OK, I've got the message from all you rich entertainers. You love Obama and hate all conservatives. It's probably reasonable to assume that you have no conservative-thinking individuals among your circle of friends. So I've got some questions I'd love to get a chance to ask one of you rich and famous guys or girls.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Taxes
This might be a good time to step back and look at the big picture in the presidential campaign, where Obama's making his foremost argument for re-election based on hiking tax rates for the "rich".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
In the big picture, Democrats represent the bureaucracy. Their interest is in protecting and growing that bureaucracy, therefore they have to raise more funds to pay the salaries and pensions for their constituencies in those posh DC offices. A Democrat can't imagine any problem ever being solved without the intervention of their benevolent management. For them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary, duplicative, or wasteful government agency. Their compassion is reserved first and foremost for their compatriots and supporters holding down those featherbed jobs in places like Agriculture, Education, Energy, Environment, and the rest of the alphabet soup of "necessary" government agencies.
Republicans are wary of the bureaucracy, but despite running for office with the stated goal of reining in the bureaucrats, tend to join the party shortly after settling inside the beltway. The GOP philosophy begins with the theory that our country doesn't have a tax problem, but a spending problem. Unfortunately, their constituents can't seem to control their apparent inability to keep the faith of that philosophy once they climb into the big-boy chair.
The campaign arguments are laughably simplistic, and neither is likely to actually solve the problem of massive deficits and debt. Obama's the most dishonest, suggesting to his minions that he can go on exploding the bureaucracy by simply raising the tax rate 5 percent on the "rich". His rhetoric defines the rich as multi-millionaires and billionaires, but his math-challenged rate increase is targeted to people with incomes as low as $200K.
Romney's being somewhat coy about his plans, but at least we know enough to realize his tax reform policies will be modest at best. He supports much of Paul Ryan's budgetary reforms and suggests he believes in lowering and flattening rates while removing loopholes in the tax code. Assuming he prevails in November, I hold very little hope that the reform part of his plan will become reality. His beltway culture-corrupted GOP colleagues will stop him from removing those loopholes if the Democrats don't.
Although neither candidate is serious about solving the problem, at least Romney's not lying outright about his plans. I think the economy recovery will begin the day Romney is declared the winner, and by the time he's inaugurated will be visibly heating up. That's because businesses know that Romney will roll back the most egregious of Obama's overreaching regulations, and he will put the breaks on the massive tax increases built into Democrats' laws and initiatives due to go into effect January 1st.
Executives nearly everywhere I go have made it clear that they've been in a holding pattern, waiting and hoping that Obama will get turned out of office. They'll start investing and growing again once they have confidence that the government won't hammer them with even more tax and regulation.
So if you lean left and fear Romney, I can almost guarantee that you have little to fear. Romney's not going to shake things up much. If you're on the right and are hoping for a big u-turn in government tax and regulatory policies, likewise I predict you will be disappointed in Romney, but you will comfort yourself with the thought, "at least he's not Obama".
Friday, May 18, 2012
Out of Step
Even though there's some frustration involved, I actually rather enjoy debating liberals. During some of those debates recently, I was informed that my attitudes and philosophies are just wrong and out of step. Apparently having conservative values makes me wierd, not to mention a bigot, racist, and homophobe. I've been informed that my attitudes and opinions are not only wrong, but a character flaw.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
For just a moment I became a bit depressed and confused. Am I a bad person?
No, I'm very sure I'm not a bad person. Faith and family are very important to me. As are American values of freedom and justice. Those fundamental values are the very root of evil to these liberals, ergo I'm evil. Or as one liberal suggested, maybe not completely evil, just brainwashed by the right-wing nuts.
Some specific policy disagreements discussed:
The HHS Contraception mandate:
The liberal misses the point by trying to say that free contraception is just good public policy, because human overpopulation is killing the planet. And besides, contraception helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, therefore reduces the "need" for abortions - being anti-abortion, I should favor that, right? Also, the liberal swears that no abortifacient drugs are covered by the mandate, which turns out to be based on a statement made by Kathleen Sebelius, who tried to split hairs on the definition of abortifacient. Basically, the argument was repeated that since most Roman Catholic women use contraception, the bishops' opposition to the mandate is irrelevant.
Wierd fuddy-duddy that I am, I think the liberal argument misses the point entirely. Roman Catholics believe contraception is immoral and sex is reserved for marital relationships. The effect of the mandate is a clear violation of the First Amendment, where the government is indeed making a law that interferes with the Roman Catholic practice of religion. Forcibly taking money from someone to fund something they find morally reprehensible is wrong. The liberal says I'm a woman-hater for believing such.
Gay Marriage
The liberal expounds the favored rhetoric about gay people just wanting the freedom to love whomever they choose. I counter that it has nothing to do with love, that the movement is all about creating new rights to benefits. Gays want to have their "marriages" placed on par with traditional marriage so that government can force organizations to cover their same-sex partners as "spouses" in their benefit programs, the government will provide surviving spouse pensions to same-sex partners, and the government will mandate that same-sex couples be afforded exactly the same consideration as traditional families for adoption placement. The liberal believes it's a civil right, no different than the movement to grant blacks voting and integration rights.
This dinosaur still knows that homosexual behavior remains a disfunctional and sinful practice. Our generation isn't somehow smarter than all of the generations that preceded us, as the liberal suggests. In many ways I think our generation is less intelligent and certainly less moral than many prior generations. I have no desire to persecute homosexuals, but absolutely do not support a government mandate that forces me to contribute to their new-found rights and priviledges through my taxes and insurance premiums. So I'm a bigoted homophobe for expressing such intolerant attitudes. Perhaps I deserve imprisonment for such outrageous bigotry.
Energy
The liberal hates fossil fuels and is completely sold on the idea that we can replace coal, oil, and gas with "clean" and "renewable" energy. The liberal is 100% behind Obama's moratorium on gulf oil production, refusal to approve the XL Pipeline, and his EPA over-regulation designed to significantly scale back or eliminate production of coal, oil, and natural gas. Admittedly, natural gas is the cleanest fuel, but must be eliminated as well because of "fracking".
I find it puzzling that the same liberal who was so angry and hostile about what they were certain was greedy collusion between Bush and his oil company buddies causing $4 gasoline now extoll fhe virtues of $4 gas under Obama because it will help drive conservation and pave the way for alternative fuels. Even more puzzling is how little the liberal seems to know about those "alternative" energy sources, how much they cost, and how badly Obama's attempts to promote them have failed. And of course, the liberal has no idea about the corruption involved in Obama's generous government guarantees and giveaways to his favorite supporters in building failing "clean energy" ventures. That makes me a pro-polluter who is happy to destroy the planet and give people cancer.
For so many other issues of the day, I'm told my views range from evil to old-fashioned. I hate unions because I oppose cap and trade and don't have too much of a problem with right-to-work. By considering the budget deficits a disaster and supporting lower government spending I want children to starve and be denied an education. Being skeptical that soaking the rich with higher taxes will make even the smallest dent in the deficit I'm a racist who favors white fat cats over poor struggling inner-city folks. By favoring a strong military and worrying that Obama's pacifism is encouraging aggression from our enemies, I'm a war monger who wants to send our military around the world to kill innocent people indiscriminately so we can steal their oil.
I remain saddened that people I would otherwise consider friends think I'm evil for merely being what I thought was mainstream; Somehow I woke up one day and discovered that Fauth, Family, and Patriotism are now considered intolerant and racist.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Can a Team Beat a Pair of Stars?
That's the question the Indiana Pacers believe will be answered in the affirmative. I've seen the first two games between the Pacers and the Miami Heat, and both games seemed to underscore the fundamental question. So far it's a split, with the superstars taking game 1 and the team without stars hanging on by their fingernails to wil game 2.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Indiana doesn't have marquee players. Their top scorer the past few seasons has been Danny Granger, who is a decent player in the NBA that will never be mentioned in the same breath as LeBron or Kobe. On the other side, Miami fans are expressing their displeasure with LeBron James, blaming him for failing to step up and defeat the Pacers last night when the game was on the line.
The Pacers use 10 players every game without suffering a significant drop in effectiveness. They've got a roster full of team-oriented players that play hard, play tough, dive on the floor for loose balls, and are positively mean on the boards. That's quite a contrast with the Heat, where the rest of the team gives the ball to Dewayne Wade and LeBron James in the fourth quarter and get out of the way.
The pair of stars accounted for 54 of the Heat's 75 points, while not a single teammate managed more than 5. The game 1 stats were similar for the Heat. By contrast, the Pacers spread their 78 points pretty evenly, with 4 of their 5 starters scoring in double figures.
Heat fans need to back off of James. He's a superstar, sure, but give some credit to the Pacers for playing great defense. Imagine praising a team's defense when they allowed LeBron "only" 28 points. Both teams can be credited with strong defensive schemes. Ending the game in the 70's is a defensive struggle in this league.
In game 1, when the Pacers dominated the first half, my vote on the question would have been "No". Because in the last 6 minutes of the game, LeBron and D-Wade decided to step up their games and suddenly that terrific Indiana defense looked lost as the two stars slashed, spun, and scored seemingly at will.
The two stars obviously tried their best to repeat their performance from game 1, but the Pacer defense seemed better prepared to survive the onslaught.
This series may go 7 games, and I won't be surprised if the trend continues. Miami will win when their two stars dominate, and Indiana will win when they're able to withstand the pair at the end of the game. The question will be answered at the end of Game 7, one way or the other but only by a whisker.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Never Thought This Day Would Come
That a United States President would come out squarely and openly against families, tradition, and Christianity. He's not only done that in his declaration for Gay Marriage, but has gone beyond it in speeches to subtly equate people of faith with racists while his syncophants in his own house network (MSNBC, in case you're not sure) equate us with Hitler.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Women should be insulted that he chose to equate Gay Marriage with Sufferage. No homosexual has ever been denied access to the voting booth by government regulation. Black people should be insulted that he also equated Gay Marriage with Civil Rights. Where has gay discrimination ever been encouraged by government? (Don't obscure the point by trying to use a gay discrimination story from some town council in Stickville Arkansas that happened 30 years ago.)
Simply stated, no person should receive special recognition, benefits, or preference from the government based on behavior. Homosexuality is definitively not something one is, but something one does. Marriage is a sacred sacrament which the President promises to destroy, no differently than if he entered a church sanctuary and proceeded to smash the altar, chalice, and tabernacle, then arrested everyone worshipping inside.
His own words condemn him, showing once and for all that he truly is not a Christian, but anti-Christian. His extremist policies in matters of faith have disqualified him from the office he holds. Radical abortion-on-demand and childbirth abortions, mandating that all employers provide abortifacients and sterilization, and now the satanic destruction of the marriage sacrament go beyond the pale. He may not be the antichrist that brings about Armageddon, but he is an antichrist all the same.
Sadly, the institution of marriage has been cheapened by so many Americans who lost sight of what marriage is supposed to be. Hollywood set the example over the years, with actors and actresses marrying at the drop of a hat. The rest of the celebrity-obsessed culture followed their lead by treating marriage like middle schoolers treat "going steady".
Republicans will run and hide, because they fear that the truth will lose them votes. Romney will make a simple and mild statement that he continues to hold that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is perhaps all he need say on the subject. America must reject the immorality of this guy they accidentally elected president four years ago, or suffer even worse fate than we have already.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Lugar-Mourdock Post Mortem
Everything I read or see on television about the shellacking Dick Lugar took in the Primary is a bunch of hand-wringing over the Tea Party destruction of centrists in the Congress.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
They haven't got a clue, or are once again trying to manage our perceptions to fit their own.
Talk all you want about Lugar's moderate voting record, that he's left of John McCain and only slightly right of the ladies from Maine. That's not why he lost.
He lost because the citizens in Indiana found out he hasn't been in the state for 36 years. Because he sold his house and moved to Washington when he was elected in the 70's. And especially in recent years, was seldom seen or heard from by Hoosiers.
I may have been mistaken in my assumption that Senators are supposed to live in the state they represent. That Lugar did not is the reason he lost.
Not that the Tea Party and other national organizations that got behind Mourdock didn't have some effect on getting folks out to the polls. But my prediction is that if all other factors had been exactly the same and Dick Lugar had a home in Indiana that he returned to most weekends, he would have again won his seat back easily.
The Gregg governor's campaign has siezed on this fundamental truth, and is trying it out on Mike Pence. They're issuing press releases saying that Mike Pence is out of touch with Hoosiers because he's been living in Virginia for the last decade while serving as a congressman. Problem is, Mike didn't give up his home and is seen back home frequently, especially since he started his campaign to replace Mitch Daniels.
So Gregg's attempt to Lugarize Pence won't work.
Lugar's retired. Not because of his voting record or his stated admiration for Barack Obama. Because he's past retirement age and a creature of the DC beltway who disdains those hicks back in his home state. It was sad to see his dripping disdain in his parting letter to the Hoosier constituents that decided to facilitate his retirement. That bitter letter is beneath Dick's dignity, and he should have bowed out gracefully without the parting shots at us ignorant rubes.
Monday, May 07, 2012
Voted Early
Since I knew I wouldn't be around for the official primary day, I went down to the courthouse last week and picked my GOP candidates.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
As mentioned in previous posts, the hardest decision for me was US Senator. I also went with the Presidential candidate I was supporting, even though he'd already given up. Not sure why, I suppose just to send a message to the nominee that we're not all thrilled with him.
Does it really matter? Whichever founding father it was that said our republic could not survive without a moral population was absolutely right, so it doesn't seem to matter much who we elect, as long as we've got a country full of selfish narcissists who, to put a twist on JFK, ask only what their country can do for them.
The people have willingly traded freedom for temporary security, and will soon have neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)