Tag Archives: republican

Is Gary Johnson the New Ross Perot?

The Former Governor of New Mexico and current Libertarian Party candidate for president Gary Johnson isn’t likely going to become the next president, but that doesn’t mean he won’t have an effect on the outcome of the election come November.

Johnson briefly participated in the Republican primaries and debates before switching over to the Libertarian ticket, and per Fox News, Johnson is polling about 5% nationwide, which isn’t particularly bad for a third party candidate. Despite his low numbers, Johnson isbeginning to show a little pull in a few battleground states out west which includes New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado.

Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson

According to the same poll, he is polling at about 9% in Arizona and 13% in New Mexico – it’s not enough to win, but it could certainly be enough to hand out a disadvantage to the major party candidate that he is taking votes away from.

Earlier in the week, the Libertarian Party had this to say about Gary Johnson, “Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson Could Deprive Mitt Romney of 5 battleground states, 74 Electoral Votes, 27% of the Electoral Votes needed to win in 2012.”

No one can be certain on what kind of effect Gary Johnson will have on the outcome in November, if any, but he wouldn’t be the first ‘monkey to throw a wrench in the machine’.

Twenty years ago in the 1992 presidential election, third party candidate Ross Perot collected an astounding 19% of the popular vote. Some have come to think that Perot’s influence aided Bill Clinton into the White House with just 43% of the popular vote, and disadvantaged incumbent George H. W. Bush.

However, Ross Perot had a large amount national support, something of which Johnson is currently lacking. But with the race between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama being so tight and within the margin of error, Johnson’s influence could likely turn a state red or blue.

To add, some think that Johnson might not just hurt one side of the aisle, but both. While most think that Johnson will pull votes away from Romney, the Liberal PPP (Public Polling Policy) believes that Johnson could hurt Obama in Colorado.

“He’s going to be a problem for somebody, somewhere,” writes political strategist and Fox News contributor Joe Trippi. “We don’t yet know which candidate he might harm the most … both campaigns should be looking over their shoulders at that guy almost nobody is talking about.”

All of the numbers and opinions aside, Gary Johnson is a legitimate candidate for presidency, and shouldn’t just be thought of as a ‘vote stealer’. Johnson is the third party alternate in an election where the two major candidates are thought to have a lot of similarities. Johnson stands for a lot of what the other two candidates won’t stand for, simply because of political ramifications.


Follow Me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Romney/Ryan Ticket Gains Support Amongst Young Americans

A recent Zogby poll has received a considerable amount of attention, which shows the new Republican ticket of Romney/Ryan pulling an impressive 41% of young voters between the ages of 18 to 29, while the Democratic ticket of Obama/Biden only pulled 49%. This is a considerable gain by Republicans, considering that during the 2008 election cycle, Obama/Biden won the vote of 66% of young voters.

Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican Vice President Candidate

A considerable amount of this surge amongst young voters for Romney can be attributed to his youthful running mate, whom is the first of his generation to make it onto a major party national ticket. But don’t stop at this single poll. A poll that received far less notice from the liberal PPP group came out with the exact same results: 41% of young voters said they supported Romney, while just 49% of young voters supported Obama/Biden. In this same survey, young voters disapproved of President Obama’s performance in office, 57% to 37%, and an astonishing 75% of those polled said they thought the country was heading into the ‘wrong direction’.

Generation Opportunity, a conservative group that reaches out to young conservatives and Americans alike, has recently reported that the unemployment rate among young people is substantially higher than the national average – 12.7% of young people are unemployed compared to the ‘mere’ 8.3% national average. Generation Opportunity also noted that 1.7 million young Americans aren’t even being counted in those statistics, because they have completely abandoned the workforce all together.

But are we even getting the whole story? What isn’t being reported about Obamanomics is that the majority of the job ‘growth’ is coming from part-time and temporary jobs, while unemployment of full-time workers continues to skyrocket. This makes it even harder on entry-level workers, most of which hold a college degree and are young Americans, as they are competing with people that have much experience in the workforce.

It has also been found that a majority of young Americans are cynical about Big Government social safety-net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and rightly so. Young Americans realize that there isn’t much of a chance that those programs are going to be

around when they reach retirement, unless dramatic changes are made to the system. Some young people just accept their loss, but others are realizing that they are on the wrong side of massive debt, instability, and an ailing country.

With all of this being said, why does the Obama/Biden ticket still have the support of the majority of young Americans? It might have to do with the “happy, go-lucky” feel a young person gets when they are told if they share their wealth a little, it will decrease poverty. Maybe it’s because the American college system is infiltrated with liberalism and progressivism. But for any reason, this point in the election has marked a stark improvement for Republicans amongst the youth in America.


Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

An America Without the Republican Party

President Obama recently claimed that the nation was “united as one American family.” So what if all Americans were unified in the Democrat Party, and there was no Republican Party, as many on the left wish?

First, slavery would have been abolished long after other European nations, even backwards Russia.

In fact, Tsar Alexander II abolished slavery by decree in 1861, two years before the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president.  After Lincoln’s assassination, the presidency was filled by Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat who had the distinction of being impeached and nearly removed from office. (William Jefferson Clinton also shares the honor of being among the impeached Democrats.)

Among Johnson’s high crimes and misdemeanors? Hostility to Freedmen and the passing of Black Codes that gave dark- skinned Americans inferior status. Democrats would continue their tradition of opposing emancipatory laws for blacks through to the 1960s, when far more Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.  (And not on the principled grounds that the legislation was hostile to private property rights and the rule of law.)

Second, America would have developed into a highly unionized and more economically inefficient nation since at least the 1880s.  While progressives today tend to idealize unions, and imbue them with legendary status for opposing the monopoly capitalists and granting rights to the working man, unions were in many ways quickly bypassed and outmoded by corporations in terms of granting pensions and benefits to workers.

The end result of over-unionization would be decreased productivity in exchange for higher-than-market-level wages and benefits.  There was a reason GM went broke and needed a bail out.

Third, there would be a lot less rich people, and a lot more poor people.  This would be true in absolute terms, and not in relative terms; it means that the overall standard of living would be depressed. While more equality may sound great to Democrats who want to punish the rich with higher taxes in the name of social welfare spending, what happens when the rich are so overtaxed they become as well-off as everyone else?  Presumably the social welfare programs need more funding, but without rich people around, everyone gets taxed more. Rinse and repeat until everyone is poor, but “socially secured” by a state that is immune from market accountability.

With a state-run economy, the standard of living would decrease. In plain English, how good would your doctor be if you had no choice who he is, like under the single-payer healthcare system that Obama, apparently like a century of Democrats before him, is dead-set to implement? The doctor you would draw would be a matter of luck, much more so than under a market system.  Under many “free” healthcare systems, you get what you pay for.

Fourth, America would be industrially depressed.  Hit by numerous safety and environmental regulations in order to micro-manage the economy and extract resources from it, the country would soon resemble Detroit, Baltimore, or any other city that has been run by Democrats for generations.  We might never have even had the automobile manufacturing revolution that made America’s economy the “engine of the world.”  We never would have taken the risks needed to accrue benefits from unexpected discoveries; in other words, we never would have pioneered world scientific progress using what Schumpeter called the “creative destruction” of the market.

No, the Democrats would continue to bail out all the losers, and put them on equal terms with those who succeed.  There would have been little incentive to strike out on a wild idea in order to make a fortune.  Ours would have been a middling industrial economy, perhaps insufficient to even assist our allies overseas with enough industrially-fueled military might to decisively defeat their adversaries.

Fifth, America would quickly have become completely immoral.  With little sense of right and wrong, except that redistribution is good, and rich people are bad, crime would have become as rampant across the country as it is in Democrat-run cities.  Far from being a coincidence, when people have as little respect for private property and human life as the Democrat Party, and people are forbidden from having guns for self-defense, crime is going to skyrocket.

Sixth, America would have a weaker national defense.  The beloved target of all Democrats when it comes time to trim the budget is defense spending, which is ironically the main legitimate function of the central government.  While Democrats love to fight wars (see the twentieth century’s wars initiated or escalated by Democrats, and those ended by Republicans), it is no secret that the Dems would rather be doling out other people’s money to make new client-slaves of the state,though they are not morally opposed to sending Americans overseas to kill and be killed in nation-building projects.

In conclusion, an America exclusively run by Democrats from its inception would quickly have become an impoverished, crime-ridden, industrially depressed, war-riddled slave state. On the other hand, Republicans freed the slaves, provided a climate for economic growth and innovation, were responsible enough to provide military funding for wars that Democrats started or agreed to wage, have tended to keep crime under control, have mostly respected individual rights, and more closely obeyed the Constitution.

