A Proactive Mitt Vote

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

When John McCain suspended his campaign after finally having some positive momentum post-Palin’s electrifying RNC speech, I knew it was over. It was quite possibly the dumbest political move I had ever seen and at that point, politics had been my focus for only three years.

Disheartened and discouraged, I soldiered on because Barack Obama would be, well, what he was: Bad for the economy, bad for international relations, and generally contemptuous of anyone who did not see things his way. It’s been worse than I imagined.

I joked on Twitter that I’d vote for a roasted turnip over Barack Obama.

My choice lost the GOP primary. I thought I was stuck voting for a turnip. I’ve been wrong. It has been a pleasant surprise.

Mitt Romney has shown himself to be an able, flexible, proactive campaigner. He’s had the press nearly universally against him and cheerfully plowed forward.

Strategically, Mitt is never put off by Obama’s silly mind games. The press’ obsession with Romney non-gaffes over Obama’s actual missteps has been … I’m at a loss for words. Put it this way: The press has so staked its existence on Barack Obama that it has decided to go down with the ship. No rats flee. No rats even attempt modest objectivity. And still, Mitt stays on his positive, pro-American message.

Policy wise, Mitt seems technocratic. That is, he doesn’t dislike government, per se, he dislikes how it is managed, and by golly, he’s going to do some restructuring.

Romney’s urge to reorder should comfort Democrats terrified that the business of government is going away with a Republican. President Romney sees a bureaucracy worth saving. That should inspire Dems, but no.

The Democrat position seems to be “Just as I am Lord.” Please, leave every bloated agency fat and inefficient. Keeping the agency and trimming the fat? Unthinkable.

Now, I go to the kill-the-agency-then-burn-it-in-a-fire school of government thought. I’m likely to be disappointed by Romney’s trimming of the verge.

Still, trimming is better than growing.

Here’s what’s surprised me about Mitt: I thought he was more of a nobless-oblige driven blue blood like George W. Bush. Oh, I know GW is from Texas. But underneath is a north-easterner who feels, like Obama, that the little people just can’t quite take care of themselves. It lead to many maddening policies.

Mitt is not that guy. Mitt’s midwestern sensibilities have hung on more than I thought. In addition, choosing to be a self-made man has given him confidence not only in himself but in people.

There’s an underlying lack of faith that statists have in people. They believe people incapable of self-sufficiency. Thus, laws have to be written to “protect” the citizen from himself. Mitt doesn’t seem to believe that. He has a live and let-live attitude and a firm faith in people. The attitude is refreshing.

When I get discouraged at the economic misery, I remind myself that multiple states have enjoyed quiet but quite solid turn arounds with good policy. Wisconsin and Indiana come immediately to mind. Bobby Jindal has been righting the Louisiana ship. This is happening all over America and it’s encouraging. California is a notable exception. Illinois seems to be a few disastrous steps behind.

Still, those turnarounds remind me that America is not lost. The situation is dire. There can be no doubt that whomever is elected faces some nearly impossibly difficult choices. My concern is that Barack Obama would just avoid them and his indecision would be a decision.

Mitt Romney will make the decisions. Some will be tough. They are bound to displease someone–all big decisions do, but what choice do we have? Doesn’t it feel like time is up?

So, it was easy for me to vote for Mitt Romney. Not as a defensive position, but as a positive decision. Maybe Mitt is just the man for the season. Maybe he can manage this failing state out of its bankruptcy. I say maybe not because I doubt his abilities but because the task is so formidable.

The media, left, and poll watchers seem 84% convinced that Barack Obama is a shoe-in. Or, it’s tied 48-48. 47-47. The models have Obama running away with the electoral college.

In my bones, I don’t believe this. Some states are going to be lost, no doubt. But this guaranteed result? Bah.

Vote. I feel good about my Mitt vote and you should, too.



Obama Disrespects The Press, Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Why should President Obama respect the press? He knows they will do his bidding anyway. From the Washington Post:

The Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia, but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”

Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan’s Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to “say hello to the cameras” and “thank you everybody.”

Obama’s official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China’s Central Committee. Excerpts: “The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press. . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press.”

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restricted set of such meetings they had ever seen. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents’ Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the “protective” pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan’s prime minister, saying reporters “were very upset.”

In “bilateral” meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama’s, there were only written “readouts.” Canada: “The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership.” India: “The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries.” Pakistan: “President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan.”

And for all the respect President Bush showed the press, look what it got him.

But the issue for Obama is deeper. He just doesn’t respect Freedom of the Press or the Constitution all that much. It’s more fundamental than being a complete narcissist and not wanting to deal with uncomfortable questions or restricting an environment that is not 100% controlled–although those are big factors.

All Presidents want to control message. That’s nothing new. President Obama doesn’t feel the need to even share a message when it doesn’t suit him. And so, in utter contempt for American notions of freedom of the press, he doesn’t.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Exclusive: Herman Cain, Dark Horse?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Herman Cain knows how to give a great speech. He was also a delightful man to interview. Mr. Cain sat with Tabitha Hale and me for a few minutes. We had a great conversation on Saturday afternoon of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. He discusses God’s will for his life. He also talks about Republicans attracting people of color. He answers the question about whether racists dominate the Tea Party movement:


Herman Cain Might Run For President
Uploaded by melissaclouthier. – News videos from around the world.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Pension Funding Levels: All Depends On The Market

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

President Obama has become President Wall Street because even he realizes that his union buddies will be s.o.l. if the market tanks. Why? Because he knows that pensions depend on the stability and health of the market.

Pensions go to union members and depending on your state, some unions are in worse health than others. Chart here is very good. So, President Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth.

On the one hand he labels Wall Street evil, but even he knows that if everything implodes, his union buds will be in a heap of trouble.

More here.



The Greater Good Means Too Bad For The Children

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Senator Lieberman tried yet again to save D.C.’s school children and it fell on the deaf progressive ears of President Obama. Why does President Obama hate children? Why does he treat his own girls one way and act with willful indifference to needy minority kids going to the same school as them?

Read this and be outraged:

Right now, today, some 1,900 Washington children are sitting in calm, safe, orderly classrooms in neighborhoods other than their own, because of this program. The cost, in the scheme of things, is laughably small.

Yet congressional Democrats and Obama are killing it. This week, Lieberman’s colleagues voted down his attempt to attach a voucher-saving amendment to a larger piece of legislation.
It is a scandal. That the children already enrolled in the scheme will be able to finish 12th grade with the scholarship is small comfort; why only them? Why not their younger brothers and sisters, who will not have the same chance? Why leave these children behind?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Only-some-children-left-behind-88189257.html#ixzz0iXHrtiBQ

When you hear liberals talk about loving the little children, keep in mind that, as usual, they only love some children–mostly their own.

That’s what happens when decisions are made for the greater good. The ruling class gets one set of health care, education, tax break, government deal, home, car, etc. and then the regular folks get what the “greater good” gets–which is usually nothing.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Obama Goes Belly Up

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

How much do people hate health care reform? They hate it so much they’re starting to hate President Obama because he won’t shut up about it. Gallup has the distressing news for President Obama: 47% disapprove. 46% approve.

Three more weeks of health care haggling? That should put President Obama over 50% disapproval or more.

I’ve heard people say that approval goes up as soon as it passes. Um, I doubt it.



NYT: Millions Spent To Sway Democrats. You Don’t Say? Actually, You DON’T Say

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Is it any wonder Americans hate with a pure, enraged hate, the politics of Washington, D.C.? What a disgusting town.

The New York Times reports the obvious, yet again:

The yearlong legislative fight over health care is drawing to a frenzied close as a multimillion-dollar wave of advertising that rivals the ferocity of a presidential campaign takes aim at about 40 House Democrats whose votes will help determine the fate of President Obama’s top domestic priority.

Oh, wait. What’s that? The article is about advertising being spent to sway those on the fence about the health care reform bill? That’s bad?

There aren’t even words to describe my contempt for this purposeful misdirecting piece of garbage cloaked as news.

If Jeff Zelany and the New York times cared about money in politics, they’d investigate the money that the Democrats are throwing around to bribe their fellow Democrats to vote for a piece of legislation that no one wants besides the New York Times editorial board.

What nonsense!

I went to the article figuring they’d be talking about the avarice disguised as sausage-making and they’re taking time to talk about advocacy advertisements and the millions being spent on a bill no one wants?

The outrage should be focused where the American people are focusing: on the nasty pit-vipered swamps of D.C. But no. Focus everywhere else. Blame the American people and advocacy groups for trying to influence this fetid process.

The president’s traipsing through the jobless midwest? Worthless. The Congress Democrats bickering and buying-off and banning Republicans from the process? Worthless. The Press, like the New York Times, spewing empty drivel when Americans know the truth? Worthless.

Push ’em all into the Potomac and start over. We’d be better off.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]