Shock and Awe

You know, I just don’t get it. I thought I did, but I guess I really don’t. I thought that I had a feel for this country; its moods, its political leanings, its desires and dreams. I thought that this country, a country I love dearly, had a natural pendulum that would swing back and forth socially, culturally and politically. Every few years there would be a massive, noticeable and shocking swing to one side, then, a few years later, the pendulum would swing back. Sometimes it would swing back just as noticeably as the previous swing, but eventually, things would go back to a sense of balanced normalcy, you know? The country would always find its true north and be set on a stable course to prosperity, or at least something that resembled it. You can all think of examples, I’m not trying to give a history lesson here. The heated rhetoric during the second Bush term was a point where the pendulum swung pretty drastically and people wanted something different. So, we got it; and the pendulum swung almost 180 degrees the other way. Fine. That’s how things go. But now that it had swung that far, I thought it would swing back and center itself. It. Did. Not.

I don’t understand why. I have some theories tied together with thoughts from some pretty smart people I know as to why the country re-elected Barack Obama (I have to admit though, that last part was really difficult to write). I, like so many others were convinced the country would right itself and elect Mitt Romney (though he wasn’t the end-all and be-all to our country’s problems, but he presented a reasoned, moderate approach that would address some of the fiscal problems we face). Though the election was close (popular vote), it was a drubbing in the Electoral College. It was a devastating repudiation of common sense and the ability of the American people to confront a problem head-on. But the damage wasn’t done simply on the presidential level. Democrats increased their number of seats in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House. The Republican governor of Puerto Rico was defeated and the residents of that country voted overwhelmingly for statehood in a (thankfully) non-binding referendum. Two black House Republicans were defeated (though Allen West is still contesting the results), potentially leaving only Tim Scott of South Carolina. Don’t misunderstand me, the Republican party is NOT the savior of this country, but considering the problems we face, electing more Republicans nationally would have gone a long way towards righting this ship. There are viable policy positions from some of the third parties, but as of now we function under a two-party system so that’s what we have to work with.

In a previous blog entry, I had speculated that there would be a transformational shift towards a solid center-right populace at the end of this election. Romney, as a former (?) progressive Republican was well suited to mount a strong, aggressive campaign that would take the fight to the leftist progressives. Obama’s policies would be rejected and “balance would be restored to the force”. I was half-right. The country has been almost solidly consumed by the consumer-taker mentality, which, as of this election, makes up 50% of the electorate. Producer-givers make up only 48%. There is the transformation. President Obama made that same promise in 2008, but I didn’t believe him (at least not in the way he thought it would happen). That 48% is a large number no doubt, but still the fact that it is not a majority is highly disturbing. We have now become a nation divided, not along party lines, but along attitudinal ones. This will come as no surprise to many, but now, the future of the country will be fought between consumer-takers and producer-givers. No, these terms are not original, but it will be therapeutic for me to explain them.

The producer-givers are the people that Romney represents and who he seems to embody. He seems to be a caring, giving man who had a great deal of success in his life. Yes, he had advantages, but everyone has different types of advantages and it comes down to how you exploit them. He was successful in many things that he did and was rewarded for it. There is nothing wrong with that. He also seems like a noble man who loves his country and wanted to help make it better. The 48% who supported him have similar stories: hardworking people who don’t look to strangers (in government) to give them something for nothing. Now, Romney miscalculated about the 47% figure he quoted in that undercover “gotcha” video. He pegged the number three percentage points too low. There are, and we have seen it in stark relief, 50% of people, not 47%, who want something for nothing. It’s as simple as that. Fifty percent said “no” to self-reliance, personal responsibility, selflessness, and dare I say it: honor and love of country. That 50% were doing nothing but thinking about THEIR next meal, THEIR next bill payment, THEIR feelings of “hope” and “change” and how THEY are going to move “forward”. Not one single second was spent thinking about the trillions of dollars (can you even contemplate how much that really is??) our posterity is on the hook for; not one second thinking about the massive yearly deficits that are due NOW; not one second about increased inflation, taxes and gas prices; not a single second on the almost constant violations of civil liberties; and, most disturbing (at least to me as a military veteran), not a single solitary second on the lives lost by people in the service of this great country: service members, federal law enforcement officers, contractors and diplomats. Whether on the Mexican border, in Benghazi, at Ft. Hood, Texas, at recruiting stations in Arkansas, in Iraq or in Afghanistan (please forgive me if I’ve neglected to include any other incidences, I’m doing this from memory), their service has come to naught.

