Bet You Think It Is Too Early For 2016

Think again, my friend!

We already have many Repubs jockeying for space in the up coming primaries…..Cruz is visiting all the states with early primaries……so is Santorum…..likewise for Rubio and of course the inevitable family, Paul.  There are others that the MSM seems to be leaning toward at this time……Christie, Bush, Walker and a newcomer to the possibles.  Scott Brown….you remember him the loser in the race against Warren in Mass, right?

First the ne3ws about Brown…….

Report from the Huffington Post:

Less than a year after losing his bid for reelection, former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is “curious” about pursuing a higher political office.

Closing out a weekend where he visited the Iowa State Fair, a key 2016 stomping ground, Brown said he is exploring the possibility of a 2016 presidential run.

In an interview published Sunday with the Boston Herald, Brown’s comments gave a clearer picture of where his White House ambitions stand.

“I want to get an indication of whether there’s even an interest, in Massachusetts and throughout the country, if there’s room for a bi-partisan problem solver,” Brown said. “It’s 2013 — I think it’s premature, but I am curious.”

The one that most media seems to prefer at this point is New Jersey’s Christie……..he seems to be at odds with several of the perceived frontrunners….personally, I think this is his attempt to identify his base for the coming election……

Report from CNN:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie planted himself firmly in the Republican Party’s establishment wing Thursday with a pugnacious speech calling on his party to focus on pragmatism rather than ideology and crippling internal debates.

“We are not a debating society,” Christie told a lunchtime audience at the Republican National Committees summer meeting in Boston. “We are a political operation that needs to win.”

Some of Christie’s remarks, relayed to a reporter by GOP officials who attended the closed-press event, were interpreted by many here as another jab at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a potential rival for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Christie also appeared to rap Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another potential White House hopeful who made headlines in January when he implored the GOP to “stop being the stupid party.”

“I’m not going to be one of these people who goes around and calls our party stupid,” Christie said, a startling remark given that Jindal and Christie work hand-in-hand as chairman and vice-chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

So NO it is not too early to be thinking about 2016…….why?  It is going to be a circus and all the clowns need to find their parameters and their vase……

Does anyone see someone that I may have missed in this analysis…….let’s discuss it.

What The Hell Does Pro-Family Mean?

What made me think about this subject was a good old boy that is running locally for a state representative spot…….he states that he is pro-2nd amendment (something I would expect a tobacco spitting moron to say) and that he is pro-education (a humorous pile of fecal matter) and finally that he is pro-family…….pro-family?  what does that mean?

I hear this term batted around almost endlessly  mostly by conserv candidates…..and I ask again…what are the values that mean you are pro-family?

A poll taken by Harris in 1998 revealed a bit…….

  • 52% of women and 42% of men thought family values means “loving, taking care of, and supporting each other”
  • 38% of women and 35% of men thought family values means “knowing right from wrong and having good values”
  • 2% of women and 1% men thought of family values in terms of the “traditional family”

The survey also noted that 93% of all women thought that society should value all types of families (Harris did not publish the responses for men)

Apparently it has something to do with the old bumper sticker of “Family Values”….but then….just what does that mean….in conserv context it means the following……

  • Promotion of traditional marriage and opposition to sex outside of marriage
  • Support for a traditional role for women in the family.
  • Opposition to same-sex marriage
  • Opposition to legalized induced abortion
  • Support for abstinence education
    Support for policies that are said to protect children from obscenity and exploitation

In other words draconian beliefs…..beliefs from the 16th century…….very little of those have anything to do with raising a family….just red meat for morons!

It is subjective, open to interpretation….but the above definitions have nothing to do with the steering of the ship of state…they are solely emotional ramblings.

But what are family values really?

To me these values are……respect, honesty, belonging, forgiveness, and most important, communication…….these are the values that make a strong family…..the other stiff is just dog whistles for morons!

I have found in the past that candidates that use such terms as pro-2nd amendment, pro-education and especially pro-family have NO solutions for real problems so throw these dog whistles around to sound informed…….they are worthless and deserve NO support….not even for dog catcher.

Who Can Explain Mitt’s Loss?

I know….I know…….enough already!

This will be my last (hopefully) post on the 2012 election…….there have been so many reasons given for the GOP loss in the past election…..some say “fact checkers” cost them the election, some say it was the MSM….other blame pollsters……I have even heard the it was Newt’s fault for his stinging attacks during the primaries……..But I am sure you have heard some that I have not…..but what can explain the loss?

The best analysis that I have seen was that of Gov. Barbour.

Gov. Haley Barbour, former governor of Mississippi, former lobbyist, former chairman of the RNC, former head of the Repub governors assn……former….well you get the idea….this guy is Mr. GOP.  I live in his state and have never been a supporter of his……but I will say that there is not a more astute politician than Barbour.  No matter what you man think of the man…he is smarter than the average GOP strategist…….and his analysis of why the GOP lost so badly is summed up in a few words…..

This is a direct quote from Gov. Barbour……..

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) had a simple explanation for why Republicans didn’t do better in U.S. Senate races, Ben Smith reports.

And it wasn’t about the party being too conservative.

Said Barbour: “We had some shitty candidates. We pissed away two seats.”

Let us emphasize his analysis for effect…….

“We (GOP) had some shitty candidates.  We pissed away two seats.”

Enough said!

Who Will It Be In 2016?

Oh dear……..the 2012 election is over and what shall we write about?  We meaning, us bloggers that the media hates.  We could join in the chorus of those analyzing the crap out of the results of the vote…..but… why on earth would we want to do that?  We could aggravate each other until the point of screaming…..or we could try something new and write about what we think about the 2016 election.

Personally, I would like to try and think about our next shot at electing a president…..I guess we could call it a prediction of sorts……..join in it could be a hoot.

First let us look at the Democrats……..

Cuomo……this seems to be the most talk about at this point…….I think it is dumb….why?  He is shacking up in the governor’s mansion and boy would that be a lightening rod for the opposition.

Biden–I think after Obama he may have had enough of DC and will not be interested in running again……plus he is getting old….time to rest.

Hilary–Dem women would love this and I think that she may be interested but I still think she has had enough also.  Time to kick back and make money.

Castro–the mayor of San Antonio is attractive and a good speaker and he is Hispanic and he is young….this could be the most popular choice for Dems…..

Republicans——–

T-Paw–I believe he will try again and that he will back off the stuff that made him unattractive in thye last round of primaries…..

Huntsman–If the GOP does some soul searching then he will try again and be a front runner…..for under normal circumstances he was the best person for the nomination in 2012…..

Jindal–he seems to be a popular person within the party…..but I do not think he has a chance the primaries will eat him up….

Rubio–a very popular person within the GOP…..but just running does not guarantee the Hispanic vote…he will be a good choice in the primaries but unless he modifies some of his stances he will be a dud……

Condi–I want to say a good choice…..but being female is not the best gauge of a candidate……

The there is Jeb……..a good choice

My money is on Rubio (who is going to Iowa in November 2012) and Jeb…….

There has been enough crap spread by both sides….let’s have a little fun before the cycle begins again……we can do it…we do not have to dislike each other…….

Okay, there are my predictions for the makeup of the 2016 primaries……whatta think?  Let us hear your ideas and choices……

The Selling Of A VP

Mitt has now made his choice of a running mate and that person as we all know by now, Paul Ryan……a common name but only 23% of the people polled have any idea who he is…..so the GOP will have to market him and have him ready for his place at the convention…..now I know you will ask….”how ill they do that”…..good question and Justin Raimondo has written such and analysis…….

Paul Ryan at Utah fundraiser 2012

The Romney campaign is making a major effort to reach out to the Tea Party, grassroots conservative activists, and Ron Paul’s libertarian supporters. They’ve not only invited Rand Paul to speak at the Tampa convention, they’ve also scheduled a “Tribute to Ron Paul” video to be shown to the delegates. However, these are mere crumbs: the video is not likely to highlight Paul’s more interesting positions, such as his vociferous opposition to the American empire and its endless wars.

