Ron Paul is a Top Tier Candidate!

So I normally laugh at Jon Stewart because he's funny but rarely ever correct. This time I wasn't laughing. It was the first time that Jon Stewart made me think rather than laugh. Is Ron Paul a top tier candidate? If not, why not? If so, can he win?

My opinion

I think Ron Paul should be taken far more seriously. The guy is smart, consistent, conservative, and right on almost everything (I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt (now) on the wars). I really think that I'd have a hard time deciding between him and some of the others in the race. He is the only one who can point to genuine/unique policy positions and he has NEVER flip-flopped. I wouldn't hold my nose to vote for him. I don't find him politically strong and I'm not certain he could win against Obama (which is the only reason I'd vote for anyone at this point). He would likely be laughed off is he did win the nomination and the media would ignore him out of the race (case in point). But if we had someone with his character and ideas in office he would probably make changes in this country that would be lasting and positive.

What do you think?

EDIT:
I like this video he's going to run. Ron Paul Ad - "The one who can beat Obama"

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Join the conversation already in action at Google+

Think about this next time you fill up.

Gassing Up with Obama from RightChange on Vimeo.

Quick reference for GOP Candidates

I'd like to create a "hit list" of the positives and negatives of the top candidates (announced and not) for the GOP race. I'm going to try and hit the basics and then leave the comments sections for your input on the things that you think I missed.
In no particular order...at least not one that I care to admit.

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana (not announced)
Pros:

• Fiscal conservative; lowered taxes and eliminated $200million deficit and turned it into a $1.3Billion surplus
• Strong history of results in a state that needed serious help
• Family values even in the face of his wife leaving him for another man then returning
• Rides a motorcycle :-)
• He's short :-)
• Excellent speaker 

Cons:

• He's almost exclusively concerned with fiscal matters saying that "social issues" need to take a back seat
• Slow to enter the race (this speaks to the ever elusive "fire in the belly")
• Not well known (this could be remedied if he gets himself some serious press coverage with outrageous populist rhetoric)
• He's losing his hair :-) (like I should talk)

Mitt Romney Former Governor of Massachusetts 

Pros:

• Legit business credentials that he can bring to the biggest economy in the world
• Governor of a liberal state (shows he can get things done with bipartisan atmosphere...better than Obama with both houses who barely passed Healthcare)
• Speaks well and isn't afraid to use red-meat rhetoric (this has changed from 2008)
• Family values (being Mormon actually helps here)
• Already dispelled "Mormon Issue" with his awesome speech in 2008
• Awesome hair and movie star looks ;-) tell me otherwise ladies.

Cons:

• He's Mormon...Yeah I still think there's folks that are that bigoted
• He has unquestionably flip-flopped on social issues...largely legit explanations but still gotta hang the summer footwear on his neck
• RomneyCare...he's gotta separate the difference between a State solution and a Federal solution we are a Republic and he's got to explain what that means to those who aren't smart enough to understand what that means

Herman Cain 

Pros:

• He's black...yup I think he will prove that the GOP is not racist and that as a Tea Party favorite he can unite the apparent division in the party
• Legit business credentials as CEO of Godfathers Pizza (He should be President because his chains gave me all you can eat buffets through high school)
• He's so right on all the issues social and otherwise 
• He's popular with the Tea Party, like it or not the Tea Party will dictate the discussion for this primary season
• He has the "fire in the belly" and to spare...when he speaks people listen and are informed, entertained, and convinced

Cons:

• He's black...yup there's a group of insane bigots 
• He will undoubtedly stick his foot in his mouth due to his being so flamboyant and unscripted
• He has no middle ground...he sees things in very stark terms and this will not win everyone over
• He's a Tea Party favorite...this will be something that the moderates and white collar Republicans won't like

Tim Pawlenty Governor of Minnesota

Pros:

• Very good Governor of a liberal state with solid performance and support from his own state
• Seems to ride the Republican planks like they were made for him
• Moderate on almost all issues but sufficiently conservative for even the furthest to the right
• Well groomed...this is important no matter what you say
• Socially conservative enough
• He's not Mormon...he is basically the Evangelical alternative to Mitt Romney

Cons:

• While he's given some spirited speeches he's not particularly powerful
• He's not well known...he doesn't seem to be able to correct this issue even with four years to try and correct the issue
• He is not well connected...money will have a lot of influence in this years campaign with Obama set to raise $750 million for his campaign

Michelle Bachmann

Pros:

• Enjoys broad Tea Party support
• She's got the "fire in the belly"
• She speaks truth to power in a way that is easily understood (rhetoric for the blue collar and red-neck)
• Her gender will help her gain notoriety and name recognition in the media overcoming the fact that most people don't know her name
• She's got the conservative planks covered REALLY well

Cons:

• Enjoys broad Tea Party support and for moderates this will be the sole reason for not voting for her
• She's "too" salt of the earth and may come off less serious despite her taking on serious issues
• Her gender will make her a target and there are simply some women/men who will not vote for a female President
• She's going to have "see Russia from my house" moments because she's so vocal about things

Newt Gingrich former Speaker of the House
Pros:

• The head of one of the greatest eras of prosperity in recent history
• Smart- he knows his stuff on just about every political topic out there
• Bedrock Republican meaning that he's what the foundation of the current Republican party was built on
• He's relatively well known and admired for his time as Speaker
• His connections are going to give him some help with money

Cons:

• He pissed off a lot of folks by knocking Paul Ryan's budget suggestions
• He's a Bedrock Republican and that means he's the foundation of the current Republican party...some say that's a bad thing
• Evangelicals still aren't going to be happy with his marital situation

Sarah Palin former Governor of Alaska

Pros:

• She about the most well known potential candidate out there after her entry as a celebrity in 2008
• The Tea-Party is her party and if she doesn't run her endorsement could be king-maker 
• She was a wildly popular Governor who was creative in finding real solutions to her states problems
• She's hot! She'd be the best looking President ever if she ascended to the throne in the Oval Office

Cons:

• She's a girl and that's going to be a liability for some voters...particularly Republicans
• The Tea-Party is strong but are they strong enough to move the whole Republican establishment?
• She is not liked by WAY too many people and she isn't going to be able to fix that easily

Ron Paul Congressman for Texas

Pros:

• Has got to be one of the smartest men in the Republican party
• His fiscal policies are exactly what America needs and no one, not even Romney, has made as well a reasoned argument on fiscal matters as Ron Paul
• He's Liberterian which means he'll bring in a voting block that is important to merge into the Republican party eventually

He has one of the most consistent voting records and has voted his conscience and not party line

Cons:

• He's cracked in the head. This guy still thinks we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq or Afghanistan. The legality is beyond question. If you disagree let me know
• He's a Liberterian and there's a lot of fundamentalist Republicans that have forgotten about the Big Tent
• He's ancient as in just about dead ancient...agism aside he would be by a wide margin the oldest president in a first term and a second term would almost certainly be out of the question

Alright...that's my list. I know there's Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, John Huntsman Jr., and there's still hope that Chris Christie will change his mind, but I'm sticking with this field for my purposes. If you've got more bullets that I missed for any of these or have another candidate suggestion leave it in the comments. Now hit up the poll to the right and tell me who you're favorite is.

Calls of Racism are a Red Herring

Image via Wikipedia
Some blacks see racism in 'birther' questions

Yes, that's an actual headline from the AP today. Here is my response to that article and the inane assertions it makes about those loony "Birthers".

As much as I dislike the "Birther" folks and as much as I think they're cracked in the head I still don't think they are racially motivated. I have yet to see someone categorically provide evidence that the "Birthers", the Tea Party, the Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone else labeled racist by the left, have acted purely or even mostly because President Obama is of African heritage. Naming someone racist because they feel like the policies and direction of this administration are wrong is a Red Herring and should be called out as such. 


In many ways it seems the President is trying to change the focus as much as the "Birthers". He claimed that the "Birther Movement" was taking the focus off of the economy...but the stories on the economy eclipsed the "birther" stories by several factors of 10...by bringing this stupid joke to the level of legitimacy that he has he removes the focus from him and the inept management of the economy to the idiots of the "Birther" movement. Good political move...sad...but calculated. Now the media would like to turn this into a racial thing rather than what it is...a calculated political maneuver to distract the public from the bad news on the economy. This collaborative effort on the part of the media and the White House is counter productive and only exacerbates the Presidents real problems in getting a split legislative body to correct the cumulative financial idiocy of the last 3 decades.

Below are some articles that seem to disagree with me.

Related articles

• Yes, Birtherism is Racist (As is Donald Trump): Three Videos Tell You Why - Source: AlterNet (curmilus.wordpress.com)
• Conservative 'Birther' Issue Is All About Racism (dekerivers.wordpress.com)

Gas Prices Climbing Toward $5 Per Gallon...HmHm President Obama?

