It's not an official endorsement as Sarah Palin said she would vote for Newt "to keep this thing going" but it is probably good enough for a lot of people. Sarah Palin still has a lot of influence amongst the grassroots of the party and this will hopefully help Newt win in South Carolina.
(h/t Legal Insurrection)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
How Would Newt Deal with America's Enemies? Kill Them
I could probably post several of Newt's responses from the Myrtle Beach debate, they were really that good. Below is his great response to a question on whether he would risk relations with Pakistan in order to kill terrorists:
Personally, I am also partial to urinating on the corpses afterward. But that could just be me and a few Marines.
Personally, I am also partial to urinating on the corpses afterward. But that could just be me and a few Marines.
It is Time For Perry to Quit
Just as Jon Huntsman saw the writing on the wall, I think it is finally time for Rick Perry to call it a campaign. I have nothing against Perry and I think politically he is a true conservative, one that I would have supported wholeheartedly if he were nominated. Unfortunately, he has made so many gaffes that George W. Bush looks like Benjamin Franklin by comparison. Perry just really blew his chance to win. He only came in at #5 in Iowa, #6 (with an abysmal 0.7%) in New Hampshire and is polling dead last (#5) in South Carolina. His situation is so hopeless now that it appears he would only come in at #3 in Texas, the state where he is currently the sitting Governor! Even the group calling themselves Evangelicals for Perry has officially jumped ship (and smartly endorsed Newt). What exactly is Perry's path to the nomination right now? Does he even have one? I really don't think so unless Gingrich and Santorum catch the ebola virus.
Some would probably argue that given that Perry is so low in the polls (~6% in SC, and ~7% nationally) that dropping out of the race won't make a difference. I would argue that given Iowa was decided by 8 votes on caucus night, that every vote counts and that right now Perry is only helping Romney get the nomination. In that Texas poll from PPP which I mention above, Romney would actually win Texas (by 1% over Newt) because the conservative vote is split so badly. And don't you think that after Gingrich's stellar performance last night that the polls in South Carolina might tighten? The 2-4% net gain that Gingrich would probably experience if Perry were to drop out (and hopefully endorse Newt, who wrote the foreword to Perry's book) could be enough to get him over the top and make this a race again. Also, Perry has some very strong financial backers who have probably held back financial assistance to other candidates in order not to insult him. That support would be unlocked if Perry were to finally drop out.
I know it is hard for any competitive individual, especially one who historically has been as successful as Perry, to quit anything. If Perry is anything, he is tenacious. But he really needs to quit the race, for the good of the country and for the conservative ideals he espouses. Unless of course he does want Romney to gain the nomination (something I don't believe is true given their very sharp exchanges during the various debates).
Some would probably argue that given that Perry is so low in the polls (~6% in SC, and ~7% nationally) that dropping out of the race won't make a difference. I would argue that given Iowa was decided by 8 votes on caucus night, that every vote counts and that right now Perry is only helping Romney get the nomination. In that Texas poll from PPP which I mention above, Romney would actually win Texas (by 1% over Newt) because the conservative vote is split so badly. And don't you think that after Gingrich's stellar performance last night that the polls in South Carolina might tighten? The 2-4% net gain that Gingrich would probably experience if Perry were to drop out (and hopefully endorse Newt, who wrote the foreword to Perry's book) could be enough to get him over the top and make this a race again. Also, Perry has some very strong financial backers who have probably held back financial assistance to other candidates in order not to insult him. That support would be unlocked if Perry were to finally drop out.
I know it is hard for any competitive individual, especially one who historically has been as successful as Perry, to quit anything. If Perry is anything, he is tenacious. But he really needs to quit the race, for the good of the country and for the conservative ideals he espouses. Unless of course he does want Romney to gain the nomination (something I don't believe is true given their very sharp exchanges during the various debates).
Newt Gingrich Versus Juan Williams
Newt got a standing ovation for his answer to a question about race from Juan Williams:
Saturday, January 14, 2012
I'm Sick of Having to Choose Between a Candidate Who Will Be a Bad President and One Who Will Be a Horrible President
If the GOP nominates Mitt Romney, once again we are going to have to choose between someone who will be a bad President (Romney) and one who will be a horrible one (Obama). Like the Nixon-McGovern choice 40 years ago, we pretty much lose either way. Government is going to get bigger, the economy is going to be even more regulated, individual liberty will be curtailed and America's prospects will get darker. Is the choice of the architect of Romneycare versus the architect of Obamacare the best we can manage?
As I've mentioned before, I'm sitting this one out if Romney is the nominee (though I will still point out Obama's many failings). I'm just so sick of the GOP establishment telling me it has to be Dole or W or McCain and to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is how you end up with the choices that the Europeans face every election. You get the choice between radical socialist parties and moderate socialist parties and that is it. Sometimes they throw in a nice fascist party to mix it up.
Well, I am through choosing evil, lesser or otherwise. I think Newt will be a great President, Santorum & Perry will both be good as well. Even Huntsman will probably do a pretty decent job (Huntsman, a conservative running as a moderate, seems to be the exact opposite of Romney, a moderate who is pretending to be conservative).
Luckily, there is hope. If you look at the latest polls in South Carolina, Newt is on the rise again and if he is able to get enough votes from Santorum and Perry, he could just pull an upset and defeat Romney is South Carolina. At that point everything changes. Since no GOP candidate has ever won the nomination without winning South Carolina, that victory will negate Romney's victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Also, I think there is a good chance that Perry and Santorum would drop out at this point and hopefully will also endorse Newt (a Sarah Palin endorsement wouldn't hurt either).
The South Carolina primary is a week away so this is all just wishful thinking at this point (a week seems to be an eternity this election cycle, so much can change). But there is hope that we might actually be able to have a real choice, between someone who will be a great President and someone who will continue destroying the Republic.
As I've mentioned before, I'm sitting this one out if Romney is the nominee (though I will still point out Obama's many failings). I'm just so sick of the GOP establishment telling me it has to be Dole or W or McCain and to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. This is how you end up with the choices that the Europeans face every election. You get the choice between radical socialist parties and moderate socialist parties and that is it. Sometimes they throw in a nice fascist party to mix it up.
