A morning that started off with ripe speculation that the Dear Leader, President Obama, was going to pull a switch of positions by the end of the day ended up, as I could have told you, with no move made.
As I was heading for the day job, speculation was rampant that Vice-President Dim Wit Joe Biden would be replaced in his job by the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, wife of the former president, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
I mean, this has been a really crappy week for Vice-President Dim Wit.
At one campaign rally in Danville, Virginia, our illustrious vice-president made not one, not two, but three major blunders.
First, Vice-President Dim Wit tried to make a point about what he and the Dear Leader, President Obama, see as a big policy of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. You must watch the video for the full effect of Vice-President Dim Wit's point. Whether anyone likes it or not, when one from the North does a Southern drawl and says, "He's gonna put y'all back in chains!"
there is no need for any attempt at "context". Oh, did I mention that the crowd in Danville was more than half Black? Get it? Even though Vice-President Dim Wit was talking about banking regulation and somehow slipped in a loaded phrase in Southern and maybe Black dialect.
I do not really have to write this, but I will.
If a White Republican, oh I don't know, maybe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) had uttered the phrase to a Black audience, would he be the Republican vice-presidential nominee beyond 48 hours?
OK, while talking like a clown to said Virginia audience, he implores the multitudes to get out and work hard. So that Team Dear Leader can win. North Carolina.
Last I knew, one can not be in two places at once. I guess unless you are our illustrious vice-president. I think he is on two planets at once.
And to top that off, according to some reports, Vice-President Dim Wit was mocking the woman to his left doing the sign-language for those hard-of-hearing and or deaf.
Brilliant I say! Frickin' brilliant!
So today, The Weekly Standard fueled rampant speculation that today maybe a big day in the Democrat presidential campaign.
OK, it did not happen. One can not look at a White House schedule and assume much of anything.
It is known that when the president and vice-president do lunch, it is usually on a Thursday afternoon.
So, what about this meeting with Mrs. Clinton? Why the three of them together?
Does not matter because of this writing, Vice-President Dim Wit is still a heartbeat away from the presidency.
GULP!!!!!
OK, this conservative Republican is going to explain to the panicky Dems why there will not be a switch in vice-presidents unless Vice President Dim Wit dies before the election.
1) The Dear Leader, President Obama, can not admit the biggest mistake he made-before becoming president.
Yup, on that fateful day back in 2008, a Saturday afternoon in August then Democrat senator Messiah Barack asked one of the longest-serving senators in history to be his vice-president. We on the Republican side and the right laughed uproariously. Democrats thought it was brilliant because they kind of thought then Sen. Dim Wit was brilliant. At the time, I said that this decision will come to haunt then Sen. Messiah Barack. While Sen. Messiah Barack did win the election, it was certainly because of Sen. Dim Wit. I would say it was despite him. The United States was war-weary and economically on the ropes. And like it or not, Sen. Messiah Barack was saying all the right things.
Since the election, Vice-President Dim Wit has made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. But one thing is that he singlehandedly forced the Dear Leader, President Obama, to finally come out of the closet and publicly support same-sex marriage. But by doing so way before the Democrat convention in two weeks, opponents have been able to mobilize and probably will be part of the voting coalition that votes out the Dear Leader, President Obama and Vice-President Dim Wit. I believe that if the Dear Leader, President Obama, had to do it all over again, he would have asked Hillary Clinton.
2) A switch this late reeks of total desperation.
Of course it does. How can anyone spin it that it does not look like as the Dear Leader, President Obama, is slipping he suddenly pulls off a switcharoo? Not event the Obamawhore media would be able to pull it off without looking like buffoons. If any one thinks that Mrs. Clinton will save the day without huge concessions on the Dear Leader, President Obama's part, again, they are kidding themselves. Had a switch been seriously contemplated, it would have occurred at the beginning of this year. Again, unless Vice-President Dim Wit dies before the convention, he will be on the ticket. Timing is everything, and doing such a monumental change now would prove to be desperate.
3) Possible constitutional problems.
If a switch is to be made, what would happen to Vice-President Dim Wit Biden? Would he serve the term to January 20, 2013? If not and it was to be Mrs. Clinton, she would have to be confirmed by the senate. Won't. Happen. Republicans would do all in their power to keep the vice-presidency vacant. Because guess who would then be next in line? Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner. A very real reason that this change will not happen.
4) Why would Mrs. Clinton want to help the Dear Leader, President Obama, and vice versa?
Exactly! The reality is that Mrs. Clinton would not want to really help the Dear Leader, President Obama, save his sorry butt. And he may not want to see Mrs. Clinton actually succeed him should, God forbid, he win a second term. I think that while there is cordial, professional relationship between the two, I do not think that they like each other. If she were to somehow step up and they lose, it will be hard for her to be a real front runner for the Dems in 2016. Just a fact. And if they were to win, who would really be in charge? See reason number two again.
5) All this exposes a weak, tired and old Democrat bench.
The fact of the matter is that in 2016, Mrs. Clinton will be 70 years old. Vice-President Dim Wit Biden, should he not be committed to a supervised senior housing center, would be a ripe old 76. What about the new generation of Democrats? Who are they? Look at the congressional leadership, almost all fossils themselves. Again, while Mitt Romney would also be 70 years old, look at a Vice-President Paul Ryan, not yet even 50 years old. And congressional leaders, some about the same age as Mr. Ryan as well as many governors.
Though I went through a list, not nearly full at that, the short reality is that Hillary Clinton will not be the vice-presidential candidate under the Dear Leader, President Obama. Dim Wit Joe Biden is it. And once again, it will prove to be a possible costly choice of judgement made by Barack Obama.
I leave you with this thought.
To get out of a room, choose who worries you more as vice-president or potential vice-president. Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Why Do Rockers Harass REPUBLICAN Candidates For Using Their Songs?
Here is the latest example of a rock band that does not like when a Republican candidate, in this case presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney vs the Silversun Pickups.
Well, the Silversun Pickups not only do not like the Romney/Ryan campaign using their hit song Panic Switch, but they proclaim their utter dislike for Mr. Romney.
So, because of their blind dislike of Mr. Romney, Silversun Pickups issued a cease and desist order that essentially bans the Romney/Ryan team from using it and any of their other songs at campaign events. They base the claim on the fact that the Romey/Ryan did not ask for their permission to use the particular song.
OK, the band probably has a marginal point. That Team Romney/Ryan should have asked for permission to use the song. But, judging by the overall reaction of the band, I think that would be a big fat nay!
Silversun Pickups mail objection is that using their song at an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Romney/Ryan rally implies they support the GOP team. Maybe some people would believe that. But the majority of people at any given GOP rally know that some music is canned to fire up the crowd. I am certain that the majority of people in a GOP rally crowd probably are muttering "What?! I can't understand a word of that song!"
Give Team Romney/Ryan credit that they are using pop/rock music at campaign events. While I do not expect a boatload of young people to suddenly become part of America's Comeback Team, it shows a willingness that often belies Republican campaigns of any kind.
But the larger picture is this.
Why do rockers and bands have an immediate dislike when their songs are used at campaign rallies? Especially Republican ones?
Confession time.
I like the Silversun Pickups. Good music. Kind of popish, but a lot of lesser known songs have more of an edge, such as The Royal We.
But again, methinks that these bands just want to make sure that they are seen as anti-establishment. Not realizing that if their dude is the Dear Leader, President Obama, they are supporting the establishment. It is indeed truly anti-establishment to support conservatives and or Republicans.
These bands are short sighted because, here is a dirty little know fact. A lot of conservatives and Republicans do like rock music. A lot like alternative, metal, all kinds of rock music. By seemingly making a big deal about Team Romney/Ryan using Panic Switch, they are potentially alienating a lot of fans.
Someone like myself pretty much expect this from bands that I like. So if I really like a band and know that they are out there on this kind of stuff, I will comment on it, but it will not make me dislike them. Another substantive difference between most conservatives and most liberals. As I wrote, I will not suddenly hate Silversun Pickups but question their open dislike, no hate against Mr. Romney. Band lead singer Brian Aubert said this according to the gossip website TMZ.com:
"We don't like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don't like the Romney campaign. We're nice, approachable people. We won't bite. Unless you're Mitt Romney!"
Like I wrote, they don't like Mr. Romney and would not have let them use the song had they asked.
That is their right. But banning their song from being played is just being spiteful. Again some fans could take this personally. I do not.
The bigger lesson both sides should take from this is that it is important that Republican staffs should at the very least ask a band for permission using their music. And to be clear that it is not going to be used as a sign that said band supports a candidate if they do not. They could be very surprised. And bands should not over react and sound so, well so establishment. With all the ways that music can and is accessed today, and free publicity never hurts, they should see it as a way to reach a potential new audience.
Rockers, lighten up and Republicans, just ask next time you want to use a song. That way everyone can be happy.
Oh, Brian Aubert. We Republicans are nice, very approachable people. And we don't bite either. And even though you are wrong politically, I still like you and your music.
Well, the Silversun Pickups not only do not like the Romney/Ryan campaign using their hit song Panic Switch, but they proclaim their utter dislike for Mr. Romney.
So, because of their blind dislike of Mr. Romney, Silversun Pickups issued a cease and desist order that essentially bans the Romney/Ryan team from using it and any of their other songs at campaign events. They base the claim on the fact that the Romey/Ryan did not ask for their permission to use the particular song.
OK, the band probably has a marginal point. That Team Romney/Ryan should have asked for permission to use the song. But, judging by the overall reaction of the band, I think that would be a big fat nay!
Silversun Pickups mail objection is that using their song at an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Romney/Ryan rally implies they support the GOP team. Maybe some people would believe that. But the majority of people at any given GOP rally know that some music is canned to fire up the crowd. I am certain that the majority of people in a GOP rally crowd probably are muttering "What?! I can't understand a word of that song!"
Give Team Romney/Ryan credit that they are using pop/rock music at campaign events. While I do not expect a boatload of young people to suddenly become part of America's Comeback Team, it shows a willingness that often belies Republican campaigns of any kind.
But the larger picture is this.
Why do rockers and bands have an immediate dislike when their songs are used at campaign rallies? Especially Republican ones?
Confession time.
I like the Silversun Pickups. Good music. Kind of popish, but a lot of lesser known songs have more of an edge, such as The Royal We.
But again, methinks that these bands just want to make sure that they are seen as anti-establishment. Not realizing that if their dude is the Dear Leader, President Obama, they are supporting the establishment. It is indeed truly anti-establishment to support conservatives and or Republicans.
These bands are short sighted because, here is a dirty little know fact. A lot of conservatives and Republicans do like rock music. A lot like alternative, metal, all kinds of rock music. By seemingly making a big deal about Team Romney/Ryan using Panic Switch, they are potentially alienating a lot of fans.
Someone like myself pretty much expect this from bands that I like. So if I really like a band and know that they are out there on this kind of stuff, I will comment on it, but it will not make me dislike them. Another substantive difference between most conservatives and most liberals. As I wrote, I will not suddenly hate Silversun Pickups but question their open dislike, no hate against Mr. Romney. Band lead singer Brian Aubert said this according to the gossip website TMZ.com:
"We don't like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don't like the Romney campaign. We're nice, approachable people. We won't bite. Unless you're Mitt Romney!"
Like I wrote, they don't like Mr. Romney and would not have let them use the song had they asked.
That is their right. But banning their song from being played is just being spiteful. Again some fans could take this personally. I do not.
The bigger lesson both sides should take from this is that it is important that Republican staffs should at the very least ask a band for permission using their music. And to be clear that it is not going to be used as a sign that said band supports a candidate if they do not. They could be very surprised. And bands should not over react and sound so, well so establishment. With all the ways that music can and is accessed today, and free publicity never hurts, they should see it as a way to reach a potential new audience.
Rockers, lighten up and Republicans, just ask next time you want to use a song. That way everyone can be happy.
Oh, Brian Aubert. We Republicans are nice, very approachable people. And we don't bite either. And even though you are wrong politically, I still like you and your music.
Friday, August 10, 2012
IT'S ROMNEY/RYAN*
*-Just in case I am wrong, but the tea leaves do say otherwise
In less than eight hours, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is expected to announce that he will ask United States Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be his running mate in the 2012 presidential election.
