Ron Paul AGAIN makes a great showing in the straw poll at SLRC. Ron Paul came in second behind Romney by ONE vote.
Maybe there IS something to the Ron Paul phenomenon? Maybe conservatives actually want to vote for a conservative candidate?
The breakdown was as follows:
Filed under Uncategorized
Other than Ron Paul, I just don’t see any conservative candidate emerging. The Republican party seems to be in complete disarray. Maybe a third-party candidate?
Obama is FARRRRRRRR from perfect. If someone better could run, I would vote for that person in a heartbeat.
To tell you the truth, I strongly dislike the Neocons for “dumbing down” conservative thought. (Look at Newt Gingrich, for example). Why does being a Republican have to mean that you are completely clueless? A better question is: Why does being a CONSERVATIVE have to mean that you are completely clueless? Why can’t there be an intelligent conservative from ANY party who deeply understands the issues and has some solid ideas and solutions?
Look what the GOP has to offer:
Mitt Romney:
Sarah Palin: No depth of understanding on ANY issue (foreign or domestic). Great at memorizing talking points for applause lines. (That’s about it) She is several steps behind Romney in understanding the issues (especially foreign policy) and not even close to forming new ideas. Her nomination will completely guarantee an Obama victory. She would carry a few states in the South. (MAYBE). It would be a landslide the size of Nixon VS Humphrey.
Newt Gingrich: He is simply a shadow of his former self. (A sad, Hannity-puppet.)
Tim Pawlenty: I don’t know much about him. From what I can read about his PAC, it seems not very much different from the Neocon line. (High on rhetoric. Low on ideas). Maybe he will surprise me?
Filed under Uncategorized
I like redstate.com, because in the midst of a plethora of silly rhetorical nonsense (i.e. Dems are anti-business because they praise a provision in the healthcare bill requiring businesses to provide a room (other than a restroom) for women to breastfeed), there are some intelligent posts.
Here is one from redstate’s founder Erick Erickson expressing concerns about Utah GOP senatorial candidate, Tim Bridgewater. In addition to calling BS on “No Child Left Behind”, he identifies medicare Part D for what it is. He disagrees with Bridgewater’s characterization of Medicare Part D as a half step forward and says the following:
“Rather than being a half-step forward, Medicare Part D was a giant leap backwards, rammed through a Republican-dominated government in 2003.”
The first Conservative pundit to actually point that out! (notice he said “rammed through”). Try holding your breath and waiting for Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to say that.
Filed under Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind
Lately, it seems the once occasionally intelligent sounding Newt Gingrich has been reduced to a mindless Hannity-like Neocon. It’s really sad. Jon Stewart captures Gingrich on Hannity’s show completely agreeing with Hannity’s 100% false characterization of Obama’s nuclear weapons policy.
NOTE: John Stewart also nails the Neocons on their favorite past time (misquoting, and misrepresenting Ronald Reagan)
Jon Stewart Video The Big Bang Treaty
Here is the EXACT exchange, quoted from Newt’s OWN website:
GINGRICH: First of all, I would — I would love to see a White House reporter ask the simple question. If there was a biological attack, which killed over a million Americans, is this president really saying we would not retaliate?
HANNITY: That’s what he said. Wait a minute, that’s what he said. Am I to —
GINGRICH: I agree. It’s what he said. But I think it is important to push him and push Secretary Gates and to push Secretary Clinton, and to say to them, in the real world, if something truly bad happened, are you genuinely saying you would not retaliate?
No way. At no time did Obama at any time say, or imply, or hint that the U.S. would not retaliate to a Biological or Chemical attack. That’s a lie. He simply said, that we would not respond with nuclear weapons to an attack from an NNPT-compliant nation. (BTW: He also said, he reserves the right to adjust the policy at any time).
The reality is, other than a “deterrent” value (which is becoming less and less of an asset as the people out to destroy us become more and more radical and suicidal), nuclear weapons have little value. As I said, the “deterrent” value just isn’t what it used to be during the Cold War. Used with overwhelming force, nuclear weapons would do little to advance the interest of the U.S. in response to a devastating chemical or biological attack. All they would do is kill large amounts of innocent people and make the land uninhabitable. (Which could be EXACTLY what the perpetrator of such an attack would WANT!)
Nuclear weapons have little tactical value (except for maybe bunker busters or other tiny “tactical nukes” that the last administration was trying to introduce). Our conventional weapons technology has advanced to the point that we could remove a regime quickly (in a matter of days) with overwhelming firepower, WITHOUT killing millions of civilians and making the land uninhabitable. You would think this is common sense to all. But Neocons would rather use it as political talking point.
The Newt Gingrich of the 90′s was above that. Today’s Newt Gingrich clearly is not.
Filed under Newt Gingrich, Nuclear Policy, Ronald Reagan
From redstate.com, there is this article.
The poster “Tabitha Hale” had THIS to say about Tony Perkins:
“Tony Perkins makes me want to kick things. He starts out on a slight roll, ripping the Democrats on health care, etc. Then BAM. he starts going off on gays. All I could think was seriously, Tony? Way to focus on the stuff that a) makes Republicans look like jerks b) is a huge political loser and c) alienates a whole lot more people more people than it will ever impress. It was disheartening to hear what I hoped would be a rejuvenated sounding party kick off the conference with anti-gay rhetoric. Just shut up.”
I won’t comment. (Other than to say that I find it interesting.)
AND BTW: HAT TIP to redstate.com for the Debbie Wasserman Shultz video for my earlier post.
Neocons always complain that corporations (read their corporate donors) pay too much in corporate income tax. With the top corporate bracket being 35%, that is a high marginal rate by world standards, but the truth is U.S. corporations pay the among the LEAST (among developed countries) in taxes in the world.
Most people who have researched this, have know this for years. But I did not know, until recently that 57% of U.S. companies pay NO tax at all! 57%!!!!! Also, according to the same article, 72% of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. pay NO tax at all. Obama needs to take a page from the Ronald Reagan playbook and shut the Neocons up. He needs to do exactly what Reagan did with personal income tax: 1) Get rid of the high marginal tax rates (Reagan got rid of a 70% rate that no one paid) 2) Get rid of the loopholes and simplify the tax system.
Then of course, there is this article which shows how U.S. corporations hide their profits in overseas tax havens (like Haliburton has done for decades and continues to do).
Reagan was not perfect by any means, but he was no Neocon!
Filed under Corporate Taxes
I thought I had seen spin before, but this one goes in the record books…
This is actually spin of a badly worded bill into what would have been really good policy!
But SPIN this is!
Debbie Wasserman Shultz says “We have actually not required in this law, that you carry health insurance.”
Welllllll…….
What about Subtitle F, Part I, Section 1501… which is entitled “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage”
(Which includes an amendment to Subtitle D of the tax code to include the imposition of a penalty if the requirement is not met)
Ms. Schultz says, “there’s no requirement, you just have a different tax status (i.e. married VS single)” Now THAT is SPIN!
Here’s the deal… If they just worded it that way to begin with, I would have been supportive of it! Why not just say, you are taxing people who are uninsured? The uninsured clearly are taxing the system (If they are in need of emergency healthcare, they will get it) , they should pay a tax. (As long as there is assistance available for people who can’t afford insurance)
But that’s NOT the way this bill is written!!!! It CLEARLY says “Requirement”.
My guess is the Democrats are trying to emulate the RNC in message discipline. They are trying to win the Constitutional debate by saying (even know the bill clearly says “Requirement”) “there is no requirement, just a change in tax status.” I predict this will be the mantra of Dems everywhere over the next few months.
Filed under Healthcare
 | Montana on Sarah Palin – Rock … |
 | jackbschwartz on Now THIS is spin… … |
 | Jill on Now THIS is spin… … |
| jackbschwartz on Now THIS is spin… … |
| Jill on Now THIS is spin… … |
