Why are will still doing taxes like this in 2011?
One of the problems with being a political junkie is not being able to see the big picture. Political junkies are captivated by every detail of the GOP race when most people aren’t paying attention. It’s over 13 months until the general election and it’s over four months until the Iowa caucuses on February 6, 2012. Even the four months to Iowa is a lifetime in politics.
Beware of pundits who say a candidate is finished. In 2007, Senator John McCain came into a debate in October as the underdog. He was written off for his views on immigration. By the time the voting actually started McCain was in a powerful position.
There are a lot of debates before the first vote is cast. The press has no business shaping the debates. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have received the most attention during the three debates in September, but other candidates deserve the same amount of attention. During the last three debates Perry and Romney have offered nothing in specifics. Both have stuck to platitudes. After 2008, simply saying you’re different isn’t going to cut it. Americans want to know what you plan on doing.
This is really the opportunity for Newt Gingrich. There is no other politician around today who communicates real change better than the former House Speaker. Unfortunately, he’s been prone to say and do dumb things. Politicians have talking about entitlement reform and changing the broken tax system for decades. How much longer do we have to wait?
The right leader could help the United State repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and move to a simpler tax code. We need to encourage saving instead of consumption. After nearly 100 years it’s clear that our income tax system isn’t efficient. A national sales tax would raise more revenue, be easier to collect, and would be far more fair than our current tax system. The status quo isn’t the answer. It’s time for change. Is there anyone out there ready to lead?
I haven’t made up my mind about Rick Perry. The Daily Plunge has written a lot about the Texas governor over the past six weeks, but that’s because he’s the most compelling political development in the GOP race at the moment. Also, there’s a very good chance that he could become the next president. Another interesting thing about Perry is that Team Bush is firmly opposed to his nomination. Since Reagan left office no other family has dominated a political party like the Bush family. The Bush family has had a stranglehold on the GOP establishment.
In 1980, it was George H. W. Bush who coined the term “voodoo economics.” When Reagan picked Bush as his VP it was like picking the ultimate company man. Bush had been the head of the CIA and the head of the GOP. Every GOP nominee for president since 1980 has had a testy relationship with the Bush family. Bob Dole had a long history of disagreements with George H. W. Bush. John McCain’s problems with George W. Bush are well documented. Let’s not forget about Texan Ross Perot. Perot’s 1992 campaign was the greatest anti-Bush crusade ever, aside from MoveOn.org and the legions of leftists who lost their marbles during the W presidency.
How has the Bush family managed to get away with this for so long? I can’t say, but the rise of Perry could threaten the Bush “kinder gentler, compassionate conservative” garbage that conservatives have had to endure since 1988. George W. Bush escaped the wrath of conservatives because of his Texas accent and 9/11. The party rallied around the President after that terrible day and he piled on big government while conservatives turned a blind eye.
Matt Latimer has a great article in The Daily Beast about the rift between Team Bush and Team Perry. Team Bush is already well underway trying to derail the Perry campaign.
While in the White House, Bush 2 and his aides regularly scoffed at Perry for reasons that were never fully clear, making fun of his syntax and intellectual prowess without any sense of irony. In 2010 the Bush family, along with Rove and Karen Hughes, undertook an unprecedented effort to kick him out of the governor’s chair, handing a crowbar to Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom they judged more “electable.” Perry walloped her in the GOP primary, then went on to win a historic third term in the general election by a double-digit margin. So much for electability.
But Rove is nothing if not persistent. Now he and his operatives seem to have something close to a war room against Perry, scrutinizing his every statement in an attempt to cut his young candidacy short. After Rove called Perry “unpresidential,” former Bush press secretary Tony “Ralph Malph” Fratto joined in—calling Perry, you guessed it, “unpresidential.” This was followed in quick succession by similar sentiments from a former Rove aide, Pete “Potsie” Wehner. Meanwhile, two “unnamed” Bush aides (wonder who they could be?) issued the following warning to The New York Times: “If you’re really trying to be the nominee and want to go the distance, you just don’t want the former president of the United States and his people working against you.” (Then again, that’s what the Bushes told Kay Bailey Hutchison.)
