If you’ve been paying attention to the politicking down in Florida this week, you may have noticed that Romney’s forces and his Establishment proxies launched a seemingly coordinated attack against Newt from nearly all sides and angles, even dragging Bob Dole out from retirement to hit the former Speaker.

Well, today the frenzied pig-pile continued with this gem from Politico:  frickin’ John Tyler’s grandson apparently thinks Newt is a jerk!  The Establishment doesn’t screw around, even dredging up descendants of half-assed* Whigs out of their crypts to launch an attack on a perceived threat.

This leads me to echo a question circulating around talk-radio over the last 24 hours:  will the Establishment fight this hard and dig this deep to attack Obama the way they’ve come after Newt?  I bet they don’t — they’d rather lose a “respectful” campaign than get passionate about their base’s beliefs… which is partially why conservatives loathe the Establishment in the first place.

* FYI–John Tyler was expelled from the Whig Party since he had been a Democrat and tried governing like one while in office!  The d—–bag also died in 1862 as a member of the Confederate Congress.  Not sure what Politico was going for in this attack, but it all seems like quite a stretch.

{ 0 comments }

The President will give his third State of the Union address tonight at 9pm EST.  It will be filled with poll-tested decisive-sounding promises of new entitlements, he may take a shot at his prospective opponents, he’ll definitely hit Congress and remind us of his order to kill Osama Bin Laden, and he’ll lie about his record or the behavior of his opponents, setting up numerous straw men along the way.

What you won’t hear is the state of the union.  In the Obama Nation, gas has risen 83%, the price of beef is up 24% and the price of one of life’s staples, bacon, has risen 22%.  Ice cream, bread and eggs are up too.

The national debt is up to $15.2 trillion from about 10 trillion in 2008 and the President wants it to hit over $16 trillion before his prospective first term is over!  The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 1000 days.  The number of employed has actually shrunk since Obama took office.

The Obama’s gave about 5% to charity in 2005-6.  The Romney’s gave $4 million last year, or about 19% of their income.  Ah, but Romney is part of that greedy 1% Obama will beat up this evening.

It’ll be the President’s job tonight to make it seem like his tenure hasn’t existed until this very night.  It’s on us to make sure he doesn’t get away with it.

{ 0 comments }

Though statistically tied about a week ago, the battle for South Carolina shifted dramatically in favor of Newt Gingrich when the votes were finally counted.  Last night’s primary yielded a 40-28% Gingrich victory (thus far) over Mitt Romney.  Rick Santorum came in third place with 17%, with Ron Paul bringing up the rear with 13%.

Newt’s sitting pretty going into Florida.  Tea Party groups in SC coalesced around Newt, giving his campaign energy and momentum moving forward as other Tea Party groups potentially follow suit, challenging the establishment every step along the way.

With Newt winning South Carolina and Santorum pulling out a win in Iowa, Romney’s in a real race right now.  While Romney is on the ballot and has a campaign organization in every state with serious establishment support second to none in this race, it’s now clear that Romney is going to have to actually earn this nomination.  How Romney reacts will say much about how he’ll deal with fighting the Obama Nation in the Fall should he get the nomination.  I’d definitely be concerned if I were Romney, but then again this process is a marathon not a sprint.

{ 0 comments }

On Wednesday, the Internet protested SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and its counterpart bill in the Senate, PIPA.  Yesterday, we saw the effects of that protest.  Both SOPA and PIPA were effectively killed off.  In the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has suspended debate on PIPA “indefinitely”, while in the House, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has seen the writing on the wall, and has withdrawn the bill.  After Thursday’s protests, numerous members of Congress changed their minds and switched to opposing the acts.  Interestingly, the vast majority of Senators and Congressmen who changed their opinions were Republicans.  While a few Democrats did switch over, most stayed in support.  The resulting contrast has startled the often liberal-leaning tech blogosphere while angering the wacky left-wing blogosphere.  In any case, this isn’t the end of this fight, as no doubt Congress will try to bring this up again in another form, as the “Big Hollywood” lobby is too strong.  But for now, victory for the Internet and for freedom.

