Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Sunday, September 25, 2011

NBC's David Gregory Tries To Get Netanyahu To Create an Obama Commercial

On Today's Meet the Press, Liberal activist/host David Gregory campaigned for President Obama to recover his standing in the Jewish Community. Actually what he tried to do is get Binyamin Netanyahu to say that Obama is as big a friend to Israel as Bush.  When that didn't work he tried to get Bibi to bash Mitt Romney's statement saying criticizing Obama's stance on Israel.  When Netanyahu refused to bite on the first two attempts Gregory tried to get him to say that support of Israel should not be a campaign issue.

As you can see by the partial transcript and video below, Netanyahu dodged Gregory's best attempts at trying to create a sound-bite for an Obama commercial:
DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Back in 2002, you said Israel has had no better friend in the White House than George W. Bush. Would you say the same about President Obama?

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: They've all been great friends of Israel. You know why?

MR. GREGORY: You said, "No better friend in the White House than George W. Bush."

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: When did I say that?

MR. GREGORY: 2002 on this program.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: OK. Well, they keep moving. They keep adding new people to--you know, that's the peculiar thing about our system, the leaders, the leaders keep changing.

MR. GREGORY: So George W. Bush and President Obama are equivalent in your mind.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: God, I'm not going...

MR. GREGORY: I'm asking--no, but I'm asking you a serious question.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I'm not going to start ranking. I'll tell you what, they're all...

MR. GREGORY: You did rank. But, Prime Minister, you did rank. And you said that America was behind you; and, in fact, this has been a frosty relationship between this administration and your administration. And the reality is that there's politics in this country and a presidential campaign. Just this week, you had Mitt Romney, a Republican, say of Obama that he threw Israel under the bus. Rick Perry described Obama's Middle East policy as naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous. Do you disagree with those statements?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: David, you're trying to throw me under the bus of American politics. And guess what, I'm not going to be thrown there. So I'll tell you what...

MR. GREGORY: You didn't mind disagreeing with President Clinton's analysis this week about the Middle East.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Sure.

MR. GREGORY: Do you disagree with these Republican candidates?


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I think the important thing to understand is this, and, and this is the truth about America, Israel enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, tremendous. And, and, and, you know, you just have to walk around the breadth and length of this country, it's--or fly, it's a big country--and everywhere you go, you see this tremendous, tremendous sympathy and affinity for Israel. This is what, I think, is one of the great blessings that Israel has in the, in the 21st century. So--and I think that bipartisan support is expressed by any person who happens to be the president of the United States...

MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned that partisanship is being injected into this?
(if you cannot see video below please click here)




NBC News: Working For the re-election of Obama as best they can.

Source: NBC News
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Fox Google Debate-Who Won-Who Lost-Who Hates That New Sound

After taking a detour to MSNBC and CNN, tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves back in familiar territory... FOX. This time the format was different, more questions from the voters, and those questions were actually voted on by the public. As expected the moderators tried to spark battles between the two front runners and it worked. Lets dive into to the debate top lines.
  • Biggest Loser-That's easy,  that new sound for going over your allotted time.  Every time I heard that dammed thing I kept looking at my PC trying to figure out why I was getting an error sound.  Please guys go back to the door bell sound, maybe it will help Gary Johnson with his neighbors dog.
  •  Most Tiresome Exchange- The first spat between Romney and Perry, where one guy quoted the others book and the other retorted with "you read it wrong." Personally I skipped both those books. As a rule I skip political candidate's books preferring to get my political propaganda for free. But for those who want to pay for candidate's books I came up with an idea that was actually quoted by Politico:
Jeff Dunetz (@yidwithlid), of New York, said the sparring over Perry’s book, “Fed Up,” and Romney’s “No Apology,” gave him a new business idea.“Hey I think I am going to start an online business,” he tweeted. “The Perry/Romney book club.”
I appreciate the mention folks but next time could you link to the site and invite people to click on an ad or hit the tip jar?
Question Number 1: Why is it so hard for Mitt Romney to say these simple words, "Barack Obama is a socialist"? In 1996 he ran for the Illinois state senate on a the socialist "New Party" ticket that doesn't make him a conservative.
  • Rick Perry might have taken a giant step backwards tonight. This was his third debate, and if debates had the same "rules" as dating, on the big third date Perry would not be staying the night.  The last debate Perry was the target and held his own, this time it seemed that the Texas Governor made unforced errors.  When Perry and Romney were in the middle of the great book debate, I didn't really get the feeling that he really read the book.  Perry didn't seem to have a handle on his answers, he was fumbling around too much.  But that was just style, I think he lost big on his immigration answers. He may be right allowing Texas Illegals to go to collage but he is wrong for giving them a major discount. Governor Perry totally blew the question about Pakistan losing control of its nukes to terrorist's.  Well I think he blew it...it seemed like rambling and in the end I had no real idea what he said. he got one of those 3 a.m. calls telling him that Pakistan lost control of its nuclear weapons to the Taliban.  Oh and that nice quote he gave from that woman with Cervical Cancer? It turns out he met with the woman AFTER he made the executive order. And what was with that feeble line about mating Cain and Gingrich, I am going to have nightmares.
Question Number 2 When Michele Backmann tries to push her way into questions she wasn't asked, why don't the moderators tell her to wait for her turn.
  • Mitt Romney I am not a big fan of Mitt, but he was the clear winner tonight. He looked Presidential, deflected most attacks with humor, and won most of the exchanges with Governor Perry. I also believe that tonight he gave his best answer ever to the Romneycare attacks, adding I made some mistakes to his usual states rights answer. Warning!  Gov. Romney shouldn't talk about others being "flip-floppers" that's the teapot calling the kettle black.
Question Number 3  Doesn't Herman Cain understand is that the Dems will turn his 999 upside down making it the 666 plan. That may make some of my Christian friends a bit nervous. 
  • Newt Gingrich- Once again he proved himself to be Brilliant. He also proved himself to be totally humorless with his arrogant refusal to answer the stupid VP question. Come on Newt, it was a puff question, you could have said everyone is qualified an that was it. But you started out with a little "sermonette" about Newt don't play that. It just made you look stiff. 
Best Line of the night-Gary Johnson's line about his neighbor's dogs being the only ones creating shovel ready jobs.
  • Rick Sanatorum-Probably his best debate so far. He really lead the attack on Perry's immigration policy and forcefully criticized Huntsman's call to leave Afghanistan.  On the other hand his answer on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was...well confusing. 
Question Number 4-Why didn't the moderators ask Ron Paul the Israel question? He seemed to be chomping at the bit to blame the whole thing on the Joooooose.
  •  Jon Huntsman- I have to be honest after his first answer where he started with a cheesy sounding declaration of how wonderful his wife is, I forgot he was there. Well except for when Rick Santorum attacked him. 
Question Number 5- OK I know this is sexist because I am not commenting on the other candidates' outfits, but they were wearing dark suits. Am I the only one who thought that Michele Bachmann's red dress was hard on the eyes?  I kept imagining her putting on a green hat with a white fluffy ball at its tip and singing Christmas carols.
  • Ron Paul and Gary Johnson the only difference between the two is that Gary Johnson never published a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletter.  I noticed another similarity between the two, they both seemed nervous.  Not scared-nervous, but Bruce Banner "I am about to snap and become a big crazy green monster" nervous. Speaking of that......
Duh Question of the Night: When Mike Wallace asked Ron Paul a question which basically said,  "Congressman do you REALLY believe that nutty stuff that comes out of your mouth?" Of course he does Chris, didn't you see the tin foil hat he wears?
  • Herman Cain-I wish each candidate had his sense of humor and joy for life that Herman Cain has. The story of his cancer survival was the emotional high of the night. His 999 plan is simple and popular,  even though it could lead to a disastrous combination of high income and high VAT tax.
Advice To Fox For The Next Debate: Fox did a good thing by trying the word clouds to see if they would work.  They didn't so please lose them.
  • Michele Bachmann- After the first debate I was a big Bachmann fan, now I just find her annoying. She seems to say the same thing over and over.  The Congresswoman had one excellent answer and on totally awful answer. The excellent answer was the revisiting of "What percent of my income do I deserve to keep question." She gave the answer the candidates should have given last time. They deserve to keep 100%, but they need to pay in something to help the country running. But her answer to the question about the charge that the Cervical Cancer shot caused Mental Retardation was awful, she failed to take responsibility for her own statement. When confronted with the fact that medical associations disputed that claim, Bachmann she was only passing along something that a woman told her. Well if she passed along info without knowing it was true she was being irresponsible. If she did think it was true, she should have stood up for it, rather than push it off to an anonymous woman.
As it is now 2am and I need to get up in four hours, I will leave things, at that....more tomorrow.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The No Obama Speech, Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata, Republican Candidate Debate at The Reagan Library

Tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves in unfamiliar territory... MSNBC, the network host for The Reagan Library-No Obama Speeches-Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata-Republican Candidate Debate.  This was the first debate that would include the Texas Governor on the firing line. At the beginning it seemed as if the moderators were trying to make the debate, a war between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In fact it seemed as if they weren't going to let any of the other six candidates come out and play. But then they switched tactics and made the rest of the evening a game of lets beat up the Texas governor. On many occasions candidates were not asked to express their opinion, but to comment on Perry's.  If one didn't know better they might suspect the NBC news staff was intent on bringing down Perry, or at least trying to give Obama ammo if Perry ends up with the nomination.

Who Won?  It depends,....once again Mitt Romney looked very Presidential. In most case he said the right things, the question is can you believe the guy. Romney did seem like a unifier something that will appeal to independents, but to get to the independents he needs to get the nomination and to be honest Romney is just not popular with his own party because of the lack of belief that he means what he says.

Romney did however have a  great comeback to Perry in one of the early exchanges, on the issue of who's state created more jobs:
"Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry quipped, in a stinging reference to the former Massachusetts governor who lost the presidential election to George H.W. Bush.

Romney immediately shot back that “George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did.”
Later in the debate Huntsman topped them both reminding both Governors that it was his State, Utah that led the country in creating jobs.
Romney didn't win tonight, but he really didn't have to, for his campaign it was just important that he didn't lose.

While Romney looked presidential, Rick Perry looked "straight out of central casting" presidential.  He looks like a take-no-crap-from-anybody type who follows the old Teddy Roosevelt advice "Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick." Perry was set up to fail by the moderators and handled himself admirably. 

Perry's appeal is that he is direct and says what he thinks, but he has to learn to explain himself better; he is right Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but he needs to explain why. Tell people what a Ponzi scheme is and explain why it is a valid comparison. He also should bone up on some of the other theories about what causes climate change, Solar Activity, ocean currents, etc. Its the same thing as his Ponzi scheme line, he is 100% right but needs to explain himself better.

Newt was, well Newt. Just like the Fox debate he went after the moderators and the media, at one point saying , "I'm frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans fighting each other."  He continued with all Republicans should "defeat efforts by the news media" to spark an internal struggle when the real objective is to defeat Obama in 2012. He was right, it was a good point but it seemed like deja vu all over again. We heard that act in the last debate.

Michele Bachmann had another bad debate.  More than any of the other candidates,  she seemed as if she was just repeating talking points.  At one point she said one of her jobs as nominee is to elect 13 more Republican senators. To my ears that line sounded like she was trying to work for ACORN. I understand the power of positive thinking, but there is a thin line between positive thinking and flinging too much bull-crap.  Today Michele was a bit to heavy on the Bull-Crap.

If I had a dollar every time Herman Cain said 9-9-9 my bank account would be approaching seven figures.  Its not that his plan is bad, but he uses it as the answer to every question, whether appropriate or not. Besides, doesn't 9-9-9 seem like one of those long distance services that used to be popular like "dial 1-10-10?"

Ron Paul was scarier than usual, we're  talking about "frothing from the mouth" crazy.  The way he jumped from point to point made it almost seem that the guy was losing his hold on reality. And Ron, if you are going to shrink government to your desired levels you do have to answer the question what would you replace it with. 


 If there is a "Mr Cellophane"  in this campaign there it is Rick Santorum. While I don't agree with all of his positions, he handled himself very well when asked a question, but he wasn't asked many.  Santorum's answer to the Catholic-poverty question was really heartfelt and the GOP should heed his approach on the reasons the welfare system needed to be changed.
"There is no one in the 12 years I was in the United State Senate who did more to work on poverty than Rick Santorum," Santorum said. He then went on to discuss his work on the welfare reform bill in the 1990s. "We didn’t pass it to cut money, we didn’t pass it to punish anybody, we changed the welfare system because it was punishing people…it was creating a culture of dependency and we went out and talked to the American public and said trust us to end this federal entitlement, put a work requirement in place, put a time limit on welfare…and we will transform it from a dependency system to a transitional system."
 And finally we have the former Governor of Utah, Doctor Huntsman and Mr. Hyde. Jon Huntsman is so right on so many issues and extremely wrong on so many others. His economic program is excellent, but his refusal to acknowledge that the global warming consensus is non existent is very problematic. Especially when he gives the media (and the Democrats campaign lines about rejecting science). Its not a rejection of science it is a scientific disagreement.

In the end tonight's debate served to clarify the GOP picture for the next five months till people begin to actually vote in primaries.  It is a contest between Perry and Romney, the once promising Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann continue their march backwards.  Santorum and Huntsman have their moments but gain no traction. Newt has good ideas and zingers, but the fact is people just don't like him, and Dr Ron Paul is still a couple of french fries away from a happy meal.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Man Made Global Warming Another Romney Flip Flop


Once again the media has it all wrong.  They claim that the conservative wing of the GOP has trouble with Mitt Romney because of some of the positions he has taken on the issues.  That's not quite true. Conservative Republicans have an issue with Romney because his positions change so often they're not sure where he stands.

During his two attempts to gain the GOP nomination for president, Mitt Romney has changed his views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control.  According to Reuters he has now added global warming to his little waffle dance.



In early June the former Massachusetts governor turned perpetual presidential candidate announced his support of the man-made global warming hoax.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."'
When he was Governor of Massachusetts,  Romney also took the opening steps toward joining a cap-and-trade compact for power plants now known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. 
Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.
In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean- and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide.
''This is a great thing for the Commonwealth," Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ''We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."
He later went on to say:
Romney said Monday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries as the emphasis on climate change grows.

“I’m convinced it is good business,” Romney said. He cited analyses showing that the agreement would boost energy prices by just 1 or 2 percent.
 His comments in June seemed to indicate his continued support of the Climate change myth. But yesterday he tweaked his support a bit.
"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is," he said. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."

"What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to."
Not willing to spend trillions? But on June 3 he said:

  "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."'
 That's the Romney problem. He doesn't have stances on issues, its more like a political game of whack-a-mole, when you try to hit him on an issue he ducks his  head and pops up in a different stance.

Romney's global warming waffle can be added to this list of changed stances.

  • Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as pro-life.

  • Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."

  • Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. In 2008, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.

  • Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." When he was running against McCain for the nomination in 2008 he denounced  it as an "amnesty plan.

I am not a big fan of the "circular firing squad" and will vote for Romney against Obama if he gets the nomination, but he is killing himself with these constant flip flops. And in the end, his wavering stances on so many issues may turn out to cost him the nomination more than the issues he remains steadfast about.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 22, 2011

Is John Huntsman-Posturing For 2016?

I often wonder why Jon Huntsman is still in the race he is almost an afterthought in the campaign.  In the Iowa straw poll results he finished 9th with only 69 total votes out of almost 17,000 votes.  Huntsman received fewer votes than Rick Perry who got 718 write-in votes and he didn't even announce that he was running until the straw poll voting had already started.

In a campaign season where Republican's are trying to recapture their conservative mantle, Jon Huntsman is a liberal Republican.  In fact many a pundit has wondered if Huntsman was running for the nomination of the wrong party.

The Wall Street Journal said that Huntsman's contrary positions are part of his strategy, at least as it applies to global warming. The Journal says that Huntsman is using climate change as his opportunity to differentiate himself by appealing to Republicans to the left of Mitt Romney.
As Jon Huntsman tries to save his GOP presidential bid, he's decided to embrace global warming as a wedge issue. Mr. Manchin had the better strategy.

Mr. Huntsman, the former Utah governor and ambassador to Beijing, began his candidacy stressing his resume and his attractive family. With that getting him nowhere in a year when issues trump biography, he's now attacking fellow Republicans for, among other things, not embracing the science of global warming. "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," Mr. Huntsman said on Twitter, a criticism of recent remarks by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Huntsman followed that up on Sunday on ABC, telling Jake Tapper that the GOP has a "serious problem" when it becomes "anti-science."
Huntsman has two shots at winning, slim and none, but he is spending his time attacking the other candidates.  Its almost as if he is saying, "If I can't have the presidency no one can."
The broadside was part of a larger strategy of attacking all of his GOP opponents for something or other. He ripped Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on taxes, assailed Michele Bachmann for saying she'd get gas prices below $2 a gallon and called Mr. Perry "unelectable."

All of this is the hallmark of John Weaver, who is Mr. Huntsman's chief strategist. Mr. Weaver has long been at war with the GOP mainstream, and his candidates typically end up running against some element of the Republican base. That was his strategy in 2000 with John McCain, who won New Hampshire but lost in South Carolina after attacking fellow Republicans. Mr. Weaver was no longer advising Mr. McCain in 2008 when the Arizonan won the nomination. Mr. Weaver is angling Mr. Huntsman for a McCain-2000-style victory in New Hampshire.
The strange part is it just doesn't makes sense. True McCain got the nomination last time but he lost the election, the GOP isn't likely to make that same mistake with a nominee so soon after the 2008 Election.  The GOP is a lot different than it was it 2008, the traditional party hacks that helped nominate McCain have been overrun by the conservative wing of the party.  Huntsman's no idiot, he understands this, so it leads back to the question what the heck is the former Utah Governor doing.

Here's another suggestion. What if Huntsman is posturing himself for a 2016 run.  Perhaps he remembers the conservative movement in the early 1960's and he is expecting the 2012 GOP nominee to lose in the same way LBJ trounced Goldwater.

If that is behind Huntsman's  strategy of being a liberal Republican in a conservative world he is in for a big surprise. Barry Goldwater was running against someone who was a popular president at the time. A return to conservative values was something new for the for the country and the party. In fact many in the traditional GOP Republican did not work hard to elect because of the divisive primaries that let to his nomination.

The 2012 nominee (as long as it isn't Ron Paul) will have the support of a united party.   The nominee will be facing a president whose programs, especially in the area of the number one issue, the economy is very unpopular. In 1964 there was no reason to change course, this time there is every reason to change.

According to the WSJ Jon Huntsman is posturing himself to become the liberal alternative in 2012.  It would not be beyond reason for Huntsman's approach to be directed toward 2016. Either way the former ambassador to China seems out of touch with the country and with his party.  Perhaps his time would be better spent doing something else.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Barack Obama Vs. The American People (Obama's 2012 Strategy)

This weekend President Obama and his campaign team went on television and made it clear he will not be running against Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican Candidates, no those candidates are too formidable in his mind. The president will also refuse to run on his record and to be honest who can blame him.  No based on what he said in his weekly address and supported by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the Sunday News shows, the enemy in this upcoming 2012 presidential campaign will be the Republicans in Congress and the American people.

Its an interesting yet disingenuous message that we have heard many times before. Grass-roots Americans in the form of the tea party  are forcing members of the Congressional Tea party caucus to take stands and stick to them which they do solely for political reasons. Even worse according to the presidential team, those positions are bad for the American people, and are the reason nothing gets done in Washington DC.



What positions are they talking about? Specifically the President is talking about some of those evil Tea Party positions such as, obey the constitution, do not add any more taxes until you can bring spending in line, and of course cut spending and reform entitlements lest the country go bankrupt. I would suggest that by taking those stands and sticking to them, despite all of the pressure to give in the tea party caucus is putting country in front of party and in front of their political careers.

The claim that it is the Tea Party caucus that has been holding up progress on legislation is also troubling.  The President has been running the country since January 2009. From inauguration day till January of this year when the GOP took over the house, Obama was working with two houses of Congress from his party. For most of that time, there were 60 Democrats in the  Senate making it filibuster proof! Isn't it reasonable to ask why was nothing done the first 75% of his term so far?

The answer to that question is the President and his party were pushing through programs that had nothing to do with Jobs, but had everything to do with putting political agenda in front of country, a trillion dollar stimulus program which included every type of pork possible, targeted to reelect Democrats.  Instead of having the stimulus dollars hit ASAP which would be most helpful to the economy, a large chunk of the money hit in early 2010, so it could be used as re-election pork. Instead of using the construction programs in the stimulus bill to help everybody, he directed the funds via executive toward his political supporters the unions, only 14% of construction shops are union. Costs for construction jobs were estimated at 20% higher because the president was helping is ideological base.

After the ill-fated stimulus was passed, in stead of working on jobs the President again put party needs in front of the country as the Democrats pushed first for cap and trade and then  for Obamacare. When cap and trade didn't pass, the EPA took up the baton and is trying to implement job-killing regulation on its own.

The job killing Obamacare program and the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank financial regulation bill followed.  Both of these efforts were passed to sate the progressive ideological base. Both of these efforts hurt rather than helped the economy.  So who exactly is putting party in front of Country?

Lets talk a bit about the War Effort.  Again in response to demands by his political base, President Obama executed a surge in Afghanistan which was smaller than his Generals recommended.  A year later, he announced a pull out from Afghanistan that was larger and faster than his Generals recommended. Once again this President is put his progressive politics in before the needs of the American people.

Twice before Congress rejected the Dream Act based on the will of the people. The reason for the rejection  is that the people believe that the first step must be to secure our borders. That would be the best thing for the country.  But because the President's support in the Latin community is softening, his Homeland Security Dept., is executing the amnesty program anyway.



In his two and a half years as President of the United States, Barack Obama constantly chose an agenda which placed the ideology of his progressive base in front of country.  He helped to push through major legislation which not only went against the will of the people, but the needs of the country, an improved economy and the SHMOTUS, VP Biden's favorite three letter word J-O-B-S. When he couldn't even get the support of a congress controlled by his own party, programs were implemented by executive fiat. It seems to me that it is the President and his progressive followers who are putting party and ideology in front of country. His latest political strategy, casting a grass roots effort of the American people as evil is just one more example of the progressive cynicism, they are dividing the country just to support their political agenda.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Iowa Debate Review-First Thoughts on Winners and Losers

Tonight's Iowa debate was very interesting, the candidates took off their gloves and went after each other for a bit.  Overall I think that Newt Gingrich scored the most points, Romney won by not losing, Santorum surprised and after a strong opening Tim Pawlenty hurt his campaign more than anyone. Below are my initial thoughts candidate by candidate.
  • Gingrich-His attacks on the questioners had to be pre-planned, but it doesn't really matter because everyone loves to bash the press.  He came out and really bashed the "super committee" and said it in a down to earth, rather than his usual professorial manner.   The question is even if people agree with him, will they like him. If Newt wasn't Newt, we'd all be saying that he won the debate--but he is Newt.
  • Romney- As the leader of the pack, all Romney had to do is not lose, and that's exactly what he did.  Mitt Romney didn't make any gaffes,  gave credible answers and looked rather presidential. He deflected criticism without getting down in the mud.  So why do I still feel he is full of crap?
  • Santorum- Rick Santorum was the surprise of the night.  Unlike the first debate, he forced himself into the conversation, and scored points.  His line about the need to keep morality in mind when discussing the 10th amendment hit home. His line about Ron Paul being wrong most of the time, though true seemed petty. Santorum may have picked up some support tonight, but he is starting off from a very low base.
  • Bachmann- At the beginning of the debate, Bret Baier asked all the candidates to skip the regular talking points, but her first answer was 100% talking point.  Once she was forced to confront Pawlenty she hit her stride. The question about being subservient to her husband was unfair and sexist, but she answered it splendidly. She did well overall but she didn't do the best and she needed that to pick up new support.
  • Pawlenty- His line early in the debate about coming and cooking dinner for the person who found the Obama plan was great, but once he did the back and forth with Michele Backmann, he lost the wind in his sails.  Frankly even though Bachmann took care of herself,  Mr. Nice Guy Pawlenty seemed like a bully and never recovered.
  • Huntsman-Being unfamiliar with the former Governor of Utah, I was eager to hear his positions.  After watching this two-hour debate I would still like to hear his positions.  The Governor's solution to the economic crisis was to form a committee of businessmen. Great, just what we need another president who can't come up with ideas of his own.
  •  Cain- He had one of the best lines of the night was "America needs to learn to take a joke." Another great tagline was "if a company wants to give dividends, that's fine its their money!" Herman Cain seemed to be on the defensive a big part of the night. Then again, he keeps saying silly things that he has to defend. Cain is the candidate that you really want to like, but tonight he didn't stand out as much as he has had in the past.
  • Paul-  The leader of the planet Ronulin was on tonight, I am just not to sure what he was on.  Many of his answer were rambling as he tried to blame everything on the war in Afghanistan. At one point in the debate Ron Paul claimed that he didn't understand why people thought Iran was a threat. Well Congressman, Iran is a threat because their leaders are even crazier than you are. And by the way, I wouldn't trust Ron Paul with nukes either. The Ronulins will love anything he does, rational people will still believe he is a few fries short of a  happy meal.
That's the top line, more to come....
Enhanced by Zemanta

New Tone? DNC Talking Points Memo For Iowa Brands GOP Candidates As Extreme

Sadly it seems the Democratic Party operatives are forgetting their own demands for a "new tone" by issuing a "talking points" memo omitting any supporting facts, but simply branding GOP candidates as extremist Tea Party flaks pushing tired, divisive policies which elevate the rich and hurt the middle class.  Not once does the memo give the "hows and whys" of why they disagree with the point of view of these candidates, instead the DNC is repeating the same fear mongering the President has been repeating over and over.
"As we expect to see tonight, the GOP candidates' extreme aims to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party shows that Republicans are more concerned with protecting their special interest friends and the wealthy than protecting working families," the memo, penned by DNC National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell, reads.

"The GOP would rather seniors and the middle class sacrifice and the wealthy pay even less in taxes. Unlike President Obama, their policies would eliminate, not create, opportunities for the middle class."
The memo goes on to make personal attacks on each of the major GOP candidates and their stance on the issues.
"[T]he actions or lack thereof of candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and others are clear - these Republican candidates for President are not interested in leading. They simply want to please the far-right, extreme Tea Party base of their party because that is what being the standard bearer of the Republican Party today requires," says Roussell.
"At a moment when America should have been their top concern [the debt  ceiling mess], they put politics, party and rigid ideology first. And the Republican presidential candidates backed them up - and the GOP field will double down on that flawed approach to leadership tonight."
Pushing Grandma off the cliff:
"Both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty endorsed a Cut, Cap and Balance proposal that would have cut Medicaid by one-third over 10 years and nearly half by 2050. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, that alone could cause 36 million people to lose their Medicaid coverage, including individuals with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes."
On Romney:
"Mitt Romney has consistently ducked and dodged on the most pressing issues facing America including the debt ceiling debate. Not only did he wait until 12 hours before the final vote to actually say something-leading one reporter to say Romney was in a "Mittness Protection Program"-he endorsed the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that would have harmed our economic recovery in the short-term while simultaneously hurting our long-term economic competitiveness all while putting a greater burden on America's oldest citizens and our most vulnerable. Look for him to reassert his support for Cut, Cap and Balance tonight."
On Bachmann:
"To her credit Michele Bachmann did not actually vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance - because she didn't think it was extreme enough! She told Fox News that America should pay off all our foreign creditors first, even if that means slashing Medicare and Social Security payments to America's seniors. We expect her to repeat similar sentiments tonight."
On Cain:
"Additionally, look for Herman Cain to tout more failed economic policies like his support for a 'fair tax' for everyone, which even the Wall Street Journal editorial board called 'the most radical reform imaginable' and one that would 'hit hard the young, middle-income families.'"
A famous Hasidic tale teaches: A man once went around spreading lies about the rabbi. Eventually he began to feel remorse for the wrong he had done. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything to make amends. The rabbi said, “Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds.” The man followed the request gladly. When he told the rabbi that he had done the task, the rabbi said, “Now, go try and gather the feathers.” The man said, “But Rabbi I cannot gather the feathers they are all scattered to the wind.” The Rabbi replied, “Exactly! You cannot take back the damage your words have done; the same way you cannot then recollect the feathers.”

This election however needs to be different. The United States is arguably facing its biggest economic crisis in its history. Even during the Great Depression, full faith in the United States credit was never questioned. But this week our credit rating was downgraded. Voters are demanding a full and rational discussion of the important issues facing the country. Yet 15 months before the election and possibly a year before the GOP will pick a candidate, the Democratic Party has already started  ignoring the issues and waging the politics of personal destruction. We need to fight this nonsense wherever it comes from. This election is just too important to be like the man in the Hasidic tale, hopelessly chasing feathers blowing in the wind.

Read the Full Memo Below:


From: Melanie Roussell, DNC National Press Secretary
To: Interested Parties
Date: August 11, 2011
Re: What to Expect from Tonight's Republican Debate
________________________________________
With 179 days left before the Iowa Caucuses, the American people are increasingly turned off by what they are learning about the Republican presidential candidates and who they fight for. Instead of new ideas that give the middle class more security, we hear the same old policies that carve out special benefits for the special interests. Instead of a new approach that puts party aside and America first, we hear a rigid and extreme ideology that asks working and middle class families to carry the entire load.
This is why the GOP is seeing its support erode significantly. In two recent polls the GOP is seeing some of the highest negative ratings ever-driven in large part by their willingness to let the extreme Tea Party dictate the Republican Party's agenda and take over the party, with the 2012 Republican candidates following their lead.

