All I've heard since last night: How historic that Romney has won the first two states! One more win in South Carolina and he has the nomination in the bag!
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing that. There have been only one caucus and one primary so far, and they both mean absolutely nothing.
Let's start with Iowa. Typically a more moderate candidate wins in Iowa. Bush 41 beat Reagan in Iowa in 1980. Bob Dole won Iowa in 1996. Even in 2008, Huckabee was not a true conservative- Fred Thompson was the real conservative in that race. Really it should be no surprise that Romney won Iowa. The fact that Santorum came as close as he did to beating Romney (and there's evidence that suggests that Santorum actually did win) is pretty significant.
Now for last night's primary in New Hampshire. Again, Romney was expected to win there all along. New Hampshire is right next to Massachusetts, meaning that New Hampshire residents got Massachusetts broadcasting so they were exposed a lot to Romney. Romney had a house in New Hampshire. So really he's been campaigning there for years. There was no way Romney could lose. But if you think about it, given those reasons, the fact that he only won 39% of the vote is really not all that impressive.
Also consider that New Hampshire has an open primary- meaning that people of all political parties can vote. In a state that's becoming bluer and bluer each year, it should be no surprise that Romney came out on top with Paul and Huntsman following him. Paul and Huntsman won most of their votes from Independents and Democrats. All this means is that a bunch of liberals and moderates pushed forward Romney, Paul and Huntsman in New Hampshire. This is why an open primary is stupid- the people solely in the party should have their say, whether be it be a Democrat or Republican primary. You can thank the Governator for giving us an open primary here in CA.
So after a caucus where a moderate is normally elected, and an open primary in a blue state that is basically Romney's backyard, we're supposed to believe that Romney has this nomination in the bag already? How stupid does the media think we are?
First, what makes this primary season different from previous years is that the delegates are distributed proportionally based on the percentage of votes a candidate gets rather than winner-take-all. In other words, even though Romney narrowly edged out Santorum in Iowa they each got the same amount of delegates. This means that even if Romney wins South Carolina the race still isn't over, because if Santorum or Gingrich get second/third then they will still have enough delegates to hang around. In 1976, Reagan kept losing primary after primary until North Dakota, and then he began picking up steam and almost beat Gerald Ford. Ford was an incumbent and wasn't as weak as Romney.
Second, South Carolina is a solidly conservative state. Paul's crackpot foreign policy views and Huntsman's condescending liberalism won't resonate into any sort of momentum into South Carolina. Romney's flip flops on key social issues like abortion will come back to bite him in South Carolina. It is in this primary where I think the conservative alternative to Romney will emerge. This could be wishful thinking on my part, but I think Santorum will be that alternative.
I say this because lately Gingrich and Perry have been attacking Romney's career at Bain Capital. Perry has called him a "vulture capitalist" and Gingrich showing a film about Romney being "ruthlessly rich". This is really, really stupid of Gingrich and Perry to do. It's this kind of criticism I'd expect to hear from Obama or the Occupy Wall Street movement. It won't be received kindly by the conservative voters of South Carolina. As a result it will portray Romney as a capitalist.
Something is very screwy if Romney looks like a capitalist. In a previous blog post, I documented his tax-and-spend record as governor, but I forgot to mention that Romney was a supporter of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout, and to this day he still defends! There is nothing capitalist about TARP. In capitalism, when something fails, you let it fail. You don't use taxpayer money to keep it afloat. Not to mention that almost half of the TARP money can't even be accounted for now.
Is this seriously what the Republican party has come to? To the point where Romney is now looking like the capitalist in the race?
This is where Santorum comes in. Not only has Santorum been a consistent opponent of TARP, he hasn't involved in the Looney Left rhetoric that Gingrich and Perry have used to attack Romney. His strong conservative record and message I think will resonate more with South Carolina voters.