{ 0 comments }

When Mitt Romney held an eight-vote lead at the end of Iowa caucus night, there was some question as to whether the lead would hold.  Usually, states re-canvass the votes after the actual election night to account for things like mathematical and typographical errors.  This is rarely significant even in the closest of elections because the numerical shifts are often statistically insignificant.  With just eight votes separating Santorum and Romney however, the possibility of a different outcome was real.

Today, the Iowa Republican Party issued its final count and the good news is that Rick Santorum won Iowa caucuses by a margin of 34 votes over Mitt Romney.  The Republican establishment being what is, they were too many errors in eight precincts (areas carried by Santorum), so they’re calling the race a tie.  You know the drill, when Romney is on top, “a win is a win,” but when Mr. Inevitable loses details are unimportant.

So as it stands now, Santorum won the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary where a majority of voters were not Republicans, Newt Gingrich leads in South Carolina, and Ron Paul has a lock on the Martian vote.  This Republican primary process may be a lot of things, but “over” isn’t one of them.

{ 1 comment }

Texas Governor Rick Perry announced today that he’s dropping out of the GOP race for President, admitting there’s no “viable path” to the nomination.  He then endorsed Newt Gingrich (who happens to be right on the food stamp thing).

I happen to agree with Perry’s decision and his campaign assessment.  He peaked last Fall when it was his turn and has been hanging around ever since.  Unfortunately for him, the build-up was too huge and his debate performances were too small, more memorable for his gaffes than his policy positions.

That leaves only Newt, Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum left for the chance to oust Obama in the Fall.

{ 0 comments }

Stop SOPA!

Today is SOPA Blackout day.  Hundreds of sites across the Internet, including sites such as WordPress.com and Wikipedia, have shut down in protest of a little known bill making its way through Congress known as SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act).  Other sites, such as Google, are providing information about SOPA on their homepages.  So what is SOPA (and it’s companion bill in the Senate, PIPA), and why is it a bad idea?

It’s not often that you get a bill that completely defies party affiliation and has both support and opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  Supporters of SOPA and PIPA include such ideologically opposed legislators as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), as well as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  Opponents of the bill are equally as ideologically opposed:  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) join Re. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) in opposition.  Clearly, this defies normal conventions.

SOPA is a bill that is bought and paid for by the Motion Picture Association of America (headed by former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)).  It’s stated purpose is to stop the online piracy of music, movies, and other copyrighted works.  On its face, that sounds like a reasonable provision.  The problem with the bill, as is the problem with many bills that come from Washington, is it inserts the government into an area that it has little or no knowledge of, and as is typical of government intervention, completely mucks stuff up.  Being in the technology industry myself, the provisions of SOPA make no sense, and would destroy the fabric and the backbone of the Internet by giving the government power over the DNS System.

Without getting into too much technical detail, the DNS System is what makes finding websites possible.  When you type in a website name (like axisofright.com) into your browser address bar, the browser looks up that address in a DNS Server.  The DNS Server finds something called an IP Address, which is a series of numbers that identifies the (for example, one of the IP Addresses for Google is 74.125.235.50).  The IP address then tells your computer how to find the website through a series of routers that bring you to your Internet destination and serve the web site into your browser.  It all happens in a fraction of a second.  Think of DNS like the virtual address book of the Internet.

SOPA would allow copyright holders to make a complaint against a foreign site or U.S. sites linked to foreign sites, and have that site immediately blocked from DNS, without any kind of due process.  All it takes is a complaint, and the site is blocked.  The same is true for search results.  If a copyright holder complains to Google or another search engine about infringement, Google will be forced under law to remove that site from its search results, again without any due process. The site owner can appeal to a court to get the site reinstated, but that is a burdensome, costly, and time-consuming event.  Such a take down notice could potentially cost a person or business large amounts of money, and could be used to censor sites that copyright holders (or even the government) don’t like, even if there is no copyright violation.

One only has to look at the other countries that have implemented DNS blocking and search engine blocking:  China, North Korea, and India, all of which are coming under fire for censorship.  The Internet as a whole has thrived and given birth to sites like this one because it is free and open.  Online copyright violations need to be addressed, but this bill is not the way to do it.  SOPA is a dangerous piece of legislation that will destroy the fabric of the free and open Internet by getting the government involved in an area that it doesn’t belong or understand.  It should be opposed and stopped at all costs.

{ 1 comment }

It’s a general rule that Libs for over 100 years have felt like they are the smartest people ever.  So smart, in fact, that they can run your lives, tell us what’s right and wrong, and judge us smart or dumb.

So when I see that Newsweek is running a cover asking “Why are Obama’s Critics so Dumb?” it just seems right — Obamabots, in desperation, telling us that the reality we sense and feel all around us is not actually what is going on, and we’d be dumb to think that it is.  Obama’s just too smart for us lowly rubes who can’t even realize that Obama is and has been what’s in our collective best interest.

Here’s a rebuttal to that story from the right entitled “Why are Barack Obama’s Critics So Smart“.  It really tears apart the Newsweek article’s premise quite well.

I’ll let you be the judge:  are Obama’s critics dumb, or do they have a legitimate point?  You know where I stand!

 

{ 0 comments }

Huntsman Out

by Ryan on January 16, 2012

in Election 2012,Politics

The only 2012 Republican candidate for president who felt that the chief lesson to learn from Ronald Reagan was to be a principled moderate (gag!) and the only candidate who actually did work in the Obama Administration, Jon Huntsman, is going to announce he’s dropping out of the race today and endorsing Mitt Romney.

Not really a shocker that Huntsman’s constant “also-ran” doldrum poll status, lackluster style and campaign, connections to the regime, and weak-kneed moderate vibe didn’t help him catch fire.  I suppose being the only one still in the race who didn’t surge at some point also contributed to this move — everyone has had their moment in the sun except for Huntsman!

I’m not shocked.  I’m not upset.  I’m not even happy Huntsman’s calling it quits.  In fact, I feel the same thing today that I’ve always felt about him and his campaign, which is to say not much.

UPDATE:  It’s official.

{ 1 comment }

After much protest, the Interior Department has decided to fix the newly dedicated Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  The part in question deals with Kings famous “Drum Major” quote, which was merely paraphrased on the statue.  The National Park Service plans on altering the quote to make it historically accurate, and make King sound less like “an arrogant twit” to quote Maya Angelou.

It currently reads:

I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness.

It should read something like what King actually said:

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. Say that I was a drum major for peace. I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter.

What it will finally read is yet to be determined.  Nonetheless, I like seeing our historical figures memorialized with words they actually said;  not the paraphrased words of an artist.

For the record, I still think they should have at least one direct reference to God somewhere on this memorial, which is actually dedicated to a reverend!

{ 0 comments }

As in:  Mitt Romney or Ron Paul only!

As of this moment a district judge has ruled that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman failed to complete the paperwork in time and therefore cannot appear on the ballot when votes are taken on March 6.  Obviously, the remaining candidates are not pleased and will appeal!  Interesting that the district judge was an Obama appointee and still managed to interpret Virginia law strictly.  Hmm…

Too bad Virginia is not New Jersey and the GOP weren’t Democrats in this case.  Rewriting election law as they go along is not a foreign concept to the Garden State:

Back in 2002, incumbent NJ Senator Bob “The Torch” Torricelli was caught in an ethics scandal and was losing mightily to his Republican opponent.  The Dems, under the leadership of Governor McGreevey, decided to rewrite election law in the middle of the cycle while counting votes on the NJ Supreme Court before replacing Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg weeks before the election — in clear violation of existing law and precedent.  The people needed a “choice”.  They had one and the Dems screwed up by nominating a crook — law be damned!

From what I understand, the current group of GOP candidates simply didn’t file properly in time.  If the appeals court upholds the district judge’s interpretation, then so be it — why should the people who did things correctly be negatively impacted by those who want a second chance after the fact?  Unfortunately, it doesn’t help my endorsed candidate in VA.

{ 0 comments }

The frustrating debt-ceiling debacle of last summer yielded two predictable outcomes:  we got little-to-none of the promised spending cuts and Obama got a free hand until after the 2012 Election to ask for a cold $1.2 trillion for raising the debt ceiling.

In no way is this a victory for the American people.  Politically, though, Obama’s in a bind — he asked for this!

This kind of reminds me of the Republican’s obstruction of the payroll tax cut extension around Christmas.  It wasn’t worth the political damage — Obama was merely setting up an issue for material in his State of the Union address while he and the MSM got to pound the GOP for a while — but the GOP did it anyway.

Obama asked for the power to increase the debt ceiling and therefore created this predicament himself.  He has to do this.  With the nation focusing on South Carolina and with our debt-to-GDP ratio about to burst 100%, Obama just opened himself up to getting seriously pounded by the GOP candidates on TV and in the upcoming debate (that is if the candidates can focus on anything other than being the anti-Romney at the moment).

{ 1 comment }

You’d think that big bureaucratic monoliths wouldn’t mind a sauced populace to keep the people’s mind off of big bureaucratic monoliths, but the CDC is different — it cares about you.  Their latest report shows that American’s drink way too much.  Shocker, I know!

We here in America don’t really half-ass things like drinking.  If we’re going to drink, it becomes our night.  In Europe, they’re generally semi-sauced all the time, stepping it up around soccer games.  But we Americans choose the time, place, and level of our drinking more discriminantly  — we’re busy so we have to fit it in.  You decide which you prefer:  the constant day-long buzz or the occasional night-long binge.  Your liver hates you either way.

At the end of the day I do agree that the CDC’s conclusions are ultimately not cool, but trying to wean people off drinking is an issue our society has been dealing with for centuries.  All anyone can really do is to be a positive influence to others on this issue.  But why do I have a feeling some almighty government initiative is brewing over this.

{ 1 comment }

It was reported today that Sarah Palin’s husband Todd spoke with Newt Gingrich this morning, offering his support to the Speaker’s campaign to replace Obama.  Still no word on who Sarah’s going to support.  McCain’s supporting Romney because McCain, for establishmentarian reasons, must.  Sarah will probably go rogue from her former 2008 campaign partner.

I endorsed Newt for President last week before the Iowa caucus and given the current field I still support that choice.  However, I’m also very disappointed that Newt has generally gone negative, and more importantly attacked Romney on free-market capitalist grounds, echoing the old 1980s “corporate raider” rhetoric of the left regarding Romney’s time at Bain Capital.  Romney’s people hit back with:

It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at Moveon.org.

Others aren’t happy about this development either.  Please Newt: don’t push me into siding with Romney on this, a philosophical issue on free enterprise where I’m defending the Massachusetts Moderate over you on a day when Todd Palin just pledged his support!

{ 1 comment }

Numbers from a Friday afternoon document dump indicate that 543,812 labor union employees have received an Obamacare waiver since last June, while only 69,813 mostly small business private sector employees did.  When I read that I couldn’t help but think about Andrew Wilkow‘s notion that “socialism is for the people, not the socialists”.

It all keeps coming back to this question:  if Obamacare is so good why does everyone want out, and why to those who have favor with the administration seem to get out while everyone else needs to be victimized by it?  Refer to Wilkow’s quote for the answer.

