I have to say that Herman Cain's rise to the top has been interesting to watch. He is a likeable personality, a highly successful businessman, and has captured some vocal quarters in the Republican Party and the Tea Party.
But at this point, I see Herman Cain as serving two purposes. He is the anti-Obama candidate of the day. Which proves the Tea Partiers and the Republicans are no where close to being racist. This was not needing to be proved, but I think there are those on the Republican side still trying to prove it. And being the anti-Obama candidate of the day means he is also the anti-Romney candidate of the day. (I say that because Romney and Obama are pretty much evil twins in my book.) Being the anti-Romney candidate is why Cain won the Florida Straw Poll. Conservatives are trying to show the RNC that they don't want Romney. Count me in on that. I don't want Romney and I'm sick of seeing him confidently defending the indefensible, which is Romneycare. The other night he proudly boasted that Massachusetts didn't have to raise taxes to implement Romneycare. What he didn't say was that insurance rates have increased 14% to cover the cost of Romneycare, so more of the poor and middle class cannot afford insurance. This is the basic set up of Obama's slide into government run health care, i.e. make private insurance unaffordable so the government is the only safety net and we end up with socialized medical care. Thank you so much Mitt Romney. I have to try hard not to throw my shoe at the television set every time he launches into the subject.
But back to Cain. 9-9-9 is the slippery slope into the Fair Tax. Just like Romneycare is the slippery slope into socialized health care, the Fair Tax is the slippery slope into government tracking of every consumer action in the U.S. with the attending new Federal taxes attached. Just what we need. Now you might argue that tracking is going on now anyway by virtue of credit card purchases. And you would be right. But, that tracking is not now used to sic the Federal government on you to collect yet another Federal tax.
Over to the right on my side bar is a link to a lengthy article on the Fair Tax Fraud. It's worth reading through if you are interested in the weeds of the matter. So, no matter how nice of a guy Herman Cain is, and no matter how much you are wishing for a tax reform plan, I believe this is a disaster in the making for the "American economic engine," as Cain puts it. The Socialists in Europe already have both, the VAT (government sales tax) and Socialized health care, and I don't notice that Europe is doing all that well these days.
I guess the bottom line here is this. I'm sick of the neo-cons in the RNC and the main stream media driving the nomination of the Republican candidate. I'm not in this so these powerful aliens to my everyday life can pick my candidate. Plus, the primary season is being moved up and the time we have to choose is growing closer. This means, those of us who have a different choice than these two current front runners better step up and get in there working to elect the one you want.
Who does this leave?? I have liked Bachmann, but she is not without flaws. Having said that, she is light years ahead of Cain and Romney in my book. I would choose her as second place. Having gone through all of my criteria and process of elimination, I am landing on Newt Gingrich as the best option. I can give you all of my reasons why in a later post. But my point is that if you are not in the tank for Romney or Cain (or Perry, who was another neo-con choice, as was Christie), then it is time to step up to the plate and start going to bat for the one you do want. We are running out of time to have our voices heard.
Showing posts with label Republican Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Candidates. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
MY TAKE ON REPUBLICAN DEBATES
I, for one, am grateful for the Republican debates. I realize they are part theater and part charades, but nevertheless, I think some reality shows through. I sit there watching the candidates and wonder, as I look at each of them, is this the person most aligned with what our country needs to survive the disaster that is Obama and the rest of the Progressive government we've inherited?
I ask questions like:
1. Will this person dismantle the constructions Obama and other presidents have put in place that destroy free markets and kill businesses?
2. Will this person micromanage our lives, just like the left does?
3. Will this person do what needs to be done to put the monetary policy on sound footing?
4. Will this person just do more social engineering?
5. Will this person take down the federal agencies that are draining the coffers and strangling our livelihoods and lives?
6. Will this person face down enemies and strengthen our military?
7. Does this person have a moral compass?
8. Will this person actually defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?
9. Will this person lie to the public?
10. Will this person downsize the federal government back to within its Constitutional limits?
So all of that is going on in my mind while I'm listening to the candidates answer questions. As they answer, I hear a lot of spin. Realizing they are trying to sell their ideas, I guess "spin" is what they think they must do. Some of them do not come across as "spinners." Ron Paul does not "spin," in my estimation. He just calls it like he sees it. Bachmann does not come across as a "spinner." She, too, seems to just speak her mind. And I like what she says. Her exposure of Perry's (Guardasil) cronyism is spot on. Johnson and Huntsman might as well go home. They have about two points each that are conservative, but otherwise they just don't go where I want to go. They seem smarmy and more interested in global initiatives than restoring America. Santorum seems sincere, but also seems hot tempered, which may be a good thing in some circumstances, but not good in others. His hard hitting style comes across sometimes as arrogance and that worries me, but I think he is just passionate on his points. Cain. Well, now there is a "spinner." He sells his 9-9-9 plan like a used car salesman. I'm sure he was great for Godfather's Pizza and a terrific businessman. I think he is probably a really nice man. I could like him personally. But I hate the Fair Tax and he will never get my vote because of it. Gingrich has the right personality for the job, is statesmanlike, and his experience shows. I worry he still likes government solutions and may not be "small government" enough. However, he is strong on American defense, foreign policies, and free market solutions to economics. He has a good grasp of the Muslim threat to us.
