Yearly Archives: 2011

Steve Jobs to the President: “You’re headed for a one-term presidency,”

October 21, 2011 – 12:23 pm

I have posted a lot about Steve Jobs and I have the links below after this fine aricle:

Lachlan Markay

October 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm

 

Steve Jobs, the late Apple founder and digital pioneer, told President Obama in a 2010 meeting that his anti-business attitude and enthusiasm for federal regulations could spell doom for his re-election bid, according to an upcoming biography of the iconic entrepreneur.

Jobs specifically cited a number of impediments to job creation and future economic growth, including onerous business regulations and stubborn teachers’ unions preventing reform of the country’s education system.

The Huffington Post, which obtained an advance copy of the book – titled “Steve Jobs” – said the man “seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.”

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

If Obama did not become more business friendly, Jobs warned, he would be “headed for a one-term presidency.”

Jobs’s legacy, wrote Heritage President Ed Feulner, is antithetical to the president’s approach to governing. The man “was a living refutation of all that liberals constantly tell us about our country,” Feulner wrote.

Related posts:

Steve Jobs left conservative Lutheran upbringing behind

Steve Jobs was raised as a conservative Lutheran but he chose to leave those beliefs behind. Below is a very good article on his life. COVER STORY ARTICLE | Issue: “Steve Jobs 1955-2011″ October 22, 2011 A god of our age Who was Steve Jobs? A revered technology pioneer and a relentless innovator, the Apple […]

Occupy Wall Street vs. Steve Jobs

COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]

Steve Jobs’ Father

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs at Stanford

(If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it ,8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs ,Steve […]

Steve Jobs depicted at pearly gates with Saint Peter

It is strange that the New Yorker Magazine did no research. (If you want to check out other posts I have done about about Steve Jobs:Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist , Steve Jobs and Adoption , What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life? ,Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs? ,Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible […]

 

___________________________

Some say Steve Jobs was an atheist

According to published reports Steve Jobs was a Buddhist and he had a very interesting quote on death which I discussed in another post. Back in 1979 I saw the film series HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE? by Francis Schaeffer and I also read the book. Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise […]

Steve Jobs and Adoption

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 It was a quite moving story to hear about Steve Jobs’ adoption. Ryan Scott Bomberger (www.toomanyaborted.com), co-founder of The Radiance Foundation, an adoptee and adoptive father: “As a creative professional, [Jobs’] visionary work has helped my own visions become reality. But his […]

What is the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life?

I have written several posts on Steve Jobs and they are listed below. Today I want to look at the eternal impact of Steve Jobs’ life. Below are the words of – R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.: “Christians cannot leave the matter where the secular world will […]

Steve Jobs versus President Obama: Who created more jobs?

I loved reading this article below. (Take a look at the link to other posts I have done on Steve Jobs.) David Boaz makes some great observations: How much value is the Post Office creating this year? Or Amtrak? Or Solyndra? And if you point out that the Post Office does create value for its […]

Steve Jobs’ view of death and what the Bible has to say about it

Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford Commencement Address Uploaded by StanfordUniversity on Mar 7, 2008 Drawing from some of the most pivotal points in his life, Steve Jobs, chief executive officer and co-founder of Apple Computer and of Pixar Animation Studios, urged graduates to pursue their dreams and see the opportunities in life’s setbacks — including death […]

8 things you might not know about Steve Jobs

Things you may not know about Steve Jobs: Steve Jobs leans against his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle/Corbis) For all of his years in the spotlight at the helm of Apple, Steve Jobs in many ways remains an inscrutable figure — even in his death. Fiercely private, Jobs concealed most specifics about […]

Steve Jobs was a Buddhist: What is Buddhism?

Steve Jobs passed away on October 5, 2011. I personally am very grateful to him for helping the world so much with his ideas and I have written about that before. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute noted: He’s built a $360 billion company. That presumably means at least $352 billion of wealth in the […]

  Did Steve Jobs help people even though he did not give away a lot of money? (I just finished a post concerning Steve’s religious beliefs and a post about 8 things you may not know about Steve Jobs) Uploaded by UM0kusha0kusha on Sep 16, 2010 clip from The First Round Up *1934* ~~enjoy!! ______________________________________________ In the short film […]

 

Like this:

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events, President Obama | Comments (0)

Obama’s Budget Worsens Debt Problem, but The Heritage Plan Solves It

October 21, 2011 – 11:30 am

Obama’s Budget Worsens Debt Problem, but The Heritage Plan Solves It

Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.

Spending in the President’s budget proposal for 2012 would drive the debt to 87 percent of the economy by 2021. In contrast, Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity solves the debt problem through strong budget reforms, lowering debt to 58 percent of GDP in just 10 years.

DEBT AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Download

Obama's Budget Worsens Debt Problem, but The Heritage Plan Solves It

Source: President’s Budget: Congressional Budget Office and White House Office of Management and Budget; Heritage Plan: Calculations by the Center for Data Analysis based on current projections, data provided by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and CDA policy models.

Chart 23 of 42

In Depth

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 3)

October 21, 2011 – 10:32 am

David Barton: In their words, did the Founding Fathers put their faith in Christ? (Part 3)

David Barton has put together a great collection of quotes from the founding fathers about their faith in Christ:

The Founders As Christians  

America’s Founding Fathers Deist or Christian? – DavidBarton 3/6

Robert Treat Paine
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.

Robert Treat Paine, The Papers of Robert Treat Paine, Stephen Riley and Edward Hanson, editors (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), Vol. I, p. 48, March/April, 1749.

[W]hen I consider that this instrument contemplates my departure from this life and all earthly enjoyments and my entrance on another state of existence, I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of his providential goodness and his forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state, acknowledging with grateful remembrance the happiness I have enjoyed in my passage through a long life. . .

Will of Robert Treat Paine

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Signer of the Constitution

To the eternal, immutable, and only true God be all honor and glory, now and forever, Amen!. . .

Will of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Rufus Putnam
Revolutionary War General, First Surveyor General of the United States

[F]irst, I give my soul to a holy, sovereign God Who gave it in humble hope of a blessed immortality through the atonement and righteousness of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. My body I commit to the earth to be buried in a decent Christian manner. I fully believe that this body shall, by the mighty power of God, be raised to life at the last day; ‘for this corruptable (sic) must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.’ [I Corinthians 15:53]

Will of Rufus Putnam

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

My only hope of salvation is in the infinite, transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!

Benjamin Rush, The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, George Corner, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1948), p. 166, Travels Through Life, An Account of Sundry Incidents & Events in the Life of Benjamin Rush.

Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution

I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.

Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 272-273.

Richard Stockton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence

I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the Being of God, the universal defection and depravity of human nature, the divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior, the necessity of the operations of the Divine Spirit, of Divine Faith, accompanied with an habitual virtuous life, and the universality of the divine Providence, but also . . . that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state; that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either immediately or consequentially, even in this life; that as Almighty God hath not been pleased in the Holy Scriptures to prescribe any precise mode in which He is to be publicly worshiped, all contention about it generally arises from want of knowledge or want of virtue.

Will of Richard Stockton

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in David Barton, Founding Fathers | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Bill Clinton is funny, there is no doubt about that

October 21, 2011 – 9:09 am

Bill Clinton is funny, there is no doubt about that

I first met Bill Clinton in 1983 in a small meeting in Little Rock at the Excelsior Hotel where he later had the run in with Paula Jones in May of 1991. Clinton was late for our meeting with 30 small business owners and he was very funny when he got there. He said he had a crisis in government and he had a very important meeting. It was with Hillary!! Then he went through the room and called almost everyone by name. I was amazed at his memory and humor.

The Arkansas Times Blog had this up a few days ago and it is very funny.

Clinton Foundation Celebrity Brainstorm

Uploaded by on Oct 18, 2011

Bill Clinton and Funny or Die team up for this funny promo with Ben Stiller, Matt Damon, Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn, Kristen Wiig, Jack Black, Ted Danson,and Mary Steenburgen

___________________________

Bill Clinton
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Bill Clinton

The former president joins all-star cast that includes Ben Stiller, Ted Danson, Kevin Spacey, Matt Damon and Sean Penn to goof on his charitable foundation.

Funny or Die never seems to have trouble getting A-list stars to appear in their low-budget web projects. But it may have outdone itself with its latest video, which is packed with some of the biggest names in Hollywood, alongside a former U.S. president, no less.

The video premiered Saturday on two giant screens at the Hollywood Bowl during a concert benefiting the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and Funny or Die posted it online midnight Tuesday.

PHOTO: Best Presidents in Film and Television

The premise has Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Matt Damon, Sean Penn, Kristen Wiig, Ted Danson and Mary Steenburgen making up the Clinton Foundation’s Celebrity Division. Kevin Spacey may or may not be part of that team.

Christin Trogan, who produced the video, said each star dedicated about two hours to the project and that it was shot over five days last month. While it appears most of the actors are in the same room at the same time, that was only the case with Stiller, Danson and Steenburgen.

“It was long days for the crew, for sure, creating that continuity and that world where they’re together, right down to the littlest things, like where a bagel was placed,” Trogan said.

PHOTOS: Actors Who’ve Played Politicians

Clinton was shot at his Foundation office in New York, where he is shown reprimanding Spacey for commandeering his desk, though Spacey’s end of the conversation was shot in California. Black was also in California while the rest of the cast was in New York.

The five-minute video is called Clinton Foundation: Celebrity Brainstorm.

The sketch was written by Funny or Die staff writer Alex Fernie, though the actors ad-libbed here and there and others contributed ideas and dialogue. If there were any stars who declined the opportunity to appear in the video, Funny or Die isn’t saying.

PHOTOS: President George W. Bush on 9/11

“It was one of those things where, when we were going through the bits, we had certain people in mind, and we got really lucky that they were able to be part of it,” Trogan said.  “It was almost like some other force was blessing this video and enabling it to come together.”

Josh Greenbaum directed the short, which he co-wrote with Alex Fernie.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Bill Clinton | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Tolbert notes how popular Beebe is and how unpopular Pryor is, will Beebe run for Senate?

October 21, 2011 – 8:35 am

Jason Tolbert noted today:

Democrats are touting a compilation polling data out from Public Policy Polling that shows Gov. Mike Beebe has the highest approval rating of any governor in the country.  Of those Arkansans polled, Beebe is approved of by 59 percent with only 22 percent disapproving.  He truly seems to be the teflon man.  Most Arkansans have made up their minds that they like him.

Sen. Mark Pryor, on the other hand, is one of the least liked Senators in Washington, according to the polling firm’s chart.  Only 29 percent of Arkansans polled approve of Pryor, while 46 percent disapprove. Only two Senators, John McCain (R-AZ) and Bill Nelson (D-NE), come out worse.

It should also be noted that the data from the various states was not conducted at the same time.  The polling data used from Arkansas was from January 2010 – which is why Sen. John Boozman is not listed.  It would be interesting to see if these numbers have gone down any especially considering what the economy has done over the last year and half – illustrated by this chart from Roby Brock.

Also in April of this year, Talk Business and Hendrix College polled Beebe and Pryor in a statewide survey. At the time, Beebe had a job approval rating of 67%-22%. Pryor only held a 40%-36.5% positive approval rating. Click here to access those results.

______________

That makes my post a while back even more true now:

Run, Hillary, run!

It is my view that if the economy keeps stinking that Republicans will have a field day  in November of 2012. However, the same principle holds true that challengers to Democrats will be  very successful in Democratic primaries.

In Arkansas many have longed for another Clinton in the White House. Could it happen? It is my view that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republicans are heavy favorites to take the Senate back and win the presidency in 2012. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if there are some big surprises in the Democratic primaries. Matthew Dickinson wrote a fine article, “Run Hillary, Run,” Salon, August 4, 2011 and in that article he makes three points:

1. “To begin, her stint as secretary of state has done wonders for her approval rating, as indicated by Gallup poll surveys dating back to her time in the White House.”

2.  “Her second advantage relates to the first: She’s not part of the mess at home. She didn’t weigh in on the stimulus bill, or healthcare, or the banking overhaul, and she certainly bears no responsibility for the state of the economy.”

3. “This leads to a third point: buyer’s remorse. It’s not one she can directly bring up (after all, she’s above politics), but others will certainly remind voters that she did warn you. Remember that 3 a.m. phone call?”

Senator Mark Pryor is part of the establishment too and will face the same problems that President Obama faces in 2012, but that could not be said about Mike Beebe. Beebe is  very popular and won with overwhelming numbers in Arkansas when many other big names in the Democratic party went down like Broadway and Lincoln.

In April of 2011 polls numbers came out and Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times Blog in his post, “Poll: Beebe, yes!; Pryor,eh.,” commented, “Gov. Mike Beebe’s approval is bipartisan and huge. U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor’s numbers are tepid.”

John Brummett goes on record today saying that Beebe will be playing golf mostly after he leaves office. Time will tell, but I am betting there will be some big upsets in Democratic primaries in the next few years. .

Announcement Hillary was running for president in 2008:

Related Posts:

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected in 2014? (Part 4)(Royal Wedding Part 5)

Dr. Jay Barth with Hendrix College comments on our latest poll results on Arkansas politics (clip from Talkbusiness) Talk Business reported today in the article “Poll Shows Beebe Strength, Pryor Shaky,” the following: A new Talk Business-Hendrix College Poll shows Gov. Mike Beebe (D) maintaining his high job approval rating, while Sen. Mark Pryor (D) […]

Will Senator Pryor be re-elected in 2014? Part 3 (The Conspirator Part 16)

U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor at the 2009 Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner, Arkansas’s largest annual political event. Mark Pryor is up for re-election to the Senate in 2014. It is my opinion that the only reason he did not have an opponent in 2008 was because the Republicans in Arkansas did not want to go […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Jason Tolbert | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

October 21, 2011 – 8:29 am

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

Scott Austin of Georgia:

“First, thank you to the hundreds of constituents who have called, e-mailed and posted comments on my Facebook and Twitter pages.  This was a difficult vote, but because of the comments and calls, I cast it with the confidence that it was the right vote for the eighth district of Georgia.  My constituents know, as well as I do, that we should do all that we can to keep from defaulting on our obligations.  However, a leader in the White House would have never allowed the discussion of a default to begin with and would have prioritized spending before this crisis came to a head.

“While this bill included some of the main principles of my preferred “Cut, Cap and Balance” bill it did not include enough of them.  As families across Georgia have realized – you can only spend as much as you take in.  “Cut, Cap and Balance” as well as the “Boehner Plan” required the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before allowing the President to raise the debt limit a second time.  Unfortunately, this requirement was left out of the compromise. Additionally, this bill includes cuts, insisted upon by the President, which would disproportionately fall in the area of defense, to the exclusion of other areas that are the true drivers of our national debt. The uncertainty surrounding these defense cuts could have a devastating impact on thousands of jobs in Middle Georgia –  a risk I’m not willing to take at a time when our unemployment rate continues to hover near double digits.

“Middle Georgians sent me here to fight for the personal freedoms, individual liberties and economic opportunities for our generation and the next.  I will never cease in that effort.  Unfortunately, this bill falls short of those goals and that is why I voted against it.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of control | Comments (0)

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan attacked for starting Value Added Tax (VAT)

October 21, 2011 – 7:20 am

Herman Cain’s plan 9-9-9 gets attacked in the clips above. Is this plan the same as a Value Added Tax (VAT).

Look Before You Leap on Cain’s 9-9-9 Tax Plan

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

I like the overall approach of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan. As I recently wrote, it focuses on lower tax rates, elimination of double taxation, and repeal of corrupt and inefficient loopholes.

But I included a very important caveat. The intermediate stage of his three-step plan would enable politicians to impose both an income tax and a national sales tax. I wrote in my earlier post that I had faith in Herman Cain’s motives, but I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of letting the crowd in Washington have an extra source of revenue.

After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax on top of their pre-existing income taxes.

But it seems that I was too nice in my analysis of Mr. Cain’s plan. Josh Barro and Bruce Bartlett are both claiming that the business portion of Cain’s 9-9-9 is a value-added tax (VAT) rather than a corporate income tax.

In other words, instead of being a 9 percent flat tax-9 percent sales tax-9 percent corporate tax, Cain’s plan is a 9 percent flat tax-9 percent sales tax-9 percent VAT.

Let’s elaborate. The business portion of Cain’s plan apparently does not allow employers to deduct wages and salaries, which means — for all intents and purposes — that they would levy a 9 percent withholding tax on employee compensation. And that would be in addition to the 9 percent they presumably would withhold for the flat tax portion of Cain’s plan.

Employers use withholding in the current system, of course, but at least taxpayers are given credit for all that withheld tax when filling out their 1040 tax forms. Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, however, employees would only get credit for monies withheld for the flat tax.

In other words, there are two income taxes in Cain’s plan — the 9 percent flat tax and the hidden 9 percent income tax that is part of the VAT (this hidden income tax on wages and salaries, by the way, is a defining feature of a VAT).

This doesn’t make Cain’s plan bad from a theoretical perspective. The underlying principles are still sound — low tax rates, no double taxation, and no loopholes.

But if I was uneasy when I thought that the 9-9-9 plan added a sales tax on top of the income tax, then I am super-duper-double-secret-probation uneasy about adding a sales tax and a VAT on top of the income tax.

Here’s my video on the VAT, which will help you realize why this pernicious tax would be a big mistake.

Uploaded by on Oct 14, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video explains why a value-added tax would be a dangerous money machine for big government. The evidence from Europe also shows that VATs actually lead to higher income taxes. www.freedomandprosperity.org

___________________________

Again, this doesn’t make Cain wrong if we’re grading based on economics or philosophy. My anxiety is a matter of real-world political analysis. I don’t trust politicians with new sources of revenue. Whether we give them big new sources of revenue or small new sources of revenue, they will always figure out ways of pushing up the tax rates so they can waste more money trying to buy votes.

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Cato Institute | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Romney not conservative enough (clip from Republican debate of 10-11-11)

October 21, 2011 – 7:14 am

Mitt Romney is not a true conservative. Exhibit #1 Romney wants to start trade wars.

Romney for Panderer-in-Chief?

by Gene Healy 

Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.

Added to cato.org on October 11, 2011

This article appeared in The DC Examiner on October 11, 2011

Memo to the Rick Perry campaign: If your guy can’t win an exchange with Mitt Flippin’ Romney over who’s stuck to principle more consistently, his debating skills need serious work.

That’s what happened at Sept. 22’s Republican debate in Orlando. After deflating Perry with a “nice try,” Romney brazenly proclaimed, “One reason to elect me is that I know what I stand for, I’ve written it down. Words have meaning.”

“I’ve written it down” — I love that. I’m put in mind of the great New Yorker cartoon, featuring a Washington bigwig behind an enormous desk, the Capitol looming through his office window. “I keep my core beliefs written on the palm of my hand for easy reference,” he tells his visitor.

[I]f there’s any case to be made for Romney, it’s that he’s a full-spectrum panderer.

With New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie out and Perry floundering, it’s looking ever more likely that the alternative to President Obama will be a candidate who needs a cheat sheet to remember his core beliefs.

Taking to heart the Stoic principle that we shouldn’t lament what we can’t control, I’m going to try to convince you — and myself — that things could be worse.

In their 2007 editorial endorsing Romney, National Review argued — hilariously — that the former Massachusetts governor was a “full-spectrum conservative.”

But if there’s any case to be made for Romney, it’s that he’s a full-spectrum panderer. Paradoxically, Romney’s faults — his incessant flip-flopping and desperate quest for approval — might make him a less-dangerous-than-average president.

True, from a limited-government perspective, Romney’s stated platform is pretty awful. You can judge a candidate’s budget-cutting bona fides by the specificity of his proposed cuts.

Romney’s only gotten specific on what he’ll spend. He wants 100,000 new troops and a minimum of 4 percent of GDP lavished on our already outsized military.

On the campaign trail, Romney has savaged Obama’s proposed Medicare cuts — the sign “keep your hands off our Medicare” is “absolutely right,” he insists — and he has attacked Perry for questioning the constitutionality of Social Security.

The good news, I suppose, is that there is no better reason to take Romney at his word here than there is anywhere else.

Romney’s strategically timed ideological conversions are well-known. On the road to the presidency, he’s had convenient epiphanies about stem-cells, gay rights and immigration, and gone from being a staunch gun-controller to, in 2007, buying a lifetime NRA membership and awkwardly bragging about blasting rabbits with a single-shot .22 rifle (do those come with laser sights?).

But, having suffered through two ideologically charged presidencies in a row, to many Americans the poll-tested pandering of the Clinton era doesn’t look so bad by comparison.

Our 42nd president wanted national health care, but the country wanted welfare reform and prosperous normalcy — and the country got what it wanted.

Before this year, no one would have mistaken House Speaker John Boehner for a Tea Partier. Yet the political facts on the ground have forced him into a more confrontational posture than he’d otherwise favor.

Given how far the Republican Party and the electorate as a whole have shifted toward distrust of big government and crony capitalism, a pliable president, desperate for approval, might be restrained from doing too much harm, and even forced to do some good.

If Romney becomes president, the governor who pioneered the individual mandate will be pressured to push its repeal.

As David Brooks recently argued, “The strongest case for Romney is that he’s nobody’s idea of a savior.” He’s right: no one could possibly build a cult of personality around a candidate who’s so transparently insincere.

These aren’t inspiring reasons for a Romney candidacy, but, over the last decade, Americans may have gotten their fill of presidential inspiration.

Related posts:

Rick Perry’s answer in Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

I really like Rick Perry because he was right when he called Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme” which it is. How did he do in the last debate? You be the judge by watching his response above. Rick Perry’s Moment Posted by Roger Pilon Last night POLITICO Arena asked: Who won the Reagan debate? My […]

 

Romney attacked in Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

I am not too pleased with Mitt Romney and the article below shows one good reason to oppose him. Can Mitt Romney Escape His Romneycare Albatross? by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New […]

 

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd mentioned in October 11, 2011 Republican debate with video clip

Dodd and Frank are the real villians of the mortgage mess and I knew that 3 years ago after reading this article below. Who did the Democrats get to clean up this mess? You guessed it. What a joke. Who Are the Villains of the Mortgage Mess? by Daniel J. Mitchell  Daniel J. Mitchell is […]

 

Reagan’s 1982 tax increase mentioned during the Republican debate of October 11, 2011 with video clip

Reagan’s statement concerning 1982 tax increase is responded to by Republican Candidates in this clip below: Washington Could Learn a Lot from a Drug Addict Concerning spending cuts Reagan believed, that members of Congress “wouldn’t lie to him when he should have known better.” However, can you believe a drug addict when he tells you […]

 

Ron Paul on Fed during the Republican debate of October 11, 2011 with video clip

I really like Ron Paul a lot and the reasons I like him are in this article below and in the clip above. Ron Paul’s Success Posted by David Boaz The Washington Post reports that Ron Paul “is enjoying a surge in support and the most high-profile campaign of his life. ” Paul’s unwavering ideals […]

 

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan center stage at Republican debate of October 11, 2011 (with video clip)

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan did steal the show at the Republican debate of October 11, 2011. Take a look at this article below: The Republican presidential debate in Hanover, N.H. (AP) There was one clear winner from Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, based on the simple metrics of name recognition: businessman Herman Cain’s “9-9-9 Plan.” Virtually […]

 

Romney not conservative enough (clip from Republican debate of 10-11-11)

Mitt Romney is not a true conservative. Exhibit #1 Romney wants to start trade wars. Romney for Panderer-in-Chief? by Gene Healy  Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. Added to cato.org on October 11, 2011 This article […]

 

Ron Paul speaking at Values Voter Summit

Ron Paul speaking at Values Voter Summit In this speech above Ron Paul repeats his view that we should not have a Dept of Education and the article below does the same thing. Beating Back Big (Ed.) Brother? Posted by Neal McCluskey It certainly seems quixotic to try to reverse the federal invasion of American […]

 

Mitt Romney’s religion is becoming an issue

This issue concerning Mitt Romney’s religion is heating up. Baptist pastor taken to task Russ Jones and Chad Groening – OneNewsNow – 10/10/2011 11:05:00 am Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck wrapped up the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC, Sunday in a wave of anti-Mormonism comments lodged towards GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.   […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Brawner: Occupy Wall St. crowd brings no solutions

October 21, 2011 – 7:12 am

Steve Brawner made the comment: For now, the Occupy movement doesn’t seem to be offering a lot of concrete solutions for the nation’s problems, and until it does, it won’t accomplish much.

Captain America is  a loyal reader of Brawner and he pointed to a great article on the subject and here it is:

byTimothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist
 
Follow on Twitter:@tpcarney

 A couple years back, liberal bomb-thrower Michael Moore produced a film called “Capitalism: A Love Story.” The funny thing: many of my free-market-loving friends kind of liked the film.

Moore, you see, spent the documentary attacking the tendency of big businesses (especially big banks) to beg for government protection and taxpayer handouts. The libertarian & conservative objection to Moore’s film, of course, was the title. Moore pinned “capitalism,” (which most people interpret as involving the free market) with all the sins of everyone who seeks a profit.

This is the standard conflation committed by the likes of Thomas Frank and Frank Rich. Whether it’s sleight-of-hand or downright confusion, I can’t know.

When I was down at Occupy Wall Street last week, I felt like much of the angry talk aimed at “capitalism” was really about corporatism and crony capitalism. Bailouts were a frequent target. “They don’t play by the same rules,” was the gyst of many objections. Yes, plenty of communists occupied the park, along with some straight-up regulate-`em! liberal wonks, but the complaints about Big Business often involved not just “profits” but gaming the political system as well.

Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (where I served as the Warren Brookes Journalism Fellow in 2005-2006) writes in U.S.A. Today that the Occupiers ought to train their sights more broadly on government-business collusion against the consumer, taxpayer, and small businessman.

Smith also dings the Occupiers for naivete:

Tea Partiers distinguish capitalism from crony-capitalism. Occupiers confuse them. In fact, some Occupiers seek their own form of cronyism — an expanded government that will help the “right” beneficiaries, such as students and homeowners, instead of bankers and automakers.

This sentiment is nothing new. Ralph Nader always notes that government helps big business but then argues for more government to fix the problem. How can this be wise, when government favoritism encouraged crony-capitalism in the first case?

Related posts:

India’s government officials smart as Steve Jobs?

I have written a lot about Steve Jobs recently and I wanted to link those posts below. Here is an interesting article for those who think that government officials are smart as those like Steve Jobs who are able to survive in the private market place and thrive. Indian Bureaucrats Are No Steve Jobs by […]

Pictures and video of Occupy Arkansas March of 10-15-11

Here is some video and pictures of the Occupy Arkansas March of October 15, 2011 followed by an excellent article by Jason Tolbert. Steve Brawner has rightly said: For now, the Occupy movement doesn’t seem to be offering a lot of concrete solutions for the nation’s problems, and until it does, it won’t accomplish much. […]

Steve Jobs left conservative Lutheran upbringing behind

Steve Jobs was raised as a conservative Lutheran but he chose to leave those beliefs behind. Below is a very good article on his life. COVER STORY ARTICLE | Issue: “Steve Jobs 1955-2011″ October 22, 2011 A god of our age Who was Steve Jobs? A revered technology pioneer and a relentless innovator, the Apple […]

Crowd at Occupy Arkansas pales in comparison to annual pro-life march

Demonstrators march through the streets of Little Rock on Saturday in a protest organized by Occupy Little Rock. (John Lyon photo) Occupy Arkansas got cranked up today in Little Rock with their first march and several hundred showed up. It was unlike the pro-life marches that I have been a part of that have had […]

Occupy Wall Street vs. Steve Jobs

COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION: At Kappa Sigma house in Fayetteville. The Drew Wilson photo above went viral last night — at least in Arkansas e-mail and social media users — after the Fayetteville Flyer posted it in coverage of an Occupy Northwest Arkansas demonstration in Fayetteville. The 1 percent banner was unfurled briefly on the Kappa Sigma frat […]

Big Bad Wall St Corporations

I found this article interesting from the Wall Street Journal: OCTOBER 10, 2011 The Corporate Exec: Hollywood Demon Nazis are getting old, moviemakers don’t want to offend foreign audiences, so corporate types top the list of evil stereotypes By EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN It is not surprising that pop-culture protesters are now intent on occupying Wall […]

Herman Cain tells Wall St marchers where to march

The Arkansas Times Blog reported today: Around 100 were on hand for tonight’s Occupy Little Rock planning meeting, the second since the group formed in Little Rock earlier this month. Organizers and attendees struggled with a somewhat complicated voting-by-hand-signals process, but the assembly did get some key points ironed out, including the start time and […]

Jim Lendall of “Let them Pay” Guillotine fame shows up at “Occupy Arkansas” group meeting

Left leaning blogs like Blue Arkansas have praised the “Occupy Arkansas” but I wonder if they know about some of the crazy things the leaders of this movement have said. Jason Tolbert noted on October 7, 2011: Max Brantley with the Arkansas Times reports on the efforts currently under way to organize an “Occupy Arkansas” […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

Milton Friedman Friday:(“Free to Choose” episode 4 – From Cradle to Grave, Part 7 of 7)

October 21, 2011 – 12:15 am

I am currently going through his film series “Free to Choose” which is one the most powerful film series I have ever seen.

TEMIN: We don’t think the big capital arose before the government did?
VON HOFFMAN: Listen, what are we doing here? I mean __ defending big government is like defending death and taxes. When was the last time you met anybody that was in favor of big government?
FRIEDMAN: Today, today I met Bob Lekachman, I met __
LEKACHMAN: But that’s not to say __ with discrimination __not per se.
VON HOFFMAN: You’re in favor of certain functions __
FRIEDMAN: I make a living by making distinctions, after all. Certainly not without qualification.
MCKENZIE: Von Hoffman, you have the floor.
VON HOFFMAN: What I was going to say is, I think most of us are not in favor of big government as a theory. The question that keeps haunting me here is, how do you, going back to your question of just the monetary regulation, how do you make __ and let’s assume that you can really, we’ll go a step further and we’ll say __ we’ll go all the way with you. We will install that mechanism. What makes you think that when the storms arise that, that the people running that mechanism are not going to misread, just as they did in the past?
FRIEDMAN: Because I’m gonna have __ if I had my way I would have a mechanism which didn’t require them to read anything.
VON HOFFMAN: In other words, simply a money formula.
FRIEDMAN: Absolutely.
VON HOFFMAN: Is cranked out in relation to the GNP regardless.
FRIEDMAN: Right.
TEMIN: The question is: How are you going to keep from tampering with this black box? Would you have a thing __
FRIEDMAN: I’m not gonna have a black box; I’m gonna have a very visible system. I have written out, as you know __
TEMIN: No, I know. Yeah, but the question is, no, you have the rule __
FRIEDMAN: __ at relative great length and precise details on what I would do.
TEMIN: __ it will calculate this, but then there’s going to be someone who’ll come in, the people that you dislike, they’ll say, “But we could do it a little bit better by doing it this way or that way.”
FRIEDMAN: Of course. Of course.
TEMIN: How will you keep them from doing it?
FRIEDMAN: Well, in the only way in which you can do it in a democratic society, by establishing both a written and an unwritten __ and the unwritten is just as important as the written __ an unwritten constitution on the part of the public at large, an acceptance of the view, that this is not what people in government ought to be doing. That it’s their problem
VON HOFFMAN: A highly sacred measure of __
FRIEDMAN: Well, if you want, but not necessarily sacred in the theological sense.
JAY: It’s unfair of people to say, Professor Friedman, he’s a bad doctor because people won’t actually take his medicine. I mean that is, that is not fair. But it does seem to me, and I say it again, that to reduce the whole debate to one, are you in favor of big government or small government, as though that is the only interesting or important political-economic choice we had to make, is very foolish.
FRIEDMAN: That is very foolish. I agree.
JAY: But __ and if you put it in that form, in practice in democratic societies, people will go on backing, supporting, and paying for big government. Because unless you __ in addition to pointing out the errors, defects, weaknesses, fallibilities, failures or government, you also describe in some detail, and to some attraction, the other changes that you’re going to make in the nongovernmental sector of the economy, which are going to give people the kind of protection, the kind of opportunities, the kind of fulfillment, the kind of stability, the kind of prosperity that they want. They are not going to buy it because you’re offering them a pig in the poke, and they will see it, whether or not you approve of the phrase, or whether or not I approve of the phrase, there’s going back to something which they’re glad to have got away from.
TEMIN: The question of how you draw the lines, and where you draw the lines is a difficult one, and I can’t see any possible way of somehow making a decision on that will stand like __ like the Rock of Gibraltar against all comers.
LEKACHMAN: I don’t think that the public is going to, nor should it, choose ideologically. I think it’s going to favor and disfavor certain activities of government out of its experience, by its perception of what’s good in its own interests and so on. And my __ I don’t preclude the possibility that there will be a different mixture of perceptions by the public which will lead to a shift in the functions of government. But I think it’s at least as possible that after the shift occurs, government will be perceived to have more functions as that it will have fewer functions.
VON HOFFMAN: It seems to me also that you could have the monetary policy that you are talking about, and have the very big HEW etcetera.
OFF SCREEN: Absolutely. Oh, yes.
VON HOFFMAN: And more easily.
FRIEDMAN: Unfortunately, you’re right.
VON HOFFMAN: Now could you dilate on that?
FRIEDMAN: No, no I __
VON HOFFMAN: No, I mean it, seriously.
FRIEDMAN: I agree with you. I agree with Nick. These are separable issues. And Peter Jay will agree with that, too. In fact he and I are in almost complete agreement on the desirable monetary policy. Where we differ is on these other policies, and there is certainly no doubt that you could have an essentially automatic stabilizing monetary policy of the kind which I’ve suggested, of a fixed rate of monetary growth, no discretionary intervention for cyclical purposes, and at the same time have a very big government on HEW, have all sorts of regulation, have tariffs and all other things. With respect to Peter Jay’s more general statement, it’s impossible not to agree with his statement, because it’s __ it concentrates on objectives and not on means. And the real issue has to do with means. What are the most appropriate and effective means which will give people the greatest assurance __ you can’t give them certainty __ but the greatest assurance that they will have a reasonably stable society with opportunity for themselves and their children, for their needs, for their wants. Of course.
MCKENZIE: We must end the discussion for this week and hope you’ll join us again for the next edition of Free to Choose.
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton Friedman | Comments (0)