Wednesday's Wall Street Journal carried an editorial excoriating Ron Phipps, president of the National Association of Realtors, for his misleading and largely false letter to the editor in the same edition of the paper.
Here's Phipps' letter in its entirety:
The Wall Street Journal would have people believe that hard-working, middle-class families are not affected by lower conforming loan limits, when nothing could be further from the truth ("More McMansion Subsidies," Review & Outlook, Nov. 1). The representatives in Congress who support higher loan limits understand that this is not a partisan issue, as you are trying to make it out to be.
The majority of markets impacted by the loan-limit decline are not high-cost areas. For example, more than 100 counties throughout the Midwest and more than 200 counties in the South have seen loan limits decline by more than $64,000.
And despite how your editorial tries to position the issue, the loan limits are not the same as reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Allowing the mortgage loan limits to expire in October was an arbitrary decision. Creating more market disruptions before reforming mortgage markets will only hurt our recovery.
The Senate measure to reinstate the limits is temporary—restoring the higher limits while the housing and mortgage markets stabilize. Recently, economist Mark Zandi said policy makers could shore up the housing market by "extending the current higher conforming loan limits that are set to decline in a few weeks." Borrowers, not taxpayers, will bear the entire cost of the higher loan-limits provision.
As people across the country are trying to gain a foothold in these trying times, we need to give them the resources to do so. The National Association of Realtors applauds the members of Congress who are standing up for America's families rather than turning their backs on them.
Ron Phipps
President
National Assn. of Realtors
Washington
Here's the related staff editorial referring to Phipps' letter:
To understand why 90% of U.S. mortgages are still underwritten by taxpayers, look no further than the nearby letter from Ron Phipps of the Realtors lobby. He makes clear that the Realtors, like the rest of the housing-subsidy crowd, are working hard to get Congress to reinstate a $729,750 loan-limit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantees.
Notice how Mr. Phipps doesn't mention that dollar figure, perhaps because it makes a howler of his claim that the loan-limit reduction in October to $625,500 is somehow a blow to the "middle class." As House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus and several colleagues note in a November 7 letter to GOP appropriations conferees, "the lower loan limits only affect a very small slice of wealthier homeowners in high cost areas." Only 1.3% of all loans done by Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration would be affected by the change.
Another lobby classic is Mr. Phipps's claim that letting the loan-limit fall in October was "arbitrary" and that the Realtors only want a "temporary" extension. But any temporary program has to end sometime, and Congress first raised the loan limit on a temporary basis in 2008. It has since extended the higher loan-limit three times, and if it were extended again the Realtors would no doubt plead for another "temporary" extension the next time it expires, ad infinitum.
Reducing the loan limit is a modest attempt to restore some private competition to the mortgage market, at least at the high end. Mr. Phipps says this issue shouldn't be "partisan," by which he seems to mean that both parties should remain wholly owned Realtor subsidiaries. For Republicans who run the House, this is not a test of their partisanship. It is a test of their alleged free-market, tea-party principles.
The Realtor letter is at least educational, a reminder that one reason the U.S. economy is so burdened with government is that many alleged capitalists want government to guarantee their business. That's known as crony capitalism.
I wrote in this recent post concerning a Paul Ryan speech vilifying this sort of crony capitalism. It's helpful to see it up close in Phipps' letter. This is what my Congressman, Leonard Lance, is supporting, as I explained in this recent post.
John Boehner's House GOP will continue to be vulnerable so long as morons like Lance consent to be used by crony capitalists like Phipps to mindlessly feather the nests of the nation's realtors while those house brokers lie about the real situation.
Mark Zandi is a liberal, neo-Keynesian, hacked-up economist who believes in more government in business and more government spending for everything. He's a Democratic patsy.
Realtors don't want housing prices to fall to market-clearing levels because they'll share the pain of falling prices, not to mention that their business is fighting off competition from cheaper, online-based sales channels for housing.
It's also very clear now, in the wake of a decade of disastrous federal housing policies, primarily driven by wrongheaded Congressional mandating of stupid GSE mortgage-backed bond guarantees for low-income housing, that housing isn't and shouldn't be a major drive of the US economy.
Housing isn't a good bet as an investment for most Americans. It retards labor mobility and exposes owners to bad local and state fiscal policies which result in higher property taxes and lower housing values.
It's time we put an end to this particular variant of crony capitalism. John Boehner and Paul Ryan would be well-advised to muzzle the GOP House members who are supporting Phipps and his association in trying to prolong higher lending limits for GSEs and, instead, speed exit of the GSEs from the market, then kill them.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Dorothy Rabinowitz Makes The Case For Newt Gingrich's Nomination
Some weeks ago, I wrote a post endorsing Herman Cain for the GOP presidential nomination. It was triggered by the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger's editorial in support of Cain.
The past two weeks have seen Cain engulfed in a flurry of sexual harassment charges, mostly by anonymous women. Frankly, the lateness of the charges- some 14 years or so after the alleged fact- and the anonymity of several of the women, make them less credible, in my opinion. And most people with business experience understand that there is a sort of cottage industry in people getting small- to medium-sized settlements for making unsubstantiated allegations go away, rather than cost an organization much more in legal fees.
If Cain becomes severely wounded by these allegations, e.g., even one becomes a confirmed instance, in direct contradiction to Cain's assertions last night, he's finished.
Who would I then like to see as the GOP nominee?
In prior posts, I have written of how I believe Newt Gingrich is the most intelligent GOP candidate, probably the most appropriately experienced, and, to paraphrase a Fox News Contributor, in a debate he'd 'make Obama wish he'd never left Chicago.'
But conservative friends of my age share my concerns over Newt's ego, ethical issues, and multiple marriages, with infidelities apparently leading from one to the next. Character does matter, and Newt's continues to be in question.
Never the less, here's Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz discussing why she believes Newt may yet be the GOP nominee for 2012.
If Newt's numbers among independents were in the same range as Romney's, then I'd clearly support Gingrich.
The past two weeks have seen Cain engulfed in a flurry of sexual harassment charges, mostly by anonymous women. Frankly, the lateness of the charges- some 14 years or so after the alleged fact- and the anonymity of several of the women, make them less credible, in my opinion. And most people with business experience understand that there is a sort of cottage industry in people getting small- to medium-sized settlements for making unsubstantiated allegations go away, rather than cost an organization much more in legal fees.
If Cain becomes severely wounded by these allegations, e.g., even one becomes a confirmed instance, in direct contradiction to Cain's assertions last night, he's finished.
Who would I then like to see as the GOP nominee?
In prior posts, I have written of how I believe Newt Gingrich is the most intelligent GOP candidate, probably the most appropriately experienced, and, to paraphrase a Fox News Contributor, in a debate he'd 'make Obama wish he'd never left Chicago.'
But conservative friends of my age share my concerns over Newt's ego, ethical issues, and multiple marriages, with infidelities apparently leading from one to the next. Character does matter, and Newt's continues to be in question.
Never the less, here's Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz discussing why she believes Newt may yet be the GOP nominee for 2012.
If Newt's numbers among independents were in the same range as Romney's, then I'd clearly support Gingrich.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Bloomberg GOP Presidential Candidates' Economics Debate
I managed to watch the first minute or so of Bloomberg's GOP candidates' debate last night, and a little bit more. Mostly to see how disappointing it would be.
Sad to say, my expectations were met, and in some ways, exceeded. I was very disappointed.
As I feared, Charlie Rose, who is looking pretty old and decrepit these days, gave his trademark hound dog look and faux-gravitas tone of voice, then asked Herman Cain what he would do as president to solve the nation's economic problems.
As I listened to Rose's trite question, and Cain's pat '9-9-9' reply, I realized the futility of these sorts of so-called debates.
Bloomberg made a big deal out of declaring that it would have 40 analysts beavering away in real time to uncover flip-flops, lies, or false claims.
Then the first question out of the gate is a straw man question. Isn't it not just ironic, but pointless, to ask a GOP presidential candidate a question which assumes a president has the power to just dictate what he wants, on the day that Wonderboy's own party, which controls the Senate, can't and won't pass his jobs bill?
Despite Bloomberg's various anchors going on and on all day about how the round table format would be so groundbreaking, it changed nothing. Just more silly grasping at anything to look different.
As I surfed between the American League baseball playoff game between Detroit and Texas, and O'Reilly's Factor program from Boston, I heard Rick Santorum fumble the question about economic development in his hometown. How he contended that, sure, all those lost jobs could return.
Nonsense.
That's when it hit me how futile this Bloomberg event was on another dimension. Of the eight candidates at the big round table, only Cain and Romney had actually run businesses. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman have not, to my knowledge. Huntsman may have worked in his father's business, but he doesn't present himself as a businessman but, rather, a former governor and ambassador to China.
Thus the bulk of the field really can't speak 'off the cuff' about business or economics specifics.
This brought me to my next realization. We're not electing a chief economist or chief business cheerleader. We're electing a president.
And, by the way, only Keynesians would think that it makes sense to have a debate among presidential candidates just about economics, with warnings that they 'want specifics.'
Because non-Keynesians, such as followers of the Austrian school of economics, and/or Milton Friedman, don't believe in government intervention. Thus, no economic details beyond lower tax rates, an overhauled tax code, and less regulatory interference, would be appropriate or forthcoming from this group of eight.
Which is pretty much what every candidate said.
But that doesn't make for a very exciting, nor long so-called debate, does it?
What did get really tiring was hearing Huntsman, Romney, Perry and Bachmann continually using terms like 'innovation,' 'innovators,' small businessmen,' and the like. I wish Bloomberg's moderators- yes, there were two others who were equally ineffectual as Rose- would have banned the use of those terms.
Sadly, when in doubt, every GOP candidate begins to sing the praises of something and someone about which they know very little from experience- innovation and business risk-taking.
So why don't they just shut up and leave it to the people who do it?
I tuned back in around 9PM, halfway through the event, only to learn that the next segment was to be a round robin of each candidate asking another candidate questions- something in which I have zero interest. So I Tivoed the remainder of the event and went back to Detroit vs. Texas.
From what I did see, there were three incidents of note.