So as I note the tea leaves.
Consider this earlier today report from Robert Costa of National Review Online. He may have been the one to call it and do so early.
Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot explained how this now seems to be the way it goes down, based on the way Team McCain did it in 2008.
If one thinks that this is all a head fake and Mr. Romney is going to have someone else with him in Norfolk, Virginia in front of the U. S. S. Wisconsin, this reporting from Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard would suggest that the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, is ready to go all out regarding the choice.
Again, I do not believe it is a head fake of any kind. This is it.
So, what to make of this choice?
I think that it is a great choice.
Paul Ryan is the man that gets the problem in Washington. He wants to address cutting the debt, deficit and entitlement reform. He is totally on board with repealing and replacing the horrible Obamacare. He is veteran enough in Washington, yet still is seen as an outsider. He is a hawk on foreign policy. He is a Roman Catholic. And he is young. Mr. Ryan is 42 years old.
Yes, I would have loved to see someone like the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, or United States senator, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), but these are important people that need to be where they are. Mr. Rubio is probably one of, if not the leading conservative voice in the senate. He too is young and one can see him as a senate majority leader possibly sooner rather than later. After all, he was the Speaker of the House in the Florida House of Representatives.
Mrs. Haley needs to continue her reform agenda in Columbia. No doubt she is a fighter and survived a horrible primary and a narrow election win in 2010. And she has hit some bumps in the road. But reform, ah it is always hard. Ask Sarah Palin.
Paul Ryan will make a great number two and a superior vice-president to the dim bulb occupying that position today, Joe Biden.
Tomorrow at this time, it will be official.
ROMNEY/RYAN '12
And the real campaign begins in earnest.
In less than eight hours, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is expected to announce that he will ask United States Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to be his running mate in the 2012 presidential election.
So as I note the tea leaves.
Consider this earlier today report from Robert Costa of National Review Online. He may have been the one to call it and do so early.
Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot explained how this now seems to be the way it goes down, based on the way Team McCain did it in 2008.
If one thinks that this is all a head fake and Mr. Romney is going to have someone else with him in Norfolk, Virginia in front of the U. S. S. Wisconsin, this reporting from Stephen Hayes and Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard would suggest that the Wisconsin governor, Scott Walker, is ready to go all out regarding the choice.
Again, I do not believe it is a head fake of any kind. This is it.
So, what to make of this choice?
I think that it is a great choice.
Paul Ryan is the man that gets the problem in Washington. He wants to address cutting the debt, deficit and entitlement reform. He is totally on board with repealing and replacing the horrible Obamacare. He is veteran enough in Washington, yet still is seen as an outsider. He is a hawk on foreign policy. He is a Roman Catholic. And he is young. Mr. Ryan is 42 years old.
Yes, I would have loved to see someone like the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, or United States senator, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), but these are important people that need to be where they are. Mr. Rubio is probably one of, if not the leading conservative voice in the senate. He too is young and one can see him as a senate majority leader possibly sooner rather than later. After all, he was the Speaker of the House in the Florida House of Representatives.
Mrs. Haley needs to continue her reform agenda in Columbia. No doubt she is a fighter and survived a horrible primary and a narrow election win in 2010. And she has hit some bumps in the road. But reform, ah it is always hard. Ask Sarah Palin.
Paul Ryan will make a great number two and a superior vice-president to the dim bulb occupying that position today, Joe Biden.
Tomorrow at this time, it will be official.
ROMNEY/RYAN '12
And the real campaign begins in earnest.
Thursday, August 09, 2012
Desperate Obamawhoring
OK, I will be the first to admit that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has not had the best couple of weeks. The reasons will be addressed in another post.
This post is about the Leftywhore/Obamawhore media (one in the same, folks) and their shilling for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
In this article in today's Left Angeles Times here is another case in point.
It is about wind energy in Iowa.
Well, it is really about how Mr. Romney wants to let a wind-energy tax credit expire and supposedly this is the issue that will turn against Mr. Romney.
And the article says that many conservatives are upset with Mr. Romney's position. Why the article even has extensive thoughts from a Rob Hach. And the article dutifully notes Mr. Hach is a "life-long Republican". And whats more, he is sooo mad at Mr. Romney that he will vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in the fall election. Later in the article it claims that Mr. Hach is a conservative. And further more, he does not want a handout.
OK, a couple of things.
When the Leftywhore/Obamawhore media use the term "life-long Republican", it is immediately to be suspect. They just take what someone says at face value. Most of the time, it will turn out that the so-called "life-long Republican" is more or less not a conservative and one that has on more than one occasion voted for a Democrat.
And when one claims to be a conservative, says that they do not want a government handout and yet ate at the front of the line for a tax credit, this is not a conservative. In fact, the article says this about people like Mr. Hach:
Wind advocates say they just need a few more years of government help to get the industry on its feet.
Really?!
Did the automakers back in the day need government to help it along? Hey, how about airplanes? Radios? One can go on and on.
If the wind industry needs such help, it is probably not ever going to get off it's knees let alone on their feet.
To be fair, the article did point out that there are Iowa voters that don't care about wind tax credits.
There were quite a lot of people out to see Mr. Romney this past Wednesday and many shared the views of a small businessman, Chris Bobst:
"I think they should eliminate all tax credits. I own a small business. When it isn't working out, no one bails me out."
Bingo! Give this dude a cigar! He is spot on!
As a Republican and conservative, I believe that Mr. Bobst represents what the party really believes. Mr. Hach believes in a pipe dream. One that the federal government can not afford at this time with looming deficits and debt so far out that the eyes of all Americans can not see it.
But the thrust of the Times article is that see, Mr. Romney is turning off his own base. Why "life-long Republicans" are not only going not vote for him, but some will vote against him.
It is one of the oldest Leftywhore/Obamawhore media tricks. It is trotted out almost on cue every election cycle.
However, what is almost never reported is a story the other way. About disgruntled Democrats. How they are not happy with their leader. How some "life-long Democrats" will not vote in November. Or even some that will vote for the Republican.
Nope, never see those stories, do you?
It is as I wrote in the headline.
Desperate Obamawhoring.
It is not serious reporting and or analysis. If it where then there would be a similar article about the Democrats. But rarely is there one.
And note this because it is very important.
Republicans usually need more Democrats to vote for them than Democrats need Republicans to vote for them.
So there has to be disgruntled Democrats.
It is too bad that the so-called mainstream media seems to never notice that.
It is always and only about disgruntled Republicans.
This post is about the Leftywhore/Obamawhore media (one in the same, folks) and their shilling for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
In this article in today's Left Angeles Times here is another case in point.
It is about wind energy in Iowa.
Well, it is really about how Mr. Romney wants to let a wind-energy tax credit expire and supposedly this is the issue that will turn against Mr. Romney.
And the article says that many conservatives are upset with Mr. Romney's position. Why the article even has extensive thoughts from a Rob Hach. And the article dutifully notes Mr. Hach is a "life-long Republican". And whats more, he is sooo mad at Mr. Romney that he will vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in the fall election. Later in the article it claims that Mr. Hach is a conservative. And further more, he does not want a handout.
OK, a couple of things.
When the Leftywhore/Obamawhore media use the term "life-long Republican", it is immediately to be suspect. They just take what someone says at face value. Most of the time, it will turn out that the so-called "life-long Republican" is more or less not a conservative and one that has on more than one occasion voted for a Democrat.
And when one claims to be a conservative, says that they do not want a government handout and yet ate at the front of the line for a tax credit, this is not a conservative. In fact, the article says this about people like Mr. Hach:
Wind advocates say they just need a few more years of government help to get the industry on its feet.
Really?!
Did the automakers back in the day need government to help it along? Hey, how about airplanes? Radios? One can go on and on.
If the wind industry needs such help, it is probably not ever going to get off it's knees let alone on their feet.
To be fair, the article did point out that there are Iowa voters that don't care about wind tax credits.
There were quite a lot of people out to see Mr. Romney this past Wednesday and many shared the views of a small businessman, Chris Bobst:
"I think they should eliminate all tax credits. I own a small business. When it isn't working out, no one bails me out."
Bingo! Give this dude a cigar! He is spot on!
As a Republican and conservative, I believe that Mr. Bobst represents what the party really believes. Mr. Hach believes in a pipe dream. One that the federal government can not afford at this time with looming deficits and debt so far out that the eyes of all Americans can not see it.
But the thrust of the Times article is that see, Mr. Romney is turning off his own base. Why "life-long Republicans" are not only going not vote for him, but some will vote against him.
It is one of the oldest Leftywhore/Obamawhore media tricks. It is trotted out almost on cue every election cycle.
However, what is almost never reported is a story the other way. About disgruntled Democrats. How they are not happy with their leader. How some "life-long Democrats" will not vote in November. Or even some that will vote for the Republican.
Nope, never see those stories, do you?
It is as I wrote in the headline.
Desperate Obamawhoring.
It is not serious reporting and or analysis. If it where then there would be a similar article about the Democrats. But rarely is there one.
And note this because it is very important.
Republicans usually need more Democrats to vote for them than Democrats need Republicans to vote for them.
So there has to be disgruntled Democrats.
It is too bad that the so-called mainstream media seems to never notice that.
It is always and only about disgruntled Republicans.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Is Romney Really Leading In Some Of Those Swing States?
The short answer to the headline is yes.
The complicated answer is probably.
The out there answer is hell yes!
At this link to Real Clear Politics, if you look over at the Battleground polls, the 12 states featured 10 of them show the Dear Leader, President Obama, in a lead of some kind. Only two of the twelve, Missouri (why it is considered a battleground state beats me) and North Carolina (slowly but surely moving out as a battleground state) are in Mr. Romney's camp.
So lets look at this state by state starting with the Dear Leader, President Obama. This will go from the smallest lead to the largest according to the RCP state polling average.
Iowa Obama +1.3%
Florida Obama +1.4%
Colorado Obama +2.7%
Virginia Obama +2.8%
New Hampshire Obama +3%
Ohio Obama +4.3%
Nevada Obama +5.3%
Wisconsin Obama +6%
Michigan Obama +6.3%
Pennsylvania Obama +7%
The only one the 10 states that at this point look out of reach for Mr Romney is Pennsylvania. But I would not call this the way it it will go down in Pennsylvania or any of the other seemingly Dear Leader, President Obama states.
The average lead of the 10 states is 4.1% and in most polling data, it is within the margin of error.
Now, look at the two Romney states that are still considered battleground states.
North Carolina Romney +1%
Missouri Romney +5.7%
The two Romney states show him ahead by an average of 3.4%. Also in the margin of error.
But, of the Dear Leader states, Colorado is slowly going away from him. The fact that the Dear Leader is barely ahead in Virginia should be cause for concern. Ditto New Hampshire. And then there is Ohio.
Ohio is the state that can and will determine the election. At least for Mr. Romney. For no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. It is just that. Is it possible that this year history can change?
NO!
Because other than Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and at this point, I think that there is something that is at play here.
That people are still nervous about telling pollsters that they are not going to vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Regrettably, this is the fear of being called a racist. Even though one is anonymously answering a pollster's question, there is about five percent of any given state poll in which I do not believe the potential voters are answering honestly.
Some have referred to this as The Bradley Effect and it is in reference to the 1982 gubernatorial campaign between the Black Democrat mayor of Los Angeles and the Republican Attorney General, George Deukmejian.
In that election, poll after poll showed Mr. Bradley with a healthy lead over Mr. Deukmejian. And even on election day, exit polls seemed to show that Mr. Bradley would have been the first elected Black governor in California's history.
One thing happened.
A then new phenomenon called absentee voting was taken total advantage of by the Republican party. That year thousands if not millions of mailer were sent to Republican and Republican leaning voters asking them to register absentee and vote from the comfort and total privacy of their homes.
What happened is that Mr. Bradley barely won the majority of votes on election day and Mr. Deukmejian won a strong majority of the absentee votes and won the election by about 50,000 votes.
Yet why it is called the Bradley effect is that people were telling pollsters sure, they were going to vote for Mr. Bradley but some decided at the last minute to vote for Mr. Deukmejian. Or intended to all along but did not answer honestly for fear of being accused of raaaaacism.
Remember, there are five a's in racism to drive the point home!
Thus, I really believe that when all is said and done, Mr. Romney will win the following of the 10 battleground states currently leaning to the Dear Leader, President Obama (and the electoral votes)
Iowa 6
Florida 29
Colorado 9
Virginia 13
New Hampshire 4
Ohio 18
Nevada 6
And add the two states that are leaning to Mr. Romney:
Missouri 10
North Carolina 15
That, my friends, is 110 electoral votes.
And in the election of 2008, the Dear Leader, President Obama, had 365 electoral votes. Take away 110 electoral votes and we will be able to call him the former Dear Leader, former President Obama.
It is regrettable that in this election, and it is already one of the most charged in my lifetime, some people will not be honest with the pollsters. But they will be honest with themselves on election day. And that is why I think Mitt Romney is actually leading some of these battleground states. And that he will win enough to be the 45th president of the United States.
The complicated answer is probably.
The out there answer is hell yes!
At this link to Real Clear Politics, if you look over at the Battleground polls, the 12 states featured 10 of them show the Dear Leader, President Obama, in a lead of some kind. Only two of the twelve, Missouri (why it is considered a battleground state beats me) and North Carolina (slowly but surely moving out as a battleground state) are in Mr. Romney's camp.
So lets look at this state by state starting with the Dear Leader, President Obama. This will go from the smallest lead to the largest according to the RCP state polling average.
Iowa Obama +1.3%
Florida Obama +1.4%
Colorado Obama +2.7%
Virginia Obama +2.8%
New Hampshire Obama +3%
Ohio Obama +4.3%
Nevada Obama +5.3%
Wisconsin Obama +6%
Michigan Obama +6.3%
Pennsylvania Obama +7%
The only one the 10 states that at this point look out of reach for Mr Romney is Pennsylvania. But I would not call this the way it it will go down in Pennsylvania or any of the other seemingly Dear Leader, President Obama states.
The average lead of the 10 states is 4.1% and in most polling data, it is within the margin of error.
Now, look at the two Romney states that are still considered battleground states.
North Carolina Romney +1%
Missouri Romney +5.7%
The two Romney states show him ahead by an average of 3.4%. Also in the margin of error.
But, of the Dear Leader states, Colorado is slowly going away from him. The fact that the Dear Leader is barely ahead in Virginia should be cause for concern. Ditto New Hampshire. And then there is Ohio.
Ohio is the state that can and will determine the election. At least for Mr. Romney. For no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. It is just that. Is it possible that this year history can change?
NO!
Because other than Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and at this point, I think that there is something that is at play here.
That people are still nervous about telling pollsters that they are not going to vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Regrettably, this is the fear of being called a racist. Even though one is anonymously answering a pollster's question, there is about five percent of any given state poll in which I do not believe the potential voters are answering honestly.
Some have referred to this as The Bradley Effect and it is in reference to the 1982 gubernatorial campaign between the Black Democrat mayor of Los Angeles and the Republican Attorney General, George Deukmejian.
In that election, poll after poll showed Mr. Bradley with a healthy lead over Mr. Deukmejian. And even on election day, exit polls seemed to show that Mr. Bradley would have been the first elected Black governor in California's history.
One thing happened.
A then new phenomenon called absentee voting was taken total advantage of by the Republican party. That year thousands if not millions of mailer were sent to Republican and Republican leaning voters asking them to register absentee and vote from the comfort and total privacy of their homes.
What happened is that Mr. Bradley barely won the majority of votes on election day and Mr. Deukmejian won a strong majority of the absentee votes and won the election by about 50,000 votes.
Yet why it is called the Bradley effect is that people were telling pollsters sure, they were going to vote for Mr. Bradley but some decided at the last minute to vote for Mr. Deukmejian. Or intended to all along but did not answer honestly for fear of being accused of raaaaacism.
Remember, there are five a's in racism to drive the point home!
Thus, I really believe that when all is said and done, Mr. Romney will win the following of the 10 battleground states currently leaning to the Dear Leader, President Obama (and the electoral votes)
Iowa 6
Florida 29
Colorado 9
Virginia 13
New Hampshire 4
Ohio 18
Nevada 6
And add the two states that are leaning to Mr. Romney:
Missouri 10
North Carolina 15
That, my friends, is 110 electoral votes.
And in the election of 2008, the Dear Leader, President Obama, had 365 electoral votes. Take away 110 electoral votes and we will be able to call him the former Dear Leader, former President Obama.
It is regrettable that in this election, and it is already one of the most charged in my lifetime, some people will not be honest with the pollsters. But they will be honest with themselves on election day. And that is why I think Mitt Romney is actually leading some of these battleground states. And that he will win enough to be the 45th president of the United States.
Monday, August 06, 2012
How Liberalism Really Does Screw The Rich
This recent story in the Left Angeles Times may not seem like a big deal for it is a time-honored complaint about any given city and the seeming inability to fill in those potholes.
But what is really interesting is where this takes place and that the reaction of the local residents is to find a way to Escape From L. A.
The posh Los Angeles district of Holmby Hills is where this tale takes place. This is pretty much part of the fru-fru areas such as Brentwood and Bel Air. In other words where the rich residents of Los Angeles live.
And yet surprisingly, the potholes are pretty bad. According to the article, the tow-truck folks from AAA think the area is a gold mine for them based on their calls. And the highlight was on a Paul Kanin who blew out a front tire on his Audi A6.
A brief interlude.
Audis are pretty much a car that SWLPL*, so take that for what it is worth.
Back to point.
The lack of action to take care of the said potholes has so riled some members of the community that they are seriously looking to leave the city of Los Angeles and ask the equally snooty, yet seperate city of Beverly Hills to annex them.
The drive is being led by an attorney, of course, named William Fleischman.
Now, read this quote so that you are illuminated as to the headline:
"Holmby Hills pays millions of dollars to Los Angeles in property taxes, and we're getting back thousands of dollars in services,"
And Mr. Fleischman, welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.
Ironically, today the Dear Leader, President Obama, referred to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as Romney Hood. Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
But the reality is that in Los Angeles, it is the real Robin Hood that happens.
And Holmby Hills is not alone in their frustration with a city hall that caters to every fringe group in every fringe area leaving a lot of taxpayers, rich and middle class, hung out to dry.
For years, a portion of the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Los Angeles with a bunch of names like Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, West Hills, Granada Hills, Canoga Park and several others had wanted to seceed from Los Angeles and form their own city.
And guess why they wanted to?
Because they were getting screwed in how the public services were distritbuted in a city that is over 300 square miles and as diverse as Holmby Hills and South Central Los Angeles.
While the people in the poorer neighborhoods would disagree, the reality is that because they are more dependent on government services of all kinds, they get most of it.
And they get it from the San Fernando Valley and the wealthy neighborhoods that are mentioned above.
Only now that they have an issue, the lack of road maintanence, do they realize how screwed they are in the environs as Holmby Hills.
And the reason that their neighborhood is not being taken care of in a timely manner is rich.
Here is Richard Lee, spokestool for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works:
The city plans repairs years in advance.
"The Bureau of Street Services recognizes the need for street resurfacing in Holmby Hills and in neighborhoods across Los Angeles. While we sympathize with the concerns of neighbors .... the city wants to make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely."
OK, sure Richard.
I would like to see the planned repairs for 2017, just for the hell of it, Richard. Will these residents get taken care of then? Or do they have to keep getting blown tires for, oh I don't know, whenever they come under the plan?
Well my wealthy friends, you are seeing what the liberals that are in charge at city hall in downtown Los Angeles really think of you.
As Mr. Fleischman said, they paid boatloads to all kinds of government and all they are aksing is for a little road repair and they are given the "We'll get back to you" from the city.
But if they are late on any of the said taxes, well they would probably THEN hear from the city. To pay up.
But all the poor folks have to do is stir up a little trouble and BOOM! All the liberal pols and their hanger-ons will crawl over each other to talk about how we need to give more money to stop whatever grievence, real and or imagined, they bellow about. And the problem never gets solved while some mid-level schmuck gets his or her hands on taxpayer money and only the good Lord knows what they do with the money.
Eventually, people start to wise up. But it maybe too late.
As an eternal optimist, I hope that it is not too late for the city of Los Angeles to maybe get some of their public works people over to Holmby Hills and at the very least do something temporarily until the permanent solution can be done. You know. Because they plan these years ahead.
The lesson here is that yes, liberal governance does take from the rich. Yes it does give to the poor. And when the rich ask for a little measly road maintanence, they are told they have to wait until the city is good and ready to fix their real problems.
*-SWLPL-Stuff While Liberal People Like, aka Stuff White People Like.
HT: An Unmarried Man
But what is really interesting is where this takes place and that the reaction of the local residents is to find a way to Escape From L. A.
The posh Los Angeles district of Holmby Hills is where this tale takes place. This is pretty much part of the fru-fru areas such as Brentwood and Bel Air. In other words where the rich residents of Los Angeles live.
And yet surprisingly, the potholes are pretty bad. According to the article, the tow-truck folks from AAA think the area is a gold mine for them based on their calls. And the highlight was on a Paul Kanin who blew out a front tire on his Audi A6.
A brief interlude.
Audis are pretty much a car that SWLPL*, so take that for what it is worth.
Back to point.
The lack of action to take care of the said potholes has so riled some members of the community that they are seriously looking to leave the city of Los Angeles and ask the equally snooty, yet seperate city of Beverly Hills to annex them.
The drive is being led by an attorney, of course, named William Fleischman.
Now, read this quote so that you are illuminated as to the headline:
"Holmby Hills pays millions of dollars to Los Angeles in property taxes, and we're getting back thousands of dollars in services,"
And Mr. Fleischman, welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.
Ironically, today the Dear Leader, President Obama, referred to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as Romney Hood. Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
But the reality is that in Los Angeles, it is the real Robin Hood that happens.
And Holmby Hills is not alone in their frustration with a city hall that caters to every fringe group in every fringe area leaving a lot of taxpayers, rich and middle class, hung out to dry.
For years, a portion of the San Fernando Valley, which is essentially Los Angeles with a bunch of names like Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys, West Hills, Granada Hills, Canoga Park and several others had wanted to seceed from Los Angeles and form their own city.
And guess why they wanted to?
Because they were getting screwed in how the public services were distritbuted in a city that is over 300 square miles and as diverse as Holmby Hills and South Central Los Angeles.
While the people in the poorer neighborhoods would disagree, the reality is that because they are more dependent on government services of all kinds, they get most of it.
And they get it from the San Fernando Valley and the wealthy neighborhoods that are mentioned above.
Only now that they have an issue, the lack of road maintanence, do they realize how screwed they are in the environs as Holmby Hills.
And the reason that their neighborhood is not being taken care of in a timely manner is rich.
Here is Richard Lee, spokestool for the Los Angeles Department of Public Works:
The city plans repairs years in advance.
"The Bureau of Street Services recognizes the need for street resurfacing in Holmby Hills and in neighborhoods across Los Angeles. While we sympathize with the concerns of neighbors .... the city wants to make sure it is spending taxpayer money wisely."
OK, sure Richard.
I would like to see the planned repairs for 2017, just for the hell of it, Richard. Will these residents get taken care of then? Or do they have to keep getting blown tires for, oh I don't know, whenever they come under the plan?
Well my wealthy friends, you are seeing what the liberals that are in charge at city hall in downtown Los Angeles really think of you.
As Mr. Fleischman said, they paid boatloads to all kinds of government and all they are aksing is for a little road repair and they are given the "We'll get back to you" from the city.
But if they are late on any of the said taxes, well they would probably THEN hear from the city. To pay up.
But all the poor folks have to do is stir up a little trouble and BOOM! All the liberal pols and their hanger-ons will crawl over each other to talk about how we need to give more money to stop whatever grievence, real and or imagined, they bellow about. And the problem never gets solved while some mid-level schmuck gets his or her hands on taxpayer money and only the good Lord knows what they do with the money.
Eventually, people start to wise up. But it maybe too late.
