Author Archive

Pre-Iowa 2012 Caucus notes on GOP President Candidates.

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

Reader note/up front disclaimer: I am a Perry supporter and havent changed my mind much. The analysis below is meant to be fair.

All through the summer and fall I waited to write this observation. Waited for the right time to see how things were setting and more importantly, for us to get to know the candidates a little better.

I am certainly glad I did, as my mind was changed about a great number of things.

Still. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

We must focus our energy on defeating President Obama and Democrats this fall. To believe other wise is fool hardy and ignores the peril of the past three years.

Whom ever is the candidate, I will vote for.

That doesnt mean they will get my financial support or enthusiam or sign off on volunteering in four years *if* they were to win election.

In the end we must remain true to our conservative principles and focus on breaking the shackles of excessive government forged by this current administration and return America to her greatness.

With that in mind I present to you the following candidate analysis in alphabetal order.

Michelle Bachmann

Pros: Arguably our best in-the-trenches fighter. She is tenacious and will not stop. Ever. No question about whether or not she is conservative.

Cons: Shrill. Part of being President of the United States means you must work with the other side while winning. Michelle would try to steam roll them. Not that steam rolling Democrats is a bad idea in the short term - but if you do not have the votes to do so, then what?

The debt ceiling fight is a perfect example. People voted for massive change last November to act as a check against President Obama. However, many did not vote to shut the government down. Some did (including many on this blog). People like my self did not and see it as a failure of leadership on the part of both parties to rise above talking points and do their job for the benefit of the nation.

Conclusion: Would prefer to see her still fighting hard in the House of Representatives and shake up the leadership team a bit. That is her strength. Governing in the executive capacity is not.

Newt Gingrich

Pros: Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Gingrich enacted all the reforms we dream about today - with a Democrat sitting as President of the United States. Balanced budget? Limited government? Newt delivered.

Cons: Since floundering in 1998 and resigning from Congress his solutions sound a bit wonky. I can look past the on-the-couch-with-Pelosi bit. It is the solutions, including backing individual mandates and Heritage did at one point that troubles me greatly.

Infidelity does matter. Just ask Gary Hart.

However, if he honestly got on his knees before God almighty and asked for repentence and made changes - I cannot cast the first stone.

I also have serious reservations regarding what seems to be a haste to use military power in Iran. Do not misunderstand me. We must do what we must do - but to boast about wanting an engagement? Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Then there is the whole judge thing. Yes, judges are out of control. No, you should not usurp Constitutional authority to beat them into submission. Sorry Newt, your wrong on this.

Conclusion: Mixed bag. The man  knows how to get it done in the past. I would love to see Newt shread President Obama in an Lincoln-Douglas style debate where we actually get to see what they mean and know. That will not happen.

Jon Huntsman

Pro: Solid, conservative record in Utah. I know, *gasp.* That is the reality of the matter. His plan to fix the economy was given the thumbs up by the Wall Street journal. He fits the bill of credibility in many places, once one examines his record, which we would all hope a conservative would.

Con: Does this guy really want to be a conservative? Working for the Obama administration is a huge strike. Trying to find your nitch during the GOP primary as a “moderate” is bad, bad strategy. The only people who are really jazzed about this guy is, drum roll please, the Washington media.

Conclusion: Huntsman deserved a closer look that what he got. Based on his record and understanding of policy I would vote for him before Romney and Paul. Still, my oldest child was able to point out he was totally avoiding questions during an interview we watched with Bob Schieffer. What does that say?

Ron Paul

Pro: I love parts of his libertarian streaks. He is right about being suspecious about the government.

At moments when other candidates feel free to jump on legislation which is poorly thought out or may violate the Constitution Paul speaks up.

I also feel that we should have an official declaration of war during engagements such as Iraq and Afghanistan. I also believe that there are many red flags with the government intruding on basic individual rights. This is what I believe is driving his supporters in Iowa.

Con: His foriegn policy is beyond laughable. I do not have the time or patience to discuss what I would call extremist (near anti-jewish?) views on the middle east and other odds and ends.

Conclusion: If Paul gets the nomination I would vote for him. Yes. Would work like the dickens to make sure Congress would keep him in check and from abandoning our allies and interests across the globe.

Rick Perry

Pro: Burried somewhere in all the smears pushed out the door by rival campaigns and scared media types is a proven record of a governor who is generating the most jobs of any other state. Perry gets it on _all_ the issues ranging from Healthcare to medicaid to social security and of course the role of the 10th amendment.

If there ever was someone who was qualified to be President of the United States of America, and who embodied full spectrum conservatism, its Perry.

Con: He’s not The Great Communicator. Lets get that out of the way now.

Perry also had problems during a session with Mike Huckabee when three state attorney generals quested him about how he would tackle healthcare. Instead of specifically citing how the law allows for vouchers, he came across as stating he would create an executive order to repeal any legislation he didnt like. Ugh.

Conclusion: Perry is still my first choice through thick and thin. Ive seen what he did in Texas, and how he understands what this nation needs. He is absolutely correct.

Mitt Romney

Pro: Battle tested. Willing to do what ever it takes. Conservative principles are at least sketched out. Understands power base and is willing to work with it.

Con: No soul. Changes positions based on what is needed to win.

Conclusion: I will vote for him without any problem if he is the candidate.  However I really dunwanna.

His back and forth position on abortion irritates me. How he feels like he doesnt need to be vetted - especially after tearing Huckabee apart for being overly religious - makes my skin crawl.

It also tells the tale of a man who is willing and knows how to do the little things to win a nasty campaign. Never underestimate these people or discard them.

Like Paul (and Newt to a lesser extent), we would need to lean on Congress to keep in check.

Rick Santorum

Pro: Santorum is a straight shooter. I can think of no one else more consistent with ideas. I like the battles he’s fought and why he fought them.

Cons: Whines too much. Instead of thinking of how to create a message, like Cain’s 999 plan, Santorum whines a lot after debates about time he got to speak.

If you get the big chair, you need to act like it and press ahead. Be creative. Tell us what sets you apart and show us your leadership.

Missing the point on Cain, Perry and Rubio

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Drama on the campaign trail always adds flavor to the season and provides a sense of story. In recent weeks the media’s obession with destroying several of the GOP’s more prominent (and conservative) political figures provides a sense of desperation not felt in eight years. Whether trying to paint Governor Perry as a racist, Rubio as a liar and Cain as some sort of unethical figure it all leads to a smearing of individuals who threaten the very structure of the political status qou.

The “surprise” revelations ultimately are not geared toward the Republican primary voter, but to discrediting these conservative icons into the abyss of unelectability.

One need to look no further than the Washington Post’s ploy of litterally looking under a rock to understand the depths at which the media, and ultimately Democrats, fear losing this election.

Herman Cain’s situation is similar. While Politico obviously researched elements of the story, they were unwilling to reveal the details of accusation or note payments were closer to severins pay than a “settlement.”  This was done either as a way to either legally force a breach of confidentiality or simply watch Cain’s campaign squirm.

Then there is smear campaign which the Washington Post is running against Rubio. Whether it is to prevent Rubio from serving as a vice presidential candidate or destroy him as a national conservative figure who can help bridge the hispanic voter gap for Republicans is unknown.

What is apparent is like Bob McDonnell or George Allen, the Washington Post is on an all out mission to destroy and discredit Rubio at nearly any cost. Period.

You might say Romney is notably missing. The reason is simple. Team Obama and the media do not feel threatened by Governor Romney on an idealist or campaign strategy level.

That cannot be said about Cain, Perry or Rubio.

Dont look for the same treatment to be given to Democrats either. President Obama is still the media’s stand up guy who they will go to the mat for. Dont doubt that for a moment.

Why GOP debates must drop to four people.

Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
After the last two GOP debates I believe there is a clear case to be made that the forums should drop to four people. Not just on polling data and fundraising, but substance.

The four people I would like to see discussions break down to are Perry, Romney, Cain and Gingrinch.

These four people promote the best substance in the debate.  In fact you could argue that Cain and Gingrinch might be the most entertaining and substanative.

As for Paul, Bachmman (Romney’s new running mate) and Santorum simply do not add any real substance or relevence to the debate.

While I believe all three do bring a unique and interesting qualities, none of them add much to the process beyond taking time other candidates could use to expand on substance. The exception Bachmann a couple of weeks ago when she set a media personality straight about Obamacare.

