Fantastic New RNC Ad

I hope we see more ads like this in the year to come.

Posted in National Politics | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

My Picks

Next week, I will return to posting individual analysis on the Republican Presidential candidates.  We have three more to go, next will be Michele Bachmann.

 

The Newest Phony Crisis

Once again, the President is trying to create a hysterical sense of urgency to address a non-existent problem.  Drug Shortage Demagoguery

An Ode to Language

This is a really fun piece about the grave consequences of emoticons Words, R.I.P.

 

Occupy and Destroy

A look at the destructive nature which underlines the Occupy Movement The Lawless Heart of OWS

More Christians Murdered

In the past few months, particularly since the “Arab Spring,” Christians in the Middle East have been facing unbelievable persecution.  Christian converts and pastors have faced arrest, torture, and even death. Now we have a story of a student who was beaten to death by his teacher and classmates for wearing a cross. No Arab Spring for Christians.

The Racism of Democrats

Ann Coulter tells us why the left’s constant accusations of racism are really just a reflection of their own racial prejudice in Why Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks

Professor Jihad

Terrorist-enthusiast and tenured professor Julio Pino is at it again. Mike Adams has been following his story for a couple of years now.  It is an important story because many people still don’t realize the sort of radical “educators” that are running higher education now days.  Here are several articles on the outrageous antics of this tax-payer funded nightmare. First, two articles on the background of this guy An Open Letter, Secret Service Raids.  Next, an article which includes the text of a eulogy the professor wrote for a suicide bomber Singing out Prayer.  And an update on his latest activities.  Death to Tenure New Charges Surface

 

Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | 1 Comment

Not Like Us

When this whole  Days of Rage/ Occupy Wall Street/ Occupy Any Random Street movement got started, I didn’t want to write about it.  Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty to be said.  I just think that it was a mistake, from the beginning, to give this movement so much attention.  Yes, I get that there are some very powerful and anti-capitalists behind these demonstrations, but the protesters themselves are not worthy of any coverage.  They are aimless and ignorant.  They have no concrete goals and their understanding of basic economic and political structures is jaw-droppingly juvenile and ill-informed.  On their own, they could no more start true a political revolution than they could sprout wings and fly.  In fact, I think that’s why they received such a disproportionate amount of coverage early on.  The left-wing of American media recognized that this movement was dead in the water if they didn’t do some serious spin on the matter.  And so the press attempted to craft an image of the protests, one that isn’t even remotely similar to the actuality  of them, in order to get some momentum behind it. They want us to believe that these assemblies of dirty, lazy, spoiled, brats and elderly hippies, whose only goal is to “eat the rich,” is in fact a coming together of everyday working class folks who only want a kinder and sunnier America.  They have taken a movement that couldn’t have possibly gained any serious ground on its own and so dramatically changed the perception of it, that many people who truly are “everyday working class folks” find themselves feeling sympathetic towards the demonstrators.  And that is the point where the protests became a  legitimate threat.  The moment when people started to believe the media-crafted image of the movement instead of the reality of it.

And that’s why, I think we have to simplify our response to these protests, especially when we are talking to people who don’t follow politics closely.  While it is important to have a well-reasoned counter argument to each of the specific demands of the movement, our first step ought to be discrediting the movement itself.  And it shouldn’t be that difficult considering the fact that only thing that gave the protesters any legitimacy to begin with was the false face created for them by the press.  Instead of indulging foolish discussions like “What have we learned about the need for equality from the Occupy Movement?,” we ought to be exposing this demonstrators for the clowns that they are.  They aren’t “the liberal tea party.”  They aren’t “the face of the middle class.”  They are a collection of useful idiots, the latest tool of anti-capitalists and power-hungry leftists.  And if we want to take this weapon out of the hands of the progressives, then we have to show the protesters for the ridiculous fools that they are.

First, people need to understand that the protesters are nothing like your average American.

  • They have a month to kill.  Can you imagine taking a month off from your life to protest something?  No?  Good!  Because if you could, you would be a loser.  Not because you were willing to sacrifice time for a cause, that’s an admirable thing.  But because you have that much free time to begin with.  We’re not talking about people who leave their families to fight a war and defend their country.  We’re not talking about tea partiers who give up a few weekends a year to hold rallies. We’re talking about people who have spent a month standing around yelling about their problems.   If you can give up bathing, abandon all responsibilities,  and reject any semblance of a productive daily routine to hang out with a bunch of people who aren’t exactly sure what they’re protesting,  your normal life was probably just as pathetic. Normal people have obligations like; jobs, families, friends, even laundry.  If you can walk away from all of your daily obligations so easily, it’s pretty safe to assume that people don’t expect much from you anyways.
  • They have a very different definition of “down-trodden” than the rest of us do.  When you see these guys interviewed, most of them are just spoiled rich kids.  They come from fairly well-off families and many have an ivy league education.  That’s why they can afford to stew in their own filth for a month at a time.   As far as the ones who really are living in need are concerned, they aren’t doing a whole lot to fix that problem, are they?  If the problem is that they don’t have jobs, perhaps they should be spending this time looking for a job.  I’m no psychic, but I can positively predict that no employer is going to wade through a sea of unwashed stoners, interrupt their drum circle, and offer them “fulfilling careers” which pay “a fair and livable wage.”  It is clear that the poor, destitute Occupiers either don’t need a job or don’t really want one.
  • Hey, remember that time when 400 tea party members were arrested at one time during a rally?  Oh wait, that never happened.  But it did happen to Days of Rage protesters in NYC.  Unlike the tea party rallies (where the only arrests made are of union thugs who came to beat up black conservatives and bite people’s fingers off), these demonstrations are filled with illegal behavior and arrests are now the norm.  The protesters aren’t constructing new policies or organizing a strategy to further their ideas.  They’re drinking, using drugs, and having sex in the same filthy streets and parks they’re using as a bathroom.  There have been rape allegations at Occupy Boston, the Oakland protest has disintegrated into all-out riots, and the activists at Occupy Phoenix having been passing around flyers entitled “When is it OK to Shoot a Cop?“.  To call this a “left-wing tea party” is laughable. When was the last time you saw a picture of a tea partier using a police car as a toilet?  One of the most notable characteristics of a tea party is the clean and orderly way they leave the property after the rally.  These protest sites are covered with food wrappers, condoms, liquor bottles, and human waste.  The New York Post described the scene in their neighborhood as “an open sewer with people urinating and defecating in public.”  Speaking about a protester named Dave, the Post went on to say, “Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted and crash,”  he said “I’ve been smoking and drinking in here for eight days now. I need to get some methadone. Every day, I wake up, and I’m f****d up.”
  • Not only are the Occupy demonstrations “as good a spot as any to hide”if  you “got warrants,” but they are a great place to score free stuff.“People say they are here for the cause, but the real reason is the free food,” quipped Cameron, 26, of Jersey City.“On my third day, they had smoked salmon with cream cheese. You know how much smoked salmon is a pound? Sixteen dollars. I eat better here than I do with my parents.”    Yep, just like every grassroots movement this one is full of dedicated people who are willing to hang out, eat free gourmet food, accept clothing donations, and set-up a free condom area in the middle of the demonstration.  Because when you really want to make a change in the world, you’ve gotta make time for fine-dining and outdoor sex with strangers.  Especially when you can get others to foot the bill.  And if you really, really want to show how dedicated you are, you should get wealthy and powerful labor unions to pay you to protest other wealthy and powerful people.  That way when people see a crowd of paid protesters eating expensive food and wearing clothes they didn’t pay for, they’ll know you mean business.
  • They don’t know what they want.  I mean aside from the fact that they want to “eat the rich.”  What comes after the feasting? Let’s say they succeeded in getting the rich people to “pay their fair share.”  What then?  How are they any better off?  Are they expecting a check for their share of the wealth?  Do they really think that government is going to just give it to them and not spend it?  Or do they want the government to invest it infrastructure, like the roads and bridges President Obama insists we need?  How does that make them any more employed (cause they don’t look like bridge-building physical labor types to me)?  Is there a job they’re trying to get to on some sort of bridgeless island?  They say they want to collapse capitalism, but what do they want to replace it with?  Surely they know that in a communist country they would never be allowed to stop working for a month to lay about and complain.  They must realize that citizens of a socialist nation don’t have the disposable income to donate skinny jeans and caviar for the next time they feel like holding a Life is Yucky and Mean demonstration.  And they must understand that people like them who would rather whine about their circumstances than try to improve them are an enormous drain on society.  Any country which truly shared the wealth would be dragged under in no time flat by these people.  So, what exactly do they want?
  • Businesses (you know, the places that provide those jobs the protesters claim they want) are closing their doors in certain ares because the Occupy Movement is blocking the streets and, quite frankly, no one wants to walk through that filthy mess to go shopping or out to dinner.  While they may claim, to be the great defenders of “Main Street,”  these demonstrations are a detriment to their local business sector.
  • When Al Sharpton, Roseanne Barr, Yoko Ono, Michael Moore, Screwy Louie Farrakhan, and Van Jones are on your side, you’re on the wrong side.  When Amanda Knox comes straight from an Italian prison to speak at your event, you’re on the wrong side, crazy, and probably high.
  • OK, I thought of something besides “eating the rich” that many Occupiers want.  They would also like to chase out the Jews.  That’s right, these demonstrations are full of racists.  I’m not talking about it in the vague way that liberal describe tea parties as racist.  When the left talks about the “racism” of conservatives, it’s usually because one guy in a crowd of thousands was holding a sign that wasn’t directly racist, but kinda reminded them of a feeling they had once when they encountered real racism. No, this is the real thing.  These protests are swarming with people holding anti-Semitic signs and screaming horrible things about the Jews.  They have bought in to decades-old conspiratorial stereotypes about greedy Jewish bankers secretly running the world.  Liberals have been letting their anti-Jewish roots show more and more in the past few years, but this is front and center.  From an insane teacher shouting that “Zionist Jews” need to be “run out of this country,” to the punk who calls a passerby a “bum Jew” and a “short little man” before telling him to “go back to Israel”, to the countless signs which warn of a global Jewish banking conspiracy, there is an ugly underlying current to this movement.  These are not the tolerant peaceniks the press would have us believe they are.
  • They have no idea who “Wall Street” is.  The vast majority of the protestors were Obama voters in 2008. Wall Street bankers give about 80% of their political donations to Democrats.  Democrats, in turn, created and covered up the looming mortgage crisis in the early 2000′s and bailed out banks and big corporations later on. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and just about every cabinet member and czar in Washington are real politicians who have actually protected and promoted unsavory financial dealings and bailed out banks with tax-payer money.  And one of their biggest supporters and donors, is the dirtiest, slimiest billionaire investor of them all, George Soros. He not only bankrolls almost every prominent Democrat, but his organizations are behind lots of “grassroots” liberal movements as well.  And guess what?  MoveOn.org and the Tides Foundation (both member’s of Soros’s Open Society Institute) were two of the Occupy Movement’s earliest promoters. And just as people were starting to complain that police weren’t evicting protesters (as they should, by law), we find out that George Soros has had at least one secret meeting with heads of the NYPD.  We’re talking about a guy (who is himself Jewish) who has “no sense of guilt” for helping the Nazi’s when  he was younger, describing it as  the best year of my life.”  A man who made his billions by short-selling currency.  There is a reason he is known as “the man who broke the bank of England,” it’s because he orchestrated the infamous UK financial collapse known as Black Wednesday.  This is a man who has intentionally bankrupted several nations, caused the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, was convicted of insider trading in France, and is banned from trading in China.  And these clowns love him!  They love his organizations and the politicians he backs.  Soros actually is the conniving power-hungry lunatic that they claim to be protesting. The politicians he helps to elect really are the corrupt, crony-capitalism types that use tax-payer money to tip the scales in favor of their corporate allies (think Solyndra and GE). But the protesters show no interest in the real villains.  They would rather scream “Die fat cat!” at every secretary and under-paid salesman who walks by wearing a suit.
  • They’re self-described views are way out there. They can call it “economic equality” or “social justice,” but these protesters want socialism, plain and simple.  The overwhelming majority rate themselves as to the left of Barack Obama.  That’s the same Barack Obama whose voting record earned him a rating as the most liberal Senator in the country during his time in the legislature.  That put him to the left of Socialist Party member Bernie Sanders.  Both NARAL and Planned Parenthood give the President a 100% rating! In a country where only about 20% of the population describe themselves as liberal, any group where the majority of people are to the left of Obama, is way out of step with the norm.  Furthermore, according to a poll by Doug Schoen, about a third of the occupiers support using violence to achieve their goals. That number is especially shocking when you consider the fact that they were polled in a state of relative calm.  This was not an instance of a mob mentality. These weren’t people who got caught up in the moment and briefly considered lashing out violently.  These were people who were asked a question at a time when there was no violence, had an opportunity to consider their response, and chose to condone violent demonstrations.  Any large crowd runs a small risk of becoming a riotous mob, but these sort of attitudes makes this movement a virtual powder keg.  If you are willing to entertain the thought of a violent uprising when you’re calm, there’s no telling what you might do when a spark ignites the emotions of the crowd around you.
  • They have an unparalleled sense of entitlement.  When you listen to the list grievances these activists have, they aren’t really outraged by crony capitalism or Wall Street corruption.  That has nothing to do with it.  They are angry because society isn’t fulfilling their desire for a cushy job that pays six figures.  They whine about having to work a minimum wage job at the seasoned age of 21.  They can’t believe that they are expected to start at an entry-level position even with a shiny new diploma in hand.    They can’t get their head around the notion that 60 year-old CEO who has rescued a corporation from bankruptcy is drawing a larger paycheck than them.  Someone should put him in jail and redistribute his assets!  Despite its portrayal in the press, this is nothing like the distress most Americans are feeling about the economy. Most Americans would be grateful for any job that puts food on the table right now.

You don’t have to peer to deeply to recognize that the Occupiers are quite different from most Americans.  That much is obvious. However, the question remains “How do we counter this movement?”  I think the first step is to simply point out just how out of touch the protesters are.  And the next move is just a simple, we need to give these protesters something they never had before.  We need people to tell them that they are absolute fools!

These activists are products of the self-esteem generation.  When they were kids, they got participation trophies and learned to “applaud themselves.” It was never their fault if they failed to do their homework and study, it was the teachers’ fault for not making them learn.  If their grades weren’t good enough to get scholarships and grants, we picked up the tab because they had “a right to college education.”  We couldn’t tell them that maybe they should go to a community college to bring up those grades first, because they needed to go away to school and live in a dorm to have “the full college experience” (because we all know that nothing makes a productive grown-up like spending four years with all of the freedom of an adult and none of the corresponding responsibility). We didn’t tell them that the purpose of higher education was to learn a marketable skill or trade.  We told them to “find themselves” and pursue whatever gives them a “sense of fulfillment.”  And when they graduated with a degree in Women’s Studies or Music Therapy, we told them they deserved a well-paying job in their field.  It didn’t matter that there was absolutely no market for their “skills,” they had a right to a job where they could make their own hours, name their pay, and never have to do a single thing that they didn’t feel passionate about.  Politicians promised them grants for “starving artists,” because they shouldn’t feel pressured to create something that people actually want to buy. The government gave funding to community organizing and other various activist groups, because they shouldn’t have to push their politics on people in their spare time.  Taxpayers should pay them to do it so they can still have their weekends free to hit the bars.  Afterall, we should be grateful that they are “volunteering” to save the world.  We told them that by “following their dreams” they were making the world “a brighter place.” No wonder they are out there throwing a fit!  They’ve spent their whole lives under the impression that they are all geniuses who have blessed humanity by way of their very existence.  No one ever called them lazy, gave them a spanking, or said “that’s a stupid idea.” They have literally overdosed on self-esteem.

We don’t need politicians to have “a meaningful conversation” about the implications of the Occupy Movement. The last thing these people need is more validation. We need our representatives to come out and say what the rest of know to be true. 1. These are not real protests.  They are a bunch of drug fueled street parties which are being used by aging hippies and power-hungry leftists to push an agenda.  2. The protesters are not “the face of the working class.” The real working class is too busy working or trying to find work to lay in their own feces for a month.  The activists in the Occupy Movement are a bunch of ignorant pawns.  They are being used to push the agenda of the real corrupt elites.  3. Most people consider themselves fortunate if they get their dream job within 10 years of retirement.  You don’t get to stumble out of college and land a six-figure income.  It ain’t gonna happen.  4. The reason that employers have to pay their workers is that most jobs aren’t fun. If they were, we’d do them for free.  Most people have a choice, pursue a career for a sense of fulfilment or pursue one for a paycheck.  If no one is willing to pay for help  appreciating the fine arts or hire someone to discuss the role that global warming plays in third world marital trends, then the job-seeker can either go without pay or find something else to do.  Taxpayers (even the super-wealthy) shouldn’t pay their salary, the government shouldn’t “create” a job for them.  They should do what the rest of us do everyday and suck it up, take a less than perfect job, and keep an eye open for opportunities.  The economy is bad right now, they’re right about that.  But people like them who think they are entitled to an easy life are largely to blame.  While the rest of us do what we can to stay a float, the “it’s my right” crowd takes and takes and gives us nothing in return.  They are the ones who don’t “give back to the community.” It’s not the wealthy CEO who employs a full staff of people who are willing to work, it’s the bums who spent the last month not working and asking for handouts.  They are the ones.   Politicians are supposed to be the voice of the people, so they ought to start acting like it.  It’s time they quit pandering to the noisy few and spoke up for the rest of us.  What we want to say to the Occupiers is “Get out of the street, you’re disrupting businesses and hurting those who do want to work.  Go get a job, we’re sick of supporting you.  If you want people to respect you, try being a respectable person.  And if you want to be taken seriously, then quit whining, take responsibility for your own life, and please, please take a shower and quit urinating in the street.”  That would be the message from the 99%.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Where They Stand: Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is widely considered to be wasting his time at this point.  Today, I would like to examine whether or not that is true.

Up to This Point

As far as his policy ideas are concerned, Rick Santorum is pretty solid.  There may be a few issues where he is a little shaky, but he doesn’t hold any views that are a major problem for conservatives.  He is relatively good at communicating those ideas and doesn’t back down from a statement just because it is politically incorrect.  In debates, his answers are thoughtful and firm and he hasn’t had any serious flubs (Although, he came dangerously close when he joined Michele Bachmann in the Gardasil hysteria).  So, why is he polling so badly? Surely, a guy like this doesn’t deserve to be behind Ron Paul.  What is going on?

Rick Santorum had an up-hill battle from the start.  For one thing, most people who live outside of Pennsylvania have no idea who he is.  Those that do, know him as “that guy who wrote that book” or “that Senator from years ago.”  Has he had some major accomplishments in his political career?  Yes, but no one can remember them.  Secondly, he seems like a nice guy.  But that’s it.  He doesn’t have a personality that demands attention and respect.  I’m not someone who necessarily wants a candidate to dazzle me with charisma, and I actually Rick Santorum’s personality, but he is competing in a large field.  Without having a memorable legislative achievement, it is almost impossible to build momentum on a national scale, especially when the competition includes several colorful characters.  Thirdly, he doesn’t have the money.  Because he is struggling to get his name out there, he needs advertising dollars in a big way.  Unfortunately, he needed to show a spark early on in order to bring in that money.  Donors aren’t going to waste their money on a candidate unless they believe that he has a real shot at the nomination.  Although he showed some fire in the last debate, it may be too late.  At this point, most contributors have already decided who they want to support, at least until a few candidates drop out. Lastly, has to fight the “Washington insider” label.  It doesn’t matter what his record was in Congress.  He is considered to be a part of the pre-tea party Republican class.  And although Newt Gingrich has had to fight the same image, being the author of the Contract with America and putting forth some stellar debate performances have helped to soften that perception.  Rick Santorum has had no such luck.  He’s a nice guy with decent policies and adequate debating skills, but he doesn’t excel enough in any one of those categories to inspire confidence in his ability to win a general election.

Going Forward

You can go a long way in an election by being really good at one thing.  Whether  you’re the guy that kills the competition in a debate, the visionary with new and innovative policy ideas, or, better yet, the rare politician with an uncompromising moral compass, people will over look a lot of short-comings if they see excellence in one area.  Rick Santorum hasn’t separated himself from the pack in any of those areas.  Early on, he looked like he was going to be the family values guy, but he failed to capitalize on that.  In an election that includes several social conservatives, he really needed to drive his message home if he wanted that image to stick.  And although he tried to return to his “family first” agenda in the last debate, I think it’s too late.  I don’t see any way that he can get enough momentum going, this late in the game, to have a shot at the nomination. However, I don’t think it’s time for him to drop out of the race just yet.

