ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 Updated

The Romney campaign has announced that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is their choice for Vice President.  Needless to say, Ryan will be demonized in the press lickety-split - in fact, the demonization has already begun.  Prepare for those throwing grandma off the cliff videos to really ratchet up.  The press is already talking about what a bad choice he is - pray tell, which candidate would be a good choice in their opinion?  Before anyone takes their advice, let's remember that they hailed Joe Biden's nomination as a brilliant choice because of his "foreign policy expertise".  What a joke.

I have to be honest.  I was really hoping Ryan would be the pick.  Those on the left (and some on the right) say that he will tie Romney to the Ryan plan, which they have been demonizing for more than a year now.  Honestly, if you think they weren't planning on demonizing Romney for his support of the Ryan plan anyway, you just haven't been paying attention.   So if he's going to be demonized anyway, why not have the architect of the plan out on the campaign trail explaining it and selling it?  And when given a chance, he really can sell it:


If the Ryan plan is the basis for Romney's economic policy, why not own it?   The man is great with Q&A - calm, collected, to the point, and always with a smile on his face and pleasant demeanor, so a series of town hall-style rallies with audience questions about the economy and jobs would play well against the absolute lack of interaction between President Obama and regular citizens as well as his arrogant, patronizing delivery.  Ryan could have real interaction with the people on a one-on-one level - a genuine conversation about the things that really matter.  Ryan's assumption that the American people are smart enough to understand the crises facing us and mature enough to tackle them is refreshing in comparison to Obama's approach that Americans are just not up to the task of either understanding his brilliance or making decisions on even the most personal or important of matters.

Many on the right have argued that Ryan is needed in the House, chairing the budget committee.  I disagree.  His plan has already passed the House.  It is stuck in the Senate, collecting dust.  As the President of the Senate, he would be able to work closely with the leadership of both parties to work some variation of his plan through to passage.

Ryan is the wonkiest economy wonk in Congress today.  The man really knows his stuff (love the look on Obama's face as Ryan tears down the fraud that is Obamacare piece by scammy piece):



The tea partiers in my acquaintance are very happy with the pick, with many of them saying they now have a reason to vote for Romney.  The energy and excitement today is palpable.  The left are, predictably, saying his nomination just handed to the victory to Obama/Biden, namely because they presume this pick will alienate the crucial senior vote because of his alleged "gutting" of Medicare.  The problem for them is that seniors have lots of time on their hands to check out the facts behind those 'throw grandma off the cliff' ads and as a result, his popularity among seniors is actually higher than the general population because they understand the changes won't affect them but will ensure the social safety net for generations to come.  He is viewed favorably by a majority of seniors - 52%, while only 29% view him unfavorably.  The remainder have no opinion of him as of yet. In the general population his favorable/unfavorable stands at 39/25, with 35% having no opinion. 

There will be a race on over the next week to try to introduce him to those not yet familiar, and the question will be who has done a better job of it: Team Romney, who will paint him as a down-to-earth grassroots conservative who wants a return to founding principles or Team Obama, who will of course try to paint him as dangerous, evil, stupid and crazy, just like they do with every other conservative.  Oh, and we can't forget extreme!  Yawn.  And, of course, the media will attempt to lampoon him by making him either Frodo Baggins or Eddie Munster in Saturday Night Live and the late night shows (unless his alleged six-pack abs win over the shallow set).  My money's on Eddie, which actually isn't a bad thing.  After all, wasn't he the smart, semi-normal one amongst the crazies of the house (well, aside from Marilyn)?  Actually, there's a pretty good skit in there - Joe Biden is a natural as Herman Munster!  As for Frodo, wasn't he the brave leader who rose to the challenge at a time of dire changes to his world? 
Ryan may be a mild-mannered, happy warrior, but don't let that fool you.  He can do far more damage with his cheerfully delivered, pro-America, pro-growth facts than Gov. Christie can do with his sharp tongue and in-your-face attitude.  It's better to leave the sharp elbows to surrogates, freeing the candidates to focus on policy.

Kudos to team Romney for going bold and choosing the best person out there to help lay out the Romney path to prosperity!  I'd say I can't wait to see him debate Biden, but it might be a bit painful to see a sitting VP so heavily outmatched.  Honestly, I'd rather see him debate Obama himself.  Now that would be fun!


UPDATE:  Uh-oh!

Read more...

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 Updated

ATTACK OF THE DEBT TERRORISTS

The best way to defang a verbal attack is to own the label being applied.  The past few weeks have shown that the newest label for Tea Partiers is "terrorist".  Perhaps it's because the accusing liberals are struck with fear every time they realize the Tea Partiers really were elected with a mandate, refuse to back down and actually gain strength by standing strong against politics as usual.  Perhaps it's just political hackery at it's most base.  But when even the Vice President is using the smear (a charge he has since denied), you know it's gone mainstream.   Go figure - the tea party movement is all about defusing the debt bomb progressives from both parties have spent decades building, but they are the terrorists.  Huh. 

So I have a suggestion. For all you tea partiers who are offended by the slur (as was I at first), rethink your offense. Let's take it and make it work for us. They want to call us terrorists?  Well, okay.  Let's take a look at the movement first, and what motivated it on it's current...well, for want of a better word, jihad.  It really has its roots in the Bush administration, specifically those who voted out republicans in 2006 due to their RINO tendency to spend like a debutant with daddy's credit card.  The grumbling grew in the summer of 2008 when the TARP scheme was hatched and ushered in the age of Obama.  The movement really exploded in 2009 in the run-up to the passage of the failed nearly trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill and has established itself as a fiscal conservative David battling the Goliath of tax and spend Washington.  They dealt the beast quite a blow last November and gained some power as a result.  The victims of the Tea Party onslaught were strewn across both sides of the aisle then; the only common thread being their profligate, politics-as-usual ways. 

It might help to swallow the bitter pill of the terrorist label to know that you are, actually, in excellent company. 

The newly minted "Debt Terrorists" should release their manifesto:

Be warned, all you big spenders on Capitol Hill, your days are numbered. The agenda is clear. There will be no stopping until these demands are met:

1) Cut spending on a deep, meaningful, long term level

2) Cap spending levels by tying them to GDP

3) Balanced Budget Amendment

4) Reform Social Security (a good place to start is means testing)

5) Reform Medicare (means test here, too)

6) Repeal of the economy killing ObamaCare legislation

7) Rein in the out of control EPA and NLRB

8) Revamp tax code - lower it, flatten it out and get rid of the loopholes

If you do not give in to these demands, you will be replaced with someone who will in the next election.  If you think we're not as good as our word, consider the sixty-three who didn't come back in 2010.  We mean business.

Please note "create jobs" is not on the list. Why?  Because government doesn't create jobs it only creates the conditions to create jobs, that's why. But if the things on that list are done, jobs will follow.

If that is what the left calls "terrorism" these days, then terrorists we are. And if part of the jihad is having to stomp on Harry, Barry and Nancy's toes to get them to open their mouths and take the medicine We the People voted for last year, well so be it. 

The debt jihad has begun.

Read more...

ATTACK OF THE DEBT TERRORISTS

PROJECTING FAILURE

The latest meme by the administration, which has officially hit the echo chamber that is the neo-pravda media, is an attempt to paint the tea party and conservatives as 'radicals'.  I'll give you a minute to stop laughing....

Yes, the administration that brought us communist Van Jones, Mao lover Anita Dunn, Ecoscience author John Holdren, and 'fisting' fan/NAMBLA supporter Kevin Jennings are pointing the finger of radicalism at the tea parties. 

It's called 'projection'.

I honestly never thought I would see the day when groups of americans gathering together to show their love and support for their country and demand a return to the observance of our founding documents would be called radical, while those who support marxist ideals, the welfare state and global governance are being portrayed as mainstream.  They assert that the call to "Take our country back" is some sort of attempt at a radical overthrow of the administration.  They miss the point entirely.  It is about taking our country back to it's constitutional roots; taking it back to the system that made it great, before it was perverted by the welfare state and yes, to a certain extent, taking it back from the career politicians on both sides of the aisle that have exploited and perverted the system. 

This latest attempt to control and distort the debate is about as transparent as saran wrap.  They cannot run on Obamacare.  they cannot run on the so-called 'recovery summer'.  They cannot run on any of their legislative wins, because of how unpopular they are.  All that is left is demonization of their favorite target, the tea party.  They are preaching to the choir on this one, attempting to motivate their base. Unfortunately, their base seems rather lethargic.  Instead, what they are doing is motivating the so-called radicals they are busy slandering. 

When in heaven's name did it become sound political strategy to demonize a large portion of the voting public?  How can this possibly work in their favor?  Not only did they misread their mandate in 2008, but now they are miscounting their base.  They seem to think that the 53% that Obama won by in 2008 is their new base.  In reality, only about 20% of americans consider themselves democrat/liberal/progressive.  About 40% self identify as conservative/republican, with 36% being fluid, identifying with neither party. 

There is a good chance that they will succeed in stimulating their base with all of the radical rhetoric they are spewing, but this level of discourse has traditionally been rather off-putting for moderates.  This is why most campaigns wait until the final weeks to sling mud.  This election season, there has been no attempt to debate the issues; mud slinging has gone from being the last-ditch 'nuclear option' to the only option for endangered democrats.  While this new tactic might just motivate their base, the demonization merely strengthens the resolve of conservatives to get out and vote.  This will backfire on them, simply because conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2-1 margin.  Add in the disillusioned moderates and the moderates who were on the fence but have been turned off by the negativity, and it's not a pretty picture for democrats.

Bottom line: is it really worth rallying 20% when it also means you will be alienating and energizing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60+% in opposition?  I'm no politician, but the logic seems a little...off. 

But, then again, this administration isn't really known for it's math skills.

Read more...

PROJECTING FAILURE