So I say, bring on more debates, but lets start whittling the time down so we can get into more substance.

GOP unserious about winning presidential election in 2012

Saturday, October 15th, 2011

As I scan the morning new over the past couple weeks I’ve come to the conclusion that most Republican candidates are completely unserious about winning the presidential election in 2012.

How can I say such a thing?

Easy. There is more energy being put into knifing each other in the back and building up stalking horses than focusing on policy.

One need to look no further than Mitt Romney proping up Michelle Bachmann during the last debate, and her role in attacking other candidates except for Mitt, as an example.

To be fair, though, I would also offer Herman Cain’s statement about accepting a vice presidential candidate except for Rick Perry.

Add to the fact that in the past few debates the candidates decided to attack each other more than President Obama and did not mentioin Solyndra or Fast and Furious.

Then there is the rush of who wants to be first during the primary season. Everyone wants to be first. Never mind the fact that we need a process with pauses to fully vet a candidate and their process out.

There are valid reasons for each of these occurrances within their own setting.

It is more than depressing, however, to see happen. It forces me into the belief there is a greater concern over an internal power struggle and demand for perfection instead of honestly focusing on what is best for our country.

One wonders if Republicans and conservatives can play things any better for President Obama next year.

Oh wait, did I mention Sarah Palin switching her Face Book status to “conservative” and Rush discussing “breaking up the old team?”

What we should expect from tonight’s GOP Debate.

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

Here we go. Round two.

One advantage Democrats were able to get partial traction from beating up on Bush during many of their debates during 2007. At each turn Republicans and conservatives took a beating.

Fast forward to this election cycle and Republicans get the same chance. Will they take that window opporunity? The TEA Party debate hosted by CNN suggests no.

For all the headlines and questions being thrown out regarding matters Republicans and conservatives care about, our guys spent more time hammering each other, or focus-firing Rick Perry, instead of presenting positive solutions or hammering President Obama.

Instead of hearing about NLRB’s abuse and threatening people who oppose the corruption of union bosses, we heard about HPV.

Instead of discussing how the Obama administration’s issues with operation “Fast and Furious” or subversion of Congress through the creation of Czars, we decided to figure out how it was best “contrast” Social Security reform.

If you’ve got my subtle hint that the last debate had wonderful clash but was short on substance, your right.

This does not mean we should not vet our candidates. We must. That means throw all the questions you can and see how they respond.

This means our nominee must come through with sustantive answers - regardless of what is tossed at them.

What we need tonight is a debate filled with substance which uplifts conservative ideals and hammers home problems we are facing.

This is what we must expect from our candidates. Nothing less will get us to the White House in 2012.

How Lichtman cooks his own books.

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

For those who didnt happen to catch this little jewel, American University professor Allan Lichtman who ”accurately” predicted past presidential elections is now calling the 2012 election for President Obama.

To understand how Lichtman makes his predictions, you must understand there are “13  keys” to winning an election. Of those, he says, the winner must take at least six. According to the professor Obama wins nine. Yes, you read that correctly, nine.

Before anyone decides to pack it in lets review those 13 keys and see if there is any real truth in the end analysis.

“Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Obama loses this key.”

Captain obvious. Republicans, if they continue to listen to the American public and do what they were elected to do and be smart in the pocess, may very well gain seats.

“Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination  Obama wins this key.”

Although we’ve heard rumblings about up to twenty five percent of Democrats not wanting to vote for President Obama, I will concede thise point because there is no official challenge. Even Bush 41 had an early challenger.

“Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.”

Okay, yes. Once again pretty straight forward. I could argue, however, that incumbency may not be a benefit. It certainly was not for many Democrats and Republicans in 2010. People felt that government was out of control and trying to take over their lives.  Many still feel that way, which will be discussed later down the line, which may mean that incumbency could be a bad thing. To the point, President Obama is trying to run as a sort of outsider if you can believe it.

“Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.”

Agreed here. In fact, if you look at polls I would say Republicans could still lose by five to seven percent breaking off and voting Libertarian. Say what you want, but you can only talk down someone for so long without the dirt sticking. Early polls with Romney and Perry neck and neck with Obama show third party doing decent enough to hurt and given President Obama the win.

“Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign…” ”Undecided.”

?

This is where it gets fishy. One percent growth with over nine percent unemployment isnt bursting at the seems. Infact it is dismal on the border of a recession. Most people feel as if we never left the recession. Back in 1992 the recession ended before November, but because people felt we were doing badly, they voted the economy.  So President Obama loses this key.

“Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.”

This is Lichtman puts on his cheerleader outfit. Yes, President Obama got his policy change. However it precipitated the historic creation of the TEA party movement. Whats more, the vast majority of people still want Obamacare repealed and the budget balanced. These are two things President Obama refuses to do. So yes, there was a change in national policy - but it was a net negagive. Obama loses.

“Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.” “Obama wins a fifth key here.”

Is this guy blind? Did Lichtman miss the townhall debates over the past two years and the absolute shellacking recieved by Democrats in November of 2011 in addition to the creation of the TEA party movement? There is no way Obama wins this key. He loses it by a mile.

“Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.” “Another Obama win.”

At this point Lichtman is shaking his pom-poms fast and furiously. Pun intended. There have been several “scandals” the Obama administration is going through including Operation Fast and Furious and the Black Pather voter intimidation cases. That says nothing about the czar appointments or throttling of Chrysler share holders during the auto bail outs.  Operation Fast and Furious is the more damning of all the scandals. While Lichtman isnt aware of the scandal, most people I talk to are. Obama loses.

“Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.” “Obama wins again.”

So I am guessing people see Libya as successful? You know the military action which President Obama failed to get Congressional approval before taking. While a new poll suggests 54 percent of Americans support the action, up from 35 percent last month,  President Obama failed to recieve any sort of bounce. No, we havent had a C-130 crash in the dessert trying to rescue Americans held hostage - but you cannot say Obama is seen as strong and decisive.

One should remember the problem created by the Obama administration by back-stabbing our current allies such as the United Kingdom or Isreal while giving tyrant states like Iran and Syria pretty much a free hand.

The jury is still out on this key.

“Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.” “Obama wins his eighth key.”

Lichtman tries to cite Osama Bin-Laden’s death as the sole reason for foriegn success. What the professor does not do, however, is view the entire policy. When President Obama said he wanted to lead from behind, he apparently meant it. While Americans are burned out from nation building, we certainly do not feel like letting other countries dictate to us what our best interest are. Obama failes on this key miserably.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. ” “Obama loses this key”

I agree with this. President Obama is not seen as a type of hero to the average American. He does not inspire optimism in our future or propose bold plans which include Americans doing what we do best. Instead we are being fed a steady stream of washington-knows-it-all bran. Bleh.

“Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t” bama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.”

I left the quote in full to make a point about how this man is cooking his own books for what ever reason. Obviously this man has not seen Herman Cain or Governor Rick Perry. (Full Disclosure, I support and have donated to Rick Perry - you should too)

Both men are inspiring and offer incredible records. Both are national heros of sorts, especially when it comes to the economy and knowing how to put Americans back to work without policy which leaches off tax payer dollars.

After reviewing Lichtman keys we can see President Obama wins three keys with one more up in the air.

Why Rick Perry is the right man at the right time for President of the United States.

Saturday, August 13th, 2011

In December of 2008 I wondered not as some national figures if the GOP was dead, but who would take up the mantle of leadership and help lead America in the promise of freedom and restore the approach of limited government as our forefathers envisioned.

I saw few who fit that description. At least none which I sat at ease with.

Along came Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009, who caught my attention while preaching against an orgy regulatory of chains and government intervention forged by the Obama Administration and Democrats.

It was not just the main stream conservative rhetoric Governor Perry was preaching, but the economic results on display in Texas which contrasted to the rest of the nation’s malaise. While the rest of the country’s employment and economic numbers were hanging on for dear life, Texas was thriving.

It wasnt just a coincidence either.

Governor Perry and the Texas legislature advocated strong profreedom, probusiness policies which attracted business to Texas.

It was as a direct result of those policies that Texas added nearly one million jobs. This contrasts to the failing national economy policy which depends on massive defict spending, which we can no longer afford, to stay afloat.

