Jambo started this last night during a phone conversation...
Who would make your list of the Top Ten Generals of American history?
Criteria: Must have served the United States as a general officer in either peace or war. (Note: this bit of criteria excludes any general officer that served the Confederate States of America, since to do so means they had to resign their US commissions and serve a nation other than the USA.)
Okay... to begin with my list, which will be more chronological than it will a "top-to-bottom" list:
1) George Washington.
Do I need to elaborate?
2) Winfield Scott
Jambo and I talked about this at length. I did some further reading and found that one could argue that he single-handedly masterminded the conquest of Mexico and the defeat of Santa Anna from March to September of 1847. His 1862 "Anaconda Plan" to strangle the South during the Civil War was shunned at first, but was later the winning strategy of the war, even though he had resigned before it was realized. I think he earns a top-spot on the list.
3) Ulysses S. Grant
No greater "X" factor was produced by the North in the Civil War than Grant, and it was that factor that won the war. He made mistakes, he lost some battles, but he really did win the war and end the rebellion.
4) William T. Sherman
I can't think of a US general officer who did more with less resources than Sherman during his March to the Sea. His tactics and strategies became the bench-mark for "total war" in the American lexicon, and can still be seen to this day in some parts of Georgia. He gets his spot.
5) John J. Pershing
"Blackjack" had a great career before WWI, but it was his command of the AEF that I think earns him his spot on this list. He forced the American troops to remain a separate command in Europe, and secured the US as a global power against the traditional imperial powers that wanted to command the AEF.
6) Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ike made very few mistakes as SACEUR, and surrounded himself with the best and the brightest minds. He might make #2 on a "Best of" ranking...
7) George S. Patton
Patton stands alone in history when it comes to ability of command. He was so feared and respected by the Germans that they still kept tens of thousands of troops tied up at Calais weeks after D-Day thinking he was crossing the Channel there.
8) Matthew B. Ridgeway
Ridgeway was a name Jambo and I didn't discuss... but he needed to be. He commanded the 82nd Airborne in WWII (and later the 18th Airborne Corps) and practically wrote the book on airborne division structure and strategy. He led the charge at Sicily in July of '43 and made a big name for himself and his new unit.
It was Korea that gets his spot on this list, though. Ridgeway finished what MacArthur had started, and did it without getting fired or starting WWIII. He won back everything Mac had lost to the Chinese (and more) and his victories led to the Armistice as we still know it today.
9) James H. Doolittle
Jimmy Doolittle turned the tied of the war in Europe's skies when he ordered the fighters to leave the bombers and destroy the Luftwaffe whenever they were encountered. No prior strategy had been as effective and in less than 6 months, the Luftwaffe was almost useless against the Mighty Eighth Air Force. He was so successful that they started transferring units from Europe to the Pacific before the effort was completed. That gets him a nod from me.
10) H. Norman Schwartzkopf
Stormin' Norman won one of the most decisive victories in the modern history of American warfare, and he did it at the head of an international coalition that could have ripped itself apart at any minute. He ushered in the manner in which modern warfare is fought today, and showed history the ultimate example of a "combined arms" action on a grand scale. There is no question that this guy got a lot done in less than 100 days... and that gets him his spot on this list.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Damn...
You guys would have loved the letter to the editor I read yesterday, and the rebuttal that went with it. I tried like hell to find it online, but it eluded me.
The letter was published in a local weekly newspaper/magazine from the county where I work (Monroe County, PA). Its one of those free rags with lots of local color and advertisements, prayers and in memoriums, wedding and funeral announcements... you get the idea, right? This part of PA has a very large Catholic population (mainly Italian and Irish, with Poles and Latinos too), so many of the prayers, intercessions and blessings are of a very Catholic nature. With that Catholic flavor, there comes a touch of conservatism, too... and that is what prompted the letter to the editor.
The letter was written by a young woman, probably late teens, whose spelling and grammar were left unimproved by the editor when he published her comments. Her main issue seems to have been that there was far too much "opinion" and "religion" in the publication for her taste. Seems her liberal young mind didn't have any tolerance for the prayers and supplications of the faithful that read and contribute, so she was starting a campaign to stop her "friends" from reading the paper.
The editor did a fantastic job of showing just how "ignorant" this sort of person is... and where this sort of person comes from. Knowing nothing about her background, level of education, upbringing or anything else, he blamed her closed-mindedness, intolerance and bigotry on a fundamental failing in the general education system of this country.
As the editor said in his rebuttal, he did nothing to make her look more stupid or ignorant than she did all by herself. He simply followed a time-honored Bund method of systematically reducing an argument to its core pieces and showing them for exactly what they proved to be: exactly the same sort of intolerance, ignorance and backwards thinking that she was wrongly accusing the paper of utilizing. He even printed her letter in black ink and his comments and responses in red, so that there could be no confusion as to what was being read.
The young woman seemed fixated on the premise that what was printed in the paper was irrelevant or worse, harmful, to the greater community at large because it was not the view of the majority. Not everyone believes in the same "god" as Catholics (an utterly ignorant statement in and of itself), so either a disclaimer needs to be applied or equal time and space needs to be dedicated to ALL other views. The editor calmly and rationally pointed out that there were, by his estimations, more than 46,000 "established" religions and faiths in North America alone, worshiping any number of gods, deities, spirits, trees, etc. and almost countless "denominations" within that sphere. Were he to dedicate time and space to ALL of these, no one would print the paper, let alone read it.
She repeatedly made reference to the "fact" that by keeping his articles and contributions to such a narrow segment of our society (presumably meaning Catholics and Republicans), we were alienating others and detracting from the diversity that she so loved to see in our country. She compared the views expressed in the paper with something she expected to read in a paper from central Alabama... again, presumably meaning that people from central Alabama were inherently closed-minded, ignorant, diversity-hating fascists. The editor then pointed to the obvious "fact" that it was, in fact, herself that was being narrow-minded and bigoted by assuming that everyone from central Alabama would think or act the way she thought they would... or should.
As entertaining as reading this was (it was like getting to read a Bund post while at work, in the pit)... the best part was his conclusion or closing argument. The failing in the education of that young woman, and indeed, in most of America's youth today, is the propagation of a misunderstanding behind the importance of the First Amendment's guaranty of protection for speech, religion and the press.
The First Amendment doesn't allow someone like this delusional liberal-leaning teen to determine what can and can't be printed, or under what conditions that printing can happen by. It does not allow the consideration of what the "majority" cares about at all. It CAN'T. It is the very fact that we can say, pray or print anything we want (barring that which causes direct and measurable harm to another, of course) that allows the great diversity this child so (seemingly) appreciates... yet she doesn't understand this. She seems to be taught by the very institutions she is defending that only what is "right" and "fair" is what should be available for print in the local papers, and if it is contrary to hers or anyone else's opinions, then it must be disclaimed or omitted entirely.
I sure hope her high school principle and civics teacher read that letter...
The letter was published in a local weekly newspaper/magazine from the county where I work (Monroe County, PA). Its one of those free rags with lots of local color and advertisements, prayers and in memoriums, wedding and funeral announcements... you get the idea, right? This part of PA has a very large Catholic population (mainly Italian and Irish, with Poles and Latinos too), so many of the prayers, intercessions and blessings are of a very Catholic nature. With that Catholic flavor, there comes a touch of conservatism, too... and that is what prompted the letter to the editor.
The letter was written by a young woman, probably late teens, whose spelling and grammar were left unimproved by the editor when he published her comments. Her main issue seems to have been that there was far too much "opinion" and "religion" in the publication for her taste. Seems her liberal young mind didn't have any tolerance for the prayers and supplications of the faithful that read and contribute, so she was starting a campaign to stop her "friends" from reading the paper.
The editor did a fantastic job of showing just how "ignorant" this sort of person is... and where this sort of person comes from. Knowing nothing about her background, level of education, upbringing or anything else, he blamed her closed-mindedness, intolerance and bigotry on a fundamental failing in the general education system of this country.
As the editor said in his rebuttal, he did nothing to make her look more stupid or ignorant than she did all by herself. He simply followed a time-honored Bund method of systematically reducing an argument to its core pieces and showing them for exactly what they proved to be: exactly the same sort of intolerance, ignorance and backwards thinking that she was wrongly accusing the paper of utilizing. He even printed her letter in black ink and his comments and responses in red, so that there could be no confusion as to what was being read.
