is to expends tens of billions into rounding up every illegal and even more tens of billions (if not more) for the deportation trials of each of them (not to mention the even greater cost of political doing so). Such a policy is not conservative it is insane. Meanwhile Romney has in the past consistently stated a sane policy of border security, denying financial gains to illegals, but after those things have been resolved giving those who remain some form of legal status (at a cost):

“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.

“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.

He was for bailouts

romney2

Ann is ready to slap the stupid out of someone.

Then there are those who say he was in favor of bailouts. Let’s look at his actual statements:

“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. Now let’s take a good look at all the actual things he proposed we should do…not one of those things is not an endorsement of capitalism and small government.

That he appointed liberal justices in Massachusetts jlaw As for Romney’s record with judges, it is true that he nominated more Democrats than Republicans, but it is also true that Romney’s governor council was composed of Democrats (chosen by the voters). His early appointments as governor were mostly Democrat and Independent, but toward the end he nominated far more Republicans, which makes sense in a Democratic state like Massachusetts where he would need to be more pragmatic in his appointments in the beginning of his term.  

That he believe in Global Warming

tumblr_n8knmhY13n1s2g6qao1_500

Certainly our reaction to when going through all these anti-Romney claims…seriously, how in the age of information can people be this ignorant?

It’s curious to me that Romney’s remarks on global warming would receive much attention at all. His comment that he believed the earth was getting warmer in 2011 is predated by the much more firmly worded statements he made in his book “No Apology” in 2010:

I believe that climate change is occurring–the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth. Oil is purported to be one of the primary contributors to rising global temperatures. If in fact global warming is importantly caused by our energy appetite, it’s yet one more reason for going on an energy diet. Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now.

Whether I agree with his statements or not, which I have to add are hardly conclusive proof that he believes that Global Warming is either 100% man-made or a real danger to earth, the main issue with conservatives should always been if he plans to actually do anything about his belief that the world is getting warmer.  His statement “I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth.” is proof enough that whether he believes in man-made global warming or not, he’s not interested in stepping in on a regulatory level.  Which should be our only real concern on that particular issue.

He lost to Obama

Reagan

So glad we don’t ever let people come back after they’ve lost. I mean after Reagan lost the second time in 1976 it would have been yet another disaster to let him come back and lose again in 1980.

Finally they like to point out that Romney lost. Twice. (Let’s ignore that Reagan lost twice before winning). But let’s looks at that last loss. Romney got a larger portion of the US population than any non-sitting Republican president in the last century. A larger portion of the US voted for Romney than for Reagan. Yeah real failure there. Second why did he lose? Well let’s see we all know that Hurricane Sandy and the good PR Obama got from that (thanks Chris Christie for sucking up to Barry as much as you did). We all admit that Romney’s program for getting voters out, ORCA, failed on election day for whatever reason it crashed, the 2014 election shows the GOP has fixed that program (had it been working the vote would have swung toward Romney). Finally Romney’s biggest campaign problem was he let the media define him as uncaring (a lie, but it’s what they portrayed)…which Romney has used the last two years to wipe away with public appearances, selfies from coach class and with various celebrities and slow jamming the news…that biggest problem is now gone. So the technology is fixed and the biggest weakness is gone…so if the weather will just cooperate we’ll win this time. Certainly this isn’t the entirety of the lies about Romney…but by now you should get the point.  If you bother to do the research, and we think you should, don’t just trust us (just as you certainly shouldn’t trust pundits who know they make more money when a liberal is in office) do the research for yourself.  Click the links we put in.  Read those articles. Do research of your own.  We want you to.  Because facts and reason show that we’re in the right.  Now if you had a fact based objection to Romney we’d be open to hearing it…but we just have yet to see one. buffy

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2016, Mitt Romney, politics

How pundits and pervasive lies are preventing us from moving forward…

republicans

We need to get our priorities and our facts in order if we’re going to move forward.

A friend of mine, a person whose opinions I deeply respect, said to me “you know it’s really sad that McCain got more votes than Romney.”  And this struck me as very odd, because, if you go and look up the actual totals you’ll see that Romney (60.933 million votes) got more votes than McCain (59.948 million)…about a million more for any liberals who may be reading this (I know you guys have problems with basic math, so I’m just trying to help).

So yes it would have been sad if a conservative like Romney had done worse than a RINO sack of shit like McCain among Republican voters, but it simply isn’t the case. What is sad, however, is that this vicious lie has been repeated so many times that even intelligent people have begun to believe it (like McCain’s lies about Romney being liberal, or most of what Barry has done to further the philosophy of the Big Lie).

And most responsible for this is a certain group of pundits who seem dedicated to this lie that Romney did worse and the secondary lies that go on to explain why Romney got fewer votes–that we lost because we didn’t focus more on social issues, that we have to become isolationists, that we need to have versions of welfare and cronyism of our own, that the government needs more power in certain sectors–you know the Santorum platform…oh, wait it’s all those Ricky supporting dipshits who are the ones who are primarily behind this lie.   It is the same reason that these pundits need to latch onto the minutiae of actual conservatives and scream bloody murder over small problems, but will conveniently ignore the multiple and serious problems of their new Tea Party darlings…not because they’re doing this out of deep conviction, but out of fear.  The fear that if an economic conservative actually wins at this point then their insane social “conservatism” will be discarded by the whole of the nation.  Fear that at this point if a real conservative wins in an environment that they can do something then their meal ticket of peddling anger will dry up.  They’re afraid of the truth that economic and foreign policy conservatives can win, then all the nutty ideas proposed by these pundits will fall by the way side.

But why am I ranting about this?  I’m ranting about this because this is a very illuminating piece of the conservative movement’s larger problem:  We need to look at what does and doesn’t work in elections for Republicans.  And this is something we haven’t done in quite some time.

Even the postmortem of the election by the RNC Party didn’t really get to the heart of what the actual message needs to be.  So let’s look at the history of the Republican Party and what candidate victories actually are.

The history goes something like this: Republicans don’t tend to do well.  Just accept that.  At least conservatives don’t do well compared to liberals on the whole.  We don’t do well getting people out, we don’t tend to inspire.  This is not because we have bad messaging,  this is not because we have bad candidates, this is because all we have to offer is a lot of what people don’t want to buy.   We offer responsibility.  We offer hard work.  We offer gains through effort, merit, work and trial of blood, sweat and tears.  We offer real gains, but real gains aren’t easy compared to Democrats and progressives just promising the world.  ‘We’ll take it from the rich and give it to you, yes you.’  To hell if it will actually work, it’s such a nice dream that people just want to hear it over and over and over again.

But let’s look at the actual cases.

election figures

Here are the numbers.

Here we have the elections, winners, the number of people who voted for both parties, the percentage of the vote and voter turnout.  But raw numbers like this are kind of meaningless.  And we have to consider all three, because a candidate who loses with a high turnout rate might actually have been a better candidate than a candidate who won with a low turnout rate.   Think of it this way: you have two salesmen.  One salesman only sells 25 items to a group of 100 people, another salesman sells 30 items to a group of 200 people.  Now you might want to say that the salesman who sold 30 items is a better salesman–but he’s not because he only got 15% of the group that he was talking to, the other salesman got 25% of the people he was talking to.   So if we just like a percentage of the votes we’re just looking at the 30 and 25– but if we look at the percentage of the vote in context of the voter turnout it begins to look a little different.

And the numbers go like this from the Republicans who got the largest share of the general population.

Percentage of population

Now who got a larger portion of the population than Romney to come out?  Obviously not most Republicans…but let’s look at the specific instances…You have W.’s 2nd run, Reagan’s 2nd, Eisenhower’s 2nd and Nixon’s first run against Kennedy.  Now while not a firm rule, the fact is that the prestige of being president or being Vice President does help (and you see this with Democratic candidates as well). That leaves Wendell Wilkie (who was running against FDR’s third term, so some of the outrage against the idea of a President running for a third time might be somewhat to blame), and Eisenhower’s 1st run. Now with Eisenhower, you have something almost better than being President, you have the title Supreme Allied Commander.  Also you just have to generally exclude Eisenhower’s runs and Nixon’s first run as they weren’t running so much on a platform of policies, but on the name Eisenhower.

