May 18, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for White House

Spending, not guns, on our minds

April 22, 2013 by Leave a Comment

barack_obama_gun_control_ap_328A funny thing happened to President Obama on his way to increasing federal regulation of firearms. Members of Congress noticed that gun control wasn’t a top priority for their constituents and handed the President his first major legislative loss.

Instead, Americans are still more concerned about the economy and the state of our fiscal house. From the “Editor-in-chief” over at Gallup:

Only 4% of Americans say that gun violence or gun issues constitute the most important problem facing the country today, based on our April 4-7 monthly update of the “most important problem” measure. This puts guns in the same 4% category as immigration issues, education, and the situation with North Korea.

To be clear, the 4% of Americans for whom gun violence is a top issue were no where to be found before Newport, Connecticut happened. Prior to the Sandy Hook massacre, gun violence didn’t register on the scale.

At all.

Instead, Americans’ top five issues are, in order:

  1. The economy (in general)
  2. Unemployment/jobs
  3. Dissatisfaction with government  (whatever this means)
  4. Federal budget deficit/federal debt, and
  5. Healthcare (which is declining in importance over the last three months)

You can’t see gun violence appear in the list for another four rows, and then it’s tied with worry about threats from North Korea, a country that is begging Mongolia to provide food aid for its starving people. The drug lords of Juarez, Mexico pose a greater threat to the United States.  (See the full chart below.)Gallup Issues

With worries about the economy, our ability to maintain a standard of living, provide for ourselves, and so on, weighing on us, why should anyone, let alone Obama who also has these polling numbers, be surprised that Congress, with lower approval ratings than the President, has no fear about thumbing their collective noses at his push to require universal background checks?

It’s still the economy, stupid. And it will be until we change how we’ve been doing things.

Not that I want to rely upon Hollywood for an example, or anything, but I’m going to do just that. I’ve been watching Andrew Sorkin’s West Wing lately, set in the bright years of the 1990s (or so). Repeatedly I hear the same talking points and arguments that are being made–today–by liberals and Democrats in favor of their pet programs and policies.  Whether it’s for gun control, expansion of governments role in healthcare, fiscal and tax policy, or the first amendment, the arguments have not changed.

The difference is that elected officials, all too often, act like our collective memory is too short to remember what they are doing now has been done before, has been said before, and, well, got us into the mess we’re in now. But does anyone remember? Are we going to keep doing the same thing and expect different results?

I can’t claim to understand the arcane workings of federal programs, but I do know the pinch on my pocketbook, on my family, when I look at my pay stub and the withholdings there. I do see the taxes I pay at the fuel pump when I look at my receipt. I do recognize how much cheaper and easier it is to buy a book online from Amazon compared to Barnes and Nobles’ brick and mortar and what will happen if the government starts taxing that purchase. I do see how difficult it is to buy a home, still, five years after the housing market collapsed, largely because of governmental meddling in the housing market. And I know that I am not in the minority–Americans think about the price of a home, of a car (remember what “cash for clunkers” did to all those perfectly fine used cars that we could still be driving?), of a meal, of a vacation…or the lack thereof.

And that’s on my mind more than is gun violence. Stop being so surprised and peeved that you didn’t get your way, Mr. President. It’s government for, by and of the people–and the people are concerned about the economy.

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day (I know…I’ve missed a few days). Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter S, as in Spending.

 Related articles

Filed Under: Second Amendment, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

April Fools or About Face?

April 1, 2013 by 4 Comments

 

Obama Proclaims April the Month to Teach Young People ‘How to Budget Responsibly’ CNS News

Today is April first, commonly called April Fools day, so like my good friend Shannon warns, “Trust no one.”

Given the inclination of the press to play along, occasionally throwing out outlandish headlines that couldn’t possibly be true, there still comes this, that sounds like it should be a joke, but really, is more likely just bad timing: the White House proclaims that April is “National Financial Capability Month.”

Seriously. Here’s a link to it if you aren’t buying it. It’s neither an about-face of an administration that has shown more interest in raising taxes than in balancing its budgets or an April Fools’ joke.

