Category — politics

What do I think the GOP really needs?  They need candidates that can communicate.  When President Bush first hit the scene, I didn’t see his tendency to mangle the English language as a real impediment or reflection on his intelligence.  I’m still not convinced that he’s “dumb”, but his communication skills caused considerable harm to his presidency and the conservative cause.

Bush simply didn’t have the skills required to rally people from the bully pulpit of the presidency.  The few conservative programs he pushed, like privatizing a portion of your Social Security tax, went down in flames.  His inability to communicate meant he was forever at the mercy of the MSM where all things Republican wither and die.

The next Republican standard bearer doesn’t have to be Reagan, but he does need those kind of communication skills.  Reagan faced the same MSM bias in an era before talk radio and blogs.  However, he overcame them and is now widely regarded as a very successful president.  Even liberal academicians, a redundancy I know, consistently rank him in the top 10 for everything he got accomplished.

Republicans don’t need a new philosophy as much as they need someone who can explain it.  John McCain’s communication skills weren’t great, but he still captured plenty of electoral votes.  It’s an amazing accomplishment when you consider everything arrayed against him–a hostile MSM, Obama’s funding lies and spending advantage, and a bad economy.  Amazingly, this election still hinged on a few percentage points here and there.

The GOP needs to start grooming candidates that can communicate and pronounce nuclear.  We can’t afford to run more Bushes, Doles, and McCains.

Did someone slip Barack Obama some Sodium Pentothol?

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Unless this plumber secretly leads a Fortune 500 plumbing company, there go all of Obama’s fallacious claims about helping small businesses.

I’m somewhat heartened by the fact that somebody is actually paying attention out there.  The last Democrat to propose and push a tax cut through—although posthumously—was John F. Kennedy.  Yet with 44 years of contrary evidence, many people actually believe Obama will lower their taxes.  Talk about the dumbing down of America.

But even more important and frightening than his lies about tax cuts are his economic theories.  Obama thinks that you can make people successful by giving them stuff.  It’s the same theory that led Democrats to give people houses with no documents, no jobs, no down payments, and no hope for repayment.  How’d that work out for us?  It didn’t exactly make them successful now did it, but that’s OK because the taxpayers can bail them out.

The fact of the matter is that socialist economic systems don’t work because rewarding low achievers doesn’t encourage them.  It does exactly the opposite, and it stifles growth because the achievers have less and less incentive to create.  Combine Obama with his socialist counterparts in Congress, and we’re in deep trouble.

Things are bad in the financial markets.  Don’t believe me?  Money markets seized up again today.  Historically, money markets were just a step above cash in your mattress and government instruments on the risk profile.  Anybody with any sense is rushing to safety in the credit markets and things are teetering on the edge of disaster.  Last week the markets were a scant 500 trades from a total meltdown.

And as someone who’s watching his 401K balance crater and his neighbors get layoff notices, I appreciate John McCain’s willingness to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to push a plan through.  Moralize about the CEOs, bad banks, and foolish people who bit off more than they could chew on their loans all you want, but I don’t think that changes the fact that something needs to be done.

Is that something Hank Paulson’s plan?  I’m not sure, but from all the misguided attacks on it, most people haven’t even taken the time to examine it.  The government is not giving Wall Street fat cats $700 billion.  It is purchasing mortgages in the hopes that the government sitting on them can help stabilize the housing market and get the financial markets lending again.  It seems reasonable to me and a plan that might potentially net a profit if housing starts appreciating again.

And as for Barack Obama, somebody give him a map showing him where the Senate is and the keys to his office.  He’s done nothing, but run for the presidency since he entered office, and it’s inconceivable that we’re facing a financial meltdown and he wants to press on with discussions about foreign policy.

We know Obama likes to talk about leadership in front of his Teleprompters, but now would be a good time to demonstrate some.  Win or lose, nobody can say McCain doesn’t have the courage of his convictions and a desire to put his country first.  If you want change, McCain has cornered the market.

Update:  Apparently, the focus groups frowned on Obama’s continued campaigning.  He’s agreed to meet the president and McCain in DC.

John Kerry has a primary challenger. Edward O’Reilly, a lawyer and former firefighter, earned a spot on the ballot with 23% of the vote. Although embarrassing Kerry with a vote for O’Reilly is tempting, I say perish the thought. When choosing between two socialists, it’s wisest to take the layabout. Ed sounds like he’ll show up for work. As experience has proven, the lazy Kerry will do far less damage eating bacon wrapped scallops on Nantucket.

Therefore, I endorse John Kerry in the Democratic primary as the candidate most likely to cause the least damage.