No, the real cake, complete with quasi-“libertarian” frosting, is Paul Ryan, whose addition to the ticket opens up the prospect of having Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of “Objectivism,” become a campaign issue. I can’t wait for someone to accuse the Republicans of endorsing “terrorism” on the grounds that The Fountainhead, Rand’s best-selling 1943 novel, climaxes with the hero blowing up a home for mentally challenged orphans. Oh wait

That some “libertarians” are ready, willing, and able to swallow this guff, I have no doubt. They claim Ryan “gets the free market.” Well, whoop-de-doo! So does the Chinese Communist party, these days.

However, he doesn’t really “get it” at all, not even to the extent that the heirs of Deng Xiaoping do, because he thinks we can still have an overseas empire and a “limited” government, with low taxes and “free” enterprise. The Chicoms — to use right-wing Republican phraseology — are “isolationists,” i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and making as much money as possible. Ryan, on the other hand, is all about maintaining “American leadership” in the world, and the way he tells it, “leadership” is a polite euphemism for domination.

In a speech before the Alexander Hamilton Society — where else? — Ryan gave full-throated expression to what American foreign policy would look like under his watch, and while the vice-presidency is an office with little power, from the tone of the speech the office of the Vice President in a Republican administration would once again become a nest of neocons lobbying for more and bigger wars.

Ryan may be a neocon drone, but he’s no Dan Quayle: he realizes, as he put it in his talk to the Hamiltonians, that “our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power.”

Translation: we can’t have an empire, given our present financial straits. So what’s the solution? To any normal American, who never wanted an empire to begin with, the answer is simple: give up the imperial pretensions to “global leadership,” and tend to our own ill-used and leached-out garden. Ryan, however, is a creature of Washington, and this is unthinkable inside the Beltway: it would be a most grievous blow to the self-esteem of these worthies if they had to exchange the imperial purple for a plain republican cloth coat. Why, no Serious Person would even suggest such a thing! So instead of stating the facts, he makes up some of his own:

Our fiscal crisis is above all a spending crisis that is being driven by the growth of our major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In 1970, these programs consumed about 20 percent of the budget. Today that number has grown to over 40 percent.

Over the same period, defense spending has shrunk as a share of the federal budget from about 39 percent to just under 16 percent — even as we conduct an ambitious global war on terrorism. The fact is, defense consumes a smaller share of the national economy today than it did throughout the Cold War.”

This is a flat out fabrication. As David Callahan of Reuters put it:

Ryan is wrong — and misleading — when he argues that defense spending is shrinking. He says that defense as a percentage of GDP has declined from its ‘Cold War average of 7.5 percent to 4.6 percent today.’ What he doesn’t say is that this share is up from the 1990s. Defense spending ranged between 3 percent and 3.4 percent of GDP from 1996 to 2001, according to budget data from the Office of Management and Budget. Likewise, while Ryan says that such spending as a percentage of all federal outlays is down from 25 percent three decades ago to 20 percent today, he doesn’t mention that defense spending constituted just 16 percent of federal outlays in 1999.”

The infamous Ryan budget wants to raise military spending and declares any cuts off limits because, don’t you know, it’s a “strategic” matter, and not a question of dollars-and-cents. But what is this grand “strategic” vision he wants to throw money at?

Read More…

Okay reader…there you go…………either rejoice or reel at the thought….but anyway you cut it Ryan will be the VP nominee and the American people need to make up their minds…..will you or will you not….vote for the team of Romney/Ryan……

What About The Ryan Plan?

Is there anything that we do not know about Mitt’s running mate?

I will join in all the hoopla over Mitt’s pick for a running mate….the darling of the far right, Paul Ryan.  He hails from the same town as my father’s family, Janesville, Wisconsin and if I ever spoike to any of my father’s people I would get a feel for the man….but since that will NEVER happen….I have to go with what I read and pass it along in an effort to educate my reader on what to expect from the candidate……..

