Chis Wallace of Fox News Sunday shows us his true elitist colors in this clip.
He might as well come out and tell us “this voting stuff is difficult for you simpletons, let us elites figure out what is best for you.”
Unreal.
I guess an “Answering the Attacks” web page is an effective way for Newt to answer his critics. The page gives some fairly detailed answers to the many criticisms of him. This one is my favorite:
Q: So why did Newt do the ad with Nancy Pelosi in 2007 calling for action to address climate change?
On November 8, 2011, Newt told FOX News’ Bret Baier that doing that commercial with Pelosi was “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve ever done”.
You got that right.
This move will really ‘help’ grow the economy and pull us out of a recession:
Sen. Richard Durbin rebooted his Internet sales tax bill, picking up crucial GOP support by exempting small online retailers and making it easier for states to comply.
Along with Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the Illinois Democrat wants to allow states to collect sales taxes from Internet retailers if they adopt one of two sales tax simplification options outlined in the legislation introduced Wednesday.
The bill addresses a legal loophole, created by Supreme Court decisions predating the Internet, which allows online retailers to avoid paying state sales taxes that brick-and-mortar stores must remit. As online sales soared at the expense of traditional retailers, states and cities have missed out on billions in tax revenues.
“We are not creating any new taxes in this bill,” Mr. Durbin said. “It’s a mechanism to collect taxes that are already on the books.”
Of course, states and cities didn’t cut back spending when they supposedly lost the billions in taxes they were expecting to confiscate.
Meanwhile, the global landscape is changing rapidly and very few people in the media or political world are talking about it.
Via STRATFOR:
But the financial crisis had its greatest impact in Europe, where it is triggering a generational shift. Since 1991, the idea of an integrated Europe has been a driving force of the global economy. As mentioned, it also has been presented as an implicit alternative to the United States as the global center of gravity.
Collectively, Europe’s economy was slightly larger than the U.S. economy. If mobilized, that inherent power made Europe a match for the United States. In the foreign policy arena, the Europeans prided themselves on a different approach to international affairs than the Americans used. This was based on a concept known as “soft power” — which relied on political and economic, as opposed to military, tools — an analog to the manner in which it saw itself managing the European Union. And Europe was a major consumer of goods, particularly Chinese goods. (It imported more of the latter than the United States did.) Taken together, Europe’s strengths and successes would allow it to redefine the international system — and the assumption for the past generation was that it was successful.
In the context of the ongoing European financial crisis, the issue is not simply whether the euro survives or whether Brussels regulators oversee aspects of the Italian economy. The fundamental issue is whether the core concepts of the European Union remain intact. It is obvious that the European Union that existed in 2007 is not the one that exists today. Its formal structure appears the same, but it does not function the same. The issues confronting it are radically different. Moreover, relations among the EU nations have a completely different dynamic. The question of what the European Union might become has been replaced by the question of whether it can survive. Some think of this as a temporary aberration. We see it as a permanent change in Europe, one with global consequences.
If the EU dissolves, not only will there be an economic void to fill, but there will be a political one as well. And if we don’t fill it, you know China will be more than happy to step in.
Issues like this are much more important to discuss, rather than the latest unsubstantiated political scandal.
I saw this on the Chicago Boyz web page today:
I am thinking more and more that the GOP presidential candidate is a distraction.
Whoever it is will be better much than Mr. Obama, so don’t worry about it. Mr. Obama makes Mitt Romney look like George Washington.
So, what does matter?
Making sure we have a Tea Party Congress in 2012 is the most important thing.
I agree with idea of having a Tea Party Congress. However, to unwind the mess that our government has become we will need a ‘Tea Party’ President as well. Remember, there is a strong possibility that a Supreme Court position will open up after the 2012 elections. So, actually, it does matter who is the Republican nominee.
If you are a regular reader of MCT, you would’ve read about this months ago… July 12th to be precise:
Achievements in the real world are great. In sports, business and in your personal life, achievements are a positive thing and should be celebrated. However, in the political world, specifically in Washington, legislative achievements are usually a negative for “we the people.” Legislative achievements usually involve eroding personal freedom or adding another layer of regulation to our economy.
If you want to nominate the Republican candidate with the greatest legislative achievement, Mitt Romney (with his signature achievement, RomneyCare) is you candidate.
We have had way too many legislative ‘achievements’ come out of Washington for way too long and we are now paying dearly for them.
Much like conservatives jumping on the governance by intellects bandwagon, the idea of supporting candidates who govern well, rather than candidates who will govern least will not get us out of the hole we are in today. As conservatives, we need to focus on a candidates core beliefs, principles and their adherence to the ideals of limited government and not worry about how many significant pieces of legislation a particular candidate has signed their name on.
Just thought I’d point this out.
This type of thinking is what’s wrong with our economy today:
Mayor Bloomberg warned Friday there would be riots in the streets if Washington doesn’t get serious about generating jobs.
“We have a lot of kids graduating college, can’t find jobs,” Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show.
“That’s what happened in Cairo. That’s what happened in Madrid. You don’t want those kinds of riots here.”
To lower the number of unemployed people requires expanding the economy. Taking money from one group of people (through taxation, spending or printing) and redistributing it to another group (in the form of government jobs) is not economic growth. worse, this idea actually hurts the overall economy.
Remember Frédéric Bastiat’s classic What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen essay.
Recently, I read this article discussing how Mitt Romney, according to GOP insiders, would fare better than someone like Rick Perry in the general election against Obama.
The obvious reaction to this is “yeah, that is what they said about McCain.”
GOP ‘insiders’ are recycling the idea that a candidate, such as Romney, will appeal to moderate voters (where the election is won) in the general election. In other words, the GOP ‘insiders’ are pushing the idea that a more liberal / progressive Republican candidate is the key to winning the 2012 election.
To understand how bad a liberal / progressive Republican occupant in the White House can be, you don’t have to look too far back in history. For one example, go back to the late 60′s through the early 70′s and take another look at Richard Milhous Nixon.
I realize most people don’t associate Richard Nixon with the Progressives. I mean he was a Republican after all. However, looking at many of Nixon’s domestic policies, he acted more like a liberal / progressive than a conservative:
Foreign policy initiatives represented only one aspect of Nixon’s presidency during his first term. In August 1969, Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, a welfare reform that would have guaranteed an income to all Americans. The plan, however, did not receive congressional approval. In August 1971, spurred by high inflation rates, Nixon imposed wage and price controls in an effort to gain control of price levels in the U.S. economy; at the same time, prompted by worries over the soundness of U.S. currency, Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard and let it float against other countries’ currencies.
A president suggesting the federal government guaranteeing every American an income? Sounds very progressive. Sounds very FDR-like. The idea also sounds a lot like a state run health care initiative.
Aside from being the only president to resign, the lasting legacy of Richard Nixon is the one agency (besides the IRS) that liberals love. The EPA.
…because there are no local or State boundaries to the problems of our environment, the Federal Government must play an active, positive role. We can and will set standards. We can and will exercise leadership.
State of the Union Message on Natural Resources and the Environment, February 14th, 1973
Federalism? Nope. The 10th Amendment? Ignore it.
Nixon created a sprawling agency with broad and sweeping powers that, at their essence erode personal property rights. They have gone as far to classify, through the use of pseudoscience, CO2 (the gas all humans exhale) as a “threat to public health.” Even though any second grader will explain to you that CO2 is necessary for all plant life. to exist.
According to Mr. Nixon, the Federal government “will set standards, the Federal government will exercise leadership” because the states can’t do it themselves.
Looking back at Richard Nixon’s record and the many initiatives he supported during his time in office, you can see how important it is to get a conservative in office and not vote for a guy just because he has an R after his name.
For more on the Progressives @ MCT:
1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)
Its got to bother Mitt Romney that Rick Perry polled better, as a write in than he did after campaigning there. Maybe, Mitt will take the hint and bow out like Pawlenty.
Speaking of Rick Perry (Gallup Poll via Politico):
Perry’s strong Positive Intensity Score among Republicans who do know him — 23 percent for the July 25-Aug. 7 period — remains a strong plus for him. Perry’s score is slightly higher than the less well-known Herman Cain’s (22 percent) and the much better-known Rudy Giuliani’s (20 percent); it is also higher than Sarah Palin’s (18 percent), Bachmann’s (18 percent), and Romney’s (14 percent).
Five other candidates Gallup is tracking — Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich — continue to generate little enthusiasm among Republicans. All have Positive Intensity Scores in the single digits, anchored by Gingrich’s low score of 2.
And, in keeping with the numbers theme, Obama’s poll numbers continue their slide downward. Via Gallup.
In honor of Obama’s 39% approval a little SRV and Jeff Beck:
2012 can’t get here fast enough.
