Christie, a Landslide or a Rock Slide?

By Grant Davies

I do my best to post most often about ideas and concepts, leaving events and people for my weaker moments.
But today an event will take place in NJ and the person it involves will in all likelihood be running for the GOP nomination for President in 2016.

The event is the NJ gubernatorial election and the person is Chris Christie, a morbidly obese Democrat pretending to be a Republican who likes to shout at people between ice cream cones. (Okay, those were snarky personal attacks lacking intellectual substance, but like I said, I have my weak moments.)

But here's the ideas and concepts part: when he wins ( it's almost certain) he will immediately be touted as the front runner for the '16 nomination. Both Dems and GOPers alike will fall in love with him, with the mainstream media leading the cheers. Oh sure, they will still make fun of him, but more like the lovable old fool they secretly admire. Perhaps like goofy Joe Biden, for instance.

But their reasons are different. The Dems love him because he is one of them, but more importantly, they know he can be demolished in the general election. So no matter if they are right or wrong, they get a big government advocate afterwards.

The GOPers will love him because they are stupid. They love how he screams at unionists so they assume he is one of them. He's not. GOPers always fall in love with people they perceive to be against Dems, even if his philosophy isn't much different. If he wins the nomination, the GOP will have the final nail in the coffin and will become the Whigs of the 21st century. They might be already.

So the concept I'm talking about is the final demise of a useless political party and the beginning of a re-alignment of political ideology in this country. The DEM party will split into two opposing factions. (Liberals and Classical liberals.) The far left wing will collapse from its own failures and incompetence in governing. As it turns out, the only thing they are competent at is getting elected by distracting the weak minded voters in the mushy middle and promising other peoples' stuff to the envious and lazy. It works most of the time.

When the Dems lose the GOP, they lose their foil. Just as Hitler needed the Jews and Obama needs evil "rich people" and greedy health insurance companies, the Dems need the GOP. Without them they are finished as well.

So there is hope, America! Most people will revert to being politically sensible and vote for people who manage money competently and otherwise leave all of us alone socially. Who knows what name they will go by? It really doesn't matter a whole lot. IMO, it won't be an existing so called "third" political party.

One last thing, I'm probably wrong about all of the above, as I usually am. But I just thought you were really anxious to know what I thought about today's election in NJ.

PS  If any of the "old line" GOP favorites win the nomination the situation will be exactly the same, minus the fat jokes.

The Whigs are Grasping for a Lifeline

The Whig Party is foundering in the water helplessly. They are reaching for anything that looks like a lifeline.

Sorry GOP, it's too late.

Post Mortem - Get a Helmet

By Grant Davies

Yesterday this blog had a lot more visitors than normal.

Why? I didn't write anything. Nothing new here. No emails went out to announce a new blog post. No last minute advice on the election. No predictions.

What were those visitors looking for? I don't know. But whatever they hoped to find, they didn't find it. This blog had long ago made the case for freedom and against dependency on government. There was nothing left to be said before the American people went to the polls to decide if they wanted to be Europeans or stick with the American dream of individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Yesterday they chose the Nanny State. That's what the election was about. It doesn't matter what you thought it was about, or what your neighbor thought it was about. It doesn't matter if your team was blue or red.

And sorry to say, that decision is irreversible. Normally after one party loses they lick their wounds and start working on the next election. But not this time.

Oh, they will go through the motions. And many will buy into the notion that in the next election people will right the wrongs. Surely the people will come to their senses. Sorry folks, not this time.

There are now more people beholden to government for their sustenance than those who are not. And in four years there will be many, many more. More government employees. More people getting money from government programs. More people who have children and other family members who will lose their jobs or benefits if the government ever shrinks.

They will never vote for that to happen. Whatever or whomever people may vote for, they never vote against themselves. The American experiment has failed. It was just as had been predicted by so many over the last two hundred years who understood human nature.

The election was not about Romney. He had no plan or ability to save us from ourselves. The best he could have done would have been to buy some time. He was after all, a moderate Democrat. He thinks government has the answers. He is wrong.

And the election wasn't about how bad Obama is. He is merely a reflection of the attitudes of most of the people. He can get back to the golf course now. I don't blame him. That's what I'm going to do.

So now we will learn for the first time what it feels like to be in a country which is in decline. The Europeans have known that feeling for a long time. We'll get used to it too.

My only advice to anyone who still wants it is this; If you don't have a helmet you better go and get one. And if you have one, you better put it on. Because there is some heavy shrapnel heading our way. Not tomorrow, but sooner than anyone thinks.

And your team, no matter what color it was, won't help you now. 

A Short Response to Last Night's Non-Debate

By Gary Johnson

America’s challenges and the crises we face demand a real debate — not dueling Phil Donahue acts carping at one another over who is worse.

I defy anyone who watched the debate to identify a plan from either the Republican or Democrat that will achieve a balanced budget. Behind the fuzzy math and the quibbling, there was nothing more than a commitment to continue the status quo — with at most a few minor adjustments. We don’t need adjustments. We need a fundamental reduction in the role and cost of government, and both Romney and Obama are fundamentally big-government guys.