The young woman seemed fixated on the premise that what was printed in the paper was irrelevant or worse, harmful, to the greater community at large because it was not the view of the majority. Not everyone believes in the same "god" as Catholics (an utterly ignorant statement in and of itself), so either a disclaimer needs to be applied or equal time and space needs to be dedicated to ALL other views. The editor calmly and rationally pointed out that there were, by his estimations, more than 46,000 "established" religions and faiths in North America alone, worshiping any number of gods, deities, spirits, trees, etc. and almost countless "denominations" within that sphere. Were he to dedicate time and space to ALL of these, no one would print the paper, let alone read it.
She repeatedly made reference to the "fact" that by keeping his articles and contributions to such a narrow segment of our society (presumably meaning Catholics and Republicans), we were alienating others and detracting from the diversity that she so loved to see in our country. She compared the views expressed in the paper with something she expected to read in a paper from central Alabama... again, presumably meaning that people from central Alabama were inherently closed-minded, ignorant, diversity-hating fascists. The editor then pointed to the obvious "fact" that it was, in fact, herself that was being narrow-minded and bigoted by assuming that everyone from central Alabama would think or act the way she thought they would... or should.
As entertaining as reading this was (it was like getting to read a Bund post while at work, in the pit)... the best part was his conclusion or closing argument. The failing in the education of that young woman, and indeed, in most of America's youth today, is the propagation of a misunderstanding behind the importance of the First Amendment's guaranty of protection for speech, religion and the press.
The First Amendment doesn't allow someone like this delusional liberal-leaning teen to determine what can and can't be printed, or under what conditions that printing can happen by. It does not allow the consideration of what the "majority" cares about at all. It CAN'T. It is the very fact that we can say, pray or print anything we want (barring that which causes direct and measurable harm to another, of course) that allows the great diversity this child so (seemingly) appreciates... yet she doesn't understand this. She seems to be taught by the very institutions she is defending that only what is "right" and "fair" is what should be available for print in the local papers, and if it is contrary to hers or anyone else's opinions, then it must be disclaimed or omitted entirely.
I sure hope her high school principle and civics teacher read that letter...
Friday, March 23, 2012
More importantly...
Can anyone explain why, if he supports the pipeline, he has postponed a decision on the approval of its final phases of construction until the end of 2013? The President must approve the construction, and he WON'T until the end of NEXT year. How is that explained by the people cheering him on?
Now, add this to the staggeringly ignorant statement made by Biden recently that the raid to kill bin Laden was "the most audacious action to be taken in the last 500 years" and you begin to see how simply mind-numbingly stupid some of these people are.
Then, Romney is compared to an Etch-a-Sketch by his own campaign manager... and the label has become a catch-phrase for the entire Romney campaign. So, it isn't bad enough that our sitting President and Vice President are speaking as if they were too simple to be tolerated, now we are looking at the front-runner of the conservative movement looking just as bad. Before the week is out, Santorum will have utilized and tried to profit by the "Etch-a-Sketch" comment so often that it will be all but impossible for Romney to consider him for the VP slot, should he win the primary. He has already said... publicly, and quite loudly... that Obama would be better for another four years than having Romney "erase and redraw himself" whenever it suited him (source HERE). Is anyone going to seriously forget THAT statement once the RNC is convened and the final ticket shapes up?
Now, add this to the staggeringly ignorant statement made by Biden recently that the raid to kill bin Laden was "the most audacious action to be taken in the last 500 years" and you begin to see how simply mind-numbingly stupid some of these people are.
Then, Romney is compared to an Etch-a-Sketch by his own campaign manager... and the label has become a catch-phrase for the entire Romney campaign. So, it isn't bad enough that our sitting President and Vice President are speaking as if they were too simple to be tolerated, now we are looking at the front-runner of the conservative movement looking just as bad. Before the week is out, Santorum will have utilized and tried to profit by the "Etch-a-Sketch" comment so often that it will be all but impossible for Romney to consider him for the VP slot, should he win the primary. He has already said... publicly, and quite loudly... that Obama would be better for another four years than having Romney "erase and redraw himself" whenever it suited him (source HERE). Is anyone going to seriously forget THAT statement once the RNC is convened and the final ticket shapes up?
Thursday, March 22, 2012
2% versus 20%
Few arguments within the political realm drive more crazy than this one.
Today our President stood at the Southern half of the Keystone Pipeline (that would be from Oklahoma to Texas), and pronounced how much he supported domestic oil production. It was basically a "See, I'm here, supporting the pipeline. Those who say I oppose it are crazy!" The problem with this farce is the Southern half did not need his approval. It was a private endeavour, a done deal. What DOES require the Executive Branch's approval is the Northern half, from Canada to OK, because it crosses our national boundary. THAT portion he alone is holding up. Do you see how absurd this is? For months he's been getting hammered for holding up the Keystone line - despite $4 gas prices and the 20,000 jobs it would create - and now, as we close in on the election, he stands at the portion he couldn't stop if he wanted, and declares he is the reason it's opening. I'm trying really, really hard not to hate this guy. At least when Clinton lied to me I felt he was putting in some effort.
But even worse is this oft repeated argument (read: lie) that US oil reserves only represent 2% of the world's supply, yet we consume 20% each year (on average). The PoTUS repeated that very statistical comparison today at the Keystone pipeline, followed by, "So I could put an oil rig on every square inch of this nation, I could put one on the South Lawn, and it still wouldn't be enough."
AAAAAHHHHH! Engage hair pulling, now.
It's a phantom comparison. But it works because the human mind makes a simple connection - "We're 18% in the hole no matter how much we drill."
Not true.
The 2% number represents the entire world's oil reserves. Meaning we hold 2% of what is estimated to be in the ground on this planet. Got it? We consume 20% of what oil companies actually bring to market each year. That 20% is drawing from a wholly different number - the amount of sweet light crude actually introduced on the global market. It does not represent 20% of what's in the ground on this planet!
Think about it like this: Bill Gates gives me 2% of his net worth, because I'm so awesome. So my accountant tells me I can draw X amount of dollars out of my newly minted account each year and live worry free. Then, beacuse I'm such a good buddy, I give 20% of that yearly X amount to Titus. Now, has my gift to Titus even put a dent in the original 2%? Or even further, in Gate's remaining 98%?
No!
Go at it from the other direction - if the US consumed 20% of the planet's oil reserves each year, wouldn't we eat up the entire earth's oil reserves in 5 years time, all on our own?
Do you see why they get away with this? Because you have to jump through mental math gymnastics to make the case in the other direction. Meanwhile they can stand up there (insert Homer Simpson voice here) and say "Doh, 20% consumed, 2% have ... bad."
Ahhh!!! It's maddening.
So those supporters of Mr. Obama, please make a choice. Either your man is a bold face liar, or he's not that bright and can't figure this out. I'll happily take either concession.
Today our President stood at the Southern half of the Keystone Pipeline (that would be from Oklahoma to Texas), and pronounced how much he supported domestic oil production. It was basically a "See, I'm here, supporting the pipeline. Those who say I oppose it are crazy!" The problem with this farce is the Southern half did not need his approval. It was a private endeavour, a done deal. What DOES require the Executive Branch's approval is the Northern half, from Canada to OK, because it crosses our national boundary. THAT portion he alone is holding up. Do you see how absurd this is? For months he's been getting hammered for holding up the Keystone line - despite $4 gas prices and the 20,000 jobs it would create - and now, as we close in on the election, he stands at the portion he couldn't stop if he wanted, and declares he is the reason it's opening. I'm trying really, really hard not to hate this guy. At least when Clinton lied to me I felt he was putting in some effort.
But even worse is this oft repeated argument (read: lie) that US oil reserves only represent 2% of the world's supply, yet we consume 20% each year (on average). The PoTUS repeated that very statistical comparison today at the Keystone pipeline, followed by, "So I could put an oil rig on every square inch of this nation, I could put one on the South Lawn, and it still wouldn't be enough."
AAAAAHHHHH! Engage hair pulling, now.
It's a phantom comparison. But it works because the human mind makes a simple connection - "We're 18% in the hole no matter how much we drill."