Well, I am through choosing evil, lesser or otherwise. I think Newt will be a great President, Santorum & Perry will both be good as well. Even Huntsman will probably do a pretty decent job (Huntsman, a conservative running as a moderate, seems to be the exact opposite of Romney, a moderate who is pretending to be conservative).
Luckily, there is hope. If you look at the latest polls in South Carolina, Newt is on the rise again and if he is able to get enough votes from Santorum and Perry, he could just pull an upset and defeat Romney is South Carolina. At that point everything changes. Since no GOP candidate has ever won the nomination without winning South Carolina, that victory will negate Romney's victories in Iowa and New Hampshire. Also, I think there is a good chance that Perry and Santorum would drop out at this point and hopefully will also endorse Newt (a Sarah Palin endorsement wouldn't hurt either).
The South Carolina primary is a week away so this is all just wishful thinking at this point (a week seems to be an eternity this election cycle, so much can change). But there is hope that we might actually be able to have a real choice, between someone who will be a great President and someone who will continue destroying the Republic.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Should Conservatives Get Behind Newt or Santorum?
It's obvious that there really is room for only one conservative in this race if we have any hope of beating Mitt Romney. So I thought it would be useful to compare Newt Gingrich to Rick Santorum in several categories. I realize I have already endorsed Newt Gingrich but I will try to be as objective as my subconscious will allow. Let's get started shall we?
Economic Policy -
Newt has a very strong conservative record in this regard, he:
and then:
And then let's not forget his defense of compassionate conservatism, George W. Bush's philosophy that helped our domestic spending explode under the GOP. Newt Gingrich is not exactly a small government conservative either but given that spending growth under his tenure as Speaker was the slowest of any period in the last 30-some years (and went down significantly as a % of GDP), his record kind of speaks for itself.
Advantage: Newt
Social/Cultural Policy - Both have similar views on abortion and gay marriage etc., though Santorum definitely takes his conservatism to another level on this. This quote on personal autonomy from Santorum is very telling about how he feels:
He is so over the top on this that he believes states should be allowed to ban contraception. I think Newt is a lot more like Reagan on this. Conservative but unsure that the government should be getting involved with this which is pretty much where I fall as well. Government is big enough, we don't need it regulating morals in the public sphere outside the classic commandments against killing/stealing etc.
Advantage: Tie. Conservatives can feel good supporting either one though if they are more combative on social issues, Santorum is the one.
Foreign Policy - Both are very strong here, strong on both Iran and Israel. I really have no doubt that both would be excellent here.
Advantage: Tie
Personal (likeability, personal life etc.)
Likeability is a tough call but personally I think Newt is more likeable than Santorum. Yes, Newt has a temper and has been described as an "attack muffin" but he can also be extremely inspirational. Whether speaking at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition or in front of veterans in New Hampshire, you can just see people hanging on his every word and also thinking "he is our only hope." You don't really get that from Santorum, who often comes across as whiny. Also, my wife doesn't watch many debates but when she did, she clearly liked Newt (actually saying "good for him" when people were attacking him for telling the truth about the Palestinians) while for Santorum all she could muster was "why does he keep screaming?" Also, I kind of view Newt as that favorite uncle who has had a turbulent life but is a lot of fun to be around. Santorum is that co-worker who, while competent, just has no sense of humor.
On their actual personal lives, well you really can't argue that Newt has a chance in this category, given his affairs, changes in religion and numerous wives. Santorum is pretty much a saint from what I can tell.
Advantage: Tie. Newt wins on likeability and Santorum wins on his personal life.
Electability
Obviously, this is a pretty subjective category, but I think Newt is more electable. He has the gravitas of a great man who will be able to inspire this country out of the mire we have found ourselves stuck in. Santorum really doesn't. Right now he is probably ready to be a Senator or Governor but I just don't think he has that x-factor to be President. Not yet, anyway. Newt just has this incredible upside as a candidate and as a potential President.
In terms of negatives/downsides, I'm sure it seems like Newt has more negatives but we already know Newt's dirty laundry after the Romney machine unloaded it all on him, in the case of Santorum, he has pretty much been given a free pass. Newt was ripped a new one by the media and other candidates for doing consulting for Freddie Mac while a private citizen. Well how do you think they will feel about Santorum taking money from lobbyists through a slush fund that he used for personal expenses while in office? Or his scammy foundation? There are quite a few issues with Santorum that have received zero press so far and given he has tried to sell himself as a squeaky clean moralist, they will probably do quite a bit of harm when reported widely.
Newt does have a propensity to say things that his supporters either have to explain or that he has to apologize for later. But let's not forget some of Santorum's goodies like believing that contraception could be banned by the states, blaming radical feminism for the fall of the American family or blaming liberalism in Boston for the church child molestation scandal or equating homosexuality with bestiality. There is a very large percentage of the population that will be offended by what he says and will keep a lot of independents from voting for him on election day.
Because he is so inspirational, Newt wins this one.
Advantage: Newt
So there you have it. I think that if you just go down the line, Newt is a better candidate for conservatives to get behind than Santorum. In terms of policy, Newt is more conservative economically and probably more libertarian socially/culturally. He is quite a bit like Reagan in this respect, while Santorum is more like George W. Bush who is less conservative economically but more conservative socially and I think conservatives would prefer Reagan to George W. Bush seven days a week and twice on sunday.
Newt is also more electable as he won't be scaring away voters with over-the-top social conservatism. Plus I personally have a sense he is the type of person that today's Reagan Democrats can get behind.
But that is just my opinion. Whoever the choice is of conservatives, I hope we can just agree on one so Mitt doesn't just glide through on a split vote when he would probably lose in a head to head against any of the other candidates other than Ron Paul.
Economic Policy -
Newt has a very strong conservative record in this regard, he:
- Voted YES on the Reagan tax cut of 1981
- Voted YES on the Reagan tax reform bill of 1986
- Voted NO on the George H.W. Bush "Read My Lips" tax hike in 1990.
- Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993.
- Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997.
- Voted NO on the Chrysler bailout in 1979
- Voted YES on the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget bill in 1985
- Voted YES on a balanced budget amendment (as part of the "Contract for America" effort that he led) in 1995
- Led the effort and voted YES to cut $16.4 billion from the budget in 1995.
