Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, December 30, 2011
There has been much ado about Michele Bachman’s Co-Chair, Kent Sorenson, defecting to the Ron Paul camp and justifiably so; its not often such an important if not visible role in a campaign as chair is - leaves for a rival with the outcome of the primary still in doubt. So to make up for this obvious sucker punch Bachman does what most politicians would do; they threw mud saying Mr Sorenson left for a large sum of money. If he did or did not (he denies it) is irrelevant, because this about as clear of an SOS signal as a sinking ship can deliver.
How does one fall from winning the straw poll with 24% to fall into the single digits just six months later? It’s hard to pinpoint what or how but what is not hard to pontificate is the fact that Michele Bachman just doesn’t get it. This was her quote today on the subject:
"Clearly, I think that was a reaction from the Ron Paul campaign because they've seen the overwhelming momentum that we've had for candidacy. People have left his campaign and have come to ours in terms of supporters and I think that's unruffled their feathers," said Bachmann.
HUH? Overwhelming momentum? The only momentum she has is downward… like free falling. There is no momentum. There are reports of pastors asking her or Santorum to quit! People leaving the Paul campaign for hers? He leads the field with the most veracious support and is often polled as having the people less likely to change their minds, yet they are leaving for her sinking ship at the same time her co-chair leaves it?
Then there is this story from reuters quoting Bachman's own political director in Iowa, Wes Enos who came to the former Co-Chairs defense contradicting Bachmans claim that Sorenson left for money. This was Enos' statement:
"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a “sell-out” …. That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision."
A day later, Enos resigned as well. Ouch.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
It’s kind of funny to watch Mitt Romney nestle up to the American working man of the mid-west. You see it all over Iowa as if he feels in his heart of heart… he understands their problems and really feels their plight. The man who once joked he was “also unemployed” to a table of alleged people in Florida who were actually… unemployed. All this despite that he sits on a net worth that’s said to be over 200+ million. Hardly, the same situation the almost 10% of Americans face, no doubt.
See, Romney chooses to be unemployed. He quit his job as Governor. What has he done since? He’s run for President ... yes, for four years. So, in reality, Romney should be the shoe in for the Republican nomination. He has obviously concentrated four years on this moment, thus his organization is strong and built up. He has the biggest war chest of anyone running. Last but not least, he has K-Street and big business on his side.
Politico ran a story in July about the super PAC: Restore Our Future, where 90 of the wealthiest citizens poured in 12.2 million dollars for Mr Romney. This was the same month where Jonathen Martin of Politico reported a fundraiser where Romney joined Trent (super lobby) Lott in a “lawyers for Romney” dinner that included a who’s who of lobbyists. According to OpenSecrets.com, Romney at this time, leads all candidates (including Pres Obama) in fundraising in the following sectors:
Hedge Funds & Private Equity
Securities and Investment
And not just leading; he’s cleaning up, at a rate of at least 2:1 in all three sectors. Why do you suppose Romney attracts the elite? Because, Mr. Romney is quite frankly, one of them. Good or bad he is big business through and through. He’s Wall Street incarnate. He presents both the ideals and the soul of Wall Street. That isn’t necessarily bad, but the soul and ideals of Wall Street are on separate paths.
The soul of Wall Street was and will always be the investing in America. It’s the place where mice become giants; both individually and corporately. It goes back to the time where people bought into companies for the long term because they believed in them. Not because of some algorithm or day trader of the modern era... it was but the true investing in the future of Americana. Mitt Romney is proof of that. He climbed the ladder. However, the ideals of Wall Street are much less clear. The best description would be murky at best; while many might say – haughty and insatiable. And it appears that is how some see Mr Romney as well.
This is a guy who made a fortune off leveraged buyouts; buying up struggling companies (with borrowed money) and then slashing personnel, shipping jobs overseas and selling off assets to pay off his company; while many of them filed for bankruptcy afterwards. If he views corporations as people, what does he see the people inside those corporations as? This is hardly a job creator...think of him more in the Ryan Bingham mold. But, its part of that Wall Street ideal he is a part of. How can anyone go into a job creation business (i don’t agree with this Presidential notion of job creating, it’s the general economy, but I digress) when all they have done is take them away?
Some might point to his tenure at governor where he left with a 2 Billion dollar surplus as an indication of fiscal conservatism and it would be hard to argue but should the government be running a profit? If you think about it, shouldn’t all levels of government look to break even? In an economy where jobs are at the forefront his term as Governor paints a picture that isn’t as rosy as his profits. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in his time in office the state only seen 1.2% more jobs then when he entered office, hardly a guy “who knows jobs”. If you factor in population and other variables; 1.2% isn’t worth a hill of beans. In fact during that time period, it ranked 47th in the nation.
What does this all mean? It means the country faces an era of uncertainty and a looming battle for what we want and how we will have to pay (without borrowing) for it. There is going to come a time where Americans have to understand that our way of life as we know it cannot be sustained on its current path and tough choices are going to have to be made. Is Mitt Romney a guy to do so? On the outside it appears, yes, he is. He has the credentials and the reputation as a “cleaner” and in this environment that could play well; we need someone to do just that, clean up the mess in Washington. However, underneath the surface what does that entail? His constant politicking and coming off chameleon like has put people off and the perception is he will say anything to anyone to win their vote; that just isn’t principled.
Then you have his ties to Wall Street. President Obama ran on a platform that was about as anti-establishment/Wall Street as you can get; however his cabinet was anything but. We didn’t see any change but instead more of the same old failures. How will Mitt Romney be any different, despite his proven ability to do so? From my view it’s hard to take the Establishment out of an Establishment candidate and if his backers are any indication - it looks like business as usual.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
According to Santorum, he took his son out with him for his first hunting trip (i would assume to be true) and bought all his kids guns for Christmas and then ate the wild game he took that day. It seems pretty desperate to put your family through all this to appeal to a voter but if his sons liked it and they had food to eat... i guess its a win-win for all of the Santorum's. However, I don't know what to make of this aggressive pandering by Santorum. I mean he already has the coveted A+ rating from the NRA (just ask him); did he really need to wear the hat?
Its little wonder why Santorum is lagging in the polls. He probably has invested more time into Iowa then anyone, hes also the only candidate to my recollection that has visited every county in the state as well; so its not like he hasn't been noticed. In this election and whats paramount to win, Santorum will always be; a day late and a dollar short.
Mr Santorum represents the essence of the liberal neoconservative. Hes a hawk in our FP who sees the entire Middle East as DEFCON 1 when in reality it appears more and more as an idle threat. This is a person who had a fit over Kosovo and demanded to know an exit strategy and fumed over the cost, while dismissing to know the same for Iraq. And now he wants to wage war with Iran... if they get 1 nuclear weapon.
If that wasnt enough he puts incest and adultery in the same category as homosexuality. He agrees that the deficit and debt are out of control but refuses to cut a penny from the defense budget, concentrating only on entitlements. Hes a compassionate-conservative leftover; out of office and out of touch with reality. He cant claim a seat in the tea party nor can he claim a seat at the adult table at Christmas when talking about adult stuff like...economics. Hes a lawyer who knows whats better for you then you do. Afterall:
"Privacy. [Religious] neutrality. Free Expression. None of these terms is in the Constitution. ... [T]hese 'philosophical' tenets are pure abstractions." Santorum, It Takes a Family
Keep on hunting Iowa Rick, but you might want to pack a lunch(s).
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
"The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle.”
This is Newt Gingrich from a debate on the 11 of this month on ABC:
"It's now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional."
Monday, December 26, 2011
With the Iowa caucuses just a few days away, the Republican establishment is busy with some frightening new themes, like:
What happens in Iowa stays in Iowa.
Or: Who cares what happens in Iowa anyway?
My favorite comes direct from the unyielding mind of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican who insists that American voters don't care which candidate wins the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.
"People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third," said Branstad. "If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states."
Losing Iowa helps in New Hampshire? So it's not winning that counts, it's losing? What the?
Is he high?
Republican bigwig minds can't be besotted by Hopium. That's a liberal Democratic leaf for Democratic pipes depressed that Chicago's City Hall has run the country into the ground.
No, Republicans must be smoking something else, something just as potent: Dopium, a leaf so powerful that it allowed many Republicans to call themselves "conservatives" while embracing a series of big-government programs and federal bailouts from the Bush administration, not to mention two wars.
Gov. Branstad isn't alone. The entire Republican establishment is babbling similar nonsense about the importance of being earnest -- and a loser in Iowa.
Meanwhile, the Republican-media high priests are now in full-throated roar. From the secular pulpits they predict unending torment and Obamanation for anyone foolish enough to embrace the current heretical teachings.
And the name of this heretic? Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and libertarian who is leading most polls in Iowa with a message of cutting government, including the defense budget, and staying out of wars.
The problem isn't that he's saying it. Paul has been consistent for years. The problem for the GOP establishment is that the American people are now listening.
And this threatens the coalition that can put Karl Rove and Wall Street and the religious right at the same table to slice the pie of power.
The fact that voters, particularly younger voters, are edging toward Paul has sent the GOP into a panic.
"His supporters are younger and more likely to [use] a cellphone, so he's probably going to perform better than his polling suggests," Iowa State associate professor Dave Peterson told cbsnews.com. "His supporters are also dedicated and will likely turn out on caucus night and not change their minds."
Republicans sure changed their minds about Mitt Romney, a moderate who yearns to be conservative during party primaries. Republicans pegged him for what he is, a corporate stiff, every hair in place, who'll run left the second he secures the nomination.
Tim Pawlenty? Just another can of Spam. Rick Perry stuck both boots in his mouth and kept them there. It's a wonder he has any lips left.
Michele Bachmann had her troubles with American history, and Rick Santorum seems ready to punch anyone who won't let him attack Iran tomorrow morning.
And Herman Cain? With so many "girlfriend" stories buzzing around him, he was tagged on the Internet with an M.C. Hammer-type parody theme song: "Cain Touched This."
Now it's Newt Gingrich's turn to drop his blossoms. What was it exactly?
That $1.6 million chunk that his consulting firm took from federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac as it was getting a massive federal bailout? Or that pledge of marital fidelity he signed the other day, suggesting that his oath to his third wife wasn't nearly enough?
Since August, the media has desperately avoided mentioning Paul. I'm not endorsing him here. But you'd have to be blind not to see Republican bosses in panic. Because if Paul wins Iowa, his ideas might catch fire.
Once there was no more amusing sight for me than watching Democratic mouthpieces appearing on TV, claiming then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Rezko -- backed by all those guys from Chicago's City Hall -- would bring hope and change as he transcended the broken politics of America's past.
The journalistic high priests, their brains swollen by several bowls of Hopium, chattered and repeated the slogans of City Hall's favorite mouthpiece, David Axelrod.
So Americans never quite realized that the man they were electing president had been an earnest but inexperienced back-bencher in the Illinois Legislature who spent his entire career taking orders from machine bosses while trying to get ahead.
Hopium was bad enough. But what worries me are all those clouds of Dopium wafting across Iowa.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Its pretty safe to say most of us realize that most all media is slanted one way or another if not for any other reason then marketing segmentation. This is very obvious on cable news with CNN, Fox and MSNBC. Just take a look at MSNBC’s slogan: “Lean Forward”. Does it get more obvious then that?
Fox News tilts to the right and although they say they are “fair and balanced” I had a hunch it wasn’t the case just based off memory from tuning in time to time. What I found was pretty telling. I went to Foxnews.com and did a simple search with this criterion:
Fox News-Story-Past month-Politics
Mentions are pretty obvious and a lead story is when the subject name is in the headline. Now before we see the results, remember... what has went on in the Republican primaries the last month. Cain dropped out, Gingrich fell on his face and Paul has risen to the top of the Iowa Caucus polling. With all that said here are the results:
Romney 82 mentions with 24 lead stories
Gingrich 77 mentions with 23 lead stories
How is the candidate leading in Iowa the most conservative man running and one who has the most diverse crowds in the field have only one lead story and coincidentally enough it’s a negative one? Isn’t it interesting Romney and Gingrich are almost even? Does the Republican establishment not want Paul to gain traction. Without question they do not. Does Fox news? Obviously they will not cover him, even if he was leading the polls in Iowa... so no, its obvious they have no vested interest in him let alone him gaining traction. So what is the relationship between Fox and the Republican Establishment?
Friday, December 23, 2011
So what? Do you suppose he would be the first racist to hold office at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? And i know my statement begs the question.... "does that make it right?" No of course it doesnt, but if ones personal views dont effect the job then i dont think it matters. Everyone has preconceived notions. So in reality, everyone stereotypes to a degree. Does Ron Paul stereotype or not trust people because of their skin color? I dont know. Again. Lets suppose he did write those words. Where in those letters did he say hateful things? Not derogatory but hateful? Where did he spew hatred? If i was to say that Black men are 7% of the population but make up 40% of the prison population, is that racist for me to point that out? No, now if i were to use some hyperbole to make this sound "funny" (if you can even find humor in that) does that make me racist? That is up to the reader i suppose, but in my opinion its doesnt. I think its just poor taste. I dont advocate anything in those letters and i find it trashy, cheap writing.
I don't want to run your life. I don't know how to run your life. And the constitution doesn't permit me to run your life." Ron Paul
However, lets say again they were written by him and not only that Ron Paul is a racist. Where in his platform can racism be applied to politics to hurt people he allegedly despises? Where in libertarianism is it that you put collectivism over individualism. Remember, Dr Paul calls himself the champion of the constitution and what does that paper stand for? Personal liberty. And if we are all guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) and nothing else... how does that hurt anyone or how is that prejudice? What would he do to apply his obvious racist views? To end the war on drugs? To end overseas military campaigns and occupations that are 50 or more years old? To cut taxes on all working Americans not just the ones that will help an election here and there? Those all benefit the majority of most Americans. Of all race and all economic situations. And that also obviously includes the benefit to minorities. Ask yourself these questions:
1. Are these the views of a closet racist? And if he is, again.... how can his views ever be used against anyone from a Libertarian point of view?
2. What holds more weight, a few newsletter ads that he denied writing 20 years ago, or a 30 year span of consistency and principals matched by nobody else in government since the days of Jefferson and Washington.
Every time I hear Ron Paul doesn’t have the appearance to become elected President much less elected the Republican nomination I always think of the quote from the book Moneyball. Right before the amateur draft the GM and his scouts are in a room debating players. Oakland A’s GM Billy Bean is squabbling back and forth with a typical player with an older scout, who finally just says the player doesn’t have the body to be a ballplayer.
Frustrated Beane tells his scouts: “ we're not selling jeans here”.
The book Moneyball is a lot like the current GOP. It’s a good ‘ol boy network of establishment brand names vetted by the press and by the power structure that’s calls itself the RNC. It’s the party of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. It’s the party that panders to big business and social conservatives or basically anyone that will guarantee groups of people who will be pulling Republican levers down come election days. And lest not be confused, it’s not limited to Republicans. The Democrat’s establishment is just as guilty if not more. You see, the Republican establishment only has one network pandering to it.
Appearance is everything. Content is only credible if it is sellable. With that said, you can get people like Romney or Rick Perry to be in the spotlight. Rick Perry, much like Newt Gingrich is a career politician and both are without question RINO’s. Even Perry at one point was an elected Democrat before he “seen the light”, conveniently after he voted for a 5.7 Billion dollar tax increase in the Texas State legislature. But that doesn’t matter. They are egotistical maniacs who will do whatever a focus group tells them to do that make them look favorable in way or another. Perry might not be so much like this, but he has Jesus on his side, so that works too... that’s sellable.
What about Mitt Romney? If there is anyone that is more fallible to waffling, it’s the Mitt. Nobody has been for more after he was against it. Hes a wet dream for the RNC and Fox and whoever else likes a happy meal - Manchurian candidate. He is good looking, articulate, from Big business and has lots of well connected friends. Mitt has always and will continue to be the golden boy of the establishment Republicans and you cant fault them for that. He’s the ideal company man, the good - trusty servant. But he doesn’t serve your interests, he serves their interests.
That’s where this gets interesting. The book Moneyball was based around new versus old ideas. Modern technology versus the naked eye. That’s exactly what is happening in the Republican Party as we speak. We are seeing the old players; the Limbaughs and the Romneys and Bushes and John MCains of the country vehemently oppose the most conservative man not only in congress but in any federal branch of government for that matter. Because it petrifies them, they might not understand it, why they discount him but its simple. Their brand will be toast. They will not be as viable.
Ron Paul wants to put an end to crony capitalism and corporate welfare. He wants to shrink big government. Everything he wants to do is for freedom. That is republicanism at its core. With a limited government why raise taxes or fight endless wars? If you have a limited government how can you attempt to control and govern morality? You can’t. So if government has less control then that means someone has more and they don’t want that. Give the power back to the electorate; after all the work to strip them of that power? Dig in Mr Paul because if these tired, token and cyclical racists’ newsletters from the early 90’s are any indication; you’re going to get the kitchen sink.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
With Greece out on the corner whoring for another bailout and Standard and Poor yesterday lowering Greece’s credit rating to CCC (the lowest in the world) joining Moodys, who dropped Greece two weeks ago… it’s a great time to reflect. Or fittingly enough hold up a mirror to ourselves. Could the mighty US ever be in the same mess the Greeks find themselves in now? They are socialists you say and we’re capitalists, surly that couldn’t happen. Or Could it?
The Greek GDP is 329 Billion (2009). Obviously its not Rwanda. But let’s put that into perspective. The 2009 revenue of Wal-Mart was over 400 Billion. Wal-Marts annual revenue surpassed 174 nations that year. And being Wal Mart is just one company in the US, it gives you a feel for how truly large and powerful we are. So much so, that the US GDP is nearly three times its nearest competitor standing at 14.2 Trillion.
What separates the US from Greece? Sure we collectively output 45X in a year then they do collectively, but our external debt to GDP ratio is 100% on the nose as of tonight’s check. What we have that Greece don’t have is simple. We have a printing press. Our currency is traded throughout the world as the default currency. All we have to do is print our recovery (at the expense of massive inflation of course amongst other undesirables). The Greeks have to rely on a bailout from the European Union or default and declare bankruptcy. In many ways bankruptcy isn’t a bad thing for Greece. Because the sooner they can weed out mal-investment, waste and become more efficient the sooner they can get started in rebuilding. We on the other hand are so disillusioned our reckoning is going to be a lot slower and much much more painful.
So Greece having to default on its debt is one thing, for us to do it… that surly would send a ripple effect throughout the world. And that’s where the conversation truly ends. That’s where you get into raising the debt ceiling. Because after all, its not just the Chinese holding debt, its average Americans too. We can stick it to those red chinamen… but we refuse to and won’t default on Grandma Sherley. I mean, Standard & Poor's may be forced to take away our AAA credit rating, or what basically what amounts to as being a credit card with no limit!
At the current rate, in a few months we will start to default on our debt. The disease of debt and living beyond our means at a national level are over. The diagnosis isn’t going to change. The treatment is the only choice we have. Take the medicine now by choice, or be forced to do it later. And we have two responsible options to do this now and one irresponsible one that will only make things worse.
We can default on our debts and admit to the world and to ourselves that we are living well beyond our means or raise taxes and pay our way. If our 2011 budget deficit is 1.6 Trillion and we have roughly 160 million working Americans, all we will need is 10g per working American to cover this years shortcoming (hows that for stimulating the economy, suck 1.6 trillion out of citizens hands and into the coffers of out of control and out of touch government).
Or we can do what what politicians always are in favor of doing, and that is to let the next guy worry about it and continue to kick the can down the road, raise the debt ceiling, creating an oncoming tsunami at what point could be a country in total chaos. Lets see what kind of chutzpah these elected “leaders” have the rest of this summer. Based on past results, i dont think the shoe business should need a bailout.