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 was too tired last night to write a recap of last night’s FOX News/Google debate in Orlando, Fla., but it was a big debate. Rick Perry was terrible last night. He didn’t just fade; he didn’t show up. Perry stumbled through almost every question. Instead of getting better, he seems unprepared to answer the simplest of questions.
Perry’s big splash in the race has crippled Michele Bachmann’s candidacy. Mitt Romney is the one really benefiting from Perry’s entrance in the race. Suddenly Romney appears presidential and safe. As Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Bachmann beat up on Perry, Romney just watches with glee. The GOP establishment is falling over themselves trying to say it’s over for Perry, but that’s just hyperbole. However, Perry really need to step up his game in these debates.
Perry’s two biggest problems are the vaccination business and immigration. Bachmann has got all she can out of the HPV vaccination. The best part? Bachmann is sinking fast. Perry has a real problem with immigration. Illegal immigration is a complex topic. There’s no concensus on how to solve it; however, Perry might get buried on it because Santorum Bachmann, and Huntsman are unrelenting in their attack on Perry. I’ve written about Perry’s luck in politics in Texas, but he’s gonna need a healthy dose of it to survive these attacks. On the flip side, Perry’s stance on immigration is likely to be a plus in the general election, if he ever makes it that far.
This race is Mitt Romney’s to lose at this point. The establishment is on his side. He’s the best politician in the field. You have to be a great politician to change your positions as often as he has in the past ten years. One last thing that Mitt Romney has going… he’s left-handed. Since President Ford, the United States has elected two right-handed presidents (Carter, Bush 2). President Reagan was ambidextrous, so maybe we should be looking for that trait in a candidate.
Finally, Newt Gingrich has been the best in all three debates in September. Gingrich’s problem is that he’s too unpredictable to support. It’s a shame, because he’d crush Obama in a debate.
Last night’s CNN Tea Party Debate was a lively affair. This was by far the best debate so far. Wolf Blitzer did a good job of moving the debate forward and there were some great questions. The one issue is that at least two people should be gone. Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum have no business being on the stage or in the race.
Overall it was a good night for Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney. Bachmann really nailed Perry on the HVC vaccination business in Texas. It’s Perry versus the world right now and everyone was piling on about this issue. I don’t mean to dismiss it. Perry made a mistake, but there are other issues that are much more important. I don’t see how it cripples him when RomneyCare exists.
Whatever ground Bachmann gained last night has been squandered after the debate. She claimed that the vaccination causes “mental retardation.” The comment is stupid for a variety of different reasons and completely unnecessary.
So where are we?
There are two major players right now. I don’t think Bachmann can get back in the race. She went for Perry’s throat last night, but her weakness is lack of experience and the fact she puts her foot in mouth.
Mitt Romney has RomneyCare. It reeks and I can’t see how he gets the nomination. Rick Perry has some issues with illegal immigration in Texas. No candidate is perfect. If it’s a choice between RomneyCare and a candidate who is soft on illegal immigration I think Perry wins. Right now, there’s no consensus position on illegal immigration. As long as that continues it is a wedge issue. Everyone hates ObamaCare.
Former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty endorsed the pandering Mitt Romney today. Just a few weeks ago Pawlenty was telling us that it was time to give Americans the truth. Since then his campaign has ended. Pawlenty’s sole accomplishment was running up campaign debts. Apparently Romney is going to help. Hmm… That couldn’t have anything to do with the the endorsement, could it?
Anyway, no sooner did Pawlenty endorse Romney than popular Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal endorsed Rick Perry. Pawelenty must be asking what he’s done to anger the election gods. Even when he makes a high profile endorsement he’s overshadowed. Neither endorsement is Earth-shattering, but Jindal’s endorsement helps Perry more than Pawlenty’s endorsement helps Romney.
After trying to build a campaign on “truth” Pawlenty’s endorsement of Romney is politics as usual. Shouldn’t Pawlenty be concerned that Romney is trying to convince anyone who will listen that Perry wants senior citizens to eat dog food? I guess not.
Now, the only question left is who wraps up the Huntsman endorsement. The answer is likely Barack Obama.
Gossip Girl or serious journalist? After watching the Republican debate on MSNBC last night I'm leaning toward Gossip Girl.
As usual, Henshaw made some good points about last night’s Republican debate, though I’m not sure I agree with his winners and losers. Alas, it is quite difficult to come up with an objective list of winners and losers since a debate isn’t quite as easy to score as, say, a boxing match. And even boxing matches that declare a winner without a KO are sometimes controversial.
Even so, here’s my list of winners, losers and those who fought to a draw… Winners: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Losers: Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman. Draw: Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
Part of my problem scoring and declaring a winner is that these debates don’t allow for much explanation by any one candidate, thus they tend to stick to rhetoric and key words. Even when it’s narrowed down to two candidates during the Presidential race, debates don’t offer much substance.
Still, the candidates could make a move away from the pack by better articulating core principles. In the case of a conservative candidate, one of these core principles, and what is perhaps the most important one, is the role of the Federal government.
Ron Paul and Herman Cain came closest to hitting the mark on this, though no one’s really listening to them. The others danced around it and the moderators probably don’t know the difference between Federalism and oligarchy, though they certainly know how to gossip (“A friend of your campaign manager said that Rick Perry is a wussie. Why is he a wussie?”)
There was a golden opportunity at this debate to point out that the governors in the debate did the best they could with the circumstances specific to their states and the needs of their constituents. And that’s the point. Who best to make decisions for the welfare of its citizens than local and state government? And, who is more accountable to their voters than local and state government?
You can yammer on and on about this and that you did as governor, or that this governor had this much or this little job growth in his state, but it’s just a waste of time. Just once I’d like to see a candidate point out that an ever-encroaching Federal government endangers the individual and his liberty. The growth of the Federal government is, in fact, a move toward oligarchy; rule by the few over the many. Moreover, it’s an oligarchy that favors certain people and groups over others, destroying the concept of equality before the law. The bailouts, stimulus and health care bamboozles are striking examples of this inequality created by cronyism.
Still, I don’t know how much you can blame the candidates for their shallow answers. The moderators made it quite difficult to provide any depth by purposely pitting one candidate against the other and framing the questions to make it sound as if they were defending the indefensible. “Rick Perry, Romney said or did this. Respond,” or, “Why are Republicans so heartless?” Bullshit. Ask them a real policy question.
Speaking of BS, how about that brief foray into “science”? The Charlie Crist-like Huntsman took a sideways swipe at Perry, playing the ever-so-reasonable-and-moderate Republican card. He’s pro-science because he has not an ounce of skepticism about the wild-eyed lunatic-fringe claims of a madman (Al Gore)?
Meanwhile, Perry’s response was less than adequate. Once again, a golden opportunity to put the nail in the coffin of the climate change debate wasted. Will anyone rise to the occasion and point out simple logic? As a reminder, logical and thought-provoking arguments Perry could have made include:
- The sun may have something to do with our climate, given that it accounts for 99.86 percent of the mass of the entire solar system
- The climate has been changing for more than four billion years; it always has and it always will. This would mark the first time in the history of earth that a species was willfully unable to adapt to a changing climate. Who’s more stupid, the dinosaurs who simply didn’t know they needed to adapt, or human beings who drown in extremely slow-rising water because they thought the government was going to do something about it?
- Do Climate Changelings/Global Warmongers really believe that we have the power to regulate the earth’s thermostat, and if we did, what is the proper setting?
- Further, if we had the power to regulate the climate, who makes the decision about where to set the thermostat and who benefits from the settings? Will the entire earth be like San Diego, or will only those parts the enviro-nitwits care about live eternally in San Diego’s climate?
- Global warming is far better for life on earth than is global cooling. You can look it up. But the beauty of “climate change” is that you can claim the climate’s changing no matter what’s going on globally or locally. A little warmer this year? Climate change! Unusually cold another? Climate change! No change? Climate change!
The whole thing is absurd, as is the case for a larger and more meddlesome federal government, and yet it’s nearly impossible to get a cohesive, coherent and concise answer on either subject from the candidates. Immigration? I know that Rick Santorum’s grandparents were immigrants, but that doesn’t tell me jack diddly about his plan.
Perhaps most absurd, and also the best part of the debate, was the commercial produced by Californians for Population Stabilization, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there’s a special interest group for anything and everything these days.
Californians for Population Stabilization is against legal immigration. That’s right, legal immigrants are taking jobs away from Californians and Californians for Population Stabilization wants to end this travesty. What’s next? Californians against Seeing Eye Dogs and other Working Dogs?
httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryd1-xco9cg
The GOP field is almost set. Today Paul Ryan said he isn’t going to pursue the nomination. That only leaves one big player: Sarah Palin. Palin has a fiercely devoted following. Everything she says is news. The left hates her. She’s one of the nation’s best political communicators, but will she pursue the nomination?
I have no clue whether she’ll run. With all the Palin activity it looks like a campaign. One week she has a bus tour. Next week she has a big event in Iowa. One thing is for certain, Palin always draws a big crowd. Her biggest problem is that many GOP voters are suffering from Palin fatigue. The other problem is that she’s unelectable. Four years of political commentary and vicious attacks have reduced Palin to a polarizing figure.
Why is she waiting? If Palin decides not to run it makes perfect sense to draw out the anticipation for as long as possible. Once Palin is out of the way she will lose a bit of her draw. As it stands Mitt Romney would benefit the most from a Palin run. Palin would draw votes from Perry/Bachmann and would make Romney’s path to the nomination easier.
Palin will likely make her final decision soon. When that happens the field will be set. There might be a couple of additional names, but George Pataki isn’t going to shake up the race.
In a move that is a surprise to almost no one, Texas governor Rick Perry has officially announced his candidacy for president. The race really heats up now. Mitt Romney is the GOP establishment guy to a certain degree. Romney will hope Bachmann and Paul siphon votes away from Perry. Many liberals seem to be in denial about the rise of Perry. Just check out this Guardian piece:
Can he win? He is probably too conservative, even for American tastes, but he’s popular in Texas, having won re-election in 2002, 2006 and 2010. He also has an impressive record in job creation, and Texas is bucking the national trend of economic gloom.
Will Obama be worried? Not really. But several other radical rightwing Christian Republican hopefuls – Michele Bachmann included – will be.
Do say: “Let us all kneel and pray that Rick Perry never becomes president.”
Simply confessing Christian values makes one a “radical rightwing Christian Republican.” I know it’s abhorrent to many liberals, but most Americans don’t believe in global warming. Perry is actually in the American mainstream on that position.
What will happen? I’m not sure. Romney is a formidable opponent and the GOP always seems to nominate the guy who has paid his dues. But maybe this isn’t a ordinary election. Rick Perry’s biggest obstacle to being the next president is Romney. The air is going out of the President Obama experiment. Obama wasn’t qualified for the office. Worse, he’s too liberal to govern a center-right nation. The bigger questions is this… who would want to be president right now?
Will he or won't he?
If you want to seriously run for President, time is running out. Last night CNN held a presidential debate in New Hampshire. There are about a million things more entertaining than watching a faux debate 17 months before election day. Read Club Soda’s post and check out Hot Air’s winners and losers for a recap.
I won’t go into a candidate analysis until the field is set. However, things are getting closer to having a complete field. It’s possible that someone could jump in late, but it’s not likely to change the race. The campaign infrastructure is being built right now. Plus, the Romney, Pawlenty and Bachmann campaigns will be raising money over the next six months to gear up for Iowa and New Hampshire. That’s a difficult head start to overcome.
There are four top tier candidates who could declare right now: Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan. I don’t think Palin will run this time around; however, she might have a tremendous influence on who gets the nomination if she chooses to endorse a candidate. Paul Ryan and Chris Christie are adamant that they’re not running and it doesn’t appear that they will change their minds. Ryan could still potentially be a great running mate for the eventually nominee. That leaves Texas governor Rick Perry.
Supposedly Rick Perry is “thinking” about running for president. Great, so am I. So is Donald Trump. If Perry is serious he’ll have to make a decision soon for all the reasons I listed above. Perry isn’t a friend of the GOP establishment. Normally that would be a huge problem, but this would likely a huge plus for his potential candidacy. People don’t want Bush 3.0. The fact that Karl Rove and George Bush aren’t on board the Perry Train is a plus. However, Perry can’t wait three months to get in the race.
The country is need of real leadership. A half-hearted attempt at running for president isn’t going to cut it.
Here are a few deranged tweets about Rick Perry. Enjoy!
There you have it. Rick Perry is “pure evil.” Is it really surprising that the Associated Press is still floating this picture around? Kathryn Scags’ Twitter profile says that she’s an Atheist, and a recovering Catholic. Apparently Atheists are experts on what is evil. Who knew?
"The Jetsons or The Flintstones?"
Last night’s Republican presidential debate on CNN was perhaps the most substantive debate I’ve seen in awhile, despite CNN’s lack of maturity. The candidates mainly stuck to the issues and were pointedly averse to using their time to attack each other. In my book, that’s a good thing, particularly this early in the cycle. I want to know where they stand and their ideological philosophy, not how they perceive their rivals’ weaknesses. That can come later as we move closer to primary season.
What’s frustrating about these debates, particularly when they’re hosted by CNN, is how much time is wasted on frivolity. John King, who moderated the debate, did a lot better than Anderson Cooper (the king of frivolity) when Anderson moderated it in the last election cycle.
King constantly reminded the candidates that time was of the essence, yet he took precious time to ask a silly round of “this and that” questions: American Idol or Dancing with the Stars, for instance. Okay, if you insist on doing “this and that,” how about something more substantive, such as “Jefferson or Adams,” or “Israel or Palestine,” or “Keynes or Hayek” or “cash or credit”?
The candidates were mostly on message, though I tire of the time-wasting preambles used mainly by Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum to establish their bonafides as men of the people. “My father worked in a mill. We’re a union family. I come from a working class background. My grandfather was black, my mother is Hispanic and my sister is a handicapped Native American lesbian teacher. I ran away from home at the age of 13, fought with Andrew Jackson, opposed Jackson as a Congressman and died defending liberty in the Alamo.” Just answer the question!
Similarly, we’re forced to suffer through the patriotic preambles whenever a member of the audience who asks a question is connected to the military in some way: “Let me first say that I honor your sacrifice, a sacrifice that guarantees our precious freedoms, blah blah blah.” Once again, just answer the question! Time is ticking away!
If President Obama loses his bid for reelection next year it will be because of the poor economy. If the election was this November he would be toast, but there’s still a year to go. I don’t expect much to change in the next year, but some positive movement would help Obama’s chances. To get an idea of how bad Obama’s prospects for reelection are just check out this Washington Post poll.
New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week, making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.
Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.
Romney is up 3 points in survey of registered voters? Ouch! That means a poll of likely voters would be even worse for Obama. Imagine of Obama was up against a candidate that people actually liked? I know, I know, that may never happen, but one can dream.
It’s still a long way out, but Obama needs a lot to go right between now and November 2012. People said the same thing in June, 2007 and he became president. Last year the economy was showing signs of recovery and it really hasn’t happened yet. The President really can’t do much to jump start things at this point. Plus, all the pointless “stimulus” spending has only masked the problems. There’s an even a chance things could be worse next year. If that happens, Obama could face electoral disaster. Time will tell.
Recent Comments