Here’s a very worthwhile video of Dennis Prager speaking at the Reagan Forum on May 1 this year:
Posts Tagged ‘republican’
Romney: I’m “entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God”
22
Feb
Who can still believe that Romney is a fiscal conservative?
Take 1:
you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. – Mitt Romney
This was a representation of those on the right who have a problem with the president speaking of Americans in classes of people, and pitting them against each other. Many conservatives lean toward a flat tax or a fair tax rather than the progressive tax that penalizes those who create wealth in order to redistribute their property to those who haven’t been creating wealth.
Obama had previously proposed in his “Jobs Bill” limiting deductions on the wealthiest Americans, which would result in fewer donations to charities, and would in effect be a war on non-government charities. The idea is consistent with Obama’s perspective that government is the answer to every problem. He’s simply working on putting charities out of business. First with the “Jobs Bill” reducing contributions, now restricting the exercise of religion on employers.
In addition to dividing Americans into classes, many conservatives object to the language of people paying their “fair share.” The questions are significant: Who decides my fair share? What is “fair”? Why is my “fair share” different than someone else’s? In America, do we even have shares to pay?
Take 2: Today Romney announced his newest tax plan: Drop everyone’s tax rates except for the 1%, who need to pay their fair share:
Romney said his plan to limit mortgage interest and charitable contributions deductions would not impact middle income families. Instead, he noted, he wants to “make sure the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”
Romney’s plan is everything he criticizes in Obama: Dividing Americans, and picking and choosing who to penalize because they aren’t paying their Fair Share.
Romney simply declared today that he is ” encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and … entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God”
We have a liberal, 2 conservatives, and a libertarian running for the Republican nomination. Gingrich continues to lose steam, but will make a great advocate for conservatism. Vote Santorum.
Ron Paul’s Self-Defeating Narrative
21
Dec
There is power in story. Narrative conveys truth and is a powerful persuader. With nearly every detail of his real life locked away, Barack Obama became the President in large part because of the created narrative – he is the smartest man in America (who said there were 57 states); his primary nomination meant the sea levels would change; he won a Nobel peace prize (though never did anything to earn it).
As we near the Iowa Caucus, Ron Paul is looking to win. (This is in large part because of Obama supporters switching parties just to vote Ron Paul in the Republican Primary then support Obama in the general.) Ron Paul also has a powerful narrative. Most Ron Paul supporters are only capable of shouting:
RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!! RON PAUL TWENTY TWELVE!!!!!!
But the real narrative goes something like this:
Ron Paul alone stands as the libertarian messiah, much as Obama stood as the leftist messiah. In Ron alone can the country attain salvation. Ron alone has been standing against all other politicians regardless of party affiliation. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!
Our lingering teenage angst and our desire to rage against the machine find a lone rebel appealing. Yet a few aspects of this are troubling. Here’s the first:
What has the man actually gotten done in all his years in Washington?
Ron Paul couldn’t get anything done, he’s just one guy, and the two party system is a crock – they’re all united against Ron Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
And herein lies the problem. The guy has proven that he can’t accomplish anything. For decades. And that’s from his own campaign website. His supporters tell me he finally got a partial audit of the Federal Reserve. That’s great. Decades of being paid from taxpayer dollars, and he has one accomplishment? And a partial audit at that. He has never gathered a coalition. He has never convinced others to go along with something he wants to get done. The president needs to be someone who can get things done.
If his own narrative is correct, then everyone in government is against him. That means that all he can do is veto – but congress can overpower a veto with enough votes, and they’re all supposedly united against him.
If Ron Paul supporters are right about their candidate, he’s incapable of even advancing his own policies as President.
Herman Cain for the Win!
17
Oct
I’m a supporter of Herman Cain for president of the United States. In addition to his executive business experience, personal story, his conservative value and his personality, his movement up in the polls has been impressive to watch. He’s currently the only candidate that would beat Obama in the 2012 election.
Newt Gingrich is also steadily, though slowly, climbing in the polls. Perhaps we could actually see a Herman-Newt or Newt-Herman ticket for 2012!
Both Cain and Gingrich are criticized for holding conservative values. The thought is: If we picked the most liberal of the available Republican candidates, they’d be more likely to win. This is what the Republicans tried with John McCain. He lost, conceded early, and went to bed. We ought not have a repeat of that. Ronald Reagan won 49 states by expressing his conservative values, not by being mediocre and moderate. Conservative values are what wins elections. This is why even Obama campaigned on conservative values that he didn’t even believe in (see his video of saying national debt was bad before he set new records for increasing the debt).
Here’s the info about the poll from Rasmussen showing Cain alone would win over Obama.
At the moment, the Georgia businessman is the only Republican with a lead of any kind over Obama, although former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has held a similar advantage several times and is currently trailing the president by just two points.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Cain attracting 43% support, while Obama earns 41%.
Given such a matchup, eight percent 8% prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent 8% are undecided…
Cain is tied with Romney for the lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. Nobody else is even close at the moment.Last week, Cain trailed Obama by three. The week before, he was behind by five. “Cain now has the chance to make the case for why he should be the challenger to Mitt Romney,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports.
via 2012 Presidential Matchups – Rasmussen Reports™.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
10
Sep
Cutting taxes for the richest citizens is only a bad thing if you believe it is the government’s job to punish people for being successful.
Those who want to raise taxes on some and lower them for others do so because they believe it’s the government’s job to use the power of the federal government to pick winners and losers – to punish people arbitrarily for what they like and don’t like.
My kids get paid for doing chores. If son 1 does more work more efficiently and earns $4 but son 2 only earns $2, is it my job to forcibly take away money from the one who earned more and give it to the one who earned less?
No. It’s immoral.
On the other hand, those who want to lower taxes do so because they believe that money in the private sector is more productive for the economy and freedom than government confiscation, waste, and redistribution
The private citizen has no vested interest in wasting money. The citizen (and corporations run by citizens) are interested in investing the money to get something of greater value, whether that’s goods or more money. So if the rich keep more of their own money, they invest more in the market – that’s putting money into businesses, who add value to the economy and create jobs.
This pursuit to get more value drives the market and also drives corruption, where someone will want to use their ability to impede the ability of others’ liberty for their own gain. This is where the government steps in, protecting the citizens’ liberty from being infringed on by others.
These two views are diametrically opposed on what the purpose of the government is. The first “liberal” view is that the government’s job is to solve all of society’s problems and through arbitrarily deciding what is “fair,” pick winners and losers by force (like taxing some at different rates than others). In this view, government is the solution to everything and should be always getting bigger and more invasive in citizen’s lives.
The second “conservative” view is that government’s role is ONLY to do things that the market cannot practically do – protect people’s inalienable right to liberty from being invaded by others in or outside of the country, and a few other things that private citizens or corporations can’t do. In this view, government intervention into people’s lives is a problem, and government should be strictly limited with enumerated powers.
The second view is how the founders set up America, and is the view that lead to America’s greatness from the start.
GOP Primary Debates
08
Sep
FoxNews’ management of the first GOP debate was shameful. From the questions they asked to where they placed the contenders on the stage, everything was geared toward pitting the candidates against each other rather than inquiring what each candidate would do as president.
What I felt was missing was a candidate speaking up in a unifying tone to step above the fray, aside from the traps laid by the moderators and what communicated as petty fights between each other. A candidate to step up and say that all of the candidates would be better than a second term of President Obama, and that all the candidates were in favor of a lower tax burden, less federal regulation, etc. A candidate to speak that they respect the other people on stage, while they think their own distinctives make them better for the position.
Newt had the right tone with the Fox News’ moderators, telling them to stop asking “gotcha” questions, but no one stepped up to elevate all of the candidates.
Last night’s debate was worse as far as moderation. The moderators again pitted candidates against each other. Like Fox News, MSNBC focused on a few candidates where as others (most notably Herman Cain) were essentially ignored. The liberal bias was stronger. For example, Brian Williams asked Perry how he could sleep at night supporting the death penalty, and Williams pointed out that he taken aback that people applauded his mention of Texas executing murderers.
Governors Perry and Romney started with the bickering (and Huntsman tried to join the bickering) which was as unpresidential as when Bachmann and Pawlenty fell into that trap last time. Newt again had the right tone and this time emphasized that any of the candidates would be an improvement and all were united in the majority of policies. After his comment and the overwhelming applause, the level of discussion was raised up most notably by Perry and Romney.
Here’s the video of the entire debate followed by my take on how everyone did.
Michele Bachmann – She did not raise above the questions asked of her. When she was asked about whether the president could make gas $2/gallon she focused on the two-dollar price tag rather than talking about what the president can practically do to help energy prices. When asked about drilling in the everglades, she said that we would do it responsibly. A better case would be to say that Americans have proven we are more responsible with the environment but instead we’re paying countries in the middle east but we should bring the business to America to create jobs and have more control over the environmental impact of drilling.
The candidates should be using the questions as a platform to speak directly to the viewer for a few minutes rather than interacting with the moderator. Unfortunately, while her comments are accurate, “$2 gas” and “narco-terrorism” sound extreme and are sound byte fodder. Bachmann was my favored top-tier candidate before the first debate, but has failed to rise up and show presidential control over situations like this debate.
Herman Cain – Cain continues to speak with honesty and clarity, setting him apart from the majority of politicians. He advocated a 9-9-9 tax reform: 9% business flat tax, 9% individual flat tax, and 9% national sales “fair” tax. Combining the flat tax and fair tax is an innovative idea that keeps all the numbers low. Can they really be single-digit rates? I don’t know. Would it stay at 9%? That’s unlikely as politicians always want more money, so it would need to be more difficult to change the tax rates.
I’ve always liked Cain, but his ignorance on foreign policy early in his campaign was refreshingly honest, but not helpful. New contenders entering the race continue to push him lower in the polls, and he has been very good but not stellar enough to rise above.
Ron Paul – Paul again spent some of his allotted time whining about how he wasn’t asked every question. It may not be fair, but whining is a bad cornerstone for a presidential platform. He was a bit conspiratorial, arguing that a border fence would be used to keep American citizens from traveling abroad. Overall Paul looked angry and condescending toward the other candidates, the moderators, and even the audience. He attacked Perry for a positive letter Perry sent to Hillary Clinton before the details HillaryCare were known, at which point Perry pointed out Paul’s letter to Reagan saying he was leaving the Republican party because of him.
Ron Paul’s economic and conservative ideas are great. Unfortunately his let-the-dictators-win and conspiracy views weren’t helping. One of the greatest factors against Paul is the non-thinking aura exuding from his devotees.
Rick “Swagger” Perry – As the newest contender, Perry seemed very comfortable on stage and controlled his own time well. He speaks with more clarity than most politicians, which I respect. He gave Obama credit for ordering the Osama take-out while also calling him a Keynesian. He effectively touted how Texas has created jobs and reduced greenhouse gases.
Mitt Romney – Mitt was better than the first debate where he avoided answering anything specific. He was still very professionally political: vague and non-committal. He advocated things like loving America, creating jobs, changing how we’re economically structured, etc.
Jon “Eyebrows” Huntsman – Huntsman continues to come across as snooty and condescending. He looks great when he smiles, an image which occupied about 2.5 seconds of his time. I was constantly distracted by his eyebrow movements. He declared that evolution and global warming are sciences that are never to be questioned – whether the public-school promoted ideas on these issues are accurate or not, it is the exalting of these things to unquestionable gospel that is most off-putting.
Rick “Grumpy” Santorum – Perhaps he looked like he was constantly scowling because of the lights, or maybe because he was upset that he allowed his campaign manager to put him in a pink tie. His body language was very grump. While he didn’t shoot himself in the foot, Santorum didn’t stand out positively either.
Newt Gingrich – Newt consistently rose above the fray and had the most authoritative presidential tone. He answered questions quickly and announced how he would use the remainder of his time, which he did concisely and professionally. He was far and away the most presidential of the candidates and wasn’t pushed around by the moderators.
Unfortunately, Newt has a number of factors against him from his history of broken marriages to his apparent age and and earlier near-collapse of his campaign staff.
While it may not realistic, this debate left me hoping for a ticket combining two names from: Gingrich, Perry, Cain.
Dennis Prager Not a Ron Paul Fan
17
Aug
Dennis Prager spoke about Ron Paul following the Iowa Straw Poll.
Dennis Prager
You’ve bought the political lies.
23
Jul
How much of what you buy politically is totally disconnected from reality?
Today ends a week where the Democrats voted No on the second budget proposal put forth by the Republicans, which the President promised to veto anyway. The Democrats have had zero proposals so far. Today Obama gave a speech saying that the Republican party needs to decide if they can say Yes to anything. His speech is totally disconnected from reality, as he is now part of the Party of No.
Do you buy it?
It’s not just the President.There’s lots of lies we believe about politics:
- All politicians are the same – corrupt liars
- I can’t change anything
- It’s acceptable to be uninformed and uninvolved
- Republicans have no heart
- Democrats are the party of equal rights
- We can trust the Republican Party
- We can trust the Democrat Party
- If the media presents someone negatively, they’re unqualified for office.
- The pursuit of profits is evil
- Corporate Jets always are a waste of money
- The New Deal helped the economy and Americans
- Higher tax rates always means more revenue
- When the country is in financial trouble the solution is to go further into debt.
Have you bought into any of these? What other lies about politics do we tend to believe?
Keep the Democrats in my uterus?
13
Apr
Protest Sign: Keep your Boehner out of my uterus!
The signs are back. Boehner, speaker of the house, wanted to remove federal funding of abortion from the budget as one of the cuts. The thinking goes something like this:
If someone wants to stop spending tax-payer dollars on killing an unborn yet scientifically distinct human life, it’s an invasion of someone else’s rights. They should not only have the right to take this human life, but you should pay for it through your taxes.
Where was the outburst of anger when Obama, Pelosi, and Reid rammed through the Obama health care mandate? This gave more government control over every aspect of health, where was the liberal outcry that government should stay out of our bodies?
Evidently, these protesters want Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi in their uterus and John Boehner out. They want legislation out of their uterus, but they want government-paid medical equipment in there scrubbing it. The signs seem like it’s a charge against big government intervention but the argument is the opposite. The sign would more accurately read: “Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion.” Statistically Planned Parenthood targets the poor, and a higher percentage of minorities are persuaded to abortion than whites. If the goal was to rid America of poor an brown folks, abortion would be the way to go. In fact, that’s why Planned Parenthood was started – to “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Perhaps the sign should more accurately read:
Big government needs to be encouraging and funding abortion for the lower class and people with brown skin.
I’ve likely severely offended many readers, particularly if they found this article from a web search. Abortion is a highly charged issue for a few reasons:
- For lack of measurable results, the feminist movement pinned their success to the legalization and subsequently federal funding of abortion. The entire feminist push in our culture became focused not on celebrating and valuing what women do, but in promoting abortion because it was a situation unique to women (making it a woman’s issue) and along with more freely available contraceptives, claimed to free up women to have consequence-free sex just like men.
- Abortion is highly personal and highly emotional. Women who find themselves considering the option are in a huge crisis where the options seem like death of the child or suicide of self. If they keep the child their life feels like it will be destroyed, and they may not feel much more hope for the baby. With the political and cultural push for and funding of abortion, it’s not surprising that women make this choice. We’re paying their doctors to do it!
Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote an article about pregnancy centers a few years ago. Most disturbing to me are the statistics that it’s overwhelmingly those with wealth that want funding for Planned Parenthood to be used for providing abortions for poorer Americans. The rich are paying for abortion to be promoted for the poor who don’t want it. Here’s an exerpt:
Those who provide alternatives to abortion believe that pregnancy is just one facet of the woman’s larger and more complex life. They believe she is not best served by treating her as merely a polluted uterus in need of a good scrubbing. Her life is tangled with the life of her child growing within, woven with the lives of the child’s father, with her own parents, friends and co-workers in a tapestry of lives. To remove the child is to cut a hole in the tapestry, by literally cutting into human flesh, tearing the child apart and tearing the mother’s heart. Unplanned pregnancy is not one problem, but a host of problems, great and small; pregnancy care providers try to solve them, one at a time.
Problem pregnancy is associated frequently with poverty, and Planned Parenthood selects the poorer neighborhoods; it is popularly believed that abortion is the best solution for the poor. At any rate, this belief is popular with those who are not poor. Polls regularly show that those with higher income levels are the most likely to endorse public funding of abortion, a gift that the recipients are not eager to accept. David Gergen, in an editorial written before he joined the Clinton administration, pointed out that a 1992 Reader’s Digest poll discovered “poorer Americans are the most opposed to federal funding [for abortion]. Among those earning less than $15,000 per year, opposition ran 63 to 32 percent against funding, while those making over $60,000 favored it by 57 to 41 percent.” Gergen asks, “Is Clinton listening to the people he wants to help?”
When people offer to help you by giving you money to eliminate your children, there’s an implied message that’s hard to miss. A friend who worked in an abortion referral center stocked a flier which explained how we could reduce our tax burden by helping poor women have abortions; one day a Hispanic client came in, slapped the flier on the counter, and hissed, “This is what you really think of us.” Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist who wanted “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by rectifying “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit.’” Planned Parenthood still has great admiration for Sanger, and president Faye Wattleton said a few years ago that the organization is “just following in the footsteps” of its founder.
Two brands of compassion, each offering what they think is best, but one gets the lion’s share of funding. While pregnancy care centers are a woman-to-woman operation, with funds raised in batches through bake sales and small grants, abortion is more lavishly supported from above. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the recipient of impressive grants from a long list of foundations and corporations, from Helena Rubenstein to the Pew Charitable Trusts to the New York Times Company. In a typical year, $125 million was received via Government grants and contracts. Planned Parenthood has fought for federal funding of abortion, and with the expanded provisions of the Hyde Amendment will now be able to charge more abortions to the public purse. Some states, as well, use taxpayer funds to underwrite abortions: in Maryland the bill totals $3 million per year. There is plenty of money from above to eliminate the children of the poor, and little need for bake-sale fundraising from below. The director of Planned Parenthood in Maryland is a well-mannered, sober Bostonian in a dark suit; it is hard to imagine him raising funds by poking his head in an office door, like Gloria’s volunteers, and asking how many want a pastrami sub.
Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo
30
Sep
Here in Colorado, our Governor’s race is a mess for conservatives.
A short history:
The three candidates for Colorado's Governor: John Hickenlooper, Dan Maes, Tom Tancredo.
John Hickenlooper, Denver’s mayor, had no competition for the Democrat nomination. McIinnis and Maes were the top two Republicans, both had issues. Maes appeared to have credibility issues and McGinnis was being accused of plagiarism. Tom Tancredo pulled his endorsement of McGinnis before the Republican primary, and said that if McIinnis and Maes didn’t drop out, he would enter the race independently.
With Tom joining the attacks on McInnis, he lost the primary to Maes. Maes won on the benefit of not being accused of plagiarism.
Tom Tancredo switched political party affiliation and is now on the ballot as the Constitution Party candidate. The conservative vote has split. It seemed that in the year of the conservative, we were handing the Governor’s office to the most liberal candidate.
The policies of Tancredo and Maes would be very similar, focusing on a constitutional perspective validating the primacy of the individual, instead of the primacy of the government. While Hickenlooper would raise taxes, Tancredo and Maes are expected to maintain or cut taxes. Across the board, the principles and policies of the conservatives are similar.
What’s happened to date:
When Tancredo entered the race, he had only support of 9% of Colorado’s voters. Maes could conceivably compete with Hickenlooper, but only if Tancredo dropped out.
Tancredo has consistently gained support while Maes has lost support. During the month of September, Tancredo moved up to 34% support of Colorado voters, only 10 points behind Hickenlooper. Maes has dropped to only 15% support. Tancredo’s support has come from those who were formerly supporters of Maes, Hickenlooper, and undecided voters.
Arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now against Maes:
Arguments from local Maes supporters as well as national figures like Michael Medved have essentially been the following:
Politicians with the winning touch almost always shun fringe parties because chances of success are so small. The most admired American leaders take their place in an honorable pragmatic tradition, counting practical results as more important than showy gestures.
The basic idea is that running would only ever accrue him a few percent vote that would take away votes only from the Republican with an impractical bid that could never compete with the liberal Democrat. Tancredo staying in the race could only ever defeat Maes and ensure a Hickenlooper victory.
BUT today, Tancredo is within 10 points of Hickenlooper, and has more than double the support Maes has. These very arguments that used to be against Tancredo are now arguments against Maes.
It is Maes who can only muster a small percentage of support.
He has become the incredible shrinking candidate while Tancredo is building support at an extremely rapid pace.
It is Maes whose only effect now can be electing the Democrat by taking away support from the 2nd most popular candidate.
Tancredo needs about 10% of Coloradans to change to vote for him for the win. Maes would need about 30% of Coloradans to change their support for him to win.
It is Maes who is staying n when the chances of success are so small.
The trends show that Maes will continue to lose support and will enter election day with under 10% of votes from Coloradans.
What this means for you, me, and Maes.
I recognize that some people will vote for Maes because he’s got an R behind his name. If this is you, you are simply not a conservative, but a member of a political party, who will do what you’re told. These sorts of people are called RINOs, “Republican in Name Only,” who will vote for Republicans no matter what.
Others will vote for Maes because they’re mad at Tancredo for messing up the Republican primary. I don’t like what he did either. But we aren’t voting on what Tancredo did, we are voting for what direction the Colorado Governor’s office moves in.
Unless there’s a tremendous upset and Maes is neck-and-neck with Hickenlooper by voting day, any votes for Maes will have the effect of voting for Hickenlooper.
As a conservative, I want my vote to be effective for bringing about change in the right direction – constitutional values, individual rights, smaller government. Your vote for a candidate who cannot win is a vote against all of these conservative values.
Whatever your personal feelings, whatever your party affiliation, a vote for Dan Maes isn’t a vote against Hickenlooper or a vote against Tancredo. A vote for Dan Maes is a vote against conservative values in the governor’s office. The only way we have to pursue conservative values in the governor’s office this term is to value conservatism over Republicanism, over our annoyance with Tom messing up our primary, over our desire to hold a grudge.
The only way we have available to us to pursue conservative values in the office of the Colorado Governor this year is to vote Tancredo.
