Right Smart

Post Etch-a-sketch: If Romney really likes firing people, he should start with Eric Fehrnstrom

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:33:00 +0000

I'm enjoying the schadenfreude. For someone who's followed Romney before 2008, Fehrnstrom has been an irritating mouthpiece, spewing slime and propaganda for the malleable Mitt. Bill McGurn at Ricochet.com thinks Romney should fire EF to prove his conservative bonafides. I wonder if Romney's shouldn't fire EF to prove his claim in January: "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." Oh wait, that was Romney version 3.6 -- we're up to 4.0 now, aren't we?

READ: Etch-a-sketch

Romney and mandates

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:48:00 +0000

Poor Mitt Romney. He can't keep his own story straight, let alone keep others from laughing about his conflicting versions.

[Romney] said he would ask the president, "Why didn't you pick up the phone and say, 'Is what you've done in Massachusetts a good model for the nation?' And I'd have said, no."

Romney's opponents have pounced on a 2009 op-ed he wrote for USA TODAY, brought to light by the website Buzzfeed last week.

In the article, Romney said that at least part of his health care plan was exactly what the nation needed.

Romney wrote that "getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank." In addition to incentives, "using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-05/romney-health-care/53375684/1

New Romney tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:07:00 +0000

Ron Paul is Mitt Romney's useful idiot

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:56:00 +0000

Ron Paul is the useful idiot to the Romney campaign, in effect a second (or third?) SuperPAC tearing down other conservative challengers to the Massachusetts moderate. And like Romney, Paul's negative ad spend far outweighs that of positive ads for himself. The two tools deserve each other, but not voters' support.

Joe Scarborough properly called this out on Morning Joe today:

READ MORE at The Daily Caller

Romney's "pious baloney"

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:10:00 +0000

Any claim by Romney that he hasn't been running for president since at least 2002, if not earlier, is clearly balderdash. Read this 2007 New York Times article:

"...the 1994 defeat did not end the pull of his father’s ambitions. Three years later [1997], citing Steve Forbes as an example of a businessman-candidate, Mr. Romney mentioned to his brother that he was thinking of a run for the presidency."

The close of this article should also put serious fear into any true conservative. The GOP's "inevitable" nominee is a wolf in Mitt's clothing, who even if he wins the Presidency, will likely follow the disastrous course of Bush 41 rather than Reagan.

"Mitt Romney said he learned his political values from his father, pointing to the health insurance program he introduced in Massachusetts as something his pragmatic father would have favored. It provided private insurance for the poor by tapping taxpayer money set aside to cover their emergency room visits, winning bipartisan support.

“If you listen to what my opponents have to say — ‘Romney is just trying to move to the right to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party’ — well, why is it that in the last months of my governorship that I helped push through a plan to help give health insurance to everybody in the state?” Mr. Romney said.

Expect more of the moderate side of Mitt Romney if he makes it to the general election, said Mr. Eyre, his friend and his father’s former aide. “I think you will say to yourself, ‘That looks a lot like George,’” Mr. Eyre said. “You are going to see a different part of Mitt than what we see now and, frankly, I think it will come to him more naturally.”"

Romney's conservative facelift

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:17:00 +0000

This headline made me LOL: Coulter: Gingrich Is The Sharron Angle And Christine O'Donnell Of GOP Field

Seriously? The conservative leader who re-took the House of Representatives (and coincidentally the Senate) for the first time in 40 years -- is akin to Angle and O'Donnell? Ann Coulter hasn't just sipped the Romney Kool-Aid, she is punch-drunk on the stuff. When Coulter called Romney "the most conservative" GOP candidate, her credibility as a conservative commentator was completely shot in my view. She is completely ignoring previous statements by Romney himself, where he calls himself a "moderate" and "progressive" (see 2002 video).

And if you don't take Romney at his word -- and who in their right mind should? -- it seems the Americans surveyed in this poll are wise enough to see through the consultants' attack ads and focus-grouped media appearances.

(CNSNews.com) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia is leading former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race by 20 points—41 percent to 21 percent--among self-professed conservatives, according to a new Gallup poll released Thursday.

By contrast, Romney is leading Gingrich by 10 points—27 percent to 17 percent—among self-professed liberals and moderates in the poll.
Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-gingrich-leads-romney-20-points-among-conservatives-romney-leads-gingrich-10

To his great credit, Rush Limbaugh hasn't been afraid to call Romney "not a conservative."

Sharpton’s civil-rights group juggling tax woes

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:54:00 +0000

Al Sharpton's "Lean Forward" ad on MSNBC always stikes me as bizarre (see below).

Now it appears the blueberry pie is all over Sharpton's face, as evidenced in this article:

Sharpton’s civil-rights group juggling tax woes - NYPOST.com

Apparently, even Saturday Night Live -- hardly a conservative venue -- couldn't resist poking fun at Sharpton this weekend.

Romney's bad, bad bet

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:09:00 +0000

Mitt's bet was a foolish gesture on two levels. First, it was absolutely tone-deaf toward the plight of millions of Americans who are unemployed or struggling to make end meet.

But on another level, it raises questions about something Romney has emphasized of late: his faith and values! Note what the Church of Latter Day Saints says about gambling:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.

-- http://tinyurl.com/cwck8m6

Is Romney's core so shallow that he'll toss his faith aside just to score a debating point? He seemed to be offering a handshake like it was a sincere bet...

Mitt v Mitt

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:24:00 +0000

If you thought John Kerry was a flip-flopper, watch this video montage produced by the DNC. Kerry looks stubborn and steadfast in comparison to Romney.

In a position shift, Romney says the cause of climate change is unknown

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:04:00 +0000

In a position shift, Romney says the cause of climate change is unknown - The Hill's E2-Wire

2007: Mitt Romney Supported Amnesty On 'Meet The Press' (VIDEO)

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:58:00 +0000

Mitt Romney’s craven equivocations on immigration - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:53:00 +0000

Mitt Romney’s craven equivocations on immigration - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

Romney, who governed as a centrist technocrat in Massachusetts, is trying to exploit Newt’s display of empathy and sanity on immigration to get to Newt’s right, in a bid to shore up his conservative credentials. But even though his campaign is criticizing Newt for not supporting deportation, his campaign won’t say whether he would support deportation, because he knows that such a display would harm him in a general election.
Something similar happened recently on the payroll tax cut. Romney criticized the payroll tax cut extension, because it was proposed by Obama and faulting it would presumably appeal to GOP primary voters. But his campaign wouldn’t state clearly that he opposes extending it, presumably because that would be used against him in a general election.

The Real Romney?

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:44:00 +0000

It's anybody's guess what Mitt Romney really stands for, other than fulfilling some sense of destiny (or outdoing his dad's legacy) in reaching the Oval Office. Such naked ambition should be a concern to any voter.

Here is another reminder of the pandering phoniness from a man who will in all likelihood be on the 2012 GOP ticket. Why Limbaugh and his ilk endorsed this fake says a lot about the Talking Cons credibility -- or lack thereof!

On shortcuts and corrosion

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Speaking about torture, President Obama said this during his April 29 press conference:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat.

And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

Is not abortion just such a "short-cut" which "corrodes the character of a country"? It would be refreshing to find more "pro-choice" adherents acknowledge the moral violations of a procedure that in many cases, causes pain to an unborn baby before its life is extinguished.

Abortion is every bit as egregious as torture, if not worse, because it constitutes a brutal action against innocent life pitting a mother against a child for the sake of convenience.

Romney rakes it in, doesn't dole it out - POLITICO.com

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:31:00 +0000

READ: omney rakes it in, doesn't dole it out - POLITICO.com

Mitt Romney’s political action committee has raised $571,000 this year, according to a report filed this week with the Federal Election Commission. ...

This year, it’s spent $10,000 on travel, $74,000 on staff salaries and benefits and $118,000 on consulting, including $20,000 for “strategy consulting” to Beth Myers, who ran his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, and $10,000 to Peter Flaherty, who was a key advisor to the campaign.

Those payments dwarf the $16,000 it contributed to candidates.

Why am I not surprised. I've heard some refer to Obama as narcisstic, but Mitt Romney is certainly no angel of selflessness.

Romney 2012: Not an auspicious start in wooing conservatives—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:18:00 +0000

Romney 2012: Not an auspicious start in wooing conservatives—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)

This article is great -- here's a sampler...

A source who attended the event passed on to me his thoughts about the conference, which appears not to have gone well for Romney. Recall that during last year’s G.O.P. nomination battle, Romney had a hard time convincing the conservative base that he was the real thing.

Things got interesting following Gov. Romney’s rehearsed, vacuous speech, filled with standard Republican feel-good talking points with few specifics. One participant said that “Mitt’s speech featured his typical empty platitudes and consultant-driven talking points.”