Now you can disagree with my logic of excluding some or all of these, but you have to admit that Romney got a larger portion of the nation to come out and vote for him than most Republicans.

So not only did Romney get a larger number of votes than McCain, a larger share of the population than McCain,

This man knew what he was doing. It wasn’t perfect in all ways and he was up against an opponent who promised the world and cheated to get what he couldn’t get through giveaways…but Romney provides us the model for the kind of candidate we need.

and a larger share of the population than most Republicans throughout recent history, let’s not say Romney failed because let’s look at the fact he beat out Reagan’s first run for presidency.  Romney got a larger share of the population to vote for him than Reagan did.  Romney did better than Reagan did in 1980.  Think about that.  Also think about the fact that Reagan almost didn’t win the election in 1980. In 1980 there was a third-party challenger who took away a lot of votes from Carter, and that’s why Reagan won, not because Carter was such a bad president—no the American public is kind of stupid in that respect, they won’t even vote out a terrible person??—no it’s that a challenger came in and stole some of the Democratic Party votes.   Just as Republicans won in 2000 because Ralph Nader came in and stole votes from Gore, just as Bush lost in ‘92 because Ross Perot came in and stole votes.  The sad fact is that in ’80, ’92, and 2000 it wasn’t so much because people liked the winner so much it’s because the incumbent had a challenger siphoning off some of their votes.   And that’s a sad fact, had there not been a challenger, in 1980 we would’ve been stuck with two terms of Carter.  It’s not an idea per se that people are voting for, sometimes it’s just to feel that they can be different.  (It doesn’t appear that (the perpetually appearing to be stoned) Gary Johnson siphoned off enough votes to make a difference, but who knows how many people he convinced to at least stay home, so thanks Gary go fuck yourself.)

So I don’t want to hear that Rodney was a terrible candidate because Romney pulled out people in a way that no other Republican in recent memory seems to be able to do.  And one of the reasons he was able to do this was because Romney didn’t really focus on social issues.  Yes he said he was personally socially conservative but in no way, shape, or form did he ever give the impression that he was going to legislate on that. Notice that he was not going to stand in the way of law.  He did not feel it was the government’s responsibility, especially the federal government’s responsibility, to change and dictate morality in laws.  Romney got people out because he talked about the only two issues that are important: the economy and foreign-policy. Liberty here and liberty abroad.

Now yes you can claim that social issues did come up in the form of idiots like Todd Akin (the man should’ve taken Karl Rove’s advice and shot himself)– but that, an issue with social conservatism, if anything, lost Romney votes.  Social conservatism and those who preach it are the worst enemies of economic liberty and international peace, not its greatest defenders (they’re also their own worst enemies because good economic policy will create the institutions in society that social conservatives love…and they’ll do it without forcing it via law)

‘But, but, I was told by a single idiotic pundit (who shall remain nameless) that had only the Christian voters come out Romney would’ve won.  It’s the fact the evangelicals stayed home, the conservative evangelical voters stayed home and Romney lost.  Actually if you look at the breakdown that’s not quite accurate.  And in fact most of the groups dipshit pundits  want to point to as having been driven off by Romney, actually did better with those groups.  All these claims that Romney was a RINO (made only by people too illiterate to actually read his record) or that we needed a more socially conservative candidate are based on the myth, no, not myth, bald face lie, that conservatives stayed home and didn’t vote for Romney.  I can’t find any actual evidence that can substantiate the claim that the social conservatives did not turn out for Romney.  So anyone who talks about conservatives staying home, and not turning out and not getting out the vote is full of crap.  Now granted we may not have been able to make as many moderates come out, but the fact of the matter is, let’s be honest here, Obama was just manufacturing votes in a lot of the swing states.   In addition Romney’s grand get out the vote program ORCA seems to have crashed (a little too conveniently on Election Day) which hurt in getting out those otherwise moderate voters who leaned towards Romney (but a lot of these problems seemed to have been resolved through RNC efforts in the 2013 governor elections).  The long and short of it is that no one should ever be claiming this bullshit lie that the psychotic populist pundits want to keep proposing that Romney, couldn’t get voters out. He did.  People should not be buying this lie that because he wasn’t a social conservative we lost.  That is not the case.

We lost for a few other reasons.  As I’ve stated before it wasn’t because social conservatives hurt us…so whining to crazy social conservatives or lunatic libertarians is not the answer.  The answer is to get another economic conservative like Romney, and do better on the ground game.  Do better on getting people out…and this is not entirely the responsibility of the candidate.  We cannot be the party of individualists but think that the party on high is the one responsible for winning this thing.  We have to be better at being a grassroots party…and thus I am going to start (hopefully weekly, but you know how I get) suggestions that every single conservative should do to help get conservatives into every level of government to help shrink the size of said government.

3 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, GOP, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, politics, Tea Party

Romney: The Man of Near Infinite Empathy and Compassion

Mitt does not like to talk about how he has helped others because he sees it as a privilege, not a political talking point.–Ann Romney

So the continuing attacks on Romney are just getting more and more egregious.

In the last few days I’ve seen Romney called a fanatic and shameful for actually saying America should be defended and respected…and I’m apparently a fanatic for defending this belief as well. But then again apparently any defense of Romney is my “salivating” over him without using any intelligent thought. (This while the left ignores all of Obama’s flaws and slobbers over him.)

But apparently to some of those who support government any defense of the free market or American Exceptionalism is fanaticism and a call for genocide. Back here in reality it’s a defense of virtue, facts, and what works.

So just to annoy them, and I would recommend all my readers do the same in their personal lives (just for fun), let’s point out the numerous qualities that make Romney the kind of person I want to vote for.

Now I prefer intelligence and common sense in my candidates, but there seems to be a large call for a candidate with empathy. Now everyone but a sociopath* has empathy but some exude and act on it better than others***. Mitt Romney is apparently not one of these people who exudes a “I feel your pain” feeling on camera (I can however tell you from personal experience that he’s very charismatic and likable when you’re ten feet from him, but again that shouldn’t necessarily be a reason to vote for him). However, since liberals are hitting him as being a cold and vicious heathen for not exuding this empathetic claptrap on TV let’s look at his actual behavior to determine if this is a man who acts with charity and compassion to others.

This is the man who would give a struggling family $250,000 because he heard they needed help. 

This is the man who has saved a drowning family.

This is the man who shut down his company, possibly loosing thousands if not millions in the process, so that he could direct his company’s full attention on finding and saving the daughter of a friend

This is a man who gives millions in charity, giving more than what is tax deductible

A man who is so uninterested in money he gives up his salary as governor (about half a million over 4 years) and who took no salary for the work he did to save the Olympics.

A man who takes time to comfort the sick and needy, to care for those who feel they are in darkness and who need help.


And there are EVEN MORE STORIES HERE…
You know what, you can say a lot about Romney? You can say that, “Oh he has money, he can afford to be that generous”…true…but what about the people the left defends endlessly like tax evader Warren Buffett***. The fact is that he has earned his money and then does what few of us ever have the chance to do, and what few of those who have the chance ever actually do, use it to gain happiness by helping others. I guess you could claim that ALL these people are lying, but that would be fairly petty. You can claim that compassion and empathy and charity aren’t everything…I would agree, but do you really want to have an argument about intelligence and policy when your candidate is Obama?

But you can’t claim that Romney is not a man of extreme empathy, extreme compassion, and extreme charity.

Any attack on this man’s character is just silly.

*I could name some politicians, but I’ll be polite.
**I believe the word for exuding empathy is charlatan.
***If you bring up Romney’s tax returns, you’re an idiot. There is not a single iota of evidence to suggest Romney has cheated on his taxes or hid money. It is a fact on the other hand that Buffet and half the cabinet are avoiding paying their taxes.