The Republican Party might not be as conservative as many on the right would like, but it is an indispensable check on the irredeemably corrupt and dangerous Democrats. Those of us who consider ourselves on the libertarian and conservatarian side need to work within the party to push for realistic and positive change.

Every Republican Governor Elected in 2010 Reduced Unemployment

Gov. Scott Walker is a prime example of the success derived from GOP policies

While liberals remain aloof to our economic recession in Washington, every Republican governor elected in 2010 has reduced unemployment and spurred an economic recovery at a rate faster than the national average in their respective states.  Tony Lee of Breitbart.com stated that “the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.”

According to Kate Hicks of Townhall.com, that’s seventeen states where the model of cutting taxes, spending, and reducing the size of goverment has proven to be an effective formula in stimulating economic growth.  Again, that’s seventeen examples that disproves Mr. Obama’s agenda and that of the institutional left.

Here are some examples of GOP executive success courtesy of Robert Elliott at Examiner.com:


Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

One side has policies that are proven to reduce unemployment.  The other side has overseen an unemployment rate remain above 8% for the past 40 months. Is this really a choice?

The Politics of Fear

Niccolò Machiavelli, the famed Florentine political philosopher, once posed the question whether it is better to be feared than loved. It is well-remembered by every schoolboy that his reply was that, “it is better to be feared than loved,” with the provision that both fear and love must be unattainable.

But too often lost in the passage is the caveat that, “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.”

Suffice to say, we can temporarily be at ease that the ruling elites do not intend to seize upon our women, but the promulgation of like fear in the public mind has been sustained for so long that the two dominant parties, perpetually resorting to the contrivance of crisis to shore up their shortfalls and to mask their failures, are breaching upon new territory: abject hatred of both.

When Richard Hofstadter, the highly esteemed and most pre-eminent of political scientists, a card-carrying member of that sequestered class of lofty law-givers whose penchant for impartiality and altruistic distance from the statist program never ceases to astound, colored American politics as portraying a “paranoid style,” he was speaking, all winks and nods aside, particularly of right-wingers, and particularly of opposition to the amoral and gutless rule of the technocrats.

But all clear-sighted and wise politics stems from paranoia; in the sense that a free people is always watchful of the statist wolf in the proletarian henhouse. When men become distracted from fear of the government, that’s when the nation’s politics go awry.

What made Mr. Hofstadter, if one may characterize him as a mere man, “paranoid” is the idea that the unenlightened proles would seek a measure of self-rule without the meddling of utopian technocrats. After all, what mad world might result if the trend towards chaos and disorder was not reversed? What mad world if all individualism were not subjugated to the one cause, the elite-determined caused, which should triumph and reign for eternity?

Alas, the inextricable human condition of self-interest makes such fantasies as those possessing the global governance fetishists impossible to transfigure into reality. The inability to remove self-interest, this ineradicable barrier to unlimited manipulation of the human psyche, has turned the hatred of self-interest into the hatred of humankind: what else is the explanation for sacrificing man to mosquitoes, crushing his dreams to safeguard avian ova? Snatching him from the jaws of polar bears to drown him in a sea of regulatory red ink? Cutting down his habitations in order to preserve in tact sacred tree bark?

The fear of nature has been facetiously wielded against the unmoved masses for two decades; ever clamoring for the end times, ever clamoring for a bigger slice of the public dime, the eschatological guild of environmentalism has sought to profit from its dire prophecies; but it has become common knowledge that the apocalyptic utterance is a lie, if not through scientific exposition, then through the sheer elapse of time.

It would be remiss not to remind the reader that it is consensus within both political parties that manmade global warming (yes, you read that right, scientists of the future!) represents a grave threat to human civilization; and therefore, proceeding with airtight logic, all progress within human civilization, all accoutrements of industrial society making us safe from the vicissitudes of nature, along with the intellectual freedom that made those innovations possible, and along with the economic system that allowed invaluable goods to be so widely distributed – must be scuttled in order to prepare the way for a new man, a mediocre society, and a cowardly political order: one of blind irrationality within the public and calculating hyper-rationality within the political elite.

Such a schism results when one considers that rationality is the greatest enabler of freedom, so long as it is promulgated throughout the whole of society. But when state-controlled schools become a breeding ground for ignorance and irrationality, there must necessarily be a gaping chasm into which liberty falls. And when academia becomes a haven for a collectivist priest class, whose dichotomy in profession is the public pronouncement of teleological bromides like the inevitable triumph of socialism and the private hoarding of scientistic psycho-political manipulation, society falls prey to sundry schemes.

But only for so long. Despite the rantings of the lunatic leftists, the war-championing of the rabid right-wing, and the daily dissembling of the press, the American people have been fairly inoculated to the fear-mongering. Estimates of the drivers of political fear show “big government” far and away the leader, seconded by “big business,” and “big labor.” Big things are apparently scary.

Yet delving into what prevents citizens from focusing their rational fear of tyrannical government (to rephrase their perception more accurately), we find cross-cutting cleavages. Social conservatives fear a godless society, an understandable phobia from their perception, which is fueled by progressives. Those attending the public education system are forbidden the exercise of their free speech rights guaranteed by The Constitution, as the left-wing feigns that religious speech is somehow different from “ordinary speech.” Not to say that classes should devolve into a cacophony of chatter and noise, interrupting the nominal advancement of their intellects; it is to point out that religious persons are persona non grata and religious sentiments intrude upon the secular priest’s hallowed ground.

From the converse point of view, religious ideals frighten the wits out of progressives. The poor souls imagine a restoration of the Malleus Maleficarum, the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and the burnings of atheist heretics if not for the steady hand of opinion suppressors like themselves. Beyond this irrational fear of the innocuous nature of religion in our current political confines is the unmistakeably leftist program to extricate religion from the cultural conversation so that recognized morality can be wiped clean as a tabula rasa and our sentiments overwritten by unabashed statists.

But the division of Christianity in the United States is such that it is both flourishing in its abundance and brittle in its lack of cohesion and public eminence. This is the secret meaning behind the hysteria regarding the threat of radical Islam. Christians recognize the threat as metaphysical and disallow their fellow citizens the rational faculty of realizing the doctrine is not at all persuasive — perhaps to violent criminals who are a threat in any case.

With realistic appreciation of the enemy’s desire to commit mass murder within the nation, Christians brush by the implication that terrorism is a weapon of the weak; that America will not be laid low by such barbaric techniques of psychological intimidation so long as its society remains united, there is the will to triumph, and its military remains the most effective fighting force, backed by nuclear weapons to boot. So easily we are cowed by these liberty stealers, these faceless abetters of the unlimited state!

The moderates, for their part, fear disunity; and all incumbent accompaniments, such as fractiousness, and rough-and-tumble politics. And on their behalf those who rationally fear unchecked government are scolded to sacrifice the heat of their rhetoric, to tone down their verbal epithets, and to concede that the middle is comprised of the “reasonable” ones.

We the extremists are implored to revere the sagacity of the centrist, the wisdom of the pragmatist, and the far-sightedness of the know-nothing fool. In a climate of fear propagated by the government, we are meant to adore the calm hand of the cool-toned chameleon, who strokes our hair, reassures us the experiences of the past sundry years were all but nightmares, the government indeed means us no ill, and the bitter acridity of our tea would best be replaced by the somnolescence of warm chamomile.

But we are mutually afraid. Fear of death, war, terrorism, tyranny, atheism, heresy, pollution, disease, natural disaster, cataclysm, the end times, extinction, makes us vulnerable to the depredations of politicians, who shamelessly redirect our imagination from the rational fear of government towards numerous irrational fears.

And under guise of protecting us from the realization of these fears, the government robs us. Donning the face of the friend, it constantly stabs us in the back.

In some ways, the original party of government-fear, the former Republican Party, was put in an impossible position. Charged with representing people who were both apathetic and hostile to government, Republican politicians were put in the position of self-loathing; implored to hate the very power it was entrusted to wield. The Democrat Party suffered a psychical break during the era of radical politics; its Alinskyite doctrine taught that power is neither good nor evil, and the all-too-eager converted then shamelessly and guiltlessly grasped the reigns and never looked back. Over time, the Republican Party was bullied into recognizing its public pretensions were unreal; that power was a cudgel to wield against its adversaries lest it be bludgeoned to death.

The Republican Party developed two enemies: the Democrat Party and the freedom-loving American people. And just as voters have had to do over countless years, it chose what it viewed as the lesser of two evils: the Democrat Party.

Both loving power, fame, influence, and wealth, the parties have made a tacit peace; and both have turned against the citizenry, which had been the assumed source of constitutional authority. Sacrificing esteem for material benefit, glory for mundane comfort, and to wit, love for fear, the elites fancy themselves princes ruling over a populace made too ignorant, too distracted, too divided, and too preoccupied by fear to act in defense of self-interest.

And those still unpersuaded to abnegate their self-interest, in a word, those who value freedom, are tempted by the fiat-and-debt conjured welfare that is precisely the perversion of enlightened self-interest.  What is meant by that potentially mischievous phrase is that the public life continually lived at the expense of the future eventually compresses the opportunity of the present until the economy, the society, borders upon crisis.

The rational in society, those who are able to perceive, to predict, to feel this malevolent mechanism in process, are chided to hold their peace, to cease ruminating about their “paranoia,” and to allow the managers to do their magic. All of human history points otherwise – not that we should believe history or our lying eyes, say the fork-tongued technocrats.

Once Americans revered their government as an entrusted protector of their freedoms. That time is no more. Endless deception, calumny, scandal, and crisis has propelled the entity that was to remain in the backdrop of our lives to the forefront. And until the beast is tamed, that inevitable circumstance is here to stay.

Fear is healthy when roused and applied to the rationally recognized fountainhead of our problems. But chasing phantoms of the imagination, chimeras born of demonization, and irrelevant scapegoats leads us into the empty desert. The solutions to our problems begin and end with us, and begin and end with the mind. Mastering our fears is the key to mastering our political future; with reinvigorated courage and steely rationality we can decide our own fates.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker, Misfit Politics, Independent Journal Review and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk shows at OTNN. He holds an M.A. in International Studies with emphasis on Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies and is an advanced PhD. student in Political Science.

National Journal: Republicans Exuding Schadenfreude on Economy

What Do You Think?

A curious column in the National Journal alleges that Republicans are practicing “schadenfreude” on the recent economic news.  That being the May jobs reports which only produced 69,00 jobs that took the unemployment rate to 8.2%.  Is it schadenfreude or that Americans have lived with high unemployment for over 38 months?  Alexandra Jaffe thinks otherwise using what Eric Fehrnstrom said on ABC’s This Week last Sunday to expose Republicans for their alleged enjoyment at the dismal economic news.

Part of the problem with Obama’s leadership on the economy, Fehrnstrom argued, is that it’s been nonexistent – a “deficit of leadership,” he said. This president came into office without any prior experience running anything,” Fehrnstrom said on ABC’sThis Week. “He never even ran a corner store. And I think it shows in the way that he’s handling the economy. It’s a classic line of attack, and raises the question of whether Republicans are committing schadenfreude — joy at the misfortune of others. A 2008 study by several University of Kentucky psychologists concluded that politics “is prime territory” for such feelings, and that in several experiments they conducted found that Republicans who strongly identified with their party were especially likely to report schadenfreude as a result of poor economic news.

So one study and several experiments details irrefutable proof, that Republicans are likely to exude schadenfreude on bad economic news?  Where’s the other study? Better yet, does Ms. Jaffe even detail how consumer confidence has dropped again this month as a consequence of the dismal jobs report.  The nation’s economic recovery is grossly anemic and calls for change upon hearing such news, especially in politics, is not an unusual event.  As the column continues, we see the narrative Ms. Jaffe is trying to make, with Republicans being “obstructionist” and how Democrats have bills on the table that would create jobs if congress moves on the issue.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod made his feelings clear about the issue on CBS’ Face the Nation: “Instead of high-fiving each other on days when there is bad news, they should stop sitting on their hands and work on some of these answers.”

Republicans were, in fact, in lockstep against Obama on the issue of news that the economy had only produced a disappointing 69,000 new jobs in May, sending the unemployment rate up to 8.2 percent. Romney adviser Ed Gillespie joined Fehrnstrom in noting Obama’s lack of leadership on Fox News Sunday as well, accusing him of constantly campaigning and fundraising while failing to lead on “taxmageddon and the sequestration.”

Deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter highlighted Congress’ inactivity as well on This Week, chastising the legislative branch for failing to pass a number of Obama’s proposals that she said would create “a million jobs.”

“So there are a million jobs sitting on that table in Congress right now that they could — they could move on.  They need to get off their hands and stop rooting for failure,” she said.

In actual fact, this congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation aimed at cutting the debt, curbing our deficit, and creating jobs.  All of these proposals have been blocked by the Democratic controlled senate.  If Mr. Axelrod and Ms. Cutter want to see action, I highly suggest they call Sen. Harry Reid’s office at their earliest possible convenience.  However, it was only until Republicans retook the House and canceled the Obama credit card did congress become “hostile.”  Before that, during the Pelosi’s Speakership, Congress passed most of the Obama domestic agenda.  Obamacare was the signature achievement in the president’s first term.  In addition, Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were all passed.

Furthermore, let’s revisit where Mr. Obama had a chance to create jobs back in the spring with the Keystone Pipeline.  A project that would have created 20,000 new jobs in the United States.  However, the Chamber of Commerce estimates that the pipeline could possibly create 250,000 permanent jobs if it were approved.  However, the Obama administration delayed it last January, but made it “a priority” when gas prices soared last spring. Can you smell the cynicism?  We have $5 trillion in dew debt, our third consecutive trillion dollar deficit, and high unemployment.  This is not schadenfreude Ms. Jaffe.  It is a call for change.  With only 31% of Americans feel the country is heading in the right direction, it shows that it’s not only Republicans who are souring on President Obama.  There is a growing consensus in this country, especially with Republicans,  who are simply saying “no thanks” to the Obama agenda.

As Eric Fehrnstrom stated on ABC’s This Week:

FEHRNSTROM: Well, I agree with Stephanie, first, that this president is not adding jobs fast enough. And I think for anybody who is urgently waiting for improvement in the economy, last week was not a good week. And it’s not just the devastatingly weak jobs report we got on Friday. It was also the revision in GDP downward for the first quarter. It’s a drop in consumer confidence. It was an increase in unemployment claims.

And it’s not that we don’t think that this president is trying. I think he is. It’s just that his policies are not working. And, by the way, George, not just the policies…

This is not schadenfreude Ms. Jaffe.  It’s politics.


Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

5/27/12  Our special guest will be Orange County Republican and candidate for county supervisor Deborah Pauly. Ms. Pauly is at the center of a heated controversy within the OCGOP as she was voted out of her post as committee vice-chair earlier in the week. Is this a case of the tea party candidate versus the establishment?

Also, we can’t NOT talk about Meghan McCain…hey, it’s what she would want. And predictions! Join us Sunday night at 10pmEST, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

OC Republican Voted Out in Wake of George Wallace Mailers

Orange County, CA – The Orange County Republican Party expereinced a bit of a shakeup earlier this week when the party voted to remove Orange County candidate for County Supervisor Deborah Pauly as vice-chair of the central committee.  Officials from within the party claim Pauly was too divisive a figure and damaged the reputation of the party.  Pauly has been involved in a number of controversial issues in the last few years, including a speech she gave while protesting a Muslim community center/mosque in Yorba Linda. She also has refused to denounce Marilyn Davenport, the OC Republican who emailed a picture depicting Barack Obama as a monkey. The latest Pauly misstep   involved an Orange County business owner – Bob Walters- who apparently mailed out letters on Pauly’s behalf that were printed on original stationary from the office of reviled segregationist Democrat George Wallace.  Walters had once worked for the Wallace campaign.

This latest faux pas on the part of Ms.Pauly was the last straw for party Chairman Scott Baugh. “She makes statements that are out there that I’m constantly having to defend”, the L.A.Times quotes Baugh as saying. Baugh felt Pauly was just too divisive for the best interests of the party at this time, and many on the Central Committee seemed to share his opinion. The vote to oust Pauly came in at 47 in favor and only 16 against.

Ms.Pauly is intimating that the real problem is not with her statements, but her politics. From the beginning of her campaign Pauly has represented herself as a candidate not only running against Democrats in the state, but also against the Republican establishment. Is this a case of tea party versus the GOP machine? A source from inside the OC GOP’s central committee, who wished to remain anonymous told us this is not about politics. “I don’t think this is about Deb’s conservative views. It’s about how she conducts herself. Deb can be confrontaitional when you don’t need to be confrontational. Her personality can be abrasive. Do we think she’s been appropriate in her conduct as first vice chair? Perhaps this wasn’t the right time to take this type of vote two weeks from state elections, but a 47-16 vote tells you a lot about what people thought of her.” As to the timing of the vote, the source goes on to say that Baugh seemed uncomfortable with that as well, but thought it best not to delay it until August to avoid too much drama just a few months out from the general elections in November.

