Today is the day. I've had a countdown on Biblical Conservatism for over a year. Today is the day American is given the chance to change course.
The Drive-By Media is already calling the election for Obama. I've already told you why this is happening...they are either a) delusional enough to believe their +5-10% Democrat turnout models or b) we can expect that these polls will be quoted as reasons why Romney's election must be the result of some sort of fraud.
Back in 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a famous speech in support of Republican Barry Goldwater called "A Time for Choosing." Today we are again at a time for choosing.
Today, I am speaking not to those of you who have already made up your mind. I'm speaking to the few of you who inexplicably have not. Today, as you step into that booth to cast your vote, you have a choice.
Today our choice is whether or not to keep on the same path we are currently on. The path we are on is one of failure. It is a path of $1 Trillion deficits and no plan to fix it, save for raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires." Except by the numbers this will only raise about $60 Billion per year...which is only 6% of the deficit. There is no problem to bridge the other 94% of the gap.
Today our choice is whether or not we want to take proactive steps to to fill our nations energy needs with real, tangible energy solutions that we already have domestically like oil, coal and natural gas; or do we want to continue to effort after a solution by burning billions on fantasy green energy.
Today our choice is whether we want to put America back to work by not regulating and taxing those who own businesses.
Today our choice is whether or not we choose to continue to be the last, best hope of mankind and a shining city on a hill or if we want to let the sun set on the United States as a superpower as the sun set on the Soviet Union, the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Babylonian Empire and the Egyptian Empire before us.
Today our choice is whether or not we want to have a President who will defend Americans in harms way or one who will pretend that a preplanned, forewarned terrorist attack was because of a video and then attempt to create a revisionist history of things that just happened.
Today, our choice is whether or not we want our country back.
So I close with a quote from our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan:
Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?
And if you answer all of those questions ‘yes’, why then, I think
your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t
agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the
last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next
four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Obama's Losing the Youth
Something that you won't see in polls that use "adults" or "registered voters," mind you, but Obama's losing the youth vote. Don't get me wrong, friends...the youth still support Obama. There's just one key issue...a huge chunk of them AREN'T PLANNING ON SHOWING UP TO VOTE!
44%, to be specific, of registered voters 18-29 years old, do not necessarily plan to vote, according to a Gallup Poll from last week. The same youth who flocked to vote for Obama have apparently lost interest. It turns out actually political concepts and policy ideas are not as attractive to young adults as "Yes We Can" and "Change." It also turns out that you can't wax intellectual about "change" when you've had three years and things haven't changed...at least not for the better.
Make no mistake about it, friends, Obama NEEDS the youth vote. Mitt Romney, in kind, needs the senior citizen vote. Good news on that front: 86% of that group (registered voters 65+) intend to vote...and plan to vote for Romney by a 12% margin over Obama. The type of people who are likely to vote for Romney are reliable. Obama's base...not so much.
This of course demonstrates why polls of adults and registered voters are less reliable: Not everyone will show up to vote. The more one leans toward a Republican candidate, the more they are likely to show up. If you look at the polls where Obama does the best, it's a poll of adults, or registered voters. He loses more and more support the more likely the voter gets.
It's early, friends, and Romney has barely started his campaign against Obama. But Obama is already looking very weak in this election. Losing the youth vote just proves it further.
44%, to be specific, of registered voters 18-29 years old, do not necessarily plan to vote, according to a Gallup Poll from last week. The same youth who flocked to vote for Obama have apparently lost interest. It turns out actually political concepts and policy ideas are not as attractive to young adults as "Yes We Can" and "Change." It also turns out that you can't wax intellectual about "change" when you've had three years and things haven't changed...at least not for the better.
Make no mistake about it, friends, Obama NEEDS the youth vote. Mitt Romney, in kind, needs the senior citizen vote. Good news on that front: 86% of that group (registered voters 65+) intend to vote...and plan to vote for Romney by a 12% margin over Obama. The type of people who are likely to vote for Romney are reliable. Obama's base...not so much.
This of course demonstrates why polls of adults and registered voters are less reliable: Not everyone will show up to vote. The more one leans toward a Republican candidate, the more they are likely to show up. If you look at the polls where Obama does the best, it's a poll of adults, or registered voters. He loses more and more support the more likely the voter gets.
It's early, friends, and Romney has barely started his campaign against Obama. But Obama is already looking very weak in this election. Losing the youth vote just proves it further.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Foghorn Leghorn & A Radish Would Beat Obama...So Will Romney
Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I had endorsed Newt Gingrich for President back when Newt had a snowball's chance in July of winning the nomination. Today, so many Newt fans are still clamoring for Newt to somehow deafeat Romney for the nomination (because they're apparently really bad at math). These same individuals are loudly proclaiming that Mitt can't beat Obama.
They are, of course, wrong. The reality of the situation is that a Radish could beat Obama, as could Foghorn Leghorn. You know who else can and will beat Obama? Mitt Romney.
Need proof? Over the past week the first reliable head to head polls have come out. (I say reliable because head to head polls are not necessarily trustworthy while the primaries continue, as often people are bad at mentally suspending their own ideal situation to consider the reality of another choice they may have to make. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means when asked "Who would you vote for in a hypothetical matchup between Romeny and Obama" they choose "other" because they preferred Santorum or Gingrich or whoever.) Gallup and Rasmussen have given their first week of rolling polling data, and (surprise surprise), Romney is beating Obama by 4 points (which is outside the margin for error).
According to Rasmussen, if the election was held today, Romney would defeat Obama 48% to 44%. According to Gallup, if the election was held today, Romney would defeat Obama by 48% to 44% as well. Considering the documented history of certain Drive-By Media sources to used cooked polls and poor samples of the population or just polls of "adults" to make their candidate look stronger, Rasmussen and Gallup will remain our standard bearers here for the 2012 Election.
Friends, stop buying the false narrative. Believe me, Romney will beat Obama. So let's focus on supporting him and pushing him to the right instead of panicking. Remember, friends, the Democrats are running Obama!
They are, of course, wrong. The reality of the situation is that a Radish could beat Obama, as could Foghorn Leghorn. You know who else can and will beat Obama? Mitt Romney.
Need proof? Over the past week the first reliable head to head polls have come out. (I say reliable because head to head polls are not necessarily trustworthy while the primaries continue, as often people are bad at mentally suspending their own ideal situation to consider the reality of another choice they may have to make. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means when asked "Who would you vote for in a hypothetical matchup between Romeny and Obama" they choose "other" because they preferred Santorum or Gingrich or whoever.) Gallup and Rasmussen have given their first week of rolling polling data, and (surprise surprise), Romney is beating Obama by 4 points (which is outside the margin for error).
According to Rasmussen, if the election was held today, Romney would defeat Obama 48% to 44%. According to Gallup, if the election was held today, Romney would defeat Obama by 48% to 44% as well. Considering the documented history of certain Drive-By Media sources to used cooked polls and poor samples of the population or just polls of "adults" to make their candidate look stronger, Rasmussen and Gallup will remain our standard bearers here for the 2012 Election.
Friends, stop buying the false narrative. Believe me, Romney will beat Obama. So let's focus on supporting him and pushing him to the right instead of panicking. Remember, friends, the Democrats are running Obama!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Why I Can Live With Romney
Now that Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination, it’s time to explain why I can live with Mitt Romney. I’ve been saying through this entire campaign that I can live with Romney. Here’s why:
- In 2008, Mitt Romney was the “Conservative Alternative” to John McCain. As a matter of fact, in 2008, I voted for Mitt Romney in the New York State Primary. (At the time my choices were John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.) I cast that vote because I believed Romney was the most conservative candidate available. This time, there were even more conservative candidates, so I supported one of those. That doesn’t make Mitt a liberal. It just makes him less conservative.
Do not confuse “less conservative” for liberal, my friends. Romney is by a large margin more conservative than John McCain in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, and Gerald Ford in 1976, and quite possibly George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. That my friends is a dramatic shift to the right by the GOP to have Mitt Romney as the “Establishment Candidate.”
Do not confuse “less conservative” for liberal, my friends. Romney is by a large margin more conservative than John McCain in 2008, Bob Dole in 1996, George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992, and Gerald Ford in 1976, and quite possibly George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. That my friends is a dramatic shift to the right by the GOP to have Mitt Romney as the “Establishment Candidate.”
- Mitt Romney is a businessman. He has run multiple businesses including pulling many proverbial cars out of ditches. This nation needs a Mr. Fix-It for this economy. A man who is a business turn-around specialist is a good choice. Romney has the business sense to turn this nation around.
- Romney has a perception problem. I addressed it above. People think he’s a “moderate.” People think he’s not as conservative. Most Tea Partiers I speak to in person and online think Mitt is another John McCain. There is a concern that Mitt won’t be able to ignite the necessary passion under conservatives to get them to fight for him. Not to get Tea Partiers and other conservatives to VOTE for him…the Republican nominee WILL get the conservative vote…but to get Tea Partiers and conservatives to FIGHT for him. He needs us to get deeply in his corner to volunteer, to knock on doors, to persuade our friends and neighbors to back him. I hear you all asking yourselves “OK Chris, what the heck is the point?”
Here it is, friends: Mitt is going to have to choose a very conservative running mate. A Bobby Jindall, a Rand Paul, a Paul Ryan, a Nikki Haley, or a (genuine shivers of excitement) Marco Rubio. That running mate is going to be the heir apparent in 2020. Quite possibly the incumbent Vice President and the mighty conservative voice we’ve all been hoping for. Yes, a little bit later, but still that conservative we want and need. Even if Mitt is a stopgap for a period of time, it’ll be a stopgap with a defined conclusion.
Here it is, friends: Mitt is going to have to choose a very conservative running mate. A Bobby Jindall, a Rand Paul, a Paul Ryan, a Nikki Haley, or a (genuine shivers of excitement) Marco Rubio. That running mate is going to be the heir apparent in 2020. Quite possibly the incumbent Vice President and the mighty conservative voice we’ve all been hoping for. Yes, a little bit later, but still that conservative we want and need. Even if Mitt is a stopgap for a period of time, it’ll be a stopgap with a defined conclusion.
- Mitt Romney will cut taxes. Governor Romney has promised a 10% tax cut for absolutely all tax brackets across the board. Not just certain groups of taxpayers, but every single one of us. Not a piddling little 2% cut in payroll taxes. 10% of our income taxes. If you’re in the 35% bracket, you’ll pay 25%. If you’re in the 25% bracket, you’ll be at 15%. If you’re in the 15% bracket, you’re down to 5%. If you’re in the 10% bracket, you’re no longer required to pay taxes.
To an American family with an income of $50,000, that means you’re now going to have an extra $100 plus in your pocket every month. Not the $10 or so you’re getting from a payroll tax holiday. Another $100 in an American family’s pocket is a big deal. It means the ability to go out to dinner or buy more new clothes. It means the ability to buy more wants. That means a lot.
To a small business owner who makes $250,000 per year and is a sole proprietorship filing their business taxes personally it means a whole lot more. A 10% cut in taxes means $62,500. Do you know what that is? A manager and one full-time employee and one part-time employee. Or two full time employees if that owner chooses to continue to run the business themselves. What if ten thousand small businesses in America have that? That means twenty thousand jobs. And you know what? It means more than that, because there are more than ten thousand small businesses in America. There are nearly 25 million of them, most of whom are sole proprietorships. That will make a huge difference in hiring.
To a small business owner who makes $250,000 per year and is a sole proprietorship filing their business taxes personally it means a whole lot more. A 10% cut in taxes means $62,500. Do you know what that is? A manager and one full-time employee and one part-time employee. Or two full time employees if that owner chooses to continue to run the business themselves. What if ten thousand small businesses in America have that? That means twenty thousand jobs. And you know what? It means more than that, because there are more than ten thousand small businesses in America. There are nearly 25 million of them, most of whom are sole proprietorships. That will make a huge difference in hiring.
- Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. Ultimately, we need Somebody Else in 2012. I, and so many other conservatives, believe a second Obama term would be disastrous for this country. Without the check of another election, President Obama will brazenly ignore the Constitution and the best interests of this nation even more than he has already. He’s already promised Russia to compromise our security once he’s re-elected. He also would likely get one to three Supreme Court appointees and dozens of other lower court justices. He would be able to put a hugely liberal judiciary in place to legislate from the bench.
I can live with Romney, my friends. I think you will find you can too. It’s time we get behind Romney, because ultimately we must defeat Obama.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Letter Bag: A Time for Realism
It's that time again, friends, to open up the Biblical Conservatism Letter Bag (Yay! Letter bag!) Today we have a drive-by post from someone who apparently created a Blogger account just to comment!
To set the stage, the post in question was last week's Santorum's Out, Now What?. One of the very type of people I called out in that post (in this case, a DelusiNewt) left this comment:
To set the stage, the post in question was last week's Santorum's Out, Now What?. One of the very type of people I called out in that post (in this case, a DelusiNewt) left this comment:
YOU ARE AS DELUSIONAL AS YOU CLAIM OTHERS (DelusiNewts) TO BE. Yet,...ONLY the time will help me to help you understand what I mean by that...
I'm sure you're thinking what I was thinking: There must be another comment, some kind of point...some kind of well worded argument...something. Two days later, nothing. Of course, you need a name before I write your response, so I'm going to call you Balrog.
Dear Balrog:
Yes...I'm the one who is delusional. The definition of delusional is a person who DOESN'T believe that Newt can somehow win 90% of the remaining primary delegates to miraculously defeat Romney. Delusional also apparently means not believing the irrational, viceral trouncing of Romney as just as liberal as Obama. I especially really appreciated your thorough and well thought out arguments to prove your point.
Dear Balrog:
Yes...I'm the one who is delusional. The definition of delusional is a person who DOESN'T believe that Newt can somehow win 90% of the remaining primary delegates to miraculously defeat Romney. Delusional also apparently means not believing the irrational, viceral trouncing of Romney as just as liberal as Obama. I especially really appreciated your thorough and well thought out arguments to prove your point.
In opposite land.
Look, Balrog, I know we've all been kicked a few times by the GOP when it comes to "establishment candidates." I too lived through Bob Dole and John McCain. Here's the thing, Balrog: I actually look at each candidate and don't presume they're absolutely McCain or Dole because the Establishment backs them.
The reality which our friend Balrog ignores is that the Tea Party already has begun to push the Republican Party to the right. The simple fact that Mittens was the Establishment Candidate this time proves it.
Balrog may have forgotten, but I haven't: in 2008 Romney was the Conservative Alternative candidate. Because he was significantly more conservative than John McCain. In 2012, we had people that were even more conservative than Mitt, but that doesn't change the fact that THIS establishment candidate is farther to the right that at least three of the last four (if not all four) "establishment candidates."
The reality which our friend Balrog ignores is that the Tea Party already has begun to push the Republican Party to the right. The simple fact that Mittens was the Establishment Candidate this time proves it.
Balrog may have forgotten, but I haven't: in 2008 Romney was the Conservative Alternative candidate. Because he was significantly more conservative than John McCain. In 2012, we had people that were even more conservative than Mitt, but that doesn't change the fact that THIS establishment candidate is farther to the right that at least three of the last four (if not all four) "establishment candidates."
So no, Balrog, I'm not being delusional. I would've preferred Newt too. I endorsed him, remember? But I also recognize that Priority One is defeating Obama. If that means settling for less conservative (but not socialist) then so be it. That's being realistic. Still dogmatically insisting Newt can win is the delusional position.
Say hi to E. Honda for me!
Say hi to E. Honda for me!
-Chris
Friday, February 17, 2012
Obama Has to Lie to Win, We Must Not Let Him
Over the last few days, we've been turning our attention to President Obama's 2012 Campaign and talking about the falsehoods he is peddling to keep his job. So many to give, no idea where to start.
It's all Bush's fault...except he's had 3 years of his fixes and none of them work.
It's all because of the Republicans in Congress blocking him...except for those two full years when Obama had a philibuster proof majority in the Senate and a strong lead in the House on his side and passed everything he wanted.
How about the claim that unemployment has dropped...except it really hasn't, the Department of Labor just up and decided that the workforce was 1.2 million people smaller and therefore the percentage went down while the real number of people unemployed went up. Further, the "seasonally adjusted" numbers given most places are lower than the real number, given by Gallup, where unemployment remains 9%.
Or maybe we could talk about Obamacare, which remains very unpopular and a majority of Americans want it repealed. Let's not forget how Obamacare was going to cut our costs for insurance...except it hasn't, it's raised our premiums, so the "freebies" aren't free, just shifted to another place, your premiums.
My friends, there is only one way the President can get re-elected: Lie. He has to lie to Americans. He has to label his straw man "Republicans," tell us it is real and then defeat it. He has to use doctored numbers to have unemployment as low as the 8.5% he claims (really 9% without "seasonal adjustments") and with REAL unemployment (including underemployment - people working part time instead of full time) that has ticked back up to 19%. So he's got to distract and make us look away.
There is a solution, my friends, a very simple one: We must not let him. We must not let those lies stand. We must talk to our friends, family, and co-workers who buy into these misconceptions. We must fight the good fight, because the truth is worth fighting for! (Feel free to start by sending those friends to Biblical Conservatism.) We must shout it from the rooftops: Obama is a failure! Somebody Else in 2012!
It's all Bush's fault...except he's had 3 years of his fixes and none of them work.
It's all because of the Republicans in Congress blocking him...except for those two full years when Obama had a philibuster proof majority in the Senate and a strong lead in the House on his side and passed everything he wanted.
How about the claim that unemployment has dropped...except it really hasn't, the Department of Labor just up and decided that the workforce was 1.2 million people smaller and therefore the percentage went down while the real number of people unemployed went up. Further, the "seasonally adjusted" numbers given most places are lower than the real number, given by Gallup, where unemployment remains 9%.
Or maybe we could talk about Obamacare, which remains very unpopular and a majority of Americans want it repealed. Let's not forget how Obamacare was going to cut our costs for insurance...except it hasn't, it's raised our premiums, so the "freebies" aren't free, just shifted to another place, your premiums.
My friends, there is only one way the President can get re-elected: Lie. He has to lie to Americans. He has to label his straw man "Republicans," tell us it is real and then defeat it. He has to use doctored numbers to have unemployment as low as the 8.5% he claims (really 9% without "seasonal adjustments") and with REAL unemployment (including underemployment - people working part time instead of full time) that has ticked back up to 19%. So he's got to distract and make us look away.
There is a solution, my friends, a very simple one: We must not let him. We must not let those lies stand. We must talk to our friends, family, and co-workers who buy into these misconceptions. We must fight the good fight, because the truth is worth fighting for! (Feel free to start by sending those friends to Biblical Conservatism.) We must shout it from the rooftops: Obama is a failure! Somebody Else in 2012!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Contraception is Another Liberal Misdirection
Over the last couple of weeks, the Left has started using their usual tactic of throwing up red herrings, this time about contraception. This time it’s not “Republicans want old people to die” or “Republicans are going to push Grandma off a cliff” or “Republicans want women to die in back allies,” no, this time, it’s “Republicans want to take away your contraception.” The reality, of course, is not at all sinister: Republicans don’t believe we should be forced to pay for other people’s birth control. Especially because, and I know this is hard for liberals to fathom, but we don’t have the money to pay for it. (Once again, just because liberals convince themselves that something is really, super-duper important, it doesn’t mean the money grows on trees now.)
I’ll admit that I let myself get caught up in this latest misdirection by the Left. Yes, I do believe that these requirements do in fact infringe upon our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion. And yes, I further believe that government has no right to force any organization to pay for any service because the government says so. But all this is a misdirection. Absolutely nobody is trying to make contraception illegal (as I said yesterday, I do not have a problem with true contraception, and that includes vasectomy and tubal ligation procedures). Whatsoever. Saying taxpayers shouldn’t pay for something isn’t the same thing as wanting to make it illegal.
All of this, however is a huge distraction against something far, far bigger: President Obama has been an abject failure in the White House. He has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and he’s still yet to manage to get unemployment below the 8% that he promised we wouldn’t see in the first place if we just passed his stimulus. President Obama cannot run on his record for reelection because his record is horrible. So now he has to demonize the Republicans. The President cannot ask the question “Are you better off than you were four years ago” and expect a positive result. We aren’t. We are worse off, and Obama’s liberal statist policies are to blame.
Here’s the truth: We are not better off than we were four years ago and the President knows that his policies are to blame for it. So he’s got to try to misdirect. He’s got to throw a flea flicker into the mix to see if he can get the defense focused on the wrong guy and then throw a Hail Mary pass. Let’s not let Obama play this game. He’s the failure, and he can only win by misdirecting. Let’s not let him.
