I sat through the entire boring State of the Union Address and found it to be just about what I expected. There was nothing new, just more of the same big government blather, but with one difference. Three years ago there was all the excitement about Hope and Change. Tonight there was no mention of it, and nothing hopeful about the speech.
But before I get into that, let me share something from The O'Reilly Factor, which I watched just before the speech. O'Reilley was interviewing Bob Bechel. Bechel, as you may know, was the campaign manager for the biggest loser in presidential history, Walter Mondale. He had his head in the sand in 1984, and he's still got it there. He first claimed that Obama had created 4 million jobs, a figure even the president isn't claiming, but when he was asked if he had any fear about the 16 trillion dollar debt and leaving the burden to generations to come, his answer showed just how out of touch liberals are. He said it was nothing to worry about, that the dollar would never be devalued, and then asked, "Has the deficit affected you?"
Bechel, of course, makes well over a million a year, so he could be taxed at 30 or 40% and not even feel it. O'Reilly put him in his place then and said, "That's fine for you. What about the poor people who have no jobs, can't afford the high gasoline prices, and are struggling to survive?" Bechel doesn't see these people's needs and doesn't care. He's a left wing, self-centered, self-serving mongrel who only cares about what benefits him right now. My guess is he typifies most liberals. And they call the 80's the Decade of Greed. Nobody is more out of touch than these people, and the president's speech only serves to prove that true.
Obama began and ended his State of the Union praising our troops, their sacrifice and their ability to work together, and used it as a bully pulpit to encourage the country. "Imagine what we could accomplish if we work together," he said. Of course, he made sure we knew he had brought the troops home from Iraq and was starting a draw down in Afghanistan. He hyped the killing of bin-Laden as an example of his astute foreign policy, just as I said he would. He went through some of the details of the mission and said the flag that Seal Team 6 had carried on the mission and had each autographed for the president was his most cherished possession.
He claimed that America is again respected around the world. I'd like to hear Donald Trump's response to that. He just said a few days ago that Obama has made us the laughing stock of the world.
The theme of his speech was fairness; fair shot, fair play, and shared responsibility. Class warfare was the goal as he repeated again that it's not fair for the top 2% to be paying a lower tax rate than everybody else. He used Warren Buffet's claim that he paid less taxes than his secretary as his cause celebre.
Buffet, of course, just like Mitt Romney, makes most of his money from investments. Investments are taxed at 15%, lower than normal income tax, because investments are what provide capital for corporations to hire more workers, and there is a certain amount of risk involved for the investor. If you raise the investment earnings tax, you wind up with less investments, and companies with less capital and fewer job openings to hire people to produce their products. Of course, reality is the inconvenient fact that liberals choose to ignore.
On the economy he said we had to gain control of our own energy, and touted solar energy, (which he has authorized billions in loans too, but which have completely failed, which he completely failed to mention), and natural gas as a source of clean energy, but said nothing about the Keystone pipeline that he just canceled. He talked about bringing jobs back from overseas and the tax breaks he would give companies who moved their manufacturing plants back home, but said nothing of the overburden of taxes and regulations, and the belligerence of unions that forced them to leave in the first place.
He spoke of the home mortgage crisis and how there needs to be more regulations to keep large banks in line so this never happens again, but said nothing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which he bailed out, or of the Dodd/Frank bill that caused the mess in the first place. Then he ordered the Attorney-General, Eric Holder, to investigate the crisis. Yeah, I can just see a whole lot getting done with that investigation.
He explained that in the six months before he took office 4 million jobs were lost (still blaming Bush), and 4 million more were lost in his first six months in office (due to Bush), but that since 2010 3 million new jobs had been created. It was, he said, the most jobs created in a two year period since 1999. He said nothing about the unemployment rate being at 8.6%, or the fact that there are still 1.5 or 2 million more people out of work than when he started. He did say that he had agreed to cut the debt by 2 trillion dollars over the next six years, but said nothing of the 1.2 trillion he wants to add to the debt in the next year.
He claimed that oil production in the US is at an eight year high, while last year we imported the least foreign oil in the last 16 years. He said his administration had opened up millions of new acres for drilling (those acres on BLM land had already been tested and rejected as non-productive by oil companies) and that he was ordering the opening of 75% of off shore drilling areas to search for more there (even though a judge had ordered him to allow drilling to go on in the Gulf over a year ago, he's just now got around to it).
On education he said that he had raised the standards for the first time in a generation. (I seem to remember Clinton's "Goals 2000" and George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" supposedly did something like that around 1998 and 2001.) He wants a system that rewards the best teachers, gets rid of the worst, and allows teachers flexibility to teach, not just cram for the exam. Interesting. That's what we've all wanted for years, but Obama's union friends always threatening to go on strike for more benefits have made it impossible.
He proposed that every State pass laws requiring students to graduate from high school or stay in school at least until they are 18, and then to help subsidize school loans so more kids can go to college. (I think those are issues that are up to the states and none of his business.)
He had a plan to help home owners to save $3,000 by refinancing their homes. I'm not sure, but I think refinancing closing costs are less than that in the private market now and you can probably save a whole lot more than $3,000 without the president's plan. He said there needs to be some regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior in the housing industry and had the chutzpah to declare that his administration had cut more regulations than any other president, and approved fewer regulations than President Bush. In his mind, maybe. The government passed over 3700 regulations restricting businesses just last year alone.
I did agree with one thing he said; he wants to ban insider trading by members of Congress. But then he turned around and chastised Wall Street for getting a free ride and announced there would be "no more bailouts." He conveniently ignored the fact that he's the one who bailed them out amd gave them the free ride.
He got in a hit at the House Speaker, John Boehner, accusing Republicans of holding up the budget bill. Let's see, he overlooked the Super Committee that he appointed to make budget resolutions and came up with nothing, and the fact that he is required by law to submit his own version of the budget by today and failed to do so on time for the third year in a row, and that his late budget proposal last year was rejected by the Senate 99-0.
He stated that our commitment to Israel is iron clad and closer than at anytime in history. If I wasn't so disgusted I'd be laughing. He has been no friend of Netanyahu, and just canceled a military exercise with Israel so as not to provoke the Iranians over the Strait of Hormuz. Now there's how you win friends and influence people; by weakness. He also claimed that his new defense strategy (gutting the military of personnel and using new technology) would make us safer. In a fantasy world maybe.
Near the end of the speech he made the most laughable comments of the evening. First he said, "Tyranny is no match for liberty," which is a corker since he's been the most tyrannical president we've ever had. He said that even though he was a Republican, one of his favorite presidents was Abraham Lincoln, and he quoted Lincoln as having said, "Government should only do for people what they can't do." Yet, Obama, the Food Stamp president, has grown government bigger in his three years than all the other presidents in our history combined.
Obama didn't discuss healthcare or his economic troubles, probably because he can't run on the destructive things he has accomplished, but he did say that anyone saying America is in decline doesn't know what he's talking about. I wonder why he then said we need to trust each other and rebuild our nation together. If we're not in decline, why do we have to rebuild? Well, it sounded good except for one thing; he's the most untrustworthy person in the country.
He called for an amnesty for illegal aliens which is about the worst thing you could do in a recession as deep and as long as this one has been and with unemployment as high as it is. No doubt he's plowing for more voters. While an amnesty would put an even greater strain on social security and medicare, Obama said nothing about fixing the funding problems for those programs.
Obama was elected on the promise to fix the economy. He hasn't done it. Instead we've got unprecedented spending and unemployment has gone up and stayed up for three years. His plan of what Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels calls "trickle down government" isn't working. Big government, as Ronald Reagan said, is not the answer to the problem, it is the problem. The only way to fix it is to privatize the economy, stop punishing corporations and individuals for making a profit, and allow everybody to earn all the wealth they can and use it to create jobs. For all Obama's boasting of creating jobs, most of those are in government which does not create jobs, but only transfers them from the private sector which then has to pay for them as well.
Overall, same ol' same ol' from Ol'bama. No substance, no vision, no plan. The solution to this dismal economy is 1) get big government off the backs of the people who create the jobs, and 2) create a simpler tax code that will get everybody out from under the massive red tape that is a massive waste of time and money.
In other words, throw out Obama and all his leftist minions and get some sort of sanity back in Washington. Vote Republican whoever it is.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Republican Debate
We watched the debate last night and found it to be somewhat lackluster compared to the Fox debate last week. The moderator, CNN's Brian Williams, kept a tight reign on the questions and the answers, often throwing questions to one or two candidates but not letting the others answer. He went back to the old liberal tactic of trying to provoke the candidates to fight each other, and overall I think he did a rather lousy job.
I will say this in Williams' favor. He addressed all the candidates respectfully by their titles; Senator Santorum, Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, and Congressman Paul. One of the things that has irritated me is the lack of decorum and proper respect, not only by previous moderators, but by the candidates themselves, calling each other by their first names. This informality might be good in private conversation or among adults of their peer groups, but in front of the nation, with young adults and even teenagers watching, there ought to be a formality that shows respect to the positions in government that they hold. This first name business belittles the respectability of their profession. (I know! There's not a lot of respectability left in their profession.)
All of the candidates had good answers on certain issues, and weren't so dynamic on others. Santorum continued to fall into the trap, or maybe he thinks it's good strategy, of attacking both Romney and Gingrich more than delineating his own positions. Romney went on the attack against Gingrich, who surprisingly was remarkably reserved in his responses. One of the criticisms of Gingrich is that he's a loose cannon and blows up in a heartbeat, but he remained calm through all the attacks against him showing a different side of his personality. What I found interesting was that sometimes one of the candidates would have a real good answer and the others, rather than trying to present a contrasting opinion, would agree with him.
Ron Paul had maybe his best debate (of those that I've seen) on the economy, but at the same time maybe one of his worst on foreign affairs, which highlights what I think of the last debate. He'd be a lousy president, but probably great as the Secretary of the Treasury.
A lot of criticism continues to be made about Romney's tax returns. Romney as well continued to attack Gingrich's role with Freddie Mac, insisting on calling him a lobbyist, and complaining about how much money he made from it. Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac to show his position was as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Furthermore, his advice to Freddie Mac was to refuse the subprime mortgages, and then he opposed the Obama bailout of the institution. I don't think Romney's attacks on that are going to give him any traction, and may hurt him by his insistence on misrepresenting the situation.
The real debate on Freddie Mac ought to be about Barney Frank and the Dodd/Frank bill that forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy up subprime mortgages and caused the entire housing crisis in the first place. That's something the press has totally ignored, but it is the real issue.
Romney said he would be disclosing his tax returns for the last two years today, which he has done, and they apparently show that he's made over 20 million each of the last two years, and paid around 3 million in taxes each year, a lot less than the 900,000 Gingrich paid for his 3.2 million in income last year. He also claims to have given more to charities (probably Mormon charities) than he paid in taxes. Personally I don't think any of this should be an issue. I don't care how much a person makes as long as he makes it legitimately and legally.
If the liberals insist on making Romney's and Gingrich's finances the focus of debate, they ought to turn it around and expose Obama's purchase of a multi-million dollar house when he was too poor to afford it, and the plot next door he got for free through the twisted dealings of one Tony Rezko who is now serving time in prison. They ought to compare how much they've given to charities with Joe Biden, who revealed with his tax returns in '08 that although he had also made millions, he had given about $300 to charities in one year. Whoopie-do.
There has also been a lot of criticism between the candidates and all over the internet about who is the most conservative of the bunch. It's too bad that Michele Bachman dropped out of the race because she probably was the purest conservative of them all. Unfortunately she was unable to present herself as being tough enough, like a Maggie Thatcher, to be the leader of the free world (although she'd probably be a lot better than the current one). She also spent too much time attacking the other candidates and proclaiming herself to be the only true conservative, and not enough time explaining her positions.
I don't think "who is the most conservative" needs to be an issue anymore in these debates. Romney was a moderate to liberal Republican governor, who continues to move to the right to try and win the Republican base. But he's the Republican establishment choice, as well as the Democrat and liberal media choice, which is probably why he's been unable, after six years of campaigning, to attract the conservative base, even though the ultra conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter has jumped on his band wagon.
Santorum and Gingrich continue to be mauled by Ron Paul supporters (by Ann Coulter as well); Santorum mostly for being anti-Second Amendment, but Gingrich for being a closet Marxist. The attacks on Santorum haven't been as strong as those on Gingrich, mostly because he's been down in the pack except for his surprise victory in Iowa. Gingrich is kind of an anomaly. He is criticized for a number of decisions that appear to be very liberal, and yet when confronted, he usually has some good reasons behind those decisions, or has admitted to having made mistakes, which of course is only human. Then again, he has a record of a very conservative career in politics as a supporter of Reaganomics, four balanced budgets as Speaker of the House, and American exceptionalism among other things.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, which is a conservative out on the far right fringe, a borderline isolationist, and in favor of so little government that it's almost anarchy. Now that's not entirely true, but he is seen as a radical by even most conservatives. We are all in favor of constitutional limited government, but I think laws against illegal drugs and abortion are not inconsistent with the Constitution as Paul seems to think.
The critical issue this year is simply defeating Obama. I think any of these candidates, Romney from the left, Paul from the right, or Gingrich and Santorum from the center, will be better than the current occupant of the White House. In Obama we have a potential dictator who doesn't give a rip what you or I think. With the Republican candidates you have someone who may not agree with you on every position, but who will listen to you and be swayed by the will of the people. That's why no matter who wins the nomination we need to get out and vote. This year, more than ever, is not the year to sit it out if you don't get the candidate of your choice.
It will be interesting to see what Obama says tonight in his State of the Union address. I meant to write a critique of his speech last November, which was pure claptrap, but didn't get it done. I imagine tonight will be more of the same; a declaration of all that he's done for the country (division through class warfare), of a growing economy (4 trillion of debt, he hasn't submitted one budget to Congress on time in three years, and the budget he submitted last year was rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate 99-0), of how he has created 3 million jobs (a figure no documentation can prove, and which belies the fact that there are 1.5 million more people unemployed today than when he started and unemployment is still above 8.5%), and of his great foreign policy, in which he no doubt will take the lion's share of credit for getting bin-Laden.
The reality is nobody in the world takes him seriously. Look at Iran. Obama criticized Bush for not opening a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. He promised to bring about peace and normal relations by talking to the Iranians rather than threatening them with military force. Now Iran is threatening us with military force in the Straits of Hormuz, and Obama still hasn't opened a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. Romney has been the most active in focusing on Obama, but all the Republican candidates need to make him the subject of their criticisms rather than each other.
I will say this in Williams' favor. He addressed all the candidates respectfully by their titles; Senator Santorum, Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, and Congressman Paul. One of the things that has irritated me is the lack of decorum and proper respect, not only by previous moderators, but by the candidates themselves, calling each other by their first names. This informality might be good in private conversation or among adults of their peer groups, but in front of the nation, with young adults and even teenagers watching, there ought to be a formality that shows respect to the positions in government that they hold. This first name business belittles the respectability of their profession. (I know! There's not a lot of respectability left in their profession.)
All of the candidates had good answers on certain issues, and weren't so dynamic on others. Santorum continued to fall into the trap, or maybe he thinks it's good strategy, of attacking both Romney and Gingrich more than delineating his own positions. Romney went on the attack against Gingrich, who surprisingly was remarkably reserved in his responses. One of the criticisms of Gingrich is that he's a loose cannon and blows up in a heartbeat, but he remained calm through all the attacks against him showing a different side of his personality. What I found interesting was that sometimes one of the candidates would have a real good answer and the others, rather than trying to present a contrasting opinion, would agree with him.
Ron Paul had maybe his best debate (of those that I've seen) on the economy, but at the same time maybe one of his worst on foreign affairs, which highlights what I think of the last debate. He'd be a lousy president, but probably great as the Secretary of the Treasury.
A lot of criticism continues to be made about Romney's tax returns. Romney as well continued to attack Gingrich's role with Freddie Mac, insisting on calling him a lobbyist, and complaining about how much money he made from it. Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac to show his position was as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Furthermore, his advice to Freddie Mac was to refuse the subprime mortgages, and then he opposed the Obama bailout of the institution. I don't think Romney's attacks on that are going to give him any traction, and may hurt him by his insistence on misrepresenting the situation.
The real debate on Freddie Mac ought to be about Barney Frank and the Dodd/Frank bill that forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy up subprime mortgages and caused the entire housing crisis in the first place. That's something the press has totally ignored, but it is the real issue.
Romney said he would be disclosing his tax returns for the last two years today, which he has done, and they apparently show that he's made over 20 million each of the last two years, and paid around 3 million in taxes each year, a lot less than the 900,000 Gingrich paid for his 3.2 million in income last year. He also claims to have given more to charities (probably Mormon charities) than he paid in taxes. Personally I don't think any of this should be an issue. I don't care how much a person makes as long as he makes it legitimately and legally.
If the liberals insist on making Romney's and Gingrich's finances the focus of debate, they ought to turn it around and expose Obama's purchase of a multi-million dollar house when he was too poor to afford it, and the plot next door he got for free through the twisted dealings of one Tony Rezko who is now serving time in prison. They ought to compare how much they've given to charities with Joe Biden, who revealed with his tax returns in '08 that although he had also made millions, he had given about $300 to charities in one year. Whoopie-do.
There has also been a lot of criticism between the candidates and all over the internet about who is the most conservative of the bunch. It's too bad that Michele Bachman dropped out of the race because she probably was the purest conservative of them all. Unfortunately she was unable to present herself as being tough enough, like a Maggie Thatcher, to be the leader of the free world (although she'd probably be a lot better than the current one). She also spent too much time attacking the other candidates and proclaiming herself to be the only true conservative, and not enough time explaining her positions.
I don't think "who is the most conservative" needs to be an issue anymore in these debates. Romney was a moderate to liberal Republican governor, who continues to move to the right to try and win the Republican base. But he's the Republican establishment choice, as well as the Democrat and liberal media choice, which is probably why he's been unable, after six years of campaigning, to attract the conservative base, even though the ultra conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter has jumped on his band wagon.
Santorum and Gingrich continue to be mauled by Ron Paul supporters (by Ann Coulter as well); Santorum mostly for being anti-Second Amendment, but Gingrich for being a closet Marxist. The attacks on Santorum haven't been as strong as those on Gingrich, mostly because he's been down in the pack except for his surprise victory in Iowa. Gingrich is kind of an anomaly. He is criticized for a number of decisions that appear to be very liberal, and yet when confronted, he usually has some good reasons behind those decisions, or has admitted to having made mistakes, which of course is only human. Then again, he has a record of a very conservative career in politics as a supporter of Reaganomics, four balanced budgets as Speaker of the House, and American exceptionalism among other things.
Ron Paul is a libertarian, which is a conservative out on the far right fringe, a borderline isolationist, and in favor of so little government that it's almost anarchy. Now that's not entirely true, but he is seen as a radical by even most conservatives. We are all in favor of constitutional limited government, but I think laws against illegal drugs and abortion are not inconsistent with the Constitution as Paul seems to think.
The critical issue this year is simply defeating Obama. I think any of these candidates, Romney from the left, Paul from the right, or Gingrich and Santorum from the center, will be better than the current occupant of the White House. In Obama we have a potential dictator who doesn't give a rip what you or I think. With the Republican candidates you have someone who may not agree with you on every position, but who will listen to you and be swayed by the will of the people. That's why no matter who wins the nomination we need to get out and vote. This year, more than ever, is not the year to sit it out if you don't get the candidate of your choice.
It will be interesting to see what Obama says tonight in his State of the Union address. I meant to write a critique of his speech last November, which was pure claptrap, but didn't get it done. I imagine tonight will be more of the same; a declaration of all that he's done for the country (division through class warfare), of a growing economy (4 trillion of debt, he hasn't submitted one budget to Congress on time in three years, and the budget he submitted last year was rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate 99-0), of how he has created 3 million jobs (a figure no documentation can prove, and which belies the fact that there are 1.5 million more people unemployed today than when he started and unemployment is still above 8.5%), and of his great foreign policy, in which he no doubt will take the lion's share of credit for getting bin-Laden.
The reality is nobody in the world takes him seriously. Look at Iran. Obama criticized Bush for not opening a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. He promised to bring about peace and normal relations by talking to the Iranians rather than threatening them with military force. Now Iran is threatening us with military force in the Straits of Hormuz, and Obama still hasn't opened a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. Romney has been the most active in focusing on Obama, but all the Republican candidates need to make him the subject of their criticisms rather than each other.
Monday, January 23, 2012
The Republican Candidates
I haven't written anything since we arrived home last July. My wife was desperately ill and her care took up a lot of time as well as concern. I got out of the routine of writing and I just never got back into it. Yesterday somebody asked me my opinion on the Republican candidates, so I put some thoughts down and then decided to post them on American Flyer to see if it would reignite my writing efforts. My wife has improved considerably in recent months, which is a great relief to my family.
Since I wrote this early yesterday Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, and I had a long discussion with an ardent Ron Paul supporter last evening. One thing I've noticed is that Paul's supporters tend to be almost cultic in their devotion to him, and seem to think he's flawless. I don't. So let me give you my thoughts, and then let me know what you think.
Ron Paul is a weak candidate for several reasons. His approach to Israel is the same as Obama's; return to the 67 borders. He also wants to cut all aid to Israel. There is a video on Youtube showing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu saying that they don't need America telling them what to do, building their nation, or sending troops. Paul takes it from that statement that Israel doesn't need us or any foreign aid from us. The argument is that the US has always tried to control Israel and we should get out.
Actually, I believe in context Netanyahu was complaining about Obama telling Israel to give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both of which would be a disaster for Israel. We have never tried to control Israel or build their nation, and while Netanyahu told us not to send troops, which we have never offered to do, the Israeli Air Force that controls the Palestinian skies is made up primarily of US F-15s and F-16s. I am quite sure they don't want to give those up.
The primary reason, however, that we need to continue to support Israel, besides the fact that they are our only real ally in the region, is that God promised Abraham four thousand years ago that He would bless those nations that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel. As a Christian nation it is in our best interest to continue to support Israel. Paul's idea of basically abandoning them is not only unrealistic, but would remove what little of God's blessing is still on our country. His blindness to Iran's nuclear program and the general agenda of Islam to destroy America (he thinks 9/11 is America's fault) would make him as much of a disaster in foreign policy as Obama. Paul's position on abortion is certainly not pro-life in the strictest sense, and his idea of legalizing illegal drugs are hardly sound domestic policies.
As for securing the border with Mexico he has a good idea, I think, about using the military. He also wants to bring all troops home and stop "conquering" other nations. I don't think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do with conquest. They were ill-fought by the civilian leadership in the long run, but the fact that we are bringing our troops home disproves any idea of empire building. I do like Paul's economic ideas of a 0% income tax and cutting a trillion dollars out of the budget. I think he would probably be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury.
Mitt Romney is dangerous because his conservative credentials tend to grow as necessary to win the nomination, but nobody really knows what he'll do as president. People can change positions when they see the light, but Romney hasn't really explained his changes of position well. There's also the question of his Mormon religion. One of the candidates brought it up last summer and was excoriated for it, and since then it has been ignored, but my guess is Obama would use it, especially the idea that they will all become gods, to try to belittle him, and I think that puts a lot of doubt in conservative minds, especially among evangelicals. Romney has mostly been a good debater until last Monday night. At the Fox News debate Thursday night he had some good moments, but not as good an overall performance as he had been having in the past. Plus, the Democrats gave it away at the debate the week before when the woman moderator made the comment that the Democrats want Romney because they think he'll be the easiest to defeat. Stephanopoulos could hardly contain himself trying to get her to shut up. And then the MSM has already decided he's going to win and are doing their best to make it happen. That's enough reason for me not to vote for him.
Rick Santorum probably has the best and most consistent positions on all conservative issues with the exception maybe of the Second Amendment, but he's not been a very good debater overall, and rather than concentrate on the issues, he more than any of the other candidates went out of his way Thursday night to attack Romney and Gingrich, which made him look petty and small, and I don't think helped his chances at all. Gingrich and Romney got fired up Thursday and spoke with passion. Santorum didn't exude that same level of fire. He looked like he was trying to get fired up but his answers didn't carry the same weight of persuasion or spontaneity that the others' did, and I'm afraid that if he gets the nomination, his debates with Obama would lack the strength or eloquence to compete. Plus, since he lost his last race for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that would probably be used against him. I don't think he's a winning proposition.
That leaves Newt Gingrich, the man with all the baggage. He has by far been the best debater through most of the debates, although he seemed to drift when the Romney attacks hit him in Iowa and he started retaliating in kind, but this last week he has proven himself again to be the best choice to take on anybody in a head-to-head debate. He does have problems, however, including the amnesty for illegals that have been in the country for 25 years, and his apparent belief in global warming.
Economically, however, and on foreign policy I think he would be very strong. He has a proven track record as Speaker of the House in the 90's. The criticism of his being thrown out as Speaker by his colleagues shows he had made some enemies along the way, and proves that nobody is perfect, but his leadership led to four balanced budgets in a row.
His marriage trouble is another example of his fallibility, but I think he nixed that one Thursday night. He has previously answered that he had hurt people, but that he had converted to Catholicism, made it right with God, and he's now a changed person. That will probably continue to haunt him, but when you consider Clinton's dalliances as governor of Arkansas and while he was in the White House (which led to his impeachment for perjury before a grand jury and before Congress) were swept under the carpet by self-righteous Democrats who wouldn't care less about Gingrich's morality if he were a Democrat, it shouldn't be made an issue anymore. In a nation that has a 50% divorce rate, and as many people living together unmarried as are married, I think we can take the high road of forgiveness and overlook those faults based on what we see of his life and attitudes today. People do make comebacks from bad mistakes, and I think Gingrich has done admirably well in recent years.
Gingrich has also taken on the MSM from the beginning, and his outburst at the first question Thursday night has proven him to be someone who won't be cowed by political correctness or the media's conceit. He's the first one, and the most forceful one to speak what is on the mind of people all over the country. Finally there is someone, more than the others, who is speaking rationally about the way things are and ought to be, and is not bending over cow-towing to moderates, liberals and the press to try to win them over.
By profession, Gingrich is an historian with a Christian view of American history, and not necessarily because he was raised a Christian. He wasn't. He came to his view objectively by a true study of history and has rejected the revisionist view of Deist founders influenced by Rousseau, and accepted the Christian view of a Constitution founded on the New Testament and the Ten Commandments (as stated by James Madison), and American exceptionalism due to the blessings of God on our Christian nation. He is the one man who articulates this position better than the rest, although I'm sure all of the candidates believe the same.
I believe this will be the most crucial election since Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and probably the most critical election in America's history. Obama is setting himself up to be dictator. He already ignores Congress ruling by decree and establishing unconstitutional czars. The only thing keeping him from going too far is the need to be re-elected, but if he wins again there will be nothing stopping him from overthrowing the country almost single handedly. I predicted a long time ago that if he wins a second election, I believe in another four years he'll manufacture some kind of crisis to enable him to declare martial law and hang onto power. But I'm not even sure his purpose is to necessarily hold on to power. Under his skin I think he's an avowed muslim who is only interested in destroying America for the benefit of Islam.
That makes his defeat more urgent than any in our history, and it's why I think Gingrich, even with his baggage, is the best choice. In an open, non-scripted debate, he'll expose Obama for the communist/islamic tool that he is, and make him look like a fool in front of the whole world. That absolutely needs to be done and a policy of American exceptionalism expounded so that the world knows we are still the top dog, and that we will continue to be a Christian nation. If we don't do this, America will land on the "ash-heap of nations," that Ronald Reagan warned us about. More than ever conservatives, Christian and non-Christian, Tea Party or dry, need to vote in this coming election, and I think the man we need is going to be Newt Gingrich.
That's my opinion.
Since I wrote this early yesterday Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, and I had a long discussion with an ardent Ron Paul supporter last evening. One thing I've noticed is that Paul's supporters tend to be almost cultic in their devotion to him, and seem to think he's flawless. I don't. So let me give you my thoughts, and then let me know what you think.
Ron Paul is a weak candidate for several reasons. His approach to Israel is the same as Obama's; return to the 67 borders. He also wants to cut all aid to Israel. There is a video on Youtube showing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu saying that they don't need America telling them what to do, building their nation, or sending troops. Paul takes it from that statement that Israel doesn't need us or any foreign aid from us. The argument is that the US has always tried to control Israel and we should get out.
Actually, I believe in context Netanyahu was complaining about Obama telling Israel to give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both of which would be a disaster for Israel. We have never tried to control Israel or build their nation, and while Netanyahu told us not to send troops, which we have never offered to do, the Israeli Air Force that controls the Palestinian skies is made up primarily of US F-15s and F-16s. I am quite sure they don't want to give those up.
The primary reason, however, that we need to continue to support Israel, besides the fact that they are our only real ally in the region, is that God promised Abraham four thousand years ago that He would bless those nations that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel. As a Christian nation it is in our best interest to continue to support Israel. Paul's idea of basically abandoning them is not only unrealistic, but would remove what little of God's blessing is still on our country. His blindness to Iran's nuclear program and the general agenda of Islam to destroy America (he thinks 9/11 is America's fault) would make him as much of a disaster in foreign policy as Obama. Paul's position on abortion is certainly not pro-life in the strictest sense, and his idea of legalizing illegal drugs are hardly sound domestic policies.
As for securing the border with Mexico he has a good idea, I think, about using the military. He also wants to bring all troops home and stop "conquering" other nations. I don't think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do with conquest. They were ill-fought by the civilian leadership in the long run, but the fact that we are bringing our troops home disproves any idea of empire building. I do like Paul's economic ideas of a 0% income tax and cutting a trillion dollars out of the budget. I think he would probably be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury.
Mitt Romney is dangerous because his conservative credentials tend to grow as necessary to win the nomination, but nobody really knows what he'll do as president. People can change positions when they see the light, but Romney hasn't really explained his changes of position well. There's also the question of his Mormon religion. One of the candidates brought it up last summer and was excoriated for it, and since then it has been ignored, but my guess is Obama would use it, especially the idea that they will all become gods, to try to belittle him, and I think that puts a lot of doubt in conservative minds, especially among evangelicals. Romney has mostly been a good debater until last Monday night. At the Fox News debate Thursday night he had some good moments, but not as good an overall performance as he had been having in the past. Plus, the Democrats gave it away at the debate the week before when the woman moderator made the comment that the Democrats want Romney because they think he'll be the easiest to defeat. Stephanopoulos could hardly contain himself trying to get her to shut up. And then the MSM has already decided he's going to win and are doing their best to make it happen. That's enough reason for me not to vote for him.
Rick Santorum probably has the best and most consistent positions on all conservative issues with the exception maybe of the Second Amendment, but he's not been a very good debater overall, and rather than concentrate on the issues, he more than any of the other candidates went out of his way Thursday night to attack Romney and Gingrich, which made him look petty and small, and I don't think helped his chances at all. Gingrich and Romney got fired up Thursday and spoke with passion. Santorum didn't exude that same level of fire. He looked like he was trying to get fired up but his answers didn't carry the same weight of persuasion or spontaneity that the others' did, and I'm afraid that if he gets the nomination, his debates with Obama would lack the strength or eloquence to compete. Plus, since he lost his last race for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that would probably be used against him. I don't think he's a winning proposition.
That leaves Newt Gingrich, the man with all the baggage. He has by far been the best debater through most of the debates, although he seemed to drift when the Romney attacks hit him in Iowa and he started retaliating in kind, but this last week he has proven himself again to be the best choice to take on anybody in a head-to-head debate. He does have problems, however, including the amnesty for illegals that have been in the country for 25 years, and his apparent belief in global warming.
Economically, however, and on foreign policy I think he would be very strong. He has a proven track record as Speaker of the House in the 90's. The criticism of his being thrown out as Speaker by his colleagues shows he had made some enemies along the way, and proves that nobody is perfect, but his leadership led to four balanced budgets in a row.
His marriage trouble is another example of his fallibility, but I think he nixed that one Thursday night. He has previously answered that he had hurt people, but that he had converted to Catholicism, made it right with God, and he's now a changed person. That will probably continue to haunt him, but when you consider Clinton's dalliances as governor of Arkansas and while he was in the White House (which led to his impeachment for perjury before a grand jury and before Congress) were swept under the carpet by self-righteous Democrats who wouldn't care less about Gingrich's morality if he were a Democrat, it shouldn't be made an issue anymore. In a nation that has a 50% divorce rate, and as many people living together unmarried as are married, I think we can take the high road of forgiveness and overlook those faults based on what we see of his life and attitudes today. People do make comebacks from bad mistakes, and I think Gingrich has done admirably well in recent years.
Gingrich has also taken on the MSM from the beginning, and his outburst at the first question Thursday night has proven him to be someone who won't be cowed by political correctness or the media's conceit. He's the first one, and the most forceful one to speak what is on the mind of people all over the country. Finally there is someone, more than the others, who is speaking rationally about the way things are and ought to be, and is not bending over cow-towing to moderates, liberals and the press to try to win them over.
By profession, Gingrich is an historian with a Christian view of American history, and not necessarily because he was raised a Christian. He wasn't. He came to his view objectively by a true study of history and has rejected the revisionist view of Deist founders influenced by Rousseau, and accepted the Christian view of a Constitution founded on the New Testament and the Ten Commandments (as stated by James Madison), and American exceptionalism due to the blessings of God on our Christian nation. He is the one man who articulates this position better than the rest, although I'm sure all of the candidates believe the same.
I believe this will be the most crucial election since Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and probably the most critical election in America's history. Obama is setting himself up to be dictator. He already ignores Congress ruling by decree and establishing unconstitutional czars. The only thing keeping him from going too far is the need to be re-elected, but if he wins again there will be nothing stopping him from overthrowing the country almost single handedly. I predicted a long time ago that if he wins a second election, I believe in another four years he'll manufacture some kind of crisis to enable him to declare martial law and hang onto power. But I'm not even sure his purpose is to necessarily hold on to power. Under his skin I think he's an avowed muslim who is only interested in destroying America for the benefit of Islam.
That makes his defeat more urgent than any in our history, and it's why I think Gingrich, even with his baggage, is the best choice. In an open, non-scripted debate, he'll expose Obama for the communist/islamic tool that he is, and make him look like a fool in front of the whole world. That absolutely needs to be done and a policy of American exceptionalism expounded so that the world knows we are still the top dog, and that we will continue to be a Christian nation. If we don't do this, America will land on the "ash-heap of nations," that Ronald Reagan warned us about. More than ever conservatives, Christian and non-Christian, Tea Party or dry, need to vote in this coming election, and I think the man we need is going to be Newt Gingrich.
That's my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)