Lukewarm, I spit you out.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/14/nick-gillespie-on-why-independents-will

This is the type of lukewarm analysis that Reason and Cato have fallen into, pretending an objectivity that doesn't exist. If writers like Gillespie were really objective, they'd look at an Obama second term as a total failure for the nation.

Gillespie looks at independents and states how they will determine the election, then he "even-handedly" assesses Obama's and Romney's flaws and what they're missing, then says at the end that if they do three things, even a little, they will get the independent vote.

What damn good will it do anyone but Obama and the misguided Left for him to fool the nation into thinking he's focusing on the three things Gillespie lists and get re-elected? If Gillespie abided by objectivity, he'd realize that an Obama second term will be characterized by a double-down on statist intervention. Gillespie states it will be easier for Obama to stand against his base and get re-elected. Isn't this convenient? What Gillespie doesn't make clear is that Obama's posturing to get re-elected will be temporary. Obama didn't create the monster Healthcare plan and support the economy-killing Dodd-Frank because he was pressured by the Left, and he didn't pay off the union in mad rush of cronyism because his kneecaps were threatened. Obama is a progressive, and his policies are antithetical to limits on government power and a free market. Gillespie can claim he's merely looking at the politics of the situation, and what it will take to get elected for either Romney or Obama, but who cares what dishonest tactics will work to get elected? If Reason and Cato can't objectively wave the warning flag and committ to liberty and anti-statism, or at least reject illiberal policies and regulations and all forms of statist inteventions with terrible consequences, then they're just a bunch of pundits piled on top of the idiots already blathering about politics on cable news.

Maybe Romney will be bad too, but I don't see any way he can be as bad for the nation as Obama -- and, man, that's as objective as it gets.

Independents win in Iowa

The big story in Iowa is the strong independent turnout, with over half of the independents voting for Ron Paul. This is good news for Paul, because independents will decide who wins in 2012. This doesn't mean, necessarily, that Paul has a shot at getting the nomination, because the Republican Party will not make the independent connection in Paul's case -- they'll say Paul draws non-Republicans. But, the strength of the independent turnout going foward will send a strong message against Big Government interventionism, and the candidates will take note.

I have news for Republicans and Democrats -- if they want to win in 2012, they'd better pay attention to independents and understand the apolitical mindset. The establishment might think that independents are centrists --if they do I say they're wrong. I believe most independents lean toward libertarian positions. I think independents will vote in large numbers for several reasons, with one reason being they want America to rollback the power-expansion of the military/industrial complex -- not what's necessary for national defense, but the whole ravenous, overgrown monster feeding arms contractors and politicians looking for financial security. The economic mess and a decade of war have reached the independents' radar -- many non-partisans who hardly ever or never vote will come out to vote in spades.

Independents are tired of the two party control and the obsession with politics and political means to reach political ends. Independents want the freedom to use economic means to reach economic ends. Independents are tired of the status quo, faux-elitist, cronyistic, statist system which has turned America into an economic basketcase of high debt and irrational regulations. Independents don't want government control over healthcare, and they don't want government obstructing energy production. Independents want government to eliminate central planning and social engineering -- in other words, they want government to stop meddling.

Of course, independents are not a homogeneous group, but, on the whole, this is how I read them. Independents have no political agenda or desire to gain power and influence government policies for their various special interests -- they have general interests they want to pursue without interference from government. I don't see independents and OWS sharing many goals. This is why they're independent -- they aren't party-centered -- they aren't government-centered -- they are centered on their work, families, communities and pursuit of happiness. They are likely diverse in all other ways -- some dumb, some smart, some white, some black, some brown, some charitible, some educated, some ass-holes, some heroes, some loners, etc. etc. The common thread is a desire to not allow government regulations and politics to control their lives. They know that taxes have to go much higher to pay for all the over-spending and crushing debt, and they don't like it. They see no need for America to continue military adventures overseas, and they believe it's stupid to spend money on military bases in countries which should be protecting themselves. They also realize the futility of keeping ground troops in countries like Afghanistan -- they've spoken with returning soldiers, or they are returning soldiers, and they know that what the US is doing in the mideast is not changing anything, and it's definitely not related to national defense.

Republican and Democrat establishment types can assume that independents are centrist types who can agree with either party depending on a few key issues, but if they assume independents are satisfied with our statist system and simply want strong, smart, efficient leaders to rule over the steady expansion of the welfare/warfare State, then they've misread most independents. They will be heard loudly in 2012.

Morning Joe 12/9/2011 -- A Left in denial

On Morning Joe, Joe and Mika were out and Willie Geist took over along with Mike Barnicle. Despite having to watch Barnicle leaning back in his chair with smug, liberal righteousness all over his well worn mug, it was a welcomed relief from the abusive, dysfunctional Joe and Mika tv marriage. I think Joe needs some relationship counseling. Mika needs a two by four.

As usual, the show was stacked with Leftist pundits in denial, with Michael Steel playing rightwing whipping boy. Steele did an admirable job of defense, considering that his gig demands a balance between the GOP base, the GOP establishment and his Leftist associates on Morning Joe. When Steele brought up the tax hike built into Obamacare, Barnicle and Ed Rendel said that the rich will never pay that tax -- so, Steele asked them why they are pushing for higher taxes, then, if the rich will never pay them? 

They talked about Gingrich, of course, and how he can never make it through the primaries without exploding, and that if he's the nominee, it will hurt Republicans in congress. There was also talk about  the payroll tax cut, the pipeline issue, the Gingrich/Romney matchup and how the base doesn't like Romney, Obama's strategy to attack the GOP, the administration's glee over the prospect of Gingrich being the candidate, and basically how Obama can win re-election because the GOP is so screwed up.

The Left is in denial, even though a lot of this bluster is a cover for the poor state of the government and the economy at this point. Even if Gingrich gets the nomination and independents have concerns about Gingrich's stability, what's not being talked about enough on these liberal/progressive talk shows, and for good reasons, is the real unemployment number of 16-18%, the tax hikes coming as a result of Obamacare, the deadening effects of Dodd-Frank, the Euorpean crisis, Fast and Furious, Solyndra and other failing green energy schemes pushed by Obama and the Left, the new emails from the climate scientists which implicate the Left in propaganda campaigns, Obama's and Biden's relationship with Corzine as an investigation reveals a missing billion dollars from the company Corzine ran, the ongoing sucking sound coming from Freddie and Fannie, the stream of job killing regulations coming from the EPA, the quagmire in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the fact that Obama's approval ratings have fallen below Carter territory.

So, if independents have concerns about Newt, or Romney, or Paul, or whomever gets the nomination, they will compare that candidate with Obama and the problems listed above. Lawrence O'Donnell was on Morning Joe and he said he went to a Washington Christmas Party and all the administration people there had smiles on their faces thinking about running against Gingrich -- that smile is the stupid smile of denial when you live in a bubble and believe your own propaganda. Barnicle, Ed Rendel and a few others said the the public doesn't pay close attention to all the issues -- yep, keep believing that.

Morning Joe 9/22/2011 -- Independents or No Label losers?

On Morning Joe today, the first segment guests were Katty Kay, Sam McKinnon, Donnie Deutsche and Dick Durbin. It's amazing how 99.9% of the guests on Morning Joe are Centrists or Leftists, but that's a topic for another day. The Morning Joe crew got their Rick Perry bashing out of the way early. Scarborough believes Perry has done himself irreparable damage by writing in his book that Social Security is unconstitutional -- Scarborough believes that Romney can attack Perry on this point and that Perry has no defense. One defense is that our government does a lot of things that are unconstitutional, so what's new -- and now that SS is ingrained but terribly flawed, it must be reformed. But, Scarborough suggests that Romney should scream like a Democrat on meth, like Scarborough did on his show this morning, that Perry is an extremist rightwinger out to destroy SS. If Romney is the best the Republicans can do, then we're in for big trouble for a while longer. I'm not sure Perry is the answer, but he's better than Romney, and neither are as good as Ron Paul.

One thing is clear, the Center/Left coalition is not the answer, but this is what a large part of the conversation was about this morning. Sam McKinnion is a No Labels founder. You aren't sure what No Labels is? Don't feel alone, hardly anyone knows what it is, but they have started a movement to back "independent" candidates and possibly create an independent run for President. Katty Kay said she doesn't think the nation is ready for an independent ticket and asked McKinnon who would be on the ticket. McKinnon had already rattled off some of his suggestions, Erskine Bowles, Bloomberg and a few other mixtures of what appear Left and Right, but are just Center/Center -- in other words Left-lite and Left-lite. McKinnon and companay are offshoots of the neo-conservative/neo-liberal alliance of Irving Kristol and Milton Friedman decades ago, status quo protectors of a certain version of American ideals. This version of America is based on a mixed economy, smart government, compromise, American leadership in the world based on Democracy, equality and openmindedness, a vague America which slowly progresses through statism and a relatively open market which is regulated smartly but allowed to achieve some innovation but that doesn't create market chaos. It's about reasonable, strong leaders who will work together in a bipartisan fashion to prevent extremes and maintain a steady course, maintaining basic civil liberties but sacrificing as much economic liberty as necessary to promote the greater good -- a greater good determined, of course, by the wise, benevolent technocrats.