Here’s the truth: We are not better off than we were four years ago and the President knows that his policies are to blame for it. So he’s got to try to misdirect. He’s got to throw a flea flicker into the mix to see if he can get the defense focused on the wrong guy and then throw a Hail Mary pass. Let’s not let Obama play this game. He’s the failure, and he can only win by misdirecting. Let’s not let him.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Reactions to the Florida Primary
Yesterday, Mitt Romney won the Florida Primary by a fairly comfortable margin, thus winning all of the state’s 50 primary delegates. My candidate, Newt Gingrich, came in second, with Rick Santorum in a distant third and Ron Paul as the official Florida Caboose.
Mittens fought hard to win this one. Ten days ago when he lost South Carolina, Newt had surged to the front of the Florida pack. Then the debates happened. Usually in this campaign, Newt has had Mitt and pretty much everyone else for lunch in the debates. Yet not this time. Mitt showed some backbone in the debates and actually showed some fight. This battle is by no means over, but for Heaven’s sake Mittens, if you end up our nominee, you BETTER take this level of fight to Obama and not wuss out like John McCain did in 2008. I mean it. I want to see this kind of fight from you if you’re the nominee, because you will beat Obama if you fight like that. If you wimp out, however, you can join Bob Dole and John McCain in the losers box at the Republican Conventions for the next three decades.
Speaker Gingrich fought hard in Florida, but it’s important to remember that Florida, regardless of its geography, is not culturally the South. It’s one of the more moderate states. So it’s not that surprising that Mittens would do well. But the next six states are split down the middle between Newt and Mitt. This fight is going to go on for a while. As a sign at Newt HQ said last night, 46 States to go.
Which brings us to Rick Santorum. Senator Santorum, I like you man. I really do. But it’s time for real reflection. Since your win in Iowa, you’ve gotten 9% in New Hampshire, 16% in South Carolina and now 13% in Florida. My friend, you are doing more to nominate Mitt Romney than pretty much anyone else. We need to consolidate the conservative vote, and right now you don’t have the money or the support to be the consolidator. It’s a two person race. It’s a choice between the conservative Newt Gingrich and the more moderate Mitt Romney. I’ve gone on record as saying you’d be a great Vice Presidential nominee for Newt. But I have to say it: It’s time for you to get out and let the conservative vote consolidate.
This primary showed that once again, this is going to be a long campaign. It’s not a bad thing. As I’ve continued to say, Barack Obama is infinitely beatable, as a matter of fact he is landslideable. It’s ok for the Mitt and Newt to fight this out for a few months yet, the fools in the Democratic Party are going to run Obama! So let’s fight this out and let the best man win.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Reactions to the State of the Union Address
Unelectable. It’s a term that’s been thrown around at every Republican candidate who isn’t a wimpy moderate. I’ve said multiple times that there wasn’t a Republican in the field that couldn’t win in 2012. There is one candidate who is indeed unelectable: Barack Obama.
Last night’s State of the Union address proved it. Considering we’ve seen this speech multiple times. He said “pay their fair share” four times, he used class warfare twenty-three times, blamed Congress sixteen times, and he blamed others twenty-two times. He proposed raising taxes eight times and demanded/requested more executive power to go around Congress five times. He asked for increased spending sixteen times. Then he proposed a few policies that he knows very well don’t have a snowball’s chance in July of passing into law. He talked about investing in “Green Energy” that is not even close to being a fitting replacement for fossil fuels (while not noting that his previous investments in “Green Energy” already resulted in bankruptcy – see Solyndra). This President doesn’t have a new idea. All he wants to do is spend more money that we don’t have. That’s all he’s got. He’s doubling and tripling down on the same bad policies that have failed. The only thing he was correct on was saying that it’s unlikely anything will get done in Congress this year. Of course, he didn’t mention that it’s his party that obstructs good policies and forces bad.
Of course, the President didn’t take the blame that is deservedly his. He blamed everyone else. He blamed everything in the economy on failures that happened before he took office. Big shock. He did not mention that he’s had three years and he’s done nothing to help. Don’t worry, there were also bad ideas in this speech, like trying to levy a tax on businesses that outsource. Because the best way to keep people from leaving a bad economic climate is to make it worse. Oh, and how are you going to enforce it? How you going to tax people who don’t live here or earn their income here? Oh…I forgot…we’re not supposed to use logic with Obama policies. He also demanded a new bureaucracy that was going to somehow stop a foreign nation from stealing. And he’s going to enforce it how? Oh right…don’t scrutinize.
Then he insults our intelligence. Last night’s speech was not about the State of the Union. Last night’s speech was a campaign speech. Obama used the House chamber to attempt to cover up one very important fact: Obama is a failure. He has spent trillions of dollars in borrowed money, spending that he guaranteed if we spent we wouldn’t see unemployment above 8%. That was three years ago, and we’re still above the promised unemployment. (Oh, by the way, if the only reason unemployment is at the 8.5% rate that it is recorded at is because the number of available jobs has shrunk significantly since Obama took office.)
Friends, if the State of the Union showed anything, it showed that we Republicans should nominate the strongest conservative available. The Democrats are planning on running OBAMA! They are planning to run an unelectable failure of a President who doesn’t know how to create jobs and wants to push through laws like Obamacare that the American people didn’t want then and don’t want now. This President is a miserable failure. Last night proved it. I can’t wait until we fire Obama, because he’s failed to do his job. I can’t wait until we get a President who believes in America as founded. I can’t wait until we get a President who recognizes that government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem. So let’s elect that next President, so we never have to listen to another Obama State of the Union.
Last night’s State of the Union address proved it. Considering we’ve seen this speech multiple times. He said “pay their fair share” four times, he used class warfare twenty-three times, blamed Congress sixteen times, and he blamed others twenty-two times. He proposed raising taxes eight times and demanded/requested more executive power to go around Congress five times. He asked for increased spending sixteen times. Then he proposed a few policies that he knows very well don’t have a snowball’s chance in July of passing into law. He talked about investing in “Green Energy” that is not even close to being a fitting replacement for fossil fuels (while not noting that his previous investments in “Green Energy” already resulted in bankruptcy – see Solyndra). This President doesn’t have a new idea. All he wants to do is spend more money that we don’t have. That’s all he’s got. He’s doubling and tripling down on the same bad policies that have failed. The only thing he was correct on was saying that it’s unlikely anything will get done in Congress this year. Of course, he didn’t mention that it’s his party that obstructs good policies and forces bad.
Of course, the President didn’t take the blame that is deservedly his. He blamed everyone else. He blamed everything in the economy on failures that happened before he took office. Big shock. He did not mention that he’s had three years and he’s done nothing to help. Don’t worry, there were also bad ideas in this speech, like trying to levy a tax on businesses that outsource. Because the best way to keep people from leaving a bad economic climate is to make it worse. Oh, and how are you going to enforce it? How you going to tax people who don’t live here or earn their income here? Oh…I forgot…we’re not supposed to use logic with Obama policies. He also demanded a new bureaucracy that was going to somehow stop a foreign nation from stealing. And he’s going to enforce it how? Oh right…don’t scrutinize.
Then he insults our intelligence. Last night’s speech was not about the State of the Union. Last night’s speech was a campaign speech. Obama used the House chamber to attempt to cover up one very important fact: Obama is a failure. He has spent trillions of dollars in borrowed money, spending that he guaranteed if we spent we wouldn’t see unemployment above 8%. That was three years ago, and we’re still above the promised unemployment. (Oh, by the way, if the only reason unemployment is at the 8.5% rate that it is recorded at is because the number of available jobs has shrunk significantly since Obama took office.)
Friends, if the State of the Union showed anything, it showed that we Republicans should nominate the strongest conservative available. The Democrats are planning on running OBAMA! They are planning to run an unelectable failure of a President who doesn’t know how to create jobs and wants to push through laws like Obamacare that the American people didn’t want then and don’t want now. This President is a miserable failure. Last night proved it. I can’t wait until we fire Obama, because he’s failed to do his job. I can’t wait until we get a President who believes in America as founded. I can’t wait until we get a President who recognizes that government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem. So let’s elect that next President, so we never have to listen to another Obama State of the Union.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Biblical Conservatism Bids a Fond Farewell to Jon Huntsman’s Campaign
Hours before this week’s Fox News Presidential debate, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman ended his campaign and (shock of shocks) endorsed fellow moderate Mitt Romney. So in honor of the departure of my favorite wimpy moderate Republican joke target, here are the highlights of my past teasing of Governor Huntsman with humorous links as placebos for actual analysis since Huntsman was never worth it.
But before you do, please click this video
for the appropriate background music (wait for the preceeding commercial before you start to read):
(After the 9.8.11 MSNBC Debate)
Seriously…I’m a busy man with stuff to do. I’m not wasting my time with Hunstman when I could be defrosting my freezer or scrubbing my cat’s litter box. He’s a waste of time in this campaign. Jon Huntsman was a bad candidate when he was named John McCain, and he was a bad candidate when he was named Bob Dole. We don’t need a moderate wimp.
On the issue of man-caused Global Warming, Huntsman shot himself in the foot, twice, and managed
to leave only one bullet hole. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means he shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he hit the first hole a second time.)
(After the 9.13.11 CNN Tea Party Debate)
Seriously. Huntsman is a joke. He spent tonight quoting Nirvana songs and waxing intellectual as a biased moderate. I’m not even bothering making a joke about how much of a non-issue Huntsman is at this point.
(After the 9.23.11 Fox News Google Debate)
Take me out to the ballgame, take me out to the crowd, buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack, I don’t care if I ever get back! Let me root, root, root for the home team, if they don’t win it’s a shame! For its one, two, three strikes you’re out at the old ballgame! (Huntsman is such a waste of time I decided to sing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” instead of wasting time on him.)
(After the 11.12.11 Washington Post Bloomberg Debate)
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
(After the 11.10.11 CNBC Your Money Your Vote Debate)
I’m kind of glad Huntsman is in these debates. It gives me a chance to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.
(After the 11.14.11 CBS South Carolina Debate)
Rather than wasting time talking about Jon Huntsman and his magenta tie, I’ve decided to provide a link to a video of Abbott and Costello doing their classic routine “Who’s On First.”