Latimer gives Rove too much credit. This has been the Bush modus operandi for decades. Karl Rove is to George W. Bush as Lee Atwater was to George H. W. Bush. Atwater and Rove were both great political minds at the disposal of their boss. The story here is of Texas. Texas is a big state and I’m sure there are plenty of natives who remember the state before it became synonymous with Team Bush. John Connolly, John Nance Garner or Sam Houston anyone?
In hindsight, the problem with George W. Bush wasn’t that he was from Texas. The problem with Bush was that he was the son of the established Big Government GOP and Ivy League to boot. There’s no other family in America that represents the GOP aristocracy better than the Bush family. That doesn’t mean they’re evil, but controlling the GOP is not something that the family wants to give up. The next GOP president who isn’t named Bush will loosen their stranglehold on the party. If the next GOP president is from Texas they might lose their hold on the Lone Star state and Texans of all stripes will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
I don’t like Governor Charlie Crist. He represents the worst thing about Republicans. Crist is not interested in taking a principled stand on any issue. He would rather do whatever it takes to remain popular to advance his political career. Unless there’s some kind of political upheaval in the next few weeks Crist’s political career is over.
It should also be noted that Crist helped McCain get the GOP nomination. In the 2008 Florida Primary, Crist’s endorsement helped push McCain past Romney. At the time that was Crist’s high water mark for political relevence. Now he’s being bashed by everyone, even George Will. Will has an op-ed in The Washington Post discussing how rare it is to find a politician who is honest about our entitlement crisis. Governor Crist is cited as an example.
A recent debate on “Fox News Sunday” illustrated the differences between the few politicians who are, and the many who are not, willing to face facts. Marco Rubio, the former speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives who is challenging Gov. Charles Crist for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, made news by stating the obvious.
Asked how the nation might address the projected $17.5 trillion in unfunded Social Security liabilities, Rubio said that we should consider two changes for people 10 or more years from retirement. One would raise the retirement age. The other would alter the calculation of benefits: Indexing them to inflation rather than wage increases would substantially reduce the system’s unfunded liabilities.
Neither idea startles any serious person. But Crist, with the reflex of the unreflective, rejected both and said that he would fix Social Security by eliminating “waste” and “fraud,” of which there is little. The system’s problems are the result not of incompetent administration but of improvident promises made by Congress.
Synthetic indignation being the first refuge of political featherweights, Crist’s campaign announced that he believes Rubio’s suggestions are “cruel, unusual and unfair to seniors living on a fixed income.” They are indeed unusual, because flinching from the facts of the coming entitlements crisis is the default position of all but a responsible few, such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Rubio. What is ultimately cruel is Crist’s unserious pretense that America faces only palatable choices and that improvident promises can be fully funded with money currently lost to waste and fraud.
There’s not much to add to Will’s point. Crist’s rhetoric and other politicians who mimic it are a disgrace. The nation has no hope of tackling difficult issues as long as there are politicians like Crist around. I’m not sure Rubio will be any better, but it’s difficult to believe he’s worse than Crist. I expect this stuff from all politicians (especially Democrats), but if the Republicans ever want to be considered a serious alternative this stuff has to end.
When Sarah Palin was first announced as John McCain’s running mate, I had no clue who she was. After digging around a bit and following various website trails to learn about her background, record and basic ideology, I was pretty excited.
Though I had not seen anything of Palin at that point, besides her record as governor and her basic policy positions, I was sure McCain had made the right choice. It also pointed out McCain’s shortcomings, particularly his penchant to “reach across the aisle” and come up with crappy legislation, all of which came out in stark relief for me after the Palin announcement.
During my research I was able to track down some television interviews with her, including one she did as a dual interview with Janet Napolitano on Charlie Rose (Napolitano was governor of Arizona at the time). In this interview, and others she conducted before she became the vice-presidential candidate, Palin came across as poised and well-informed about issues in Alaska, and primarily Alaska’s energy policy.
Then it all started to unravel. She gave what was arguably the best speech at either convention, but afterwards never strayed from the talking points of that speech. And, when taken off her talking points, she seemed rather clueless.
