Romney, Perry, Jobs & the Tea Party
Romney, Perry & the Tea Party
Romney's front-runner days now may be over (at least for a while), with Perry taking the lead as soon as he entered the race, and before anyone knew much about him. I think another big factor (though fewer now admit it) is religion. Perry's another good-‘ol-boy Huckabee. It has awakened some fire in Romney, at least -- he's pointed out Perry's (& others') career politician status, and his own business experience. We'll see how the debates and campaigns go -- it could be a repeat of 2008, but I'll do what I can.
My sister saved a good cartoon which I found online:
While the above pokes a little fun at some Tea Partiers (& Mormons), don’t get me wrong. I may not agree with everything the more extreme Tea Partyers advocate (it’s not a monolithic movement), or their sometimes intransigent or hasty approach (although at least they're peaceful and orderly, unlike the union & Leftist thugs, and sometimes liberal intransigence can only be countered firmly). But as Paul said, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5: 21). One very good thing they've done is to change the national debate to focus on the looming deficit & debt crisis, which if we're not very careful will bring us all down. And a renewed adherence to the Constitution and limited government. And I see that Romney embraced some of those key principles in the Sept. 7 debate, while not calling himself a card-carrying Tea Partier.
The Tea Party has become the whipping boy and scapegoat that almost any defender of Obama or liberalism/progressivism now attacks. My “Representative” Maxine Waters said they can “go straight to hell.” The Teamsters’ Hoffa said they’re the enemy & they need to “take those SOB’s out.” Another Congressman threw out the race card, telling Blacks that they (the Tea Party) want to “string us up.” VP Biden called them “barbarians at the gate.” And the list goes on.
The foul language they've been receiving from Obama supporters would indicate they must be doing something right, to garner such accolades from those who clearly are on the wrong track and have nothing but low-life tactics to stand on. But Obama’s party is likely making a big mistake to lump anyone who opposes him into the “no-good” Tea Party, because polls show some 60-70% of America as thinking Obama & his policies are on the wrong track.
I do agree that this year, especially, "it's the economy, stupid!" (a quote from an earlier election). And that the nation recognizes the need for someone with executive experience (not just public speaking, i.e., Obama) -- i.e., a governor (Romney, Perry or Christie -- I think Huntsman's not viable). After the last election, I believe the GOP will have saner heads prevail to be sure of a win this time. The Tea Party has had its say in changing the national debate to deficits & debts, which is good, but there's general agreement across the field there. Certainly the nation can ill afford another Obama term.
Picking Apart an Anti-Romney “Conservative” Op-Ed
I think it was instructive for me to go through a nominal “conservative’s” article a friend shared (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/chris-christies-cue.html). It degraded the entire field, especially Romney, and promoted Chris Christie – the least conservative and most secular of the lot. I think about all of Ross Douthat's critiques of Romney are very shallow, subjective and unsubstantial (or a sliver of truth). And unfortunately, again, echoed again and again in the MSM liberal talking points (and among Evangelicals who don't want to admit their bigotry) until many are lulled into taking them for fact.
I understand this Douthat guy is hardly a representative conservative (a token one palatable to the NYT says much), with dubious credentials and motives. He speaks of conservatives who may "forgive his [Christie’s] ideological deviations." I.e., he's the least conservative of the lot -- another endearing quality to Douthat & the NY Times. I note that Christie is the most secular and least Evangelical/Protestant/Mormon (all on liberal black lists) of the lead GOP candidates.
I do agree w. Douthat's assessment of Perry's chances . But I definitely do not agree w. his Romney assessment, and I’ll explain why. His points largely reflect the mainstream media's (and liberal/Left) perspectives and talking points. Like the favorite catch-phrase, "is this the best we can do?" (a variant on the "weak GOP field"). The entire GOP field has at least as much or more executive experience than Obama, and much better economic policies at this critical juncture. No, Reagans don't come along every election (even liberals now acknowledge his communication skills), but on the other hand, I've read 2 books about and by Romney, and know a lot of strengths that most of the public does not. He's plenty good enough.
And those books, and his speeches and record speak of a number of "courageous or ...interesting" positions, and demonstrate a good, solid handle on world affairs, strategies, etc. Douthat claims almost omniscience in his "...doesn't believe a word he says," and "phoniness," "lacks backbone & core convictions," and "maybe...has hidden convictions." While he may not have always come across as emphatic as other candidates (I do note some recent fire, though), from all I've read, and his record as governor, in business, Olympics, and the Church, I have no reason to believe he doesn't believe what he says, and isn't a man of integrity. Further, D. claims he's "run...for almost five years..." -- no, after the last election, he was a GOP team player, who supported and helped many good candidates, and conservative causes. Just like Palin, McCain, etc. And "a born compromiser" is a highly subjective assessment, w. one data point in his governorship of the most liberal state in the nation. Some compromise is inevitable. He took some highly risky and controversial positions in business, Olympics, etc.
I disagree that Perry has the better story. He easily governed a very conservative state w. a very different business model -- likely little of it due much to him. Romney turned things around not only in the government sector, but business and volunteer/non-profit sectors as well, and governed a stake, w. the very human stories he alludes to in his book. I think Romney has a firmer personal claim on the number of jobs created under his business leadership. And that is a real plus in the current job climate. Yes, there's the Mass. health care bill issue, but even that has been twisted (discussed in my June 21 post).
The "downsizing artist" charge also doesn't stick -- there were some downsizings, but that's sometimes the alternative to the entire company going under and everyone losing their jobs (and often due to the unfair tax & regulation burdens US companies carry as they compete against foreign companies). And as Romney discusses in his book ("No Apologies"), there is a process of " creative destruction " where industries and companies evolve, and new jobs are created -- otherwise, stagnation is death in today's world. And the other side is that Romney started up a fair number of new companies with new jobs. Even unions acknowledge the need to downsize and/or take cuts to save jobs (and of course tout their nobility).
The "unloved Romney" speaks to his personality -- more business-like, and I discussed that in my June 21 post. Basically, given the option of style (Obama) or substance (Romney or almost any GOP candidate), give me the latter any day, even in a bland GOP field, or even vs Christie. Yes, Christie is more combative (not sure how that would go over in the general election, or governing the nation), but the size of his "huge cheering section" remains to be seen. Romney, also, has "campaigned & governed outside the Republican Party's Sun Belt strongholds," so Douthat can hardly use that as a contrast. But Douthat's real prejudice (and/or incitement of the same) becomes apparent towards the end where he throws out the "Mormon businessman" monicer. And "budget-cutting Republican governor of a Democratic state" is exactly what Romney was, and even moreso than Christie. And again with the bogus "permanent campaign" charge.
Many who've rushed to Perry's side also seem oblivious to the hypocracy of forgiving or ignoring his significant political evolution from Democrat to Republican, along with a number of significant policy changes, while finding unforgivable Romney's evolution on abortion -- a single issue that has been generalized to a "flip-flopper" with "no core convictions." He probably has more core convictions in his little finger as a faithful LDS than any of his attackers. But of course he can not be as open about his religiosity and faith as Perry, who leads a prayer rally as if he were some evangelical preacher, and gets only praise -- and Romney was an ordained "minister." Romney is very careful to draw the boundaries between religion & politics/government, as evidenced in his record as governor, and his speech on “Faith in America” in 2008. Again, the hypocracy and dishonesty (or at least willful ignorance) of those who miss the beam for a mote, in many cases because of their religious bigotry. Perhaps some will come to their senses and be equally forgiving of Romney, or condemning of Perry.
Sept. 6 Jobs & Economy Speech in Las Vegas
Videos & commentary of the speech & the Sept. 7 debate are at: http://mittromneycentral.com/. Also from that site is this image, which appears reminiscent of the style of the Obama campaign – maybe slightly tongue-in-cheek, or to appeal to those for whom the Obama posters appealed.
I think Romney gave a very visionary (where he sees & wants America in 20 years) yet sensible and detailed plan for turning things around. And he's put together a 160-page document (“Believe in America,” free Kindle download on Amazon.com) detailing more. You don't see anything of the sort from the other contenders. Obama by contrast doesn't seem to want to put anything in writing, but only speak more platitudes, become more defiant and negative. And he continues throwing more money at his "shovel-ready jobs" that never seem so shovel-ready after all (he even jokes about that), and never stimulate the economy or jobs in any longer term, but only drive us deeper in debt. And his advisors think more food stamps are a good way to stimulate it (and buy more votes). Old Keynesians die hard. He drew the analogy of Obama using quarters in a pay phone when we live in a smart phone world.
He basically wants to unburden the economy from government oppression, and make it more fair for US companies to compete in a global market. This includes a corporate tax rate (currently 35%) more in line w. the international average of ~25% & less stifling regulation, both of which drive jobs abroad. He’d also push for more fair trade agreements, and a “Reagan free trade zone”, along with pressuring China for more fairness in currency, trade, copyright enforcement, etc. He cited 5 executive orders & 5 bills/acts he’d execute on day one, incl. granting all states an Obamacare waiver. He cited his executive experience as governor, in business, and in the Olympics, to be able to execute his plan.
The MSM , if they mentioned it at all, did so in dismissive tones – no doubt very different from the billing Obama will get Thursday, w. his “plan.”
Romney's front-runner days now may be over (at least for a while), with Perry taking the lead as soon as he entered the race, and before anyone knew much about him. I think another big factor (though fewer now admit it) is religion. Perry's another good-‘ol-boy Huckabee. It has awakened some fire in Romney, at least -- he's pointed out Perry's (& others') career politician status, and his own business experience. We'll see how the debates and campaigns go -- it could be a repeat of 2008, but I'll do what I can.
My sister saved a good cartoon which I found online:
While the above pokes a little fun at some Tea Partiers (& Mormons), don’t get me wrong. I may not agree with everything the more extreme Tea Partyers advocate (it’s not a monolithic movement), or their sometimes intransigent or hasty approach (although at least they're peaceful and orderly, unlike the union & Leftist thugs, and sometimes liberal intransigence can only be countered firmly). But as Paul said, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5: 21). One very good thing they've done is to change the national debate to focus on the looming deficit & debt crisis, which if we're not very careful will bring us all down. And a renewed adherence to the Constitution and limited government. And I see that Romney embraced some of those key principles in the Sept. 7 debate, while not calling himself a card-carrying Tea Partier.
The Tea Party has become the whipping boy and scapegoat that almost any defender of Obama or liberalism/progressivism now attacks. My “Representative” Maxine Waters said they can “go straight to hell.” The Teamsters’ Hoffa said they’re the enemy & they need to “take those SOB’s out.” Another Congressman threw out the race card, telling Blacks that they (the Tea Party) want to “string us up.” VP Biden called them “barbarians at the gate.” And the list goes on.
The foul language they've been receiving from Obama supporters would indicate they must be doing something right, to garner such accolades from those who clearly are on the wrong track and have nothing but low-life tactics to stand on. But Obama’s party is likely making a big mistake to lump anyone who opposes him into the “no-good” Tea Party, because polls show some 60-70% of America as thinking Obama & his policies are on the wrong track.
I do agree that this year, especially, "it's the economy, stupid!" (a quote from an earlier election). And that the nation recognizes the need for someone with executive experience (not just public speaking, i.e., Obama) -- i.e., a governor (Romney, Perry or Christie -- I think Huntsman's not viable). After the last election, I believe the GOP will have saner heads prevail to be sure of a win this time. The Tea Party has had its say in changing the national debate to deficits & debts, which is good, but there's general agreement across the field there. Certainly the nation can ill afford another Obama term.
Picking Apart an Anti-Romney “Conservative” Op-Ed
I think it was instructive for me to go through a nominal “conservative’s” article a friend shared (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/chris-christies-cue.html). It degraded the entire field, especially Romney, and promoted Chris Christie – the least conservative and most secular of the lot. I think about all of Ross Douthat's critiques of Romney are very shallow, subjective and unsubstantial (or a sliver of truth). And unfortunately, again, echoed again and again in the MSM liberal talking points (and among Evangelicals who don't want to admit their bigotry) until many are lulled into taking them for fact.
I understand this Douthat guy is hardly a representative conservative (a token one palatable to the NYT says much), with dubious credentials and motives. He speaks of conservatives who may "forgive his [Christie’s] ideological deviations." I.e., he's the least conservative of the lot -- another endearing quality to Douthat & the NY Times. I note that Christie is the most secular and least Evangelical/Protestant/Mormon (all on liberal black lists) of the lead GOP candidates.
I do agree w. Douthat's assessment of Perry's chances . But I definitely do not agree w. his Romney assessment, and I’ll explain why. His points largely reflect the mainstream media's (and liberal/Left) perspectives and talking points. Like the favorite catch-phrase, "is this the best we can do?" (a variant on the "weak GOP field"). The entire GOP field has at least as much or more executive experience than Obama, and much better economic policies at this critical juncture. No, Reagans don't come along every election (even liberals now acknowledge his communication skills), but on the other hand, I've read 2 books about and by Romney, and know a lot of strengths that most of the public does not. He's plenty good enough.
And those books, and his speeches and record speak of a number of "courageous or ...interesting" positions, and demonstrate a good, solid handle on world affairs, strategies, etc. Douthat claims almost omniscience in his "...doesn't believe a word he says," and "phoniness," "lacks backbone & core convictions," and "maybe...has hidden convictions." While he may not have always come across as emphatic as other candidates (I do note some recent fire, though), from all I've read, and his record as governor, in business, Olympics, and the Church, I have no reason to believe he doesn't believe what he says, and isn't a man of integrity. Further, D. claims he's "run...for almost five years..." -- no, after the last election, he was a GOP team player, who supported and helped many good candidates, and conservative causes. Just like Palin, McCain, etc. And "a born compromiser" is a highly subjective assessment, w. one data point in his governorship of the most liberal state in the nation. Some compromise is inevitable. He took some highly risky and controversial positions in business, Olympics, etc.