Leave a comment

Filed under character, Charity, Election 2012, Faith, Free Will, God, Individualism, Love, Mitt Romney

Charlotte Web of Lies: The DNC Day 2

Day Two of the Charlotte Web of Lies leads to some real fun.

To recap in the last 48 hours we are worse off than we were 4 years again and we’re better off than we were 4 years ago, God doesn’t exist, God does exist, Jerusalem isn’t the capital of Israel, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, relations with Israel have never been better, relations with Israel have never been worse, Obama will be speaking in an open stadium, Obama will not speaking in an open stadium.  I know politicians like flip-flopping, but usually it’s that their positions change over years, months, sometimes weeks…this is the first time I have seen positions change with tide without having to invoke hyperbole.

Then of course there is that joke of an acceptance of the party platform, which seemed to have over half the delegates not accepting it because it wasn’t left enough but Villeregosa saying it has the needed two-thirds necessary to pass…this is what Democrats apparently consider democracy.

Tonight was a bit sparse on interesting points…yes there was the near constant drivel on Republicans are evil, Republicans are going to destroy medicare, Republicans want to skewer the poor, roast them on spits and eat their flayed carcasses…blah, blah, blah…

But what do you expect.

They had Elizabeth “Dances with Bullshit” Warren.

“Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney’s the guy who said corporations are people.No, Gov. Romney, corporations are not people.”

Thank you Liz for showing you know less than nothing about history, law, or the nature of how an economy works.  The legal fiction of corporate personhood needs to exist for the economy to work…I dread what the world would be like without that particular legal fiction…but you could just look at what the world looked like before corporate personhood (i.e. what was the world like before the 1600’s).

“People have hearts,”

Except maybe Democrats who are willing to let Israel be destroyed in a second Holocaust, are willing to let the innocent  in Syria and Egypt be butchered by the close friends of this Democratic president, and we’re all more than willing to do nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur under a Republican president as well as do nothing in Rwanda, Somalia, and almost Bosnia (until Tony Blair dragged Clinton in).  Also as I recall the most recent study on charity shows it’s Republicans who give the most, not Democrats…but what do we heartless Republicans know about having a heart.  It is so much more important to rant and rave about giving and caring than to actually show it in action, often humbly and not seeking praise or attention.

“they have kids,”

You know I’m pro-choice…but given the Democrat’s party’s eagerness to fund every abortion they can, keep in mind they removed the line that abortions should be rare from the platform, this line rings a little hollow. Also this is just disingenuous from the party that is absolutely opposed to school choice and school reform.  You know the most important thing in helping kids.

“they get jobs,”

this one’s too easy, but I have to anyway…they get jobs?  Not under this president!

“they get sick,”

Well I’m certainly sick of your pointless drivel.

“they cry, they dance.”

I will be dancing and crying tears of joy come the night of November 6th when the asshole is voted out of office.

“They live, they love, and they die.”

They’ll be doing a lot more of the last one if we have Obamacare.

“And that matters. That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”

They run this country.  Because that doesn’t have any disturbing totalitarian overtones…no, none whatsoever.

“And that’s why we need Barack Obama.”…to take a long walk off a short pier.

Sandra “Julia” Fluke was dull and whiny as usual from her first words:

“Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception”

No Sandra you were locked out of a hearing on religious freedom…something you know nothing about, so you had no right to be there. It went downhill from there.  It was all whiny drivel about the freedom to get birth control…the law student apparently has never heard of the Griswold v. Connecticut which guarantees the right to buy birth control (just not to have others provide it for you) and (and you’d be an idiot to think you’d get ¾’s of the states to pass an amendment against that or to think that even conservative judges are about to overturn that one).  So really this is about as made up an issue as you can get.

I could make fun of every dimwitted line of Nancy Pelosi’s speech…but I think it’s more fun that she was caught this weekend saying that the secret to Democrat victory in the House is gerrymandering.

And then there was pathological liar, user and abuser of women (not to mention sometimes rapist…yeah between him and Kennedy it shows they really love women) Bill Clinton.

“A man who ran for President to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression.”

And you don’t think that sudden drop might have been caused by the fact that every business could read the writing on the wall, that Socialism-boy was going to win, and it might be time to batten down for a long storm.  But it would take intelligence to see a correlation between those two events.

“A man who stopped the slide into depression”

The Dems seem to really like the word depression all of a sudden.  Not that there is a single iota of data to suggest we were on the verge of a depression…but it’s fun to see how the economic troubles of 2008, while  a fixed moment in history, have somehow gotten steadily worse as time goes on.

“I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside.”

I would too Bill.  You’ll have to settle for someone who is inept on the outside and burning with rage against America on the inside.

“A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.”

You know, if you were to just read that line on paper without knowing the context, but knowing what a vicious, hateful creature Michelle is, you might think this was an insult.

Now read these two paragraphs:

“In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the President and the Democrats don’t believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy. […]

“We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think “we’re all in this together” is a better philosophy than “you’re on your own.”

So you don’t believe in free enterprise and the individual.  You just said as much Bill.  You see the economy as “with business and government working together” we see it as business and individuals working together.  And then of course we get to the fact that Democratic policies hurt middle class and ruin opportunities for poor people.  Really what it is the Democrats believe that “we’re in this together and if I can’t succeed then you can’t succeed” where the Republicans are “Grow up, you must reap what you sow, individuals may help you, but government isn’t there to be your parent.

“Who’s right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!”

Convenient he leaves out the economic powerhouse of Eisenhower.   Also nice that he leaves in Kennedy with his cut taxes pro-growth policies that would be more at home in the GOP these days.  But of those Republicans he mentions, Nixon, Ford, and the Bushes were big government liberals in policy.  And most of that job growth you list bill came from Kennedy’s tax cuts or you riding the wave of Reagan plus a Republican Congress.  But why should facts matter.  Who is right?  Well that all depends on what the definition of “right” is?  If “right” means you’re actually going to tie your conclusion to facts and reality then it’s not you or Obama.

“It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics.”

Yes and it’s a damn good thing Republicans were there to end Democrat supported Jim Crow.  Now if only your party could support education reform that would lead to true equality of opportunity.

“I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we’ve done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane

That’s the basic argument right there.

Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.  Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.”

That’s the self aggrandizing egocentric Bill Clinton I remember.  The kind of man who could exploit a young woman for his sexual gratification and never feel a qualm about it.  Kind of reminds me of the ego of someone else.

“They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.”

Big intrusive government is the enemy.  I think someone realized that when they said “the era of big government is over.”  And real compromise isn’t weakness (like when Democrats made suggestions on how to improve the Ryan plan and Ryan not only didn’t fight them but eagerly put those changes in)…it’s the media and modern left’s definition of compromise: “Do everything we say, get nothing you want or you’re an obstructionist who doesn’t believe in compromise.” We have do not problem with rational compromise, we have a problem with strong-arming masquerading as rationality.  And yes we do have our more line in the sand moments, but only because we’ve seen it’s the only way to get half of what we want, anything less and you bulldoze over the RINO faction of our party.

“One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation.”

I mean just look at the billions he’s given lunatics in Egypt to fund their massacre of women, gays, Christians and Jews. Very cooperative on our part.

“He appointed Republican Secretaries of Defense,”

Technically he just asked the Bush Secretary of Defense to stay on so he wouldn’t have to show his liberal foreign policy too soon.

“President Obama’s record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.”

You know if you ignore Iran with a nuke, betraying Israel, Obama and Alexrod personally leaking classified information, not supporting the democratic uprising in Iran, letting Tunisia, Lybia, and Egypt fall to people more psychotic than before, not doing anything in Syria, and of course wanting to be more flexible with Vladamir…nope nothing to complain about his foreign policy.

“He also tried to work with Congressional Republicans on Health Care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn’t work out so well.”

Because he’s a crazy socialist and took a my-way-or-the-highway attitude to all of those things and offered no compromise on anything.

“Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work”

Bill, he said nothing about not wanting America to get jobs…he said we need to get rid of Obama, probably because Obama is the single greatest impediment to growth there could ever be.  We want growth. We want jobs.  We want to earn piles of money and we want everyone to have the opportunity to earn as much as they want…but that isn’t going to happen as long as Socialist-in-Chief is around.  Bill, you were annoying, this guy is destructive.

“In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

Actually I believe the line is that our party for too long was in the hands of pseudo-liberal compassionate conservative who basically acted like Democrats, they in collusion with the Democrats screwed everything up since 1992 and now real conservatives are back.  But this brings up a general flaw in the Democratic party logic.  They claim the Tea Party is the new extreme wing of right.  But they claim that the Tea Party is going to do the same things that the old liberal wing did to screw things up.  Unless you’re a Democrat you can’t logically have it both ways.

“I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.”

Bill you’re mixing up Reagan and Obama.  Reagan laid out the road for prosperity and fixed the country in three years. Obama keeps laying the road for total destruction, and low and behold we’re on it.

I may not agree with Newt on everything…but it was Newt who got the 90’s working, not Bill

“Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don’t feel it.”

Employment isn’t growing, and what growth there is is in underemployment.  Banks are loaning only because Obama is strong-arming them, like you did, which is creating a new problem.  And I hate to tell you this, but houses are still overpriced.  The high prices are not a sign of a healthy economy they’re a sign of another bubble.

“I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn’t feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.”

Maybe because you worked with the Republican Congress, instead of refusing to pass a budget.

“President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No President – not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years.”

Reagan could have.  Reagan did.  The Carter Economy was much worse than what Obama inherited.  And yet by turning to capitalism instead of socialism, things seemed to work out.

I’m done…Clinton keeps lying and distorting and making crap up.  It’s Slick Willie, did you expect anything else…but dear God did this run long.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Ramblings of Conservative Cathy – Flip flopper/Pandering???

The Democrats and some “so called” Republicans like to say that the Republican nominee – Mitt Romney is a flip flopper and panders to those he speaks with. Well he just had a wonderful opportunity to prove this to his detractors but wait – it did not occur. I was shocked – really shocked that once again my nominee stood on principal and demonstrated true character. And if you actually wanted to do some real research instead of just listening and repeating what the talking heads say you would find out that this is how he has always been and I expect will always be!

Below is the transcript of Romney’s speech to the large Latino group of elected officials, NALEO.

Did he change anything he has said previously? NO! Did he pander to the crowd? NO!

If you have been paying attention then you know he said nothing new and he stayed on track and promoted a better economy. Stated as he always has that illegal immigration affects the economy and following the laws and correcting a broken immigration system will improve the economy and he wants to do that as the economy is his main premise for just about everything.

Now his detractors want to say he did not come down on either side of Obama’s election gift to illegal immigrants but I think this phrase says it all and does not side step the issue: “Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive order. The answer is that I will put in place my own long- term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure. As president, I won’t settle for stopgap measures. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to build a long-term solution. And I’ll prioritize measures –”
I think that says that he will actually fix the situation and follow what he promotes – legal immigration and securing our border – which he has been saying forever.

And as always you can not beat phrases like this: “Today, I’m asking you to join me, because while we may not agree on everything, we share the same goal, and the same vision. And the same belief in American greatness that draws so many people to our shores. Liberty’s torch can burn just as brightly for future generations of immigrant as it has burned for immigrants in the past.”

This is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney is my choice for President of the United States!

Except from CNN transcript (if there are any errors blame CNN):

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Appreciate the chance to be with you today and I’m delighted to be here to be invited here at your annual conference. It’s an honor to be among so many elected officials.
I come to you as a candidate of the United States of America. And I will govern from the principle that while this is a land of extraordinary diversity, there are so much more that unites us than there is that divides us.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Each of us walks a different path in life, but we are united by one great overwhelming passion, we love the United States of America. We believe in America. We are one nation under God.
Today, we are united not only by our faith in America, we are also united by our concern for America. The country we love is in peril, and that’s why I’m running for president.
Almost four years ago, the American people did something that was very much the sort of thing that Americans like to do — we gave someone new a chance to lead, someone who we had not known very long who didn’t have much of a record, but promised to lead us to a better place.
At the time, we didn’t know what kind of president he’d be. It was a moment of crisis for our economy. And when Barack Obama became to office, America wished him well and hoped for the best.
Three-and-a-half years later, over 23 million Americans are out of work. Unemployed. Underemployed. Or simply quit looking for a job.
At a time when we should be gaining momentum in the economy, we are actually seeing us lose a little bit of it right now. Job growth slowed and this week we learned that the number of job openings has fallen yet again. And as you know, Hispanics have been hit disproportionately hard. While the national unemployment is still above 8 percent and has been for 40 straight months, Hispanic unemployment is at 11 percent.
The middle class under President Obama has been crushed. More Americans are living in poverty today than at any point in American history. Over 2 million more Hispanics are living in poverty today than the day when President Obama took office.
Home values have plunged, our national debt is at record levels and families are buried under higher prices for things like food and gasoline, and yet the president said that the private sector is doing fine.
This is more than a policy failure. It’s a moral failure. I know that the president will say that he inherited the economic crisis, and that’s true.
But we shouldn’t allow the challenges that he faced four years ago to divert our attention from another important fact. The president pursued policies that have made this the slowest recovery since the Great Depression, and he broke promises many people were counting on the build a brighter future. It did not have to be this way.
Just compare this president’s record with the first term of Ronald Reagan. President Reagan also faced an economic crisis. In fact, in 1982, the unemployment rate peaked at nearly 11 percent. But in the two years that followed, just two years, he delivered a true recovery, economic growth and job creation worth three times higher than in the Obama economy.
If President Obama had delivered a real recovery, a Reagan recovery, we would have 5 million more jobs today — 5 million more. And the unemployment rate would be 6 percent, and the economy would be at least 1 trillion larger.
Now, tomorrow President Obama will speak here, and of course, that is the first time he has spoken here since the last campaign. He may admit that he has not kept every promise, and he’ll probably say that even though you aren’t better off than you were four years ago, things could be worse.
He will imply that you don’t really have an alternative. I believe he’s taking your vote for granted.
I’d come here today with a very simple message, you do have an alternative. Your vote should be respected. And your voice is more important now than ever before.
This November, we are going to make a choice. We can continue along the path we are on. Or we can choose a better way. Instead of continuing on with the policies of the last three and a half years, we can revitalize our free enterprise economy, we can lead the world as we have in what we invent and build and create.
Let me make this very clear: this is the only way we can strengthen the middle-class. And this is the only way we can create sustained prosperity. Raising taxes to grow government does not grow the middle-class.
Today, I’m asking you the join me, because while we may not agree on everything, we share the same goal, and the same vision. And the same belief in American greatness that draws so many people to our shores. Liberty’s torch can burn just as brightly for future generations of immigrant as it has burned for immigrants in the past.
We know that the businesses can’t succeed and grow and hire more workers without a more competitive tax system. That’s why I am going to lower the corporate tax rate and reduce individual marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board.
We also know that our businesses and families need affordable and reliable energy. Producing more of our own energy resources will create jobs in America, and generate greater revenues for the country.
It will also help bring manufacturing back to our shores. You are going to see a manufacturing resurgence if we get that policy right. We know that the economy cannot grow if we are mortgaging the future to pay for the big government programs of today.
Think about that. We can’t keep on borrowing massively more than we take in without putting the country in peril, and so as president, I will rein in spending, and I will get the budget balanced. And I will repeal Obamacare, because we cannot afford another $2 trillion entitlement.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Everybody likes free stuff, but there is no free stuff when government has to the pay and it has to tax the American people or when it borrows from future generations. Obamacare is depressing job growth. If priority number one is jobs, you have to get Obamacare out of there.
In one study, 73 percent of a business owners said that Obamacare has made it harder for them to hire people. Think of that. Almost three quarters of small businesses saying Obamacare is making it less likely to hire people. If jobs are your priority, you got to get rid of Obamacare and put in place real reform that works.
Repealing Obamacare and replacing it will give businesses the kind of certainty they need to expand and to hire and to grow. Now, by the way, we can also jump start our economy by expanding trade in our hemisphere.
As you know, however, the president has not completed a single new trade agreement with a Latin American nation and he has failed to crack down on countries like China, who don’t live by the rules.
We know that our kids can’t succeed if they are trapped in failing schools, and that is why as president I will give the parents of every low income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: When it comes to education, a choice for every parent means a chance for every child. An effective immigration system can also strengthen the economy as it has since the nation’s founding.
Unfortunately, despite his promises, President Obama has failed to address immigration reform. For two years this president had huge majorities in the House and Senate, he was free to pursue any policy he pleased, but he did nothing to advance a permanent fix for our broken immigration system. Nothing. Instead, he failed to act until facing a tough re-election, and trying to secure your vote.
Last week the president finally offered a temporary measure — he called it a stopgap measure — that he seems to think will be just enough to get him through the election.
After 3 1/2 years of putting every issue from loan guarantees to his donors to Cash for Clunkers, putting all of those things before immigration, now the president has been seized by an overwhelming need to do what he could have done on day one, but didn’t. I think you deserve better.
Some people have asked if I will let stand the president’s executive order. The answer is that I will put in place my own long- term solution that will replace and supersede the president’s temporary measure. As president, I won’t settle for stopgap measures. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to build a long-term solution. And I’ll prioritize measures —
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: — and I want you to also know this, I will prioritize efforts that strengthen legal immigration and make it more transparent and easier. And I’m going to address the issue of illegal immigration in a civil and resolute manner. We may not always agree, but when I make a promise to you, I will keep it. Let me speak about some of the guidelines that I will use in putting together the policy. And as you have heard me say many times it is critical to redouble the efforts to secure the borders. That means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa.
We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence and implement an improved exit verification system. Our immigration system should help promote strong families as well, not keep them apart. Our nation benefits when moms and dads and their kids are all living together under the same roof.

