Last week I declared that Mitt Romney would win the GOP nomination. Nothing has changed my mind since last Saturday. Romney hasn’t sealed the deal yet, but Gingrich is crashing and the former governor should win Florida on Tuesday. At this stage it would take something incredible to keep us from an Obama versus Romney match-up.
Much will be written about head to head polls between Romney and Obama, but I’m here to tell you that they don’t matter. Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by over 30 points six months before the election. President Obama trailed John McCain two months before the election. President Obama will be judged on his record and on the economy. Say what you want about Mitt Romney, but trying to brand him as an extremist will not work.
Mitt Romney is boring. He’s not quite as robotic and uncharismatic as John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bob Dole, but it’s not a stretch to compare him to those gentlemen. Romney is the steady hand. He’s the guy you call when everything else has failed. In other words, he’s the guy who will beat Obama if the economy doesn’t improve before November.
President Obama’s problem is that people have tuned out. Obama has no plan to make the economy better. He’s out of ideas. After all the adulation and all the grand speeches, what is Obama’s core conviction? Sure, the liberals still love him, but they loved Clinton. Democrats are a loyal bunch. It’s a collection of voter blocs. Give us your subsidies, affirmative action, unions, trial lawyers, hand-out recipients and those who’ve been brainwashed into believing that abortion is the ultimate civil liberty. The Democrats love to pat themselves on the back for their diversity, but no one is immune from the pandering hand outs. That is why the Democrats are fundamentally opposed to reducing the size of goverment.
If you reduce the size of goverment the Democrats would suddenly have issues with their voting base. Can any argue otherwise? How many people on food stamps vote for Democrats? Wouldn’t it bad for Democrats if any of the people dependent on the goverment could take care of themselves? So President Obama is out of ideas. If he allows pipelines, invests in real energy, or really reduces the size of the goverment he would be hurting his political party.
In the grand scheme of things far too many people are dependent on the goverment. It will be nearly impossible to roll back the tide. However, there aren’t enough dependents to keep Obama from losing. If gas prices go up over the summer Obama could lose in a landslide. The Republicans could have a super majority in the Senate. That would be the true test of our goverment. Would the Republicans have the guts to starve the beast? It will be very unpopular. Look how the union thugs in Wisconsin have behaved. Liberals and conservatives have very different ideas about the role of goverment. The reckoning is here.
I had hope that Obama would be a president that transformed the debate in the United States. Instead, he made things worse. He loves to talk about himself except when he’s blaming others. I don’t dislike the President. He seems like a nice guy. Most Americans like the 44th president, but that doesn’t mean they think he should continue.
Will Mitt Romney be any better? I doubt it, but could he be any worse?
A few days ago I wrote that conservatives should quit trying to appease liberals. It cowardice not to stand up for you believe. Liberal certainly don’t suffer from it (except when they call themselves progressives). Governor Rick Perry made the same point over the weekend.
It's better to burn out than fade away... sometimes.
Yesterday at Columbia University there was an event called No Labels that is supposed to give a voice to moderates, or something. In 2008, the AARP trotted out the Divided We Fail marketing campaign that is strikingly similar to No Labels. When ObamaCare rolled around the AARP doubled down on being divided and endorsed the most divisive legislation in decades.
Labels are fine. In fact, many of the people that attended the event were using them at the the event. Bunny Davis of Tucson warned about those “extremists” taking over Arizona. Davis doesn’t want to be labeled, but it’s okay to label others. Has any political movement ever amounted to anything that didn’t have a cause or a label? If you don’t stand for anything who cares what you think? The nation is polarized, but the idea that things are less civil is preposterous.
Washington does not have a “civility problem.” It has a polarization problem. Politicians aren’t any meaner now than they were 30 years ago. It’s just that over the last few decades, the two parties have become more ideologically coherent. Back in the 1950s, some Southern Democrats opposed racial integration, and some Republicans in the North favored a robust social safety net.
It was nice to see Governor Charlie Crist attending the events. Here’s a guy who has worn as many labels he can find. Now he’s trying to cast himself as above labels. Crist’s political journey over the last 18 months is one of legend. The reason Crist’s political career is over is because he represents what people don’t like… politicians. It’s not the labels, Crist. It’s the fact you will say or do anything to advance your career. Here’s a concept: stand for something!
The left pulled together every ounce of its faux outrage when it learned that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. I wonder how they feel about the fact that 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers and reporters went to Obama and Democrats?