Never mind that unemployment is hovering around 7.8% (as it has for the last few years), making “financial capability” difficult for many families (or at least 7.8% of the working population).

Never mind that reports seem to indicate that unemployment might be higher than we think because of the number of people on disability payments instead of welfare or unemployment assistance.

No, rather let’s focus on helping young people with what the White House terms ” learning how to budget responsibly to saving for college, starting a business, or opening a retirement account.” Never mind that the Obama Administration hasn’t submitted a budget to Congress on time in three years, that Obama Administration budgets have increased the national debt by $53,377 per household, and that the President has stated that he has no intention of submitting  a budget that balances any time soon.

Never mind all that.

It’s a classic case of ‘do what I say, not what I do.’ And it’s no April Fools joke.

I am sure the do-gooders in the White House mean well, but saying one thing and doing another hurts their credibility. You can’t ask to raise taxes and increase spending on one hand and tell Americans you are an authority on financial management on the other. If the Obama White House wants to make a difference in the national economy and provide for real “financial capability,” they will more seriously consider the heavy weight that out of control entitlement cost growth is having on the federal budget, as well as the very real tax, especially on the young, that the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) weighs on working Americans. You cannot provide for the poor by tearing down the working, but that’s exactly what the Obama Administration’s policies–especially Obamacare–will do.

This month, Publius Online is participating in Blogging from A to Z, a month long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Since today is the first day of April, that letter is A. Tomorrow will be B, and so on.

Related articles
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , ,

Obama’s surreal fiscal cliff speech

December 31, 2012 by 2 Comments

After a refreshing vacation to Hawaii for Christmas, President Obama took the stage this afternoon (EST) to make a speech on the impending fiscal cliff. Driving home during lunch, I listened to KSL’s Doug Wright describe the scene, and I arrived home just in time to watch the President speak.

Wright was describing the scene while waiting for the President to take the stage, and since Obama was late, he tried guessing where they were at. He could see a podium, but he after listing through the typical rooms where Obama addresses the nation from the White House, he concluded that he didn’t know where they were.

Then a prep team started to arrange people in the room, standing them on tiered levels behind the podium. Finally, Obama came in, and about then I found a live stream.

To listen to him, though, you wouldn’t have known that he was addressing a national fiscal crisis that could send America’s economy into a spiral. Or that nearly every income earning American is about to a tax hike. Or that several rounds of negotiations had failed, first with Speaker John Boehner in the House, and then between Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell in the Senate. You wouldn’t have been able to guess that his own Vice President had been called upon by McConnell to salvage what Reid clearly could not.

Nope. You would have thought that he was ready for a fun night of ringing in the New Year, the first of his second term.

At a time when almost everyone, but the most partisan on the political left, agrees that spending has got to be reigned if the deficit is going to be cut, Obama came to the stage and mocked his opponents, mocked Congress, and warned that raising taxes on the wealthy was only the beginning.

Every time he discussed a deal, Obama called for a “balanced” deal, by which he means that tax hikes must be included.

And I want to make clear that any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced, because, remember, my principle always has been let’s do things in a balanced, responsible way. And that means the revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester and eliminating these automatic spending cuts, as well as spending cuts.

Now, the same is true for anyfuture deficit agreement. Obviously we’re going to have to do more to reduce our debt and our deficit. I’m willing to do more, but it’s going to have to be balanced. We’re going to have do it in a balanced responsible way.

In other words, being “responsible” and “balanced” means raising tax rates. Say what you will about taxes, and I think there are fair arguments to be made both ways about their effect on the economy, Obama’s sole solution seems to be increasing tax rates without any discussion of what spending he’s willing to decrease in order to prevent the federal debt from growing.

And even the President’s own bean counters agree that raising taxes will not stop the deficit and federal debt from growing.

In fact, he all but sounded like he was trying to scuttle negotiations that were taking place across town to force tax hikes on all Americans, all so he can point at the Republican controlled House of Representatives and say: “See? See what they did? You can’t trust them.”