Whatever the motivations and behind-the-scenes affairs, the OC Republican Party has experienced quite a dust-up this week. It remains to be seen if Pauly will go quietly into the night or put up a fight. It also remains to be seen if the OCGOP can pull together convincingly enough in time to generate some passion and support among voters this November.

We contacted both Deborah Pauly and Scott Baugh but both were unavailable for comment.

crossposted at kiradavis.net

Mitt Romney (Really) Doesn’t Have That Much Money

Romney’s “2 Cadillacs” and “my friends own NASCAR teams” stories might seem like old news now, but if he gets the GOP’s nod, you can bet that stories about his wealth will begin to circulate again in preparation for this fall’s election.  Since 80% of Conservatives seem to think he’s going to win the nomination (and he has the largest amount of delegates), this piece will focus on some the criticisms about Romney’s wealth.

Romney Doesn’t really have that much money.

As unbelievable as that statement sounds, it’s very much true.  Mitt Romney is said to be worth anywhere between $190-$250 Million.  And as hard as it is to believe, that’s just not very much dough.

To put it in perspective, let’s look at how much money some other famous people happen to be worth.

1.  Peyton Manning has a net worth of $115 Million (about half of what Romney is said to be worth)

2.  Justin Bieber has made $105 Million in just about the same amount of  time it takes to complete high school.

3.  Gossip blogger, Perez Hilton is worth $30 Million.  Let that sink in for a minute…  And if you don’t know who Perez Hilton is, consider yourself blessed.

4.  Michael Bloomberg, a lowly mayor (even if he is mayor of the USA’s largest city), is worth $19 Billion (with a “B”).  So if politicians aren’t supposed to be wealthy, somebody should let him know.

5.  But to put things into even better perspective, Allen Iverson has made (and spent) about $200 Million between his NBA salary and his Reebok endorsements.  So, if a basketball player is allowed to earn, in fourteen years, what Mitt Romney has earned over the course of his 65 year lifetime, then there seems to be little reason to begrudge the former governor for buying a couple of Cadillacs.  And if it makes you feel any better, you should know that Allen Iverson’s $400,000 Lamborghini is worth about 8 of what Mrs. Romney’s Cadillac’s are believed to have cost.

And this is just “classic Democrats”.  Remember when Barack Obama was a candidate for the highest office in the land?  As a candidate, he considered George W. Bush’s debt of $4 Trillion to be “unpatriotic”, a debt that was amassed over 8 years.  But when President Obama racked up $4 Trillion of debt in only three years, he decided to have Tom Hanks narrate a documentary talking about how heroic our current president is.  Democrats will hammer Republicans for their sins, then commit the SAME sin, only twice as worse, and then applaud themselves.  And on top of that, they get the media to tell everybody that they’re doing a good job.  …for doing the SAME thing they just hammered Republicans for.

This is the same party who ran the richest president of all time, John F. Kennedy.  JFK was said to be worth $1 Billion (again, with a “B”), and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, was also said to be worth $98 Million.  These figures were published on MSNBC’s website, of all places, and they were adjusted for 2010 dollars.  But again, they’ll have you believe that Mitt Romney, and by extension, the Republican Party are both out of touch.  Furthermore, did you know that  William Jefferson Clinton is said to be worth $38 Million?  And last but not least, Jane Harman, a Democrat congresswoman from California who recently resigned, is said be worth between $150 Million and $430 Million.  From the looks of things, Democrats only think that being a rich politician is bad if it’s a REPUBLICAN who is the rich politician.

The hypocrisy is not only staggering, but it needs to be pointed out on a daily basis, if Republicans ever want to dispel the meme that they are all out-of-touch and 1 percenters.

So in a world where basketball players and teenage kids have earned as much (or half as much) as Mitt Romney has, and in a world where Liberal politicians can easily outspend him, it’s hard to see the outrage over Romney’s wealth as being anything genuine.  Romney’s real crime isn’t that he’s amassed money, it’s that he’s been unable to control the narrative.

New Episode of Married To The Game: Be Nice To Each Other, And Make Mitt Romney Work For The Conservative Vote

Tonight, on Married to the Game, we’ll be talking about, you guessed it…. The 2012 Republican Primary.  More importantly, we’ll also be discussing how we, as voters, have been treating each other.  Spoiler alert:  These politicians WORK FOR US.  We are friends and family, and they are our employees.  There is no reason we should tear each other down to build one of these politicians up.

Show starts at 10pm East / 7pm West.  CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Show recording:

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio
« Older Entries Recent Entries »