To those who say that Santorum has lost momentum, well this is what Ed Morrisey from Hot Air says:
Santorum’s struggle for double digits matters less because of the lack of affinity expected for Santorum in New Hampshire, and because his momentum in South Carolina among social conservatives and evangelicals probably won’t be slowed by a fourth- or fifth-place finish.
And what a lot of people forget is that before Iowa, Santorum was polling at like 1-2% in New Hampshire. The fact that he had 10% of the vote is actually quite remarkable when put into that context. So yes, Santorum still has momentum and I think he will put up a good fight against Romney.
That's why when Ron Paul last night told the rest of the GOP candidates to drop out of the race, all I had to say was: shut the hell up you schmuck.
The media or some crazy libertarian are not going to be the ones to tell us who to settle for. We, the American people, will decide who we settle for. If it's Romney, then so be it, he'd be a huge improvement over Obama. But we don't have to settle for him. That'll be for us to decide, not the media, and not that grumpy old man Ron Paul.
Barry Goldwater in his manifesto Conscience of a Conservative says how we as conservatives have failed in promoting agenda. He says how in that era (and still today) many so-called conservatives apologize for their conservative values, like how Nixon said he was fiscally conservative but humanly liberal. Goldwater also criticized Republican President Dwight Eisenhower for increasing spending (hmmm does this sound familiar?) and set forth what I think is the most important standard in determining a good candidate: a candidate who will only sign laws that in compliance with the Constitution and whose goal will be not to add more laws but to repeal laws.
These are in my opinion two of the most important things I look for in a candidate. With Michele Bachmann dropping out yesterday, Rick Santorum is easily the best option we have.
After his surprising surge in Iowa last night, Rick Santorum is finally getting the national media attention he deserves. He is a conservative on all the issues, has bold solutions, and most importantly he is unapologetic about it and very substantive.
First, let's take at his economic plan since the economy is the most important issue after all. Fred Lucas on CNSnews.com goes into detail:
Largely ignored has been Santorum’s sweeping income-tax reform proposal and his plan to trim $5 trillion from the federal budget over the next five years.
Santorum says he wants to simplify the income tax code by establishing two rates, 10 percent and 28 percent. He has described such a reform as more achievable than scrapping the entire tax code for a flat tax.
“I mentioned lowering the rates, 10 and 28 percent, two rates. Why 28 percent? It was good enough for Ronald Reagan and congressional Democrats to support in 1986,” Santorum said on Dec. 27, 2011 in Fort Dodge, Iowa.
This is the best tax plan that all of the candidates still in the race has to offer. Romney's plan makes the Bush tax cuts permanent while cutting capital gains taxes for those making $200,000 or less. Not necessarily a bad plan, but it's timid in that it does nothing to fix the endless maze of loopholes and regulations known as the current tax code. Fixing the tax code is crucial- it's compliance costs are expected to rise to $480 billion by 2015.
Now I'm aware that Gingrich and Perry both offer optional-flat taxes, which is good and bold. But the problem is that those flat taxes are optional, meaning that the 47% who don't pay a dime in federal income taxes will choose to stay in the current tax code so they still don't pay anything as well leave open loopholes for tax fraud and companies like GE not to pay any corporate income taxes. Under Santorum's tax plan, the tax code is simplified so none of this happens.
Santorum also is in favor of cutting the corporate tax rate in half, from 35% to 17.5%, while eliminating it altogether for the manufacturing. Some have criticized him for this because he's favoring one sector over another. Sure, it's not perfect, I'd prefer that he just eliminates the corporate tax rate altogether. But it's still good. His corporate tax cut is bigger than Perry's (20%) or Romney's (25%). It may not be as low as Gingrich's (12.5%) but remember Gingrich's flat tax is optional.
On top of that Santorum would eliminate the death tax, alternate minimum tax (AMT), elimate the tax on repatriated corporate income (so the money invested overseas can be come back here without being taxed, giving investors incentive to invest here) while lowering the capital gains tax from 15% to 12%.