{ 0 comments }

Much has been made about President Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray and three members of the NLRB, because, well, Congress is not on recess.  A pro forma session is still being in session — it was a way that Harry Reid himself prevented Dubya from making recess appointments.  So, on the surface the President’s move appears to be unprecedented, maybe even unconstitutional, and to some even dictatorial.

So Obama’s deliberately toying around with the constitution to play the populist, while goading the Republicans into sounding petty and obstructionist by defending our political checks and balances.  Generally, when you’re explaining, you’re on defense.  It is very frustrating to watch and sets dubious precedents.

Once in a while Obama’s cavalier attitude towards his office makes him sound legitimately dangerous.  The system is there to constrain power and passions, not force one’s hand into unilateral action.  If he gets away with it, the President and Congress have set a terrible precedent, further marginalizing our system of law while chipping away at its sanctity.

Remember the old days when playing political games in election season stayed in the realm of negative ads and campaign hyperbole, rather than potentially unconstitutional power grabs?

{ 1 comment }

Posted with a chuckle, but without comment.

{ 0 comments }

The first part isn’t as bad it sounds, but it was still a good night for Mitt Romney.  It always is when you win a caucus or a primary, especially if it is the first one.  That said, the vote was remarkably close, with Romney edging out my candidate, Rick Santorum, by just 8 votes out of over 121,000 cast.

The winners last night are obvious.  Romney was a winner because, well, he won.  Santorum was also a winner because he finished in the strongest second possible after wallowing in the low-single digits for months on end.  Unlike placing second in an opinion poll or even a string of polls, finishing a close second to the frontrunner in a contest where votes are actually cast ensures a great deal of free media coverage and a bump in fundraising.  That momentum doesn’t guarantee future success, but it does provide an opportunity for the candidate to tell his story.  When that candidate hasn’t raised money in the past, trailed in the polls, and occupied the edge of the debate stages, the importance of that opportunity cannot be overstated.  Ron Paul was also a winner by placing a very strong third.

This is more debatable, but I think Newt Gingrich was a quasi-winner by placing fourth.  Prior to Iowa, the Speaker’s standing was dropping and there was a question as to whether he could finish fourth, and if so, how strong a fourth.  By finishing in double digits with a somewhat comfortable margin over Rick Perry (who had a better organization in Iowa), the Speaker may have done himself a favor.  He is still in a precarious position, but Iowa wasn’t fatal to his chances.

The losers were Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.  Perry’s loss is curable.  It was clear that he was going to finish in the so-called lower tier, but he had the money, organization, and standing to beat Gingrich but he didn’t. That said, Newt’s upcoming antics will probably transfer some of the benefits of his fourth place finish to Perry. Like I said, those benefits aren’t much to hang your hat on, but it is a lifeline in this primary.  Bachmann has already suspended (that’s the twenty first century political term for “ending”) her campaign.

Now that I’ve given you my generic “second is better than third, but not as good as first” post, here are some other observations.

[read more…]

{ 0 comments }

I would like to congratulate rick Perry.  Not for tonight’s result in Iowa, but for calling out Mike Allen of the gossip website, Politico for basing a story on anonymous and unprovable sources.

 I don’t think it’s wise for candidates to confront media personalities for the way the report the news.  It would probably be better for them to stay above the fray while allowing their talking heads to go down in the gutter with the journolists (misspelling intended).  But I just can’t fault Perry on this one.  Well done, Governor.

Hat tip:  Hot Air

{ 0 comments }

Like Ryan and Sal, I am not overly thrilled with this year’s choices for President. My political philosophy is centered around Ronald Reagan’s belief that we are a country with a government, not the other way around.  The American people are good people.  Government must allow them to do what they do without interference.  It must provide people with the freedom necessary to be innovative, to use their talents to create goods and services that people want to buy, to make profits which help them enrich their lives and expand their businesses and create jobs, and to live their lives in accordance with their values so long as they do not harm other people.  Unlike in previous campaigns, I think there is a shortage of people in this year’s field who truly understand that concept and share my thoughts on the role on government.  Three of them who come pretty close though, and one of them is my choice for 2012.

