Sunday, February 12, 2012

Response to No Quarter's Larry Johnson

So long story short I got one real day off and a mess of things to get accomplished on that day but I simply could resist getting this out to respond to Larry Johnson @ No Quarter blog. They are rampant Romney fans - desperate to see Obama crushed for his sin of running over their Saint Hillary they despise Gingrich for his kneecapping Clinton. And now have targeted Santorum.
I took way too much time to write this response so I am posting it here.

 I see you have cast the gaunlet to conservatives as to why they would support Santorum . To be perfectly clear i will support whoever is the nominee . 

First I will address the negatives you have laid out, and then follow up with a big point you avoided to mention.

 1) the deadly threat of earmarks - true some of the past decades earmark projects and pork barrel spending were wasteful expenditures meant to lock in support for other projects and votes. That is the ugly way of Washington DC.  Party politics and back scratching are the way things are done from getting for Osprey helicopters ( Santorum voted Yes) to funding high speed rails between cemeteries and prisons ( tarp money to CA for that ) .  In comparison to the spending our federal government is currently engaging in, is to compare a shot glass to a beer vat.  Earmarks are in fact a duty of a congress person and representatives, to trying get tax money back to their own states to fund infrastructure projects ( not one man in the primary today is clean of the practice of petitioning for earmarks for their states  Goggle It ) That is part of their responsibility. Have there been excesses? You betcha.  But in the grand scheme of Santorums efforts are softball compared to the likes of Saint Hillary Clinton (in fiscal 2008 alone out earmarked all by 5 times the amount. )  I see that Senator Kennedy and Representative Barney Frank grand slammed earmark dollars and I can't seem to recall a peep out of an alleged Conservative Governor during his single term in office. So bang your drum people earmarks are evil and installing central planning health insurance with unconstitutional mandates on all living citizens of a state is a Ok.

 2) Job creation -  Santorum can't compete to Romney's Jobs creation can he? He certainly didn't run a venture capital business that had access to business's across the spectrum of the economy.  No - as a senator he wasn't in the business of hiring people on that level. He voted in congress and worked to achieve funding of projects ( earmarks) to bring tax money back into the state to increase hiring. He supported Tax cuts to ensure the business community had the money to invest in their business either human resources or products which produces human capital in other business's .  He opposed NAFTA that endangered his constituents work opportunities ( it did by the way). He voted  for tariffs on imported steel and consumer products coming from China based on their currency  manipulation. He has voted for labor unions in the past due to the wishes of his Constiuents and has  indicated his support for national right to work legistations if serving as President. I have little reason to doubt that considering ratings from the American Conservative Union are at 90%.

 So while he didn't create jobs so to speak he did take the available avenues of his position to spur job growth in his state. 

3) The gay marriage issue/ family values - though you did not mention it I feel it needs to be addressed. IE: goggle Santorum 
  When Rick Santorum discusses family values - he is aimed at the traditional family model Father,Mother and children. Some people who have targeted his position  like to mention a lack of sympathy to the changing metrics of American families. His main conviction is that the traditional family model offers the best chances of raising better prepared children. It offers children stronger economic parameters, better foundations in understanding healthy adult relationships and a respect for discipline.  While he understands that the modern family is shifting from two parents and single earner households to single parent/earner households he still maintains correctly it is less than optimal to raise a family in such a manner. A common model developing the past thirty years is that of extended family members acting in surrogate parenting roles, which can be a good substitute given the circumstance.

 His views on homosexuality are more faith based than an outward fear and intolerance of this group. His principled arguments regarding same sex marriage is that once breached the definition of marriage will stand multiple contests to continue extending it out past two individuals of consenting age.(slippery slope argument). Aside from that, he makes the case across the globe no civilization in past history of mankind had ever thought to grant same sex marriages before the Netherlands did in 2001.
 Of the countries that have elected to go this route (Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina) all are witnessing declining birth rates and  an increase in fatherless children. One may question if being a fatherless child is a bad thing on occasion  but statistically speaking it has an adverse effect. In fatherless children you can see higher incarceration rates, education drop out rates, suicides, gender identification confusion, juvenile delinquency, and aggression in young males. 

 So in a nut shell as a conservative I can back Santorum without batting an eye.

 So perhaps maybe some folks here can explain to me, how exactly is Romney ( the newly crowned  conservative by CPAC) going pull this thing off? 

He has lost the healthcare debate before day one. And that is HUGE . . . With that one issue - you show Barrack Obama as singularly focused on achieving that one objective that he allowed the economy to tailspin for the first 18 months of his term. 

 The occupy movement was spawned and designed to eviscerate a potential top earner like Romney... The language of class warfare ( which he has foolishly embraced on occasion) is set to be drag before the mass media markets to the politically unattentive, like a famished lion eviscerates its prey. Add to this, his recorded gaffes,  to be edited & used out of context  ... I like to fire people & I don't care about the poor . . . He is already facing a swift and certain defeat. 

 His new found conservativism is strikingly slim on historical evidence. Supporting a minimum wage increase is definitely not a position on the right wing nor is it a blessing to his job growth platform. In fact while in his single term as MA governor He opposed an increase correctly noting the horrendous track record it has on job growth. His proposed tax plan is completely uninspiring and he has not shied away from a tax increase on people/ small business earning $200,000. ( sounds vaguely familiar don't it?) No flattening of the rates and no laid out tax reform of substance leaving yet more uncertainty to clog the gears of the economy. 

 He is now a staunch anti illegal/ undocumented worker hawk. & yet when he was the acting Gov of MA his position was quite different.  2005 Boston Globe interview has Romney supporting legistations that allows illegal aliens to obtain citizenship after registering waiting 6 years & then paying a fine . He called this a reasonable course of action.  That is a far cry from what he as a Canidate has said and there where no efforts in his time in the Governorship to authorize state police to arrest persons on visa/immigration violations until the last month of his term in office. 

 My thing is ... Saying one thing is merely lip service compared to what you do when you are in the position to do it. 

 For all the most dedicated Romney folks smashing every other Canidate to pieces, Tell me how Romney Vs Obama is any different from Willkie vs FDR in 1940.


No comments: