Romney-Ryan 2012

20 Aug

It has a fantastically polished sound to it: Romney-Ryan, 2012.  Now that Conservare’s prophetic calls over the last couple of months for a Romney-Ryan ticket have been legitimated, it is time to unpack what this pick means in the race for the White House.

There is perhaps no word that better describes what Paul Ryan provides for the Romney campaign than ‘versatility.’  A Ryan running mate gives Mitt Romney the legitimacy to argue a whole host of issues where he previously lacked authenticity.  This pick says we all really need to start listening to what Mitt Romney is saying rather than trying to characterize every word that comes out of his mouth, sometimes even before he speaks them.  I absolutely love Jon Stewart, but he’s not very helpful here.

I get it… Romney does on occasion come off appearing standoffish and even insincere at times.  We all get this.  But this pick proves that Mitt Romney is serious about this country and is going to try his damnedest to fix what Barack Obama has only made worse.  Barack Obama has only himself to blame for his increasingly vulnerable reelection prospects resulting from his actions over the past four years, and has positioned some house and senate democrats very poorly for their prospects of reelection as well.

I never thought I would see a Republican presidential effort in my lifetime position itself to “protect and strengthen” Medicare.  Then again I never thought I would see a sitting Democratic President gut $716 billion dollars out of Medicare either.  This could be what political scientists call a Critical Re-alining Election or CRE.

We could be witnessing the genesis of a decades long ascension to power of a new amalgam of political ideology.  The dying days of the old, dogmatic political stasis in America will unfortunately have been presided over by Barack Obama.

History treats presidents who renounce their own ideologies on quintessential issues of the day with great odiousness.

For Richard Nixon, it was his abandonment of his conservative monetary policy in favor of more Keynesian approaches that triggered Milton Friedman’s 1965 “We are all Keynesians now” rebuke of Nixon.  These policies (along with that whole Watergate thing) doomed Ford’s reelection effort.  This ushered in Jimmy Carter and four years of Carter’s Malaise.  For George H. W. Bush, it was his retreat from his “No New Taxes” pledge that resulted in the demolition of his reelection campaign by Bill Clinton in 1992.

For Barack Obama, the sticking point will be his abandonment of his own ideology on the central issue of the day: entitlements.

Under ObamaCare, the president will siphon off $716 billion dollars from Medicare in order to pay for his government takeover of our healthcare system, thereby ending Medicare as our grandparents know it.  Enter Paul Ryan:

Just one day after Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate, the VP pick was on his way to Florida to explain to all those retirees what ObamaCare really does with Medicare, and how he and Mitt Romney have a plan to put in place that stops it.

As Karl Rove would say… the Romney team just “jujitsued” the Obama camp on Medicare.



11 Aug


Ignoring The VP Hype

24 Jul

After weeks of speculation, a few highly effective media head fakes by the Romney campaign, and coverages brought to us from a multitude of over-caffeinated journalists following the governor around, it looks like Mitt Romney will select his VP choice at some point after returning next week from meeting with some high profile world leaders overseas.

Governor Romney’s overseas tour includes visiting with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Polish PM Donald Tusk.  Romney will also attend the 2012 Summer Olympics for two days in London following his visit with Cameron.

After Romney returns to the U.S from Poland, the general expectation is that he will take a couple of days to nail down some details before making the official VP announcement.  I would like to take an opportunity while we have some time during the interim to explain why I believe a few high profile VP candidates floated to the media over the past few months will not be Romney’s choice.

I would also like to preface this review by saying that this is not an attempt to discredit any of these potential candidates in any way and that any one of them would make a superior president to Barack Obama.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Many conservatives, including those in the media like to believe that Marco Rubio is the new, refreshing young face of the Republican Party who possesses an insurmountable level of eloquence in his articulation for new ideas, and for this reason ought to be selected as the VP choice. There are some fundamental problems with a Romney-Rubio ticket that many people are overlooking, however.

First, this whole war on women debate is just a brush fire at this point in the campaign, but if it turns into a full blown forest fire, the Rubio pick becomes much less attractive to independents because of three words: The Blunt Amendment.

This was the controversial amendment put forth by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri that would have allowed employers to refuse health care coverage under ObamaCare to their employees for what the amendment specifically cited as “moral reasons.”  Translation: employers will not cover the cost of an abortion if they don’t want to, and all they have to do is cite moral reasons.

Even though this thing failed in the senate months ago, I keep trying to imagine the irony presented if BP, Walmart, or Nike were able to refuse health coverage to employees for moral reasons.

The problem is that Marco Rubio co-sponsored the bill with Senator Blunt, which could become an inflammatory issue for independents if the Obama campaign decides to double down on the war on women thing.

The second problem with Marco Rubio is his narrative.  Marco likes to exclaim as often as he can that he is the son of immigrant parents from Cuba, and gives the impression that in 1959 his mother and father fled the tyrannical grip of Fidel Castro’s regime in order to seek a better future in America.

The real story is that Rubio’s parents left Cuba in 1956, not 1959 and they did so in order to flee the American backed government of Fulgencio Batista who was not overthrown by Castro until 1959.

A third problem for Rubio is that he is too young and inexperienced.  Remember how conservatives tried to hammer Barack Obama for only being a one term senator?  Well Marco Rubio is a one term senator.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

This is easy.  40% of New Jersey Republicans say Chris Christie would be a bad choice for Vice President.  I’ll let that be the end of that discussion.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

If I could pick anybody in the country to be Mitt Romney’s running mate I would pick Mitch Daniels, and so would an abundance  of conservatives.  The problem is that Daniels simply won’t do it.  Potential VP choices always say they aren’t interested in the job, but rarely do they actually mean it.  Daniels on the other hand is that rare political specimen, a politician that means what he says.

Governor Daniels has just been selected by Purdue University to be its next president, a position that Daniels has fully accepted.  If there were a realistic chance he would accept the VP offer, there would have already been an entire article written solely on Mitch Daniels in Conservare.

Even if he begged, I don’t think Mitt Romney could get Daniels to change his mind and that’s a shame…



I will continue to advocate that in consideration of all the circumstances, for his VP choice Mitt Romney almost has to pick Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Senator Rob Portman of Ohio.

Although both potential VP candidates possess some degree of risk (Portman’s association with the Bush Administration, Ryan’s somewhat polarizing Path to Prosperity), Ryan and Portman both embody almost every quality you would seek in the Vice-President of the United States. This along with new polling data coming out of Wisconsin pushing that state into the battleground category, means both Portman and Ryan are from swing states.

The Veepstakes

18 Jul

Now that Governor Romney has locked up the Republican nomination for President, the focus turns to the potential candidates the “Mittster” will choose to be his vice-presidential running mate. So let’s take a look at the three candidates who I have identified to have the biggest bang for the buck and who are also most likely to be picked by Romney. In order of likelihood to be selected by the Governor:

1. Representative Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin – This pick would solidify the “jobs, jobs, jobs” message Romney has been preaching ever since this race got started. Romney has almost always been a solid supporter of the Ryan budget even when some fellow Republicans said it went too far. His likeability and sense of professional pragmatism will deliver the biggest contrasting message to President Obama.

2. Senator Rob Portman (R) Ohio – Rob Portman is about as interesting as a dry piece of Melba toast. He brings absolutely zero star power to the ticket and probably does very little to attract young voters. So why have I identified Portman as the second most likely? The first rule in picking a VP is do no harm to the ticket, but the second is pick somebody who is ready to be President if the need arises. With nearly 15 years of Congressional experience and having held two cabinet positions in the Bush administration, Portman undoubtedly satisfies these two prerequisites and does so better than almost anybody else.

3. Governor Luis Fortuno (R) Puerto Rico – Surpirsed? Don’t be. Mitt Romney is too smart to make this merely a play to attract the Latino vote. What has occurred in Puerto Rico under Governor Fortuno’s leadership has been nothing short of an economic miracle. When he took over in 2009, Puerto Rico was in a state of economic crisis. Their state budget deficit was the largest proportionally in the country. Upon taking over, Governor Fortuno cut taxes, slashed government contracts by 15%, and reduced the government workforce from 140,000 to about 120,000. Can you say “Milton Friedman?”

Up next… Why Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bob Mcdonnell, or Mitch Daniels won’t be the pick.

The ObamaTax 52% Of Us Don’t Want

18 Jul

Injections of reality are often lost amidst the lunacy of election time in America, so I would like to take the opportunity to direct a hypodermic sensibility syringe into the heart of the heartland for a moment.

To Democrats: The long term upside of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not nearly be as high as you think.  To Republicans: The downside of ObamaCare will not occur tomorrow, or the next day, or even into 2014.  Instead,  ObamaCare will become a bureaucratic institution that quickly provides comprehensive health care coverage to millions of Americans, while slowly eroding the American economy to dregs and dreck.

Yes it is true, millions of Americans who otherwise would go unprovided with health care will receive coverage under this law, but just like with Medicare we will refuse to look at the cost side of this program and only focus on the benefits.

The problem with ObamaCare is not that it restricts the actions of American businesses (the logic of such an argument made by my fellow conservatives eludes me here).  The problem is that any relationship existing between government and business in close proximity historically always results in the conquering of the relationship by industrialists, and provides excessive advantage to business at the expense of the average citizenry.

Milton Friedman once argued this exact point when he said “when you have more government, industrialists take it over and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer.”  Shall we take a look at some examples of what happens when government and business operate in close proximity to one another?

1. The Military Industrial Complex: This is why the government buys hammers that cost $900.

2. The Sugar and Farm Subsidies: This is why the government buys tons of sugar for $900 per pound.

3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: This is why the government buys mortgages worth $900.

And coming soon to a not-so-free market near you in the wake of ObamaCare…

4. The Department of Health and Human Services:  This is why the government spends $900 on filling out your forms for you.

What nobody seems to realize, and what I keep pointing out is that now republicans really have something to fight for besides just 8.2% unemployment, and politically Barack Obama has nothing left to fight for.  The SCOTUS decision on ObamaCare was the biggest possible gift that Mitt Romney could have imagined.

Now the only way to get rid of ObamaCare would be to elect President Romney in November, and I need not remind you that over half of all Americans are opposed to ObamaCare.  I would read more into the SCOTUS decision than what has been written and reported on recently.

Conservatives… let’s put away the stupid, reactionary demagoguery about this for a minute (labeling John Roberts a traitor for example needs to stop immediately), and let’s just think about this.  John Roberts was appointed by George W. Bush for God’s sake, he is not going to do anything without keeping party in mind (the SCOTUS apolitical debate rages on).  Roberts is both extremely conservative and intelligent, which is why he read between the lines of what the passage of ObamaCare means politically for the President, and it’s also why he voted to end Barack Obama’s presidency last week.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a huge blow to the President’s reelection effort by defining the health care law as a tax.  Now the GOP can go out and lambaste ObamaCare as not only a massive intrusion into the patient-doctor relationship, not only a government takeover of healthcare, not only an industrial perversion in the making at the expense of the American taxpayer, but now they can also say it’s a tax hike! if John Roberts was a Democrat, he would have voted against ObamaCare last week because he’s just handed Romney the presidency.

You can see Mitt Romney smiling at the good news in his response to the SCOTUS decision here:

Should You Choose To Accept This Mission

18 Jul

In speaking with some politically independent minds over the weekend, I have come to realize the conservative narrative is crystal clear almost exclusively to conservatives.  Many independents and liberals have what seems to be an overly simplistic or confused view of how we see things. These people, when asked what the conservatives want almost always say something like “oh they just don’t want any taxes, or environmental regulation, and they want big business to run the world.”

Whenever you hear this kind of thing, you need to do something about it because you might allow them to open their eyes and realize how much they don’t know.  I am going to give you just a couple of talking points on how to educate the uniformed liberal or independent on what conservatism is.

1.  On taxes… Do not go all Grover Norquist on them and say that we don’t want any taxes whatsoever, because that is not going to convince anybody.  Instead explain taxes as Reagan explained them to the American people when he made this speech:



You have to explain that the liberal message on taxes has only to do with maximizing revenue growth.  The conservative message on taxes asks how to maximize revenue growth while simultaneously preserving the entrepreneurial incentive (you know that thing that led to Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, I’ll stop now).

You need to articulate the difference in the two messages.  You need to explain that liberals want only to find the  tax rate which maximizes revenue growth, while conservatives want to find the tax rate that maximizes revenue growth while preserving the entrepreneurial spirit that built this country.

2.  On regulation… History is often a problem for the unenlightened on the topic of deregulation.  You will often hear from liberals that deregulation never works because we tried it when the conservatives were in charge and it blew up in our face.  This will always be a losing argument for liberals, because it ignores the fact that conservatives in the late 90’s and the mid 2000’s never deregulated industry.

Instead, the bitter truth is that Republicans idiotically re-regulated industries and called it deregulation.  Finance and banking was never actually deregulated in the 2000’s (Lehman, Bear Stearns, Fannie & Freddie), and neither was electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications in the 90’s (Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing).

You need to explain that the fall of Lehman Brothers and Enron was not due to deregulating their respective industries.  The fall of these behemoths was due to fraud brought on by loopholes created in re-regulating their industries by Republicans like this who think they are economists:



Now, this type of argument against more regulation is a winning strategy:



So, my message to my fellow conservatives is simple:  Go out and teach them.  If you come across somebody who is uninformed or unsure about any aspect of conservatism, it is your job to educate these people.

When Deval Patrick is the best you have…

7 Jun
I would typically be commenting on the campaign itself, but what I thought was an extraordinarily telling show of reality between both sides of this campaign occurred on Sunday morning.
On Meet the Press last Sunday, David Gregory hosted a show in which Deval Patrick (Governor of my home state of Taxachusetts) tried to take a nice big swing at Mitt Romney.  The only problem was that he was debating the governor of Ohio, John Kasich (and probably the most feared surrogate in the Romney arsenal) who redirected Patrick’s fist squarely into President Obama’s re-election effort.
Three quarters into the interview, Kasich had Patrick sounding utterly ridiculous and made the Obama camp seem desperate that this was the best possible person they could get to go against Kasich.  The debate was almost entirely focused around the issue of jobs and the economy.  The following exchange between David Gregory, Deval Patrick, and John Kasich is mind-blowing and really articulates the state of delusional desperation the donkeys have infected themselves with in order to cope with the impending checkmate  they know is now looking more and more likely to come this November…
DG: “You have not once in the course of this interview come out definitively for the president’s economic record.  Your main point has been to blame congress.  Can the president win re-election if he does not persuade Ohioans and others that his economic record is something they should build on and vote for him again?”
DP: “First of all they should vote for him because of his economic record because it’s extraordinarily strong.”
To which most living people must ask what kind of cosmic bunny hole has Deval fallen down here?  If the president’s economic record was extraordinarily strong you would not have spent the last 10 minutes trying to drag down Mitt’s economic success when he was governor of that bunny hole of a state.  Kasich, always the political pro retorts aptly:
JK: “When we talk about the record of the president, this is just a fact, unemployment has gone up since he’s been in office, a half million people have lost their jobs.  How do you say that’s a good economic record?”
You know something, when Deval Patrick is the best you have just go ahead and pack it in.