(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: But today, too many families are caught in a broken system that costs them time and money and entangles them in excessive red tape. For those seeking to come to America the right way, that kind of bureaucratic nightmare has to end. And we can do this with just a few common sense reforms.
As president, I’d reallocate green cards to those seeking to keep their families under one roof.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: And we will exempt from caps the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: And we will eliminate other forms of bureaucratic red tape that keep families from coming together. Immigration reform is not just a moral imperative, it is also an economic necessity. Immigrants with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs and they drive innovation at a very high rate.
Immigrants founded or co-founded nearly half of our top 50 venture-backed companies in this country — nearly half. They are nearly 30 percent more likely to start a business. And that kind of risk-taking is something we need more than ever, because new business startups in America are at a 30-year low.
I’ll work with states and employers to update our temporary worker visa program so that it meets our economic needs. And if you get an advanced degree here, we want you to stay here. So I’d staple a green card to the diploma of someone who gets an advanced degree in America.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: We want the best and brightest to enrich the nation through the jobs and technologies they are going to create. Now, we also have a strong tradition in this country of honoring immigrants who join our military and put their lives on the line to keep the country safe. Since September 11th of 2001, the United States has naturalized nearly 75,000 members of the Armed Forces. Too many of those patriots died on distant battlefields for our freedom before receiving full citizenship here in the country they called home. As president I will stand for a path to legal status for anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this great nation through military service.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Those who have risked their lives in defense of America have earned the right to make their life in America. But improving access to legal immigration is only one part of the equation. We must also make legal immigration more attractive than illegal immigration, so that people are rewarded for waiting patiently in line.
That is why my administration will establish a strong employment verification system so that every business can know with confidence that the people it hires are legally eligible for employment. We can find common ground here, and we have got to.
We owe it to ourselves as Americans to ensure that our country remains the land of opportunity both for those who were born here and for those who share our values, respect our laws and want to come to our shores.

Now, throughout my campaign, I have often had the chance to speak about my dad and how proud I am of him. He was born, as Scotty said, to parents, American parents living in Mexico. When he was 5, they left everything behind and started over in the United States.
His dad, my grandfather, was a builder, and he went bust more than once. My grandfather didn’t make much money. There were times in my dad’s life when he lived in poverty. But my grandfather had big hopes for my dad and tried to help him as best he could.
My dad didn’t finish college. But he believed in the country where the circumstances of one’s birth were not a barrier to achievement. And he was not afraid of hard work. He held odd jobs, putting up plasterboard, selling paint. He was lucky enough to live in America where hard work can turn aspirations into realities.
After he became a man of the business world, he got the opportunity to lead a great car company, and ultimately, he became the governor of a great state, the state of Michigan.
This is my father’s story. But it could be the story of any American. Most of you here today are leaders in your community. Your are here because you have benefited from the land of opportunity, and you want to give back to this country, to fight for its people so they have the same chance to succeed.
We are truly one America. Everyone here has made this exceptional nation what it is today. This is an election about two people. This is not an election about being a Republican or a Democrat or and independent. This is an election about the future of America. I’d ask each of you to honestly look at the last 3 1/2 years and ask whether we can do better. Is the America of 11 percent Hispanic unemployment the America of our dreams? We can do better. We can prosper again with the powerful recovery we have all been waiting for, the good jobs that so many people need and, above all, the opportunities we owe to our children and our grandchildren.
I will do that. I will make that happen with your help and your support. Thank you so much. And God bless this great land. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Illegal Immagration, Illegal Immigration, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Patriotism, politics

Ramblings of ConservativeCathy–It’s not Fair!

It's not fair! It's not, it's not, it's not...

What do you hear little children say all the time – “it’s not fair”.  But we thought that you were not supposed to grow up and learn that life is not fair – nor is it meant to be!

I hear Democrats, President Obama and others using versions of this phrase on almost a daily basis now.

Not wanting to go into all the individual points this phrase is used for I want to just deal with the concept of “what is fair”.

Is it fair that some people are better looking then others?  Is it fair that some people are downright unattractive?

Is it fair that some people have great bodies and most of us don’t?  Is it fair that some people can eat all kinds of things and not put on weight while others of us just look at food and seem to put on weight?

Is it fair that some people can go all night and day and seem to have everlasting energy while others of drag along on a daily basis?

Is it fair that some people get sick when other do not?

Is it fair that some people are smarter then other people?

Is it fair that some people have great athletic ability and others of us are uncoordinated morons?

Is it fair that some people know things that others do not?

Is it fair that some people inherit money while the majority of us need to work for it?  Is it fair that some people are able to invent or think of an invention and make lots of money?  Is it fair that some people become great actors and make all kinds of money and most don’t?  Is it fair that some people successfully build a business empire and make loads of money while most of us don’t?

Is it fair that a lot of us must pay taxes while others do not have to?  Is it fair that taxes are based on our incomes rather then our productivity or looks or weight or what the government actually needs to run just the areas designated in the constitution?

Is it fair that I am never hungry and many others are daily?

Is it fair that I have access to great medicine while many others don’t ?

Is it fair that I have religious freedom and many others don’t?

Is it fair that I am a woman and men seem to rule the world?

Is it fair that children must follow rules?  Is it fair that I cannot have as much as others?  Is it fair that life is not minute-by-minute what I want it to be?

Is it fair that there are poor people in the world?  Is it fair that all people do not have a sense of humor similar to my own?  Is it fair that everyone does not want to live the way I choose?

Is it fair that someone else’s needs are more important then mine?

This list could go on and on…..

Get over it – life is not fair in any aspect – it is just life and you can do whatever you want or are capable of doing with it – so enjoy and make the most out of it without requiring me to participate in you life!   

 

Any politician using these types of phrases should be immediately removed as they are not mature enough to lead anyone particularly themselves….. is that FAIR??????