The first was Gingrich's forceful criticism of Bloomberg and all media for turning a blind eye to government officials whose behavior brought about the financial crisis. He named names- Dodd, Frank, Geithner and Bernanke. When Charlie Rose, with a bewildered, stunned look, suggested that Gingrich wasn't talking about criminal investigations, the former Speaker shot back that he was indeed suggesting precisely that.
Then Ron Paul weighed in against Bernanke, as well. If Helicopter Ben had been in Spaulding Hall, he'd have been lynched.
Which reminds me of another notable incident. Huntsman derided Cain's 9-9-9 plan, saying he thought it had come off the top of a pizza box. The camera cut to Cain, whose tight-lipped expression dripped silent rage. To be truthful, Huntsman tone and wording suggested, to me, a vague undertone of racism.
Finally, Romney had a weird reaction to a question regarding what he would do if faced with a 2013 European financial meltdown which affected the US. Instead of answering the question, Mitt went two rounds with the moderator claiming that hypotheticals made no sense and he couldn't answer one. He looked weak and confused, as if buying himself time, because after berating the questioner a couple of times, he then launched into what he wouldn't do- bail out individual banks and car companies. Big deal. Thanks Mitt, I never could have figured that one out.
But the Mitt question brought to mind what the format probably should have been. Each candidate onstage with three economic advisors of their choosing. Then a hypothetical or real economic challenge would be read, and each team would have ten minutes to huddle and produce a response.
Bad television, but more realistic simulation of how a sitting president works. We simply don't have choices among perfect, omniscient candidates. They all rely on teams of advisors more specialized than the president. Why go through a pointless exercise in forcing someone like Bachmann or Santorum to try to fabricate detailed economic policies alone in two minutes with the cameras on them?
So, from what I saw among the samples of the first hour, the Bloomberg event was pretty much what I expected- nothing new or remarkable. But it did help me realize the utter futility of asking a bunch of largely free-market presidential candidates to spend two hours discussing, in detail, how, if they were president, they would use the federal government as a Keynesian force in the US economy.
What people really want is to learn more about how these candidates would lead and govern. And governing means working with and through Congress and the states- not just assuming that whatever they say they want to do will magically pass. Voters want to get a sense of values and candor from the candidates, as well as general stands on a wide range of key issues. Not an instant detailed economic plan from a candidate who isn't an economics PhD.
Poor planning and strategy on Bloomberg's part. Poor choice of moderators. Poor choice of format.
Sad to say, my expectations were met, and in some ways, exceeded. I was very disappointed.
As I feared, Charlie Rose, who is looking pretty old and decrepit these days, gave his trademark hound dog look and faux-gravitas tone of voice, then asked Herman Cain what he would do as president to solve the nation's economic problems.
As I listened to Rose's trite question, and Cain's pat '9-9-9' reply, I realized the futility of these sorts of so-called debates.
Bloomberg made a big deal out of declaring that it would have 40 analysts beavering away in real time to uncover flip-flops, lies, or false claims.
Then the first question out of the gate is a straw man question. Isn't it not just ironic, but pointless, to ask a GOP presidential candidate a question which assumes a president has the power to just dictate what he wants, on the day that Wonderboy's own party, which controls the Senate, can't and won't pass his jobs bill?
Despite Bloomberg's various anchors going on and on all day about how the round table format would be so groundbreaking, it changed nothing. Just more silly grasping at anything to look different.
As I surfed between the American League baseball playoff game between Detroit and Texas, and O'Reilly's Factor program from Boston, I heard Rick Santorum fumble the question about economic development in his hometown. How he contended that, sure, all those lost jobs could return.
Nonsense.
That's when it hit me how futile this Bloomberg event was on another dimension. Of the eight candidates at the big round table, only Cain and Romney had actually run businesses. Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman have not, to my knowledge. Huntsman may have worked in his father's business, but he doesn't present himself as a businessman but, rather, a former governor and ambassador to China.
Thus the bulk of the field really can't speak 'off the cuff' about business or economics specifics.
This brought me to my next realization. We're not electing a chief economist or chief business cheerleader. We're electing a president.
And, by the way, only Keynesians would think that it makes sense to have a debate among presidential candidates just about economics, with warnings that they 'want specifics.'
Because non-Keynesians, such as followers of the Austrian school of economics, and/or Milton Friedman, don't believe in government intervention. Thus, no economic details beyond lower tax rates, an overhauled tax code, and less regulatory interference, would be appropriate or forthcoming from this group of eight.
Which is pretty much what every candidate said.
But that doesn't make for a very exciting, nor long so-called debate, does it?
What did get really tiring was hearing Huntsman, Romney, Perry and Bachmann continually using terms like 'innovation,' 'innovators,' small businessmen,' and the like. I wish Bloomberg's moderators- yes, there were two others who were equally ineffectual as Rose- would have banned the use of those terms.
Sadly, when in doubt, every GOP candidate begins to sing the praises of something and someone about which they know very little from experience- innovation and business risk-taking.
So why don't they just shut up and leave it to the people who do it?
I tuned back in around 9PM, halfway through the event, only to learn that the next segment was to be a round robin of each candidate asking another candidate questions- something in which I have zero interest. So I Tivoed the remainder of the event and went back to Detroit vs. Texas.
From what I did see, there were three incidents of note.
The first was Gingrich's forceful criticism of Bloomberg and all media for turning a blind eye to government officials whose behavior brought about the financial crisis. He named names- Dodd, Frank, Geithner and Bernanke. When Charlie Rose, with a bewildered, stunned look, suggested that Gingrich wasn't talking about criminal investigations, the former Speaker shot back that he was indeed suggesting precisely that.
Then Ron Paul weighed in against Bernanke, as well. If Helicopter Ben had been in Spaulding Hall, he'd have been lynched.
Which reminds me of another notable incident. Huntsman derided Cain's 9-9-9 plan, saying he thought it had come off the top of a pizza box. The camera cut to Cain, whose tight-lipped expression dripped silent rage. To be truthful, Huntsman tone and wording suggested, to me, a vague undertone of racism.
Finally, Romney had a weird reaction to a question regarding what he would do if faced with a 2013 European financial meltdown which affected the US. Instead of answering the question, Mitt went two rounds with the moderator claiming that hypotheticals made no sense and he couldn't answer one. He looked weak and confused, as if buying himself time, because after berating the questioner a couple of times, he then launched into what he wouldn't do- bail out individual banks and car companies. Big deal. Thanks Mitt, I never could have figured that one out.
But the Mitt question brought to mind what the format probably should have been. Each candidate onstage with three economic advisors of their choosing. Then a hypothetical or real economic challenge would be read, and each team would have ten minutes to huddle and produce a response.
Bad television, but more realistic simulation of how a sitting president works. We simply don't have choices among perfect, omniscient candidates. They all rely on teams of advisors more specialized than the president. Why go through a pointless exercise in forcing someone like Bachmann or Santorum to try to fabricate detailed economic policies alone in two minutes with the cameras on them?
So, from what I saw among the samples of the first hour, the Bloomberg event was pretty much what I expected- nothing new or remarkable. But it did help me realize the utter futility of asking a bunch of largely free-market presidential candidates to spend two hours discussing, in detail, how, if they were president, they would use the federal government as a Keynesian force in the US economy.
What people really want is to learn more about how these candidates would lead and govern. And governing means working with and through Congress and the states- not just assuming that whatever they say they want to do will magically pass. Voters want to get a sense of values and candor from the candidates, as well as general stands on a wide range of key issues. Not an instant detailed economic plan from a candidate who isn't an economics PhD.
Poor planning and strategy on Bloomberg's part. Poor choice of moderators. Poor choice of format.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Okay. Enough Already. I'm Endorsing Herman Cain
Daniel Henninger wrote this thought-provoking piece in his Wonderland column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. I've reposted it in its entirety, except for videos and images.
You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .
I love Herman Cain, but . . .
But what?
But he can't win.
Why not?
At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word "electability." Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office.
In 2004, Mr. Cain ran for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia. He lost to Johnny Isakson. Last weekend, Mr. Cain ran away with the Florida straw poll vote, winning with 37%. He torched both the "Southern" candidate, Rick Perry of Texas, who worked hard to win the vote, and Mitt Romney, who in 2008 campaigned everywhere in Florida.
The time is overdue to plumb the mystery of Herman Cain's "interesting, but" candidacy. Let's start at the top—in the top-tier candidacy of Mitt Romney.
Though he's got the governorship credential, Mr. Romney's emphasis in this campaign is on his private-sector experience. It's good, despite the knock on Bain Capital's business model. But measured by résumés, Herman Cain's looks deeper in terms of working on the private sector's front lines.
The details of his career path are worth knowing.
In the late 1970s, Mr. Cain was recruited from Coca-Cola in Atlanta, his first job in business, to work for Pillsbury in Minneapolis. His rise was rapid and well-regarded. He joined the company's restaurant and foods group in 1978 as director of business analysis. In the early 1980s, Pillsbury sent him to learn the hamburger business at a Burger King in Hopkins, Minn. Then they assigned him, at age 36, to revive Pillsbury's stumbling, franchise Burger King business in the Philadelphia region. He succeeded. According to a 1987 account in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Pillsbury's then-president Win Wallin said: "He was an excellent bet. Herman always seemed to have his act together."
In 1986, Pillsbury sent the 41-year-old Mr. Cain to turn around their Godfather's Pizza business, headquartered in Omaha. The Herman Cain who arrived there April 1 sounded like the same man who roused voters last Sunday in Florida: "I'm Herman Cain and this ain't no April Fool's joke. We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everyone else that we will survive."
Pillsbury sold Godfather's to Mr. Cain and some of his managers in 1988. He ran it until 1996 and served as CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999. This June, Mr. Cain visited with the Journal's editors and put the issue of health-insurance availability inside the context of the restaurant industry. He said the restaurant association tried hard to devise a health-insurance program able to serve the needs of an industry whose work force is complex—executives and managers, full-time workers, part-timers, students and so forth. Any conceivable insurance system would require great flexibility in plan-choice and design.
It's from this period that one finds the famous 1994 video, now on YouTube, of Herman Cain on a TV screen from Omaha debating Bill Clinton about his national health legislation during a town-hall meeting. After the president estimates the profitability of Mr. Cain's company, suggesting he can afford the legislation, Mr. Cain essentially dismantles the Clinton math, in detail. "The cost of your plan . . . will cause us to eliminate jobs."
None of this can be put across in the televised debates' explain-everything-in-30 seconds format. Nor is there any chance to elaborate his Sept. 7 debate remark that he admires Chile's private-public social security system. Or his flat-tax "9-9-9" proposal. (Or any of the candidates' policy ideas for that matter.) So voters get nothing, and Mr. Cain flounders.
When Mr. Cain talked to the Journal's editors, the most startling thing he said, and which he's been repeating lately, was that he could win one-third of the black vote. Seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences would be interesting, period. Years ago, describing his chauffeur father's influence on him in Atlanta, Mr. Cain said: "My father gave me a sense of pride. He was the best damn chauffeur. He knew it, and everybody else knew it." Here's guessing he'd get more of this vote than past GOP candidates.
Does a résumé like Herman Cain's add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we've fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I'm rewriting my presidential-selection software.
Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.
Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
A couple of interesting points.
First, as Rick Scott noted on Fox News before the recent Florida debate, that state's GOP straw poll winner has gone on to win the nomination something like that for the last 3 election cycles. I forget the details, but Scott's point was attention-getting.
Second, I saw a black liberal Fox News Contributor last night on Bill O'Reilly's program call Cain racist for saying he can take one-third of the black votes in 2012. How rich, eh?
Third, Dennis Miller also endorsed Cain this week in one of his O'Reilly program segments. His comedy aside, Miller is typically blunt and on the question of Cain's foreign policy weakness, simply said, in effect, 'could he really be any worse than the guy we already have?'
On a more serious note, though, I do feel Cain is the GOP guy to support. At this point in the campaign, here is my reasoning.
Bachmann has self-destructed by virtue of her big mouth spitting out nonsense faster than her brain can stop it. She makes dumb factual errors in passionate moments, and it's gotten to be more than a nuisance. A liberal friend pointed out that, with Bachmann's lack of executive experience, if elected, she's likely to be surrounded and dominated by a cadre of strong ideologues. Like Wonderboy. And, says my friend, like W was. I disagreed about that, but it's what many believe, especially about W's foreign policy and the way he let Powell and Rice go soft on various rogue regimes.
Perry has proven he's not yet ready for prime time. It's not whether he knows foreign policy. To write that his pussy-footing on Social Security, after the correct and lucid 'Ponzi scheme' remark, was disappointing, is a gross understatement.
I still don't trust Romney. Over lunch yesterday with a very longtime, also libertarian friend, we agreed that Romney wouldn't be so suspect if he would just admit he made a mistake pushing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. That it is breaking that state's budget, and was badly designed. But, then, he'd have to admit that, as analyst-in-chief, which is Mitt's signature theme, he made a mistake.
So, then, you have to wonder whether he'll do a Britney Spears: Oops! I did it again!
Newt is smart and capable of defeating Wonderboy in a debate, but he's an ethically-challenged egomaniac. Doesn't really play well with others.
Huntsman is unexciting, suspect, for me, of simply being a rich man's son who's bought what he has accomplished. And he's more of a Democrat than a Republican on many issues.
Ron Paul is, while well-intentioned, a cranky nut-case. Sort of a much more right-wing McCain.
Rick Santorum, while earnest and smart, was a Senator. No executive experience, too hung up on rigid Catholicism (and I'm an ex-Catholic, so I would know). Like many Senators, good talker, suspect on getting the job done.
My major problem with Cain has been his total lack of political experience in office.
But, after reading Henninger, I'm reminded that, most importantly, like, say, Washington, Eisenhower and Lincoln (yes, I know, Lincoln had political experience. But not governing experience.), Cain has deep, rich life experience.
That's the biggest contrast between Herman Cain and Wonderboy.
And, for what it's worth, Lincoln was elected to captain, and led, a company of Illinois volunteers in the Blackhawk wars.
Then there's the race issue.
Personally, I always believed that America would elect the right black candidate as president when his/her race was not the issue, but his/her experience and qualifications were. Instead, we got the First Rookie, who basically was elected because nearly every black, and many guilt-ridden, middle-class white yuppie voters, who wanted to feel good about their morality and sense of fairness-by-repaying-slavery-with-electing-a-black.
Wonderboy has no serious life experience, and it shows.
Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a guy you'd support because of his accomplishments, irrespective of his race.
And, okay, I have to admit, how amazing would it be to watch Wonderboy have to debate and run against another of his own minority race, only older, wiser and with many more accomplishments? Where will the class warfare, hate and demonizing race rhetoric fit in for Obama in that election race? Pun intended.
And, finally, Cain seems to me to be the quintessential type of first black to earn the GOP presidential nomination. Lincoln's party nominates a man who rises to the task by virtue of his talent and determination, not on the basis of favors given him due to his race.
I believe that Cain's life experience, business experience and success, and overall common sense, put him above the rest of the GOP field running for president.
You hear the same thing said about Herman Cain all the time: Herman Cain has some really interesting ideas, but . . .
I love Herman Cain, but . . .
But what?
But he can't win.
Why not?
At best, the answer has to do with that cloudy word "electability." Or that Mr. Cain has never held elected political office.
In 2004, Mr. Cain ran for the GOP's U.S. Senate nomination in Georgia. He lost to Johnny Isakson. Last weekend, Mr. Cain ran away with the Florida straw poll vote, winning with 37%. He torched both the "Southern" candidate, Rick Perry of Texas, who worked hard to win the vote, and Mitt Romney, who in 2008 campaigned everywhere in Florida.
The time is overdue to plumb the mystery of Herman Cain's "interesting, but" candidacy. Let's start at the top—in the top-tier candidacy of Mitt Romney.
Though he's got the governorship credential, Mr. Romney's emphasis in this campaign is on his private-sector experience. It's good, despite the knock on Bain Capital's business model. But measured by résumés, Herman Cain's looks deeper in terms of working on the private sector's front lines.
The details of his career path are worth knowing.
In the late 1970s, Mr. Cain was recruited from Coca-Cola in Atlanta, his first job in business, to work for Pillsbury in Minneapolis. His rise was rapid and well-regarded. He joined the company's restaurant and foods group in 1978 as director of business analysis. In the early 1980s, Pillsbury sent him to learn the hamburger business at a Burger King in Hopkins, Minn. Then they assigned him, at age 36, to revive Pillsbury's stumbling, franchise Burger King business in the Philadelphia region. He succeeded. According to a 1987 account in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Pillsbury's then-president Win Wallin said: "He was an excellent bet. Herman always seemed to have his act together."
In 1986, Pillsbury sent the 41-year-old Mr. Cain to turn around their Godfather's Pizza business, headquartered in Omaha. The Herman Cain who arrived there April 1 sounded like the same man who roused voters last Sunday in Florida: "I'm Herman Cain and this ain't no April Fool's joke. We are not dead. Our objective is to prove to Pillsbury and everyone else that we will survive."
Pillsbury sold Godfather's to Mr. Cain and some of his managers in 1988. He ran it until 1996 and served as CEO of the National Restaurant Association from 1996-1999. This June, Mr. Cain visited with the Journal's editors and put the issue of health-insurance availability inside the context of the restaurant industry. He said the restaurant association tried hard to devise a health-insurance program able to serve the needs of an industry whose work force is complex—executives and managers, full-time workers, part-timers, students and so forth. Any conceivable insurance system would require great flexibility in plan-choice and design.
It's from this period that one finds the famous 1994 video, now on YouTube, of Herman Cain on a TV screen from Omaha debating Bill Clinton about his national health legislation during a town-hall meeting. After the president estimates the profitability of Mr. Cain's company, suggesting he can afford the legislation, Mr. Cain essentially dismantles the Clinton math, in detail. "The cost of your plan . . . will cause us to eliminate jobs."
None of this can be put across in the televised debates' explain-everything-in-30 seconds format. Nor is there any chance to elaborate his Sept. 7 debate remark that he admires Chile's private-public social security system. Or his flat-tax "9-9-9" proposal. (Or any of the candidates' policy ideas for that matter.) So voters get nothing, and Mr. Cain flounders.
When Mr. Cain talked to the Journal's editors, the most startling thing he said, and which he's been repeating lately, was that he could win one-third of the black vote. Seeing Herman Cain make his case to black audiences would be interesting, period. Years ago, describing his chauffeur father's influence on him in Atlanta, Mr. Cain said: "My father gave me a sense of pride. He was the best damn chauffeur. He knew it, and everybody else knew it." Here's guessing he'd get more of this vote than past GOP candidates.
Does a résumé like Herman Cain's add up to an American presidency? I used to think not. But after watching the American Idol system we've fallen into for discovering a president—with opinion polls, tongue slips and media caprice deciding front-runners and even presidents—I'm rewriting my presidential-selection software.
Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.
Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.
Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.
A couple of interesting points.
First, as Rick Scott noted on Fox News before the recent Florida debate, that state's GOP straw poll winner has gone on to win the nomination something like that for the last 3 election cycles. I forget the details, but Scott's point was attention-getting.
Second, I saw a black liberal Fox News Contributor last night on Bill O'Reilly's program call Cain racist for saying he can take one-third of the black votes in 2012. How rich, eh?
Third, Dennis Miller also endorsed Cain this week in one of his O'Reilly program segments. His comedy aside, Miller is typically blunt and on the question of Cain's foreign policy weakness, simply said, in effect, 'could he really be any worse than the guy we already have?'
On a more serious note, though, I do feel Cain is the GOP guy to support. At this point in the campaign, here is my reasoning.
Bachmann has self-destructed by virtue of her big mouth spitting out nonsense faster than her brain can stop it. She makes dumb factual errors in passionate moments, and it's gotten to be more than a nuisance. A liberal friend pointed out that, with Bachmann's lack of executive experience, if elected, she's likely to be surrounded and dominated by a cadre of strong ideologues. Like Wonderboy. And, says my friend, like W was. I disagreed about that, but it's what many believe, especially about W's foreign policy and the way he let Powell and Rice go soft on various rogue regimes.
Perry has proven he's not yet ready for prime time. It's not whether he knows foreign policy. To write that his pussy-footing on Social Security, after the correct and lucid 'Ponzi scheme' remark, was disappointing, is a gross understatement.