People have died due to the negligence of this administration and their worldview. People have died. Apparently that does not mean anything to the 50%.

But I digress.

Those 50% that voted to continue on the same path are the consumer-takers. This term is pretty self-explanatory. They are focused on and dedicated to enriching themselves with the least effort possible. They are no better than the fat-cats they rail against. The only difference is they won’t put in the hard work to one day become a CEO, CFO or COO. They simply want what they want and expect everyone to give it to them. They had a candidate who promised to do just that. The shift has taken place in such a resounding way I am still in a bit of shock. I was shocked when Obama was elected, but chalked it up to Bush fatigue. Re-elected? No way in hell. Never happen. The American people can throw a fit every once in a while, but they are balanced, common sense people. When Americans see a problem or something not working, they will try to fix it. Not this time. There’s no way they didn’t see it. They FEEL it everyday for crying out loud! Then what was it? The country has shifted. It’s not a pendulum swing thing anymore. It’s a honest-to-God shift. The fundamentals of this country have shifted from producer-givers to consumer-takers. Of course, there are still people who are willing to give of their time and work hard, but I have to say, this must be the first time in the history of this country where the consumer-takers have out-numbered the producer-givers. That is a devastating realization.

If faced with the fiscal, cultural and political problems that we have confronted over the past few years hasn’t awoken a spirit of basic common sense to stop the train while we still can, I’m afraid their may be no turning back. Maybe we can chip away at the edges and hope for the best, but the fears of turning into France or Greece may actually be realized soon. I’m not trying to be tin-foil hat guy and scream about the end of the republic, but France, to Greece, to Venezuela to Go-knows-what is not an impossible thing to happen. Americans have a special type of outlook, but, considering this past election, they are increasingly susceptible to falling down the civilizational cliff towards a totally statist society. Some may argue we are already there. I don’t think it is complete, but much of the evidence points in that direction. Maybe it will be a “new” brand of statism, a sort of “socialism American-style”. Regardless, it will still be a system that has never worked and has led to the deaths of countless millions of people and the subjugation of those still living. That is a truly scary thing, but the foundation has been laid. The 48%, like me, loves this country and wants the best for it. It is so demoralizing to see it go in a direction that most reasonable and rational people see as dangerous. Forget ideology and just look at the numbers: trillions here, trillions there. We can’t sustain this. Then, look at history, and not just ours. Finally, look around the world. Where do financial crises lead? These problems are not solely ideological, though there are “Democratic” and “Republican” economists (which makes no sense), but the numbers are the numbers. I would only tell the new 50%: Be careful what you wish for…

God save the Republic. 

The Crowds!!

No. No. No. No. They wouldn't, would they? I can't for the life of me believe the Democrats would stoop to such a level! At Breitbart.com, John Nolte has a picture (see left) of the stage for the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina's Bank of America stadium. Behind the podium are images of adoring crowds in Obama campaign gear. They are excited, enthusiastic and enraptured. Why would these images be on the screens behind the stage?

Nolte speculates that these images may be used to falsely show large emotional crowds for Obama's nomination acceptance speech to hearken back to the heady days of the 2008 campaign. The Obama campaign has had a great deal of trouble filling venues for his events and to show these images of full, happy crowds would be great optics for the campaign and the convention. However, they can't be that desperate (or stupid) to do such an obvious thing. Could they?

