If Bush Had Done That

GOP Debate Live Chat

2012-02-23T05:55:21Z

GOP Debate

What’s their problem with Romney?

2012-02-23T05:23:13Z

As governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, Mitt Romney did something even Ronald Reagan didn’t do as governor of California: He balanced the budget without raising taxes. Romney became deeply pro-life as governor of the aforementioned liberal state and vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill. (Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich lobbied President George W. Bush to allow embryonic stem cell research.) Romney’s approach to illegal immigration in Massachusetts resembled what Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing today, making her a right-wing heroine. Romney pushed the conservative …

Read the original post:
What’s their problem with Romney?

Obama To Blame Others For Gas Prices Thursday

2012-02-23T03:40:03Z

While attempting to toot his own horn (Bloomberg) President Barack Obama will try to head off the political impact of rising gasoline prices as Republicans vow to make the price at the pump an issue in the 2012 election campaign. Obama plans events this week focusing on his administration’s efforts to expand domestic exploration and development of alternative energy sources to combat cyclical spikes in gas prices. He’s going to blame China, Iran, speculators, people who fail yo properly inflate their tires and get tune ups, anyone but himself. The White House …

Read the original post:
Obama To Blame Others For Gas Prices Thursday

We are Losing the Tax Debate Even Though We’re Right

2012-02-23T03:00:35Z

Let me get something out of the way first: I get it. I know. I know that 47% of the country pays no income tax and I am fully aware that that is unfair. I’m part of that 53% of taxpayers and I find it infuriating as well. We exist in a system that allows half of the country to vote against the other half’s best interests. Half of the country can vote in ways to ensure that the other half pays bills that they don’t have to pay. It’s completely and utterly imbalanced and so far from what a free and just society would do as to be laughable. That said, I propose a simple hypothesis that I reckon most people would agree with: We only change this disparity by getting more people to agree with us than disagree with us. Accepting my hypothesis, let’s look for a moment at how we currently discuss taxes in America when the debate is between the left and the right. The left says we need to “pay our honest share” and we respond indignantly that “we already are! It’s you that aren’t!” The truth of our answer aside, our ability to get people to agree with us is not helped with this tactic. For one thing, we are accepting a premise from the outset: taxes are about “fairness.” I would submit that taxes are not about fairness. Though taxation has in the last century been a tool for social engineering and inflation control, I’d like to believe that taxes exist ideally as a means through which government pays for its ability to exist. Certainly the government is required to apply all laws to all citizens equally, but this isn’t as simple as it sounds. For instance, someone who is under 18 does not in fact have the same rights as someone that is over 18. This isn’t an unfair application of the law but, since the person who is now over 18 was at one time under 18 and was therefore treated exactly the same. But more importantly, using the “fairness” rhetoric simply can’t work when there are opposing points of views about what constitutes fairness. Fairness is subjective and there can be a completely different standard from one person to the next. It doesn’t matter how reasoned a point of view you may have about fairness and equality, there simply will never be enough people willing to vote against what they perceived best interest to make the impact we need. I believe our problem is that we’re trying to convince this group of people that they are working against someone else’s best interest instead of showing them how they are working against their own. We do this by being addicted to the income tax argument. We can scream all we want about how it’s unfair that the guy earning the bottom 20% of income earners doesn’t have to pay income taxes, but in the end, he’s looking at his monthly income and outgo and saying, “If you want to make this about fairness, I don’t reckon it’s honest that you want my kids to starve.” While it’s certainly an unreasonable standard for you or me to be responsible for another man’s ability to feed his children, I reckon it’s a mistake to continue believing we “win” simply by being aware of this truth. No, we can’t be responsible for every person that doesn’t earn enough money to pay for food. But we don’t win by knowing that. We don’t win by telling him that. Now, if it can be established that current income taxation is unfair but that that isn’t the primary concern of the government and that furthermore, crafting the argument around perception of fairness doesn’t work anyway or worse, works in the favor of our opposition, then what does work? How do we convince people to reckon differently? One way we do not do it is by adopting our own version of class warfare. The truth is, Barack Obama is not the only one who has been engaging in class warfare rhetoric. While “The 53%” movement feels excellent and feels justified, it’s essentially excluding the possibility that the 47% will want to be involved. It seems to accept the premise that we are enemies working against one another. Sure there will be principled members of that group that are willing to join even though they aren’t technically “in” the 53%. But by and large it’s an exclusionary slogan, born in response to the 99% movement. Basically we became so enraged at the 99% slogan that we made our own class warfare slogan. This simply cannot be the answer. It’s fun, it’s snarky, but it’s very “I’m rubber you’re glue.” It’s playing to base conservative instincts about individual responsibility but it’s applying group responsibility to the 47% that don’t pay taxes and in many cases, alienating them. I’ve long felt like the 53% movement is an elaborate way of simply giving up. What we’re essentially saying is that the income taxation model is unfair to 5.3 out of 10 of us and so we are going to stand toe to toe against the 4.7 other people and really say that to them. And we don’t care if it alienates them because screw them, they aren’t paying taxes anyway and on top of that, we can win even if it’s only with 53% of the vote, so who needs ‘em? So far that point of view has not altered our seemingly unstoppable path to statism. While the left continually takes 2 steps forward and 1 step back, we take 1 step forward and 2 steps back. We aren’t winning. The question for me is, why have we separated income taxes from all other forms of taxation? Is there a reason to ignore other taxes and only focus on the most divisive one? Forget the 53%. Forget the 47%. I’m talking about the 100%. There are taxes that 100% of us pay every day and every single American would be more than pleased to have go away. From gasoline taxes to sales taxes to telephone taxes to hidden taxes (for instance, property taxes which in turn are passed through to the renter) every person in America is paying for government. To be clear, the taxes shift from federal to state to municipal and of course some people get so much money out of the government that even after paying all of their local and state taxes, they still come out ahead. I know this. But once again, knowing this doesn’t change one mind. The Federalist debate is a debate to be had, certainly. The question of a state’s right to do something versus the federal government’s right to do supersede it, is probably going to be constant topic this election season considering the Romneycare vs Obamacare aspect of the campaigns. But lets not mix up our philosophical viewpoints here. Yes, a state’s right to do something without federal intervention is vital but taxes and an individual’s monthly disposable income knows no borders. The guy trying to feed his kid doesn’t care if the tax he just paid to have a working telephone comes from Montana or from Washington. He just knows he has less money. Is it perhaps time to consider that there are masses of people who don’t know how much money they are losing every month to taxation of all stripes? Watch this video, which is a disgusting show of the mindset of someone that is living off of the government dole: After recovering from your disgust, reckon about something other than his complete inability to know that he’s spending other people’s money. The conclusion that I immediately drew from this is that he instinctually wants to keep as much money as possible to spend on himself. An obvious point, but an vital one. What it tells me is that he’s reachable. He wants to keep “his” money and if he sees an opportunity to do so, he’ll take it. If he sees someone threatening to take it from him by increasing his taxes or even just saying it’s not honest that he doesn’t pay enough, he’ll undoubtedly shut down and be incapable of listening. The guy in this video infuriates me, but my life is better if he votes the way I do. As much as I reckon he’s a shiftless, bone idle, man-child, the United States of America is better if he votes for the smaller government ticket. So what do I want? Do I want to scold him for not “getting it?” Or do I want to convince him to come to my way of thinking, something which would appear to be very simple to do since, like most normal human beings, he understands the value of being able to choose how to spend his money? The fundamental question for me is, “Do we believe that low taxes makes prosperity or not?” I know I do. And as such, even though I know there are tons of unmotivated people, we have over-extended unemployment checks going out weekly, there’s medicare fraud, and a number of other things that our tax dollars are being squandered on just so other people can be bone idle, in spite of all that I still believe that a lower taxed society will bring about less of all of those negatives. I reckon there are millions of people that are on unemployment, have been on it for too long, but are still decent, hard working folks that just can’t find a job and have to feed their kids. Three years after their job loss, we shouldn’t be paying for their lives but what parent is going to opt to not feed their kids? I believe a lower taxed society will help that person. So while we squabble over the guys that are taking advantage of the system and how much they suck, we do nothing to convince that guy, or others, that they are better off keeping more of their own money, even if it’s at the state level, even if it’s money that they got because they’re cheating the system. The Democrats found a way to make taxes noble. So much so that some poor sap making a classic joke about lowering taxes was called a smartass by Vice President Biden. That’s because in the Democrat party, and in the 47% that we all get so mad about, taxes are excellent . I reckon priority one needs to be convincing the general public, the poor, the ancient, those on welfare, those taking advantage of the system, everyone …that taxes are terrible. We do this by, instead of constantly putting forth graphs that show the income tax disparity, instead show graphs about how much money is being spent by the lower income earners just to buy groceries. Make visual examples and stirring speeches about how many days a year a person spends working on behalf of their federal, state and local governments. Stop trying to convince people that aren’t paying one tax out of a bajillion that we are a “taxed versus untaxed” society. We’re just one society, and it’s all overtaxed and you could afford to do more if you kept more of the money that’s being taken from you. Make the people that aren’t paying income taxes aware of the amount of money they could have every month but never see. Half of our culture no longer puts death and taxes next to each other, no longer understands that Uncle Sam taking your money is a terrible thing, no longer understands what angered Robin Hood and what prompted the Boston Tea Party. This half of our culture has really reached a point that they view taxes as a noble form of patriotism and charity. We need to start showing them how it’s affecting their lives on a daily basis. We must get people to despise taxes again and look at it as the absolutely minimal necessary evil that it’s intended to be. We don’t get there by scolding them. We get there by teaching them. We are the 100%. Follow @ben_howe

Original post:
We are Losing the Tax Debate Even Though We’re Right

David Waldman of Daily Kos: Know-Nothing Bigot

2012-02-23T02:00:35Z

It’s time for Democratic politicians like Elizabeth Warren who are courting Catholic voters, or who – like Senator Bob Casey – profess the Catholic faith themselves, to distance themselves from Daily Kos over the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing bigotry of Contributing Editor David Waldman . Waldman, @KagroX on Twitter , is one of the leading figures at Daily Kos, the largest left-wing blog; a former Hotline staffer , he’s a contributing editor and front-page writer , runs the affiliated site Congress Matters , and his tweets are frequently quoted and retweeted by Markos Moulitsas. In an mad, profanity-laden tirade last night on Twitter over a flap between a local Virginia church and the Girl Scouts, Waldman unloaded his hatred of the Church, grasping for every anti-Catholic trope he could reach (examples: “Catholic Church: the ones we don’t rape, we’ll alienate by calling them communist b****es” or “Catholics are the next Shakers. No one under 35 will ever stay in this church” ) and complaining that there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court ( “Oh that’s right. Six Catholics. Fantastic.” ) Waldman’s vicious rant would have been right at home with the anti-popery screeds of the Klan in its heyday, the Know-Nothings of the 1840s or the “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” trope that cost James G. Blaine the 1884 presidential election. Waldman’s full outburst, in reverse chronological order, is below the fold; warning, it includes language we do not ordinarily permit on this website): This Klan manifesto from 1923 – see Points 6-8 – seems positively restrained by comparison: Politics ain’t beanbag, and Twitter is often not a place for the most thought-out opinions. But by any stretch, this is far over the line to simple hatemongering. It may not surprise us, but it should still offend us. And it should offend and embarrass Democratic officials that this is a loud voice in their coalition. It may seem unfair to question public officials to anticipate that stoking the fires of anti-Catholicism will be seized upon by extremists like Waldman, but they can certainly denounce it – unless it’s precisely what they aim to accomplish. There is a long and dolorous history of anti-Catholicism in this country. The Know-Nothings’ anti-Catholicism and hatred of new Catholic immigrants were intertwined. Then House Speaker Blaine sponsored the anti-Catholic 1875 Blaine Amendment to the Constitution (defeated in the Senate but enacted in many states and still used as a sword by the public school teachers’ unions to this day) and lost the 1884 presidential election when he stood by as one of his surrogates branded the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion”. The Klan was the leading voice against the Church in the 1920s, and as late as 1960, John F. Kennedy was forced to defend his faith against conspiratorial charges of papal control of the federal government. Catholicism has been the faith of many waves of immigrants to this country and strivers for upward social mobility – Irish and Italians and Poles, Filipinos and Hatians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. There have always been those who find our faith threatening and seek to control it. And the Catholic Church has been in the Democrats’ crosshairs in this election season, moreso than in any election since at least 1960. It’s not hard to see why. The four remaining GOP presidential candidates include Rick Santorum, an outspokenly traditional Catholic who has faced questioning on such uncontroversial Catholic beliefs as the existence of Satan , and Newt Gingrich, a late-in-life Catholic convert. Catholics are prominent and rising in GOP ranks, including John Boehner, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush (a convert), Bob McDonnell, Pat Toomey, Rudy Giuliani, Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, John Hoeven, Sam Brownback, Tom Corbett, Susanna Martinez, and Luis Fortuno. The six Catholics on the Supreme Court include all five Republican appointees: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito. (The sixth is the first Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor). The Obama Administration has played wedge-issue politics against the Church for reasons of both policy and politics, most recently with the rule, enacted by the Department of Health and Human Services, requiring Catholic institutions to provide health care plans including coverage of contraception, in violation of the Church’s own position – a rule condemned by all 180 Catholic Bishops and scores of Catholic institutions , but which Democrats gleefully predict will be an electoral asset against the GOP precisely because defending the Church’s religious freedom is a point of principle on which neither the GOP nor the Church can bend. In Washington State, Democrats are pressing even further, to require all health plans to cover abortions. These moves are all about taking away the Church’s freedom, in its capacity as an employer, to follow its own conscience, and thus eliminating one of the last major institutions in this country not beholden to government. And the DSCC is using the confrontation in fundraising emails: Will no one rid the Obama Administration of these meddlesome priests? The harder the Administration pushes the Church for political and financial gain and to achieve government dominance over social issues, the more the excitable followers of the Administration work themselves into lathers of Catholic-bashing. This is as excellent a time as any for Democrats to admit that this tactic has gone too far. (It’s a recurring issue – Evangelical Christians and Mormons have come in for the same treatment before and will again). Catholics are a majority in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and over 40% of the population of in Massachusetts; Catholics are the largest religious denomination in 33 states, and in particular the predominant faith of Latinos in this country. We deserve to know that our elected leaders, regardless of party, will not encourage Waldman’s sort of bigotry. Catholic politicians like Bob Casey, Joe Biden, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin – or politicians like Elizabeth Warren who are seeking the votes of Catholic voters – should reckon long and hard about associating themselves with Daily Kos as long as Waldman is part of it. But moreso, they have an obligation not to encourage the extremist bigots in their midsts.

Follow this link:
David Waldman of Daily Kos: Know-Nothing Bigot

Governor Romney Teases New Tax Plan Prior to Arizona Debate

2012-02-23T01:30:31Z

Prepare yourselves, I am going to write something semi positive about policies that the Romney campaign happens to espouse today, at this hour*. Today the Romney Campaign is rolling out their new tax plot. Tonight could be a fantastic night for Romney in the debate. While Santorum may get lost in the weeds and off message with the social issues, Romney will be making a push to talk about his new tax plot. If Mitt can change the focus to the economy and lay out the details of his new tax plot, he can leave Santorum stumbling just before AZ and MI vote. What Gov. Romney is saying in Chandler, AZ today sounds like it has potential . It isn’t a fundamental reform, but I reckon the whole package will probably look excellent and be pro growth for sure. To that point, I consulted the Mouth of Sauron** on Willard’s tax plot , and it sounds pretty solid so far. Make Permanent, Across-The-Board 20 Percent Cut In Marginal Rates, with Reagan’s 28% top rate. Pro Growth cuts – 25% Corporate rate. 15% Capital Gains for those making over $200,000 Base broadeners: See Bowles-Simpson Change to a Territorial Tax system Nothing extremely bold, but some solid reforms. I like that he felt free to steal the territorial tax system from the corpse of the Perry campaign. Of course there are some failures, like retaining the 15% cap gains for those making over $200,000. Despite Rubin’s argument to the contrary, that tax cut is largely meaningless and, more importantly, it takes the battle off our turf validating the class division argument in the process. Additionally, it seems there is still an unwillingness by Gov. Romney to address Social Security spending in any meaningful way. While the plot calls for repeal of Obamacare, block grants for Medicaid, and premium support for Medicare, Social Security gets an uninspired retirement age increase and is indexed to inflation. The most concerning part of this plot, and the roll out of it, isn’t even in the plot. In her glorified piece of campaign literature, Rubin dropped this troublesome line: Romney , unlike some who back flat tax proposals, does not want to see the tax system become less progressive . Again, Team Romney is clearly on the incorrect turf here***. This is still a primary, and he is still trying to be the Republican nominee. You can’t go out and say things like this when most Republicans are for a flattening of the progressive curve, if not an actual flat tax. And this isn’t an isolated incident either. By way of Zeke Miller of Buzz Feed , we see Romney himself engaging in even more blatant acts of class warfare while also accepting the premise that tax policy should be about enforcing fairness: “And by the way, I want to make sure you know that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% pay their honest share or more. ” snip “ The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy ,” his campaign said in a press release. He and Democrats, of course, have a different definition of the term. Again, the man is fighting on the incorrect turf and validating the arguments of his foes. This does not bode well. I won’t complain too much though, it isn’t a terrible plot, it is much better than Obama’s plot – noted by Daniel Horowitz here , and at least it isn’t 59 points. Gov. Romney has a chance to lead tonight and force a pivot back to the economy, jobs, and tax reform. He has a plot that works and can be clarified in the limited time allotted in a debate. The only question is whether Mitt can take command of the debate and make the pitch. If he can’t do that, then he’ll affirm my suspicions that he is really a weak leader who has benefited more from privilege than actual tenacity, knowledge, and grit. Aaron B. Gardner P.S. It really does say something that the Washington Post’s go to person for the Conservative perspective is so comfortable defending the progressive tax system. I shouldn’t be surprised by Rubin’s actions though, when one gladly throws SoCons under the bus Fiscons aren’t usually far behind. Jenn Rubin should drop the act and save us all a lot of distress. * I am sure this will change. ** Jenn Rubin is a surrogate for Team Romney, this really isn’t up for dispute. *** Yes, I know those are Rubin’s words, refer to the above note.

Read this article:
Governor Romney Teases New Tax Plot Prior to Arizona Debate

Obama the Tax Cutter? Think Again

2012-02-23T01:00:36Z

After several years of offering oblique generalities about the need to lower the corporate tax, Obama is finally putting his money where his mouth is. Last week, Congressman Dave Camp called out Timothy Geithner for not offering a corporate tax cut in the President’s FY 2013 budget. So with much fanfare, Geithner has unveiled a proposal to cut the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. So is Obama a born-again supply side tax cutter? Not by a long shot. Here are the facts. Let’s remember that 28% is still higher than the average rate among industrialized countries, even among European countries. As AEI’s Alex Brill observes , Obama’s proposal would take our corporate tax rate from last place (34th) to 32nd place. There had been a bipartisan consensus to lower the rate to 25%, in line with the OECD average. Moreover, when coupled with state corporate taxes, which don’t exist in most other countries, the corporate tax rate may still be over 35% in many localities. Like with all Obama tax cuts, there are sundry tax increases included in the plot, totaling $250 billion. Obama would require U.S. companies operating overseas to pay a new minimum tax rate on their foreign earnings. Instead of following a bipartisan plot to encourage businesses to bring their profits home through a one-time repatriation holiday, he is using the boot of government to punish them. Obama also plans to eliminate a lot of deductions for oil and gas companies, such as expensing on drilling investments and depletion of wells. These are not loopholes; they are universal investment deductions that factor in the cost of doing business. Those costs will be passed down to the consumer if this plot passes. While we all want a lower flatter tax, this plot does not lower the marginal rates enough to warrant the elimination of these deductions. Moreover, if you’re going to eliminate credits and deductions for those companies that pay millions in taxes, why not eliminate them for every business, including green energy firms that pay no taxes to start with? Yet, Obama plans to renew the Production Tax Credit handout for Huge Wind, a credit that is unfortunately supported by some Republicans. Any benefits that would be actualized as a result of the corporate tax cut would be vitiated by Obama’s triple taxation of corporate dividends. As the WSJ points out , under Obama’s 2013 budget, the corporate dividends tax rate would rise from 15% to 44.8% next year. Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Follow this link:
Obama the Tax Cutter? Reckon Again

Daily Links – February 22, 2012

2012-02-23T00:45:01Z

Today is February 22nd. It was on this date in 1980 that the immortal “Miracle On Ice” occurred. A scrappy young American team brought down the long-undefeated Soviet team, 4-3, in what is undoubtedly one of the most well-known hockey upsets in history. The American team won the gold two days later, taking out Finland 4-2. Also on this date in 1923, the first chinchilla farm in the United States opened, which was arguably less worthy of being dubbed a miracle. Lastly, today is National Margarita Day . Nobody knows who invented the margarita, but one thing is certain, he had a wicked hangover the next day. Consider this an Open Thread . Documents show Obama’s FCC used regulatory muscle to ruin LightSquared’s competition | Daily Caller “President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission demolished wireless broadband company LightSquared’s competition through a pattern of regulatory decisions apparently aimed at establishing an ‘open-access’ Internet in the United States.” Huge Labor’s Democratic Convention | Washington Free Beacon “Local businessmen in the least-unionized state in the country are worried that organizers of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., are putting the Democratic Party’s alliance with organized labor ahead of local businesses—as well as state law.” Nature Fakery | Defining Thoughts “These days ‘nature fakery’ lives on in school curricula and well loved culture, from Earth Day celebrations to Disney cartoons like Pocahontas. Only now this myth is renamed “environmentalism” and disguised with a patina of scientific authority.” Palin on Santorum: MSM makes me sick! | The Right Scoop “The mainstream media, they make me sick! They’re hypocrites and we need to call them out on that!” Today’s Word of the Day comes via Merriam-Webster. nictitate : verb To wink.

See the original post:
Daily Links – February 22, 2012

Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research

2012-02-23T00:00:38Z

The utter fecklessness of Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick is becoming more apparent by the day . Last week she chose that a proposed Virginia law, one that the Republican governor has suddenly gone squishy on, is the equivalent of rape because it could conceivably require something be “inserted into the vagina, and then went around.” Since then we’ve learned that not only did Lithwick simply lie about what the law required and we’ve found that Virginia Plotted Parenthood requires two ultrasounds with each abortion. Presumably to insure they only kill half their patients. To hear Lithwick tell it, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is a horror tool invented by rich, white, elderly Republicans to enslave and defile women who only want to be left in peace to dismember their unborn child. The truth is quite different, and in the context of this artificial kerfuffle, and quite ironic. From LifeNews: Abortion advocates in Virginia have come under heavy criticism for equating the ultrasound legislation there would allow women to see before an abortion to rape. Yet, while abortion backers say having an ultrasound is like getting raped, a 2003 study shows 99% of Plotted Parenthood abortion facilities do them beforehand. Apparently, in 2003 the medical journal Contraception reported on a survey conducted of abortion providers in the United States ( article hosted by LifeNews ). The finding, 99% of abortion providers either always or frequently used vaginal ultrasound for surgical abortions. 92% of the sites providing mifepristone induced abortions did vaginal ultrasound. Based on the evidence thus far, the worst that can be said of the proposed Virginia law is that is recognizes the standard practice used in 99% of abortion facilities. The best that can be said about Lithwick is that she’s a mendacious know-nothing. ?

Continued here:
Dahlia Lithwick Despises Medical Research

This Is All That Matters To Me

2012-02-22T23:28:57Z

You might have wondered why I haven’t had too much to say about the Republican primary so far. One of the reasons is, as I’ve said from the beginning, Mitt Romney will get this nomination, and all this we are watching is political fluff and drama. I have been amazed at the amount of crazy despise rained down on Rick Santorum for simply expressing his faith. It reminds me of what the left and media did to Sarah Palin. Nothing brings that despise out more than a candidate who really …

Read the original post:
This Is All That Matters To Me