Category Archives: Current Events

Query?

Posted on by

For some time now I’ve been sharing my posts to Facebook. I know there are some folks from Facebook who follow my link to my blog. I can see them in my log files although I don’t have any detailed information other than coming from Facebook.

I’m wondering just how many of those Facebook readers read more than the first paragraph? From some of the comments, I doubt they’re read or even skimmed the entire post. On the other hand I do write looong posts.

So, as a favour to me, Facebook readers, would you leave a comment and just let me know…did you read or skim the entire post or just the first few paragraphs?

Thank you.

***

A Kansas City Chiefs football player murdered his live-in girlfriend in front of his mother and 3-month old child, then drove to the KC Chief training area and committed suicide in front of other players and coaches.  Everyone in the media, it seems, is blaming everyone and everything for the murder/suicide except the murderer.

From the news accounts, this murderer had a history of violence, alcohol and drug use that had been kept out of public view for some time. The murderer had gotten away with his previous criminal acts until he committed one that couldn’t be swept under the rug.

Instead of blaming the murderer for his acts, the media is blaming guns, football, football violence and everything except the spoiled criminal who was never made to account for his actions. We’re already hearing false statements—“he was a good boy!”

He wasn’t a “good boy.” He was a drugged-up criminal who should have never been playing football. He should have been booted from the NFL the first time he punched out his girlfriend.

***

Your education dollars at work. From California: the state education department says that while you have a right to education, you don’t have a right to one that’s worth a hill ‘o beans.

By: Melissa Griffin | 11/30/12 6:19 PM, Special to The SF Examiner

Straight from the “careful how you defend yourself” file is this insight from the California Department of Education, which recently defended itself from allegations that our kids are receiving a substandard education by arguing that, “There is no constitutional right to a ‘meaningful’ education.”

In May, lawyers representing eight children sued the state of California, the California Department of Education and several school districts. The plaintiffs in Vergara v. State of California claim grossly unfit teachers persist in our schools because state law gives tenured teachers extraordinary job protections, and districts have to make decisions about whether to award tenure when teachers have spent less than 18 months on the job. Having these teachers, according to the plaintiffs, deprives certain students of their constitutional right to an education.

The constitutional right to an education requires more than a brick-and-mortar schoolhouse, plaintiffs say.

Students have a right to a “meaningful education” that allows them “basic tools necessary to compete in the economic marketplace or to participate as a citizen in our democracy.” Severely restricting the ability to discipline or terminate ineffective teachers violates this right.

In response, the state tried to get the case thrown out for several reasons, including the grounds that a “meaningful education” is too vague to define. But instead of stopping there or saying all our kids do receive a meaningful education, it made this depressing claim in a public document: “the constitution guarantees only ‘equality of educational opportunity, but no minimum level.’” As long as it’s equally bad, there’s no problem.

There’s more in the rest of the column. The judge did not dimiss the suit as requested by the State of California. It’ll be interesting to follow this case. It does give you insight into the opinions and agendas of the education leadership.

***

At least some of the National Republicans have some inkling to the failures of the last election. They’ve started one push to correct one of those faults.

Republican Executive Committee Member Calls for Resignation of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus

By on May 08, 2012

Source: http://www.pr.com/press-release/410950

Due to an alleged violation of the national GOP’s Rule # 11 (bans favoritism of one candidate while more than one candidate exists), an Executive Committee member within the GOP calls for the resignation of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

Washington, DC, May 07, 2012 –(PR.com)– Jeffrey Bales, a Member-at-Large of the Pima County GOP Executive Committee (Tucson, Arizona), says:

“Due to violation of the RNC’s Rule #11, I call for Chairman Reince Priebus to resign immediately. It is un-American and beneath the standards established by the Republican Party to violate this rule. It is unethical to support a single Republican Presidential candidate (Mitt Romney) while other Republican candidates remain in the race.

I admit this is another Ron Paul kool-aid drinker who can’t get over the fact that Ron Paul never pulled double-digit support in the elections. But—he does have a point.  The complaint applies equally to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. OK, Ron Paul as well.

The national party has no right picking winners prior to the convention. Support, financial and organizational, should—must be available equally to all candidates…or to no candidate. Reince Preibus handed the MO Senatorial race to Claire McCaskill. McCaskill may have won anyway…or, if Akin had been supported like dems support their candidates who make a gaff, Akin may have won!

