Tag Archives: 2012

Jon Huntsman Drops Out; Ain't A Dang Thing Changed

In case you haven’t heard, former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman Jr. has officially dropped out of the Republican primary.  That’s not surprising, really, considering that he spent most of the past year in the single digits.  What is surprising is that he didn’t bow out on the night of the New Hampshire primary; the guy practically lived there, and he still came in behind Ron Paul.

The other thing that is surprising (and particularly #HeadDesk worthy) is that Huntsman thinks his dropping out will consolidate the vote.  That couldn’t be any further from the truth.

Huntsman dropping out does very little, if anything, to affect the dynamics of this race.  Right now you have three factions: Romney, Paul, and then this gaggle involving Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum.  And the truth is that as long as Paul is in the race, there will probably never be anyone with enough momentum to overcome Romney.  Even if you have Santorum and Perry drop out, there is a very real chance that Paul staying in can help Romney get the plurality every time.

So it’s cute that Huntsman wants his endorsement to carry weight, just like it’s cute that McCain wanted his to do so, but Jon dropping out did nothing to change this cluster-truck that we’re dealing with.  The only thing it did was to make the Huntsman girls seem a little less relevant.  But with today’s news culture, they can probably go to CNN and be three times more compelling as pundits than Meghan McCain has ever been. (click here and here to see some of what the Huntsman girls have become famous for)

My Little Pony + Fox News' Red Eye = Interesting Video

If you’re a fan of FNC’s Red Eye or interesting videos in general, then I have a treat for you.  Someone at Fox decided to send Bill Schulz and a camera guy to the January 2012 Bronycon in NYC, and hilarity ensued.  Check it out, check it outers.

Some of you might be amused, but you’re still wondering what Bronycon is.  Believe it or not, for something as “simple” as a convention dedicated to cartoons and toys, there is a lot of conflicting information out there.  The shortest possible answer I can give you is that Bronycon is a convention that’s held in New York City multiple times a year that is dedicated to the 4th generation of the My Little Pony cartoons.

The “controversy” begins when you start asking what exactly a “Brony” is.  Prevailing wisdom states that a Brony is an adult (or teen) male that is a fan of the show.  However, when researching this piece (so I could explain what a Brony is), I learned that the My Little Pony (MLP) community is split on the use of that term.  Some people feel that ALL fans of the MLP are Bronies, including women and children.  While some women feel that “Brony” is too masculine, and they have opted to be called “Pegasisters”. (think pegasus and sister)  You can read a Tumblr post on it here, and a Reddit piece here, if you want to see what some of the fans have to say about the distinction.

Either way, this is an interesting segment of society, and indicators show that it may be growing.  For more Bronycon action check out this video from TimeToPlayMag.com below.

Rick Santorum, the Romney alternative to Romney

Rick Santorum, after a 2nd place showing in Iowa, has been recently hailed as the “conservative alternative to Mitt Romney”. Conservative in what sense though? Conservative because he’s religious and seems to live the model good Christian life? Conservative because he’s a super military hawk? Conservative because he’s socially conservative? The one area he’s not conservative is in the domestic size of government sense. Conservative seems to mean many different things now a days, not all of which limit federal powers, leave people alone, oppose collectivism and spend less money.

While claiming to be a firm supporter of the 10th Amendment, the amendment which Thomas Jefferson said kept the federal government small, Santorum stated, “the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.” Perhaps he supports a different 10th Amendment than the one most actual conservatives hail. In 2005 Santorum wrote a “conservative answer” to Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village, which advocated for more government involvement in people’s lives. It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good plays to most conservatives’ desire and love of family values, but its assertion to take action for the “common good” should give lovers of liberty some pause. The General Welfare Clause of the Constitution is often hailed by liberals as justification for their big government programs. And just like liberals, Santorum advocates for government based solutions in his book including, but not limited to: national service (forced conscription), publicly financed trust funds for children, incentives for community investments, and economic literacy programs for every school in the country. Santorum’s support for federal education isn’t particularly shocking given his vote for President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Act”.