It isnt just about the economy, though. There were many other facets to Perry which drove me to investigate the man further.

Governor Perry’s committment to state’s rights and the tenth amendment means he understands the importance of the power of states to make change and that all power and knowledge does not centralize from Washington, DC.

Then there is the not so small fact that Perry dots all the “i”s and crosses all “t”s when it comes to social issues like abortion.

Perhaps most importly, though, Governor Perry brings an articulate pro-American optimism which this nation needs desperately. His belief in American exceptionalism and that our best days are still ahead of us are core to what this nation needs.

If you’ve followed Governor Perry since 2009 in hopes that he would run in 2012, you know that the optimism he espouses isnt just campaign rhetoric, but part of his fiber.

Whats more, however, his record proves his ability to lead from the front, not behind or leaving it others to debate.

Governor Perry is a full spectrum conservative leader whose belief in the American people and the promise of our nation is genuine and uniting.

I would ask fellow Redstaters to embrace each other and support Governor Perry as he takes the first step in running for the President of the United States of America and restoring our nation as our founding fathers envisioned it.

We are still the shining city of the hill and hope for freedom which Ronald Reagan spoke of. We just need a reminder. Governor Rick Perry is that reminder.

Observations regarding S&P’s Downgrade of America’s AAA bond rating.

Saturday, August 6th, 2011

They say the worst news in Washington is dropped on Friday afternoon. Yesterday was no different as Standard and Poors’s decided to downgrade America’s AAA bond rating.

While many in the political establishment (that includes many of us activist) view what may be profitible for the next election, businesses look for stability and solvency to ensure a return on their investment.

As a result I believe the following observations are important to note going forward:

* Republicans offered not one (cut, cap and balance), but three plans which would cut in excess of the 4 trillion requested by S&P.  This included Paul Ryan’s plan (~7 trillion) and Senator Coburn’s 9 trillion dollar reduction plan.

* Gang of Six technically reaches the magic number, but includes trillions of dollars in tax increases which offers businesses zero incentive to bring jobs or investment back to the United States.

* Democrats still refuse to provide any sort of long term deficit reduction plan outside of repealing the Bush era tax rates.

* Brinksmanship was just as much as a determining factor as the deficit its self. For those who argue conservatives could twist arms better after the August 2nd date, S&P disagree and cites such gamesmanship as a core reason as to why AAA could not be retained:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

Taking the budget to the edge makes investors and business people nervous. It adds unpredictability and concerns those who might seek to or invest in our bonds.

To be clear, I am not advocating folding like a cheap suit and implementing tax increases as Democrats sought. That is wrong.

However, to intentially want to shut the government down and even appear to threaten the situation does more harm than good. This includes the United States Senate refusal to pass a budget for in excess of 800 days or President Obama’s refusal to propose any sort of plan.

*No real structural changes were made in the budget agreement proved very costly. While obvious for many of us, at the heart of the rational for the decision to downgrade, was the fact no real changes were made to ensure the solvency of entitlement programs.

Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures.

Any real reform, such at the Ryan plan or cut, cap and balance address these core concerns and provide sound fiscal policy which addresses such issues. Without reforming entitlement spending investors will continue to look at our bonds with doubt whether or not we can pay them back.

* Most importantly, poor economic growth matters greatly. While the report notes that Democrats desire to increase taxes on “upper income earners” would bring in 950 billion over ten years, it is equally important to note tax revenues are a full 3.5 percent below the Bush years and account for 300-400 billion a year.

The key element here is not just the recession, but the core cause of why businesses are not re-investing. With the passage of Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank act, the cost doing business increases greatly. Combined with Democrats current threats to increase taxes, it dramatically depresses any optimism or opportunity for investment.

While entitlement reform is key to any long term budget deal, the environment for businesses to be able to make money and invest here must be changed.

If elected officials truly seek to tackle debt or the deficit under any plan, the economy must grow. Businesses must feel comfortable investing in people and resources.

As I’ve noted before, businesses small and big need certainty and encouragement that the money they spend will return as a net positive.  If the government’s policy is counter to this basic need, then the economy will not grow and our yearly deficits will only grow larger.

Simply put, Marco Rubio is correct when he stated that the system needs more tax payers as a pose to more taxes.

Initial thoughts on possible debt ceiling compromise. (Update)

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

National Journal is reporting the outlines of what may be an interesting debt ceiling compromise.

While details are sketchy, if true, Republicans and conservatives should be happy with much of what Democrats and President Obama might agree to.

Of interesting notes:

  • There will be an extension of days to allow Congress to slow things down without threatening default. To me, this could be key so Congress will be able to read any such bill and stop back door provisions or tax hike sneak attacks.
  • 2.8 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. 1.8 trillion will come from the “super committee”.  If the super committee cannot find any such reductions by November, then across the board cuts kick in - which come from medicaid and defense. Too bad there isnt more than a 2.8 trillion goal, eh?
  • No net new tax revenue increases will be part of the committee’s discussion, reportedly. Of course what does that mean? Which base line is the committee working from? Would they be working from the basis that the Bush era tax rates go away meaning that there is a 3.5 trillion dollar tax increase over 10 years worked into the figures?

Worthy note not in the outline,

  • Vote on a BBA. While I am a huge BBA supporter, I do not believe passage of a BBA should be a prerequist to any deal. I would be open to changing my mind if someone could show me how one attracts 20 additional senators to the Lee-Hatch BBA proposal.
  • Congressional authority over the committee. Congress must vote on their recommendations. The committee should not be able to come up with proposals and pass it amongst its self and have the president sign it. To do so would mean Congress is ducking its Constitutional authority.
  • Who will be on the committee? Republicans would be smart to put who are interested in cutting budgets as well as cutting deals. This means people more like Coburn and less like Rep Upton.

Over all the potential deal has promise to stabilize the situation and allow for serious discussion on the budget deficit reforms in the future.

It also points to the fact that Americans are interested in real solutions.

We should not count this as any sort of grand win. It isnt. Then again, for me, the entire eppisode wasnt over who won or lost. It was over what is right for this country and how we can best move the ball forward.

The battle may be over, but until there is a President and Senate majority who are willing to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment and make real cuts, the fight to control spending will not be over.

UPDATE:

Following an ABC report, the deal may have serious flaws.

If such a deal allows the committee to implement taxes through a back door or gut defense spending while not touching entitlements as a pose to across the board cuts, then it is a bad deal.

Which report to believe? I do not know and wont know until more information comes to light.

Suggestion: Keep pressure on issues, not on eating our own.

Tuesday, July 12th, 2011

If your anything like my self you’ve been a nervous wreck the past few weeks as the debt issue hurtles out of control and into the realm of obscene comedy.

First there was the possibility of reasonable policy discussion. Then there was the class warefare and insults launched at Republicans. Then there was more discussion followed my more insulting of Republicans, and Americans and large, paired with another healthy dose of class warfare.

As if those hurdles weren’t enough to trip up common sense, we have Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell making one of the most bone-headed manuevers in recent political history.

For those who arent up to speed, Senator McConnell tipped his hand and revealed a “doomsday” scenario in which the President of the United States gets to raise the debt on his own terms, without need to make cuts or offer concessions, in an effort to divert a government default.

The only thing worse than the proposal its self, was the timing - this afternoon - when a wave of negative news was hitting the wires regarding people’s rejection of President Obama’s apparent decision to try and threaten Congress into accepting bigger government.

The net result was a much deserved outrage.

However, as upset as I am in such a piece of legislation which would remove the exact reason why voters put the GOP in charge of the House last November, I am equally upset about those who might eat our own.

Now is not the time to split up and combat our selves. Not when the stakes are so high.

This budget show down is the perverbial hill to die on. It is what so many Americans tasked the Republican party to deal with.

With that in mind I would suggest for everyone to close ranks and stick together.

This is what seperates those who simply want to burn and blow up things for the sake of fun and those who want to move policy forward constructively. One only need to look at how President Obama addressed Republicans over the past couple of weeks as a reminder.

In contrast Speaker Boehner, and others, are classy and refrain from stabbing each other - and those who they are trying to broker a deal with - in the back.

Similarly while we should cry out and let our voice be known that while the McConnell proposal may be well intentioned and opposed, our focus should be on Democrats and President Obama.

Enhanced by Zemanta