October 16-17, 2011
Oct 16 00:12 Mitt's Undoing? Oct 16 08:26 Identifying Occupy Duluth Protesters Oct 16 13:44 Fanning's TV debut Oct 16 18:15 Clarifying Romney Oct 17 09:33 Mitt's Pork Brigade Oct 17 17:08 What If President Obama's Campaign Died & People Didn't Care?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mitt's Undoing?
The media and the GOP establishment have hopped on the Mitt bandwagon. That isn't surprising but it's telling. The GOP establishment isn't in touch with main street. That isn't surprising but it's disturbing.
During Saturday's edition of the Journal Editorial Report, WSJ columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz objected when host Paul Gigot said that people couldn't be sure what to expect from Gov. Romney. She said "You do know where he stands in my view. You know he doesn't want to transform the government of the United States or the system of the United States. We have here a candidate who can win. And there's nobody else in this race who can make that claim.
Thankfully, James Freeman jumped in, saying "I don't believe in the electability argument. I think people are actually looking for reform and so the idea that you can get elected by not offending anyone, I don't think that's the story of this upcoming election."
Give Mr. Freeman the championship trophy. He's rightly diagnosed this election. There isn't much right about this government. The NLRB isn't worth saving in its current form. The EPA isn't worth saving in its current form.
We need to repeal Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. Then there's a need to reform taxes. We need to get the Interior Department to start letting out leases for the next generation of oil exploration.
Mitt's paid lip service to these things but his history is the better determinant of whether he's sincere. Simply put, Mitt's history doesn't match his rhetoric. I won't vote for someone who can't be trusted.
We know where Newt stands. He's reformed welfare as we know it. He's led the House in putting in place policies that created 11,000,000 jobs and 4 surpluses in 4 years. He was in just his 2nd term in office when he helped push through the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that triggered the Reagan Revolution.
In 1994, he teamed with Frank Luntz to come up with the Contract With America . Thanks to that document, Republicans recaptured the majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. Here are the 10 items on the Contract:
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
Mitt's best described as a technocrat. Newt's best described as a visionary and an inspirational figure.
Anyone that thinks Mitt cares a bit about cutting spending and creating surpluses is kidding themselves. It's important to understand that the key to the long-term health of the United States is to shrink the national debt. This isn't just about cutting the annual deficit. It's about cutting the debt, freeing up capital for private markets and restoring fiscal sanity.
If we aren't serious about shrinking the debt, then, to quote Newt, "we might as well all buy bonds and go the way of Greece."
Does anyone think that Mitt will pick strict constructionist judges to all levels of the court? He might but that's hardly confidence-boosting. I'm confident, though, that Newt will pick strict constructionist judges because he's committed to restoring the judiciary to its rightful historical role in American governance.
Seriously, if you look at Mitt's history, there's more evidence that he's a New England liberal than anything else. Why would we pick a northeastern liberal when we can pick a southern conservative?
As Mr. Freeman suggested, this election should be about bold reforms. It shouldn't be about worrying whether the GOP's agenda offends the liberals. They won't vote for a Republican anyway.
Picking a solutions-oriented visionary like Newt is the best bet to turn President Obama into a one-term wonder. Mitt's the best bet to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted Sunday, October 16, 2011 12:12 AM
No comments.
Identifying Occupy Duluth Protesters
After reading this WDIO article , I decided to Google the leader's name to see what type of man we're talking about. This Duluth News article sheds alot of light on the rally leader of Occupy Duluth. First, let's look at the WDIO article:
Local protestors who are a part of the movement dubbed "Occupy Duluth" are making a statement with their rally. They're preparing to protest through the night.
Dozens of supporters showed up at the Minnesota Power Plaza starting at 9 o'clock this morning. They're protesting in solidarity with those who have been camping out near Wall Street in New York. They've held several rallies and meetings within the last week preparing for occupation. Today there was music, a tent, and other accommodations to encourage anyone to join in.