What he did say, after blaming the failure to reach a grand deal on the fiscal cliff on Congress, was that we should

Keep in mind that just last month Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise tax rates on the wealthiest Americans. Obviously, the agreement that’s currently discussed would raise those rates, and raise them permanently.

That’s not the diplomacy of a deal maker or a leader. That’s just petty snubbing. Why would any Republican want to compromise when they know they’re going to have it stuck in their face before they can even pen the agreement on paper?

After spending most of his speech acting like he wanted negotiations to fail, Obama closed by joking about staying in DC for New Years, and the obviously supporting audience laughed, again.  Obama made an appeal to get past politics, then, all but ignoring that he had spent the previous ten minutes playing politics:

But the — the people who are with me here today, the people who are watching at home, they need our leaders in Congress to succeed. They need us — they need us to all stay focused on them. Not on politics. Not on, you know, special interests. They need to be focused on families, students, grandmas, you know, folks who are out there working really, really hard, and are just looking for a fair shot, and some reward for that hard work. They expect our leaders to succeed on their behalf. So do I.

It was strange, surreal, and odd, and even Doug Wright commented as such as the speech, to an adoring crowd, ended.

The campaign is over, Mr. President. It’s time to start acting like a leader, not like a guy who just won class president of the local high school. Leading doesn’t happen by demanding what you want and making fun of people who oppose you. It happens by treating them with grace and respect, seeking compromise, and recognizing their interests are as important as your own.  Like you, they are trying to do what’s best for America, and just because you see the course differently is no reason to demean and deride from the bully pulpit of the Presidency.

Related articles
Filed Under: Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The fiscal cliff of 2013 is the debt ceiling of 2011

December 7, 2012 by 3 Comments

Agents J and K use a neuralizer to make someone forget strange and alien occurrences.With Congress and the White House renegotiating the same things they negotiated last summer…with predictably the same crisis-like language and terms, it’s hard not to wonder how we’ve already forgotten how all that turned out.

If it feels like we’ve been here before, it’s because we have.

The headlines sound familiar:

“John Boehner rejects Obama’s Grand Bargain” says one. “No Deal: Debt Ceiling Talks Between Obama, Boehner Break Down” says another.

They sound like something you read this week.  They’re actually from the summer of 2011.

Now, while President Obama and Speaker Boehner negotiate plans to avert the fiscal cliff next year,  the scene has begun to look not unlike one we’ve seen before.

During the summer of 2011, the White House and Congress took the nation to the very edge of financial crisis over raising the federal debt ceiling.  The spending obligations of the federal government were at unprecedented levels (and they have only grown since). Tax revenues were hit hard by the recession. With only 60% of the government’s spending covered by tax revenues, Obama and Boehner dueled until  finally coming to a last minute deal that raised the debt ceiling and punted any spending cuts down the road. As part of the deal, the debt ceiling was raised $2.1 trillion and a Congressional “supercommittee” would find $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years.

Four days later, as a measure of “faith” in the deal, as well as in President Obama and the Congress, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States for the first time in our history.

Not surprisingly, no spending cuts have been found, to say nothing of the $1.2 trillion that were promised.

This month, a year and a bit later, we find ourselves in an eerily similar situation. Americans will wake up on January 2, 2013 to face a host of mandatory tax hikes and spending cuts. According to one source, national security spending could be cut 9.4%, while domestic spending, including Medicare and Headstart programs, could be cut 8.2%. According to the White House, a middle income family of four would see income taxes increase $2,000 a year.

I could use $2,000 more a year…but that doesn’t mean I think we should borrow from China so that my children can pay the extra taxes later.

English: President Barack Obama makes a statem...

English: President Barack Obama makes a statement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House announcing a deal in the ongoing efforts to find a balanced approach to the debt limit and deficit reduction, July 31, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In essence, this is the plan that the President is proposing, that and raising taxes on the wealthy. Contrary to the Democratic fantasy of tax hikes to levels circa 1958, when the highest income brackets’ were a confiscatory 91%, raising taxes on the wealthy will not bring in substantially more tax revenues, avert growing federal deficits, or reinvigorate an economy still struggling along.

Yes, says Peter Schiff in the Wall Street Journal:  the top tax rates in the 1950s required much more than today’s top tax rate at 35%. But top taxpayers in 1958 provided only 27% of all taxes paid, while today’s top 3% of taxpayers are responsible for almost double that at 51% of tax revenues.

If that’s just not high enough, what tax rate will be? It’s always easier to raise taxes on “them” to pay for an entitlement “for you” than it is to reform spending practices for everyone.

And that reflects the modern reality, where fewer and fewer taxpayers are supporting the expanding responsibilities, and costs, of the federal government. In 1958, the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers  paid 29.9% of all taxes, but today pay a far less load at only 6.7% of all taxes collected.

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans

Boehner Discusses GOP Jobs Plans (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Without figuring out a way to spend less to prevent the federal debt from growing, raising the debt ceiling only puts off the inevitable: a debt load that will someday have to be paid off by higher taxes on everyone. Like a revolving credit card debt, whether you pay it off this month or next, the amount you owe does not decrease, but the interest will continue to accrue. And it has to be paid off eventually.

But this is what the White House plan does. It punts the problem of growing debt down the road, calls for an additional $1.6 trillion in taxes,  and does not significantly cut back on spending.

Tax hikes and increased debt. Does it sound familiar? It should, because higher taxes and a higher debt ceiling is what Obama wanted in 2011, and it is the same thing that he’s demanding now.

It’s déjà vu all over again.

Related articles
Filed Under: Fiscal Reform, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Could Rand Paul bridge the gap between libertarians and Republicans?

November 20, 2012 by 3 Comments

Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul and Senator from Kentucky, is considering a run for President in 2016.

I know:–Mitt Romney’s campaign is barely dead and in the ground and already we’re hearing the rumblings of 2016′s challengers. Marco Rubio made headlines at a fundraiser in Iowa by commenting on the age of the Earth (HUH?) and now we hear that Ron Paul’s scion is openly interested in running, too.

For the kind of change needed in the Republican Party, it may not be too soon to start thinking about it.

“I’m not going to deny that I’m interested” in a 2016 presidential run, [Rand Paul] told ABC News. “I am different than some in that I’m not going to deny that I’m interested. I’m not going to deny that I think we have to go a different direction because we’re not winning.”

Not only is he “different than some,” but he also thinks the Republican Party’s problem goes beyond improving the GOP’s marketing and messaging–policy changes are needed, too.

Sound familiar? It’s not unlike what his father has argued for during the 2008 and 2012 elections.

Some of the policies that Rand Paul wants to see the GOP shift on include immigration, marijuana, and foreign wars.

He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an “eventual path” to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas — along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas — could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes.

They are policies that are decidedly more libertarian and can appeal to blocks of voters that many believe the GOP should be winning: voters under 40, Hispanics, and anyone tired of war.  With the shifting America’s shifting demographics working against the 2012 GOP party platform, the question is whether Rand Paul’s new road could be a path to the future for the Republican Party.

Oh, and one more thing: Paul wants to limit Senators to just twelve years of service. Think it’ll work?

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Post-Election Thoughts on Opportunities for the Republican Party

November 8, 2012 by 7 Comments

A lot of commentators start the Monday morning quarterbacking of elections within hours of the election. Heck, within minutes of the first polls coming in if they’re on cable TV.

I am not a “lot of commentators,” nor do I have a cable contract for a faux news show (but I’m available, if you’re wondering).

After letting the results settle for a day, though, I have a few thoughts on the election.

First, even in losing, Mitt Romney is a stand-up guy. As he took the podium Tuesday night, he opened by congratulating President Obama and his campaign team, and saying that he would support and pray for the President as he addresses the issues our country is facing. Even if that kind of thing is expected of a losing candidate, it’s tough for a person to do. Mitt put six years into this, and watching it end must be difficult.