In a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday: "[F]avorable views of the Republican party dropped eight points over the past month, to 33 percent. Fifty-nine percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Republican party, an all-time high dating back to 1992 when the question was first asked." http://bit.ly/pp9t8F: "More Americans now think that members of Congress who support the Tea Party are having a negative effect than said that in January, at the start of the new Congress. Currently, 29% judge the impact of Tea Party supporters as mostly negative compared with 22% who see their impact as mostly positive.

At the beginning of the year, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% said that Tea Party members in Congress would have a positive impact, while 18% expected a negative effect." http://t.co/v7hZidL

Despite these historic negative ratings, we should expect to hear more from this field of Republican presidential contenders who have not only embraced the same failed policies of the past that eroded middle class security and led our country to the brink of depression, but who have also embraced an extreme and rigid ideology that will hurt America's seniors and the middle class.

In advance of tonight's debate, we wanted to highlight some key points we expect to hear from the Republican candidates as they continue to fight for the title of "Most Extreme," in their efforts to pander to the far-right Tea Party base of the Republican Party to seek the nomination.

Failure of Leadership - Duck, Dodge and Dismantle-Make no mistake the Republican presidential contenders have fully embraced what we call the Duck, Dodge and Dismantle approach to leadership because they are ducking their obligation to the Middle Class; dodging their obligation to our nation's seniors; and, they want to dismantle critical education and job creation programs while protecting tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil and corporate jet owners. They support the same unbalanced economic policies as Washington Republicans. Tonight you will hear GOP presidential contenders continue to tout their support for the Republican budget that would end Medicare as we know while giving NEW tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and the special interests. While they ask average Americans to cut back and sacrifice, they ask nothing of those at the very top.

Moreover, the actions or lack thereof of candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and others are clear - these Republican candidates for President are not interested in leading. They simply want to please the far-right, extreme Tea Party base of their party because that is what being the standard bearer of the Republican Party today requires.

Pushing the Nation to the Brink-Expect the overwhelming majority of the Republicans on the stage tomorrow night to proudly state that they would not have supported the bipartisan debt agreement that prevented our country from defaulting on its debt for the first time in history. To these candidates, compromise is a dirty word and the prospect of America not paying its bills was a risk they were willing to take.

The recent decision by S & P to downgrade the United States debt, as flawed as it is, highlighted the need for the type of compromise and consensus that the candidates opposed. In fact, part of what the S & P based its reasoning on was the fact that Republicans in Congress were unwilling to consider revenues. While Democratic leaders showed their commitment to standing with President Obama to support a grand bargain that asked everyone to compromise, Speaker Boehner and his Tea Party Caucus, during negotiations, walked away no less than three times. At a moment when America should have been their top concern, they put politics, party and rigid ideology first. And the Republican presidential candidates backed them up - and the GOP field will double down on that flawed approach to leadership tonight.

Extreme Aims toward America's Seniors-Over the course of their campaigns, each of the Republicans running for president has proven that their priority is not standing up for seniors or America's middle class; their priority is protecting the wealthy and the special interests. Look for them to say more of the same tonight.

Both Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty endorsed a Cut, Cap and Balance proposal that would have cut Medicaid by one-third over 10 years and nearly half by 2050. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, that alone could cause 36 million people to lose their Medicaid coverage, including individuals with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes.

Jon Huntsman, who proudly called himself a radical for wanting to end Medicare as we know it, endorsed the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance including a balanced budget amendment. The amendment that the House will consider would put a cap on what the government pays out in Social Security and Medicare while allowing one-third of the members of Congress to block asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. It would be easier to cut Social Security than it would to close corporate tax loopholes for private jets and Wall Street bankers. The amendment, coupled with the cuts from the House Republican budget, would change the rules for generations of Americans who paid into Social Security and Medicare week after week and paycheck after paycheck. Instead of getting what they paid for and earned, they would see cuts that could result in a $1,500 per year average reduction in benefits for the 70 million seniors on Social Security, and an average reduction of approximately $1,100 per year for those who receive Medicare.

Extreme Aims toward the Middle Class-All of the Republicans have committed to the same extreme economic policies of the Republicans who held Washington hostage over the course of the last month. They all support protecting corporate subsidies and tax loopholes instead of protecting investments in critical programs that would create the jobs of the future, like education, research and development of clean energy. In addition, their cuts would cost middle class families jobs.

For example, Mitt Romney has consistently ducked and dodged on the most pressing issues facing America including the debt ceiling debate. Not only did he wait until 12 hours before the final vote to actually say something-leading one reporter to say Romney was in a "Mittness Protection Program"-he endorsed the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that would have harmed our economic recovery in the short-term while simultaneously hurting our long-term economic competitiveness all while putting a greater burden on America's oldest citizens and our most vulnerable. Look for him to reassert his support for Cut, Cap and Balance tonight.

To her credit Michele Bachmann did not actually vote for the Cut, Cap, and Balance - because she didn't think it was extreme enough! She told Fox News that America should pay off all our foreign creditors first, even if that means slashing Medicare and Social Security payments to America's seniors. We expect her to repeat similar sentiments tonight.

Additionally, look for Herman Cain to tout more failed economic policies like his support for a "fair tax" for everyone, which even the Wall Street Journal editorial board called "the most radical reform imaginable" and one that would "hit hard the young, middle-income families."