"We're just trying to set up a festive, fun, family friendly atmosphere where people can discuss the state of the union," says Tyler Nord, the facilitator of Occupy Duluth. "I think it's great that the president has the opportunity to do that but I also think it's great for people to have a safe environment to discuss their points of view."
At midnight, the group will move to the civic center where they'll stay overnight. Nord says that space is fine for now, but they plan on meeting with the City's Parks and Rec Department on Monday to discuss occupying Lake Superior Place.
Tyler Nord for family values? There's something seriously wrong about that picture. Here's why that picture doesn't work:
A University of Minnesota Duluth student involved in planning this week's Occupy Duluth demonstrations had an unusual run-in with the law in 2008, an alleged attempted baby snatching and says he's sorry for it.
Tyler Ray Nord, 23, from Wolverton, Minn., was charged in June 2008 with attempted felonious restraint for trying to pull a baby carrier holding a 7-week-old boy away from the infant's mother. The woman said she grasped the carrier and Nord pulled her along with it because she wouldn't let ago.
Authorities said Nord only let go when a friend intervened and asked him what he was doing. His friend said the incident was out of character for Nord.
That's the sanitized version of the event. This article isn't a sanitized version:
Amanda Steckler didn't know what to think when the dreadlocked stranger approached her garage and picked up the baby carrier holding her 7-week-old son.
"That's all right, I got him," she told the man, thinking he might just be trying to help her carry the boy inside her south Fargo apartment building. Her 2-year-old daughter was still in the car.
The stranger asked where she lived.
Steckler repeated herself. "That's OK, I got him. I have to get my daughter out," she said, her hands now tugging firmly on the carrier.
The stranger started to pull.
Steckler pulled back.
"He was basically pulling me along with him because I wouldn't let go of it, and then I hollered for help," she said.
"All I could think of was to not let go."
Authorities say Tyler Nord, 20, of Duluth, Minn., let go of the carrier only after his friend, Steven Kressin, ran over to the garage and demanded to know what he was doing.
Kressin added this information to the article:
Kressin, who went to high school with Nord in Breckenridge, Minn., said that as they walked back to his apartment after the incident, Nord "was pretty out of it" and said he "needed his meds."
The leader of the Occupy Duluth protests pled guilty to misdemeanor unlawful restraint in 2008. Now he's preaching about setting up "a festive, fun, family friendly atmosphere where people can discuss the state of the union"?
Apparently Mr. Nord thinks we're as gullible as the idiots protesting in Duluth.
Nord isn't the only piece of human debris associated with the Occupy Duluth protests. Here's a little information into another protester:
So when President Bush visited Duluth, Minn., for a Bush-Cheney rally on July 13, just one week after Almosaleh's arrest, it wasn't surprising that the Secret Service was on alert. It had even done some homework, identifying three specific men to watch for. Fliers with photos of the men were taped to tables at the Secret Service's security checkpoints at the rally, apparently to aid agents in spotting and stopping the men before they could harm the president.
Who were these three men? Members of an al-Qaida sleeper cell? Iraqi resisters 'bringing the fight' to Minnesota? If so, at least two were under very deep cover. One, Joel Sipress, 40, is a University of Wisconsin history professor and Green Party activist. Another, Joel Kilgour, 27, is a pacifist, homeless advocate and member of the 71-year-old Catholic Worker Movement, which is 'committed to nonviolence, voluntary poverty, prayer, and hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and forsaken,' according to its Web site. The third man, whom the Secret Service would not identify, remains unknown to the public.
What a lovely bunch. A mentally-challenged criminal who tried abducting a 7-week old baby leads the protest. A "pacifist, homeless advocate and member of the 71-year-old Catholic Worker Movement" is one of the foot soldiers in the protest.
This Occupy Duluth bunch is looking more like members of George McGovern's Democratic Party with each passing day.
Posted Sunday, October 16, 2011 8:26 AM
Comment 1 by John at 18-Oct-11 07:48 PM
Your bias is clearly blinding you from the facts of what is going on in Duluth.