(After the 11.23.11 CNN Heritage Foundation Debate)
Well, a pig flew by tonight because I agreed with Huntsman on one statement: We do need term limits for Congress. Then he proceeded to drive me so crazy through the debate that I felt I couldn’t just make a fun joke about Governor Huntsman. I’ve seen pieces of wet one-ply toilet paper with more tensile strength than John Huntsman’s spine. He’s a wimp, and we’ve already got a wimp in the White House.
(After the 12.12.11 ABC Your Money Your Vote Debate)
Huntsman’s absence left me without opportunities to use the bathroom or get myself a beverage. Of course, it did mean there was more real debate happening.
Instead of wasting time on Jon Huntsman, I’ve decided to link to a video from one of my favorite sites, “How it Should Have Ended.” So here is How Wizard of Oz Should Have Ended for your viewing pleasure.
(After the 1.19.12 New Hampshire Debates)
Huntsman didn’t even bother with Iowa. He had one Caucus supporter though at least, which Ron Paul drolly noted on Twitter. He’s thrown all his chips into New Hampshire and I believe he’s headed for a disappointment. He was called by the Drive-By Media a “serious” candidate before he entered, which is Liberalese for “wimpy moderate we can definitely defeat.” I also believe it was sad and incorrect that Huntsman was given as much time as he was in Saturday’s debate.
So again, rather than wasting my time with Jon Huntsman analysis, here’s a favorite stand-up comedy bit of mine, “Noah” by Bill Cosby.
So Jon Huntsman is out of the race. It was inevitable really. Even when he came in 3rd place in New Hampshire, it was still a nonissue. Huntsman never had a shot. This year’s election is about strong conservatism (as proven by the fact that this year’s Establishment Candidate was last election’s Conservative Alternative). So we at Biblical Conservatism wish the Governor a fond farewell. I hope life treats you well, Governor Huntsman. You seem like a decent human being. Thank you for the sandwich making and restroom breaks in the debate. Sincerely. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Prediction: Newt Will Rebound After Upcoming Debates
Last night Mitt Romney narrowly won the Iowa Caucuses by an eight vote margin over surging Rick Santorum. Tomorrow I'll give my breakdown of the results in an effort to give the best possible analysis rather than a hastily put together one.
The candidate I have endorsed, Newt Gingrich, came in foruth place last night. Some feel this is a dissappointing showing for Newt, given that he was winning Iowa handily according to polls only a few weeks ago. Then Mitt Romney and others went negative against Newt and Newt began to slide. At least that's what the pundits in both the Conservative and Drive-By Media classes have been telling us.
But if you look at the calendar and see when Newt began to drop off you'll notice it coincides with the last debate on December 15th. If you also look at the calendar, you'll see two debates this weekend prior to the New Hampshire Primary, two debates the week before the South Carolina Primary and two debates the week before the Florida Primary. South Carolina and Florida, I believe, are far more important because New Hampshire is Romney's to lose. (Recent polling shows him with a commanding lead in the Granite State.) However, in the most recent South Carolina polls, Newt has a solid lead and in the most recent Florida polls, Newt is basically tied with Romney.
Gingrich just needs something to put him over the top against Mittens, and I think two debates the weeks before each debate (four total) will be just the thing Newt needs to beat Mitt. There are also two debates immediately before Super Tuesday in March.
Here's my point: I believe Gingrich is going to rebound nicely. It isn't over, no matter how many times the Republican Establishment tries to cram Mittens down our throats or how many times the Drive-By Media pretends the race is over. Remember, nearly 3/4 of Iowa voters voted against Mitt. There's still many votes to be cast, including the critical South Carolina and Florida primaries in a couple weeks, where Newt remains strong. Combine that with four debates where voters can remember why they love Newt, I think he's going to rebound.
The candidate I have endorsed, Newt Gingrich, came in foruth place last night. Some feel this is a dissappointing showing for Newt, given that he was winning Iowa handily according to polls only a few weeks ago. Then Mitt Romney and others went negative against Newt and Newt began to slide. At least that's what the pundits in both the Conservative and Drive-By Media classes have been telling us.
But if you look at the calendar and see when Newt began to drop off you'll notice it coincides with the last debate on December 15th. If you also look at the calendar, you'll see two debates this weekend prior to the New Hampshire Primary, two debates the week before the South Carolina Primary and two debates the week before the Florida Primary. South Carolina and Florida, I believe, are far more important because New Hampshire is Romney's to lose. (Recent polling shows him with a commanding lead in the Granite State.) However, in the most recent South Carolina polls, Newt has a solid lead and in the most recent Florida polls, Newt is basically tied with Romney.
Gingrich just needs something to put him over the top against Mittens, and I think two debates the weeks before each debate (four total) will be just the thing Newt needs to beat Mitt. There are also two debates immediately before Super Tuesday in March.
Here's my point: I believe Gingrich is going to rebound nicely. It isn't over, no matter how many times the Republican Establishment tries to cram Mittens down our throats or how many times the Drive-By Media pretends the race is over. Remember, nearly 3/4 of Iowa voters voted against Mitt. There's still many votes to be cast, including the critical South Carolina and Florida primaries in a couple weeks, where Newt remains strong. Combine that with four debates where voters can remember why they love Newt, I think he's going to rebound.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Were some Conservatives in Comas in the Mid-90s?
This question may sound a little weird...until I explain why I ask: Did you miss the Republican Revolution and more important forget who lead that Revolution? Who lead welfare reform? Who lead the way to four straight balanced budgets in the 1990s? (It wasn't Bill Clinton, no matter how many times he claims credit.) Who lead the The answer, of course, is Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich.
"But Chris, in 1970 while running for Dog Catcher, Newt said X!"
Look, I get it, ok? Newt has said some less than perfect things. That's because he doesn't give out canned answers that he rehearses in front of mirrors and sometimes says something that is just his immediate reaction and then gives a more thought out position later. But you who start telling me that Newt is a liberal...or a Big Government guy, or whatever...WHERE YOU IN A COMA IN THE MID-90s?
One of the worst offenders in this is Ann Coulter, someone whose opinion I usually agree with, but she’s now she’s joining the anti-Newt camp and arguing that he’s not all that conservative. Which is a funny statement from someone whose endorsed MITT ROMNEY. You know, the guy who actually passed a statewide individual healthcare mandate? That guy. Now look, I’m not trashing Mittens either. (I do however, enjoy referring to Romney as Mittens.) I’ve been saying this since this race began…the only RINO in this race is Jon “I left my personality in Utah” Huntsman. (And, if you’re super-duper literal, Ron Paul, but that’s because he’s a libertarian rather than a conservative.) Romney is a Rockefeller Republican, Santorum is a Washington insider, but both have legitimate conservative credentials to some degree.
I’m sick and tired of this “everyone but my candidate/the candidate I wish would run but didn’t/some invented perfect candidate that doesn’t exist is a RINO” baloney. And that is the exact mentality that is now calling Newt a liberal, or a RINO, or a big government guy, or whatever. Which brings me back to my title to this post: Am I the ONLY conservative who wasn’t in a coma in the mid-90s?
In case you were, I’m going to now review Newt’s resume with you:
- Co-Authored the Contract with America
- Lead the passage of Welfare Reform, which cut entitlement spending significantly and ended lifetime welfare recipients.
- Cut the capital gains tax, a move that many economists state as one of the primary causes of the 90s boom (yep, Clinton fans, it wasn’t the tax increases).
- Balanced the Federal Budget four years in a row.
- Although not passed, fought for a Balanced Budget Amendment that would require a 3/5 majority of both houses to spend a cent beyond what the government receives in taxes; and a Constitutional Amendment to require a 3/5 majority of both houses to raise taxes.
So, to review, Newt lead the way on Welfare Reform, balanced budgets, cut taxes, and fought to make sure tax rates were not raised without a super-majority of Congress and requiring balanced budgets as a matter of Constitutional law. Yep, those are sure liberal policies. Not like the conservative pillar that is Mitt Romney. (If you’re picking up my sarcasm, it’s because I’m laying it on pretty thick.)
Now maybe you’ve bought the line that “Only Mitt Romney can beat Obama” or “Independents won’t vote for a conservative.” Please, do us all a favor. Please take your dominant hand, palm open and facing toward the back of your head. Is that in place? OK, good. Now thrust your palm forward really hard. Now that you’ve smacked yourself upside the head for me, please listen to me: Mitt can beat Obama. So can Newt. So can Michelle Bachmann. So can Rick Perry. So can Rick Santorum. So can Foghorn Leghorn. Obama is a miserable failure of a President. He is going to lose in 2012.
As far as the line that “Independents run from conservatives”: Right, because Bob Dole and John McCain won right? Oh and George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan lost, right? Oh wait…
To those of you who keep telling me that “Newt’s not a REAL conservative,” all I have to say is “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I get it. He’s not your perfect candidate and therefore you’ve got your boxers in a bunch because you’re a big Ron Paul fan or you’ve bought the line that only Mittens can beat Obama. Newt’s not a RINO. Newt’s definitely not a liberal. He’s a dyed in the wool conservative.
If you want someone else, fight for your candidate. But please, listen to me: STOP SAYING ONLY YOUR CANDIDATE CAN WIN! Oh, and while we’re at it STOP SAYING EVERYONE BUT YOUR CANDIDATE IS A RINO OR A LIBERAL! Especially if that candidate is Willard "Mitt(ens)" Romney. (Looking right at you, Ann Coulter.)
If you want someone else, fight for your candidate. But please, listen to me: STOP SAYING ONLY YOUR CANDIDATE CAN WIN! Oh, and while we’re at it STOP SAYING EVERYONE BUT YOUR CANDIDATE IS A RINO OR A LIBERAL! Especially if that candidate is Willard "Mitt(ens)" Romney. (Looking right at you, Ann Coulter.)
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Gallup: Obama in Trouble with Independents
Political elites on both sides of the aisle will tell you that a candidate in a national election needs to reach those "independents," the great unwashed middle who "makes their decisions on each issue at each election" to win. The conventional wisdom is, of course, that 40% of Americans will automatically vote Democrat at 40% will automatically vote Republican, so the election tips on that 20%.
I've never bought this, or the so-called moderate/independent self definition of wisdom beyond compare to decide their positions issue by issue, in the least. Most of these people somehow find a way to land with one leg on either side of the fence on every single issue then call themselves wise beyond compare. The truth is they are a) not willing to take time to consider issues b) want to be perceived as smart and c) are persuaded not by substance but by style. But I digress.
