Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’
I have a great idea since I am smarter than the rest of you. The idea that I have is such an awesome idea that it hasn’t been tried yet. Well, okay, there was the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party, The Conservative Party, The Constitution Party, Ross Perot’s Reform Party, the Communist Party, the Nazi Party, and of course everybody’s favorite “The Rent Is Too Damn High Party (Because The Rent Is Too Damn High)”. We’re still investigating if anybody has tried “The people who have hair party” and the Mohawk Party.
I already know what I will name my political party. It needs the name of a great man, a magnificent man. Somebody who is a household name, that has a great name. Somebody who has a street in every city named after him and many schools that bear his name. That’s right, the Jefferson Party… named after none other than… yours truly. Me. My name is Jeff, and I would like to name my party after me.
Now, I am a proponent for you to go off and start your own political party, one in which your views reign supreme. I don’t care what you call your party, call it the “Party Like it’s 1999″ for all I care, just don’t try to steal the name “The Jefferson Party ©”. I just Copyrighted it. It’s mine, all mine.
You can join my party, and you should because obviously I know more about the fixing America than you do. First step, run for President. Next step, find a Vice President. Third step, criticize both parties because they are both wrong no matter what they do. See? I’ve got a wonderful platform.
Now, you may ask yourself, “Why leave the Republican Party and join the “Jefferson Party”? Because I have both a back bone and I will listen to YOU. Yes, I will listen to you, but not the people who disagree with you. I have the back bone to stand up to people who I disagree with, but will cave to your demands. I am the perfect guy that you want. No need for you to go out and win the debate, there’s no need for you to campaign for me. There is no need for you to make contributions to my campaign and there is no need for you to do anything other than sit in your Laz-E-Boy. I will fix America for you and do it just like you want me too.
Boehner? He’s got no back bone. He caves to pressure. Why would he listen to Obama? He should be listening to you. We didn’t send Boehner to Congress to work on behalf of the American people, we sent him there to work on our behalf. Wait a minute, I didn’t even send Boehner to congress! I never voted for him and as soon as he’s running in my district, I promise you, I will never vote for him again. How did he even become a congressman?
Sure he’s put him self out there and he’s won a few elections, somewhere, I’m sure. And there’s that other congressman, what’s his name again? What? There are 435 congressman out there? And ONLY 1 listens to ME???? And YOU??? What is this world coming too? You mean I am just like most Americans and only have 1 congressman who represents me? God Forbid it, I need my own political party.
You don’t need to tell me to jump off the Republican plank.
What???? I only have two Senators that listen to me, and only one that I voted for? Holy smokes! This is the reason why I need to start my own political party called the Jefferson Party ©! I need a party that listens to me!
And so do you. It is a military strategy to divide and conquer. That’s what we need to do, since this is a war, and all of us on the right need to do it. We need to divide and conquer Obama. We need everybody on the right to leave the Republican Party and divide our selves into several political parties, each pulling 20 Republicans away from that Party, and 5 Democrats away from their party. Then Barack Obama and the Democrats can win elections with only 37% of the vote. Divide ourselves, and conquer the Democrats! That will teach them a lesson! They won’t be able to ignore our voices then, will they?
Look it’s worked in other countries such as Nicaragua. Daniel Ortega became President with only 37% of the vote. Now instead of being a ruthless dictator, he’s now just President of Nicaragua. It worked in Venezuela, but those idiots down there are trying to screw up the plan. They have united and Hugo Chavez now has to win at least 50% of the vote because his opposition have finally united under one umbrella. They totally screwed up the plan, because Hugo Chavez began to rule by decree, and if people could just force him to win with 37% of the vote, he’ll start listening to his opposition then.
Sounds crazy, right? Any wonder why we’re losing elections when we sound like that? Maybe politics is the art of the possible and not the art of “ME”. On second thought, while some of you run to the hills to “fight”, I think I’ll stick around on the battleground.
by SoCal Gal on Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 10:56am
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950′s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of the 2008 election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree
On what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can
smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each
taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure
our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be
Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
–We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.