Yes, it’s all Monday morning quarterbacking. However, like football and other endeavors, we must not keep a losing coach who will only continue to lose.

Facebook

A divergent path

Posted on by

If you are a long time reader of this blog, you will have noticed I’ve been somewhat quiet since the election.  There are a variety of reasons for that reticence…long delayed chores, commitments to friends, and just a bit a depression that I think has afflicted all of us.

I like to call myself a political observer. That is what I call myself when around my ‘Pub friends. I’ve disappointed a few that wanted me to be more active in the political process. I was active this year supporting friends who were running for office. I’m glad to say they all won their offices.

Still, it wasn’t enough to win on the larger state and national scale. There have been many who have pontificated where the failure occurred—we didn’t address the moderates, the independents, the Hispanic voters. We needed to address woman and modify our pro-life stance. We should embrace all the illegals like the democrats and further continue to dilute our voter base.

Those are the opinions of the Washington GOP and their political toadies like Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. Each of them have sold their souls to the GOP establishment. I want nothing to do with them. Whenever I hear them speak, I understand they really have no concept how the rest of the conservatives really think. They don’t understand why we oppose them—after all, they are the party elite!

No more.

At the core, the Republican Party is fragmenting. The conservative base feels betrayed. Why? Because we believe the party elite crammed a vulnerable candidate down our throats whose conservative credentials were weak at best. Then they modified the party’s convention rules to further weaken conservatives, those not of the establishment to maintain the establishment’s control of the party’s primary, caucus and convention process. The result was that many conservatives shifted to 3rd parties or didn’t vote. It was enough to lose those “swing” states.  Democrat ballot box stuffing didn’t help either.

The party elites believe they can continue as before. That won’t happen. In the states and among political pundits outside of Washington, forces are moving. Here’s just a few comments from a couple of well-known conservatives.

Laura Ingraham unloaded on her radio show with this comment.

Laura Unleashed

Lousiana Governor Bobby Jindahl offers the Republicans some simple advice in the wake of crushing losses on November 6. Be smart…be the ideas party…offer intelligent solutions. This sounds obvious, but approach, language, strategy all have to be carefully considered in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat and the loss of Senate contests that should have been gimmes for the GOP. As for those Republicans who believe that the party needs to moderate or change its core beliefs to survive, go for it. I think that is both a political fools errand and and bad policy. Most people are conservative because they believe free markets and limited government, borne out of our Judeo-Christian tradition, represent the best hope for America. Those are the principles I will continue to advocate for, regardless of intra-party squabbling or the panic of the moment.

Bobby Jindal had this to say.

Jindal: End ‘dumbed-down conservatism’

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 11/13/12 4:22 AM EST

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” and make a concerted effort to reach a broader swath of voters with an inclusive economic message that pre-empts efforts to caricature the GOP as the party of the rich.

…

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”

…

Jindal, a Brown Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, is already a favorite of conservative intellectuals and his assessment that Republican difficulties owe as much to economics as demographics will be well-received by right-leaning thinkers. Since last week, a sort of backlash to the backlash has sprouted up, with some conservatives castigating what they see as too much knee-jerk pandering on immigration and not enough discussion of what they see as the party’s unimaginative, donor-driven fiscal policies.Jindal, the son of Indian immigrants, said the GOP “must reject identity politics” and “treat folks as individuals, as Americans, not as members of special interest groups.”

Raising Romney’s damaging comments about voters who don’t pay income taxes, Jindal urged the GOP to make clear they want the support of every American.

“The Republican Party is going to fight for every single vote,” he said. “That means the 47 percent and the 53 percent, that means any other combination of numbers going up to 100 percent.”

Bobby Jindal will be the incoming leader of the Republican Governors Association. There’s more at the website if you wish to follow the link. 

Across the country, groups of conservatives are organizing, planning and gathering. Some call for a new 3rd party. Others point out that we already have conservative 3rd parties and none have been able to draw double-digit percentages in elections at any level. More, this time, believe as I do that change to the Republican Party must come from within. To do that, we must weed out the establishment drones at the local and state levels. Then we can seize the national central committee.

Those who used our support this last election cycle must declare their stance now. Are you for us, the conservatives who worked to get you elected or for the establishment? The time to choose is coming. Choose wisely.