Now that we have Ryan as the VP candidate we hear a lot more about his “Plan”….but what does the general population know about his plan?  I can help……….The following is from an article written by Jamelle Bouie for the American Prospect:

Ryan wants to end most taxes on the top earners

On average, according to the Tax Policy Center, people earning more than $1 million a year would receive a tax cut of $265,000 under the Ryan plan. For the richest Americans, after-tax incomes would increase by 8.7 percent:

Ryan achieves this by eliminating all taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends (by contrast, Romney only wants to reduce them). And because he also calls for large cuts to existing social services, the effect of this arrangement is to raise taxes on the poorest Americans, by way of lower benefits and fewer services. To give a concrete example of what this means, a multi-millionaire who receives his income through investments—Mitt Romney, for instance—would see his taxes decline to an effective rate of 0.82 percent on income of over $21 million. This isn’t a 0 percent tax rate, but for the wealthy, it’s close enough to nothing.

Ryan would end guaranteed health care for seniors

Late last year, Florida-based fact checkers PolitiFact gave their “Lie of the Year” distinction to the Democratic claim that the Ryan Budget would end Medicare. “The Democratic attack about ‘ending Medicare’ was a pervasive line in 2011 that preyed on seniors’ worries about whether they could afford health care,” wrote the outlet. Their argument was straightforward: The Ryan plan changes the mechanism of Medicare—giving pre-paid vouchers to seniors to buy private insurancebut doesn’t end the program itself.

That’s a semantic quibble. Medicare was created as a program of guaranteed health care for seniors—a promise that our elderly would not go without health care due to an inability to pay. The Ryan plan breaks that promise:

The problem is that the vouchers aren’t meant to keep pace with rising health care costs—Medicare payments are placed on a budget, and anything more is the responsibility of seniors. Yes, he preserves the original, government-run program as an alternative. But because all new beneficiaries would be moved to the vouchers, eventually, original Medicare would become too small and too expensive to survive. The Congressional Budget Office found that, under the Ryan plan, heath-care spending would double for the typical 65-year-old. By any reasonable logic, that is an end to the traditional guarantee of affordable health care for seniors.

Ryan would “save” Medicaid by slashing its budget

Besides Medicare, the other major government health-care program is Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans, as well as care for the elderly and disabled. Traditionally, the states share the cost of Medicaid with the federal government. On average, the government pays for 57 percent of a state’s Medicaid costs. Ryan goes a different route:Under his budget, the government provides a block grant to states—essentially, a check

This check is pegged to the state’s Medicaid funding for 2011, adjusted for population and inflation on a year-to-year basis. But health-care costs grow faster than overall inflation, and over time, the grants would lose their value. The result is a huge cut to the program:

States could deal with this by paying more of their own money, or by raising eligibility requirements and kicking people out of the program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between 14 million and 27 million people would lose health-care coverage as a result of this plan, on top of the 17 million who would lose coverage as a result of repealing the Affordable Care Act. To pay for his tax cuts, Ryan would take health care from millions of people.

Ryan is not a deficit hawk

Ryan presents himself as a fiscal conservative, and his ideas as necessary to reducing our debt and fixing our economy. For this vocal concern, he has won praise from journalists and pundits. In its write-up of Saturday’s vice presidential announcement, the Associated Press described Ryan as “an ardent conservative and devoted budget cutter.” Likewise, Slate correspondant Will Saletan called Ryan “a real fiscal conservative.” That’s absurd. He’s nothing of the sort:

With Ryan’s plan to drastically cut taxes, lower revenues, and raise defense spending, debt grows by more than 10 percentover the next decade. Is Paul Ryan a conservative reformer? Yes. Does he plan to reduce the debt or balance the budget? Absolutely not. Which brings us to the final point …

Ryan actually wants to shred the social safety net

In its analysis of Ryan’s plan, the Congressional Budget Office found that, by 2050, it would shrink government to 15 percent of GDP, about where it was in 1950. At The Atlantic,

In 1950, the programs that made up the bulk of today’s federal spending didn’t exist. In order to shrink the federal government to 1950s size, you have to either end all social insurance programs, or preserve them—in much smaller form—and eliminate everything else. Ryan’s budget does the latter; he shrinks “all else” to 3.75 percent of GDP, with a significant portion reserved for defense. So what is “all else”? In 2011, “all else” (excluding defense) came to $646 billion, or just over 4 percent of GDP. This pays for everything we associate with the federal government, from food stamps and Pell Grants, to weather monitoring, law enforcement, and regulation. Long-range budget predictions are difficult, but if this stays unchanged in terms of GDP, then by 2050, “all else” should come to more than $1.4 trillion. Under the Ryan budget, Thompson estimates, it’s $100 billion. To shoehorn today’s federal government into $100 billion dollars would require draconian cuts. To do it in 2050 would require an end to the federal government as we know it.

Ryan bills himself as someone who wants to make government sustainable, but his rhetoric is littered with references to “makers,” “takers,” and “government dependency.” Alone, this doesn’t tell us much. But put it together with his budget and the picture is clear: He wants to rid the United States of social insurance. In Ryan’s world, if you suffer any misfortune, you’re on your own. If you weren’t born with the advantages of wealth and privilege, you’re on your own. If you want clean air, clean water, safe products, and protection from abusive employers—you guessed it—you’re on your own.

This is just a short synopsis of the Ryan Plan but it should give the reader an idea of what it is about and if they need more information to make a “rational” choice this election then they should use their Google button and NOT to depend on pundits to define the plan for them…..I realize that many on the Right will not heed that but I tried and if it bites them in the butt…..then I can have a good laugh and heavy sigh!

All Things Paul Ryan

Are you weary of the Paul Ryan story yet?  Good, because there is lots of legs on this story and by the GOP convention we should know everything about the man, to include his opinion on anchovies.

I will do my part for the cause of a Ryan vice presidency…….since the MSM is fixated on Ryan, as they should be, after all Mitt has given them so much fodder that it just has to be the story for the next couple of weeks…….my previous post talked about Ryan the person and now I would like to give my readers information on Ryan the Congressperson……

Rep. Paul Ryan is the most ideologically far-from-center vice presidential nominee since at least 1900, according to one statistical analysis of historical Congressional voting records.

Based on the DW-NOMINATE model, Ryan’s record makes him the most extreme nominee from either party during that stretch, meaning he is not only ranked as more conservative than any past GOP vice presidential nominee, but also as further from center than any Democratic number two over that same stretch.

That ranking system analyzes all the roll call votes cast by members of Congress and computes a weighted average of how conservatives or liberal elected representatives are based on those votes. For example, the system pegs Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-NM) as the ninth-most liberal member of the House, while Ron Paul (R-TX) ranks as the second-most conservative member (Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) barely beat out Paul for the title of most conservative.)

Ryan, meanwhile, falls well into the conservative end of the spectrum. In fact, the ranking system puts him just four slots closer to center than Tea Party crusader Michele Bachmann (R-MN.)

The system presents its averages on a numerical scale, from -1.0 to 1.0, liberal to conservative, with zero being completely centrist. Ryan earned a 0.562 Ideology Score according to the system, higher than Dick Cheney’s previous record high score for a VP nominee of 0.531. The most extreme Democratic nominee, by contrast, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s VP, John Nance Gardner (-0.482.)

That finding affirms anecdotal evidence about Ryan’s perceived image as a very conservative politician. His budget proposal last year, for example, was so extreme that even Newt Gingrich dismissed it as, “right-wing social engineering,” — though he has since come around now that Ryan is on the party ticket.

Analysis written by Jonathan Terbush

This should help Mitt become more likeable to the conservative base….the problem is he, Ryan,  will be the vice president and we know that Mitt does not take well to people upstaging him.  Personally, I think Ryan was the perfect choice for the party but a horrible choice for Mitt.

But we shall see, right?