Traitor: Charlei Crist is the Judas from Florida

In what is a prime example of hubris, Charlie Crist, the governor or Florida turned GOP candidate for senator has changed party affiliation to independent due to the ass kicking he is taking from Marco Rubio.

Some may say this is a Specter or a Lieberman, but in those cases, they were ahead in the polls. Crist is not.

From Mark Ambinder from The Atlantic:

Here first: Charlie Crist, soon to be independent Senate candidate from Florida, tried to reach White House chief of staff Emanuel through intermediates. WH refuses to take the call. Dems plan big talent/money blitz for Kendrick Meek. BTW: Obama's approval rating in FL is in high 40s, per internal Dem polling.

Reaches out to the Rahminator? WTF? If you have to ask, it's all about Charlie. Hubris is god like pride. His actions show both hubris and his being a traitor. He can't go back on this. And while the darling of socially moderate republicans, his appeal will not translate into many democrat votes. As said above, Rahm and Co. are going for the big push for the democratic candidate, most likely in the hopes that Crist syphons enough votes from the Rubio camp to put Meek in office. What a sfacime. This guy joins the ranks of Specter, Stupak and Leach as strunza sfacimes.

Thank you for reading this blog.

What Worries Me Part 2

As a continuation of a previous article, What Worries Me, I want to describe the flipside to Obama succeeding in a Fabian socialist agenda, which is Obama losing in 2012 as opposed to winning and succeeding in his agenda. What if the right drives over a cliff and we election another candidate that relies on the cult of personality? Below a definition of cult of personality from Wikipedia:

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

I would say that this definition fits nicely with Obama, at least initially. Obama tries to be a modern day FDR, except even more Fabian in nature. This is evidenced not only but the absolute incredulous and irrational adulation of his supporters but the control he has so far been successful with over the mainstream media. He has done so not with fear, but of agreement in principle. This had helped create an image of Obama that got him elected. What he and his magical handlers did count on and what FDR did not have to deal with, is the nature of media today. It’s available to more people today and much, much more quickly. The opposition media in the country has served as a balance to what I like to call the “government run media”. In reality they are the government-controlled media through manipulation through likeness in alleged beliefs. The end result of this is that Obama, as of this date, has an approval rating of 44%, which is a record in terms of the speed of decline for a new president.

So, what worries me? What worries me is that the opposition in this case might use the same tools, the same methods to promote and elect a leader in response to Obama. The difference would be that instead of an alliance between the mainstream media and the democrat candidate, the alliance would be between the opposition candidate and a grassroots mob if you will that circumvents the mainstream media’s efforts. In this case, you could say I am talking about Sarah Palin, although it could be someone else that pops up between now and 2011, when candidates get serious about running.

Why worry about Palin you ask? I will tell you this much: I like Palin, but not for clearly rational reasons. I am intellectually honest enough to say so, whereas some of my colleagues on the right are not so honest, and winning is more important than results afterwards, that we have to live with. Sound familiar? Palin is attractive, communicates well, and connects with people in a way we haven’t seen since Clinton or Reagan. Obama is more of a media creation, and connects with TotUS better than people. Anyway, if I take a step back and analyze what I know about Palin, the picture is not as rosy as her supporters would seem.

Palin is a former governor of Alaska. Sounds good, but not even one full term. Before that she was a mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Before that…? Compared to Obama, she has much more experience as an executive (Obama has none), but she doesn’t have a lot of experience when you compare her to Reagan, Clinton or even W. I am not sure we need another candidate that sweet-talks the camera and appeals on an emotional level. I think this is dangerous and we have seen the results of such choices. I think considering our current problems we need someone that can hit the ground running, not someone that will need on the job training. We have that now. My treatise here isn’t to bash Palin, nor is it about finding the perfect candidate, just the observation that one, we can do better, and two, we need to be careful about who we pick, because it really counts this time, and we have one shot to get it right. I think if she does her homework and does the right things, in 10 years she could be a viable candidate.

