BluegrassBulletin.com

Romney's Little Richey Rich Comment

Mitt Romney said he doesn't care about the very poor in America.  He said we have plenty of safety nets in place for them already.  He said he cares about the middle class.  I have a question.  What the hell is he talking about?

I'm currently battling an upper respiratory something or other.  I went to the doctor, who charged me $125.  I took her prescription to the pharmacy which charged me $83 for just 7 generic anti-biotic pills but could have charged me $344 if I'd wanted 7 of the named brand.

Right down the road from me is a 50 year old guy I know who hasn't worked in over 20 years, but who is plenty fit from my perspective.  He eats a jug full of pills, including lots of narcotics, on a daily basis and he gets them all for free.

While the government takes care of all of this guys medical bils, I pay over $800 per month for health insurance which doesn't kick in with any coverage until I hit my $5,000 per person annual deductible. Not only am I expected to go out and earn enough money to pay all of my bills, but out of every dollar I earn, I am forced to pay the government thirty some odd percent so this guy can walk out to his mailbox and pick up his monthly pay.

Yes, I do think we need to take care of America's truly needy.  And yes we do need to pay more attention to the middle class upon whose backs the care and feeding of the so-called poor is being hefted.

But we don't need a president who is content with a system of "safety nets" which are relied upon far too much by those who are merely too lazy, too drunk or too pilled up to walk the tight rope the rest of us are on.  You see, what disturbs me more about Romney's comment isn't that he expressed little concern for America's poor (dumb political gaffe) but that he tried to explain himself by caving in to the notion of the "great society".

First of all he should be acutely aware of how each word he speaks will be examined and used against him.  If primaries don't "divide us" but "prepare us", as he said Tuesday night, then his recent gaffe strongly suggests he isn't prepared to be the nominee of the conservative party.

And second, if he is so much a "Massachusetts Moderate" as to think that perpetuating the welfare state is a smart way to get us out of the fiscal mess we are in, then he isn't prepared to be president of the 21st century United States of America.

Yes, we must as a nation treat the weakest among us with the utmost respect and to do all that we can to protect them.  But no, the safety nets which are now in place are not working toward that end.  They are being used more like hammocks by the lazy, and snares by the liberals and moderates in government to enslave good people so as to keep them restrained while they milk them for their votes.

I'm beginning to think that Romney's hair dye is toxic to his brain.

Romney-Paul: Strange Bedfellows

The following is an article cross posted here from my daily column at KyForward.com:

In the mid 1800’s before jet airplanes and the 24 hour news cycle, politicians traveled by horse or carriage to the far reaches of their contested districts, often to debate their opponents face to face.  In those days it was not uncommon for men to share a room for the night, sometimes even the same bed in places where lodging was scarce.  This often put those who opposed each other for office in very close proximity, thus the birth of Charles Dudley Warner’s phrase “politics makes for strange bedfellows”.

Today there is a new truth to this quote which was recently highlighted in a Washington Post article about the close relationship between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  As the WaPo tells it, the two men and their wives began a close and lasting relationship in 2008 when they were both running for president.  But, as the paper contends, the friendship is now more of a “strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.”

Strange bedfellows indeed.

The Paul camp is populated by die hard devotees who rail against anyone and anything that comes close to looking like the “establishment”.  Ron Paul piggybacking some of his hopes on Mitt Romney’s success would be like a splash of acid in the faces of Paul fans everywhere.  To them this would be a sellout to the world of “politics as usual”.

Paul supporters are quick to attack anyone who dares forge any sort of relationship with mainstream politicians, particularly for political gain.  They rail against anyone who so much as suggests that principled or not, the Paul message is carefully crafted toward what they see as the corrupting motivation of gaining votes.  Much of Paul’s support is built upon an idealistic view of his “movement” as divorced entirely from the dirty game of politics.  For a big part of the Paul camp, news that Paul and Romney might be using each other for political gain is like catching your mother in bed with your uncle.

But the Paul insiders are smart.  They have mapped out the long hunt.  They understand what many of their most zealous supporters don’t quite grasp and that is how staying in the game, gaining ground a little at a time and positioning yourself for the future is likely a much more successful plan than the “revolution now” crowd that wears their Tee-shirts and shouts down on the Internet anybody who urges a more methodical approach to influencing policy.

In fact, some Paul folks have openly spoken about how their group should not support the nominated republican if it is not “their guy”, preferring to elect the liberal democrat thus giving them the rest of his term to continue their rhetoric and their call for change.  This comes with the added advantage of  giving them a better shot in the near future of running one of their own against the liberal incumbent, rather than trying to unseat an incumbent republican.

So how could the Paul loyalists be persuaded to get behind Romney, if the WaPo article is right, thereby giving Mitt the advantage of the Paul voters in November?  One possible answer might surprise everybody.  Mitt could choose Rand Paul for his vice president.

In traditional political thinking the party’s nominee picks a VP running mate for a couple of possible reasons.  The first, which is more macabre humor than political reality, is that you want to choose somebody who is so unpalatable to the public that it protects you from violent removal from office.

The second most often cited reason for the VP pick is the delivery of a reliable voting block to your ticket.  That voting block used to be calculated by geographic regions, such as adding a southerner to the ticket with a New Englander at the top.

But in today’s mobile world, and considering what Sarah Palin and her TEA party loyalists brought to the McCain campaign, looking at Rand Paul for VEEP actually makes some sense.

Most republicans want the party to be re-united.  Most republicans see Rand Paul as born out of the TEA party movement which is representative of hard core conservative principles.  Most republicans also see the establishment wing of the party as much more moderate. 

Romney is establishment, and as Newt Gingrich has pegged him, he is a “Massachusetts Moderate”.  Rand Paul on the other hand is very visible, very much the heir to his father’s kingdom and could very well deliver up a significant block of voters from within the GOP and from the growing number of Independents which everyone agrees that the GOP needs to get on board if the republicans hope to win in November.

Might it be that what Ron seeks, should he not get the nomination, is more than a voice in making policy, but rather, a spot on the ticket for Rand Paul?

It might not be to his follower’s liking, but maybe.

And if so, what lays ahead, could very well be a 21st century example of strange political bedfellows.

Florida GOP Primary Maybe Not "Winner Take All"

Before you jump on the Romney wagon, you might want to keep an eye on this:

In a December 21 letter to Lenny Curry, State Chairman of Florida's Republican Party, the RNC warned that per newly adopted Republican Party rules, Florida was not authorized to hold a winner-take-all primary before April 1.

Florida scheduled its primary for January 31 anyways, in violation of amended Rule No. 15(b) that permits Florida only to have a proportional division of its delegates (in a pre-April 1 primary or caucus).

According to a Fox News report, a Florida Gingrich campaign official will take up a dispute with the RNC seeking to have the rule enforced, and Florida's delegation distributed proportionately based on the vote. [New York]

Santorum Survives Selling Hot Dogs

Last night's vote tally from the Iowa caucus process put Mitt Romney just a few votes ahead of surprise second place finisher, Rick Santorum.  Why?  It's simple.  While Romney, Paul, Gingrich and Perry spent their time locked in gladiator like bloodsport, Santorum worked the crowd hawking hot dogs, pizza and popcorn.

Judge for yourself.  Romney has been bashed and battered for months.  Perry has been the recipient of numerous attacks.  Gingrich was shredded in the media, mostly by Romney, and Paul was ignored until his poll numbers rose then whacked like a pop up carnival gopher game.  How much vetting has Santorum received?

I dare say that his vote total represents the culmination of the "anybody but Romney" votes which might have gone to the others had they not been so severely wounded on the battlefield.

Sure, the Paul supporters are very loyal and energized.  I doubt they will go away, as I doubt Ron Paul will go away despite how he fares in the rest of the primary season.

Gingrich's supporters are much less passionate about him.  His new role will probably be to get even with Romney and further erode his support.

Perry says he is going to reassess.  What he ought to do is get some new campaign advisers and trust them to see the bigger picture that his Texas mindset prevents him from seeing.  He could stay in, and capture a couple of first place finishes.

Bachmann is done.  End of that story.

But Santorum has less of a chance at capturing the nomination than Huckabee did when he won Iowa in 2008.  Both appealed to the Republican moralists and both will fade quickly.

Santorum did a good job with little money working the crowd.  But he was never really on the field and so never really tested by the same gauntlet run the others faced.

But that is all about to change.  Don't look now, Ricky, but they are about to release the big cats on you and this little thumbs up you got in Iowa last night won't mean a thing.