Thursday, October 25, 2012

Selecting Romney's Cabinet

While nothing is certain in this life except death and taxes, particularly under the governance of the Obama administration, I am feeling rather optimistic that Governor Romney will indeed be our next president.  With that in mind, the governor’s organization has reached out to me to help vet the very best candidates to fill his cabinet.  Okay -- not really -- but if Governor Romney were to ask me, the following would be my recommendations for good people to help restore Americans’ faith in our government so that it might be administered constitutionally for a pleasant change.  That said, here are your future cabinet secretaries under President Romney:

Department of State:  John Bolton
Bolton is an exceptionally smart man with clear insight into the workings of world affairs.  His stint as President Bush’s ambassador to the U.N. showed that he knows the impotence of this corrupt organization and what truly must be done to further America’s interests and keep the world safe for freedom’s sake.  Bolton would set a tough pro-America tone and reinvigorate what is a feckless and wimpy group at Foggy Bottom.

Department of the Treasury:  Ron Paul
While Paul is a nut job and sounds like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy, he is dead on accurate with his assessment of domestic policy, especially when it comes to the Federal Reserve.  Romney should appoint Dr. Paul and then give him carte blanche to clean house, starting with an exhaustive audit of the Federal Reserve.


Department of Defense:  David Petraeus
Move General Petraeus from his current position handling intelligence and instead have him mold and form the Defense Department for the future generation of wars that might be thrust upon America.  Petraeus is smart and knows how to win wars and what that entails strategically, tactically, and logistically.  Working with a new Joint Chiefs Staff, he could set policy that would help to secure America’s safety in the world.

Department of Justice:  Chris Christie
Christie’s tough no-nonsense approach to… well… everything, would restore integrity with him as our new Attorney General.  This is direly needed in light of the corrupt and incompetent job done by Eric Holder.  Christie would not play political favorites and thus turn what has become a politically motivated cabinet back into the top law enforcement agency in the country of which Americans can once again be proud. 

Department of the Interior:  James Inhofe
Inhofe would manage our natural resources responsibly without caving to the enviro-whackos on policy, particularly when it comes to the specious anthropogenic “global warming” nonsense.




Department of Agriculture:  Rick Perry
Perry has a long history involved with agriculture and would do a fine job overseeing this department.





Department of Commerce:  Steve Forbes
After the devastation wrought on our economy by Obama, Bush, Pelosi, Reid, the Democrats and Rino’s, we will need a brilliant businessman along with President Romney to help steer government away from hurting commerce and towards getting out of the way of our small businesses in order to get the economy moving again.  Forbes would do splendidly as commerce secretary accordingly.


Department of Labor:  Scott Walker
After Obama’s allowing of unions to set U.S. labor policy, Governor Walker would be a great pick in providing the appropriate balance between unions and businesses.  The fact that he has taken on public tax-payer unions and saved millions of dollars in Wisconsin accordingly would be a warning shot across the bow to other public unions that the tax payers will not be fleeced by them anymore.

Department of Health and Human Services:  Rand Paul
The younger Dr. Paul would be very good at trimming the fat in this department while ensuring that only vital functions were retained and funded, all without infringing on Americans’ liberties and Constitutional rights like the Obama administration has done.



Department of Housing and Urban Development:  None
This is a department whose tasks are better and more efficiently handled at the state level, if even necessary then for some smaller states.  Cutting this department is the first step to trimming federal government largess and returning to a constitutional governance accordingly.

Department of Transportation:  Marion Blakey
Ms. Blakey as the CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association would be a dynamic and innovative leader for this department.  She would bring true usefulness to it and ensure tax payer dollars for transportation were used wisely accordingly.



Department of Energy:  None
Disband this department which was created during the Carter Administration to supposedly wean us off of foreign sources of oil and energy.  Obviously this is a goal at which it has failed horribly.  Return the nuclear regulatory functions to where they once were administered with the Navy, and return all other required functions to the states where necessary.

Department of Education:  None
Again, eliminate this department and return funding to the individual states where they can better and more efficiently administer to the educational needs of their students.

Department of Veterans Affairs:  Allen West
Colonel Allen West would do an exemplary job looking out for the needs of our veterans, just as he did when he was in the Army.  His integrity and devotion to his troops would be well utilized here in serving those that have sacrificed so much to protect America.



Department of Homeland Security:  Rudy Giuliani
Unlike the lip-service paid to security by Janet Napolitano, Mr. Giuliani understands the ramifications of it better than nearly anybody else in the country.  His management skills and no-nonsense demeanor would actually improve our national security without infringing on more of our constitutional rights.


 
Now I am sure that my recommendation of many of the good folks on this list will cause many of our liberal friends to blow an aneurysm.  That said, it is my opinion that these folks I have chosen are serious people whom are well qualified and would do admirable jobs in each of their positions instead of merely being assigned for political patronage or to make the cabinet appear to meet some politically correct standard.  I have no illusions that some of these people will ever be asked, or that they will necessarily accept the appointment if asked.  I certainly don’t expect  that some departments will be eliminated, although if Romney wins by as large of a margin as I suspect he might, there will be no better time to get rid of these unnecessary and extra-constitutional departments.  We shall see very soon what the future will hold.  In the meantime, I think I will forward my list to Governor Romney just in case he needs some better suggestions. 

67 comments:

Steve Finnell said...

you are invited to follow my blog

covnitkepr1 said...

Love your selection of books on your bookshelf.
I write and maintain a blog which I have entitled “Accordingtothebook” and I’d like to invite you to follow it.. I’m your newest follower.

Dave Dubya said...

Quite the rogues gallery of anti-working class, science denying, corporatists. If I believed what you do, I'd agree... ;)

T. Paine said...

Dave, I would have been horribly disappointed had you responded any other way. The fact that you think they are all rogues tells me that I did indeed make the correct choices for defending the constitution, capitalism, and the republic.

Jerry Critter said...

Based on Romney's answers during the last debate on foreign policy, I think he will try to keep Clinton on as Secretary of State. He seemed to be pretty happy with our current foreign policies.

T. Paine said...

That's pretty funny Jerry. Unfortunately, there is too much of an element of truth to your statement too, based on that last debate. I have faith that at the end of the day, Romney will choose more wisely for the State Department though.

Jerry Critter said...

I think you are giving Romney a lot more conservative credibility than he deserves. His positions have been all over the place depending on who he is trying to appeal to at the moment, and if you look at what he has actually done as opposed to what he says, he has governed from a very moderate position. After all, he is the grandfather of Obamacare, if not a direct parent.

FandB said...

That's pretty good Jerry Critter, you hit three of Obama's current talking points in one paragraph!

Good lap-dog shill, pat, pat, pat...

Dave Dubya said...

HA. Shill projection.

Anonymous said...

"anti-working class, science denying, corporatists"

After 4 years of Obama's failed Keynesian approach and "despite an $830 billion stimulus and increased annual spending, the economic recovery is the weakest in post-World War II history", liberals like Dave still think we should follow the current policy that does not, has not and will not work? And that's the direction Dave, you think that will be better for the working class (with 35 million unemployed and millions more underemployed, I'd like to know who the working class are?)? I'm still looking for a honest answer to what happen in Libya on 9/11 from a liberal and you're critical of the possible Cabinet makeup? Head in sand much?

Jerry Critter said...

They may be "current talking points, but I notice that you did not dispute them. Must be because they are true!

T. Paine said...

I think most progressives worship at the altar of John Maynard Keynes, despite the fact that his gospel has been proven to be the tome of a false religion. I think our friend Dubya would call those acolytes of his "True Believers" if only they were blindly following such a demonstrably failed path of someone on the right.

John Myste said...

Jerry,

I assume you are referring to Romney Debate Number III, where Romney would do exactly what Obama did regarding foreign policy. He would do this to correct Obama's failing foreign policy, as he calls it.

However, Romney the Second, as I will call the one we saw in Debate Number II, would do things differently: he would exclude the world in decision making: U.S. vs the World, instead of U.S. vs. terrorism, etc. Romney II is a dangerous man.

Romney Original, the governor of MA, was not really that bad. However, from Romney I forward, I don't care for his rolling back of federal Romney Care, which is a failed concept that cannot possibly work, per him.

I do appreciate his record balancing budgets, though (the Olympics, which was essentially bailed out and he managed the bail out, or MA where state law requires the budget be balanced, impressive).

Oh, but his record on Education is pretty good. MA was number 1 when he took office!!!! Yes!!! He did that (before he took office, clearly, when it was done).

Mr. Paine,

As for choices, they are the pits. Libertarians are liars of the worst kind, so on that basis alone, I reject them. You want too many.

Additionally, you chose Rick Perry, who is suffering some kind of dementia, which is nuts!

I did notice you posted an old picture, per-dimentia, which I think was clever.

Over-all, I like your cabinet choices, as they will ensure a short GOP life in the White House. Pack it with crazies and it will be rejected faster.

One more problem, though: Romney does not have a cabinet and so far as I can tell will not!

T. Paine said...

John, I have missed you, buddy! That said, if Romney is not afforded the chance to appoint Libertarian crazies or anyone else for that matter to cabinet positions, then it really won’t matter anymore. Four more years of Obama and there won’t be an America left for the next president to have to worry about cabinet appointments. We are on the cliff precipice right now. Romney was nowhere near my first choice to fix matters for some of the very reasons that you and Jerry point out accordingly, but I am going to have to dance with the one that done brung me. If Romney doesn’t win and thus have us conservatives influence him into using his power for good over progressivism… errr.. I meant over evil, then the dollar will be an oddity four years from now, much like the non-existent USSR Ruble is today.

John Myste said...

John, I have missed you, buddy!

I have been busy as hell and have not had time to spit.

John Myste said...

Four more years of Obama and there won’t be an America left for the next president to have to worry about cabinet appointments

America is basically in the same state it would have been in if Bush had continued on. Little difference in policy or action. Obama Care has not destroyed the nation and other than that Bush lead the way for the Obama Administration so I have no idea what you are talking about.

If Romney doesn’t win and thus have us conservatives influence him into using his power for good over progressivism… errr.. I meant over evil, then the dollar will be an oddity four years from now, much like the non-existent USSR Ruble is today.

Can you use your faith for good instead of for BS? Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste, I must be sick because I have missed your humorous sarcasm… box of choc’lates included. That said, I agree with your statement about Bush. I don’t know why everyone thinks that I supported Bush’s domestic policies when I have been decrying them for half a dozen years or more now. As for Obamacare, my health insurance has increased dramatically. Objective studies have shown that the average cost of health insurance has gone up $2500 per family. Obama promised that it would go down that much if we passed his monstrosity. The scary thing is that the hydra of Obamacare has not even been fully implemented yet. It will destroy our health care system. As for my ruble analogy, I will make a concerted effort to refrain from using it again in your presence unless Obama does win again and things head further south. Then I will be obliged to tell you that I told you so. Being the wicked smart guy that you are, I am curious how you will spin your response then, my friend.

Just the Facts! said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just the Facts! said...

"America is basically in the same state it would have been in if Bush had continued on."

Please support this claim with the name of your physic friend.

FandB said...

Paine: "The scary thing is that the hydra of Obamacare has not even been fully implemented yet. It will destroy our health care system."

That is really the whole intent of Obamacare - to destroy the current health care system. Then it will be taken over by the government. Not just a single-payer insurance system, but the entire system. Doctors, nurses, hospital administrators will be federal employees - the federal government will be in the health care business. Oil companies will be next, and so on. Obama's distorted "Dreams" of American socialism that he learned from his fathers.

John Myste said...

Just,

"America is basically in the same state it would have been in if Bush had continued on."

Please support this claim with the name of your physic friend.


The Bush policies are still being used; ergo, …

Thanks for playing.

John Myste said...

That is really the whole intent of Obamacare - to destroy the current health care system.

Nefarious! Thanks for arriving at the most rational conclusion possible. None of the rest of us would ever have thought of that (and I mean that).

T. Paine said...

FandB: That is really the whole intent of Obamacare - to destroy the current health care system. Then it will be taken over by the government.

Paine: Yep, you are absolutely correct. Further, Obama even admitted to this fact years ago. He stated that it was politically impossible to implement a single-payer system in one fell swoop, so his plan was to incrementally implement this unconstitutional monstrosity. It goes back to the analogy of slowly cooking the frog so it won’t know it is being cooked, rather than just throwing the frog in the boiling pot. The end result is the same: cooked frog. That said, Mr. Myste, you are wrong sir. Others of us that have been paying attention did arrive at this rational conclusion of Obama wanting to destroy the American health care system as it currently exists. It didn’t take much detective work, despite the sycophantic mainstream media covering for our General Secretary of the Politburo. After all, like I said, Obama told us that was his plan all along. It simply was not broadcasted to the masses. Frog legs anyone?

Jerry Critter said...

"Obama wanting to destroy the American health care system as it currently exists"

The current system is not working. Why not destroy it?

Dave Dubya said...

Nice to see your love of war-mongering Neocons is still there. John "Let's go to war with Iran" Bolton would lie us into more wars, like his fellow PNAC neocons lied us into Iraq.

We got lots of cash on hand, or to borrow, for that, right? Just as long as we never ask another dime from the rich is all that matters.

Good thoughtful choice there.

$2500 per family. Obama promised that it would go down that much if we passed his monstrosity.

As my request was ignored last thread, please show us a quote from Obama of that “promise”, especially relating to the present health care law.

intent of Obamacare - to destroy the current health care system. Then it will be taken over by the government. Not just a single-payer insurance system, but the entire system. Doctors, nurses, hospital administrators will be federal employees - the federal government will be in the health care business. Oil companies will be next, and so on.

My, it must be pretty slick out there on that slippery slope fallacy world. Once again, I marvel at how radical Right Winger’s predictions and assertions are taken as absolute infallible truth.

Of course the actual truth is insurance companies run out health care payment system, after skimming huge amounts of money that could otherwise go to health care, for their middle-man “services”. Now the radical Right wants to give our Social Security and Medicare dollars to CEO’s and shareholders who provide zero health care.

Private profit at public cost is their plan in all matters. Serving the interests of the rich is what they are obviously about.

Some “representational republic” there. No need for democracy in their corporatocracy.

Note how they love to bitch about “too big to fail” banks, and yet they want to turn over our public health, safety nets, and retirement to what would become “too big to fail”, and unaccountable, insurance companies.

What a deal!

T. Paine said...

Jerry, the health care system needed to be fixed. Destroying it and replacing it with a worse iteration of health care helps nobody, sir.

John Myste said...

FandB: That is really the whole intent of Obamacare - to destroy the current health care system. Then it will be taken over by the government.

Jesus! The only thing crazier than crazy is crazy validating it!

That said, Mr. Paine, I do agree, and have stated many times, that I don't think Obama is a fan of Obama Care, and that he only created it to take us toward Universal Healthcare, which he could not do in one step. Once Obama Care is accepted, then slowly getting the government to cover the portion normally covered by the Individual Mandate is possible.

Obama is a wise visionary, akin to the great ones, such as FDR.

Jerry Critter said...

Destroy or change, same thing, you end up with a different system.

A worse iteration is simply your opinion.

T. Paine said...

John, you are a very interesting gentleman. You claim that crazy is stating crazy and being validated by crazy, and then you turn around and pretty much agree with what crazy originally stated about Obama’s desire to incrementally put a universal healthcare system in place. That is crazy!

