2012: Romney One to Watch.

Mitt Romney is one to watch for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. He was named the top choice at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with 20% of the vote. Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) got second place with 16% of the vote, followed by Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) and Rep. Ron Paul (TX) each with 13% of the vote. 

Anyone who has read my postings over the past 18 months (on other venues such as Facebook) knows I have been very critical of Mitt Romney. I essentially agree with most things Romney says, but I just have a hard time trusting him since he seemed to have a lot of convenient election year conversions on issues he had held for years. I have also met consultants who worked with and for Mitt Romney who told me is a little bit less socially conservative than he makes himself out to be. 

Even Romney supporters acknowledge this, Ann Coulter, whom I have a great deal of respect for, admitted that the only reason Romney supported more liberal social positions was because he needed to win the election in Massachusetts. My thing is this, if you're a social liberal, be a social liberal, be real. But there are some really good things about Romney.

1. Romney is an expert on the economy and as we're in the midst of an economic crisis, it might be a good idea to have someone who is fluent on these issues. All four candidates can articulate a conservative economic message, but it is Romney who can expound, answer questions with specificity, this may be very helpful, even if we recover by 2012, with President Obama's economic policies, it's going to be a very slow climb back up and with other credit bubbles getting ready to burst, we may be facing an even bigger hard climb up. 

2. Romney has a very Clintonesque ability to shift as he needs to without damaging his credibility, look at the bank bail out plan. Romney was for it before he was against it before he was for it. My theory is, he was trying to figure out the confusing Bush plan and work out the facts before he made a solid decision about it. 

3. Moderates like Romney. In a Rassmussen poll taken right after the election, Palin won with conservatives and Romney won with moderates, if conservatives warm up to Romney it would unite the entire Republican Party and get alot of people involved to help get him elected. 

I still have not made a decision on who I will support in the 2012 election, I respect all of the candidates listed and think all of them are infinitely better than the president, but I need to see the campaign before I make a decision. 

Ntzouras: Obama's Iraq Policy is essentially Bush's.

Couldn't have said it better, from my good friend Andrew Ntzouras, whom I'm hoping will eventually post here and is going to join the line up of Podcast panelists said it best on his Facebook:

Today, President Obama stated that by 2010 all combat troops will leave from Iraq and that by 2011 the remainder of the support troops will do the same.

But this is not new news. This was decided under President Bush's watch.

"President George W. Bush has already signed off on the agreement, which sets legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and contractors and lays out timetables for withdrawal of U.S. forces. The SOFA calls for all U.S. forces to fall back out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011."

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/iraq.sofa/index.html

When was this written?
9:45 p.m. EST, Wed November 19, 2008

So in short, President Obama today only repeated what was determined by President Bush last November.

These next few years will be tough no doubt, and the road ahead will have its challenges. I pray God may keep our troops safe from harm, and may God continue to bless America. The greatest country on God's green earth!

-Andrew

Yeah, I agree, although at that time the MSM-types where all arguing that President Bush was following then-Senator Obama's lead (Give me a break!) Still it's interesting that President Obama seems to want to take credit for the withdrawl of troops in Iraq, when it would not have ever been even remotely possible without a massive bloodbath where it not for the troop surge he opposed and said would make violence worse.

Josh's Weekly AmIdol Review

I can't really give you a best and worst list this week as I thought pretty much everyone did an awful job, and I'm thinking I might be rooting with the Vote for the Worst crew for Nick Mitchell, who is at least entertaining. There were a couple of people who at least showed some potential: When she started singing, I really liked Allison Iraheta and I thought she nailed her rendition of Heart's "Alone," though I'm kind of tired of chick rock singers who sound like her. It's so 1980s to me, especially in the age of Hayley Williams of Paramore and Amy Lee of Evanessence. What I'm trying to say is you don't need the gruff "I'm gonna beat you up" girl rock voice to be a chick rocker these days, there's alot of diversity in sound out there right now with successful rock women. I also thought Megan Corkery is an interesting choice, she sort of reminds me of Brooke White of last year. They both have different styles, but they're both throw backs. Megan could do very well this season, she's different and as Randy said with successful artists like Duffy, Adele, and Amy Winehouse there seems to be a market for her kind of sound. And finally, managing not to completely out-gay his own rendition of Cher's "Believe," Adam Lambert did his version of The Rolling Stones' classic "Satisfaction." I agree with Simon, the parts that sucked sucked really badly, but the parts that were good were really, really good. It was very over the top, and I expect that is what we should expect from him. What's strange about Adam is that I think he could and will do really well, but he doesn't seem very American Idol. I think he makes it to the Top 12, but he'll be a non-typical AmIdol contestant going up against Mr. American Idol himself, Danny Gokey. (Who as of now is my absolute favorite to win the competition.) So there you have it, unless Nick Mitchell manages to pull an upset, I think the three moving forward are Allison (who was the best last night), Adam and Megan.