Facebook

Followup of Previous Posts

Posted on by

Why does time fly faster with the intensity of events? Yesterday I wrote about the similarities of current events to those preceding World War I. I mentioned the increasing tensions between China (PRC), Japan, the Philippine Islands and the US. This morning I saw two new items that give more credence to another coming conflict in the Pacific.

 

Chinese General: Prepare for Combat

Top Chinese general in unusual move tells troops to ready for combat with Japan

BY:

China’s most powerful military leader, in an unusual public statement, last week ordered military forces to prepare for combat, as Chinese warships deployed to waters near disputed islands and anti-Japan protests throughout the country turned violent.

Protests against the Japanese government’s purchase of three privately held islands in the Senkakus chain led to mass street protests, the burning of Japanese flags, and attacks on Japanese businesses and cars in several cities. Some carried signs that read “Kill all Japanese,” and “Fight to the Death” over disputed islands. One sign urged China to threaten a nuclear strike against Japan.

Below is another news item that hints of Chinese violence being directed towards the US.

Beijing demonstrators damage US ambassador’s car

By DIDI TANG | Associated Press – 12 hrs ago

BEIJING (AP) — A car carrying the U.S. ambassador to China was mildly damaged after becoming the target of boisterous anti-Japan demonstrators who were expressing outrage over a territorial dispute and marking the 81st anniversary of Japan’s invasion of China.

The State Department said in a statement Wednesday that Ambassador Gary Locke was unhurt in Tuesday’s incident, and that diplomats have expressed concerns to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

The statement said around 50 protesters surrounded Locke’s car as he tried to enter the embassy and were eventually removed by Chinese security personnel.

Over the years, I’ve worked with a number of Chinese. Most came here to the US to attend our universities. Most return to China. Some don’t. One of the things they taught me is nothing happens spontaneously in China without the government, I mean the Party’s approval—and active assistance. When you read a news item such as the one above, be aware it is not an expression of popular sentiment. It is a planned government act.

America’s weakness—and it is weak after four years of Obama’s administration and the crumbling of our military due to neglect, entices our enemies to take advantage of our weakness, real or not.

Add to all this is China’s deployment of nuclear-tipped, ballistic anti-ship missiles, missiles purposely designed to attacK our carrier fleets, it becomes apparent our military may no longer be a deterrent to war.

***

This afternoon the Cass County Commission will hold a public meeting to discuss the outside auditor’s report on the County’s management for 2010. There is only one commissioner who is still in office from that period but he declined to run for re-election. The media will have a very strong presence, print and TV, at the meeting from what I’ve been told.

I’ll be there too with my little notebook and a voice recorder. The release of the outside report has been picked up by the local media and while the report was balanced, it was not kind to the Cass County Commission.

There has been more document drops since that auditor’s report. One is particularly interesting. The former Presiding Commission endorsed in writing a company that had existed less than a year, had no track record, no customer base and no product! The letter appeared to be given as a reference for the company to acquire public grants from the Mid-America Regional Council.

As more documents are released to the public, the county government is looking worse and worse. It makes one wonder what other activities will be exposed. Many of the ones now could lead to criminal charges.

 

Facebook

Why does it feel like June 1914?

Posted on by

This train of thought was triggered by blogger friend, Tam.  She wrote a short post noting the similarities of the current world events with those in the months prior to World War I.

Like pre-World War I Serbia, the RIFs around the world are rioting. Supposedly the cause of the rioting is a 10 minute YouTube video that had around a thousand views before 9/11/2012.  The Obama White House jumped on this excuse with both feet to cover the fact that the real reason of the riots were a planned series of attacks by a renewed Al-Qaeda—a renewed Al-Qaeda that thrived in the vacuum created by Obama’s policy of Mideast appeasement.

The riots were aided by Obama’s state department orders that removed the Marines from Libya and disarmed the Marine guards in Egypt. Obama and Hilliary Clinton ignored warnings that could have protected the Americans in Libya but did not.

The First World War started due to a cascade of events that triggered the mutual assistance treaties of the initial participants: the  Triple Entente among the British, French and Russians and the Triple Alliance of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Italy on the other. Like our Gulf Wars One and Two, the First World War was preceded by the Balkan War of 1908, The Boer War of 1880 and1899 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

The ignition of that war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife. The assassination was preceded by months of protests and riots using the pretense of the earlier Balkan War of 1908. By coincidence, Britain’s Prince Harry may have been an unintended target recently during a Taliban attack on a NATO base where the Prince was assigned.

