Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romney. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The last debate
The third and last debate is now history. Obama was in full attack mode and came off unpresidential and petulant. On the other hand Romney was decidedly laid back and actually came off the more presidential of the two. Weird. Overall the moderator, Bob Scheiffer, a CBS lifer liberal, was fair to both men. If one was counting the "blows" recorded by each, Obama "scored" more largely because he was on the attack. At the same time most of his points were scored on then usual distortions of Romney's positions, and on outright lies, something the deems are practiced at and willing to do. Since O has a record which is indefensible, all Romney had to do was beat on it like a drum, which is exactly what he did. The best put down of the evening belonged to Romney when the responded to one of O's attacks with the quip: "A personal attack on me is not a policy". This line resonated driving home the point that O has no policy prescriptions for the next four years other that implementing his unpopular and dreaded socialist Obamacare, and more green energy "investments" by the government which have not worked out well, to say the least. Overall it's hard to see how this blast debate will change much in terms of the momentum residing with Romney.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The post Obama America
Three weeks before the election it appears Romney has gained the momentum and Obama is starting to panic. It is time for some "hail Mary" disclosures and the like from the Obama campaign. Should Obama lose, and lose decisively as is possible based where we are now, it is timel to speculate on what could happen after the election. Who would be the winners and losers in a Romney administration. The biggest losers should be the MSM for its complicity in bringing us Obama in the first place and doing its best to keep us misinformed after he was elected. One has to feel for those who have depended exclusively on the MSM for their news over the years because they have been ill-served. Likely the MSM will shrink rapidly in influence after Obama's defeat for, among other reasons, the country will get back on track under a pro business administration, and jobs will begin to materialize. Clearly, and in the knick of time, the unions, especially the government employees unions, will take a big hit. Sweetheart retirement deals will be revisited and scaled down and collective bargaining rights will be challenged and hopefully rolled back. Right to work laws should be passed in many states in order for them to compete with states not burdened with closed shop laws. Teachers unions in particular should be reigned in or simply abolished in order to put in place education reforms necessary to keep American workers competitive in the global marketplace. Government jobs at all levels should be eliminated, probably as many as 1/3d to 1/2 of the current number and of course many of the programs should go the way of the dodo bird as well. In short, government must be scaled back in order to free up the private sector which is the only place productive, wealth generating jobs are created. The statist and collectivist members of Congress should take a big hit too, as their influence will wane in an economy that is expanding and creating jobs.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
For the undecideds
Mark Levin, a pure Conservative with a capital "C", provokes this response from an anonymous commenter on a Powerline blog. It pretty much sums up the Obama debacle of the last 6 years (which includes the 2 years he ran for President while supposedly serving as a US Senator}:
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Revealing editorial from the NYTimes
Reading this editorial from the NYTimes, one realizes how far liberals have sunk into the world of make-believe, fantasy and the most virulently destructive philosophies of the 20th century. It is inconceivable that anyone could take seriously the arguments in this editorial that claim Romney is flip flopping, changing his basic positions on issues and/or lying. And yet the libs who run that paper make all these claims and only fault Obama for not taking Romney to task for all this dissembling. In truth everything Romney said rebutting the Obama campaign's serial distortions of the Romney/Ryan campaign positions is consistent with the platform put forth at the Republican Convention in Tampa last month. Smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes to stimulate economic growth, elimination of socialized healthcare and regulations that stymy business activity that creates jobs and opportunity for those willing to put forth the effort. But since none of these prescriptions for success involves controlling other people's lives that the liberal elites prefer, they are forced to resort to these mindless attacks on conservatives' lack of specificity in matters of policies of their agenda. Which is exactly the point. Liberals want 3,000 page bills that control every conceivable contingency concerning the delivery of healthcare services. They want regulations that control all aspects of businesses trying to serve consumer needs and wishes. They want total control over citizens' lives in order that their vision of the correct society can be achieved. In the end their proscriptions for society are the same as those of the National Socialism of the Germans, the Fascism of Mussolini, and the Marxist utopia of the USSR, and we all know how well those isms turned out. In short, Republicans want maximum freedom for the individual while Democrats want maximum control of each individual's life by the state.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Debunk the lies
Thomas Sowell has a knack for cutting to the chase. In this column he channels many Republicans' view that Democrats are allowed to get away with lying with impunity simply because they are not challenged by articulate arguments from Republicans. He gives several examples. Sowell raises a very good point. In the absence of debunking these lies by Democrats the impression given is that Republicans believe them as well and therefore they must be received wisdom. Sowell is saying is every lie should be challenged and debunked on the spot, immediately. Now granted unlike their opposition Republicans do not have the benefit of media access, nevertheless there are ways now to get around this problem: the internet, talk radio and Fox News are three such ways. Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie are two articulate Republicans who don't shy away from confronting the lies of the Democrats. Unfortunately Romney seems reluctant to take them on.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Needless mistakes by Romney
So far Romney has run a disappointing campaign, not unlike McCain in '07. He seems to provide the opposition with multiple unnecessary opportunities to attack him, and his message, by virtue of bad timing and sometimes awkwardly made points. His criticism of the Obama administration for the conflagration in the Middle East, while correct, was too hastily rendered making him look like an opportunistic, garden variety politician instead of a thoughtful leader. Today, at a fund raising event, he managed to describe the campaign in terms that the opposition was able to make the case that he really doesn't care about 47% of the Americans who are going to vote for Obama because they pay no taxes and are therefore dependent on the government. This message, while perhaps true in the context of campaign strategy making sessions and as an explanation to the contributors to whom it was directed,is bound to be red meat for the opposition who can make the case that Romney doesn't care about 47% of the population. It is a fact of political life that Republicans are up against a highly partisan, corrupt, press that is always looking for some controversial thought or idea with which to pillory them. This is exactly what they have done with the Romney comment "leaked" to them by someone who attended the fundraiser and video taped the remarks. These seem liken unforced errors, and yet the candidate and his campaign keep repeating and making them over and over. In just one week Romney's now given the opposition to big opportunities to force him off message while he defends himself.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Newt's not the guy
that The "insider" complaint about Gingrich as the nominee for the Republican Party is his undoing. Since his ignominious removal as Speaker of the House in 1999, Gingrich has enriched himself as a consultant for various corporations and GSEs including Freddie Mac. His defense of his activities is that he never lobbied any government agency on behalf of his clients. This is, at best, a highly dubious claim. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that one with Gingrich's background and history would be hired for any other purpose than to influence some government entity on behalf of his client? And influence peddling is the operative definition of lobbying, no matter any of the so-called nuanced explanations being floated in Gingrich's defense. Since the Tea Party, big government, and anti Obama sentiment prevalent today are all predicated on distrust and disgust with Washington and cronyism, it's hard to see how Gingrich can avoid this backlash. Romney will likely win the nomination as the last guy standing and because he has the least amount of big government/Washington taint. This outcome is probably for the best for conservatives and Republicans since of the two leading candidates Romney is the steadier, more rational and has more appeal among swing voters. Buckley's dictum of choosing the most conservative candidate who can be elected, is just about right in this case.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Forbes on the warpath
There is do doubt that the Republican "establishment" is anti Gingrich. To the extent Forbes Magazine represents the Republican establishment, this article is highly pro Romney and anti Gingrich, with a great deal of justification in the view of this blogger. There is no disagreement anywhere that Gingrich is THE consummate Washington insider. His entire career, until he was thrown out by his own party in 1999 on ethical grounds, has been spent in Washington where he attained the status of Speaker of the House, perhaps the second most powerful job in the federal government. Gingrich is bright, and his is a lifelong conservative. He has wobbled on some favorite conservative positions in healthcare and social issue involving abortions, however his core beliefs are substantially conservative. Where many in the Republican camp part company with him is on matters of character (three wives, history of philandering, revolving door history, etc) while in and out of public life. He's simply too erratic and personally suspect for true blue conservatives. Forbes attacks him on his lack of meaningful private sector business experience, and on his exclusively insider political experience. This critique is surely merited and will be hard for him to overcome.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Huntsman?
George Will is a Reagan conservative who to some, me among them, comes across as stilted and often pedantic. However that may be, in this opinion article he articulates the very real problem many conservatives (me among them) have with the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Romney is a Dewey-like candidate (actually he seems more like Hoover) who is not very likeable, and whose platform seems to be to merely micro-manage every aspect of existing government programs and bureaucracies -- a kind of big time efficiency expert. Gingrich is a loose canon, a "bull in a china shop who carries his china shop around with him" with a propensity to find macro solutions for some problems that may not even exist, when in real time a little less government would do the trick. What caused many conservatives to have severe reservations about Romney was his interview with Bret Baer of Fox News last week. When questioned about his changes of policy prescriptions over the years Romney lashed out at Baer using the regal "we" when referring to Baer in his answers revealing a condescending attitude that is most disturbing. In effect Romney was telling Baer that answering difficult questions about his changing positions on matters in the past is not important, that what is important is his prescriptions for problems facing the nation going forward. He seems not to understand that conservatives want to know why he changed his positions in order to determine whether he's a garden variety malleable politician or a Reagan-like leader with real, understandable convictions and principles, like theirs. Recalling the history of the '20's and the beginning of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover was a putative conservative who in the end turned out to be the architect of the New Deal. Since conservatives believe the growth of government during and since the New Deal is at the heart of our current problems, another Hoover is not their answer. If Romney can't reasonably articulate the changes in his positions over the years, the fear in this quarter is he may be just another Hoover.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Why Gingrich?
It's pretty obvious that Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, have grave reservations about Mitt Romney, otherwise he would be well ahead of the pack at this time. After all, Romney has been campaigning for this nomination for almost four years at this point, considering his run against McCain and his nonstop campaigning since? Truth is many Republicans simply are not impressed with his record or his presentations of his qualifications. What's more they have doubts that he would hew to the conservative principles and is, in reality, a Big Government Republican in the mold of Rockefeller, McCain, Dole, Ford and all the other centrists of the past. The grass roots Tea Party rebellion against the Obama Administration's huge overreach in healthcare and most other matters demonstrated how seriously these mainstream, largely Republican voters are about Big Government and its intrusion into individuals' lives. Because of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts, these voters have great reservations about Romney's commitment to their Small Government philosophy. In addition they seem also to be unsure of his oratorical skills going up against those of Obama. Gingrich, on the other hand, has a well documented conservative record in House -- 90% ACU voting record -- and is thought to be capable of burying Obama in the presidential debates. His most serious negatives are a tendency to be somewhat unfocused and perhaps have too many solutions to all our many problems. But, as things stand as of this moment, Gingrich's strengths seem to be carrying the day an he is now the front runner.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Is Romney the man?
Mitt Romney has never really captured the imagination of Conservatives in the manner Reagan did. That's just a fact. The guy seems to be either highly programmed or bloodless, neither characteristic is very appealing. Also, there's the matter of his flip-flops, particularly with regard to the Romneycare health program now running out of control in Massachussetts. In this post Steve Hayward points out another of Romney's questionable positions in his Governor days. It's important to remember that Hayward is a true blue conservative who wants nothing more than to get rid of Obama. And yet he has the same reservations many other conservatives do about the depth and sincerity of Romney's beliefs about the economy, climate matters and the role of the government. After all it does us no good to be rid of Obama and his crowd and replace him with just a lighter, paler but similar version of collectivist leadership. Conservatives truly believe the government is too large and intrusive and must be reduced in size and influence. The question is does Romney believe this or doe3s he just want to be POTUS? This question and these doubts are the reason conservatives keep looking for a viable alternative to Romney all the while candidates keep dropping out of the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)