The GOP Field. More crowded?

The GOP presidential primary is really starting to heat up.  Below, you'll see Dick Morris, my favorite toe-sucker, give his lunchtime take on the state of the primaries.

I agree with Dick that it's too early to be calling this a three-way race, between Perry/Romney/Bachmann.  As other Republicans start to realize that Obama is digging an insurmountable hole for himself, we heard today rumblings that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan may be doing some exploration into a possible run.  I think both these guys, and Sarah Palin, had set their sites on 2016, on the assumption that Obama would be formidable and they'd have little to gain by losing in a GOP primary, and that the iron would be especially hot for someone to clean things up in 2016.  In Ryan's and Christie's case, they could make the argument that they have much work to do from where they sit.  Christie has argued for a while that he wants to fix New Jersey first, while some postulate that Ryan wants greater leadership in the House (Speaker Ryan?).  As for Palin, I think she rightly has decided she needs the time to restore her national reputation.  However, for each of them, there may be no better time than now. 

I will admit that I think Ryan and Christie may be the two best people to sell Republicanism in 2012.  Christie's take no prisoners approach to cleaning up the fiscal mess really meshes with Tea Party concerns, and Ryan is truly one of the few Republicans who can sell the GOP's plan to reduce government and fix our entitlement programs.

Palin.  I have posted again and again about Palin.  If I had to pick a candidate who said everything i would say myself, I would look no further than Sarah Palin.  But, I still have that nagging feeling that she's just doesn't give the sense that she knows what she's talking about.  Not deeply, viscerally, like Reagan did.  I find her a tremendous retail politician, and she had an impressive record bucking the establishment in Alaska, but, I just can't get excited about a Palin candidacy (a Palin presidency, now, that's another thing).

I lose even more enthusiasm about Palin when I juxtapose her with Michelle Bachmann.  The Left has tried for years to paint Bachmann as another idiot, but, she just doesn't project as one.  It's clear she's intelligent, and has thought out her views, and will stick to them.  Of the two GOP frontrunning women, I can't see supporting Palin over Bachmann.  I'm curious what my readers (both of you) think, especially my female ones.

Let's talk the current crop of candidates.  I have at various times liked all of them to some degree or another (ok, Ron Paul, not so much).  Herman Cain brings the enthusiasm and positive outlook that someone who has pulled himself to great heights can.  I'm with Cain on just about everything, but, his squishiness and unwillingness to take positions on national security matters, and his pushing the anti-Islamist meme a little too far have put me off.  Not that I terribly disagree (well, we can't have religion tests for service now, can we?), but I think he just keeps on too much on some of these statements.  Still, it's early and no one's watching but the political junkies.

Rick Santorum I think has some gravitas and fits the social conservative mold quite well.  Can this guy, who was creamed in his last run for PA senate, break through?  I just don't see it happening.

Newt Gingrich would be my guy, except when Newt makes gaffes, he makes big giant ones.  Even if you're willing to give him a pass on his personal affairs (I am), I still can't remove the image of him sitting with Nancy Pelosi in that Global Warming PSA.  It's damn near unforgivable.  Still, to see a bunch of debates between Newt and the smartest-guy-in-the-room Obama, would be worth the price of admission.

Which brings us to the current front runners.  Romney.  Blah.  I will not vote for Romney in the primaries.  Anyone who has ever bought into the man-made global warming crap, either can't be very intelligent, or had another agenda.  As a nominee, I'm in 100%.  He'd probably be a worthy adversary to Obama, but, there's a glibness about him that seems staged.  I am afraid that might be everyone's impression.  At the same time, there's an aura (and actual) competence about him that would put Boy Blunder to shame.

Perry.  Ok, I like Perry alot.  I like that he showed Kay Bailey Hutchison the door in the Texas governor's race.  I like that he has made the 10th amendment an issue.  I even like that he "joked" about Texas secession.  I like that he's from Texas.  I like that he can string two sentences together.  I also have heard that he's an incredibly effective retail politician, too.  In contrast with the cold Obama, I believe people would see that and like him.  There's something to be said for that, and for the fact that people would see him as a straight shooter.  After 4 years of equivocating, and outright lying from Obama, the country's ready for that (Palin has this quality, too, as does Bachmann).

I hope it's too early to declare this a 3 way race.  I want to see some more debates with Newt and Cain and these other 3.  I wouldn't mind seeing Chris Christie in there either.  I am just undecided right now.  My personal thought is that any of these candidates could beat Obama (even Palin).  I do believe the country is sick of politics as usual, and despite Obama's protestations, you can't come to Washington as the guy who's going to cause the oceans to recede and the temperatures to cool, have total control for 2 years, then rail about how you can't get anything done.

The American voter is stupid, but, only the really, really, really stupid voters on the Left are going to believe what Obama's selling.

So, enjoy Dick's video today and tell me what you think of the crowd.

Jeff Sessions, en fuego! Tea Party Sounded the Alarm!

Alabama senator Jeff Sessions - "The Tea Party didn't start this fire, they sounded the alarm."

Indeed.

I love @moronwatch. He's an inspiration. Or, why the debt battle is Dem's fault

My twitter pal, @moronwatch, is prone to cutting and pasting from Liberal sources. In Britain (moronwatch's home), The Guardian serves as a print version of The Daily Kos, and MW has chosen to link this article which claims that the debt crisis is due to Tea Party Intransigence.

Yea, right.

As Marco Rubio so clearly explains, the Debt Crisis is not new.  This has been brewing for some time, beginning with TARP and the recession, and compounded by Stimulus and Obamacare, the massive debt crisis was something that an idiot with a calculator could have seen coming, oh, say two years ago.

Coincidentally, it's been that long since a budget has even been proposed in the Senate.  Two years, that I and Senator Rubio may remind you, in which that body was controlled by (drumroll, please), Democrats.  And, as the Senator reminds, in ONE of those years, a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats.  So, why, if we could have seen this crisis coming, did the Dems not present a budget at all in two years?  Watch Rubio's floor speech (done sans Teleprompter, by the way), to see his theory on that.  Ok, I'll give it away, it's a plan - the Dems don't want to present a budget, because that would mean actually having to address these problems, and to address these problems, there's not enough cash in rich people's pockets to tax them for it, so, they would HAVE to cut spending, or make significant changes in Medicare/Medicaid (twin programs going broke) and even Social Security, and, we all know Dems won't touch those.

So, the premise that this debt crisis is the Tea Party's doing is just downright either an attempt to carry water for Obama and Liberals, or a sign of extreme stupidity.  I don't doubt that Moronwatch may fall into the stupid category, but I'm pretty sure the writers at The Guardian are not stupid. 

The Guardian wants to make this particular debt ceiling battle all about the Tea Party, and it's sway on Republican legislators (mostly new ones).  But, that's not what it's all about.

While many on the Left enjoy caricaturing Tea Party members (and their sympathizers, like me) as racist rubes who just hate the black man in the White House, and take special glee in referring to them by the gay slur "teabaggers" (although, I have said many times, I'd rather be the "teabagger" than the "teabaggee"), they either fail to see what Tea Partiers are really concerned about, or they don't want their readers to know.

This began with TARP, which many people saw as government taking too much of the people's money to prop up a system which could have been saved by the market itself.  I don't think that's necessarily true, and I hoped the resolution to the banking crisis would play out differently than TARP, but, that program (Bush's, by the way) largely succeeded in preventing a collapse, and hasn't ultimately cost taxpayers too much.  But, there remains the lagging suspicion that government's involvement (and subsequent ignoring of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was too much, picking who's "too big to fail" and owning large chunks of banks (subsequently liquidated those assets).  Then, we had bailouts for GM in which the government ushered GM through bankruptcy, and the Obama administration flaunted bankruptcy laws to make sure unsecured UAW creditors got preferential treatment in bankruptcy court; and Chrysler, where a costly deal was made to transfer the company to Fiat, ensuring that we'll have shit cars to drive again in America.  Then,we had the continuing crap fest in housing prices, which have hit most Americans hard, with the government working their damndest to keep people in their homes, at a cost to who?  Taxpayers.

This was the genesis of the Tea Party movement, when BO and friends decided to further bail out these bad loans, Rick Santelli, CNBC reporter suggested a new Tea Party, and, the frustration over the extent of government intervention (most of which would prove fruitless, cf Stimulus) finally bubbled over.  Add to that a year long push for Obamacare (instead of any focus on these looming debt issues), and Americans who throughout this crisis had worked and continued to pay their bills and mortgages finally woke up to the fact that if government wasn't Leviathan during the Bush administration, it had certainly become that in the Obama administration, with no sign of slowing.