Not true.
The 2% number represents the entire world's oil reserves. Meaning we hold 2% of what is estimated to be in the ground on this planet. Got it? We consume 20% of what oil companies actually bring to market each year. That 20% is drawing from a wholly different number - the amount of sweet light crude actually introduced on the global market. It does not represent 20% of what's in the ground on this planet!
Think about it like this: Bill Gates gives me 2% of his net worth, because I'm so awesome. So my accountant tells me I can draw X amount of dollars out of my newly minted account each year and live worry free. Then, beacuse I'm such a good buddy, I give 20% of that yearly X amount to Titus. Now, has my gift to Titus even put a dent in the original 2%? Or even further, in Gate's remaining 98%?
No!
Go at it from the other direction - if the US consumed 20% of the planet's oil reserves each year, wouldn't we eat up the entire earth's oil reserves in 5 years time, all on our own?
Do you see why they get away with this? Because you have to jump through mental math gymnastics to make the case in the other direction. Meanwhile they can stand up there (insert Homer Simpson voice here) and say "Doh, 20% consumed, 2% have ... bad."
Ahhh!!! It's maddening.
So those supporters of Mr. Obama, please make a choice. Either your man is a bold face liar, or he's not that bright and can't figure this out. I'll happily take either concession.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Remember that video?
Rep. Paul Ryan (R) from Wisconsin made a video not that long ago about his "Roadmap for America" that I thought was very well done. It was short, sweet, to-the-point and available on several sites online for instant viewing.
There was another video, whose creator I don't recall, that was made to counter the liberal argument that anyone making more than $250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate to pay down the deficit. The video took a 100% tax margin for all the top earners in professional sports, movie actors, rock stars, all of Congress and the President and Vice President, the top 50 corporate CEOs... an entire litany of famous (and surprising liberal) people and showed categorically that the entire lot of them couldn't pay off the deficit for ONE year, let alone multiple years.
Now, imagine that sort of tool utilized by the GOP candidates (or any conservative, in office or out) to show the fallacy and hypocrisy of the liberal agenda. Almost any point of contention that they could wish to show could be presented in such a way as to make it easily understood that the "facts" the liberals try and line up aren't facts at all, and they never, NEVER line up. Their agenda has been in place almost constantly since 1965, and has accomplished none of what they promised it would, while the few years that the conservative agenda was in place, we saw specific and measurable results that benefited the nation's economy and infrastructure. They can even show that conservative "compromise" made during Nixon/Ford years and the Bush Jr. years had hurt the nation... equally easily.
Why isn't the effort being made? Where is the push to get the "message" out to the public this election cycle?
There was another video, whose creator I don't recall, that was made to counter the liberal argument that anyone making more than $250,000 should be taxed at a higher rate to pay down the deficit. The video took a 100% tax margin for all the top earners in professional sports, movie actors, rock stars, all of Congress and the President and Vice President, the top 50 corporate CEOs... an entire litany of famous (and surprising liberal) people and showed categorically that the entire lot of them couldn't pay off the deficit for ONE year, let alone multiple years.
Now, imagine that sort of tool utilized by the GOP candidates (or any conservative, in office or out) to show the fallacy and hypocrisy of the liberal agenda. Almost any point of contention that they could wish to show could be presented in such a way as to make it easily understood that the "facts" the liberals try and line up aren't facts at all, and they never, NEVER line up. Their agenda has been in place almost constantly since 1965, and has accomplished none of what they promised it would, while the few years that the conservative agenda was in place, we saw specific and measurable results that benefited the nation's economy and infrastructure. They can even show that conservative "compromise" made during Nixon/Ford years and the Bush Jr. years had hurt the nation... equally easily.
Why isn't the effort being made? Where is the push to get the "message" out to the public this election cycle?
Monday, March 19, 2012
Going even further...
If "Romney-care" is the sort of thing that gets an independent voter to vote for Mitt... is that a bad thing?
Romney-care was a state-mandated level of medical and prescription coverage that MA required citizens to carry, either through their employers or through subsidized means outside of the work place. Since it was implemented in 2006, the percentage of uninsured in MA has dropped from more than 6% to less than 3%, while the number of bankruptcies filed due to medical costs or health issues has gone up by about 33%. A 2011 study found the program to have accomplished most of its goals, and only future increases in costs and subsidies could derail the effort (source HERE).
I have made the case in the past that this is a good example of allowing a State to run itself. The program does not draw on Federal funding, so it isn't costing ME anything... it only costs those earning wages in Mass. Romney himself has said that he wouldn't support such an effort on a Federal level... but feels it is a perfectly justified move at a State level.
Nothing about Romney-care conflicts with the fundamental aspects of conservative politics... mandated, centralized and regulated medical coverage seems as anti-conservative as it comes, but it isn't the Fed that is mandating it, is it? If it isn't an enumerated power, then it reverts to the States and to the People... NEVER to the Fed... right? Where is the beef here?
The problem, in my eyes, is that Romney hasn't made his case adequately from the word GO. Neither has Santorum. Both have gotten so mired in the fringe details of their existence that the core principles that make them viable candidates have become utterly lost. I think Romney has done a better job at ignoring these fringe details (his tax returns, for one example) and allowing the rest of the liberal world to exhaust themselves with them. Santorum seems to want to engage in debate about the moral issues he feels are so paramount in America today... and that makes him an easy mark. As Governor of California, Reagan made many decisions that probably would have marked him as less-than-conservative in the eyes of a broader America... but he didn't allow himself to be baited into those sorts of confrontations. He kept his focus on the national agenda, and didn't wear his morals and faith on his shirt sleeves.
Romney, as the front-runner in the primary, needs to STOP trying to defend his positions on Romney-care. It doesn't (or shouldn't) apply AT ALL, since it was a State issue and the Commonwealth of Mass. acted within its constitutional rights when it enacted it. Santorum needs to stop espousing the need for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman UNLESS it is strictly and clearly understood to be as a citizen of these United States and a resident of Pennsylvania... and NOT as the future President of the United States, since that is beyond the President's authority to change or control anyway. Morality cannot be legislated, and faith cannot be mandated.
Both should make it a priority to show the hypocrisy behind the liberal agenda... that alone would make them seem miles ahead of the game, and is (I am convinced) the reason why Reagan ran away with the nomination in 1980 and was able to become such a driving figure long before the general election swung into force. He showed America the fallacy of Carter's "malaise" and provided a map to get out of it. He countered the liberal view that America was failing with a measurable and specific "pride" in both what America was then and could be in the future. THAT was the paradigm that Reagan changed, far more than his understanding of Arthur Laffer's graphic representation of Keyensian economic theory
I'd say we are ripe for that sort of contest right now.
Romney-care was a state-mandated level of medical and prescription coverage that MA required citizens to carry, either through their employers or through subsidized means outside of the work place. Since it was implemented in 2006, the percentage of uninsured in MA has dropped from more than 6% to less than 3%, while the number of bankruptcies filed due to medical costs or health issues has gone up by about 33%. A 2011 study found the program to have accomplished most of its goals, and only future increases in costs and subsidies could derail the effort (source HERE).
I have made the case in the past that this is a good example of allowing a State to run itself. The program does not draw on Federal funding, so it isn't costing ME anything... it only costs those earning wages in Mass. Romney himself has said that he wouldn't support such an effort on a Federal level... but feels it is a perfectly justified move at a State level.
Nothing about Romney-care conflicts with the fundamental aspects of conservative politics... mandated, centralized and regulated medical coverage seems as anti-conservative as it comes, but it isn't the Fed that is mandating it, is it? If it isn't an enumerated power, then it reverts to the States and to the People... NEVER to the Fed... right? Where is the beef here?
The problem, in my eyes, is that Romney hasn't made his case adequately from the word GO. Neither has Santorum. Both have gotten so mired in the fringe details of their existence that the core principles that make them viable candidates have become utterly lost. I think Romney has done a better job at ignoring these fringe details (his tax returns, for one example) and allowing the rest of the liberal world to exhaust themselves with them. Santorum seems to want to engage in debate about the moral issues he feels are so paramount in America today... and that makes him an easy mark. As Governor of California, Reagan made many decisions that probably would have marked him as less-than-conservative in the eyes of a broader America... but he didn't allow himself to be baited into those sorts of confrontations. He kept his focus on the national agenda, and didn't wear his morals and faith on his shirt sleeves.