Here is where the similarities between now and WW I begin to emerge. Today’s Mideast riots were planned by Al-Qaeda.  They are nothing more than a continuation of the wars and war-like acts going back to the creation of Israel, the several Israeli-Arab wars, the two World Trade Towers attacks and Gulf Wars I and II. When you include the tension between China, Japan and the Philippine Islands over the oil rich islands and coral reefs of the South China Sea, the coincidences can be amazing.

The members of the Triple Alliance perceived a weakness among the members of the Triple Entente. They thought the Triple Entente signers would not honor the alliance. Likewise today, the US has mutual assistance treaties with Japan, Israel, the Philippine Islands and NATO. Our enemies see weakness in the US by the bunglings of Obama and Clinton. They see weakness in the economic disarray of the European Union, and, like the Triple Alliance of the last century, believe the current treaties will not be honored. The misperceptions of the Islamofascists, the Islamic Brotherhood and China could lead us to another global conflict that would rival the participants of World War I.

The election coming in November has an importance that extends far beyond our national borders. A Romney win and a repudiation of the Obama policy of Islamic appeasement could forestall another global conflict—one that could include tactical nukes if Iran completes her nuclear program or acquires a few nuclear weapons from Pakistan. The danger of a regional nuclear war is very real.

China has nuclear weapons as well. Japan has the knowledge and material to build nuclear weapons quickly if they perceived a real need.  Survival threats can easily overcome Japan’s nuclear phobia if the US does not stand as a shield against China.

We know the Islamofascists are not sane. We believe the Chinese leadership are sane…as long as they believe they can maintain their power. If China believes their need for resources, the oil fields of the South China Sea are such that the lack could endanger their position, they, too, may be willing to threaten to use nuclear weapons in a seizure of the contested islands and oil fields.

It is a perilous time. The Twentieth Century has been named, “The War Century” by some historians. The Twenty-first Century has the potential to be one as well.

Facebook

OK People! Listen up!

Posted on by

We are less than two months from the election and what do I hear? Romney is gonna lose. Akin is gonna lose. The ‘Pub establishment, FOX, and the MSM says we’re gonna lose. Everywhere I turn it’s the same.

We’re all losers!!!

That’s exactly what the dems and libs want you to think.

Well, lissen up! It’s time to stop the temper-tantrums. It’s time to pull up your big-boy pants and grow up. I know Ron Paul didn’t get the ‘Pub nomination. No, it wasn’t stolen from him. He wasn’t even close to being in the running.  His aim was to influence the party platform and he was successful.

I also know that Romney is the nominated candidate. Yes, he’s a Mormon. I’m tired of all the bigotry—from our own side, claiming they won’t vote for a Mormon.  Even faintly veiled bigotry is still bigotry. I don’t agree with Mormon doctrine. But even with our disagreements, Mormonism is miles better than the atheism and humanistic socialism preached by Obama and the dems.

I belong to a number of Facebook and e-mail groups. I constantly read about how someone isn’t going to vote for Romney because he isn’t conservative enough. I suspect some of you aren’t conservative enough to suit me either. So what are you going to do? Vote for some third-party candidate? Not vote? Leave the President box unchecked?

If you think a third-party is the answer for President, you’re about a decade too late.  There’s been several attempts at a 3rd-party run for President from George Wallace in 1968 through John Anderson and Ross Perot. Every single one of them failed.  For a 3rd-party to be successful it has to build from the bottom up—win local elections, county elections, state elections and when your 3rd party has won and controlled several states, then have your perfect candidate run for President.

A decade of infrastructure building may be insufficient. It may take longer. Until that time, you’ll lose and just waste our time and resources.

Do you hate the ‘Pub establishment so much you’d rather have Obama elected for another four years than vote for Romney? Would you allow Obama to win a second term just to spite the ‘Pub establishment? Because electing Obama for another tern is exactly what will happen if you don’t vote for Romney. And if Obgama wins you’ll blame the ‘Pub establishment, Mormons, RINOs, everyone and everything except yourself—you who didn’t vote for Romney.

Let’s be clear here. No, Romney isn’t all that we’d like. Neither is Paul Ryan. He’s screwed up some congressional votes too. No one, certainly not Romney nor Ryan, is perfect.

The point is to remove Obama. Send him back to his $2.5million dollar mansion in crime-ridden Chicago. Let him be an activist among the gangs and druglords. He should feel at home. Vote for ABO, Anyone But Obama if you find Romney so distasteful.

