Meet the Press 3/4/2012 -- A wasted hour

David Gregory started out interviewing Newt Gingrich and asked him about Limbaugh's "slut" comment and if this is hurting the Republican Party. As you would expect, and as Gingrich should've responded, he took offense to the question and accused the MSM of avoiding talking about economic problems which would reflect badly on Obama.

What Gingrich should have done is take Gregory back to orginal causes. If we had not had decades of government intervention in healthcare and healthcare coverage, we would have a few hundred million consumers buying policies across the country, and we would competitive insurance companies working to provide the least expensive most personal coverage possible. If we had had a free market, insurance companies would likely have developed comprehensible policies that parents buy for their children when born that the children take over payment of when parent and son/daughter agree to make the transition -- it would likely be a policy that is adjusted, coverage and price-wise, as needs change so that the coverage meets the healthcare realites of the individual as he/she changes throughout life. If this had been the case, the Catholic Church would not be upset over mandates to provide contraception, Fluke would be satisfied with a policy that covers her female needs, Fluke's gay friend would be satisfied, and Meet the Press would not waste an hour on this nonsense.

So, let's get rid of Obamacare, stop government intervention into healthcare and healthcare coverage, allow a free market to provide services that meet consumers wants and needs, and get back to economic growth and job opportunities. What we're seeing, and we saw throughout the Meet the Press show is the absurdity caused by decades of statist interference in the economy -- society devolves into these stupid battles between political parties, men and women, rich and poor, etc. Statist government causes deep divisions and a constant battle over an ever-growing feeding trough. The whole hour was wasted on nonsense. 

Articulating free market principles

Why is it so hard for Republicans to articulate free market principles? Every day I listen to pundits explain how Obama's approval ratings are high because the public perceives that recovery is on the way. Is it that media itself doesn't give an opportunity to those on the Right who can explain the principles? Is it because the subject is too difficult? Or, is it because the Right, for the most part, don't understand or really embrace the principles?

Surely there are wordsmiths on the Right who can articulate free market principles in a fashion that inspires the public to search even further for understanding. Glenn Beck does a fairly good job, although lately he's lost his mind over Rick Santorum. George Will has the ability to explain the principles, but I don't see Will on any outlets except ABC's This Week, and I don't know how many people actually watch that program. Plus, is Will a free market advocate -- I mean a real advocate?

Marco Rubio has done a fairly good job, but I don't know if he understands the concepts well enough to simplify the subject for public consumption. Newt Gingrich has the skills to make the case, but Gingrich, for some reason, talks in generalities about a free market, never going into a full explanation with examples and contrasts with statism. I'm not sure how much of Hayek and Mises Gingrich has really studied. I don't think any of the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul, have read the literature on free market philosophy/economics. That's strange seeing as how they use the words economic and freedom quite often. You would think they'd at least have read Thomas E. Woods, but I don't hear any of them quoting him or referring to him.

The only way the Right is going to make progress against progressivism is to debunk the ideology and to explain why statism doesn't work and can't work. Reagan made progress because he could talk about socialism and capitalism, but none of the candidates, aside from Paul, seem to have the ability to articulate what they believe in -- do they believe in a free market? I mean really. This, I think, is the problem. Santorum and Gingrich don't believe in a free market, and I don't know about Romney. What they mean by freeing up our economy and stopping government over-reach is that they would not regulate as much as Obama, and their focus wouldn''t be to redistribute income. But they don't mean that they will fight to roll back regulations on the books to create a truly free market.

Deep down, most in the Republican Party don't believe a truly free market will work -- they think government has to prevent the jungle of a free market from hurting people and creating chaos for large corporations -- they just don't focus on statist plans to create even more government control. There are enough laws and regulations on the book for government to control any area of economic activity it wishes to control, so Republicans can talk big without revealing how they will go about rolling back decades of regulations. Paul has a plan, but this is why Republicans attempt to marginalize Paul -- they are afraid that Paul will gain enough influence to pressure Republicans to walk like they talk.

The reason we don't have anyone standing before audiences and explaining free market principles is because only Ron Paul  believes in the principles -- maybe Gary Johnson, and perhaps a few of the New Republicans -- but Republicans with influence have no intention of creating a free market.

I should have known better

I thought perhaps if Ron Paul was not going to win, and it looks like he's not going to do very well at all, he could at least influence someone like Mitt Romney. Now it looks like none of the candidates are good enough, and none can be influenced to adopt libertarian positions. The problem with Romney, Gingrich and Santorum is that they've all supported or enacted interventionist/statist policies in the past. When it gets down to a Republican candidate and Obama, any one of these three Republican candidates are open to accusations of hypocrisy when they accuse Obama of too much government intervention.

There's nowhere to hide in the Information Age. All of Obama's hypocritical actions will be brought up too, but media have Obama's back and, besides, if the campaign devolves into who's the biggest hypocrite, the incumbent has the advantage -- might as well keep the hypocrite in office.

Meet the Press 2/5/2012 -- Yeah, but the unemployment rate went down

On Meet the Press this morning David Gregory interviewed Newt Gingrich to start the program -- I guess Gregory wants to keep the sh*t stirred. It was basically a nothing interview, nothing we haven't heard a thousand times. Gingrich is pretending that the establishment is out to get him and that he's the true conservative who will stop government spending and individual rights violations. The telling segment was when Gregory asked about the contradiction between Gingrich's fiscal conservative talk and his proposal for a moon colony.

Gingrich first corrected Gregory by saying that he, Gingrich, is not calling for austerity -- he's calling for economic growth. On the surface, this sounds good, but then Gingrich revealed his true nature and why he's a Progressive on the Right. Gingrich said his proposal for a moon colony is based on China's and Russia's space efforts, and that we need to keep up with them, and that he would call on the private sector to encourage the private sector to invest in space exploration and moon colonization. Progressives on the Left are using this same tactic -- instead of confiscating money from the private sector then investing the money in Progressive schemes, they are pretending the private sector is footing the bill and it's costing the government nothing. Government has no money to start with -- it all has to come from the private sector. When government intervenes, incentivizes and bullies companies in the private sector to invest in what the government thinks is the best investment, this misdirects capital and winds up creating bubbles and loss of wealth when the bubble busts. We've seen this in the housing industry and we see in now in green energy. Government intervention is just as bad if it's done through tax incentives, bullying or simply buying off companies to do what government wants, or whether it's done through taxing and direct central planning. Fascism or socialism -- both trends are anti-free market.

Next, Gregory interviewed Mitch Daniels, Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick -- three mayors -- one conservative, one independent and one progressive. Mitch Daniels was asked about the jobs numbers and the reduction in the unemployment rate to 8.3%. Gregory asked Gingrich this question twice -- isn't it good, Gregory asked, that unemployment has been reduced to 8.3%? Both times Gingrich explained that the number is lower because more people have left the work force, have given up looking for work, and they aren't counted, and that if you counted everyone out of work, the rate would be around 12%. Mitch Daniels explained the same thing, but this didn't stop Gregory from making the same statement later on with the panel about the good news of 8.3%. It's incredible.

Michael Bloomberg said that Republicans need to stop criticizing the President and work with him to find solutions. Bloomberg is a Centrist wimp who will do anything to maintain power. Bloomberg wants to raise taxes on everyone. That's about all I have to say about Bloomberg's contribution. The Progresive mayor said that the economy is improving and that Obama's policies are working. That was a wasted segment. Gregory even asked Daniels, and I'm paraphrasing -- if job growth continues, even though it might not keep up with population growth, do you think the GOP still has a case against Obama? Daniels answered like a politician, but I would have exploded on Gregory. Yes, the GOP would still has a case, if it wasn't for ignorant fools like you in media who insist that people giving up looking for work and leaving the work force is good news if you spin it right. Yes, there is a good case to remove Obama if job growth isn't keeping up with population growth. No one who can think at all ever expected the loss of jobs to last forever at 700,000 a month. Of course hiring was going to start up again at some point in an economy like the US economy, but the job growth is anemic, and the enemic growth is due to stupid Progressive policies, and you can't call it "growth" if it isn't keeping up with population growth, now can you?!

Gregory left the mayors and took his inanity to the panel made up of Rachel Maddow, David Brooks, Alex Castellano and Xavier Becerra. Maddow followed Gregory and insisted that 8.3% is better than 8.5%, disregarding context. With panelists like this there can be no substantive conversation. First, if they could all agree that the economy is in dire condition, then they could perhaps see that both conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats, have created the current economic crisis, and it has to do with government interventions and the perversion of market forces. But, no, they just argued talking points for a minute and go nowhere. Maddow without talking points would be mute.

Morning Joe 2/1/2012 -- Romney wins and Gingrich sulks

On Morning Joe today Donnie Deutsche actually made sense, which is amazing. Deutsche urged the whining hosts to stop using the term negative ads and to stop predicting the ads will hurt Romney -- Obama has used and will use more "negative" ads than anyone in history. The ads merely show the ideas and positions of opponents. Mark Halperin was on the show to listen to Scarborough interpret his analysis. They all seemed a little downcast after yesterday's ranting against Romney, then Romney's decisive win. Boom! Perhaps if Morning Joe had wanted Romney to lose, they should have ranted against Gingrich.

Scarborough insisted on misrepresenting what Romney has said about Medicare and SS, even when he knew Romney was coming on Morning Joe later. When Romney came on, he, Romney, said what's he's always said about Medicare and SS -- protect those on it and close to being on it, then reform both for younger Americans to make trhe programs solvent -- Romney is even looking at private solutions. This is far from what Scarborough accused Romney of -- ignoring the problem and pandering to seniors. Scarborough didn't have the decency to apologize and correct the record. I'm not supporting Romney, but when there is so much dishonest smearing going on, I feel compelled to try to be fair. This is how many voters will react to unfairness, and some will be pushed to support Romney just because of the unfair attacks.

The Morning Joe crowd is still pushing the idea that Gingrich is a survivor and will come back. Gingrich is over. There are two forces in the race -- Romney with his management skills and knowledge of business and Paul's ideas regarding liberty and non-interventionism.