On the other hand, if one looks objectively at the manner of questioning Palin received at the hands of Charles Gibson and Katie Couric and compared them to the questioning of Barack Obama, there is an enormous difference in the style and specificity of the interviews. In essence, Obama was asked questions like, “Why are you so awesome?” Palin’s questions (and Hillary Clinton’s for that matter when she was running against Obama) were more along the lines of, “Who is the president of Tanzania?” (Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete.)
Still, this is no excuse. You should be ready for anything, and ready to tell the interviewer they’re full of crap, if need be. She did neither and it made her look foolish. Perhaps in the context of the entire interview she did okay, but in politics, and particularly if you’re a conservative woman, you better understand that every little misstep will be played and replayed much to the delight of fascist haters like Olbermann, Maddow and Maher.
My theory is that Palin, to some degree, was reined in by the McCain people, who played the entire campaign as safely as possible. The McCain campaign’s philosophy seemed to be to run toward the middle as much as possible and emphasize McCain’s “strengths” as a compromiser who would get stuff done in Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately for McCain, and for the rest of us (conservatives at least), the only thing this strategy accomplished was to make McCain look like a pointless, nondescript bureaucrat. If you didn’t bother to research both candidates’ legislative records and policy positions, you could discern no significant difference between McCain and Obama. And, in that scenario, Obama wins every time because his rhetoric is feel-good Middle America, and he’s far more telegenic and charismatic than that old white guy who seems to say nothing of consequence.
It was this strategy that muzzled Palin to some degree. She probably had to second-guess every answer before she gave an answer based on the strict parameters provided by McCain’s people. In that case, the best course of action is to stick with the talking points. I don’t agree with it, obviously, but there it is.
In the end, McCain’s loss in the general election had nothing to do with Palin, and everything to do with his incompetence as a candidate. Rather than provide the electorate with bold colors, McCain chose instead to provide them with pale pastels. Palin, at least based on her ideological positions as governor of Alaska, provided the bold colors for which many yearned.
Moreover, Palin was not one of the “smartest people in the room,” a.k.a., those who have the proper credentials: Harvard, Yale, practice at an upper echelon law firm or the equivalent in another industry, then direct immersion into politics.
The problem with the “smartest people in the room” is that they have proven to be either complete morons, extremely corrupt, or some combination thereof. People are tired of the elites, who snobbishly tell them how stupid they are and what’s best for them while running roughshod over everything in their path.
The jokers at Enron, Lehman Brothers, Fannie and Freddie and Bear Stearns, university professors, the current administration and others in power with the “right” pedigree have done everything short of physically mugging every citizen in America. Many Americans have tired of their shenanigans and their constant meddling in the lives of individuals.
In response, many people attached themselves to Palin because, whether rightly or wrongly, she represents someone who knows what it’s like to live a normal, practical existence who also has to deal with the fallout from ignorant Harvard grads using the rest of as Guinea Pigs for their wrong-headed, impractical and destructive social engineering projects and Ponzi schemes.
Whether or not she’s ready to deal with the day to day and complex issues that face a president is another question. My answer is no, not yet, but I’m exhausted by the constant beat-down Palin receives in the media, which totally disregards any of her accomplishments in favor of lurid rumor-mongering.
Though I’m not a big fan of multi-part commentary on blogs, I figured some background on Palin’s ascension to the national spotlight was crucial before launching into commentary on the constant belittling she’s received from the left, her resignation, and her potential future.
Today is Super Tuesday and the election is drawing closer. As always it has been a really fascinating process watching it all play out. The Democrat race has been a lot more exciting and it’s a lot more important. Unless something changes the political landscape between now and November a Democrat is going to be the next President of the United States. The likely choice seems to be Hillary Clinton. She isn’t really the popular choice, but the inevitable one.
On the Republican side it’s a blood bath. There never was a candidate that excited the base. Now it appears the Senator John McCain will be the likely Republican representative. He was able to win the liberal leaning Republican states while Huckabee and Romney split the vote in the Southern and Western states. McCain is a disaster for the Republican party. He doesn’t excite the base, many conservatives won’t vote for him, and in a year that the economy is likely to be a major issue he’s woefully unprepared to debate the topic. All of these factors add up to a landslide. Much will be written in the next twenty-four months about the “death of the Republican party” which is of course what always happens in bad election years. It’s not true of course, but this is the result of eight years of moderate Bush rule. He passed huge liberal bills (No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drugs), ran up the deficit, refused to secure the boarders, and that’s leaving out his foreign policy follies. The President was never a conservative and he’s leaving the White House with his party deflated and shattered.