- Voted YES on welfare reform in 1996
Rick Santorum has a strong record as well:
- Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
- Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
- Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
- Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
- Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
- Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
- Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
- Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006
What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn't even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply 'cheap liberals.' My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.
and then:
I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of 'compassionate conservatism.' Some will reject what I have said as a kind of 'Big Government Conservatism.' Some will say that what I've tried to argue isn't conservatism at all. But I believe what I've been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.
And then let's not forget his defense of compassionate conservatism, George W. Bush's philosophy that helped our domestic spending explode under the GOP. Newt Gingrich is not exactly a small government conservative either but given that spending growth under his tenure as Speaker was the slowest of any period in the last 30-some years (and went down significantly as a % of GDP), his record kind of speaks for itself.
Advantage: Newt
Social/Cultural Policy - Both have similar views on abortion and gay marriage etc., though Santorum definitely takes his conservatism to another level on this. This quote on personal autonomy from Santorum is very telling about how he feels:
This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone.
He is so over the top on this that he believes states should be allowed to ban contraception. I think Newt is a lot more like Reagan on this. Conservative but unsure that the government should be getting involved with this which is pretty much where I fall as well. Government is big enough, we don't need it regulating morals in the public sphere outside the classic commandments against killing/stealing etc.
Advantage: Tie. Conservatives can feel good supporting either one though if they are more combative on social issues, Santorum is the one.
Foreign Policy - Both are very strong here, strong on both Iran and Israel. I really have no doubt that both would be excellent here.
Advantage: Tie
Personal (likeability, personal life etc.)
Likeability is a tough call but personally I think Newt is more likeable than Santorum. Yes, Newt has a temper and has been described as an "attack muffin" but he can also be extremely inspirational. Whether speaking at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition or in front of veterans in New Hampshire, you can just see people hanging on his every word and also thinking "he is our only hope." You don't really get that from Santorum, who often comes across as whiny. Also, my wife doesn't watch many debates but when she did, she clearly liked Newt (actually saying "good for him" when people were attacking him for telling the truth about the Palestinians) while for Santorum all she could muster was "why does he keep screaming?" Also, I kind of view Newt as that favorite uncle who has had a turbulent life but is a lot of fun to be around. Santorum is that co-worker who, while competent, just has no sense of humor.
On their actual personal lives, well you really can't argue that Newt has a chance in this category, given his affairs, changes in religion and numerous wives. Santorum is pretty much a saint from what I can tell.
Advantage: Tie. Newt wins on likeability and Santorum wins on his personal life.
Electability
Obviously, this is a pretty subjective category, but I think Newt is more electable. He has the gravitas of a great man who will be able to inspire this country out of the mire we have found ourselves stuck in. Santorum really doesn't. Right now he is probably ready to be a Senator or Governor but I just don't think he has that x-factor to be President. Not yet, anyway. Newt just has this incredible upside as a candidate and as a potential President.
In terms of negatives/downsides, I'm sure it seems like Newt has more negatives but we already know Newt's dirty laundry after the Romney machine unloaded it all on him, in the case of Santorum, he has pretty much been given a free pass. Newt was ripped a new one by the media and other candidates for doing consulting for Freddie Mac while a private citizen. Well how do you think they will feel about Santorum taking money from lobbyists through a slush fund that he used for personal expenses while in office? Or his scammy foundation? There are quite a few issues with Santorum that have received zero press so far and given he has tried to sell himself as a squeaky clean moralist, they will probably do quite a bit of harm when reported widely.
Newt does have a propensity to say things that his supporters either have to explain or that he has to apologize for later. But let's not forget some of Santorum's goodies like believing that contraception could be banned by the states, blaming radical feminism for the fall of the American family or blaming liberalism in Boston for the church child molestation scandal or equating homosexuality with bestiality. There is a very large percentage of the population that will be offended by what he says and will keep a lot of independents from voting for him on election day.
Because he is so inspirational, Newt wins this one.
Advantage: Newt
So there you have it. I think that if you just go down the line, Newt is a better candidate for conservatives to get behind than Santorum. In terms of policy, Newt is more conservative economically and probably more libertarian socially/culturally. He is quite a bit like Reagan in this respect, while Santorum is more like George W. Bush who is less conservative economically but more conservative socially and I think conservatives would prefer Reagan to George W. Bush seven days a week and twice on sunday.
Newt is also more electable as he won't be scaring away voters with over-the-top social conservatism. Plus I personally have a sense he is the type of person that today's Reagan Democrats can get behind.
But that is just my opinion. Whoever the choice is of conservatives, I hope we can just agree on one so Mitt doesn't just glide through on a split vote when he would probably lose in a head to head against any of the other candidates other than Ron Paul.
Did the Romney Campaign Just Threaten A Prominent Newt Backer?
Watch John Sununu, a mouthpiece for the Romney campaign, effectively threaten Sheldon Adelson with reduced funding from Wall Street for his projects due to his funding of Newt's Super PAC:
(h/t Legal Insurrection)
So it looks like Romney is not above bribery and threats to get his way. It really is amazing how similar this guy is to Obama.
(h/t Legal Insurrection)
So it looks like Romney is not above bribery and threats to get his way. It really is amazing how similar this guy is to Obama.
What the GOP Used to Be Like: Watch Reagan Debate Buckley On the Panama Canal
I'm currently reading Craig Shirley's excellent book on Reagan's 1980 campaign, Rendevous with Destiny. It talked about Reagan's opposition to Carter's Panama Canal treaty and it reminded me of a debate between Reagan and Buckley on that very issue that I saw re-run on C-Span while I was in college. Thankfully, C-Span actually does have it in it's extensive video library. Unfortunately, I couldn't embed the video but you can watch it here.
It really is an amazing debate. First, on one side you have William F. Buckley and George Will versus Ronald Reagan and Patrick Buchanan (before he went nuts) on the other. Even John McCain's father, Admiral John McCain, gets involved. It reminds you of the high caliber of people who used to be the leaders of conservative thought and they weren't afraid of offending anyone. In his opening remarks, Buckley made a quip about Turkish heroine and Qadaffi "lubricating his megaphones". While Reagan said that Carter would pull out all the stops to promote this treaty, saying "we might even possibly hear from someone who might have an interest in banking", which he made to applause (remember Reagan was a fan of Main Street, not Wall Street). Second, the amount of detail in this almost two hour debate is amazingly extensive. Our current debates are just a shadow of their former selves, as, it seems, are most of the representatives of conservatism. It really is hard to imagine any of the GOP candidates in 2012, other than Newt Gingrich, being able to participate in such a debate. Mitt Romney, a Lowell Weicker Republican, who does a great job in making statements that mean nothing, would not have been even allowed into the building where this debate was being held.