If you had taken the time to actually research the Occupy Duluth group, and learn about how they operate - you would know that not only is Tyler Nord NOT the leader of the group, but that he has no more influence than any other single member does.
As an open, public event - we do not bar any person from attending and having their say. Everything is decided by majority consensus - y'know... the way a republican democracy is supposed to work.
Hell, even Chip Cravaack himself could attend a meeting and have his fair say, if he were so inclined.
To the author of this absolute monstrosity of a hit piece, I challenge you to attend a General Assembly.
You are not required to identify yourself.
Attend anonymously, watch how we do things - and realize exactly how off the mark you really are when it comes to your understanding of the movement in question.
Or maybe you DO know - and you're deliberately misleading your readers?
The invitation remains extended to you, sir or ma'am.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 19-Oct-11 12:54 PM
John, your real argument is with the Duluth newspaper.
Clearly, Nord or someone with him gave the impression he was a facilitator or leader. And since the Duluth paper hasn't exactly been conservative-friendly over the last, say, 50 years, I'm wondering who gave that impression. Aren't you?
Comment 3 by Jon at 16-Nov-11 12:40 PM
Why don't you understand what 99% means? It means almost everyone. Think about that.
Of all the wonderful people doing wonderful things you pick out two specific people and mention something prior to the protest. HMPF! I say, and I'll say it again, HMPF!
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 02:44 PM
Right. We know that the people in the Occupation movement are salt-of-the-earth, heroic types. PS- That 99% doesn't have alot of support, less than 40% of Americans support the Occupation movement. In a head-to-head matchup, more people support the TEA Party than support your salt-of-the-earth Occupation movement.
Comment 4 by Thomas at 16-Nov-11 03:35 PM
"The DFL is looking more like George McGovern's Democratic Party each day, isn't it?"
Are you mentally handicapped?
The Occupy movment rejects both the Cororate funded parties, Demo and Reps. Where the flying frog did you get the idea this is at ALL connected to the democratic party?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 03:51 PM
Where the flying frog did you get the idea this is at ALL connected to the democratic party?Perhaps from the praise heaped on it from Obama, Pelosi and dozens of other Democrat politicians? Or perhaps from the fact that union organizers that support the Democrats' campaigns moved in to somewhat organize the Occupation's messaging?
Comment 5 by Jonathan at 16-Nov-11 03:50 PM
Gary you are Gross, you are so full of it my eyes are brown! Here is what you said (or made up, more accurately)
"Gary Gross says:
November 16, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Right. We know that the people in the Occupation movement are salt-of-the-earth, heroic types. PS- That 99% doesn't have alot of support, less than 40% of Americans support the Occupation movement. In a head-to-head matchup, more people support the TEA Party than support your salt-of-the-earth Occupation movement."
BULL. Lots of support and from the best people. I found all these in 10 minuetes during my break at work. Yes, I have a job.
Most agree with the 99%
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66713.html
http://i.imgur.com/QUzeV.jpg retired police captain. (cause you seem like someone that loves cops just because)
http://www.newbottomline.com/seattle_passes_responsible_banking_ordinance
http://www.politicususa.com/en/americans-support-occupy
Time to get real Gary, and admit the truth.
1. Corporations are not people, money is not speech.
2. Getting money out of politics will drastically reduce corruption.
3. Social programs like they have in all other developed nations EXCEPT this one are essential to having a healthy population. (Healthcare, education, and retirement.
4. for profit wars are robbing this country of wealth and killing mostly civilians overseas.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 04:03 PM
Chew on this polling a bit, then tell me who's more popular.
Let's get serious, Jonathan.
1. The First and the Fourth Amendments protect corporations and people. It's always been that way.
2. Getting money out of campaigns won't reduce corruption. Limiting the influence of government, whether through restrictive regulations or special tax carve-outs or through the immensity of spending on nonessential items, reduces political corruption.
3. Social programs that have destroyed the economic health of Europe are anything but essential. There's a reason why the United States historically has been the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
4. Profits are what protect the environment, fund education and feed the world. Despotism, especially in corrupt Third World nations, kill civilians while establishing oligarchies & oppressive regimes.
Comment 6 by Jamal at 26-Nov-11 10:49 AM
Thanks for posting this. I find it absurd that someone can be a part of this movement and be so apt to stand in front of a camera and talk about values, yet have a past like this.
What concerns me even MORE than that is that the media can cover someone like this making commentary about a "movement" like this (which is like the movements I have every morning I'm afraid) and not do any research on parties involved.
I just find it hilarious that people are actually protesting based on the ground that they are.
Things like "forgiveness of student loans". What?! Hilarious. So because you people were dumb enough to attend a school you couldn't afford, likely to get a degree in a field that wasn't going to earn you any income, that means that the businesses and companies who funded your educational endeavours through loans should just eat it? Get a job, losers.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Nov-11 10:53 AM
Thanks for posting that comment Jamal. You're apparently a straight-thinking individual who is wiser than the average college professor & college student. Keep thinking things through & you'll be well-served throughout your life.
Comment 7 by Jamal at 26-Nov-11 11:05 AM
You are cordially welcome.
I'm a selfish indivudial Gary. I selfishly went to school for something that would benefit my financial future.
I selfishly take care of my own wife and children working long hours as a professional welder so that someone elses tax money doesn't have to.
I selfishly have waited to buy a home until I have money to build one of my own because I have enough common sense to know that the way the market was dropping homes in peoples laps was bound to fail....
Basically, what I'm saying is that the 99% are nothing short of 99% illogical.
Simple thought processes can avoid most of their shortcomings.
Thoughts like:
"I am having a hard time affording groceries.... so can I really afford this $200K house just because the bank wants to lend me the money"...
"Is my degree in Minority Womens Studies going to get me a job that will allow me to afford to survive"...
"If someone else has something that I don't have, will it make it easier for me to achieve my goals if I complain a lot, or should I just work for what I want?"....
Simple processes.
Yes, I am a selfish man. I want to work. I want to keep what I earn. I want to take care of myself and my own family. I expect others to want to do the same... because that's what America is SUPPOSED to be about. And above all else, I would damn well rather EARN $5.00 than have the GOVERNMENT HAND ME $10.00.
Fanning's TV debut
This morning, Daniel Fannning, one of 4 DFL candidates vying for the endorsement to run against Chip Cravaack, appeared on Esme Murphy's program. During the interview, he some things that indicate he's going to run a base race, meaning that he's only focusing on his political base. Here's the video:
One of the things Fanning said was that he supports the Occupy Minnesota:
This is what we're seeing with the Occupy Minnesota, given the fact that people are obeying the law and being nonviolent. This is a movement that I very much support and am very proud of the people who are taking to the streets and saying "I'm tired of politics as usual" and that's exactly why I'm runnning for congress.
Later, he said this:
For example, there's the Northern Lights Express, which would be great for Duluth. It would be great for the Twin Cities. It would be great for the region. It would be great for the Mille Lacs band. It's something that would not only immediately create lots of construction jobs but it would also set the region up for long-term success as well. So it's a win-win. Unfortunately, we have a congressman who doesn't seem interested in investing in our own district.
That's one of many projects. There's also crumbling infrastructure throughout the district, from Chisholm and Buhl, from Quamba and Mora. All throughout the district, we see crumbling roads, bridges and sewer systems that need to be rebuilt.
How can roads and bridges be crumbling in the Eighth District, especially with Lord Oberstar as chairman of the House Transportation committee prior to getting defeated? Might it be that Chairman Oberstar spent too much money to the district in the form of pork rather than putting a priority on getting important things done?
It sounds to me like Fanning would continue the Oberstar tradition of bringing home the pork while ignoring important things like repairing roads and bridges.
Fanning touched briefly on the importance of mining and shipping to the Range. Strangely, though, his issues page doesn't say a thing about mining. If mining is important to Mr. Fanning, why didn't he bother mentioning PolyMet on his issues page?
Certainly, there are plenty of miners that think getting PolyMet operational is a big deal. Might it be that Mr. Fanning isn't talking about it because Chip Cravaack is pushing the EPA in DC and the MPCA in St. Paul to make PolyMet a reality?
If PolyMet is built thanks to Chip Cravaack's persistence, he will have done more in 2 years serving in Congress than what Oberstar got accomplished in the previous 4 years.
Much like Oberstar, Mr. Fanning appears to be wedded to expensive pork projects while neglecting important things like making PolyMet and similar mining projects a reality.
Posted Sunday, October 16, 2011 1:44 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 17-Oct-11 09:28 AM
"Might it be that Chairman Oberstar spent too much money to the district in the form of pork rather than putting a priority on getting important things done?"
Who? Jimmy Bikeshorts?
Clarifying Romney
HotAir's Tina Korbe's post takes a little doing to explain but here goes.
As I've watched Mitt Romney over the course of this campaign, I've wondered myself what it is about him that seems to prevent him from acquiring a broad coalition of conservative support. Folks repeatedly cite Romneycare and his mercurial policy positions as reasons not to choose Romney, and both are damaging elements of his portfolio. But no candidate is without a problematic past (that was even true of Ronald Reagan!), and what politician hasn't switched his position on something?
Is it just that Romney won't disavow his roots enough? That he won't completely denounce Romneycare or say unequivocally that TARP was a mistake? But he's promised to repeal Obamacare, and the only GOP candidate with credibility on TARP is Michele Bachmann. Is it that he's disavowed his roots too much so that he seems insincere? But some of the most prominent conservatives in the country first proved their activist chops on the liberal side of the aisle (think David Horowitz, Dennis Miller, Abby Johnson, even Andrew Breitbart, etc., etc., etc.). True, those conservatives weren't and aren't politicians, but the point is, converts are often the most compelling spokespeople for a cause. By that logic, that Romney was ever once pro-choice, for example, shouldn't discredit his pro-life position now: If anything, it ought to give it more credibility because he's considered all the options.
This weekend is a perfect example of why people don't trust Mitt Romney. This weekend's big blog story was that John Holdren, the radical environmentalist, was a major advisor to Gov. Romney when Gov. Romney instituted tough environmental regulations in Massachusetts :
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006. :
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation:
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
The 'confusion' comes from recent events, one from June, 2011, the other from the day after Labor Day this fall. In June, Gov. Romney said that he was certain that the earth was warming and that man was at least partially to blame for it.
This fall, however, when he saw conservative GOP presidential candidates going after the EPA, he wrote this:
Mitt's actions and statements don't fit together. They're more a contrast in opposites. Mitt's said in his 59-point, 160 page economic plan that he'd ' amend the Clean Water Act to prohibit the regulation of carbon .'
That's before WSJ columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz stated that we know who Mitt is :
You do know where he stands in my view. You know he doesn't want to transform the government of the United States or the system of the United States. We have here a candidate who can win. And there's nobody else in this race who can make that claim.
Let's put this thing together. We know that Mitt's implemented tough environmental regulations. We know that Mitt's hired a militant environmental extremist to advise him on environmental policy. We know that Mitt's detailed 59-point, 160-page plan is skimpy on details with regards to environmental regulatory policy.
Finally, we know, thanks to Dorothy Rabinowitz's insight, that Mitt "doesn't want to transform the government of the United States or the system of the United States."
Doesn't that add up to knowing Mitt's willing to say whatever it takes to win this nomination? He hasn't really wavered in his support for policies that fit his opinion that the earth is warming and that people are causing that warming.
Mitt's refusal to denounce Romneycare is another telling sign. Mitt's argument that the individual mandate is ok in Massachusetts isn't tethered to anything approaching constitutional logic. Michele Bachmann jumped him on that in one of the debates, saying that no level of government has the authority to tell people they have to buy anything simply because they're living.
Mitt's statement that he'll sign an executive order giving all fifty states a waiver from Obamacare is a joke. That doesn't undo any of the 159 new agencies and bureaucracies created by Obamacare. That wouldn't repeal any of the tax increases or new taxes included in Obamacare. It wouldn't repeal the IPAB.
Serious policy people get it that Mitt's statements sound confident but are empty gestures. They're meaningless because they're only there to sound authoritative.
People that want to sound authoritative without being authoritative aren't leaders. They're pretenders. That's why Mitt doesn't benefit when flavor of the month candidates fizzle out. They're all anti-Romneys.
To answer Ms. Korbe's question, the thing that'd help Mitt gain credibility is to stop pretending to be a conservative. That won't help him electorally but it'd help his credibility.
Posted Sunday, October 16, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 17-Oct-11 09:26 AM
Myth's issue is that he governed Massachusetts from the left while claiming to be a champion of the right.
His actions on judge appointments, gay 'marriage' and above all, Romneycare, show a politician that is more liberal than conservative. The base sees right through Romney.
Mitt's Pork Brigade
Politico is reporting that famous porker Hal Rogers is endorsing Mitt Romney , further underscoring the fact that Mitt's a status quo guy:
The two Kentucky congressmen, both establishment heavyweights, are signing with the frontrunner today. Rogers chairs the House Appropriations Committee, and Whitfield chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee's powerful Energy and Power subcommittee.
This nation needs another wave of reformers. Status quo establishment types needn't apply for cleaning up the federal government's messes. They wouldn't know a main street solution if it bit them.
Mitt's lining up porkers like Hal Rogers won't help him dispel the image that he isn't a conservative. Rather, getting porkers' endorsements will cement the image of Romney, the moderate go-along-to-get-along.
That isn't what America needs right now. Better job growth is important but dramatically restructuring government and shrinking the federal government's influence is vital. Without that, we're just treading water.
Mitt's proving that the status quo is his preference. The question that most needs answering is straightforward: What kind of America do we want to live in?
Apparently, Mitt's vision for America is for eliminating a few of this administration's excesses but keeping most of their excesses intact. That isn't acceptable.
We need a leader with an inspiring vision, the know-how to turn that vision into a reality. We need someone with a vision that reduces the debt while shrinking the federal government's influence.
That's the only way we'll avoid the debt crisis that this administration has created.
Posted Monday, October 17, 2011 9:33 AM
No comments.
What If President Obama's Campaign Died & People Didn't Care?
What if people were disinterested in getting President Obama's re-elected? I think that's what's being described in this article :
Republicans seem far more excited to vote in next year's presidential elections than Democrats are, suggesting the same sort of enthusiasm gap that pushed the GOP to big gains in the 2010 elections.
The numbers were part of the latest CNN-ORC International poll that found 62 percent of self-identified Republicans were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president, while only 48 percent of Democrats said the same thing .
The worst thing for a campaign isn't controversy, it's apathy. There's no cure for the electorate not giving a rip. That's especially true with President Obama's re-election campaign because he rode a tremendous turnout wave into the White House in 2008. President Obama can't win without another turnout like 2008.
There's a reason for President Obama's overheated rhetoric :
"My plan says we're going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work," President Obama said at a campaign event today. "Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise; that's my plan."
"The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: 'Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.'"
Seriously, President Obama's Son of Stimulus legislation is a 1-year bailout for states and municipalities. Rather than forcing cities and states to deal with their structural deficits, President Obama is offering another 1-year bailout.
President Obama's overheated rhetoric hides the fact that Republicans want to actually get the economy growing, shrink unemployment rates, start running surpluses and paying off the debt. If those things happen, states' revenues will jump, eliminating the need for President Obama's bailouts.
President Obama shouldn't be in this precarious of a position but he is, thanks to his disastrous policies.
Republicans sense blood in the water. That's why they can't wait to vote to evict the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Democrats are worried about President Obama's chances. Some are disenchanted. That's why 2010's enthusiasm gap has re-appeared.
That's why I wish Election Day was tomorrow. It'll happen. It just won't happen quickly enough.
Posted Monday, October 17, 2011 5:08 PM
No comments.
