« The Message of Ron Paul | Main | The SOTU In Perspective »

January 19, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

WHAT MESSAGE FROM THE FEDS?

Revised downward the economic forecast for 2012 to 2.2%. Hold interest rates to zero into 2014. Inflation without energy and food to be steady at 2%. Unemployment to stay high (8.5%) for 2012 and 2013 then go to 5-6% in 2014. They are holding on Q3 but are "at the ready" if necessary.

That sounds like a belief that any more time for Obama and we are stuck in this no growth cycle for a decade. But, fear not, they have the presses on standby to print if needed to pay our bills. Food and energy inflation is at or above 100% for the tree years of Obama--so let's not count it--just print more food stamps. Fund birth control to hold babies down. And, tax the rich. What a program for growth and "fairness" to level the playing field. By default the rich are now 50% of Americans who get taxed while the other 50% are getting their "fair" treatment with zero taxes. If only we all could be so unfortunate to be Warren Buffet's poor secretary who pays so much more tax than her boss. And, the smoke and mirrors man wants us to relect him?

WHY NOT NEWT---

It is too bad that by grabbing an old page from Reagan's book Newt was able to turn the tables on the media and resurrect for a minute at least his campaign. The difference between Reagan and Newt is that Newt blisters the opponent with a stinging rebuff or the "how dare you" method. While Ronald Reagan simply turned the question into something to smile about such as "there you go again" or his famous response to a question about his age with "I won't hold his lack of experience against him". In my opinion Newt's job is to answer the questions and his seemingly angered posture is one of the big reasons I don't think he measures up to Romney in leadership talent. For Republicans letting the media have it has some appeal after years of frustrating presentations of liberal bias. And, in this case it worked for a short term. However, long term blasting the media with "how dare you ask me about my flawed moments with infidelity, lobby efforts, ethics questions and being taken out of leadership positions" will not work. Not all of the media will let him off the hook after a bashing, and not all of them will offer him a slow pitch question he can rant on. And, the voters will ignore the entertainment value of his responses and return to the question of economic and foreign policy. Both Romney and Obama seem to have solid home lives to contrast against Newt's.

Newt is the best history teacher of the three.(Romney,Obama and Newt.) And, he has the longest legislative record. This gives him a tremendous advantage in the debates as he can site event after event from history (some of which he was present at) that makes him sound smart. But, that is different than having the answers, the guts to change direction when wrong and the ability to get others to do what needs to be done --all the keys to leadership and management skills. When Newt talks it is always of the achievement of others(Reagan, Kemp and Clinton) with himself as the able assistant (we) helping out. In Headhunting we look for those signs in candidates as people who were "on the team" but not the leader. Too many employers let a candidate take credit for helping and mistake it for leading. Romney on the other hand led Bain himself, was the Governor, designed Romney care (like it or not), turned the Salt Lake Olympics around, etc. He led, he made the decisions, he was responsible, he put the teams together, he got other people to make it all happen. That is leadership and as Jack Welch says—Romney is the best we've had a chance to elect in a long time. Newt might have worked for a Romney or perhaps Romney would not have let him be on the team. While Newt is winning the debates Romney will have others implementing the programs we need.

As for the tax issue and wealth: Romney gives 10% of his income to his church. He legally pays 15% taxes because he invests in America. (Like Warren Buffet) That's 25% he gives back on millions. His wealth is a merit badge of how good he is. As I recall President Obama made $4M last year. He's wealthy too. President Clinton earned nearly $100M in his first 4 years after leaving office. Al Gore made $106M selling us on global warming. Lyndon Johnson was wealthy. John F Kennedy was wealthy. John Kerry is wealthy. Let's get off the wealth issue and get on to leadership.

WE CERTAINLY NEEDED THIS; and so didn't 'Mitt'.(forward to info@mittromney.com) His last 'Chance',at least in S.C. and he didn't grab it. How long he is going to allow these things to pass thru his 'mit' is a mystery. If he is protecting Bain's proprietary 'Methods';someone better release him in the interest of the Country.
The contrast is startleing; between 'Mitt' becoming 'The Great Evader' (Mark Levin's tag)and 'Newt'; taking on 'The Media Sharks', out for 'Blood'. It's clouding up an extraordinary talent; the Country can ill afford to lose.

The comments to this entry are closed.