As an eternal optimist, I hope that it is not too late for the city of Los Angeles to maybe get some of their public works people over to Holmby Hills and at the very least do something temporarily until the permanent solution can be done. You know. Because they plan these years ahead.
The lesson here is that yes, liberal governance does take from the rich. Yes it does give to the poor. And when the rich ask for a little measly road maintanence, they are told they have to wait until the city is good and ready to fix their real problems.
*-SWLPL-Stuff While Liberal People Like, aka Stuff White People Like.
HT: An Unmarried Man
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Can The Cali GOP Get It Together For November?
OK, the headline is not meant as a tease.
It is a serious question.
Sure, I know. Conventional wisdom says that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should not even bother to make any attempt here in the once Golden State. The Dear Leader, President Obama, has it in the bag.
Well, stories like this one last week will not help bring the Cali GOP back from the brink of the disastrous tenure of one Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. A tenure that saw some real promise end up being the remainder of former Democrat Governor Gray Davis' second term and a third term as well.
Lets face it. We Republicans saw what a "moderate" can do and it is not pretty.
But in this presidential election year, a year in which the Republican party can all but get the White House redecorated for the Romney's, California's GOP looks really bad.
In fact, the reality is that if Mr. Romney is going to make even a half-hearted effort in Cali, he will not do it with direction from the Cali GOP. It looks like Mr. Romney will make any effort on his own.
Also in the article, and this may be a key as to if Mr. Romney can be at least competitive here, is that a cluster of local county GOPs that are filling a void. And there is the "Young Guns" GOP super PAC that House majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) is heading trying to get several new GOP congressmen elected.
In other words, at this point, there is a shell known as the California Republican party, but what is needed are some wins somewhere for it to regain relevance.
The Cali GOP chairman, Tom Del Beccaro makes a valid point that there is only so much money going around. And that donors are putting it, to be blunt, in other vehicles than the Cali GOP. But even with money woes, what is needed is a wholesale restructuring of how the Cali GOP will work, strengthening the county parties and not wasting valuable cash.
But at the end of the day, this state party desperately needs strong, no-holds barred leadership. Not just a wonk. But in the absence of high-elected officials, is willing to take it to the state Democrat leadership and the national party in Washington. This is not a job that can be outsourced. It needs to come from someone like Mr. Del Beccaro.
To make it any kind of race in November, the California GOP needs to get it finances in order, its leadership on the same page and stronger county parties could make this state competitive at the presidential level and definitely at the congressional level. And even at the state assembly and senate races.
If we do not, Hello Massachusetts GOP!*
*At this writing, the Massachusetts GOP has only 11% of the total registered voters in the state. They are a third party.
It is a serious question.
Sure, I know. Conventional wisdom says that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should not even bother to make any attempt here in the once Golden State. The Dear Leader, President Obama, has it in the bag.
Well, stories like this one last week will not help bring the Cali GOP back from the brink of the disastrous tenure of one Governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. A tenure that saw some real promise end up being the remainder of former Democrat Governor Gray Davis' second term and a third term as well.
Lets face it. We Republicans saw what a "moderate" can do and it is not pretty.
But in this presidential election year, a year in which the Republican party can all but get the White House redecorated for the Romney's, California's GOP looks really bad.
In fact, the reality is that if Mr. Romney is going to make even a half-hearted effort in Cali, he will not do it with direction from the Cali GOP. It looks like Mr. Romney will make any effort on his own.
Also in the article, and this may be a key as to if Mr. Romney can be at least competitive here, is that a cluster of local county GOPs that are filling a void. And there is the "Young Guns" GOP super PAC that House majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) is heading trying to get several new GOP congressmen elected.
In other words, at this point, there is a shell known as the California Republican party, but what is needed are some wins somewhere for it to regain relevance.
The Cali GOP chairman, Tom Del Beccaro makes a valid point that there is only so much money going around. And that donors are putting it, to be blunt, in other vehicles than the Cali GOP. But even with money woes, what is needed is a wholesale restructuring of how the Cali GOP will work, strengthening the county parties and not wasting valuable cash.
But at the end of the day, this state party desperately needs strong, no-holds barred leadership. Not just a wonk. But in the absence of high-elected officials, is willing to take it to the state Democrat leadership and the national party in Washington. This is not a job that can be outsourced. It needs to come from someone like Mr. Del Beccaro.
To make it any kind of race in November, the California GOP needs to get it finances in order, its leadership on the same page and stronger county parties could make this state competitive at the presidential level and definitely at the congressional level. And even at the state assembly and senate races.
If we do not, Hello Massachusetts GOP!*
*At this writing, the Massachusetts GOP has only 11% of the total registered voters in the state. They are a third party.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Mitt, Do NOT Take Election Advice From Sen. McCain
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt!!!
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
I beg and plead with you, the Republican presumptive presidential nominee! I beseech thee!
DO NOT TAKE ANY, I MEAN ANY, ELECTION ADVICE FROM ONE SEN. JOHN "F--- YOU" McCAIN!!!!!
Remember folks, when Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the Republican presidential nominee how well he did against the current occupier of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Well, I think that the above paragraph does tend to say it all, does it not?
But that does not mean Sen. "F--- You" McCain and his lap dog Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham did not offer him "advice" anyhow.
According to this article, Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham decided to offer an "Intervention" on Mitt Romney's stand on illegal immigration and what to do about it.
Uh, this is the same Sen. "F--- You" McCain that, in 2010, had to run to the right of illegal alien candidate J. D. Hayworth just to secure the Arizona Republican senate nomination for his 800th term as the senior senator.
Understand that Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham have been the leading Republicans in the senate that would grant amnesty to those illegal aliens already here in the United States. Way back in 2007, these jokers were so desperate that they were trying every trick in the legislative book to get passage of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform".
These two clowns are and always have been for amnesty for illegal aliens. The overwhelming majority are from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America. As such, it is pandering in the nth degree.
Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham somehow believe that if Republicans soften up and just let these folks stay in the United States and eventually become citizens, why they will not forget us Republicans and hence give us a permanent majority.
Yup, just as they did in 1986 when at least then President Ronald Reagan called it what it was, amnesty.
Gee, I think that there has not been an election since then in which the majority of Hispanics have voted for a Republican presidential candidate. The high-water mark is supposedly 44% for then President George W. Bush in 2004.
The bottom line is that going down that same road again is a recipe for disaster for the Republican party.
And Mitt Romney should not accept ANY advice from two of the biggest loser in the Republican party today.
Yup, just ask that President McCain fellow.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Say, Isn't Chik-fil-a A Private Company? And You DON'T Have To Eat There, Right?
Is it not rich that when a company does not follow the Politically Correct dogma and they are open about it, the PC crowd goes bat ape crazy about it?
Well, the president of the chicken sandwich restaurant chain, Chik-fil-a, Dan Cathy, stepped in it last week in an interview with two different outlets and came out of the closet.
As a conservative.
As a Christian.
And a defender of and supporter of traditional marriage. That of one man and one woman.
Well, it is not that it has been a secret that Chik-fil-a is a company that is headed by conservative Christians. But Mr. Cathy has decided to throw caution to the wind and speak out on the subject of traditional marriage.
And oh boy, the homosexual rights crowd, well they are just going ballistic. And right on cue, some sycophantic Democrat pols are saying how terrible it is and even threatening to not let Chik-fil-a open up in their cities.
Why even the mayor of that peaceful, very little crime and murder tottlin' town of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, said that Chik-fil-a is NOT welcome. Mr. Emmanuel even went so far as to say that Chik-fil-a does not have "Chicago values". Please, do not upchuck that chicken sandwich that you may be enjoying right now. Really, how insulting is that? Oh, and this dude, "Minister" Calypso Louis Farrakhan has the right "Chicago values". I believe that "Minister" Farrakhan is as much an opponent of same-sex marriage as is Mr. Cathy. So I ask the obvious question. What is the difference between the two men? One is nothing but a loud-mouth, racist, anti-Semite. The other is a devout Christian businessman who actually employs people and makes communities a better place. But I guess in Mr. Emmanuel's sorry world that is Chicago, you need the best connection to the criminals to make them stop with the killing that makes Chi-town number one in something. Murders.
Let me get something straight. No pun intended.
I shop at many places that, quite frankly, do not share what I believe in or my world view. In a recent post in which I wrote about large coffee house chains, I expressed that I purchase from the three large ones in So Cal. And slightly lamented that there is not a chain, or even one, place called Righty Coffee. The point of that post indirectly ties in right here.
I have never been to a Chik-fil-a restaurant. For one, the nearest one is about 50 miles in Rancho Cucamonga. And unless I have a reason to be there, I won't make a special drive to partake in the chicken sandwich. I did not know much about Chik-fil-a until this kerfuffle. I figured that it probably faced similar backlash as another food institution with Southern roots, Cracker Barrel.
Here is something interesting about a well-known hamburger chain in So Cal, In-n-Out burgers.
If you look very closely below at the bottom of the cup, there is this:
Now I do not think that is all that subtle since it directs the person interested to the most famous verse in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
And on the package of fries is an obscure passage from the Old Testament book of Nahum.
Well, the president of the chicken sandwich restaurant chain, Chik-fil-a, Dan Cathy, stepped in it last week in an interview with two different outlets and came out of the closet.
As a conservative.
As a Christian.
And a defender of and supporter of traditional marriage. That of one man and one woman.
Well, it is not that it has been a secret that Chik-fil-a is a company that is headed by conservative Christians. But Mr. Cathy has decided to throw caution to the wind and speak out on the subject of traditional marriage.
And oh boy, the homosexual rights crowd, well they are just going ballistic. And right on cue, some sycophantic Democrat pols are saying how terrible it is and even threatening to not let Chik-fil-a open up in their cities.
Why even the mayor of that peaceful, very little crime and murder tottlin' town of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, said that Chik-fil-a is NOT welcome. Mr. Emmanuel even went so far as to say that Chik-fil-a does not have "Chicago values". Please, do not upchuck that chicken sandwich that you may be enjoying right now. Really, how insulting is that? Oh, and this dude, "Minister" Calypso Louis Farrakhan has the right "Chicago values". I believe that "Minister" Farrakhan is as much an opponent of same-sex marriage as is Mr. Cathy. So I ask the obvious question. What is the difference between the two men? One is nothing but a loud-mouth, racist, anti-Semite. The other is a devout Christian businessman who actually employs people and makes communities a better place. But I guess in Mr. Emmanuel's sorry world that is Chicago, you need the best connection to the criminals to make them stop with the killing that makes Chi-town number one in something. Murders.
Let me get something straight. No pun intended.
I shop at many places that, quite frankly, do not share what I believe in or my world view. In a recent post in which I wrote about large coffee house chains, I expressed that I purchase from the three large ones in So Cal. And slightly lamented that there is not a chain, or even one, place called Righty Coffee. The point of that post indirectly ties in right here.
I have never been to a Chik-fil-a restaurant. For one, the nearest one is about 50 miles in Rancho Cucamonga. And unless I have a reason to be there, I won't make a special drive to partake in the chicken sandwich. I did not know much about Chik-fil-a until this kerfuffle. I figured that it probably faced similar backlash as another food institution with Southern roots, Cracker Barrel.
Here is something interesting about a well-known hamburger chain in So Cal, In-n-Out burgers.
If you look very closely below at the bottom of the cup, there is this:
John 3:16
Now I do not think that is all that subtle since it directs the person interested to the most famous verse in the New Testament of the Holy Bible. And on the package of fries is an obscure passage from the Old Testament book of Nahum.
It is a little hard to see, but it directs the person to Nahum 1:7,
What, wait a minute? These people are, are putting biblical passages on their product! HOW DARE THEY! Why, I bet they are, are OH NOES! Eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll traditional, OH NO! Conservative Christians!
But hey, they must not be as Christian as Chik-fil-a. For In-n-Out is open on Sundays. Chik-fil-a loses a boatload of cash because they are actually closed on Sunday. And that is truly amazing in this day and age.
So, why do we not hear of their view on marriage? Because they choose not to. Simple as that.
It leads to the point of this post.