Rick Santorum is a solid politician on most issues.  He may not have the leadership qualities to win a Presidential election, but he would be a great candidate for any number of appointed positions within a Republican administration.  The longer he stays in the race, the more he gets his name out there.  If he can afford to hang in there for a while, then I think he has a wonderful opportunity to take his career in a new direction. He has a lot of good ideas, he seems like a respectable guy, and (unlike certain other bottom-tier candidates) he still contributes substantively to the debates. So, no, he’s not wasting his time.  There’s more at stake here than just the nomination.  Just because he isn’t going to win the Presidency, doesn’t mean he should be ready to go home.

My take on the other candidates:

Huntsman, Paul, and Jonhson

Herman Cain

Newt Gingrich

Posted in Articles, National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

My Picks

Modern Tolerance

People say we are a more tolerant society today than we were 50 years ago.  Is that really true?  Judging Mrs. White

Nazis, Communists, and the Ayotollah, Oh My!

Occupy Wall Street draws endorsements from even more “regular folks.”  Check out the Conservative Hideout 2.0

The List You’ve Been Waiting For

To brighten your day, I highly recommend the 50 Best Ann Coulter Quotes of All Time

Obama’s Bundlers

We’ve been told for two years that the President is supported by the “little guy,” but his campaign finances tell a much different story.  Here are your 1%

Is Ohio the Next Wisconsin?

The governor of Ohio follows in the footsteps of Scott Walker. John Kasich vs. Public Unions

What Happened to Entitlement Reform?

We all know it has to happen.  So, why aren’t the Republican lawmakers talking about it anymore? Duck and Cover

Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Where They Stand: Newt Gingrich

Today, I would like to take a look at the veteran of the bunch, Newt Gingrich.

Up to This Point

Newt Gingrich’s campaign got off to a rocky start with the short-lived scandal over his slams against the Paul Ryan plan.  It looked as though his bid for president would be over before it even started.  But as further examination showed that his remarks about Paul Ryan were taken out of context and mischaracterized, he had an opportunity to get back on track.  And, as it turns out, the debates were just the venue he needed.  His answers have been quick, sharp, and witty. He never looks as though he is searching for an answer.  And while the various moderators have tried in vain to rattle him, he has managed to put them on the defensive several times.  We have all been reminded that, despite all of his baggage, Newt Gingrich is incredibly bright and cool-headed under pressure.  He has come off looking like a seasoned professional without seeming like an overly rehearsed politician.  His experience really shines through when he deals with his competition.  He is very careful to make sure that his criticisms of his fellow Republicans aren’t the sort of cheap shots that will be used as Democratic ammo against the winner in the general election.  He never takes the bait when the moderator tries to get him to attack a candidate over semantics or a sensational statement.  In fact, he has stated several times that any Republican candidate would be better than a second Obama term. He makes sure the audience knows that their real concern should be electing a conservative President, not worrying about the effects of the phrase “ponzi-scheme.”  No matter what topic is being discussed, he skillfully redirects the conservation to the important issues at hand.   One can’t help but to imagine him in a debate with President Obama and if you’re a conservative, you’ll find the thought quite appealing.  Regardless of  how you feel about Newt Gingrich as a person, it’s hard to feel anything but confident in his ability to dominate the debates in 2012. So why, in spite of his strong debate performances, is he struggling in the polls?  I think his biggest problem is that his name is Newt Gingrich and that name carries a whole lot of baggage.

First,  he is the “Washington guy” running in a year when nobody wants a candidate from Washington.  Sure, there are a few politicians who have really earned the trust of conservatives, but most Republican voters have had enough of anyone considered an “insider.”  Newt Gingrich is often thought of as a member of the Arlen Specter, wishy-washy, reach across the aisle class of Republicans.  Yes, he played hardball with Bill Clinton.  But, people still associate him with the GOP before the tea party voters cleaned house.  He is a member of the Old Guard at a time when people are eager for the new.   He has done a lot to shake that image by speaking with a forcefulness that isn’t seen among the politically correct “let’s compromise” Republicans. He seems to be making some headway, but at a time when people are rightfully leery of so-called Establishment Republicans, it will be an up-hill battle.

Secondly, there are the lingering concerns over his personal life.  Some of the scandals, like the old rumor that he divorced his wife while she was in a hospital dying of cancer (according to her own daughter, she requested the divorce, the divorce was filed long before she was in the hospital, and she’s still alive today), have been discounted.  But to a large number of people, he will be always be “that guy who abandoned his sick wife.”  The fact that he is in his third marriage doesn’t help matters either. And I’m not about to say that those things shouldn’t be considered.  The best way to tell if someone is sincere is to examine how their life matches up with their rhetoric.  I have my own concerns about how this reflects on his character and they weigh heavily on my opinion of him as a candidate.  However, I do think that people should recognize the fact that he has been married to his current wife for more than a decade, without even so much as a suggestion of a scandal.  He has also very openly said that he made bad decisions in the past and has since turned his life around.  I am unaware of any other accusations of dishonesty or unbecoming behavior since then.  I know that anyone can say they are sorry and that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a true reformation has taken place, but, unless someone has evidence to the contrary, you can only hold those misdeeds against him for so long. I’m not saying that it is wrong to have reservations about him, but I don’t think you can dismiss him entirely because of his past behavior.  I believe that a person’s character deserves a lot of attention.  I think that is one of the most important qualities, if not the most important quality, in a leader.  So, one must decide for himself if Newt can be trusted and maybe you’re answer is “no.” I just hope that we consider his present conduct as well as his past conduct before making that decision.