I still don't trust Romney. Over lunch yesterday with a very longtime, also libertarian friend, we agreed that Romney wouldn't be so suspect if he would just admit he made a mistake pushing RomneyCare in Massachusetts. That it is breaking that state's budget, and was badly designed. But, then, he'd have to admit that, as analyst-in-chief, which is Mitt's signature theme, he made a mistake.
So, then, you have to wonder whether he'll do a Britney Spears: Oops! I did it again!
Newt is smart and capable of defeating Wonderboy in a debate, but he's an ethically-challenged egomaniac. Doesn't really play well with others.
Huntsman is unexciting, suspect, for me, of simply being a rich man's son who's bought what he has accomplished. And he's more of a Democrat than a Republican on many issues.
Ron Paul is, while well-intentioned, a cranky nut-case. Sort of a much more right-wing McCain.
Rick Santorum, while earnest and smart, was a Senator. No executive experience, too hung up on rigid Catholicism (and I'm an ex-Catholic, so I would know). Like many Senators, good talker, suspect on getting the job done.
My major problem with Cain has been his total lack of political experience in office.
But, after reading Henninger, I'm reminded that, most importantly, like, say, Washington, Eisenhower and Lincoln (yes, I know, Lincoln had political experience. But not governing experience.), Cain has deep, rich life experience.
That's the biggest contrast between Herman Cain and Wonderboy.
And, for what it's worth, Lincoln was elected to captain, and led, a company of Illinois volunteers in the Blackhawk wars.
Then there's the race issue.
Personally, I always believed that America would elect the right black candidate as president when his/her race was not the issue, but his/her experience and qualifications were. Instead, we got the First Rookie, who basically was elected because nearly every black, and many guilt-ridden, middle-class white yuppie voters, who wanted to feel good about their morality and sense of fairness-by-repaying-slavery-with-electing-a-black.
Wonderboy has no serious life experience, and it shows.
Herman Cain, on the other hand, is a guy you'd support because of his accomplishments, irrespective of his race.
And, okay, I have to admit, how amazing would it be to watch Wonderboy have to debate and run against another of his own minority race, only older, wiser and with many more accomplishments? Where will the class warfare, hate and demonizing race rhetoric fit in for Obama in that election race? Pun intended.
And, finally, Cain seems to me to be the quintessential type of first black to earn the GOP presidential nomination. Lincoln's party nominates a man who rises to the task by virtue of his talent and determination, not on the basis of favors given him due to his race.
I believe that Cain's life experience, business experience and success, and overall common sense, put him above the rest of the GOP field running for president.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Last Night's Fox News/Google Florida GOP Presidential Debate
I tried to watch last night's Fox News/Google debate from Florida. I really did. It didn't take more than, I think, five minutes before I was channel-surfing. The pace was just too sluggish for me.
God help me, I just can't take the tedious, repetitive questions and evasive answers anymore. If others can, more power to 'em.
No matter who sponsors these things, and what the allegedly ground-breaking format for cutting off run on self-promoting 'answers' and such, I typically watch the next day's Fox News and Bloomberg programs for a digest of the high points of the debate.
Last night, I actually fell asleep during the latter half of the program. At least I think I did. Evidently it was so boring there was no recency effect for my memory.
What I last recall of the debate was former governor Johnson answering a question involving something to do with spending. But the actual topic is unimportant.
What is important is how Johnson replied. He began off-topic. Completely off-topic. Something about promising to send a balanced 2013 budget to Congress. But what I quickly realized, because I've used the tactic myself in business meetings, was that he was thinking in background about his real reply while tossing up canned positions on a somewhat-related point, so that, about 20 seconds into a 60 second reply, he came around to what his mind had rapidly settled on as his answer. I remember this because his 'answer' was prefaced by a qualifier like 'somewhat' or 'options including.' Meaning he didn't really have an answer.
That was pretty much it for me. The last straw. And I don't mean poll.
I think what would be more meaningful to me would be something like the following. A network provides a weekly two-hour slot for its 'candidate of the week.' One of the GOP presidential hopefuls sits on a set with one or two moderators and answers questions from online feeds and a live audience. Moderators provide follow-up questions and/or fill in background on the candidate's prior remarks on the topic. Or contrast their stance with other candidates, etc.
And, for good measure, the original audience/online questioner gets a few minutes of give-and-take with the candidate, so if the latter evades the question, the questioner can complain about that and note it for everyone else.
I really don't care so much what Mitt thinks about Rick. Or what Newt thinks about anyone. Or what Rick (Santorum) does to try to look relevant.
In the end, I care more about how these people interact with prospective voters than how they fence with each other. I don't expect them to agree with each other, so what's the surprise in these bear-baiting formats?
God help me, I just can't take the tedious, repetitive questions and evasive answers anymore. If others can, more power to 'em.
No matter who sponsors these things, and what the allegedly ground-breaking format for cutting off run on self-promoting 'answers' and such, I typically watch the next day's Fox News and Bloomberg programs for a digest of the high points of the debate.
Last night, I actually fell asleep during the latter half of the program. At least I think I did. Evidently it was so boring there was no recency effect for my memory.
What I last recall of the debate was former governor Johnson answering a question involving something to do with spending. But the actual topic is unimportant.
What is important is how Johnson replied. He began off-topic. Completely off-topic. Something about promising to send a balanced 2013 budget to Congress. But what I quickly realized, because I've used the tactic myself in business meetings, was that he was thinking in background about his real reply while tossing up canned positions on a somewhat-related point, so that, about 20 seconds into a 60 second reply, he came around to what his mind had rapidly settled on as his answer. I remember this because his 'answer' was prefaced by a qualifier like 'somewhat' or 'options including.' Meaning he didn't really have an answer.
That was pretty much it for me. The last straw. And I don't mean poll.
I think what would be more meaningful to me would be something like the following. A network provides a weekly two-hour slot for its 'candidate of the week.' One of the GOP presidential hopefuls sits on a set with one or two moderators and answers questions from online feeds and a live audience. Moderators provide follow-up questions and/or fill in background on the candidate's prior remarks on the topic. Or contrast their stance with other candidates, etc.
And, for good measure, the original audience/online questioner gets a few minutes of give-and-take with the candidate, so if the latter evades the question, the questioner can complain about that and note it for everyone else.
I really don't care so much what Mitt thinks about Rick. Or what Newt thinks about anyone. Or what Rick (Santorum) does to try to look relevant.
In the end, I care more about how these people interact with prospective voters than how they fence with each other. I don't expect them to agree with each other, so what's the surprise in these bear-baiting formats?
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Two GOP House Special Elections Wins
By now I guess it's old news that the two Republicans contesting special elections in a heavily-Democratic NYC district and a district in Nevada both won.
The NYC district is famous for two reasons. First, it was disgraced Anthony Weiner's home, and, second, it had been represented by a Democrat since 1923.
The national import of these election results was so great as to merit a column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend. Despite her baseless tendency to ignore the venality of Wonderboy's administration and its various extremely socialist and liberal staffers, Noonan actually became bold enough to claim that these two elections mark a national dissatisfaction with the president.
Indeed, they do. It's almost impossible to believe that, with each passing week, Wonderboy unveils new taxes in hopes that they will rally lower-income voters to him, as he exhorts Congress to pass another stimulus bill. Then he goes out on the stump or commands television coverage for some speech on the same topic.
To say the guy has a tin ear is no longer even remotely sufficient to describe his isolation from the sentiments of the broad US electorate.
But if you needed a barometer to gauge how badly he's doing across America, those two special elections would be hard to beat. One victory in a long-time Democratic stronghold, the other in a district which had just a 55 vote difference in the 2008 presidential election, but went overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate last week.
Kind of evokes Bob Dylan, doesn't it?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
The NYC district is famous for two reasons. First, it was disgraced Anthony Weiner's home, and, second, it had been represented by a Democrat since 1923.
The national import of these election results was so great as to merit a column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend. Despite her baseless tendency to ignore the venality of Wonderboy's administration and its various extremely socialist and liberal staffers, Noonan actually became bold enough to claim that these two elections mark a national dissatisfaction with the president.
Indeed, they do. It's almost impossible to believe that, with each passing week, Wonderboy unveils new taxes in hopes that they will rally lower-income voters to him, as he exhorts Congress to pass another stimulus bill. Then he goes out on the stump or commands television coverage for some speech on the same topic.
To say the guy has a tin ear is no longer even remotely sufficient to describe his isolation from the sentiments of the broad US electorate.
But if you needed a barometer to gauge how badly he's doing across America, those two special elections would be hard to beat. One victory in a long-time Democratic stronghold, the other in a district which had just a 55 vote difference in the 2008 presidential election, but went overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate last week.
Kind of evokes Bob Dylan, doesn't it?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Last Night's MSNBC GOP Presidential Debate
It took me a while to realize, by 8:30 last night, that I wasn't watching the GOP presidential candidates' debate. Quickly realizing it wasn't being hosted by/on Fox, I scanned the local public television and major broadcast networks. No luck. Nothing on CNN, either.
Then, in disbelief, I tried MSNBC and found it. I couldn't even name the guy I saw initially moderating, then I cringed when I saw liberal newscaster Brian Williams.
Suffice to say, between the self-serving answers of the candidates and what I assumed would be biased, nasty questions from the liberal hosts, I didn't linger long on the channel. Rather, I intended to view Fox and other networks today for post-analysis.
Sure enough, Michelle Malkin called into Fox News to provide a balanced review of the proceedings. I had missed a question someone asked which opened with,
'How can you sleep at night when.....?'
Malkin noted that Wonderboy would never be treated in that manner. She went on to compare the prior evening's debate with a Democratic candidate debate at a liberal Democratic Mecca, hosted by Fox featuring Rush Limbaugh and herself as moderators.
In effect, I don't think I missed much, nor did anyone else who failed to find the event.
Then, in disbelief, I tried MSNBC and found it. I couldn't even name the guy I saw initially moderating, then I cringed when I saw liberal newscaster Brian Williams.
Suffice to say, between the self-serving answers of the candidates and what I assumed would be biased, nasty questions from the liberal hosts, I didn't linger long on the channel. Rather, I intended to view Fox and other networks today for post-analysis.
Sure enough, Michelle Malkin called into Fox News to provide a balanced review of the proceedings. I had missed a question someone asked which opened with,
'How can you sleep at night when.....?'
Malkin noted that Wonderboy would never be treated in that manner. She went on to compare the prior evening's debate with a Democratic candidate debate at a liberal Democratic Mecca, hosted by Fox featuring Rush Limbaugh and herself as moderators.
In effect, I don't think I missed much, nor did anyone else who failed to find the event.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
GOP Game-Playing with Budget Cuts
I read with disgust Kim Strassel's recent Wall Street Journal editorial spotlighting GOP House member Frank Lucas, chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
After spending- and deficit-hawk Jeff Flake had done some remarkable work to rein in payments to high-income farmers, Lucas
"swept in and used a procedural maneuver on the House floor to strike the Flake language. This helped ensure that an estimated $160 million in payments would continue to flow to farmers in states like his own, Oklahoma."
Strassel's piece makes the point that, if done correctly, the House spending cuts will be eliminating a lot of useless pork, thus contradicting Wonderboy's concerns that the only cuts are coming to seniors and the like.
Of course, as Strassel emphasizes, even in this era of focus on spending cuts, old GOP House bulls like Frank Lucas still don't get it. This is why voters are so angry. It's why the Tea Party gained so much momentum.
And why, if Boehner continues to let antics like Lucas' continue, the GOP could lose seats in the House next year.
It's time the GOP really meant it when it claims to hear voters and want to cut spending and eliminate nonsensical use of taxpayer funds. The Agriculture department is one which, like Education, could be wiped out and it's debatable that anyone but those collecting payments from those entities would really notice.
After spending- and deficit-hawk Jeff Flake had done some remarkable work to rein in payments to high-income farmers, Lucas
"swept in and used a procedural maneuver on the House floor to strike the Flake language. This helped ensure that an estimated $160 million in payments would continue to flow to farmers in states like his own, Oklahoma."
Strassel's piece makes the point that, if done correctly, the House spending cuts will be eliminating a lot of useless pork, thus contradicting Wonderboy's concerns that the only cuts are coming to seniors and the like.
Of course, as Strassel emphasizes, even in this era of focus on spending cuts, old GOP House bulls like Frank Lucas still don't get it. This is why voters are so angry. It's why the Tea Party gained so much momentum.
And why, if Boehner continues to let antics like Lucas' continue, the GOP could lose seats in the House next year.
It's time the GOP really meant it when it claims to hear voters and want to cut spending and eliminate nonsensical use of taxpayer funds. The Agriculture department is one which, like Education, could be wiped out and it's debatable that anyone but those collecting payments from those entities would really notice.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Kim Strassel On GOP War Powers & Libya
I typically find Kim Strassel's editorials in the Wall Street Journal to be on the mark. But her recent piece about House Republicans and Libya, entitled The GOP's War Powers Opportunism, was quite wide of that mark.
Echoed by today's third Journal staff editorial, Strassel basically blames House GOP members for failing to support Wonderboy's ill-conceived and poorly-explained Libyan adventures, labeling this opportunistic.
I disagree.
What Strassel and others at the Journal fail to appreciate or acknowledge is that we don't really know who we're backing against Gadhafi. Back in March, I had lunch with an old friend who is culturally and hereditarily, but not religiously, Jewish. Even he backed Gadhafi against more extreme Arab fundamentalist rebels, suggesting we ask the Libyian dictator what he needed to kill the Muslim extremist seeking to overthrow him.
In occasional moments of lucidity, Strassel and the Journal staff admit that Wonderboy offered no compelling reason to risk American lives and money in Libya, then compounded that by saying NATO is running the show and, finally, we aren't really in combat.
This isn't about War Powers procedure anymore, but a serious lack of understanding of who we are backing if we oppose Gadhafi. It's no longer enough to say we want him out. What if the result is a rabidly-fundamentalist so-called democracy that wants Israel wiped off the map?
Until House members are provided more certain information assuring them that backing the Libyan rebels isn't going to create a Libyan Muslim fundamentalist, anti-American state, there's no harm or shame in simply stepping back and being neutral.
It's a fact that Wonderboy's administration chose to stick it's thumb in the GOP-held House's eye by failing to play along by the War Powers Act rules while insisting it need not, because the Act is unconstitutional. Instead, Wonderboy just flipped Congress the bird and went ahead without even attempting to build a consensus behind its policies and actions in Libya.
I don't think the House GOP is being cowardly nor opportunistic on Libya. Rather, they are behaving prudently in the face of a failure of leadership from the Oval Office, even as troops and money are squandered overseas without explanation.
Echoed by today's third Journal staff editorial, Strassel basically blames House GOP members for failing to support Wonderboy's ill-conceived and poorly-explained Libyan adventures, labeling this opportunistic.
I disagree.
What Strassel and others at the Journal fail to appreciate or acknowledge is that we don't really know who we're backing against Gadhafi. Back in March, I had lunch with an old friend who is culturally and hereditarily, but not religiously, Jewish. Even he backed Gadhafi against more extreme Arab fundamentalist rebels, suggesting we ask the Libyian dictator what he needed to kill the Muslim extremist seeking to overthrow him.
In occasional moments of lucidity, Strassel and the Journal staff admit that Wonderboy offered no compelling reason to risk American lives and money in Libya, then compounded that by saying NATO is running the show and, finally, we aren't really in combat.
This isn't about War Powers procedure anymore, but a serious lack of understanding of who we are backing if we oppose Gadhafi. It's no longer enough to say we want him out. What if the result is a rabidly-fundamentalist so-called democracy that wants Israel wiped off the map?
Until House members are provided more certain information assuring them that backing the Libyan rebels isn't going to create a Libyan Muslim fundamentalist, anti-American state, there's no harm or shame in simply stepping back and being neutral.
It's a fact that Wonderboy's administration chose to stick it's thumb in the GOP-held House's eye by failing to play along by the War Powers Act rules while insisting it need not, because the Act is unconstitutional. Instead, Wonderboy just flipped Congress the bird and went ahead without even attempting to build a consensus behind its policies and actions in Libya.
I don't think the House GOP is being cowardly nor opportunistic on Libya. Rather, they are behaving prudently in the face of a failure of leadership from the Oval Office, even as troops and money are squandered overseas without explanation.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Donald Trump for President by the GOP?
Earlier this week, I heard Neil Cavuto of Fox News interview Donald Trump regarding disparaging and dismissive remarks made by GOP Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. I believe I heard the audio of McConnell's remark but, in any case, I heard about five minutes of Trump blasting anyone and everyone who doesn't believe he could be president.
Aside from Trump's false claims of business acumen, which ignored his firms' several bankruptcy filings over the years, he showed a remarkable tin ear for how the US must conduct foreign policy in the contemporary world. That's a world in which we import 20% of our oil and depend upon foreign borrowers to finance our government deficits.
Trump claimed that the US just needs the right sort of person to tell those who run Mideast oil production 'how it's going to be.' He falsely claimed that those countries 'set the price' for oil. Granted, their production volumes are an important factor affecting market prices for oil. But global demand has just as much effect as supply.
After all, it's a market, remember, Donald?
When asked about McConnell's remarks and Trump's potential ambitions, on CNBC Wednesday morning, former New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg basically laughed at the notion.
According to Gregg, Trump is fanning the flames of this story because he likes the attention it brings. But Gregg said unequivocally that there is no way Trump would ever receive the GOP nomination for president for the 2012 election.
I agree.
It's hard to see why Trump thinks anyone really wants him to run. Or that he'd be qualified. Except, of course, in his own egotistical mind.
Gregg was so emphatic in his comments that it would be surprising if Trump didn't continue the cycle by replying to the former Senator, as well.
Aside from Trump's false claims of business acumen, which ignored his firms' several bankruptcy filings over the years, he showed a remarkable tin ear for how the US must conduct foreign policy in the contemporary world. That's a world in which we import 20% of our oil and depend upon foreign borrowers to finance our government deficits.
Trump claimed that the US just needs the right sort of person to tell those who run Mideast oil production 'how it's going to be.' He falsely claimed that those countries 'set the price' for oil. Granted, their production volumes are an important factor affecting market prices for oil. But global demand has just as much effect as supply.
After all, it's a market, remember, Donald?
When asked about McConnell's remarks and Trump's potential ambitions, on CNBC Wednesday morning, former New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg basically laughed at the notion.
According to Gregg, Trump is fanning the flames of this story because he likes the attention it brings. But Gregg said unequivocally that there is no way Trump would ever receive the GOP nomination for president for the 2012 election.
I agree.
It's hard to see why Trump thinks anyone really wants him to run. Or that he'd be qualified. Except, of course, in his own egotistical mind.
Gregg was so emphatic in his comments that it would be surprising if Trump didn't continue the cycle by replying to the former Senator, as well.
Monday, November 22, 2010
All The GOP Contenders
Last week, on one of the Fox News programs, probably Bill O'Reilly's Factor, there was a partial handicapping of GOP presidential contenders. In this weekend's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan wrote her own ode to GOP presidential wannabes, citing this holiday weekend as decision time for many of them.
Both feted Mitt Romney as the one Republican who is clearly running- again.
God save us!
Romney is responsible for one of the worst state-run health care schemes in America. He had an outrageously high dollar/vote ratio in the last GOP presidential primary season.
Though visually impressive, Romney comes across as too glib, postured and wonkish when mixing it up with other candidates. I still recall someone asking him about some international incident. His response was that he'd first turn to his counsel for legal clarifications. It was a very safe, consulting-style reaction. And not at all comforting.
Then there's the worrying example earlier this month of ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman going down in very expensive flames out in the California gubernatorial race. This should remind us all, and Romney, again, that vast fortunes and CEO experience doesn't guarantee electoral success. Yes, I know Romney was governor in Massachusetts, but his healthcare mistake, at least for me, overshadows the rest of his tenure there.
In fact, in the same vein that I always found McCain's foolish co-sponsorship of McCain-Feingold to mark him as dangerously Progressive and stupid, I find Romney's backing of RomneyCare to be a similarly important marker for being untrustworthy and lacking in truly conservative principles.
If you want to unseat Wonderboy, I'd put my money on Giuliani, Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels way before I'd ever consider Romney.
Both feted Mitt Romney as the one Republican who is clearly running- again.
God save us!
Romney is responsible for one of the worst state-run health care schemes in America. He had an outrageously high dollar/vote ratio in the last GOP presidential primary season.
Though visually impressive, Romney comes across as too glib, postured and wonkish when mixing it up with other candidates. I still recall someone asking him about some international incident. His response was that he'd first turn to his counsel for legal clarifications. It was a very safe, consulting-style reaction. And not at all comforting.
Then there's the worrying example earlier this month of ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman going down in very expensive flames out in the California gubernatorial race. This should remind us all, and Romney, again, that vast fortunes and CEO experience doesn't guarantee electoral success. Yes, I know Romney was governor in Massachusetts, but his healthcare mistake, at least for me, overshadows the rest of his tenure there.
In fact, in the same vein that I always found McCain's foolish co-sponsorship of McCain-Feingold to mark him as dangerously Progressive and stupid, I find Romney's backing of RomneyCare to be a similarly important marker for being untrustworthy and lacking in truly conservative principles.
If you want to unseat Wonderboy, I'd put my money on Giuliani, Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels way before I'd ever consider Romney.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Conventional GOP vs. Tea Party Candidates
Much is being made of in the media of the various Tea Party primary victories in the wake of Tuesday's election.
Perhaps, most notably, Delaware Tea Party Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's triumph over moderate GOP veteran Mike Castle.
Yahoo's homepage, never one to be neutral, screamed out this headline,
"Tea party victory endangers GOP’s goal of retaking the Senate"
At the end of the website's heavily partisan 'news' story about O'Donnell's primary win, this appeared regarding the national GOP's reticence to spend money on her general campaign,
"Not that she cares.
"They have a losing track record," O'Donnell told CNN Tuesday night. "If they're too lazy to put in the effort that we need to win, then so be it." "
Meanwhile, yesterday morning, alleged grafter and (too) long-serving Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kandorski gave Castle the ultimate kiss of death, calling him "an EXCELLENT Congressman."
That alone should be testimony to Castle's vulnerability. A Democratic Congressman suspected of some multi-million dollar corruption at the expense of the federal treasury endorsing him as a great guy.
But let's get back to O'Donnell's comment.
I, along with, I am sure, many other conservatively-inclined independents, have given much thought to the conundrum of preferring potentially unelectable conservative GOP candidates, often backed or inspired by Tea Partiers, to liberal-to-moderate political veterans who may be much more certain of beating their Democratic opponent in November.
Recently, I read a Wall Street Journal editorial which paraphrased the late Barry Goldwater as counseling conservatives to 'vote for the most conservative candidate.....who,' but I can't now recall, nor find the quote to verify, how it finished,
"is running," or "who is electable?"
I think it was the latter. And this is the issue at hand.
The conundrum of the GOP primary voter is different from that of the same voter as an independent in a general election, as I wrote here.
O'Donnell is implicitly standing for principles. She has, in effect, said,
'Vote for me. I'll do what I say. Mike Castle will waffle and is likely to side with liberals.'
And the media chides the GOP for letting principled conservatives, who have nowhere else to go, 'shrink the party's tent.' As if electing unreliable Republican Senators is better than electing liberal Democrats.
After considerable reflection, I come down on the side of voting in primaries for the most conservative Republican running. In New Jersey's last gubernatorial primary, that was not Chris Christie. I voted against Christie in the primary, but for him in the general election.
If I lived in Delaware, I'd have voted for O'Donnell. If she loses the general election, then Delaware wasn't ready to be represented in the Senate by a conservative, and the GOP didn't do a good job finding and backing a reliable conservative for the Delaware Senate seat.
How many Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chafees, Susan Collins' and Olympia Snowes do Republican voters need to elect to learn not to trust the fence-sitting Eastern US "moderates?"
The media hopes to keep the GOP as a pale copy of the liberal Democratic party by coaxing it to nominate, back and elect liberal Republicans.
But what independents want is a break from both parties creating a socialistic, European-style State with a capital S.
Preferring unelectable conservatives to electable, but untrustworthy liberal Republicans, shows a stand for the principles so many Americans feel have been lost by politicians of both parties. Particularly Republicans.
After all, Democrats have never, in my lifetime, espoused smaller government and greater personal liberty and freedom. Republicans have, if only periodically.
Christine O'Donnell embodies the hopes of independents and conservative Republicans, regardless of her ability to win the general election.
I, for one, am not so sure a GOP Senate majority composed of the likes of Mike Castle will please me- or most independents. It probably will only frustrate me marginally less than a Democratically-controlled one.
Ideally, I want a GOP caucus of more than 50 Senators who will toss Mitch McConnell and his team out, put Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint into power, and really go about shrinking the federal government.
I don't think Mike Castle would do that. Perhaps Delaware conservatives should continue working to find an electable conservative, rather than be disappointed by Castle's probably defection on the tough votes in the Senate.
Perhaps, most notably, Delaware Tea Party Republican Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell's triumph over moderate GOP veteran Mike Castle.Yahoo's homepage, never one to be neutral, screamed out this headline,
"Tea party victory endangers GOP’s goal of retaking the Senate"
At the end of the website's heavily partisan 'news' story about O'Donnell's primary win, this appeared regarding the national GOP's reticence to spend money on her general campaign,
"Not that she cares.
"They have a losing track record," O'Donnell told CNN Tuesday night. "If they're too lazy to put in the effort that we need to win, then so be it." "
Meanwhile, yesterday morning, alleged grafter and (too) long-serving Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kandorski gave Castle the ultimate kiss of death, calling him "an EXCELLENT Congressman."
That alone should be testimony to Castle's vulnerability. A Democratic Congressman suspected of some multi-million dollar corruption at the expense of the federal treasury endorsing him as a great guy.
But let's get back to O'Donnell's comment.
I, along with, I am sure, many other conservatively-inclined independents, have given much thought to the conundrum of preferring potentially unelectable conservative GOP candidates, often backed or inspired by Tea Partiers, to liberal-to-moderate political veterans who may be much more certain of beating their Democratic opponent in November.
Recently, I read a Wall Street Journal editorial which paraphrased the late Barry Goldwater as counseling conservatives to 'vote for the most conservative candidate.....who,' but I can't now recall, nor find the quote to verify, how it finished,
"is running," or "who is electable?"
I think it was the latter. And this is the issue at hand.
The conundrum of the GOP primary voter is different from that of the same voter as an independent in a general election, as I wrote here.
O'Donnell is implicitly standing for principles. She has, in effect, said,
'Vote for me. I'll do what I say. Mike Castle will waffle and is likely to side with liberals.'
And the media chides the GOP for letting principled conservatives, who have nowhere else to go, 'shrink the party's tent.' As if electing unreliable Republican Senators is better than electing liberal Democrats.
After considerable reflection, I come down on the side of voting in primaries for the most conservative Republican running. In New Jersey's last gubernatorial primary, that was not Chris Christie. I voted against Christie in the primary, but for him in the general election.
If I lived in Delaware, I'd have voted for O'Donnell. If she loses the general election, then Delaware wasn't ready to be represented in the Senate by a conservative, and the GOP didn't do a good job finding and backing a reliable conservative for the Delaware Senate seat.
How many Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chafees, Susan Collins' and Olympia Snowes do Republican voters need to elect to learn not to trust the fence-sitting Eastern US "moderates?"
The media hopes to keep the GOP as a pale copy of the liberal Democratic party by coaxing it to nominate, back and elect liberal Republicans.
But what independents want is a break from both parties creating a socialistic, European-style State with a capital S.
Preferring unelectable conservatives to electable, but untrustworthy liberal Republicans, shows a stand for the principles so many Americans feel have been lost by politicians of both parties. Particularly Republicans.
After all, Democrats have never, in my lifetime, espoused smaller government and greater personal liberty and freedom. Republicans have, if only periodically.
Christine O'Donnell embodies the hopes of independents and conservative Republicans, regardless of her ability to win the general election.
I, for one, am not so sure a GOP Senate majority composed of the likes of Mike Castle will please me- or most independents. It probably will only frustrate me marginally less than a Democratically-controlled one.
Ideally, I want a GOP caucus of more than 50 Senators who will toss Mitch McConnell and his team out, put Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint into power, and really go about shrinking the federal government.
I don't think Mike Castle would do that. Perhaps Delaware conservatives should continue working to find an electable conservative, rather than be disappointed by Castle's probably defection on the tough votes in the Senate.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
GOP Traitors: Graham, Snowe, Collins, Brown
Have you seen the latest list of traitorous votes by ostensibly Republican Senators?
The FINREG bill would not have passed, but for three Northeastern US so-called Republicans in the Senate:
-Olympia Snowe, R-ME
-Susan Collins, R-ME
-Scott Brown, R-MA
Then there's the Progressive Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham. He voted in committee for ultra-liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
What's with these Senators?
I had lunch with a conservative friend yesterday, and we discussed these turncoats. Both he and I are more independent conservatives than Republicans. So to us, these Senators, and, more importantly, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell have displayed a total lack of understanding of the desires and anger of the broad independent middle group of US voters.
If I were McConnell, I'd be shoving these four out of the party if they didn't vote along conservative (party) lines.
What's the benefit of having Snowe, Collins and Brown if they bolt on key legislation. Key bad legislation, at that!
What's Graham doing voting with the liberals for perhaps the most liberal snake ever nominated to the court? A purposely pro-Federalist, anti-States, anti-military nominee.
How'd she even get by the Judicial Committee? Democrats of a bygone era would have quashed her nomination simply on her record of anti-American behaviors and utterances.
Really, does it make any sense to have these liberals allegedly in the GOP camp? Caucusing with them, only to break ranks on the big votes?
Could these Senators get elected as Democrats? Doubtful.
Which brings me to McConnell, about whom, and whose failures, I'll write in an upcoming post.
The FINREG bill would not have passed, but for three Northeastern US so-called Republicans in the Senate:
-Olympia Snowe, R-ME
-Susan Collins, R-ME
-Scott Brown, R-MA
Then there's the Progressive Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham. He voted in committee for ultra-liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.
What's with these Senators?
I had lunch with a conservative friend yesterday, and we discussed these turncoats. Both he and I are more independent conservatives than Republicans. So to us, these Senators, and, more importantly, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell have displayed a total lack of understanding of the desires and anger of the broad independent middle group of US voters.
If I were McConnell, I'd be shoving these four out of the party if they didn't vote along conservative (party) lines.
What's the benefit of having Snowe, Collins and Brown if they bolt on key legislation. Key bad legislation, at that!
What's Graham doing voting with the liberals for perhaps the most liberal snake ever nominated to the court? A purposely pro-Federalist, anti-States, anti-military nominee.
How'd she even get by the Judicial Committee? Democrats of a bygone era would have quashed her nomination simply on her record of anti-American behaviors and utterances.
Really, does it make any sense to have these liberals allegedly in the GOP camp? Caucusing with them, only to break ranks on the big votes?
Could these Senators get elected as Democrats? Doubtful.
Which brings me to McConnell, about whom, and whose failures, I'll write in an upcoming post.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Joe Barton & The GOP House's Gutless Leadership
Yet another reason John Boehner has to exit from the House GOP leadership.
Yesterday morning, I happened to be fortunate enough to hear, live, Texas GOP Representative Joe Barton, castigate Wonderboy's "shakedown" of BP for $20B. Here's the video from YouTube.
Late yesterday, the media reported that John Boehner threatened Barton with his 'ranking member' status on the committee if he didn't retract his statement.
Personally, I found Barton's original statement to be refreshing. Joe Biden's objection to it tells you Barton was on the right track.
After so many lies and outrageous statements from Frisco Nan these past few years, why would John Boehner care what Barton said? Especially when it was true, even though Barton prefaced it with many disqualifiers, distancing it from the GOP or his role as a House member.
Boehner seems to have his head up his ass on this. And so much else. The GOP House leadership should be proud that one of their own had the guts to call Wonderboy's thuggery for what it is, and uphold the rule of law in our republic.
Not take Barton to the woodshed and demand that he retract a statement which reflects reality.
This is the sort of behavior, by Boehner, to which I referred in my prior post, when I wondered whether a change in party domination of the House will really change anything of importance.
Yesterday morning, I happened to be fortunate enough to hear, live, Texas GOP Representative Joe Barton, castigate Wonderboy's "shakedown" of BP for $20B. Here's the video from YouTube.
Late yesterday, the media reported that John Boehner threatened Barton with his 'ranking member' status on the committee if he didn't retract his statement.
Personally, I found Barton's original statement to be refreshing. Joe Biden's objection to it tells you Barton was on the right track.
After so many lies and outrageous statements from Frisco Nan these past few years, why would John Boehner care what Barton said? Especially when it was true, even though Barton prefaced it with many disqualifiers, distancing it from the GOP or his role as a House member.
Boehner seems to have his head up his ass on this. And so much else. The GOP House leadership should be proud that one of their own had the guts to call Wonderboy's thuggery for what it is, and uphold the rule of law in our republic.
Not take Barton to the woodshed and demand that he retract a statement which reflects reality.
This is the sort of behavior, by Boehner, to which I referred in my prior post, when I wondered whether a change in party domination of the House will really change anything of importance.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Voting Leonard Lance Out
I live in a Congressional district represented by one of those old, wily, milquetoast Republicans named Leonard Lance.
I first, and last, wrote about the twit in this post back in October of last year. His current ads and fliers all portray him as Tea-Party friendly, against big government, etc., etc. The videos show his grinning visage as he takes some walk in the park with a woman I assume to be his wife.
Like the state's senior, nearly-dead Senator, Lautenberg, Lance looks like he already belongs in a pine box. The type of professional politician I have come to hate. Merely for being a professional second-rate pol.
As my prior, linked post noted, it's unlikely Lance even understands the bulk of the bills on which he has voted.
Though I don't consider myself a party member, I am a registered Republican, else I could not vote in primaries.
Thus, for the first time in ages, I had the pleasure of voting for someone besides the incumbent Representative in a GOP primary. And I surely did just that.
Truth to tell, among the three challengers, I only recognized one name. It was a guy who apparently didn't file several years of tax returns. So it fell to a choice between the other two challengers to Lance.
I chose the one who was not what the ballot described as "Mainstream" Republican.
It was quite a pleasure to cast a vote against Lance, and, yet, still for a non-Democrat.
I'm hoping Lance loses today. Can't wait to see the post-poll closing tabulations.
I first, and last, wrote about the twit in this post back in October of last year. His current ads and fliers all portray him as Tea-Party friendly, against big government, etc., etc. The videos show his grinning visage as he takes some walk in the park with a woman I assume to be his wife.
Like the state's senior, nearly-dead Senator, Lautenberg, Lance looks like he already belongs in a pine box. The type of professional politician I have come to hate. Merely for being a professional second-rate pol.
As my prior, linked post noted, it's unlikely Lance even understands the bulk of the bills on which he has voted.
Though I don't consider myself a party member, I am a registered Republican, else I could not vote in primaries.
Thus, for the first time in ages, I had the pleasure of voting for someone besides the incumbent Representative in a GOP primary. And I surely did just that.
Truth to tell, among the three challengers, I only recognized one name. It was a guy who apparently didn't file several years of tax returns. So it fell to a choice between the other two challengers to Lance.
I chose the one who was not what the ballot described as "Mainstream" Republican.
It was quite a pleasure to cast a vote against Lance, and, yet, still for a non-Democrat.
I'm hoping Lance loses today. Can't wait to see the post-poll closing tabulations.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
California's GOP Senate Primary & Tea Parties
A weekend editorial by Allysia Finley in the Wall Street Journal decried the Tea Party members' effects on the California GOP Senate primary next week.
In her well-written piece, Ms. Finley suggested that Tea Party enthusiasts may be responsible for nominating a middle-of-the-roader, Tom Campbell, as they doubt Carly Fiorina's credentials, but can't deliver sufficient support for Chuck DeVore to nominate him.
I found it all a bit too hysterical. Having been to two Tea Party events since last October, both at the US Capitol, I can't say that I find the movement, such as it is, to be much more than a crystallization of conservative disgust with high taxes, too much government spending and a lack of a sense of reality by elected representatives of either party.
If you removed the words "Tea Party" from Ms. Finley's piece, it would merely describe a not atypical choice among voters in many elections.
I faced such a choice in New Jersey's general election for Governor last November. Chris Christie wasn't the true conservative in that race. He was the GOP moderate, well to the left of a much more conservative independent whose name I now cannot even recall. Corzine, of course, was the sitting uber-liberal.
Anytime three candidates vie for an office or nomination, you're going to have an unstable dynamic which can allow the moderate to triumph.
Isn't that part of our political system? Doesn't it discriminate for the majority, which is rarely rabidly conservative or liberal?
What's so unusual about next week's California GOP Senate race, in that regard?
Nothing at all.
But it seems to be yet another opportunity for someone to wring their hands about the "Tea Partiers" and their destructive effect upon yet another election.
In her well-written piece, Ms. Finley suggested that Tea Party enthusiasts may be responsible for nominating a middle-of-the-roader, Tom Campbell, as they doubt Carly Fiorina's credentials, but can't deliver sufficient support for Chuck DeVore to nominate him.
I found it all a bit too hysterical. Having been to two Tea Party events since last October, both at the US Capitol, I can't say that I find the movement, such as it is, to be much more than a crystallization of conservative disgust with high taxes, too much government spending and a lack of a sense of reality by elected representatives of either party.
If you removed the words "Tea Party" from Ms. Finley's piece, it would merely describe a not atypical choice among voters in many elections.
I faced such a choice in New Jersey's general election for Governor last November. Chris Christie wasn't the true conservative in that race. He was the GOP moderate, well to the left of a much more conservative independent whose name I now cannot even recall. Corzine, of course, was the sitting uber-liberal.
Anytime three candidates vie for an office or nomination, you're going to have an unstable dynamic which can allow the moderate to triumph.
Isn't that part of our political system? Doesn't it discriminate for the majority, which is rarely rabidly conservative or liberal?
What's so unusual about next week's California GOP Senate race, in that regard?
Nothing at all.
But it seems to be yet another opportunity for someone to wring their hands about the "Tea Partiers" and their destructive effect upon yet another election.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Dick Cheney On Colin Powell
Last week, I wrote my own opinion regarding Colin Powell's recent remarks regarding the GOP's current state.
Along with his comments on releasing CIA interrogation pictures, former VP Dick Cheney also weighed in on Powell's comments. His sentiments echoed my own.
Cheney said he didn't know Powell was even still a Republican, since he'd so explicitly backed Wonderboy in the last election.
I've always liked Cheney for his candor, and this time is no exception. 1991 was a long time ago, and Cheney doesn't let his work with Powell back then, during the fight for Kuwait, cloud his current response to Powell's actions and comments.
Along with his comments on releasing CIA interrogation pictures, former VP Dick Cheney also weighed in on Powell's comments. His sentiments echoed my own.
Cheney said he didn't know Powell was even still a Republican, since he'd so explicitly backed Wonderboy in the last election.
I've always liked Cheney for his candor, and this time is no exception. 1991 was a long time ago, and Cheney doesn't let his work with Powell back then, during the fight for Kuwait, cloud his current response to Powell's actions and comments.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Regarding Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp's recent death has unleashed a torrent of punditry about what he did, or did not, stand for. Many in the media knew him, both as a Congressman, VP candidate, and HUD Secretary.
Kemp's explicit and solid pro-growth economic credentials typically caused him to be labeled as a conservative. Of course, his stance on social issues was more mainstream.
However, with his passing, many, like ditzy Wall Street Journal weekend columnist Peggy Noonan, are plunging, yet again, into diatribes about how the GOP needs to be more centrist and mainstream. This time, they bemoan the party's reaction to Arlen Specter's job-protection-induced switch to the Democrats, and claim that Kemp's legacy should be a bigger tent for the Republican party.
As far as I know, Kemp was on a losing GOP ticket with Bob Dole, the latter no solid conservative, either. I'm sure Jack Kemp was a good Representative for his district in Buffalo. The tax cut legislation that bore his name certainly was good for the country.
But I never actually heard Kemp scold the GOP for being too doctrinaire. If anything, I'd say the story about his celebratory letters to his grandchildren on Wonderboy's election indicates he was fooled by the candidate's attempts to portray himself as centrist, rather than the extreme liberal he actually is, and governs as.
Jack Kemp was a valuable member of the GOP for many years. But I don't think that means we should automatically attribute things to him that he didn't necessarily say, nor give all of his opinions the same weight as those of successful GOP presidential candidates.
