Days of Change

Day 1202 – Santorum’s Time?

February 19, 2012
3 Comments

The Romney establishment has apparently decided that Rick Santorum is a more palatable candidate than Newt Gingrich. I think there is a method to this. Newt Gingrich is focused on destroying Romney. He has another $10 million for his pack and he’s now bringing up the infamous Seamus the dog story. He is an unnecessary liability. In a three-way race of Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul, Santorum will take the social conservatives and Paul will take the Tea Party spendthrifts. Romney will get everyone else, including the Independents and Democrats voting in Republican primaries.

Santorum does not have a record of fiscal austerity. Gingrich doesn’t either. What Rick Santorum does have is a commitment to moral values. He also has a commitment to traditional values. It’s very exciting to talk about eliminating three federal departments, but the most likely outcome of a presidential election is the ability to spend money differently. We have one guy who would spend money on a moon base and another who would spend it on manufacturers. Ron Paul would be overridden by Congress every day and I still don’t know what the hell Romney would do in his 59 point budget plan. This isn’t over.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1201 – Watch This Video

February 18, 2012
2 Comments

This is an interesting video about the effect of the Fed on the US economy. While I don’t happen to believe the Rothschilds ordered assassination of political leaders, I do think that the Federal Reserve is the only bank we need to get rid of to make the other banks work the way they are supposed to.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1200 – It’s His Laptop

February 17, 2012
2 Comments

I think the shift in the moral compass can be seen by this YouTube video and the reaction to it. In it, a father reacts to his daughter’s Facebook post about her parents by shooting her laptop on the ground.

My thought is that it’s his laptop. I suppose he could have withheld it from her, erased the hard drive, sold it on eBay or something else to not destroy a piece of technology. It’s an object lesson. Her behavior on Facebook was so wrong then he would rather she not have a computer. Even more than the absolute requirement that kids be online these days, I read some stupid reactions from (generally liberal) people about the father and his decision.

According to other people online, the father has anger issues, he has a violent streak, he’s wasteful with property. He embarrassed his daughter. He also may have violated ordinances with firearms and he was criticized for using hollow-point bullets which were less effective in that shooting situation. On top of that, some considered it unacceptable for him to parent the way he did. They wanted to find a law that fit their opinion so he could get in some kind of trouble.

At the same time, many of these people would have no problem with the daughter going on the pill or getting an abortion without the father’s knowledge. The object to forcing a girl to not have a computer, but they love forcing a church to violate its beliefs to further their interests. There’s a certain logic to it. If the state controls so many things, why not control the family dynamic as well?

Today, Pat Buchanan was fired from his many years at MSNBC. It was ostensibly for the content of a new book, which has no new content over books he’s written since working for the network. He left due to pressure from Color of Change on MSNBC. They may want you to believe it was because he held unpopular opinions. It was really because he held popular ones.

In 1992, Buchanan spoke of a culture war. 20 years later, he appears to have a point. Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, a drug abuser and a cheat. That’s what we knew about before the election. He also had at least one mistress during his administration. He lied about it and the American public seemed to turn on the people prosecuting him. George Bush was a former drunk who mostly abused his conservative mantle. He passed an expensive Medicare drug plan and encouraged illegal immigration.

The topic of the month is now sexual morality. This is a touchy subject. Human beings have sex because they want to have sex. They want to have sex as a biological imperative to procreate. This is a feature, not a bug, as the kids say. Indulging the urge can be done without having kids, but it has unexpected results. Look at a movie called Idocracy. The premise is that the lower economic classes of every ethnic group is more likely to reproduce, regardless of the ability to pay for extended families. At the same time, YUPpies and DINKs wait until long after peak years of fertility to try for kids and often fail. In the open marketplace, if you treat something like childbirth as a liability, you will wind up with an inferior product.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1199 – A New Hope

February 16, 2012
3 Comments

In 2008, Obama had nearly a 200 electoral vote advantage over John McCain. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the Republican only needs to get 97 of those 2008 electoral votes in 2012 to beat Obama. There were 7 states where the margin of victory was less than 10%. Those states are Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Colorado and New Hampshire. Of the six states in that group that held Senate races in 2010, 5 went red and Colorado stayed blue by 1%.

There are other factors which will make Obama, not the Republican nominee, fight an uphill battle. First, he has almost no voters who regretted choosing McCain over him the last time. However, there are many who either have no interest in voting for him or actively regret their choice. Obama also has to run on a poor record instead of the myth that surrounded him in 2008. Much of his support is gone. Oprah is begging for viewers on Twitter. ACORN is back underground. The campaign no has to advertise that they’re taking PAC money.

Republicans took an 80 member deficit in the House and turned it into a 60 member surplus. Democrats have to defend twice as many seats as Republicans in 2012. Presidential approval is hovering around 50%, and there’s a built in likeability gap of about 5% from people who will like him if Obama were murdering them during the polling. Given that, he is highly unlikely to win at this point. The electorate is just not that into him.

I thought the McCain campaign could pull it out in the end. They might have, were it not for a series of bad choices to praise Obama and exile Sarah Palin. I expect the Republicans to do a less terrible job this time. It’s not over. It’s only just begun.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1198 – Democrats with Lower Taxes

February 15, 2012
1 Comment

One thing taking a major beating this year is the social conservative. The media has apparently decided that gay people should be married, married people should avoid pregnancy and everyone should play the field before they make either decision. The leadership (or establishment, if you will) of the Republican Party seems to agree. Christian conservatives haven’t been filling the RNC collection plate like they did in the 80s. The wealthy businessmen have. They’ve made the Democratic Party less populist and the Republican Party less moral. The GOP, for the most part, are now Democrats who think taxes should be lower.

I happen to believe in the free market. If capitalism didn’t work and government intervention did, there wouldn’t be a multibillion dollar pornography industry and there wouldn’t be any bars or liquor stores in this country. Art Laffer reveals that there is some limit to taxation before revenue decreases and Kurt Hauser has shown that regardless of tax rates, 19% is the maximum portion of GDP the government ever gets in revenue. If you truly believe that tax cuts stimulate growth while having a minimal effect on federal revenue, or even increasing it, you can dismiss the argument that tax cuts have to be “paid for” with other taxes. If you do believe tax cuts have to be paid for, you are not a supply-sider and you should stop talking about tax cuts in a recession.

It ends up being much the same way with morality. Since 1973, the abortion debate has become intensely political. Democrats have been nearly unanimous in being pro-choice (except for a few like Harry Reid, who never talks about being pro-life) while Republicans have routinely run candidates who are pro-choice while keeping anti-abortion language in their platform. The public is split. Most people are pro-choice in the first trimester, pro-life in the third and uncomfortable talking about pregnancies in the second trimester. It comes down to three questions. How much autonomy does a woman have? How much right to life does a fetus have? When can those rights be asserted during gestation? If a candidate doesn’t have an answer to those questions, they might as well say nothing.

The trend towards liberal libertarianism have produced a lot of “live and let live” types who see no point in dictating to other people. For the most part, that may be a good idea. Still, why is the state interfering in anything? Why should the government grant marriages if most end in divorce and an increasing number of births are out-of-wedlock. There is no societal advantage to marriage in this situation. I think politicians should involve themselves in moral issues in as much as it corresponds to Pascal’s Wager. If the moral position is better, fight for it. Otherwise, shut up about it.

I don’t know what this election is about anymore. We have an idiot. We have a corporate raider who wants to open the books on America’s finances. We have a career politician. We have an anti-government loon and we have a guy who gives lip-service to economic liberty because he thinks everyone will laugh at his moral stance. It’s the Seinfeld of elections, a campaign about nothing.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1197 – The Lines Are Drawn

February 14, 2012
4 Comments

I understand to some extent the feelings of those who think that either a president Obama or a president Romney in 2013 is a forgone conclusion brought about by some nefarious monied interests. I just don’t agree with them. Only certain people can run for president. They are party loyalists. They are usually tall and disproportionately left-handed. That is not some sinister conspiracy, either.

Bill Clinton did not somehow emerge as a populist and evade the Democratic machine to become president. He wasn’t some unknown from a backwater state. He spoke at the 1988 Democratic Convention. He was the head of the DLC, a collection of moderate Democrats created when movement liberals were getting their asses beat by conservatives. He was a major player in the party. He won the nomination because other big names thought Bush was unbeatable and Bush mostly became beatable because of Ross Perot.

George W. Bush was the real rebel in his party. He won due to fighting dirty and playing to win. I can go on and on about how the election was not stolen, but it is dogma to some people. He won again thanks to an extremely weak competitor. That was the year George Soros learned to retool. Obama won for the same reason GWB got the nomination, John McCain is a lousy presidential candidate.

Hillary Clinton is not running. She doesn’t want to be a two-time loser. She learned her fan base is only so big. Sarah Palin may have thought the same. Raging against the dying of the light may be romantic, but it also sucks. No one’s perfect candidate is on the ballot.

I will not be dissuaded. This election is to prevent a meat puppet to be reelected by even dumber meat puppets. Conspiracy theories will be given the respect they deserve. If you think nothing will stop this train, just don’t bring everyone else down. I frequently decried the kind of soul sucking psy ops that were coming from the Obama campaign and distributed by the media in 2008. I believe in the free market. I do not believe in every choice under the sun. If they don’t have rum raisin, pick something else or leave Baskin Robbins. Don’t cry about how much you hate vanilla and chocolate.

Note: This applies mostly to the few who read and do not post. Go figure.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1196 – Doubling Down on Dumb

February 13, 2012
3 Comments

I ended up getting sucked into speculation about what possible motive President Obama had for his proclamations about employer coverage for religious institutions. Was he trying to appeal to a feminist base to bring them back into the fold? Was he trying to fuel a Santorum rally from the backlash. Was he trying to fit another puzzle piece into place for a socialist utopia? I have come to the conclusion he wasn’t doing shit.

The key to understanding Obama is that Obama is dumb. Unlike a normal president who ignores his most crazy advisers, he let women in his administration take control, because we all know that Obama is submissive toward women and unnecessarily combative toward men. He was fed the wrongheaded opinion that abortion is a right and religious freedom is not. I don’t really care if someone objects because they hate religion and think it’s for stupid people. I think socialism is bad and for stupid people, but I don’t get a paycheck if I refuse to pay Social Security taxes.

Obama supporters are also failing to learn from mistakes. Racism (by liberals) rears its ugly again, with a highly suspicions coordinated attack on Fox News, preceded by a spam attack of racist comments on a Whitney Houston thread. This, of course, follows the dumb remarks about a video shown at CPAC that was making fun of misconstrued racism and had the opposite effect from bloggers just waiting for rope to hang conservatives.

One of the things that Republicans have to expect is that racism will be used against them. With Romney, it will be based in religious bigotry. John McCain took great pains to keep the 2008 above board. Romney will not. He will win ugly, but he will win. Wall Street demands it.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1195 – The Talent Gap

February 12, 2012
1 Comment

The claim that CPAC is a KKK rally came up again when Steven Crowder and Chris Loesch made a video called “Mr. America” as the Powdered Zombies.

There’s a line about the “knickers” worn by Crowder, dressed as a Colonial-era American. Apparently, the site Gawker intentionally took a part of the video and misrepresented it. It was certainly intentional, since the video stops for about 15 seconds to explain in the recording studio that he’s talking about his pants. Then there’s the line after “you think I said that?” The Gawker writer chose to “explain” that the “shitty” music video was of such low quality that he could be excused for running like a bat out of hell and blogging the “story” before he could isolate the evidence.

Steven Crowder is a terrible rapper. That’s probably why he usually operates as a documentarian. Conservatives have taken hold of the field, since liberal documentaries do little groundwork and rely on “studies” published by universities that are usually de-funded by and hostile to conservatives. Still, guys like him and Karl Rove continue to throw down raps like the guys who got clowned by Rabbit in 8 Mile.

What I found amusing was the claims by Gawker commenters about the lack of talent among conservatives and, apparently, non-gays. The closest entertainment industry the right has is country music, and plenty of those guys are liberal. Other industries like political talk radio and Christian rock were basically carved out by conservatives. Christian music is getting pretty good in a technical sense, but you probably won’t like it if you don’t want to hear about God.

Are there niche talents as good as a Whitney Houston? There may be, but they may not take to the Hollywood sausage grinder as well. Amy Grant crossed over for some amount of time, but making it big in the industry sometimes requires becoming a puppet of higher powers. 99% of talent is being run by 1% management who are taking 10%.

Kylie Bisutti is a model who won a Victoria’s Secret model search in 2009 and decided recently to quit modeling what is largely sexually provocative clothing becaus eof her Christian faith. She couldn’t handle what it takes to be famous in this society. Then there are women like Leeann Tweeden who is politically conservative and willing to pose in Playboy.

I think the conservative talent gap is two-fold. Fame is a secular form of worship. If celebrities are the most important thing to you, it is more likely you will seek that kind of fame out. People who need that validation put it before faith and family. On the other side is the way the entertainment industry enforces the sacrifice of self in the furtherance of career. It includes the orthodoxy that liberal tenants of self-enjoyment and self-importance is strictly enforced.

Sometimes conservatives feel badly that more people in Hollywood aren’t like them. They should be glad Hollywood hasn’t corrupted more of them.


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1194 – The Moral Majority

February 11, 2012
2 Comments

Rachel Maddow clone Chris Hayes was hosting yet another forgettable MSNBC show this mooring and mentioned that Republican group Freedomworks went around to Tea Party groups in their early stages to convince them to remove their focus from social issues and focus on economic ones. It’s like the Romney campaign was already in action.

Hayes’ implication was that the Tea Party is just a bunch of social conservatives that were manipulated by GOP front groups. I think he lost a page of his talking points. I thought Freedomworks created the Tea Party, not that they recreated it. Also, most of the MSNBC editorial staff think that social issues simultaneously include being anti-abortion and believing Obama is a gay foreign Muslim. There’s a reason Northern Democrats hadn’t won a presidential election in the two generations before Obama’s election. People in this country have values.

Liberals love to say that Reagan would not be electable in the overly libertarian Republican Party of today. It’s true that some politicians are trying to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan. There is one critical element of Reagan’s governance that is forgotten by nearly everyone. The only major Republican figure who seems to grasp the ideas of free markets, uncorruptable government and a strong moral stand is Sarah Palin. in fact, her mention of Reagan at CPAC reminded me of my post two years ago about Reagan’s 1975 CPAC speech.

I support Mitt Romeny because he will win ugly. He can’t get the Sarah Palin treatment because there’s nothing to him but money and family. He will believe whatever is convenient. He will be a reliable Republican because that’s the side his bread is buttered on. Conservatives are ready to embrace him because the choice is no longer between Mitt and Gingrich, but between Mitt and Rick Santorum.

Most of all, Rick Santorum represents what Ronald Reagan was about. Both were fiscally conservative, but they had a soft spot in their hearts for the poor and their plight. Sometimes they spend more government money than they should have. They also have a moral belief system that tends to piss off the amoral who can’t quite shake that feeling of being judged, so they transfer being judgmental to them.

Now I fear I am wrong. I put my hopes on a Tea party Congress. The reality is that Congress obeys its master, the president. The Democrats suicided themselves for Obama. Could the Republicans do the same for Mitt Romney? Obama is showing his bold, liberal colors for the moment. Is he planning for a candidate of pale pastels?


Posted in Uncategorized

Day 1193 – CPAC 2012

February 10, 2012
2 Comments

One of the ironies of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference is that in 2008, members were excited about Mitt Romney’s appearance and saddened when he announce the suspension of his campaign for the Republican nomination. Another irony is that frontrunner John McCain was considered a moderate, even though he was more socially and fiscally conservative than Romney was as a governor. I personally found 2008 Romney to be overly willing to use negative ads in lieu of a positive message. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This year, Rick Santorum is rocking the house. Had it been a week or so earlier, Newt Gingrich may have been the star. Santorum has become the last man standing, the only candidate who has not imploded against Romney. It’s like Mike Huckabee actually won some primaries and John McCain only polled at 10%. Santorum is a social conservative who has shown willingness to reign in the budget. His personal life is not a mess like Gingrich’s. He isn’t pro Palestinian like Ron Paul. He isn’t trying to claim the Tea Party mantle like Michele Bachmann. Santorum is poised to attack Obamacare not only on fiscal grounds, but on moral ones.

His major drawback is the inability to draw independents or Democrats who object to his stand on gay rights. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Hillary Clinton voters belong to Obama anyway. Rick Santorum has an appeal to the working class. He has the values of the working class. He also has the ability to appeal to the conservative base and the blue-collar non-union base that the Democratic Party has all but abandoned.Does that make him the best Republican candidate? I don’t know. I do know that he’s anybody but Obama.


Posted in Uncategorized
« Previous PageNext Page »

    2016 Polls

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 15 other followers