I thought the debate was half decent in spite of itself. The questions were by and large chosen based on CNN's stereotypical view of what Republicans are. And of course, at least four of the 'ordinary citizens' were nothing of the kind, but were actually affilliated with or supporters of Democratic campaigns. Makes you wonder how many of the others were plants by the DNC or CNN.
I liked Thompson and Duncan Hunter, find too much to disagree with when it comes to McCain and Giuliani, and don't really trust Romney, though all of the above have their good points. Ron Paul is clueless on several important issues, and Huckabee comes across as a bit too slick. Sort of like Bill Clinton in a more subtle way. The debate last night, for all it's shortcomings, did a good job of drawing out and contrasting the candidates, so it served a purpose.
If it wouldn't validate the Democrats smears, I'd say the Republicans should do to CNN what the Democrats have done to Fox, and boycott the network. But I'd hate to give any backhanded credibility to the Democrats attempts to paint Fox News as a political rather than a news network. And in any case, CNN's smear attempts are pretty transparent this time around. Maybe it's best to let the network keep digging itself into a hole.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
First out of the gate
Fred Thompson has put a proposal on the table to deal with the Social Security mess. It sounds like a good plan so far.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119466143891488863.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox">
"The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal calling for the creation of voluntary personal retirement accounts and a change in the formula for future retirees that would result in lower Social Security benefits.
It is a risky move for the former actor and lawmaker from Tennessee. He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue.
They all recall President Bush's failed effort in 2005 as a lesson in the political pitfalls and substantive complexities of trying to change the program. He twice campaigned on letting workers carve private accounts from Social Security revenues. But even fellow Republicans wouldn't go along, in large part because of the borrowing his plan would require for a nation already in deep debt.
By the government's calculations, Social Security won't be collecting enough revenues to pay full benefits to recipients starting about 2041.
"I've been concerned about this for some time," Mr. Thompson told reporters Friday. "Basically, [my plan] will assist Americans in saving more for themselves during their working years and not having to depend on the government for their entire retirement."
The Thompson campaign said its proposal wouldn't affect Social Security benefits received by current retirees or those nearing retirement. To pay for his private-account program, the government, which is likely to be running deficits for the foreseeable future, would have to borrow more money.
Mr. Thompson is proposing cutting future Social Security benefits for workers under age 57 by calculating their initial monthly benefit using a formula that indexes to prices rather than wages."
Sounds like a variation on the 401K plan. And it sounds like a solid idea. It's far better to prepare for one's retirement now than to wait and hope the government will be able to do so later. Of course, given the beating George Bush took for a similar idea, who knows what the odds are that this will get through Congress? Just about everyone up there pays lip service to fixing the system, but are afraid to actually do anything.
I don't want my taxes doubled to pay for Social Security down the road. Nor do I want 20 million illegals given amnesty so they can help prop up the system. I think it's time to face the truth that the government can't provide for us in our old age, and that we'd better prepare for that ourselves.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119466143891488863.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox">
"The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal calling for the creation of voluntary personal retirement accounts and a change in the formula for future retirees that would result in lower Social Security benefits.
It is a risky move for the former actor and lawmaker from Tennessee. He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue.
They all recall President Bush's failed effort in 2005 as a lesson in the political pitfalls and substantive complexities of trying to change the program. He twice campaigned on letting workers carve private accounts from Social Security revenues. But even fellow Republicans wouldn't go along, in large part because of the borrowing his plan would require for a nation already in deep debt.
By the government's calculations, Social Security won't be collecting enough revenues to pay full benefits to recipients starting about 2041.
"I've been concerned about this for some time," Mr. Thompson told reporters Friday. "Basically, [my plan] will assist Americans in saving more for themselves during their working years and not having to depend on the government for their entire retirement."
The Thompson campaign said its proposal wouldn't affect Social Security benefits received by current retirees or those nearing retirement. To pay for his private-account program, the government, which is likely to be running deficits for the foreseeable future, would have to borrow more money.
Mr. Thompson is proposing cutting future Social Security benefits for workers under age 57 by calculating their initial monthly benefit using a formula that indexes to prices rather than wages."