Going Forward

As far as his campaign goes, Newt Gingrich should try to change as little as possible going forward.  His biggest strength is his unapologetic no-nonsense style of debating.   One of the easiest ways to spot a phony is to watch for a candidate who carefully chooses each word so that it is as inoffensive as possible.  This is politics.  If you are a principled person, you’re going to offend some people from time to time.  Newt has shown a willingness to call things as he sees them, even when his remarks leave the moderator’s jaw on the floor.   If anything is going to convince people that he is trustworthy and has some backbone, that will be thing. Its going to be tough to ditch the run-around persona, but he is on the right track.

His slow rise in the polls could also be a good sign.  This primary season has been marked by meteoric rises in popularity, followed by an equally sudden plummet (think Bachmann and Perry).  Gingrich’s steady ascent in the polls could give him a better shot than most of us initially thought possible.  It is still a bit of a long-shot for him to win, but I think his impressive debate performances have made that scenario a lot more plausible.  At this point, there are two questions that will determine his viability as a candidate. 1.) Are the people who dislike Gingrich personally willing to give him another look? 2.)  Does he have enough financing to stay in the race long enough to win people over?  If either of these answers is a “no,” then he doesn’t stand a chance.  But if the circumstances are in his favor, he just might be able to rehab his image with older voters and introduce himself to a new generation as a principled leader.

Other Candidates:

Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson

Herman Cain

Rick Santorum

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Where They Stand: Herman Cain

Today, I would like to take a look at perhaps the most surprising candidate so far, Herman Cain.

Up to This Point

Okay, okay, I admit it.  Although I always liked Herman Cain, I was one of the people who thought that he didn’t stand a chance.  Not because he was new to the political scene, but because his talent for stump speeches just wasn’t translating to the debates.  Sure, he managed to get a few good jokes in, but his first few debates really hurt him.  He came off as gimmicky on domestic policies and ill-informed about foreign affairs. Instead of sounding like he was making a serious bid for President of the United States, he sounding like he was trying to sell us a ShamWow. For someone, like myself, who was so excited to see him in action,  it was quite a let-down.  I had heard him speak before and I knew he had some great ideas, he just wasn’t making a strong case for those ideas in the debates.  It was at that point in the primary process, when I decided that Herman Cain had lost the opportunity to make a name for himself in the already crowded race.  And then, something incredible began to happen.  Not only did he manage to put some meat on his previously vague and ambiguous foreign policy beliefs, but he managed to turn his awkward sales-pitch like speaking style into his greatest strength.  I don’t mean that he learned to cover it up or that he began to talk like a seasoned politician.  I mean that he quite literally took his worst quality, embraced it, learned how to use it, and made it into his signature strength. By fleshing out his ideas just a bit and by focusing on a few key specifics he has gone from kinda cheesy to an exciting and informative debater.  He is funny without seeming like he is trying to dodge questions or change the subject.  His answers are succinct, but still sound fully developed.  And his talent for making a catchy sales pitch has made his “Nine, Nine, Nine Plan” the single most memorable proposal of the primary contest so far.  Hands down, Herman Cain has won the Most Improved Player Award.

Going Forward

Herman Cain has undoubtedly hit his stride.  He is climbing in the polls and is finally getting the camera time necessary to become a real contender.  In fact, several surveys are now showing that Herman Cain is the new front-runner.  And while he has shown remarkable progress, we should keep in mind that soaring poll numbers can plummet fast with a few untimely missteps (Hello, Rick Perry?).  Cain bit down hard on media bait last week when he weighed in on both the Rick-Perry-racist-rock story and the Republicans-booed-a-soldier story.  He wisely back peddled the next day, but, at least to a certain extent, the damage was done.  As the newest threat to Team Obama, Herman Cain will be getting a lot of these set-up questions.  If he bites, he will not only give ammo to the Democrats to use against his fellow Republicans, but he will also irritate conservative voters, a double score for the left.   He needs to be able to spot these sort of distorted and over-blown stories and resist the temptation to give an immediate, emotional response. He can still shake these two incidents off.   At this point, most conservatives are willing to say “Well, he’s new at this,” but if it happens a couple more times, he could really see those poll numbers spiral downward.

All in all, Herman Cain is on the right track.   Republicans seem to be impressed with his ideas and are hungry to see more.  He should continue to use his unique style to show a couple more specific policy proposals.  We know he’s good on the economy and taxes, now we need to see what he’s got for us in other areas.  We want to see the “Nine, Nine, Nine” of foreign policy and immigration.  If he can come up with one or two other issues for which he can lay out a concise and easy to understand solution, he could really set himself apart from the other candidates.  Remember, a lot of primary voters don’t pay attention until a month before the polls open.  Those voters want to be able to look at a list of candidates, sum up their positions in five minutes, and pick a favorite.  Herman Cain has the capability to appeal to those voters without sacrificing substance.   If he can give them real solutions and not just fluff, he has a real shot at this thing.  He has to remember that people like him because he’s different.  If he starts to sound like a typical politician (or gets drawn into another 30 year-old racist rock story), he’s done.  Unlike some other candidates, the best thing Herman Cain can do for himself, is to act like Herman Cain.

