AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Anybody’s Presidential Race to Win, So Why Not Fred Thompson?

I posted this in response to Jake’s post, Anybody’s Race to Win.

Here is the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll History numbers to which I was referring in my comment.

What is interesting is if you look at the shift in the last two weeks (since DEC 14), we have this:

Huckabee (-6%)
Romney (-2%)
Giuliani (N/C)
Thompson (+1%)
McCain (+4%)

I don’t really care about these polls, since I don’t decide my vote based on what some Idiots Out Walking Around in Iowa are deciding, but…

I’m no polling expert, but just looking at those shifts in the last two weeks, it seems like people are not liking the fighting going on with Romney and Huckabee, the more they each reveal about each other in the attack ads, and so are giving another look to McCain and then looking at Thompson, now that he has put more ads out there (since the mass media and most political blogs are ignoring him, except to say he’s ‘lazy’ and say ‘he has no shot’).

Rudy Giuliani has stayed pretty much the same, because people have known his pros and cons for months/years now, so there is really nothing new to discover about him. The Conservative base does not like him, since they know he is an unabashed liberal on many policies and they are probably hoping to find a Conservative alternative, so they don’t have to vote for Rudy in the general. The problem is that if the Conservative base does not find a candidate around whom to rally, this Primary may end up like the 1992 general election. Rudy may end up winning by default, as Bill Clinton did, since the Conservative vote is split among Fred, McCain and Romney.

It is really a shame that Conservatives are more concerned with beating Hillary rather than voting on Conservative principles. The onlyCconservatives in the race are Fred and McCain. But McCain betrayed Conservatives throughout the past 4 years with McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14 and leading the charge for Amnesty (and completely insulting anyone who was against his Amnesty). Not to mention his position on “torture” is weak and in line with liberal Democrats. So that leaves Fred Thompson.

For me, the choice is easy. But for everyone else, it seems that they keep harping on this “whoever can beat Hillary” nonsense. I recall Republicans making fun of Democrats about their “Anybody but Bush” campaign in 2004, during which Democrats nominated John Kerry, not because he was whom they wanted, but because they felt he was “electable”. Well, golly gee, now the Republicans are doing the exact same thing. The sad truth is that the Republican voters have now become their worst enemies. They are now as unprincipled as Democrat voters were in 2004.

It’s sad and pathetic to me.

And I have lost a LOT of respect for people in politics such as political bloggers and such, because I have learned that they are not principled people at all, they simply are “the ends justify the means” people.

Sad state of affairs in our country right now and it has nothing to do with the Democrats. I see one of our greatest weaknesses coming from the Republican Party voters, who are more intersted in “electability” than principle.

I don’t mind people nominating Rudy or Romney or McCain or Huckabee or whomever. However, as Rush Limbaugh says, don’t redefine Conservatism in the process to try to say your candidate is a Conservative. Conservatism does not need redefining. The only true Conservative in the race is Fred Thompson. In addition to that, he has charm, is quick witted and is very knowledgeable about the role of Federalism in government. He could run rings around any Democrat in debates.

I just don’t see why people are so reluctant to support him.

I will also add that another thing I am looking for in a President is someone who will defend himself from attacks by the Democrats and the media. I am sick of defending the President and Republicans from lies by Democrats, the mass media and the Left, only to have the Administration do nothing to defend themselves. The only two people among the Republican field that I can see being like that are Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. However, Rudy also defends himself bodly when he is being rightfully attacked on his corruption and bad policies. I don’t want that either.

So that takes me back to Fred Thompson again. And the only criticism he gets is that he is ‘lazy’. Only this criticism is coming from Republican voters. Funny, Ronald Reagan was attacked with that label as well. This is not to say Fred Thompson is Ronald Reagan. No one will ever be Ronald Reagan. But it is interesting to see the attacks of the Left now becoming the attacks of the Right… on their own people.

Sad state of affairs… when the Republican base decides to vote “electability” over principle.

December 29, 2007 , 1:35PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani | Comments Off on Anybody’s Presidential Race to Win, So Why Not Fred Thompson?

Tax Cuts for the Rich? The Facts Say No

The mantra of the Democrats, the mass media and the Left is that President Bush’s tax cut policy was equivalent to “tax cuts for the rich”, while the middle class and the poor were hurt by them. Well, that sounds like a great story, but unfortunately for the Democrats, the facts do not back up their talking points.

Run the Numbers: After the Bush Tax Cuts, the Rich Pay More Taxes

An exerpt from Rush Limbaugh’s DEC 17 2007 broadcast:

RUSH: Remember we ended the program yesterday with a story about a journalist professor, journalism professor now teaching at the journalism school at the University of Georgia. He’s a former reporter or journalist or something, and he wrote this piece in the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, and he said the mainstream press, the Drive-Bys, have gotta start regulating blogs and talk radio and some of these other newfangled YouTubes, New Media, because it’s unregulated and it’s uncensored, and it’s not edited and it’s irresponsible and it’s not news, and the people doing it are not journalists. I’m sitting here stunned how this guy can literally claim that the Drive-Bys are fraud-free and abuse free, with Dan Rather, with blowing up trucks on Dateline NBC that otherwise wouldn’t blow up, with setting people up to act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t. It’s a crazy charge. I give you another illustration of the fraud and the abuse that they are still passing on. These alleged professional journalists. They still pass on the fraud. They still pass on abusing the truth. How many times can they ignore truth and reality and hard data?

They do it every day in the economy, for example. They are loath to tell you the truth about the state of the economy in this country, and they continue to pass on the myth and the fraud. They perpetrate the fraud by passing on the myth that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and the Bush tax cuts really gave massive tax relief to the rich. All you gotta do is go to my website and look at who pays what share of the federal income tax bite, and you find it’s not true. Anybody can look it up! It’s IRS data. You can find the data anywhere. They will look at it. It doesn’t fit the narrative, doesn’t fit the template, so they don’t report it. That’s fraud! Journalistic malpractice. That’s abusing the truth. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal updates the tax numbers. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% are paying 39% of a total income tax bite. That’s a 2% increase in the share of total taxes paid by the rich, the top 1%, since the Bush tax cuts went into effect. By the same token, before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% paid 56% of all income tax revenue. Now the top 5% are paying 60%, after the Bush tax cuts. Now, you might be saying, “How does this happen, Rush?” It’s simple. You have to stop looking at things as a zero-sum game. You have to look at the dynamic results of what tax cuts cause. They cause more jobs. They create more wealth, and as more people gain wealth, they move into these higher tax brackets. There are more people in those brackets, therefore the aggregate income tax collected goes up. They are paying a bigger portion, which, you know, generating revenue to the Treasury is what this is all about. But it’s really not, see, because of the Democrats and the Drive-Bys, it’s about control. It’s not about raising revenue.


RUSH: Let’s see, Doug in Greenville, South Carolina, I’m glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.

CALLER: Well, Merry Christmas, Rush.

RUSH: Same to you, sir.

CALLER: Earlier you were talking about the whole tax issue and tax cuts growing, the income and whatnot, and what never really ever gets talked about is small businesses and small business, as we all know, is the backbone of the employers out there. And most all small businesses, be it the dry cleaner in your hometown or a car dealer, are either sole proprietors or sub-S corporations or limited liability corps. And they all pay taxes at the personal rate, and those business owners — and I work in the automobile industry, and I’m a district sales manager, and I’ve called on car dealers that had two employees, and I’ve called on dealerships that have had 200 employees, and they all pay at the personal rate, and some of that money that they earn obviously is what they live off of, but a lot of it gets reinvested back into their business to buy equipment, to expand their business, and hire new employees. And so when the Democrats stand up there and talk about how they’re going to tax, you know, want to get more tax out of people that make whatever the dollar amount that they’re quoting, 150 or 200 or a thousand or more, they’re talking about, you know, the people that employ all the lion’s share of the people out there.

RUSH: Exactly. We do talk about this, but it’s like a lot of things. We don’t talk about it enough. Like I was thinking last week: We need to recycle the whole concept of “it’s your money” when we’re talking about taxes, because the roots of liberalism are very deep. The tentacles of liberalism are very, very tangled and woven in a web of deceit that’s strangling the people of this country, and even though government fails at most everything it does domestically, people still look to it as the final authority, as good and just and the place where health care should be taken care of and the place where all these grievances should be addressed and adjudicated. What he’s responding to is something here in the first hour. I was talking about journalistic fraud perpetuating myths, journalistic malpractice. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of wage earners in this country paid 37% of the whole income tax bite. After the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% now pay 39%. Their percentage bite’s gone up two points. Before the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% of wage earners in America paid 56% of all taxes. After the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% now pay 60%. Yet the Democrats continue to run around and say, “The rich are getting tax breaks, and the poor are not, and the middle class isn’t,” and it’s bogus.