The biggest change likely on the horizon is the courts. Four to eight years of a Democrat White House will mean some of the older liberal judges such as Ginsburg and Stevens will be replaced with younger leftists. The big question will be about Justice Kennedy who is the swing vote. He’s over 80 years old and if he steps down the court will take on a strict liberal interpretation of the constitution (or BYOC “bring your own constitution”). I don’t expect there to be any sweeping changes from the legislative branch.
Even if Democrats control all three branches of government, the margins are so slim it makes major changes close to impossible to implement. The Democrats lack the support to create any huge programs, and they lack the intelligence to deal with the fiscal problems facing the nation (not that the Republicans are any better). So is this the death of the Republic? There’s a lot of talk about change in this election, but I just see more of the same pandering populism that got us where we are today. Maybe the Republicans will learn from this disaster.
Last night’s Republican presidential debate was the first debate I’ve watched from beginning to end. These kind of debates are normally boring, but this one managed to remain relatively entertaining. The Republican race is easily more fascinating right now that the Democrat side. It appears to just about everyone that Senator Clinton has a vice grip on the nomination. This was clearly evident when her name came up over and over during the course of the night.
It’s a bit silly to declare a winner for these events. There are some losers though. Clearly two people have no business even being in the race right now. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are just taking up space. Ron Paul isn’t exactly lighting up the polls either, but at least there are people really excited about his campaign. With so little time remain Here were the three candidates I thought looked particularly good last night.
Rudy Giuliani: Say what you want about his politics, the man can think quick on his feet. Any normal politician would have been dead and buried now with his nuanced positions on topics from gun control to abortion. Rudy was taking a beating early in the debate but managed to look good. For political junkies a Hillary vs. Rudy is the dream match up, but I just can’t see Giuliani keeping this ship afloat much longer.
Fred Thompson: Thompson looked much more comfortable on the stage than during his last debate. It seemed to me he had the toughest questions to answer throughout the night. He was asked about the Turkey/Iraq standoff, Social Security, and whether or not he was “lazy.” Thompson seemed well prepared and he was very funny throughout.
John McCain: The Senator from Arizona came out swinging. I’ve never been a huge fan of McCain but I was really impressed with him last night. In many ways he seemed the most presidential. There’s no doubt McCain is the most qualified person running for president. He thrives in the underdog role and at this point he’s a real long shot. His love affair with the press is over, but “the comeback” is a good story.
Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee also had a strong showing. There’s no doubt he’s well versed in the culture of corruption the Clinton’s left in Arkansas (see: whitewater). Huckabee is funny and communicates very well, but some of his economic ideas (CEO salaries for example) are outdated.
Mitt Romney is a robot. His answers are too canned. The former governor of Massachusetts just seems too packaged to me. There are just too many inconsistencies about Romney for me to take him seriously.
The field is wide open. There’s no clear front runner. My gut tells me it’s between Rudy, Thompson, and McCain. With the pushed up primary season this may all be wrapped up by February. The Republicans have a lot of ground to make up before November 2008 if they hope to keep the White House. Oh yeah, President Bush is still in the oval office. His name was conspicuously absent during the debate.
The 2008 presidential election is just a little over a year away. Things are finally starting to take shape. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. None of the candidates have done anything to get me excited. Let’s look at the Democrat side first.
Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton is the front runner for the nomination. She has the money, name recognition, and policy experience. There’s perhaps no savvier politician in the race. Since 1999 her life has been spent preparing for this race. Clinton’s connections in the Democrat party shouldn’t be underestimated, and it’s difficult seeing anyone else denying her an opportunity to secure the nomination. In the primary she’s running as the most presidential and electable candidate. Hillary isn’t a fantastic speaker but she knows her stuff. She has high unfavorable ratings, but in a general election anything is possible. It’s difficult to pick a winner this far out but I have to think she’s likely the next President of the United States.
