Yes, Ryan for Veep, But...

But, conservatives and the Tea Party may not be happy when I describe why I think he was a great choice.

Silent Cal? Really?

There was an article about Calvin Coolidge in a recent issue of National Review. See, like Mr. O, he was faced with a recession in 1921. He knew that he had to do 2 things: cut taxes, and cut fiscal spending. He acted quickly, but reducing government outlays was first on his to-do-list. Taxes had to wait. The quick recovery of the US economy proved that Cal had the right idea. He was so right, that his actions ushered in the Roaring Twenties.

It was eerie to see my beliefs about the current recession mirrored by a previous President.

What Exactly is Ryan's Plan?

Rather than rely on the talking heads, I humbly suggest that you read it for yourself. While it has some tax reforms (do not raise taxes, AMT, 10% and 25% tax rates, fix corporate taxes, loopholes), these are not really major changes and kinda seem like Supply-Side-Lite. The emphasis is much more on fiscal 'restraint'. Even here, he does not propose drastic spending cuts. Instead, he reduces the rate of federal budget increases.

Just Like His Convention Speech

Likewise, in Tampa he talked much about spending, but almost nothing about cutting taxes to stimulate economic activity. This seems to have irked some, but I think this is the correct order of doing these sorts of things. We have to give credit where it is due, as Mr. O cut payroll taxes by 2%, putting more money in everyone's paycheck virtually overnight. This did not help.  

Akin - Return of the Circular Firing Squad

I have opined on this before. I was listening to JD Hayworth on KSFO, and I am glad that I am not the only one with this thought. I am not happy that this peculiarly Republican behavior has returned in spades (trump suit: bridge, people; look it up).

Rewind

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), is the Republican candidate for Senate running against McCaskill (D-MO, inc). In a TV interview, the question was about pregnancy caused by a rape. He said:

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Many were quick to throw the Honorable Representative under the bus. Before you make the same mistake, I suggest that you watch the entire interview at the link above. The conversation about abortion occurs at about 4:00 of Part 2 (are you listening, Ms. Morgan??). Does the phrase "jumping to conclusions" mean anything to anyone???

The Maelstrom

The Republican reaction was fierce and widespread: he must quit the race; a sure R pickup was turned into a toss-up; R control of the Senate was endangered. Everyone, from Romney on down to conservative talk show hosts whose opinion I otherwise respect, dog-piled on Mr. Akin. Honestly, I was flabbergasted by the reaction: bad press, yes, but metaphysical Republican finger-wagging? Oy.

Whaddup?

So, let us examine the possible 'issues' with Mr. Akin's statement:

• Sick Phrase? Yes, I will grant you this one: it is a stomach-turning phrase. Nevertheless, if you subtract the word 'legitimate', it becomes an ordinary response. He immediately apologized, and has continued to do so repeatedly over the next few days until his eyes bulge out and his head explodes. I surmise that he was thinking of Tawana Brawley (look it up, people). 
• Bad Science? Yes. Even if we charitably airbrush his statement, it is still factually wrong. Let us concede that he is not the brightest bulb in the package. 
• Pro Life? Perhaps conservatives are unhappy that his statement highlights the fact that the Republican party is officially pro-life. Don't think so. 
• No Exception for Rape? The fact that the official Republican party platform does not have an exception for pregnancy from rape is well known. Perhaps the wonks are unhappy that his statement highlights this fact? Still does not sound plausible. 
• Useful Bludgeon? More than one pundit seems to be annoyed that the continued presence of Mr. Akin on the R ticket will be used as an ever-present stick with which to beat up conservatives. Well, I got news for you: I am pretty sure that Team Obama has a super-duper-top-secret notebook entitled 'Subterfuge of the Week'. Every week, they rip out a page and use it as a media/publicity offensive. Last week it was the dog on the roof; week before it was Bain; this week it is his income taxes; next week, Romney's hair, week after that Mormons. It will not matter what R's do: Team Obama will keep up the drumbeat of subterfuge (thus far, they have been spectacularly successful), and never, never about the economy or unemployment. 
• Bushie Wing? I have absolutely no insider knowledge, but this whole brouhaha reeks of Karl Rove. Perhaps Akin was not the establishment/Bushie/Rove choice, and they are taking advantage to replace an unwanted with one of their own. FYI, Paul Ryan is also not a Bushie choice. 

In summary, I am still mystified. If anyone can elucidate, please let me know in the reply box below.

Dick Morris?

Perhaps Mr. M is correct after all: it might actually work in Romney's favor. The goal is to get across his message, and this increases Romney's positive media coverage. Kinda skeptical of that one, but it does graphically demonstrate to women that for Republicans, unlike the Dems, doing the right thing trumps political dogma.

Let's Win

I urge everyone who called for Akin's withdrawal not to lose sight of the prize: the goal is to win. Current Republican behavior, regardless of what you may think about him and his statement, does not support this goal. If Akin does drop out, it will not bode well for defeating a vulnerable senate Lib; besides, the Big Mo has spoken, and we should respect their vote (weaknesses of Mr. A is surely already well known to local voters; I wonder how many pundits are knowledgeable about Missouri politics). Let us hope that cooler heads prevail, sooner rather than later.

Voter Fraud? Google to the Rescue!

In this election year, there is a grand dust-up over inaccurate voter roles, illegal immigrants voting, and the fear that someone might steal the election. Well, Google, along many other tech companies, are currently working on face recognition software. In not too many years, you will not need a driver's license, credit cards, or passwords: just stick you face in the camera, and the computer will recognize you. Are you eligible to vote? Just look into the camera, sir. Nifty, huh?

Already, this is being used for billboards and vending machines. The computer will determine your sex and age, and will make an offering just for you. I suspect that it will also be able to judge your race, overweight, and mood. Already, hand recognition software for ATM's is in use in Japan.

I can imagine checking in at the airport: look into the camera. The HAL9000 will then gently intone: “Hello, Newt Gingrich. Welcome to Virgin Galactic. Please, step into to the aircraft, and have a nice flight”.

Obama is wrong: the rich built that bridge and that road

Mr. O stated recently that rich people “didn't get there on their own”. He then intoned “Somebody invested in roads and bridges...you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen”.

Point in fact, rich people (like Romney) did build those things. True, he did not personally sit in the driver's seat of that asphalt grader or drive the cement mixer to the construction site, but he paid the taxes that paid the salaries of the bureaucrats who oversaw the project, and his taxes paid the treasurer who paid the contractors and subcontractors.

The key point here, which is often overlooked, is that O was 'off prompter' when he made that statement, and his aides spent several days backpedaling. The sentiment he expressed truly represents his deep, gut feeling: we need to rob from the rich and give to the poor (someone more clever should be able to make up a clever nickname based on Robin Hood). So, by this logic, letting unemployment simmer (and making sure that the unemployment checks never stop) but doubling or tripling the number of people getting food stamps and Medicaid is exactly the correct actions to take in order to “promote the general welfare”.

Some claim that these are O's major mistakes. On the contrary: these are consistent, and O has been quite successful.