Tag Archives: romney

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

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

Newt shows he knows nothing about history

Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.

Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history.  Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:

“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”

The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford.  And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan.  So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.

Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS.  And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics

Learning from the past…

Six years ago, 2006, if you had asked me who I wanted for President my smartass answer would probably have been “Anyone but Hillary.”  Because why would I want a left-leaning pragmatist without a shred of moral or political principles running the country.  Yes I wanted Rudy, but I would have said I would be willing to take a lot of second tier alternatives.

Then a funny thing happened.  A Democratic challenger arose who was not a pragmatist with many left-leaning tendencies but a full blown socialist who was a true believer in the Marxist trash he was peddling…and Hillary started to look pretty good…but what did I have to worry about, I mean usually I vote Republican and I’ll be able to do that this time.  Oh wait.  Then the GOP in its usual level of “let’s-snatch-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory” stupidity nominated John McCain.  A corrupt liberal who sides with Democrats at the drop of a hat, desperate to get the approval of the mainstream media, who has declared war on the First Amendment before he ran for president through McCain-Feingold, (who through his recent defense of NDAA has declared war on the entire bill of rights), and let us not forget both in the past and present will never miss a chance to sell out our troops and condemn them (given this most recent betrayal of the armed services and NDAA I can say without a moment’s hesitation the world would be a better place if we had just left him to rot in that hole in North Vietnam).  In short I really hate John McCain (almost as much as I hate his pick for VP, who is also a completely unprincipled excuse for a human pretending to be a conservative).

And as the primary was ending in 2008 I was really hoping I could vote for Hillary.  She was a pragmatist which made her better than GOP tweedle-dumb and Democrat tweedle-dumber.  Sadly the Democrats disappointed me as much as the GOP.  I did a write in for Rudy because it would be a cold day in hell before I voted for either of those unprincipled SOB’s.

Did I learn then?  Not really.  Because I then spent the next four years saying “Anyone but Romney.”  Why because he hadn’t expressed his ideas well in his faceoff with McCain and his record as Governor of Massachusetts didn’t speak well for him.  And because I didn’t think it could really get worse than a weak conservative.  Dear God was I wrong again.

Yes I had the hope of Rudy (dashed) and the possibility of a real conservative, Bachman (also dashed) going for a few months.  And very, very sadly the GOP field offered very few options.  I’m not going to talk about the ones who have already left, why bother, but right now my choices other than Mitt comes down to Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul.  Gingrich is a man who is showing himself to have the emotional control of a 2 year old and who by attacking Romney’s career in the private sector is showing that he doesn’t know a thing about economics and business.  Clearly not a good leader or a good conservative.  Santorum, a religious loon who doesn’t respect individualism, so how can he possibly respect capitalism or the free market, who wants to institute some kind of Christian Sharia.   And while Ron Paul sounds like he understands economics, his actions show him to be a terrible leader and terrible person, and he knows less than nothing about foreign policy (or ethics)…and I’m actually now convinced that the U.S. would be worse off after 4 years of Paul than it would after 4 more years of Obama (not that either version wouldn’t involved America in a smoldering pile of rubble).

So I have gone from “anyone but Romney” to Romney has my vote.”  And I will never be saying “Any but ______” again.  But, I will admit that the Romney I was so opposed to isn’t the Romney I’m now seeing.

Yeah, I want the 2nd coming of Reagan.  But I’m not getting it this time round.  Do I still have my concerns about Mitt?  Yeah.  I do.  But the fact is that he is talking about different things than he did before…if Bain Capital had been more in the forefront last time I might have actually been able to get behind him, it shows he actually knows how to be a leader and knows what makes the economy run.  Also he now seems to be backing off some of the things in did in Massachusetts with an argument that boils down to “you try to do better with the liberal legislature I had to deal with.”  I feel that if we just keep the House, take the Senate and get more Tea Party blood in both we’ll be fine with Romney.

Oh if he had spoken 4 years ago like he did after the New Hampshire win, I would definitely have backed him 4 years ago.  Take a look.

“What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better”

A little vague, but he certainly understands America in this vague statement better than anything Obama (who only speaks in vague generalities “We are the ones we have been waiting for”)

“President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.”

He clearly understands that free enterprise is what is going to get us out of our mess and that his opponents are more RINO than he will ever be for critiquing his acts at Bain.

“Make no mistake, in this campaign, I will offer the American ideals of economic freedom a clear and unapologetic defense.”

The only thing that could make me love this statement more is seeing him back it up, which I actually think he will.

“President Obama wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great

You know, like freedom that thing Obama and Santorum are so opposed to.  And being the shining city on a hill a concept that an evil little troll like Paul will never understand.

And then of course there is this…I have no complaints about any of this.  I am hoping that we are now seeing the real Romney, free of advisors telling him to play the moderate, in action.

“Our campaign is about more than replacing a president; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

“He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.

“This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.

“This president puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.

“He is making the federal government bigger, burdensome, and bloated. I will make it simpler, smaller, and smarter.

“He raised the national debt. I will cut, cap, and balance the budget.

“He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them.

“He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it.

“He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it.

“When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as president will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.

“Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.

“He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.

“He chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends.

“He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

“Our plans protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.

“The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I’m not your president. You have that president today.

“But if you want to make this election about restoring American greatness, then I hope you will join us.

“If you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not our destiny, then I am asking for your vote.

“I’m asking each of you to remember how special it is to be an American.

“I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline.

“I want you to remember when you spent more time dreaming about where to send your kids to college than wondering how to make it to the next paycheck.

“I want you to remember when you weren’t afraid to look at your retirement savings or the price at the pump.

“I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become.

“That America is still out there. We still believe in that America.

“We still believe in the America that is a land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom. We believe in the America that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves.

“This election, let’s fight for the America we love. We believe in America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Obama, politics

Stupid liberal (and childish) quote of the day


“One of my goals is to keep Romney from being in a position to rush the nomination. The longer this goes on the more clearer it is how unconservative his record is.”
Does Gingrich consider himself a “Reagan conservative”? Global warming, federal mandated health care, voting for the creation of the Department of Education, no understanding whatsoever of how business works (see his near socialist statement from Saturday’s debate). Oh and dare we forget that him hitting Romney right now is a complete violation of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow Republican.” The fact is that, sadly, on almost any economic issue I can think of is that Newt is far more liberal than Romney. I have my issues with some of Romney’s record, but this is nothing compared to the issues I have with Newt’s embrace of always stabbing conservative principles in the back.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, GOP, Problems with the GOP, Stupid liberal quote of the day