What Do They Believe In?

Thinking about the remaining Republican candidates for president, it's important to ask a fundamental question about them: What do they believe in? This doesn't have to be a far-ranging though experiment, but could be done by simply filling in the following sentence. Here's an example right off the top of my head:

Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in ______________.

My first thought on this (not being an expert on every aspect of him) is: Ronald Reagan was a man who believed in smaller government, less regulation and a strong national defense. Yes it's broad and simple, but that's the point. The fundamental beliefs of a candidate should be clear and easy to discern. Let's try another one:

Barack Obama is a man who believes in...a powerful central government and programs and policies that will fundamentally change America. No commentary, just the narrative that I see coming from his time as president.

The problem with this is that can anyone do the same for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? I could probably come up with ones for Ron Paul (less government intrusion, efficient monetary policy, less global intervention) and Rick Santorum (strong national defense, the importance of faith and family in government policy), but what about the two top candidates? They are bashing each other's brains in for tonight's Florida primary and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but what do they believe in? It shouldn't be hard this difficult to figure out. Each campaign's messaging has been a hodge-podge of negative ads and temper tantrums, but no overarching philosophical belief system that conservatives, independents (and even liberals) could recall in response to a question from a curious friend or colleague.

This is a problem. Particularly when the general election begins. There has to be a basis for support outside of the specific policy issues that will be fleshed out during the campaign. Both of these candidates (Gingrich and Romney) have run in campaigns before and should know this. Now that Governor Perry is out of the race, I'm inclined to support Gingrich, but I need to know how to complete this sentence:

Newt Gingrich is a man who believes in ________________.

Watch Out: Romney's Coming to Town!

Holy crap. The 28-minute long "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" video hits all the emotional points that your everyday leftist would hit. Granted I don't mind any Romney hit piece, but geez, this is just over the top. You have pregnant women, a toy store closing, husbands and wives getting laid off, tear-jerking music, lost Christmases and pissed off Vietnam Vets. Winning Our Future certainly pulled out all the stops for this one.

Watch the video (linked above) and have a box of tissues handy...

Oh, and for Newt's SuperPAC to be involved in this, is pretty shameful. It's like the Occupy Wall Street people wrote and directed this. Again, I'm no Romney fan, but this is a bit much...

I do love one clip however: Romney is sitting in a chair on the tarmac (don't know why). There's a plane in the background and someone (no idea who) is wiping Romney's shoes off (or polishing them). This is the weirdest image I've ever seen...

It’s Friggin’ Over (I guess)

I’m thinking way ahead with some of this, but since the Iowa caucus is over, I think it’s appropriate. First though, the final result of the caucus probably caught a lot of people by surprise. I was one of them. I really thought Santorum and Paul would run away with it considering Romney didn’t spend too much time there and didn’t seem too interested. That may have been because he was content in letting the conservative candidates beat each other up over the social/religious voters. He did, however, spend a lot of money, but the grassroots-style of campaigning needed in Iowa, I thought, would make it more competitive for Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann. The fact that Romney only won by 8 votes, yes, VOTES, showed (1) the conservatism of the state and (2) that Republican voters are still not wholly satisfied with Romney as the frontrunner (surprise!).

Moving on from Iowa, Romney will probably crush everyone in New Hampshire. Santorum shouldn’t even waste any time there and make a stand in South Carolina (with an eye on Nevada and Florida as well). Perry will make his stand in SC, Bachmann is out and Gingrich will be working the state hard as well. Paul will keep going due to the fact that his young libertarian base on college campuses will continue to energize him.

Unfortunately, all of this strategic planning and horserace analysis will mean nothing. Romney will be the nominee. He has been methodically “campaigning”, not saying anything controversial and hoping the conservative vote will split itself at every turn (which it is and will). He has access to great sums of campaign cash and looks like a presidential character from central casting. He’s got some policy baggage, but that won’t matter. He’s the nominee. So, looking ahead, who should he pick for VP?

Because of the geographical importance of politics (even when governors pick running mates), Romney needs to look south and/or west. In addition to geography, what Obama does will (and should) play a role in Romney’s selection. If Obama dumps Joe Biden and places Hillary Clinton on the ticket, that will be the definition of a “game changer”. Without looking at any polling data, I would say that Obama would get a 5 – 7% bounce in his numbers after the announcement and Hillary would probably be good for 2 – 3% on Election Day. The leftist base would be fired up, Biden would get his dream job (Secretary of State), Hillary would be one step closer to the presidency and Bill Clinton would be able to be in the news even more often. It’s a no-brainer for Obama to do this. Sure, Biden may have his feelings hurt for a while, but he can spin it into being a “hero for the party”, blah, blah, blah.

With respect to geography (along with experience, appeal and electoral success) and Romney’s choice for VP, there are three potential running mates who would help balance Mitt’s Moderation:

• Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Young, attractive, conservative Tea Party favorite. May not necessarily be “ready” to be president, but wasn’t there a young senator from Illinois of whom we said the same?

• New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez. First woman governor of New Mexico (a democrat state in the southwest). Again, not too much experience, but executive experience none the less.

And last, but not least, my choice would be:

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Conservative. Re-elected in a landslide. Southern state. Extremely capable and popular. He endorsed Rick Perry (who should also get a mention for VP) because they are neighbors, but would balance out the ticket perfectly and, in my view, is ready and able to be President of the United States*.

If Obama makes the switch, Romney and the Republican Party have to inject some drama and excitement of their own. They must show a burning desire to lead and offer the country a capable combination while also satisfying conservative voters who have been known to cut of their noses to spite their faces when not happy with a candidate. The speculation about the switch has been going on for some time, but I think we will know if/when it’s going to happen: watch for the signage, bumper stickers and buttons the Obama campaign is using. If it just says “Obama 2012”, look out Joe!

(*Don’t think that I’m looking at ethnicity here either. I hate that. I’m looking at position and ability).

"il" to "Un" in a Day

It's happened. North Korea's Kim Jong-il is dead and the future of the country is, once again, in question. The "Great Successor", Kim Jong-Un is poised to lead the prison camp of a country, so what will he do?

Of course, no one could possibly predict with certainty what will happen there, but it's safe to say that North Korea will probably do something crazy to get people to pay attention to it. Wait, they just fired some short-range missiles into the sea. So there you have it. Now what's next?

Un's uncle, Jang Song Thaek, will be his consigliere and, hopefully, will guide the young prince/dictator/general into a place of stability (doubt it). Because this is a familial succession and Un is in his late 20s, there will be some palace intrigue and scary times ahead in the near term. Is a twenty-something prepared to lead a country of 24 million people with nuclear weapons? Will the military assert itself to maintain stability? Will Un just follow his father's feckless "diplomatic" policies (as was seen with the missile launch)?

Or, could there be hope that this young man, who may have been exposed to events and technologies from the outside world, will have a different view about North Korea's place? It's been reported that his father liked the finer things in life (like most dictators), so maybe Un had access to computers and international news. Maybe Un saw what has been going on in the Middle East. Maybe Un knows his way around Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and YouTube. Maybe, just maybe, his youth could be an advantage to the country. If he has the self-confidence to control the military and the party, it could be possible (but not likely) that Un could liberalize things (beginning with feeding his own people) and possibly open up channels with South Korea, Japan (??) and other Asian countries with an eye towards normalization with the West. Naive? Probably, but one can dream...

What If Occupy Really Wanted Change?

Let's assume that the Occupy protesters have good intentions to actually change the system they feel is onerous and tyrannical and is not just a means to create havoc for the sake of havoc. What could they do to actually make their case for substantive difference in our system?

1. Stop acting like spoiled brats and remember that they aren't the only ones with rights to move freely. There are people in the areas they are protesting in that have rights as well. Those people want to live and work in peace. It's tough for them. They couldn't take TWO MONTHS out of their schedule to sit around and meet. What about their rights??

2. Actually have some stated goals, not just "the 1% sucks". Squatting in a park on Wall Street did not affect one trade or bond deal. If they wanted to get a media hit out of it, they could have gotten a permit to march for a couple of days with their "hand-made" signs and 1960s slogans to start things off. Then, more substantive actions could have been taken: for example, there was an activist in California, I believe, that pushed the idea of moving one's money from the national banks to local credit unions. What better way to get the attention of major companies that hitting their bottom line and making them compete for your business?

3. Don't treat PRIVATE property as your own personal outhouse. Come on people! Really? Defacating on police cars and sidewalks? Public urination?

4. The most outrageous of the behaviors is the outright crime going on in these areas. The supporters of the "movement" don't want to talk about this, but the idea that rapes, child molestation, drug use, murder, assault, theft and any combination of these is going on in these supposedly peaceful protest areas is sickening. Why would anyone listen to your demands when you have basically created an outdoor prison environment?

5. Of all the places in the country where the Occupy movement should have been protesting is Capitol Hill, Washington DC. The traders and banks on Wall Street could care less what you people do because Congress will continue to fund their largess. Go to Capitol Hill and ask the congressional leadership (both Democrat and Republican) why they gave billions (if not trillions) of dollars to companies that were "too big to fail". After that, march on over to the White House and demand the answer to the same question. THOSE are the people that made this system the way it is. Why would you blame the recipient of ill-gotten gains and not the donor?

6. Don't be partisan. If you really want to change things, become an anti-incumbent movement and throw all the bums out! The Tea Party flirted with this idea, though they are largely a Republican organization, but they started out of dissatisfaction with both parties and their spending habits. Actually, there could be some solidarity with the Tea Party (if you drop all of the communist, union support, oh, and the rapes and drug use) on some issues if the Occupiers were so inclined.

Those are just a few things that the Occupiers could have done to make their movement more effective. But, we all know there is no interest on their part to actually change anything. They are bored, overwhelming white, middle to upper class kids that don't like homeless people and want to "do something". I guess every generation has to have their college protesters who think they are the best and the brightest, but turn out to be nothing of the sort.

2012 Supreme Court and the GOP

Just some quick thoughts on today's decision by the Supreme Court to accept review of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). The fact that the Court will probably take the full term to decide the case, will take us to June 2012. This will be right before both major party conventions, so how will it affect each candidate? Here's what I think:

If Mitt Romney has more or less clinched the nomination by this point and the Act is found constitutional, he's toast. Every Tea Party conservative, who won't be happy about his eventual nomination anyway, will blame him fully for starting this ball rolling. He's already getting hit on his RomneyCare efforts in Massachusetts, but if the Court finds it constitutional, there will be quite a raucous convention and once election day comes, he better have a tremendous ground game in operation.

If the Court finds it unconstitutional, then Romney gets a reprieve (though it will be a slight slap in the face, again, because he started this mess) and could say: "see, the way I did it was different. Obama is just trying to seize power over all of us", blah, blah, blah.

Now, Romney is the only one who really has to worry about the Court's upcoming decision. If Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or Rick Perry are on the way to win the nomination by June of next year, regardless of the outcome, they will have a great issue to run on. Each man can rail against its constitutionality and promise to work towards repeal or take a victory lap and say the country is at the dawn of a new era of freedom and liberty.

Along with Romney's trouble if the Act is found constitutional, is the Democrat's efforts to hold the Senate and regain the majority in the House. If the Court somehow finds this atrocious piece of legislation constitutional, then look out! The House and Senate will gain super majorities for the Republicans and the Act will probably be repealed anyway (I say probably, because predicting legislative behavior is like herding cats). It could potentially be a realignment that hasn't been seen in generations. Remember, the Democrats have to defend 23 seats in the Senate to 10 by the Republicans. The GOP already has a leg up, so the Court's decisions could help either way.

Of course, the Court could just split the difference and say the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the rest is okay. I still think that won't make much difference because the mandate is the key. Whatever happens with that will determine if Obama beats Romney or Obama is CRUSHED by whomever is the Republican nominee.

Where is John Galt?

With all of the bellyaching from the Occupy movements, Hollywood stars (!) and national Democrats about income inequality, "fat cats" and the "obscene" profits made by corporations, is it time that a John Galt steps up and says what needs to be said?

As many of you know, John Galt is a character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Galt is an industrialist/philosopher who basically had had enough with the assault on human independence, productivity and excessive government. He convinced a group of fellow "traders" to go on strike and leave the welfare state (and its creators and consumers) to its own destruction. If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, now is the time...

Galt made an address to the nation (after seizing the network in which the President was about to make a speech) and outlined the connection between the destructive moral beliefs of those consumers (mystical and material) of the welfare state and the loss of reason and human endeavor. When one group complains about the "greed" of another group, they impose their moral beliefs with an eye towards invoking guilt. That group wants something for nothing and the Galts of the world are having none of it.

The "beliefs" of the Occupy movements across the country are steeped in "gimme" morality and outright laziness. Why should any producers support these spoiled consumers? If the protests had been peaceful and expressed with some semblance of a coherent message, more people may ask themselves the same types of questions (Remember, at first, there was a subtle message against bank bailouts and excessive government support of the private sector). That message is long gone and has become a hodge-podge of whining about paying for their college (get a job!), socialism/communism (never worked) and outright anarchism (will NEVER work).

If these "takers" in our society (who have a healthy dose of personal entitlement) continue to rail against the producers, will the producers one day become so fed up that they will say "enough is enough" and stop providing them with the material goods they clamor for while at the same time disparaging the manner in which they are produced (or profited from)? Unlikely, but at some point, those who produce will not sanction anymore screaming and wailing from those spoiled consumers who dare not work to make society better but would rather simply scream and wail until someone listens to their screams and wails.

How will these "protests" against capitalism and free markets end? No one knows, but based on the level of violence we're seeing now, it probably won't end well. These supposed "peace and equality"-loving people are smashing windows, sexually assaulting minors, defecating on public property and embracing anti-liberty forces. To what end?

Once you read Atlas Shrugged, you will know "Who is John Galt?", but maybe we should start asking: "Where is John Galt?"

Teachable Moment Coming...?

There actually might be some burgeoning capitalists coming out of the Occupy movements across the country. The members of these different protest groups are learning that capitalist free markets are necessary for an ordered society. Case(s) in point:

In Portland, Oregon, a member of the Occupy movement filed paperwork to INCORPORATE their group in order to protect their financial assets.

In New York City, the Occupy kitchen staff is withholding the "good" food from people that don't WORK to support their efforts...actually those folks would probably then be in the 1% of the protesters because they will get the best food!

There are also stories of Occupy members, in conjunction with ACORN/New York Communities for Change (NYCC), are seeking VENTURE CAPITAL to purchase supplies and "pay salaries"...now I understand that using the word "venture capital" may be a stretch because they are going door to door and lying to people about the true nature and use of the donations, but regardless, they realize that money is needed to support their efforts and they are "working" for it.

The country may be better after all of this is over because many of these young people will be learning a valuable lesson about life in the real world.

GE and the Left

Making connections between political actors can be fun sometimes. Especially when those connections highlight a hypocritical aspect of their stated beliefs and notions. In this case, the connection is between standard leftist thinking and the actual facts of a modern corporation. The Occupy folks have been railing against corporations, capitalism et al. for weeks now. It has been shown that they are a tad bit disingenuous about their protestations considering they are using Apple iPhones to communicate, wearing Gap clothing and drinking Starbucks coffee as they scream about the corporate takeover of the country.

I want to make another connection and it starts with GE (General Electric). GE's CEO is Jeffrey Immelt, who just so happens to serve as President Obama's informal economic adviser. Obama has spoken out against fat cats and private jet users, so it's curious that he would name the CEO of a multinational conglomerate as his adviser, but whatever. GE's business is pretty broad-based. They are involved in consumer appliances, loans, media, aviation, oil and gas among other things. The particular connection I want to make today has to do with their aviation and media businesses.

GE Aviation builds aircraft engines for civilian and military aircraft. Pretty much all of the military aircraft's engines are made by GE. From the F-16, F15 and F117 to the B-1, B-2 and C-5, GE has pretty well cornered the market on powering our military's aircraft. No problem right? Right. Now, let's go to the media. GE is a 49% holder of NBCUniversal, which has a cable division called MSNBC. MSNBC is a combination of two corporations: Microsoft and NBC. As most people know, MSNBC is a left-leaning news organization that competes with FoxNews, which is a right-leaning news organization. Still no problem.

Here comes the problem: leftist are usually about peace and love and harmony and such right? Well, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has set up a foundation with his wife Melinda. You've probably heard of it. It's goal is to help underdeveloped regions of the world. Noble goal. So, the problem comes when the global conglomerate that makes engines for some of the most advanced killing machines in the history of the world, runs a peace/love/harmony-loving media outfit that is partnered with a billionaire philanthropist helping in some of the regions that those aircraft have or could be dropping bombs. Not to mention that the anti-corporate messages coming out of the White House in support of the Occupy movement belie the fact that one of the largest (actually the 6th) corporations in the country has its hands in some weird, disparate operations.

I'm not saying that any of this is corrupt or illegal, it just struck me as overly hypocritical on the left's part to not see this connection as problematic for their beliefs.

Obligatory Gaddafi (Khadafi? Qadafi?) Comments

I guess I may as well talk a bit about the demise of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi. The footage (h/t HotAir) of his body being drug through the streets of Misrata are graphic, but hey, I've seen plenty of Friday the 13th-type movies, so that didn't bother me. What kind of pinged in my head about this whole this is that, one minute he's alive (and not so well), being grabbed at by a bunch of NTC fighters, then the next minute he's on the ground with what seemed to be a gunshot wound to the head. The "cameraman" taking the footage is bouncing all over the place and there's a deafening cacophony of guns firing, screaming and "Allahu akbars" all over the place, so it's hard to really see what's going on.

The reason I'm a bit troubled by this is: should a democracy start like this? Granted Gaddafi was an evil guy, but can we honestly say that our expectation of a liberal rule of law standard will be at the forefront of Libya's effort at liberty? Hosni Mubarak is on trial after, while not as violent of a revolution as Libya's, a similar uprising. Both men were dictators who oversaw secret police and public oppression, so why the different end to their reigns? Hell, Saddam Hussein was captured (granted by U.S. forces) and put on trial and executed. Was it just the fervor of the moment? Was it because of the makeup of the various competing tribes in Libya that would have made a capture and public trial impossible (or inconvenient)?

The world (except for Louis Farrakhan) is glad Gaddafi's dead, but we should all keep a close eye on the processes that come out of the start of this new chapter in Libya's national story.