In 2006, Rick Santorum showed his true colors while promoting his book on NPR. Santorum told the host, “One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.” Its safe to say that Rick Santorum probably doesn’t think too much of Ayn Rand or her masterpieces: The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

Now, I’m not one who cares about the earmark issue too much as it is constitutionally permissible and because its the Congress’ duty to allocate funds, but I do admit that it can and often does “corrupt the process”. For those who do care, Santorum was a huge ear-marker in his days in the House and Senate, and not just for his own district. Santorum voted to fund the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere”. Since being out of office, Red State points out that Santorum now opposes earmarks. But as the conservative economic organization The Club for Growth, points out: Santorum is someone who does try to have it both ways, “He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called ’50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.’” I’ll add one thing you should know about Santorum is his support for Bush’s agenda domestic and abroad, including the dreaded and expensive, Medicare Part D.

Perhaps most unpopular here in South Carolina is Rick Santorum’s support of labor unions. Now, one may dismiss it as electoral pragmatism based on his former home state, just like earmarks could be, but given our battle with the NLRB; perhaps we are rightfully now less forgiving. Santorum opposed the National Right to Work Act, voted against NAFTA and some other free trade proposals, and has supported tariffs, such as on steel, to help unions avoid competition. Also in the interest of helping unions avoid competition, Santorum repeatedly voted to protect unions with his continuous support of the Davis-Bacon Act. Speaking of protectionism, Santorum has also supported farm subsidies in the past. Now to give Santorum credit, he doesn’t use the tired expression “level the playing field” which is a noble goal, but also an overused cliché. The reason he clamor for the “leveling of the playing field” economically is because his jobs plan openly favors manufacturing by giving them all sorts of special breaks. I don’t want to come off as unsympathetic to the manufacturing industries’s plight, I am, and do want it to come back, but I don’t want other industries to have to pay the manufacturing’s industries’ “fair share” for them. On a similar, un-capitalistic note, Santorum also voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation bill, which kills start ups and harms existing businesses.

If this is conservative, than I sure as hell am not a conservative. Barry Goldwater’s nickname was “Mr. Conservative”. Oh, how the definition has been forgotten over the years. Santorum’s record is abysmal. Liberals would call me a right wing extremist based on my view of government, they would hear the legislation I want and immediately break down and cry. Upon meeting and conversing with a Michele Bachmann campaign staffer, I made him argue for bigger government. Not that I like either of them, for what should be obvious reasons, but there’s no way Romney could’ve been much worse than Santorum. In fact, Santorum even supported an individual mandate. Proof of this may be found in a local Pennsylvania Newspaper which described Santorum and a rival Republican’s healthcare proposal with, “Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits.” Because both are big government Republicans, I won’t be voting for them… but if I had to pick between them, I’d chose Romney, hands down. Romney, while not a small government candidate, would do less harm to conservatism because no one views Romney as a conservative. Everyone calls him a moderate, and rightfully so. If Romney further grows government, the conservative brand isn’t on the hook. What I cannot sit by and watch is a big government Republican in Santorum, be called a conservative and grow government just like his fellow “compassionate conservative”, President Bush did. As you can see the term conservative is on the ropes; from Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater’s constitutionally limited government views to Rick Santorum’s family values based big government nanny state. This is a term we really cannot afford to lose. Please don’t help kill the brand and the label.

You Made Fun Of My Candidate; We Can't Be Friends


Boy, has this been an interesting primary.  None of these candidates are overly deserving of adoration, but I sure keep running into people who will defend them to the death, even if that “death” is the death of a “friendship”.

Sure you hear tales of “Palinistas” or “Ron Paulbots”, but even Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have developed ardent supporters.  You have to understand the situation this often puts me in.  I talk about politics.  A lot.  If I have four people in the room, and each one is very much in support of one of the candidates I just mentioned, any conversation I engage in has potential to p*ss off 3/4 of the people in the room.  Now, how can that not be frustrating?  …really?

And it’s not just those politicians’ supporters, either.  There’s  a new crop coming up around Rick Santorum, and there used to be a strong following for Michele Bachmann too, so this whole primary has been….. draining.

I’m not the only one experiencing it, but I am one of the few who are willing to speak on it, so here I am, speaking on it.

We’ve got to man up, people.  There’s a movie from ten years ago, called “Training Day” with Denzel Washington. (the movie that scored him his Oscar)  In it, there’s a scene where he says, “Do you want to go to jail, or do you want to go home?” It’s a question repeated by another character later in the movie, and both times, it refers to making a tough decision.  That line has always stuck with me, and over time, I’ve come up with a variation of my own that I use when I’m discussing unpopular topics with coworkers, family, or friends.  “Do you want to win, or do you want to go home?”

In my mind, life (often) does not work out according to plan, and the difference between success and failure comes down to your ability to adapt.  If your favorite candidate has made an ass of themselves, you can either put your head in the sand (go home) or you can reassess what your stance is on this candidate and possibly find a new one. (win)

You don’t even have to find a new one, but you certainly can’t be mad at your fellow conservatives for pointing out their flaws.  This is an important election, and we can’t just run “anybody” against Obama, no matter how convinced you are that might just work. (it won’t)

So, do you want to win, or do you want to go home?

If you want to win, then you need to be honest about the flaws your candidate has.  You also have to be willing to put your support behind another candidate, if the one you’ve been in favor of turns out to not be viable.  Remember, the definition of “winning” is for Obama to be unemployed come 2013, not necessarily for “your guy” to get the nomination.

If you want to go home, then block people on Twitter who make fun of your candidate, unfriend people on Facebook who disagree with you, and be an all-around passive aggressive person.  This is a free country, and you have the right to do these things, but don’t be surprised, if Barack Obama is still your president when the dust settles on the ground.

For what it’s worth, I’m not the arbiter of who is and who is not “viable” in this election.  I’m not here to decide that for you.  What I am doing, however, is saying that we cannot be crybabies and throw hissy fits when someone pokes fun at our candidate or provides evidence of their failings.  We need to elect the best candidate, and that’s going to require some vetting.  (and at times it might be unpleasant)

If we’re willing to be honest with ourselves and work with each other, we have a really good shot at winning… and for Obama to go home.

Another Nail In Perry's Coffin…


I came across a Rick Perry ad today that stopped me in my tracks, and not for any of the good reasons.  At first glance, it seems like it might be another good TV spot for the candidate from Texas.  It starts off with optimistic music and Perry looking like a seasoned man from America’s heartland.  He’s standing by a quiet river, and he begins with a proclamation that he’s “not ashamed to admit that he’s a Christian”.  So far so good… Then his next statement kind of derails things.  Take a look…

Look…  I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”.  I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement.  And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.

This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008.  Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.

Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help.  Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”.  How does this ad help to change that perception?  It doesn’t.  It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.

Also… it was a good ad without that line.  Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine.  Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it.  It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.

This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.

Surprising Video: Mitt Attacks Someone For Flip Flops


Before gaining his own reputation as a “flip flopper”, Mitt Romney was calling out John Kerry for being one, himself.  Pot, meet Kettle in this week’s “surprising video”.

For someone who seems to know so much about accusing people of flip flopping, it seems surprising that Mitt has let himself be strung up by this very same tactic, himself.  What do ya’ll think?  Is this irony?  Poetic justice?  Or is Mitt just not very good at dealing with his own PR?

As always, you can let us know in the comments below or Facebook.

Jon Huntsman's Daughters Spoof "Sexy Back" In An Attempt To Promote Their Dad


Yeah… I don’t even know what to say about this one.  After spoofing Mark Block (Herman Cain’s adviser) for his “smoking ad”, Jon Huntsman’s daughters have made another interesting song/video.

Informal poll…. Let us know if you’re even familiar with the song these girls are spoofing in the comments below.

[poll id=”34″]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »