Paul Ryan: The GOP Path to Prosperity; Update - Video Added

From The Wall Street Journal:

Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

(...)

Read the entire article HERE

Update: The House Budget Committee has released the following video:

Bernie Goldberg: Donald Trump is running for President

Of course he added in his statement, "As of today, and barring any unforeseen circumstances".


Here is the Interview on the Bill O'Reilly show last night:



Now I can't imagine Goldberg stating this unless he was pretty darn sure it was true.

Lets just say for the sake of argument, that Trump really is running this time. Does this affect any of the other possible candidates?

No Apology: Soft Power

Mitt Romney spends the first 93 pages of his No Apology providing a historical and theoretical context for his argument that America must lead the world. On page 94 he introduces his first policy proposal. And it is a good one.

Romney talks about the need for better effectiveness in promoting American soft power. I was rather surprised that Romney would devote so much space to something that conservatives often deride. In the 2008 debates, Republican presidential candidates tried to out-macho the other guys on the stage. Here, Romney shows better nuance to his foreign policy thinking.

First, Romney does a good job explaining why soft power is important. In fact, I wish I had had Romney's book when I was in graduate school trying to sift through Joseph Nye's Soft Power, the book that introduced the concept to International Relations theory. Romney cites Hezbollah as an organization that has effectively capitalized on soft power with its humanitarian approach in Lebanon. Romney asks why the United States, despite leading the world in foreign aid (among other things), has not seen a more favorable response to its good deeds.

Which brings me to a second point. Romney posits a couple of reasons for the aforementioned quandary -- rivalry, jealousy, etc. However, Romney also believes that the United States has not effectively capitalized on its soft power. He very shrewdly outlines the inefficiencies in the foreign policy making apparatus. He then compares this bureaucracy with the Department of Defense, which long ago organized itself in such a way that it can effectively respond to crises. Romney wants to see a permanent position -- much like the Joint Chief of Staff in the military -- that is responsible for soft power. He also wants to see different command centers -- much like the command centers in the military -- divided up geographically that would be responsible for soft power in each given region. Lastly, Romney wants to see the United States work more with other countries that might have an incentive to carry out its soft power in a given, problematic area of the world.

I was struck by his argument for several reasons.

First, just when I think Romney is going for the red meat defense answer, he reaches back and delivers a well-thought out and responsible foreign policy idea. Romney is clearly seeking to be a thoughtful POTUS, not Rush Limbaugh's most favored conservative.

Second, despite the feverish anti-government sentiments within the conservative movement, the President of the United States is constitutionally the executive of the federal government and therefore must seek to run an efficient government. Much of the successes of any President depend on his ability to organize and reorganize the government bureaucracy. Understanding the role of the President is what makes a potential President Romney so appealing, since he spent his career reorganizing businesses.

In chapter 4, Romney has effectively argued for one way in which the government can better serve American interests -- by promoting American soft power.

More to come...

Lindsey Graham: 'Freedom of Speech is a Great Idea But We're in a War'

I agree that the Koran burning preacher should be condemned, but Lindsey Graham takes a step further.

"I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say..."

Am I wrong for calling Lindsey Graham an idiot?

There's a Mike Huckabee mystery that won't go away

There's a Mike Huckabee mystery that won't go away.

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid......

......In February, Mother Jones wrote to the office of Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe seeking access to a variety of records concerning his predecessor's tenure, including Huckabee's travel records, calendars, call logs, and emails. Beebe's chief legal counsel, Tim Gauger, replied in a letter that "former Governor Huckabee did not leave behind any hard-copies of the types of documents you seek. Moreover, at that time, all of the computers used by former Governor Huckabee and his staff had already been removed from the office and, as we understand it, the hard-drives in those computers had already been 'cleaned' and physically destroyed."

He added, "In short, our office does not possess, does not have access to, and is not the custodian of any of the records you seek."

The full story is here.

And here is Mike Huckabee on the need for transparency in Government:

H/T to Bosman for the Huckabee graphic

Palin on the Issues: Health Care Reform

This is the fourth installment of a series of posts highlighting Sarah Palin's policy positions. The following is a list of op-eds and Facebook writings by Palin, relating to health care. Following each link, is a brief excerpt from each article.

Palin has been a vocal critic of ObamaCare from day one - coining the phrase "death panels," which very succinctly describes what typically happens when government-run health care programs run out of money - ultimately resulting in rationed care.

In addition to leading the charge in the battle against ObamaCare, Palin has proposed numerous free-market solutions to improving the affordability and accessibility of health care insurance. Several are included in her op-eds and Facebook posts. They include - giving individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers, Medicare vouchers, tort reform, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, tackling existing government waste and fraud, and health savings accounts.

The first three installments of this series (Energy Independence, Entitlement Reform, and National Security / Foreign Policy) can be found under the tag, "Palin on the Issues." I will provide updates to these to include Palin's new writings as they become available.

Op-ed

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care (Wall Street Journal) (Sept. 8th, 2009)

...Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care...

Facebook Posts (20):

Mitt Romney to participate in Tea Party-sponsored New Hampshire Summit

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will participate in a New Hampshire presidential summit on spending and job creation at the end of this month, the tea-party affiliated Americans for Prosperity Foundation announced on Monday.

“The American people are eager to hear how Governor Romney and other speakers might plan to change the ‘spend now, pay later’ culture in Washington,” AFPF President Tim Phillips said in a statement.

Romney will share the stage with Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain.

The summit has room for one more potential candidate. Other invitees where, Haley Barbour, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Michele Bachmann.

The full story is HERE.

True Hollywood Story subject: Sarah Palin?

Documentarian and political activist John Ziegler produced the definitive film on media bias in the 2008 presidential election, Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted. We may soon see significant portions of John’s film repurposed for another look at Sarah Palin both then and now in a television program in two weeks. John tells me exclusively that E! Entertainment Channel has licensed his film for an upcoming “True Hollywood Story” look at Palin — and that Palin supporters may well be pleasantly surprised by the results.

According to John, E! will announce as early as today that the program will air on April 20th. John also took the time to answer a few questions from me via e-mail:

There we several questions asked in the interview. To view the rest of the questions and answers, you will need to read the full Hot Air article and interview HERE.

I decided to cut to the chase:

Q: If Palin wants to run for President, she will have to address the narrative that the mainstream media have built over the last three years. Is this an opportunity to do that?

A: Assuming the show is as fair as I think it will be, it certainly could be. This show will be shown numerous times on a network whose demographic is full of women who are not political junkies. This is exactly the demo that Palin would have to get a second chance with if she has a chance to beat President Obama.

Obviously she and I have both been burned before by media outlets, but I have my fingers crossed on this.

Below is a trailer for, "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" produced by John Ziegler:



Of course there is another possibility, That E Entertainment will edit all this into a major hit piece on Palin.

It just seems a little strange one way or another that this is coming out during a period when many individuals are determining whether they will run for President in 2012.

Mitt Romney: Speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition Meeting (complete VIDEO)

Mitt Romney spoke Saturday in Las Vegas at the Republican Jewish Coalition Winter meeting. Romney talked about Foreign Policy, America's relationship with Israel, Health Care, and Obama's failures as President:

In a related story:

Expected Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney used his Twitter account this morning to respond to the announcement of President Obama's re-election campaign.

"@barackobama I look forward to hearing details on your jobs plan, as are 14m unemployed Americans," @MittRomney

Romney's retort followed Obama's decision to use YouTube to release a video announcing his re-election campaign.

Barack Obama 2012 Re-Election Campaign Launch Video - "It Begins With Us"

If the slogan sounds a little familiar, You're not alone in noticing this.

No Apology: Chapter Two

As I mentioned in the previous post, Chapter One of Mitt Romney's No Apology seems to be a little more thought out than Chapter Two. Nevertheless, I think he makes several good points.

Romney spends about half the chapter discussing past hegemons that have declined: Ottoman Empire, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, and China. Since I am not a historian, I won't critique this part.

Romney then attempts to explain the common causes for why these great powers declined.

There are similarities between the different countries' paths of decline. Many turned toward isolation; most important, isolation from knowledge: the Ottomans, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese purposefully shut out foreign invention and learning. And they adopted economic isolation as well: China, Spain, Britain, and the Ottomans expressly or effectively retreated behind barriers to foreign trade, each convinced that competition had made them weaker. Their retreat from the marketplace of ideas and their retreat from the marketplace of goods inevitably led to their retreat from the pinnacle of leadership. 

So far so good. I am only on page 55 and Romney has already devoted a great deal of space arguing for free trade and innovation. Then he quotes historian David Landes who argues that culture is everything. Romney takes this to mean that the great powers turned inward and rejected foreign influence. This idea somehow turns into the need to stop excessive spending. All good points, but I am not sure how they go together.

Romney then talks about the lack of vision of some of the past great powers. He gives several causes why countries avoid their problems. First, there is human nature that tends to avoid concentrating on coming problems. Second, there is the human tendency to shy away from dramatic change, whether good or bad. Third, there is the self-interest of citizens and leaders who are focused on short-term gains. Fourthly, independent opinion leaders sometimes fail to "arouse public awareness." Interestingly, Romney asks why media figures did not hammer the 2008 candidates when they gave empty responses on what to do about entitlement spending. It's almost like Romney is surprised at the weak answers they got away with.

Romney ends the chapter giving four reasons why some great powers recovered themselves from their decline: catastrophic events, the presence of a great leader (no, he didn't mention himself), a national consensus that reform needs to take place, and deep, broad-based national strength (ex. the United States after Pearl Harbor).

My take: Romney rambles a little here. He also generalizes a great deal of history. Nevertheless, I think he presents some good examples of how the United States could avoid decline.

Two things that struck me though: First, Romney is not libertarian. In fact, without going into specifics (he does later in his book), he seems to imply that the United States needs to adapt and to innovate. He does not seek to bring the United States back to 1789, but rather into the 21st century. I get the impression that Romney is more interested in competing with China and Russia than in meeting 18th century principles of government.

Second, Romney ever so softly gives respect to 'experts.' In fact, there is a lack of populist anger towards elites that you might find in a Sarah Palin book. One of Romney's points is that educators and opinion leaders can stir attention to address certain issues. The following line flew off the page (62):

Scientists, concerned citizens and the world media have succeeded in convincing the public that global warming is a real and present danger. 

You definitely won't see that coming from Sarah Palin.

Dick Morris and Donald Trump

There is one guy who thinks Donald Trump can win the GOP nomination. Sorry Donald, not good news for you.

“I think he has a good shot at the nomination,” says former Clinton adviser Dick Morris. “Ten or 12 years ago, when he flirted with it, he wasn’t that serious. I’m hearing from people in the business that he’s serious.”
...
The GOP establishment isn’t happy about it. Even Bill O’Reilly mocked Trump’s assertions, and aside from Morris — who thinks the birther talk “is within the foul lines” — everyone else who spoke with The Post thinks it’s a major tactical mistake.

One stupid man praising another stupid man.

Cross posted at The Cross Culturalist.

No Apology: Chapter One

I picked up Romney's book from Barnes and Noble yesterday and will be giving my thoughts about his plan for the future of America. First, let me say that I don't like reading campaign books, and Romney's book is a campaign book. Romney has a political agenda that he is seeking to meet with his book. His policy book is not going to be quite the same as a policy book by an academic. Nevertheless, I am committing to read his book because I do believe that I might learn something of the outside world.

I want to give an outline of Romney's argument first so that everybody can evaluate it. I will follow that outline with my own thoughts. By the way, you can skip the introduction. It is mostly campaign platitudes.

In chapter one, Romney argues that there are currently four competing strategies for world leadership: the United States and the West (he does recognize that there is a wide range of thought within the West), China, Russia, and Islamic extremism. The first strategy represented by the United States is built on political freedom and free enterprise. China's strategy is built on free enterprise, but not political freedom. Russia's strategy is built on dominance of energy and political authoritarianism. Lastly,  Islamic extremists seek to form a worldwide caliphate.

The theme of chapter one: if the United States declines, one of the other strategies will fill the void and our grandchildren will not be free (pg. 33).

He then goes on to excoriate the Obama administration for not sufficiently promoting the United States' strategy on the world stage. In fact, Romney spends about 13 pages portraying Obama as a leader who believes that the United States inevitably must decline. Romney says that Obama is the first President in modern history who views the United States as one nation among many, but not as the leader of the free world.

My take: Chapter one is much better than the introduction and Chapter Two (I will write about Chapter Two later). There are some flaws though.

First, Romney implies that if the United States does not continue to be the world's hegemon, that our grandchildren will not be free. Page 33:

These are the four strategies for world leadership that are in competition today. Only one if founded on freedom. Only one. Think of what that means. Only if America and the West succeed -- if our economic and military strength endure -- can we be confident that our children and grandchildren will be free. A strong America is good for peace, and it is essential for the spread of freedom. 

This sounds like hyperbole. In fact, during the undisputed hegemonic reign of the United States, there were various countries in the world that were unaffected by the freedom agenda of the United States. I have a hard time believing that if China surpasses the United States in economic strength (they are way behind in military strength) that our grandchildren will not be free. Nevertheless, this will be a powerful campaign slogan for Romney.

Second, Romney's portrayal of the President's foreign policy is fairly accurate, though he is also given to slight hyperbole. I do think that Romney is correct that Obama sees the United States in decline and that Obama might be okay with that. However, if Romney is going to spend the next two years trying to portray Obama as a weaker version of Jimmy Carter, then he is going to have a difficult time doing so. Barack Obama has in some ways been much more militaristic than George W. Bush. I think that Romney is going to have a hard time connecting a blow in the realm of foreign policy.

Getting specific, Romney is correct to blast Obama for neglecting to form a free trade agreement with Colombia. I also agree with Romney that Obama could do more to bolster America's relationship with its allies. However, Romney believes that Obama's policies are going to lead many Sunni Arab nations to move into Iran's sphere of influence. That doesn't seem likely with the Cold War that is currently being waged between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Romney is also a little too hard on the Obama administration's response to the coup in Honduras. In fact, judging by the cables of the American ambassador to Honduras, the Obama administration actually could have come out much stronger against the illegality of the coup. The crisis in Honduras, if anything, showed the incredible pragmatism of Barack Obama's foreign policy.

Having said all of that, I did enjoy the first chapter. I was actually a little surprised. I thought there would be much more politicking that there actually was. For the most part, chapter one was a coherent argument focusing on the outside world.

More to come...

LIVE FEED 6:30 PM EST! Mitt Romney: Speech at the Republican Jewish Coalition Meeting

Mitt Romney spoke Saturday in Las Vegas at the Republican Jewish Coalition Winter meeting. Romney talked about Foreign Policy, America's relationship with Israel, Health Care, and Obama's failures as President. The speech will be re-broadcast today at 6:30 PM EST (repeat 9:30 PM EST). See bottom of this post. The following is a sampling from the speech:

"Seeing somebody learn on the job in the presidency has not been a pretty sight," Romney said Saturday to the Republican Jewish Coalition in a speech casting himself as a seasoned business executive.

He also challenged President Barack Obama's foreign policy record and received a standing ovation.

"I think the president's inexperience in negotiations contributed to less than positive developments on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating front," Romney said........

......."His domestic policies have cost us jobs and I've met the men and women who could be working but are not working," Romney said to applause. "It's causing the breakup of families, it causes people to lose their faith, it causes kids to not go to college. I will take him on, head on, and aggressively."

"The difference between us is as clear as day and night," he added.

The full story is HERE.

If everything goes as planned, you will be able to WATCH a re-broadcast of Romney's speech below beginning at 6:32 .P.M. EST (repeat 9:30 PM EST). RIGHT CLICK on the photo below. Choose, "Open link in New Window":

Jesse Ventura: Sarah Palin Will Win

Jesse Ventura has said many things over the years including that 9/11 was an inside job. Now he's getting into the 2012 Presidential race. Jesse believes Sarah Palin will win the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

“She’s the type of person that certainly will be controlled by the status quo and the power structure. So she’d make a perfect candidate for them, she’ll do what she’s told,” Mr. Ventura says.

The former Minnesota governor noted Ms. Palin’s reality show and her current contributions on Fox News, saying the Republican Party is “grooming” her.

Read the complete story here.