Conservatives Don't Need "Their Own Obama"

Barack Obama is the most popular politician in the United States. The Republican Party is it's most dire straits since Watergate, so it's probably natural for the media to assume we need a "conservative Obama"-- a great orator, someone who can bring people to their feet in fervent and jubilant ecstasy just by his or her mere whisper. This line of thinking is the wrong track to think on and it's why the criticism being leveled against Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom liberals have suddenly labeled as our one great hope against the jagguarnaut that is Barack Obama in the 2012 election. I have many liberal friends that have expressed to me their admiration of Bobby Jindal, and I am happy to agree-- I think Gov. Jindal is a great guy, he understands conservatism, he's very smart and a big policy-wonk and he's going to be a fantastic presidential candidate one day and probably a great president, but he is no Barack Obama.

Obama was elected on his teleprompter aided oratory skills, grand themes, and the power and that's about it it. Obama is not extraordinary off-prompter. Is he disciplined? Yes. Is he on-message? Absolutely. But he's nothing out of the ordinary. His experience? He was an average state legislator, an average senator, and chances are, if his ill-thought out social programs don't send us to hell and a handbasket, he'll be an average president. Oratory skills only get one so far. Not to mention there were plenty of down right bad presidents and evil leaders who were impressive orartors. While FDR was a great war-time President and deserves a high ranking because of this, he was a terrible domestic-policy president. New Deal programs did not lift us out of the Great Depression, in fact pre-WWII, as infrastructure projects ended President Roosevelt saw unemployment begin to rise again. German Chancellor Adolf Hitler rose to power on his oratory skills, and it became the darkest period of German history. That's not to say Obama is FDR or Hitler, it's to make the point that oratory skills are helpful, but don't automatically make a great president.

I have a sneeking suspicion that Obama has a general idea of where he wants to go, but doesn't have thought-out policies. That's why he handed over the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He knew he wanted one, he had a general idea of where he wanted to go, but didn't really have a thought out plan on what specific items would be in it or how they would be implented. It's probably going to be a similar situation in regards to Health Care, and entitlement reform, both of which the president highlighted in his quasi-state of the union adresss. Obama's ideas are general, most of his voters believe his policies are "hope" and "change," and he's delegating the drafting and implementation.

Obama is also a poweful symbol: the first African-American president. Someone asked me if GOP Chairman Michael Steele was chosen for the post because he was an African American to stand against Barack Obama. It's a fair charge, but I turned the question around on that person: 2004, 89% of African Americans vote for Kerry, 2008 95% of African Americans vote for Obama, a six point jump. Now, I'm not an African American, so I can't pass judgement on African Americans who voted for Obama because he's black, but there was a portion of African Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he's black. Because Obama is a a better symbol. I have a couple of black conservative friends who told me they voted for Obama for that very reason (and they didn't like McCain.)

Conservatism cannot win this way. Conservatism is about ideas and that is the basis on which we are attacked. Do I think attacks on Bobby Jindal are anti-Indian? No, they're anti-conservative. Do I think attacks on Sarah Palin are anti-women? No, they're anti-conservative. Do I think attacks on Michael Steele are anti-black? No, they're anti-conservative. Liberals don't care what color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, nationallity, profession, whatever other group they break themselves into, they hate the message and they'll do whatever it takes to take it down, even destorying the messanger. A "conservative Obama" is impossible because a conservative cannot win like Obama. They just don't have the media backing to be vague like Obama (A conservative will never send a thrill up Chris Matthews' leg for example.)

Conservatives need to be principled, they need to be specific, and they need to show competence. If those three things are in place they have a chance at earning my vote. People like Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele are not perfect, but they have been principled, specific, and competent. If I were Chairman Steele, I would encouage his two leading conservative candidates for the 2012 campaigns around being the anti-Obama.

Thoughts on President Obama's quasi-State of the Union

So far... meh... I mean the speech isn't over yet, but I'm not experiencing the supposed soaring feeling one gets when listening to President Barack Obama. (Or as Chris Matthews likes to say the "thrill running up his leg.")

It sort of typifies what has been going on since he was inagaurated though. The president is trying to reach across the isle while playing CYA and Congressional Democrats are hyper partisans wanting to rub the Bush administration in the eye even after the former President has left office.

Example? The President kept saying, "deficit we inherited," and at one point the Democrats cheered triumphantly. Nevermind this President and this Congress have already ran up the deficit about as much as President Bush did during his entire second term, they're still in love with the idea that Democrats are the fiscally responsible ones...

We'll have to see if Obama The Great's entrence is as triumphant in two years time when giving a real State of the Union address, but for now this is looking like a bunch of pompt and circumstance with not a whole lot of substance behind it.

On Politics Podcast--COMING SOON!!!!

The On Politics Podcast is coming soon!



The Politics of Envy

The further I get in life (all almost 22 years, haha) the less I believe in luck. I don't think successful people are lucky and unsuccessful people are unlucky. I think across the board, across races, across genders, etc. successful people work hard and unsuccessful people are usually unsuccessful for a reason and I'd say about 80% of the time it has at least something to do with themselves. My mother always used to tell me, "successful people work hard" and I bore witness to this in her life as she worked hard she was promoted very quickly year after year. Liberals do not believe in this. They would say my mother was lucky she was white and she'd been promoted even faster had she been a man, both of which could be true to a certain degree, but I cannot ignore the examples of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Antonio Villariagosa, Chris Gardner, Linda Chavez and yes, President Barack Obama who pressed through obstacles, worked hard, and where able to get ahead in life.

It's unfortunate that President Obama, despite knowing this to be true, continues to promote the politics of envy. Intentionally or not, the president has a tendancy to pit rich against poor, black against white, Democrat against Republican, himself against former President Bush. Despite being hailed by the media as the great uniter, President Obama is promoting policies, from his massive stimulus plan that rewards liberal special interest groups rather offering any real significant stimulus to the economy to his new housing plan that rewards faliure giving breaks to people who could have never afforded the mortgages they took out in the first place, that are dividing more and more Americans. You think we were divided under Bush? While I doubt the mainstream conservative opposition will spew the level of vitriolic venomous hatred the left gave Bush during his tenure, expect the substantive debate to be intense as Obama is showing his belief system is far off the mainstream American belief system.

Obama clearly believes that those who are poor and unforunate are there because they're unlucky: they were born into poverty, they're black, hispanic, or some other victimized minority, they've got the wrong last name. Obama even throws gays and lesbians into this group, despite the fact that gays and lesbians are generally much more successful and better off financially than straight people in their same socioeconomic group. Obama may think one of the presidents duties is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" but it's just the side job, the real job of the president in his mind, is to make sure that those who are less fortunate in our society know they have an ally and that they punish those who have kept them there.

Look, no one denies that there is inequality and injustice in our society, I have visited over ten countries all over the world and I can tell you in each one there is inequality and injustice. I also believe that we need to do what we can to give everyone as much equal opportunity as possible. But equality of outcome is where I get nervous. If an African American man is working his ass off night and day to provide for his family do you think he should be paid the same amount as the lazy ass white guy who shows up punches his card, converts oxygen to CO2, punches his card out and then leaves? Of course not! The black guy should be paid WAY more, he's working alot harder! Should that white guy complain that he isn't being treated fairly cause he's not getting what the black guy's getting? It would be ridiculous for him to do so. If the white guy wants more income, he should work harder. Now I know more often than we'd think, that white guy would be getting the same pay and sometimes even more, but most of the time, 70% of the time in 2009 I would guess, people are judged by their work ethic and their character.

Envy is not something confined to race though, whites are just as suseptable to envy as any other person on the planet. Most poor people I know are white and most poor people I have encounted all have something in common: envy. Envy is listed amongst the Catholic Church's "Seven Deadly Sins" for a reason, it can literally destroy one's life. It can keep one from reaching their full potential. Envy keeps people from discovering their ability and talent because envious people are too busy noticing everyone else's talent and ability. It keeps people from appreciating what they have because they're too focused on what other people have. Envy keeps people from dreaming for more for their life because they can't get over the fact that someone else has more than them. Envy is a dangerous flame to fan and President Obama and the Democrats are fanning it faster than anyone I've ever seen fan it.

I am not dismissing the fact that there are other factors that play into poverty and I am not dismissing the fact that it is harder for minorities and women to get ahead in life, but what I am saying is it does not help anyone to live in envy. I can't change the fact that my credit is crap right now, but rather than blaming the guy with good credit for my bad choices, the best thing I can do is make good choices today and try to improve it. It's going to be hard for me to do certain things, it's going to be hard for me to buy a car with a reasonable interest rate, or get services without paying deposits, but I've got to do things to help myself, otherwise I'm screwed.

Josh's AmIdol Review: Top 36 Group 1

I'm not gonna lie, I'm an American Idol fan. Isn't it just quintessentially American to have a group of people with a dream getting a chance to fulfill it? I know this is a site on my opinion on politics, but seeing as more people vote in the AmIdol competition than vote for President of the United States, I'll cross the bridge between the less serious and the more serious and hopefully, maybe bring people who are interested in Idol and not that interested in politics, over to the basics! Anyway here where my top and bottom three tonight.

Bottom Three:

WORST OF THE WORST: Casey Carlson- Wow. Casey is fine. And that's about where it ends for her. She's got absolutely no stage presence and her choice of The Police's classic "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic" was a huge, huge, HUGE tragic mistake. Casey is a classic case of the ballsy choice is not always the best choice. Kara called her a "package artist" and herein lies the error of Casey's ways. She could have afforded to be safe, she's fine and she's got a decent voice, had she done a slower more sultry song it would have been easier for her to sing and she probably would have had a shot of going through.

2nd- Anoop Desani- I like 'Noop-Dawg, (Randy and Kara kept calling him "Anoop-Dawg", when he actually first introduced himself as "'Noop-Dawg") however his choice of "Angel of Mine" showed he really doesn't have alot of imagination and he's content on being that ballady R&B singer. He has a good voice that reminds me a bit of Brian McKnight, but he strikes me as the sort of guy who would be content singing his favorites from the vast catalouge of R&B super hits for his close family members for the rest of his life. I don't really think his heart is in winning this competition.

3rd- Ann Marie Baskovich- I hated it. I think Ann Marie is hot, but choosing "A Natural Woman" was a bad choice. Kelly Clarkson nailed that song time and time again and it became her signature song during the show, Ann Marie should have sung "Love Song" as Kara suggested. I think there's a good, marketable contestant in there some where and I hope the judges give her another shot in the Wild Card round.


TOP THREE

3. Tatiana Del Toro- As despicable a person as Tatiana is, she did sing very well tonight. I think she should go onto the next round and the producers of Idol are going to be very glad for that as she is so much drama. She might not make it through because people can't stand her. The judges were saying they'd like her to be more flamboyant, I've got to say she was actually tolerable tonight and she would do herself a great disservice to go back to her dramatic ways.

2. Alexis Grace- Very, very good. As the judges said, she's the dark horse and does have a Kelly Clarkson sort of vibe to her. I liked her look and she was sexy. I like how she is heeding the judges advice, it shows she has maturity and that she really wants to go far as a recording artist.

THE CREAM OF THE CROP: Danny Gokey: Danny was, by far, the best tonight. His redition of "Hero" by Mariah Carey was a smart move and an obvious inspirtation from David Cook doing "Always Be My Baby" last season. Danny was the best and he'll go far.



Overall, I was pretty disappointed, this is not the level of talent we had last year, hopefully the next two groups are alot better.

Why Universal Health Care Sucks.

1. He's a Canadian and has experience dealing with it, I don't.

2. He's really funny and I am not.

So here is Steven Crowder, giving you the inside scoop as to why UHC blows.

Quote of the Week

"Oh this is such a blessing Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your day, Oh gracious God thank you so much!!!!"

-Julio from the Fort Myers, FL Obama rally.

Of course, he was probably thanking the literal God, not The Messiah. But still in the age of Obama-madness, you could'a fooled me.

Gave Me Chills.....

Jennifer Hudson singing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl on Sunday:

Phenomenal!

Civility, Not Bipartisanship.

You know, it’s really funny to me that liberals in the media are insisting that in order for conservative Republicans to be relevant, they have to go along to get along with the Obama administration because the American people have a desire to see bipartisanship in Washington. Well, first of all I think that is, as my friends across the pond would say, “bollocks.” Even if it where true, what the Democrats have been touting as bipartisanship is not real bipartisanship. Bipartisanship requires real comprimise, it requires give and take because it requires shared responsibility. Why should the Republicans vote for something in which they had no input in and then share responsibility with the failed policies of the Democrats?

While the GOP’s whole hearted rejection of President Obama’s simulus package was encouraging, I would urge them not to pursue the supposedly desired “bipartisan era” the nation so desperately desired according to the media. That’s right, say no to bipartisanship. For starters, as we’ve discussed, the left doesn’t have an inkling of what true bipartisanship is. I could point to a number of supposedly “bipartisan” pieces of legislation that are indistinguishable from the Democratic Party’s platform. How do you think the Democratic Party was able to accomplish as much as they did in the 2000s? Look at “No Child Left Behind” or the prescription drug benefits bill or even the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” package. They’re all tinged with liberal ideas and verbage and give very little to no room for conservative ideas.

There’s a reason for this, and it’s the same reason President Obama’s inauguration speech while rhetorically phenomonal fell flat in the substance department. The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism can not coexsist with command economy socialism. It just does not work. There is a fine line and a choice that every American has to make: we’re either free and have a free market with limited oversight and enforced laws or we live in a soceity where the government determines the operations of our market. Simply put, true conservatives ideas cannot coexsist with liberal progressive ideas. If we try to merge them, we won’t end up with a utopia, we’ll end up in a society in constant schizophrenia, confusion, and frustration.

No, the American people do not want bipartisanship. Where I live in conservative Orange County, committed conservative Rep. John Campbell easily won re-election, but Barack Obama won his district by a signifcant margin, which means people who voted for President Obama also voted for Rep. Campbell. This is not an isolated case, across the country, conservative candidates easily win re-election while moderate and liberal Republicans go down in flames. The American people are looking for a choice. In 1964 Barry Goldwater’s campaign slogan was “A Choice, Not an Echo” and that slogan rings true today. The American people are crying out for a choice between bigger government and limited government, between true free-market capitalism and the wierd supposedly capitialism-socialism hybrid that really is just socialism.

That being said, I do think Americans desire some civility to be brought back to the politcal process. This is not something conservatives in Washington need to work though, this is something the left needs to work on. Flaunting one’s wins around like they’re some trophy rather than the daunting task of making America a better place is not very classy. Creating rules making it impossible for one’s opponents to mount a serious opposition is near draconian. It is civility, not bipartisanship that America is looking for. Quite frankly, the ball is in the Democrats court here and blaming a conservative talk radio host in Florida is not going to solve anything.

If Democrats need a lesson in civility, look at the relationship between the Bush family and the Clinton family. These are two families at the opposite sides of the political spectrum, but somehow they have managed to form a real friendship. For as much of a creep as President Clinton is, I can not help but admire the compliments he gives to Republicans and the respect he shows to both Presidents Bush.

It’s time the Republican Party embraces conservatism and a complete wholesale, total rejection of liberalism. It’s time we go back to the principles that made us great. There is no need to “reach across the isle,” Republicans have done that for too long and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. The Republicans need to remember a full 47% of people rejected President Obama’s plans for America, there is no consensus and no need to listen to pundits who live in Manhattan and Washington DC, listen to the people who put you in those seats, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll go out and fight for you.

Cross-Posted at RedState