Differences Between Mitt and Newt Attacks

On January 13, 2012, in Economy, Politics, by admin

I’ve been trying to avoid politics and debates for the past month or so to clear m head. (I’ve found that listening to sports talk radio instead of news talk radio can be very therapeutic.) I still cruise over to Hot Air quite often to stay current, but I just can’t stomach any more debates. Besides. by the time the primary reaches me in Texas my choices are truly limited. I’m still miffed because back in 2008, thanks to Huckabee and Florida, we got screwed. Romney would have been a much better choice then, and I think he is the best choice now. Not the ideal choice, but the best choice we have remaining.

But talk radio has sucked me in again. This week we have seen lots of complaining about attacks on Romney and attacks on Gingirch. Romney’s superPAC ran ads in Iowa that shredded Gingirch over his political record. Repeat: over his political record. Topics included his $300k ethics fine levied by a Republican congress, his $1.6 million from Fannie/Freddie, and his coziness with Nancy Pelosi. All are true, by the way, and they are pertinent to the current political discussion.

On the other side of this fight, Romney supporters are screaming about attacks on Bain Capital, and capitalism in general. The focus has been on who was fired at companies that Bain took over, and how much money was made by Bain executives. All true, but none of it is pertinent, and here’s why.

Bain Capital is a private company and it exists to make a profit. That is how capitalism works. Profit and losses occur when transactions are made, and it takes two parties to complete a transaction. When companies are struggling they need to make changes in order to survive. Contracts get signed when companies are taken over, and sometimes an owner of a company brings in a firm like Bain to get help. Sometimes said owner just wants to get out and/or wants to dump the company to cash out after years of hard work. And that is fine. On the other side of the transaction is a company like Bain. It sees the potential for profit and agrees to the transaction, just like the business owner did.

Bain has had successes and failures. But every time it made changes to companies — which by the way range from process improvements, accounting corrections, business planning, to the firing of employees — the ultimate goal was to make money. The agreement between company owner and Bain was not signed with the specific goal of creating jobs. It was signed with the goal of the former owner making money, and the new owner eventually making money. Ideally this would happen by making the company more financially stable and attractive and then profiting by the sale of the new and improved entity to someone else that perceived value in the new company. In a perfect world the company would not only be saved, but it would grow and therefore need to hire more people.

Now to the attacks. From what I have seen of the Romney superPAC ads, the call out a few things:

  • Gingrich being fined $300k for ethics violations by a Republican congress.
  • His receipt of $1.6M from Fannie/Freddie before or while criticizing them.
  • His coziness with Nancy Pelosi and legislation that was friendly to China.

These are all true. They are not distortions, at least not from what I’ve seen. (If I am wrong and they are lies, or these statements are misleading, please let me know. I want to be accurate here.) Now, with regard to the attacks on Romney, Newt has gone as far as  interviewing people that were fired by Bain Capital. Were they fired? Yes. Did it make sense to do so to save the companies? Probably. but as I’ve said before, it is better to downsize than to go out of business. Avoid firing 20% to be nice and you might end up causing 100% to lose their jobs because you didn’t take the steps necessary to save the company.

Why not interview people who’s jobs were saved by Bain Capital, or people that were hired thanks to the efforts of Bain’s improvements to clients? Yes, it is true that these people were fired, but they are only part of the story. It is cherry picking of the highest order and makes zero sense coming from a supposedly capitalism-friendly Republican like Gingrich. To me it is a childish and pathetic attempt to do anything he can to win, at all costs. It is indicative of his temper and political ADD. But, if the Gingrich team wants to take this path, lets give them something to truly bitch about and release ads featuring interviews with people cheated on by Newt. They would be true, right?

Tagged with:
 

IA and NH Primaries: Who Cares?

On December 22, 2011, in Politics, by admin

I am so tired of hearing about and reading about Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa is a great state, I’ve had some of the best corn I’ve ever tasted there. I’ve had lots of fun at the Valaire Ballroom in Des Moines. And New Hampshire is a wonderful place as well. But why should America care who voters pick in the Iowa primary? It’s not like they have a decent track record of selecting winners. 

Think about it. Here is a list of the winners from each party over the past 30 years:

Iowa Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates

  • 1976 – Ford (R, incumbent), Uncommitted (D)
    • Ford was unopposed, IA Democrats disliked Carter enough to select “Generic Dem” as the winner. 
  • 1980 – Bush (R), Carter (D):
    • Carter was unopposed, IA picked Bush over Reagan by 2%. 
  • 1984 – Reagan (R, incumbent), Mondale (D)
    • Reagan was unopposed, IA picked the eventual Democrat candidate. 
  • 1988 – Dole (R), Gephardt (D)
    • IA picked Dole, GHWB won. Dukakis was the Democrat nominee.
  • 1992 – Bush (R, incumbent), Harkin (D)
    • Bush was unopposed. Harkin won 73% if IA, Tsongas 4%, Clinton 3%.
  • 1996 – Dole (R), Clinton (D)
    • Clinton was unopposed, IA picked Dole over Buchanan by 3%.
  • 2000 – GW Bush (R), Gore (D):
    • Iowa picked GW Bush, a non-incumbent winner.
  • 2004 – GW Bush (R, incumbent), Kerry (D)
    • Bush was unopposed.
  • 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
    • IA chose Huckabee. 

In the past nine elections, when Iowa voters actually had to make a choice (versus selecting the incumbent) got it right once. Now let’s see how the fine folks in New Hampsha’ fared:

New Hampshire Primary Winners vs. Actual Presidential Candidates

  • 1976 – Ford (R), Carter (D)
    • Ford was unopposed. 
  • 1980 – Reagan (R) Carter (D)
    • NH correctly picked Reagan. 
  • 1984 – Reagan (R) Hart (D)
    • Reagan was unopposed. 
  • 1988 – GHW Bush (R) Dukakis (D)
    • NH correctly picked GHW Bush.
  • 1992 – GHW Bush (R) Tsongas (D)
    • Bush was unopposed. 
  • 1996 – Dole (R) Clinton (D)
    • NH picked Buchanan. 
  • 2000 – McCain (R) Gore (D)
    • GW Bush won. 
  • 2004 – GW Bush (R) Kerry (D)
    • GW Bush was unopposed.
  • 2008 – McCain (R), Obama (D)
    • NH picked the eventual candidate. 

New Hampshire did better, it managed to get three of eight correct when have to choose a candidate versus selecting the incumbent.

So I ask anyone willing to listen: Why do we still care about how Iowa and New Hampshire vote in the primaries? The world has changed folks… we’ve got instant news, opinions travel at the speed of light and every candidate’s words, facial expressions and body movements are overanalyzed, critiqued and force fed to the masses. Let’s give the vote back to the people and tell the mainstream media to rethink its coverage priorities.

Tagged with:
 

Tired of Flip-Flops? Me too.

On December 1, 2011, in Politics, by admin

Given that President Obama has barely any success to use as campaign fodder for the next year, he and his supporters are left with mudslinging. After all, if you were Obama would you focus on the facts as they stand today? We have 9% unemployment, job loss claims hovering around 400,000 per week, anemic economic growth and presidential approval ratings worse than Jimmy Carter.

So how does Team Obama and the media circus get the Great Uniter re-elected? By attacking the GOP front runner du jour as much as possible. Mitt Romney, despite the angst of many on the right, is the obvious front runner and Newt Gingrich has caught up in the polls. Both men are articulate, experienced and will present well in the debates.

But they are flip-floppers! ::queue the dramatic music::

Let’s talk about that for a moment. Since when did changing your stance on a topic become a bad thing? Have you held the views you hold today for your entire adult life? All of them? We all go through experiences that form our opinions, and sometimes opinions change. Here’s a shocker: I’m not a Republican. I consider myself a right-leaning independent, but this has not always been the case. I voted for Bill Clinton both times (::music again::) and voted for George W Bush neither time. However I consider myself largely aligned with Tea Party goal of a return to Constitutional values and the desire to greatly reduce the size of our government. Why am I sharing this with you? To point out that opinions change, sometimes drastically. Life events change you, for me it was fatherhood and 9-11.

The biggest dig against Romney is that he is a flip flopper. Given the state of our country I personally don’t give a crap about that. The same for Newt. Both of these men can get things done that will help America, which is exactly what we need right now. They aren’t perfect, and yes Newt carries enough baggage to fill a 737. But I can get past that because we are in a national economic crisis and we need action.

But they flip flop!!! ::music::

So does President Obama. So, using logic that liberals might be able to understand, if you can elect a charismatic yet inexperienced candidate who now has an extensive list of flip-flops under his belt, all without comment or concern, why can’t we elect a Republican that has changed stances? You can’t have it both ways: if changing positions is bad, condemn Obama for it. If not, shut up and let’s get to fixing our country.

If you are still drinking the kool-aid and think I’m making up my own faux news, read the following. I can find more of this but I actually have a life and need to get back to it.

  1. My first Obama flip recollections when he reneged on his vow to accept pubic-fundraising dollars. ““If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
  2. He flipped on Guantanamo. Close it, keep it open? Accused President Bush of “running prisons which lock people away without telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with” Never mind, carry on.
  3. He flipped on military tribunals. In 2008 he said “To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practice of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of law.” Then he decided that they were necessary and continued them.
  4. He flipped on small business contracts. In February of 2008, President Obama stated, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” The Small Business Jobs Act contains a loophole to allow large businesses to get funds by misrepresenting themselves as small businesses. Companies that have already received money in this manner include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Xerox and Dell Computer among others.
  5. He flipped on terror suspect renditions. Said they were bad as a candidate, continued them as president.
  6. He flipped on Libya. In 2007, Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. Then he authorized just such an action.
  7. He flipped on Mubarak and Egypt. Did he support the uprising, or support Mubarek? White House comments changed almost daily during the uprising. Obama called Mubarak a “stalwart ally” then dumped him for the uprising.
  8. He flipped on NASA funding. In ’08 he called for $2B in funding to reinvigorate NASA.” He said “I’ll make our space program a priority again by devoting the attention and resources needed to not only inspire the world with feats of exploration but also improve life here on Earth.” Then he later focused on using NASA to improve Muslim respect in the scientific community and let the Shuttle program die without a viable replacement even on the books.
  9. He flips on Wall Street and “fat cat” Big Banks (depending on who his audience is). He slams them in campaign speeches and expresses support for OWS, while at the same time appointing bankers to his cabinet while also soaking up millions in Wall Street donations.
  10. He flipped on European missile defense. In Prague he told the lemmings: “So let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” Six months later, on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland, he dropped the plans to try and make friends with Russia.
  11. He flipped on the “Bush” tax cuts. Liberals can’t tell if they are bad or not.
  12. He flipped on counterinsurgency. He attacked Bush insisting that it could not succeed in Iraq, then he ordered more troops to Afghanistan (while refusing to call it a surge or admit later that it worked).
  13. He’s flipped on medical marijuana. Before getting elected he supported states’ rights on medical marijuana. Under his administration US attorneys are now threatening legal marijuana landowners and real estate agencies with the seizure of their property.
  14. He flipped on the Gitmo photos. He originally agreed with the ACLU demand to release them, then reversed.
  15. He flipped on Darfur. In 2004 he was a supporter of humanitarian intervention to halt state-sponsored mass killing in Darfur. He said “we cannot, in good conscience, stand by and let the genocide continue.” Four years later, as president a hand of friendship to Omar al-Bashir, the regime leader there.
  16. He flipped on national debt. He campaigned for fiscal responsibility but is acting the exact opposite. In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to “go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work.” Even now, he says he’ll “cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office.” Yeah, how’s that working out?
  17. He flipped on healthcare, during the campaign he called government-run healthcare “extreme” saying it would lead to “higher costs.” Then he raped America with Obamacare which has already proven to be extreme while increasing costs.

For the sake of time I will stop here. I’ve done enough of the work for you. I encourage my liberal friends to do the same about Romney and Gingrich. But you probably won’t because that involves effort and time and you would rather get your news from John Stewart and Saturday Night Live. And Oof course, I’m sure my liberal friends might say that none of the seventeen Obama flips I’ve listed count since they are all somehow Bush’s fault. Obama is a genius and can do no wrong.

So, there it is. Obama flips like Cirque de Soleil and its ok. A GOP candidate flips and they are unelectable. I’m not buying it. So can we all just DROP the “flip flop” description and move on like grownups to make our country better? Thank you.

Tagged with: