There is a lot of stimulus and growth in this bill – that is, of government. Nothing in this bill stimulates the freedom and prosperity of the American people. Politician-directed spending is never as successful as market-driven investment. Instead of passing this bill, Congress should get out of the way by cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reining in the reckless monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
Read it all here. I disregarded Ron Paul during his 2008 presidential bid, because for the first time in decades a libertarian had a microphone … and the American people were listening. Yet he squandered his time (“squandered,” or so I thought) talking about closing down the Federal Reserve. Closing down the Department of Education. Closing down the Department of Energy. If anyone does, a then 10-term Republican representative knows the value of principled baby steps.
But as it turns out, the Federal Reserve has arranged for our worst recession in decades. Inverted interest rates have led us from one asset bubble to the next for nine years now. No Child Left Behind is its own punch line. Oh, and, by the way? How is that Department of Energy treating you now? Revolutionary monetary policy, far-reaching shift in government operations are starting to smell pretty good right now.
Read Full Post »
Her piece includes the reaction from a 2012 GOP hopeful. (No, contrary to what you may have heard, Politiwatch is not in the tank for Romney. If I had to guess, I’d say that Tobias is leaning toward Jindal. As for me? Ron Paul was so dead-on with his prescription for monetary policy that right now it’s difficult to consider much else.)
“Barack Obama gave a speech from the middle. He once again is communicating that he intends to govern from the middle and not from the wing,” he wrote. “It was a speech that could be offered by a leader from either party and that’s good.”
Read Full Post »
Mexico is one of two countries that “bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The command’s “Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)” report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. “In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.
That bears repeating: our military equates Pakistan and Mexico, in terms of the states to watch for rapid and sudden collapse.
Relevance statement: knock on wood, but a collapse south of the Rio Grande would be a tragic — and very real — foreign policy challenge for President Obama. And therefore a marquee issue in the 2012 contest. And since Texans can see Mexico from their front porches, Ron Paul should be considered a front runner on that basis alone.
Read Full Post »
Ron Paul must be smoking some illegal contributions from his Paul-ites. He claims that Israel’s offensive in Gaza is unjustified because “Palestinian missiles are so minor compared to the fire power of Israel, who has nuclear weapons.” Paul’s twisted logic is analagous to saying that I can’t swat a mosquito that is sucking blood out of my arm because the palm of my hand is too big.
Can you imagine Commander-In-Chief Paul in charge of the red button? With an Iranain ICBM heading straight for him, he’d be apoplectic while trying to calculate the size of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s nuclear arsenal in order to make sure before he pressed it that he didn’t have any advantage in fire power.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Bobby Jindal, Candidacy, Candidates, Context, Eric Cantor, Featured Posts, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Steve Poizner on December 14, 2008|
Leave a Comment »
Many post-mortems in the past month have espoused upon the GOP’s failures in embracing technology and message dissemination. I took a look at the 2012 candidates’ website to see if they have learned anything from these lessons. I rated these websites on a scale of 1 to 5 in three areas: Issues pages, Web 2.0 Goodies and Website Design.
A voter can only make an informed decision about a candidate if that candidate clearly states his or her position on those issues. A candidacy website is a great place for a candidate to lay out his or her positions. In this review I set the bar deliberately low. I simply looked for an issues page that was east to find, comprehensive and well-written. I’ll review the actual content of those candidate positions in a later article. This time around, even though, I set the bar low, many of the candidates still couldn’t clear it! Some didn’t even have an issues page. Others had pages that discussed the issues vaguely and in general terms. Admittedly, a well-written issues page is an exercise in spin. Even so, if a candidate is incapable of doing that, how is he or she supposed to influence a voter’s decision? Only three candidates had issues pages on their websites that compared to Obama’s issues page. (Please keep in mind that I’m not praising Obama’s message. I’m simply acknowledging that one reason he won the 2008 election is because he was much more effective than McCain in articulating that message.) Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich all have issues pages that can compete with Obama’s for clarity, thoroughness and user-friendliness.
The candidate who is best able to articulate and disseminate his message to like-minded voters has a huge advantage over a candidate who falls short in this area. Web 2.0 technology is the cutting edge of social networking. Why are so many GOP candidates in denial about Web 2.0? Probably because their base is older and not plugged in to it. Well, that’s a big problem! A candidate can’t concede an entire generation to the other candidate. That’s like a marathoner giving his opponent a two-mile head start. Too many Republican candidates in our survey fell short in this are. A few rose to the top: Mitch Daniels, Ron Paul and Steve Poizner. A trail pack of Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Eric Cantor and Bobby Jindal showed well in this category.
This category is the least important of the three but still worth a mention. Why do so many politicians insist on a gaudy Red, White & Blue theme that screams patriotism? It seems like they all read the same book, one that told them that, unless they wrapped themselves in the American flag, people would question their patriotism. That’s silly. A website design says something about a candidate’s personality. Is she a maverick? Is he a conformist? Too many websites in our survey conformed to the I’m a Patriot School of Web Design. There were a couple of standouts, however. Instead of the usual cookie-cutter, run-of-the-mill, I’m Proud To Be An American design displayed by way too many of our candidates, Mitch Daniels went with an ultra modern blue and green theme that was a refreshing change of pace. Ron Paul has the edgiest, most youth-oriented site. It seems to whisper Revolution. He’s probably the real maverick in the GOP.
Read Full Post »