No one is forcing anyone to partake of Chik-fil-a. I do not think that Mr. Cathy is pulling people at gunpoint off the street to pony up to any of his restaurants. Same for In-n-Out. Same for Starbucks.
You see, that is the beauty of the free enterprise system. That it offers choice. If you want to partake of a business that shares many of your values, you can. And FTR, Chik-fil-a does not discriminate in service of hiring practices. I am absolutely certain that there are homosexuals working at many Chik-fil-a restaurants.
Because the CEO of the company was discussing the role of traditional marriage and the dangers, as he sees it, in the encroachment of same-sex marriage, he and a good chain are now in the cross hairs of the biggest bully class there is.
Left-wing homosexual activists.
In their world, once can not have an opinion or something that deviates from their scorched-earth policy of forcing "acceptance" every and anywhere.
I would like to ask all that buckle to these activists if they really have a change of heart or tire of the harassment and threatening nature of these "activists"
It is what leads to hysteria, lies and misstatements about Chik-fil-a and any other company that is led by conservative Americans.
Again, it is a choice. You do not have to eat there. Or shop there. Whatever. Because in the real world, we all find business that are led by people and ideology we may not like.
Chik-fil-a is a private company. It's leadership are devoted and devout Christians and have a strong point of view that one may not like. Just as I do not like Starbucks for that as they are on the left. But both companies, from what I know, provide excellent products and great customer service. And people seem to like working for both. And Chik-fil-a is not going to change. Again, this establishment is closed on Sundays. Rather than force them to change, find a place more reflective of your values.
That is one of the hallmarks of the United States.
That in many aspects of our life, we still have choice.
That in many aspects of our life, we still have choice.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What Is The Difference Between Vacate And Forfeit To A Lot Of Penn State Football Players
The scandal that ended Penn State university as a football powerhouse, the case of the convicted child molester perv Jerry Sandusky, has claimed a lot more people than those directly or indirectly involved in the scandal.
Say hundreds of Penn State football player who had the misfortune of playing under the late former coach, Joe Paterno.
For you see, as part of the penalty thrown down by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), all the wins that Penn State football had between 1998-2011 have been "vacated".
Vacated? What exactly does that mean?
Well, lets take a look at the dictionary for the meaning as a verb and a noun.
Here is vacate as a verb:
1. to give up possession or occupancy of: to vacate an apartment.
Oh, and here is vacate as a verb in legalese:
There is no noun for vacate, so lets go to the noun definition of forfeit:
Say hundreds of Penn State football player who had the misfortune of playing under the late former coach, Joe Paterno.
For you see, as part of the penalty thrown down by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), all the wins that Penn State football had between 1998-2011 have been "vacated".
Vacated? What exactly does that mean?
Well, lets take a look at the dictionary for the meaning as a verb and a noun.
Here is vacate as a verb:
1. to give up possession or occupancy of: to vacate an apartment.
2. to give up or relinquish (an office, position, etc.): to vacate the presidency of a firm.
3. to render inoperative; deprive of validity; void; annul: to vacate a legal judgment.
Oh, and here is vacate as a verb in legalese:
| a.to cancel or rescind | |
| b.to make void or of no effect; annul | |
1. a fine; penalty.
3. something to which the right is lost, as for commission of a crime or misdeed, neglect of duty, or violation of a contract.
4. an article deposited in a game because of a mistake and redeemable by a fine or penalty.
5. forfeits, ( used with a singular verb ) a game in which such articles are taken from the players
So, if one looks at the definitions for both words, there is a lot of similarity. The closest vacate comes to is the legal definition A-to cancel or rescind. And for forfeit, the closest to what happened is 5-(used with a singular verb) a game in which such articles are taken from the players.
OK, to a player, what is the difference?
NOTHING! Not one damn thing.
It is semantics. OK, the NCAA is not forcing Penn State to forfeit their wins. That starts getting complicated because a lot of schools would thus have to adjust their records that reflect wins when they were losses. And it would possibly affect some teams that may have been on the bubble of getting possible bowl invites. No, vacating just is cleaner, right?
No, it is not. Because for those who played the games, win or lose, they are all losses now. Maybe not in the records, but they are deemed losses. Especially because those games from 1998-2011 were coached bythe focus of evil in the modern world, Joe Paterno.
What the NCAA is really doing is sticking it to a dead guy the only way that they feel they could. But again there is a helluva lot of collateral damage for those players. Players that for once had not one thing to do with this scandal. A real scandal of epic proportions.
You know what else is a scandal? Lashing out at JoPa, as Mr. Paterno was once affectionately called before his unceremonious fall.
Why one would think that JoPa was some Svengali and he was totally in charge of Penn State.
The fact of the matter is that everyone involved played each other and it was to all their benefit to not let this Sandusky scandal, well become one.
Because a successful college program brings big bucks to a university, yes often times the administrators will look the other way when the coaching and athletic bosses try to get a leg up any way possible. And yes, some violate NCAA rules. As long as the money rolls in, everyone is happy.
The fact is ALL involved were short sighted.
The fact that JoPa basically did not want to believe that the man he wanted to be his successor as coach was in fact a horrible perv should have been a sign to school administrators that he may have overstayed his time. But hey, as long as over 110,000 were packing Beaver Stadium and there was money coming in from numerous streams, well they looked the other way.
What should have happened is that JoPa should have been eased out and a successor named around 1999. Then the non-athletic administrators should have turned Mr. Sandusky over to the authorities.
But that did not happen.
And the NCAA wants to make an example out of a dead man, JoPa. And in the process have to twist and turn to explain to the hundreds that played football for the Penn State Nittany Lions that well, their efforts were nice. But we "vacated" your wins. It is the only way to nail that dead guy, JoPa.
Which shows that the NCAA does not really get it.
Seeking vengeance, no matter how appealing it may seem does nothing to address the problem. That way too many people just looked the other way. They all enabled each other.
Again, the players did nothing wrong. They are the ones being punished. Yes, it is beyond punitive. It is petty. It showed how in reality the NCAA was in fact and indeed impotent in meting out a punishment and potential redemption for the future.
To the players that played football for Penn State from 1998-2011, there is no difference between forfeiting all their wins and vacating them. They are losses to them. And a tragedy in an attempt to seek righteous justice for those young boys molested by a man with power, Jerry Sandusky. Remember, Mr. Sandusky is the one that committed the crimes. Even if he was not stopped, he is the one that must pay the most. Not players whose only "crime" was playing for the wrong school, the wrong coach at the wrong time.
No, it is not. Because for those who played the games, win or lose, they are all losses now. Maybe not in the records, but they are deemed losses. Especially because those games from 1998-2011 were coached by
What the NCAA is really doing is sticking it to a dead guy the only way that they feel they could. But again there is a helluva lot of collateral damage for those players. Players that for once had not one thing to do with this scandal. A real scandal of epic proportions.
You know what else is a scandal? Lashing out at JoPa, as Mr. Paterno was once affectionately called before his unceremonious fall.
Why one would think that JoPa was some Svengali and he was totally in charge of Penn State.
The fact of the matter is that everyone involved played each other and it was to all their benefit to not let this Sandusky scandal, well become one.
Because a successful college program brings big bucks to a university, yes often times the administrators will look the other way when the coaching and athletic bosses try to get a leg up any way possible. And yes, some violate NCAA rules. As long as the money rolls in, everyone is happy.
The fact is ALL involved were short sighted.
The fact that JoPa basically did not want to believe that the man he wanted to be his successor as coach was in fact a horrible perv should have been a sign to school administrators that he may have overstayed his time. But hey, as long as over 110,000 were packing Beaver Stadium and there was money coming in from numerous streams, well they looked the other way.
What should have happened is that JoPa should have been eased out and a successor named around 1999. Then the non-athletic administrators should have turned Mr. Sandusky over to the authorities.
But that did not happen.
And the NCAA wants to make an example out of a dead man, JoPa. And in the process have to twist and turn to explain to the hundreds that played football for the Penn State Nittany Lions that well, their efforts were nice. But we "vacated" your wins. It is the only way to nail that dead guy, JoPa.
Which shows that the NCAA does not really get it.
Seeking vengeance, no matter how appealing it may seem does nothing to address the problem. That way too many people just looked the other way. They all enabled each other.
Again, the players did nothing wrong. They are the ones being punished. Yes, it is beyond punitive. It is petty. It showed how in reality the NCAA was in fact and indeed impotent in meting out a punishment and potential redemption for the future.
To the players that played football for Penn State from 1998-2011, there is no difference between forfeiting all their wins and vacating them. They are losses to them. And a tragedy in an attempt to seek righteous justice for those young boys molested by a man with power, Jerry Sandusky. Remember, Mr. Sandusky is the one that committed the crimes. Even if he was not stopped, he is the one that must pay the most. Not players whose only "crime" was playing for the wrong school, the wrong coach at the wrong time.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Two More Reasons California Is Heading For Fiscal Armageddon
These two articles, one in the Left Angeles Times and the other in The Sacramento Bee, leave no doubt in this blogger's mind that the so-called political class really does not understand what financial mess they are leaving for us to pick up at some point in the future.
Lets start with the article in the Times about the California state legislature agreeing to a slew of pay raises for legislative aides.
According to the article about 1,000 aides received about $4,600,000 annually. So lets do some math. It turns out that the Dirty Thousand received about an average raise of $4,600. This on the heels of the same legislature forcing state employees to take a 4.62% pay cut to try to balance the state budget. Sure, there is always going to be some justification for these aides getting this nice pay raise. One is that they are trying to make up for years with no raises for these legislative lackeys.
BOO! HOO BOO! FRICKIN HOO!
But what you have to read is what some of these people are making. Some are making more than the state legislators themselves. Here is the money graph from this article:
The highest-paid aide to receive a raise was Christopher Woods, chief budget consultant for the Assembly speaker. Woods' pay grew 3.6%, to $193,476. Catherine Abernathy, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), received 37%, for a salary of $65,832 a year, after taking on additional duties.
Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Let me get this straight.
Christopher Woods, a budget consultant makes more than the Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez (D-Los Angeles)? FTR, Speaker Perez makes close to $96,000 a year. While both are totally obscene, Mr. Woods is more so because he is a consultant that should not be making more than a legislator, period. Yet he does.
At least Catherine Abernathy makes less than her boss, Assemblyman Shannon Grove. But her raise was an astounding 37%. Thirty frickin seven percent?!
And these same people asked the nuts-and-bolts state employees to take a close to five percent pay cut?
Unreal.
But this is California.
Oh, and the thrust of the Times article is not the outrage of the raises. No, it is about how this makes Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown's job of selling a tax hike harder. And it should be. If the very people wanting us to vote to raise our taxes won't tighten their belts, why in the hell should we vote for the tax hike in the first place?
This is, once again, a perfect case for making the state legislature a part-time one. There is no reason that we need all of these paid aides to promote the very legislation that continues to chip away at our freedoms in this once Golden State.
But if you think that is bad, the article by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee points not just to this outrage but the outage of Gov. Moonbeam Brown pushing for a "bullet train" that no one wants. Oh, Gov. Moonbeam Brown made sure that two of the state's major media markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would put this at the top of the news when he signed legislation to sell bonds to financially support this boondoggle. Yet Gov. Moonbeam Brown did not step foot in the Central Valley? Why not? Because opposition is the strongest there than any other part of the state. Yet the state as a whole does not support this now. Why the push? I guess it is because Gov. Moonbeam Brown is so hellbent on making this a reality, that he will even dismiss the voters that oppose it.
Get it? We are pretty much too stupid to know what is good for us.
It is OK to give pay raises to state sycophants, er aides, but the rest, well you get a pay cut and you will enjoy it. Be thankful that you have a job, right?
And you know, you will love this "bullet train" at some point. Whenever it is built. Just take it, California.
The arrogance of the Sacramento political class, Democrats and Republicans must be knocked down. It is one of the reasons to oppose all tax hike plans on the November ballot. We must rise up and demand that the legislature be put back to a part-time body of true citizen legislators. Not career pols that have put this state on a fast track to financial Armageddon.
Lets start with the article in the Times about the California state legislature agreeing to a slew of pay raises for legislative aides.
According to the article about 1,000 aides received about $4,600,000 annually. So lets do some math. It turns out that the Dirty Thousand received about an average raise of $4,600. This on the heels of the same legislature forcing state employees to take a 4.62% pay cut to try to balance the state budget. Sure, there is always going to be some justification for these aides getting this nice pay raise. One is that they are trying to make up for years with no raises for these legislative lackeys.
BOO! HOO BOO! FRICKIN HOO!
But what you have to read is what some of these people are making. Some are making more than the state legislators themselves. Here is the money graph from this article:
The highest-paid aide to receive a raise was Christopher Woods, chief budget consultant for the Assembly speaker. Woods' pay grew 3.6%, to $193,476. Catherine Abernathy, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), received 37%, for a salary of $65,832 a year, after taking on additional duties.
Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Let me get this straight.
Christopher Woods, a budget consultant makes more than the Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez (D-Los Angeles)? FTR, Speaker Perez makes close to $96,000 a year. While both are totally obscene, Mr. Woods is more so because he is a consultant that should not be making more than a legislator, period. Yet he does.
At least Catherine Abernathy makes less than her boss, Assemblyman Shannon Grove. But her raise was an astounding 37%. Thirty frickin seven percent?!
And these same people asked the nuts-and-bolts state employees to take a close to five percent pay cut?
Unreal.
But this is California.
Oh, and the thrust of the Times article is not the outrage of the raises. No, it is about how this makes Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown's job of selling a tax hike harder. And it should be. If the very people wanting us to vote to raise our taxes won't tighten their belts, why in the hell should we vote for the tax hike in the first place?
This is, once again, a perfect case for making the state legislature a part-time one. There is no reason that we need all of these paid aides to promote the very legislation that continues to chip away at our freedoms in this once Golden State.
But if you think that is bad, the article by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee points not just to this outrage but the outage of Gov. Moonbeam Brown pushing for a "bullet train" that no one wants. Oh, Gov. Moonbeam Brown made sure that two of the state's major media markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would put this at the top of the news when he signed legislation to sell bonds to financially support this boondoggle. Yet Gov. Moonbeam Brown did not step foot in the Central Valley? Why not? Because opposition is the strongest there than any other part of the state. Yet the state as a whole does not support this now. Why the push? I guess it is because Gov. Moonbeam Brown is so hellbent on making this a reality, that he will even dismiss the voters that oppose it.
Get it? We are pretty much too stupid to know what is good for us.
It is OK to give pay raises to state sycophants, er aides, but the rest, well you get a pay cut and you will enjoy it. Be thankful that you have a job, right?
And you know, you will love this "bullet train" at some point. Whenever it is built. Just take it, California.
The arrogance of the Sacramento political class, Democrats and Republicans must be knocked down. It is one of the reasons to oppose all tax hike plans on the November ballot. We must rise up and demand that the legislature be put back to a part-time body of true citizen legislators. Not career pols that have put this state on a fast track to financial Armageddon.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Massacre In Colorado
Last evening at this time, there were a lot of people in a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado watching the latest installment of the Batman trilogy, "The Dark Knight Rises," when a man went on a systematic murderous rampage that as of this writing killed 12 and wounded 58.
Before I continue, let me get something off my chest.
For those involved in this heinous act of violence, yes it is a tragedy. But the rest of us must look at what the accused gunman, 24 year-old James Holmes, as nothing but a criminal. Oh yes, probably it will come out a sociopath. But according to reports, Mr. Holmes is a damn smart one at that. But make no mistake. To start by referring to the event as a tragedy is to compare to a plane crash. Or an earthquake. Or a fire. Something that is unintentional, what we call in many cases an "Act of God". This Holmes fellow, he planned this crime. This is way to sophisticated to just be a case of someone just snapping one night. So please, this is a vicious crime and yes, it is evil. I will not refer to it as anything less.
One other thing is that reporting on these events has to not be sloppy and there should not be a damn agenda by so-called legacy media. Here, it is either referred to as the Leftywhore media.
Why am I upset?
Because of the "reporting" of Brian Ross of ABC news.
Mr. Ross went on the air with former Bill Clinton lackey George Stephanopolous to "report" that there is a James Holmes that is a member of a Colorado Tea Party group. Well, too bad that Mr. Ross was, to quote a fictional baseball announcer Harry Doyle from the movie Major League, "Just a little outside". In fact, waaay outside. The Mr. Holmes in question is a 52-year-old Hispanic man. And he is almost double the age of the actual suspect. Eventually ABC news was forced to issue a retraction.
And here is the statement from the ABC news website:
Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.
And it should have never gone down that road to begin with.
What if James Holmes could have been tied with the so-called Occupy movement? Does anyone thing that Mr. Ross would have gone of television breathlessly saying that Mr. Holmes was active in the Occupy movement?
Or what if it was not a White guy named James Holmes but a Middle-Eastern looking dude, oh I don't know, how about Mohammed Habbib? And what if based on that little, he could have been tied to Islamofacsist terror? Again, would Mr. Ross gone on the air with that information, tenuous at best.
HELL FRICKIN NO! And no on both counts. Because we have to be careful when it comes to the Occupy movement and we can not assume that anyone could do such a crime that is of Middle-Eastern origin.
When is the Leftywhore, legacy media going to not speculate but report facts as they are known? If you do not know for a fact that a suspect is part of any group, why the hell go on the air with such speculation with not one iota of fact to back it up?
There. This part of a rant is over.
There are so many layers to this story that this will go on for quite a long time.
There is the event itself.
How did this dude, Holmes, enter the particular theatre from an emergency exit?
Why were there very, very young children at this midnight premiere in the first place? A four-month old baby? A six-year old? What the hell kind of parents are this selfish that they would drag babies and very little kids to a midnight movie show?
Two aspects of the first-responders, the Aurora police.
One, the bravery that they took to quickly ascertain the situation and not wait for medical first responders. Many police officers gathered the wounded and took them to area hospitals. Who knows how many lives were saved because the police acted the way they did?
The second is the professional way that they showed absolute restraint in letting Mr. Holmes surrender to them.
What I am about to write maybe controversial, but it is what I am feeling about people that commit these evil acts and eventually get a stage to spout off their "reasons" for doing the act.
I do not think the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been upset if the police simply shot and killed Mr. Holmes right then and there. They could have said that he threatened them. Something. The only people that probably would be upset are the usual suspects. The ACLU crowd and some bloggers that value the life of scum over those that they kill for no reason.
I can only ask you to look at the case of the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Brevik. Since Norway has nothing in their criminal code for his act of terrorism, he may be confined to a mental institution for a grand total of 21 years. Now, more than likely he will be confined longer than the 21 year max because his freedom will be based on his ability to prove that he is not nuts. But I would not be all that surprised if he did get out in less than 21 years.
Another layer is how social media was used by the victims as they were evacuating the movie house. I for one would not be thinking do that, but some did. It gave a birds-eye view of terrorism.
And as always the outpouring of righteous grief and support to the victims, their families and the community that is Aurora, Colorado.
Both President Obama and the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney gave excellent remarks about the tragedy. And hey, on this no one better dump on President Obama for having a moment thinking about his own daughters, Malia and Sasha, and if they were in something horrific like that. He is a good dad and husband. Both men spoke from the heart. And that is what I want in situations like this. Though I pretty much loathe politicos giving comments in such situations, if they have to, both men did a great job.
There is a lot of time for the investigations, the obvious finger-pointing, the calls for gun control, the whole politics of this massacre. But for now, we must let these people bury their dead and the community of Aurora, Colorado grieve and begin the process of getting their shattered lives back together as much as possible.
Bloggers note.
I started this on early this morning. However I was having computer problems and figured that about 1 am is a good time to hit the sack. And I had other obligations today before finishing this post.
Before I continue, let me get something off my chest.
For those involved in this heinous act of violence, yes it is a tragedy. But the rest of us must look at what the accused gunman, 24 year-old James Holmes, as nothing but a criminal. Oh yes, probably it will come out a sociopath. But according to reports, Mr. Holmes is a damn smart one at that. But make no mistake. To start by referring to the event as a tragedy is to compare to a plane crash. Or an earthquake. Or a fire. Something that is unintentional, what we call in many cases an "Act of God". This Holmes fellow, he planned this crime. This is way to sophisticated to just be a case of someone just snapping one night. So please, this is a vicious crime and yes, it is evil. I will not refer to it as anything less.
One other thing is that reporting on these events has to not be sloppy and there should not be a damn agenda by so-called legacy media. Here, it is either referred to as the Leftywhore media.
Why am I upset?
Because of the "reporting" of Brian Ross of ABC news.
Mr. Ross went on the air with former Bill Clinton lackey George Stephanopolous to "report" that there is a James Holmes that is a member of a Colorado Tea Party group. Well, too bad that Mr. Ross was, to quote a fictional baseball announcer Harry Doyle from the movie Major League, "Just a little outside". In fact, waaay outside. The Mr. Holmes in question is a 52-year-old Hispanic man. And he is almost double the age of the actual suspect. Eventually ABC news was forced to issue a retraction.
And here is the statement from the ABC news website:
Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.
And it should have never gone down that road to begin with.
What if James Holmes could have been tied with the so-called Occupy movement? Does anyone thing that Mr. Ross would have gone of television breathlessly saying that Mr. Holmes was active in the Occupy movement?
Or what if it was not a White guy named James Holmes but a Middle-Eastern looking dude, oh I don't know, how about Mohammed Habbib? And what if based on that little, he could have been tied to Islamofacsist terror? Again, would Mr. Ross gone on the air with that information, tenuous at best.
HELL FRICKIN NO! And no on both counts. Because we have to be careful when it comes to the Occupy movement and we can not assume that anyone could do such a crime that is of Middle-Eastern origin.
When is the Leftywhore, legacy media going to not speculate but report facts as they are known? If you do not know for a fact that a suspect is part of any group, why the hell go on the air with such speculation with not one iota of fact to back it up?
There. This part of a rant is over.
There are so many layers to this story that this will go on for quite a long time.
There is the event itself.
How did this dude, Holmes, enter the particular theatre from an emergency exit?
Why were there very, very young children at this midnight premiere in the first place? A four-month old baby? A six-year old? What the hell kind of parents are this selfish that they would drag babies and very little kids to a midnight movie show?
Two aspects of the first-responders, the Aurora police.
One, the bravery that they took to quickly ascertain the situation and not wait for medical first responders. Many police officers gathered the wounded and took them to area hospitals. Who knows how many lives were saved because the police acted the way they did?
The second is the professional way that they showed absolute restraint in letting Mr. Holmes surrender to them.
What I am about to write maybe controversial, but it is what I am feeling about people that commit these evil acts and eventually get a stage to spout off their "reasons" for doing the act.
I do not think the overwhelming majority of Americans would have been upset if the police simply shot and killed Mr. Holmes right then and there. They could have said that he threatened them. Something. The only people that probably would be upset are the usual suspects. The ACLU crowd and some bloggers that value the life of scum over those that they kill for no reason.
I can only ask you to look at the case of the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Brevik. Since Norway has nothing in their criminal code for his act of terrorism, he may be confined to a mental institution for a grand total of 21 years. Now, more than likely he will be confined longer than the 21 year max because his freedom will be based on his ability to prove that he is not nuts. But I would not be all that surprised if he did get out in less than 21 years.
Another layer is how social media was used by the victims as they were evacuating the movie house. I for one would not be thinking do that, but some did. It gave a birds-eye view of terrorism.
And as always the outpouring of righteous grief and support to the victims, their families and the community that is Aurora, Colorado.
Both President Obama and the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney gave excellent remarks about the tragedy. And hey, on this no one better dump on President Obama for having a moment thinking about his own daughters, Malia and Sasha, and if they were in something horrific like that. He is a good dad and husband. Both men spoke from the heart. And that is what I want in situations like this. Though I pretty much loathe politicos giving comments in such situations, if they have to, both men did a great job.
There is a lot of time for the investigations, the obvious finger-pointing, the calls for gun control, the whole politics of this massacre. But for now, we must let these people bury their dead and the community of Aurora, Colorado grieve and begin the process of getting their shattered lives back together as much as possible.
Bloggers note.
I started this on early this morning. However I was having computer problems and figured that about 1 am is a good time to hit the sack. And I had other obligations today before finishing this post.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The Dear Leader Really Does Hate Business And The Private Sector
I have waited a while to comment on the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in Roanoke, Virginia, last week concerning American business and his true disdain for the private sector and entrepreneurs in general.
Now I have purposely linked the official White House transcript regarding this issue because of the memes on the left is that his remarks are taken out of context.
So, lets examine the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in reference to businessmen* and those that actually take the risks to create a strong, growing private-sector economy:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
I highlighted the money part of the remarks that has gotten the most attention this past week:
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.
Really? A person and or a group of people that invested money in an endeavor that is
a) Successful.
b) Providing a product and or a service that people want.
c) Rolling with the inevitable ups and downs in an business endeavor.
d) Provided jobs in a community.
did not do that on their own? They did NOT build it?
I am sorry folks, but if that is not socialist clap-trap, I do not know what is.
In fact, the whole two-paragraph diatribe is a window on what the Dear Leader, President Obama, really thinks about those who are
a) Smart.
b) Work hard.
Yes, people who do the above are just terrible in the eyes and the mind of our Dear Leader, President Obama.
Sorry to inform the Dear Leader, President Obama, but many of the most successful people in this nation, well they never spent a day in college. Some barely graduated high school. Yet they did become successful. And not because they ran to the government for help and guidance.
One name that comes to mind is the late Steve Jobs. A man who revolutionized computers. He went to college, but never graduated. But what he learned would actually help him in developing the now famous Apple computer. The dude was smart and talented and it is why there is the kind of computer, phones and now tablets that are known and loved the world over.
Funny, I don't remember when Mr. Jobs went to the government, hat in hand, to help him develop the modern computer. Same for his competitor, Bill Gates, and MicroSoft. Oh yeah, Mr. Gates, well he did go to Harvard, but did not graduate either. I guess that he just had the lousy professors.
But there are those that did graduate college but changed the face of the United States.
How about Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart? This man single-handily changed the way that Americans, and now many around the world, shop. Oh, this dude and his company are Public Enemy Number One on the left-wing radar screen. Because of the fact that this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll company does all that it can to. . .keep labor unions from organizing. Yet many an employee has started at the low end and become very successful within the company. And yeah, because of the same smarts and hard work that was the hallmark of Mr. Walton.
And one last example is a guy named George W. Romney.
Does that last name sound familiar?
Because Mr. Romney was the late father of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
The late Mr. Romney came from very humble beginnings and that was a motivator in his ability to be a very successful businessman. He rescued American Motors in the late 1950s.
Oh, snaps!
Mr. Romney went to numerous colleges and universities and did not graduate. Again, must have been lousy professors.
Why am I focusing on the education of the aforementioned?
Because the Dear Leader, President Obama, seems to think that people can not make it for themselves in life without a crutch. Whether it is the crutch of government or a teacher or a mentor or the village, whatever.
The reality is that these people all were and are very smart in their own way. And they did something most do not. They took risk. And that is what the free market is.
A reality is that the overwhelming number of new business and new business ventures fail. Yet someone, somewhere does succeed. And it maybe small to some. But look at restaurants as a great example.
Hey, we all have to eat, right?
Yet how many times have you gone to a new restaurant in your town and loved it. Yet you go back six months later and it is gone. Why is that? I mean, you loved it and thought it was great. Yet for a host of reasons, the owners and investors just could not make it work.
But what if no one took these risks? What if no one tried to start a business? Hire some people? Make a profit? And, paid taxes?
Ahh, the taxes!
Yes, it is the taxes that pays fot the roads and bridges that the Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about in his diatribe. But if there is not a successful private-sector economy that broadens the tax base, the government at all levels will not have enough money to keep up the maintenance of the roads and bridges.
So, why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, not get it?
Because in his mind, those that are successful must be doing something wrong. Maybe even nefarious. It can not be that they are pretty damned smart, work hard and most important take the risk.
Oh, one last thought.
You realize that the reason we have the kind of roads that we do today is because of the wonderful invention called the automobile, right? And the vision of a guy named Henry Ford that developed the first car that most Americans could afford to buy. It was during the 1920s, that eeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll, greedy decade of unrivaled economic growth that people were flocking to buy the now famous Model T's. But the United States had to transition from the dirt road to the kind of concrete and tar roads we have today.
In other words, it was the private sector that made the government have to change. If the automobile had not become what it is today, we could still have a majority of dirt roads and be a Third-world nation.
But we are not.
And it is because of a lot of people that had vision, smarts, wherewithal and an amazing ability to take risk. And if successful, many, many people are employed and able to obtain these amazing products.
At one time, we had political leadership that welcomed that. Today, we have a political class that is trying to develop a frightening resentment of success.
That is what was so revealing about the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments. He made a case to resent success.
Now I have purposely linked the official White House transcript regarding this issue because of the memes on the left is that his remarks are taken out of context.
So, lets examine the remarks that the Dear Leader, President Obama, made in reference to businessmen* and those that actually take the risks to create a strong, growing private-sector economy:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
I highlighted the money part of the remarks that has gotten the most attention this past week:
If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.
Really? A person and or a group of people that invested money in an endeavor that is
a) Successful.
b) Providing a product and or a service that people want.
c) Rolling with the inevitable ups and downs in an business endeavor.
d) Provided jobs in a community.
did not do that on their own? They did NOT build it?
I am sorry folks, but if that is not socialist clap-trap, I do not know what is.
In fact, the whole two-paragraph diatribe is a window on what the Dear Leader, President Obama, really thinks about those who are
a) Smart.
b) Work hard.
Yes, people who do the above are just terrible in the eyes and the mind of our Dear Leader, President Obama.
Sorry to inform the Dear Leader, President Obama, but many of the most successful people in this nation, well they never spent a day in college. Some barely graduated high school. Yet they did become successful. And not because they ran to the government for help and guidance.
One name that comes to mind is the late Steve Jobs. A man who revolutionized computers. He went to college, but never graduated. But what he learned would actually help him in developing the now famous Apple computer. The dude was smart and talented and it is why there is the kind of computer, phones and now tablets that are known and loved the world over.
Funny, I don't remember when Mr. Jobs went to the government, hat in hand, to help him develop the modern computer. Same for his competitor, Bill Gates, and MicroSoft. Oh yeah, Mr. Gates, well he did go to Harvard, but did not graduate either. I guess that he just had the lousy professors.
But there are those that did graduate college but changed the face of the United States.
How about Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart? This man single-handily changed the way that Americans, and now many around the world, shop. Oh, this dude and his company are Public Enemy Number One on the left-wing radar screen. Because of the fact that this eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll company does all that it can to. . .keep labor unions from organizing. Yet many an employee has started at the low end and become very successful within the company. And yeah, because of the same smarts and hard work that was the hallmark of Mr. Walton.
And one last example is a guy named George W. Romney.
Does that last name sound familiar?
Because Mr. Romney was the late father of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.
The late Mr. Romney came from very humble beginnings and that was a motivator in his ability to be a very successful businessman. He rescued American Motors in the late 1950s.
Oh, snaps!
Mr. Romney went to numerous colleges and universities and did not graduate. Again, must have been lousy professors.
Why am I focusing on the education of the aforementioned?
Because the Dear Leader, President Obama, seems to think that people can not make it for themselves in life without a crutch. Whether it is the crutch of government or a teacher or a mentor or the village, whatever.
The reality is that these people all were and are very smart in their own way. And they did something most do not. They took risk. And that is what the free market is.
A reality is that the overwhelming number of new business and new business ventures fail. Yet someone, somewhere does succeed. And it maybe small to some. But look at restaurants as a great example.
Hey, we all have to eat, right?
Yet how many times have you gone to a new restaurant in your town and loved it. Yet you go back six months later and it is gone. Why is that? I mean, you loved it and thought it was great. Yet for a host of reasons, the owners and investors just could not make it work.
But what if no one took these risks? What if no one tried to start a business? Hire some people? Make a profit? And, paid taxes?
Ahh, the taxes!
Yes, it is the taxes that pays fot the roads and bridges that the Dear Leader, President Obama, talked about in his diatribe. But if there is not a successful private-sector economy that broadens the tax base, the government at all levels will not have enough money to keep up the maintenance of the roads and bridges.
So, why does the Dear Leader, President Obama, not get it?
Because in his mind, those that are successful must be doing something wrong. Maybe even nefarious. It can not be that they are pretty damned smart, work hard and most important take the risk.
Oh, one last thought.
You realize that the reason we have the kind of roads that we do today is because of the wonderful invention called the automobile, right? And the vision of a guy named Henry Ford that developed the first car that most Americans could afford to buy. It was during the 1920s, that eeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll, greedy decade of unrivaled economic growth that people were flocking to buy the now famous Model T's. But the United States had to transition from the dirt road to the kind of concrete and tar roads we have today.
In other words, it was the private sector that made the government have to change. If the automobile had not become what it is today, we could still have a majority of dirt roads and be a Third-world nation.
But we are not.
And it is because of a lot of people that had vision, smarts, wherewithal and an amazing ability to take risk. And if successful, many, many people are employed and able to obtain these amazing products.
At one time, we had political leadership that welcomed that. Today, we have a political class that is trying to develop a frightening resentment of success.
That is what was so revealing about the Dear Leader, President Obama's comments. He made a case to resent success.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
A Trip To The County Fair
As my vacation from the day job winds down, literally now in hours, I want to reflect on the last big thing Mrs. RVFTLC and I did on our staycation.
We took a trip to the Orange County fair here in So Cal.
I admit it here and now.
I am a fair junky.
Seriously, I love everything about a county fair. The sights, the hawkers, the agricultural stuff, the smells and the food.
Did I mention the food?
Well, what I really think makes a county fair is that it is pure Americana. I mean, while the hawkers are doing their thing to sell their wares in the products buildings, in another part of the fairgrounds is an actual farm in which fruits, veggies and herbs are grown. Still in another part is the carnival section chock full of rides to give anyone the vomitorium effect. And all kinds of food is interspersed throughout the fairgrounds. But my favorite is seeing the livestock animals.
I really am amazed that in the urban environment that is So Cal, there are still very active Future Farmers of America chapters at many OC high schools. And they were proudly showing off their animals. There are a lot of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and turkeys. Now the sad part is many will not see a life beyond the fair. They will indeed be sold and slaughtered and meat products will be produced. That does not take away from this heartwarming photo of one of the FFA girls and one of her cows.
Oh yeah! You read it right! A Baby Ruth bar, stuffed in a fried jalapeno pepper and served in a bed of churros. And here is what that looks like:
We took a trip to the Orange County fair here in So Cal.
I admit it here and now.
I am a fair junky.
Seriously, I love everything about a county fair. The sights, the hawkers, the agricultural stuff, the smells and the food.
Did I mention the food?
I really am amazed that in the urban environment that is So Cal, there are still very active Future Farmers of America chapters at many OC high schools. And they were proudly showing off their animals. There are a lot of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and turkeys. Now the sad part is many will not see a life beyond the fair. They will indeed be sold and slaughtered and meat products will be produced. That does not take away from this heartwarming photo of one of the FFA girls and one of her cows.
For many that visit the livestock area of the fair, it is the closest they will get to farm animals. And the FFA kids were so great at answering the many questions that the kids and adults had to ask.
The real highlight for Mrs. RVFTLC and I is the Great Alaskan Pig Races. It is a lot of fun to see piglets running around a track in a race. And the ending is really funny. Of course they are rewarded with food.
Here is what the pig race looks like as the pigs head for home.
And here are the pigs getting ready to eat at the trough. Priceless!
Another thing that I love about the fair is seeing all the products that are being hawked. After all, a fair is where the Sham-Wow! dude got his start. Of course one thing I do not like is to actually be talked to by the hawkers. Rule here is to not make direct eye contact. After a while, you can tell who is a hawker and who are the potential customers. I am really amazed at all the products that are in the product halls. Some are actually useful and some, well why?!
After some time in the product halls, and Mrs. RVFTLC finally giving up and sitting outside, I said that I will try the seemingly new strange food dish that the fair has to offer. And, here it is:
And it was absolutely delicious! The sweetness of the candy bar melting in the warm jalapeno pepper giving it that sweet and savory flavor. And the churros are a very nice touch! And if you think that your humble blogger did not eat it and is just writing smack, here it is:
Yup, I ate the whole thing!
The county fair is too me one of the last vestiges where Americans can gather, have a great time, take the family and not feel like there is going to be something that will make them nervous. It is a place to remember an America that is long forgotten. It is part of the reason that I like The Old Farmers Almanac and The Farmer's Almanac. They are like the fair. A reminder of an America long gone but should not be forgotten.
I am sure that those that attend a county fair, or a state fair, it means something different to each person. I find it a time to relax and not think about all the stuff that goes on in our day-to-day lives. It is just something so simplistic and yet fun at the same time.
And I really believe that every should make at least one trip to a county fair once in your life. It will probably not be the last time you will have gone!
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Is The Latest Bain Capital Attack On Mitt Romney The Left's Birther Moment?
OK, I start this with an admission. That I am NOT an expert about the latest kerfuffle in the 2012 presidential campaign between the Democrat, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the presumptive Republican, Mitt Romney.
What I believe this is about is whether or not Mr. Romney was really still in charge and actively involved in day-to-day affairs with Bain Capital when he left the company he helped found in 1999 to beginning his tenure as the CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics organizing committee. This recent article in the Boston Globe, not exactly a Mitt-friendly fish-wrap, seems to have set the left and even Team Dear Leader itself in a titter.
Now, we've got him! See, he WAS still with Bain Capital as it was outsourcing jobs! And he has lied about it too!
This is why Team Dear Leader has been hammering away at Mr. Romney about his time with Bain. That if he was just on a leave of absence, then he was still involved in someway with Bain when it was investing in companies that were "outsourcing" jobs that were in the United States to other nations.
The Globe article itself seems to have some contradictions about the extent of Mr. Romney's potential tenure at Bain beyond February 11, 1999. That is when he left Bain and became the full time SLCWO CEO.
And that is making what would seem to be something nefarious into more of a lot about nothing.
I think that this is going to prove to be the left wing version of the so-called Birther movement.
It started out, by sheer coinkidink, as part of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2007. And it continued long after she was defeated for the Democrat presidential nod in 2008 and up to this day. And even after the Dear Leader, President Obama finally got all the political mileage he thought he could get out of it, he produced the Hawai'ian birth certificate. And that is not enough. And it has strayed from a simple potential constitutional crisis-one HAS to be born in the United States to be eligible to be a president-to way too much minutia to be taken with any amount of seriousness.
That is where this potential is heading.
While there maybe some thing about the fact Mr. Romney was listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president”. until 2002, one has to read this to realize that it may be more a formality than he was really running the company and saving the Salt Lake Olympics from bankruptcy:
“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999,” Bain Capital said in a statement Thursday. “Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.”
The above is taken directly from The Globe story. And also in the story, the above was accurate according to FactCheck.org. Also, there are many supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, who are currently with Bain that say Mr. Romney did leave the company in 1999 and that it was a paperwork nightmare to cut all his ties to the company. The thrust of it is here at HotAir.com courtesy of Captain Ed Morrrissey.
A real scandal, especially a political one, usually is exacerbated by a cover up. Ask the late Richard Nixon. Or if you want a living former president, maybe William Jefferson Blythe Clinton will do.
But there does not seem to be as much a cover up as a very confusing set of circumstances. None indicate that Mr. Romney was someone sitting in the Bain Capital headquarters, growing a Snidely Whiplash moustache, twirling it around at the thought of outsourcing American jobs. Or really anything else connected with the day-to-day running of the company.
Thus I think that Team Dear Leader, courtesy of a ever so slight hit piece by The Boston Globe, is not on to much of anything.
That if it does continue, with no results, it starts to look like the left has found its Birther movement.
What I believe this is about is whether or not Mr. Romney was really still in charge and actively involved in day-to-day affairs with Bain Capital when he left the company he helped found in 1999 to beginning his tenure as the CEO of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics organizing committee. This recent article in the Boston Globe, not exactly a Mitt-friendly fish-wrap, seems to have set the left and even Team Dear Leader itself in a titter.
Now, we've got him! See, he WAS still with Bain Capital as it was outsourcing jobs! And he has lied about it too!
This is why Team Dear Leader has been hammering away at Mr. Romney about his time with Bain. That if he was just on a leave of absence, then he was still involved in someway with Bain when it was investing in companies that were "outsourcing" jobs that were in the United States to other nations.
The Globe article itself seems to have some contradictions about the extent of Mr. Romney's potential tenure at Bain beyond February 11, 1999. That is when he left Bain and became the full time SLCWO CEO.
And that is making what would seem to be something nefarious into more of a lot about nothing.
I think that this is going to prove to be the left wing version of the so-called Birther movement.
It started out, by sheer coinkidink, as part of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2007. And it continued long after she was defeated for the Democrat presidential nod in 2008 and up to this day. And even after the Dear Leader, President Obama finally got all the political mileage he thought he could get out of it, he produced the Hawai'ian birth certificate. And that is not enough. And it has strayed from a simple potential constitutional crisis-one HAS to be born in the United States to be eligible to be a president-to way too much minutia to be taken with any amount of seriousness.
That is where this potential is heading.
While there maybe some thing about the fact Mr. Romney was listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president”. until 2002, one has to read this to realize that it may be more a formality than he was really running the company and saving the Salt Lake Olympics from bankruptcy:
“Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999,” Bain Capital said in a statement Thursday. “Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.”
The above is taken directly from The Globe story. And also in the story, the above was accurate according to FactCheck.org. Also, there are many supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, who are currently with Bain that say Mr. Romney did leave the company in 1999 and that it was a paperwork nightmare to cut all his ties to the company. The thrust of it is here at HotAir.com courtesy of Captain Ed Morrrissey.
A real scandal, especially a political one, usually is exacerbated by a cover up. Ask the late Richard Nixon. Or if you want a living former president, maybe William Jefferson Blythe Clinton will do.
But there does not seem to be as much a cover up as a very confusing set of circumstances. None indicate that Mr. Romney was someone sitting in the Bain Capital headquarters, growing a Snidely Whiplash moustache, twirling it around at the thought of outsourcing American jobs. Or really anything else connected with the day-to-day running of the company.
Thus I think that Team Dear Leader, courtesy of a ever so slight hit piece by The Boston Globe, is not on to much of anything.
That if it does continue, with no results, it starts to look like the left has found its Birther movement.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Is Condi Rice Mitt's Veep Choice?
Well according to Matt Drudge, former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice is the front runner to be asked to be Mitt Romney's choice to be his vice-presidential running mate.
Before one thinks that this is the Gospel, I do advise one to read this from John Tabin over at The American Spectator.
Well, if you read it, whatever happened to Vice-President Frank Keating? Oh yeah, George W. Bush did not ask him to be his running mate in 2000.
Hey, how is Vice-President Evan Bayh doin'?
Oops! My bad! I'm sorry I mean Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, the current vice-president.
Well, Mr. Drudge apparently had info that former Indiana Democrat Senator Bayh was the choice of then Sen. Messiah Barack for the veep spot.
Let me explain to ye what this is all about.
It is a trail balloon.
The Romney campaign is putting it out there to see how it would sell to the public.
Would Republicans be down with her as the veep? Would the base and conservative Republicans be OK with Condi as veep? How would she be looked at by independent voters? What about her non-experience in elected politics?
There is a lot more, but that is the top of the thoughts on this trial balloon.
Miss Rice has said repeatedly that she is not interested in the job and that in fact and indeed Team Romney should look someplace else.
Now, if Team Romney is looking at a potential Rice nomination as a panderama, it would succeed on two fronts.
One, the obvious is that she is a woman.
Two, she is Black.
As I believe the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton once said about electing her philanderin husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, with him you get two for the price of one.
See, there it is. A Black woman.
How dare the Democrats try to rip that one, right?!
Please, remember folks, we are talking about the Democrat party here. And the Democrat party led by Chicago thugs. They will do and say anything at this point, hoping something would stick.
There are actually more down and ups choosing Miss Rice as the veep.
I already mentioned one and that is her never running or winning elected office. Another is that she herself is not all clear on the so-called social issues. Although she claims to be pro-choice on abortion, it is not really clear that she is a radical pro-choicer or one that can articulate a clear position on the subject. And what about the whole panoply of domestic issues? What does she stand on Obamacare? Taxes?
See, I actually think that this would not be a good choice because while Miss Rice is great on foreign policy, she is almost a blank slate on everything else. Miss Rice could look like, well the Dear Leader, President Obama. Getting on the job training.
I think that it will not be Miss Rice, but Team Romney is putting it out there to gin-up interest in the campaign.
I still think that the dark horse is Rick Santorum. But another one that is a potential surprise to some would be the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley. One thing to her advantage is that she ran in one of the nastiest Republican campaigns in 2010 and a just as nasty general election campaign which she won. Mrs. Haley is one that Mr. Romney endorsed for governor quickly in the 2012 election cycle and also gained the endorsement of Sarah Palin.
How is that for GOP unity?
So, maybe this time Drudge has it right and Mr. Romney will ask a reluctant Miss Rice to come to serve her nation one more time as potential vice-president. Or maybe it is the big summer trial balloon. I am on the side of the trial balloon.
Before one thinks that this is the Gospel, I do advise one to read this from John Tabin over at The American Spectator.
Well, if you read it, whatever happened to Vice-President Frank Keating? Oh yeah, George W. Bush did not ask him to be his running mate in 2000.
Hey, how is Vice-President Evan Bayh doin'?
Oops! My bad! I'm sorry I mean Joe the Brain Surgeon Biden, the current vice-president.
Well, Mr. Drudge apparently had info that former Indiana Democrat Senator Bayh was the choice of then Sen. Messiah Barack for the veep spot.
Let me explain to ye what this is all about.
It is a trail balloon.
The Romney campaign is putting it out there to see how it would sell to the public.
Would Republicans be down with her as the veep? Would the base and conservative Republicans be OK with Condi as veep? How would she be looked at by independent voters? What about her non-experience in elected politics?
There is a lot more, but that is the top of the thoughts on this trial balloon.
Miss Rice has said repeatedly that she is not interested in the job and that in fact and indeed Team Romney should look someplace else.
Now, if Team Romney is looking at a potential Rice nomination as a panderama, it would succeed on two fronts.
One, the obvious is that she is a woman.
Two, she is Black.
As I believe the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton once said about electing her philanderin husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, with him you get two for the price of one.
See, there it is. A Black woman.
How dare the Democrats try to rip that one, right?!
Please, remember folks, we are talking about the Democrat party here. And the Democrat party led by Chicago thugs. They will do and say anything at this point, hoping something would stick.
There are actually more down and ups choosing Miss Rice as the veep.
I already mentioned one and that is her never running or winning elected office. Another is that she herself is not all clear on the so-called social issues. Although she claims to be pro-choice on abortion, it is not really clear that she is a radical pro-choicer or one that can articulate a clear position on the subject. And what about the whole panoply of domestic issues? What does she stand on Obamacare? Taxes?
See, I actually think that this would not be a good choice because while Miss Rice is great on foreign policy, she is almost a blank slate on everything else. Miss Rice could look like, well the Dear Leader, President Obama. Getting on the job training.
I think that it will not be Miss Rice, but Team Romney is putting it out there to gin-up interest in the campaign.
I still think that the dark horse is Rick Santorum. But another one that is a potential surprise to some would be the South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley. One thing to her advantage is that she ran in one of the nastiest Republican campaigns in 2010 and a just as nasty general election campaign which she won. Mrs. Haley is one that Mr. Romney endorsed for governor quickly in the 2012 election cycle and also gained the endorsement of Sarah Palin.
How is that for GOP unity?
So, maybe this time Drudge has it right and Mr. Romney will ask a reluctant Miss Rice to come to serve her nation one more time as potential vice-president. Or maybe it is the big summer trial balloon. I am on the side of the trial balloon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)