A new report proves the candidate fed a 20-month-old baby to crocodiles!
More bad news for Romney: A new report proves the candidate fed a 20-month-old baby to crocodiles!
Read the whole thing. The story is tragic and horrifying.
More bad news for Romney: A new report proves the candidate fed a 20-month-old baby to crocodiles!
Read the whole thing. The story is tragic and horrifying.
I lived through the 1980 election, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I was struck at the time by the fact that next to no one among the political scientists who made a living out of studying presidential elections, communism in eastern Europe, and Sovietology saw any of these upheavals coming. Virtually all of them were caught flat-footed.
This is, in fact, what you would expect. They were all expert in the ordinary operations of a particular system, and within that framework they were pretty good at prognostication. But the apparent stability of the system had lured them into a species of false confidence – not unlike the false confidence that fairly often besets students of the stock market.
There were others, less expert in the particulars of these systems, who had a bit more distance and a bit more historical perspective and who saw it coming. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik wrote a prescient book entitled Can the Soviet Union Survive 1984? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn predicted communism’s imminent collapse, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan suspected that the Soviet Union would soon face a fatal crisis. They were aware that institutions and outlooks that are highly dysfunctional will eventually and unexpectedly dissolve.
In my opinion, none of the psephologists mentioned above has reflected on the degree to which the administrative entitlements state – envisaged by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, instituted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and expanded by their successors – has entered a crisis, and none of them is sensitive to the manner in which Barack Obama, in his audacity, has unmasked that state’s tyrannical propensities and its bankruptcy. In consequence, none of these psephologists has reflected adequately on the significance of the emergence of the Tea-Party Movement, on the meaning of Scott Brown’s election and the particular context within which he was elected, on the election of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and of Bob McDonnell as Governor of Virginia, and on the political earthquake that took place in November, 2010. That earthquake, which gave the Republicans a strength at the state and local level that they have not enjoyed since 1928, is a harbinger of what we will see this November.
I agree. However, the author misses one point. There is no guarantee that the American public will vote rationally. Obama might still win. However, the big government welfare state that he and the left believe in is still bankrupt and about to fall apart, no matter what happens in November. The only real question is whether we will honestly face the disaster brewing before us and begin the process of fixing it now, or we will make believe it isn’t there and allow it to overwhelm us in its collapse.
Either way, the federal government is about to go bankrupt, and if we don’t do something about it that bankruptcy will take everything else down with it.
Attack of the Cookie Monsters.
The sad part is that the author provides documentation for every single silly attack, none of which have the slightest significance in the greater scheme of our present-day problems, where we have a federal government going bankrupt and a Senate and President who routinely flout the law for political reasons.
The perspective of one man running for President:
[W]hat exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture? In the case of the United States, it is a particular kind of culture that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. Many significant features come to mind: our work ethic, our appreciation for education, our willingness to take risks, our commitment to honor and oath, our family orientation, our devotion to a purpose greater than ourselves, our patriotism. But one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality. [emphasis mine]
Sounds good to me, though we should all reserve the right to remain skeptical of anything a politician says. It is what they do that matters. Nonetheless, that Romney is making freedom a central part of his platform is further proof that he recognizes the trends and, like any politician, wants to be on the cusp of that wave. Or to once again repeat the words of Milton Friedman, “The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”
Not just a river in Egypt: The weird and tone deaf political analysis of the left.
And funny too.
I say “Please!” and I say it loudly. Picking Ryan for number two would reverse Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, picking moderate George Bush Sr. as his VP. The result of that bad choice was 12 years of Bush rule in the late 1980s and in the 2000s, during which there was little effort to rein in the power or size of government. In fact, the Bushes did a lot to increase government’s power and size.
Picking Ryan as VP would place a competent fiscal conservative into the limelight and make such a person a leading contender for the Presidency in future years. It would also help demonstrate again that the 2010 election was a trend, not a fluke.
Not good: The man tapped to head Romney’s transition team should he win the election favors implementing Obamacare on the state level.
The Romney campaign responded to say that Romney intents to repeal Obamacare fully once in office. Still, to pick this man to head his transition team is worrisome.
Amen to that.
“Santorum talked himself out of the nomination.”
As did all the conservative alternatives to Romney:
The auditions are just about over. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum all had their chances to be the conservative champion of the nation. Each blew it in his own special way. They soared like rockets and faded away.
In Santorum’s case, it was this:
Late-breaking voters went overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney in today’s Michigan primary as Rick Santorum’s robocalls to Democratic voters, who failed to turn out in big numbers, apparently encouraging Republicans to turn out to back the former Massachusetts governor.
If you are going to run as a conservative, don’t campaign using Democrat Party talking points: Santorum tried to win Democratic union votes by criticizing Romney for not backing the auto bailout. Since the auto bailout is generally despised by conservative voters, they heard this and abandoned Santorum in droves.
Surprise, surprise! A new poll shows that Obamacare continues to be a major political problem for Obama, and Romney.
In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:
- Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum’s lead narrows to 49%-46%.
- Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.
Romney also has a health care problem: Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in the battleground states, 27% say they are less likely to support him because he signed a Massachusetts law that required residents to have coverage. Just 7% say it makes them more likely to back him.
At least Romney has made it clear he intends to repeal Obamacare, which should help him in the election should he overcome the Republican hostility to RomneyCare and become the Republican candidate. For Obama, however, there is no escape. Obamacare is his problem, and his alone, and he is likely going to go down in flames because of it more than anything else.
Shooting himself in the foot: Mitt Romney said Tuesday that cutting government spending would hurt the economy.
Though Romney clearly was trying to make a more subtle point, this is the kind of statement that is killing him with Republican voters.
Mitt Romney: President Obama versus religious liberty.
In a campaign rally Friday in Florida, Mitt Romney put forth his perspective on the state of the American space program, and what he plans to do about it.
The speech is about 16 minutes long. It is worth listening to it in its entirety.
In it, Romney outlined the reasons he thinks a robust space program is important: defense, innovation, exploration, and the ability to respond to potential natural threats from space. Having done so, however, he then refused to outline any specific actions he would take to address these issues, saying instead that once in office he will bring together the right kinds of space experts who will then advice him on the right kind of plan to achieve all these important goals.
I appreciate his refusal to pander. At the same time, his vagueness does not make me enthusiastic. Moreover, he is only offering us the same thing we have seen numerous times before, another blue ribbon panel study outlining a plan. It would make me far happier if he already understood better the problems of the space program, and could articulate the actions he wishes to take, as Gingrich did.
» Read more
Romney adviser former Senator Norm Coleman this week suggested in an interview that ObamaCare won’t ever be repealed in its entirety.
And people wonder why Romney hasn’t gotten traction among Republicans.
This is truly funny: Newtzilla conquers all?
Romney and Gingrich and their contrasting space policy views, as stated during in Florida debate last night.
Private-sector experience? Oh, no!
People have started to learn some disturbing facts about likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney: He once worked for Bain Capital — which is what’s known as a private-sector business. Harmless as the term sounds, it’s much scarier once you understand how such outfits operate.
A private-sector business doesn’t even pretend to make decisions based on how to best help people or what creates the most jobs or even on what will most equally distribute income. It makes decisions based only on what creates a profit.
Yes, it’s frightening to think that something so mercenary even exists — even worse that someone who worked for something like that could actually become president. Of course, the only people who should lead our country and manage our economy are those who remain unsullied by the private sector’s for-profit mentality: career politicians.
Read the whole thing. Once again, Frank Fleming hits the nail on the head.
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
This statement was made by Mitt Romney yesterday, explaining how it is a good thing to be able to chose the company from which you buy your insurance, or any product, and how it is even a better thing to be able to dump that company if it doesn’t do its job well.
The author of the article above, along probably with much of the press, will try to stain Romney for this statement. To me, it is the best recommendation to hire him as President. With the federal government out of control, in debt, and unable to do anything it promises, it really is time to fire a lot of people. I hope Romney, if he turns out to be the candidate and wins the Presidency, has the courage to do it.