Newt Who?

The GOP Presidential Primary has spent the last year attempting to find the ‘perfect candidate’ and the ‘Conservative alternative’ to Mitt Romney. So far the GOP ferris wheel has rested on Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Now most people don’t know who Newt Gingrich is. Newt is a Washington outsider, he is the conservatives conservative, the antithesis of all things Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. He is one of a kind. Right? That’s what he would have us believe, he wants to make it look like he the champion of Conservative causes but is he really? Lets see:

Newt on Global Warming:

• “I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.” — Newt Gingrich - April 10, 2007
• And who can forget his lovely ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

Or

• “I actually don’t think global warming is occurring.” — Newt Gingrich - November 8, 2011

Newt on healthcare:

• “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.” — Newt Gingrich - June 2007

Or

• “I am against any effort to impose  federally mandated ( health insurance ) on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.” — Newt Gingrich - May 16, 2011

Newt on cap and trade:

• “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.” — Newt Gingrich - February 2, 2007

Or

• “A carbon cap and trade system … would lead to corruption, political favoritism, and would have a huge impact on the economy.” — Newt Gingrich - April 21, 2008

Newt on Libya:

• “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening … Provide help to the rebels to replace [Qaddafi] … All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.” — Newt Gingrich -March 7, 2011

Or

• “I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to effect Qaddafi … I would not have used American and European forces.” — Newt Gingrich -March 23, 2011

Newt on prosecuting terrorists in criminal courts:

• “Well, I think if [members of the Bush administration] believe they have enough evidence to convict [Jose Padilla], going through the process of convicting him and holding him, I suspect, may be for the rest of his life without parole would not be — would hardly be seen as a loss. I think this administration is still wrestling with what are the real ground rules for dealing with people who are clearly outside of normal warfare? They’re not wearing a uniform. They’re not part of an army. They are openly threatening to kill thousands or even millions of people.” — Newt Gingrich – November 22, 2005

Or

• “Why would you take a Nigerian national who just tried to blow up a plane over Detroit … Why would you take that person, put them in the American criminal justice system, give them an attorney, read them their Miranda rights?” — Newt Gingrich - January 4, 2010

Newt on Immigration: I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century, And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in forcing the law without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so they are not separated by their families.–Newt Gingrich- November 22, 2011

So you think that Newt can go up against Barack Obama? Here is what Barney Frank said during his press conference to announce that he was retiring from Congress about Newt, “I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee. He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater … It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”– Barney Frank- November 28,2011

AEI/Heritage CNN Debate

Last night was the 11th debate of the 2012 GOP primary. Like many of the other debates, this one showed that all of the candidates are better than Obama. Unlike, the other debates, this one had glaring story lines and left me with a very clear opinion of the field.

1. Herman Cain is done: the man has made an utter fool of himself when it comes to foreign policy and last night was no exception. He has no answer and no plan, but he does have a best selling book now(it’s why he ran isn’t it?). Grade last night: F
2. Ron Paul is just what I have always said he is: CRAZY! He wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, blames the US for 9/11, and now he says he wouldn’t help Israel in a war with Iran. NUTS please don’t elect him. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian. Grade last night: D-
3. Rick Santorum is proud to be a Washington DC insider. He is constantly talking about what he did during his time in DC. He was ok to strong last night, but he lost every moderate vote when it comes to his response on Racial Profiling. Grade last night: D+
4. Newt Gingrich likes amnesty, for those people that have been here a while at least. It is obvious that Newt thinks he is the smartest person in the room, he acts like a professor every time that he is talking at a debate but last night some of the other candidates stole his thunder and redirected it at him. His response saying he is taking a ‘humane’ stance on illegal immigration immediately had me telling the person next to me that it sounded like Perry’s ‘heartless’ comment. Grade last night: C+
5. Jon Huntsman breaks into my top 4, not only in last nights debate, but overall. I personally disagree with his Obama-lite stance on Afghanistan, but he has reasons for it and is still calling for about 10,000 troops to remain. If he can find a way to connect to the people of New Hampshire he might have a shot at being the Mitt alternative. Grade last night: B
6.  Rick Perry had a good night. He didn’t have any gaffes, and he looked pretty forceful. Some of his responses, however, seemed forced and simple, but he definitely is a foreign policy hawk. Grade last night: B+ 
7. Michele Bachmann wants to be Mitt Romney’s VP pick. She knows her stuff on foreign policy. That much was shown, as she was willing to school the other candidates on what US AID actually does. She definitely had the best night of her campaign, but it will take much more to save her campaign. Grade last night: A
8. Mitt Romney is in general election mode. While receiving the least amount of time from the CNN debate crew, Mitt Romney took every opportunity to bring the responses back to Obama’s failed leadership. Mitt Romney clearly understands foreign policy, and he is definitely a conservative hawk on the subject. On top of that, Mitt took no hits from the other candidates, and left like he went in, the leader. Grade last night: A

Stand With Walker!

Tuesday, November 15th is almost upon us! For people in many states that means rifle season for deer. For the people of Wisconsin, this means another round of recalls. That’s right, it was just 3 months ago that the Unions spent $30 million and took home a 33% success rate. Now they want to spend much more and go after the big fish: Gov Scott Walker. Not very many people are unaware what has been happening in Wisconsin, but for a brief recap here it goes:

• Feb 11- Scott Walker presents AB act 10
• Feb 14- Students are told by their TA’s to go protest the bill
• Feb 15- Thousands of crying teachers skip work and come protest
• Feb 16- The first of thousands of out of state unions come protest
• Feb 17- Wisconsin Senate Dems go on vacation to Rockford IL
• Feb 18- Mar 9- The Union thugs occupy the Capitol and Capitol square causing hundreds of thousands in damage along with hundreds of death threats
• Late June- AB 10 goes into effect
• Early July- New Budget goes into affect
• Today-REFORMS ARE WORKING!

So what do the union thugs(Democratic Party of Wisconsin) think that they will accomplish with the recall effort? Well they think they can win, but no one else does. Even PPP which is a Democratic polling firm has stated that it will be VERY hard to defeat Walker. BUT that doesn’t mean they won’t try. The unions have near unlimited funds, they are looking at spending upwards of $50-$70 million on this recall effort. We need to fight back. Wisconsin today is Open for Business, and the reforms that have been put in place are working remarkably well. But if the thugs get their way then those reforms will be all for naught. I am proud to call Gov Scott Walker my friend and one of my heroes, and I am proud to support him in this recall effort.

I Stand With Walker! Do You?

Show you’re support by telling all of your Facebook friends and twitter followers to ‘Stand with Walker’. He is gonna need all of our help, he is gonna need our time contacting Wisconsin voters, he is gonna need our prayers, and yes he is gonna need our financial help. Give what you can. This would not just be a Wisconsin tragedy if he were to be defeated, this would be a National tragedy.

Happy Birthday Marines!

Dema, Montezuma, Tripoli, Belleau Wood, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Chosin Reservoir, Dai Do, Panama, and Fallujah. Charles Brown, John Coleman, James Dougherty, Michael McNamara, Michael Owens, John A Lejeune, Chesty Puller, Carlos Hathcock, John Basilone, Jason Dunham, and Dakota Meyer. To most people the 2 lists that I just typed mean nothing. To me they mean everything. The first list is a list of the most important battles in American history. The second are American heroes. No they aren’t movie stars, they aren’t athletes, and no they aren’t politicians. They are Marines. Many of them gave their last full measure of devotion in defense of this Country. All of them deserve remembrance. Jason Dunham died in 2004, yet the vast majority of American’s have never heard of him. John Basilone has a life story that should be inspiring millions. Chesty Puller is revered to this day among Marines. They deserve our gratitude, they deserve our praise. They deserve our prayers. These men put their lives on the line. Not for glory, but for honor. They didn’t back down from a fight, not for the lack of fear, but for courage. They didn’t keep fighting till there was only victory not for pride, but for commitment. So tonight as you get ready to go to sleep, send a quick thanks to these heroes, tell others their story, and live a life that can be called ‘Always Faithful’.

 

Honor- Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct.  Honor is many things; honor requires many things.  A U.S. Marine must never lie, never cheat, never steal, but that is not enough.  Much more is required.  Each Marine must cling to an uncompromising code of personal integrity, accountable for his actions and holding others accountable for theirs.  And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of his Corps.

Courage- Simply stated, courage is honor in action — and more.  Courage is moral strength, the will to heed the inner voice of conscience, the will to do what is right regardless of the conduct of others.  It is mental discipline, an adherence to a higher standard.  Courage means willingness to take a stand for what is right in spite of adverse consequences.  This courage, throughout the history of the Corps, has sustained Marines during the chaos, perils, and hardships of combat.  And each day, it enables each Marine to look in the mirror — and smile.

Commitment- Total dedication to Corps and Country.  Gung-ho Marine teamwork.  All for one, one for all.  By whatever name or cliche, commitment is a combination of (1) selfless determination and (2) a relentless dedication to excellence.  Marines never give up, never give in, never willingly accept second best.  Excellence is always the goal.  And, when their active duty days are over, Marines remain reserve Marines, retired Marines, or Marine veterans.  There is no such thing as an ex-Marine or former-Marine.  Once a Marine, always a Marine.  Commitment never dies.

 

CNBC Debate: Winners and Losers

Tonight’s GOP debate on CNBC was the first debate in a long time when the candidates didn’t really attack each other. Normally that would lead this to be a tough debate to grade, but, as Politico said this morning, this is the start of the elimination round. So with that being said this one was relatively easy to grade. So without further ado here are the winners and losers, and what that means for each candidate.

Winners

Mitt Romney- Mitt Romney showed tonight that he was sticking to his guns on his plan. He reiterated his stance on the auto-bailouts, he took China to task, and on every chance he took aim at Obama. He showed true class in his response to the ‘gotchya’ question about the Cain allegations. Throughout the debate he showed that he is not running against the other GOPers, he is running against Obama. He showed leadership, and in doing so he once again showed why he is the frontrunner. I think that this will help some people who were on the fence about him to get off of it.

Newt Gingrich- Every debate shows just how smart Newt is! He excels in the debates, and he is an encyclopedia of information. This is why he wants to challenge Obama to a lot of debates. Newt should get a boost in the polls, but he needs to get that boost in Iowa. He is clearly going to take supporters from the Perry, Bachmann, and Cain campaigns. But is it enough to win? Can he get over his bashing of the Paul Ryan budget? Can he get out of Campaign debt?

Ron Paul- Ron Paul was in his element, he lives to debate fiscal policy. He might see a small bump in the polls, but I think that he is going to stay about where he is in the race and monetarily.

Status Quo

Herman Cain- (Pro’s)He did a good job in the debate, and looked good at answering the question about the allegations. He was enthusiastic with his responses, and he had one of the lines of the night in “Princess Nancy”. (Con’s) He walked back from the “Princess Nancy” line after the debate! Don’t do that! Stick to your guns and use that line to fundraise! I seriously think that Herman Cain believes that 999 will solve every problem in the US. It would not surprise me if he uses 999 during the foreign policy debates. Dear Mr. Cain, 999 is not the savior of the country!

Jon Huntsman- WHO?! Once again he looked like a Democrat onstage, he talked for way over the time limit, and the country still doesn’t know his name. Time to save your personal money and drop out of the race.

Losers

Michele Bachmann- She needed the debate of a lifetime, but she was irrelevant throughout the debate. Her 15 minutes of Presidential fame are over, now it is time for her to go run for her Congressional seat.

Rich Santorum- Like Bachmann he needed the best debate ever. Instead he reminded us that he was part of the Washington culture that got us into this mess, and that he lost in 2006 by 16 points! Mr. Santorum would make a great leader of a Socially-Conservative minded thinktank. But he will never be the President, and should save his family the money and head ache.

BIGGEST LOSER OF ALL TIME!

Rick Perry- Yesterday I tweeted that Rick Perry seemed very Presidential in his interview with ABC NEWS/Yahoo NEWS. Today he effectively ended his campaign. It was so bad that one of his top fundraises said “Rick Perry’s campaign is over, time to go back and lead Texas”. He will go down as one of the worst debaters in Presidential politics history. Rick Perry is a great man, but he ruined his only shot at being the GOP nominee this cycle.

With all this said I will say this: Tonight showed that in regards to the economy there is NO debate. Any of these candidates are MUCH better than Barack Obama!

Defense Cuts and My Upcoming War

Defense Cuts

In early August President Obama and the GOP made an agreement to increase the debt limit. Here’s the gist of the compromise:

• The agreement cut spending more than it increased the debt limit. In the first installment (“tranche”), $917 billion would be cut over 10 years in exchange for increasing the debt limit by $900 billion.
• The agreement established a Congressional Joint Select Committee that would produce debt reduction legislation by November 23, 2011, that would be immune from amendments or filibuster. The goal of the legislation is to cut at least $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years and should be passed by December 23, 2011. The committee would have 12 members, 6 from each party.
• Projected revenue from the Joint Select Committee’s legislation must not exceed the revenue baseline produced by current law.^{[citation needed]}
• The agreement specified an incentive for Congress to act. If Congress fails to produce a deficit reduction bill with at least $1.2 trillion in cuts, then Congress can grant a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This would trigger across-the-board cuts (“sequestration”) of spending, equally split between defense and non-defense programs. The cuts would apply to mandatory and discretionary spending in the years 2013 to 2021 and be in an amount equal to the difference between $1.2 trillion and the amount of deficit reduction enacted from the joint committee. The sequestration mechanism is the same as the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. There are exemptions—across the board cuts would apply to Medicare, but not to Social Security, Medicaid, civil and military employee pay, or veterans.
• Congress must vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment between October 1, 2011, and the end of the year.
• The debt ceiling may be increased an additional $1.5 trillion if either one of the following two conditions are met:
  • A balanced budget amendment is sent to the states
  • The joint committee cuts spending by a greater amount than the requested debt ceiling increase

So if the ‘Super Committee’ as it is known is not able to reach an agreement what are we looking at?

$ 1.2 trillion in deficit savings split between Medicare and defense spending. Meaning $600 billion in cuts to the most important job of the United States government, Defense. Some people argue that the defense could handle having less money. They are wrong: Secretary Panetta said that by these cuts we would be “”Shooting ourselves in the head.” I, and most defense people, are not saying that the military shouldn’t tighten the belt, we are not saying we shouldn’t stream line our operations to save on overhead. But we are saying “Don’t chop us off at the knees”. Many people are arguing we should bring all of our troops home and that could save us billions of dollars. But what if we get attacked(9/11 anyone), and what if we need to deploy quickly. The American military(especially the Marine Corp) is an expeditionary force, meaning we mobilize quickly and we move in and kick ass. But if these cuts are done to the military we greatly weaken the capabilities of our military to do be that kind of a force.

My War

If the super-committee can not reach an agreement and that causes the defense cuts to take place, I am going to use every breath in me to hold those that are responsible accountable. Meaning that since the GOP finally was willing to compromise on revenue and put it on the table, that the Dems need to come up with something better. I am not a fan of the mindset that some have in the GOP that is “Cut everything but don’t touch taxes and defense”. I believe we should slow down the rate of spending on defense, but I think that pushing for a $600 billion cut is wrong. In fact I have gone so far as to say that it is borderline treasonous! So what is my war? If the Democrats(and any Republican) refuses to come to an agreement and causes the military funding to be cut in such a Draconian measure, I will use every ounce of energy and every available resource to get those members out of office. If you want to drastically underfund the United States Military then you have no right to be a member of Congress.

Is Herman Cain Guilty? My Thoughts

Over the last week, the political world has been rocked by the Herman Cain saga. Over this time, as I have Tweeted, Facebooked, and Blogged about the controversy I have been accosted by many people in the conservative movement, and many have labeled me to have already tried and convicted Herman Cain, going as far as saying “Let me guess, you thought Clarence Thomas was guilty too”. I have always said that his campaign had a VERY poor response to the entire article. Even today, the Cain campaign attacked the media for spreading these stories. I have, and will continue to, question the attacks against the media for doing their job. Having said that, I am NOT a cheerleader for the media(ask nearly anyone in Wisconsin media, I will go after them for their bias just like any conservative will), but, when members of the media write an article and every review of it has concluded that it was factual, I will not attack them. This stance has not allowed me to be on good standing with some of my friends, who automatically assume that the media is out to get them. But let’s be clear, I have not taken ANY position on whether the allegations that Mr. Cain is facing are true or not true, UNTIL NOW.

