Saints over 49ers
Patriots over Broncos
Ravens over Texans
Giants over Packers
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Candidates
Alright, it's time to chime in on the 2012 Presidential candidates.
I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.
This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected. The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.
Here is my take on the candidates:
Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.
Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?
Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.
Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.
Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.
Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military. Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)
Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?
Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world? The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.
If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.
I've seen many debates, watched the candidates on news shows, listened to interviews, and examined their records. I also want to add I've watched and listened to the left's take on these candidates to get an additional perspective. After all, I am a firm believer that 2008's John McCain was a product of the left-leaning media that relentlessly and successfully convinced Americans that he was the most electable Republican candidate.
This is not 2008. It seemed, at first, that the left-wing media (you know, those "mainstream" outfits like CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and pretty much any major city newspaper) decided that the best way to get Barack Obama re-elected was to promote Mitt Romney. Romney, after all, initiated "RomneyCare", the basis for "ObamaCare", so he wasn't conservative enough to rally the conservatives of the Tea Party ilk. The problem with that idea was Romney is also a successful businessman and just might come across as someone who could actually fix the economy and get elected. The media, for a while, just seemed content to let the debates go without saying much. When Herman Cain started repeatedly getting accused of sexual harassment, the story was so juicy that the media made sure it got plenty of airtime. I'm sure the media was happy they didn't have to deal with a black Republican candidate. After all, any criticism of him would be condemned as racism by the right. No wait! That's what the left does. Now, the media is promoting Jon Huntsman. He has virtually no chance of winning but I'm sure the media is promoting his leftish platform as a model of how the eventual Republican winner should run his campaign against Obama.
Here is my take on the candidates:
Jon Huntsman: This man is irrelevant. The only person who thinks he can be President is him.
Herman Cain: While I would have relished the thought of the left squirming about a right-leaning black man running against Barack Obama, it just wasn't to be. Cain lost me with his insistence on his "9-9-9" plan. I'm all for radical tax reform but Cain's plan seemed too convenient. Are we really supposed to believe that after careful analysis of the tax system, the optimal tax rates for personal income, business income, and national sales tax just happens to be 9%, 9%, and 9% giving Cain a handy catchphrase to state over and over again? Good thing it wasn't the 8.75-9.34-7.73 plan. Nobody would have remembered it. The tax plan was also the only thing Cain seemed to be armed with. He stumbled badly when handling questions about foreign policy or positions on abortion. I like Cain as a person but he frankly was not ready to be President. By the way, whatever happened to all the sexual harassment suits that were popping up until he cancelled his run?
Michele Bachmann: Every time I heard Bachmann speak, she always said all the right things. She comes across as very smart and very conservative. However, Bachmann's got some baggage with her husband and there are indications that she doesn't always "walk the walk". Also, Tim Pawlenty accused her of not accomplishing anything in Congress and she wasn't able to respond well to that. Sorry Michele, not this year. Stay in Congress, stay conservative, and we'll see next time. I haven't given up on you but this 2012 election is not for you. I still wonder what the "Queen of Rage" cover of Newsweek was about. She never seemed angry to me. Oh yeah!, it's the media, never mind.
Rick Santorum: I like him a lot. He may be the best conservative candidate. He comes across as a hard-working, very knowledgeable family man. If this election was based strictly on integrity and principles, Santorum would be my guy.
Rick Perry: Perry comes across to me as weak. He seems to have been a pretty good governor but I have no idea where he is on foreign policy. He shows up at debates unprepared which is pretty unacceptable. He reminds me of George W. Bush when he speaks and that won't get him elected.
Ron Paul: I wish this guy was as irrelevant as Huntsman because in my opinion, he has no business being a Presidential candidate. The utopia of a teeny, tiny, government would fail within weeks when Iranian-sponsored terrorists attack us and we aren't able to do anything about it because we'll have such a small military. Paul is weaker than Obama on foreign policy and frankly scares the hell out of me. I would honestly vote for Obama if Paul became the Republican candidate. (Which is very unlikely.)
Newt Gingrich: When Gingrich put his hat in the ring, I was very uncomfortable and I wasn't sure why. I kept hearing from supporters how intelligent he is and how he was the one primarily responsible for the "budget surplus" that everyone gives Clinton credit for. (Not really a surplus but that's not important right now.) Once I heard Gingrich in a debate speak favorably of the federal government aiding people in buying a home. He is always talking about a "government policy" for this and a "government policy" for that. Gingrich has shown himself as a big-government Republican. Yet, he has the gumption of calling himself "conservative". Hey Newt, know thyself and stop attacking Romney with your leftish, anti-capitalist views. Why don't you just become Obama's campaign manager and be done with the charade?
Mitt Romney: This election is about A. Who is going to fix the economy? and B. Who is going to guide the U.S. and the free world through what is going to be a very dangerous time for the world? The President is going to have to deal with a new leader in North Korea, Iran about to become a nuclear power, a very nervous Israel, potentially hostile new regimes in Egypt and Libya, and all sorts of instability in Europe. On this basis, I am convinced that Mitt Romney is that candidate who is best suited to deal with this by far. Really, my fellow Americans, this is not the time to fret over positions on abortion or gay marriage. We need to have Americans working and producing again. This is the best way to stay strong and be in position to confront those who would destroy us.
If you believe I am wrong about this. Please let me know. I'd love to read it.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
2011 NFL Fearless Predictions
First of all, here's a sneak peak at the final standings:
AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals
AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants
NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers
NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
AFC East
Patriots
Jets
Dolphins
Bills
AFC North
Ravens
Browns
Steelers
Bengals
AFC South
Texans
Colts
Jaguars
Titans
AFC West
Chargers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
NFC East
Eagles
Cowboys
Redskins
Giants
NFC North
Packers
Lions
Vikings
Bears
NFC South
Falcons
Saints
Buccaneers
Panthers
NFC West
Seahawks
Rams
Cardinals
49'ers
Eagles over Patriots in the Superbowl
Other fearless predictions:
Besides Peyton Manning, another top tier quarterback will miss much of the season due to injury.
Of the teams that are expected to be improved (Lions, Rams, Buccaneers), one will fall flat and finish last.
Of the teams that are expected to be elite (Patriots, Steelers, Chargers, Eagles, Packers, Saints, Falcons), one will greatly disappoint and struggle most of the season.
There will be one team that will come out of nowhere and do extremely well, defying all the odds with players experts thought to be inferior.
One and only one rookie quarterback will have a successful season.
Scoring will be down this year. The new kickoff rule and the short preseason will be the reason.
There will be a renewed emphasis of the running game for many teams in the middle of the season as many complex passing schemes fail.
At the end of the season, I'll go over these and see how I did.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Show Me the Racism!
“...as long as I’m concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell!” -Rep. Maxine Waters
"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson
"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo
"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?
Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/).
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.
"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term President." -Rep. Frederica Wilson
"The Tea Party is so obviously racist." -Janeane Garofalo
"Let’s take these sons of bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” -Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Let's forget about the whole "call for the end of vitriolic rhetoric" and consider the above statements.
There's a lot of harsh speech against a group of Americans who recently began calling for a smaller federal government and lower taxes. It's obvious that those on the political left (those who call for higher taxes and larger government) don't like them. Many publicly call them "racists". Other than the fact the the President of the United States is half-black, what's the justification?
The Tea Party seems to protest Congress as much as Obama. This makes sense since Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government, the part that actually approves budgets, tax breaks, and tax increases. Congress is mostly white so what are these accusations of racism based on?
The Tea Party is also accused of being "the enemy". What is this all about? Lower taxes and more personal responsibility is a threat? To whom is this a threat?
Let's look at the charter of the Tea Party (http://www.teaparty.org/).
1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.
If any of the above items are racism or in some way, a threat to you. I'd certainly like to know why. I don't personally believe in every single item here, but this stuff hardly seems worthy of any of the harsh rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)