–You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are,
however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.
–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps users, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.
–We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .
–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.
–We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
–You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”
–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.
–We’ll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.
–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this?
If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Charlie
Sheen, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with you.
P.S.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
President Obama is…well now I guess that’s just it, isn’t it? We don’t know. He is so incompetent…so wrapped up in this image that was created around him, and now so over his head…Obama is dangerous. Dangerous to America. Dangerous to the world. Dangerous to our futures. He is not running this show. Maybe that’s for the better – who knows? Maybe he is so incapable that if he really was in charge it might be even worse?
I tell you what – if you don’t mind my suggestion here. Let me just talk for a bit. Let me just let some things out. I might ramble a bit, but if you’re ok with that – we can clean it up later…just let me talk. All due respect for your wanting to ask certain questions, but…at this point I want to say some things in my own way if you don’t mind. You ok with that?
(Long pause – then laughs) Ah…looks like I don’t quite know how to start. My own idea and I haven’t a clue where to begin.
Maybe tell me when you first started to realize something was wrong with Obama. When you realized electing him was a mistake. We covered some of that already before, but now you can just talk about it. I won’t interrupt – you just say what you want to say and go from there.
(Hands cover face, followed by a deep sigh) Yeah…I guess that would work. Remember when I told you about the First Lady’s racist comment? The redneck thing? Yeah – you do. Ok…I thought about quitting the campaign then. That episode really…it really – I was pissed over it. But then I ignored it. Buried it away. Now why did I do that? What she said, her attitude, was so disrespectful to that man, to his family – why did I just decide to ignore it and move on with the campaign? I’ve asked myself that many times. I was weak. I was…I wanted so bad to be a part of a winning campaign again. And I had already been told I would have a chance to get back inside the White House – if just a little bit. I hadn’t done that for some time and I missed it. I know some of your readers, maybe even you do too…think of me as just another Democrat. Look, I’m proud to say I’m a Democrat. We have some wonderful, brilliant people in the party. And I love this country… sorry if that sounds like a stupid cliché. And yeah, I love politics. I love the action, the give and take, and I guess the power. I love that too. Being near that kind of power. So I let it go. What the First Lady said – I let it go. I stayed on because I wanted back in. I sold out. I wanted to be a part of something really big, and in 2008, nothing was bigger than the Obama campaign. Nothing.
Well, that doesn’t really have anything to do with my realizing Obama was off – that he wasn’t what we thought he was. But it does give a reference point for my frame of mind. I stayed on, but that situation – the racism, the disrespect I saw by the First Lady, it stayed with me, so that when I did get a chance to go back to the White House during the transitioning, maybe my eyes were a bit more open to the truth than some others around me. I had already been disappointed you see. Some doubt had already started to grow about these people.
(Pauses) …So, jump ahead a bit. I had been in and out of the White House a few times by then, it was very busy. A ton of people coming and going as is always the case during the transition. That is when I started to realize that it didn’t feel like the “Obama White House”. There was no real…not sure how to really explain this – but there was no real sense of Obama. Here was this guy who I saw give these incredible speeches. He looked huge on that stage. He looked invincible. He looked like a president. While in the White House, I never saw him or hardly heard of him for weeks. He was a ghost. Anything needed to be cleared, you spoke with people you never heard of before. Who were these people? Even early on in 2009 Rahm’s position as Chief of Staff was being challenged by Jarrett, with Axelrod trying to keep the peace between the two. She didn’t trust Rahm immediately – he was of the Clintons, and that was never to be trusted – but keep him close right? Keep your enemies closer right? Very Machiavellian – that was Jarrett’s White House even as early as then. Keep your head down and don’t make a fuss. And watch your back. Everyone was uncertain. The president was absent. He literally was not there. Where was he? Nobody knew – or nobody was saying. The big decisions – those all went through Jarrett. All of them. The First Lady was more visible around the West Wing than the newly elected President of the United States. It was…odd.
And then, finally, I was to be part of a meeting that Obama was going to attend. We were told he would be stopping by. I never spoke directly about this to you before – or if I did, we must have edited it out. I don’t recall now. But finally I was going to be in the room with this man I had helped to elect. The president arrived about 20 minutes late. I say that only as a matter of truth to counter the media’s spin that Obama runs a very tight ship – that he is always on time. At least that is what they were spinning back then. Not so much anymore. But back then that was how Obama was being presented by the media to the America people – a guy who was in total control. Hell, based on what I had seen of him giving those speeches, I fully expected to see that kind of person – that kind of president.
That’s not what I got.
So he showed up late, like I said. He looked good – just like the campaign. He sat down and said, “Welcome everybody!” He turned to a person to his right who I did not know at the time, a younger man, and the president smiled and nodded to him. Then he looked over at Valerie Jarrett, who sat in a chair behind the president – she was sitting against the wall – watching. I didn’t even realize she was in the room until the president looked over at her. There was prolonged silence. The president folded his hands on the desk and smiled again. Then he unfolded his hands and leaned back in his chair. More silence. He looked over again at the man to his right who then gave the president an agenda for the meeting. Now I know enough about how these things work to know that the president must have been given that agenda long before he stepped into the room. Every minute of a president’s day is meticulously mapped out beforehand. So this thing, which might seem like a minor detail to some, set off my alarms. What was going on here? Why was the president being handed an agenda that he must have already been given earlier?
So Obama looks down at the paper and then looks back up at all of us. He smiles again and then gives off this nervous little laugh. Now the country is pretty familiar with that laugh these days, but it was the first time I had heard it, and it didn’t do anything to alleviate just how odd this meeting was playing out. The president recognized someone else at the table and asked for them to begin with item two on the agenda. Do you want to know what item one on the agenda was? It read: Greetings and introductions by President of the United States. Apparently that item one…well, apparently the president thought he had just handled that part and so it was on to item two. Of course the gentleman he asked to start on item two had no idea what he was to say, and the man to the president’s right stepped in and proceeded to handle that item himself. The president appeared completely unaware of his mistake, or maybe he just didn’t care. The mood in the room had gone from excitement at getting to see the president to one of being very uncomfortable. If President Obama was unable to handle a simple meeting among secondary staff, how in the hell was he going to be able to run the damn country?
Eventually the meeting did get underway with participation from a number of us in that room, but during that time, which was no more than say, fifteen minutes, the president said almost nothing. He would smile, he would nod, and he would turn to Jarrett to confirm if something that was said was correct, or agreeable. The only time the president showed any sign of life was when someone made a reference to basketball. Then he became far more animated – but that only lasted for a brief moment and he returned to his silent nodding and smiling. Even though the meeting lasted those 15 minutes at the most, it felt much longer simply because it was so –expletive- uncomfortable. After another episode of silence, Jarrett cleared her throat and declared to us that the president was needed elsewhere. As soon as she said that, Obama shot up from his seat and gave that same weird smile of his that he had on when he first came in, a brief “thanks for the talk”, and then headed out the door with Jarrett close behind. I was looking around the table and saw some people acting as if the president’s behavior was completely normal, but a few others were, like me, clearly unsettled by what we had just seen. Something was not right with this president.
That is when I started to ask questions. As quietly as possible, with those few I already knew, and later a few others I grew to know later, I asked questions about what was going on with President Obama, and the answers I got back were…troubling. That is when I realized we had possibly made a terrible-terrible mistake in electing this man. That’s also when I learned that the infighting among the staff was so terribly bad, the president’s smoking – his health, was an ongoing concern, and that his interest in the actual job of being president was non-existent and had largely been given over to Valerie Jarrett, though at the time there was a still a struggle for power between her and Rahm.
(Pause) …This might not fit entirely with our timeline here, maybe I’m jumping off track a bit, but I want to say something about Rahm Emanuel if that is ok with you. Set the record straight – or at least clarify how your readers view Rahm. That ok with you?
Sure – like we agreed, you just speak your mind now. Say what you want.
Ok – thanks. Good-good. Well, Rahm…Rahm Emanuel is a classic DC operative at the highest level. A proven commodity. The guy is tough, smart, and very-very good at working the system. And I say that with absolute respect. Now you gotta understand something here – he was Chief of Staff at the Obama White House. Now that is a very powerful position, right? Serious-serious power. The kind of power Rahm enjoys having. That’s not saying anything derogatory against him – he enjoys power, and there are few positions in this country more powerful than the one he held at the Obama White House. Problem is, that position had all but been cut off at the knees by Jarrett. Rahm’s job was reduced almost entirely to acting as a liaison between the White House and Congress. He quickly became Jarrett’s messenger between Pelosi, Reid, and Jarrett. Axelrod was in the mix too, but he was secondary. He was already preparing an exit for himself by that time – most people don’t know that, but that’s what he was doing. He had come to the realization that Obama was a great candidate but a lousy leader.
Anyways, I guess what I’m getting at here is that what led Rahm to pursue politics back in Chicago had nothing to do with helping Obama out. Nothing. It had everything to do with Rahm wanting out of the Obama administration, and the administration doing everything it could to see him gone. Jarrett was pushing him out, as was the First Lady, and ultimately, Rahm let them do it. He no longer wanted to fight for a White House he saw as a growing internal disaster. “These people are –expletive- clueless.”
So now Rahm has the keys to Chicago, keys that can unlock a lot of things very…uncomfortable to Obama, Jarrett, Michelle – the whole lot of them. Rahm is no friend to the Obama White House. I want to make that very-very clear to you. The president all but mocked Emanuel as he left. The Chicago unions fought against Rahm. A lawyer close to the Obama machine fought against Rahm. I am certain Organizing for America monies were spent against Rahm in those fights. The Obama people were and still are, crawling all over Chicago. They did not want Rahm Emanuel as Mayor of Chicago. No way in hell did they want that – but that’s what happened now isn’t it?
Rahm Emanuel didn’t go back to Chicago to help protect Barack Obama. Rahm Emanuel went back to Chicago to have the power to help destroy the whole myth of Barack Obama – or even more importantly, to destroy Valerie Jarrett and her entire collection of kooks that is the Obama White House. The bodies buried in Chicago…it’s time for somebody to start digging them up don’t you think? Who better to do that than Rahm Emanuel…
In my last article (Part 3) I evaluated the two presidential candidates from the 2008 Republican primary, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, giving Romney the edge on both his business experience and his governorship. Today we will look at the remainder of my favorite candidates, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, and Allen West, ending with a ranking of my favorite five potential candidates.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. Huntsman gave the vice-presidential nominating speech for Sarah Palin, and has all but been endorsed for a presidential run by John McCain. To most of America Huntsman is an unknown. He has been an insider in Washington since the 1980s serving in the Reagan, G.H.W Bush, and G.W. Bush administrations as (respectively) White House Staff Assistant, Deputy Secretary of Commerce then Ambassador to Singapore, and Deputy US Trade Representative. He is currently serves in the Obama Administration as Ambassador to China.
He was Governor of Utah for two terms, winning the second term with almost 78% of the vote. The Cato Institute rated him the top governor on tax policy, and the fifth highest on overall fiscal policy. During his administration Utah was listed as the best run state government by the Pew Center on the States.
His business experience includes an executive with the Huntsman Corporation, an international Chemical Company with annual revenues topping $8 billion and over 10,000 employees; and CEO of Huntsman Family Holdings Company. He has also headed major philanthropic organizations including the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, the Utah Opera, Envision Utah, and The Family Now Campaign.
His stand on fiscal matters, taxation, and business is strongly conservative. He is more mixed on his social positions, being strongly conservative on abortion, and gun rights, but he has liberal positions on climate change, same sex domestic unions, the Department of Education, and the Obama Stimulus. He signed Utah up in the Western Climate Action Initiative, basically a western states cap and trade arrangement. He has shunned the Tea Party conservatives but has broad appeal to old school Republicans.
Sarah Palin The candidate for vice-president on the 2008 McCain ticket has a strong appeal to deeply conservative Republicans, the religious right, Libertarians, and the Tea Party movement. The fact that she shared the ticket with McCain has given her some standing with moderate and old-line Republicans.
Upon becoming Governor of Alaska, Palin embarked on two gutsy missions: To clean out corruption in Alaska politics and to cut spending; she did this with gusto rooting out criminal activity and cronyism not just from the state government, but even within her own party. She pared back government programs, size, and waste starting with getting rid of the perks of the office of the governor.
Besides being governor, Palin served on the town council, then as mayor of Wasilla, and as a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission.
Her time on the commission gave her a good practical insight into natural resource issues. Her political position is solidly conservative on both fiscal and social issues. She has experience in operating family businesses and has worked as a correspondent on Alaskan TV Stations. She has shown a great sense of fiscal responsibility and is business friendly.
Because of her run for vice-president, authoring two books, hosting an excellent documentary series on Alaska, being supportive of and responsive to the Tea Party movement, and being a frequent topic of conversation and controversy on talk shows and news commentary she is now well known. In fact, she might be too well known; she is as disliked by the left as she is liked by the right.
While I really like her positions on all the issues, she doesn’t have the level of leadership that most of the other candidates have, and certainly not the degree of financial education and experience of most of them.
Allen West The newly elected congressman won his seat on the strength of Tea Party support. Some would point to this, his only elective office, as being not enough political experience. However, one does not work as a battalion commander in a war zone without learning a lot about practical politics. He holds a master’s degree in political science from Kansas State and a master’s degree from the Military Command College in political theory, military history, and military operations. So is probably better versed in political processes and institutions than 90% of congressmen.
He served twenty-two years as a commissioned officer in the military including both Gulf Wars serving in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He earned a bronze star, Meritorious Service Medal (2 oak clusters), Army Commendation Medal (2 oak Cluster, Valor Device), Army Achievement Medal (1 oak cluster), Valorous Unit Award, Air Assault Badge, and Parachutist Bade, as well as ten service medals. After his retirement he worked as a high school history teacher, a college ROTC instructor, and a regional director for a military consultancy to the Afghan army.
West is both a fiscal and social conservative. He sees the last fifty years of liberal social programs and policies as trapping the poor in a culture of welfare and dependency. He has an overriding respect for the U.S. Constitution and is a deeply committed patriot. He has probably the clearest understanding of any person in Congress of the Muslim religion and the threat of both conquest by migration and conquest by aggression that exists from the radical elements of the faith. He has great clarity of thought and a direct and unapologetically sincere mode of speech. He is a motivator and is himself very motivated – he is able to think on his feet, does not need a teleprompter, and is unafraid of debate and discussion.
So the way I rank my favorite five candidates is:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Allen West
3. Sarah Palin
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Jon Huntsman
I could happily support a ticket that has any two of these five on it, but feel the strongest ticket would be Mitt Romney and Allen West, because they nearly perfectly complement each other with their individual strengths. Romney is excellent in economics, business, fiscal responsibility, Administration, and practical day to day politics. West is excellent in international politics, national security, the military, crisis management, and Middle East issues, a critical gap in the current administration. It is important that the ticket have truely qualified candidates, that they form a strong team, and that they appeal to voters accross the broad spectrum of Republican politics. To win the must pick up independents, Libertarians, and Democrats.
If this ticket should come about, I could see Palin as Secretary of Interior, Huntsman as Secretary of State, and my preferences for Huckabee include chairman of the FCC (this wouldn’t be possible if he still has ownership in radio and TV stations), or as a white house assistant for reducing government, combining and eliminating cabinet positions and moving functions that belong to the states back to the states, or as transitional Secretary of Education or Energy to transition the department out of existence.
The final segment, part 5, of this series of blogs, will look at those not on my list who are considered or are considering becoming candidates.
Mike Huckabee, making his second run for president, has experience as a Minister, Educator, Author of several best selling books, televangelist, television station owner and producer, and was a conservative Lieutenant Governor and Governor of Arkansas, a highly Democratic state, is an ABC Radio Commentator, and hosts a talk news show on Fox News Channel. He has very strong conservative stands on economic and social issues, respects the Constitution, and is deeply patriotic.
Jon Huntsman, Jr. is the son of a billionaire industrialist and philanthropist. He served as CEO of the Huntsman Corporation, a successful businessman and philanthropist, served in three Republican presidential administrations, as Governor of Utah, and is currently the US Ambassador to China. He has very strong conservative stands, respects the Constitution, and is deeply patriotic.
Sarah Palin, candidate for vice president in the last election and a cultural icon, TV reporter, author, business woman, commercial fisherman, served as city council and mayor, Governor of Alaska, and has starred in a documentary TV series on Alaska. She tackled corruption in state government, and even within her own party. Young, brash, quick on her feet, she has gained a strong following as well as many detractors. She is conservative both socially and economically, respects the Constitution, and is deeply patriotic.
Mitt Romney, making his second run for president, is the son of the multi-term Governor of Michigan, has served as a lay minister, is a highly successful business man, and was brought in as chairman of the US Olympics to salvage them from scandal and financial ruin, served as conservative Governor of highly Democrat Massachusetts. He has very strong conservative stands on economic and social issues, respects the Constitution, and is a deeply patriotic American.
Allen West, currently a freshman congressman from Florida, is a Career US Army Officer, who grew up in Atlanta Georgia in a military family. His father served in WW2 and made a career of the military, his mother was a civilian employee of the Marine Corps, and his brother, also career military, served in Viet Nam. He is recipient of valorous and meritorious service decorations including a bronze star. He has taught high school history and college ROTC. He is a social and fiscal conservative, and is passionately patriotic.
There are other good people out there, but these are the ones that I favor. In this post I will begin evaluating candidates and end up with a ranking of most favored to least, starting with the two candidates from the 2008 primary:
Huckabee vs. Romney. On issues, these two are almost identical, so either one of them would be a good choice for conservative voters. While I like Huckabee’s stand on issues, I have doubts about his character. I was very disappointed at his attacks on Romney’s religion during their presidential run.
Huckabee is trying to make an issue of the Massachusetts Healthcare bill. Health care is not a federal responsibility. Whether a state will provide healthcare and how they will choose to do is a state issue, and if the citizens of a state want to create a program, it is their prerogative to do so.
I have been put off by Huckabee’s apparently deceitful use of statistics to attack Romney on healthcare. First he notes that Massachusetts has the highest health care premiums in the country since Romney signed health care into law as Governor; this is not a lie, but it is deceitful, because that state already had the highest premiums of any state before the law was passed. Second he used statistics in to show that state health care costs had increased from 16 percent to 35 percent after the law was passed; again technically not a lie, but the law was passed in 2006 and the 16 percent figure is from 1990 – the cost of national health care rose nearly 300% during that period, yet Massachusetts increase was only 220%, so was considerably less than the national increase during that period. He sources this from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, yet that organization says the costs “have been relatively modest and well within initial projections… the health care costs are not a problem” and the program is “a great success.”
Beyond the mudslinging approach that Huckabee has chosen, I give Romney the edge on meaningful leadership experience. While both have been governor, Massachusetts has double the population of Arkansas. Romney won two elections there running on a ticket of fiscal conservatism because the tax burden and state budget were in a state of near disaster. He turned the state around reducing programs, eliminating waste, balancing the budget, and initiating private insurance based healthcare without increasing taxes.
On the matter of electability, consider some more differences between the two states. While both states are majority-Democrat states, Massachusetts Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 and are among the most liberal of states – For the last dozen or so elections they have gone Democrat; whereas Arkansas has voted Republican in the last three presidential elections. The voters in Arkansas are conservatives, both socially and fiscally. Romney based on his fiscal performance was reelected to a second term in a state that a conservative should not have a chance. He was elected based on performance. He has proven he is highly electable. So my rating so far:
In my next post, I will compare Huntsman, Palin, and West with Romney and Huckabee.
By JANET HOOK And NAFTALI BENDAVID
WASHINGTON—The Republican-led House on Thursday neared approval of legislation making unprecedented federal budget cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner hardened his party’s demand that the Senate and White House agree to at least some spending reductions immediately. The House bill would cut more than $61 billion in spending for the remaining seven months of the fiscal year, a level that is sure to draw resistance in the Democratic-led Senate. Because the government is currently funded under a short-term measure that expires March 4, the House and Senate must come to agreement before then or else pass another short-term measure.
But Mr. Boehner said for the first time Thursday that he would block any measure if it maintained current spending levels. “When we say we’re going to cut spending, read my lips—we’re going to cut spending,” he said.
Democrats characterized Mr. Boehner’s statement as an ultimatum that could lead to a government shutdown. Any short-term extension, they argued, should be at current levels while Republicans and Democrats negotiate on deeper cuts for the remainder of the year.
“Shutting down the government would be on his head, and that would be a huge mistake,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.).
Democrats also complained that House Republicans had attached provisions to the bill that changed policy rather than simply cut spending. “That bypasses the whole process,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) “This is a budget-cut bill, and we ought to be talking about the budget.”
Among the policy changes proposed during Thursday’s debate was an amendment targeting the Federal Communications Commission’s “net neutrality” rules that would bar broadband providers from deliberately slowing or blocking Internet sites and services.
Republicans have complained the regulations were unnecessary and said the Obama administration was trying to regulate the Internet. “There is no net-neutrality crisis,” Rep Tom Graves (R., Ga.), who co-sponsored an amendment to prevent the FCC from implementing its new rules.
Democratic lawmakers defended the FCC and said the rules were needed to protect consumers and prevent large phone and cable companies from having too much control over the Internet. “I would not fool around with an open, accessible Internet,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D., Calif.), who called the amendment “a big mistake.”
The amendment enjoyed overwhelming Republican support and was expected to come to a vote Thursday evening.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday criticized the bill’s proposed reductions in her department and to other sources of foreign aid.
“The 16% cut for State and USAID in that bill would for example force us to scale back dramatically on our missions in the front-line states of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Ms. Clinton said after a meeting with senators on Capitol Hill.
Those and other conservative-backed provisions aren’t expected to survive when the bill goes to the Senate, where Democrats have made clear they favor keeping spending on discretionary programs at current levels for the remainder of 2011. Some lawmakers suggest the $61 billion gap between the House and Senate is so big that they may be unable to reach a compromise. Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey, a Democrat close to his party’s House leadership, predicted that the result of such a deadlock would be a series of short-term funding bills. But Mr. Boehner’s comments indicated that House Republicans were unlikely to accept a stopgap approach if it didn’t cut spending by a significant amount.
Although the overall tenor of the House’s spending debate was partisan, votes on the dozens of amendments illustrated a shifting array of bipartisan coalitions over how deeply to cut.
In some cases, proposals by the GOP’s conservative wing were defeated by a coalition of Democrats and less-conservative Republicans. An amendment to wipe out funding for the National Labor Relations Board, was rejected 250-176, with 60 Republicans joining 190 Democrats in opposition.
On Wednesday, a bipartisan coalition rallied behind an amendment to move $300 million from NASA to a community policing program, which was approved 228-203.
Rep. Anthony Weiner, the New York Democrat who introduced the amendment called it a “bipartisan rebuke of the GOP budget plan.”
“We all agree that we need to reduce the deficit, but we need to get our priorities straight,” he said.
cretionary programs at current levels for the remainder of 2011.