What's particularly intriguing about Santorum's tax plan is the deductions that he offers- only five. But John Hayward at Human Events takes a look into what they are:
Unlike some other tax reform proposals, Santorum’s keeps plenty of deduction incentives, compromising economic freedom in the service of a very specific goal: supporting American families. He offers tripled deductions for children, and eliminates marriage tax penalties. He would keep the deductions for charity, home mortgage interest, health care, and retirement savings, all of which are of keen interest to families.
Our media and political culture is rather hostile to the notion of deliberately supporting families through government policy. This is partly a result of the enormous energy deployed in the quest to re-define marriage – an effort premised on the notion that there is absolutely nothing special about the union of one man and one woman. Policies deliberately designed to cultivate traditional families are unhelpful to this effort, so they draw accusations of bigotry, theocracy, or at least hopelessly out-of-touch nostalgia. The defense of marriage and the family is dismissed as the province of unthinking religious zealots.
However, there are eminently practical reasons to support and nurture the traditional family, which have nothing to do with religion. For starters, there is the simple need to maintain population growth, which requires a large number of families to raise three or more children. It does not denigrate other family models to point out the simple truth that traditional families are particularly, perhaps uniquely, suited to this task. Remember, we’re talking about societal trends over a huge population, not asking whether a particular well-heeled single parent or same-sex couple could successfully raise three or four children.
......Our massive government and complex tax system are structured to favor all sorts of things the elites have decided are assets to society, or penalize what they consider poisonous. Why shouldn’t we explicitly encourage and support intact families, perhaps the most powerful asset in our inventory? (emphasis mine) We would want to encourage both their formation through marriage, and their endurance through healthy numbers of children. Far from being a peculiar obsession of religious traditionalists, it seems like an act of irrational prejudicenot to weight the benefits of the family logically, and recognize they are far superior to many things the government compels us to spend titanic amounts of money subsidizing.
Now what's intriguing about this is that here Santorum is blending in solid fiscal conservatism and social conservatism into one. This brings up the point that given Santorum's emphasis on family and faith, he can not only make the theoretical/statistical case for capitalism, but the moral case for capitalism as well. Just listen to how he defends his economic plan. Being able to make the moral case for capitalism is crucial to persuading swing voters as well as prove that he can remain principled and not give into the Left.
Overall, his economic plan, and under his simplified tax code, it would be much easier to pay your taxes and it's clearly the best one in the current field.
On top of all that, Santorum will elimate farm and ethanol subsides (FINALLY!), pass a balanced budget similar to Rick Perry's in that it sets an 18% cap on GDP with a 2/3 majority approval from both houses before taxes can be raised, while cutting $5 trillion in 5 years. He's not afraid to reform entitlements, expressing support in the Ryan plan.
But Santorum's real strength of course lies in social issues and foreign policies. Some say that Santorum's emphasis on the social issues will turn swing voters off to him. But I disagree. One, it's good that he's unapologetic about it and that he's bold enough to do something about the social issues. Two, he does a damn good job at defending it.
I could defend his abortion stance, but abortion itself deserves a whole new blog post. Instead I want to focus on his gay marriage stance. Gay marriage has always been a thorny issue, and Santorum's unwavering and strong opposition to gay marriage has had him labeled as a homophobe.
When the Left labels a conservative as something like a racist or a homophobe, be skeptical because it's a typical Leftist tactic to smear conservatives with those labels since they can't win the argument.
I could explain why Santorum's stance gay marriage doesn't make him a homophobe, but why should I win Santorum explains it much better than I can to Shep Smith?
Of course then this is where Leftists will say, "but what about his statement involving that allowing gay marriage will lead to bestiality and bigamy and what not?" That doesn't make him a homophobe, it just means he has a smart legal mind (Santorum was a lawyer I believe). Just read my blog post on Rick Perry's ad to see how repealing DADT led to bestiality and sodomy being allowed in the military.