I gave serious consideration to Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, but I endorse Rick Santorum for President.  Although some candidates are better on some issues, Santorum is an across-the-board conservative who will move this country in the right direction on a wide range of issues.  Over the course of his career as a Congressman and Senator from Pennsylvania, Santorum stood firmly on the principles we share, even risking his political career to do so.  There was a reason he was my favorite Senator in the 1990s.  Whether you’re most concerned about fiscal issues, social issues, or foreign policy, you can trust Rick Santorum.  He won’t let us down.  He deserves your vote.

Rick Santorum has a bold proposal to lower tax rates and simplify the code.  That plan calls for five deductions and two brackets, 10 percent and 28 percent.  It would also reduce the capital gains tax to 12 percent, lower the basic corporate tax rate to 17 percent, and provide a generous, one-time repatriation rate of five percent to encourage business with off-shore money to reinvest in America.  Santorum’s plan isn’t my ideal system; I prefer a flat tax (Gingrich proposes a 15 percent flat tax and Perry a 20 percent flat tax; however, both would make the plan optional and not provide the simplicity of Santorum’s plan), lower corporate rates than Santorum proposes, and a zero percent capital gains rate.  Nevertheless, Santorum’s plan lowers rates and simplifies the code.  Add in Santorum’s plans for reductions in the size of government and deregulation, and you have an economic program that will remove obstacles to private-sector job creation and allow the American people to do what they do with less interference from the state.

[read more…]

{ 2 comments }

Like Ryan, I am less than thrilled with the 2012 GOP Presidential field.  Four years ago to this very day I endorsed Mitt Romney for President – reluctantly so.  Today, I am as unsure about my choice as I was four years ago.  Throughout this whole campaign, I, along with the rest of the GOP faithful, have struggled to find that “anti-Romney” candidate — Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich.  All have been shown to have flaws.  While Romney would certainly be preferable to Obama, his record and history of changing positions is troubling.

In the past several days, people have been turning to a new candidate, one who has a solid record of Conservatism and is probably the closest we can get to a true electable conservative, and that candidate is whom I am endorsing for President.  That candidate is former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

Sen. Santorum is as solid of a Conservative as anyone.  Sure, he has his flaws.  He towed the party line a little too often for my liking (supporting Arlen Specter for Senate, for example).  Yet among the field of GOP candidates, he is solid in all three pillars of Conservatism – a solid economic conservative, solid on foreign policy, and solid on social issues.  He is the complete package on core values.  The question is, is he electable.

Throughout the campaign, I would see debate performances of Santorum on the Weekly GOP Debate Show™, and wonder why Santorum wasn’t polling better.  He consistently performed well in debates and never had any gaffes that were characteristic of other candidates.  He was elected twice to Congress (1990 and 1992) and then twice to the U.S. Senate (1994 and 2000) in the blue state of Pennsylvania.  He lost in 2006 because of Bush fatigue and war fatigue, while staying strong on the topic of national security in the war in Iraq.  That loss says more about him than anything.  He refused compromise his principles for political expediency (*cough* Mitt Romney *cough*).  The fact that he won multiple times in such a blue state as such a Conservative shows that he is electable.  He’s our best choice all around, which is why he has my endorsement.

Like Ryan, I’m also going to take a brief look at the other candidates and why they do not get my vote (although, as Ryan says, would all be better than Obama):

  • Mitt Romney:  There’s something wrong when the proclaimed front runner can’t run away with it and candidate after candidate has emerged as the potential “anti-Romney”.  He’s a problematic candidate with a record of flip-flopping that will be detrimental in the general election.
  • Rick Perry:  I had high hopes for him, and early on he was my favorite candidate.  However, when it comes to debates, he makes George W. Bush look like Ronald Reagan.
  • Newt Gingrich was a contender for me, but he goes on weird thought experiments and has a view of the role of the state in solving problems that worries me.  He also has a lot of baggage that he has to contend with.  Still, there’s a lot I like about Newt and I’d prefer him to Romney, because at least then you know where he stands.
  • I like a lot of what Michele Bachmann has to say, and I think that she is a good person, but she strikes me as just a little, shall we say, crazy for the general electorate.
  • Jon Huntsman is a liberal.  Enough said.
  • Ron Paul is a nut job.  Enough said.

{ 0 comments }

There’s been a bit of theoretical buzz out there about the future of Britain in the European Union.  Britain doesn’t quite fit in and ultimately, with the impending collapse of the euro a real possibility in the next few years, along with a hidebound European Union dragging them down, some have postulated that Britain needs to dump the EU and strengthen its ties with North America — even joining NAFTA!  Some even quip that America should be repatriated into the British Empire!

All in good fun.

But playing with this idea one sees that America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (aka- the other parts of the English-speaking world, or the “anglosphere”) make up a remarkably successful and stable group of nations much closer to Britain in custom and culture than Europe.  These former British colonies are economically driven, not bogged down with cross-border social control schemes like Europe.  Tying closer them together would not attempt to interfere with their social welfare-state distinctions (though it might help if we embraced a more 1980-90s American model);  it would be about free-flowing money and trade.

I’m a fan of the anlgosphere, if world economics should move us in that direction.  History has clearly shown over the last 300 years that speaking English and embracing decentralized market forces in one’s economy is a far better model than any other in maintaining economic, military, and social stability.  The World Wars psychologically damaged Europe, constantly pushing them towards forced integration and awkwardly imposed international schemes designed to prevent future continental conflict.  The EU and euro are manifestations of this forced integration (so is the UN, by the way).

That is why Europe’s latest experiments are likely due to fail, prompting the savvy British to one day have to mull over other options.

{ 0 comments }

Happy New Year to all! 

Hope you had a fun, safe, and slightly blurry evening.  Try to avoid making lengthy or numerous resolutions — just do it!

2012 turns out to be an important year for the future direction of our country.  Actual votes are finally being cast on Tuesday beginning America’s year-long attempt to replace President Obama.  Whether or not we replace Obama will determine which direction our nation will head:  do we start moving away from a seemingly inevitable economic abyss or continue to careen towards it with reckless abandon?  America will do what every blessed democracy has the ability to do — choose our own destiny.

{ 0 comments }

As a long-time conservative recently inspired and motivated by the Tea Party over the past few years, I do not love any of the candidates who have emerged to potentially challenge Barack Obama in next year’s election.  They do not seem to understand the gravity of the problems we face — any endorsement I make will have an asterisk.  Thanks, Reagan, for spoiling us.

That being said, I think Marco Rubio’s solid and Paul Ryan’s got moxie.  Neither of whom are running, however.  So that leaves us with the field as it exists.  Last time around I endorsed Mitt Romney — this time I won’t be.    Unlike Ann Coulter, I’m going to name the person I endorse:

For the 2012 Republican nomination, I endorse Newt Gingrich.

Looking at the field and understanding that it is in the primaries where one votes their conscience before holding their nose in the Fall, I have decided that Newt Gingrich is the best fit for my vote in 2012:  he has a record of conservative legislative accomplishments in difficult partisan environments;  though sometimes tends to brainstorm out loud, he has a great mind and can articulate not just what he’s doing, but why it is important; and he has a depth of knowledge on so many issues that I think he’d be best prepared to deal with any “3am phone calls” that might come his way as President.  While Newt finds an ideological use for big government and has a bit of a temper at times, I still like him slightly better than the others in the field.

So why not any one else in the pack (they’d all be better than Obama)?