On a similar note, I think Mitt represented his faith well, showed that Mormons are more mainstream than Americans have thought in the past, and even though he lost, I believe his religion has won. This election was a step forward for Mormons seeking mainstream acceptance without compromising their religious values.

Looking to the future, I think we’re going to see a lot of circular firing squads on the right. Pundits, insiders, strategists, advisers, campaigners, donors, and angry supporters are going to start pointing the finger at who caused Romney’s loss, and many of them are going to point a finger at Romney. I am sure that Romney would say that “the buck stops here,” and will man up to take responsibility for his part. However, he ran a tough campaign, and with a party that in many ways has refused to account for shifts in our country over the last couple decades. A moderate (very roughly speaking) Republican with more a penchant for data and results than for ideology, Romney was forced to kowtow to the far right during the debates (arguably against less than the best the Republican Party had to offer), and then struggled to tack back to the middle, a place he should have been more comfortable, too late to woo swing voters.

Which brings me to another point: the GOP is facing a demographic challenge that I believe will require not only policy adjustment and greater outreach, but also more careful candidate preparation and education.  In too many cases, Republicans lost seats, and perhaps lost voters nationwide, due to unforced errors (Google: “Akin,” “Mourdock,” and “legitimate rape” or just “rape”).

For heaven’s sake, next time we pick a candidate, let’s lock him or her in the Heritage Foundation or AEI for a couple weeks to do their homework and learn a very important lesson called “Don’t say stupid things about women, minorities, or other groups.”  (Also, it would be helpful for them to understand their own positions a little better than just spouting the lines they heard on Hannity or Rush during the short drive to the televised debate.)

The combination of weak candidates and poorly communicated policies, not to mention those polices that alienate chunks of the America, was enough to lose Romney voters who might otherwise agree with him.

What are some examples where the GOP might shift or improve?

  • Immigration: while Obama made virtually no effort to keep campaign promises to reform immigration, as an interview with Univision correctly showed, the GOP’s policies and talking points about sending illegal immigrants back (including Romney’s suggestion that immigrants take themselves back) hurt Romney and the Republican Party. Instead of focusing on Republican Party policies that Hispanics should support, it raised the specter of racism under the guise of the “rule of law” by proposing to crack down on immigrants who had come to America outside of the legal process.  No, I’m not calling Republicans racists, but pointing out how the policies appeared and were communicated to Hispanics. Rather than tell Hispanics how we can make their contributions to America welcome, show Republicans how the system can be reformed to improve guest worker laws and increase payroll taxes to pay for services used (which are actually lower than the average American), we let Democrats say “send me your huddled masses” and win their votes.  If you don’t think this is an area where Republicans can improve, you need to go back and listen to Marco Rubio‘s speech at the Republican convention.
  • Gay marriage: I’m not sure how Republicans overcome this issue, but civil unions might be a formulation that could move us in the right direction. We need a compromise that accounts for the concerns of homosexuals and their families while protecting what conservatives see as the sanctity of marriage. It’s unfair to act like the religious concerns of the right are bigoted, but the very real situation and concerns of gays and lesbians are no less weighty to them. I believe there’s a common ground to be found here, and it may be as easy as looking to libertarians for guidance. America was founded on an experiment of liberty and equality under the law, and extending those rights to gays and lesbians, without treading on those who believe in the sanctity of marriage, should be a real possibility.
  • Women: in many ways, I believe that the Democratic talking point known as the “Republican war on women” was the biggest piece of spin this election. No single group was hurt more by the recession and by the failure of the Obama Administration to address the recession (in lieu of a massive healthcare reform that less than half of America wanted or needed…but that’s another story) than women, whether they are married or not. However, Republicans have done a poor job of showing how. While the Lilly Ledbetter was trotted out by Democrats as Exhibit A, those same Democrats were paying women in their own offices less than men, proposing higher taxes that would decrease job growth, and pushing a healthcare law that has caused real concern to businesses across the country.  However, it’s hard to prove that Republicans “care” about women when the Akins and Mourdocks of the world are making comments about “legitimate rape” and postulating that God wanted a raped woman to get pregnant, not to mention opposing occasionally opposing contraceptives. A sure fire way to decrease abortions–which Republicans are supposed to hate on a visceral level–is to make sure that women have access to and know how to use contraceptives of all kinds.  A woman who doesn’t get pregnant when she doesn’t intend to will not have an abortion, not need to apply for government welfare to support an unintended pregnancy, and will avoid all the costs that Medicaid is intended to pick up.
  • Young Voters: America’s youth are still up for grabs, but Republican Party elders need to reach out to them by considering their concerns. Whether it’s the job market, student loans, the rising costs of entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that the elderly draw on but the young are expected to pay, not to mention wars in countries most college students couldn’t pick out on a map. Further, young voters aren’t buying the baloney on the right about lowering the size of government. Too many Republicans have introduced too many laws that increase the size and reach and cost of government without corresponding reductions, and young voters aren’t buying it. At least President Obama is honest in saying that he wants to raise taxes, even if he’s completely wrong about the effect of doing so. Until young voters start to see Republicans propose plans that involve more than just cutting taxes (which, by the way, I think should still be a part of those plans), they aren’t going to be interested.

A final thought. The election is over, but the problems that face our country remain unchanged: high and rising national debt, explosive entitlement cost growth (Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, primarily), terrorism threats at home and abroad, and an economy that has left too many people out of work.   I believe that Republicans are still better suited to solve these problems, but we need reevaluate our priorities if we want the opportunity to lead out with those changes in the coming decades.

 

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Two take-aways from the Biden and Ryan debate

October 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

If you watched the VP debate on Thursday night, you saw a contentious and heated, policy heavy discussion.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a draw, with neither candidate successfully walking away with the win, and by next week’s presidential debate, it will have already been forgotten.

When we look back, though, I think two things will stick out:

  1. Joe Biden righted the ship for the Obama campaign. In last weeks  debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, voters for the first time were able to make a side-by-side comparison of the candidates, resulting in a slide in the polls for the Democratic ticket. Where Obama was almost prosaic, Biden  was energetic and combative, disagreeing with Ryan on almost every point, drawing distinctions, and interrupting almost constantly (while reports vary, counters noted at least 82 times Biden interrupted Paul Ryan, while some counted more).  The confrontational and occasionally condescending attitude won’t win him a lot of undecided votes, but it will play well with the base, firing up supporters, and bringing in some fundraising dollars.  Expectations for Biden weren’t  high, but he avoided any gaffes and held his ground against Ryan.  As a result, it’ll be enough for Democratic partisans to claim they are satisfied.
  2. Paul Ryan presented a more clear and more attractive vision for America. While Ryan could be said to have effectively held his ground against the more experienced Biden, managed to work in a few zingers and bring more laughs from the audience, his performance will be more notable for the vision he presented to America, especially as encapsulated in his closing statement.

The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles. We will reapply our founding principles.

The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you. And we ask you for your vote. Thank you.

Delivered while looking directly into the camera and in the calm, measured voice–in contrast to the often sarcastic, rude, and condescending tone adopted by Biden throughout the night–Ryan’s invitation to vote for the Romney/Ryan vision spoke of hope, not just as a campaign slogan, but with measurable effect,  and it captured what elections are about: the future.  In contrast, Biden’s combative nature only revealed the Democratic campaign to be mired in negative attacks, not a vision of the future that Americans can trust.

At the end of the day, the debate won’t have a significant impact on the race. Ryan reassured voters, provided vision, and demonstrated command of the issues. Biden provided the image of a fighter for his running mate and for his party. Neither moved a lot of votes, but neither did any harm, either. When you’re the VP, whose sole constitutional responsibility is to replace the President if, heaven forbid, he should die in office, that’s about the best you can expect.

Random observation. CNN shows a meter on the screen as the candidates are speaking that shows how a test group of undecided voters are responding to what is happening at the moment. Almost every time Ryan started to speak, the line representing women spiked, regardless of the topic. The next day, the “hey, girl” meme adopted Paul Ryan, making Ryan, essentially, the “new Ryan Gosling.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts