Did Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum just go back and forth over Puerto Rican statehood and English as America’s official language?

Did Rick Santorum actually say that he would crackdown on hardcore pornography?

Did the GOP candidates actually allow themselves to get bogged down in a debate over…birth control pills?

The GOP has been called the Stupid Party by even its most ardent supporters, because it has a history of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.  This election should be a landslide for the GOP, if it will just stay on target and focus on the issues that will decide this election?

The target is Obama, and the issues that will decide this election are: jobs, energy, spending, and ObamaCare.

Every time the GOP candidates allow themselves to get sidetracked away from these four issues, it helps Obama. And, it’s pretty obvious that the Democrat’s plan (along with their willing partners in the mainstream media) is to keep the GOP candidates talking about anything other than jobs, energy, spending, or ObamaCare–absolutely anything else.

C’mon guys, don’t be the Stupid Party candidate. The next time someone dangles some bait question hoping to get you sidetracked, don’t take it. No matter what the question–no matter what–answer it by talking about jobs, energy, spending, or ObamaCare.  Stay focused and stay on target.

Way I remember it, albatross was a ship’s good luck, ’til some idiot killed it.

Serenity, 2005

Mitt Romney took his dog along on a family vacation. They took a 12 hour trip, with the dog strapped to the roof of the car in a dog carrier.  Mitt Romney doesn’t deny this, in fact he claims it was great fun for the dog–the the dog loved it.

Whether the dog loved it or not can never be proven, since the dog is long gone. What does remain is the image of a man driving cross country with a dog strapped to the roof of his car.

Voter’s opinions of candidates often turn on the small, rather than than big issues.  It has rightly been pointed out that women have a negative view of Newt, because of his divorce history.  But, what will most voters view be of Mitt Romney after they learn of his dog history?

Americans don’t just like dogs, it’s fairer to say Americans have a love affair with dogs.   They certainly dislike people that abuse dogs. Erick Erickson at Red State continually points out that voters tend to vote for the candidate they like they most.  Where does this leave Mitt Romney?

Dogs Against Romney is growing into a respectable grass root presence. It may seem easy to dismiss. After all, with all the problems our nation faces, how could someone’s treatment of a dog really be important? Well, people vote for president not only based on issues, they also take a measure of the man. When voters measure Mitt Romney, what will they conclude?

Mitt Romney’s dog may be his albatross.

The Chevy Volt’s batteries hold the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline—one single gallon.

Would you buy a car that held only one gallon of gasoline? Neither would I. Yet, we’ve invested billions of dollars developing and promoting a car with an “electric gas tank” (the batteries) that only holds one gallon’s worth of energy.

I’ve heard that new super batteries are just around the corner. All we have to do is invest enough money and they’ll appear. Just like computers (in the 1950′s they were the size of rooms, today they can be held in the palm of your hand), battery development is whizzing along at a blurring pace. Unfortunately, that isn’t true. The development pace of batteries is nothing like that of computers.

A better analogy for battery development is radio. In the 1950′s most people listened to music on AM radio. In the 1970′s, FM radio became the standard for listening to music. Digital radio was introduced in the 2000′s. Each of these was a step up in quality, but they weren’t such a huge step that they made the old standards obsolete.

Alkaline batteries were commonly used in the 1950′s, and they still are today. Plug a C, D, or AA battery into any device; odds are it’s the same alkaline battery technology they were using back in the 1950′s. Nickel batteries appeared in the 1970′s. Lithium batteries appeared in the 1990′s, and have three times the capacity of 1950′s alkaline batteries. Truth is, the change in battery technology is slow, slow, slow.

The Chevy Volt battery pack weighs 435 pounds. That’s what’s required to store the energy found in one gallon of gasoline. If you wanted to create a Volt that had a “five gallon” energy tank, it would require at least 2,175 pounds of batteries—literally over a ton. Even if batteries suddenly became dirt cheap, the weight alone makes creating a car that holds more than a couple of gallons of energy unfeasible.

When Consumer Reports tested the Volt, they managed to get 28 miles on a full battery charge; which sounds about right for one gasoline gallon’s worth of energy.  The desingers at GM knew that also. That’s why then ended up putting an internal combustion engine in the car to burn gasoline to produce electricity to power the electric motors. The Volt was meant to be an all electric car, it was sold to the public and the government as an all electric car, so why did they include an internal combustion engine? Because, the best battery pack they could come up could only hold the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

When Poplular Mechanics tested the Volt, they found that even with the battery assist the Volt only got 32 mpg in the city, and 39 mpg on the highway.  This is not an improvement over conventional cars (in fact, it’s less than some conventional cars get). The truth is, when it comes to miles per gallon, the Volt is not as “green” as many conventional vehicles. And, the reason is the Volt has to carry 435 pounds of weight (the battery pack)–a battery pack that becomes dead weight after it expends its one gallon’s worth of energy. The battery pack made the car less green.

The Nissan Leaf did a little better. Consumer Reports got 68 miles out of a full charge (about two gallons worth of energy). Nissan didn’t use more advanced technology than the Volt. The Leaf has a larger battery than the Volt (660 lbs. Vs 435 lbs.) and the non-battery part of the car weighs less (2,694 lbs. Vs 3,346 lbs.). Nissan just put more batteries in the car, and made the rest of the car lighter.

This might still be workable, if you could refill the “electric gas tank” in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, it takes at least 8 hours to fully recharge the batteries in the all electric Leaf. A drive from Atlanta to Birmingham (about 150 miles) takes about three hours (I drive slow and like to make a couple of stops along the way). If I tried to make that trip in the Nissan Leaf, it would take at least 20 hours, because I would have to make two 8-hour stops to recharge the battery.

So, why isn’t just adding more batteries and making the car lighter a solution? Look at the Tesla Roadster. It gets 211 miles on a full battery charge (that’s what Tesla claimed in a lawsuit against the show Top Gear—who said they only got 55 miles per charge—so we’ll go with that over the 250 plus miles Tesla claims in their advertising). 211 miles is still a great range, but how did they achieve it? They increased the battery pack to 992 pounds (557 pounds more than the Volt) and decreased the non-battery weight to 1,731 pounds (2,053 pounds less than the Volt). The Tesla Roadster is a small, small car. I’m sure it’s fun as a sports car, but if ask it to do any of the mundane tasks in life (carry a family, or bring home a load groceries) it’s not anywhere near to being up to the task.

The Chevy Volt was sold as an electric vehicle.  The early advertising for the car (including while GM was asking for money in the bailout) was all about the Volt being an electric car. GM put every engineering brain cell it had behind the Volt. There is no doubt the Chevy Volt is state of the art, best in class as far as electric vehicles go–and it has a gasoline engine as a crutch. It must have that crutch, because the batteries in the Volt only hold the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline—one single gallon.

Would we be calling a regular  car with a gas tank that only held one gallon of gasoline “the car America had to build?” Would we have spent billions of dollars developing that car? Would we be offering $7,500 tax credits to encourage consumers to purchase that car?

Yet, that is what we’ve done with the Chevy Volt. We’ve put all our money and efforts behind a car with an “electric gas tank” that holds the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline. The Chevy Volt, or any other electric car, will not be the answer to our energy problems until we can equip a car with a battery pack that can hold the same energy equivalent as the gas tanks in current cars. Given the history of battery development (tripling capacity every 40 years), that will be somewhere between 120 and 160 years from now.

Buying an electric car today is the same as buying a regular car that only holds one gallon of gasoline. Building one is, well…I’ll let you answer that one yourself.

He could have. He wasn’t term limited. There was no legal reason that prevented Mitt Romney for running for reelection. So, why didn’t Mitt Romney run for a second term as governor of Massachusetts?

He would have lost. And, not just lost by a little. He would have been creamed.

Romney won his first term with about 49% of the vote.  After 4 years in office he had a 30% approval rating–30%.

You can’t blame this on Romney being a Republican. Massachusetts, when it comes to electing governors, is friendly to Republicans. For 16 straight years Massachusetts elected nothing but Republican governors (Weld, Cellucci, Swift, and Romney).

Yet, it only took one Romney term to destroy this Republican popularity streak.

There have been plenty of people pointing out that Santorum was defeated in his attempt to win a third senate term. I think that’s a fair criticism. How a person has performed in previous elections does give some insight into their abilities. But, it’s not fair to talk about Santorum’s reelection record and ignore Romney’s record.

And, what is Mitt Romney’s reelection record? We’ll never know for sure, but the odds are he would have been badly beaten.  What we do know for sure is that in the face of a tough reelection fight, Romney chose not to fight.

There’s an old saying that when the going get’s tough, the though get going. When things got tough for Mitt Romney, what did he chose, and what does that say about the choices he would make as president?

In may last post I asked a simple question: should we worry that Mitt Romney hasn’t been fully vetted? Well, it didn’t take long to get an answer. Yes, we should be worried.

John McCain’s opposition research file on Mitt Romney has been leaked and is available on the internet as a PDF.  It can be read on-line and downloaded here:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/opposition-file-on-romney-hits-the-internet-likely-from-2008-mccain-campaign/

I haven’t read the document yet, but what I’m hearing from people that have examined it is that there is some pretty damaging stuff in here.  Consider this quote from someone that has perused the document:

“…devestating! If this is real and the quotes etc can be substatiated Romney is DOA…”

If this is what the understaffed and underfunded John McCain opposition research team could dig up on Mitt Romney, what do you think the billion dollar Obama campaign will be able to unearth?

With only a few days till Romney fully wraps the “cloak of inevitability” around himself, it’s more important than ever that we ensure he is fully vetted now by us,  and not after he secures the nomination when he’ll be fully vetted by the Obama campaign team.

It’s only in the last few weeks that people have started to examine Mitt Romney in detail, despite the fact that he has been running for president for five years.

For the first time, people are starting to discuss the specifics of what he did at Bain.

After 5 years of running for president, the question of why Mitt Romney has never released any of his tax returns has finally been raised. Releasing your tax returns is pro forma for most candidates–no big deal. Mitt Romney seems to be protecting his tax return information like a bulldog protecting a bone.

The GOP candidates have been debating constantly since May of 2011, yet it wasn’t until January of 2012 that someone asked specific, probing questions about Romney’s time as governor of Massachusetts. Other than RomneyCare, what does the average voter know about what Mitt Romney did as governor? Really, what? Name one thing you know Romney did as governor other than sign RomneyCare into law.

The main argument for nominating Mitt Romney is that he is the most electable candidate. But, part of being the most electable means there are no ticking time bombs in your past. In other words, you’ve been fully vetted.

One of Mitt Romney’s primary campaign strategies seems to be to avoid the vetting process at all cost. The phrase “Mittness Protection Program” is a joke, but it represents an underlying truth: Mitt Romney has tried to keep anyone from learning too much about him. He has refused to release his records, holds highly orchestrated public appearances that–like President Obama’s–seem to cross the line from orchestrated to scripted, and he has avoided interviews (at least the ones where he would receive tough questions) to the point that interviewers started to point out on their shows that they could get every GOP candidate but Mitt Romney to come on for an interview.

Whether there are any ticking time bombs in Romney’s past is unknown at this point, because his past hasn’t been fully vetted. One thing we do know for sure: we need to find out now, not wait until after he’s nominated. Because, you can rest assured that whatever Mitt Romney may be keeping undercover by hindering the vetting process now certainly will come out after he secures the GOP nomination, and it will be used by the Democrats to attack Mitt Romney in the general election.

Ron Paul is touted as the guy that really understands our Constitution and the various roles of the federal and state governments. However, when doing research on Ron Paul’s position on abortion at http://prolifeprofiles.com/ronpaul I found a huge hole in Ron Paul’s understanding of the Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The above quote from The Declaration of Independence is the foundational idea of our entire system of government. Our individual rights come not from a piece of paper, a government, or a mutual agreement among men; but from an entity that is at a higher level than all of them: God.

Unalienable simply means that something cannot be seperated from a person under any circumstances. In this case it means our God given rights cannot be sperated from us by any person or entity–not the federal government, not any state government, not a foreign government, nobody.

The next sentence in The Declaration of Independence explains why our governments (all of them, federal, state, and local) exist.

 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The purpose of the government (any government–federal or state) is to secure our God given, unalienable rights.

When you examine Ron Paul’s positions on abortion, you realize two things:

1. Ron Paul does not grasp the concept of God given, unalienable rights.
2. Ron Paul does not understand that the purpose for every government is to secure our God given, unalienable rights.

Several of the founding fathers opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. They argued that if you enumerated a list of rights in the Constitution, eventually people would come to view this as a comprehensive list of our rights, instead of just a subset. That is exactly the trap Ron Paul has fallen into.

If the right to life to life is a God given, unalienable right, and the federal government was established to secure those rights, shouldn’t the federal government have a role in protecting life? Not according to Ron Paul. If a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then the federal government has no role in securing that right–even if it is a so called ”God given unalienable right”.

Ron Paul’s position on abortion at the state level further underscores the fact that he doesn’t understand the concept of unalienable rights. Paul rests all of his pro-life reputation on the fact that he favors outlawing abortion at the state level. But, he makes it perfectly clear that he believes individual states have the constitutional right to legalize abortion.

This is the same argument that was used by slavery defenders in the 1800′s:  states, under the 10th amendment, had broad leeway; and could restrict individual rights in a way the the federal government could not. In both cases, they missed the fact that these rights (the right to freedom and the right to life) are God given, unalienable rights.

Since God established these unalienable rights, no entity lower than God has the authority to separate a person from his rights. To argue otherwise, is to argue that the entire concept of God given, unalienable rights is invalid. Yet, that is exactly what Ron Paul argues: that a state has the authority to separate a person from their rights (in this case, the right to life).

The only conclusion you can come to is that Ron Paul doesn’t recognize the concept of God given, unalienable rights; or that the purpose of government (at every level–federal, state, and local) is to secure those unalienable rights.

God given, unalienable rights–this is the fundamental concept our nation was founded upon. Without this concept, our individual rights are just words written down on a piece of paper; words written by men that can be erased by men.

This is why Ron Paul’s understanding of the Constitution is flawed. He doesn’t grasp the concept of God given, unalienable rights our nation was founded upon, and thus doesn’t grasp why our governments (at every level) were established to begin with.

There was something about the recent Herman Cain “smoking” ad that seemed familiar to me, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Then it hit me, it reminds me of the Edgar Friendly speech from the movie Demolition Man.

For those not familiar with the film, it is a Sylvester Stallone move set in the not too distant future where the nanny-state has come to full fruition. Use of crude language is fined, food is restricted to “healthy choices,” music is limited meaningless ditty’s, and even kissing is prohibited as a safety hazard because it transfers bodily fluids. Citizens lead safe, happy, government-directed, meaningless lives.

Read More →

If you go to Rick Santorum’s official website, you’ll find the following blub on the front page:

HERMAN CAIN – PRO-TARP, PRO-TAX AND NOW, PRO-CHOICE
Cain Tells CNN’s Piers Morgan That Abortion is a Decision for the Individual, “Whatever They Decide, They Decide.” Verona, PA – Herman Cain has said another outrageous statement out of touch with conservative values, this time…

Follow the link, and you’ll find this (this is the entire text of the page):

HERMAN CAIN – PRO-TARP, PRO-TAX AND NOW, PRO-CHOICE

Cain Tells CNN’s Piers Morgan That Abortion is a Decision for the Individual, “Whatever They Decide, They Decide.”

Verona, PA – Herman Cain has said another outrageous statement out of touch with conservative values, this time on the issue of abortion.

Senator Santorum said: “Herman Cain said that he believes life begins at conception, but that it’s up to the individual to decide whether or not to terminate that life. And I find it gravely troubling that Herman believes it’s a life, but that he doesn’t consider it a life worth fighting for. As the author of the partial birth abortion ban and other pro-life pieces of legislation, this is the exact mentality myself and other true pro-life advocates fought against. In fact, Herman’s pro-choice position is similar to those held by John Kerry, Barack Obama and many others on the liberal left. No, Herman, it is not ‘whatever they decide,’this is an innocent human life. It is unconscionable for Herman to run for the nomination of the Party that stands in defense of Life while showing disregard for the sanctity of Life. You cannot be both personally against abortion while condoning it – you can’t have it both ways. We must defend the defenseless, period.”

In an interview last night CNN host Piers Morgan asked Mr. Cain about his stance on abortion:

MORGAN: This is what is comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”

MORGAN: You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure –

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: — from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/19/pmt.01.html

Notice that the Santorum site starts the off in the middle of the answer to the question. Here is the full question in context:

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You’re mixing –

MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure –

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: — from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

Vote for any of the current GOP candidates that are offering tax cuts as part of their economic plan.

47% of voters pay no income taxes. In 1984 it was only 18%. Over the years that number steadily increased under both Democrats and Republicans. We’ve reached the point where creating more non-taxpaying voters will tip us over the edge.

Most of the current GOP candidates have a tax plan based around the current system that includes another big tax cut for workers, which will cause the number of non-taxpaying voters to inch up a few percentage points. In the past that hasn’t been a significant problem—going from 18% to 25% didn’t affect society too much. But now we’re talking about going from 47 to 51, 53, or even 55%.

Voters that don’t have to worry about where the money comes from vote for the party that promises the most government freebies: the Democratic Party. At 55%, the Democrats would become a permanent majority in congress. They would surely take us down the path of becoming a European style socialist state. Barak Obama’s vision of America’s future would become a reality.

The only way to stop this is to get more people, not less, more of the 47% involved in paying taxes. That’s going to be a tough sell for conservatives. Let’s be blunt, for the 47% that doesn’t pay anything now, it’s a tax increase.

But we’ve got to do it. The alternative is just unacceptable. We can only hope there are still enough thoughtful people that care more about their country than themselves.

Which of the GOP candidates now have a plan that would accomplish this?

1. Herman Cain’s 999 plan would.
2. Rick Perry is supposed to unveil a tax plan that involves scrapping the tax code and replacing it with a flattened income tax that broadens the base. That would work also (if it actually turns out to be what we’re hearing, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt till we hear otherwise).
3. Newt Gingrich has a dual plan that involves the creating a flat income tax to exist alongside the current system. It might work, depending on how it’s implemented.

One definite (Cain), one probably (Perry), and one maybe with a few changes (Gingrich). That’s it. If this is an issue that is important to you, than these are your three choices in the GOP primary.

Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum all have plans based on the current tax structure, all their plans involve big personal income tax cuts, and all will create move voters that pay zero in income taxes. These are your 55% candidates. If you are concerned about the number of non-taxpaying voters, you can’t vote for these candidates; you just can’t.

This is the keystone issue of this election. If we don’t get this problem corrected, it won’t matter what else we do. Once we reach the tipping point of non-taxpaying voters, we will hand the keys of the government to the Democrats permanently–and down the road we’ll go.

Yes I know it’s going to be a tough sell, but the alternative it tougher.