I mean, the only time for these images to be displayed would be during Obama's speech, right? No one would care if there was a large, focused crowd during, say, Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke's speech about the government paying her to have sex, right? So, now that these images are out there, I can only believe (if the Democrats aren't that stupid) that it will be a part of a "Remember When" style of video presentation. I mean, it just has to be right? They can't be THAT desperate. Can they?

Extremely Rare Endorsements

This is probably the first time in American political history where all of the living former Presidents of the United States (from opposing parties) have, in one way or another, endorsed the challenger to the incumbent executive.

President George H.W. Bush has formerly endorsed Mitt Romney for President. George W. Bush has done the same (“I’m for Mitt Romney!”). Those two endorsements from Republican former presidents would be expected. The following endorsements? Not so much:

Bill Clinton, on several different occasions, has defended Mitt Romney’s qualifications (as governor) and his “sterling business career”. He has also given us a timeline for when we can expect the economy to improve and who to hold accountable. Two years ago (September 2010), speaking at the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton said that if the Democrats don’t have this mess straightened out, the voters should “vote them out”. Well, it is two years later and there is an election coming up, so…

I’m now standing by to hear what Jimmy Carter has to say about President Obama. Oops, wait a second. In an interview with MSNBC this past April, former President Carter said Romney had been “fairly competent” as governor of Massachusetts and that Carter would be “comfortable” with Romney as president (though he did try to pin the “right-wing extremist” tag on Romney later in the interview). Not a ringing endorsement, but close enough coming from Carter.

Geez, with friends like these…

The last endorsement (though indirect) of Romney (or whoever the Republican nominee would be) comes from none other than: President Barack Obama himself! During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that if he didn’t have the economic situation worked out by the end of his first term, then it would be a “one-term proposition’ for him. Well, we’re coming up on the end of his first term, so…

Prelude to Transformation

At the start of the presidential primaries, I supported Texas Governor Rick Perry. I thought that he had the best record to go up against President Obama. Unfortunately, he was not able to parlay his executive experience into a successful primary win. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has gone on to win the Republican nomination (officially, this past Tuesday in Texas) and has, to my surprise, stormed out of the gates with a solid campaign and fundraising operation.

This, along with the atrocious performance of the Obama campaign, has led me to believe the potential of two things happening come November:

1. The polls (I know, it’s REALLY early) are showing Romney close, tied or in the lead among various demographic groups and individual battleground states. The lack of mistakes (so far) from his campaign should give Republicans confidence as we go into the summer months. This all could lead to the possibility of a not-so-close election, culminating in Romney winning a healthy number of electoral votes (not to mention popular votes). I would not be surprised with a  mid-50% share for Romney, and a mid 40% share for Obama (honestly, if we didn’t live in Bizarro world, it wouldn’t be close at all).

2. The second thing that I see happening is that we could be on the verge of another transformational political election on the order of 1994 and 2010. This won’t just happen at the federal level either. Governorships, state legislatures and local governments will see more conservatives/Republicans/libertarians taking office in 2013 (especially as we see more Democrats switching parties; Arthur Davis the most prominent). This would have the most profound effect on our country and its future. I'm not so naive to think that just because a Republican is in office that everything will be rosy, but at least there will be the chance for a devolution of federal power back to where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

Now, there are a million caveats that could be attached to this, but politics is not just a science, it’s an art. Gut feelings come into play on top of all the hard work that campaign operatives and candidates put into the various races. My gut is telling me that the Romney campaign is exhibiting a level of skill that we didn’t see from the McCain campaign in 2008. So far, it seems to have the same organizational flexibility and tactical awareness of the 2004 Bush campaign (and depending on how things go, that of the 2008 Obama campaign). Would it be possible for the Romney operation to outmaneuver the Obama campaign? Well, they seem to have done it today with the dual press conferences at Solyndra headquarters and the Massachusetts State House! Not to mention the failed Obama attacks on Bain, the ridiculous "War on Women", the fight against the Catholic Church and his own surrogates (Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Cory Booker among them) shooting the campaign in the foot. 

The funny thing about all this is that the 2008 campaign was about the transformational nature of Barack Obama. His voters loaded him up with their dreams and hopes and carried him to the Oval Office. In 2012, is the country looking for the same thing? No. This year, we are looking for steady administration, quiet confidence, success and experience. There won’t be many fainting youngsters at Romney rallies or God-like images of Mitt on posters, but there will be internal relief among many conservatives, independents, and even liberals, that here’s a guy who can get things done.

After eight years of President Bush-a steady, confident leader-who was dogged by constant media and Democratic assaults on his policies and character, the country wanted something diametrically opposed to him. They got that with a vengeance. Now, the country has seen what the lack of gravitas and experience can do to the economy and our national standing in the world. They want steady back. 

The Best Defense...

Follow my logic on this one:

Conservatives generally believe that "progressives"/liberals will do whatever it takes to win an election. They will claw, scratch, bite, lie, cheat and/or steal to gain power. If you listen to any liberal politician or strategist, they will say anything to advance their goals (gaining power) no matter how outrageous or twisted. Ok.

Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, and in previous campaigns for U.S. Senate, described himself and acted in a "progressive"/liberal manner. Many conservatives have a problem with him because of this. Also, many people believe, at heart, he is nothing more than a Massachusetts liberal masquerading as a conservative to win an election. Ok.

So, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that Romney may do better against Obama (strictly in a tough campaigning sense) than we think? Judging by the way he has attacked every Republican candidate since Iowa (which is fine with me, I don't have a problem with "negative" campaigning), the charge that he will be too nice or milquetoast to go toe-to-toe with Obama may prove to be baseless.

His political DNA is coded to be "progressive"/liberal, so maybe he will pull out all the stops (unlike McCain) and really take it to Obama. It's not like there isn't enough fodder to hit him on (Fast and Furious, the economy, jobs, national security, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, his "son" Trayvon, the "Beer Summit", "fundamentally transforming America", 57 states, ObamaCare, the war on Catholics, Solyndra, foreign donors, Israel, the national debt, spending, golf, lack of leadership on ANYTHING, taxes...whew!).

Being aggressive is an important part in this election. There is no way that Obama will be defeated if the Republican is not aggressive. Even though any sane person can see that BHO is a friggin' train wreck of a President, it will still take hard, aggressive, take-no-prisoners campaigning to beat him. Since it seems that Romney will be the last man standing (ugh), I just hope he isn't afraid to use Obama's middle name.

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 ________________.

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).

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.

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.

Dreaded Concern and the 2012 Negative Campaign

I was a Perry guy before he got into the race. I thought he had the best record and resume to go up against Obama. I still do think that. However, I'm a bit concerned about this performance thus far. Not in the debates, those are largely run by liberal media organizations that look for any opportunity to define the Republican field. I had a vision that the Perry campaign would be rolled out with such force and immediacy, that other candidates would fade into the background and it would be down to one or two others. Perry held things that way for a few weeks, but then "weak" debate performances had people freaked out. I hate debates and don't think they provide much information. What can you get from 60 second answers and 30 second responses (particularly when asked by ideological opponents)?

So, I'm still for Perry as my main candidate, but I've looked at Cain as well. Yes, he could win the nomination and would be better than Obama (who wouldn't?). However, I'm not really ready to go all-in for him at this point. Now, the one candidate who I've admired for years is: Newt Gingrich. Yes, he has baggage that would be relentlessly pushed by Obama 2012, but think about it: which Republican candidate wouldn't be pilloried next year? Can anyone possibly admit that if Romney is the candidate, Obama and the Democrats will be nicer to him than to Gingrich? People are scared to death of supporting Gingrich because of his personal issues because they're afraid of them being used in the campaign. What do you think will be done to Perry, Cain or Romney if/when they are the nominee? There are probably REAMS of research material on Romney's every business and political decision sitting in the Obama campaign headquarters. They will be brutal. Same goes for Perry and Cain. Obama is probably more scared of Romney than the others, so they will have every last bit of opposition research available.

This campaign will probably be one of the most brutal, negative and underhanded we've seen in a while. Granted we have a history of negative and sinister campaign tactics used in presidential races (Washington was "senile", Jefferson had illegitimate children, Lincoln was half-black, etc.), so I don't mean to overstate the almost-certain negativity next year, but why should that force us to support or not support a particular candidate? I was guilty of thinking the same thing about Gingrich, but looking at a complete package of experience, knowledge, technical competence and ability (along with the requisite conservative ideals), the best candidates have to be Perry and Gingrich. Hell, a Perry/Gingrich ticket would give us the best of both worlds. If people think Perry is a loose cannon cowboy type, let's marry him with a brainy intellectual. Unlike the current occupants of the White House, at least a Perry/Gingrich team would know how many states there are!

A New Start

Well, it's time to get back on the horse and start bloggin' again. My last post was pretty uninspired, so I'll try to do a bit better. I just (re)-downloaded Blogger on my Android-based phone so there's no excuse for me not checking in to IntRam more frequently.

So, what's been happening? Herman Cain, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO is running ahead of pretty much everybody for the GOP nomination. I like his down-home, plain-spoken manner, I'm not sure about his 9-9-9 plan, but it's a start to get people talking. I was really excited that Rick Perry jumped into the race a couple of months ago, but he's been underwhelming. Although, that view is mainly coming from the left and people who don't like him on the right, so I'm still for Perry until he gets beat. Romney is just another slick-ass politician who will disappoint a lot of people if he's elected.

It's a shame that Gingrich has so much baggage in his past. He's clearly the smartest candidate we have and has the most robust intellect which would serve the country well. A general election campaign with him against Obama would just be brutal. All the rest of the candidates: Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Santorum, Huntsman (am I forgetting someone?), are pretty much unelectable and may be vying for a cabinet post or appointment...

Well, that's it for now. Let's try to keep this going. I've been ranting and raving about a lot of stuff and I need to get it down on "paper"...

What will they say now?

We all remember the outrage from liberals around the world and here in America when the Abu Graib prison "abuse" stories hit the front pages. From Ted Kennedy to Nancy Pelosi to Barney Frank to Barack Obama, leftist politicians shouted from the rooftops about the so-called "abuses" perpetrated by members of our armed forces.

If they want to know about abuse, they need to read this article from the Times of London. It outlines what some have said about the treatment of Iranian protesters in Iranian prisons. Here's a short list of some of the alleged abuses:

• Fingernails pulled out
• Forced to lick dirty toilet seats
• Hair pulled out
• Beatings
• Death

Now, how does this stack up with putting a pair of panties on a prisoner's head or making them stand on a box with their hands outstretched? It doesn't. If liberals want to look for cruelty and find an offense around every corner, they don't need to look at our military, at George W. Bush or any other demon they love to hate. There is a stark example of evil in the Middle East.

We all need to wake up and see the threat that is coming over the horizon. The Iranian leadership are dasdardly little men who thrive on power and will not think twice about killing one of their own innocent citizens on the street to make a point. What do you think they will do with a nuclear weapon?

Ok liberals, here's your chance. Will you speak out against REAL abuse as harshly as you did about prisoners being embarrassed?

Set up for a fall?

This is interesting...

President Obama has just given Vice President Gaffe a major part of his foreign policy portfolio. It was announced today that Joe "I wouldn't take a subway with this flu thing going on" Biden will be leading the effort to bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together in Iraq as our armed forces leave the country.

Hmmm.

One of the biggest complaints from the left about former President Bush was that he gave former Vice President Cheney too much power and too big of a role in the administration. Now Obama is giving one of the biggest pieces of policy (foreign or domestic) to the man who can't keep his foot out of his mouth.

Hmmm.

As our men and women in uniform leave Iraq, some violence has begun (4 troops were killed as the cities were handed over to the Iraqi security forces) and we can all be sure that Al-Qaeda is waiting for the last of our forces to leave to try and destabilize the country. If that happens who will be to blame?

Hmmm.

Watch your back Joe; you know that in Washington, when the music stops you better have a chair to sit in or...

Hmmm.

Biden the Liability?

President Obama may be popular and look invincible right now, but he's got to be thinking things aren't totally rosy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. As he tries to "remake" America into his own liberal (socialistic) image, he repeatedly has to watch what his partner-in-crime, Vice President Joe Biden is saying and doing.

The list of Biden Blunders is too long to even get into, but the latest one has got to have Obama cringing. Biden, speaking to a group of law enforcement officers, said that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will "have their back" when she reaches the highest court. Oops.

Everyone with just a grade school level of knowledge of the courts has to know that judges/justices must be impartial and make their decisions based on the merits and facts of the case before them. For all of the criminal defense attorneys and plaintiff lawyers who represent police brutality victims, these words must have come as quite a shock.

To the rest of us who were paying attention during the campaign, this is just another gaffe in a long line of them; not just from Biden, but from this unprepared, inexperienced and naive group that currently runs our country's executive branch.

I've written about Nancy Pelosi in previous posts and it made me think that we must have the most dimwitted, faux-intelligent leaders now than in any other point in our nation's history. People have told me that Obama is extremely smart and the other Democrats in charge are highly capable. To be honest, I haven't seen any of that yet.

From Obama's "I've visited 57 states so far" to Pelosi's "I didn't think the CIA was serious about waterboarding", none of us should be surprised that the country is heading down a dangerous path.

Considering all of Biden's gaffes in the short 6 months he's been in office, would anyone be surprised if he wasn't dumped from the ticket in 2012? He's got three and half more years to stick his foot in his mouth and the Democrats are all about winning. If Biden becomes too much of a liability, he'll suddenly come down with some illness or family situation that will preclude him from running.

Better Luck Next Year...

Well, I guess it was too good to be true. During and after his first legislative test, President Obama declared that we would know exactly how and where every dollar, actually, every DIME, would be spent. He made a big deal about Recovery.org, a website that would list, down to the contractor level, how and where the "stimulus" money would be spent.

I took a gander at Recovery.org to see how things are going and to my surprise, after looking for stimulus spending sent to NJ, all I could find was a general overview (NJ gets about $2 billion). There's nothing specific about who is getting it and how EXACTLY it's going to be spent. So much for transparency. But to top things off, the actual information that Obama bragged about providing won't be available sooner than October and possibly as late as next Spring!

The man who is leading the government's effort to get Recovery.org up and running, Earl Devaney, said that it would be a "challenge to have the site ready to present data in five months" and, after the hearing before the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology, that "the board [Recovery Transparency and Accountability Board] doesn't have enough storage capacity".

Ok. I'm not a huge techie who spends hours figuring out how to program this or that, but I do realize that computers have a limited capacity to store and process information. If there is a lot of information that needs to be used on a computer, you have to ensure the computer is capable of handling it right? If the government is planning on sharing $800 billion worth of spending information, don't you think you should have a friggin' Cray computer set up to handle the data? Asleep at the switch doesn't even begin to describe this.

I know, politicians make promises all the time, but this is supposed to be the era of enlightenment and super technology with one of the most "plugged-in" presidents in our nation's history! What happened?

Anyway, just to make us feel confident in the Board's ability to take charge of its mandate and get the job done, Devaney said that after they wait six to nine months for the White House Office of Management and Budget to come up with rules on how the stimulus spending information should be released, he would, "...push them for as much data as possible".

Man, I feel so much better.

Party all the time, party all the time...

So, let's get this straight: the DOW is down below 7000, the deficit is projected to be in the TRILLIONS, God knows what our national debt is, the budget is coming in at 2,3 or 4 trillion dollars, taxes are going up, government intervention in every aspect of our life is increasing daily, defense spending is being cut and the new President is planning to make us a nation of construction workers and volunteers.

Whew! That's a pretty hefty policy load, no? I'm sure implementing these policies can/will take a lot of a person. Fighting to turn a free, democratic country into a socialist one will do that. When you're working that hard you need to blow off some steam and relax. How? Throw a party! Or in President Obama's case, throw A LOT of parties.

According to BreitBart.com, Obama holds to an almost religious schedule of parties, klatches and get-togethers every Wednesday which include expensive steaks, crab, entertainment and conga line dancing. Yes, conga line dancing.

He's had a Super Bowl party, black-tie dinner, cocktail hours, concerts and all sorts of fun times in between spending trillions of our tax dollars. Quite a multi-tasker wouldn't you say?

I'm so thrilled that he's not letting the bad economic numbers affect him. All those people who said they won't have to worry about paying their mortgage or filling up their gas tank are surely comforted knowing the "Party"er-in-Chief is holding it down.

POTUS is a stressful job, I understand that. But, how on Earth can Obama look himself in the mirror after chowing down on the best steaks and listening (LIVE) to Stevie Wonder or Earth, Wind and Fire then tell small business owners that they aren't paying enough in taxes? How can he (or his minions) complain about the need for a new fleet of helicopters then deride corporate CEOs who use private jets? How can he tell us to tighten our belts and do more for the good of the country, when he's spending more time toasting and stomping his feet to some funky rhythm than holding true to the standard of liberty and economic freedom that makes this country great?

He sure didn't waste any time getting into Imperial Mode did he? I'm sure he and Michelle were salivating over the chance to move into the White House. "Think of the party's we can have with our (elitist) friends! It'll be just like old times!"

Are you getting the feeling that maybe, just maybe, he wasn't just the simple "community organizer" he was made out to be?

Back to School

Well, after 20 years, I've decided it's time to go back to school. Yep, back to books and classrooms and teachers (professors) and notebooks and backpacks. ugh! Honestly, it's not all bad. I actually enjoy saying that I'm a "college student". It really rolls off the tongue quite nicely.

Anyway, I figured it was time to finish what I've started many times, taking classes here and there and dreaming about one day walking down the aisle of a crowded auditorium wearing a funny hat and feeling a sense of real accomplishment.

I didn't want to start with too much on my plate, so I'm taking a US History class (I love history) and an African-American Literature class. Both subjects are interesting and I've been motivated by the motivated instructors. Like many colleges and the courses they offer, I find the instruction and the required reading to be, well, left-leaning. SURPRISE! I guess I naively thought that it would be different for me and I would get some politically-neutral, if not politically-balanced professors, but to no avail.

In the first three weeks of class, I've heard the names of Bush and Palin used in disparaging fashion more than once. I've seen Obama t-shirts and even had a fellow student give a short talk on his experiences at the Inauguration.

I'm not whining, I'm just, well, I guess I am whining. I would just like to learn some interesting subjects which will help achieve my ultimate goal: a bachelor's degree. Is it too much to ask to not have to hear how much Bush sucked? Or that Palin was/is an idiot? Or that Obama is going to bring rainbows and sunshine to all of us by merely wishing it?

I guess it is. So anyway, I've got some homework to do before class tonight. Talk soon.

Stop the Racial Rhetoric

Despite the flat and uninspiring Inaugural Address by now-President Barack Hussein Obama, there was a memorable moment that caught me by surprise: Reverend Joseph Lowery's benediction. He said:

'Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen'...

On a day that we are supposed to be post-partisan and post-racial, the Rev. Lowery's racist "prayer" is truly disturbing. President Obama has spoken about new beginnings, hope and other glowing images throughout the campaign and since his election. We are supposed to believe that his election brought a new era of societal advancement where content meant more than color.

I wrote in an earlier post - soon after Obama's election - that the Civil Rights Industry should be shutting its doors and moving on to other issues. Our racial problems have been solved right? I mean, we've elected a black/white man to the highest office in the land. What more can Jackson, Sharpton, Lowery, Lewis, et al do? The promised land has been reached. MLK's vision has been achieved.

Unfortunately, people like Lowery do a great disservice to this country's ability to move on. His comments about "whites embracing what's right" is a slap in the face to thousands of white people who have done good things to improve race relations. Why can't we just move on with the hard work that we have ahead of us? Why must we continue to stoke the flames of racism (yes, black people can be racist)?

I'm really uncomfortable with the fawning treatment given to a man before he's been tested, but I will try to give him a chance. However, if this type of racial rhetoric is going to be the order of the day, the only change we can expect is more racial turbulence in our cities and throughout the country.

Uh Oh!

Iran is steadily increasing its uranium processing.

If that doesn't send chills down your spine, I don't know what will. It seems they have almost doubled their current yield since August and some say they could have a crude bomb ready as early as next year. It wasn't long ago that the experts predicted it would take 5, 10 or 15 years before Iran became a member of the Nuclear Club.

At this time last year, many people, led by the media, were howling that the National Intelligence Estimate showed that Iran had halted its uranium enrichment program in 2003. Oops.

Where are they now? Where are the people that pummelled the President and his national security team about saber-rattling? What happened to the cries of woe against confronting Iran?

They are silent because they were fighting tooth and nail to get what they wanted. They wanted the President and his party hobbled leading up to the 2008 elections. They wanted every American to associate all the bad in this world with the word "Bush". Well, they got their wish.

I hope Obama is ready.

Iranian President Ahmedinejad is a nut. We all know that. Is he a nut willing to use nuclear weapons against Israel or Europe or America? I think so. He is willing, but I don't think he would actually go through with it. Granted, I haven't sat down with him over a bowl of dates and a cup of tea, but he has to know that our response would be devastating.

However, the threat of using them may be enough to get what he wants. What does he want? Israel obliterated. Maybe favorable trading conditions. The West out of the Middle East. To be ruler of "Greater Persia". I have no idea (well, the Israel thing is a definite).

This is a time that we all need to be paying attention to what is going on in the world. We have to hold our leaders to a tremendously high standard when they tell us what they think should be done and how they plan to do it. This is not a game anymore (it never was). All of the campaign speeches, screaming and fainting are over.

Big boy rules are in effect now.

We have a few months until we open the morning paper and read:

"Iran test fires first nuclear-tipped missile with an effective range that encompasses Israel and most of Europe."

I REALLY hope Obama is ready. *sigh*

Don't Do It!

President-elect Obama is floating the idea of naming New York Senator Hillary Clinton to be our next Secretary of State. Big mistake.

If I can offer him a wee bit of advice: Keep her out of the Executive Branch if you value your Administration (and your sanity)!

The simple way to look at this is you have three large planetary masses orbiting each other: Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton. These three masses have tremendous gravitational pull on each other and on millions of smaller masses. If these masses are brought closer together it would make the Big Bang look like a firecracker.

Here's a scenario: President Obama is having some trouble with, oh I don't know, Iran. He decides that, without preconditions, he's going to send SecState Hill over to talk to our new friend Mahmoud. She stumbles and says the wrong thing or doesn't wear the proper head scarf or whatever and the press gets wind of it. Who do they go running to for a comment? Big Bill. You know the press LOVES controversy, so this could turn into a great story!

Bill: "Heck, I don't know what she was thinking, but if I was over there..."

You see Mr. President, you are asking for a lot of trouble and a lot of leaks if the Clintons are anywhere near the White House or your foreign policy apparatus.

Leave her in the Senate and help pay off her debt. If she starts jet-setting around the globe she'll only be making more friends to help her in 2012 and you don't want to face that possibility do you?

Oh, and one more thing Mr. President: If your main reason for mentioning Senator Clinton for the most important cabinet position in the government is to bring the Democratic Party together, shame on you. Now is the time for a professional diplomat with an understanding of the geopolitical minefields that await us as we move further into the 21st Century.

Managing the problems brought by Venezuela, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan and all of Africa are a bit more important than political party unity don't you think?