As for Obama being on par with historical progressive visionaries, I would concur. Put him up in the pantheon along with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx. Why we could even make a progressive Mt. Rushmore of these titans of progressivism. I suggest we find a suitable mountain range to begin construction on this fitting monument immediately! We could then tout the jobs it would create! In keeping with Obama’s current governance, does Brazil have mountains? If not, China would work too.

T. Paine said...

Jerry: Destroy or change, same thing, you end up with a different system. A worse iteration is simply your opinion.

Paine: Respectfully, when costs go up dramatically, like mine have, and the quality of care and accessibility already have gotten worse, I think it is not just my opinion that this iteration is worse. If I weren’t so lazy and had other things to do, I could provide you many links to objective sources that would substantiate my claims.

John Myste said...

Mr. Paine,

You are right, damn it. I guess I did not view it in that context. He DOES want to replace the current healthcare system. I took the term "destroy" and ran with it.

Destroy is not the correct term to use (contextually), but I guess I do primarily agree with crazy in this case.

FandB said...

I would tend to agree with Myste on that last point . . . it is not so much about destroy as replace, or maybe even more accurately, government take-over.

But I have a somewhat related question for the liberals here. If there was a guy in high school who decided it was more fun to drink and get high rather than going to class every day, but he was smart enough and showed up for tests every now and then and managed to squeak through high school and graduate with a c-minus or D average, or maybe he got fed up and just dropped out. Later, he was unable to get into a college due to his high school record. He found menial labor jobs but rarely stayed for long because he wasn't going to work for "the man." But he made enough money to keep a small apartment and a little food on the table. Then there was another guy who worked his ass off in high school, got excellent grades, got into a great college, and eventually got a great job that paid very well. He bought a nice house and lived well.

In the liberals' minds, is the first guy entitled to: (1) the same rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.?, (2) the same type of housing as the second?, (3) the same type of car as the second guy?, (4) the same kinds of food, nights out on the town, restaurants, etc. as the second guy, and (5) the same level and quality of health care as the second guy.

I'm really just curious how liberals would view these two scenarios.

Dave Dubya said...

the polls are skewed,

Except the ones that show Romney ahead, right?

This is a handy fallback in the theology, much like the "liberal media" assertion, when reality presents a different picture from the dogma.

Also, when the Diebold (R) machines are done, reality will have been skewed....again.

HR, What kind of question are you asking? Are you so ill-informed or prejudiced as to think liberals believe bums deserve mansions??

At first I thought you were portraying our previous less-than-scholarly president, given a collegiate boost by legacy.

Just to be sporting, especially so since nobody ever answers my above request for a quote from Obama pertaining to what we call Obamacare, I'll answer.

Here you go: Yes, No, No, No, Yes.

Are you suggesting wealth entitles people to more or greater Bill of Rights protections? And wealth entitles them to the best health care, while the poor should have none, if that's all they can afford?

And you wonder why I use the term "aristocratic' for your masters.

John Myste said...

F and B,

But I have a somewhat related question for the liberals here. If there was a guy in high school who decided it was more fun to drink and get high rather than going to class every day, but he was smart enough and showed up for tests every now and then and managed to squeak through high school and graduate with a c-minus or D average, or maybe he got fed up and just dropped out.

Ok, following. You have essentially described President Bush.

Later, he was unable to get into a college due to his high school record.

Oops. You can get into college with a C-Average.

In the liberals' minds, is the first guy entitled to: (1) the same rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc.?,

Yes.

(2) the same type of housing as the second?

N/A. Type of housing is not an entitlement and should not be.

(3) the same type of car as the second guy?

N/A. Neither guy is entitled to any specific kind of car. Therefore one cannot be entitled to the same as the other.

4) the same kinds of food, nights out on the town, restaurants, etc. as the second guy

N/A. Like most liberals I don’t consider these entitlements for either guy.

(5) the same level and quality of health care as the second guy.

I would like to see both insured a minimum standard. Of course, the rich guy could get better than that standard.

Your argument makes two false assumptions:

1. Universal Healthcare seeks to make all services of any kind free and readily available, from breast enhancement to nose jobs to cancer surgery.

2. Poor people are poor because they are lazy or shiftless.

You are trying to prove your conclusions based on the false assumptions of your philosophy that you take as axiomatic. I reject your faith entirely and any evidence you base upon it. If you want to have this type of discussion, you must first convert me to your faith, which is a tall order.

Jerry Critter said...

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No, but he is entitled to a minimum level of care. The other guy can afford to pay for better care off he chooses.

What are your answers FandB?

John Myste said...

Jerry,

The questions were designed as a trap based on false assumptions about liberal philosophy. Conservatives don't understand liberal philosophy, which is one of the big reasons they have such a hard time debating against it. The entire discussion becomes an attempt to rebut a philosophy that conservatives know about and don't like and that most liberals have never considered.

T. Paine said...

Although I am not a liberal, I will answer FandB’s interesting questions too. 1.) Absolutely yes. ALL Americans are entitled to the first amendment rights of free speech and religion, despite Obama’s plans to take that freedom of religion away through HHS mandates. 2.) No, however society should strive to help the homeless through charitable contributions; NOT through government programs. 3.) No. 4.) No 5.) No. Each individual should be responsible for himself and his basic needs. He shouldn’t be getting government sponsored home loans he cannot afford from Fannie or Freddie. He shouldn’t be getting subsidized cars purchased for him via cash for clunkers. He should not be getting free Obama-phones. He should, however, be afforded necessary emergency medical care, if he cannot afford it himself. More comprehensive medical care is not a right.

FandB said...

No, no trap was intended. Just trying to understand the really scary and contorted liberal mind ;-)

Oddly enough Mr. Critter, I would answer just about the same way you did. Or maybe somewhere between you and Mr. Paine.

1) Absolutely Yes
2) No
3) No
4) No
5) No, but entitled to emergency care and a minimal level of preventive care, generally available in this area through free clinics and other free services. The second guy should be able to pay for the best care available if he chooses.

We have to be responsible for the decisions we make and where that gets us in life. People who work hard and get ahead should be able to, i.e. are entitled to, have a bigger house, etc. up to and including better access to more comprehensive healthcare.

PS. It was kind of humorous that some thought I was talking about President Bush.

Jerry Critter said...

Welcome to the progressive cause, FandB. See, deep in the heart of a conservative, a progressive is waiting to burst out.

John Myste said...

Jerry, the majority of the conservatives debate against liberalism is a philosophy that liberals tend not to hold. I rarely hear a conservative debate a liberal's philosophy. It would be fascinating to hear, though.

Jerry Critter said...

True, John.

Just the Facts! said...

"Conservatives don't understand liberal philosophy" Then why don't you enlighten us, explain it to us.

T. Paine said...

Jerry said, “See, deep in the heart of a conservative, a progressive is waiting to burst out.”

That must explain why I have heart burn so dang often! Does that mean Prilosec will cure progressivism? If that is the case, President Romney needs to make an HHS mandate. Instead of free contraception, we all need free acid blockers! 


JTF said, "Conservatives don't understand liberal philosophy" Then why don't you enlighten us, explain it to us.

Paine says: NO JTF! Don’t ask that, please! Liberal philosophy is a nonsensical mess. It involves such silly notions as those that earn their own money are greedy, but those that don’t work and want the money of others redistributed to them are not greedy. It involves looking to the government first and foremost for every problem that occurs in one’s life, despite the fact that the government is often the most incompetent, ineffective, and inefficient way to solve nearly any problem. It involves the very best of intentions for the common good without any reasonable or workable solutions to actually attain such a society. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the equal sharing of misery for all. That is liberalism in a nut shell!

Jerry Critter said...

:)

T. Paine said...

John, I took the time to read Emerson’s Self-Reliance to see what so enamored you with it. I must confess that I have never read something with which I agree and disagree more, often at the changing of the very next line in a paragraph. The man was a brilliant idiot-savant. Either that, or I am simply an idiot. Either could very easily be true.

Annie said...

Well chosen sir.

Just the Facts! said...

"liberalism in a nut shell, is the equal sharing of misery for all"

Thank you TP, I withdraw my request.

FandB said...

No need to be insulting Jerry Critter.

;-)

John Myste said...

Mr. Paine, I am proud of you for taking the time to read it. Of course, much of it was an indictment of organized religion, which I knew would not sit well with you. However, religion, per se, was not his target. He only intended to target thought that is fed to a human by an organized group, causing him to suspend his own reason. Religious doctrine happens to be one such thing, but it applies to political doctrine also.

Don't feel bad toward Emerson. He is one of my favorite purple thinkers; yet even I engaged in a long debate about modern terrorism once.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Re:
"Nonsensical mess"

I must thank you for so generously illustrating Mr. Myste's point about your understanding of liberal philosophy.

If you were correct then I would hereby disavow my liberal philosophy.

Thank you.

...

Oops. Now I'm adrift. Now I require extensive indoctrination to accept your belief in your "pantheon along with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx".

I guess I'm a moderate at heart.

In that case, I must vote for President Obama for the reasons fellow moderate Colin Powell gave.

"When he took over, the country was in very very difficult straits. We were in the one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression. The fiscal system was collapsing. Wall Street was in chaos, we had 800,000 jobs lost in that first month of the Obama administration and unemployment peaked a few months later at 10 percent. So we were in real trouble. The auto industry was collapsing, the housing was start[ing] to collapse and we were in very difficult straits. And I saw over the next several years, stabilization come back in the financial community, housing is now starting to pick up after four years, it's starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising.

Generally we've come out of the dive and we're starting to gain altitude."


I concur, but not with Sununu's justification, BTW, since I am not black. I'm not all white though, if that helps...

T. Paine said...

Dave, I gave my thesis on liberal philosophy somewhat tongue in cheek for humor’s sake. Of course for humor to be funny there must be an element of truth in it. That said, I was damned funny!

And as far as you being a moderate at heart, well sure you are. In a world where Barack Obama is considered to be a center-leftist by most progressives, you most certainly must be a moderate.

As for Colin Powell, his appointment to Secretary of State under Bush was the first major sign to me that Bush was not a true conservative. Powell is a classic old-school Democrat in temperament. He is most certainly not a traditional Republican. The fact that he voted for Obama over McCain and then gave that silly quotation you quoted proves my assertion. Like most liberals, I suspect he was more enamored by Obama’s lofty rhetoric and skin color rather than anything of substance, not that there was anything of substance for which one could be enamored with Obama. Sadly, after four years in office, the same holds exactly true.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste, I think Emerson is fascinating in many ways, even though I don’t share his sentiments regarding “organized religion”. That said, I think it is presumptuous of anyone to assume the Catholic Church is organized. From what I do know of Emerson, I think characterizing him as a “purple thinker” is quite apropos. I do appreciate you bringing his frustrating essay to my attention, sir.

Dave Dubya said...

TP:
Thank you for clarifying your tongue in cheek humor. You may understand our difficulty in separating exaggeration based humor from opinion. I mean wacky statements like Obama being in “the pantheon along with Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Lenin, Stalin, and Marx” simply cannot be taken seriously, so we get the humor there.

And you wouldn’t really believe liberals want to destroy capitalism and democracy. Because unlike Lenin and Stalin, Democrats support constitutional democracy and regulated capitalism. And of course you clearly see the unbridgeable gap between progressives and Soviet Communists. Just as we liberals see the difference between Bush and fascists. I mean, apart from launching wars of aggression based on fabrications and a fondness for torture.

Perhaps there’s no cause for confusion on your assessment of Powell. Moderates agree he is an old school Republican like Eisenhower. If you didn’t think so, you would be way off on what traditional Republicans were. Even your Saint Reagan compromised. He would be a RINO today, like Powell.

These days the GOP is not old school. It is infected with teabaggers and other non-compromising ideologues. One could possibly think “true conservatives” are like Beck and Limbaugh, but we can now consider this also tongue in cheek.

Likewise confusion about Powell could be found in this: ”Like most liberals, I suspect he was more enamored by Obama’s lofty rhetoric and skin color rather than anything of substance,”

Is this some kind of joke, too? I t must be. Although perhaps a bit less tasteful than the others.

You would be taking the same racist tack Sununu spewed. That would be like you voting for Romney because he’s white.

But that would be ridiculous, right? Not that I’m calling you a racist, but that kind of talk comes from a racist perspective. We can easily imagine that quote from a Klansman. Not that I’m calling you a Klansman. I would agree low information black voters may vote for Obama based on race. Why wouldn’t they? But Powell is not a low information voter. And he is not a liberal, as we all know.

Powell is indeed a moderate. He seems liberal perhaps only to the far Right fringe, what you may tongue and cheek call “true conservatives”, I suppose.

If Obama gets 50% of the votes, that obviously means moderates support him.

You may be closer to reality with this than you think on this:

”In a world where Barack Obama is considered to be a center-leftist by most progressives, you most certainly must be a moderate.”

Center left is exactly where many moderates, liberals... and the world perceive Obama being, at least on domestic issues. Although he’s not such a liberal on foreign policy. Romney seemed to agree with Obama on everything.

The world knows it could be worse.

They know that the Neocons behind Romney would take us to more war.

In fact, I’ve seen polls reporting every country in the world except Pakistan would prefer Obama over Romney. (They, of course, take Romney at his word about incursion into Pakistan at their own peril.)

This illustrates that fact that almost the entire world stands opposed to the American far Right.

And it would not be healthy for our democracy, economy or freedom for the far Right minority to take power.

It would be Bush on steroids and a war of aggression would surely be in our near future.

Maybe we can agree to put a little “;-)” after our tongue in cheek, sarcastic, or otherwise in-jest comments, just to help us from misconstruing anything.

What do you think? ;-)

Jerry Critter said...

Teabaggers approach their conservatism like a fundamentalist approaches his religion. If you don't believe the same as they do, you are evil and one should never compromise with evil.

That may work in religion, but it does not work,in government.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
You're either with us or against us.

T. Paine said...

Dubya: And you wouldn’t really believe liberals want to destroy capitalism and democracy. Because unlike Lenin and Stalin, Democrats support constitutional democracy and regulated capitalism. And of course you clearly see the unbridgeable gap between progressives and Soviet Communists. Just as we liberals see the difference between Bush and fascists. I mean, apart from launching wars of aggression based on fabrications and a fondness for torture.

Paine: Indeed I see a difference between progressives and the Soviets. While the modern progressive claims a love for democracy and regulated capitalism, one does wonder why the seeming contradiction when many policies (particularly those that infringe on essential liberties) are put in place via executive order rather than by legislation through our duly elected congress. Further, why the contradiction for a progressive’s love of regulated capitalism, unless it happens to be a large corporation involved that is actually making a profit? We cannot have that! At least not unless they are in need of a bailout and their remaining assets can be transferred to the common worker instead of the bondholders. You are right though. Unlike the Soviets, the modern progressive has not rounded up its own people and executed them… yet. :)



Dubya: Perhaps there’s no cause for confusion on your assessment of Powell. Moderates agree he is an old school Republican like Eisenhower. If you didn’t think so, you would be way off on what traditional Republicans were. Even your Saint Reagan compromised. He would be a RINO today, like Powell.

Paine: Anyone that can bridge the gap and vote for the policies of the modern day Democratic party and yet still claim to be a Republican in one’s philosophy is either ignorant, stupid, or duplicitous. There is a huge difference in what the two parties stand for and to be able to support a typical progressive Democrat today means that you were not really beholden to the platform of the Republican party from the beginning. By the way, compromise is not necessarily a dirty word, assuming one isn’t compromising on core values. That said, Reagan and Powell are very unlike each other in political ideology.



Dubya: These days the GOP is not old school. It is infected with teabaggers and other non-compromising ideologues. One could possibly think “true conservatives” are like Beck and Limbaugh, but we can now consider this also tongue in cheek.

Paine: I really despise the disgusting and vile moniker of “teabagger”. Of course that is why you and the left uses the term. Ironically, I suspect that most true teabaggers in the literal and not political definition of the word would actually be partisan Democrats in temperament. Of course we do have the log cabin Republicans, so that is not an all-inclusive constituency. One wonders why the vehemence and venom from the left towards TEA PARTY members that simply want government to remain within its constitutional confines and to be fiscally responsible with the tax payer dollars. Are those things really such an anathema to the left?

T. Paine said...

Dubya: …That would be like you voting for Romney because he’s white.

Paine: Nope. I don’t even consider color when voting. In fact, I voted for a black man for president long before I ever had heard the name Barak Obama. I voted for him because he was the best and most qualified man at that time. Instead we got George W. Bush for president. That said, I KNOW many folks that voted for Obama because he was black. This includes many celebrities etc. Since Colin Powell professes to be a Republican and everything that Obama espoused as a candidate was contrary to Republicanism, I simply assumed that Powell voted for him because of his color. Perhaps I am wrong on that measure. Like I said, Powell really isn’t a Republican in ideology, so he may have simply voted his conscience. Either way, he is not a Republican except in name only.


Dubya: If Obama gets 50% of the votes, that obviously means moderates support him.

Paine: Even if Obama wins reelection, God help America, he will not do so with over 50% of the votes. (Just a prediction here…)


Dubya: You may be closer to reality with this than you think on this: ”In a world where Barack Obama is considered to be a center-leftist by most progressives, you most certainly must be a moderate.”

Paine: Dave, I was being VERY sarcastic with that statement. Obama was rated as the most liberal member of the senate before being elected. Obama is hardly near the center on any issue. Your partisan blinders must be on if you think otherwise, my friend.


Dubya: Center left is exactly where many moderates, liberals... and the world perceive Obama being, at least on domestic issues. Although he’s not such a liberal on foreign policy. Romney seemed to agree with Obama on everything.

Paine: That is because “moderates” and liberals have bought into Obama’s rhetoric of being a centrist without actually having paid attention to any of his contradictory actions evidently.


Dubya: They know that the Neocons behind Romney would take us to more war.

Paine: I am confident that we will not go to war unless attacked or are in imminent danger of being attacked under President Romney. That includes any war with Iran.


Dubya: In fact, I’ve seen polls reporting every country in the world except Pakistan would prefer Obama over Romney. (They, of course, take Romney at his word about incursion into Pakistan at their own peril.)

Paine: Who conducted the poll? Mother Jones? Regardless, I am sure a lot of the tyrants and dictators of the world do indeed prefer Obama over Romney. They have no fear whatsoever of Obama. When Obama gets into a fight, he leads from behind after all. Besides, I am certain that many of our allies are very disappointed with Obama and would rather have Romney as our president. Poland and the Czech Republic immediately spring to mind, as Obama reneged on putting our theater missile defense system in those countries for their and Europe’s protection. I dare say that England would greatly prefer Romney, as would allies such as Taiwan and South Korea. I KNOW Israel doesn’t trust Obama and wants a dependable ally in America once again. So only the rising dictators and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists with the “Arab Spring” countries support Obama. They know they are safe with him as commander in chief. I think you need to check your sources, Dave!

T. Paine said...

Jerry: Teabaggers approach their conservatism like a fundamentalist approaches his religion. If you don't believe the same as they do, you are evil and one should never compromise with evil. That may work in religion, but it does not work,in government.

Paine: There’s that disgusting pejorative again. That aside, if one does not espouse to a moral relativism and actually holds true to core principles, why would one compromise on those? Yes, people should be open to compromise and work together with civility in congress etc. but not at the expense of core principles. Working and giving in on issues that one might not agree with, but aren’t contrary to one’s basic beliefs, is fine. That is what is necessary sometimes to move the game forward. Neither side seems very willing to do so though. And frankly that confounds me somewhat when it comes to progressives since we know they don’t hold any core principles in which they might compromise! Just kidding! :)



Dubya: Jerry, You're either with us or against us.

Paine: DAVE! How intolerant of you! :)

Jerry Critter said...

NEVER to raise taxes is not a core principle.

T. Paine said...

Jerry: NEVER to raise taxes is not a core principle.

Paine: Indeed, and I would agree with that. I look at taxes as a necessary evil. I have no problem with reasonable taxes to fund those items that the federal government is CONSTITUTIONALLY authorized to do. Extra-constitutional and un-constitutional expenditures should not be funded. Raising taxes for those is an anathema to liberty accordingly. We should be cutting that spending rather than raising more taxes to fund what should not be funded in the first place, sir.

Dave Dubya said...

TP.
I don’t know a single progressive who supports executive orders infringing any person’s liberties. Yet you believe that is our dogma?

Powell is indeed a moderate. Perhaps you’re too young to remember Eisenhower. The teabaggers are a primary reason the GOP has drifted to the far Right. The last of the moderate Republicans have told us so as they left the party.

Your manufactured outrage over the term is silly. Just like it’s silly for those wearing costumes dangling teabags and holding signs urging people to “tea bag the Democrats” getting annoyed at being called teabaggers. The term was even embraced by many teabaggers and put on t-shirts. It the teabag fits...

But that didn’t stop racist teabaggers from calling Democrats worse names.

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/tea-partiers-menace-congressional-dems-namecalling-nier-fagt/

A swarm of health care protesters, many holding Tea Party signs, heckled members of Congress with racial epithets and abusive language as the House votes on health care reform.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," causing the surrounding crowd to erupt in laughter. A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said a protester spat on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement, was called a "nigger."
Although Frank shrugged off the incident, Clyburn was shocked and told reporters that he hadn't experienced such treatment since leading protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.


So ,in reality I suspect that most true teabaggers in the literal and not political definition of the word would .. bag tea.

That should settle the matter.

Dave Dubya said...

I don’t even consider color when voting.

Yet you presume such for a moderate Black man.... There’s really no good argument here for you. I suggest you consider the possibility Powell is indeed a moderate. It is safer to call him a RINO, although he would promptly educate you on some history.

I am confident that we will not go to war.

Just as I am confident Neocons are warmongers. As with Iraq, so goes Iran. Google Bolton on Iran...

Obama was rated as the most liberal member of the senate before being elected. Obama is hardly near the center on any issue.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Obama was not more liberal than Bernie Sanders. I think Russ Feingold was more liberal too. But it was good fear-baiting to the far Right base. On Foreign policy Obama is center/Right. He voted for Bush’s FISA amendment for Pete’s sake. That alone is far from liberal. That was completely over to the Right. Partisan blinders are what you see through in your bubble.

Obama the candidate did talk the progressive talk in order to win the left, but ask any leftist if Obama governs from the left. Yes, he did advocate some progressive legislation like equal pay for women, college loans without bankster middlemen and such. But for every one of those, there’s corporatist appeasement of Wall Street, calling for lower corporate tax rates, etc.

In reality he is a moderate. This is plainly evident if seen without blinders. But you are on the far Right and through those partisan blinders is how you must see it.

I said, I’ve seen polls reporting every country in the world except Pakistan would prefer Obama over Romney.

That was an exaggeration, not every country was polled.

Who conducted the poll? Mother Jones?...blah blah, GOP talking point, blah, GOP talking point.

That would be the BBC. And they didn’t poll dictators. I apologize for not linking, but for your edification, here:

A BBC World Service opinion poll has found sharply higher overseas approval ratings for US President Barack Obama than Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Check it out. Most of the world doesn't buy into your FOX(R) perspective.

I am certain that many of our allies are very disappointed with Obama and would rather have Romney as our president.

As we know, you are “certain” about most all of your beliefs. And typically as mistaken in them.

I think you need to check your sources, Dave!

Good idea:

The counties you mentioned that were polled:

Poland: Obama by 2:1
UK: Obama by 7:1
South Korea: Obama by 6:1

There was an Israeli poll that found a preference for Romney....Conducted with 601 respondents....all Jews, so this is not representative for all Israelis.

FandB said...

Dubya, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen. First, this country does not care who foreign nationals prefer in the U.S. Presidential race any more than they care who Americans think should lead their countries.

Second, the whole concept is rubbish anyway. I deal with people from these countries every single day, and a half dozen other countries on top of that. This includes mainly the more educated people: business people, engineers, bankers, etc. For most of them, they only know about Obama, the next U.S. President they would likely be able to name would be Reagan, and Bush after that. One of my colleagues from Brazil recently asked if I would be voting for Obama. I laughed and told him I would not. He said that everyone in Brazil loves Obama, but when I asked, he could not name Obama's opponent.

I guess that shouldn't be surprising though, from some of the man-on-the-street interviews I have seen, a fair percentage of Obama's supporters in this country also can't name Obama's opponent.

LMAO at one guy who thought Obama's opponent was Biden and that Ryan was Obama's current V.P.

Dave Dubya said...

F&B,

Dubya, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen.

It’s not an argument. It is a fact based statement that corrected TP’s assertion. No wonder you think it’s ridiculous.

You’re right to be concerned about voter ignorance. A rather large percentage of Republican voters still think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim

Not a laughing matter, but it seems to be the way you guys like it.

T. Paine said...

FandB, that is indeed an interesting perspective which I had not originally considered regarding foreign nationals and their ignorance regarding our election. Like you said, 40% of Americans are ignorant about Obama and his reign of destruction. Why wouldn't the rest of the world be the same?

John Myste said...

Obama and his reign of destruction.

Try not to be such a damn drama queen.

Republicans act like Bush was ending America and democrats act like Obama is.

Neither side is rational. People were saying the same things during the 50's and 60's about candidates they did not like and people will be making the same absurd assertions about America 100 years from now (so far as we know).

It will not be America that ends America's supremacy. It will be some other nation or group of nations.

T. Paine said...

John, this is my blog kingdom, and I can act like the drama queen if I so choose! :)

And I totally disagree with you, John. It will not be another nation that will end ours. The only way America will cease to be is by Americans’ apathy, ignorance, and foolishness. We will see tomorrow whether common sense still prevails in enough people to stave this off for awhile longer.