'Narcissism'; a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action.
Maybe it's me, but does it bother you that Obama uses the word "I" in most of his speeches? Yesterday I watched him in a news conference with David Cameron, Prime Minister of England. On the subject of Iran, Obama made the following comments: "I will never let Iran develop a nuclear bomb", and after that: "If they do not stop I will take action". If you listen to his speeches about being the President that took down Bin Laden you would think that he was the first one out of that helicopter and personally put a bullet through Bin Laden's heart.
Yes, he is the President and the "buck stops there", but does he really believe that? I don't see him taking responsibility for anything; "It was George Bush's fault", "The economy was much worse than I thought", "I can't do anything about high gas prices", etc.
I wonder what his staff, his Cabinet, his supporters in Congress, his military leaders, think about his inability to use the word "we"?
Maybe this is a rant, but "I' think he is a narcissist of the worse kind that cannot stand for anyone else to get credit but himself. Someone once said; "To be a truly successful leader, surround yourself with talented managers, give them some direction, and then back off and get out of their way". Having been a CEO of successful companies, I could never have used the word "I" because remembering all the great employees I was surrounded with over the years, "we" were the reason for success.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
"It's the Contraception stupid"
"It's the economy stupid" was a phrase attributed to James Carville and used by Bill Clinton in his successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush. If Barack Obama tried to use that slogan during this election campaign he would lose in a landslide. So his campaign needs a new slogan; how about: "It's the contraception stupid"
Stupid? No, actually clever. The national debt will be $16 trillion this year, 14 million Americans are unemployed, 42 million Americans are on food stamps, home foreclosures are higher than any time in history, and gas is approaching $5/gallon. With all of these serious problems in our economy, the Democrats and complicit main stream media have succeeded in getting the "free contraception" debate front and center.
But the debate has nothing to do with free contraception and everything to do with freedom and government control. Why should I pay for the lifestyle decisions of someone else? The argument is that it is "a women's health issue". First of all any woman can go to the local Planned Parenthood office and get all the contraception she needs (and Planned Parenthood is subsidized to the tune of $450 million annually by the American taxpayers). But let's say it is a health issue and the government should pay for it. I need to go to a health club because of health issues, should the government pay my dues?
But again, the issue is not "contraception", it is government control, more and more of it. This entitlement mentality is growing like a cancer in this country, and we simply do not have the money to pay for it. Originally it was school lunches, then school breakfast and lunch, and now in some states school breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And it didn't stop there, now thanks to Michelle Obama the schools are being told WHAT to put in those meals. What ever happened to personal responsibility, whether it is seeing that your children are fed or buying your own contraception?
But the clever Democrats have again managed to divert the argument to this stupid issue of mandated free contraception. I never thought I would say this but James Carville and Bill Clinton were right; "It is the economy stupid".
Stupid? No, actually clever. The national debt will be $16 trillion this year, 14 million Americans are unemployed, 42 million Americans are on food stamps, home foreclosures are higher than any time in history, and gas is approaching $5/gallon. With all of these serious problems in our economy, the Democrats and complicit main stream media have succeeded in getting the "free contraception" debate front and center.
But the debate has nothing to do with free contraception and everything to do with freedom and government control. Why should I pay for the lifestyle decisions of someone else? The argument is that it is "a women's health issue". First of all any woman can go to the local Planned Parenthood office and get all the contraception she needs (and Planned Parenthood is subsidized to the tune of $450 million annually by the American taxpayers). But let's say it is a health issue and the government should pay for it. I need to go to a health club because of health issues, should the government pay my dues?
But again, the issue is not "contraception", it is government control, more and more of it. This entitlement mentality is growing like a cancer in this country, and we simply do not have the money to pay for it. Originally it was school lunches, then school breakfast and lunch, and now in some states school breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And it didn't stop there, now thanks to Michelle Obama the schools are being told WHAT to put in those meals. What ever happened to personal responsibility, whether it is seeing that your children are fed or buying your own contraception?
