Posts Tagged ‘2012’

Yippee kay yay, Obama Voter!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:00 am

yippee-Kay-yayDid something last night I haven’t done in a long, long time. I watched a presidential debate.

Okay, they haven’t had one in four years, but still.

I really didn’t plan on watching. I made my mind up a long time ago on this one: I will vote for the person who isn’t named Barack Obama.

So, why did I watch the debate? Wife wanted to. So, we watched the debate. Or I did. She gave it up about 30 minutes in. She doesn’t like one-sided contests unless the winning side goes by the nickname “Crimson Tide,” so she figured out the final score and called it a night. I stuck it out.

Why? I was already into it, and my team was winning. It was nice to see. From what I can tell, though, the debate seemed to change a lot of people’s minds. That’s scary. That means someone old enough to vote has lived through the last four years of Obama in the White House and six years of Democrats controlling the Senate and still thought Obama, or any Democrat, might be a viable option. I don’t get it.

But, Romney did a good job. He showed how you can politely call the president a liar and not be called a racist. Romney is pretty good at this politics thing. Heck, even though he’s a Republican, he could get votes from people in Massachusetts. Maybe even enough to be governor there. I kid!

Was it just Romney, though? Did Obama contribute to his debate loss?

No.

Obama was weak, ineffectual, and apologetic, getting all kind of numbers wrong and stuttering himself into a corner. In other words, he was Obama. That’s what his presidency has been like, and what the debate was like. So, I don’t think you can blame Obama for being Obama.

Even though I went in (and came away) with my mind made up, I did learn something. Obama gave me $3600. At least, he said he did. I still can’t find mine. Maybe Solyndra has it.

Speaking of Solyndra, I loved that line from Romney that went something like this: “You don’t pick the winners and the losers; you pick the losers.”

Obama took to blaming Bush. Essentially, he said “I inherited a dire situation. And made it worse.” Though, I really don’t think that was his intent. To say it out loud, I mean. He’s done everything he wanted to do, he just doesn’t want us to know. But we do.

Oh, and after throwing his grandmother under the bus in the 2008 campaign, Obama dragged her back out and used her as an example of someone needing Medicare. I suppose since she’s dead, Medicare doesn’t need that $700-million he’s cutting from it, so it’s all good.

The debate wasn’t close. Frank J. will have some interesting things to say about it, I’m certain. I’m still waiting to see how the Obama campaign handles the fallout of the debate. Maybe he’ll say he inherited the debate from Bush. Romney ran circles around Obama, thwarting his every move. The only thing missing was Mitt saying “Yippee kay yay, m*****f*****.”

Okay, that’s a little crude. But I think I’ll follow Terry_Jim’s suggestion and tell all the Obama supporters I see “Yippee kay yay, Obama Voter.”

To tell the truth, I did feel a little sorry for Obama about one thing: the debate was on his 20th wedding anniversary. What terrible timing to suffer Electile Dysfunction.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (11 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Reboot?

Saturday, August 4, 2012 12:41 pm

Reboots are all the rage.

There was the Star Trek movie. They’re planning more. Oh, and CBS has a new version of Hawaii Five-0, which has had two seasons so far with more to come. Former CBS show Dallas is a continuation, rather than a reboot. Sci-Fi (now Syfy) did a reboot of Battlestar Galactica

You get the point. The list goes on.

Well, words comes that they’re bringing back another TV show. A new version of The Brady Bunch is in the works. Like Dallas, it’s a continuation rather than a reboot.

Well, the new election season is upon us. What are we going up put on the schedule?

Democrats want a continuation: the same annoying characters and a lot of tired callbacks to the original series.

Republicans want to completely redo the story line. This time with the pasty RINO white guy winning, taking us on completely new adventures.

But that’s reality. That’s boring.

Harvey and I were talking about this, and here’s what we want to know: if you were directing this reboot, how would you do it?

Dark & gritty? Lots of Michael Bay explosions? Oodles of J.J.Abrams lens-flares?

Give us what you got. It’s time to rescue this franchise.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)

Game over, man

Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:38 am

It’s over.

Mitt Romney has wrapped it up. He won Florida yesterday, and that means there’s no chance for anyone else in the GOP race.

Newt Gingrich supporters? Hate to break it to you, but it’s time to pack it in.

Rick Santorum followers? The writing’s on the wall.

Ron Paul supporters? The nurse will be by shortly with your medications. And a fresh supply of tin foil.

The 2012 Republican primary season is done. There’s no way anyone can catch Mitt Romney. Just look:

Graph from The New York Times

See?

After the big win in Florida, Mitt Romney has 71 delegates. He only needs … let’s see, 1,144 to win, minus 71 already won, leaves 1,073 … Oh. My. Goodness. He only needs 1,073 more delegates to win.

Let’s look at the upcoming primary calendar, do the math, and see where things stand.

If Romney wins every delegate in every race, he would surpass the magic number of 1,144 as early as April 3.

What about Gingrich? If he were to somehow win every delegate in every state from here on out, he wouldn’t reach 1,144 until April 3.

Rick Santorum? Heck, if he won every delegate in every upcoming race, he wouldn’t hit 1,144 until April 3.

Ron Paul? Well, if he went on a winning streak and won every delegate in every primary and caucus, he wouldn’t pass 1,144 until April 3.

So, there you have it.

Romney can mathematically wrap this thing up in just over two months, on April 3, 2012. That’s a done deal.

Meanwhile, none of the the other three could lock it up until April 3, 2012. And that’s an impossible task.

Hey, don’t get angry with me. Numbers don’t lie.

Newscasters and party establishment will, but numbers won’t.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)

Cartoon of the Day: Sit, Newt, Sit!

Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:06 pm

I thought this was funny.


[Direct link: Chuck Assay]

I used to work in Jacksonville. Them folks don’t like other folks coming to town to tell them to sit down and shut up. If the crowd is actually people from Jacksonville, I expect they’ll cheer, boo, or whatever, if they feel like it. If they are a bunch of transplants or college kids, they’ll follow meekly along.

Florida isn’t a southern state, except by accident of geography. Jacksonville, though, is a southern city. Or it was last time I was there.

So, are you going to watch the debate tonight?

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Stop Romney? Unpossible!

Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:16 am

We’ve been told by the media, so you know it’s true: Romney is unstoppable!

Have you seen the delegate count?

He already has 20 delegates, 7 of which are binding. And he’s only … let’s do the math real quick … 1,124 shy of securing the nomination. Unless the 13 non-binding delegates jump ship. Even then he’s still only 1,137 delegates shy of wrapping this whole thing up.

Rick Santorum, meanwhile, only has 12 non-binding delegates. That means he has to get all of 1,132 delegates and hope none of those 12 go elsewhere. Unpossible, I tell you!

Look at the numbers! 1,124 is less than 1,132. There’s no way Santorum can get such a large number in so short a period of time. And Romney? That small number he has to achieve and he’s got months to get that total. Unstoppable, I tell you!!

And don’t even get me started on how far Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry has to go. They’re both 20 delegates behind Romney.

Twenty!!1!!!!

But for the rest of the GOP field? Give it up. It’s over. Pack it in, fellas. There’s no way Romney can be stopped. He’s a juggernaut. Which is like an astronaut, but with jugs. Or maybe I’m thinking of something I saw on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Doesn’t matter. Romney can’t be stopped!

The Republican establishment is ready for you to come on board. The media is ready for you to come on board. They are ready to accept your support of Mitt Romney.


[Direct link]

Join them, won’t you?

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (7 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

New Year’s Resolutions for 2012

Sunday, January 1, 2012 6:51 am

For 2012, I have composed a list of resolutions for the new year. I have reviewed the list and removed the items that I really don’t mean, and left the ones that have the best chance of being kept. That might not be in the true spirit of resolutions, but at least it’s honest.

I hereby resolve to:

  • do a better job of helping out around the house
  • be respectful of liberals
  • not think everyone who voted for Obama is an idiot
  • not throw rocks at the neighbors’ dogs
  • not make fun of rednecks
  • not make fun of yankees
  • not think everyone who voted for Obama is a moron
  • be a role model for children
  • pay attention when my wife is talking
  • apologize when I’m wrong
  • compliment people more often
  • become a serious blogger
  • stop recycling old posts
  • not think everyone who voted for Obama is a dumbass
  • sprout wings and fly

Best wishes for a safe, prosperous, and happy 2012.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (17 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Better than Obama

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:33 am

As the vote in Iowa approaches, the Republican candidates are turning up the heat on each other. Newt Gingrich had some not-so-nice words for Ron Paul, according the National Journal:

“I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American,” Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? “No.” If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? “You’d have a very hard choice at that point.”

Newt and Frank J. sound more and more alike:

So, if it were between Obama and Ron Paul, who would you vote for? I’m leaning Obama there; he’s a known entity and can at least be bullied into doing what’s right. Ron Paul would just stand back while nukes are launched at us and say, “We had this coming for abandoning the gold standard!”

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who seems to be every conservative’s last or next-to-last choice. He compared Newt Gingrich to the I Love Lucy “Chocolate Factory” sketch:

Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich’s campaign director compared the former House speaker’s recent inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which the campaign would recover.

“I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it’s more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,” Romney said in reference to the famous I Love Lucy skit in which the comedienne was overwhelmed by a rapid assembly line of candies. “You’ve got to get it organized.”

That was a good line. Let’s look at Lucy in the Chocolate Factory:


[Direct link]

That’s funny stuff. But, you know what? I still think Lucy and Ethel would do a better job than Obama and Biden.

Ricardo/Mertz 2012!

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (7 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Don’t vote for Newt!

Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:52 am

Newt Gingrich is making some news because he told someone at a campaign event to vote for Obama. Really.

Okay, here’s what happened. At a Gingrich rally in Oskaloosa, Iowa, a gay Democrat Obama supporter got into a “cordial” one-on-one with Gingrich, that ended with Gingrich telling the questioner to support Obama:

Gingrich: “I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it’s not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.”

Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

Gingrich: Then I won’t get their support.

Q: How do we engage if you’re elected. Then what, what does that mean?

Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

Q: Except it’s most important (some crosstalk).

Gingrich: Well, if that’s most important to you then you should be for Obama.

Q: I am, thank you

Now, personally, I’m fine with what Newt said. I’m not talking about my agreeing or disagreeing with his stance on gay marriage. I’m talking about his standing his ground and telling the gay Democrat Obama supporter the same thing he tells his own lesbian sister. That’s unusual for a politician to tell someone “go vote for the other guy.”

But, apparently, that’s not what a candidate is supposed to do. A candidate is supposed to pander to all the little piss-ants and ass-clowns that crash a campaign event and come up to him. The candidate is supposed to say whatever it takes to make them happy — even if the clown is going to vote for the other candidate anyway.

Newt Gingrich isn’t doing that. And I like that about him. But, of course, standing firm and not backing down for what you believe is a bad thing, to hear the media, Democrats (but I repeat myself), and most other Republicans and their supporters talk. Except Ron Paul supporters. They like that their candidate has been consistent for years. They don’t like it when Newt Gingrich is consistent. It shows how much he’s part of the establishment … though all of the Washington establishment has come out against Gingrich.

Wait. We’re looking for someone who the Washington establishment doesn’t like? Yet someone who knows how Washington politics works? And someone who can balance a budget? And someone who, when he makes a mistake, can admit it? Even big mistakes?

I better stop now. I’m finding that I’m liking Gingrich more and more. And I don’t think I’m supposed to.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (9 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)

How to make the debates more fun!

Monday, December 19, 2011 10:08 am

There are seven Republican candidates left:

  • Michele Bachmann
  • Newt Gingrich
  • Jon Huntsman
  • Ron Paul
  • Rick Perry
  • Mitt Romney
  • Rick Santorum

Oh, wait. There are actually 15 left. We forgot about these:

  • Gary Johnson
  • Fred Karger
  • Andy Martin
  • Jimmy McMillan
  • Tom Miller
  • Buddy Roemer
  • Matt Snyder
  • Vern Wuensche

Why aren’t they getting in the debates? Because they have no shot?

Isn’t that what was said about Herman Cain, who was the frontrunner for a while?

Isn’t that what was said about Newt Gingrich, current frontrunner, when most of his campaign staff deserted him this past summer?

Isn’t that what Ron Paul supporters say about every other candidate?

Isn’t that what every other candidate’s supporters say about Ron Paul?

This is where Donald Trump screwed up. When most of the big names declined to show, he canceled. He should have invited the lesser-known candidates to show up. Who knows? We might be seeing Jimmy McMillan or Vern Muensche leading in Iowa.

We need to have a debate where all the candidates show up. That would be interesting. Imagine hearing this exchange:

Chris Wallace: Mr. McMillan, how would you handle the threat of a nuclear Iran?

Jimmy McMillan: The rent is too damn high! I say it again, the rent is too damn high!

Gary Johnson: Let me add, Chris, that the war on drugs has caused the rent to rise.

Buddy Roemer: The high rent favors the 1%.

Chris Wallace: Can I just go back to asking questions of Newt and Mitt? Please?

That would be fun. But perhaps I’m being unfair to Chris Wallace.

Plus, we could actually have Obama there in a dunking booth. Whenever there’s a question about Obama, the participant can either answer the question, or get a ball to throw at the plunger, trying to dunk Obama in a tank. With sharks. With frikkin’ laser beams.

We would be glad to sponsor such a debate, as long as someone else will pay for it, but still put our name on it. Here’s what we need: a venue, a moderator, and a panel.

So, what ideas have you to make the debates more fun?

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

What I learned from not watching the debate

Friday, December 16, 2011 6:00 am

There was a Republican Debate or something in Iowa last night. I think it was on the cable.

I don’t have cable. I watch all my TV over the Internet. That’s how the cool kids do it, anyway.

Not having cable means no Fox News Channel. Sure, there’s a Website or something I can go to, but not having a channel already set up on the Roku makes it easy to decide to just skip the debate.

Besides, there’s always the Twitterz.

The Twitter feeds are always much more fun than watching a bunch of politicians stand around and make smart statements (Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney) or stupid statements (RONPAUL!!!1!!). Besides, I’ve already picked out who I’m voting for: Not Obama.

Maybe I should go through the trouble of watching the debates. After all, one of those men will be the next president. Okay, I shouldn’t eliminate Michele Bachmann from that. Unless I want to be realistic. And I do. So, one of those men will be the next president.

Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!) said something stupid. He also said some smart things. And, I’m sure, some of his idiot supporters will stop by here and tell me all about the smart things Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!11!) said, or why the stupid things Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!11!) said are really smart and I’m a corporate tool or something. Oh, and FEDERALRESERVE!!!1!!

Newt stepped in it early on, but got better, and by the end of the debate, was rolling along.

Romney said some good things early on, then said some stupid stuff, and had leveled off by the end of the debate.

Rick Perry showed a bit of a sense of humor, said some okay stuff and some not okay stuff.

Huntsman was there. Or Gary Johnson. One of them. I’m not sure which. I don’t think anyone else was sure, either.

Rick Santorum was there. I think he brought the bean dip.

I mentioned Michele Bachmann. She lit into Gingrich a few times. He didn’t unhinge his jaw and devour her, but thought about it.

The Fox News moderators asked some good questions at times, but were trying to prod the candidates into fighting each other for much of the time.

If you watched the debate, let me know if I didn’t sum it up accurately. Because, as I mentioned, I didn’t watch the debate. I didn’t have to. The accuracy of my summary shows that.

Now, does this mean the debates are useless? No, not at all. It’s a good way to get smart people and raving lunatics in the same room and watch the fun. Like a reality show.

I’m thinking if we can do this every week and ask Ron Paul a bunch of foreign policy questions, he’ll eventually get an Emmy for Outstanding Comedy. Maybe that will be a good consolation prize, and he’ll let one of the candidates with some smarts run for president.

Anyway, I didn’t go through the trouble of launching a browser on my TV setup and watching the debate. I have a large supply of Mystery Science Theater 3000 DVDs to go through, so I did something productive with my time.

Maybe I’ll watch the next debate.

Nah. I have Joel and the ‘Bots watching Manos. Told you I was one of the cool kids.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (14 votes, average: 4.36 out of 5)

S-s-s-s-s-mokin’!

Tuesday, October 25, 2011 6:28 am

Have you seen the new ad from the Herman Cain campaign?


[Direct link]

CBS calls it “bizarre” and notes that the ad is, currently, unlisted. Which means you can’t go to the Cain YouTube channel and find it unless you know where to look.

ABC takes the opportunity to run down a list of Cain campaign staff with “interesting” backgrounds.

The Atlantic asks, “For real?

Rather than go on, let me sum up the reaction: the ad generated a lot of criticism from people who already didn’t like Herman Cain.

I’m not a smoker, so it didn’t particularly appeal to me. But smokers don’t like being criticized, just like everybody else.

Obama smokes, but hides it. Cain’s campaign manager smokes, and posts it on YouTube.

I’m wondering how this is going to play out.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Blazing Democrats

Monday, October 24, 2011 2:20 am

Equal time for the Democrats? Sure, why not.


[Direct link]

See previous: Blazing Republicans

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)

Blazing Republicans

Saturday, October 22, 2011 3:12 pm

Now showing!


[Direct link]

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (20 votes, average: 4.70 out of 5)

I can’t not vote

Friday, October 21, 2011 3:30 am

There are still some people that don’t like any of the Republicans that are running. Or, at least, don’t like the ones polling the best.

Currently leading the pack is Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. He’s the guy who has no chance whatsoever, despite leading the polls. Some people don’t like him because he has no experience in politics, except for losing a Senate race (2nd in a 3-man primary). He’s too conservative for moderates. He’s too black (color) for some liberals and not black (racial stereotype) enough for other liberals. And he has too much testosterone for Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann fans. He’s trending up.

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who everybody hates and the media and GOP establishment has declared the frontrunner, even though he currently polls in second place. Front-runner must not mean what I thought it meant. He’s too liberal for anyone who’s not a liberal. He’s trending neither up nor down.

Rick Perry was the great hope before he ran. Once he declared he was running, suddenly nobody liked him any more. His being a former Democrat hurts him with conservatives. Supporting some benefits for illegals hurts him too. After briefly leading the polls, he’s now third or fourth, depending on the poll. But he’s trending down.

There’s Newt Gingrich, who was written off months ago but is in 3rd or 4th place, depending on the poll, and trending up. He lead the conservative takeover of Congress back in the Clinton years, but committed the unforgivable sins of sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and supporting a RINO over a TEA Party candidate in New York in 2010. Plus, he pisses people off by being smarter than them. I can relate.

Then there’s Ron Paul, who’s been nuts for years and keeps getting nuts following him. Including two children that share my DNA. Kids. What are you gonna do? Anyway, Ron Paul has really crazy followers who either take too much drugs or not enough medication. He’s got like 3 really good ideas and 800 really nutty ones. His followers focus on the 3 good ones when they argue, then slip up and tell you how evil Jews are and how the Twin Towers were blown up by George Bush. Like I said, crazy. He’s trending up.

Michele Bachmann is trending down. She’s like the hot chick you wanted to date, then while sitting in the restaurant, you realize that she talks to the silverware. She’s still hot, but you keep thinking she’s going to go all Glenn Close on you and you’ll find your rabbit in the kitchen.

Jon Huntsman is still hanging around because some libertarians — and a bunch of liberaltarians — like him. Probably because he thinks pot should be given out instead of condoms. Or something. I was never quite sure what he was saying. Philosophically, he’s what you get if you cross Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Now, go get that image out of your head.

Sarah Palin and Chris Christie aren’t running this year, though they still have fans thinking they will.

Now, despite the things I listed about the candidates that different people don’t like, there are groups that like each of these candidates, and like them a lot. Way too much, for some.

There are some Ron Paul or Rick Perry or Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman fans that say they won’t vote for anyone but their candidate. They focus on the things about the candidates that they don’t like (can you count to 999?) and say how unqualified that makes that candidate.

“I’ll never vote for Newt Gingrich!” or “If they nominate Herman Cain, I won’t vote” or “RONPAUL!!!1!!!” or the like.

Honestly, there are things about each candidate that I don’t like. Been that way since the 1976 election, the first where I was old enough to vote.

There are some candidates I really like (though, like I said, not everything they say), some I like okay, and some that I really don’t like. But, come November 2012, I’m going to vote.

Over the last several months, and again Thursday, someone said to me that if the election came down to a certain candidate (rhymes with Sherman Payne) against Obama, he wouldn’t vote. Others have said something similar in the past.

I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t not vote.

You see, if we end up with a candidate that we don’t really like — I won’t name names, but say his name rhymes with Ritt Momney — I still can’t sit the election out.

Think about it. Who will vote for those candidates? People that really like them. What kind of people would really like Barack Obama or some polarizing Republican? You already think the people that support those candidates are nuts. Well, yeah, they might be. And they’ll vote.

I may have two crazy candidates from which to choose, but I would rather choose than let a bunch of crazies choose between the crazies. I’ll vote for the least worst, and I’m responsible if that candidate wins. Plus, I’ll know I did everything I could to prevent the most worst candidate from winning.

I can’t not vote. I may not like the final choices, but I’m not going to go off crying like a little tittie baby who got his toy took from him.

I can deal with it.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (18 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)

Nine-Nine-Nein

Friday, October 14, 2011 4:12 am

After the 2008 election, some people who supported Barack Obama told me they were shocked — SHOCKED! — when he actually did some of the things he said he’d do in the campaign.

When I challenged them with, “Didn’t he say he’d do that?” the usual response was, “Well, I didn’t think he would.”

I don’t want to be that guy. But, I’m thinking I may turn out to be that guy.

I’m supporting Herman Cain. The parallel with Barack Obama should be obvious.

No, not the black thing. Cain grew up black, Obama was raised by a bunch of crazy white folk. If elected, Cain would be America’s first black president.

No, what I’m talking about is: 9-9-9.

I like a lot of things about Herman Cain, but I don’t like the 9-9-9 plan.

On the face of it, that seems odd, since that’s all you hear about Cain.

The two biggest things I like about Cain are:

  • He’s a successful businessman, and we need someone in the White House that understands business. Without that, the economy will, well, do what it’s doing today.
  • He’s a conservative. That means that, when situations arise, I’ll more than likely be satisfied with how he handles it.

Those two items are the most important thing about Cain. When compared to the other candidates, he’s strongest on these two qualifications. And that’s enough for me.

But, what I don’t like is the 9-9-9 plan. Or the 9 part. No, that 9. The other one. No, that that one. The other one. Yes, that one. The national sales tax.

Here’s the plan:

  • Business Flat Tax – 9%
    • Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.
    • Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone.
  • Individual Flat Tax – 9%.
    • Gross income less charitable deductions.
    • Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.
  • National Sales Tax – 9%.
    • This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.

Flat tax rates for business and individuals is a good thing. If you make twice the money, you pay twice the taxes. It’s that national sales tax that I don’t like.

Opening up one more way for the government to get our money? That’s a no-go. You start a new tax, you’ll never get rid of it. It took over 100 years for the government to stop billing you for the Spanish-American War.

The saving grace is, a national sales tax may be unconstitutional. If there will be a tax on everything sold, what about land? If you sell property, does the national sales tax apply? If so, it could run into the same problems brought up in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., which ruled that income tax was unconstitutional, and was the impetus for the 16 Amendment to the Constitution. A national sales tax may require another amendment. And I don’t want another amendment; every time somebody touches the Constitution, they screw things up. Well, not every time, but in the last 100 years. We don’t need another 18th Amendment fiasco, for instance.

The thing most people know about Herman Cain, 9-9-9 plan, is just about the only thing I don’t like about his platform. I do want tax reform; I just don’t like the national sales tax portion of that plan.

I still support Cain for president. I hope he wins. But, when it comes time to implement 9-9-9, I hope he fails.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Things you won’t see in the next GOP debate

Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:27 am

According to CBS News, Jon Huntsman said he won’t light his hair on fire in tonight’s debate.

I didn’t realize that was even a possibility that he might do that. I mean, if he has to actually say he won’t, then either it had been under discussion, or people think he’s crazy enough to consider it. I’m leaning toward the latter; Huntsman was part of the Obama administration, after all, and if that doesn’t say crazy, I dont’ know what does … other than supporting Ron Paul.

Anyway, we now know to not expect Jon Huntsman to light his hair on fire. And now I’m wondering what else we won’t see.

  • Michele Bachmann won’t swing from the ceiling like a monkey. (Ron Paul might, but Bachmann definitely won’t.)
  • Newt Gingrich will not propose everyone get naked and cook hamburgers. (But Ron Paul might.)
  • Herman Cain won’t sing “I’m a little teapot, short and stout.” (Although Ron Paul won’t rule it out.)
  • Mitt Romney won’t show his underwear, although Ron Paul will show his.
  • Rick Perry won’t pull a gun on the panel. A knife, maybe, but not a gun.
  • Rick Santorum won’t answer every question with an 80s power ballad.

If you plan to watch tonight’s debate, you now know what to not expect.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (10 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)

Cain sounds like one of you people

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:07 pm

Disclosure: I have financially contributed to the Herman Cain campaign.

There’s a minor kerfuffle going on about something that Herman Cain said. It’s widely reported that he said he couldn’t support Rick Perry as the Republican nominee:

[Edited: The previous video no longer allows embedding. So, here is the original excerpt from CNN. The quote begins immediately after the commercial.]


[Direct link]

Yep. That’s what he said. And that bothers me.

You see, I’ve been going on and on about how, no matter who the GOP nominee is, we need to support him. And some of you get your panties all in a wad about that.

“I’m not ever going to support Mitt Romney!”

“I won’t vote for Rick Perry!”

“If Sarah Palin isn’t the nominee, I’m not voting!”

“If Sarah Palin is the nominee, I’m not voting!”

“Ron Paul is nuts!”

Okay, that last one is okay. But still, nuts as he is, he’d a darn sight better than Barack Obama. But some of you are saying you won’t support this guy or that girl. Well, now Herman Cain sounds a lot like some of you people. Maybe he’s pandering to the panties-in-a-wad crowd.

I don’t care for that. I suspect Cain will backtrack, and soon. He’ll come up with some statement that sounds like some crafted statement talking about how we can disagree about important issues, but still have the same overriding goal: defeat Barack Obama and return competence to the White House.

But what should he say? Or, better, what should he have said to Wolf Blitzer’s question, “Could you support Rick Perry if he were the nominee?”

  • Against Obama? Of course. Hell, Wolf, I’d support you over Barack Obama.
  • I fully support Rick Perry for vice-president.
  • I would support Rick Perry if Zombie Reagan turned down the nomination.
  • Nine, nine, nine.
  • Not if he was the Democrat nominee. Has he switched back to being a Democrat?
  • That’s a stupid question, Wolf. What do you think I’m going to say? That I wouldn’t support Rick Perry? Do you think I’m stupid?

What do you think Herman Cain should have said?

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (12 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)

Oh noes! Not Palin!

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:33 am

Now watch the left get their panties in a wad. Because Sarah Palin polls at 44% in a matchup with Barack Obama. That’s according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

What does the new poll mean?

Depends on who you ask.

If you ask me — you did ask me, didn’t you? — it means that almost as many people hate Barack Obama as hate Sarah Palin. Now, I can’t tell you why they hate Sarah Palin. They can’t either. Ask them, and they go, “Palin!!! Arrggghhh!! She’s … (spit) … (slobber) … (mumble) … and Dan Quayle in a skirt!” Or something like that.

They’ve been programmed to hate her. So they do.

What else it means is that the programming isn’t taking. Remember all that “Bush is evil” programming that people were spewing a while back. It’s calmed down among most. Oh, sure, some still blame Bush for the economy, 9/11, and Pearl Harbor. Because stupid people have a way of living way too long and not shutting the hell up. But the “Gosh, I sure miss George Bush” sentiment is growing.

Palin is no Bush, but …

Palin is no George W. Bush, but the “Hate Palin” programming is starting to wear off. Like in Dollhouse, where Echo didn’t respond to imprints and wipes like they expected. Voters are turning Echo.

The poll also means that the left-wing media is about to go all out assailing Sarah Palin as … well, whatever it is they’ve been told to say about her now.

And here’s what it all means: while they’re attacking Palin, they aren’t quite as focused on Perry or Romney or Bachmann or Cain or whoever else is supposed to be in the crosshairs.

And that’s a good thing.

Once again, we must say it. Come on. Say it with me. “Thank you, Sarah Palin.”

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (13 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Obama’s Ace In The Hole

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:04 am

As Obama’s approval rating continues to sink, things are looking better and better for whoever gets the Republican nomination in 2012.

In some head-to-head polls, some Republicans beat Obama, while others are within the margin of error, statistically tied with the president.

Things are looking good for Obama being a one-termer, right?

Well, not so fast.

Obama has an Ace in the Hole. And it just might be you.

You see, Obama and the Democrats are counting on you sitting this election out. Why would you do that? Because you aren’t happy with the eventual GOP candidate.

Now, sure, it’s about a year until the GOP convention. But the process to pick the candidate is already underway. In fact, Tim Pawlenty has already dropped out of the race.

The leading candidates, if you believe the polls, are Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul. And, then there’s Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Thaddeus McCotter, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson.

Then there’s about Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Tom Miller and Vern Weunsche.

Oh, and don’t forget The Rent Is Too Damn High Guy, Jimmy McMillan.

And still maybe Sarah Palin and John Bolton.

Some of the candidates don’t draw much attention. But some that do draw a lot of passion. Several of the Gary Johnson or Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!1!!!11!!!) supporters will not vote for anyone else NOMATTERWHAT!!!1!!

And others say there’s no way they’d vote for someone like Newt Gingrich or Jon Huntsman. Or Sarah Palin.

Well, unless the Republicans nominate a committee to run in 2012, only one of these will be the nominee. And there will be some very unhappy Republicans and some very unhappy conservatives. And some unhappy libertarians. And some unhappy liberaltarians.

And that’s Obama’s Ace In The Hole: Republican-leaning voters feeling they have a bad hand.

Look at it like a poker game. Say, five-card stud. Sure, nobody plays that anymore, but it’s one of the simplest to use as an analogy, so there you go.

After the cards are dealt, Obama is holding this hand:
Ace of Clubs
Jack of Clubs
Three of Hearts
Two of Diamonds
Hole Card

You have this hand:
Seven of Diamonds
Eight of Diamonds
Nine of Diamonds
Ten of Diamonds
And your hole card: 10 of Spades

You’ve got a pair of tens. Not a great hand, but potentially a winning hand. If Obama has an Ace in the hole — or a Jack in the hole — he wins. Anything else, and you win.

What Obama is counting on is you being unhappy with the GOP candidate and not showing up at the polls. That’s his Ace in the Hole. Or Jack in the Hole.

Now, a lot of you are going to bitch, moan, and complain about whoever gets the nomination. Like I have several times in my life. But, I went out and voted for the guy, because the alternative was worse. And, each time, history has proven me right. That is, since I’ve been voting (1976) the Republican who won was better than the Democrat who lost. And the Republican who lost would have been better than the Democrat who won.

Don’t be Obama’s Ace in the Hole. Or Jack in the Hole.

Prevent that situation by working like the Dickens for your candidate. Then, whoever wins, work like the Dickens for that candidate, too.

Don’t let a bunch of Ace-Holes … or Jack-Holes … mess up the next election, like they did in 2008.

Don’t be an Ace-Hole.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (14 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

Republican strategy to beat Obama

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:26 am

The good news for Republicans recently has been that polls have shown that a generic Republican beats Obama. The bad news is that when “generic Republican” is replaced with an actual Republican, Obama wins.

Not any more.

Latest polling shows that some actual Republicans beat, tie, or are within the poll’s margin of error, according to ABC News:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads Obama by a 48 percent to 46 percent margin, while Texas Gov. Rick Perry ties the president at 47 percent. Obama bests Ron Paul by a 47-45 divide and Michele Bachmann by 48-44 split. All results are within a 4-point margin of error.

What does this mean?

I dunno. Does anyone know what Americans’ political thought processes are? I mean, a majority of voters actually elected Obama in 2008. So you can’t depend on most American voters to do anything that makes sense. So I’m not sure we can make any sense out of this poll.

But I’m not going to let that stop me from trying.

Maybe this means that Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!!!), and Michele Bachmann are actually generic Republicans.

All this time, I thought Tim Pawlenty was. But, since T-PAW decided to drop out of the race, theres an opening for a generic Republican. And, it’s being filled by fake conservative (but good-for-business) Mitt Romney, almost conservative (but plays one on TV) Rick Perry, speaks right when facts aren’t involved (John Wayne/John Wayne Gacy, Elvis’ birthday/death day) Michele Bachmann, or sh*t-house rat crazy Ron Paul (RONPAUL!!!1!!1!!!!).

What about the other Republicans? For example, my guy, Herman Cain?

They didn’t ask. At least, when I read the full poll, I didn’t see where they paired up Cain and Obama. But, among Republicans, Cain and Perry has the smallest “unfavorable/strongly unfavorable” totals. As for favorable, Cain and Romney came in second in “favorable/strongly favorable” to Rudy Guiliani, who’s not running.

What all this means is that a lot of Republicans can beat Obama. Maybe even more than they poll.

This shows what the Republican strategy for 2012 will be: don’t be Obama.

Which sort of screws it up for Huntsman, who worked for the guy. But maybe not. Remember Romneycare and Obamacare? Mostly a matter of scale. But Romney beats Obama. So, maybe not even Jon “Obama’s a remarkable leader” Huntsman should be counted out.

Still, not being Obama looks like a winning strategy. Particularly since Obama appears to be still blaming Bush for everything.

“I’m not Obama” beats “I’m not Bush” hands down.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (9 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)