I don’t care if you hate the ‘Pubs because they’re not conservative enough to suit you. Do you hate them enough to put Obama back in the White House? If so, then you’re no conservative and we can do without you. If you are that unbalanced, you’d not be an asset for conservatism anyway.

We have fifty-six days left if I’ve counted correctly. Get to work! When the pollsters call, answer and tell them the truth. Show how badly Obama really fares. An if you still hate the ‘Pub establishment, send a big donation to Todd Akin and poke a finger in Karl Rove‘s and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus‘ eye.  You’ll feel better for donating and you’ll help remove Obama from OUR White House.

Facebook

Tuesday’s Notes

Posted on by

There have been a number of items appearing of interest today. Some are significant like the RNC attempting to establish a dictatorship within the party. Some, like the passing of Neil Armstrong, are life events of the changing times.

The RNC, as usual, stumbles along. They continue to associate Ron Paul with the Tea Party when he is not. Ron Paul and the Tea Party agree on a number of items but Ron Paul marches to his own radical drummer while the Tea Party follows another. Paul’s statement about Bin Ladin is a prime example of those differences. Paul fails to understand that the border for national security lies on their shores, not ours.

***

I received an e-mail today from city hall. It announced that the flags around town would be at half-mast in memory of Neil Armstrong. I watched Neil Armstron step on the moon in 1969 when I was assigned to Keesler AFB. I had just arrived a few days before to begin training. I and some friends were watching the landing in the BOQ dayroom.  It was all in black and white and somewhat grainy. The audio was clear fortunately. The transmission from the moon didn’t have the band-width for color.  All the color shots and videos were on film and brought back to be developed later.

I remember some commentary concerning the fate of the two in the lander if it could not take off. Whether they had “suicide pills.” The supporting technology, while extensively tested, was not really stable. So much of today’s advances were developed during that period as by-products of NASA and the space program.

Neil Armstrong refused to benefit from his feat. For a time he would give away his autograph. Then he discovered people were selling them for outrageous sums. He stopped autographing after that. He didn’t mind giving his signature but he didn’t want others to profit from that gift.

Goodbye, Neil. You’ll be remembered. You’ve left your legacy on Mare Tranquillitatis, beyond the reach of petty politicians here on Earth.

***

For those of you who’ve read my earlier posts about Ron Paul know I’m no fan.  However, he and the Tea party won a common victory yesterday against the ‘Pub establishment.

The establishment ‘Pubs were pressing a rule change that would disenfranchise any delegate who did not swear fealty to the establishment. The rule would force the state organizations to be puppets of the RNC.  When the proposed rule was published, a Hue ‘n Cry arose and the rule was amended to remove that tyrannical provision.

Republicans reach rules change deal to avert floor fight with Texans, Ron Paul backers

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

…

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground.

“The Texas delegation considers the new rule . . . an unacceptable infringement on our right to freely choose our delegates to the national convention,” she said in an e-mail to the committee members. “We realize not every state selects its delegates in the same manner we do, and perhaps you find it hard to understand what has us so worked up. Frankly, we find it hard to understand how your delegations would be willing to give away their rights.”

While this rule change was aimed at Ron Paul and his delegates, it also affected those delegates for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others. The delegates who supported the Tea Party would be as affected as those for Ron Paul.

I’ll give Paul credit for this. His organization lead the fight.

***

I found the following article during my daily scan of internet news.  The Washington Times is a good conservative source of information. However…this article doesn’t ring true.  The Tea Party, of all organizations, studies the Constitution more than the rank and file of the ‘Pubs.

Be that as it may, here is that article. It does bring forth questions. Just how knowledgeable are we?

Embracers of the Constitution are baffled by what’s really in it

Voters see rights they don’t have

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, August 27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — They say they stand for a return to constitutional principles, but it turns out tea party supporters are just as confused as to what rights and powers are in the federal government’s founding document, according to the latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll.

Most Americans say they’ve read all or most of the Constitution, but they tend to see more rights than the document actually guarantees, and struggle over what the Constitution says about the powers and structure of government itself.

For example, 92 percent of those surveyed said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, but only 40 percent knew that it grants Congress the power to coin money, and just 53 percent said it establishes Congress‘ power to levy an income tax.

And voters thought they had protections that they don’t have — at least not in the Constitution: 71 percent said the it protected the right to a secret ballot and 58 percent said it guarantees a right to education, though neither appears in the document.

“What most studies find is that many people think they know a great deal about the Constitution, but when asked specific questions about our founding document as a country they really miss the mark,” said Doug Smith, executive director at the Center for the Constitution, based at James Madison’s Montpelier home.

…

But The Times/JZ Analytics poll found self-identified Republicans and self-identified tea party sympathizers often shared the same views as other voters. For example, 66 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of tea party supporters said the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which was almost identical to the 68 percent of all voters who said the same thing.

The same held true on Congress‘ power to coin money and the right to a secret ballot.

Republicans, though, were far less likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to education — which it does not — than the general public. While 71 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said education was in the Constitution, only 47 percent of Republicans did.

…

He also said civics education has deteriorated, adding that he learned about the Constitution in ninth grade, but his daughter, who just completed that grade, did not.

The Washington Times article continues to a second page. I urge you to read the entire article. It contains some interesting information and implies that the lack of civics education has been driven by the federal government. I can’t speak to that but like the writer above, I was taught the federal and my state constitution as a requirement for graduation from high school.  My daughter, who graduated from a private Christian school, did not. Perhaps we should make this a goal of our new ‘Pub administration?

Facebook

RR12

Posted on by

I saw the title for today’s post in a Facebook comment Saturday.  My immediate thought was Rail-Road #12?  RR12 didn’t connect until another commenter said it meant, Romney-Ryan 2012.

Oh! Yes, I sleep late on Saturdays and I was still fuzzy. So, lump it if I was a bit slow.

The response from ‘Pubs and conservatives was overwhelmingly positive. From the libs…we got the expected screams. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC said Ryan was, “not a pick for women.” On that same TV show, the host claimed that he was getting emails from progressive womens groups, who noted that Ryan was unacceptable because he was “ardently pro-life.”

Obama’s campaign manager attacked Ryan’s Medicare reform plan from last year.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote that Ryan’s “plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors.” — Washington Examiner.

These responses from the libs and democrats were not unexpected.  It’s their standard operating procedure—demagogue the opposition because the facts supports the ‘Pubs.

On the other, the conservative side, 10,000 people turned out to see and listen to Romney and Ryan in Waukesha, WI, yesterday.

Romney/Ryan in Waukesha, WI

10,000 see Romney-Ryan in Waukesha, WI, August 12, 2012

Perhaps the best response to Ryan’s pick came from John Fund writing for the National Review.

Smart Democrats Should Be Worried

By John Fund, August 11, 2012 11:21 A.M.

Liberal pundits are already fanning out in force to attack and discredit Paul Ryan. Michael Tomasky, who recently wrote a Newsweek cover story calling Mitt Romney a “wimp,” has now decided that Romney’s bold move is “a terrible choice” because Ryan has proven himself to be an extremist on budget issues.

No doubt there are many Democrats rubbing their hands in glee in contemplation of reviving some version of the ad that featured an actor playing Paul Ryan pushing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. But the smarter ones are worried.

First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.

Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”

Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”

Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.

Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:

We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!

Echoes of Ronald Reagan at his best.

Ryan was judged to have already had the better of President Obama in televised exchanges on Obamacare. His debate with Joe Biden this October might well be remembered as cruel and unusual punishment for dim vice presidents. Recall that Sarah Palin fought a much more engaged Joe Biden to a draw in their 2008 vice-presidential debate.

Six, as Democratic consultant Joe Trippi acknowledged today on Fox News, Ryan will bring in a flood of donations from overjoyed conservatives and tea-party members. Romney had a problem with energizing the GOP base. That problem is now solved, and that will make it easier to pump up conservative turnout.

Democrats will no doubt try to make Paul Ryan into a younger version of the devil they’ve tried to paint Mitt Romney as. But they should worry about fighting a campaign on fundamental issues in a weak economy. That’s precisely how Jimmy Carter, the last Democratic president to run for reelection during hard times, wound up losing so badly that it not only cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate but damaging the liberal brand for years afterwards.

Romney, in one swell foop, reassured the conservatives who were concerned about Romney’s “moderateness,” and gained the favor of the Tea Parties who have supported Ryan’s proposals for Medicare and slashing the federal budget.  Bluntly, Romney could have picked someone a lot worse.

Facebook