22 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Education, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Happiness, Humor, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Obama, Selfishness

Ramblings of ConservativeCathy—War on Women Part II

Continuing from yesterday let’s take a further look at how it’s not the Republicans who are waging a war on women…

 

The Wage Gap:

So let’s go to this one.  I am older and feel that I have worked within business during the period where it was changing for acceptance of women.  This allows me to have a personal perspective regarding this issue.  I have seen the charts demonstrating that women make anywhere from 75-88% of the wages a man makes for the same job ( I believe the current talking point is 77cents of the dollar compared to men).  I am not going to list sites here.  These are always something like cleaning industry or food preparation, contracting jobs, etc.  Since I work in the area of food service and cleaning as I am a consultant for hospitals in these areas and started out working in Restaurants as a waitress and then went into management and on with my career I think I can respond to these issues based on my own knowledge.

Most companies/corporations labor practices are run by human resource departments today and they all follow the labor laws.  They also provide equality in setting wages with all rates stated by job class and not by sex and pay raises set by inflation not by the whim of a manager.  This is factual, now some small businesses may do other things but I believe even they follow the laws and do not apply personal opinions.  Any actual good business never cares about sex or race as they are only concerned with the best person for the job.

Now as to the stats always distributed.  Let’s see, I saw one that said servers so I guess that means waiter/waitress.  Now the study did not state whether it considered tips but I am assuming that it did as I know that most restaurant companies follow the above procedures so no one makes money based on sex.  As far as tips go it has always been correct that men make more percentage wise on tips than women and as I have been a waitress in some top notch dinner houses I can tell you why that is.  Women offend women – don’t deny it – it is true.  Now the difference is that some women always play to men thinking that they will give them the tip without realizing exactly what control the women may have on that issue, also if the waitress is attractive then many women are jealous or insecure around them so they are not as comfortable or enjoying their meal so that will affect the tip, or some men are just stupid and flirt/tease with the waitress in front of wives and girlfriends thinking this is funny or good in some way.  Suffice it to say men do not seem to care about male servers one way or the other and only care about service.  Being as I am not a dummy this took me no time at all to figure out when I started waitressing.  So I always played to the women and if the man wanted to flirt then I would stand by the women and not insult the man but empathize with the women for having to put up with this type of nonsense.  My tips were fairly close to those of the male servers of equal quality where other women servers were much lower.

When I became a manager there were only 3 other female managers that I knew of in the whole company (nation wide and international also).  But I was paid the same as any other new manager but was given a harder time.  I am a strong believer in the concept that women often work harder/longer/better to be considered equal but I have never been paid any differently than a man.

When you group things like food preparation together that is improper as there are different categories within these positions.  I will tell you that line cooks get paid more then prep cooks.  I have encountered some great women line cooks but honestly it is mostly a job that men are in.  It is backbreaking (on your feet for 8 straight hours (except breaks) and moving around in a smaller space, stressful and you are working in a hot environment – often uncomfortable (meaning not very good air circulation or air conditioning).  Most women prefer the lower stress of prep work and the more comfortable work environment with others around to converse with.  So taking an average in combining all of the various categories involved in food prep is improper.  This also applies to cleaning work – there are several categories and one that receives a higher pay is working with heavy floor/carpet cleaning machinery.  Most of this work is done at night to even very late at night and along with the need to be physically capable of handling the equipment – I think you can see why more men are in these positions than women.  But I can assure you that if a woman wanted the job and was capable at the job then she would be paid exactly the same.  I think that construction jobs would follow along the same lines so combining these types of things are silly and unproductive.

The professional areas such as doctor or lawyer for example demonstrate the other stat that is never discussed.  I know some doctors and lawyers and the women I know are paid the same as men at the same level or quality.  The issue that is never really discussed is that these studies are based on averages.  Women more than men enter and leave their chosen field or job if they are having children or raising them.  This obviously will affect wages based on averages.  How often do you see a study based on beginning wages or after 10 years of experience for a particular field  – no I have not seen them myself (and I looked).  I believe that is because they would show that there is no real difference in wages.  Averages can like percentages throw facts off – always question these kinds of things.

I believe Democrats use these averages/studies to make people feel bad and also feel that they need a protector.  It’s very easy to be given a scapegoat to blame rather then looking to your own choices and responsibility in the whatever the problem is.  This has been used time and again in history to control the masses.  Republicans are also willing participants as I have stated they lack a backbone.

Romney wants to help people as he does so personally.  As President he wants to open up as many opportunities as he can and that will help the vast majority of people in the long run.  What people need to understand and accept as they are supposed to be adults not children and nothing happens right now with the economy but it takes time for both negative and positive results.  And with all things in life negative builds faster and larger then positive so be patient. So when the legislature and President Romney start making changes it will not show up immediately but given a couple of years I believe we will be able to see a beginning turn around in the economy, debt and opportunity in America and in the positive vision growing again in our country and the world as a whole.

Education:

Again I am confused at this being a women’s issue – seems to affect all Americans.  So here are the facts I found.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics women (all races) are the majority of the higher education degrees from Bachelor to Doctorates.  So I do not think that women are being discriminated here (maybe men are not receiving the attention they need??).  So let’s see what would the issues really be – children’s education, cost of education, availability for jobs after education …. I think that should be the main issues so let’s deal with them one at a time.

Education for children.  First item that I have seen listed is pre school education.  Statistics have proven that this is not financially feasible and provides little or no value (other then free baby-sitting).  But I think back to that parenting issue there is proof that working with your child before (and after entering school) is effective.  I am not going to quote stats for you here as there are too many conflicting issues for a definitive stat.  But I had children and was also involved with them in school and elected to the local school board so I believe I have some basis for my opinions.  First anyone who knows anything about children knows that they are all different and public schools are not real good at focusing on individual needs.  I know in working in my children’s classes and in speaking with parents while on the school board that most problem students do not have a close relationship with their parents – meaning no real involvement in their lives.  When parents expect schools to raise their children then you get exactly what is occurring.  I know from having two children (both brilliant) with one having “so-called” special education needs that if you are not involved and assertive that schools/teachers will try and intimidate and guide you as they see fit with no real regard to the actual child or their needs.  There will always be superior children that need no guidance and will achieve the top without pushing (I have one of those also) but the majority require parental guidance, caring and love.

Teachers – no matter how wonderful/caring they might be they are no replacement for parental involvement and encouragement in life.  If a person is not willing to look at raising children as a full time job (regardless of whether you also have one of those) then I would suggest that you forgo that pleasure in life.

I have met so many parents that thought they were only there to love and give children things but not be responsible for their conduct or education – they left that up to the government.  We get a large percentage of the population that expects everyone to value their feelings and make way for them due to that sort of parenting.  I could write pages on my opinion of public schools but let’s just leave it with I think standards should be high, no tolerance (but let’s not leave common sense out of this statement), enforced rules of conduct and high expectation.  Not all children will be superstars but they will or will have the best opportunity to reach their highest level with this attitude. And since I ventured into public schools from pre-school we will just skip that topic.

The cost of higher education is due to inflation (mostly caused by government).  When government gives money then costs go up, when government takes over ability to get loans and makes it more prevalent then costs go up, when unions get involved costs go up, when employees are not held to productive standards then costs go up and when class requirements for degrees include politically correct topics and unnecessary social issues then costs go up as the time involved goes up.  Suffice to say that I did not finish getting my degree but I have achieved as much or more then others with degrees.  I know as much or more then those with degrees.  I have in positions I have held had the privilege (yes that was sarcastic)/responsibility of teaching/training those that had just graduated from college.  Although I admire those who have achieved a degree and insisted that my children receive degrees I must state that I do not think that for most business areas students are taught much of value that is applicable in real life business salutations (with the exception of accounting classes).  I have often thought about going back and getting my degree but when I look at the classes I would be required to take and find out the syllabus I am sorry to say I cannot see what I would learn or be improved in other then achieving an additional certification/piece of paper.  I think that is sad in so many ways.  So with my bad attitude I avoid schools now and find it disgusting when I encounter people who feel that only those with degrees are of any value.

Democrats want to throw money at the situation and support unions.  I can assure you that no matter how many times you hear “it is for the children” – teachers unions do not care about your children!  Personal responsibility for students, families and schools are the only thing that will work.  Let me say (since one of my wonderful sons is a teacher) that teachers should and could be paid more if held to accountability standards and tenure is removed.  I have always been at a loss as to why teachers (when no other profession has this) achieve tenure.

Republicans seem to be wishy washy on this area also and always give in.  The best schools are not the ones with the most money!  Home schooling and Charter schools are achieving the best results – maybe because it involves parents who are actually concerned about their children more then the quality of schools but either way it should say something to all those out there.  There are good teachers in public schools and I am sure bad teachers in charter schools but without actual parent involvement and concern in the education process it will never change.  Keep in mind that although everyone in the country knows there is something wrong with the education system when asked parents usually exempt their personal school.  I think that demonstrates a total unawarness of what is really occurring.

Romney has stated that he believes in No Child Left Behind.  In reading his plans I think he means the standards is what he wants to follow through with.  He is working with a lot of educators and I think he is on the right track so I am willing to believe that he can affect this area.  Think about it  – what if public schools had the same requirements as private schools – do you think more of our kids would be getting better educations???  In the real world we are aware of the fact that not all people can or will achieve a high level but everyone can reach their own personal highest level with the right attitude.

Violence against Women:

Now finally a subject that I really think is a women’s issue.  I knew someone who was rapped, I knew someone who was beat up.  I am aware of many other cases.  I find it appalling that the law has not found some way to actually protect women from stalkers/ex’s when the woman has a restraining order but until something bad happens no one can help you.

You should not be surprised but I also found stats on men being beaten by women or men being beaten by male partners or women by women partners.  But again surprising these stats are small compared to that of women from men.

I find this type of violence just like pedophilia so vicious and cruel that I believe these people should not be given second chances in life and should be put away for life for the protection of the world.  I do not give them any leeway – no just “lost control of myself” or “could not control myself and if I take a anger management course life will be swell again”.  I believe that once someone crosses these lines there is no going back – some things in life should not be three strikes and you’re out but immediate punishment.  I really think if this type of attitude was adopted by society and the legal community you would see a real reduction in these types of crimes.  As everybody uses the issue of rehabilitation needs into account and defense of both of these – I personally am not willing to offer to these types of people and I believe that the stats demonstrate that these two types of crimes are majority of repeat offenders.  So stop trying to cover for them, protect them and stop trying to rehabilitate them – just protect society and put them away somewhere for the rest of their lives!

According to National Violence against Women 25% of women said they have raped or physically assaulted by a partner.  That is an outrageous percentage.  This does not include incidences outside of relationships – WOW!

Now that leads me to these so called religions that are currently politically correct and supposedly women’s groups want to protect.  When a woman is told what to wear, how to act and can be punished then there is something wrong with any society that does not call that out and on a regular basis.  There is no good to any group that sets any gender or race or any other discriminating issue apart and to be treated differently.

Female genital mutilation that is allowed around the world should be abolished and criminally punished (life sentences) for anyone involved in such a malicious act without any regard to the person the act is being performed on.

Ok I think that is enough of my anger for now.

I do not see these issues as party oriented but as legal and societal matters and if we can get around to getting over feeling sorry for perpetrators and no feelings for the victim.  Do what is right!

I found out from looking at NOW’s website that women need a specific statement in the constitution for equal rights.  I kind of thought that was in there but what do I know.  I think I have pointed out that equality is what you earn in work and it appears to exist in all the other general areas.

Now like with all things in life – people are not perfect (including women).  You will occasionally run into men that look down on women – don’t feel bad about it – I think they are very insecure and so are trying to make themselves bigger (in their own minds) by thinking that women are inferior.  Just show them up – actually generally easy to do and that is so much better then trying to correct them.

Having said the above I also think that women need to be realistic – standards for jobs should not be lowered just because you are a woman.  If a job has certain requirement then those are the requirements.  I am kind of a hard ass about these kind of things.  I think it is awful that people get old and cannot perform as well as when they were young but a business cannot function by continually making exceptions for people or groups.  Since it is obvious I deal with people in business all the time and I often work on labor projects.  I have to continually state that businesses must not consider a particular employee when determining the standards for a position/task but use the standard of the best they have ever seen for that position/task to be performed – that is the standard.  Does not mean that everyone will meet that standard everyday/every minute but if you are not achieving close to it 75/80% of the time then you cannot fulfill the job requirements.  Jobs are not made around employees/women but around the needs of the business.  Life is not fair – get over it.  Women generally (although I have encountered enough exceptions to not assume it is the rule) are not as able to perform physical requirements that men can perform (and yes there are exceptions to that so I also no that it is not a rule) so again standards must be realistic but if a few people have been able to perform them without issues then that should always be the goal.

If you assume you are a victim then you will be a victim but if you never look at yourself that way then the odds of your becoming one is less likely!

While I am on a rant let me also discuss something I have an issue with.  Harassment in the workplace.  The majority of people in the world are harmless and do not mean anything by anything they do or say.  But if you are offended by something then you need to speak up immediately.  But lets be real about this if you are the only person out of 100 people to be offended by something then I think you need to change employment or learn to suck it up.

If a man touches a woman inappropriately or makes an inappropriate statement to you then speak up to that man at the time.  I can assure that 99.9% of them will back off and change their demeanor immediately.  Let me give you an actual example – I have stated that when I was young I worked as a waitress.  I had a manager that felt the need to touch his women employees inappropriately and make proposals to them.  Most of the women felt intimidated but when he tried it with me I looked him in the eye and told him if he ever touched me again I would have his job and he would lose his wife and family when I was finished with him.  Although he did not like me after that he did not bother me either.  Now if he had been the one responsible for my being employed (as there were other managers and one higher then him) I still would have conducted myself in the same manner – I was looking for a job when I went there and knew I could get another somewhere else.  Again never choose victim status!  If all women conducted themselves in this manner then these businesses could not function with this type of individual and it would become apparent.

Anyway (and this might be a stretch) I think if presented rationally most of these issues should be agreeable to the majority of the people.  Let’s all get back to personal responsibility and not looking for a constant protector or everlasting parents to turn to .  For the record I am a woman but when it comes to issues I am an American!

And I am tired of hearing that Romney needs to present a plan for something – anything.  Go to his web site – being a businessman he has very detailed plans on a large variety of subjects along with all the names of people who are his advisors in these areas.  I don’t thing there has ever been a politician that has put out such detailed information on his ideas and beliefs.  So do your research and I know that you will find as much to support in Romney then any recent candidate that we have had!

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, GOP, Government is corrupt, Individualism, Mitt Romney, Obama, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Popular Culture, Unions, Welfare

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

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

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

Why?

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

What did he say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments

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

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

Chris Matthews had an interesting quote…

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Leave a comment

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

Happy Valentine’s Day (Movies and Mitt)

For Valentine’s I of course had blogs here, here, here and here on Romantic movies and couples…

…and it appears Mitt Romney sent a love letter to capitalists.  (Be sure to send this to everyone you know in Michigan)…

oh and Happy Birthday Arizona.  100 years old today!  The last of the 48 contiguous states to enter the union, and what is apparently now the front line in the defense against illegal immigration (as demonstrated by Obama leading both a legal war against us in the courts, and a covert war against us by arming the cartels).

Leave a comment

Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Movies, Valentine's Day

It’s story time…the story of the conservative who was called a liberal

It’s the tale of a former governor of what is possibly the most liberal state in the union. Let’s call him R. Early in life R was a big supporter of the most liberal president in history. Before R ran for president his only political position had been this governorship. Both times he ran against opposition in the primary his opponents chided for having only been the governor of a liberal state. But before R had been governor he had been the president of one of the largest private organizations in the country, having a stake in the one of the largest industries in the world. What did he do during this time? R made some deals that cost people a lot of money…and to this day he is hated for those choices…but his actions guaranteed people in the industry income for generations to come whereas only worrying about the immediate needs would have cost the future the wealth that was to come.*

As governor R did some things that conservatives didn’t like. He signed a bill that restricted unlimited gun rights. He singed a liberal bill about healthcare and abortion but later said he would not have signed it and was later firmly pro-life. R was a strong defender of the environment…He was also extremely tough on crime, but R’s pseudo-conservative foes really didn’t acknowledge this point.

As chief executive R tried to always be a fiscal conservative…but he had a problem. Liberals and a few RINOs controlled both houses of the legislature. And they wanted to some really liberal things. But he had things that he knew needed to be done. He knew he could fight the liberals tooth and nail on all their entitlement projects, or he could cut deals, he could soften the blows the liberals planned to the economy where he could and get conservative necessities in exchange for liberal pet projects. When he couldn’t cross certain lines he would just veto what he had to. Newt Gingrich as always called his plans foolish, suggested preposterous ideas that would never work and only end in failure…and when he couldn’t get what he wanted Newt, backstabber he is, just insulted our conservative.

The first time R ran for the presidency he lost to the establishment candidate. A weak willed RINO who questioned our conservative governor’s conservative credentials on every point. This allowed his critics, the second time he ran to claim that his economic ideas were either foolish or weren’t truly conservative…ignoring the fact that his opposition has supported big government programs for their entire lives.

But you know what happened. Conservatives forgave R his deals with liberals because they saw he was doing the best he could with the legislature he had. They not only forgave him…they all but anointed him a saint.

….oh wait…who did you think I was talking about? Romney? No, I was talking about Ronald Reagan.

Because the fact of the matter is there are some similarities. I’m not claiming that Romney is “The Great Communicator,” that he is not. Nor do I think he is as good a Reagan in a lot of ways…who is. But what I want to talk about here is the way we conservatives are holding a double standard.

Reagan allowed massive increases not just in spending but in deficit spending on entitlement programs because it was the only way he could get what he needed for his primary goal: the destruction of the Soviet Union. He even raised taxes a little after his initial tax cut. And there are a thousand other little deals he cut with the Democrat Congress that would usually be called anathema to Republicans if it weren’t for the fact that we understood there was a point and reason for doing those things. We saw the forest from the trees. We saw where his hands were tied and granted that given the situation he did the best he could and forgive him the liberal deals he cut because they served a greater good. And when liberals bitch about his deficit spending we rightly point out it was their Democratic House which did all the spending.

Now if you applied the same logic to Romney you look at it and say: Yes he created a mandate for health insurance in Massachusetts, but that was certainly better than putting everyone under government run healthcare and destroying the private sector in Massachusetts as the liberal legislature wanted to originally do. It was certainly more conservative, it was certainly more free market oriented. Had he gone to the mat and stood only for the free market he would have lost and you would have socialized medicine in Massachusetts that would make you yearn for the Canadian system. Was it perfect? No. Was it more free market than what the left wanted? Yes. What are the worst aspects of “Romneycare”? The parts that Romney either vetoed and was overridden by the Massachusetts legislature or the parts that the liberals put in after Romney left. (If we’re going to hold people responsible for legislation passed after their term in office, then Reagan is responsible for Obamacare, FDR and LBJ are responsible for welfare reform, and Lincoln is responsible for Jim Crow laws…wait that doesn’t sound right…yet somehow that’s the argument against Romney). Ann Coulter pointed this out.

Or perhaps you want to hit Romney for his indexing the minimum wage in the commonwealth to the inflation rate. Yes, let’s ignore that the liberals wanted it to outpace the inflation rate (i.e. create an economic apocalypse). Yes he should have fought against the highly liberal legislature who would usually override his vetoes (for instance he vetoed 250 bills one year, all of them were overridden ) or he could suggest something he could sell that wouldn’t completely destroy the economy. Yeah I can see how going to the mat would be the better call there. And recently he said his “thoughts” on the minimum wage “haven’t changed”…hmmm, he didn’t say he was going to raise it, only that his thoughts haven’t changed…to me that’s political speak for “I’m not going to say something that is going to get me in ever more trouble, but I’m not going to lie.” His thoughts could be that he would like to cut, he’s never said, we only know that his actions opposed letting it go higher than the inflation rate. How terrible.

Everything Romney did in Massachusetts was designed to be more businesses like, more conservative, more capitalistic than what the liberal legislature wanted…but still pragmatic enough to get passed because he knew if he fought the good fight then the liberals would just override his veto and get what they wanted.

We have always forgiven Reagan his liberal trespasses because we knew it was the best he could do. It is the most hypocritical double standard to say that Reagan’s best when cutting deals with liberals was fine…but Romney’s is not.

You can either accept that Reagan is a conservative and thus Romney is too. Or you can condemn Romney, which means you must condemn Reagan as well…and if you condemn Reagan then get the hell out of this party.

*[He unpopularly cut a deal with the studios that said actors would not get paid royalties on movies they did not have royalty guarantees on, but guaranteed that all actors would get residuals on all movies, TVs shows or other forms of cinema that were ever made after that deal.]

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes

Prelude of things to come…

Working on full blog on why anyone who critiques Mitt Romney of this quote is an idiot, but if I hear one more idiot misquote this I’m probably going to be charged with assault.  Here is the full quote:

I’m in the race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America. The 90, 95% of Americans who right now are struggling. I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.
HOST:[…] You just said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’ And I think there are a lot of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. Can you explain that?
ROMNEY:Well you have to finish the sentence. I said I’m not concerned with the very poor who have a safety net and if it has holes in it I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans—retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready for college—these are the people most badly hurt by the Obama years.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Evils of Liberalism, Mitt Romney, Occupy Wall Street, Tyranny, Welfare

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

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…(Why is Newt in this party?)

“Look I think there are a whole bunch of folks who represent the old order; they attacked Ronald Reagan in 1980 exactly the same way. They are looking at a national poll that shows me ahead of Romney 52-39 in a two way race and they are recognizing that if I come back as president, that I will be for very dramatic, very bold change and they are terrified. I have no interest in what Tom Delay did that got him in trouble. I thought it was wrong and a mistake, I have a very different approach to that and I have no Idea what motivates Ann Coulter but I find that she is all over the map. Basically she is for Romney and therefore anything she says about me is a reflection of the fact that she is for Romney. I expect people who are for Romney to attack me because they are terrified because he is losing.”

So every real conservative is part of the old guard and you’re the new, is that it Newt?  Would your new wing be the one for massive spending as you have literally promised the moon and every other hand out you can think of.  Would it be for global warming and helping your friend Nancy Pelosi (whom you cosponsored 481 bills with) imposed psycho global warming mania?  Would this new wing be against Paul Ryan’s “right wing social engineering” which the rest of us call basic math.  Would Newt party be for attacking capitalists for success in some kind of sick Atlas Shrugged reenactment as you seem to have started with attacking Romney’s work at Bain?  If so, I think I have a great name for your new party Newt…it’s called Democrat.

I love that he says Ann Coulter is all over the map on motivations….pot, kettle anyone?

And you have to love him critiquing the ethics of Tom Delay.  But remember if we critique his ethics or ask what was in his ethics charge we’re just unjustified and part of the old guard.

But what is the old guard.  Well if we use Ann as an example.  Ann sits on the advisory board of GOProud …and let me tell you when I think “old guard of the GOP”,  I think GOProud.  And when I think new guard I think of course of the highest Republican in the party who had to leave a decade ago because while he could get us into office he couldn’t seem to do much when there.  Yes let’s try that vastly new way of doing things that we’ve never tried before.

Oh and how about this for the new Newt (there are more versions of Newt than there are cherry picked statements from Romney which try to make him look like a flip-flopper…)

“The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.”

I don’t know if the outright attack on homosexuality (not just a principled argument against changing the laws about marriage, but a full on attack of homosexuality) or the implied attack on my religious beliefs offends me more.  But no matter how you look at it…there is on older guard than this 68 year old former head of the party when it failed to do what it promised to do in the 1990’s.  You know what is bigger “violation of civilization” than homosexuality or paganism?  How about adultery or failure to keep up your end of a contract.

Oh by the way, Newt…the polls are not showing Romney loosing…so who is the one who is afraid?

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Election 2012, GOP, Stupid liberal quote of the day