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
This is hardly a shocking revelation to anyone who pays attention to the news on any network beside FOX. Most journalists lean left and despite their best efforts to remain objective their coverage tilts left. That’s why the Washington Post is so desperate for a race riot or anything they can cover that’s damaging to conservatives. I wonder how much these agents of change give to charity in comparison? Hmmm…
It’s only a few months until November and it’s not likely that any kind of economic rebound is going to save the Democrats in the Fall. The American public’s view of ObamaCare hasn’t gotten better (worse, if anything) and the Democrats do not have anything popular to offer. In fact, the two major pieces of their agenda, climate change and immigration, are political kryptonite. Some political observers are predicting an election tsunami:
That’s the projection of Republican new media maven Patrick Ruffini. Lest you write off his projection that a 70-seat Republican gain (which would leave Republicans with a 248-187 majority, larger than any they have won since 1928) keep in mind that Ruffini was one of the very first to predict that Marco Rubio could become the leader in the Florida Senate race and that Scott Brown had a very real chance to win in Massachusetts. Here I should add the usual caveats about how opinion can change and the balance of enthusiasm could change even faster. But the Democrats’ current tactic of prioritizing legislation to weaken Republicans’ standings (among all voters on financial regulation, among Hispanics on immigration, among young voters on cap-and-trade and the environment) doesn’t really address their current problem, which is that the Democrats’ standing among voters is at a record low and that they’re getting pasted in polls despite the fact that the Republicans’ standing among voters is not particularly high.
The question is what happens if this takes place? The Republicans don’t really have strong voice right now and I’m not sure what their prepared to offer if they’re ushered back into power. I know what the conservative/libertarian ideas are, but what does the GOP have to offer? Supposedly the GOP is small government, but what are they going to do?
Obama would have to meet in the middle to accomplish anything, but what would that mean? If the GOP wants to cash in on the current electoral landscape they need to come up with some populist ideas. Otherwise the White House is going to have a Saul Alinsky field day picking on various leaders in Congress. President Obama isn’t prepared for an ideological debate about fiscal issues.
I want to revisit a thought I touched on yesterday: “progressives” are full of empathy and have a great deal of pride in their empathy. The fact that they supposedly “care” means they’re not responsible for bad policies. When Democrats pass a stimulus bill that serves as pork barrel payback to special interests, it’s framed by the media as a way to save jobs for teachers and firefighters. Who could possibly be against that? To opposed the bill must make one heartless and cruel. What if the media framed the issue fairly, taking both sides of the issue into account?
The option here isn’t just about teachers and firefighters. The true story is about inflation, higher interest rates, and crippling the economy with debt. Instead of piling on Governor Mark Sanford for denying a federal handout, the real story should be how irresponsible all this spending is and documenting the dangers of government bankruptcy. The current course is going to affect everyone. This idea that having good intentions equals good policy is ludicrous.
This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue; both parties have shown an appetite for spending. Comparing the fiscal record of Republicans and Democrats is a beauty pageant between Miss Ugly and Miss Hideous. Why should I be impressed that Miss Hideous seems to care more about the disadvantaged when her policies are worse than Miss Ugly. Why should I care that Miss Ugly is a better alternative than Miss Hideous when her polices are still ugly? Such are the choices Americans face these days. What good are our social programs if they mean economic calamity for all? In future decades when we’re all living in cardboard huts are we going to look back and say, “You know, this isn’t so bad; at least everyone had health care for awhile before everything broke down. Yeah!”
I’m definitely not one to continually beat the doom-and-gloom drum, but this is a real problem. Instead of spending billions of dollars promoting the theory of global warming, wouldn’t it make more sense to educate people about the dangers of total economic collapse? A worldwide economic collapse is certainly a larger danger to mankind than global warming. Many people forget the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s helped create Nazi Germany. Desperate economic times creates chaos. The dangers facing the world today are much graver than before World War II. A similar economic meltdown would certainly mean a nuclear holocaust.
These are the real consequence facing our nation. The mounting debt and impending bankruptcy wouldn’t just be an economic bump in the road. Does anyone truly believe Americans today could survive another Great Depression? Every politician who promises unsustainable spending is betting yes.
Myth: Conservatives are ignorant, mind numbed robots who only listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News.
Reality: Conservatives are more likely to read articles with opposing views.
People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study. “It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they’re more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments,” Knobloch-Westerwick noted.
I wouldn’t read too much into this study. The fact conservatives are willing to read “opposing views” is probably due to the fact they’re inundated with liberal viewpoints. Mainstream news sources like the New York Times, NBC, Time, Newsweek, and the Washington Post are left leaning. It’s difficult to live in a bubble when NBC is working for the DNC.
As far as liberals are concerned, if you “feel” like you’re right about something what’s the point in researching it?
Last year Arthur C. Brooks published a book titled “Who Really Cares.” It attacked many of the incorrect assumptions that define Conservatives and Liberals. The main premise of the book was the fact that on average Conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
The idea the bleeding heart liberals care more and give more of their time to worthwhile causes is a perception that continues to exists. Another false perception is that Conservatives represent the rich. Brooks stated that Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. There’s an article in today’s Washington Times about a study by the Heritage Foundation that finds that Democrats are the party of the rich.
It appears that people who suffer from a liberal ideology believe they care more, give more, and are right about policy when in fact they have guilt about giving less, being rich, and being wrong. There’s some kind of self-loathing going on when everything is America’s fault. Katrina, that’s the government’s fault. The fires in California, that’s the government’s fault. During the last eight years it’s one thing after another that can be blamed on Bush. It’s no mystery that a huge government is incapable of providing the basic necessary aid to the people; however, it’s puzzling that Liberals believe more government is the answer to almost every problem. Well, is the government good or is the government inept? Please pick one and stick with it.
Recent Comments