Romney, as the front-runner in the primary, needs to STOP trying to defend his positions on Romney-care. It doesn't (or shouldn't) apply AT ALL, since it was a State issue and the Commonwealth of Mass. acted within its constitutional rights when it enacted it. Santorum needs to stop espousing the need for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman UNLESS it is strictly and clearly understood to be as a citizen of these United States and a resident of Pennsylvania... and NOT as the future President of the United States, since that is beyond the President's authority to change or control anyway. Morality cannot be legislated, and faith cannot be mandated.
Both should make it a priority to show the hypocrisy behind the liberal agenda... that alone would make them seem miles ahead of the game, and is (I am convinced) the reason why Reagan ran away with the nomination in 1980 and was able to become such a driving figure long before the general election swung into force. He showed America the fallacy of Carter's "malaise" and provided a map to get out of it. He countered the liberal view that America was failing with a measurable and specific "pride" in both what America was then and could be in the future. THAT was the paradigm that Reagan changed, far more than his understanding of Arthur Laffer's graphic representation of Keyensian economic theory
I'd say we are ripe for that sort of contest right now.
Very nice...
Why did that have to be your response? Really... I'm asking in all honesty.
You are a "Reagan" conservative. You espouse and live the ideals that are modern conservatism, with only the very fewest exceptions... and who did YOU vote for in the last general election?
Because McCain was a luke-warm conservative (at best), and his running mate was an almost unknown fringe element from the last American Frontier, did you get disgruntled with everything "GOP" and cast your vote for Obama? Did you sit home and NOT vote? Did you write in the name of your preferred candidate on your ballot? Romney, perhaps?
No, Ryan. You voted for the candidate that the majority of registered Republicans in this nation chose as their candidate... John McCain. Then you watched him lose.
At no point did I suggest that Reagan wasn't "conservative" when he ran in 1980... he certainly was if the term is used in its modern definition, no question. What I WAS suggesting is that Reagan won the election in the manner that he did NOT because he appealed to conservative voters... but because he appealed to moderate voters, to independents, and to out-of-work liberals who were living the "dream" of Carter's job policies. His "landslide" victory came from the middle... not from the right or the left. He didn't water-it-down for the masses, either. He simply spelled it out in terms everyone could understand (he even employed graphs, for God's sake). His principles and positions remained the same with most other conservative candidates in 1980... but his appeal was vastly different. He truly believed in his agenda... and he convinced most of the rest of us that it was the right agenda, as well.
Now, your previous post seems to show that you feel I support a candidate that will run on the premise that the entire campaign be geared to appeal ONLY to the middle. Not at all. I'd love a candidate that could present the case of why the conservative agenda is better than the liberal one to the voters of America... not so he or she could sway the vote of card-carrying GOP members, but because he or she might induce the MIDDLE to vote for him. Exactly the way Reagan did in 1980.
Which of the four remaining candidates in the GOP ring are going to do that, do you suppose?
You are a "Reagan" conservative. You espouse and live the ideals that are modern conservatism, with only the very fewest exceptions... and who did YOU vote for in the last general election?
Because McCain was a luke-warm conservative (at best), and his running mate was an almost unknown fringe element from the last American Frontier, did you get disgruntled with everything "GOP" and cast your vote for Obama? Did you sit home and NOT vote? Did you write in the name of your preferred candidate on your ballot? Romney, perhaps?
No, Ryan. You voted for the candidate that the majority of registered Republicans in this nation chose as their candidate... John McCain. Then you watched him lose.
At no point did I suggest that Reagan wasn't "conservative" when he ran in 1980... he certainly was if the term is used in its modern definition, no question. What I WAS suggesting is that Reagan won the election in the manner that he did NOT because he appealed to conservative voters... but because he appealed to moderate voters, to independents, and to out-of-work liberals who were living the "dream" of Carter's job policies. His "landslide" victory came from the middle... not from the right or the left. He didn't water-it-down for the masses, either. He simply spelled it out in terms everyone could understand (he even employed graphs, for God's sake). His principles and positions remained the same with most other conservative candidates in 1980... but his appeal was vastly different. He truly believed in his agenda... and he convinced most of the rest of us that it was the right agenda, as well.
Now, your previous post seems to show that you feel I support a candidate that will run on the premise that the entire campaign be geared to appeal ONLY to the middle. Not at all. I'd love a candidate that could present the case of why the conservative agenda is better than the liberal one to the voters of America... not so he or she could sway the vote of card-carrying GOP members, but because he or she might induce the MIDDLE to vote for him. Exactly the way Reagan did in 1980.
Which of the four remaining candidates in the GOP ring are going to do that, do you suppose?
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Yeah, you're right ...
Gallup is flawed, we should appeal to moderates by running a moderate, GH Bush & Dole were raging Right wingers, and Reagan wasn't expressing (in word nor policy) what Americans already knew in their heart and gut was true about the American experiment ... he was just an ace salesman who convinced the masses he had a few good economic policies, that happen to work.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.
Good work.
Well done.
Looks like you've got it all figured out.
Good work.
Well done.
More...
For those too lazy to follow Ryan's link... it can be found HERE.
It is an interesting site... but, still, it is flawed.
I think that "very conservative" today could be a label placed on someone that only 50 years ago was the Democratic President of the United States... John F. Kennedy. Go back only 25 years, and you see "very conservative" labels on the likes of Bob Dole.
Today, "very conservative" is someone that still supports all that Reagan did (*cough* RYAN*cough*)... but Reagan was simply the polar opposite of Jimmy Carter... and I don't mean politically. At least, just not politically alone.
Carter called for sacrifice, suffering and hard work... and gave no tangible goal for those efforts in the future. He wanted us to see that the fault in America at the end of the 1970s was America's fault... too much wanting and not enough doing (that's almost a direct quote, by the way). He told us that the next five years would be worse than the last five years... and NO ONE wants to hear that in an election cycle.
Reagan told us it was NOT the fault of "America" that things weren't working... it was the fault of Government that things weren't working. Let the People decide what is best for them, and let them chose the manner in which to find it... and things work MUCH better. Government wasn't the solution, it was the problem (another near direct quote). Reagan said there'd be hard work and tough times... but that it would result in a better "tomorrow" (the now nearly iconic "Morning in America" campaign), and history has shown him correct.
His programs and policies changed the White House paradigm... no question. But was he the "die-hard" Old Guard conservative that so many make him out to be now? NO, he wasn't. He was just really, REALLY good at presenting his ideas in ways that all of America could understand and relate to. They were good ideas (for the most part)... don't misunderstand me. He wasn't selling crap and calling it "Shinola"... he was just selling Shinola like it was the best thing since sliced bread while telling us to stop polishing our shoes with crap.
It is an interesting site... but, still, it is flawed.
I think that "very conservative" today could be a label placed on someone that only 50 years ago was the Democratic President of the United States... John F. Kennedy. Go back only 25 years, and you see "very conservative" labels on the likes of Bob Dole.
Today, "very conservative" is someone that still supports all that Reagan did (*cough* RYAN*cough*)... but Reagan was simply the polar opposite of Jimmy Carter... and I don't mean politically. At least, just not politically alone.
Carter called for sacrifice, suffering and hard work... and gave no tangible goal for those efforts in the future. He wanted us to see that the fault in America at the end of the 1970s was America's fault... too much wanting and not enough doing (that's almost a direct quote, by the way). He told us that the next five years would be worse than the last five years... and NO ONE wants to hear that in an election cycle.
Reagan told us it was NOT the fault of "America" that things weren't working... it was the fault of Government that things weren't working. Let the People decide what is best for them, and let them chose the manner in which to find it... and things work MUCH better. Government wasn't the solution, it was the problem (another near direct quote). Reagan said there'd be hard work and tough times... but that it would result in a better "tomorrow" (the now nearly iconic "Morning in America" campaign), and history has shown him correct.
His programs and policies changed the White House paradigm... no question. But was he the "die-hard" Old Guard conservative that so many make him out to be now? NO, he wasn't. He was just really, REALLY good at presenting his ideas in ways that all of America could understand and relate to. They were good ideas (for the most part)... don't misunderstand me. He wasn't selling crap and calling it "Shinola"... he was just selling Shinola like it was the best thing since sliced bread while telling us to stop polishing our shoes with crap.
?
G.H. Bush and Dole were never seen as "stark conservatives." Especially not in contrast to Reagan.
My point here (my flawless point) is that in modern American presidential politics one thing is true: From Clinton to Obama, during the campaign they adapt conservative "sounding" language, even when its a bold face lie. Both Barry and Slick Willy spoke repeatedly about tax cuts (neither delivered). Bill even pronounced the end of the era of big government in a SoTU address. My point is this idea that conservatives must appeal to moderates by talking moderate is fundamentally in error. Democrats are the ones that must moderate language and policy during a campaign, because this is an inherently center-Right nation (hell, conservatives outnumber liberals2 to 1 according to Gallup, year after year). So if we would simply run an unapologetic conservative, Democrats would be forced to their right & they would by default adopt historically losing strategies - running as "the other guy light" (which is exactly what we do when running a so-called moderate), or flatly running as a left winger.
By the way, Ron Paul is not a conservative. Not in the modern incarnation of the word, not in the historical, not in the Websters unabridged definition. You may (may) say he's a "classic liberal", or Libertarian. Or, just call him what I do, a looney tune. I have no patience for 9/11 "truthers", nor claiming Alqaeda hit us over Saddam's no fly zone, or abandoning Israel, or legalizing drugs, nor disbanding the CIA, nor thinking a nuclear Iran poses no threat. Please, enough. Just because he wants to end the Fed and return us to the Gold Standard doesn't mean he's every conservative's wet dream. I don't know what he is, outside of crazy, but I know what he's not - sane & conservative.
My point here (my flawless point) is that in modern American presidential politics one thing is true: From Clinton to Obama, during the campaign they adapt conservative "sounding" language, even when its a bold face lie. Both Barry and Slick Willy spoke repeatedly about tax cuts (neither delivered). Bill even pronounced the end of the era of big government in a SoTU address. My point is this idea that conservatives must appeal to moderates by talking moderate is fundamentally in error. Democrats are the ones that must moderate language and policy during a campaign, because this is an inherently center-Right nation (hell, conservatives outnumber liberals2 to 1 according to Gallup, year after year). So if we would simply run an unapologetic conservative, Democrats would be forced to their right & they would by default adopt historically losing strategies - running as "the other guy light" (which is exactly what we do when running a so-called moderate), or flatly running as a left winger.
By the way, Ron Paul is not a conservative. Not in the modern incarnation of the word, not in the historical, not in the Websters unabridged definition. You may (may) say he's a "classic liberal", or Libertarian. Or, just call him what I do, a looney tune. I have no patience for 9/11 "truthers", nor claiming Alqaeda hit us over Saddam's no fly zone, or abandoning Israel, or legalizing drugs, nor disbanding the CIA, nor thinking a nuclear Iran poses no threat. Please, enough. Just because he wants to end the Fed and return us to the Gold Standard doesn't mean he's every conservative's wet dream. I don't know what he is, outside of crazy, but I know what he's not - sane & conservative.
An old chestnut...
We've been over this before... your examples are flawed.
I know the argument... the further "right" the candidate, the better he contrast to sitting "libs" like Carter, Johnson or Clinton. I simply don't think it is true.
Carter "won" in 1976 because of the disaster that was the final term of the Nixon/Ford Administrations. V.I. Lenin could have run for the Democrats that year and beat anyone associated with the existing GOP leadership. So Ford's losing can't be attributed to his lack of "conservative" appeal at all.
Bush Sr. lost, not because Clinton was more appealing to "moderates" or "middle-of-the-road" voters... but because the conservative vote was split between Bush (winning almost 70% of the vote) and Perot (who won 30%). Bush runs sans Perot, and Bush wins by a landslide.
If your argument was accurate, then Kerry should have been a much closer loser than he was in 2004, right? How does it explain the close vote associated with the now infamous 2000 election cycle?
More importantly, why isn't Ron Paul more of a factor? How much more of a contrast could you hope for than Obama/Paul? No candidate in the last 100 years has done a better job of sticking to his guns than Paul has... yet he is little more than a foot note each election year.
Reagan won by such a huge margin in 1980 because he ran on the premise that he could "fix" what was wrong and he gave the voters specifics about how he would do it. He was a stark contrast (and a breath of fresh air, frankly) when compared to Carter and his "malaise" speech... but he wasn't radically different than the other four GOP candidates that ran in the primaries (which included Bush Sr. and Bob Dole... both seen as stark "conservatives" at the time). The rest of the GOP class of 1980 mocked Reagan for his "voodoo economic" theories... and that is a fact.
Again... we aren't going to see this repeat. Reagan was working to make the top marginal tax rate come down from 70% to 50%, and in the last two years of his eight in office, all the way down to 28%. Even now, we are only at a top marginal rate of 35%... too much, but nothing compared to the reduction that Reagan gave the country. No President can possibly hope to repeat THAT level of success in delivering on a promise of "lower taxes"... not even in this "Age of Obama".
I know the argument... the further "right" the candidate, the better he contrast to sitting "libs" like Carter, Johnson or Clinton. I simply don't think it is true.
Carter "won" in 1976 because of the disaster that was the final term of the Nixon/Ford Administrations. V.I. Lenin could have run for the Democrats that year and beat anyone associated with the existing GOP leadership. So Ford's losing can't be attributed to his lack of "conservative" appeal at all.
Bush Sr. lost, not because Clinton was more appealing to "moderates" or "middle-of-the-road" voters... but because the conservative vote was split between Bush (winning almost 70% of the vote) and Perot (who won 30%). Bush runs sans Perot, and Bush wins by a landslide.
If your argument was accurate, then Kerry should have been a much closer loser than he was in 2004, right? How does it explain the close vote associated with the now infamous 2000 election cycle?
More importantly, why isn't Ron Paul more of a factor? How much more of a contrast could you hope for than Obama/Paul? No candidate in the last 100 years has done a better job of sticking to his guns than Paul has... yet he is little more than a foot note each election year.
Reagan won by such a huge margin in 1980 because he ran on the premise that he could "fix" what was wrong and he gave the voters specifics about how he would do it. He was a stark contrast (and a breath of fresh air, frankly) when compared to Carter and his "malaise" speech... but he wasn't radically different than the other four GOP candidates that ran in the primaries (which included Bush Sr. and Bob Dole... both seen as stark "conservatives" at the time). The rest of the GOP class of 1980 mocked Reagan for his "voodoo economic" theories... and that is a fact.
Again... we aren't going to see this repeat. Reagan was working to make the top marginal tax rate come down from 70% to 50%, and in the last two years of his eight in office, all the way down to 28%. Even now, we are only at a top marginal rate of 35%... too much, but nothing compared to the reduction that Reagan gave the country. No President can possibly hope to repeat THAT level of success in delivering on a promise of "lower taxes"... not even in this "Age of Obama".
Saturday, March 17, 2012
By the numbers ...
In 1992 Gallup started a new poll measuring the ideological breakdown, by percentage, of Americans. You can see the latest, as of January 2012, here (Im afraid I can't get the hyperlink to work posting via the mobile, apologies, just copy & paste this into your browser): gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx
As the long web address eludes to, conservatives make up the largest group. Those that consider themselves conservative or very conservative make up 40% (& have for some years). Liberal or very liberal has held steady at 21%. The "moderates" are 35%. My strategy, and no one is asking, is simple. Conservatives, and moderates that may vote GOP, do not gravitate towards middle of the road Republicans. "Independents", "undecided", call them what you will, you dont capture their attention by half measure or half hearted gestures towards conservatism. We've tried this: Ford, G.H. Bush (second term run w/no Reagan coat tails), Dole, McCain. When we run moderates we get shalacked. When we run an unapologetic conservative, we win. You dont appeal to the undecided by being undecided yourself. You must offer a bold, clear contrast. In doing so you lock down the 40% & give the undecided in the 35% a clear reason to vote for you rather than simply against the other guy.
I believe Santorum could crush Obama precisely because he would offer the starkest, unapologetic, contrast.
As the long web address eludes to, conservatives make up the largest group. Those that consider themselves conservative or very conservative make up 40% (& have for some years). Liberal or very liberal has held steady at 21%. The "moderates" are 35%. My strategy, and no one is asking, is simple. Conservatives, and moderates that may vote GOP, do not gravitate towards middle of the road Republicans. "Independents", "undecided", call them what you will, you dont capture their attention by half measure or half hearted gestures towards conservatism. We've tried this: Ford, G.H. Bush (second term run w/no Reagan coat tails), Dole, McCain. When we run moderates we get shalacked. When we run an unapologetic conservative, we win. You dont appeal to the undecided by being undecided yourself. You must offer a bold, clear contrast. In doing so you lock down the 40% & give the undecided in the 35% a clear reason to vote for you rather than simply against the other guy.
I believe Santorum could crush Obama precisely because he would offer the starkest, unapologetic, contrast.
Maybe it is unavoidable...
Perhaps the only viable option for a winning ticket in 2012 is a Romney-Santorum run.
Romney's popularity just doesn't seem to wane... at all, even with the mountains of baggage he has in regards to flip-flop positions like healthcare and foreign policy. Santorum seems to carry the label of "extreme" with him wherever he goes, no matter how middle-of-the-road his position is.
Now, I am fully aware of who is applying these labels: the liberal media machine. What I still think is undeniably fact in this election cycle is the simple premise that it is NOT the "conservative" voter that will win the election away from Obama... it is the independent, undecided vote. Of course, Republicans and old-school "Blue Dogs" will vote against Obama... that is a given. But even the most conservative polls show that only 30% of the voting population consider themselves "conservative"... while most of the rest are "moderate" or "liberal".
I think the ticket with the most appeal (right now, anyway) will be a Romney-Santorum ticket. I can easily live with this ticket because I have a sneaking suspicion that Santorum will be a "strong" VP... in the vein of Kennedy's Johnson, or Bush's Cheney. He can maintain the influence and attention needed to show himself an electable candidate in his own right eight years after 2012.
Romney's popularity just doesn't seem to wane... at all, even with the mountains of baggage he has in regards to flip-flop positions like healthcare and foreign policy. Santorum seems to carry the label of "extreme" with him wherever he goes, no matter how middle-of-the-road his position is.
Now, I am fully aware of who is applying these labels: the liberal media machine. What I still think is undeniably fact in this election cycle is the simple premise that it is NOT the "conservative" voter that will win the election away from Obama... it is the independent, undecided vote. Of course, Republicans and old-school "Blue Dogs" will vote against Obama... that is a given. But even the most conservative polls show that only 30% of the voting population consider themselves "conservative"... while most of the rest are "moderate" or "liberal".
I think the ticket with the most appeal (right now, anyway) will be a Romney-Santorum ticket. I can easily live with this ticket because I have a sneaking suspicion that Santorum will be a "strong" VP... in the vein of Kennedy's Johnson, or Bush's Cheney. He can maintain the influence and attention needed to show himself an electable candidate in his own right eight years after 2012.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
That was surprising...
Wow.
I'm actually surprised on a number of levels. Santorum winning both MS and AL is the biggest surprise for me. I had almost convinced myself that he'd come in 3rd behind Romney and Gingrich. Then to see Gingrich take 3rd behind Santorum and Romney, with both Santorum and Romney doing MUCH better in the urban counties than Gingrich... that was a shocker. Then to see Romney's taking the counties with the biggest populations (and the highest taxes) was another. I'd have expected Santorum to do better on the Coast, around Jackson and in the Delta Counties than he did.
Still, in the Deep South, I guess I might have seen the more morally-conservative candidate winning over the more morally-ambiguous candidate. Santorum is going to have more appeal than anyone else to the "evangelical" South... with his "fire and brimstone" attitude towards faith and morals... especially to GOP voters.
This would be a whole different race right now if MS and AL forced all their delegates to vote for the winner (like MN does)... but they do not, so Romney gains as much as Santorum does, in the long run.
I'm actually surprised on a number of levels. Santorum winning both MS and AL is the biggest surprise for me. I had almost convinced myself that he'd come in 3rd behind Romney and Gingrich. Then to see Gingrich take 3rd behind Santorum and Romney, with both Santorum and Romney doing MUCH better in the urban counties than Gingrich... that was a shocker. Then to see Romney's taking the counties with the biggest populations (and the highest taxes) was another. I'd have expected Santorum to do better on the Coast, around Jackson and in the Delta Counties than he did.
Still, in the Deep South, I guess I might have seen the more morally-conservative candidate winning over the more morally-ambiguous candidate. Santorum is going to have more appeal than anyone else to the "evangelical" South... with his "fire and brimstone" attitude towards faith and morals... especially to GOP voters.
This would be a whole different race right now if MS and AL forced all their delegates to vote for the winner (like MN does)... but they do not, so Romney gains as much as Santorum does, in the long run.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Barbour? Really?
Do you really think Barbour is a viable option in '12... even as a VP candidate? Could someone so associated with the "old-guard" GOP really contribute to a win? I'm asking honestly... no sarcasm. I mean, since the "pardon" scandal last year and the questionable quotes concerning what was and wasn't accomplished during Katrina... outside of the Magnolia State, is Barbour anything more than another cui bono?
Mind you, I'd vote for him. I was there in '05-'06, and I know what he got done when no one else was getting anything done. He could do the job, no question... I just worry that he has baggage that the conservative ticket doesn't need.
Mind you, I'd vote for him. I was there in '05-'06, and I know what he got done when no one else was getting anything done. He could do the job, no question... I just worry that he has baggage that the conservative ticket doesn't need.
Full Court Press
Here it is, Tuesday, March 13, Primary Day here in Mississippi.
Today, just from this morning whenever to 3:16PM I have 13 voice mails on my phone. 11 are from Mitt Romney, two for Newt. Eleven calls? Like two per hour since I've rolled out of bed. I am not counting Steve Palazzo's one call, since he has two other Republican candidates gunning for his seat today, and not a word from Wicker, my senator, who also has two other candidiates going after him.
It is very interesting to me to see Romney gunning, and I mean GUNNING for this state. I thought it was Newt that would be pushing for some kind of resurrection movement here. Not a peep from Santorum. Not even a TV ad. I know they were all here, up north. Not sure anyone visited Gulfport or Biloxi.
If Romney wins these Southern states, maybe he feels like he won't need a southern vp candidate... A Barbour like candidate.
Man I hate to think all these phone call ads are going to do the trick. I voted for Santorum.
Today, just from this morning whenever to 3:16PM I have 13 voice mails on my phone. 11 are from Mitt Romney, two for Newt. Eleven calls? Like two per hour since I've rolled out of bed. I am not counting Steve Palazzo's one call, since he has two other Republican candidates gunning for his seat today, and not a word from Wicker, my senator, who also has two other candidiates going after him.
It is very interesting to me to see Romney gunning, and I mean GUNNING for this state. I thought it was Newt that would be pushing for some kind of resurrection movement here. Not a peep from Santorum. Not even a TV ad. I know they were all here, up north. Not sure anyone visited Gulfport or Biloxi.
If Romney wins these Southern states, maybe he feels like he won't need a southern vp candidate... A Barbour like candidate.
Man I hate to think all these phone call ads are going to do the trick. I voted for Santorum.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Parade Day... Scranton-style
St. Patrick's Day Parade in Scranton has been going on every year since 1862, and it is the second-largest parade in honor of the Saint in the nation... second only to New York City's. It's typically held the Saturday before the actual holy day, so that inclement weather won't cancel the event... it will only delay it one week. It also means Scranton's parade doesn't compete with New York's. A city with a population of 76,000 people in 2010 will today swell to nearly 300,000 for this parade, and the city has allowed the local pubs and bars (of which there are hundreds... literally! 209 to be exact!) to open early to help the revelers "warm to the occasion".
My wife and daughter are in the parade this year, marching through the streets of Scranton with their favorite American Idol star, James Durbin. They've donned the "green", loaded the cameras, glammed up and are ready to march.
Jacob and I will be staying home, however... he broke his collar bone Wednesday and isn't up to the excitement yet. We'll manage some fun things here, though... and we'll watch for the girls on the telecast program.
There's no Mardi Gras here in NEPA... but this is a close comparison, if you ask me.
