Romney Is Going to Have a Hard Time Winning Michigan’s Primary: He Promised to Help the People of Michigan in 2008, But Then Got into Trouble in the Years Since

Mitt Romney’s campaign is in trouble in Michigan. 

As part of the 2008 primary season, he promised that he was going to help the people of Michigan get back to work if elected President, and people believed him.  Auto workers turned out in droves to support him.  He won the 2008 Michigan primary with their help and the support of a lot of others, but eventually withdrew from the race in favor of John McCain.

McCain lost to Obama, and Obama took office. 

The economy continued to tank.  The unemployment rate in Michigan skyrocketed, and the talk turned to bailing out the auto industry to save it.  

Romney went on record opposing the bailout and made critical comments about the bailout, which a majority of the auto workers, both laid off and current, supported.  The Obama Administration went forward with the bailout.

When Romney went public with his opposition to the bailout, it looked like he had broken his promise to help the people of Michigan to get back to work.  When he said that the auto industry should go bankrupt, that didn’t sit well with people in Michigan cities where the auto companies were the largest employers.  I can remember people down here talking about Romney’s statements and how displeased they were with him.

I think if Romney carries Michigan this time around, his majority will be a lot slimmer than it was in 2008, because I don’t see the auto industry supporting him this time around, the way they did four years ago.

There is no guarantee that Romney will carry this state at all.  It all depends on who turns out to vote on Election Day.  Whether the rest of Michigan was for the bailout, or against it, he’s lost a major block of voters.  That’s how it is.

Iran and North Korea Are Waiting in the Wings for the U.S. to Downsize Its Military: Cutting 500,000 Troops Will Lead into the Next Ground War, as History Has Already Shown Us

Every time an Administration cuts the United States armed forces, and focuses in on increasing air assets, the decision bites us hard and we end up in another land war.

That’s been the pattern since Truman downsized the U.S. military, following the end of World War II.  We went from an Army of eight million soldiers to an Army of 500,000 under arms.  The Soviets were emboldened enough to blockade Berlin, North Korea was emboldened enough to invade South Korea, then China was emboldened enough to enter the Korean War after most of North Korea was overrun by U.S. and U.N. troops.  This pattern was repeated again and again when a U.S. President would cut troops in favor of air superiority. 

We are definitely in danger of repeating history.  President Obama wants more unmanned drones instead of ground troops, but drones cannot maintain the peace as effectively as a powerful ground force can.

North Korea, Iran and Venezuela have been emboldened over the last ten years because we were fighting two major wars at the same time, and much of our military strength was involved in occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.  Before that, they were afraid of the American military, but they’re still in the mind-set that our military is too worn down to take them on at the moment. 

Those nations mentioned should be afraid of the U.S. military and where they might strike next.  Instead, if we cut the size of the Army and the Marines, we may end up fighting another ground war against an enemy who thinks they can win.  Especially North Korea.

They can make cuts elsewhere instead of getting rid of our ability to fight two major wars simultaneously.  And these kinds of cuts should not be made while we still have 97,000 troops in combat in Afghanistan.

GOP Sanctions Florida for Holding an Early Primary: Here We Go Again

The GOP hit Florida with sanctions today, because Florida had the brass to do what the remaining 48 states should have done as well: hold an early primary date.  Here we go again…

Here’s what I think of this:  New Hampshire and every other state in the union should have voted on the same day.

“That’ll never work?”  Wrong!  We hold a general election on November 7th in all 50 states, in no fewer than five time zones.  These candidates ran around to every county in Iowa, and there’s 99 of them.  They can make it work.

Instead, we are forced to follow idiotic rules of both parties that disenfranchise voters whose states who have dared to voice their opinion on the matter.

Except this time, the GOP is acting stupidly….last time it was the Democrats who robbed Florida and Michigan of their say in the selection of the respective nominees.   The GOP took half our delegates and laughed at the way the Democrats were handling it.

I don’t respect the GOP decision to punish Florida or any other state for violating the “no early primary” rule.  Every state should have pushed back after what happened four years ago, and scheduled their primary when THEY wanted it, regardless of the GOP or DNC preferences. 

If every state scheduled an early primary, these rules would collapse and a fairer system would emerge.   But when one or two states buck the system, the national Dems and Reps try to make examples out of them and end up punishing the people who they need to turn out on Election Day.

12/14/11 Update

Politics has taken a back seat for a while.  I should be back into it after the New Year, with the upcoming elections, and the 2012 nonsense just around the corner.

Finance Super-Committee Says “We Blew It”: Are We Really All That Surprised that Congress Can’t Get the Job Done?

The Congressional “Super-Committee” (that really isn’t all that super) is preparing to announce that they “blew it” and have failed to come up with ANY cuts to the budget whatsoever.  So now they’re wasting time, arguing over how they’re going to announce that they’ve failed.

Are we really all that surprised?  This is Congress we’re talking about, after all.

If they were serious about this, they would have begun meeting three months ago, when the “super-committee” was announced.  They just started meeting a week or two ago.    The only thing super about this committee is the super-hype.   I hope they all get voted out of office.

And so should any Congress person who votes to remove the triggers, which were put in place by the last budget ceiling bill.  If anything, they should be ADDING to the triggers that will go into effect in 2013 (which was also a mistake.)  They should be going into effect the day after Thanksgiving.  That would give the cuts some teeth.

Unfortunately, the military will take the brunt of the cuts, amounting to some $600 billion.  It’s unfortunate.  The military has a lot of rebuilding to do to get into trim to fight the next war, as they should be, and always are, preparing for.  Getting out of Iraq will help the military do that, and will also help our budget.

Hard choices will need to be made, but not by this Congress or President.   They’ve wasted far too much time; we’re at 101% of GDP, and it’s getting worse.   Talk about lame ducks---we’ve got 535 of them in Congress.

I’d be in favor of a financial blockade of all 535 members.  No contributions to any of their campaigns until they come up with a way to make steep cuts, in the trillions, not in the billions like the Democrats want.  It would only work if established donors joined this blockade.

When austerity comes to this country, it isn’t going to be pretty.   The government should make the changes now, while there’s still a choice over what to cut.  Because the day is coming when entire departments will be slashed, and the national government budget crashed, and the prized entitlements that the Democrats are so viciously defending will go away too.  I would think they’d want to make changes now, so that their entire program, whatever it is, doesn’t collapse.

This Congress must not delete or delay the triggers.  The only thing they should change is the start date—move it from 1/1/2013, to 1/1/2012.

That’ll never happen either.

Why Are We Surprised That Gadhafi Was Executed? The Libyan Rebels Said What They Were Going to Do, and Then They Did It

What’s with all this international racket about Gadhafi being executed?  

The Libyan rebels said what they were going to do, and then they did it, regardless of the international community’s wish to place him on trial for crimes against humanity.   This madman murdered tens of thousands of people over the last 40+ years to stay in power, including many thousands more in the last six months alone.

It’s their country; we’re only interfering in their internal affairs.  If they wanted Gadhafi alive, NATO shouldn’t have bombed his convoy to begin with.   It’s a final fiasco to the international fiasco that this intervention has been from the get-go.

If they really wanted Gadhafi alive, they could have tried for a capture in Niger with no Libyan rebels around.  But they chose to attack his convoy on Libyan soil with Libyan rebels already firing on the convoy.  We will fit that decision into the “well, DUH!” category.

No investigation into Gadhafi’s death is necessary.  Everyone already knows what happened.  Gadhafi was captured after being wounded, and summarily executed by his own people.   The international community ought to get off its high horse and let this nightmare that they’ve contributed to reach its final conclusion. 

Instead of wasting time on investigating how Gadhafi came to die, perhaps the international community would best be served by investigating where Gadhafi put billions in Libyan money, and how best to return that stolen money to the new Libyan government.

Liberal Media Asks “Who is Responsible for Organizing the “Occupy” Movement?” Their Friends Are, That’s Who!

Some liberal media outlets are asking who is responsible for the “Occupy” movement across America.

Their liberal, socialist and anarchist friends are, of course.   

The strength of the protests seems to be dependent of how bad off the local economies are.  In the United States, the range of protesters is anywhere from 16-5,000 protesters.   The largest protests have been in Los Angeles and in Washington, DC (an estimated 5,000 protesters each). 

Overseas, the protests have been much bigger as they have huge problems in places like Spain, where their big protests have drawn anywhere from 40,000 to 500,000 people.  They’re protesting against austerity measures being taken by their governments.  And they’re already accustomed to Socialist governments in Europe.  Greece has had huge protests, and they’ve turned really violent.

The protests that are taking place in Arab countries are part of the ongoing Arab Spring protests and happened to coincide with the protests taking place in the West. 

The “Occupy” protesters in America are calling for an October Revolution and should be taken as a  warning.  What are they proposing to replace our current economic system with?  A Soviet-style economy?  That’s already a proven failure.

Those protesting do not represent the other 98% of people who disagree with them.  They have their own agenda, except for the idiots who have joined in and have no idea of what they’re protesting, or even what they want if they should gain any traction.

I think the political impact that these protests will have in 2012 will not make much of a difference.  Obama’s going to have a very tough re-election bid, and many incumbents, regardless of which party they belong to, will also be out of their jobs as well.  We already know that’s going to happen.  Congress is at an 11% approval rating.

I also think that the press coverage is out of proportion to the actual protests taking place, and that they’re trying to cash in on the unhappiness of the American public, most of whom have no intention of joining the Occupy movement and do not feel their interests are represented there.