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

TAKING A GAMBLE

President Obama's campaign has rolled out yet another new campaign slogan on his new bus tour across the swing states of America.  Nice touch, by the way, doing a tour to illustrate Obama's focus on American jobs (as opposed to Romney's illusory outsourcing) with a tour bus made in Canada.  One can only imagine how hilarious that would be, if only it was George W. Bush at the wheel.  Anyhoo, once again the President's brain stormers fall a bit short with the new campaign slogan:

"Betting on America".

Hmmmm....Is it really a good idea to encourage a mental link between the president, his agenda and gambling?


It is, of course, meant to give a sense of optimism; a feeling that ultimately America will live up to the president's vision  The problem is, the American people are somewhat less than optimistic these days, and aren't necessarily interested in the America that is being envisioned for them. 

The most glaring problem is that references to betting tend to bring to mind things like, say, the money gambled on Solyndra, Abound Solar, and many other "green" companies the Speculator-in-Chief bet taxpayer money on and lost.  Instead of seeing the obvious - that the technology is not fully developed and (or should I say, because) the market isn't ready yet - he instead presses for further "investment" in green companies.  After all, it's not like he's gambling with his own money, right? (and when he runs out of taxpayer chips, surely pit boss Hu will be happy to loan him another stack)

On a side note, that popular talking point about oil companies getting subsidies, so it's only "fair" (how I've come to hate that word) that green companies should too is complete bull.  Oil companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies.  They receive tax deductions, and that is a different animal entirely.  The former requires the government to pay large (sometimes downright enormous) sums of taxpayer money to companies in order to fuel research and development.  The latter allows companies to write off some of their costs, such as R&D, so they can retain more of their earnings to reinvest in the company and it's workforce, forking over less to Uncle Sam.  Big difference.

References to placing bets may also make one think of the doubling down that has been done over the past few years by the gamblin' man with the keynesian plan.  From the contraception "compromise" that is merely a one-year extension before the church must put aside their fundamental principles and join the collective to the repeated demands for more stimulus, it's been all about ignoring the critics, ignoring the people, ignoring the constitution, even ignoring common sense and sticking with his favorite theories.   Freedom OF religion has become freedom FROM religion, so any infringement upon the church is now perversely perceived as a win for individual liberty. Granting a one-year waiver is not a compromise, it's a demand for compliance - just at a later date.  As for the new calls for stimulus, he can call it a jobs bill all he wants, but it sure as heck sounds like a smaller version of Porkulus - the original "jobs" bill that has resulted in 8.2% unemployment two years after it was passed.  And here we are again, with Mr. Bigstuff looking to buy friends and peddle influence with another hand-out to help profligate states pay for teachers, police and firefighters.  But hey, we'll win next time, honest - our luck's just got to change!  The problem isn't the policy, we just didn't bet enough! 

That word, "Betting", might even bring to mind the shady numbers racket the media has been trying to swindle the American public with - from bogus polls to deceptive editing - in order to make the case for another term for the First Bookie.  Speaking of working the numbers, did the president really think that the American public would buy that ridiculous, obscure left-wing blog post about Obama being the most frugal president since Eisenhower?  Yeah, right.  The largest deficit under Bush was $458 billion, the smallest under Obama has been $1.2 trillion.  But he's frugal, whereas Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic.  Uh-huh.

It seems the overarching plea of the Obama campaign is for people to take a chance on him, once again.  Let it ride, America, our luck will turn!

Perhaps on some deeper level, even Team Obama knows their failed and yet unaltered agenda is, at best, a crap shoot.

Read more...

TAKING A GAMBLE

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL

The Rand Paul tempest in a teapot that has been unfolding for the past week has been a case study in how to sabotage a perfectly good, potentially highly successful campaign.  A textbook case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, if you will.  It's also a perfect example of the pointless depths the media will sink to in order to control the debate.  Paul's commendable attempt at being open and transparent in his views seems to have backfired on him.

Mr. Paul won his primary by a landslide, there is no denying that.  As of last Thursday, he was leading his democrat rival for the Kentucky Senate seat by a 25 point margin.  He seemed to be a shoo-in for the seat come November.  Even better, he was chosen over a GOP sponsored pick by the Tea Party, giving them some real electoral muscle and sending a message to the establishment that the run-of-the-mill candidates just weren't up to snuff.

Mr. Paul, and the Tea Party by extension, was flying high after the election.  But then he went on MSNBC and did an interview with Rachel Maddow.  Ms. Maddow went after Paul over a video interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal back in April (skip to the 59 minute mark for his comments).  In the interview, Paul was asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Suddenly, with a single question, this incredibly promising candidate is battling for his political life. 

How this issue is pertinent to what is going on the country today is anyone's guess, but they sure did strike gold, didn't they?

Let's just try to put his comments in context - something the left is always clamoring for - before we continue.  He told Maddow (and the Courier-Journal) that he would have tried to change the legislation.  NOT that he would have voted against it, attempted to filibuster it or try to repeal it.   His problem with the legislation was that the corrective behavior on this issue, solely at the private level, should have been consumer based, not federal intervention.  Economic pressure to bring about change, not governmental mandates. Those businesses that continued to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin should have been boycotted by their customers until they changed their ways.  It goes to the heart of the debate over how much the federal government should be allowed to intervene in our lives.

Maddow's attempts to say that he somehow condoned the violence of the era was ridiculous, but it is also pertinent to Paul's opinion.  Yes, people were beaten for sitting at a lunch counter.  The reason this happened was because of institutional racism in the form of Jim Crow laws.  Police were not required to intervene in these cases, and when they did, it was in support of the businesses in question. After all, the people who were originally in violation of the law were the protesters, who, by law, could not sit at the counter.  Making the black community equal in the eyes of the law was necessary to stop the beatings Maddow was so focused on.  Ms. Maddow seems to have amnesia as to the role the police, state and local officials had in segregation.  Certainly there were business owners who thought the Jim Crow laws were perfectly proper and fitting.  No doubt there were also those who did not, but they were helpless to do anything about it because of the laws protecting such reprehensible actions. 

What Mr. Paul advocated was removing the biased laws and allowing human decency to do the rest.  The problem with the left is, they don't give people the chance to do what is right.  They feel people must be taken by the hand and "guided" down the proper path.  And let's not forget that it was democrats (the "Redeemers") who ran the South and enacted the Jim Crow laws. 

Boiled down, he feels that institutions do not have the right to be racist or biased, but people do. 

This is about more than just the Civil Right Act, though.  Ms. Maddow had an agenda for that interview - corner Paul and paint him as a racist.  This is classic Alinsky Rule #13 - 'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.' What better way to do that than imply that he is racist?  It's the indefensible accusation, after all.  Haven't we all learned over the past two years that that's what it's really all about with these people?  Bring it back to racism, because once they manage to label you that way, you will always be fighting it.  You have to give her credit - she's certainly tenacious.  She even managed, at the end of the interview, to add this little gem:

Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States Senate in Kentucky, where he'll be representing not only his own views about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America....

That's the sum-up of the whole exercise - the big, flashing 'danger' sign the liberal media is desperate to illuminate - be careful, you idiot voters, this racist guy will be single-handedly deciding our laws if he gets in office.  The possibility that the man could or would force a repeal of the '64 Act is laughable, but what else do they have, really?  As Alinsky says, the ends justify the means.  Add in the old adage "Desperate times call for desperate measures" and you have the current liberal attack formula.

Let's not forget that Mr. Paul is a libertarian at heart.  The reason the Tea Party embraced him was because of his inherent distrust of federal intervention.  This is often a problem with the libertarian viewpoint.  It sometimes runs the risk of being taken to the extreme - borderline anarchy - or is perceived that way.  Those views, in this climate of a hyper-nanny state, are total apostasy.

On one hand, Mr. Paul makes sense - desegregating public buildings, institutions and programs is certainly within the milieu of the federal government, but forcing a private business owner to serve people is not.  And no, I do not think that businesses should not serve people because of the color of their skin - but I do think they have a right to withhold service, no matter how reprehensible their reason for it may be.  But that is easily countered, because it is also MY right to take my business to someone who doesn't espouse those policies.  Which is Mr. Paul's point.   The problem with Paul's rationale is that, in a society where racism was the norm and had been for generations, would anyone have boycotted the places that refused to serve the black community?   In a perfect world, we would all hope that basic human decency would win out over something as appalling as racial segregation, but, unfortunately, the Deep South in the 1960's was anything but perfect. 

In the meantime, Mr. Paul has inadvertently created a media feeding frenzy.  After all, nothing says "racist" like someone who doesn't agree with the Civil Rights Act!  This is really a twofer for the liberal media.  Not only do they get a golden opportunity to sink a republican senatorial campaign, but they also get to take the tea parties down a notch, too.  No wonder the media has been semi-orgasmic in their coverage of the "controversy".

They are using fear to sink a very popular candidate - as if there have ever or will ever be any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights Act.  Puhleeze.  This also has the bonus of sucking the air out of the room and leaving no space to talk about other things, like the administration's lack of response to the Gulf oil spill, government unions' role in the collapse of the European union, the rank hypocrisy of our president signing a freedom of press act ten months into a moratorium on press conferences on his part, unemployment back up to 9.9%,  the stock market's most recent roller-coaster impersonation, or the president's outright demagoguery of the Arizona immigration bill.

Who really knows how damaging this will be to Paul come November?  The Courier-Journal most certainly is working this angle as much as possible, as is most of the left-wing neo-pravda media.  They are happy to paint Paul as a racist by implication and spread the fear to Kentucky's black community that if he is voted into office, there is a chance segregation will take hold again.  It is fear baiting at it's most crass.

That Mr. Paul didn't see this coming when he was talking about a 46 year old law that has no relevance in today's politics is worrying.  This is settled law that had no pertinence to the current debate, and bringing it up should have set off some alarm bells for him.  A more savvy politician would have seen the trap for what it was, especially coming from far-left media like the Courier-Journal and MSNBC.  Of course, the main reason he gained the Tea Party endorsement was because he wasn't an entrenched, career politician who parses everything he says and makes no stands on any issues, relevant or not.  He is a principled man who doesn't pull his punches.  Perhaps he has learned from this episode that politics is a contact sport, and, as with all contact sports, strategy is required.  Sometimes that means pulling a punch or two to save your energy for the real battles.

Read more...

IN DEFENSE OF RAND PAUL

THE FIRST CASUALTY HAS SUCCUMBED

Well, Patriots, our first official ballot box victory has been entered into the books.  Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W-VA) has lost his primary.  Yup, the guy couldn't even get out of the gate.  Good job, W. Virginia voters!  All other Democrat defeats were lost in special elections.  This is the first primary loss for the November regular elections. With any luck, Benedict Arlen Specter will be next to suffer a primary defeat. 

Mollohan was defeated by state Sen. Mike Oliverio, who campaigned against Mollohan's Obamacare vote and some ethics questions that still hang over Mollohan's head from 2006.  An investigation was opened due to rapidly increasing wealth and questionable non-profits he was creating and funneling money to.   He stepped down from a few committees, but no findings were ever released.  Of course not - Nancy Pelosi took over and buried it.  Can't risk losing a seat, can we, Nan?  Mollohan views it as a victory, naturally. 

What do you think the odds are that this will finally wake the democrats up to what is happening?  MSNBC is already trying to blame Mollohan for running a bad campaign.  That's right, guys, you keep telling yourselves it is just a poorly run campaign:

Mollohan was first elected in 1982. He ran a relatively lethargic campaign until recent weeks, when he began airing TV ads calling Oliverio dangerously conservative and bad for business and labor.

Let's see, he's a 28 year incumbent, had the hubris to think that he didn't need to participate in something as lowly as a primary, probably didn't kick it into gear until after his numbers started to plummit, never bothered to explain his positions or views and went instead directly to the smear campaign.  Not to mention that right now, "dangerously conservative" just doesn't seem all that scary.  Actually...has it ever?  And, for the coup de gras, he invoked "labor".  Too bad he doesn't realize that only place unions seem welcome these days is in the halls of Congress.  Maybe you should have come home for your last few recesses, Congressman, and listened instead of lectured.

Perhaps this will finally get the message through that even fellow democrats are ticked off.  One wonders how many of those Tea Party democrats are behind this.  More than Mollohan and Congressional Dems expected, no doubt.

One corruptocrat down, forty or so to go!

Read more...

THE FIRST CASUALTY HAS SUCCUMBED