Gallup, recently, brought out some more very bad news for President Obama, in a new poll breakdown released on November 29th. According to the poll, of the 14% who self identify as "pure independents" (that is, neither lean Democrat or Republican), only 30% approve of the job President Obama is doing. This is compared to 43% that the President is receiving across all party lines. Once we add in those who lean slightly to the Democrat or Republican side, the President's approval rises only to 35%. Again, that's not good for Obama (but great for America).
I've been saying this for quite some time, my friends, Obama is in trouble. He's going to be defeated in 2012. I can hear you who buy into the whole moderate/independent baloney now telling me that we must nominate Mitt Romney or...gaaaaa...Jon Huntsman...to get those independents. Look, it does not matter. These proud independents/moderates are convinced not by ideas but by personalities. That's the reason they voted for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They will be convinced by a conservative with great ideas just as easily as they bought into Hopey Change.
The President is headed for a big defeat in the 2012 Election. So let's make sure he loses to a real conservative. This is our time, friends. Let's go!
I've never bought this, or the so-called moderate/independent self definition of wisdom beyond compare to decide their positions issue by issue, in the least. Most of these people somehow find a way to land with one leg on either side of the fence on every single issue then call themselves wise beyond compare. The truth is they are a) not willing to take time to consider issues b) want to be perceived as smart and c) are persuaded not by substance but by style. But I digress.
Gallup, recently, brought out some more very bad news for President Obama, in a new poll breakdown released on November 29th. According to the poll, of the 14% who self identify as "pure independents" (that is, neither lean Democrat or Republican), only 30% approve of the job President Obama is doing. This is compared to 43% that the President is receiving across all party lines. Once we add in those who lean slightly to the Democrat or Republican side, the President's approval rises only to 35%. Again, that's not good for Obama (but great for America).
I've been saying this for quite some time, my friends, Obama is in trouble. He's going to be defeated in 2012. I can hear you who buy into the whole moderate/independent baloney now telling me that we must nominate Mitt Romney or...gaaaaa...Jon Huntsman...to get those independents. Look, it does not matter. These proud independents/moderates are convinced not by ideas but by personalities. That's the reason they voted for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They will be convinced by a conservative with great ideas just as easily as they bought into Hopey Change.
The President is headed for a big defeat in the 2012 Election. So let's make sure he loses to a real conservative. This is our time, friends. Let's go!
Monday, December 5, 2011
Reactions to Herman Cain’s Withdrawal
Saturday, Herman Cain officially announced that he was ending his campaign for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, amid many alleged scandals. Some in Republicans and conservatives are glad to see him out (the former group consists mainly of establishment types who want to cram Mitt Romney down our throats and the latter consists of people who are backing some other candidate). Cain’s withdrawal was not unexpected to anyone paying attention, ever since he rose to the top of the Republican polls he’s been under attack. The Leftwing attack machine, supported by their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media, has had their sights on Cain and they’ve finally succeeded.
I’m on the record as saying that I believe Cain when he denies these allegations. For starters, the way these accusations kept coming out one at a time as the previous didn’t work. They were all unprovable, with the best available accuser being a woman had a history of claiming sexual harassment every time she didn’t get her way at work. I believe Cain because I’ve looked in his eyes. I can’t explain it any further, save for saying that as a Christian, I’ve learned how to discern the spirit of a man. I believe Cain. He has admitted to giving money to this woman who is now accusing him. As a Pentecostal Christian, I can tell you I’ve seen that before. It’s called caring for the needy amongst you.
Cain is gone now. The Media hit job has worked. They’ve gotten Cain out of the way. I for one do not believe this was entirely a consequence of the Media attacks. Cain lost a lot of conservative support from people like myself who were inclined to support him because of his poor performances recently on foreign policy. Whenever Cain got off the subject of 9-9-9, it seemed to hurt his support. My concern now is that this may hurt the chances of Mr. Cain to serve in a cabinet post or, in the role I believe he is wonderfully suited for, the Republican Vice Presidential Nominee. Regardless of his political future, however, I believe Mr. Cain is destined to be a player in the political arena for a long time to come. If he does not seek some sort of elected office he will be a major power broker in the Tea Party and the larger conservative wing of the Republican Party, similar to Sarah Palin.
Now to those of you who back other candidates and therefore jumped on the bandwagon in attacking Mr. Cain, I have a message. I absolutely guarantee that your candidate will be next if he becomes the nominee. If it’s Mitt Romney, don’t be assuaged by his squeaky-clean background, because truth does not matter to the Left Wing attack machine. If it’s not “Mormonism is weird,” they will invent something. Trust me. If Rick Perry rebounds to the top of the race, it’ll be more of the same baloney about daring to purchase a name that had a racist name on a rock long before the Perry family bought it and that the Perry family painted over and turned to hide said slur. If Michelle Bachmann were to rise back up, it’ll be more attempts to paint her as a fire-breathing dragon. If pigs fly and Hell freezes over and Ron Paul becomes the nominee, his foreign policy alone will see him torn down by the Right and the Left will go after him as the single most uncaring person in the world for his reasonable desire to spend only the money we receive in taxes.
The same type of attacks have already begun on Newt Gingrich, whether it’s rehashing the same false story about Newt supposedly divorcing his ex-wife on her deathbed back in the 80s (by the way, the same woman is still alive today, so the deathbed claim is already patently false) or misrepresenting his role with Freddie Mac, the attack machine is already started on Gingrich. I think Newt will deal with these claims in a completely different manner. To quote Herb Brooks, he’s not going to defend against the Drive-By Media, he is going to attack them. Quite frankly I think it’s going to be fun to watch.
I wish Mr. Cain the best in his future endeavors. As his brother in the Lord Jesus Christ, I pray for Herman Cain, and for Gloria Cain. I close with this, and I know I will take heat from some for it: I believe Mr. Cain when he says the accusations are false. If one is innocent, there is nothing more you can do but proclaim your innocence. The same gut that told me Bill Clinton was lying in the 90s tells me that Cain is telling the truth. I close with this: if you piled on to Cain because you support someone else, your candidate will be next if he or she rises to the top of the heap. I guarantee it.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Here Comes Newt Gingrich
I spent many months in my post-debate analysis posts saying that if Newt Gingrich ever became a real contender in the Republican Primary race, I'd be excited to get behind him. Over the last two weeks, Gingrich has moved into first or second place in many polls of registered Republican voters and has even taken over first place in the Public Policy Polling Institute's most recent poll.
For those of us who remember the 1994 Republican Revolution, this change is not surprising. Many of us thought then that Gingrich could be a transformational, Ronald Reagan type conservative for the next generation. Now it seems like Newt is getting his shot to do just that.
Why I absolutely love the idea of Gingrich being our nominee is twofold: One, he is the real architect of the mid to late 90s booming economy (not Bill Clinton, regardless of what liberals tell you); and two, he would hand Barack Obama his own...errr...hindquarters...in the debates in October of 2012.
Now I know the Drive-By Media is going to try to tear him down. They're going to repeat the old narrative that Gingrich "divorced his first wife (in 1980) while she was on her death bed." Now, for the record, this woman is STILL ALIVE 30 years later, so clearly she wasn't on her death bed, and Newt's daughter Jackie has officially set the record straight about what happened between her father and mother.
For the record, the divorce was already in progress, and it was Jackie Battley Gingrich, NOT Newt, who requested the divorce. But hey, when has the truth ever slowed the Drive-By Media? Just look at what's been done to Herman Cain...shaded claims by nameless individuals and one person who had a history of claiming sexual harassment whenever she didn't get her way have been treated as gospel truth. I guarantee you the Drive-By Media hits on Newt Gingrich that have already begun will get worse.
The Drive-By Media doesn't want strong conservatives. They want Diet Coke Party Republicans who will play the "compromise" game whenever they are in power then accept Democrat rule when Democrats are in power. So they will come after any conservative...anyone really who is remotely conservative...and Newt qualifies. Be prepared for unnamed sources and "the seriousness of the charge is more important than the nature of the evidence."
That being said, Newt is emerging now and he is picking up support from the Tea Party and other conservatives. I'm not surprised. Newt was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. He lead Congress to four straight balanced budgets as Speaker of the House. Despite what some might think about the Tea Party, specifically that we're only going to back "our own people," we don't really care where you're from if you support conservatism, small government, and personal responsibility. (See: Michelle Bachmann, who is a Tea Party conservative who was in office before the Tea Party came into being.)
Newt's 21st Century Contract with America is packed with great conservative principles, including repealing Obamacare, cutting the Corporate Tax to 12.5% to encourage businesses to stay in America and return, a 15% Flat Tax, and repealing Obamacare (if the Supreme Court doesn't do that first) and other burdensome regulations. (For those of you who have asked, yes, I will do a post with an in-depth analysis of the 21st Century Contract with America as soon as I have time to properly do the research.)
Newt Gingrich is the new conservative who is rising. I think he might be the best conservative in the race, and I know he's the one candidate who, above all, can beat Obama soundly in debates. Just be prepared: we're going to have to defend him against false claims, semi-true claims, and rehashes of stories from 10 or more years ago about a man who has been repentant of his past sins. Be ready, my friends, but here comes Newt Gingrich.
For those of us who remember the 1994 Republican Revolution, this change is not surprising. Many of us thought then that Gingrich could be a transformational, Ronald Reagan type conservative for the next generation. Now it seems like Newt is getting his shot to do just that.
Why I absolutely love the idea of Gingrich being our nominee is twofold: One, he is the real architect of the mid to late 90s booming economy (not Bill Clinton, regardless of what liberals tell you); and two, he would hand Barack Obama his own...errr...hindquarters...in the debates in October of 2012.
Now I know the Drive-By Media is going to try to tear him down. They're going to repeat the old narrative that Gingrich "divorced his first wife (in 1980) while she was on her death bed." Now, for the record, this woman is STILL ALIVE 30 years later, so clearly she wasn't on her death bed, and Newt's daughter Jackie has officially set the record straight about what happened between her father and mother.
For the record, the divorce was already in progress, and it was Jackie Battley Gingrich, NOT Newt, who requested the divorce. But hey, when has the truth ever slowed the Drive-By Media? Just look at what's been done to Herman Cain...shaded claims by nameless individuals and one person who had a history of claiming sexual harassment whenever she didn't get her way have been treated as gospel truth. I guarantee you the Drive-By Media hits on Newt Gingrich that have already begun will get worse.
The Drive-By Media doesn't want strong conservatives. They want Diet Coke Party Republicans who will play the "compromise" game whenever they are in power then accept Democrat rule when Democrats are in power. So they will come after any conservative...anyone really who is remotely conservative...and Newt qualifies. Be prepared for unnamed sources and "the seriousness of the charge is more important than the nature of the evidence."
That being said, Newt is emerging now and he is picking up support from the Tea Party and other conservatives. I'm not surprised. Newt was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. He lead Congress to four straight balanced budgets as Speaker of the House. Despite what some might think about the Tea Party, specifically that we're only going to back "our own people," we don't really care where you're from if you support conservatism, small government, and personal responsibility. (See: Michelle Bachmann, who is a Tea Party conservative who was in office before the Tea Party came into being.)
Newt's 21st Century Contract with America is packed with great conservative principles, including repealing Obamacare, cutting the Corporate Tax to 12.5% to encourage businesses to stay in America and return, a 15% Flat Tax, and repealing Obamacare (if the Supreme Court doesn't do that first) and other burdensome regulations. (For those of you who have asked, yes, I will do a post with an in-depth analysis of the 21st Century Contract with America as soon as I have time to properly do the research.)
Newt Gingrich is the new conservative who is rising. I think he might be the best conservative in the race, and I know he's the one candidate who, above all, can beat Obama soundly in debates. Just be prepared: we're going to have to defend him against false claims, semi-true claims, and rehashes of stories from 10 or more years ago about a man who has been repentant of his past sins. Be ready, my friends, but here comes Newt Gingrich.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Reactions to the CNN Western Debate
Last night, the Republican Candidates met in Las Vegas, NV. First and foremost, as an overview, I must say this was quite probably the most entertaining debate yet. Even Anderson Cooper failed to drive me crazy during the debate and Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy 15% of the time (limited it 5%). Oh and Jon Huntsman stayed home, which was nice, because it meant I wasn’t having my time wasted during this debate listening to him drone. So now it's time for everyone's favorite stock market analogy, "Buy, Hold, Sell, Sell All or Sold," with my last debate reaction in italics:
Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):
Congresswoman Bachmann was articulate and said some good things in this debate. Unfortunately she didn’t really have any great moments that really made her stand out. I think she’s dropped off the radar in this race, thus far. That can change. I’m not selling all yet, because I know that we are still a full three months away from casting any vote. For now, however, I’m selling off Michelle Bachmann stock.
Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging last night. She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.
Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):
Cain really knocked this debate out of the park. He explained and articulated his 9-9-9 Plan wonderfully. The explanation that the new sales tax is not just offset but actually overcome by the repeal of the Payroll Tax and the Federal Income tax and lead to a smaller tax burden. The other thing he explained well is that the 9-9-9 Plan is the only plan where EVERYONE is paying their real “fair share,” which means that EVERYONE is paying taxes, not just 52% of us paying 100% of the taxes while the 48% pay 0% of the tax burden and receive the majority of the tax benefits. He really nailed it.
He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.
In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.
Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):
Newt really took it to the moderators. He’s the reason I didn’t hop in my car and drive to NH to smack Charlie Rose. (That and my desire to not spend money to drive to NH and smack someone and then go to jail for assault. That was in there too.) Newt has started to rise in the polls a bit. I’m holding on to Newt’s Stock because he’s just so good in these debates. He’d crush Obama in a debate. I’d love to see Newt as the Vice President, or for that matter as the White House Press Secretary if he’d take the job. Let’s see if he can get back into this thing…because he could really take it to Obama.
Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.
Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.
Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):
Kermit stayed home this time. Miss Piggy wouldn’t let him come out and play I guess. Too bad. (Not really.)
See Jon Huntsman note.
Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):
No change in my opinion from Paul. Unlike the last two candidates listed, I respect Ron Paul. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight for the majority of the debate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which only came up minimally last night, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I’ve stood, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”
Rick Perry – Buy (Hold):
Rick Perry is losing people fast. He needs to have specific plans. Right now it still feels like he’s obfuscating (that’s “being confusing without saying anything” for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He really has lost a lot of potential in my mind. When a Republican can’t respond effectively to a Ronald Reagan question, there’s a problem.
I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.
Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.
Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):
Another great debate performance from Mitt Romney. His tough stance on China was impressive, if he lives it out, and I felt he did a good job showing that he is a good candidate on the economy. Now Mitt is not my first choice, and pretty much the only way he’ll get my vote in the primary is if Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are out of the race (in that order). That said, he’s doing a good job of convincing me that, if Mitt becomes our nominee, it wouldn’t remind me of holding my nose in 2008 and voting for John McCain. (Actually, in 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin and her boss.)
In short, Mitt to me is like a vanilla ice cream cone. By comparison, my current favorite, Herman Cain, would be like eating a big delicious ice cream sundae with all the fixings*. I’d be happy to eat a vanilla ice cream cone. I’d enjoy it. I’d rather eat a sundae with all the fixings. That’s the line with Mitt…we can do better as conservatives. We also can do a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, Romneycare could be a big problem for Mitt.
Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.
That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during said exchange) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.
Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):
Santorum spent a lot of time trying to get back into the spotlight. It didn’t work. Considering he’s from Pennsylvania, he’s got a shot at being the Vice Presidential nominee in an effort to turn that 2008 blue state into a red state in 2012. But he’s not going to be the President, at least not without serving first as Vice President, and not in 2012.
Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.
Another debate in the books and my decision has gotten muddy again. My current options are, in alphabetical order, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I really don’t know where to go, but I’m glad I have so many choices that I would consider good, and even more that I consider acceptable. Thank
Michelle Bachmann – Hold (Sell):
Congresswoman Bachmann was articulate and said some good things in this debate. Unfortunately she didn’t really have any great moments that really made her stand out. I think she’s dropped off the radar in this race, thus far. That can change. I’m not selling all yet, because I know that we are still a full three months away from casting any vote. For now, however, I’m selling off Michelle Bachmann stock.
Congresswoman Bachmann came out swinging last night. She really had some great moments. I honestly do not know if this response will build any support for her. She had some great moments. My favorite was when she brought up that Barrack Obama’s relatives are still in this country illegally. Honestly I don’t know if she’s going to pick up any support, but I thought her debate performance was solid.
Herman Cain – Buy (Buy):
Cain really knocked this debate out of the park. He explained and articulated his 9-9-9 Plan wonderfully. The explanation that the new sales tax is not just offset but actually overcome by the repeal of the Payroll Tax and the Federal Income tax and lead to a smaller tax burden. The other thing he explained well is that the 9-9-9 Plan is the only plan where EVERYONE is paying their real “fair share,” which means that EVERYONE is paying taxes, not just 52% of us paying 100% of the taxes while the 48% pay 0% of the tax burden and receive the majority of the tax benefits. He really nailed it.
He took it hard on the 9% sales tax in the debate from the other candidates. I think he did a good job of responding and explaining that the plan is replacing the current pipeline, not giving a new tax pipeline.
In the last month I’ve done a 180 on Herman Cain. He’s become a viable candidate and is the current contender to Mitt Romney at the top of the race. I thought he did a very good job of explaining his 9-9-9 Plan and continuing to invite people to go to his website and view the plan in full. He did a great job to explain that his plan is replacing significant taxes that go into the price of every product we buy. He’s going to have to do a lot of explaining to get that fact into people’s heads. Yes, there would need to be significant and potentially Constitutional safeguards for a plan like 9-9-9 to work. But he did a good job I think of shaking off the attacks and staying firm on his plan.
Newt Gingrich – Buy (Sell):
Newt really took it to the moderators. He’s the reason I didn’t hop in my car and drive to NH to smack Charlie Rose. (That and my desire to not spend money to drive to NH and smack someone and then go to jail for assault. That was in there too.) Newt has started to rise in the polls a bit. I’m holding on to Newt’s Stock because he’s just so good in these debates. He’d crush Obama in a debate. I’d love to see Newt as the Vice President, or for that matter as the White House Press Secretary if he’d take the job. Let’s see if he can get back into this thing…because he could really take it to Obama.
Newt joins Herman Cain in the category of making me look bad, and I’m glad of it. I really like Newt. If he can show himself to be a viable option and not a throw away vote in my state’s primary, I’d strongly consider voting for him. He’s got great ideas and he would absolutely cream Obama in a debate. He had great moments in the debate. I’d like to see Newt really take the next step. Let’s see what happens.
Jon Huntsman – Not In Attendance (Sold):
I think the kids in those Peter G. Peterson Foundation commercials explaining how economics work would make better candidates than Jon Huntsman. Also, who names their kid Peter Peterson? Moving on.
I’m glad Huntsman wasn’t here. I’ve run out of funny statements for him. I’ll work on it before the next debate. Any suggestions, send me a tweet @UpstateMetFan.
Gary Johnson – Not in Attendance (Sold):
Kermit stayed home this time. Miss Piggy wouldn’t let him come out and play I guess. Too bad. (Not really.)
See Jon Huntsman note.
Ron Paul - Sold (Sold):
No change in my opinion from Paul. Unlike the last two candidates listed, I respect Ron Paul. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Ron Paul forgot to sound crazy tonight for the majority of the debate. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I agree with him on 85% of his policies. Unfortunately the other 15%, which only came up minimally last night, scare me about him, like his isolationist policies that do not make sense in our modern world. I stay where I’ve stood, he won’t be the President. But I’m glad he’s in my party. Also, I’d like to give kudos to Paul on one statement, “We have rights, and they come from God.”
Rick Perry – Buy (Hold):
Rick Perry is losing people fast. He needs to have specific plans. Right now it still feels like he’s obfuscating (that’s “being confusing without saying anything” for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He really has lost a lot of potential in my mind. When a Republican can’t respond effectively to a Ronald Reagan question, there’s a problem.
I felt Perry rebounded pretty well. His plans to use the energy resources we have to power this country makes far too much sense to ignore. I can’t tell you what a boon to my budget it would be to see my energy costs go down. I’m fortunate enough to live in a town with local, municipal electricity, but even so, if gas prices were cut in half and energy prices were cut in half due to increased supply, that’d be a 10% increase in my monthly available budget, and that would be absolutely huge to me. For the rest of American that would be so as well. I felt he did a decent job on immigration as well.
Most importantly, I felt Perry did a good job of taking it to Mitt Romney. In fairness, Perry really should have let Mitt finish his sentences, but the reality of the situation was that I think Mitt sounded like a he was whining while Perry seemed like an attack dog. While Perry’s statement about Romney hiring illegal immigrants may not have only been true in name only (and I’ll look for a fact check on that), if Romney’s response was indeed true, it still did bloody Romney a bit. Perry may have started to rebound last night.
Mitt Romney – Buy (Buy):
Another great debate performance from Mitt Romney. His tough stance on China was impressive, if he lives it out, and I felt he did a good job showing that he is a good candidate on the economy. Now Mitt is not my first choice, and pretty much the only way he’ll get my vote in the primary is if Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are out of the race (in that order). That said, he’s doing a good job of convincing me that, if Mitt becomes our nominee, it wouldn’t remind me of holding my nose in 2008 and voting for John McCain. (Actually, in 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin and her boss.)
In short, Mitt to me is like a vanilla ice cream cone. By comparison, my current favorite, Herman Cain, would be like eating a big delicious ice cream sundae with all the fixings*. I’d be happy to eat a vanilla ice cream cone. I’d enjoy it. I’d rather eat a sundae with all the fixings. That’s the line with Mitt…we can do better as conservatives. We also can do a whole lot worse. Unfortunately, Romneycare could be a big problem for Mitt.
Mitt stood his ground last night and did as well as he’s continued to do. I want to see a fact check on his claim that his “illegal immigrant hiring” was actually him contracting for landscaping with a company who hired illegals, which is, in fairness, not something I can legitimately blame Mitt for. However, where I think he looked bad was when he was defending himself against the interruptions by Perry. I know, it doesn’t sound right, and in most cases I would think that Perry sounded like a jerk and Mitt like a victim. Yet, in that particular instance, Mitt came off to me as condescending and Perry as someone who was legitimately looking for answers.
That exchange (and the subsequent Twitter reactions during said exchange) showed Mitt’s biggest problem. The conservative Republican base really doesn’t want him. That’s why there’s been a perpetual battle of Mitt vs. Not Mitt. (The role of Not Mitt has been played recently by Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.) Republicans are desperately seeking somebody else, and that will hurt Mitt.
Rick Santorum - Sold (Sold):
Santorum spent a lot of time trying to get back into the spotlight. It didn’t work. Considering he’s from Pennsylvania, he’s got a shot at being the Vice Presidential nominee in an effort to turn that 2008 blue state into a red state in 2012. But he’s not going to be the President, at least not without serving first as Vice President, and not in 2012.
Santorum was swinging away again tonight, and I still don’t think he gained any traction. I like him, but his highest possible realistic goal is Vice President.
Another debate in the books and my decision has gotten muddy again. My current options are, in alphabetical order, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I really don’t know where to go, but I’m glad I have so many choices that I would consider good, and even more that I consider acceptable. Thank
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Reaction to the CNN Tea Party Debate
Last night for the second time in less than a week, the Republican nominees met for a debate. This time it was the Tea Party Nation debate on CNN. This time, CNN didn’t insult our intelligence with “Coke or Pepsi” and “Scope or Listerine” questions. I also have to give them some credit…the debate wasn’t filled with gotcha questions. I was surprised. Wolf Blitzer did a pretty good job of being a legitimate moderator. They also did a pretty good job of spreading out the questions to give more equal time than the MSNBC Debate did last week.
Just like last Thursday’s debate on MSNBC, let’s talk about whose stock I’d recommend buying, selling, holding, and in a new addition, sold (already sold out and not buying back in).
Michelle Bachmann (Buy):
I still like Bachmann and I expected more out of her in this debate, especially because it was the Tea Party debate. Partially because the Media is pushing her out in favor of Perry and Romney, her star seemed to be on the downturn.
Last night, however, she turned it back around and stood on some strong conservative policies, like “The Federal Reserve needs to be shrunk down to such a tight leash that they’re going to squeak.” She really took a step forward going head to head with Perry on the HPV Vaccine issue and other issues. Bachmann remains in the hunt and I think she moved herself back into the top of the debate last night.
As of now, Bachmann is one of two choices for me right now in the field, when it comes time for me to cast my vote in the Republican primary.
Herman Cain (Hold):
Once again, I like Cain very much and I think he’s a very qualified candidate. However, I do not think he could win the nomination based on his poll numbers. He would make a great Vice President, and he’d also make an excellent Secretary of Commerce. He’s got a great chance to be in the Executive Branch in 2013, just not as the President.
Newt Gingrich (Hold):
Gingrich again is strong and does well in debates. He’d kick Obama’s butt in a debate, but he’s not going to get the nomination. He scores well in debates, but he doesn’t do well in polls. I’m leaving him as a hold for now, because there’s a small chance he turns it around, but for now I don’t expect him to go far. He is, however, another person who could find a place in a new Republican administration in the cabinet.
Jon Huntsman (Sold):
Seriously. Huntsman is a joke. He spent tonight quoting Nirvana songs and waxing intellectual as a biased moderate. I’m not even bothering making a joke about how much of a non-issue Huntsman is at this point.
Ron Paul (Sold):
It occurred to me since the last debate that, in the strictest sense of the term, Paul is a RINO. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that’s “Republican In Name Only.”) Now, Paul isn’t the moderate, wimpy, half liberal sort of RINO. Not in the slightest. But Paul is a Republican by default, because the political term that most applies to him is Libertarian. Now that’s not a bad thing, my friends. As I’ve said before, I agree with Paul on about 75% of issues. However, he’s not in line with the mainstream conservative Republican party, and that’s why he won’t get the nomination.
Rick Perry (Buy):
Perry beat up on Romney last night, but got beat up on by the rest of the field. I think he kicked Romney’s butt on the “Social Security is a Ponsi Scheme” statement…because he’s right. He showed himself to be a legitimate conservative so far.
He did have a tough moment with the discussion of his HPV Vaccine executive order. I respect the fact that he admitted he was wrong. He let Bachmann back into the debate in a strong way last night, making it back into a three person race.
However, he was overall quite strong. The biggest thing I think Perry did was he pushed Romney out of the debate spot lead. Perry was debating with Bachmann as much as anyone tonight, and not as much with Romney. He really is establishing himself as the frontrunner. I, for one, am seriously considering giving Perry my vote when New York’s Primary comes, and I think I’m a very typical conservative.
Mitt Romney (Stock – Sell):
Romney is losing ground. With a candidate like Perry who has the ability to raise money on par with Romney (and for that matter Obama), who has Tea Party credentials and an honest, straight talk style that I think overshadows Romney’s overly polished style. He’s still the GOP Establishment candidate, and in a year where the Tea Party is going to choose the Republican nominee, it’s not going to be Romney’s year.
Rick Santorum (Sold):
Santorum is done. I’ve said it before. He’s just not strong enough. He’s a Washington insider and he’s just not standing out. Sorry, Rick. I like you as a person, and I’d gladly watch a football game with you. But I don’t want you as my President.
So far, I’d have to say the winners were Bachmann and Perry. I’m glad to see that, although it makes my decision harder, because, barring Sarah Palin joining the campaign, my decision is down to two people. (Palin enters my decision becomes a choice between three people.) To those who read Biblical Conservatism regularly, you read several months ago that the GOP field was not weak. Last night, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann proved it. We’ve got two serious, conservative candidates in Bachmann and Perry vying for the nomination and a third blue blood Republican in Romney. All three of them would be a better President than Obama.
Right now, all I can say is game on. It’s going to be a fun campaign, and in the end we’re going to have the best possible candidate.
Just like last Thursday’s debate on MSNBC, let’s talk about whose stock I’d recommend buying, selling, holding, and in a new addition, sold (already sold out and not buying back in).
Michelle Bachmann (Buy):
I still like Bachmann and I expected more out of her in this debate, especially because it was the Tea Party debate. Partially because the Media is pushing her out in favor of Perry and Romney, her star seemed to be on the downturn.
Last night, however, she turned it back around and stood on some strong conservative policies, like “The Federal Reserve needs to be shrunk down to such a tight leash that they’re going to squeak.” She really took a step forward going head to head with Perry on the HPV Vaccine issue and other issues. Bachmann remains in the hunt and I think she moved herself back into the top of the debate last night.
As of now, Bachmann is one of two choices for me right now in the field, when it comes time for me to cast my vote in the Republican primary.
Herman Cain (Hold):
Once again, I like Cain very much and I think he’s a very qualified candidate. However, I do not think he could win the nomination based on his poll numbers. He would make a great Vice President, and he’d also make an excellent Secretary of Commerce. He’s got a great chance to be in the Executive Branch in 2013, just not as the President.
Newt Gingrich (Hold):
Gingrich again is strong and does well in debates. He’d kick Obama’s butt in a debate, but he’s not going to get the nomination. He scores well in debates, but he doesn’t do well in polls. I’m leaving him as a hold for now, because there’s a small chance he turns it around, but for now I don’t expect him to go far. He is, however, another person who could find a place in a new Republican administration in the cabinet.
Jon Huntsman (Sold):
Seriously. Huntsman is a joke. He spent tonight quoting Nirvana songs and waxing intellectual as a biased moderate. I’m not even bothering making a joke about how much of a non-issue Huntsman is at this point.
Ron Paul (Sold):
It occurred to me since the last debate that, in the strictest sense of the term, Paul is a RINO. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that’s “Republican In Name Only.”) Now, Paul isn’t the moderate, wimpy, half liberal sort of RINO. Not in the slightest. But Paul is a Republican by default, because the political term that most applies to him is Libertarian. Now that’s not a bad thing, my friends. As I’ve said before, I agree with Paul on about 75% of issues. However, he’s not in line with the mainstream conservative Republican party, and that’s why he won’t get the nomination.
Rick Perry (Buy):
Perry beat up on Romney last night, but got beat up on by the rest of the field. I think he kicked Romney’s butt on the “Social Security is a Ponsi Scheme” statement…because he’s right. He showed himself to be a legitimate conservative so far.
He did have a tough moment with the discussion of his HPV Vaccine executive order. I respect the fact that he admitted he was wrong. He let Bachmann back into the debate in a strong way last night, making it back into a three person race.
However, he was overall quite strong. The biggest thing I think Perry did was he pushed Romney out of the debate spot lead. Perry was debating with Bachmann as much as anyone tonight, and not as much with Romney. He really is establishing himself as the frontrunner. I, for one, am seriously considering giving Perry my vote when New York’s Primary comes, and I think I’m a very typical conservative.
Mitt Romney (Stock – Sell):
Romney is losing ground. With a candidate like Perry who has the ability to raise money on par with Romney (and for that matter Obama), who has Tea Party credentials and an honest, straight talk style that I think overshadows Romney’s overly polished style. He’s still the GOP Establishment candidate, and in a year where the Tea Party is going to choose the Republican nominee, it’s not going to be Romney’s year.
Rick Santorum (Sold):
Santorum is done. I’ve said it before. He’s just not strong enough. He’s a Washington insider and he’s just not standing out. Sorry, Rick. I like you as a person, and I’d gladly watch a football game with you. But I don’t want you as my President.
So far, I’d have to say the winners were Bachmann and Perry. I’m glad to see that, although it makes my decision harder, because, barring Sarah Palin joining the campaign, my decision is down to two people. (Palin enters my decision becomes a choice between three people.) To those who read Biblical Conservatism regularly, you read several months ago that the GOP field was not weak. Last night, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann proved it. We’ve got two serious, conservative candidates in Bachmann and Perry vying for the nomination and a third blue blood Republican in Romney. All three of them would be a better President than Obama.
Right now, all I can say is game on. It’s going to be a fun campaign, and in the end we’re going to have the best possible candidate.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Reactions to the MSNBC Debate
Last night, the Republican Presidential Candidates met for a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Before we even delve into particular candidates, I’d like to say once again, any one of these candidates could do a better job than Barrack Obama. Even Ron Paul* or John Huntsman would do a far better job than the Obama. So could Foghorn Leghorn.
However, this debate was about figuring out who to support as Republican voters. So let’s talk about the particular candidates, in alphabetical order so nobody can accuse me of bias.** I will also note whether or not I’d buy, sell, or hold their stock, and in a few cases, sell all (given up on them as ever legitimately being the 2012 Republican Nominee).
Michelle Bachmann (Stock – Hold):
Bachmann started the night as my current favorite. She didn’t exactly stand out. She seems to have fallen off as the 2nd person in the debate. She didn’t say anything wrong…but she didn’t really say anything memorable either. She did continue her statements of $2 per gallon gas, and for the record I think it’s very do-able. Increased supply would do that easily. (Heck, when Bush just started to allow deep water drilling permits after Hurricane Katrina, gas dropped below $1.50 per gallon.) In short, Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t do anything wrong, but she didn’t really hit anything out of the park. In this debate, she seems to have fallen back to the ranks of Vice Presidential candidate…of course a win in the Iowa Caucuses can do a big difference, and last month’s Ames Straw Poll did suggest she could do just that.
Herman Cain (Stock – Hold):
Cain was similar to Bachmann in this debate. I think Cain has great solutions, and I don’t think he can get elected President right now. It’s unfortunate, but the American people are likely going to consider his lack of political experience as a minus. I, for one, see it as a plus, but unfortunately most Americans aren’t as informed as I am. However, I think Cain would be a top notch Vice Presidential candidate.
Newt Gingrich (Stock – Hold):
Gingrich once again had some of the best lines of the night. He really hit a few out of the park, including telling MSNBC to shut it with the gotcha questions and the stirring of the pot between candidates. I still think he’s great in debates but not going to get nominated. However, I’d like to suggest that, if he’d accept it, Gingrich would make a great Vice Presidential nominee because he can take the attack dog role very well.
Jon Huntsman (Stock – Sell all***):
Seriously…I’m a busy man with stuff to do. I’m not wasting my time with Hunstman when I could be defrosting my freezer or scrubbing my cat’s litter box. He’s a waste of time in this campaign. Jon Huntsman was a bad candidate when he was named John McCain, and he was a bad candidate when he was named Bob Dole. We don’t need a moderate wimp.
On the issue of man-caused Global Warming, Huntsman shot himself in the foot, twice, and managed to leave only one bullet hole. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means he shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he hit the first hole a second time.)
Ron Paul (Stock – Sell all):
Paul isn’t a bad guy or a bad politican. He’s got a whole lot of good ideas. I like his policies on about 75% of the issues. Unfortunately, it’s the other 25% where he loses the mainstream conservatives who are needed to get nominated.
Rick Perry (Stock – Buy):
This was my first real experience with Perry. I was impressed with him in this brief hour and 45 minutes. He did in fact work his way into my list of legitimate options that I would consider giving my vote when New York’s primary comes around this winter. What I like about Perry is he’s got the ability to knock Romney off, because Romney is just not conservative enough. Judging by his debate performance, he’s a valid conservative. That said I haven’t had time to do my personal vetting process on him. On first sight, however, Perry is a valid option for me as a conservative.
I think he nailed it on Global Warming: Consensus isn’t science and the jury legitimately should be out.
Mitt Romney (Stock – Hold):
Romney is who he’s always been. He’s more conservative than Obama, more conservative than Jon Huntsman, but he’s a New England blue blood Republican. (Note: Not the same thing as a RINO.) He’s old guard, and he’s not a legitimate Tea Party option because he’s not conservative enough.
Rick Santorum (Stock – Sell all):
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Santorum has it right on a lot of policy issues, actually, more than Romney, obviously more than Huntsman, but not more than anyone else. He’s a Washington insider who will likely play the Washington insider game. That was the one thing I saw in the debate that made me concerned on Santorum; he said that he’d create policies that “could get passed in Washington.” I’ll be honest…I cringed at that statement. After the last debate, I had Santorum listed as a Vice Presidential option. Now, I’d have to drop him out of that category, because he’s an insider.
In conclusion, there are no conclusions yet. There are several good candidates, five really good conservatives (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Paul), two of whom I see as top tier candidates (Bachmann and Perry) and two others who can be great VP options (Cain, Gingrich). Paul would be a good VP option, but I don’t think he’d accept the job, and I respect him for it. Ultimately there’s time to make decisions, and I may well change my mind. But for now, that’s the way I see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Somewhere in Georgia, a high school friend of mine is taking exception to that remark. Put that in there just to give you grief, man.
**( Like I care…)
***Actually, I wouldn’t take this stock for free
However, this debate was about figuring out who to support as Republican voters. So let’s talk about the particular candidates, in alphabetical order so nobody can accuse me of bias.** I will also note whether or not I’d buy, sell, or hold their stock, and in a few cases, sell all (given up on them as ever legitimately being the 2012 Republican Nominee).
Michelle Bachmann (Stock – Hold):
Bachmann started the night as my current favorite. She didn’t exactly stand out. She seems to have fallen off as the 2nd person in the debate. She didn’t say anything wrong…but she didn’t really say anything memorable either. She did continue her statements of $2 per gallon gas, and for the record I think it’s very do-able. Increased supply would do that easily. (Heck, when Bush just started to allow deep water drilling permits after Hurricane Katrina, gas dropped below $1.50 per gallon.) In short, Congresswoman Bachmann didn’t do anything wrong, but she didn’t really hit anything out of the park. In this debate, she seems to have fallen back to the ranks of Vice Presidential candidate…of course a win in the Iowa Caucuses can do a big difference, and last month’s Ames Straw Poll did suggest she could do just that.
Herman Cain (Stock – Hold):
Cain was similar to Bachmann in this debate. I think Cain has great solutions, and I don’t think he can get elected President right now. It’s unfortunate, but the American people are likely going to consider his lack of political experience as a minus. I, for one, see it as a plus, but unfortunately most Americans aren’t as informed as I am. However, I think Cain would be a top notch Vice Presidential candidate.
Newt Gingrich (Stock – Hold):
Gingrich once again had some of the best lines of the night. He really hit a few out of the park, including telling MSNBC to shut it with the gotcha questions and the stirring of the pot between candidates. I still think he’s great in debates but not going to get nominated. However, I’d like to suggest that, if he’d accept it, Gingrich would make a great Vice Presidential nominee because he can take the attack dog role very well.
Jon Huntsman (Stock – Sell all***):
Seriously…I’m a busy man with stuff to do. I’m not wasting my time with Hunstman when I could be defrosting my freezer or scrubbing my cat’s litter box. He’s a waste of time in this campaign. Jon Huntsman was a bad candidate when he was named John McCain, and he was a bad candidate when he was named Bob Dole. We don’t need a moderate wimp.
On the issue of man-caused Global Warming, Huntsman shot himself in the foot, twice, and managed to leave only one bullet hole. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means he shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he hit the first hole a second time.)
Ron Paul (Stock – Sell all):
Paul isn’t a bad guy or a bad politican. He’s got a whole lot of good ideas. I like his policies on about 75% of the issues. Unfortunately, it’s the other 25% where he loses the mainstream conservatives who are needed to get nominated.
Rick Perry (Stock – Buy):
This was my first real experience with Perry. I was impressed with him in this brief hour and 45 minutes. He did in fact work his way into my list of legitimate options that I would consider giving my vote when New York’s primary comes around this winter. What I like about Perry is he’s got the ability to knock Romney off, because Romney is just not conservative enough. Judging by his debate performance, he’s a valid conservative. That said I haven’t had time to do my personal vetting process on him. On first sight, however, Perry is a valid option for me as a conservative.
I think he nailed it on Global Warming: Consensus isn’t science and the jury legitimately should be out.
Mitt Romney (Stock – Hold):
Romney is who he’s always been. He’s more conservative than Obama, more conservative than Jon Huntsman, but he’s a New England blue blood Republican. (Note: Not the same thing as a RINO.) He’s old guard, and he’s not a legitimate Tea Party option because he’s not conservative enough.
Rick Santorum (Stock – Sell all):
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Santorum has it right on a lot of policy issues, actually, more than Romney, obviously more than Huntsman, but not more than anyone else. He’s a Washington insider who will likely play the Washington insider game. That was the one thing I saw in the debate that made me concerned on Santorum; he said that he’d create policies that “could get passed in Washington.” I’ll be honest…I cringed at that statement. After the last debate, I had Santorum listed as a Vice Presidential option. Now, I’d have to drop him out of that category, because he’s an insider.
In conclusion, there are no conclusions yet. There are several good candidates, five really good conservatives (Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Paul), two of whom I see as top tier candidates (Bachmann and Perry) and two others who can be great VP options (Cain, Gingrich). Paul would be a good VP option, but I don’t think he’d accept the job, and I respect him for it. Ultimately there’s time to make decisions, and I may well change my mind. But for now, that’s the way I see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Somewhere in Georgia, a high school friend of mine is taking exception to that remark. Put that in there just to give you grief, man.
**( Like I care…)
***Actually, I wouldn’t take this stock for free
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)