The percentage of income taxes paid by the top one and top 5% have gone up dramatically in both categories, after the Bush tax cuts. The reason for this is easy. You can’t look at this stuff as a zero-sum game. There’s dynamics. You lower taxes, and all kinds of great things happen. New jobs are created; more productivity occurs. More wealth is created. People do get richer. They move up in tax brackets, and so there are more people in those brackets, and you are raising more money for the Treasury and the government at large, which everybody thinks is the point, which it isn’t. As far as the liberals are concerned, it’s control. Now, the sub-S business, subchapter S, sole proprietors are allowed to file their business return on their personal income tax return, and that means they’re paying the personal tax rate on a business — and those are people, small businesses, are (it’s a cliche, but it’s true) the backbone of America. Small business hires vastly more than big corporations, and they end up being targets — and not just of taxes. They end up being targets of overzealous regulatory agencies and others who want to penalize them, and punish them for their success. It’s a vicious cycle. The successful are always going to be targets of liberals and Democrats.

FYI, John McCain voted against President Bush’s 2001/2003 tax cuts. Mike Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas. And Mitt Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts and did not criticize nor support President Bush’s 2001/2003 tax cuts. That leaves only Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson who would keep our taxes low. If any of those big government, high tax Republicans or a Democrat gets into office in 2009, the Bush Tax Cut goes away and our taxes will effectively go up. And that is just with the elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts. That does not include the proposed increase in taxes for Universal Health Care that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney propose. If we do not vote into office a principled fiscal conservative in 2008, we are heading for big time tax raises in the next 5 years.

December 27, 2007 , 5:23AM Posted by | John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Tax Cuts, Taxes | Comments Off on Tax Cuts for the Rich? The Facts Say No

Mitt Romney 2003: Not Endorsing President Bush’s Tax Cuts

So he raises taxes in Massachusetts while governor and in a moment of courageous leadership, decides neither to endorse nor denounce President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. Brilliant leadership, Mitt. One of the many reasons you are NOT getting my vote.

Via NRO The Corner

Romney Takes on McCain Over Taxes

Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush’s economic program, but he told members of the state’s congressional delegation during a private meeting he also would not oppose the cuts because he has to maintain “a solid relationship” with the White House.

Meeting with the all-Democratic group of House and Senate members for the first time in Washington, D.C., the Republican governor found himself challenged as the group talked about the state’s $3 billion budget gap for its coming fiscal year, as well as the Bush administration’s recent decision not to include Massachusetts in a $100 million round of federal antiterrorism funding.

Representative Barney Frank of Newton asked the governor whether he had spoken against the $726 billion worth of tax cuts the president is currently pushing at the federal level. Coming on top of $1.6 trillion worth of tax cuts in 2001, Democrats argue that the next round will expand the budget deficit, drain the US Treasury of money for social programs, and prevent the federal government from assisting states facing revenue losses caused by the downturn in the economy.

Romney said he had not publicly opposed the cuts, according to one observer at the meeting, prompting Frank to ask, “Will you?” Romney replied that he probably would not. The answer triggered laughter in what both sides described as an otherwise bipartisan session.

“I was very pleased,” Frank said afterward. “Here you have a freshman governor refusing to endorse a tax cut presented by a Republican president at the height of his wartime popularity.”

According to the observer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Romney told the delegation that he “won’t be a cheerleader” for proposals he doesn’t agree with, “but I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House.”

Shawn Feddeman, Romney’s spokeswoman, said the governor has neither endorsed nor opposed the tax cut plan because “it’s just not a state matter.”

The AP describes the scene when someone brought the matter up to Romney yesterday in New Hampshire:

Turning back to 2003, Romney told the man: “You see, I wasn’t a U.S. senator. I didn’t have to vote on this, didn’t get a choice to. I was running my state, so I didn’t have a comment on their position. And I said, `I’m not weighing in on federal issues.’ But Senator McCain was a senator. He had to vote. He had to decide, `Am I in favor of pursuing these tax cuts or not?’ and he voted against the tax cuts — twice. That’s a very different position.”

While I disagree with Senator McCain on his votes, at least he had the courage of his convictions, Mr. Romney. While you’re just a weasily policitian, not wanting to take one side or the other, for fear of making yourself look bad if you get it wrong. Great leadership there. Jackass.

While I disagree with Senator McCain, at least I can respect a man who votes his convictions. You, Mr. Romney, apparently have no convictions. In case you have forgotten, people weigh in on “federal issues” all the time, regardless of the positions they hold in government. Even Ronald Reagan wrote many papers and gave many speeches on foreign policy before and while he was governor of California. So your answer is a complete copout.

December 24, 2007 , 10:11PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Tax Cuts, Taxes | Comments Off on Mitt Romney 2003: Not Endorsing President Bush’s Tax Cuts

Mitt Romney’s Christmas Present to Me

A political ad every 15 effing minutes while I try to watch my Sunday NFL games. AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!

Thanks a lot for ruining my politics-free NFL Sunday, Mitt.

This also reminds me of how effing annoying it was during the months leading up to the 2004 election, with a political ad from different Presidential and Congressional candidates seemingly every damn minute. Hearing Debbie Stabenow ads every day was enough to drive someone mad.


I can’t wait for Nov 2008 to get here and get this campaign season over.

By the way, who in their right mind expects an American citizen to determine their choice for President based on 30 second TV ads? What I would like to see on each of these ads is at least a link to their website. Even then, not everything is truthful as Mike Huckabee, for one, has stuff on his site about his stance on illegal immigration that is completely different than his actual stance.

I guess there really isn’t a good way. Well, other than we political junkies working to inform our family, coworkers and circle of friends of the facts we find about the candidates and then let people make up their own minds having ALL the facts, not just those pushed by the candidates and the biased mass media and partisan groups.

That said, I’m still annoyed with the Mitt Romney ads. Yeah, it’s actually a great political move, since lots of people are watching NFL games, so what better way to reach a big audience than to place ads during the games. But Sunday is my day to just relax and get away from everything for a while and not think too much about politics and just watch some football. But there during practically every commercial break was Mitt Romney reminding everyone about how the Michigan economy sucks and how he is going to fix it somehow. Well, sorry Mitt, but if the geniuses here in Michigan won’t kick out Jennifer Granholm for her disastrous stay as governor and vote in a successful business owner in Dick DeVos, then I doubt they will care to vote for you either. Apparently, the qualifications for earning the vote of Michiganders is to be a complete and utter failure at running a State and be a Democrat. For all the things on which I disagree with you, Mitt, you are (1) not a failure at running your State and, most importantly (2) not a Democrat.

Well, at least my Bears beat the Packers. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA That’s payback for 2001 when the Bears went 13-3, but 2 of the 3 losses were to the Packers. Have fun getting your butts kicked in Dallas in the NFC Championship, cheeseheads!


December 23, 2007 , 9:49PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney | Comments Off on Mitt Romney’s Christmas Present to Me

Mitt Romney to Ban Selling of Violent Video Games?

Hmmm. I would like to hear his explanation of what he means by this:

Q2: Violent Video Game Legislation

To date, nearly 10 states have considered legislation to keep violent video games out of kids’ hands. Would you support this type of legislation at the federal level? What other strategies would you support to keep the video game industry and other media companies from marketing and selling inappropriate content to children?

MITT ROMNEY: I want to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion. I’ve proposed that we enforce our obscenity laws again and that we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.

[Via LGF]

This sounds like nanny-statism to me. There is no way to keep these games out of the hands of kids, if parents just go to the stores and buy them for them. Or if their older friends just go to the stores to buy them for them.

But the real issue is that violent video games are not the cause of bad behaviored/violent children. In my opinion, bad parenting is the cause. I played violent video games as a kid and loved it. Yet, I have never gotten into a fight in my life and never hit anyone in my life (well, except for wrestling around with my younger brothers). In my opinion, those who want to blame video games for kids’ behavior are wanting to pass the buck from who has the ultimate responsibility for kids: THE PARENTS.

That said, I would like to see other Republican candidates’ opinions on this issue. The only Republican who gave an answer on this site is Mitt Romney. And his answer sounds as nanny-statish as Mike Huckabee.

Mitt, I have news for you. The government cannot protect children “from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion”. Only parents can do that. And even they can’t always protect their kids from it, since it is all over TV, in the movies, in magazines and even in our grammar schools and high schools. The only thing that can change the societal cesspool is society itself. You can promote such a thing from government through encouragement and word, but you should know that you cannot legislate such things.

December 22, 2007 , 2:28PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney, Nanny State, Republicans | Comments Off on Mitt Romney to Ban Selling of Violent Video Games?