Barack “Mr. Cellophane” Obama
The Illinois Senator has had a rough few months. The debates against Hillary haven’t gone well. Obama’s weakness is inexperience. Hillary has exposed that during the debates and he’s reinforced it with some of his comments on foreign policy. Obama represented the fresh face (much like Edwards in 2004), but he’s too far to the Left to win a general election. This “electability” factor is ultimately what ended Howard Dean’s hopes in 2004 and is what is going against Obama. Given his widespread appeal it’s difficult to believe he would be tipped to be VP on a Clinton ticket.
On the Democrat side that’s basically it. John Edwards has really lost the plot recently. He’s been in a media war with Ann Coulter and has basically (at least in perception) dropped to her level. It’s strange, I once thought Edwards had a real shot at being President, but his high water mark was before the 2004 convention. There are still many Democrats that would vote for Al Gore, but time is running out. It’s perhaps already too late for another candidate to come into the race this late and contend against the Clinton juggernaut.
Republicans
The Republicans are lost at the moment. There’s no clear front runner. The field is wide open. This can best be seen in the amount of money raised by the candidates. Republicans just aren’t excited about the current crop of contenders. It’s sort of amazing that the President never lined up some kind of successor. Eisenhower had Nixon, Reagan had Bush, and Clinton had Gore. Unless something drastic happens over the next six months Bush’s role in selecting a Republican nominee will diminish. Given his current popularity that might be a good thing for Republicans.
Rudy Giuliani
The former mayor of New York City is the closest thing to a front runner on the Republican side of things. It would be an interesting twist in history. In 2000 he was slated to run against Hillary Clinton for the New York Senate seat. After being diagnosed with cancer (among other messy personal issues) Giuliani withdrew his candidacy. Hillary went on to win the seat and Rudy went on to become Time’s Person of the Year after 9/11. His popularity since that event has propelled him toward the Republican nomination despite being socially liberal on several issues. In any other year his views on topics like abortion would be debilitating, but this isn’t any ordinary election. Giuliani is a great speaker, his speech at the 2004 Republican convention was the most memorable moment of the event. After eight years of divisiveness it’s difficult seeing the Left warm up to Rudy. I’m not sure the country is ready for that.
Mitt Romney
I really don’t know what to think of the former Governor of Massachusetts. His Dad George W. Romney ran unsuccessfully for president in 1968 when Nixon secured the Republican nomination. Much has been made of the fact that he’s Mormon. Some of the national polls regarding voting for someone of Mormon faith have been shocking. It appears that there’s more reluctance on the part of Americans to vote for a Mormon than for a woman or African American. Perhaps these polls are inaccurate, but it’s still a perception going again Romney. The fact that he’s flip-flopped on many issues is disconcerting as well. Flip-flopping dogged the Kerry campaign and is hurting Romney as well.
John McCain
For a long time McCain has been viewed as the strongest Republican candidate. After the immigration bill fiasco it’s plausible that McCain isn’t even a serious challenger. It’s an amazing turn of events for someone who has been the center of Presidential speculation the past eight years. The Senator from Arizona has never been a hero to conservatives, even though at this point he’s likely the most conservative candidate left. I think it’s too early to write him off entirely, but it’s going to be an uphill climb from here.
Fred Thompson
What is going on with this guy? Is he running or not running? The former Senator from Tennessee has been teasing Republicans for months now and the act may be getting old. It appears he’ll announce sometime in September, but has he missed an opportunity to cash in when the buzz was at its peak? Thompson still remains somewhat of an unknown at this point. He hasn’t been in any debates and remained on the outside of the process. He’s promised an unconventional campaign, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will help his cause.
Unlike the Democrat side there’s still a lot of money up for grabs. This makes it easier for someone to come in later in the process and mount a serious challenge. Thompson could be part of the reason Republican donors are holding onto their money. There are several other less known candidates that might come out of nowhere. Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is one example. Right now I have no feel for what is happening on the Republican side. If I had to pick someone right now it would have to be Rudy, but I’m just guessing. The next 15 months should be fun.
Recent Comments