Kemp's explicit and solid pro-growth economic credentials typically caused him to be labeled as a conservative. Of course, his stance on social issues was more mainstream.
However, with his passing, many, like ditzy Wall Street Journal weekend columnist Peggy Noonan, are plunging, yet again, into diatribes about how the GOP needs to be more centrist and mainstream. This time, they bemoan the party's reaction to Arlen Specter's job-protection-induced switch to the Democrats, and claim that Kemp's legacy should be a bigger tent for the Republican party.
As far as I know, Kemp was on a losing GOP ticket with Bob Dole, the latter no solid conservative, either. I'm sure Jack Kemp was a good Representative for his district in Buffalo. The tax cut legislation that bore his name certainly was good for the country.
But I never actually heard Kemp scold the GOP for being too doctrinaire. If anything, I'd say the story about his celebratory letters to his grandchildren on Wonderboy's election indicates he was fooled by the candidate's attempts to portray himself as centrist, rather than the extreme liberal he actually is, and governs as.
Jack Kemp was a valuable member of the GOP for many years. But I don't think that means we should automatically attribute things to him that he didn't necessarily say, nor give all of his opinions the same weight as those of successful GOP presidential candidates.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Good News For The GOP!
Only a week after McCain's defeat, the GOP already has good news for the upcoming election cycle.
Michael Steele, the prominent, articulate conservative former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has filed to run for chairman of the GOP. Rather than fight Newt Gingrich, who was also rumored to want the post, Steele has the former's explicit backing for the job.
Oh, yes. Besides being very good in front of cameras- he has often subbed for Sean Hannity on his Fox channel program- Steele happens to be black.
If race is what sells now in America, the GOP has an oar in that water, too.
Meanwhile, Gingrich's name is appearing as a possible 2012 Presidential contender. While there are some negatives about Gingrich, he is a very smart, sharp guy who has spent years in the wilderness reshaping and reforming his image. I've watched him countless times on Hannity & Colmes and O'Reilly. The man has something intelligent and informed to say on each and every major national issue.
If Newt can curb his lust for power, which got him into trouble as Speaker, lose some weight, and recruit a crack manager and staff, he'll be good to go for 2012. With Steele as his party chief, they could well be unbeatable.
Michael Steele, the prominent, articulate conservative former lieutenant governor of Maryland, has filed to run for chairman of the GOP. Rather than fight Newt Gingrich, who was also rumored to want the post, Steele has the former's explicit backing for the job.
Oh, yes. Besides being very good in front of cameras- he has often subbed for Sean Hannity on his Fox channel program- Steele happens to be black.
If race is what sells now in America, the GOP has an oar in that water, too.
Meanwhile, Gingrich's name is appearing as a possible 2012 Presidential contender. While there are some negatives about Gingrich, he is a very smart, sharp guy who has spent years in the wilderness reshaping and reforming his image. I've watched him countless times on Hannity & Colmes and O'Reilly. The man has something intelligent and informed to say on each and every major national issue.
If Newt can curb his lust for power, which got him into trouble as Speaker, lose some weight, and recruit a crack manager and staff, he'll be good to go for 2012. With Steele as his party chief, they could well be unbeatable.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Weak-Willed Boehner Loses His Way
Today's Wall Street Journal carried a brief editorial piece on House Minority Leader John Boehner's backsliding on a key Republican objective- to be seen as regaining the party's sense of fiscal restraint. The link may, or may not work after today. In case it doesn't, the entire text of the editorial, "GOP Flake Out," appears below in italics.
"House Republicans have been taunting Democrats for turning down their offer to eliminate spending earmarks, and Democrats reply that the GOP isn't serious. The Republicans seem intent on proving that Democrats are right, as GOP leaders showed last week in denying Arizona's Jeff Flake a seat on the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Flake is the scourge of earmarks and the last person Members of either party want on Congress's main spending committee. He would have been a whistle-blower for taxpayers, in particular against the powerful Democrats who get the most earmarks now that they are in the majority, such as Pennsylvania's Jack Murtha. But Republican spenders couldn't tolerate someone who would call out their pork too.
House Minority Leader John Boehner has been warning his party that it won't take back Congress until it swears off earmarking, so he must be getting comfortable with his minority status. He handed the Appropriations seat to Alabama's Jo Bonner, who had less seniority than Mr. Flake (three terms to four) and also votes routinely for spending that Mr. Flake opposes. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, compared voting records and found that of 50 amendments on the House floor to strike specific earmarked projects, Mr. Flake voted for all of them.
Mr. Bonner voted against 49 of the 50. He voted to save, among other national priorities, the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service ($200,000) at City College of New York, a fake prison in Kansas ($100,000), and $150,000 for the American Ballet Theater in New York City. He'll fit right in at Appropriations."
I consider myself to be a conservative-leaning independent, not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.
Thus, I want to point out to the 3-4 people who read this blog on an average day that I am an equal-opportunity critic of both parties.
In this case, it's clear that the GOP should put Jeff Flake on the Appropriations Committee. Let's review the situation. Flake hails from Arizona, as does...oh, yes, that's right, the GOP's Presidential candidate come November, John McCain. And McCain has just fired a volley at the two Democratic contenders for their party's nomination, Hillary and Obama, over earmarks.
And the sitting Republican President, George Bush, made a major issue of earmarks in his State of the Union speech, as well.
Doesn't it make perfect sense for the Republicans to adopt a "zero earmark" strategy and stance? Install Jeff Flake on Charlie Rangell's corrupt, overspending Appropriations Committee, and bird-dog the profligate spender to his eternal distraction?
Of course it does! Think of the great headlines all during the months leading up the the first Tuesday in November of this year.
Instead, Boehner plumped for a conventional spender, GOP-style, Jo Bonner.
There goes a perfect chance for McCain to link up with fellow Senators and his own state's Representative, Flake, who would be his inside guy on the House Appropriations Committee.
Is it too much to ask, or expect, that the Republicans, now in the minority in both Houses, and in a tough, some would say uphill, fight to keep the White House, all sit down and align their objectives, methods and actions?
So long as hacks like Boehner wilt under party pressure, cave in to conventional spending temptations, and name fellow-hacks like Bonner, instead of Flake, to Rangell's committee, the GOP will truly deserve to remain in the minority.
It's a shame. I grew up living in Bob Michel's district in Illinois. Just across the river from Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen's home in Pekin. Michel was the amiable, harmless lapdog of whatever Democratic House Speaker, in those days, Mike Mansfield, happened to be in office at the time.
It took a changing of the guard, with Gingrich and Armey in the lead, to finally bring down the corrupt Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, publish the Contract with America, and send the Democrats into the minority for a decade.
Now, with memories of hack Denny Hastert being fresher than those of Gingrich, I guess Boehner's settling into the Minority Leaders offices.
Maybe he even has an old picture of Bob Michel on his wall, dug out of some musty old Congressional storage room.
"House Republicans have been taunting Democrats for turning down their offer to eliminate spending earmarks, and Democrats reply that the GOP isn't serious. The Republicans seem intent on proving that Democrats are right, as GOP leaders showed last week in denying Arizona's Jeff Flake a seat on the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Flake is the scourge of earmarks and the last person Members of either party want on Congress's main spending committee. He would have been a whistle-blower for taxpayers, in particular against the powerful Democrats who get the most earmarks now that they are in the majority, such as Pennsylvania's Jack Murtha. But Republican spenders couldn't tolerate someone who would call out their pork too.
House Minority Leader John Boehner has been warning his party that it won't take back Congress until it swears off earmarking, so he must be getting comfortable with his minority status. He handed the Appropriations seat to Alabama's Jo Bonner, who had less seniority than Mr. Flake (three terms to four) and also votes routinely for spending that Mr. Flake opposes. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, compared voting records and found that of 50 amendments on the House floor to strike specific earmarked projects, Mr. Flake voted for all of them.
Mr. Bonner voted against 49 of the 50. He voted to save, among other national priorities, the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service ($200,000) at City College of New York, a fake prison in Kansas ($100,000), and $150,000 for the American Ballet Theater in New York City. He'll fit right in at Appropriations."
I consider myself to be a conservative-leaning independent, not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.
Thus, I want to point out to the 3-4 people who read this blog on an average day that I am an equal-opportunity critic of both parties.
In this case, it's clear that the GOP should put Jeff Flake on the Appropriations Committee. Let's review the situation. Flake hails from Arizona, as does...oh, yes, that's right, the GOP's Presidential candidate come November, John McCain. And McCain has just fired a volley at the two Democratic contenders for their party's nomination, Hillary and Obama, over earmarks.
And the sitting Republican President, George Bush, made a major issue of earmarks in his State of the Union speech, as well.
Doesn't it make perfect sense for the Republicans to adopt a "zero earmark" strategy and stance? Install Jeff Flake on Charlie Rangell's corrupt, overspending Appropriations Committee, and bird-dog the profligate spender to his eternal distraction?
Of course it does! Think of the great headlines all during the months leading up the the first Tuesday in November of this year.
Instead, Boehner plumped for a conventional spender, GOP-style, Jo Bonner.
There goes a perfect chance for McCain to link up with fellow Senators and his own state's Representative, Flake, who would be his inside guy on the House Appropriations Committee.
Is it too much to ask, or expect, that the Republicans, now in the minority in both Houses, and in a tough, some would say uphill, fight to keep the White House, all sit down and align their objectives, methods and actions?
So long as hacks like Boehner wilt under party pressure, cave in to conventional spending temptations, and name fellow-hacks like Bonner, instead of Flake, to Rangell's committee, the GOP will truly deserve to remain in the minority.
It's a shame. I grew up living in Bob Michel's district in Illinois. Just across the river from Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen's home in Pekin. Michel was the amiable, harmless lapdog of whatever Democratic House Speaker, in those days, Mike Mansfield, happened to be in office at the time.
It took a changing of the guard, with Gingrich and Armey in the lead, to finally bring down the corrupt Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, publish the Contract with America, and send the Democrats into the minority for a decade.
Now, with memories of hack Denny Hastert being fresher than those of Gingrich, I guess Boehner's settling into the Minority Leaders offices.
Maybe he even has an old picture of Bob Michel on his wall, dug out of some musty old Congressional storage room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