Santorum's foreign policy stance is absolute genius. Anytime foreign policy is brought up in the debates, he describes his stance so well and he's very knowledgeable about it. Just watch him kick David Gregory's ass on Meet the Depressed:
Now imagine what Santorum did in these videos against Smith and Gregory. Now imagine him debating with Obama. Santorum would destroy Obama on there. Yes I've heard that criticism that Santorum's too whiny and at first I thought that too but in the last few debates he's gotten better about it and I think he was whiny because he was frustrated that he didn't get much screen time. Now that he's one of the frontrunners we will see a very thoughtful, articulate Santorum.
But most of all, Santorum has a consistent, solid record of conservatism. As John Farrell writes in the nonpartisan National Journal:
He enlisted in the “Gang of Seven,” a group of young firebrands (including, among others, the current speaker, John Boehner) who exploited operational defects in the House bank and post office to insinuate Democratic corruption.
The scandals helped propel Republicans to their historic takeover of the House in 1994, but the restive and ambitious Santorum was not among them. He had moved on, challenging Democratic Sen. Harris Wofford in that fall’s election and claiming a Senate seat.
In his early years in the chamber, Santorum fought vigorously, and ultimately successfully, for a measure to ban so-called "partial birth" abortions. He voted against the handgun controls in the Brady bill, and opposed a ban on assault weapons.
But Santorum is more than a caricature. He helped manage welfare-reform legislation, a landmark bill that became the most notable legacy of President Clinton’s fractious relationship with congressional Republicans.
Santorum also opposed TARP. Now conservatives like Ann Coulter and Erick Erickson claim that Santorum is a "pro-Life statist" because he supported earmarks. First, since when does spending earmarks make you not a conservative? No it's not a good thing but consider the circumstances- being in Congress when everyone's doing it, you need it to survive politically. Jim DeMint did it too. And he, like Santorum, are now strongly in favor of earmark bans.
Coulter's willingness to write-off Santorum because of the earmark issue is befuddling to me, to say the least, especially since she says Romney is a true conservative. Say what? With all due respect Coulter, I just don't understand that argument at all.
Erickson at least brought up some other legitimate complaints- like how Santorum voted for Bush's Medicare expansion bill as well as No Child Left Behind. Lest we forget, a lot of Republicans were heavily pressured into voting for the Medicare bill due to arm twisting by the Bush administration and Karl Rove (not to mention Gingrich's heavy lobbying for the bill). As for other bills like No Child Left Behind, well nobody's perfect.
Conservatives also complain he endorsed Arlen Specter (who switched to being a Democrat and provided a key vote to pass ObamaCare). Santorum's explanation of why he did so actually makes sense. Specter was the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he said he would approve all of Bush's appointees, at a time when the Democrats were filibustering to prevent any of Bush's nominees from being approved to the Supreme Court. Given the threat of judicial activism (which still exists) I understand Santorum's reasoning, although I do not agree. But it certainly doesn't mean that Santorum's not a conservative.
But most importantly, what really sticks out about Santorum is his honesty. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, you know he speaks his mind and he will follow through on what he says. This is the kind of the thing that sways Independents and Reagan Democrats. That, combined with his willingness to adhere to the Goldwater standard of being unapologetic about being a conservative and willing to scale back government makes him the candidate a solid conservative like me can be excited.
Sure, it's not going to be easy for Santorum to win the nomination from here. But then again he did win in elections as a congressman and as a senator against incumbent Democrats in a light-blue state, both of which he was considered a long shot. Don't count him out, and I am prepared to throw 110% of my support to make sure this guy is the Republican nominee.
With the Iowa caucuses starting today, I think it's the perfect time to go a little more in depth into Mitt Romney. I keep hearing how Romney's going to win Iowa tonight, how Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama, and so on.
But let me offer a different view- and this may come across as surprising- but after Ron Paul, Romney is probably the weakest candidate in the field.
First, if Romney becomes the nominee, there is no doubt that Obama and his henchmen will use Romney's flip-flops against him. They will portray Romney as someone without a core set of values. It's already starting:
Romney supporters will start saying at this point "But he changed his mind!" Well, not exactly. Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner:
Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.
How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.
Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life. (emphases mine)
Yes it is a good thing that Romney is truly pro-life. But the point here is that clearly Romney is the kind of politician who will say anything that will get him elected. And he knows that he has to come across as a conservative in order to win the nomination.
Romney can't even take a side until knowing whether or not it will benefit him politically! Thomas Beaumont and Kasie Hunt report from RealClearPolitics:
For his part, Romney largely took a pass on the payroll tax matter despite casting himself as an outsider with the business expertise necessary to fix Washington and the economy. He has spent much of the year declining to weigh in on the hot-button fiscal issues Congress has wrestled over.
He stayed out of the summertime fight over raising the federal debt ceiling, urging cooperation but stopping short of endorsing the House GOP's one-year extension or the Senate's two-month extension. He eventually opposed the deal.
In the spring, he was initially reluctant to embrace Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which would have essentially transformed Medicare into a voucher system. Since then, he's endorsed parts of it.
Seriously, the only thing consistent about Romney is that he's a consistent flip-flopper. Even in recent months, he still flip-flops!
So did he change his mind? The answer is: we don't know! That's why to look at a politician's true colors, you have to look at what they did, not what they say.
Let's take a look at some of Romney's policies while he was governor of Massachusetts shall we?
First, Romney raised taxes by $740.5 million by raising fees and "closing loopholes" (which were really corporate tax increases).
Furthermore, Romney actually increased spending as governor. At the beginning of Romney's term as governor, the state budget was $22 billion. When he left office, the budget was $25.7 billion.
On top of all that, Romney's most famous achievement is RomneyCare, which he worked on with Ted Kennedy. This essentially takes the ObamaCare issue out of the general election should Romney be the nominee. Despite Romney's objections to the contrary, RomneyCare was the basis for ObamaCare. Sure there are minor differences but the structure of both is the same.
Romney and his supporters claim that it was ok to try it at a state level and because of that he will be able to talk about what's good about it and what's bad about it. Here's the problem with that argument- in all the debates, Romney defends RomneyCare instead of talking about what a failure it was. Not only that, he has said in the past that he'd only repeal parts of ObamaCare. What kind of conservative would repeal only parts of ObamaCare? A true conservative would get rid ALL OF IT.
What's bad about this is that Obama will accuse of Romney of hypocrisy for supporting a health-care plan similar to his while running against ObamaCare. Voters would be unable take Romney's argument seriously for reasons I just explained. This would be a shame, because ObamaCare is Obama's Achilles Heel- notice how he never talks about it in his speeches nowadays. And the majority of the public is against it. Taking the ObamaCare issue out of the general election would be a huge victory for Obama.
Supporters of Romney will say "But he had to deal with a Democratic legislature of course his policies were liberal!" Well therein lies the problem- imagine if the Democrats take back Congress in a couple of years, and Romney has to work with Pelosi, Reid, Durbin and Schumer. Even if that doesn't happen, imagine Romney working with Republican establishment leaders Boehner and McConnell. Either way, there's no guarantee that Romney will adhere to the conservative philosophy, because he certainly compromised way too much as governor, and he will definitely compromise with the Democrats if they retake Congress and possibly even the establishment Republican leaders (think Bush-era spending). And that's what's wrong with the current Republican leadership today- they give in too much to the Democrats.
Even with all that, Romney has expressed support for cap-and-trade and defended TARP while sounding like a Democrat on Social Security and other entitlements. Do you honestly think Romney will roll back the scale of government, given his timid economic plan, and the opposition he will face from Democrats and the Republican establishment? I don't think so. He will just trim around the edges- surely an improvement over Obama, but not really doing enough to save the country.
Romney supporters will then claim that Romney's more-moderate stance is necessary because that will ensure defeat for Obama. Well I have to disagree. In the past, we were always told that the more moderate, Republican establishment-backed candidate is needed win. Where has they gotten us? Bob Dole and John McCain fit this formula, and both got their asses kicked. The candidates that fit this mold who have won in the past have led to big leftist Democrats being elected right after them. Nixon/Ford led to Carter. Bush 41 led to Clinton. Bush 43 led to Obama.
Plus, this is the perfect election to elect a solid conservative. Obama is a very, very weak candidate. There is nothing to be proud of in his economic record- 8.6% unemployment, spent more than any other president combined, nation's AAA rating got downgraded to AA+ for the first time ever, and an unfriendly business environment through massive taxes and regulation. According to a Gallup poll, Americans fear big government more than big business and big labor by massive amounts. And on top of all that, Gallup also recently put out a poll showing that the majority of Americans are conservative.
If a solid constitutional conservative, like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum, were to win the nomination, the conservative base would be excited and would have a higher turnout at the polls. Siphon off some of the votes from Independents and Democrats (which is very possible considering that Independents have a 55% disapproval rating of Obama) and there's no reason why a solid conservative shouldn't win the election. A solid conservative would provide a clear, contrasting view of Obama's big government policies that the majority of Americans clearly disapprove of.
And don't argue that Romney needs to win because he's the most articulate. Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum and yes even Perry (he looked very good in the last debate) are all just as articulate or better than Romney. And honestly Romney's voice and the way he talks is starting to annoy me.
Having a mushy flip-flopper who keeps us guessing is clearly not the better alternative. It has been an experiment that's been tried, and has failed. If you agree with Romney and you want to vote for him, then fine. But don't vote for him because he's supposedly the only "electable" candidate. I have faith that if you're reading this right now, you are a smart human being who is capable of making your own decision. Don't let the media decide who you should vote for.
Newt Gingrich the other day said something very stupid. Brian Montopoll from CBS News reported that when asked about Mitt Romney's comment about how Gingrich should return the money he made from Freddie Mac, Gingrich responded:
"I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him. And I bet you $10 -- not $10,000 -- that he won't take the offer."
This put the Republican establishment up in arms. So-called conservatives like Charles Krauthammer began calling Gingrich a socialist.
Now that's just silly. Gingrich does not call for redistributing wealth around, spending more, censoring religion and what not. Sure he has a history of supporting big government ideas, and that's why I'm not a Gingrich guy, but that doesn't make him a socialist.
That said, Gingrich's comment was still stupid. It's typical anti-capitalist rhetoric that Leftists use. Gingrich's comment sounded exactly one of Paul Krugman's articles in the The New York Times (better known as the New York Slimes) that I read earlier this week. (Yes I will read Krugman's work, as sickening as it is to read it does give me a look at the other side) In his column, Krugman tries to argue that because Bain Capital destroyed more jobs than created while making a profit that means that job creators simply don't exist. Of course this coming from the same Paul Krugman who argued that the economy would get better if we scared everyone with the thought of being attacked by aliens.
This rhetoric is even more apparent when earlier this week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that millionaire job creators were like unicorns- simply didn't exist.
Am I saying Gingrich is as bad Reid or Krugman? No. But he needs to think things through before he says things like that. Instead, Gingrich should be arguing against Reid and Krugman's rhetoric with the same type of logic I'm about to use.
First, if Krugman and Reid are arguing that the rich don't create jobs, then why do they think that members of Congress, whom nearly half are millionaires, can create jobs? And all of you who have ever gotten a real job from a poor man, raise your hand now. Exactly- you haven't.
Now more importantly, the myth that corporations purposely fire workers to squeeze a profit. It's really not a valid argument if you use common sense. In a healthy economy, businesses (which yes includes corporations) will always want to expand and grow, so they can beat their competitors. This will cause them to hire more workers, because the more they expand and grow, the more profit they will make. When a business incurs losses, then they have to lay off workers to remain profitable. And somehow, that part of the business cycle is where people like Krugman try to smear those evil corporations for being "greedy." Tell me Mr. Krugman, why would a corporation purposely fire a worker whom could be employed by one of their competitors? That's why corporations want to keep their employees happy- so their competitors won't get them.
If corporations were greedy, and those millionaire job creators didn't exist, how come the Reagan tax cuts (slashing federal income taxes by 25%) and deregulation created 43 million jobs and $30 trillion in revenue over 25 years?
Gingrich should be more careful with what he says so he doesn't sound like Krugman or Reid.
I really didn't want to have to do this. This country's going to hell and Rick Perry is certainly not my first choice for the Republican nomination. But after hearing about people constantly make fun of Perry about this advertisement, I feel like I have to address it because it does raise some good issues.
Here is the ad, just in case you haven't seen it yet:
I'm going to start with where he talks about how gays can serve openly in the military. On Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal, I took Herman Cain's view of asking the generals to see if allowing gays to openly serve in the military caused any distractions for the soliders. If it did, then put it back into law, if not then keep it repealed.
This view changed, however, when I saw that as a result of DADT's repeal a bill was passed in the Senate that repealed sodomy and bestiality in the military. What's next, are they going to legalize polygamy, incest and/or peadophelia? I'm sorry but I just don't think that sex has any place in the military.
Now the other part Perry brings up in this ad, the War on Christmas. I agree with him on this too. Firstly, despite what those conga line of freaks and goons on MSLSD and the Communist News Network (CNN), the War on Christmas does indeed exist.
Today on the Culture and Media Institute, Erin Brown lists examples Christmas censorship. These include Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent, renamed the state Christmas tree to a "holiday tree", schools not being allowed to celebrate Santa Claus or exchange gifts, and people not being allowed to sing Christmas carols near a Post Office.
I had two different doctors appointments to go to today. Both times I was wished a "Happy Holiday". Excuse me but I would rather hear "Merry Christmas". Yes I consider myself to be Jewish and I celebrate both Chanukah and Christmas. But I don't get offended when people say "Merry Christmas" to me just because they didn't wish me a "Happy Chanukah" as well.
I feel this way because, even though the Left tries to deny it, America is and always will be a Christian nation. Our country's founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, guarantee to us unalienable rights given to us by God. If it is humans that give us rights, then humans can just as easily take them away from us. If it is God that gives us these rights, then these rights can never be taken away. Even if you don't believe in God, you at least respect the fact that that's how America was founded. This is what sets the boundaries for the Civil Society, built off Judeo-Christian principles.
The Left will still cry foul at the saying of "Merry Christmas" and the celebration of Christmas in schools or use of Christmas decorations on government property because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
But it simply is not a violation. The establishment clause just meant that Congress couldn't establish a national church. In fact, states were allowed to establish churches. George Washington gave a national prayer to God within days of the first vote on the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father cited the most by Leftists since he was the least religious, attended church in the U.S. Capitol building because they were voluntary and non-discriminatory. The whole "separation of church-and-state" was written in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, not from the Constitution. It's clear from Jefferson's attendance of church that he didn't intend for religion to be banned from public property.
If you think about it, the reasoning behind the lack of faith in the public square is out of a fear of offending people. Basically, a right to feel not to feel uncomfortable. Is that a right given by the Constitution? I feel uncomfortable anytime one of my professors spews Marxist views. I feel uncomfortable if I have a question on a test that I don't know. Do I go around complaining that those kinds of things shouldn't happen and sue about it in court? No because that's ridiculous.
Besides, I think it's a good thing to have religion in public. Religion serves as a reminder for people to behave morally. In fact, statistics show that since 1963, when the Supreme Court banned school prayer, teenage violence, rape, drug addiction, assault on teachers, etc. has gone up.
So come on, I want to hear "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays". People shouldn't be offended- we are a Christian nation. Rick Perry is right about the War on Christmas and I give him credit for standing up for his beliefs.
Oh boy. Anytime Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz opens her mouth, brace yourself for something stupid to come out. But honestly I didn't expect her to say something as dumb as what she said today.
Today on Gretchen Carlson's show on Fox News this morning, Wassmerman Schultz said that the unemployment has gone down under Obama.
Huh? Either Wasserman Schultz is being a spin doctor or she really has her head shoved in the sand. My guess is that it's both. These facts most have eluded her: (via Ed Morrisey from HotAir)
Jobless rate in January 2009: 7.8%. Jobless rate in November 2011: 8.6%.
Number of employed in January 2009, in thousands: 133,563. In November 2011: 131,708
Civilian participation rate in January 2009: 65.7%. In November 2011: 64.0%
Unemployment level in January 2009, in thousands: 11,984. In November 2011: 13,303
Number of people not in labor force, January 2009, in thousands: 80,554. In November 2011: 86,558
Also Wasserman Schultz keeps talking about how the unemployment rate lately has been going down. Looks like she too is contributing to the spin that's being put on this number. The unemployment rate has been decreasing, but not because of economic growth. It's decreasing because there are more and more people leaving the workforce, which is taken out of the denominator of the fraction that determines the unemployment rate.
The most recent example of this is when the unemployment rate was recently lowered from 9.0% to 8.6%. As Bloomberg reports, while there were job gains, there was a net loss since 315,000 people left the workforce.
If the White House tries to promote some impressive number, then be skeptical, because the numbers are always spun somehow.
Same old same old. I'm starting to get tired of all these debates. They're all the same- moderators giving most of the time to Mitt Romney and whoever the anti-Romney is at the time (in last night's case, Newt Gingrich) and trying to pit them against each other. We already know everyone's views. And yet there's another debate this week? I can't wait for the primaries to start.
There was really no clear winners or losers. If I had to choose between who won between Romney and Gingrich, I would honestly have to say Romney won. Romney was able to get the better of any exchanges between him and Gingrich, most notably after Gingrich said "Let's face it the only reason you're not a career politician was because you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994" to which Romney responded that he thought it was good thing he lost because it put him back in the private sector and had he fulfilled all of his dreams he'd be an NFL star by now. Romney did have moments of weakness though. When asked what the differences were between him and Gingrich, he stumbled a bit before saying he wouldn't colonize the moon (a joke Gingrich had made awhile ago.)
One thing that annoys me from analyses I've read about the debate is the criticism Romney got for making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry that he didn't advocate for a nationalized version of Romneycare in his book. The argument is that Romney has more than the average American so therefore he doesn't connect with the average American. I may not be a Romney fan but come on. He worked at Bain Capital and was governor of Massachusetts of course he has a lot of money! Of all the problems Romney has this is the least of his problems. The mainstream media (or as I like to call them the lamestream media) is blowing this out of proportion.
The rest of the candidates looked good too. Yes even Ron Paul looked good, but that was because he wasn't talking about his wacko foreign policy or about legalizing drugs. This was probably one of the stronger debates Perry has had, as he didn't make any gaffes and seemed more confident and energetic in his answers. Bachmann and Santorum, it seemed, were being blackballed the ABC moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulis as they got the least amount of questions. In the questions they got they both had clear, thoughtful answers. Bachmann especially was strong in her criticism of Romney and Gingrich, calling them "Newt Romney" and hammering their past big government positions of individual mandates and cap-and-trade, among others. (And honestly it is pathetic that the two front-runners of the Republican party have records of liberal positions)
My favorite part about the debate: I didn't have to sit through Jon Hunstman's condescending attitude and corny jokes. My least favorite part of the debate: having to watch Stephanopoulis pull a hit job on candidates like Gingrich by asking a question about "marital fidelity" and having all five candidates answer before he did. But hey I guess it's to be expected from a left-wing hack who worked for the Clinton administration.