Conclusion -As we expect to see tonight, the GOP candidates' extreme aims to appease the far-right wing of the Republican Party shows that Republicans are more concerned with protecting their special interest friends and the wealthy than protecting working families. The GOP would rather seniors and the middle class sacrifice and the wealthy pay even less in taxes. Unlike President Obama, their policies would eliminate, not create, opportunities for the middle class. They are not interested in a balanced approach to reducing America's deficit that increases revenues and protects America's promise to our seniors and middle class through Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

From day one President Obama has been willing to do the hard work to address the fiscal mess he inherited and move our country in the right direction. The President has worked tirelessly to bring our economy back from the brink, get it growing again and to create jobs for middle class families. He understands we have a long term deficit problem and that special interests aren't left off the hook when it comes to paying their fair share. And sadly, to date all we've seen from the current GOP field is a Duck, Dodge and Dismantle approach. Tonight in Iowa we should not expect anything different than more of the same failed economic policies that brought our economy to the brink and advocacy of extreme policies that will hurt seniors and the middle class.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rick Perry To Announce At Red State Conference on Saturday

The Republican field is about to get a bit stirred up on Saturday as source within the Perry staff have leaked that the Texas Governor will be announcing his presidential bid at the Red State conference this weekend.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry will make "a definitive announcement that he is in the 2012 race for the presidency Saturday," aides told Fox News.

The language is significant. For several days the Perry camp has said he would signal his intentions and announce later.

"This is it," the sources explain. No exploratory committee, no more deliberation.

Perry will spend most of next week on the road officially campaigning.

Team Perry acknowledges they had only been hinting about a run earlier, but now tells Fox News first that Saturday is the official launch.
Perry will almost immediately become one of the GOP frontrunners according to polls, he probably has the most well-rounded support of any of the candidates for the nomination. But many have jumped into the race as a frontrunner and quickly faded from view when voters learn more about them.  

More to come




Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

The Democrats Ramp Up The Politics of Personal Destruction

Last week as Standard and Poor's (S&P) announced the downgrade of United States credit rating from AAA to AA+ they criticized the discord in today’s political landscape. The press release that accompanied Standard and Poor's announcement explained their frustration.
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.
Rasmussen is reporting that voter confidence in America’s leaders is at an all-time low. The survey finds that only 17% of likely voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed. The government has the consent of the governed - a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration has fallen to its lowest level measured yet. Only 8% of voters believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders also a new low.

Part of the reason for the low approval of the federal government is negative advertising. Studies have shown that voters hate negative ads but they are still used because, well, they work. But research has also shown that there is a boomerang effect, meaning negative political ads end up tarnishing the image of the candidate the ad is supporting and the candidate’s desired office.

Sadly the news coming out of the beltway that Democratic Party operatives are already planning commercials designed to make personal attacks on candidates of the other party.

Politico is reporting:

Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s reelection campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early-stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee… so the candidate who ran on “hope” in 2008 has little choice four years later but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.

…The onslaught would have two aspects. The first is personal: Obama’s reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, “weird.”

“First, they’ve got to like you, and there’s not a lot to like about Mitt Romney,” said Chicago Democratic consultant Pete Giangreco, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign. “There’s no way to hide this guy and hide his innate phoniness.”

A senior Obama adviser was even more cutting, suggesting that the Republican’s personal awkwardness will turn off voters.
Romney should not feel “picked on” because U.S. News and World Report is reporting the Democrats are beginning a campaign trying to brand the Republican Party as tools of the Tea Party who they call extremists.

Attempting to steal some thunder from their adversaries, Democratic leaders are trying to link the Republican presidential candidates with extremism in advance of the GOP debate and straw poll in Ames, Iowa this week.
To that end, the Democratic National Committee has announced a new campaign to define the 2012 Republican candidates as too closely tied to the conservative Tea Party. The DNC is sponsoring a web video making that case, and DNC Press Secretary Melanie Roussell told reporters in an e-mail yesterday, "When it comes to the GOP presidential candidates and what America will hear from them in Ames this week, they have extreme aims to please the far-right, Tea Party wing of their party and they are following the extreme agenda of congressional Republicans instead of leading. All this while our country's future hangs in the balance." As examples, she mentioned cutting Medicare and giving tax breaks to the rich.

Negative political advertising is as old as Presidential politics itself and every political party has relied upon it somewhat. The first competitive Presidential campaign was John Adams campaigns against Thomas Jefferson in 1796. Adams slammed Jefferson as an atheist and a “mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” Adams was condemned as a monarchist who sought to become a king; he was also branded as a fool and a hypocrite. Now that is nasty.



Just because negative advertising has been around for 215 years doesn’t make it right or desirable. America is arguably facing its biggest economic crisis in her short history. Even during the Great Depression the full faith of the United States credit was never questioned, but it is questioned today. Voters are demanding a full and rational discussion of the important issues facing the country. Yet 15 months before the election and possibly a year before the GOP will pick a candidate, the Democratic Party is already ignoring the issues and waging the politics of personal destruction, guaranteeing the loser in the 2012 election will be the American people.


Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Liberal Pollster Declares Obama's Re-election in Trouble

Liberal polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) is sounding the alarm, Barack Obama is in trouble. 
“There’s a very good chance Barack Obama would lose if he had to stand for reelection today,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “This is his worst poll standing in a long time and he really needs the economy to start turning around.”
Overall Obama's by a 48%-46% margin voters disapprove of the President's performance, but that is probably the best set of numbers in the study.  More Democrats are unhappy with the President's performance (16%), than Republicans who approve of him (10%).  I guess that means 10% of GOP voters have had no access to any media during the past two and a half years. The number that should be be most disturbing to the Obama-fans is the independent voters who disapprove of him by a margin of 49%-44%.

Now put those numbers in the context of this Jim Geraghty report which analyzed PPP and found some conflicts of interest, lack of transparency and Democratic-skewed methodology. In other words things could be even worse than the Daily Kos contractor, PPP is reporting.

PPP is also reporting that Mitt Romney has pulled into a tie with the President at 45%.
He leads the President by 9 points with independents at 46-37. And he earns more crossover support, getting 13% of the Democratic vote while only 8% of Republicans are behind Obama.
The other candidates are far behind Romney, but that is probably due to a lack of recognition rather than an understanding/disagreement with their policy.

Gallup is also showing a drop in support for Obama, the three-day rolling average of presidential approval reflected that Obama's approval dropped to 42%, to put that into perspective one month ago that approval rating was at 49%.

Since it is a three day average, and the first day a drop has been detected,  tomorrow's Gallup numbers for Obama may be even worse.

Rasmussen's three-day average reflects a similar drop with the President's disapproval at 54% vs 44% approval.

What is forcing Obama's numbers down? That could be best answered with the now-famous phrase, "Its the economy stupid!" and Americans are not very optimistic about the future:
Twenty-one percent (21%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, July 17. This matches the lowest level measured of Obama’s presidency and is also the lowest finding in nearly three months of weekly tracking.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters say the country is heading down the wrong track, the highest level of pessimism measured since mid-April. This finding has ranged from 57% to 72% since January 2009.
Certainly these numbers show that Americans are growing frustrated with Barack Obama's brand of change and if the election were held today he would be in severe trouble.  But the election won't be held today or for another year and a half, a lot can happen in that time period.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Why Liberals and Democrats Should Oppose Obama’s Policies

by Barry Rubin

How ironic that liberals and Democrats who have no difficulty believing that Islam has been hijacked by extremists have no notion that they have been hijacked by the far left.

A coalition of 1960s’ New Leftists and what used to be called the party’s McGovernite wing has taken over using a brilliant strategy of propaganda and dissimulation. Ah, for the relatively good old days of Bill Clinton, a man who, for all his multiple faults, understood that he had to govern somewhere from within sight of the political center.

Why is it that while liberals/Democrats constantly claim the Republican Party has been taken over by its far right wing, many conservatives/Republicans constantly claim that Obama is a typical liberal/Democrat? Why don’t more critics of the current policies say instead that the Democratic Party has been taken over by its far left wing and no longer represents the worldview of mainstream Democratic voters and leaders of the past?

Instead, they play into the hands of the current government, helping it to mobilize support from Democrats and liberals by assuring them that the Obama administration is normative for liberals and Democrats rather than a radical deviation.

A question I ask my conservative and Republican friends is this: If Bill Clinton were still president you wouldn’t like it, but would you think that this is a disaster in which the country’s future was in jeopardy? If Hillary Clinton (or some other non-radical Democrat) were president, would you be so upset at what would be happening?

You might disagree but everyone I ask thinks a moment and says, “I see what you mean.”

Of course, since Obama is president and leader of the party, especially after he won election so handily, it is hard for Democratic politicians to disagree with him publicly. Yet what must they be saying in private? I think something like this: Am I going to allow this guy to destroy my career by making so many domestic mistakes that the economy will worsen even more and the people will vote against my reelection? Am I going to go along with a foreign policy that is producing a catastrophic decline in U.S. influence and victories for dangerous radical forces?

My estimate is that only about 25 percent of the Democrats in Congress are on the far left. The rest follow along because they are accepting the leadership of the president and of two truly terrible leaders in the House of Representatives and Senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

I am NOT arguing here about who the Republicans should nominate for president. I might be wrong, but every time I see Mitt Romney I imagine what a nice concession speech he would make after losing. But I am arguing about the need to unite all who can be united to understand the current ideological and policy mess in America.

Here are some questions that should be asked:

–Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats accept an economic policy that so distorted Keynesian economics, which never proposed ruinously unlimited debts based on totally unproductive spending?

–Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats support a suppression of free inquiry in schools and universities along with the substitution of indoctrination, an approach that totally contradicts everything liberals fought for during the last 150 years?

–Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats — especially in the foreign policy establishment — accept a policy that throws out the window every basic principle of international relations as practiced previously by all Democratic presidents (except the discredited Jimmy Carter)?

–Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats accept the takeover of their party by the far left and following a course that is so damaging to the United States and, ultimately, to their own party?

–Do Democrats and liberals, who have had such a role in shaping American history since around 1900, really want to adopt the view that America is evil, its history shameful, and that it deserves to decline?

–How has every government program, bureaucracy, and expenditure suddenly become sacred and cannot be cut in a time of spiralling deficits and an economy in deep Depression? Is it really so hard to admit that many government programs have either failed to do good or made things worse, thus deserving to be cancelled?

–Since when have Democrats and liberals rejected the free enterprise system? Reasonable controls, yes, but how does that mean support for strangling controls and punishing businesses?

–Does a reasonable concern for the environment mean preventing any serious development of America’s coal, gas, and oil resources? Democrats can claim rightly that they have greatly improved the environment over the situation decades ago when it was neglected. But having done so, why do demands for laws and regulations keep going further and further into the realm of insanity?

–Should liberals believe that America is still in the 1890s when giant corporations trampled on helpless workers, unions were weak or nonexistent, and big business dictated to government? Hasn’t America changed? Isn’t some balance needed today in order to let businesses function and create jobs?

–If you are really so horrified by the Tea Party movement then why don’t you deal with the problems of excessive spending, too much regulation, and high taxes yourselves? Is your answer to the current crisis really to propose even more spending, more regulation, and higher taxes? Can’t you admit at least to yourselves that your opponents have some valid points or do you want to spite them by making things worse?

The list is a lot longer. What’s needed today is a real battle within the Democratic Party and the real liberal intellectual circles against the left, just as there was in the 1930s on the domestic front and in the late 1940s on the foreign policy front.

Remember Harry Truman? The president who purged the U.S. government of Communist infiltrators and led the United States to play its proper role on the world stage and combat the Soviet bloc’s aggression? The president who successfully managed the post-World War Two economic transition and confronted trade unions when necessary?

In the 1948 election, real liberals and mainstream Democrats rallied around Truman. The racist right-wing of the party went with Strom Thurmond; the far left wing went with Henry Wallace in a party that was largely a Communist front. What was the name of that latter party? Oh yes, the Progressive Party! And what does the left wing that dominates the Democrats call themselves now, getting those with no sense of history to parrot that name? They ain’t talking about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

If Democrats and liberals don’t revolt against left-wing domination, the voters will do it for them. And after the 2008 or 2012 elections, depending on whether Obama wins a second term, the Democratic Party is going to have to decide whether to remain permanently on the far left or to wake up and try to escape its captors.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

  • Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.
  •  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.
Losers:
  • The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.
  • Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.
Disappointing:
  • I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.
  • Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:
  •  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 
Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN
     
    Enhanced by Zemanta
     

    KENJI Sponsored by TOPHANT