Let's remember too all the talking heads who backed Romney in 2008 -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. What little credibility these pundits had left is being flushed away with their egomaniacal tirades of late.

Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:56:00 +0000

READ: Obama's safety net: the TelePrompter

I felt Obama's first press conference was excruciatingly dull and uninspiring; far worse than all the scorn heaped on Gov. Jindal's performance last week.

Using a TelePrompter is fine, but to use it for everything? That suggests a lack of confidence in one's self and one's policies, it seems to me...

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union. ...
“He uses them to death,” a television crewmember who also covered the White House under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said of the teleprompter. “The problem is, he never looks at you. He’s looking left, right, left, right — not at the camera. It’s almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”

The audacity of borrowing

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:50:00 +0000

READ: The audacity of borrowing:

"So what is scaring the bond traders? ... The upshot is that the United States has serious long-term fiscal challenges, between the downturn, an aging population, and major entitlement programs. None of the options for getting out of the mess looked particularly palatable. And that was before the president spoke of an extra trillion dollars for health care.

Despite claims of a new realism, the administration's budget is loaded with optimism. It assumes the economy will have a quicker and more vigorous recovery than most private forecasters predict. It assumes that individuals won't change their behavior much to avoid new, higher tax rates. It assumes that sacred cows such as mortgage interest deductibility and agricultural subsidies are ready to be made into hamburgers. And even with all this optimism, the administration predicts red ink as far as the eye can see."

I would support tax increases beginning in FY2011, but NOT to pay for new spending -- we must first begin paying on what we're already "entitled" to in terms of Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's only going to get worse in the decades to come, so this is not to time to go blowing money creating new entitlements. Pay for our existing obligations (and not with smoke and mirrors); then come back and talk to me about universal health care.

Blagojevich gets six-figure book deal

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:41:00 +0000

READ: Blagojevich gets six-figure book deal

It's unlikely he will be convicted before October, so this pathetic rodent manages to score an advance windfall from Phoenix Books. Because his actions occurred while in office, the former Gov-vermin is also exempt from civil lawsuits. Meanwhile, Illinois is still forced to contend with Senator Burris, whose own reputation is sinking fast.

This is so completely FUBAR...

Cramer on Hardball

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:58:00 +0000

Cramer states here what I've been screaming about for weeks at home. Not enough stimulus dollars directed to infrastructure (and jobs), and 4% mortgage for everyone -- not just the defaulting bums who are considered "n'er-do-wells."

Link:

Stimulus-lessness

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:29:00 +0000

The other day I heard a commentator talk about the "Keynesian" approach of this stimulus package. By this school of thought, government should spend more money, even running up deficits, in order to stave off economic recessions. The flip-side, which never seems to apply unfortunately, is that government backs off on spending growth during times of economic abundance to operate under a balanced budget and/or pay down debt.

I am a self-described "deficit hawk" but I do agree that our present circumstances teeter on the edge of financial depression. This is a time for government to act, and there are a few items in this Act that could help. Unfortunately, the best job-creation components -- building highways, clean energy, and telecom infrastructure -- are relatively underfunded at $150 billion compared to spending on Medicaid and bailouts of state governments. Even the "tax relief" seems paltry -- an extra $13/week per earner doesn't go very far, and why do Social Security recipients need an extra $250. Are the elderly inclined to spend that rebate and stimulate the economy?

So, the best job-creating components of this Act don't go very far, spending on entitlements increases (which only stimulates growth in government) and tax cuts to working-class families are meager at best. The Act seems philosophically incoherent, essentially throwing a lot of money in all directions, and I fear it will make almost no difference in helping the economy bottom out.

Tax Fairness and Class Warfare

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:18:00 +0000

It's been quite awhile since I posted last. A 1,500 move across country will do that... To kick off 2009, this posting may stir the pot a bit, but I hoped to present a slightly different perspective to Christian conservatives who are still stuck on Rush (as in Limbaugh). It's a posting I also made in a graduate course on Tax and Budget Policy at Regent University:

There's a lot of hyperbole tossed about regarding federal income taxes from both ends of our political spectrum. Liberals often complain that the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 favored the rich, in terms of dollar amounts. What is often understated or ignored is that the so-called "rich" pay the largest share of federal income taxes. To use some really basic math, Taxpayer A paying $10,000 a year in income taxes would get $500 under a 5% tax cut. Taxpayer B paying only $2,000 a year in income taxes would get only $100 with a similar tax cut. Taxpayer A's getting more money back -- true -- but she is also still paying a lot more to the IRS.

The hyperbole also exists on the Right. The notion that the rich in this country are "punished" for their success is simply absurd, especially if one looks at wage increases over the years (see image at right). Rush Limbaugh is outraged that "The top 1% [of wage earners] is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!" Well, who is in the bottom 50 percent? It's individuals or families earning less than $29,019 in 2003. It's hard to imagine this group is able to do much more than pay rent and put food on the table, after income tax and regressive payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) are withheld. According to a recent NY Times article, a researcher for the conservative American Enterprise Institute "estimates that a family of four earning $50,000 pays exactly the same share of its income (30 percent) on taxes as one earning $150,000." Would Limbaugh feel better if these lower-income families started paying a larger share of income taxes? I wouldn't. I'd rather see incomes for families in lower- and middle-class brackets improve rather than stagnate. I'd rather see more families be enabled to and choose to have a parent stay home with their children instead of both having to work to afford a modest house payment or religious schooling.

So it seems class warfare is waged by both sides. I don't think it serves our civic discourse any benefit to speak out of envy (from the bottom looking up), or out of pride and self-righteousness (from the top down). Custodial workers, store clerks and fast food workers are just as important as the bank presidents, hedge fund managers, and frankly, one could argue that many who are paid far less produce more real goods and services than well-paid CEOs and Wall Street managers.

I like an income tax structure that is progressive, which enables people to improve their status, and as their status improves, that individual or family can contribute more to the functioning of governments which serve all of us in ways direct and indirect. If we can think more in terms of "us" and in terms of helping our neighbors and our neighborhoods, we will improve our discourse, our sense of gratefulness for what God has provided us, and maybe even our attitudes toward rendering Caesar's due.

Who's Losing the U.S. Car Business?

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:10:00 +0000

READ: Who's Losing the U.S. Car Business?

...the UAW refused to make concessions. Instead, it insisted it would only renegotiate its current contract when it ends in 2011. That was the sticking point that killed the deal.
You have to ask this question: If the Detroit carmakers are in dire straits, going broke in two weeks, right now in late 2008, how can the UAW wait until 2011 to make its concessions? The financial problem is today, not two years from today. The threat of liquidation, with perhaps a few million autoworker, supplier, and car-dealer jobs lost, is today's threat, not a 2011 threat. So what's the UAW waiting for?

That's easy. Gettelfinger is waiting for President Obama and a Senate with 58 Democrats. He also was playing a game of bluff with President George W. Bush. He knew Bush had $15 billion of TARP money ready to go, meaning the TARP was Gettelfinger's trump card. The tough-minded union leader never believed the White House would let GM sink and possibly force millions of job losses in the middle of a recession.

What we're really bailing out is the pathetic UAW. Thanks a lot, jerks, and thanks President Bush for giving them a "get out of bankruptcy" card. It's sad how even now, in the waning days of his administration, Bush is bucking reality and good sense to salvage a withered legacy.

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says - CNN.com

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:44:00 +0000

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says - CNN.com

What Recession?

noreply@blogger.com (RightSmart) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:05:00 +0000

NRF Survey Finds Black Friday Gets Holiday Season Off to Energetic Start:

"According to the National Retail Federation's 2008 Black Friday Weekend survey, conducted by BIGresearch, more than 172 million shoppers visited stores and websites over Black Friday weekend, up from 147 million shoppers last year. Shoppers spent an average of $372.57 this weekend*, up 7.2 percent over last year's $347.55."

Recession? What recession? Heck, a lack of money didn't stop some greedy vermin from trampling a Wal-Mart employee to death in order to blow their dough on a plasma TV.

Americans may be fat and lazy, but they're not completely broke. I suppose Rush Limbaugh will celebrate this annual orgy of excess on his radio show Monday as some triumph for capitalism, however pyrrhic. I don't long for suffering or deprivation, but would welcome news of Americans living within their means on a personal level and at a governmental level. That's conservatism...

conservative, adj.:marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate>

Maybe if we all managed our finances in a conservative fashion, we'd have the resources by which to act as "liberals" by giving financially to the work of churches and charities to help our fellow man. And as a bonus, the present credit-and-foreclosure crunch might never have happened.