I disagree that Perry has the better story. He easily governed a very conservative state w. a very different business model -- likely little of it due much to him. Romney turned things around not only in the government sector, but business and volunteer/non-profit sectors as well, and governed a stake, w. the very human stories he alludes to in his book. I think Romney has a firmer personal claim on the number of jobs created under his business leadership. And that is a real plus in the current job climate. Yes, there's the Mass. health care bill issue, but even that has been twisted (discussed in my June 21 post).
The "downsizing artist" charge also doesn't stick -- there were some downsizings, but that's sometimes the alternative to the entire company going under and everyone losing their jobs (and often due to the unfair tax & regulation burdens US companies carry as they compete against foreign companies). And as Romney discusses in his book ("No Apologies"), there is a process of " creative destruction " where industries and companies evolve, and new jobs are created -- otherwise, stagnation is death in today's world. And the other side is that Romney started up a fair number of new companies with new jobs. Even unions acknowledge the need to downsize and/or take cuts to save jobs (and of course tout their nobility).
The "unloved Romney" speaks to his personality -- more business-like, and I discussed that in my June 21 post. Basically, given the option of style (Obama) or substance (Romney or almost any GOP candidate), give me the latter any day, even in a bland GOP field, or even vs Christie. Yes, Christie is more combative (not sure how that would go over in the general election, or governing the nation), but the size of his "huge cheering section" remains to be seen. Romney, also, has "campaigned & governed outside the Republican Party's Sun Belt strongholds," so Douthat can hardly use that as a contrast. But Douthat's real prejudice (and/or incitement of the same) becomes apparent towards the end where he throws out the "Mormon businessman" monicer. And "budget-cutting Republican governor of a Democratic state" is exactly what Romney was, and even moreso than Christie. And again with the bogus "permanent campaign" charge.
Many who've rushed to Perry's side also seem oblivious to the hypocracy of forgiving or ignoring his significant political evolution from Democrat to Republican, along with a number of significant policy changes, while finding unforgivable Romney's evolution on abortion -- a single issue that has been generalized to a "flip-flopper" with "no core convictions." He probably has more core convictions in his little finger as a faithful LDS than any of his attackers. But of course he can not be as open about his religiosity and faith as Perry, who leads a prayer rally as if he were some evangelical preacher, and gets only praise -- and Romney was an ordained "minister." Romney is very careful to draw the boundaries between religion & politics/government, as evidenced in his record as governor, and his speech on “Faith in America” in 2008. Again, the hypocracy and dishonesty (or at least willful ignorance) of those who miss the beam for a mote, in many cases because of their religious bigotry. Perhaps some will come to their senses and be equally forgiving of Romney, or condemning of Perry.
Sept. 6 Jobs & Economy Speech in Las Vegas
Videos & commentary of the speech & the Sept. 7 debate are at: http://mittromneycentral.com/. Also from that site is this image, which appears reminiscent of the style of the Obama campaign – maybe slightly tongue-in-cheek, or to appeal to those for whom the Obama posters appealed.
I think Romney gave a very visionary (where he sees & wants America in 20 years) yet sensible and detailed plan for turning things around. And he's put together a 160-page document (“Believe in America,” free Kindle download on Amazon.com) detailing more. You don't see anything of the sort from the other contenders. Obama by contrast doesn't seem to want to put anything in writing, but only speak more platitudes, become more defiant and negative. And he continues throwing more money at his "shovel-ready jobs" that never seem so shovel-ready after all (he even jokes about that), and never stimulate the economy or jobs in any longer term, but only drive us deeper in debt. And his advisors think more food stamps are a good way to stimulate it (and buy more votes). Old Keynesians die hard. He drew the analogy of Obama using quarters in a pay phone when we live in a smart phone world.
He basically wants to unburden the economy from government oppression, and make it more fair for US companies to compete in a global market. This includes a corporate tax rate (currently 35%) more in line w. the international average of ~25% & less stifling regulation, both of which drive jobs abroad. He’d also push for more fair trade agreements, and a “Reagan free trade zone”, along with pressuring China for more fairness in currency, trade, copyright enforcement, etc. He cited 5 executive orders & 5 bills/acts he’d execute on day one, incl. granting all states an Obamacare waiver. He cited his executive experience as governor, in business, and in the Olympics, to be able to execute his plan.
The MSM , if they mentioned it at all, did so in dismissive tones – no doubt very different from the billing Obama will get Thursday, w. his “plan.”
Comments
Post a Comment