  • Mitt Romney is all over the place;  thus he is the standard for what we’ll end up with if no one else emerges — not a ringing endorsement of his candidacy if he is perceived by primary voters as merely the default choice.
  • Rick Perry…  Would you buy a car from this man?  Me neither.
  • Rick Santorum in a different year under different circumstances might get my vote, but in this cycle, I’m going with experience and a wider range of accomplishments.  Tough though.
  • Michele Bachmann seems too divisive to give much of a challenge to Obama.
  • Jon Huntsman is a Democrat plant (so may be Donald Trump).
  • Ron Paul is great on the Fed and sound money, but is a hidebound crackpot on foreign policy.

{ 2 comments }

Here’s a clip that’s been going around from the Newt 2012 campaign where Newt tells the story of Washington’s crossing Christmas Night 1776:

I didn’t get the sense that Newt was comparing himself to George Washington, just that he was trying to evoke a little patriotism as a tool to get more votes in Iowa next week.  Still, I love this Newt — the professor, the teacher, the optimist.

{ 0 comments }

Ben Nelson to Retire

by Mike on December 27, 2011

in Election 2012,Politics

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2012.  This announcement is the political equivalent of trying to maintain the upper hand in a relationship.

After playing hard to get for months during the negotiations over Obamacare, Nelson eventually voted for the legislation (and guaranteed its passage) after securing special privileges for his state through what became known as the Cornhusker Kickback.  Instead of being received as a hero as he expected, the once-popular Nelson’s approval rating plummeted to the point where the guy couldn’t even go out for some pizza without being jeered.  In relationship terms, he called his partners fat and they vowed never to speak to him again.

Basically, he was going to lose if he ran again.  Rather than running for re-election (the equivalent of calling the girl back after a fight), Nelson decided to retire and thereby keep what he sees as the upper hand in his relationship with the people of Nebraska.  I suppose Nelson can think whatever he wants.  Either way, the nation doesn’t have to listen to him anymore.

{ 0 comments }

On behalf of all of us here at AOR, let me express our firm wishes that you and your family have a very Merry (and potentially holy) Christmas!

{ 0 comments }

Great ad from American Crossroads mocking Barack Obama:

Positive and serious ads will be necessary too, but next year’s GOP nominee should incorporate ridicule into next year’s campaign. Dear Leader is incredibly thin-skinned and won’t react well when he and his record are mocked.  Even John McCain polled well in 2008 when his campaign ridiculed Obama.

Hat tip:  Gateway Pundit

{ 0 comments }

Newt Gingrich stumbled badly when he complained about the negative ads being run against him in Iowa and asked Mitt Romney to get them taken off the air.  As Rich Lowry reminds us, a campaign is probably not in a good place when a candidate whines about process.  And it was definitely a smart move for Mitt Romney to playfully rub salt in the wound  by reminding Gingrich that it can get hot in the political kitchen.

Tonight, Gingrich stopped the whining and got back on his feet when he did what he probably should have done in the first place and challenged Romney to a one-on-one 90 minute policy debate with no moderator.  If Romney accepts, Gingrich will participate in a well-publicized free media event that plays to his strengths without other viable candidates cluttering the stage.  If Romney declines, Gingrich can play the chicken card.

He should have taken this approach in the first place, but better late than never.

{ 0 comments }

Trust me when I tell you:  it may be 17 minutes long, but you do not want to miss the following video.  In this clip from a European Union conference on innovation, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary tells the story of his airline’s success while repeatedly criticizing the EU’s boneheaded policies.

I loved this speech because it is full of the kind of common sense that is becoming less common every day.  It is amazing what people and businesses can accomplish when government steps aside and simply allows people to do what they do.  In the case of Ryanair, you get a successful business that provides jobs to a wide variety of people and consumers who can quickly travel across Europe at an affordable price.

Imagine what would happen if governments followed this approach more often.  Of course, it’s also important for businesses and people also need to be consistent in their support for the free market.

Hat tips to Daniel Hannan and Creative Minority Report.

{ 0 comments }