I am a strong proponent of giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. I may be alone among my friends in that I refused to crucify Casey Anthony during her murder case, I joined millions of others in praying that Amanda Knox would be freed after the evidence showed that she was innocent. I was very proud of my government in that we gave Saddam Hussein a trial(even more proud that he was found guilty). I am even proud that Bradley Manning will be given a trial in regards to the leaks to WikiLeaks. And so last week when the news broke that Herman Cain had allegedly harassed two employees, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Being a man, I know how touchy these accusations are, and how some women(especially those who work under you) can misread a simple gesture. I also have been unduly instructed(preached at) by others on how hard it is to be a minority in America, let alone a Conservative that’s also a minority. My assumption was simply this: Mr. Cain probably was nice to these women, and they misread it as him trying to make an advance on them.

However, after hearing the detailed account from the accusers own mouth today, I have to admit that she came across as very believable. With one major caveat: she went out and hired Gloria Allred. Gloria is the one person that will go overboard. She is(to put it frank) a media whore(not meant to imply that she is a whore). If she were a personal injury attorney she would be handing a business card to every person that gets hurt, and to every family member of someone that dies. However, she is very good. She plays on emotions and she wins most of the time. But she, by herself, will make or break her clients case.

With that being said, I think that there is a level of truth to the claims by Mr Cain’s attackers(one could easily be a political witch hunt, but four?), but even if they aren’t true at the very least this is what I think. Herman Cain showed poor judgment in the way he treated subordinates, in particular those that were women. That poor judgment does not make him a bad man, or a creep, but it does continue a pattern that we have seen this entire campaign. He doesn’t think about the consequences of his actions/words before he does/says them. How can we trust him to be a proper Commander-in-Chief, when he makes dumb statements and changes his stories multiple times. Mr. Cain should have simply kept his mouth shut until he came up with a plausible explanation, and then moved on. By failing to do so, he has made it impossible for me to vote for him in the GOP primary(if something happens to the Romney Campaign). Being in the military I need a strong leader, not someone like Mr. Cain.

Press Relations Gone Bad(The Herman Cain Story)

On Sunday, POLITICO released a bomb “Herman Cain Accused by Two Women of Inappropriate Behavior”, the Cain campaign released a statement saying “Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain.” But the campaign took over 12 hours to actually say that the claim in the article was false. However, within 3 hours, two different media outlets(NY Times and NBC News) confirmed that the claims did in fact take place. Therefore, the Cain claim, that “Unsubstantiated personal attacks” were being waged by the media, was proven false.

On Monday, at 11:20 am, Herman Cain finally said, in an interview with FOX News, he admitted that he WAS accused of the claim(once again showing that the POLITICO story was substantiated). He then said that he did not know anything about a settlement that they might have received. However, he then went on PBS and “On The Record with Greta” in which he admitted that he did indeed know that a settlement had taken place.

To make a bad day worse, on Sunday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel released an article claiming that Cain’s Chief of Staff(the smoking Mark Block) and his Deputy Chief of Staff broke FEC regulations when they used money from a ‘Non-Profit’ organization to kick start his campaign. When he was asked a question about the article, he said that he nor anyone on his staff new about it until just then.

I am not saying that either of these accusations are true. I do not know that they are, just like I do not know that they aren’t. I do, however, know that whatever happened in the last 48 hours, has not been a good communications job. You can not blame the media when a negative story comes out. And you can not cry foul or cry ‘Witch Hunt’ when there is a basis of fact.

So I have to wonder, how does a nationwide campaign, that had 10 days to prepare a response to the POLITICO article, not have a communications strategy when it hit? And on top of that, how does his staff not see the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. I saw it Monday morning just by doing a news search on his name. Is a single person using ‘Google’ better than a Presidential Campaigns entire communications team? Or is it like I have been saying, Cain is running a book tour, not a Presidential Campaign.

Here some the articles showing the different stories that the Cain team tried yesterday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67293.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8863038/US-elections-2012-Herman-Cain-gives-conflicting-accounts-of-sexual-harassment-allegations.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/01/bloomberg_articlesLTZNHP6S972F.DTL

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-cain-20111101,0,5248687.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cain-harassment-2012-20111101,0,1576130.story