My wife and daughter are in the parade this year, marching through the streets of Scranton with their favorite American Idol star, James Durbin. They've donned the "green", loaded the cameras, glammed up and are ready to march.
Jacob and I will be staying home, however... he broke his collar bone Wednesday and isn't up to the excitement yet. We'll manage some fun things here, though... and we'll watch for the girls on the telecast program.
There's no Mardi Gras here in NEPA... but this is a close comparison, if you ask me.
Am I wrong?
According to my math, Santorum needs to win like 70% of the remaining delegates to reach the magic number of 1144 and win the nomination in June. With some of the biggest States still to vote (CA, NY, IL, etc)... this is a tall order to fill.
The up-side is that, thus far, only Romney and Santorum have enough delegates to get their names on the ballots at the RNC. It is pretty unlikely that Gingrich is going to reach the 5-State requirement, even with so much of the South still voting... and Ron Paul won't win a State period. That means, given a perfect scenario, Romney will have to pick Santorum as his running mate for the run to November. It is as close to a "unified" Republican front as we are likely to see... and it will have to be enough to win back the White House.
The up-side is that, thus far, only Romney and Santorum have enough delegates to get their names on the ballots at the RNC. It is pretty unlikely that Gingrich is going to reach the 5-State requirement, even with so much of the South still voting... and Ron Paul won't win a State period. That means, given a perfect scenario, Romney will have to pick Santorum as his running mate for the run to November. It is as close to a "unified" Republican front as we are likely to see... and it will have to be enough to win back the White House.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
How do you not see this?
Santorum has made as the centerpiece of his case (against Romney), that Mitt is "uniquely unqualified" (Rick's his words, oft repeated) to be our nominee because it takes Obamacare off the table (theoretically). Again, this is a chief argument in the Santorum primary campaign. To turn around and pick Romney would be to immediately discredit himself as the honest, forthright, "true" conservative.
And Romney's too cute by half (in my opinion) defense of Romneycare has consistently focused around "well, that was what the state wanted, its' a sate right, I wouldn't do it on a federal level." I don't buy that for a second - on Meet the Press in 2009, in the middle of the Obamacare debate no less, he advocated the individual mandate. 51% of GOP primary voters IN Massachusetts, in exit polls, said Romney care went too far. Romney's response to this was they went too far, in essence perverted it, after he left. Well hells bells Mitt, did you think you were emperor? That your word, your intention would last as long as the program? That is simply an insufficient answer in my eyes. Romney has proven over and over that he must be nudged into conservatism. In addition the man argued - in the Mass governors race - that he was NOT a conservative. Such a label would have cost him the race in that state. And his abortion stance has morphed, according to what race he's in, as well. And recently he took up the language of OWS noting that he "wont raise taxes on the 99%." And you can argue "well, he was running in Mass, of course he said that to get elected." What that argument is missing is if Santorum wins it will be PRECISELY because he effectively convinced primary voters that such a man can not be trusted to be a consistent conservative. And THAT is who he should turn around and put as #2 on his team? That doesn't make any sense to me.
The bottom line - IF (and it's a big if) Santorum wins it will be because GOP voters thought he was the authentic conservative in the race. That's the ground he's staked out, that's his calling card. If he turns around and picks Romney as VP it will immediately undo any legitimacy he would have gained. He would be, to invoke the tired old phrase, shooting himself in the foot. I don't care about Romney's ability to fund raise - Obama will raise the GOP all the money they could ever spend. You've simply misjudged half the dynamic here. For Nominee Romney to pick Santorum makes perfect sense (and Santorum can accept, promising to bring his influence into the administration). But f Santorum picks Romney it will will delegitimize the very reason he won.
And Romney's too cute by half (in my opinion) defense of Romneycare has consistently focused around "well, that was what the state wanted, its' a sate right, I wouldn't do it on a federal level." I don't buy that for a second - on Meet the Press in 2009, in the middle of the Obamacare debate no less, he advocated the individual mandate. 51% of GOP primary voters IN Massachusetts, in exit polls, said Romney care went too far. Romney's response to this was they went too far, in essence perverted it, after he left. Well hells bells Mitt, did you think you were emperor? That your word, your intention would last as long as the program? That is simply an insufficient answer in my eyes. Romney has proven over and over that he must be nudged into conservatism. In addition the man argued - in the Mass governors race - that he was NOT a conservative. Such a label would have cost him the race in that state. And his abortion stance has morphed, according to what race he's in, as well. And recently he took up the language of OWS noting that he "wont raise taxes on the 99%." And you can argue "well, he was running in Mass, of course he said that to get elected." What that argument is missing is if Santorum wins it will be PRECISELY because he effectively convinced primary voters that such a man can not be trusted to be a consistent conservative. And THAT is who he should turn around and put as #2 on his team? That doesn't make any sense to me.
The bottom line - IF (and it's a big if) Santorum wins it will be because GOP voters thought he was the authentic conservative in the race. That's the ground he's staked out, that's his calling card. If he turns around and picks Romney as VP it will immediately undo any legitimacy he would have gained. He would be, to invoke the tired old phrase, shooting himself in the foot. I don't care about Romney's ability to fund raise - Obama will raise the GOP all the money they could ever spend. You've simply misjudged half the dynamic here. For Nominee Romney to pick Santorum makes perfect sense (and Santorum can accept, promising to bring his influence into the administration). But f Santorum picks Romney it will will delegitimize the very reason he won.
There is a difference, you know...
Even for conservatives, there is a real difference between Obamacare and Romneycare that no one seems to take into consideration, in the past, now or in the foreseeable future:
Obamacare is a Federally mandated requirement, while Romney's plan was formed, implemented and operated at a strictly State level. I, for one, don't have an issue with Romneycare at all... not one. I can say that with clear conscience because I don't live in Mass. When the same plan is implemented on a Federal level, though... I have issues.
If a State such as MA wants to require employers to maintain certain levels of insurance for all employees at no cost to the employee, and this proves to be too expensive for corporations and small businesses to float and still turn a profit, what happens? They close their doors and go somewhere else where there are no such requirements. That is no skin off my back, living where I do in PA.
To the best of my knowledge, Romney has never advocated support for such a plan on a national level. In fact, he's dodged the issues to no end now because I'm not sure he hasn't seen the error of his ways just in how MA has moved since his plan went into effect... but that isn't something he's going to want to discuss now, is it?
That doesn't negate your point, though... and I'm not inclined to argue with you. Still, in my opinion, should Santorum win and NOT choose Romney as a running mate, he is handicapping himself in a huge manner.
Obamacare is a Federally mandated requirement, while Romney's plan was formed, implemented and operated at a strictly State level. I, for one, don't have an issue with Romneycare at all... not one. I can say that with clear conscience because I don't live in Mass. When the same plan is implemented on a Federal level, though... I have issues.
If a State such as MA wants to require employers to maintain certain levels of insurance for all employees at no cost to the employee, and this proves to be too expensive for corporations and small businesses to float and still turn a profit, what happens? They close their doors and go somewhere else where there are no such requirements. That is no skin off my back, living where I do in PA.
To the best of my knowledge, Romney has never advocated support for such a plan on a national level. In fact, he's dodged the issues to no end now because I'm not sure he hasn't seen the error of his ways just in how MA has moved since his plan went into effect... but that isn't something he's going to want to discuss now, is it?
That doesn't negate your point, though... and I'm not inclined to argue with you. Still, in my opinion, should Santorum win and NOT choose Romney as a running mate, he is handicapping himself in a huge manner.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
I agree... mostly
Romney's clear problem is his inability to win over conservatives. Romney-care hangs around his neck like an Albatross. His only logical choice is Santorum. However, I'm less sure that Santorum would pick Romney. There's certainly precedent - G.H. Bush was the "moderate" that lost to the vastly more conservative Reagan, and Reagan unified the party by picking his middle of the road rival. However, Bush didn't have Romnay-care, and I don't know that Santourum would want to immediately take the Obamacare chip off the table by making as his VP a man whom supported the individual mandate as recently as 2009 (on Meet The Press). Romney-care is a real problem, make no mistake.