Recently was reading the comments section of a news post that indicated $5 a gallon for gas by Memorial Day. The comments are from the right and the left. They are almost always extreme and rarely civil. The thing about the story that I found interesting is that they included a poll that asked "At What Price Point Would You Change Your Driving Habits?" with four options $4.50, $4.75, $5.00, and Never. I was looking for the already have option but they didn't have it. This surprised me a little. I have taken to riding my bike on nice days to work because it saves me $3 a day if my wife doesn't have to drop me off and then pick me up later, and I only live 2.5 miles from work. 
The comments section was all about politics...which is understandable since it seems like anything in the news these days is political. The part that I find political in the whole fiasco is that President Obama has escape the excoriation of the press on the rise in oil prices while President Bush was nailed in the news almost daily for failing to "do something" about the gas prices. When he suggested we'd start increasing our drilling prices dropped (of course by then they dropped because we were in a death spiral caused by the mortgage crisis too...but at least he tried something). President Obama has done the opposite of President Bush. He has a by-default ban on drilling in the Gulf and along the coasts. So not only are we subject to the problems plaguing demagogic states like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Yemen, etc. but we aren't doing anything at home to help ourselves with the problem. 
So now my question and the reason for writing this is to pose the question. At what point does the press/media turn on President Obama and start treating him the way they did President Bush? Will it be when he starts ANOTHER war? Will it be when gas hits $10 a gallon? Will it be when a terrorist attacks on his watch? Or will he have to get whiter, richer, and start using a southern accent?


Gas Prices Climbing Toward $5 Per Gallon « CBS Chicago

How does Obama win a second term?

Recently there was a poll that showed Obama losing a second term in office. It got me to thinking of what it would take for Obama to win in 2012. I realized that it really won't take much. He just has to do as little as possible to put himself in the battles of the House and Senate. As long as he doesn't interject himself into the legislative process he's going to seem like he's neutral and the uninformed voters will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Obama is no dummy. He's going to appear to be outside the fray and as a result it will be the Republican's who are struggling to demonstrate results after getting the "will" of the people. When they fail to do that because the Senate shoots down everything the House passes the Republican's will be forced to try and make Obama the fall guy in order to pull off any kind of win in 2012. That's going to be a very hard thing to do if Obama manages to keep his mouth shut.

So now the pressure to stop Obama is on the Republicans. How do they manage the legislative process and defeat Obama in 2012? The road is perilous and involves finding their candidate for President early and unanimously. There needs to be a consensus candidate that emerges in the next 6-9 months and he/she needs to have universal support by the Tea Party faithful, and the GOP stalwart, while appealing to those who aren't socially conservative but want to see America with a path to fiscal sanity. Right now that candidate hasn't come forward. In addition to that they will also need to demonstrate that they can get democrats in the Senate to pass legislation that falls in line with Republican promises. There's almost no chance that happens if Obama doesn't want it to happen. His power in the Senate was seen when they managed to pass the Healthcare overhaul against all odds. So Obama is going to have to walk a fine line of influence in the Senate and neutrality in the process. He needs to create a strong backbone in the Senate while not appearing to be the brace that keeps them from bending. If he manages that, I don't see him losing against any of the Republican front runners unless things gel behind one candidate.

Tell me how you see Obama in office in 2013.

Let's Compare: Obama's Katrina.

There has been a lot of comparisons between the Bush Administrations response to hurricane Katrina and the Obama Administrations response to the DeepWater Oil Leak.  I'd like to do an informal analysis of the media's coverage of these events.  I'll be short on citations (I'm lazy...they do exist but I don't want to take the time to find them) but since most of you lived through both of these events the analysis should still make sense.

First...Bush warned residents of the Gulf States in a Nationally broadcast speech to leave for higher ground.  He had already dispatched National Guard members to ready the evacuation (again three days before landfall).  This is a good example of how urgent the situation was regarded by the administration.  The urgency demonstrated by the Obama group is a little different.  On April 24th evidence of the leak is reported to Homeland Security.  Three days later when updates are showing significantly higher leak issues than on the 24th (from marginal leak on the 24th to potential of over 110000 gallons per day on the 28th) the President...with opportunity to show his administrations response at a Midwest tour decided to ignore it in his speech that day.  Now, nearly 2 months into what will eventually be the biggest oil spill in American history, President Obama is finally out to correct the issue.  Of course his sitting on the sidelines for well over a week while Gov. Jindal begged to get help and approval to set up barrier islands to protect the fragile coastal lands of Louisiana was just one example of laziness, ineptitude, carelessness or general unresponsiveness in general, or quite possibly all of the above.  The Presidents "ass-kicking" is a little late and his search for said "ass" should start and end in the oval office.

But you don't have to take my word for it.  The public has spoken.  The White House in a recent poll on the handling of this tragedy shows that 69% polled rate the response negatively.  Again for comparison purposes that is higher than the 62% rating given to the Bush White House for its handling of Katrina.  Let's see how well President Obama wears that  label.

NOTE:  The crude reference used above is quoting a President of the United States in a broadcast interview at an hour when children may have been present for his speech.  Make you own judgement on the appropriateness of that for yourself.  I'm personally not impressed.

They Vote then Vault

Can you say AWESOME!?  I of course mean that in the most sarcastic way possible. Bart Stupak the infamous congressman that "almost" blocked the Healthcare Reform Bill before actually passing the bill. His leaving office puts the Democrats in an awkward position to try and fill his position, a position with a pretty conservative core already.  This is the type of thing that the Democrats are going to have a hard time with in a lot of the races this year.  Of course the other issue at hand is that the Republicans also need to convince Tea-Party folk that they are worthy of their vote.  Not an easy task for incumbent Republican's that helped Bush spend us into a debt that could have been managed much better.  I have nothing in particular against Stupak.  In fact I sort of admire his hard headed style over the run-up to the healthcare vote.  His stance on abortion has been consistent until now and given the pressure to pass from Nancy Pelosi and others it was impressive for him to last as long as he has.  This may be a sign of things to come as polls indicate the hard battles associated with the mid-term elections.  Republican's, if they are smart, will put people on the ballot with zero association with the big spending of the last administration and people that are ready to get America out of debt.  Of course getting people to understand that the only way for that to happen is to cut programs completely.  If you can put a candidate that can communicate the strength of the individual and negate the need of government to provide for them and get people excited about it then you'll have the ideal candidate.  This is the time for "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" rhetoric.  That is what the Healthcare issue is really about.  The candidate that emphasizes personal responsibility and challenges his constituents to be personally responsible for their own lives and not dependent on others is the candidate that will win the Tea Party and very likely the election.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rep. Bart Stupak won't seek re-election (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Stupak's Exit: How Bad An Omen For Dems? (swampland.blogs.time.com)

Anderson's Law of Racist Claims

You've heard of Godwin's Law which more or less says that most online discussions will boil down to a comparison of someone or something to Hitler/Nazi's.  I'm here to start a new law.  It's called Anderson's Law of Racist Claims.  All discussions of Tea Party proponents will result in the claim that all white people or more specifically all people against Obama or the Democrat party are intrinsically racist, regardless of their political, social, racial, and cultural affiliations.  I recently read an article by Pat Buchanan about some recent accusations by Frank Rich.  This article seemed to point out how the Left levies Godwin's Law (and now Anderson's Law) when they see Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party Activists speaking out against the Government and whatever abuses they are lamenting.  What the left seems to forget is that the cries of racism and hatred are pale when placed against the actual criminal (en masse) behavior that Liberals exhibited in the 1960's.  While Democrats hunker down and send the FBI to arrest "militant Christians" the fact remains that very few actual instances of violence or documented proof of hatred or racism actually exists within the Tea Party movement.  It's a shame that racism is the tool of the left.  The Conservative/Tea Party Movements are anything but racially motivated.  The Tea Party has it's roots in the Rick Santelli Feb. 19th 2009 rant that was in response to the stimulus bill.  These types of issues are the glue that binds the Tea Party and results in a "Big Tent" that encompasses all parties and strata of thoughtful electorate.  The keyword being thoughtful.  It's the people who attempt to quell dissent by trumpeting claims of racism that are the real racists.  They seem to think that people of color are foolish enough to buy into the claims and that they will be the constituency that keeps them in office.  The problem is that all it will take is someone savvy and simple enough to communicate the real reason for the dissent to blow holes all over their claims of racism.  The right is fighting for "equal opportunity not equal outcome" and that means that what the left is saying is that people of color need the Government because they aren't capable of achieving without them.  This is the most insulting political stance I can imagine.  If someone with half a brain runs for office on the argument that the Left is continuing to "coddle" the minorities because the Left doesn't believe that minorities can make it against the rest of the world  I really think that things could change.  If honor alone wouldn't open the eyes of the typical electorate of the Left then perhaps shame would.  If you are a minority and you're voting for someone who believes that they need to give you a handout because of your minority status then you should really ask yourself why.  Why would they want me to come to them for money, food, healthcare, retirement, housing, etc?  Is this because white people are better than me and the only way I can have a chance is if the Government provides me with other peoples money as support?  There are some in the academic world that think African American's should get reparations.  Well if welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare don't count as reparations then I don't know what they want.