I think the end is upon us. At least as far as my republican friends are concerned. Today ten states go to the polls trying to determine which republican will go one on one against Obama in the fall for the Presidency and frankly I don’t see how it is going to be anyone other than Mitt Romney.
Today will be the day that, like a train on a down slope, Romney begins picking up his unstoppable momentum hurtling towards the nomination. There may be minor signs of life within the other campaigns, but nothing is going to derail the Mitt. Like it or not the Republicans have stayed true to form and will nominate the next guy in line.
On the plus side for my Republican friends I thin Mitt has the best chance at victory. He’s centrist enough to not scare the moderates and that is where national elections are won and lost. For my Democratic friends the good news is that Romney isn’t a fire breathing social conservative and it a Republican that knows how to compromise.
That doesn’t mean I am predicting a Romney win in the fall, only that he has the best chance. Between Romney and Obama the contest could go either way. Though is Romney loses the chorus from the right will sing that it was because he was a moderate and not a ‘True Conservative’ whatever that may be. If he wins it will be proof that American truly love conservatism.
So from this day forth my Republican friends should practice wearing nose-pins so that, for them, the voting will be easier
The government has a strong minority stake in GM as well as giving this corporation access to government secured lines of credit. To the best of my knowledge, and I’d appreciate a citation if you think this is in error, Gm was GIVEN government secured loan, but it is not Getting government secured loans. The Bailout is done, past tense. That, along with the regulatory power that that the government enjoys, effectively allow it much more sway than normal. I’m assuming the ‘it’ refers to GM. Would you please give examples and citations of GM utilizing its government connections to, via the federal regulatory power, to manipulate the Market place. This is the first I have heard of that. I will also point out the consistent efforts that the current administration has been employing to transform the American economy into a command economy. That is a unsupported premise. No evidence of such is going on, no wage and price controls, and no nationalizing of industries. Increased regulation is not the same as a command economy. GM would have a very hard time saying no to anything that the administration wants. this is speculation, unless you have evidence , and again I’d like to see a citation, of the government leaning on GM to do something or other. What did that demand and what did they threaten?Socialism is never decreed all at once, it is done incrementally. Actually, historically it tends suddenly and all at once. Either by revolution such as with the communist states, or by government seizing private property such as the Suez Canal, or Oil facilities in the middle east and South America. One only has to look at the actions of this administration to see this happening. this particularly works if you are already inclined to see such action in the opposition. One can see a face in a cloud, that does not mean the cloud has a face.
The government has a strong minority stake in GM as well as giving this corporation access to government secured lines of credit. That, along with the regulatory power that that the government enjoys, effectively allow it much more sway than normal. I will also point out the consistent efforts that the current administration has been employing to transform the American economy into a command economy. GM would have a very hard time saying no to anything that the administration wants. Socialism is never decreed all at once, it is done incrementally. One only has to look at the actions of this administration to see this happening.
You called it Socialism, in Socialism the government owns the means of production. The government does not own GM therefore this bailout is not Socialism. All of this is beside the point on if the bailout was good bad handled or well poorly, well intended or corrupt. You argued that a turning out of this administration would be a turning away from socialism, I countered that there has been no socialism and you used the GM bailout as your example of socialism. I’m on point.
You’re missing my point. GM has a significant portion of the market, and it was politically unviable to take over the entire industry. The bailout was corrupt, a payoff to the UAW.
Your response makes most of my point, 1 company vs an Industry. Taking control of a single producers while leaving the rest untouched is hardly socialism, and it gets worse from there. Public Ownership of GM is down to about 25% and the government doesn’t direct how the company is run or its practices. (The Volt was well onto its way into production before any of this happen as a response to the popular Prius.) The bailout — and I am not arguing good or bad about the bailout — was not socialism. When conservatives run about clutching their pearls and crying socialism it has the same validity as an argument as the left screaming ‘fascist’ at Bush. It idiotic and frankly only succeeds in degrading your argument.
Oh Media is in general liberal, not doubt, but Fox News is hardly small or not Media, yet it is never considered Big or Media unless it is time to compute viewership or ad dollars.
I’m sure you find that to be true, but you are a partisan and tend to ignore dramatic flip-flops on your side. Cap and Trade started as a Conservative response to carbon taxes, the individual mandate was a conservative response to Health Care reform, Tax Cuts do not need to be paid for with spending cuts unless it is the Democratic Party pushing the Tax Cuts (which Romney is continuing with his Tax Cut proposals) the filibuster is good when wielded by republicans to stop Democratic initiatives but bad in the reverse and so. Both sides take these insulting flip-flop arguments. My real point is something you have said often about the Democratic Party when it loses, that at that time it is also ‘the messenger not the message being rejected’ and the same is true for the conservatives, that mouth the exact same justifications.
There is philosophical reason why the Left has no problem with crony capitalism. Because they think that’s the way the system works when the Left isn’t running the show. So why not pick winners and losers when the Left takes power?
According to the Left, at least good winners will be picked when they run things. That’s the whole basis of the crazy “green-economy” policies of the Obama administration. A policy which they lovingly admitted they copied from a Spanish economic policy. That policy of Spain which it now turns out was run quite crookedly and had a major influence in the current collapse of the Spanish economy and bankruptcy of the Spanish government.
“How is it that Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal,are never considered big media?”
Talk about laying up an easy pitch! Thank you!
True enough, the Right does dominate some small corners of Media space. Those corners being cable news and talk radio. Aside from that, the Left dominates every other part of Media space. Dominates. And the Left isn’t shy about manipulating that domination for results favoring the Left’s political power.
If the Right was granted a wish of exchanging the parts of the media which the Left and the Right dominate, do you think the Right would hesitate for one pico-second?
The question Bob, is what the Right will say about a Romney victory. I object to your claim that the Right will mendaciously flip-flop on Romney, depending on whether he wins or loses.
You claim the Right will say that ‘America loves conservatism’, if Romney wins. I simply corrected you as to what the Right will really say about a Romney victory over Obama.
When it comes to mendacity, I find the Left has no peer in contemporary American politics. As proven by some recent controversies over political rhetoric, such as about the Gifford’s shooting or the insult of Fluke.
How about the auto industry? Standard bankruptcy law was bypassed in order to cut a sweet deal for the UAW, a major democrat party supporter. In a standard bankruptcy, everything would have been on the table, the union contracts, creditors, vendors, and shareholders. The way that the bailout was done, the UAW contracts were preserved and the government gained a significant interest in GM. Creditors, who normally would have been at or near the top of the list in a normal bankruptcy, got pennys on the dollar. Nationalized in all but name.
“No, the chorus on the right if Romney wins will be America rejects socialism.” – Though hasn’t been any socialism. No industries have been nationalized, none. “Rejects crony capitalism.” Yeah right that’s why the Republicans have been inserting poison pill into bills trying to stop insider trading from Congress. “Rejects Obamacare.” By voting for the man who enacted it’s model into law. “Rejects Big Government.” I’d say you could be right on this one except that the Conservative when in power don;t shrink the government. “And rejects the champions of Big Government, the Democratic Party and Big Media.” How is it that Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal,are never considered big media?
“Though [if] Romney loses the chorus from the right will sing that it was because he was a moderate and not a ‘True Conservative’ whatever that may be. If he wins it will be proof that American[s] truly love conservatism.”
No, the chorus on the right if Romney wins will be America rejects socialism. Rejects crony capitalism. Rejects Obamacare. Rejects Big Government. And rejects the champions of Big Government, the Democratic Party and Big Media.