That worry is second only to the following concern: Ron Paul could stay in this race until the convention and then walk into the Libertarian nomination. He would utterly destroy the GOP's presidential chances, so you might ask why he would do such a thing and guarantee an Obama victory? Keep in mind - Paul sees no real difference between Romney (assuming he wins) and Obama. The daylight is insignificant in his view. And as he's nearing retirement he may decide that this will be the way he goes out - teaching the GOP a lesson about the error of its' ways. There's only three ways the GOP guarantees this does not happen. One is Rand Paul. They can promise to destroy his son's very promising career. Two is also Rand Paul - make Rand the VP choice (which would please the likes of me). Or (and this is the option I would prefer, regardless of who wins), they can promise Ron the Secretary of Treasury gig. This way he gets a crack at his long time nemesis - the Federal Reserve. That he I doubt he could resist.
That worry is second only to the following concern: Ron Paul could stay in this race until the convention and then walk into the Libertarian nomination. He would utterly destroy the GOP's presidential chances, so you might ask why he would do such a thing and guarantee an Obama victory? Keep in mind - Paul sees no real difference between Romney (assuming he wins) and Obama. The daylight is insignificant in his view. And as he's nearing retirement he may decide that this will be the way he goes out - teaching the GOP a lesson about the error of its' ways. There's only three ways the GOP guarantees this does not happen. One is Rand Paul. They can promise to destroy his son's very promising career. Two is also Rand Paul - make Rand the VP choice (which would please the likes of me). Or (and this is the option I would prefer, regardless of who wins), they can promise Ron the Secretary of Treasury gig. This way he gets a crack at his long time nemesis - the Federal Reserve. That he I doubt he could resist.
Post-Super Tuesday
Romney vs Santorum. That's the contest in '12 for the GOP nomination.
Gingrich is out. He's won only two States (GA and SC), and Paul seems to be nothing more than a vote cast to say "I don't think Romney or Santorum are conservative enough". That in itself is scary... Paul took more than 40% of Virginia's GOP vote, and he was the ONLY other candidate on the ballot besides Romney. What does THAT say about how Virginia conservatives feel about Romney?
Santorum has done very well in the Midwest, but can't seem to win strong on either Coast. His only real chance now is a HUGE showing in the remaining Southern States, and possibly CA... but Catholics never do well in CA.
I'll say this, though... if either Romney or Santorum win and DON'T pick the other as a running mate, the GOP cannot win the '12 general election. It is the only hope right now of getting the unaffiliated voter in Anytown USA to vote against the status quo. Put it in the books, that's my big prediction and I'm sticking with it.
Gingrich is out. He's won only two States (GA and SC), and Paul seems to be nothing more than a vote cast to say "I don't think Romney or Santorum are conservative enough". That in itself is scary... Paul took more than 40% of Virginia's GOP vote, and he was the ONLY other candidate on the ballot besides Romney. What does THAT say about how Virginia conservatives feel about Romney?
Santorum has done very well in the Midwest, but can't seem to win strong on either Coast. His only real chance now is a HUGE showing in the remaining Southern States, and possibly CA... but Catholics never do well in CA.
I'll say this, though... if either Romney or Santorum win and DON'T pick the other as a running mate, the GOP cannot win the '12 general election. It is the only hope right now of getting the unaffiliated voter in Anytown USA to vote against the status quo. Put it in the books, that's my big prediction and I'm sticking with it.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
The participation trophy generation
Limbaugh's comments weren't helpful, but quite frankly I feel Fluke should apologize to me and anyone with an IQ over 60 for that matter. Did you watch this? Her testimony was the most absurd argument, built upon the most the most absurd premise, I have ever listened to. Crying how utterly disenfranchised law students at Georgetown -45k a year - University are because they cant get birth control for free. You know what's free? Abstinence. Condoms. Pulling out. Becoming a Lesbian. Or how about getting your boyfriend to kick in the dough? Yes the poor, oppressed, under privileged students of Georgetown Law are suffering through the indignity of not having birth control covered by insurance via a government mandate - the horror! As Fluke said, "She sees how this effects real people in the faces of women on campus." Oh shut your pie hole Yoko.
By her own admission she's there on a "public assistance scholarship." Listen doll, pumpkin, cupcake, can I run something by you? I'm already paying for your God D---- tuition, so how's about you put in that Wendy's application, buy your own screw pills, and send me a thank you note at Thanksgiving? How's about that, huh?
She was trotted out there, script in hand, by Nancy Pelosi as part of this effort to keep the spectacle of contraception in the forefront thus avoiding ANY talk about the abysmal economic/energy record of this President. I am convinced that is why they went after the Catholic Church - they'd rather take their chances debating social issues (although the Church mandate is about conscience, not contraception) then get anywhere near talk on the economy or prices at the pump.
And thats my bigger problem with Rush's slut comments (which he has now apologized for), it gave the story more exposure, thus the other side more deflection material. But if we're talking whom made the more outrageous statement, Fluke has Limbaugh beat by a mile.
By her own admission she's there on a "public assistance scholarship." Listen doll, pumpkin, cupcake, can I run something by you? I'm already paying for your God D---- tuition, so how's about you put in that Wendy's application, buy your own screw pills, and send me a thank you note at Thanksgiving? How's about that, huh?
She was trotted out there, script in hand, by Nancy Pelosi as part of this effort to keep the spectacle of contraception in the forefront thus avoiding ANY talk about the abysmal economic/energy record of this President. I am convinced that is why they went after the Catholic Church - they'd rather take their chances debating social issues (although the Church mandate is about conscience, not contraception) then get anywhere near talk on the economy or prices at the pump.
And thats my bigger problem with Rush's slut comments (which he has now apologized for), it gave the story more exposure, thus the other side more deflection material. But if we're talking whom made the more outrageous statement, Fluke has Limbaugh beat by a mile.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
I'm curious...
Does anyone here think Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke and her testimony before Congress actually helped the conservative agenda?
I know he's the biggest radio celebrity ever... and that his comments are about getting people to tune in every bit as much as they are to give his views and opinions... but whenever he has addressed or commented on his words, he says he is defending the "conservative viewpoint" and making the "conservative case" to America.
If THAT were actually his goal, then perhaps he'd better leave the job to those that aren't going to make the liberals in this nation look calm, cool and rational while the conservatives look like rabid misogynistic hate-mongers. I, for one, don't think he's helping anyone... anyone but himself, that is.
I know he's the biggest radio celebrity ever... and that his comments are about getting people to tune in every bit as much as they are to give his views and opinions... but whenever he has addressed or commented on his words, he says he is defending the "conservative viewpoint" and making the "conservative case" to America.
If THAT were actually his goal, then perhaps he'd better leave the job to those that aren't going to make the liberals in this nation look calm, cool and rational while the conservatives look like rabid misogynistic hate-mongers. I, for one, don't think he's helping anyone... anyone but himself, that is.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
This guy gets it...
This CBS article really comes close to making the point I have been trying to make for several months now: Santorum is too inflexible and prone to talk off-topic, and Romney is too un-centered and ready to say whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear.
We aren't going to find a "Rick Romney" or a "Mitt Santorum" in time for the RNC nomination, but is there a possibility that the two together could take the White House in 2012? A one-two ticket that has the best of both worlds?
Looking at the two as a matched ticket, the only thing history tells us is lacking is that neither are from the South. Both have big Midwestern appeal, Romney has proven executive experience, both are "conservative enough" to not lose the Tea Party vote (which McCain proved was very important), Rick has the possibility of the Catholic vote while neither really loses the chance of an evangelical support surge. It's a shame neither served in the military, but I think any serving member or any rational veteran would see the ticket as the best option available.
Am I crazy for thinking this is the only option left for the GOP in '12?
We aren't going to find a "Rick Romney" or a "Mitt Santorum" in time for the RNC nomination, but is there a possibility that the two together could take the White House in 2012? A one-two ticket that has the best of both worlds?
Looking at the two as a matched ticket, the only thing history tells us is lacking is that neither are from the South. Both have big Midwestern appeal, Romney has proven executive experience, both are "conservative enough" to not lose the Tea Party vote (which McCain proved was very important), Rick has the possibility of the Catholic vote while neither really loses the chance of an evangelical support surge. It's a shame neither served in the military, but I think any serving member or any rational veteran would see the ticket as the best option available.
Am I crazy for thinking this is the only option left for the GOP in '12?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