On the face of it, the Center approach appears pragmatic and reasonable, but as McKinnon unintentionally showed during one part of the show, it raises some serious questions. When talking about Obama's Jobs "bill", it was agreed that Obama's playing politics and is really blocking efforts that could lead to jobs, but they all agreed it's politically smart because the polls say it's smart, so McKinnon said Republicans should vote for the bill and move on so they can "get things done". Here is the problem. If the jobs bill is not good policy, then why pass it, and what are the things to get done? The Center approach has no convictions regarding the conflict between those who believe more government intervention is necessary and those who believe government should be limited and that a free market approach is necessary. The Center says it likes a little of both, but what happens is that they continue to compromise with State power, and as long as State power is not resisted, it will grow -- it's the nature of the beast, and history bears this out -- our own experience in America bears this out.

At this point, Katty Kay is right -- both sides in DC will reject a Center approach. McKinnon might be right, and I think he is, that there's a growing number of independents, but he has misread independents as Center/No Label/Squishes. I don't think independents are looking for a Bloomberg/Bowles ticket, or something similar. If congress agreed today to raise taxes significantly while at the same addressing entitlements, they might be able to get public support, but only if taxes were raised on the rich and the entitlement reform didn't significantly change benefits or age requirements. What would happen is that such a bill would simply confiscate more money from wealth producers to keep our statist system afloat. Independents are not a monolithic group, and they are probably diverse individuals who when asked say they're disgusted with the two party system in Washington. I'm sure they want our government to function properly, but do they want watered down solutions which only increase State power and cost Americans more money? If I had to guess, I would say most independents who have a good understanding of political issues want government to intervene less in the economy, and if they are younger people, they realize that entitlements are broken and expect major changes during their lifetime.

But regardless of what  "independents" want, they, and everyone else, ought to have a clear choice this year between a statist/iprogressive/interventionist approach and a limited government/free market, and if an independent ticket wants to run, then good, but I don't buy the narrative that Americans are craving a Center approach of incremental increases in State power. I also don't buy, yet, that the choice of Republicans will mean a limited government/free market direction -- so you can see why a lot of Americans might be concerned about the 2012 election and our limited choices -- fast expansion of State power or slow expansion of State power. If an independent does run, it shouldn't be from the Center -- it should be as a limited government/free market ticket -- then we'd have a real choice.

Who do they think they're kidding?

The propaganda spewing from the Obama administration might fool some people, but I can't imagine who, and I can't imagine they'd have much influence on the next election, seeing as how Obama has to fool independents, and I doubt they're buying the lies.

When Democrats whine about Bush's economy and how deep the hole was, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and how Obama has turned it around, but we have to be patience because we had so far to go from what Bush left, like losing 750,000 a month, and how the tax cuts put us so far indebt, and on and on, no one is buying the excuse. Obama has either continued what Bush started, or he doubled down and added his own statist touch -- and the Fed has tripled down on monetary policy.

On the other hand, when Republicans blame Obama for the economy, they are also one-sided and unbelievable. One reason why a Republican candidate for President hasn't caught on is that none of them are concentrating on the real cause of our economic problems -- years of statism practiced by both parties.

The public is going beyond the two party game of shifting blame and avoiding responsibility. The majority of active voters who are not blind partisans understand that government itself has failed. Congress as a whole is very, very unpopular, and all the polls show this. The Tea Party, for the most part, has stated  they will not automatically vote Republican.

Independents are the key to change in Washington, and just as they punished John McCain for not leveling with them about Bush's failure (he implemented statist policies to "save" the free market), they aren't going to believe politicians who put all the blame on the other party. The public is looking for someone who can articulate the problems with both parties and government itself, then provide a direction which leads away from statism. If such leaders emerge, they'll be able to talk directly to the American people regarding their contributions to entitlements and how government officials have lied about the viability of the programs, that their contributions are not sufficient and what they have paid in is gone, and how now we have to transition to free market solutions. Don't expect these leaders to rise in 2012 -- they still think the public believes their lies, if only they repeat them often enough.