We watched a blame game over immigration, while the problem festers with no solution in sight.

We heard quibbling over whose government plan would have saved GM better, but nothing about why the government should be bailing out any company at all.

And we heard cheap shots about government-run health care from two candidates who both support it. Where is the reasonable argument that government shouldn’t be running health care in the first place?

On the attacks in Libya, the debate we must have is not over what we call it or when; we need a debate over why we were there at all.

There are clear choices in this election, but they weren’t on the stage tonight.

The Dems Can't Lose This Election

Image = TheFW.Com/

By Grant Davies

Here at WhatWeThinkandWhy we don't spend too much time on politics. At least not politics of the electoral variety. I'm sure that comes as a surprise to many who stop by here on a casual basis. It sure looks like this is a political site at first glace.

We bash Obama and other statists here on a regular basis. Not because it will change anyone's mind about them, but mostly because it's really fun to pimp the knee-jerk Dems who think they are morally superior to everyone who isn't a liberal.

We also pimp the GOP here regularly, which causes us to lose the respect (and possibly the readership) of those who were initially attracted to this site because they perceived us to be anti-Obama, rather than pro-freedom. Which of course is what we are. Many conservatives think they are morally superior to everyone else too. (Just to piss off a few more conservatives.)

So if we regularly piss off the liberals and the conservatives, that only leaves the libertarians in the "Not so pissed off" column. Just for the record, I'm not nearly pure enough of a libertarian to keep all those in that movement happy either. It's a wonder that anyone reads these essays anymore. And yet, readership continues it's steady expansion.

While we have done almost nothing to encourage liberals, we have thrown some bones to the conservatives over time. (Dammit, life is just so unfair.) For instance, I have endorsed voting for Romney in certain circumstances even though it pains me intensely to do so.

Just in case you missed the posts, the circumstances are as follows: 

• If you live in a "battleground" state, you can be forgiven, or even encouraged, to vote to dismiss Obama. His administration has been a flop. Dare I say a catastrophe? So he must be given a Presidential pink slip. Don't feel too sorry for the mope, under his leadership millions of people have been given undeserved pink slips. He certainly deserves his.
• It's all about the electoral college. So if you live in a state that is even within 10 percentage points of being contested, you owe it to yourself and your offspring to throw the bums out. And that includes Obama crony Ben Bernanke who is debasing our currency as never before. If that doesn't stop (and even if it does), your life savings might be reduced to Wiemar Republic status, maybe even before the 2016 election.

But my further advice is:

If you live in any state that is "safe" for either candidate, and you value your future freedom and money, you would be a fool to vote for anyone other than Gary Johnson. If every freedom loving Republican, Independent, and rational moderate Democrat in California and Illinois, for example, voted for what they really want, Johnson would garner millions and millions of votes without risking the re-election of Barack Carter. 

If you don't think that would give you better choices in the next election from both major parties, well, you're wrong. It would move the parties in the freedom direction more than anytime in history. So I'm calling for all my friends in Illinoistan to make a real difference. Because you literally cannot have an electoral impact on our society by voting for Romney here. None.

So what the heck is the title of this post all about? It's about the fact that Mitt Romney is a moderate Democrat. Some of you just wrote me off as a kook. Oh well, the facts of history support my opinion. Look back at all his positions and history over time. Also consider the following:

He is a really nice man who is competent in almost everything he does. He is a moderate on almost everything political. He is a big believer in government solutions to societal problems. He is the author of Obamacare whether Republicans want to admit it or not. Democrats know it in their heart of hearts. He supported the government bailouts. He supports government intervention in almost any problem although he thinks Republicans have the best intervention schemes.

I dare say, if Romney was the Democratic nominee he would win this election in a landslide over almost anyone the Republicans could put up. BTW, regular Republicans would demonize Romney as a liberal, flip flopper and  run as hard as they could against him if he was the Dem candidate. Same positions, wrong party affiliation. Independents, who actually decide who the President will be, would vote for him in droves. They probably will anyway. 

Moderate mainstream Democrats are going to vote for him in large numbers in the end anyway. But if he were their nominee they could feel good about themselves again. And nothing is more dangerous to Republicans than moderate Democrats who feel good about themselves again instead of just hating Republicans and rich people. They really don't want to hate those folks. And they really only supported Obama because they had nowhere else to go. It didn't hurt that they could feel good about being part of electing the first black President. (Well, he's not really black, but close enough.)

Roman Catholic Democrats may very well vote for a Mormon (of all things) to support their church against the onslaught of left wing crazies in their own party. And they can rightfully feel good about it. 

So there you have it on the title of this post. Now that the people have finally wised up and figured out that Romney is a Democrat, they are switching over pretty quickly.  The polls, even though they are rigged by the left leaning pollsters, are showing the movement very clearly. And barring some unbelievably stupid misstep in the remaining debates or over last few weeks of the campaign, Romney will win. 

It's hard for the Dems to lose when both candidates are donkeys. (I call them asses usually, just to piss off more liberals.) It's just a matter of hard left or moderate left. So even if Obama is somehow re-elected so he can put the finishing touches on his statist masterpiece of American destruction, the Dems win. (While actually losing in the end when the nightmare of Obamacare finally manifests itself and Dems get screwed equally with Republicans.)

But if the rational libertarian former GOP Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, doesn't get sufficient support in the election, the country itself will lose again, because next time out you will get the same crummy choices the two parties always give you. And time has just about run out on this experiment.

Focus on Clarity

By Grant Davies

With the dominant media currently having great success in redirecting the attention of the American sheeple away from matters of great importance and towards matters of absolutely no importance, I thought it was time to get back to writing more opinion pieces than I have recently.

The truth is, I have been very lax in writing for this blog lately due to events (of the happy variety) in my personal life. The other sites which carry my articles probably are wondering whether I'm still on the topside of the grass. And I have been carving up my allocation of available writing time very much in favor of our other blog, Cheeky History.  

Writing tongue in cheek historical narratives for that site is a labor of love for me. As a bonus, Cheeky History is steadily gaining readership, which translates into happiness for an old storyteller like me. I hope you'll visit the site. If you enjoy it, please tell a friend or two who might like a lighthearted and irreverent account of the events and people that have shaped us into who we are as human beings. I think of it as a kind of "mind floss" against the backdrop of the more serious topics we usually cover at WhatWeThinkandWhy. But enough of the shameless plugs for my own hobbies.

An election day of historical importance is almost upon us and the media has been able to turn the distractions into the issues. At least for many people, the outrage over what happened to us since our government turned a poor situation into a calamity has morphed into a general feeling of helplessness and resignation.

The bailouts of the rich and connected (not to mention the financially incompetent and morally ill-equipped "victims" of their greed) seem to be a distant memory. The voter anger over them apparently left with the departure of the last guest at the tea party. Where are those well behaved, but furious, middle Americans who showed up at mass demonstrations now-a-days anyway?

The worst piece of legislation in the history of the country, Obamacare, has been relegated to the back burner while the electorate fusses over the campaign blunders burning on the front. Getting rid of that despicable tool for stealing our freedoms used to be job one. No more, it seems.

While we are kept focused on what polls are most accurate, what candidate said the politically dumbest thing this week, or how many rounds of golf are being played by the President, the country continues to slide into an ocean of new debt and freshly printed fiat money. Rampant inflation awaits only an uptick in the economy and the velocity of money movement it brings.

Presidents can now legally order the execution of people all over the world without bothering with an arrest, an indictment, or a trial. And unlike Obamacare, that law was passed with an overwhelming majority of support from both parties. It is only the suspicions the President might have about someones potential involvement in terrorism that qualifies them for this special treatment. American citizens are not exempt from that death list either. (It's true and it has already happened. You can look it up.)

Democrats who were outraged that GWB led a government that "water-boarded" captured Al-Qaeda operatives after 9-11 seem to have no problem whatsoever with summary death sentences carried out by computer operated drones. I guess if you think you are morally superior to Republicans, killing a guy is more humane than making him think he's drowning. They might ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed which one he prefers.

Only a few years ago one might have entertained the notion that the US Constitution, having been rendered  irrelevant recently, would be a major campaign issue this time out. As Josie Wales might have said, "I reckon not."

Normally, the very soon to be bankrupt Social Security and Medicare systems might have been foremost on the minds of Americans. But it seems that it's more important lately whether a candidate uses a teleprompter too often or the other guy makes too much money to fit the sensibilities of class warriors.

Perhaps the fact that several large states and tons of municipalities are either bankrupt, or nearly so, isn't as important as whether one Vice Presidential candidate poorly articulated the timeline for a plant closing or the other one said yet another embarrassingly stupid thing during a photo-op.

Maybe there's more important things than the largest tax increase in history becoming effective on January 1st in the middle of an economic cataclysm. (And it will happen without a single Congressmen or Senator voting to pass it. Thanks, GWB.) But to watch the news one might conclude that perhaps it's Mitt's tax returns or Barack's birth certificate.

So here's the thing folks, it's time to ignore the polls and the med-idiots. It's time to focus on real things. The bridge on the road ahead is out and we have to figure out quickly which of these guys should be driving the bus.

In terms of our future, one of these guys is a bad dream. And the other is a nightmare. I've made it no secret that I find Romney to be the former and Obama to be the latter. So you decide. But try to remember what's important. And for future reference, try to remember that whichever "team" you are on, our wonderful two party system stuck us with these crummy choices, again. (If you actually think either one is a good choice, you should stop reading and Google up a shrink.)

I'm not blaming the media. They are bad actors to be sure, but it's our fault. We keep watching them and reading their newspapers. When others are making things purposely blurry, it's time to take personal responsibility for improving the clarity.

We need to focus on the future, it's the only thing we can change.

Obama Supporter Interviews Herself

Okay, here's a really funny anti-Obama video. I know our liberal Democrat readers will hate it (and me) for running it. Both of them.

But since I think we really need a sense of humor to get through these bad times and into the next bad times, I run the ones I think are funny. Regular readers know I'm no fan of Mitt Romney's vision for more big government "solutions" to societal problems so I'm looking for funny anti-Mitt videos too in order to be an equal opportunity basher. If come across any (or you send me some) and I laugh out loud at them, I'll run them too.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of an aging Clint Eastwood interviewing an empty chair (representing an empty suit in the White House) at the recent GOP self congratulation and coronation convention, here is a pretend Obama supporter interviewing herself in a YouTube video.

It's pretty funny until you realize that it's pretty close to the truth about how a lot of people feel concerning their vote for BHO four years ago. It's even more entertaining when you realize that it absolutely drives the hard core liberals insane while they watch it. I can visualize their veins bulging out, and that's a neat visual.

Hat tip to Fitz for sending the link.

PS.. There is an anti-Mitt video on the sidebar for your entertainment, just to be fair 'ya know. Because it's all about fairness.

A Heavyweight Country Shouldn't Have a Lightweight Leader

A hard working member of our crack research team has unearthed this excellent video while combing the internet in search of the educational material our readers have come to expect. It's important to find out what news media in other countries (this time Denmark) are covering while our own news media is covering up.

So we have a presentation for you which makes the point that some jobs go unfilled even while the country languishes in the depths of (real) unemployment in the 15% range. The job of course is: speech-writer for an amateurish White House who can't even be bothered to scribble a few different words to say about different countries when they come here for state visits.

These countries may be "punching above their weight classes" in world affairs but it probably feels like a punch in the gut when they realize how truly unimportant they are to the US after going to the trouble of visiting one of their "closest allies."

A heavyweight country shouldn't have a lightweight leader. There is a fifty/fifty chance that the American electorate will punch his "return home" ticket in November while they search for a replacement in a higher weight class.

Hat tip to Capt. McCann

Who Buys the Keynesian Snake Oil?

By Grant Davies

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation is a smart organization. They know that if you use pretty girls to get your message out more people will see the message. Even other women are more attentive when pleasant looking females are talking. It doesn't hurt if the girls themselves happen to be smart as well.

Many of you know about my love for the art and science of economics. So it won't be surprising for you to read that I think Obamanomics is as nonsensical as the Keynesian notion (upon which it is based) that you can raise the level of a swimming pool by taking the water from the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end.

This video won't change a lot of minds because a large part of supporting Obama and his ilk is the practice of closing one's mind to logical discourse in favor of hero worship, tribal affiliation, and a general feeling of moral superiority over others who support anyone else.

Having said that, this video is worth watching for rational thinkers so they can keep the outrage over the scandals alive until November when the country will decide for the second time whether it wants freedom or slavery.

The real scandal is how many people buy the Keynesian snake oil even though it has never worked anywhere it's been tried. It's a scandal of mis-education purchased at a high price.

Enjoy, and be sure to circulate the video widely so you can remind those of your friends who think logically while driving your liberal friends crazy. It's great sport.




Hat tip to International Liberty.

Does The Ryan Choice Impact the Election?

By Dan Mitchell

The honest answer is that it probably means nothing. I don’t think there’s been an election in my lifetime that was impacted by the second person on a presidential ticket.

And a quick look at Intrade.com shows that Ryan’s selection hasn’t (at least yet) moved the needle. Obama is still in the high 50s.

Moreover, the person who becomes Vice President usually plays only a minor role in Administration policy.

With those caveats out of the way, the Ryan pick is mostly good news.

Here are the reasons why I’m happy.

• I think Ryan genuinely believes in small government, low tax rates, and free markets. Heck, he’s even read Ayn Rand, and is willing to admit that he likes her writings.
• Ryan put together a good budget and got the Republican Party to rally around the plan – a remarkable achievement considering that the same GOPers had just spent 8 years supporting the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush Administration.
• He understands that not all entitlement reform is created equal. Instead of supporting means-testing (which produces implicit higher marginal tax rates) and unsustainable price controls, Ryan got his colleagues to support Medicaid block grants and premium support (or vouchers) for Medicare.
• Ryan is a proponent of the flat tax and can competently discuss not only the importance of low tax rates, but also why double taxation is misguided and why it’s wrong to use the tax code to pick winners and losers.

Here are two reasons why I’m worried.

• Both Romney and Ryan are somewhat sympathetic to a value-added tax. My worst-case scenario is they win the election, but then can’t get a good budget approved because of some squishy Republican senators who put self interest above national interest. Romney and Ryan then decide that this European-style national sales tax is the only way – on paper – of making the budget balance. In reality, of course, we’ll suffer the same fate as Europe since the VAT revenues will be used to finance ever-larger government.
• Ryan has some very bad votes in his past, including support for TARP, the auto bailout, the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education legislation, and the reckless Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Everyone says to ignore those votes because Ryan knew he was voting the wrong way, but if he’s already made some deliberately bad decisions for political reasons, what’s to stop him from making more deliberately bad decisions for political reasons?

But as I said above, don’t read too much into Ryan’s selection. if Republicans win, Romney will be the one calling the shots.

Though this does give Ryan a big advantage the next time there’s an open contest for the GOP nomination – either 2016 or 2020.

P.S. I suspect putting Ryan on the ticket will shift Wisconsin into the GOP column. Based on my last prediction, that would be enough to defeat Obama. But I’ll have to contemplate whether the pick hurts Romney’s chances in another state. You’ll have to wait until September 6 for my updated election prediction.

P.P.S. For those who care about politics, some are saying that selecting Ryan was risky because it gives Obama and his allies an opportunity to demagogue the GOP ticket about entitlement reform. I disagree. Even if Romney picked Nancy Pelosi, that demagoguery was going to happen. Heck, they’ve already accused Romney of causing a woman’s death, so I hardly think they’ll be bashful about throwing around other accusations.

Dan Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He blogs at International Liberty and this post is republished here with his express permission.

So What's the Problem?

By Grant Davies

It's obvious from the media coverage of the Presidential election this year that the most important things to be considered by the voters are: whether President Obama thinks business owners created their own success, and whether Mitt Romney worked for a company that owned some companies who outsourced some work. (Presumably the media thinks that's a bad thing.)


As much as I hate to sound like some kind of conspiracy nut, I think that it's a continuing strategy to distract voters from the actual issues. Worse yet, I think it's working, again.


I know it will shock some of you, but most of the media is left-leaning. (Okay, since they have readily admitted it in the past I know it's not a shock, but I can't resist being a smart ass.) And since they lean left, I'm quite uncertain why they care which one of these guys gets the nod.  After all, they get what they want no matter which of these big government advocates is in office. But distracting the voters from Obama's unbelievably poor performance seems to be job one. Here we go again.  


So I feel obliged to bring up a few points that some of you may want to mention at the next backyard cookout you attend this summer when "beered" up neighbors or relatives start talking about which guy is the bigger liar, or "outsourcer," or non-citizen, or Mormon, or friend of a distasteful clergyman. Or maybe they want to chat about who likes/dislikes gay people more, or whether "rich" people should pay more taxes because they don't pay their fair share. Or whether Tea Partiers are racists. Or whether it's getting too hot or cold because people are alive.


In that case here are some of the points I think you might mention: 

• The country is still in a recession/depression.
• The country (FED) is still printing money like crazy.
• Prices are rising precipitously as the value of the money falls. And you ain't seen nothin' yet.
• The government is spending money it doesn't have like there is no tomorrow. (They might be right on that point.)
• Social Security is on the verge of collapse.
• Medicare is on the verge of collapse.
• Cities are declaring bankruptcy.
• States are on the verge of the same.
• Greece may be bailed out by somebody, but there is no one who can bail out America.
• The President has seized the power to assassinate anyone, even US citizens, who he thinks might be a terrorist. No arrest, no arraignment, no witnesses, no trial. Congress has gone along with it and he has already done it.
• Here at home, the right of Habeus Corpus has been abolished by executive order. Also with the approval of congress.
• The Supreme Court just decided that the Constitution presents no barrier to government intrusion on our lives as long as the law in question is determined to be a tax.
• One half of the adults in the country pay no federal tax.
• Almost one half of the citizens are receiving some form of government funds. They will never vote for anyone who says those payments are to be cut back, much less eliminated.
• New regulations are being made by the thousands, mostly by unelected people. There is no end in sight.
• Wars are still being fought, also with no end in sight. And no one can figure out what would constitute victory or defeat.

So, if you think everything is just dandy and the above list has either been concocted by me out of thin air, or the list is correct, but the items on it are not a problem, then by all means chat about why Republicans or Democrats are the bad/dumb guys and have another beer. Argue about what the media wants you to focus on.

But just in case I'm right about any of the list being an actual issue, you might want to get a helmet. You know.. just in case.

Gary Johnson - The Other Guy

People who read this blog regularly know that I'm not a supporter of either of the two political parties that have a stranglehold on American politics.  My problem with Republicans is that they are too much like Democrats. And my problem with Democrats is that they are too much like Democrats.

It's also no secret that I think that the Obama Presidency has been a nightmare for our liberties and our country.  By comparison, I expect a Romney Presidency to be only a bad dream.

One more term for Obama and his ideology may very well put the country into an unrecoverable slide into the historically familiar condition of top down rule of the elitists over a second class of subservient drones. It's not a stretch to say that a return to a "bread and circuses" world, not unlike that of the Roman Empire, is almost a certainty. We're very nearly there already.

With almost half of the population being a net recipient of government "largess" while the rest pay for it, we are perilously close to the tipping point. At 51%, it's game over folks. The majority of voters will never vote against cash in their own pocket, no matter who else's pocket it comes out of. So it's for certain that I oppose the re-election of Barack Obama and the "progressive" agenda.

Does that mean I support Mitt Romney? Hardly. Anyone who thinks Romney will "save America" merely by being elected over the worst President in history is suffering from a delusion shared with Democrats and Independents who thought everything would be better with GWB in retirement. Oh, it's good that Bush and the neo-cons are out of power, but things are hardly better. In fact they are worse. It's rather like favoring plague over small pox.

So, do I recommend voting for the above named "third choice", Gary Johnson? Well, maybe..it depends on where you live. Huh?

I live in a city I call, Unfortunately, Illinois. My town is not worse than most, but my state is. And one of the reasons that Illinois is in a hot race for "worst in the nation" is that it's run by crooked people, mostly Democrats. But Republicans have shown that they are plenty crooked too whenever they get a chance to run things. The point is, Illinois is going for Obama. Probably in a big way. It's a blue state and people vote with their political tribe no matter what. The feeling here seems to be, "They're all crooks, I'll vote for my band of crooks."

So here's the deal for me: if the polls show (I hate polls, BTW) that Romney is within realistic striking distance of Obama, I'm going to do what I have never advocated before, vote for Romney in order to dismiss Obama and the progressives.

But, that "ain't gonna happen." So I'm going to do what I've always done, vote for what I want. And I want to be free again, or at least more free than I am now. So I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson. I agree with 95% of what he is running on, and right now I can't think of the 5% I disagree with.

I advocate that you do the same, depending upon where you live. If you live in a state that's "safe" for Romney, or "safe" for Obama, and you value your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren, you should vote for Johnson as well. If you live in a battleground state, well, you have the short term fate of the country in your hands. If you want to live in France, please move there, don't bring the Euro-misery here.

From my perspective, the ideal outcome for this election would be for Obama to be dismissed, Romney to be elected, (because a third party candidate will not be elected) and Johnson to get a huge number of popular votes. That will push both parties to take the freedom movement of smaller government seriously in the elections of the future. And time has almost expired on the greatest experiment in political history.

Here is a video of Gary Johnson on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart is pretty funny in this spot and you can get an adequate feel for what Johnson is trying to accomplish.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

It's Beside the Point

For quite a while now I have been telling any Obama detractor who would listen that I think they are missing the point by focusing on our organizer-in-chief.

It's not to say he isn't a problem, because he is. But it's kind of like your cough is a problem when you have strep throat. When it comes to your health, the cough is really beside the point. And like Obama's damaging presidency, it's actually useful to a degree.

As Thomas Sowell has said; "Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it." The ideas he holds are the problem and he is only the latest in a long line of people who push them. And so it goes with the candidates for the Presidency in this messy Republican primary season.

For many conservatives, the Mitt Romney candidacy is heresy. He isn't a conservative and therefore should not be the Republican nominee. True enough, but it's beside the point if your goal is to turn the situation around before it's too late. What passes for conservatism now-a-days won't fix the situation. Nor will electing a technocrat who thinks that the only problem with our government is that he's not in charge of it.

Then there is the newest "anyone but Mitt" candidate, Rick Santorum. Rick, whose trademark sweaters are only slightly more stylish than Jimmy Carter's were, is basically a clone of George W Bush. Bush was godfather (or the puppet, perhaps) of the neo-con version of what passed for conservatism in the eight years before people signed on to the dream of hope for leftist change. George made the situation worse during his turn, and so will Rick if he gets the chance. Between trying to pound his version of morality down the country's throat and attacking the people who favor individual liberty, he seems anxious to attack Iran for good measure. Whatever he would do as President other than those things would be beside the point of saving the currency or addressing the debt catastrophe.

So now let's turn to the last Republican in the "anyone but Mitt as long as it's not Ron Paul" candidate. The music seems to have stopped for Newt Gingrich's dance with the nomination, so he himself is beside the point. I thought about leaving him off the list, but darn it, it's just not fair that someone as grandiose as Newt should be left without a chair when the music stops. But alas, that's just the way it is. Life ain't fair, I guess.

Which leaves one last candidate, none other than Ron Paul. At least in his candidacy we finally find some honesty because Paul has been telling anyone who will listen that he himself is beside the point when it comes to addressing the situation we find ourselves in. That makes one person in this whole mess who finally "get's it." The most unlikely of candidates; he's too old, he's not a slick campaigner, he doesn't articulate the positions as well as so many others in his movement, and he has been proclaimed a million times as irrelevant by the media pundits. But, he "get's it."

He knows it's the ideas that matter if you are actually trying to do something other than just get elected. It's the ideas that turn into the policies that will finally address this situation. It's not the guy, it's the ideas.

And since the country has tried all the other ideas of the left and right, and none of them have done anything except spend, borrow and print money while making things worse, the country might finally be ready to try the only thing that has ever worked over the long term. Freedom, not intervention. It works everywhere and always. Government doesn't have the answers. You do.

And THAT is the point.

The University of Michigan is a Good Place for a Pander Party

As President Obama attended his latest campaign pander party (thinly disguised as government business instead of the taxpayer supported campaign trip it actually was) the things he said in his speech reminded me of something Dr. Walter Williams has said; "Politicians exploit economic illiteracy.”

So as the professor also often says, "Let's look at it."

Putting aside the inane headline in the paper that read; "Obama Targets College Costs" (a supposition that getting the federal government involved in those costs is actually part of his job description), let's look at what causes costs to rise for higher education, or for that matter any commodity. As always it's the ratio between demand and supply. In this case, the government has caused the demand to rise by subsidizing the potential students and the colleges themselves. (As an aside, they did the same thing in causing the housing crisis.)

The story goes on to describe the "college affordability ideas" Obama is promoting. One is that he threatens that if the colleges and universities don't cut costs they risk losing some of the federal aid he is promising as part of the ideas. The law of carrots and sticks will never replace the law of supply and demand. And the law of supply and demand is one of only a few laws in existence that wasn't written by politicians. It has the added benefit that it enforces itself, so they are left out of the force equation as well, which drives them insane.

According to the newspaper article (Chicago Tribune) the President stated that "schools can't just jack up tuition every single year and simply expect people to pay it!" So, as usual, he said at least something that made sense. Unfortunately, after citing that basic tenet of economics 101, he screwed it up on the follow through (as he also usually does) by showing his utter illiteracy on the subject (or contempt, as the case may be) when he calls for the use of coercion to correct that condition instead of assuming the consumers of the product will make other arrangements. The truth is, the people he says can't be expected to just pay the "jacked up" tuition do not expect to pay it, they expect you to pay it. Because people like Obama keep promising them things, and delivering.

Republicans don't get a free pass on this one. They have had similar plans to jawbone prices down as well. If they think that it will work any better for them they are just as dumb or just as cynical as Obama is. They both would like to think that powerful people like them can just order education costs to go down.

The reason for the speech is not to "fix" the college affordability problem, it's to buy votes with taxpayer money and shore up his support. It's text book pandering, this time to university students who backed him last time but don't look like they will deliver in big numbers this time around. After all, they are in school to learn and at least some of them have learned a thing or two about hope and change in the last three years. Large numbers are rallying to the campaign of a seventy-six year old doctor who has great appeal to the Democrats among them.

So while most of us are planning our super bowl parties, Obama is in the Democrat stronghold of Michigan hosting a pander party. At halftime the meal they are serving up is pulled pork, but the pork will be pulled from the taxpayers pockets.

A Real Interview With Difficult Questions

Just a few minutes long, it actually lets you learn some things about the candidate and his positions.

An Open Letter to Dr. Ron Paul

Dear Dr. Paul,

I am a supporter and I have done all that I possibly can to promote your candidacy on my website and in personal discussions with friends. I've done that despite breaking my own goal of making the site about concepts and ideas rather than politics or people. I think it's that important because I think it may be too late if the country gets even one more term of Obama/Bush governance. And I want my freedom back.

Having said that, what the heck are your advisers doing to earn their money? Last night, the incompetents at ABC news finally gave you an opening that you should have made for yourself long ago. They asked you the ONE question in last night's debate that, if answered correctly and passionately, could ignite your campaign like no other single thing.

They asked you (I paraphrase) about how you could envision something different for the country if you were elected.  About what might happen to us if we elect you to the White House. It was the equivalent of teeing up a political golf ball for you.  AND YOU WHIFFED!

The time for telling the country what is wrong and what caused the problems is over. Not everyone "gets" it, but most of them never will, no matter how many times you repeat it. So it's time to change lanes, hit the accelerator and work on the "vision thing." Not your vision, but theirs.

Not the vision that your supporters have in their imagination. They "get" it. They have formulated it from what you say at the rallies and on the college campuses. You are preaching to the choir with them. It's the vision of the non-political types you need to inspire, those who don't have the time or the inclination to follow politics or economics because they are caught up in the struggle to live their everyday lives. They escape into sports or entertainment when they need a break from that. They need something to focus on in this election.

I didn't major in business or marketing in college.  In fact I didn't even go, but I know the difference between a feature and a benefit. You have been talking about features.  It's time to close the deal by emphasizing benefits. People buy cars or houses because they can envision themselves in them and "feel" how their life will improve if they sign on the dotted line.

People want to know how their lives will be better, or at least how they can expect them to be better after a few years of a Paul presidency.

Will they be more free? How can you say it so they can see themselves "out from under?"
Will they be more likely to get a job? They need to see themselves working again because of your policies.
Will they have a more predictable life?
Will they be able to plan again instead of merely survive the recession? Make them believe it because it's true, but not just because you say it.
Will the value of their houses begin to slowly rise again? Why?
Will they be safer from terrorists because you are president? Why?
They think Obama is an appeaser, you need to tell them the difference between his approach and yours and allow them to envision why they will be safer with your approach.
Will their crushing health-care expenses begin to get better? Tell them how and why. Convince them to envision why they will have better lives with your approach, not just why the current system or Obama-care is unacceptable.

These things seem obvious to me, but if they are to your advisers, it's not apparent, and I've seen every debate. I'm not a political consultant and this advice is free. But unlike most free things, it's worth something. At least I think so. So get the people you pay to polish up the concept and prepare you for tonight's debate. Or kick them out and do it yourself.

Your campaign needs to learn from two very different, but successful candidates. Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. They both sold hope. And the people were buying.

Now Obama sells resentment. And the "hope product" the people bought is being returned to the store. You need to sell them a product that actually delivers what his failed to.

You have been scolding the people for a long time, and they deserved it. But the "Dutch Uncle" message is old now, they need an inspirational pep talk now. It's past time to give it.

Tonight is the time to start.  It may be too late already, but you'll never get too far past your current support level with the old game plan. If it's too late for your candidacy, it's probably too late for the country. That is why I'm risking being so presumptuous as to tell a future President what to do.

Start now.  There isn't a moment to waste. The ball is on the tee and it's begging to be hit right down the fairway.

God bless you for your efforts no matter whether you take my advice or not.

Yours for liberty,
Grant Davies
American citizen

PS ---   Pick your son Rand as your VP. Do it soon. People want continuity when they sign on to a vision. They have their antenna up for what they perceive as cynical choices for geographic electoral advantage. You are 76, they want to know that they will still be free if you cannot continue. So pick Rand. It's bold and it will work. (He's going to be President someday anyway, might as well get him started now.)

A Little Levity to Start the New Year

Republicans have been making a joke out of themselves recently so no sense in piling on right now. In which case, I thought it might be fun to poke a little light-hearted fun at my Democrat friends to start the new year.

Which is not to say there isn't a heck of a lot of truth to the joke. Most good jokes have a lot of truth in them.

You may have seen this going around in email, but it's worth a reprint as we move into an election year.


12 REASONS WHY I VOTED DEMOCRAT:
(Courtesy of Don Williams)

When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted Democrat, give them this list. Then they can then pick a reason from this "TOP 12"..

1. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

6. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

8. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10.. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

11. I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE".

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

Leno and Ron Paul on the Tonight Show - Conclusion

Here are the last three full segments of the interview we started yesterday. Please leave your "vote" on whether you found them useful in the poll on the right. It only takes a second and it's totally anonymous. I have received several comments that the information is more clear than in the debates, which relatively few people have watched.

Jay Leno Interviews Ron Paul on the Tonight Show - Part One

New poll results 12-19-11

After missing the Tonight Show appearance of Ron Paul the other night, perhaps because I haven't watched a late night talk show in a few decades, I stumbled upon these videos and it occurred to me that it was likely that many of you might have missed it too.  And also having been informed by readers that the series of interviews of Dr. Thomas Sowell that we ran here recently was well received, it seemed like a fit when I came across these YouTube videos of the interview.

We may be able to learn more about a candidate's positions in this kind of a setting than from a "gotcha contest" masquerading as a debate. Of course it has to be done correctly or it can turn into a circus or a love fest. After watching part one it seems this one is neither, so let's give it a go to see if we can learn anything of use.

Most of the Republican debates so far have been more political theater than anything else. It can be argued that on that level they have had some success. But I'm not sure that they have succeeded as well at being a device for shedding light on a candidate's positions and vision for leading the executive branch of our federal government.

Here is part one. Please let me know in the poll box on the right if you find it/them to be useful or enlightening.

You have to Balance Your Budget, the Government is not Different

As Ron Paul moves into a statistical tie for the lead in the Iowa polls a few weeks before the caucuses there, his son Rand Paul, US senator from Kentucky, rises on the floor to make a short speech about the balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

Speaking common sense (as he always does), he makes the case for fiscal sanity and the possibility of saving the country from committing monetary suicide. Absent dementia, even people who love big government programs (both on the right and the left) understand that you cannot go on borrowing money to pay for them indefinitely.

If Rand were running for President, he would be my first choice, but it isn't his time yet. So I keep hoping his father will gain the nomination and choose him as his VP candidate. It's a hope that seems far-fetched. But so did his father's chances just a few months ago.

Some would call me crazy, but I think they would win the election against Obama handily. Rand Paul connects with people on a personal level, even as his father's ideas connect in spite of his perceived grouchy demeanor.

No matter what happens in that election, before we can even think about regaining our lost freedoms, we need to avert a catastrophe that will certainly occur if the imbeciles in Washington don't seriously address the inevitable collapse of our monetary system caused by the massive, unsustainable national debt.

The budget deficits are the cause, the debt is the issue, and the spending is the actual problem. We must have balance to survive as a nation, just as your household needs balance for you to survive as a family.