Other candidates:

Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson

Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum

Posted in Articles, National Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Where They Stand: The Three Pretenders

Now that we are about mid-way through the primary race, I would like to take a closer look at all of the current candidates.  Over the next few weeks, I plan to examine the campaign of each candidate up to this point and what I think they need to do going forward.  Every couple of days, I will post a profile on a different contender.  But, before we get to the more serious candidates, I would like to get three of the candidates out of the way.

Gary Johnson

  • Up to This Point- I actually forgot Gary Johnson was a candidate until he reappeared at the last debate.  He is in dead last place in the polls and there’s good reason for it.  He is in the wrong party.  Period.  He supports legalizing drugs.  He is pro-choice (yes I know he’s “personally pro-life,” but that’s just a coward’s way of saying they’re pro-abortion).  He “supports” parental notification laws for abortion, but also supports having a way around notification in case girls aren’t comfortable telling their parents. When it comes to immigration, he said the following in an interview with Playboy, “My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders. “  He might have had a shot at capturing the “Rockefeller Republican” vote, but he lacks the necessary charisma.  As much as that faction of the party would love to do away with the pro-life movement, they still want to beat Obama. Gary Johnson has given them no reason to think that he  could do it.  We are not a party that looks for a candidate to dazzle us with lofty speeches of sunshine and lollipops, but we recognize the fact that our candidate must inspire some confidence and trust in order to win.   Gary Johnson has a long way to go before he can inspire confidence in anyone. With the exception of one well-timed joke, he has come off as weak, temperamental, and… well, kinda weird. To put it plainly, he is bad on the issues and isn’t likeable enough to make up for it.
  • Going Forward- I think we can safely say that Gary Johnson is out of the running for the presidential nomination.  But,  just for fun, here’s what he would have to do to stay in this thing: 1.) He needs to convince us that he is in the right party.  Which basically means that he needs to abandon all of his positions except for tax reform.  2.) He needs an image coach.  After his first debate, I complained that he gave off a “might be a serial killer” vibe.  He wasn’t quite that unnerving at his last appearance, but he has a long way to go before I’d be comfortable riding in an elevator with the guy.  He needs to lose the strange feminine gestures and condescending posturing.  I’m not one to judge a candidate on style of delivery, but he needs some help.  Badly.  3.) He needs to set himself apart, in a good way.  Being the pro-pot candidate is not going to win you  the Republican nomination.  He needs to think of something, anything that he has better solutions for than the other contenders.  No one is going to overlook all of his bad ideas when his other policies are mediocre or copied verbatim from other candidates.  If it seems like a tall order, that’s because it is.  If Gary Johnson wants a shot at this thing, he needs to become the opposite of Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul

  • Up to This Point-   I know there are a lot of die-hard Ron Paul fans out there, but this is getting ridiculous.  Every debate he ups the crazy a little bit more.  It was bad enough a few debates back when he accused the Catholic church of, … whatever he was trying to accuse them of, but now we caused 9/11?!  Come on, people!  There may have been a time when he was ahead of the curve on issues dealing with spending and limited government, but people have woken up.  And now that he has to talk about other issues as well, we have realized that our sneaking suspicion that he was “a little out there” was a monumental understatement. Yes, I believe in state’s rights, parental rights, a literal view of the Constitution, and I think the Federal Reserve needs a serious shakedown, but, unlike in years past, we can get all of those things from other candidates. There is no upside to a Ron Paul nomination.  Despite what his followers say, he is NOT the only real conservative candidate. In fact, he is not conservative on most issues.  He is a borderline anarchist.
  • Going Forward- I know that he does well in polls here and there, but overall Ron Paul has very little chance of winning. Frankly, I don’t understand why he is still in this race.  Many of the candidates who are behind in the polls have other reasons for staying in. Some still stand a chance of winning people over.  Others may be hoping to turn the exposure that the race has given them into a possible cabinet appointment or some other career opportunity.  Maybe a few of them just want the opportunity to get their ideas out there and nudge the conversation in a slightly different direction.  But none of these motives apply to Ron Paul.  People who like him, really really like him.  People who don’t like him, will NEVER be convinced that he is a viable, well-rounded and non-crazy candidate. He may have had a shot at some sort of appointment to oversee the Fed or reform the tax code had he not made the 9/11 comments.  It would now be political suicide to select Rep. Paul for any advisory or cabinet position. Furthermore, he is no longer bringing attention to his signature cause (reforming the Federal Reserve).  His bizarre rantings during debates have caused many people to discount everything he says.  The longer he stays in the running, the more damage he does to the very issues that he champions.  If he continues down this path, people will go out of their way to avoid dealing with any cause that would associate them with Ron Paul.  His only shot at salvaging his career and reputation is to take a step back from the public eye and hope that people forget about some of his wackier outbursts.  At any rate, it is time for him to bow out.

John Huntsman

  • Up to This Point- John Huntsman has run a disastrous campaign.  He has insulted the conservative base on numerous occasions, many of his beliefs are more in line with Democratic policies than those of Republicans, and he comes off as arrogant and aloof in debates. He is a less creepy version of Gary Johnson. He may not be as “moderate” as Johnson on issues like abortion and drugs, but his positions on man-made global warming and foreign policy would qualify him for a position in the Obama Admninistration.  Oh, wait, he had one of those.  The only people who think he is a good candidate seem to be Democrats (and we remember how nominating the Democratic fave worked out for us last time). Tom Ridge (might as well be a Democrat) and Michael Moore both think he is the best Republican running.  Members of Team Obama keep saying that they think Huntsman is the only Republican with a real shot.  In other words, Democrats think they can stomp him and they would love to see him as our nominee.  Fortunately, most Republicans are on to this.  He should no longer be considered a candidate at all.  It ain’t gonna happen.
  • Going Forward- He shouldn’t.

And now that that’s out of the way, we can start looking at the candidates who really matter. Beginning next week, I will attempt to sort through the remaining candidates.   Hopefully, by the end of it, a picture will finally emerge of who’s in this thing for the long-haul.  Our first stop: Herman Cain

Newt Gingrich

Rick Santorum

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

My Picks

 Scandal, Scandal, Scandal


Two articles about the growing number of White House scandals involving cronyism, the  “green jobs” industry, and who’s really benefiting from all of the “job-growth” spending. The BroadBand Boondoggle and for everything you need to know about the Solyndra controversy read President Solyndra

ObamAcorn

The Prez says he’s a) not connected with ACORN b.) that his new Operation Vote is nothing like his old Project Vote.  Michelle Malkin gives us two articles that demonstrate why both claims are false in What Could Go Wrong?

“It’s the End of the World as We Know It”

Mark Steyn explains his new appreciation for REM lyrics in Global Bust-Up

Abortion and Infanticide

A case in Canada points to the slippery-slope effect we’ve all feared.  Canadian Judge Blurs Lines

Israel Makes Its Case

This is the full text of Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.N. Speech

Saving Social Security vs. Saving You and Me

A great look at the absurdity of the “scary language” debate surrounding Social Security. Of Course It’s a Ponzi Scheme


Posted in Links, What I'm Reading | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Attack Watch: More Fun Than A Barrel of Monkeys

I had another article just about ready to be posted today, but I decided to delay it so that I can briefly address the Attack Watch controversy.  In case you are unfamiliar with this site, it was launched by the President and his campaign team to “fight smears.”  Much like his two earlier tattle-tale websites, Flag.gov and Fight the Smears.com, AttackWatch.com asks supporters to report any web sites, blogs, tweets, emails, or any other form of communication that is “smearing” the President.  At first, I too was outraged over this blatant attempt to intimidate political opponents.  For one thing, if George W. Bush or any other non-liberal asked people to report their fellow citizens, the left would be filing lawsuits and shouting “Nazi” before the site ever got off the ground.  Secondly, there is no point in making a big show of reporting attacks other than to bully people into being quiet.  The President already has an entire staff of people to address “smears” in the media.  You aren’t going to tell him anything he doesn’t already know! The only reason for launching a site like this is to make everyday people a little more hesitant about sending an email or posting a blog for fear that their name is going to go on some government watch list.  Thirdly, Attack Watch makes Barack Obama look like the world’s biggest cry-baby.  You would think that someone who paraded himself in front of a joint session of congress last week in one of the most vulgar displays of vanity ever executed by the office of President, all so he could condescendingly wag his finger at captive Republican lawmakers in full view of the press, would be able to take a little criticism.  Guess not.

But as I said earlier, my outrage didn’t last long.  As it turns out, Attack Watch is like an early Christmas present for conservatives.  Not only does it give it us more ammo to show that the President has the temperament of a petulant child, but reporting things to Attack Watch is actually lots of fun.  For example, last night I reported the President for telling lies about the success Barack Obama’s policies.  I also reported the Constitution since several federal judges have ruled that the Constitution says ObamaCare is illegal. And while reporting the numerous lies of Barack Obama can keep you laughing for hours, things get even better when you use the twitter option to contact Attack Watch.  Anytime you send a message directly to @AttackWatch or tag you comment with #AttackWatch the speech police get your report.  I am pleased to say that after spending a good deal of time on twitter last night, we (conservatives) officially own AttackWatch.  Most comments I read went something like this “Dear #AttackWatch I saw 6 ATM’s killing a job in an alley. Might be a hate crime,”  “What’s the difference between SkyNet and #AttackWatch? At some point in the future, SkyNet will become self-aware,” or “@AttackWatch There’s a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob,” and from author Brad Thor “If only Obama Administration could create an atmosphere where jobs materialize as quickly as @AttackWatch jokes.” In a political backfire of legendary proportions, the site that was meant to shut conservatives up has become a right-wing punch-line.  Take this headline from the Washington Post, “Attack Watch, New Obama Campaign to Fight Smears, Becomes Laughingstock of the Internet,”  or from Yahoo News, “Attack Watch Snitch Site a Focus of Internet Fun.” Just google the phrase “attack watch” and every article you see will be about what a monumental miscalculation it was. I think it is safe to say that, despite the Obama campaign’s best attempts, Attack Watch will not slow the conservative movement by even the slightest degree.

I’m pretty sure AttackWatch.com will soon be abandoned like Fight the Smears and flag.gov before it.  And in all honesty, filing “reports” with Attack Watch was the most fun I’ve had on twitter to date.  So, before it disappears for ever, I just want to say “thanks for the laughs!”

Watch the Attack Watch commercial below:

Some foul language

Posted in Calls to Action, National Politics, Social Policies | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments