The Disappointing 2012 Republican Field
Forewarning: this is a little NSFW - more so near the end.
After 2 debates, all I can say about the 2012 Republican field is how awful it is. All these people. They are really the best we got? Seriously?
The upcoming election, granted, will be a referendum on Obamanomics, which are a failure. If the Gun Running and Solyndra scandals don't explode in his face, then the 9+% unemployment, enormous deficits and Obamacare will bring Obama down. Whether or not he loses, I fear, is in the hands of these people up on stage.
Can I go down the line a bit with these people? I'll get to Rick Perry last because I wanted to like him. But I'm going to go a little mental on him.
Ron Paul - Why the hell is this guy on stage? Let's ignore his catering of 9/11 truthers for a moment. Hell, let's even ignore is general weirdness. Let's simply talk about his asinine comment in the CNN/Tea Party debate on 9/12 where he says that 9/11 was our fault because we had bases in Saudi Arabia and that made Bin Laden mad, which gave him the right to attack us. Something about Iraq too. Blah blah.
Bin Laden, does not live in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know, we have bases there because the rulers of that country want them there. It's Bin Laden's holy land right? Isn't it theirs as well? If it doesn't offend the holy views of them, why do we care what Bin Laden thinks? He doesn't even live there.
Or, in another sense, our foreign policy is dictated by the whims of a 8 billion people on the planet. If we do something any of them disapprove of, apparently - in Paul's head - that gives them the right to bomb us? Really? And even if it does offend someone, their immediate instinct is to bomb us? Only a somewhat racist view of muslims as well, I'd say. Don't do something they don't like, cuz they might bomb us. Wow. Fuck you.
He's a serious candidate.
Mitt Romney - Dude has more policy positions that a yoga class. He'll say anything or do anything to garner a vote. I'm not even sure what his core values are and that he continues to support Romneycare despite the fact that, according to the WSJ, it's a dismal failure:
A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average.
Michelle Bachmann - I like her as a bomb thrower, but that she repeats the false claim that injections cause autism is anti-science and pro-stupid. Her good ideas are too often buried under incredibly dumb comments.
Jon Huntsman - Is that his name? Jon? I dunno. I don't care. Guy has a decent tax plan that I'd support in a heartbeat, but calling someone (Perry) a traitor because he disagrees a fence can be built across the entire border? Really? Really? This guy resorts to ad honimens faster than anyone I've ever seen up on a debate stage. During the second debate, I actually liked him for about 3/4 of the thing, then he got asked the question about global warming and his advisor who called people stupid or something for disagreeing. He wouldn't comment on it, which, you know, says everything I need to know about him. (Don't get me started that denying AGW is anti-science, cuz that's a bunch of bullshit).
Herman Cain - I like a lot of things about him. But I also seem to remember him saying some incredibly stupid crap and seems to do it pretty regularly too. His 9/9/9 plan seems interesting. So is his constant rhetoric that we need to fix things, not just point out the problems. He seems like a good VP candidate, at best.
Finally, Rick Perry. Oh wait. Did I skip some people? Yeah, I don't know either. Who cares about them. (Newt Maybe. Is it 1994 still? Yeah. I didn't think so).
So I want to like you, Rick. I really do. Texas is producing the most jobs in this country, was hit least by the recession and generally seems to have its head on straight when it comes to the state economy. Except when stupid democrats flee to Oklahoma for some reason.
But, you're an idiot. What is it with Texas and its leaders not being able to form a coherent sentence? Can someone explain this to me? You remind me of Bush, and that's not a good thing.
During the Brian Williams debate, he said that only 74% of people have health insurance. Here is your answer:
I'm sorry Brian. I didn't realize it was my job to go to everyone's house and make them buy something you'd like them to buy. The state is made up of individual people who have a choice to buy it or not to buy it. If they do, great. If they don't. Great. Their choice. Their life. I'm not here to police people's choices in life.
You could say it a little nice, but why accept the premise of the question?
On this HPV thing. Who gives a shit. Really. It's just a trumped up load of crap because you are leading in the polls. Treat it like that. It won't damage your campaign. If you are the winner in the primaries what is Obama gonna do? Complain that you wanted girls to take a vaccination? When this fucker is forcing people to buy a product from mult-national companies that they may not even need? Really? Fuck that.
On the in state tuition thing. I kinda sorta see your position here. In state and out of state tuition differences is a bunch of bullshit anyways. If illegals can afford to pay for college and there are no legal citizens being turned away due to enrollment limitations. Sure, let them learn if they can pay. Who gives a shit.
On the border fence. Yeah, maybe 1200 miles is a bit much to cover. But the fuckin' army on the border to do it? Posse comitatus. Look it up. The way to solve this problem is to go after employers who employ illegals. Also, make it impossible for people to get entitlements if they aren't legal (what a fuckin' concept!). Huntsman calling you a traitor for this? I'd have punched him in the ass. What a fuckin' prick. And you stood there like a fuckin' retard.
On amnesty. I've long said that if you are here illegally and if you have a job (ie not on the dole) and no criminal record, I'm cool with giving you amnesty. You are productive. But if you are in jail, on the dole or otherwise a loser - kick em out. I cannot imagine any sane person telling some guy who has been here for 20 years with a house/job/kids that he has to go home cuz he didn't fill out some piece of paper. That's retarded.
On Social Security. Yes, it's a ponzi scheme. We get you think its a ponzi scheme. Now, instead saying it is, do something serious. Like, oh I dunno, telling everyone specifically how you'd fix it. You cannot win the election by handing the democrats a meme like "Scary Perry wants to kill Granny" but that's what you are doing. It's nice that you've opened up the discussion in such a public way. I love you for it. I know SS/Medicare will bankrupt this country. Ideas, man. Open up your brain and give some solutions - instead of simply complaining like a girl.
All-in-all, Perry. You're disappointing thus far. I haven't watched you speak on TV a lot, so the debates are all I get. And you come across like shit. I wonder what the fuck you are even doing up on stage. Clearly, you need to study up more on the issues and the opponents, not to mention how to defend your own policies. Till then, guess I'll cry myself to sleep at night knowing I'll have to vote for that fucktard Romney in 2012.
Fixing the Voting Process
Whether or not you like the results, it's clear a political upheaval will happen on Tuesday. But the real question is, "Why isn't the upheaval larger?"
Currently Congress has a 74% disapproval rating.
RCP AverageApprove 19.8Disapprove 73.8
Alan Grayson Meets Basil Marceaux
Alan Grayson (D) has something in common with everyone's favorite Basil Marceaux. What is it you ask?
Nefarious international schemes to murder them, naturally.
He also compared the seriousness of the death threats to “John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X,” and “John Lennon.”
He then goes on to warn the reporter that his life is in danger from the same men who shot Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., and that if the reporter comes to visit him, she should probably bring a rifle.
One of these men is a hero to their party. One is a joke to his. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Steny Hoyer: Tax Increases Shall Not Pass
George Bush had a dastardly scheme back in 2001 (no not that one, Paultards!). He passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut for nearly every American. The bill is set to expire in 2011, raising those taxes back to the 2001 levels. Steny Hoyer says this dastardly tax cutting scheme will not happen and he'll extend those tax cuts. Which, um, Republicans want to happen.
“We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase — that their policies would lead to — to go into effect for working Americans. Period,” he said. “We’re going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed.”
First, English teachers diagram this sentence for me. It's nearly incomprehensible.
Secondly. Get this? The Republicans had a dastardly scheme back in 2001 to cut your taxes. If they'd only offered a plan to make those cuts permanent, the plan would have been thwarted. You'd think that Hoyer, protector of the middle class, would have supported this plan, right? Can't let those Republicans raise taxes, after all.
But you'd be mistaken. Hoyer voted against the Bush tax cuts and he voted against making them permanent as well.
- Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
- Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
- Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Barry Saunders: I Abuse Animals For Fun
In an odd defense of Bob Etheridge and his assault on a student who asked him a question, Barry Saunders admits to abusing animals.
Most guys who've ever dated a woman with a pet they didn't like know how to surreptitiously poke Fluffy or elbow it in the ribs while appearing to caress it.
(Note to the woman he's dating: Yeah, you might not want him to look after Fluffy for the weekend. It might end up in the freezer.)
That's quite the defense, I suppose. A lot of analogies could be made here, I think (So that's how Democrats treat voters!, So that's how politicians treat tax payers!, etc etc etc) but I think this little comment here - which apparently he thinks is somewhat normal - betrays his true feelings.
Instead of ignoring the kid on the street (Etheridge is, of course, under no obligation to answer or even acknowledge the person), he grabs his wrist, steals his phone and goes all creeper on him. Fluffy deserved to be poked, and elbowed for doing, um, nothing wrong.
In the rest of the column, Saunders seems to be obsessed with the students for not having a face. He mentions it 6 or 7 times. There might be some further issues here to discuss, but that'd really be between him and his therapist, I'm sure.
In the mean time, I'd like to invite PETA to denounce Saunders for admitting to casual animal abuse.
Chris Christie – The Day of Reckoning
This guy is just amazing. I love him. The one thing you can never say about this guy is that he's never talking from his heart. No teleprompters. No um'ing or ah'ing. Or politically correct bull crap. Just the honest truth. This clip is almost 7 minutes of it. Forget Romney or Palin or (eek!) Huckabee - I hope this guy runs for President in 2012. Him and Jindal.
While the national Republican Party is incompetent, these two men communicate small government principles better than anyone else out there that I've seen in a very long time. Christie is out there fighting obscene union benefits and cutting the pork laden NJ budget - and watching him give a speech - it's just incredible. And look at the audience. Smiling, nodding and attentive. They know he's sincere in what he's saying and they know what he's saying is the truth.
The day of reckoning is here. The fat man is singing it every day.
Also, homeless man tells Christie how awesome he is.
h/t Instapundit.
Alvin Greene, Rocket Scientist, Senate Candidate
So that's Senate Candidate Alvin Greene on Olbermann the other night. Wow. Ooookay.
Let's get a few things straight. Yes, he's obviously unprepared. One could argue he's mentally disabled, I guess. So how did he get to be candidate for Senate in South Carolina?
First, let's go thru the conspiracy theory that he's a Republican plant.
Let's assume he's a plant. So, the GOP put this guy out there, hoping he'd get the nomination. Did the Republicans send him any money? No. Did they vote for him? No. Do the moronic Republicans even seem capable of pulling something like this off? No. The theory just doesn't wash on any level at all.
The far more plausible theory is, is that democrat voters are mindless robots. His name was top on the ballot, given that there was no incumbent on the Democrat side. Lazy voters just picked the first name they saw and went with it. That is far more plausible than a Republican plant (and it's not even the first time it has happened). It's something Democrats obviously don't want to hear - but that's normal for them . Coming to terms with reality has never been their strong point.
So, in that light, let's think about Clyburn's call for an investigation into the vote. The exact same people who voted for Greene voted for Clyburn - especially in the primary. So are both results questionable, or is just Greene's? Are Democrats in SC simply not capable of voting properly? If so, should Clyburn's election also be put into doubt?
Let's take it even further. What's so bad about Greene? He says he's a lifelong Democrat. One would presume he'd be a reliable vote for anything he's told to vote for. Seems to me, he's exactly what Democrats want up there. How is he different than, say, John Kerry? Or Al Franken? His voting record would probably be near identical to theirs. He's a perfect fit into the caucus. Just another nameless/faceless automaton in the Senate - voting for whatever he's told to vote for. He's the perfect distillation of what the Democrats want - mindless, obedient, reliable, no ambition. How is he any different than, say, Cynthia McKinney? Or Maxine Waters?
Really, does it scare them that the logical conclusion of their beliefs is people like Alvin Greene? Or is it that they just don't want him to the face of it? Why do they tolerate people like Maxine Waters? or Cynthia McKinney?
Final thought on the Olbermann interview. Did Greene really say anything more stupid than what Olbermann says on a nightly basis? Or Maddow? Or Leg Thrill Matthews?
Joke
What's the difference between a person without healthcare and a terrorist?
A terrorist gets a trial before going to jail.
What’s Driving the 2010 Deficit?
I saw this story today. And started to wonder. What is driving the 2010 deficit?
First off. A complaint:
Spending dipped 2.7 percent to $311.7 billion. Last October's outlays were inflated by the $33 billion spent on the first round of financial bailouts at the peak of the financial crisis.
If you take away that $33 billion dollars (I know you can't, but simply accounting for "normal" spending), then spending actually rose 3% over last October. The deficit for October is $176.4 billion - remember when yearly deficits under Bush were much and people went mental? We are set to high Bush's highest deficit number (sans 2008) in December of 2009. For the 2010 budget. Scary.
Revenues continue to drop.
The imbalance came mostly from lower receipts of individual and corporate taxes. Receipts were $135.3 billion, a 17.9 percent drop from last October.
Obviously due to the fact that more people are unemployed now. 10.2% or 17.5%, depending on how you want to count. I like the 10.2% number, myself. Because it's the normal standard we use and the 17.5% counts people who are "under-employed" but I don't think it's a number you can assign responsibility for.
Here's the point of this post though:
The Obama administration expects this year's deficit to reach $1.5 trillion. That would make it the third straight record annual deficit.
If TARP ($700 billion) and Porkulus ($787 billion) drove the 2009 deficit. What is driving the $1.5 trillion one in 2010? If those are one time expenses, they do not count for 2010 in government accounting. So what's driving it? If TARP is included in the 2008 Deficit (as I thought it was, which is why the final Bush deficit was so high), why is it also accounted for here, as part of the 2009 deficit?
You'd think, naturally that if you remove ~$1.5 trillion from the books, you'll be in much better territory. The 2009 deficit was around $1.8 trillion ($1.4 is what DC uses officially, as they removed ~$400 billion off book). So if you take $1.5 trillion away from this, shouldn't the deficit be back down to around $300 billion?
If not. Why not? Why is it so high for 2010?