Assuming the lower tier of candidates can't win, I'd put Gingrich at head of state, Bachmann in charge of justice, Cain in charge of commerce, Paul in charge of treasury, Santorum in charge of defense policies, Johnson and Huntsman can do event planning maybe.
O.K. So that brings us to the two supposed front runners.
Perry lost me totally last night. He tried to spin the Guardasil episode as a matter of the heart. Same with his illegal "in state" tuition issue. It's all about "heart," is it? Well, we had one of those "compassionate conservatives" from Texas already...and we ended up with another unaffordable entitlement (the drug bill) and the "No Child Left Behind Act." Not to mention undefended borders. No thank you. Not going there again. So he has a heart? Don't we all? But does that mean we create more mandates that enrich corporations and unions? And does that mean we are in for another amnesty program? More entitlements that redistribute the wealth? And, his cronyism points to more corporatism and corruption. What is the difference between this Guardasil episode and Solyndra? Not much, if you ask me.
And then Romney. Well, I have said in the past that his Romneycare program would prevent me from ever voting for him. He definitely slid around that issue last night. He explained it in a way that sounded very plausible. He pointed out a huge difference between Romneycare and Obamacare, saying that Romneycare does not get between the patient and the doctor. That is a huge difference and makes me rethink things somewhat. My other problem with Romneycare is that it is mandated socialism. That is a core problem for me. It tells me he will use socialism when he wants to, to promote some so-called "common good." He defends Social Security the same way, though does indicate the program needs "fixing." In the end, Romney is another "compassionate conservative" who promotes socialism-lite.
I keep landing on Bachmann, with Gingrich as my second choice. You could flip those two around and I would be o.k. with that. Either one as President or Vice President. But at this point, if Romney or Perry get the nomination, I am flumblustered as to how to proceed. It is not that I am looking for purity, exactly. But it is going to take really tough and strong medicine to take this country forward on better footing. Whoever gets the Presidency is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up, not just Obama's mess, but those who went before him enacting disastrous agencies and policies. As far as I can tell, Romney and Perry are just more of the same and we will stumble along without fixing the real problems...those problems existed before Obamacare.
By the way, from my grasp of the issue, Obamacare is not just that one bill. Obamacare policies were funded through the first stimulous bill, are being put in place as I write, and have to be weeded out, one by one. That is more than just giving the states a "waiver" from Obamacare. That means the rest of it will have to be found and scrapped ASAP. Obama and Pelosi and Reid sent a slew of roaches into our healthcare system via the stimulus bill. Funding for micro-chips in persons is in there. Funding for the federal file system of all patient records is in there. Funding for implementing the bureaucratic death panels is in there. That must be addressed.
I was glad to hear most of the candidates say they would repeal Dodd-Frank, another redistribution bill that puts financial institutions in worse shape, a la the Community Reinvestment Act, but worse.
That's my take on the debates so far. There are questions not being asked regarding slush funds for Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, and Agenda 21. I would ask the candidates if they would dismantle Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development, Obama's White House Rural Council, the Food Modernization Safety Act, Bush's Part D bill, besides the EPA, the NEA, (both of them, arts + education), and cut HUD and the DOE. Would they reinstate funding for roads from the 30% diverted to greenways and bike lanes? What would they do about the continuing flow of block grants? Can we rethink the gerrymandering Voting Rights Act? (talk about a sticky wicket no one will touch. ) Can we change the "anchor baby" provision? So many questions.
It seems odd to me those subjects don't show up in the debates, but being media driven, who knows why. What do you think? Do you have a favorite yet?
I ask questions like:
1. Will this person dismantle the constructions Obama and other presidents have put in place that destroy free markets and kill businesses?
2. Will this person micromanage our lives, just like the left does?
3. Will this person do what needs to be done to put the monetary policy on sound footing?
4. Will this person just do more social engineering?
5. Will this person take down the federal agencies that are draining the coffers and strangling our livelihoods and lives?
6. Will this person face down enemies and strengthen our military?
7. Does this person have a moral compass?
8. Will this person actually defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?
9. Will this person lie to the public?
10. Will this person downsize the federal government back to within its Constitutional limits?
So all of that is going on in my mind while I'm listening to the candidates answer questions. As they answer, I hear a lot of spin. Realizing they are trying to sell their ideas, I guess "spin" is what they think they must do. Some of them do not come across as "spinners." Ron Paul does not "spin," in my estimation. He just calls it like he sees it. Bachmann does not come across as a "spinner." She, too, seems to just speak her mind. And I like what she says. Her exposure of Perry's (Guardasil) cronyism is spot on. Johnson and Huntsman might as well go home. They have about two points each that are conservative, but otherwise they just don't go where I want to go. They seem smarmy and more interested in global initiatives than restoring America. Santorum seems sincere, but also seems hot tempered, which may be a good thing in some circumstances, but not good in others. His hard hitting style comes across sometimes as arrogance and that worries me, but I think he is just passionate on his points. Cain. Well, now there is a "spinner." He sells his 9-9-9 plan like a used car salesman. I'm sure he was great for Godfather's Pizza and a terrific businessman. I think he is probably a really nice man. I could like him personally. But I hate the Fair Tax and he will never get my vote because of it. Gingrich has the right personality for the job, is statesmanlike, and his experience shows. I worry he still likes government solutions and may not be "small government" enough. However, he is strong on American defense, foreign policies, and free market solutions to economics. He has a good grasp of the Muslim threat to us.
Assuming the lower tier of candidates can't win, I'd put Gingrich at head of state, Bachmann in charge of justice, Cain in charge of commerce, Paul in charge of treasury, Santorum in charge of defense policies, Johnson and Huntsman can do event planning maybe.
O.K. So that brings us to the two supposed front runners.
Perry lost me totally last night. He tried to spin the Guardasil episode as a matter of the heart. Same with his illegal "in state" tuition issue. It's all about "heart," is it? Well, we had one of those "compassionate conservatives" from Texas already...and we ended up with another unaffordable entitlement (the drug bill) and the "No Child Left Behind Act." Not to mention undefended borders. No thank you. Not going there again. So he has a heart? Don't we all? But does that mean we create more mandates that enrich corporations and unions? And does that mean we are in for another amnesty program? More entitlements that redistribute the wealth? And, his cronyism points to more corporatism and corruption. What is the difference between this Guardasil episode and Solyndra? Not much, if you ask me.
And then Romney. Well, I have said in the past that his Romneycare program would prevent me from ever voting for him. He definitely slid around that issue last night. He explained it in a way that sounded very plausible. He pointed out a huge difference between Romneycare and Obamacare, saying that Romneycare does not get between the patient and the doctor. That is a huge difference and makes me rethink things somewhat. My other problem with Romneycare is that it is mandated socialism. That is a core problem for me. It tells me he will use socialism when he wants to, to promote some so-called "common good." He defends Social Security the same way, though does indicate the program needs "fixing." In the end, Romney is another "compassionate conservative" who promotes socialism-lite.
I keep landing on Bachmann, with Gingrich as my second choice. You could flip those two around and I would be o.k. with that. Either one as President or Vice President. But at this point, if Romney or Perry get the nomination, I am flumblustered as to how to proceed. It is not that I am looking for purity, exactly. But it is going to take really tough and strong medicine to take this country forward on better footing. Whoever gets the Presidency is going to have one hell of a mess to clean up, not just Obama's mess, but those who went before him enacting disastrous agencies and policies. As far as I can tell, Romney and Perry are just more of the same and we will stumble along without fixing the real problems...those problems existed before Obamacare.
By the way, from my grasp of the issue, Obamacare is not just that one bill. Obamacare policies were funded through the first stimulous bill, are being put in place as I write, and have to be weeded out, one by one. That is more than just giving the states a "waiver" from Obamacare. That means the rest of it will have to be found and scrapped ASAP. Obama and Pelosi and Reid sent a slew of roaches into our healthcare system via the stimulus bill. Funding for micro-chips in persons is in there. Funding for the federal file system of all patient records is in there. Funding for implementing the bureaucratic death panels is in there. That must be addressed.
I was glad to hear most of the candidates say they would repeal Dodd-Frank, another redistribution bill that puts financial institutions in worse shape, a la the Community Reinvestment Act, but worse.
That's my take on the debates so far. There are questions not being asked regarding slush funds for Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, and Agenda 21. I would ask the candidates if they would dismantle Carter's Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development, Obama's White House Rural Council, the Food Modernization Safety Act, Bush's Part D bill, besides the EPA, the NEA, (both of them, arts + education), and cut HUD and the DOE. Would they reinstate funding for roads from the 30% diverted to greenways and bike lanes? What would they do about the continuing flow of block grants? Can we rethink the gerrymandering Voting Rights Act? (talk about a sticky wicket no one will touch. ) Can we change the "anchor baby" provision? So many questions.
It seems odd to me those subjects don't show up in the debates, but being media driven, who knows why. What do you think? Do you have a favorite yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