From there, we had an historic 2010 election, which ushered any many new politicians.  This is what irks me about the Guardian post the most.  The Tea Partiers recognized that business as usual in Washington wasn't working.  Most conservatives recognize that the Dems version of "compromise" means we do what they want, and have had enough of it.  We also recognize that is part of business as usual in Washington, and we're honestly, sick of it.

The Guardian seems to think (and I don't expect the Leftist paper to think otherwise) that we need a return to the old way of doing things.  They don't like it any more than Harry Reid does that the balance has shifted, that the old ways are no longer acceptable.  As Herman Cain likes to say, "How's that working out for you?"

I'll tell you how it's working out.  Like crap.  W was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history.  As if his debt wasn't enough, though (aided as it was by two wars, in his defense), Obama decided we needed to not double down on it, but quadruple the debt during his first two years, while he should have been enjoying cost savings from the draw-down in Iraq, he instead accelerated our involvement in Afghanistan, and started a 3rd "kinetic military operation" (i.e. "war") in Libya.  He massively increased the size and scope of government with Obamacare, and intrusive regulations like Dodd-Frank, did nothing to reign in Freddie/Fannie, and fortunately, failed to enact Cap and Tax.  But, he unleashed his EPA to do what he couldn't pass legislatively, and he still refuses to open the Gulf of Mexico, or any other significant oil producing section of the country to development.  This week, his increase in CAFE standards will put another fork in the auto industry in the country.  So, do Tea Partiers have reason to hate this administration beyond his color.  You bet.  If Joe Biden were doing this, it would suck as much.

Back to the Guardian and the "old way."  They quote Larry Sabato saying people will not compromise in Congress.  As if that's what America is all about.  I hate to tell some of you dolts out there, but compromise is what gave us slavery and proportional representation.  Many of the things that were wrong about this country at it's founding and for years were the result of "compromise."  Compromise isn't all that.  Please.

It's not just Tea Partiers who won't compromise.  It's Democrats, too.  Sabato's quote doesn't say that it's the Tea Party, but the Guardian implies that.  I say, where's the spirit of compromise when Harry Reid deigns the Boehner debt plan as "DOA" in the Senate and votes it down within an hour of it coming over.  This when Boehner's plan and Reid's own aren't that far off, once you remove Reid's gimmick cuts.

Look, it's correct to say that the real sticking point now is the timing on the plans.  The Dems want this to take them through the 2012 elections, and the GOP wants to debate this anew in 2012.  Now, if this was such a winning issue for Liberals, would they want to avoid another debate?  No, they'd relish it, which is what the GOP wants.  It's good politics, and it also provides a check against Dems that these cuts occur, and be serious.  Otherwise, it gives them an incentive to do nothing, and in 2013, we'll be here again, only in even worse shape.

As for the "default," let's all agree that a technical default is not the issue here.  It never has been.  The US will not default (we can't Constitutionally, anyway).  There is plenty of money to pay creditors, social security, medicare and medicaid, and military operations.  I've posted on that ad nauseum.  The threat of a "default" is a lie.

What's at stake here is the United States' credit rating, and it's actually a sign that those Tea Partiers are winning the battle in that most of the state run media and even Liberals are now focused on that.  BUT, to save that, we need to demonstrate that we're serious about reducing the debt.  Raising the debt limit does nothing for that.  That's why there must be serious cuts.  This scares libs, trust me, because for them, everything government does is sacrosanct.  Except for the military (one of those Constitutionally-mandated items), which is fair game for cuts.  They can't cut anything, and they fear any meaningful attempt to force them to do so (like a balanced budget amendment, for example).

There's no doubt that Tea Partiers want a smaller, less obtrusive government.  Yet, even in the Boehner plan, there's no reduction in the size of government, only in the growth of it.  So, you could understand how some new members on the Hill could look at all these shenanigans and declare, "Enough!"

For anyone to say that Tea Partiers "seem intent on risking destroying what American political leaders have constructed in more than two centuries of hard, often painful work," is completely disingenuous and a lie. If we fail to raise the debt limit we are not going to lose the United States.  But, if we fail to get our government's spending in line with what we can actually afford, we will.  It's precisely because we continue to raise the debt limit that we find ourselves here.  Tea Partiers recognize that simple fact.  Our government has grown because we've allowed it to.  We borrow 43 cents on each dollar because we've created such a monster.  Tea Partiers have decided it's time to stop feeding the monster, and either we do it in a serious manner, or we have it done for us.

Actually, after reading this drivel from The Guardian, I'm considering whether I should drop my tepid support of the Boehner plan (which doesn't cut enough, and not soon enough) and say, either we get serious, or we take our chances.  At least in the latter case, we'll all be in it together, and maybe then the Left will recognize what a serious situation this is, because, my friend moronwatch, it's the Left who has failed to recognize the debt as an issue for 2 years of the Obama presidency, while since January 2009, the Tea Party has.

This man will be president someday, and the Democrats should know it

Marco Rubio



Has added benefit of schooling John F'ing Kerry

Obama Lies, so Granny doesn't die after all. Or, there will be no default! Obama says so (@moronwatch)

If you follow me on twitter, you know I have been saying to anyone who will listen, that despite Obama's rhetoric, there will be no default.

I explained this here, here and I even brought in Dick Morris explain it, here.

Today, we learned that even the Obama administration agrees there is no default possibility.  As my twitter nemesis, Moronwatch, might say, Obama is beholden to his supporters on Wall Street and at the too big to fail investment banks (like Goldman-Sachs) - so, he won't let a default occur.

Know how we know this (besides it would be criminal of Obama to allow it to happen when he could avoid it)?  Because this is what the Obama administration is telling their crony-capitalists at these banks.

"In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 deadline."

This doesn't mean it's a good idea to stop paying things like the EPA, but, as I've said before, social security gets paid, Medicare/Medicaid gets paid, debt service is completed, and there's some left over for Michelle Obama to go to Spain or Tahiti, or wherever she needs to go.

 

Win/Win for all us, n'est ce pas?

Kerry's pal stripped of Silver Star. Kerry still a French-looking loser.

CAPT Wade Sanders introduced the French-looking John "F'ing" Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where the Swift Boat driving Kerry was nominated as the party's candidate for President.

Many people like to believe that Kerry's campaign was derailed because a small group of veterans, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," mounted a campaign to discredit Kerry's Vietnam War accomplishments.  Their evidence was pretty compelling, and, coupled with Kerry's subsequent dovishness, his crazy wife, his propensity for wind surfing, and his overall Liberalism, he was defeated by W, with no second count required.

Still, this guy came perilously close to becoming President and placing adulterer, ambulance-chaser,  and campaign cheat John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and you thought a vote for John McCain was dangerous).  The left whined that those former comrades of Kerry had a big role in his defeat, and coined the phrase "Swift Boating" to mean shedding the light on prior actions of a Democrat candidate that the American people might not find so swift.  You know, like hanging out with bigoted preachers and guys who bomb police stations.

This week we learned that CAPT Sanders, who was a chief attack dog against the Swift Boat veterans, was involved in some, ummm, less than savory acts, like enjoying child pornography, an act for which he is serving 37 months in federal prison.  Since he's been in prison, Navy Secretary Ray Malbus has stripped CAPT Sanders of his Silver Star (published in the 7/11 print Navy Times, but text here).

CAPT Pamela Kunze of the Board of Medals said:

"Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star."

Of course, this doesn't confirm Kerry was  a coward and an opportunist (remember, he got himself 3 Purple Hearts so he could get out of Vietnam), but, it doesn't help his case that his chief defender is a convicted kiddie porn user and a liar.

@jpodhoretz, 7/20/11 10:30 PM

John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) 7/20/11 10:30 PM Astounding post b @KeithHennessey on Gang of Six proposal. He doesn't say it, so I will: It's bullshit. http://t.co/eODTENB

Sent from my iPhone

Dick Morris Explains the path forward for GOP

Dick Morris explains what the GOP really needs to do on this debt ceiling issue, and calls Obama out for lying about what lack of an agreement means with respect to default (i.e., nothing).

Jay to @DailyCaller: Put up or shut up on Bachmann Health

I expected better from the Daily Caller than a ridiculous hit piece on Michelle Bachmann and her migraine headaches.  I am embarrassed for them for their use of anonymous sources, and because if it is true that they "put her out of commission for a day or more at a time" that should be easily verifiable.  A sitting member of Congress has a pretty well publicized public schedule, and the instances the DC cites in their article barely describe "days at a time" of being incapacitated.

Furthermore, the article headline alleges "heavy pill use," yet in the body, we learn that pill use is because “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”

Well, that's true, you could end up with a bunch of pills.  Those who suffer very bad migraines need these pills, and would be a fool not to "take these pills wherever she goes."

They describe an incident in May 2010, when Bachmann "flew to Los Angeles for a series of political and fundraising events. In part because of complications with her flight schedule, Bachmann’s mood plunged. During the entire six-hour flight, she was desperately sick from headaches."

Hey, people, I don't know if you've ever had a regular headache on a plane, but it ain't fun, and to have a migraine on a plane!  Argh, I would make them land it.  But, that's why you take your medicine, but, with some migraines, you have to take your medication before the migraine reaches a certain point for it to be most effective, otherwise, you're where it appeared Bachmann was, in a doctor's office, getting a shot in your behind.  After that, you're good, though.  

Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of this article, since it barely rises TO the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer, and has no place in an online magazine trying to be a serious source of political news.  Maybe the DC wants to prove it's not just a right-wing outfit (I don't know why they'd want to abandon that market), or maybe they have a closet woodie for Romney or Perry.  I don't know, but this article is a disgusting hit piece.


As someone who has suffered/suffers from migraines, I can attest to the fact that they can be extremely debilitating, but, there are plenty of medications and strategies that can prevent them, and lessen their intensity.  In nearly all cases, a doctor's office visit for treatment can eliminate them very, very quickly.  Migraine sufferers pretty much lead a normal life, with attention to diet and use of proper medications.  This article is stupid and the DC should prove that these incidents are more than what they've shown, or they need to print a retraction and issue an apology to Bachmann and migraine sufferers everywhere.

Update: Read Ed Morrisey's take at HotAir, pretty much mirrors mine.

@moronwatch takes it on the chin from a teabagging moron. Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the debt limit.

Update: Added links and corrected spelling

The lead moron over at moronwatch is at it again, this time trying to explain to his followers why the GOP is leading the US to default.  As with most of moronwatch's posts, this is pretty much a cut and paste from liberal news media, and devoid of any original thinking.  I'll supply my rebuttal here, and allow my (one) reader to enjoy it.  It's THAT good.

This post is typical moronic twaddle.

You say, "Food stamps generate activity in the economy - $1.73 for each $1 spent."  Although that's nonsensical on its face, it's not even the right contention.  Liberals tried to tout when we were extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks here that "unemployment benefits" were a net positive to the economy, on the order of $1.73 to $1.

Either way, by that logic, we should just have the government give everyone food stamps (or cash), since it's a net positive to the economy.  We really should just print money and hand it to people, we'd immediately grow the economy.  (Actually, we would, but it would be a false growth). Do you people even THINK about what you're saying?

On one hand, Liberal economists (like those at The Economist) argue that deep spending cuts may have some negative growth effects (and there is an element of truth to that), but then argue that tax increases have a positive effect.  So, let's see this logic - we have government priming the economy with spending to increase growth, and removing money from the economy to also increase growth.  Huh?  Only morons like moronwatch and liberals believe this crap.

Surely, if spending was such a boost to the economy, the $1T spent in stimulus in the last 2 years would have the US economy going gangbusters now and coupled with all the extensions in unemployment benefits, we'd be at unprecedented growth rates, and Obama would have made good on his promise of <8% unemployment.  I don't know if you've noticed, but the US economy is slowing and unemployment is increasing.  This is the pattern with Keynesian stimuli, they don't work.  Not now, not ever.

There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised.  There just is no combination of spending cuts and tax increases that can raise enough revenue right away to solve the immediate problem.  So, the debt ceiling must be raised.  There is no other choice ultimately.

Because, unfortunately, we've fiddled for too long.  The president's laughable budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and those same Senators have failed to present a budget (a Constitutional requirement, by the way) for over 2 years.  The budget presented and passed in the House addresses these structural deficits, but, it is going nowhere in a Harry Reid, Democrat controlled Senate, and the President, of course, opposes it.  You tell ME who is intransigent here????

What is being debated, MW, is the future size of government, and your post either displays your ignorance or
disingenuousness (sort of like our President).

Let's get some things straight here, for your actually thinking readers:

1. Even without a debt ceiling increase, there does not need to be any default.  The US govt takes in enough money each month to service the debt and pay social security obligations and medicare and medicaid obligations.  Not much else, though.  So, clearly, govt services will slow to a crawl, and not even us crazy tea party sympathizers want that.
2. The argument that is being made is that the debt ceiling increase needs to be balanced by spending cuts of the same amount over some period of time.  Even the GOP is talking 10-12 years.  Not in the same year, ok, can we get that straight? 
3. The same is true of the tax increases that Obama is seeking.  Even he isn't stupid enough in this economy to suggest that we raise taxes in 2011 by $2T.  He's suggesting the same thing, raise taxes by $2T over ten years, and cut spending by a similar amount (this is his $4T "grand bargain").  This amounts to repealing the Bush tax rates on the highest earners.  Those are those millionaire families who make over $250k/year (or single filers making over $200k/year).  Funny, you call us morons, but in this world a millionaire makes $200k/year.  I guess in the world of 5 year plans, it makes some sense, though.
4. This is Obama's game.  He so pissed off his base by extending the Bush tax cuts in December, this is his way of getting them back.  Oh well, at least us morons recognize political posturing when we see it.
5. I realize you're British and maybe you don't know this, but no one can be denied medical care in the United States.  It's a question of who PAYS for it.  In the present system, we all pay for it via increased insurance premiums for the insured.  In Obamacare, we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums for the insured (plus increased taxes on everyone).  The selling point for government control is that this is just intended to be spread amongst more of us, so each of us will pay less.  I don't know, but 30 million more people being insured means someone is paying more.  But, that's an argument for another day.

If Obama was worth his weight in dog crap as a leader, he would come out and guarantee that in the event of no debt ceiling deal, our creditors would get paid, thus calming the financial markets.  Of course, that would give away his biggest bargaining chip, which is that we'll have no money to pay anyone, our creditors, or granny's social security check (in other words, fomenting fear).  It's truly despicable, and not leadership.  But, it's good politics for him.

Finally, Obama knows that his pals in the leftist, Obama-slurping media (which includes the former communists at The Economist) will tout his line and serve his mission.  And, that's ok.  We ALL know this, and accept it as a cost of politics in the United States.

As for me, I like this plan: http://bit.ly/ps847u

Debt Ceiling: Don't Call His Bluff, or Grandma Eats Dogfood!

If you live under a rock, we're a couple of weeks away from supposedly hitting the limit on the nation's credit cards.  Once you get past the stupidity of the debtors debating with each other over how much to raise their own credit limit, we have to face the reality that the limit will probably be increased.

When you're facing a deficit of $2T, it's going to be pretty hard to cut all that out immediately, and we already know that the Dems have promised that if the limit isn't raised, they don't intend to pay anyone and just let the country go into default.  That's what Obama meant when he said Granny wouldn't get her social security check.  Why would admit he could service the debt and pay social security obligations?  That would be truthful, and we already know the truth and Obama are alien.  Plus, it would demonstrate real leadership and responsibility.  It is what YOU would do, since YOU are responsible.  But, that's not in the Dems DNA.  No, like any other crisis, why let this one go to waste. There are political points to be made!

Obama famously dared Eric Cantor and the GOP "Don't call my bluff," and it's unlikely that they will.  But, is there another way to protect the nation's credit rating, and still force the administration to accept cuts in the budget?  Is there a way to "call his bluff" and retain the nation's good credit?

The GOP is going to vote this week on a plan they label as "Cut, Cap, and Balance, " or CCB.  The plan cuts spending, places a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP, and takes a vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA).

The cut part is intended to at least offer a dollar for dollar cut in spending for a corresponding increase in the debt limit.  That would address the immediate need to keep the US out of default and run the country as usual (or, at least as Obama and the Dems define usual).

The cap part limits spending, as proposed, to 18% of GDP.  This is below the historical norm (around 20%) and takes us back many years, so it really does represent a return to a more fiscally sane time.  But, except for now, and WW2, we've never spent much more than 21% of GDP (today, it's 24%), so this is close to historical levels.

The balance part is a balanced budget amendment, which does not require the president's signature to send to the states.  It is the hardest part of the thing, requiring a 2/3's vote in both chambers.

Dems being huge spenders, none of these, sadly, has a chance of passing the Senate, with it's 51 Dem majority (and Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman).  So, yes, CCB is largely political posturing, but, it lays out the GOP's goals and what is acceptable to the GOP, and, I might add, to the people who sent historic numbers of them to Congress in the 2010 election.  Taking Obama at his word that elections have consequences, I'd like to point out to the Liberals that the most recent election, and the one that most closely tells you where the country is on this, was in 2010, and "We won."

The GOP leadership seems torn by what to do.  Of course, the old GOP guard of RINO's like Mitch McConnell and John McCain remember 1995 and that shutdown, and they know how they got outmaneuvered by Bill Clinton and a "pliant, supine media." They cringe at what this means to them, if Obama and his pals in the mainslurp media succeed in framing a failure to reach an agreement as the GOP's fault.  To them, I warn that this is NOT 1995.  There was no Fox News and no Internet to speak of in 1995. The state-controlled media was much stronger then, and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, although they share being first black presidents.

I further warn the GOP Old Guard that the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers (me), will not take kindly to more Republican capitulation to those determined to ruin the United States of America.  If you're not aware of the McConnell plan, while it seems politically palatable, it is NOT what we sent this crop of people to Washington to do.  We sent these people to Washington to save us from the left-wing ideologue in the White House, and we intend for them to do that.  At least we want them to hold the line until help arrives.  This battle is crucial in framing the debate for 2012, and Barack Obama and the do-nothing, Dem-controlled Senate must be made to pay for their intransigence in this one.

Understanding that the Senate will not pass CCB, and that even if it miraculously passed, BO would veto it, what is the GOP to do?  Keep in mind that even if August 2nd comes and there is no debt limit increase, the Feds are still collecting revenue, something like $200B/month.  So, there's money coming in.

Dick Morris, a veteran of that 1995 battle (on the winning side), has some advice for Republicans.  Dick says, pass CCB, to get your policy goals out there and put it on record, but that's only 1/2 the battle.  Knowing that won't pass, pass legislation that gives the administration Congress's priorities in the event there is no debt limit increase.  Tell the president what you expect him to do with that $200B.  And it should be:

1. Service the debt to avoid default.  This must be priority one.  Codify it so that the rating agencies and creditors know we intend to make good on our debts.
2. Direct the president to pay active duty military salaries and fund contingency operations (those are called wars in another administration).
3. Direct the president to make social security payments and Medicare and Medicaid payments.
4. Authorize the Treasury Secretary to borrow money as necessary beyond the debt limit to make good on any of the above bills, should revenue be insufficient.  
5. Require Treasury to provide a full accounting of where all revenues are spent.

From most estimates, the money coming in should be enough to cover these obligations.  But, even if not, the conditional approval to borrow will ensure they are met.

It shouldn't take legislation to make these things happen.  A true leader of the free world would already have assured people that even though the Congress is a bunch of louts and can't increase the debt limit (or, in the case of the Senate, pass a budget), he would ensure all these things would happen, because, you know, he's a leader.  Instead, this president decided to be a demagogue and use granny to score political points. Hey, we already knew that about him, though.

Parts of the government will go in to hiatus.  Unlike 1995, though, this time, no one will care, especially since the President and his pals have made Social Security and the military the issue already, now they'd have to back off and say, well, we got that covered, but aren't you mad the EPA isn't enforcing environmental regulations, or that Joe Biden can't take the Acela home to Delaware this weekend?  

I'll take that argument.

Look, if not now, when?  If conservatives lose this debate, then, I agree with Sean Hannity, who today said that means the country has decided we want to be Greece.  If that's what the majority of Americans want, then I'll stick around to pick up the pieces.  We'll all find out who John Galt is.

St Louis Today Editorialists Paint Caricature of GOP. Are they right? You read, I decide.

The people who identify themselves as the "Editorial Board" of St. Louis Today, herein perpetuate myths about conservatives, and Republicans. I guess a caricatured version of the opposition makes it easier for these idiots, but, let me help them out here.


Editorial: Eight myths to chill an old-school Republican soul
By the Editorial Board

In their op-ed, they say the GOP has become a "spectacle of smart, patriotic men and women putting their brains and integrity on ice to please a party dominated by anti-intellectual social Darwinists and the plutocrats who finance and mislead them."

Heh? Social Darwinists? What does that even mean? Plutocrats? Isn't it the Democrat party who have given nprecedented amounts of money to the Obama campaign? Wasn't the Clinton administration and the Obama administration filled with refugees from Goldman Sachs? Seriously, this stuff is just laughable.

"Consider the mythology that makes up GOP orthodoxy today. Imagine the contortions that cramp the brains and souls of men and women of intelligence and compassion who seek state and national office under the Republican banner."

They go on to list these things you must believe, in their opinion:

"• They must believe, despite the evidence of the 2008 financial collapse, that unregulated — or at most, lightly regulated — financial markets are good for America and the world."

Liberal orthodoxy is that everything in the world can be tamed, if only our omniscient, all-knowing, Liberal Masters were allowed to make those decisions for us. What Liberals fail to point out is that these experiments have all been tried, with no success. The Soviet Union, and China are filled with 5 years plans, most of them dramatic failures. Even the vaunted New Deal was largely a failure of government planning. Conservatives don't believe that less regulation in free markets is correct for any other reason than that is what works best.

"They must believe in the brilliantly cast conceit known as the "pro-growth agenda," in which economic growth can be attained only by reducing corporate and individual tax rates, especially among the investor class, and by freeing business from environmental rules that have cleaned up America's air and water and labor regulations that helped create America's middle class."

This is a two part stupidity. Part one is that economic growth is attained by maintaining low individual and corporate tax rates. To that, again, I don't know how Liberals avoid history. I give you the Bush, Reagan, and Kennedy tax cuts, all of which were followed by sustained years of economic growth. Let me posit the alternative - which is that we increase rates. Is there anyone, other than former Soviet planners, who think THAT creates econiomic growth. Come on, not even Obama believes that.

Part two is the gratuitous swipe at the GOP as against clean air and water. Conservatives recognize the need to craft and maintain regulations to ensure the safety of our drinking water and air. What we don't see is the need and the cost effectiveness of many more regulations that do little to further clean the air and water, and do more to stifle economic activity. Capitalism is the best way to ensure clean air and water. JUst look at the cesspools in Eastern Europer and China, if you want to see the results of unfettered State planning. This is just ridiculous. Again, it gets to the heart of Liberal conceit, which is that the hoi polloi can't see what's good for them (clean air and water) and need their Liberal betters to pass laws to make sure they are protected. Finally, it's a popular liberal myth that without the union movement of the early 20th century, we'd have no middle class. That's an untruth. The union and workers' rights movements of that time may have accelerated the formation of a broad middle class, but it would have happened eventually anyway as the economy and technologies matured.

" Though rising health care costs are pillaging the economy, and even though health care in America is now a matter of what you can afford, Republican candidates for office must deny that health care is a basic right and resist a real attempt to change and improve the system."

They deny it as a "basic right" because it is not a "basic right" as defined in our Constitution. Since Liberals pretty much interpret the Constitution however they want, I can understand their confusion.

"GOP candidates must scoff at scientific consensus about global warming. Blame it on human activity? Bad. Cite Noah's Ark as evidence? Good. They must express at least some doubt about the science of evolution."

The only scientific consensus in the "climate change" debate is that temperatures rose for a 20 year period in the late 20th century. After that, the rest is debatable, and most certainly isn't consensus. COuld the rise in temps be due to human activity? Could it be due to solar activity? COuld it be due to normal variations in the Earth's cooling and warming cycle? It could be a combination of them all. What is true, though, is that no models created by the global warming alarmists fit the actual trends, and none of them fit going backwards. What is also true is that AGW proponents have willfully manipulated data and lied, probably either for political reasons, or to keep the research bucks flowing.

I see that the theory of evolution is now science. Nice trick.

"They must insist, statistics and evidence to the contrary, that most of the nation's energy needs can be met safely with more domestic oil drilling, "clean-coal" technology and greater reliance on perfectly safe nuclear power plants."

Anyone who says they want the US to be entirely energy independent is denying reality. Fossil fuels are traded in an international market.  We compete with China, Japan, France, etc for resources. 

But, we can improve supplies of oil here at home, and use more coal and natural gas, sources found in great abundance in this country. That would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil, serve to reduce prices for energy, and improve our safety from blackmail from middle eastern dictatorships. Adding more nuclear plants would provide a greeenhouse-gasless way to produce energy and make all those plug-in hybrids actual non-polluters.  Adding to the worldwide supply will not only make us richer by becoming a net supplier (perhaps), but it will provide good, high-paying (and likely lots of unionized) jobs, and reduce enegery prices worldwide.

I realize people may mistakenly believe we get a large percentage of oil from the Middle East, and I understand that's not true - our greatest suppliers are Canada and Mexico, and no, they're not poised to attack us. But, since so much of the world's current oil reserves are in Middle Eastern countries, they coutrol the price of oil to a large extent, and that's how they have us (and the rest of the West) over a barrel, so to speak. Want to mnimize that risk, encourage more production here, as well as in friendly countries (like Brazil, so Barry O has that part right).

"They must believe that all 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States can be rounded up, detained, tried, repatriated and kept from returning at a reasonable cost."

This one really kills me. I mean, if you said this to one of your conservative friends, you either wouldn't be able to get up after the punch, or the laughter at your stupidity would drown you out for a while.

Typically, these caricatures include some veiled statement that Conservatives are racists. Kudos to St Louis Today for avoiding that. I am amazed that St. Louis today has such an exact number. Perhaps they have been doing the documentation.

My argument on immigration is that we should control our borders and that we should know who is in our country, where they are, why they are here, and that they have some valid reason for being here. We'd also love to debate what skill sets we need from immigarnts, how many we need, and we'd like to make sure we can assimilate them into the American experience so that they continue to be productive, valuable citizens. We used to actually have those debates, and we were able to assimilate immigrants into our society.  At some point, we just became an open borders country, and it's costing too much money to provide services to immigrants and it's a security issue (it's mostly a security issue). 

If we need 2M immigrants/year, and they all come from Mexico, by all means, let's get it done, and let's put them on a path to citiizenship, and perhaps we need to make changes in that process to make it quicker and fairer. But, we need control of the borders for national security. Let's have the immigration debate, but let's have it honestly. This statement is just so dishonest that it means we can't have the debate with people who believe this.

"Even though there are more than four unemployed persons for every available job, GOP candidates should at least hint that unemployment benefits keep people from seeking jobs."

There's plenty of evidence that long-term unemployment benefits discourage job seeking. Like immigration, there's a balance somewhere between how long and how much we should provide in unemployment benefits before the beneficiary begins to adapt to that as a way of life. I don't think the conservative argument is that unemployment benefits prevent people from seeking employment, but there's a rational argument to be made for just how long should we provide them before we decide the beneficiary is, perhaps, unemployable, or isn't willing to look hard enough for a job.

I could share anecdotal evidence of my own about people whom I consider are abusing the system, but, in deference to them, the system exists as it is, and they are doing nothing more than pkaying the game the way the rules are written, and, in my opinion, these folks are emblematic of a broken system.

I look forward to the editors reply.  Not holding my breath.

@moronwatch gets pwned. What else is news?

Read the comments, where I put @moronwatch in his proper place.  On the floor, being properly teabagged.

2012 GOP Field

The 2012 GOP field is shaping up, and while I have no clear favorite, I have some favorites. Since CNN is hosting a debate in New Hampshire tomorrow, now is a good time to review the candidates.

I'll go through the declared and potential candidates here in short form.  As the field gets more certain, I may devote a longer post to each of them, and their pros and cons, so my minions can form their own opinions, from mine.

In no particular order are the near certain or declared candidates (Links are to their official campaign sites):

• Herman Cain - Cain is an Atlanta native and former Godfather's Pizza CEO and Pillsbury executive who was also a Federal Reserve Board Chairman (Kansas City).  He hosted a local radio show here and was often a guest host on semi-Libertarian Neal Boortz's show.  You may remember Cain as the executive who in 1994 asked Bill Clinton who he should lay off as a result of HillaryCare.  He's a Tea Party favorite, a staunch fiscal conservative, and a social conservative, who happens to be black and devoid of elected experience.  If you saw Cain on Fox News Sunday recently, you may have noticed foreign policy is not his forte'.  I don't know what we can expect from him here, except that he's likely to stick with conservative principles - continue global war on terror, support for Israel, etc.
  
  My opinion - I like Cain. A lot.  He's a smart man, who thinks quickly, and has a homespun, folksy manner that really brings people in.  On domestic issues, he is going to run rings around Obama and the democrats.  Of course, that's pretty much true of all the candidates here, given they are not Keynesian fools, like Liberals.  He is going to be a solid social conservative, and I think he'll surround himself with pros at Defense, and, I sense he might actually recognize the State Department is a mess and correct that.
  
  What's not to like?  Not too much.  Some knock him for his lack of elected experience.  He plays that into a plus, which I think it is, too.  He demonstrated some "deer-in-the-headlights" looks in that first FNS interview when probed about Israel and "right of return" for the Palestinians.   And, he wants to get in office, review the intelligence before proclaiming anything on Afghanistan.  I don't think in this long election cycle, that he can continue that answer.  He's also 65 years old.  He doesn't look or act it, but, that's a little aged, especially for a cancer survivor.  The pundits don't think he can draw much more of a crowd or money.
  
  My prediction - Cain is going to do very well in Iowa, and be this year's Huckabee. It won't be enough to win the nomination, though.
  
• Mitt Romney - the current front runner is the consensus choice.  I am hoping the consensus is wrong.  I like Romney, I think he'd make a fine president, and a far, far, far better one than Obama.  He'd bring competence and conservatism back to the White House.  Let's take his biggest albatross first, RomneyCare.  I don't think Romney has explained the Massachusetts law that he championed and signed well enough.  I am ok with what he did there.  He doesn't have to deal with the thorny Constitutional issues as a Governor, and, Massachusetts is about as Liberal as they come.  The way I look at, that state got what it deserved.  He says he'll repeal Obamacare, and replace it, and he may be actually,the best positioned Republican to actually get Independent voters to agree with him on that one.  He can make the argument that he's worked with both sides on this issue, understands it, and knows that what may work in Massachusetts won't work nationally. Anyway, I think there's plenty of room for him to maneuver on this.  RomneyCare hurts him with conservative GOP primary voters, but not with the rest of the country.
  
  The bad?   As one of those GOP primary voters, I will NOT vote in a GOP primary for someone who believes the climate change/global warming alarmists and their falsehoods.  Romney has said he believes this crap, so, he will not be getting my vote in the primary.  That's disqualifying for me.
  
  My prediction - Skipping Iowa will keep expectations low there.  Must win New Hampshire (and fairly handily).  I predict he will not win, or will win weakly, and that will effectively end his campaign.
  
• Tim Pawlenty - the Minnesota governor has been running now almost as long as Romney, yet can't seem to get over 5% of GOP voters to admit he exists. Like Romney, he has solid executive experience in a Liberal state.  Unlike Romney, he mostly governed as a conservative, and had success in Minnesota, winning re-election.  He has outlined an ambitious and decidely supply-side economic plan that mixes tax rate changes and spending cuts to spur economic growth.  While some of the assumptions may be rosy, they are not unattainable, and are a cure for our flailing economy.  On foreign policy, I haven't seen a lot of him, but his positions are pretty much standard-fare mainstream conservative, and he's a strong social conservative.
  
  The bad?  Tim Who?  Unfortunately, that's the question a lot of people are asking.  Pawlenty is just invisible in this crowd. He needs a break-out in Iowa to get his name up, but, even though he was a popular governor in a neighboring state, he's not seeing much traction.  It's a long way, but, he needs to get some visibility and do well there.
  
  My prediction - I just don't know.  I want T-Paw in the race for the duration.  I think he'd be a great candidate, but, I just don't know if he can make it happen.  I predict a decent Iowa showing, but will it be enough to keep his campaign afloat?
  
• Newt Gingrich - Ah, Newt, what have you done?  Not a good sign when all your top advisers leave, or are shown the door.  I realize Newt wants to wage a 'different' kind of campaign, and I know Newt has a lot of ideas.  I'd like to see Newt stay in for a while to elevate the debate, and force the other candidates to elevate their game, too.  Sadly, I don't know if he's even going to make it to Iowa.  He seems to be self-destructing, and he's a very undisciplined candidate.  He's with me on nearly every issue, but, in this crowd, so are a bunch of others.
  
  The bad?  A lot of bad with Newt.  I think Newt's time passed a long time ago.  I can't really forgive him for that PSA with Nancy Pelosi.  It's like sitting with the devil.  Also unforgivable, his statements on the Ryan budget plan.  It's ok to not like elements of it, but, it's not right-wing social engineering.  He has no real executive experience, and he is not a disciplined campaigner.  He's too old, and 3 wives and his treatment of numbers 1 and 2, not great.
  
  My prediction - Flameout and out of the race before 2011 is over.
  
• Ron Paul - Look, Paul is a nut.  He's right on many issues and his Libertarian bent is great to have in the race.  I don't know how he stays in these things, but, I hope he does.
  
  The bad?  His supporters are really nuts.  He's about 100 years old.  His son would be a better choice.
  
  My prediction - will never get into double digits, yet somehow will persevere to the end.
  
• Gary Johnson - the former New Mexico governor is, like Paul, a Libertarian.  Except, Johnson does it without drawing any support.  He wants us out of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq.  He wants us to stop using enhanced interrogation techniques, Gitmo shut down, and the Patriot Act repealed.  He's pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage and pro-legalization.  If you're a Libertarian, and I mean a true one, this is your guy.  You'd think those views would be more at home in the Democrat party, but, Libertarians also believe in individual choice and personal freedom, and the Liberal Fascist's view of government doesn't include either of those concepts.  Fortunately, most Libertarians know that.
  
  The bad?  Did I mention Libertarians live in a fantasy world?  I think I'd like their world, but it's a parallel universe to mine.  Also bad, he can't get the 2% support to get on the stage in tomorrow's debate.  Ouch!
  
  My prediction - May hang in til his money runs out.  Could be any day now.
  
• Rick Santorum - I like Rick Santorum, and he's from an important blue state, Pennsylvania.  But, it's a blue state that rejected him wildly in 2006 (not a good year for Republicans anywhere, mind you), but has routinely elected Republican senators and governors (as it did in 2010).  Santorum is wildly right on the issues.  He's solidly conservative, and would be an interesting candidate.  But, there's a reason we don't routinely elect senators to the presidency.  They usually suck, just witness Barack Obama.
  
  The bad? To the rest of the country, he's Rick Who?  I just don't think he has the backing and support it's going to take to last long in this race.
  
  My prediction - Out after Iowa.

That is the list of announced candidates.  Now, here are those yet to announce, with my predictions centered around whether they enter the race or not:. Links are to PACs or their personal sites associated with their current positions.

• Sarah Palin - You can search this blog to see all my many posts about just Sarah Palin.  I just go back and forth on her.  She holds all the right positions, she strangely articulates them, and she's got a following and star appeal that approaches what Barack Obama had in 2008.  I do not think Palin is stupid, but in a recent post, I think I put my finger on my issue with her.  And my issue isn't with her, it's with some of her followers, and the Republican party in general.  We've been looking for the heir to Reagan for almost 25 years now.  We need to stop looking.  Palin is not Reagan, and no one is, and the GOP should stop looking for that person.  Palin could, I believe, stand on her own, and bring tremendous energy and excitement to the race.  She has a lot of negative perceptions that the state-run media has been more than happy to create and perpetuate.  Could she overcome them?  I think she could, because she commands the airtime.  Will she?
  
  The bad?  No one in the GOP outside a return of George W Bush drives the media mad like Palin does.  They will go into full blown Obama love again if she opposes him.  Not all bad, but she needs to be prepared for this.  Also bad, people think she's stupid.  That's a hard barrier to break through once it's set.  She's similar to W, who's grades were at least as good as Al Gore's (and who had a Harvard MBA and had not written an unreadable,, crappy book), in this respect.
  
  My prediction - I think 2012 is her time.  Obama is very beatable.  The Left doesn't realize it, but people HATE Democrats these days.  She needs to enter soon, but once she's in, it's her nomination to lose.
  
• Michelle Bachmann - The MN Congresswoman is another Tea Party favorite and a strident defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way (now that Superman has passed on all that stuff).  Again, she holds all the right positions, but, if you think Sarah Palin gets killed by the media, just wait to see what they can do to Bachmann.
  
  The bad? She has a tendency to say crazy stuff, you know, like the US has 57 states.  Oh wait...
  
  Prediction - I think what she does depends on Palin. If Palin doesn't enter the race, Bachmann is almost certain to get in.  I could see her doing well in Iowa.  Could be a dark horse, but will be an uphill battle.
  
• Rick Perry - The TX governor has the benefit of leading the only state that has done reasonably well during our excursion into Obamanomics.  That Texas has a truly part-time legislature and is the least regulated state in the nation has something to do with it.  Perry's been a strong 10th Amendment advocate since Obama started destroying it, and he's opposed every last piece of crap legislation that has come out of Washington since, oh, January 21, 2009.  He also dispatched RINO Kay Bailey Hutchison when she tried to run for governor.  Perry's got a record, is a tough as nails conservative, and, if he gets into this race, he could become the front runner in moments.  If he gets into the race, it's going to be because Sarah Palin is not, and it's expected that his entry could include a strong endorsement from Palin.
  
  The bad?  What will Americans think of another Texan running for president? He isn't terribly well known outside Tea Party, GOP, and conservative circles.
  
  Prediction - getting in, and with Palin's backing, will quickly consolidate this race to a 2 way between Romney and Perry.  Look for Perry/Palin 2012.
  
• Jon Huntsman - Former Utah governor and Barack Obama's ambassador to China is considering a run.  Look, he may be a nice guy, and a solid conservative, but, really, I don't even know the guy.
  
  The bad? See above.  Need any more than that?
  
  Prediction - going to get in, but will be out by the end of Iowa.

Others are waiting, perhaps to see what happens, and others are just fantasies:

• John Bolton - former UN Ambassador under Bush.  Would be a great president on foreign policy.I think he'll make a great Secretary of State in the Perry White House.
• Chris Christie - the tough talking, results-delivering NJ governator has said repeatedly he's not running. I believe him.  Should the GOP falter in 2012, Christie is waiting to save us in 2016.  Sorry, Ann Coulter.
• Jeb Bush - the Bush who SHOULD have been president in 2000 is not running, has expressed no desire to run, and probably had his hopes dashed ion November 2000 when his brother won.  But, how sweet would it be to replace the Fascist Obama with another Bush?  Seriously, how sweet would that be?
• Trump - please.

Ok, so I have some favorites and some not-so favorites.  

Right now, my choice among the declared candidates is Cain, followed by Pawlenty.  Among the potential candidates, if Rick Perry gets in, I would seriously consider him, and, I am reconsidering my position on Palin.  Bachmann is a wait and see type.  Romney is a no way.

I plan to watch the CNN debate tomorrow, maybe on DVR.  Hopefully you will, too.  I won't live blog it, but if I watch in real time, find me on twitter, twitter.com/sleepywhiner.

Steyn - The Obama Road to Nowhere

Mark Steyn, as always, brilliant today, In National Review Online, on Obama's Road to Nowhere.

A taste, then read it all:

"The American Dream, 2011: You pay four bucks a gallon to commute between your McJob and your underwater housing to prop up a spendaholic, grabafeelic, paramilitarized bureaucracy-without-end bankrupting your future at the rate of a fifth of a billion dollars every hour."

Sarah Palin. She's no Ronald Reagan

Palinistas kill me.  Lately, they've been trying to equate Palin to Reagan, and while there are similarities, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

Let me stipulate that I like Sarah Palin.  Pretty much every position she takes is one with which I agree.  As a conservative, we're probably in lock-step, so, I have every reason to support her.  With the perhaps single exception of Herman Cain, she's the only candidate I expect to agree with nearly 100% of the time.

Here's the problem with Palin for me.  I actually find myself thinking she agrees with me, vice me agreeing with her.  I don't get that feeling from a guy like Cain, who I have had the opportunity to listen to quite a bit here in Atlanta over the years.  With Cain, I feel like I am following him, and that I learn something new with him.  With Palin, well, she's a politician who happens to share my views.  I think she could learn more from reading my blog than I could ever learn from months with her.  It's not that I think she's stupid, nor that she's intellectually incurious.  It's just that I don't think she brings thought leadership to the movement.

That may seem like I am knocking her, but I am not.  Seriously, Palinista's, I'm not.  Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and even as far back as Woodrow Wilson, we have examples of superbly intelligent men who couldn't lead nor would even really be management material.  Academics are like that.

So, I could get behind a Palin presidential run, or a Palin presidency.  I actually think it would be competent, and she'd at least be pushing my agenda.  I expect she'd be highly effective at getting my priorities executed.  But, don't tell me she's an intellectual force bringing new ideas to the conservative movement.  She's not.  She's good at framing ideas that are not her own, and at bringing to bare metal the flaws in the opposition's arguments.  But, I don't find any of her ideas or approaches terribly original, but derivative.  Even her famopus Death Panels was not her original thought. 

We don't necessarily need that in a president, and I don't require it.  I need my president to get the things I want done, to be persuasive in doing so, and I'd like them to make the state-run media nuts.  She'd do all those things, and, she'd bring new blood to the movement.  I think she understands, at a working level what most people with common sense are thinking, and she gives voice to that, and more effectively than pretty much any other candidate out there (with the exceptions of Cain, and the non-running Huckabee). I find her Midwestern cadence and odd butchering of the English language grating and it drives me crazy, but, I have it on good authority that the way she talks rings true with large swathes of the populace (and these swathes vote).  So, I have to be prepared to accept it.

But, it doesn't mean I have to listen to her ardent supporters say she's Reagan incarnate.  She is not.  And no one will be.  One of the GOP's and conservatives' problems is that we're all looking for Reagan II.  We're not going to find it.  Reagan was unique, and unique for his time.

Sure, the media pilloried Reagan as nothing better than an amiable dunce, and a warmonger, and an old, senile man (during term 2).  Those of us who followed him knew better.  By 1980, Reagan had a 20 year record of real thought leadership in the conservative movement, and was a leader in it.  He came by his convictions honestly, and through thorough study of them.  He was intellectually curious.  He was a persuader, and he was able to make his arguments because he had thought them through himself. 

So, you Palin fans, I am with you, but, please stop comparing Palin to Reagan.  Feel free to compare the treatment of her by the press to their treatment of Reagan, and continue to rebut it, but...I don't think your arguments are as strong as Reagan's defenders.  And, it serves neither Sarah Palin, the conservative movie, not the GOP, to try to turn her into something she is not.

She could be a wonderful candidate, and a common-sense alternative to Professor-President Obama.  Let her.

More on my candidate in a future post.

Twitter - still great after all these years

As some know, I am a big fan and user of twitter.  In fact, you have a better chance of finding me on twitter than at this blog.

Twitter has several things going for it that I enjoy:

• It's immediate.  Those of us watching our twitter feeds on the night OBL was killed, knew it very soon.  The rest of you, waited.
• It forces you to think in 140 character thoughts.
• You can follow a heck of a lot of people quicker than web surfing, and even using a good RSS reader.
• Many dedicated tweeps will respond in real time.  Want to take Buster Olney to task for something he has reported on ESPN, he may respond.
• You can engage in real time conversations over whatever topic you want, pretty much whenever you want.
• It's a good way to actually find out how the other side thinks, even if that is maddening.
• It's great on an iPhone!

Of course, Twitter has some disadvantages:

• If you can't express a cogent thought in 140 characters, well, forget it.
• Your stream can move fast.
• Some of those conversations can get stupid, real quick.
• 140 characters at a time is not a great way to debate
• It's addicting

Some advice for my fellow tweeps, or those considering jumping in:

• Don't let it rule you
• If you engage in conversations with those with differing views, try to keep it civil, and remember that 140 character limit means you can't express complicated ideas easily, and neither can they.  Have some compassion.
• Don't expect to change minds.  Likely the lefties are following other lefties, as you are following right-minded people.  Like I do with this blog, I usually consider that my audience is my right-wing family and friends and a few open-minded, independent thinking people.  The committed Leftists - they are only good as your foil.
• Follow a few people who disagree with your views, it's eye-opening.
• Related to these - keep a thick skin,  I guarantee if you're in a conversation with a Lefty, they are eventually going to get frustrated and devolve into name calling.  Get used to it, at that point, they've lost the debate and control, and this is how they react.

Well, there you have it.  Twitter.

Bin Laden is dead - kudos to Bam, and where to now?

I don't normally give kudos to Rob Schumacher and his political beliefs,.but his analysis on the take-down of Osama Bin Laden is pretty much dead on.

Bottom line is that the SEALS deserve the credit for carrying out this mission, and Obama deserves credit for taking the risks inherent in putting men on the ground, in order to absolutely be able to say we got Bin Laden.  He also deserves credit for keeping the Pakistani's out of this.  He rightly identified them in the 2008 campaign, and was blasted for it, as part of the problem, and people we honestly couldn't trust.  If anyone believes that in what is essentially a military town, that OBL's presence there was totally unnoticed, well, they are an idiot.

This is one of the failings of the Bush administration, which although may have seemed a bunch of cowboys, was really filled with veteran Washington insiders, and perhaps Bush's background meant he deferred too often to the State Department, who's veteran bureaucrats, I am sure, argued to inform the Pakistani's of everything going on in their country.

For NOT doing that, I give Obama some credit.  You should, too.

On other aspects of this, you need my analysis, so here it comes.

• Pictures.  I am ambivalent about the release of pictures.  I personally do not need to see pictures to believe that we got OBL.  This is way too important for the President, his national security team, a bevy of Congressmen, and the military parties involved to be caught up in a conspiracy.  He's dead, you can count on that.  Do you really need to see a bunch of gory pictures to prove it?  You'd still need some "expert" to tell you it was OBL.
• Burial at sea (Islamic type).  If you don't think in 10 years of planning we hadn't thought long and hard and charted various courses of action on this, you don't know how these things work.  I think burial at sea was a great idea so that there is no ready-made shrine for a bunch of nuts to go to.  Whether he received a proper Muslim send-off or whatever, I don't really care.  I do think it's slightly hypocritical on one hand to say he perverted Islam, and on the other to make sure he received a proper Islamic burial.  But, that's probably more a cover story to mask the real reason, which is the at-sea burial.
• Administration dithering and confusion.  Readers of this blog know I am a massive critic of the Far-Left Obama administration.  Their politics is borderline Socialist/Fascist, but they also have demonstrated an amazing level of incompetence.
  
  I said I agreed with Obama and the manner this mission was carried out, but, I found the 10:30 pm Sunday address that didn't go down until 11:30pm ridiculous, and I thought the speech itself was overwrought and too self-congratulatory.  A simple announcement by the President, without all the me, my, I, etc, would have been sufficient, especially since the word was out on Twitter at 10:30 and people had an hour to digest it.  Just poorly handled.
  
  Since then, we have had all the conflicting reports of what happened, and the back-and-forth on the photos.  Just horribly managed, and a sign of the general incompetence of this administration, even when they hit the nail on the head with the actual event.  If you're a critic, it's business-as-usual, if you're a fan, you have to cringe at them.
• Political gain.  I don't think we'll see too much.  There are some positive signs to me that this administration may be getting it on the global war on terror.  They have adopted pretty much every Bush administration policy.  If we can just get them to turn back the clock on enhanced interrogation, they'll be at 100% compliance with Bush's policies.  Just remember how quickly things change in politics.  After Gulf War 1, GHW Bush was at 90% approval.  18 months later, we had President Clinton.  2012 is going to be about deficits and the economy, and those are both looking pretty crappy right now.
• Afghan War.  Some on the right are questioning whether we should be in Afghanistan now that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are neutered and OBL is dead.  Larry Kudlow asks some good questions on this, as does Charles Krauthammer, suggesting this is the way we can get out of Afghanistan having completed our mission with dignity and victory.  If we can finally put the Taliban to rest, let's leave that hellhole to the corrupt Karzai regime, and only come back if they become a threat again.
• GWOT.  OBL's death certainly does not mean the Global War on Terror is over.  It's not, but it's a powerful symbol of the steadfastness of this country.  The Bush doctrine still applies - if you're not with us, you're against us, but the need for direct military action in Iraq and Afghanistan is over.  Time to get out of those places with Iraq ultimately being a success, and Afghanistan, well, see above.  We need to focus our efforts on nurturing the Arab Spring, and we need our military forces refocused on the potential take down of Iran, who remains the sole capable, and determined resistance in the Middle East.

I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.

Trump.

Donald Trump is sucking all the current air out of the 2012 Presidential Race these days.

Bottom Line Up Front:  Trump is using this to promote his current Celebrity Apprentice run and himself.  With Trump, it's all about Trump.  He's not going to run for President.

But, because everyone else is doing it, let's play a mind game and pretend that Trump is serious.  After all, Dick Morris thinks he is. And I love Dick Morris.


Dick thinks Trump makes it to a final two against either Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich, and that he will bring new voters to the GOP fold.  I may agree with that, and would find that a good thing, and the assurance of GOP victory in 2012, which is looking even more possible, as gas prices rise (with the Emperor Obama doing nothing to stop them), and Obama's popularity plummetting to Bushian levels.

I like Trump.  He's not a conservative in the traditional sense, but, like many ambivalent Independents, and social Democrats, he's sick of the fiscal irresponsibility that the Obama administration has foisted upon us. He's seen as a strong leader who won't take any crap from anyone, and that is certainly not something the current president is doing.  People like that.

For you Dems who pass by this space, I want you to understand two things:

1. Obama is a far-Left ideologue, who thinks it is his mission to radically reconfigure the United States as a left-wing paradise, run by the super-intelligentsia, represented by Obama.  He has none of the blind ambition of a Bill Clinton, but he's imbued with the arrogance of Woodrow Wilson.
2. You could tax every person making over $100k every penny above $100k and you wouldn't even pay off the deficit for this year.  So, the class warfare card sounds appealing, but it's not the problem.

Back to Trump.  He could bring even more of those fiscally conservative Independents and Democrats into the GOP fold, even if not the nominee.  For that, the GOP would be eternally grateful.  The danger is that he loses the GOP nomination in a close race, and then decides that he's the answer to Obama, and runs as an Independent, assuring Obama's victory.

But, I don't think he's in it.

Koran Burning

The Florida preacher decides to go ahead with the Koran burning and a bunch of Islamist nuts decide to use it as an excuse to murder.

General Petraeus says this was unnecessarily provocative and places our troops at risk. I can understand his position here since it is unnecessary. To truly show the nature of Islam, I have said before that we should be READING the Koran not burning it.

But, the general needs to also understand he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and preeminent in that is the first amendment where we give special protections to speech. Specifically political speech, which, if you are being critical of Islam, you are exercising. Islam can not be separated as a religion and ideology. They are two parts of the whole.

General Petraeus would be wise to remember that many of us who served and continue to serve pledged to defend the Constitution and the right of idiots to exercise their freedom to be, well, idiots.

What we should NOT be doing is bending over to please a two bit corruptocrat (Karzai) who wants us to apologize for some nut desecrating their "holy" book. Nor should Congress be passing laws forbidding the burning of Korans or any other religious text. Like that kind if stuff, go to Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, Sean Hannity needs to shut up over this.

NASCAR quotes

On my drive home last night I was catching up on Jayski podcasts and there were a couple of good examples of why these guys aren't getting PHDs.

Denny Hamlin trying to explain why he is so good at Martinsville despite being there in numerous cars "There's one thing in common, my crew chief, the team, and me.". Heh?

You always hear some good mixed metaphors from racers, Richard Childress on Kevin Harvick, "he rolls with the flow."

Gotta love these guys.

Happier News! Baseball's back!

After a long wet, coldish winter, baseball is back and all is right with the world once again.

This season is full of hope here in Atlanta, because most of us believe the Braves will improve on last year's Wild Card record.  With the addition of Dan Uggla, Freddie Freeman, a healthy Chipper Jones, plus the National Leagues 3rd best rotation, arguably the best bullpen, and new manager Fredi Gonzales, I predict the Braves will win 95 games this year.

Normally, that would win the NL East, but, with the Phillies historically good starting staff, they may win 100 games.  At 95, though, they are a Wild Card lock, and could take the division. The Phillies may be without Chase Utley for the year, and Brad Lidge is injured and not worth a crap anyway.  Jimmy Rollins is in decline and the Phils have outfield issues.  They're going to need that pitching staff to be good, because the days when they hammer teams into submission are probably over.

As for the rest of the league, I don't really care.  I have a soft spot for the Reds and would like to see them succeed again.  The Mets are going to stink, and I will be thrilled to watch them lose 95 games and finish behind the Nationals, who may be good in 2012.

As we sit here today, the Braves are 1-0 and destined to finish 162-0 and complete the first unbeaten season in ML history.

On a happier note...Idol

I haven't been religious about Idol blogging.  Honestly, I have been so time late watching them, there seemed little point in recapping.

I spoke to my mother, who is one of the people still watching this, and we discussed these points:

• Is there anyone Steven Tyler doesn't like?
• The quality of contestants is decidedly better this year.
• We agreed that the 2 to go this week deserved it, and Thia Meghia should have waited a year.
• Paul's annoying.  Ok, mom didn't exactly agree with that, but I think he's annoying and should be next to go.

On things we didn't talk about, now that we're down to the final 9, I don't think there's a clear favorite yet, but, I think Pia, Lauren, James, Scotty, Casey, and Jacob are probably the final 5.  The loss of 2 girls this week helps the remaining women.  More random Idol thoughts:

• Haley and Paul are probably the next to go.  I agreed that Haley's performance was her best (it was not THE best of the night, that went to Pia or Lauren), and may save her for a couple of weeks.  If she can combine that raspy voice with some sexy clothing, she may be able to milk her way past Paul and Stefano and maybe Casey and get into the final 6.
• I know James has Tourette's and all that great story, but his shtick and the tics are starting to annoy me.
• Stefano is a good singer, but, haven't we seen this guy on Idol, oh, 10 times before?  And the eyes closed thing?  Scary.
• Yes, Lauren is very young, so maybe I am encroaching into creepiness here (it's probably legal in Georgia, though), but, if she makes it far and gets an actual country music gig, hopefully someone will introduce her to Nutri-System.  Hey, it worked for Carrie Underwood, who you may recall being a little chunky.  Or, she could go the Kelly Clarkson route and just eat her way to stardom (laughing all the way).
• I think Scotty's lying about his age.
• Jacob is starting to annoy me, too.  But, he's got a spot on Glee (not that there's anything wrong with that).
• Casey.  I like him with the trimmed beard.  He's becoming a bit of a drama queen, though.  Just get over it Casey.  You didn't deserve to be kicked off, the judges rightfully used their save.
• If anyone still thinks the results aren't fixed, well, come on...

Thomas Sowell Puts it to Obama...

One of the smartest men in America, Thomas Sowell, rips Obama apart over Libya.  In so doing, I think he hits on the essence of Obama (see quote 2). From Sowell's column:

"To attack him (Gaddafi) without destroying his regime is to ask for increased terrorism against Americans and America’s allies. So is replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism.

"The most charitable explanation for President Obama’s incoherent policy in Libya — if incoherence can be called a policy — is that he suffers from the longstanding blind spot of the Left when it comes to the use of force.  A less charitable and more likely explanation is that Obama is treating the war in Libya as he treats all sorts of other things, as actions designed above all to serve his own political interests and ideological visions. 

"As for the national interest of the United States of America, Barack Obama has never shown any great concern about that."

I don't know what Obama's up to in Libya, or what the end game is, but I am never terribly opposed to removing a despot like Gaddafi, the rottenness of the replacements be damned.  But as I posted previously, we run a great risk here of losing (and, if the rebels don't succeed in taking out Gaddafi, we lose), and an even greater risk of winning (where the rebels actually turn out to be Islamists and turn Libya into another terrorist-sponsoring Islamic state, as opposed to Gaddafi's mad-man terror sponsoring).

The real problem with what we're doing in Libya is...no one really knows what we're doing in Libya.  I can see it at the Bam White House:

Advisor 1: They're all saying we must do something about Gaddafi.
Bam:  Well then, do something.

 And that's just it, we're doing something, but no one knows what it is.

Libya, Obama, Bumper Stickers: Give War a Chance

Jason Mattera, over in Human Events, posted yesterday about all the contradictions in Obama's Monday night speech and the Libya policy in particular.  It's worth a read.

Today on my way to work, I was behind one of those leftists, female, professorial types driving a 10 year old Corolla, with all sorts of leftist bumper stickers.  You know the ones - "coexist," "War is not the answer," "instead of dropping bombs, blah, blah, blah." The crap that was popular among the Left during the Bush years.  And in the middle of all of those, one of those annoying "Obama '08" stickers.  In the fallout of the Libya exercise (war?), I wondered whether she was feeling particularly hopey-changey, and would she be scraping that Obama sticker off soon?

That observation aside, I think it's right that we get involved in the Libyan deal.  Let's face it, I despise the Islamists completely, and want to see them and their ideology wiped off the face of the earth, but, Gaddafi was pretty much the most despicable tyrant in a part of the world filled with them.  Whatever replaces him couldn't be much worse for the United States.  It's definitely worth the effort, especially if it can be done somewhat antiseptically from the air (which I doubt).  I am reminded of the Kosovo operation during Bill Clinton's reign.  I think Clinton hoped he could avoid ground troops in that case, too, and may have even pledged the same thing.  When it came down to the endgame, however, we were sending ground troops, as peacekeepers, with NATO allies and other UN nations, and, we hadn't really removed the government, we had just neutered it.  So, I find it either naive, or a disingenuous lie to say that we won't be putting troops on the ground.  Especially if the goal is no Gaddafi.

Of course, the worse case scenario here is we arm the rebels, and they fail to displace Gaddafi, and the arms we give them end up in the hands of Muslim extremists.  That would be the worst, so, we run a real risk here - do we give a better chance of getting rid of Gaddafi via air support and arms, or do we stay where we are, which today appears to be not that great of a position.  Gaddafi's army is probably able to quash this thing without air power anyway.  So, it's going to take some kind of escalation to get victory.

We're left here, in my opinion, with the only hope of real victory, and a real democratic Libya, being one in which the United States gets much more intimately involved than providing air power.  To really achieve the removal of Gaddafi and the replacement of him with a semi-pro-Western government, is going to require ground troops. And likely American ground troops.  And, it's also going to require an organized opposition that isn't pro-Al Qaeda. That puts us (and our few staunch allies) in the position of picking winners from among the rebel coalition.  If this all sounds familiar to you, it should.

So, Obama has chosen a half-measure, the use of American air power.  To what end?

I also find it a lie that putting NATO in charge removes us.  A NATO operation is for all practical purposes a US operation, as Mattera points out.  No president in my memory has stated such a thing because at least in the past, I think most Americans associated the United States with NATO.  In other words, you couldn't fool Americans with this sleight of tongue.  

For me, when you say NATO, I think of the US and our Western European allies plus Canada, Greece and Turkey.  But mostly, I think of the United States.  When you think of NATO you really should think of the US, if you have a passing knowledge of history.  We ARE NATO.