Sounds like a variation on the 401K plan. And it sounds like a solid idea. It's far better to prepare for one's retirement now than to wait and hope the government will be able to do so later. Of course, given the beating George Bush took for a similar idea, who knows what the odds are that this will get through Congress? Just about everyone up there pays lip service to fixing the system, but are afraid to actually do anything.
I don't want my taxes doubled to pay for Social Security down the road. Nor do I want 20 million illegals given amnesty so they can help prop up the system. I think it's time to face the truth that the government can't provide for us in our old age, and that we'd better prepare for that ourselves.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Where is the news from Iraq?
Seriously... we must be winning, because the major media is ignoring Iraq as much as they can. The daily IED casualty counts have stopped, the daily troop deathwatch has become scarce, and the doom and gloom predictions have also become few and far between.
Where are the news stores about our military victories?
Where are the news stores about our military victories?
Monday, October 29, 2007
President Clinton? Not again!
I hope Hillary is NOT elected. What a disaster for the country THAT would be.
Might as well go on record now: I don't think she's electable. Not at this point. Too many people don't like her. Now I'm well aware that a major attempt to make her seem nice and friendly and likeable is underway and will intensify over the next year, and some people will fall for it. But not enough, I fervently hope.
If the Republican party has the sense to nominate a good solid conservative and be proud about it, they can beat her. Time will tell if they have the sense to do that or not. Hopefully their time in the woodshed has been beneficial.
Might as well go on record now: I don't think she's electable. Not at this point. Too many people don't like her. Now I'm well aware that a major attempt to make her seem nice and friendly and likeable is underway and will intensify over the next year, and some people will fall for it. But not enough, I fervently hope.
If the Republican party has the sense to nominate a good solid conservative and be proud about it, they can beat her. Time will tell if they have the sense to do that or not. Hopefully their time in the woodshed has been beneficial.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Do we need a two-year presidential race?
The short answer is NO. Absolutely not.
The long answer: we don't and here's why.
1) Too much money spent on the race. Look at the millions that have been raised and will be spent by the candidates on both sides. Should it take that much to run for president? No, it shouldn't, but the current length of the campaign ensures that only mega-bucks will keep someone in for long. Though there are exceptions. Ask Mike Huckabee.
2) Burnout. Candidates get tired, people get tired of them... we have presidential fatigue before the candidate is even elected.
3) Way too much focus on the future occupant of the White House instead of on the here and now. That ought to be self-explanatory. Everybody's looking for "the next fix" instead of dealing with issues and the leaders that we have at the moment.
4) It feels as if we're stuck in a constant election cycle. We finish one election, and we're already looking ahead to who will win the next one. No one's ever content to sit and work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but I'll stop there for now. I think there should be no campaigning until the actual year of the election, and no primaries should be held before May or June of the election year.
The long answer: we don't and here's why.
1) Too much money spent on the race. Look at the millions that have been raised and will be spent by the candidates on both sides. Should it take that much to run for president? No, it shouldn't, but the current length of the campaign ensures that only mega-bucks will keep someone in for long. Though there are exceptions. Ask Mike Huckabee.
2) Burnout. Candidates get tired, people get tired of them... we have presidential fatigue before the candidate is even elected.
3) Way too much focus on the future occupant of the White House instead of on the here and now. That ought to be self-explanatory. Everybody's looking for "the next fix" instead of dealing with issues and the leaders that we have at the moment.
4) It feels as if we're stuck in a constant election cycle. We finish one election, and we're already looking ahead to who will win the next one. No one's ever content to sit and work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but I'll stop there for now. I think there should be no campaigning until the actual year of the election, and no primaries should be held before May or June of the election year.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Too quiet around here
It's been awhile since I posted anything here. Not that there hasn't been a ton going on to rant about, but I guess I've been more interested in taking it easy and enjoying my hobbies lately.
Or perhaps there's just so much craziness going on that it's overwhelming.
Or perhaps there's just so much craziness going on that it's overwhelming.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Transformers Mosaic
If you like the Transformers, go and check out this project, which I am participating in.
http://transformers-mosaic.deviantart.com
It's a series of one-page comics by the fans, for the fans, as they say. Well worth a read. Maybe even some involvement, if you have some skill at writing or drawing.
http://transformers-mosaic.deviantart.com
It's a series of one-page comics by the fans, for the fans, as they say. Well worth a read. Maybe even some involvement, if you have some skill at writing or drawing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)