But the clever Democrats have again managed to divert the argument to this stupid issue of mandated free contraception. I never thought I would say this but James Carville and Bill Clinton were right; "It is the economy stupid".
Friday, February 17, 2012
Is the USA a wealthy country?
Ask anyone in the world and they will tell you the USA is a wealthy country; more millionaires, and more billionaires than any other country in the world. And even the "poor" in the USA would be considered middle class or even "wealthy" in some countries.
Greece was once considered a wealthy country; citizens had government provided health care from cradle to grave, 30% percent of the population worked for the government with generous salaries and pensions. Even those working in the private sector had generous pensions and could retire at a relatively young age. And 4-6 weeks’ vacation leave was standard for most. It was a wonderful life. So why are they now rioting in the streets and burning down their buildings and businesses?
Because no one will lend Greece money anymore!
This Shangri-La that was once Greece is now facing reality. For decades the country survived on "borrowed" money and finally the lenders said "no mas". And since the state now has no money to pay all these wonderful entitlements they have to make cuts to pensions, minimum wages, lay off non-producing government employees, and now the citizens are rioting as a result of their "entitlements" being taken away from them.
But this could never happen here in the USA could it? We are a “wealthy” country, inventors of the iPod, the IPhone, Facebook and all the wonderful technology that makes this country hum along. We take care of our people – 42 million on food stamps, housing subsidies for the poor, school breakfast and lunch (and in some cases dinner) for school kids, free cell phones and “minutes” for the poor, 99 weeks unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security…and I read recently that a family that qualifies for all the government programs available could receive over $32000 in welfare payments a year; more that the average “working” family….is this a great country or what?
But what most people want to ignore (or don’t understand), this country has borrowed $15 trillion dollars along the way; soon to be $16 trillion…the national debt under Obama. This debt has been accumulated for decades under many Presidents, but Obama has “doubled down” on borrowing with his plethora of social programs and has taken this country to the edge of financial disaster.
What happens when our lenders say “no mas”?
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Gospel of Tim
From the Gospel of Timothy 1:14:12
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
The Lord is my sheperd; I shall not want.
He maketh me play football in green pastures;
he leadeth me to the end zone when the game is on the line.
He restoreth my soul;
he leadeth me in the path of my offensive blockers.
Yea, though I walk through the depths of Gillete Stadium,
I will fear no Patriots;
for thou and my teammates are with me;
my coach and his staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest an upset before me in the presence of mine enemies;
thou "anointest" my head with trick plays;
and my adrenalin runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me each minute of this game;
and after winning I will dwell in the house of the Broncos forever.
"Praise the Lord and pass me the football"
Give em hell Saturday night Tebow!
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
"The Bain Train"
As the rough and tumble primary moves on to South Carolina, Romney is being attacked from the left over his so-called "vulture capitalism" while being CEO of Bain Capital. Sadly this "left" attack, I call it the "Bain Train", comes from Obama, Gingrich, Perry, and to some extent Santorum. What the hell are these so-called Conservatives doing joining the Democrats in their battle on capitalism?
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
First of all I am not a Romney fan. But I am a 'venture capitalist" fan. There is no question that if Romney wins the nomination that the Obama machine will portray him as the "Gordon Gecko" of Wall Street. But I can't believe our side is throwing gas into those flames. I have some experience with venture capital companies and like everything else there are a few bad apples, but without those companies many of the corporations we are all familiar with today (that employ millions of people) would not exist. I have no idea if Bain did any "dishonest" deals, but I did some research today. When Romney started the company they had assets of $37 million to invest, today Bain and it's affiliates are "managing" $66 billion in assets.
I put quotes around "managing" because that's what venture capitalist's do. They take investor's money (if they want to invest it) and risk it on companies that have a potential to make profits, offering them a higher return than they could get elsewhere - IF they are willing to take the risk. The key word is "risk". When I started my high tech company in the late 70's, the failure rate of high tech companies was two failures for every success. Would you take those odds? Remember the .com "bubble" in the 90's - some like Microsoft, Dell, and Oracle were successful, but many more went "bust".
I don't know anything about Bain's performance, but the fact that they have grown so much over the years certainly indicates that they have done a good job for their investors. When venture capitalists take over companies that are in trouble or struggling, they restructure and bring in new management and hopefully turn them around; and in some cases the company is too far gone and they have to put them through bankruptcy. Do people lose their jobs, of course? But if Bain went from $37 million to $66 billion in assets managed, a lot of jobs must have been created along the way by those successes.
Investing in high risk companies is like gambling, and gamblers only tell you about the times they won. The dialog about Bain Capital should be open and then voters can decide whether they did a good job for their investors (and the country) or not. But that will probably not happen - if Romney is the nominee the Obama machine will only tell you about those Bain Capital "gambling losses" and all the people that lost their jobs along the way. We don't need people on our side to help them with that false message.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
"The Paul Paradox"
As the Republican primary season moves forward at high speed, many still wonder why Ron Paul is even in the race. He has little charisma and comes across as an "old man" in the debates. Now I am also an "old man", so that is not a pejorative statement. But contrary to his image, he continues to get strong support in these early races and ironically much of this "old man's" support comes from young people.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
In my last Blog I referred to Congressman Paul as "the crazy uncle", that was probably unfair, especially since I agree with many of his policies. His support comes primarily from his stance on reigning in the federal budget and getting this country on a solid financial basis, a position he has consistently preached for 20 years. No one really paid attention to him in the past but now his prophecy of a "financial disaster" due to uncontrolled government spending has people taking a second look at his long-held warnings.
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the Fed; cut the government budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, even it means cutting out complete government agencies; quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us; quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his so-called "appeasement" foreign policy has been his Achilles heel, resulting in attacks from the main stream media with voters following suit.
This evening I watched a "focus group" of about 30-40 sample voters who were Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans giving their opinions on various candidates. In some cases the candidates themselves answered questions and in some cases their representatives answered questions. During the Ron Paul "focus session" his son Rand Paul represented him. The focus group had an interesting response to Ron Paul's policies. On domestic policies (mentioned above) he received almost unanimous support of the group. On his foreign policy only two people raised their hand.
His son Rand is a very impressive young Senator and made some interesting points: The domestic situation is a disaster and financially the country is close to falling off a cliff...and the group agreed. He also pointed out that even though he may not agree with all of his fathers foreign policies with regard to going to going to war, the President cannot make those decisions anyway since it takes Congress to declare war, set defense spending levels, etc. His father is a strict constitutionalist - go to war to protect the USA, but do not to get involved in other country's affairs. It is ironic that more Ron Paul contributions come from the US military than all the other candidates combined.
So the debate goes on, and I don't think Ron Paul has a chance to be elected president. But he is making quite an impact on this primary, if for no other reason the dialog about the financial disaster this country is facing is now front and center. Paul is also single-handedly making many of us think about what the Constitution really means because of his ability to explain it in simple and concise terms. Sadly, Ron Paul's honesty may be the biggest obstacle to him ever winning this primary.
Do I support many of his policies - yes. Will I vote for him - no. Because I still believe the primary mission in 2012 is to get rid of Obama and his clueless Harvard trained administration that has no idea how a capitalistic system works, and what made this country exceptional. Even though an "establishment" candidate might not be our first choice, we cannot afford to lose this election. At least with an establishment Republican administration we can start moving in the right direction. Another four years of Obama could be the death knell of this country as we know it.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Don't forget the "End Game"
Since this is my last Blog of 2011 - "Happy New Year" everyone.
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Next week will start the Republican primary season and the gloves are already off with the candidates taking shots at each other. I guess this is expected, but as they attack each other I hope none of them will forget the "end game" - defeat Barack Obama.
The beauty of "Blogging" is you can give your opinion, whether anyone agrees with it or not. Like many of my generation we have been waiting for another Ronald Reagan to come along, but sadly that will not happen in this election cycle. So here are my thoughts about this field of Republican candidates in order of their recent polling:
Mitt Romney ("the Suit") - Romney at this point looks like the front runner. He has impressive business experience; I do remember when he turned around the Utah Olympics; he has the executive experience of being a Governor; and he seems "Presidential". But Mitt, show us some "fire in the belly"! And what about your "Obama-Lite" insurance program in Massachusetts? He seems to be a competent manager, but I hate the term "moderate", and will someone mess up this guy's hair just once!
Ron Paul ("the crazy uncle") - OK I'm going to catch hell from my youngest son for this comment. But does anyone believe Ron Paul could win this primary, and if he did, beat the Obama machine?
I agree with many of Paul's policies - audit the fed, cut the budget $1 trillion next year no matter how painful it may be, quit giving foreign aid to people that don't like us, quit spending money protecting countries like Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of others that can afford to do it on their own. But his comments about leaving Israel to fend for themselves; or let Iran develop a nuclear bomb; or 911 could have been an "inside job" by the Israeli Mossad makes me wonder if this guy has thought out his foreign policy issues. Here's my suggestion: Keep Ron Paul on the back burner until after the election and then if the Republicans win, make him Secretary of the Treasury and let him do his thing to get our finances back from the edge of the cliff.
Newt Gingrich ("the bomb thrower") - I'm not sure about Newt. I do remember when he pulled off one of the great feats in political history leading the takeover of the House in the mid 90's after 40+ years of Democratic rule. But then the power went to his head. He was thrown out due to ethics violations and alienated many of his fellow Representatives along the way. His personal life has been a bit of a train wreck but he now claims to be "older and wiser", so I guess he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But on this subject I have one nagging question: Cheating on one wife; OK everyone deserves to be forgiven for one serious indiscretion, but twice?
Newt is attractive because he is a "fighter" and would not take it from the liberal press, and could destroy Obama in debates, especially when Obama doesn't have a teleprompter to tell him what to say. But the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $1.6 million consulting fees, his flip flops on Global Warming, mandated health insurance, and the fact that he is just such a "slick" life-long politician makes me nervous.
Rick Santorum ("the Evangelist") - Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, and I like former Senator Santorum. I agree with him that "restoring the family" in this country is paramount to getting our social climate back on the right track. A classic example is the black community with 70% of children being born out of wedlock (and in many cases without a father in the household). Without some basic cultural changes, they haven't got a chance to improve their situation in our society.
Santorum is a solid "pro life/pro family" candidate and should have much of the evangelical constituency locked up. But this is not an election about social policies. This country is in such serious financial and economic trouble that social principals just can't be a determining factor.
Rick Perry ("the Texan") - I was a Rick Perry fan at the beginning, but he blew it in many of the debates. Not because he wasn't a good debater, he just doesn't seem to be ready to run this country and whether anyone agrees with me or not - giving "illegal" immigrants preferential treatment over out-of-state US citizens for college tuition is something I can never agree with. Governor Perry comes across as a likable politician but just doesn't make it to my short list.
Michelle Bachman ("Sarah wannabe?") - OK that's not fair. She is a bright, impressive woman and will be a future star in the Republican Party, she is just not there yet. She is a former attorney and strict constitutionalist - how about Attorney General in the next Republican administration?
John Huntsman ( "Slick") - He claims to be holding back for the New Hampshire primary and recently said: " Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks Presidents"...we'll see John.
Gary Johnson (the "Libertarian") - Former Governor of New Mexico who has just announced that he will run as a Libertarian candidate. If you listen to this guy he makes a lot of sense and it has been surprising that he never rose above being an "obscure Republican", even to the point of not participating (or being invited) to the debates. But if you are a "Libertarian" (and I have those leanings) this guy is rock solid, even more so than Ron Paul in my opinion. Hopefully the Libertarian candidate will not draw enough Republican votes to give Obama a victory.
So there it is; I am as undecided as anyone at this point, but whoever becomes the Republican candidate we all need to remember the "end game" - we cannot endure four more years of Barack Obama, or this country will never be the same. If something is not done about our massive debt and ridiculous social entitlement policies, the USA as we know it may reach the "point of no return".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
