Dear Wize-guys,
I apologize for being remiss in my blogging duties. All my wize time for the last three months had been tied up in money school. You'll probably hear more about those adventures as the paper chase continues. Suffice to say for now that I am an expert in matters regarding the Fed (which is to say that I know more than President Obama about how it should work) and I can also read between the lines of a financial statement for any publicly traded company like Enron, etc. I am a danger only to myself, however, if I spot something interesting I will also let you know about it. Hopefully the added dimension of my econ training will make me a better blogger too.
While I was gone, I did manage to see a few segments of the big government preservation debates. On the plus side, I think some good topics have gotten some air. Unfortunately, I don't see that anyone other than Ron Paul gets a vote.
Here are the tiebreaker scenarios (to cop an NFL analogy):
1. Ron Paul: Gets a bye all the way to Super Tuesday. Sentimental favorite.
2. Newt. Vulnerable but a high scorer.Very creative.
3. Mitt: Best defense but no firepower.
4. Pick 'em
If Ron Paul is still in the race when he gets to my state's primary: Hands down. It's not even close. A pro-life libertarian can not be topped in this ranking.
If for some reason he's out of the race, then it gets difficult. You then apparently have to choose among three remaining options. Stay home. Newt. Mitt.
Maybe it's better to work from the bottom up:
Herman's out. Tim Pawlenty is out. Who else? Gary Johnson? His ideas are mostly right, but he can't even get on the debate stage, and when he does, he scares people.
I can't make a case for Michele B. or for Rick S. I know they mean well. I know they would want to do the right thing, but neither one has advanced any thoughts beyond framing their own bona fides. We get it. You are both wonderful people. The problem is, you can't fix this. This economy, this climate of stagnation and non-productivity. What would you do to fix it? I'm not hearing ideas.
Perry? I can get past his mental lapses, and his heart also seems to be in the right place. However, his solution to America's problems is to treat everybody like a Texan. Suck it up, big boy. It's a free world, get out there and get to work. You know. Texas works because Texas works, not because Rick made it work; and unfortunately, Rick thinks he can export Texas to Minnesota, Oregon, and Delaware. I'm not seeing it.
Stay home is a pretty decent option.
Romney. Romney. What to do about Romney. Seems to have a good grasp of what's wrong. Doesn't seem to be too driven to change things though. He totally represents the right wing of the big government party (which is establishment republicans and all democrats). Would I get out of bed to vote for Romney? I think I'll have to do more research.
Which leaves us with Newt. Could I vote for Newt? Maybe. I think his ideas are bigger than anyone else on the planet. I like having him around. He would be highly entertaining, especially if he wields his veto pen. My positive recollections of Newt were when he shut down the government. It was the only week in the last 23 years that I felt the oppression of big government start to lift. He pushed Bill Clinton to drop health care, and revamp welfare, and balance the budget. Sounds just like the kind of stuff we need now.
Yeah sure. I've heard the bad stuff. He accepted an advance on a book. He worked for Fannie Mae. Sounds like a free market guy so far. Left two wives. That's actually better than keeping one while cheating on her (hello again Bill). He's a loose cannon. Okay, but at least he fires in the right direction.
Am I ready to vote for Newt? Maybe. Watch this space. He may be an acceptable backup, in case people aren't ready for Dr. Paul.
So, fellow Wize-guys. Let me have it.
4 comments:
I'm finally getting around to watching the Des Moines debate. Rick Perry just scored a touchdown and an extra point by mentioning a part time congress and the balanced budget amendment
Offering to arrest judges actually makes a guy more electable in my eyes, but attacking Ron Paul shows the typical bad judgment that everyone is worried about. At this point it's probably Ron Paul or bust, but Newt certainly knows the difference between this president and a hypothetical good one.
No, I don't believe seeing mitt Romney's tax return will be at all helpful.
So, wave after wave of "Notmitt" voting, and the latest has people up in arms voting for Santorum. The reason is ostensibly Obama picking on religious entities. So is that what it has come down to? We have to get segments of society pissed off enough to go vote for someone?
Clearly, Obamacare is a burden and an offense to all of us, and for a myriad of reasons. Why does it even come up as an issue only in it's religious context? It is most certainly morally wrong, outside of any organized religion context, for the government to make us provide anything against our consent. It's not a religious issue. It's a freedom from tyranny issue. Do not let them frame the whole debate into a religious issue. This "accommodation" for religious entities that Obama speaks of is an insult. The rest of thje citizenry want to be rid of the tyranny, too!
And Santorum? He benefits from any attack on religion, but his attacks on freedom are equally obscene.
See if you agree with this quote:
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
People! In view of all this, how can you NOT get out and vote for Ron Paul?
Post a Comment