It really is an amazing debate. First, on one side you have William F. Buckley and George Will versus Ronald Reagan and Patrick Buchanan (before he went nuts) on the other. Even John McCain's father, Admiral John McCain, gets involved. It reminds you of the high caliber of people who used to be the leaders of conservative thought and they weren't afraid of offending anyone. In his opening remarks, Buckley made a quip about Turkish heroine and Qadaffi "lubricating his megaphones". While Reagan said that Carter would pull out all the stops to promote this treaty, saying "we might even possibly hear from someone who might have an interest in banking", which he made to applause (remember Reagan was a fan of Main Street, not Wall Street). Second, the amount of detail in this almost two hour debate is amazingly extensive. Our current debates are just a shadow of their former selves, as, it seems, are most of the representatives of conservatism. It really is hard to imagine any of the GOP candidates in 2012, other than Newt Gingrich, being able to participate in such a debate. Mitt Romney, a Lowell Weicker Republican, who does a great job in making statements that mean nothing, would not have been even allowed into the building where this debate was being held.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Romney is Trying to Buy the Nomination Through Bribery
Romney has received the lion's share of endorsements from GOP politicians on the local, state and national level. I always figured people just wanted to ingratiate themselves with the front runner so that they could get political favors later or even executive branch appointments. But it looks like something more nefarious is at play, outright bribery by Romney:
Yeah I know, politicians are crooked, but this aggressive use of bribery is just really sickening. I wonder if this will get the airtime that Newt's completely legal and legitimate consulting for Freddie Mac did? No, I'm not holding my breath. The press will probably wait until the general election.
In New Hampshire, a U.S. senator, a congressman, 10 state senators and three executive councilors shared $26,000 in donations from Romney's Free and Strong America PAC in 2010 and 2011 combined. All 15 have showered Romney with endorsements leading up to Tuesday's primary
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came out for Romney last month – a year after his Free and Strong America PACs funneled $36,000 to the Tea Party darling's 2010 election bid. And 19 state and Washington, D.C., lawmakers in three Super Tuesday states – Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are backing Romney after his PAC poured a total of $125,500 into their coffers for elections held in 2009 and 2010.
...
"He's the only one who donated a sizable amount of money to dozens of elected officials," Dennehy added. "Let's face it. When no one else gives you money, you don't think long and hard who'll you'll give your endorsement to."
Yeah I know, politicians are crooked, but this aggressive use of bribery is just really sickening. I wonder if this will get the airtime that Newt's completely legal and legitimate consulting for Freddie Mac did? No, I'm not holding my breath. The press will probably wait until the general election.
The Republican National Media Establishment (RNME, pronounced like "Our Enemy")
I don't know if it was always like this or if I am just noticing it this media cycle but it is just amazing how slanted RNME is in terms of their coverage of this race in favor of Mitt Romney. Romney is the only candidate who has seemed to escape any sort of vetting, RNME looks for reasons why you should vote for him as opposed to looking for reasons why not to vote for the other candidates and use intellectually dishonest arguments to promote him.
On the vetting, have you noticed how the questions he receives are relative softballs compared to the questions to the other candidates (especially if those candidates are up in the polls?). At the Fox News debate in Sioux City, Newt was asked this by one of the "moderators", Megyn Kelly:
And after he answered the question pretty directly the follow up was:
When Romney's turn came there was a question about his choice of liberal judges for the court in Massachusetts, but no follow up questions (no mentioning of how it is "dangerous" to have liberal activist judges on the court). In fact, the next question was just a fluff question on who on the Supreme Court the people liked the most. Pretty much the entire debate was like this. The question before the one to Gingrich on judicial supremacy was one on his "right wing social engineering" comments he made in reference to Ryan's plan. For Romney it was "Over the next 10 years, in what sector or industries will most of the new jobs be created?" You've got to be kidding me.
Yes, Newt Gingrich is known for crazy ideas and it is definitely the right of journalists to ask about it, but then whey do they completely ignore Romney's record unless it is deliberate? How many questions did he get about his flip flopped abortion position? About his prior comments about being a progressive? About being against going back to Reagan-Bush (you can see the comments about being a progressive and anti-Reagan here) ? Or his record of raising taxes in violation of a no-tax pledge? Or signing a permanent assault weapons ban? Don't you think that would be something GOP voters would like to find out about? Also, he constantly claims that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain. Why has everyone taken this at face value for so long with no discussion about how he actually came up with that number of if it is even true? Perry had to explain a word written on a rock on hunting grounds he leased and Romney has not had to answer any questions about his actual record at Bain, which he claims is a major reason why people should vote for him?
RNME also seems to go out of its way to find reasons to vote for Romney. Take Fred Barnes' big piece on how Romney is "More Conservative Than You Think". This was just such a fluff piece which completely glossed over Romney's entire record as Governor of Massachusetts, focusing only on his current speeches. Fred Barnes writes:
Really, the guy who is the only Governor to enact socialized medicine on the state level is more conservative than some of the other candidates on entitlements? Has Fred Barnes forgotten what an entitlement is? On national security, I really don't see how he is to the right of anyone other than Huntsman and Paul. He is a pretend hawk at best. He thinks we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, his big issue with our withdrawal from Afghanistan seems to be that we are taking troops out in September and not December. On Israel, his big criticism is that Obama criticized Israel in public and doesn't seem to want to promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, despite the fact that it is clearly their capital. So Gingrich gets hammered about being on a couch with Pelosi while not actually promoting anything objectionable but Romney gets a pass after having a very liberal 4 year record as Governor?
Also, I think it is really rich (pardon the pun) saying a politician is better than you think based solely on the content of their speeches and not their record. As if politicians don't change their minds. We are talking about a guy who has flip flopped on just about every important issue at one time or another. This all reminds me of how some of my more moderate Republican friends said they were voting for Obama because he is a centrist. I pointed to his very liberal record and they excused it because he was from Chicago, just as people excuse Romney's because he is from Massachusetts. Well how did ignoring Obama's record work out? Obviously actual records matter.
RNME is also being completely intellectually dishonest in their attacks on Newt for his questioning of Romney's experience at Bain. Newt has a more aggressive plan to reduce taxes (personal and capital gains) and never actually said he wants anything that Romney did to be made illegal, yet somehow Newt is now in league with Occupy Wall Street for pointing out that Romney's experience at Bain hurt a lot of people. It's not a question of capitalism but of character. We are talking about a Presidential election after all. If Perry can get questioned about a rock on leased hunting grounds and Newt can get questioned about when exactly did he give his divorce papers to his first wife and exactly how much money did he make working for publicly traded companies, then Romney can get questioned about something that is the cornerstone of his candidacy.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post is a great case of a member of RNME who has become completely intellectually dishonest in this race because of her support for Romney (there actually is a great twitter account @fakejenrubin which openly mocks her Romney infatuation). She refers to Newt's anti-Bain attacks as "anti-capitalist" that "helps Democrats" and then writes on Twitter (in reference to the 30 minute film about Bain paid for by a pro-Newt Super PAC) "Sheldon Adelson who makes money off poor people gambling (disproportionately) paid for this schlock film". So if it's wrong to attack capitalism, why are you attacking a capitalist who actually made his money due to his own entrepreneurship and not through inheritance and financial engineering as Romney did? Sheldon Adelson made his money starting COMDEX, the first software trade show all the way back in 1979. Then he created one of the best casinos in Las Vegas, helped to create massive numbers of jobs by providing a service people actually want. So how can you defend Bain and attack that?
Another great example of her complete intellectual dishonesty is her defense of Romney's decision not to promise to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. She lauds him for "not pandering" despite the fact that she lauded others for promising the same thing in the past. A great article on this, titled "Romney Tortures Jen Rubin" is here.
Anyway she is definitely not the only one. I don't seem to remember RNME going this batsh*t crazy over the comments that McCain made about Bain back in 2008. He said "as head of his investment company he [Romney] presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers." McCain's campaign manager said something similar when he said "He learned politics and economics from being a venture capitalist, where you go and buy companies, you strip away the jobs, and you resell them... And if that's what his experience has been to be able to lead our economy, I'd really raise questions."
I guess the difference is that back in 2008, McCain was more of the establishment figure and so RNME gave McCain a free pass on those comments just as they are giving Romney a free pass on, well, just about everything.
Anyway, there is nothing we can do about RNME though they are doing a great job in pissing me and other conservatives off. The only thing we can do is make up our own minds and not let these glorified English majors influence us too much.
On the vetting, have you noticed how the questions he receives are relative softballs compared to the questions to the other candidates (especially if those candidates are up in the polls?). At the Fox News debate in Sioux City, Newt was asked this by one of the "moderators", Megyn Kelly:
Speaker Gingrich, let me start with you. You have proposed a plan to subpoena judges to testify before Congress about controversial decisions that they make. In certain cases, you advocate impeaching judges or abolishing courts altogether. Two conservative former attorneys general have criticized your plan, saying it alters the checks and balances of the three branches of government. And they used words like "dangerous," "outrageous," and "totally irresponsible." Are they wrong?
And after he answered the question pretty directly the follow up was:
When I watched it live, it was obvious that Megyn Kelly was obviously relishing being able to repeat "dangerous", "outrageous" and "totally irresponsible" even adding by herself, "ridiculous". I don't think I have seen such a slanted question from a Fox moderator in a GOP debate before that was so obviously meant to hurt the candidate. Then when Megyn Kelly went to Bachmann her question had nothing to do with Bachmann but was actually about Gingrich:What of the former attorney general? [applause]
These are conservative former attorneys generals who have criticized the plan, as I say, dangerous, ridiculous, outrageous, totally irresponsible.
Do you agree that the Ninth Circuit should be abolished? And if so, what would then happen if a Democratic president came into office and we had a democratically controlled Congress that later took aim at the right-leaning federal courts. Where would it end?
When Romney's turn came there was a question about his choice of liberal judges for the court in Massachusetts, but no follow up questions (no mentioning of how it is "dangerous" to have liberal activist judges on the court). In fact, the next question was just a fluff question on who on the Supreme Court the people liked the most. Pretty much the entire debate was like this. The question before the one to Gingrich on judicial supremacy was one on his "right wing social engineering" comments he made in reference to Ryan's plan. For Romney it was "Over the next 10 years, in what sector or industries will most of the new jobs be created?" You've got to be kidding me.
Yes, Newt Gingrich is known for crazy ideas and it is definitely the right of journalists to ask about it, but then whey do they completely ignore Romney's record unless it is deliberate? How many questions did he get about his flip flopped abortion position? About his prior comments about being a progressive? About being against going back to Reagan-Bush (you can see the comments about being a progressive and anti-Reagan here) ? Or his record of raising taxes in violation of a no-tax pledge? Or signing a permanent assault weapons ban? Don't you think that would be something GOP voters would like to find out about? Also, he constantly claims that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain. Why has everyone taken this at face value for so long with no discussion about how he actually came up with that number of if it is even true? Perry had to explain a word written on a rock on hunting grounds he leased and Romney has not had to answer any questions about his actual record at Bain, which he claims is a major reason why people should vote for him?
RNME also seems to go out of its way to find reasons to vote for Romney. Take Fred Barnes' big piece on how Romney is "More Conservative Than You Think". This was just such a fluff piece which completely glossed over Romney's entire record as Governor of Massachusetts, focusing only on his current speeches. Fred Barnes writes:
To sum up, he's at least as conservative as his GOP rivals on jettisoning Obamacare and more conservative than some on entitlements, national security, and immigration. He's no match for Gingrich on taxes, but that's about it. Overall, he's to the right of Gingrich.
Really, the guy who is the only Governor to enact socialized medicine on the state level is more conservative than some of the other candidates on entitlements? Has Fred Barnes forgotten what an entitlement is? On national security, I really don't see how he is to the right of anyone other than Huntsman and Paul. He is a pretend hawk at best. He thinks we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, his big issue with our withdrawal from Afghanistan seems to be that we are taking troops out in September and not December. On Israel, his big criticism is that Obama criticized Israel in public and doesn't seem to want to promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, despite the fact that it is clearly their capital. So Gingrich gets hammered about being on a couch with Pelosi while not actually promoting anything objectionable but Romney gets a pass after having a very liberal 4 year record as Governor?
Also, I think it is really rich (pardon the pun) saying a politician is better than you think based solely on the content of their speeches and not their record. As if politicians don't change their minds. We are talking about a guy who has flip flopped on just about every important issue at one time or another. This all reminds me of how some of my more moderate Republican friends said they were voting for Obama because he is a centrist. I pointed to his very liberal record and they excused it because he was from Chicago, just as people excuse Romney's because he is from Massachusetts. Well how did ignoring Obama's record work out? Obviously actual records matter.
RNME is also being completely intellectually dishonest in their attacks on Newt for his questioning of Romney's experience at Bain. Newt has a more aggressive plan to reduce taxes (personal and capital gains) and never actually said he wants anything that Romney did to be made illegal, yet somehow Newt is now in league with Occupy Wall Street for pointing out that Romney's experience at Bain hurt a lot of people. It's not a question of capitalism but of character. We are talking about a Presidential election after all. If Perry can get questioned about a rock on leased hunting grounds and Newt can get questioned about when exactly did he give his divorce papers to his first wife and exactly how much money did he make working for publicly traded companies, then Romney can get questioned about something that is the cornerstone of his candidacy.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post is a great case of a member of RNME who has become completely intellectually dishonest in this race because of her support for Romney (there actually is a great twitter account @fakejenrubin which openly mocks her Romney infatuation). She refers to Newt's anti-Bain attacks as "anti-capitalist" that "helps Democrats" and then writes on Twitter (in reference to the 30 minute film about Bain paid for by a pro-Newt Super PAC) "Sheldon Adelson who makes money off poor people gambling (disproportionately) paid for this schlock film". So if it's wrong to attack capitalism, why are you attacking a capitalist who actually made his money due to his own entrepreneurship and not through inheritance and financial engineering as Romney did? Sheldon Adelson made his money starting COMDEX, the first software trade show all the way back in 1979. Then he created one of the best casinos in Las Vegas, helped to create massive numbers of jobs by providing a service people actually want. So how can you defend Bain and attack that?
Another great example of her complete intellectual dishonesty is her defense of Romney's decision not to promise to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. She lauds him for "not pandering" despite the fact that she lauded others for promising the same thing in the past. A great article on this, titled "Romney Tortures Jen Rubin" is here.
Anyway she is definitely not the only one. I don't seem to remember RNME going this batsh*t crazy over the comments that McCain made about Bain back in 2008. He said "as head of his investment company he [Romney] presided over the acquisition of companies that laid off thousands of workers." McCain's campaign manager said something similar when he said "He learned politics and economics from being a venture capitalist, where you go and buy companies, you strip away the jobs, and you resell them... And if that's what his experience has been to be able to lead our economy, I'd really raise questions."
I guess the difference is that back in 2008, McCain was more of the establishment figure and so RNME gave McCain a free pass on those comments just as they are giving Romney a free pass on, well, just about everything.
Anyway, there is nothing we can do about RNME though they are doing a great job in pissing me and other conservatives off. The only thing we can do is make up our own minds and not let these glorified English majors influence us too much.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
CAIR Upset By Marines Urinating on Taliban Corpses but Not At Taliban For Trying To Turn Marines Into Corpses
You just can't make this stuff up. It's okay to kill them but not to urinate on them afterwards when it probably makes no difference to them anyway? Come on. I think it would be a travesty if any Marines are punished for this.
Also, I'm waiting for CAIR, who has condemned the bodily function, to issue a press release condemning the Taliban and their daily attempts to murder Americans.
Also, I'm waiting for CAIR, who has condemned the bodily function, to issue a press release condemning the Taliban and their daily attempts to murder Americans.
It Is Not Too Late To Stop Romney's Coronation
I know many in the Republican Establishment media want to coronate Romney as the GOP nominee and get to the general election but there is no reason why we have to let them do it. Yes, he won in Iowa and New Hampshire and no GOP candidate has won the nomination without first winning in either Iowa or New Hampshire but, besides tradition, there is really no reason that needs to be true:
Besides sticking it to the people who brought us George H.W. Bush, a great reason to stop Romney is that he would be a complete disaster both as the nominee and as President, if he is actually able to win. Please let me know when any of these country club establishment types has been good for the promotion of conservative ideals? How about never? There have been two Republicans who have done an effective job of promoting actual conservative ideals of small government and more freedom in the last 50 years and those are Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. They both challenged the established order and won on their own terms despite being born to meager means. Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II and McCain, they have all been disasters who have hurt the cause. What is the point of voting Republican when you get someone who acts like a Democrat. And that is exactly what we would be getting with Romney. You really think that independents are going to rush to his emotionally cut-off, vacuous, believe-in-nothing self, who is probably going to raise their taxes? Why would they? It's clear that they haven't been in either Iowa or New Hampshire. When you adjust for the Paul surge (given that he is a fringe candidate with borderline connections with the GOP) turnout actually went down in both Iowa and New Hampshire! Does that sound like people are excited? And just wait until every single Bain deal is picked apart with interviews with people whose lives were ruined by Romney. It's only the tip of the iceberg so far. Also, when people are down, they want someone to empathize with them. Romney has all the empathy of a wet sponge (kind of like George H.W. Bush). Romney is going to have a horrible time in the general election, he'd better hope Obama self-destructs (a good chance but not exactly guaranteed).
Even if Romney wins, it will be a disaster for anyone who believes in liberty. This guy with the timid 59 point plan brought to you by Bain Consulting is not the answer to our problems. He is going to tweak Obamacare, tweak the tax code (cut some taxes, raise some others), tweak our foreign policy, offering no real changes to the status quo. Does Romney strike you as someone who will suspend the environmental regulations that are keeping the United States from rightfully developing its energy resources? Nope. He is going to come in, and just like Obama, think about what he has to do to get re-elected. He will pander to Democrats to appear bipartisan and completely betray real Republicans. And Israel? Forget it. We will be stuck in the same place as before. All Romney has promised to do is to not criticize them publicly, that doesn't mean he actually agrees with them and will stop putting pressure on the Jewish state to negotiate with terrorists. After 4 years of a Romney Presidency, government will be bigger, our taxes will probably be higher and Congress will probably be in Democratic hands as the Tea Party support that helped propel us to victory in 2010, withers away after being betrayed in 2012.
Anyway, I know this is a long rant but I really feel strongly about this. We have to stop Romney, he is the antithesis of a Reagan Republican and will do more to destroy the Tea Party and the cause of liberty than Obama ever could.
- Remember, Iowa doesn't actually select any convention delegates on caucus night and Romney only won about 7 delegates last night out of a total of 1144 delegates needed to win the nomination.
- Also, the modern primary process is relatively young, only really starting in 1976, and there were only 6 contested GOP primary contests since then. So when someone tells you if something is ALWAYS true in the nomination race, they are using a very small sample size to reach their conclusions. If you are flipping a coin and you come up heads the first six times, that doesn't mean that heads is any more likely than tails. It just appears so due to the fact you only flipped it 6 times.
- It wasn't that long ago that a Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, was able to win the nomination and the Presidency after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire. Conversely, the only two Democrats to win both contests, Al Gore and John Kerry, never actually became President (strength in Iowa and New Hampshire clearly doesn't necessarily correlate with strength in the general election).
Besides sticking it to the people who brought us George H.W. Bush, a great reason to stop Romney is that he would be a complete disaster both as the nominee and as President, if he is actually able to win. Please let me know when any of these country club establishment types has been good for the promotion of conservative ideals? How about never? There have been two Republicans who have done an effective job of promoting actual conservative ideals of small government and more freedom in the last 50 years and those are Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. They both challenged the established order and won on their own terms despite being born to meager means. Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II and McCain, they have all been disasters who have hurt the cause. What is the point of voting Republican when you get someone who acts like a Democrat. And that is exactly what we would be getting with Romney. You really think that independents are going to rush to his emotionally cut-off, vacuous, believe-in-nothing self, who is probably going to raise their taxes? Why would they? It's clear that they haven't been in either Iowa or New Hampshire. When you adjust for the Paul surge (given that he is a fringe candidate with borderline connections with the GOP) turnout actually went down in both Iowa and New Hampshire! Does that sound like people are excited? And just wait until every single Bain deal is picked apart with interviews with people whose lives were ruined by Romney. It's only the tip of the iceberg so far. Also, when people are down, they want someone to empathize with them. Romney has all the empathy of a wet sponge (kind of like George H.W. Bush). Romney is going to have a horrible time in the general election, he'd better hope Obama self-destructs (a good chance but not exactly guaranteed).
Even if Romney wins, it will be a disaster for anyone who believes in liberty. This guy with the timid 59 point plan brought to you by Bain Consulting is not the answer to our problems. He is going to tweak Obamacare, tweak the tax code (cut some taxes, raise some others), tweak our foreign policy, offering no real changes to the status quo. Does Romney strike you as someone who will suspend the environmental regulations that are keeping the United States from rightfully developing its energy resources? Nope. He is going to come in, and just like Obama, think about what he has to do to get re-elected. He will pander to Democrats to appear bipartisan and completely betray real Republicans. And Israel? Forget it. We will be stuck in the same place as before. All Romney has promised to do is to not criticize them publicly, that doesn't mean he actually agrees with them and will stop putting pressure on the Jewish state to negotiate with terrorists. After 4 years of a Romney Presidency, government will be bigger, our taxes will probably be higher and Congress will probably be in Democratic hands as the Tea Party support that helped propel us to victory in 2010, withers away after being betrayed in 2012.
Anyway, I know this is a long rant but I really feel strongly about this. We have to stop Romney, he is the antithesis of a Reagan Republican and will do more to destroy the Tea Party and the cause of liberty than Obama ever could.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Is Iran About To Do Something Desperate?
According to Zerohedge, it appears that hyperinflation has come to Iran:
An EA source reports that a relative in Tehran ordered a washing machine for 400,000 Toman (about $240) this week. When he went to the shop the next day, he was told that --- amidst the currency crisis and rising import costs --- the price was now 800,000 Toman (about $480). Another EA source says that the price of an item of software for a laptop computer has tripled from 50,000 Toman to 150,000 Toman within days.
Hyperinflation rates like that seem to point to an Iranian central bank turning on the printing presses to help the Iranian government to pay bills. While Iranians are used to some sort of inflation, rates like the above are just unbearable for normal people and they are likely to blame their government. I wonder if the Iranian government will start some trouble in order to get their citizens mind off of it all. And with no US troops in Iraq, that could be the perfect place for them to start.
Romney: If Someone Has An Accent You Can't Tell If They Are Here Legally or Not
Wait, what? Could he act any more like a country club WASP?
What Does It Mean if Romney Wins NH? Nothing.
Much of the right wing press seems to be in a hurry to coronate the not-so-right Mitt Romney as our GOP nominee. They point to last week's "win" in Iowa (which I actually think was a loss, given Romney actually received fewer votes than in 2008, when he lost to Huckabee, despite 4 more years of campaigning and millions more dollars of ads) and today's likely win in NH. But winning NH for a Massachusetts politician is really no great achievement. Since 1952, Massachusetts politicians are 5-1 in NH when not challenging an incumbent President from their own party (Kennedy lost NH to Carter in his insurgent run in 1980). In fact, in 1964, a write-in campaign for Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts was able to defeat Barry Goldwater in the state. And remember Paul Tsongas in 1992? He won New Hampshire on the way to winning only 2 non-New England states. The only loss for a Massachusetts politician came in 2008 when Mitt Romney inexplicably fumbled the ball on the two yard line, giving the primary to John McCain (who NH voters inexplicably love). So maybe a NH victory will be an achievement for Romney personally but as a signal that he is the choice of GOP voters? Not so much.
What will probably be more important than Mitt Romney winning is what happens with the rest of the field (of course if he miraculously loses, all hell will break loose, as would a readout under 31%, his 2008 percentage total when he lost to McCain). Huntsman really needs to finish at #1 or #2 to save his campaign after completely skipping Iowa (has that strategy ever actually worked?). I just don't see how finishing at #3 or worse in NH and then getting 1-4% in SC creates a viable campaign. Santorum and Gingrich pretty much have to have the same endgame, beat the other guy, though I think Santorum has a greater need to do well as he has almost zero organization outside of Iowa (e.g. he wasn't even able to come close in terms of signatures in Virginia). Anyway, if either finishes behind the other in both NH and SC, they are done and hopefully will quit the campaign allowing for a Romney vs. Paul vs. Conservative not-Romney battle the rest of the way. What about Perry? I think he is literally done but probably won't quit until his South Carolina fantasy is finally exposed as nothing other than a wet dream.
My ideal result would be that Huntsman is able to steal enough votes from Romney and Paul (Huntsman is pretty much Paul-lite with his conservative economic, social liberal and foreign policy dove platform) to win in NH. That would hopefully put an effective end to the candidacies of both Romney and Paul and create a scenario where the GOP wins no matter who gets the nomination. I would happily support Gingrich, Huntsman or Santorum if they are the nominee (though I favor Newt most of all).
What will probably be more important than Mitt Romney winning is what happens with the rest of the field (of course if he miraculously loses, all hell will break loose, as would a readout under 31%, his 2008 percentage total when he lost to McCain). Huntsman really needs to finish at #1 or #2 to save his campaign after completely skipping Iowa (has that strategy ever actually worked?). I just don't see how finishing at #3 or worse in NH and then getting 1-4% in SC creates a viable campaign. Santorum and Gingrich pretty much have to have the same endgame, beat the other guy, though I think Santorum has a greater need to do well as he has almost zero organization outside of Iowa (e.g. he wasn't even able to come close in terms of signatures in Virginia). Anyway, if either finishes behind the other in both NH and SC, they are done and hopefully will quit the campaign allowing for a Romney vs. Paul vs. Conservative not-Romney battle the rest of the way. What about Perry? I think he is literally done but probably won't quit until his South Carolina fantasy is finally exposed as nothing other than a wet dream.
My ideal result would be that Huntsman is able to steal enough votes from Romney and Paul (Huntsman is pretty much Paul-lite with his conservative economic, social liberal and foreign policy dove platform) to win in NH. That would hopefully put an effective end to the candidacies of both Romney and Paul and create a scenario where the GOP wins no matter who gets the nomination. I would happily support Gingrich, Huntsman or Santorum if they are the nominee (though I favor Newt most of all).
Monday, January 9, 2012
Just Because I Support Legalized Prostitution Does Not Mean I Want a Pimp as President or Why It Is Okay for Free Market Supporters to Criticize Romney's Experience at Bain
A lot of conservatives have their panties in a bunch over the fact that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have started to criticize some of Mitt Romney's actions at Bain. As a diehard free market libertarian (and someone who has been on Wall Street for over a decade), I really have to say that I have no problem with this. Supporting the free market means opposing laws and regulations limiting the freedom to operate a business, it doesn't mean you feel like having every two bit investment banker and corporate raider leading the free world. It also doesn't mean that you idolize anyone who has been able to make a good living as not all methods of enrichment are created equal.
Personally, I value someone who has created a business from scratch, especially if it is a new and innovative business (like a Microsoft, Dell or Amazon), more than someone who has made their fortune through financial engineering, as Mitt Romney has. Through the use of leverage and debt, Bain was able to make money on businesses whether or not the businesses were eventually successful, as documented in an indepth story about Bain's investment in the steel company, GS Technology. And in the case of GS Technology, one of the reasons that the company went belly up was because of excessive dividends to investors like Bain which left the company without any cushion when the downturn started (of course it didn't help that Bain also added a ton of debt to the books specifically to pay itself dividends).
Bain is certainly not unique in this strategy and really more power to them for having the drive and dedication to pull their business strategy off the way they did. But like most soulless investment bankers, they are not necessarily people you want to have over at your place or, you know, running your country. For the latter, I would like someone who actually believes in individual freedom, someone I can trust to do the right thing in a crisis and someone who will be able to right all the wrongs of the Obama administration. And that has nothing to do with whether the guy was able to make a buck on Wall Street or not.
Personally, I value someone who has created a business from scratch, especially if it is a new and innovative business (like a Microsoft, Dell or Amazon), more than someone who has made their fortune through financial engineering, as Mitt Romney has. Through the use of leverage and debt, Bain was able to make money on businesses whether or not the businesses were eventually successful, as documented in an indepth story about Bain's investment in the steel company, GS Technology. And in the case of GS Technology, one of the reasons that the company went belly up was because of excessive dividends to investors like Bain which left the company without any cushion when the downturn started (of course it didn't help that Bain also added a ton of debt to the books specifically to pay itself dividends).
Bain is certainly not unique in this strategy and really more power to them for having the drive and dedication to pull their business strategy off the way they did. But like most soulless investment bankers, they are not necessarily people you want to have over at your place or, you know, running your country. For the latter, I would like someone who actually believes in individual freedom, someone I can trust to do the right thing in a crisis and someone who will be able to right all the wrongs of the Obama administration. And that has nothing to do with whether the guy was able to make a buck on Wall Street or not.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Why is Newt so Angry?
These clips are great and really remind you why Newt is the best choice to be the next President of the United States:
(h/t Reaganite Republican)
(h/t Reaganite Republican)
The GOP Candidate Archetypes (Humor)
Last night, I was thinking about what kinds of characters could the GOP candidates play most easily if I were to make a movie with them in it. Or put another way, what archetypes do they represent. Anyway here are my thoughts:
Mitt Romney - Head of Sales who is nice to everyone unless they get his coffee order wrong
Newt Gingrich - The uncle who lets you have some of his beer when you are a kid and gives you hints how to score with women
Rick Santorum - The co-worker who has no sense of humor. Also, Frank Grimes.
Rick Perry - "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Rather ironic.
Ron Paul - Uncle cletus with one tooth and a shotgun or the crazy guy with the Lyndon Larouche shopping cart.
Jon Huntsman - The nice nerdy guy at the head of the Model UN
Mitt Romney - Head of Sales who is nice to everyone unless they get his coffee order wrong
Newt Gingrich - The uncle who lets you have some of his beer when you are a kid and gives you hints how to score with women
Rick Santorum - The co-worker who has no sense of humor. Also, Frank Grimes.
Rick Perry - "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Rather ironic.
Ron Paul - Uncle cletus with one tooth and a shotgun or the crazy guy with the Lyndon Larouche shopping cart.
Jon Huntsman - The nice nerdy guy at the head of the Model UN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)