So what to do? I would like to see the Tea Party and 912er people get a little more politically involved and spread the liberty theme around, making it mainstream. The GOP has to be made to understand that it is not going to be business as usual: Placate an internal constituency before the election and forget about them afterwards. Republicans are famous for this. If this happens in 2010, the GOP should go the way of the Whigs. The only two things that have been on their side in the last year are an incompetent president and a democrat congress that has been bent on turning our country into a socialist nation. What the GOP should not glean from this is some sort of mandate that allows them to take power like a fat kid gloms fresh baked cookies from his grandma’s kitchen table. Obama made a similar mistake in thinking he got elected because of a socialist mandate. Wrong. In this scenario, Palin would do well as she would say “bugger off, I am doing it my way”. It seems that the GOP is like an ADD kid that needs to be reminded of his responsibilities on a regular basis. After a while, you have to ask, do we really need this?

So, I do worry how this will play out. I am heartened at times, particularly today upon hearing that two large banks, Wells Fargo and Citi, are going to pay off the government loans and get the government out of their business. Bravo and long live capitalism. I am a patient sort, willing to wait and see, are you? What do you think?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Control + Alt + Del

The Right Guy will be going through some personal renovations soon and it may be a good time to consider some renovations to The Right Guy blog as well. In the next few weeks there will be some changes in the W's of this blog and hopefully a somewhat different attitude on my part. May be more gravitas in some areas, less in others. It seems every 6 months I get off track a bit and need a correction. In the coming weeks, there will be a correction, I promise you. :) Anyway, as I always say, Freedom First, Freedom Last, and what I mean is the fight for liberty is never through until we rid our government of the stink of collectivism, socialism, and marxism, in all its guises, whether democrat, republican, or progressive greenie wingnut. Those that would use the government to enforce their views, to take your time and property, do so with the barrel of a gun pointed at your head. A government is supposed to protect it's citizens natural rights, not enslave the population for the purpose of some oligarchical concern. There should be no social contract that destroys individual rights and personal responsibilities.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Guess Who's the Democrat?

He could also qualify for asshole, but this was much more telling. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Will It Be John McCain or Barack Obama? Clarity at twilights last gleaming

Whoever is elected, they will have to deal with a horrible economy and a populace that will demand results. The problem is, the populace is by and large idiotic. Let me clarify. We have a democrat majority in both houses and have since 2006. Since then the congress has a 9% approval rating. For some reason, the american public wants to increase the percentage, that is what the polls show, and this could give the democrats both a veto and filibuster proof majority. How this is a good thing makes no sense other than Americans are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. 

Faced with the probability of a clear and controlling democrat majority, will Americans put a democrat in the white house? As much as my pages has been filled with quasi-paranoid posts propagandizing Obama as a far left socialist (I believe he is), reality will be somewhat different. I don't believe there will be any secession movement and I do not believe that we will have a socialist nation immediately. Congress has to worry about 2010 and there are limits to what he could do, particularly without social upheaval. Still we will see changes. 

If Obama gets in we will see two supreme court justices retire. My guess is Stevens and Ginsberg would step down. This will leave two openings that would surely be filled with activist justices. We would also see a difference in the justice departments interpretation of the second amendment and how it deals with gun rights. I also wouldn't be surprised if the congress tried to pass a freedom of choice act in regards to abortion. I also think we will see some sort of nationalized healthcare. On the issues of taxes, No matter what Obama says, overall taxes will be much higher under his tenure. We will see increases in fuel taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other areas that the congress will look to pull money out of the economy to pay for the social programs they promulgate. So while the income tax for most people will be the same or less, the effective taxation will increase considerably. 

If McCain gets in by some miracle, he won't be like Bush or Obama, but somewhere in the middle. Think old school democrat like Harry Truman or even JFK. I think we will be more moderate than Bush on some issues and he will probably try to work across the isle. Will all be good? He still has to deal with the bad economy, and while I eschew Obama's Keynesianesque approach, I am not sure McCain would be different enough to be helpful. His policies do not follow Friedman, or even Von Mises on an economic philosophy, and I think the direction will be social-populist light. Certain supreme court justices may or may not hang on, but the government will surely grow, albeit much slower and not to the extent they would with Obama. Will taxes go up? Yes, probably. As much as it would under Obama, no. But the real problem is that neither candidate is willing to cut down on the overall size of the government. Supply side doesn't work. You have to cut the liabilities. 

So where does that leave us Wednesday morning? Well, we all still have to go to work, and we still will have the economic sword of damocles hanging over our heads. The question you should ask yourself is, "where will I be in 4 years depending on whom I vote for".  John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy". The question then is, how much destruction can you live with?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

PS, I will be happier once the latest electoral contest is over.  Up to now, I have not endorsed a candidate. My feeling is that it does not matter now. For what it is worth, I supported Fred Thompson in the primaries. I don't dislike McCain so much as I do not think he is the right man for the job now. At this point I am faced with a decision: Should I be pragmatic and vote for McCain, or ideologically consistent and vote for Barr (who is closer to where I am ideologically)? Looking back, there were some candidates that not only would have been better choices politically, but better people for the job, and that goes for both sides. For instance, if the race was between HRC and Obama, I would have to vote for HRC. That being said, Rudy should have been the man on the GOP side. He's the only one with the proper experience on either side to deal with what is coming. 

Thank you again for reading this blog. 

The Current State of Things

Since my last couple posts, I have been asked to clarify some things, and I thought this would be a good time to have a current status assessment. Right now we pretty much have two candidates running for the office of president, Barack Obama and John McCain. For me, this election is just another election of choosing the lesser of the two evils, or really, choosing a candidate whose political, moral, spiritual and social beliefs differ in one way or another from my own. How important is it to have ones values line up with a candidate? I have never been a groupie and I am not the type of voter that puts superficial issues above others in choosing to support a candidate. For instance, when Rudy Giuliani ran in the primaries, I did not support him, even though he is a New Yorker and an Italian American. Those issues don't do it for me. He is pro-choice, anti-gun, socially very liberal, and has enough skeletons in his closet to populate Arlington National Cemetery. Rudy is also a somewhat autocratic individual that likes to surround himself with yes men, and this proved out with the results. 

Now back to McCain and Obama. I could never support Obama because I differ with him on almost every issue. As far as I am concerned, he is a marxist in democrat clothing. McCain offers meat to chew on, but I can't find substance of agreement with every bite. He says he's pro-life, and pro-gun, which are two important issues, but he also believes in man caused global warming. Also, as a senator, he has sponsored legislation that creates more governmental control over people's lives, something I am definitely against. In the political spectrum, he is a moderate republican that has too much in common with the opposition. Now some of you may say bipartisanism is a good thing and shouldn't politicians work together on a common goal? From my standpoint, anything done by a committee dilutes the results and compromises people's values. In the case of the congress, it seems like the republicans have compromised more than the democrats, but none the less, the results are such that the congress has a sub 10% approval rating. Basically, you are prostituting yourself to a process instead of standing up for what you believe in. I would also ask, if your world view is different, how can one have common goals? The common goals that are truly shared between democrats and republicans are that they want to be reelected and they preach the same fairy tale every election, and we fall for it. At this point, my observations are that it is like 1996 again. My question is, is this the best the republicans can come up with? I thought Bob Dole was an honorable man, but not the best by a long shot. All he served as was cannon fodder for the democrats. The press plays an important role in this. By all surveys, the press, meaning print, broadcast and internet journalists are around 90% liberal or left leaning. When you look back on the past year, the New York Times for instance bent over backwards to promote John McCain, who was perceived to be the weaker candidate compared to Romney or Huckabee. If it weren't for the liberal press, John would not be where he is. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with two candidates whose candidacies were decided by the parties and the press by at least 50%, leaving us with poor choices indeed. No matter who gets elected, we have to face the possibility of  new cold war, illegal immigration, a fiscally unsound and irresponsible government, choices for the supreme court, energy, and the direction we will go as a nation in the 21st century. I find myself in  situation where I can't hold my nose anymore when I vote. We need someone that has strong core beliefs, and doesn't need polls to decide what to do. In that context, even if the person is somewhat inexperienced, they will have a sufficient moral compass to make proper decisions. Some of my right wing journalistic brethren have become quite the water boys for whomever the republican party puts up. Even though Rush Limbaugh swore he would never carry water agin after the 2006 elections, he still does so with loyal aplomb. It's the same with Sean Hannity. I like loyal people, but even loyalty has its limits. Until we put our foot down, they will keep giving us the same lame candidates. So come November, in spite of my support of McCain at times, I probably won't be voting for him. At least there's bread and circus no matter who gets elected and honestly, for many of us, the day after the election, like The Who said, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". At least with Stymie, I'll have more to write about. 

Now on to other explanations. I was asked about the "Stymie" reference to Barack Obama in my last post. I want to say it had nothing to do with race, but rather the character Stymie embodied, which was that of a con man. Enough said. As far as "The Swimmer" goes, you are on your own. :)

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Jim Leach - The Strunza from Iowa

Jim Leach, former republican representative from Iowa, endorsed Barack Obama for president. This turncoat, and he is, suggests that Obama is attractive because of a “ new era of non-ideological, bipartisan decision-making''. What this means is that rather than having a backbone, and values, he’d rather find new ways to make sure politicians like himself stay in power. Let me explain. If politicians “work together”, without ideology,  I can guarantee the only thing they will want to do is to get your vote by bribing you with your own money, or worse. Their perception is to get things done. Change. Give people what they want. The problem with that is it doesn’t matter what it is. Bipartisan means they don’t stand for anything. So out of one side of their mouth, they will tell you they are pro-life, but out of the other, they will fund abortion clinics. Guys like this just want to make double dealing more palatable. By having no moral compass, they can’t be pigeon holed and their appeal will be broader. Think of Bill Clinton. In the case of Leach, which is a fitting name, some say he is angling for the presidency of the University of Iowa. The democrats control the government in Iowa, so by endorsing Obama, he is doing them a great favor and possibly expects one in return. Leach was a RINO republican anyway (in reality, now he's a democrat), and this isn’t much of a surprise. His reasoning shows lack of principles, loyalty and a lack of common sense. Democrats do not do favors for republicans in this state, or any other. He’s in for a big surprise if he doesn’t get it, and if the republicans have any principles, they will tell him to go to hell. Strunza is a perfect word for him. Look it up. And with that, I leave with a quote from Samuel Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Guess who's the populist?

Populist: A person who holds, or is concerned with, the views of ordinary people. The problem is, on a personal level, Obama has no idea what it's like to be one of the common folk, or even know what their views are. Like a con artist that throws the proverbial spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks, Obama seeks to appease and bribe people, either with their own money or someone else's money and he must be a cheapskate as it's never his own. Today we find that Obama has a plan to tax the "windfall" profits of the oil companies, and use the money as an emergency rebate for the masses. Sounds popular, I mean big oil is evil, right? On the scale of net profit, oil companies make about 7-8%. Google made around 25%. Should we tax big internet? Oil companies make what they do by shear volume. In fact I would bet the federal government makes more money on a gallon of gas in tax than the oil companies make on that gallon. Talk about entitlements. The government does nothing to earn this money, but is willing to penalize the oil companies because they got a return on their work. Obama is trying to create a straw man to blame for rising energy prices, and he uses populist notions in the process. He was against oil drilling at one point, but after the backlash, and I am sure polling data, he now says he may be open to offshore drilling. If he was a true man of vision, he wouldn't need 300 advisors to educate him, he wouldn't need pollsters, because he would know what's right. Obviously, he has no clue. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Why I do this

I grew up in a republican household on suburban Long Island in the 1960's and 1970's. My dad worked for the county as a greenskeeper and my mother was self-employed as a paralegal/expeditor and had a lot of interface with local governments. Early on, I had a sense that perception and reality of politics of the republican party were two different entities. My dad was expected to "contribute" to the party as part of his job, volunteer at the republican club, and obviously vote republican. My dad witnessed several times where people made large contributions one day, went from being a subordinate to a higher position the next day. Ironically, my dad made the biggest advances in his career when Eugene Nickerson, a democrat, was elected as county supervisor. The local republican party was as corrupt as any political machine in power too long and left unchecked. You'd think I would be a democrat after this experience, but the values I learned from my parents were conservative and somewhat libertarian. The first presidential election, and in fact any election I voted in was in 1980. I voted for Ronald Reagan on the national level, but locally, I usually voted democrat, because of the corruption, which came to a head some years later when the republicans screwed up to the extent that they left the county in debt and in shambles. Now the democrats have their chance to screw things up there, as who ever is in power for too long, usually gets corrupted by it. Since then I have moved to Iowa, and after the 2004 presidential election, I found myself further disgusted with a party that gives us choices such that we end up choosing "the lesser of the two evils".  Bush had become a spendthrift with the government and really didn't distinguish himself as a fiscal conservative. He also chose people for appointments that were considered loyal to him and the party, rather than who was best for the job. Machine politics at its best. After the 2006 elections, where the democrats gained a majority in the house,  I felt that I had had the last straw. I would never again vote for the "lesser of two evils", nor would I vote party line just because. My discontent with this started with the Dole candidacy in 1996. While a decent man, putting someone forth because it is their turn is a lousy way to do politics. The wrong guy at the wrong time. So here we are in 2008, with our choices being McCain and Obama. I disagree with McCain on immigration, campaign finance reform, taxes, and in general, the role of government. I disagree with Obama on everything, or just about everything. Here we go again, having to choose between an ersatz democrat in republican clothes and a socialist. I have to say I am freaking sick of it. Now, as far as McCain the man, the guy who got his ass kicked for five and half years in Hanoi, I give my props. I respect him as an individual, and I think he has sand, as they say, but we don't agree enough on important issues. Obama is irrelevant as I see him as a cardboard cutout with the "can you here me now" crowd behind him shouting hope and change. He is a socialist in democrat's clothes, and I question his values, and his motives. At this point, I think that most people are deluding themselves in accepting a two party system that pays lip service to them and never gets it right. The two parties have become a self-serving political oligarchy, and all they see us as are sheeple that can be manipulated and led to vote to keep them in power. The british had that attitude 232 years ago and we kicked their ass. I think it's time to kick some ass again. Bona Fides and beliefs to follow...

Thank you for reading my blog. 

The DNC, Two for them, none for me

The democrats have shown, once again, how hypocritical they are. The DNC has made a deal to get fuel from the state of Colorado tax free during the democrat convention. Now, I am the first person to applaud tax free anything, but the tax break is for a party that: wouldn't suspend the fuel taxes to alleviate high fuel prices for all people, will not allow drilling for oil offshore, or  allow drilling for oil in ANWR, and want to pass laws that would cripple our economy through things like carbon credits, which are useless and feckless. Now, the DNC will assert the republicans are doing it during their convention. Well, they are hypocrites too. They are supposed to be the party of low taxes, small government, pro-life and family values. During the Bush administration, we have seen the largest growth of the government, probably since FDR. Expanded medicare, prescription drug plan, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA,  etc. While the democrats are the drivers on the road to ruin, Bush and his neo-machiavellian consultant of how to win elections by taking your opponents positions have done everything to not only screw up the republican party, but make it possible for the democrats to take both houses and probably the White House in 2008. They helped put the democrats in the drivers seat. So what are we left with here are the major two parties that do not represent what the the american people want or believe and are out for themselves. They are hypocrites, drawn to the power of political position, while giving lip service to positions that they change with the change of the direction of the political winds. 

Thank you for reading this blog.