So far the Republican debates have been a joke - a reality TV show void of reality. So let's carry the joke a little further. This is what I imagine would happen if any of them would be elected president.
Under Mitt Romney, America would have an immediate economic boom because he would sell the blue States to China.
Under Newt Gingrich we would have the "Contract for China" and he would be the Commissar of Human relations and bi-partisanship. He - and not Mitt the Mormon - would probably legalize polygamy, because every politician should have more than one wife. And definitely more than one mistress.
Under Ron Paul, all laws would be judged by a Constitution Committee (unpaid) because the Supreme Court cannot be trusted anymore.
Under Rick Santorum, you could go to public school when you got your voucher from your church. Freedom of choice would be about which church. Scratch Santorum, he's taken his sweater vests and gone home to do his taxes. He should probably call Romney's accountant.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
A very unelectable "most electable"
I hate to break the news to South Carolina Republicans, but the winner of their primary was President Obama.
Newt Gingrich has much too much baggage. He probably is best suited to win the Conservative and Tea
Party crowd, but they will not elect anyone and many of them are disturbed by his high-paid consulting work for Freddie Mac. Even Democrats who are unhappy with President Obama would come out to vote against Newt.
Newt will bring out more Democrats who hate him for his hypocritical attack on President Clinton's affair when he was having one of his own. He will bring out more Independents who hate him because they feel he is mostly responsible for the deep divisions in our country. They point to his "Contract On America" which was erroneously called "The Contract for America," as
the turning point. There will probably be a vast number of Republican women who will probably sit on their hands rather than vote for this serial philanderer.
None of the GOP candidates have as many negatives or have built up as much animosity as Newt.
Even Glenn Beck has said he's the one Republican candidate he couldn't vote for.
Newt Gingrich has much too much baggage. He probably is best suited to win the Conservative and Tea
Party crowd, but they will not elect anyone and many of them are disturbed by his high-paid consulting work for Freddie Mac. Even Democrats who are unhappy with President Obama would come out to vote against Newt.
Newt will bring out more Democrats who hate him for his hypocritical attack on President Clinton's affair when he was having one of his own. He will bring out more Independents who hate him because they feel he is mostly responsible for the deep divisions in our country. They point to his "Contract On America" which was erroneously called "The Contract for America," as
the turning point. There will probably be a vast number of Republican women who will probably sit on their hands rather than vote for this serial philanderer.
None of the GOP candidates have as many negatives or have built up as much animosity as Newt.
Even Glenn Beck has said he's the one Republican candidate he couldn't vote for.
Who are the "moderate" Republicans?
While watching the New Hampshire primary results a few weeks back, I saw a commentator with a district map show the purported breakdown of votes from conservative, moderate, and liberal Republicans.
Moderate Republicans? Liberal Republican?
I thought the moderates were an endangered species and the liberals were extinct.
So, if anyone who reads this blog can come up with the names of some moderate or liberal Republicans, please send them my way.
Moderate Republicans? Liberal Republican?
I thought the moderates were an endangered species and the liberals were extinct.
So, if anyone who reads this blog can come up with the names of some moderate or liberal Republicans, please send them my way.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Keystone Pipeline
I think I have a solution to the Keystone Pipeline problem.
President Obama should tell Congress he will approve of any bill that they pass with these provisos.
1. Five billion dollars must be left in escrow with FEMA to cover the costs of any illnesses to workers or people in the pipeline territory who get sick from the pipeline.
2. The oil cannot be sold outside of Canada and the United States.
3. All the members of the Board of Directors of Keystone must live in homes within 10 miles of the pipeline.
President Obama should tell Congress he will approve of any bill that they pass with these provisos.
1. Five billion dollars must be left in escrow with FEMA to cover the costs of any illnesses to workers or people in the pipeline territory who get sick from the pipeline.
2. The oil cannot be sold outside of Canada and the United States.
3. All the members of the Board of Directors of Keystone must live in homes within 10 miles of the pipeline.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
GOP Qualifications for Office
One of the most important thing that has come out of the Republican presidential debates is what the candidates see as their primary qualification for office.
What is it?
Vote for me because I'm the most conservative.
I have no program. I will learn on the job - and I I will learn to be even more conservative.
I will cut entitlement programs, because the rich do not want to pay for deadbeats.
I am also the most religious so I can be trusted.
If someone running for office told me I should vote for them because they are the most liberal and that was their main qualification they would not get my vote. I want to know what they stand for. What will they do to make my life better.
Besides cutting everything.
As they like to say in the business world, "You can't shrink your way to prosperity."
Candidates so keen on borrowing from the private sector may want to remember that.
What is it?
Vote for me because I'm the most conservative.
I have no program. I will learn on the job - and I I will learn to be even more conservative.
I will cut entitlement programs, because the rich do not want to pay for deadbeats.
I am also the most religious so I can be trusted.
If someone running for office told me I should vote for them because they are the most liberal and that was their main qualification they would not get my vote. I want to know what they stand for. What will they do to make my life better.
Besides cutting everything.
As they like to say in the business world, "You can't shrink your way to prosperity."
Candidates so keen on borrowing from the private sector may want to remember that.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
End of Year Wish
In this season of PEACE+GOOD WILL {BIPARTISANSHIP} maybe the legislature could put eight days of good legislation together so that Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all people can celebrate the coming year.
Personally, I would settle for one good day. Even that would be a blessing.
Personally, I would settle for one good day. Even that would be a blessing.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Immigration - A Solvable Problem
At the present time there are two opposing factions.
The first believes that all illegal immigrants should be deported.
The second believes in giving illegals amnesty.
Neither idea is the solution but neither side really wants to assume the responsibility of solving it.
I offer a start.
We go by time in our country. We take those who have been here the longest - those who have a job here, worked here and contributed taxes to the city, state and country, and put them in line with legal immigrants. Obviously if they have contributed to the good and welfare of their community for a length of time they have proved that they can and want to be citizens. This way we prove to the illegal immigrants that we do want to solve the problem and get their cooperation.
We owe nothing to those who have never contributed to the country they want citizenship in - they have proved that they only want to return to their own country. If they can prove that they have contributed in other ways such as volunteer work it should be entered into the equation.
This is just a start. There are probably many ways to solve the problem, but you have to start somewhere.
The first believes that all illegal immigrants should be deported.
The second believes in giving illegals amnesty.
Neither idea is the solution but neither side really wants to assume the responsibility of solving it.
I offer a start.
We go by time in our country. We take those who have been here the longest - those who have a job here, worked here and contributed taxes to the city, state and country, and put them in line with legal immigrants. Obviously if they have contributed to the good and welfare of their community for a length of time they have proved that they can and want to be citizens. This way we prove to the illegal immigrants that we do want to solve the problem and get their cooperation.
We owe nothing to those who have never contributed to the country they want citizenship in - they have proved that they only want to return to their own country. If they can prove that they have contributed in other ways such as volunteer work it should be entered into the equation.
This is just a start. There are probably many ways to solve the problem, but you have to start somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
