The following material is new on my blogs, but I wrote it after my appearance on Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican show on BlogTalkRadio. Eric opposes John McCain for reasons that remain mysterious to me.I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain.
His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union ratings and the Club For Growth (fiscal conservatives), indicated that McCain was a conservative. The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain.
I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also have some decent ratings from that group. I cited The Almanac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to some of the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to Republican politics, but rather to often pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism. Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that she is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did John Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher. Name-calling is the last refuge of those who lack a coherent political philosophy.
Recently, the Austin Statesman in Texas endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a conservative and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion.
Rather, it is what the facts show. John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, not anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% in his last race).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them.
Essentially, the voters have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics.I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality. I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong.
When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He added, "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejects the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily and think infrequently.
Note: Anyone who'd like to honor me by using this column on their own blog or elsewhere, please do so. The only thing I ask is that you cite my main blog as the source (http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com)
Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hugh Hewitt. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A WINNING STRATEGY FOR MCCAIN
Here are two important Forums for people supporting John McCain or thinking of supporting him. Please visit them and leave your comments.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html#6
http://www.mccaintalk.com/
Please click on the links to your right!
The McCain Campaign depends greatly on as many active, involved volunteers as possible. There's no way this campaign can be won by "politics as usual." It requires a great deal of creativity, imagination, and just plain hard work.
For example, today on Brit Hume's show on FOX, the host suggested that McCain needs to create an army of volunteers among veterans. The panelist from NPR suggested there weren't all that many veterans. She's wrong. The Almanac of American Politics says there are 25 million veterans, a huge number, in the U.S.
Do the math. Those 25 million vets all have family members -- spouses, children, and in the case of younger vets, mothers and fathers. The McCain Campaign needs to do much more than have a Coordinator of Veterans Affairs. In fact, it needs to contact every veteran in the U.S. and ask for their support. It also has to ask them to reach out to family and friends to generate backing for Senator McCain.
It will take in excess of 75 million votes to win the 2008 presidential election. Obviously, if McCain does the full-court-press on veterans and those they can influence, he probably will the presidency. If he doesn't, it's probable that he won't. It's just that simple.
In the Age of the Internet, we've gone beyond the days when a good candidate -- and McCain is one -- could just say: "I'm here. Everybody please vote for me." People have to asked directly for their votes, in many case, by e-mails.
With his TV ads, McCain has to emphasize himself -- as a man with an heroic past and a total commitment to serving his country. That's the John McCain who has won his races in Arizona by huge margins. That's the John McCain who won big in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
One thing McCain must not do is to go hat-in-hand to conservatives such as those represented by the creepy radio talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Hewitt). If McCain tries to mollify those troglodytes, he will lose his strong appeal to moderates -- Republican, Independent, or Democratic. He should welcome anyone who wants to support him and wish the best for those who don't.
Above all perhaps, McCain has to listen to good advice from people who support him. He does many things well and a few things poorly. He need to intensify the former and eliminate the latter. This extremely disciplined man must become even more so.
THE FOLLOWING IS A POST I PUT ON THE MCCAIN FOR POTUS FORUM in response to Sanity102, who blogs at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com:
I've had mixed feelings about the talk show hosts and their "dittoheads" (rockheads?). John McCain has always won elections by being himself. Is that enough to win this election against a highly energized Democratic base? I guess we'll find out. I wrote today about energizing military veterans and their families. Sanity, the process of purging and revitalizing may take a decade. In the WOT, we probably don't have a decade, but the shifts going on will take some time. I will be writing one column after another (like today's) on how McCain can win. I'm asking him to select as his VP nominee the one female veteran ever elected to Congress, former Rhodes Scholar Heather Wilson. As you know, I think there are two Americas: the Warrior Society (you, I, McCain, Gen. Petraeus, and many more) and the Wimp Society, the one Hillary and Barack appeal to. The talk show hosts have too much power and too few brains. They need to be part of the Purge.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html#6
http://www.mccaintalk.com/
Please click on the links to your right!
The McCain Campaign depends greatly on as many active, involved volunteers as possible. There's no way this campaign can be won by "politics as usual." It requires a great deal of creativity, imagination, and just plain hard work.
For example, today on Brit Hume's show on FOX, the host suggested that McCain needs to create an army of volunteers among veterans. The panelist from NPR suggested there weren't all that many veterans. She's wrong. The Almanac of American Politics says there are 25 million veterans, a huge number, in the U.S.
Do the math. Those 25 million vets all have family members -- spouses, children, and in the case of younger vets, mothers and fathers. The McCain Campaign needs to do much more than have a Coordinator of Veterans Affairs. In fact, it needs to contact every veteran in the U.S. and ask for their support. It also has to ask them to reach out to family and friends to generate backing for Senator McCain.
It will take in excess of 75 million votes to win the 2008 presidential election. Obviously, if McCain does the full-court-press on veterans and those they can influence, he probably will the presidency. If he doesn't, it's probable that he won't. It's just that simple.
In the Age of the Internet, we've gone beyond the days when a good candidate -- and McCain is one -- could just say: "I'm here. Everybody please vote for me." People have to asked directly for their votes, in many case, by e-mails.
With his TV ads, McCain has to emphasize himself -- as a man with an heroic past and a total commitment to serving his country. That's the John McCain who has won his races in Arizona by huge margins. That's the John McCain who won big in Florida and on Super Tuesday.
One thing McCain must not do is to go hat-in-hand to conservatives such as those represented by the creepy radio talk show hosts (Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Hewitt). If McCain tries to mollify those troglodytes, he will lose his strong appeal to moderates -- Republican, Independent, or Democratic. He should welcome anyone who wants to support him and wish the best for those who don't.
Above all perhaps, McCain has to listen to good advice from people who support him. He does many things well and a few things poorly. He need to intensify the former and eliminate the latter. This extremely disciplined man must become even more so.
THE FOLLOWING IS A POST I PUT ON THE MCCAIN FOR POTUS FORUM in response to Sanity102, who blogs at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com:
I've had mixed feelings about the talk show hosts and their "dittoheads" (rockheads?). John McCain has always won elections by being himself. Is that enough to win this election against a highly energized Democratic base? I guess we'll find out. I wrote today about energizing military veterans and their families. Sanity, the process of purging and revitalizing may take a decade. In the WOT, we probably don't have a decade, but the shifts going on will take some time. I will be writing one column after another (like today's) on how McCain can win. I'm asking him to select as his VP nominee the one female veteran ever elected to Congress, former Rhodes Scholar Heather Wilson. As you know, I think there are two Americas: the Warrior Society (you, I, McCain, Gen. Petraeus, and many more) and the Wimp Society, the one Hillary and Barack appeal to. The talk show hosts have too much power and too few brains. They need to be part of the Purge.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
New McCain Forum For You!
New McCain Forum For You!
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html
Please copy the above link and visit the new McCain Forum. It allows you to leave comments, which I hope you will, and contains links to all relevant sites for McCain volunteers (contributions, Bloggers for McCain, and the like). You can find the direct link at the top of my blogroll to the right. Thanks so much for your help.
I have written several columns -- and added several guest columns -- about McCain, which you can find at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
A tremendous amount is going to happen in the nominating process over the next four days. I believe on Wednesday of next week in Boston, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will end his campaign -- and probably will endorse John McCain. As for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I predict that they will retreat from public life and perhaps join, respectively, a monastery and a nunnery.
Like all national elections, this one will be close -- and ferociously contested. The winning element could be the bloggers, who will play an unprecedented role in this campaign. God bless you all.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM GREG ALTERTON AT RUDY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN:
From Greg at Rudy Supporters for McCain:
Hugh Hewitt has posted a blog thought here -- http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog -- in which he argues:
The Romney campaign's February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives.
Won't happen. Huck's supporters support him (largely) for one reason: he's an evangelical Christian. These folks are not going to jump to a Mormon candidate...Sorry, his religion is an issue with many.
The other thing that was a revelation was the news from Lousiana where the block of pro-life so-cons going to the state convention to select delegates are committed to McCain. Every one of them. This tells me that Romney stands no chance of simply getting "all" of Huck's supporters.
And wasn't it not too long ago that Hewitt and company were saying that Huck wasn't a conservative at all? So, how can his supporters coming over to Romney make up a "conservative majority."
This kind of blindness based on an emotional investment in Romney is what passes for political analysis from Hugh Hewitt these days. He should never have gotten in bed with Romney to the extent that he has. He's painted himself into a corner, and now that Romney is proving NOT to be the great conservative savior (give GOP voters credit for seeing through Romney), Hewitt sees no way out.
A friend in Oregon responded to the above:
I stopped reading or listening to Hewitt sometime last summer, having watched him self-destruct by utterly (and eagerly) destroying his credibility and integrity. Some of his regular readers are genuinely certifiable. I just could not see the point in wasting further time or energy on them.
Instead, I sent a large donation to McCain. At the time, his campaign was universally derided as moribund, at best. I thought it likely that my donation would accomplish nothing of worth--with the notable exception of satisfying my conscience that I had at least tried to do something for my country.
As things changed for the positive, I would return to Hewitt's site only when I needed a good laugh. His post after Romney's religion speech was a particular screamer.
Hewitt claims he will support the GOP nominee, but how can he?
Steve is right: Hewitt has painted himself into the deepest, darkest corner imaginable from which there is no escape.
Check his site on Wednesday morning. His post should be the most hilarious one yet.
Bruce
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/240445.html
Please copy the above link and visit the new McCain Forum. It allows you to leave comments, which I hope you will, and contains links to all relevant sites for McCain volunteers (contributions, Bloggers for McCain, and the like). You can find the direct link at the top of my blogroll to the right. Thanks so much for your help.
I have written several columns -- and added several guest columns -- about McCain, which you can find at http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.
A tremendous amount is going to happen in the nominating process over the next four days. I believe on Wednesday of next week in Boston, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney will end his campaign -- and probably will endorse John McCain. As for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I predict that they will retreat from public life and perhaps join, respectively, a monastery and a nunnery.
Like all national elections, this one will be close -- and ferociously contested. The winning element could be the bloggers, who will play an unprecedented role in this campaign. God bless you all.
THE FOLLOWING IS FROM GREG ALTERTON AT RUDY SUPPORTERS FOR MCCAIN:
From Greg at Rudy Supporters for McCain:
Hugh Hewitt has posted a blog thought here -- http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog -- in which he argues:
The Romney campaign's February 5th math is simple: move all the voters from the Huckabee pile onto theirs and claim a majority of conservatives.
Won't happen. Huck's supporters support him (largely) for one reason: he's an evangelical Christian. These folks are not going to jump to a Mormon candidate...Sorry, his religion is an issue with many.
The other thing that was a revelation was the news from Lousiana where the block of pro-life so-cons going to the state convention to select delegates are committed to McCain. Every one of them. This tells me that Romney stands no chance of simply getting "all" of Huck's supporters.
And wasn't it not too long ago that Hewitt and company were saying that Huck wasn't a conservative at all? So, how can his supporters coming over to Romney make up a "conservative majority."
This kind of blindness based on an emotional investment in Romney is what passes for political analysis from Hugh Hewitt these days. He should never have gotten in bed with Romney to the extent that he has. He's painted himself into a corner, and now that Romney is proving NOT to be the great conservative savior (give GOP voters credit for seeing through Romney), Hewitt sees no way out.
A friend in Oregon responded to the above:
I stopped reading or listening to Hewitt sometime last summer, having watched him self-destruct by utterly (and eagerly) destroying his credibility and integrity. Some of his regular readers are genuinely certifiable. I just could not see the point in wasting further time or energy on them.
Instead, I sent a large donation to McCain. At the time, his campaign was universally derided as moribund, at best. I thought it likely that my donation would accomplish nothing of worth--with the notable exception of satisfying my conscience that I had at least tried to do something for my country.
As things changed for the positive, I would return to Hewitt's site only when I needed a good laugh. His post after Romney's religion speech was a particular screamer.
Hewitt claims he will support the GOP nominee, but how can he?
Steve is right: Hewitt has painted himself into the deepest, darkest corner imaginable from which there is no escape.
Check his site on Wednesday morning. His post should be the most hilarious one yet.
Bruce
McCain: Talk Show Critics
Last night, I was on Eric Dondero's BlogTalkRadio.com/Libertarian, and the host and I got into a good exchange about McCain. His point was that McCain was too liberal. My point was that the facts, such as the ratings by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the Club For Growth indicated that McCain was a conservative.
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
The host continued to disagree. I said that he had an intellectual and moral obligation to support McCain. I cited the "Club for Growth" rankings for 2005 and 2006 that gave McCain a (good) rating of 76% for both years. The host wondered if Hillary didn't also have some decent rating from that group. I cited The Almamac of American Politics, which showed the Club (fiscal conservatives) gave her a rating of 8% and 0% for the two years.
Thus, when Ann Coulter tells Sean Hannity that "Hillary is our gal," one wonders exactly is going on. Ms. Coulter is not a stupid person, but she is driven mainly by malice and a desire to say outrageous things, which endear her to the conservative "base." Coulter's entire career manifests a commitment not to conservative politics, but rather on increasingly pathetic attempts to call attention to herself. Her support for Hillary Clinton, who doesn't have a conservative bone in her body, illustrates that she has an agenda which is less conservatism than narcissism.
Ann Coulter may be something or other, but her backing of Mrs. Clinton shows that he is not in any sense a conservative. Calling someone a "faggot," as she did Edwards, does not miraculously transform a woman into Margaret Thatcher.
Last night, the Austin Statesman in Texas (see the column below) endorsed McCain and noted that over the years his rating from the American Conservative Union was 82.3%, which is a very conservative performance. The ACU rankings for Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 were an anemic 8% and 12%.
The FACTS -- a category not much valued by Limbaugh and Coulter types -- show that McCain is a moderate conservative, and Mrs. Clinton (like Obama) is a robotic liberal. That is NOT my opinion. Rather, it is what the facts show.
John Kasich, former Ohio congressman who is one of the great conservatives of our time, said on FOX yesterday: "John McCain is NOT a liberal. In fact, John McCain is not really a moderate. John McCain is a conservative." Kasich, like many national conservatives (Tom Coburn, Rick Perry, Peter King, Saxby Chamblis, Jonny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham) is strongly endorsing McCain.
I would say McCain is a conservative with a conscience. He is not anti-gay, nor anti-Hispanic, nor anti-Black, not anti-women professionals, nor anti-young people. He is a Republican in Arizona who wins his races there by huge margins (79% to 21% last time).
So why do the Limbaughs, Coulters, and Hewitts dislike John McCain so much? Part of it is their effort to boost ratings by making outrageous comments. A big element is the fact that McCain despises them for their shallowness and ideological fanaticism. Rush and his "proud dittoheads" have lost their grip on the Party. Their conservative alternatives -- Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, (Fred) Thompson, (Tommy) Thompson, and Paul -- couldn't come close to winning elections. They have NO support. Republicans across the country have rejected them. They have declared Rush and Sean and Laura and Ann and Hugh to be irrelevant to the nation's politics. A "dittohead" appears to be nothing more than a person incapable of independent thought.
I told my host/friend last night that he really didn't have a "right" to his opinion, because there were no facts behind his views. Opinions without any basis in fact are delusions. We have a constitutional right, I guess, to be wrong, but we don't have an intellectual or moral right to ignore reality.
I disagree with John McCain on a few of his votes, but frankly that doesn't mean I must be "right" and he must be wrong. When he voted against the anti-gay-marriage amendment, he said it was "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states believe does not confront them." Is he really "wrong" when he cites the obvious? The American people's stance on something like gay marriage is that they're bored by the subject.
You will not find McCain's thoughtful, constitutionalist statements coming out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter. Their listeners want red meat. They want slogans and venom. They live for polarization and animosity. The wear their bloody banner of Red State simplisms as if it were a badge of honor.
John McCain rejectes the politics of hatred. He will go down in history as a great man and, hopefully, as a great President. His talk show critics will continue to express their half-baked "opinions" to a diminishing group of people who drool heavily.
"For many Americans, John McCain is the closest thing our politics has to a national hero, a presidential candidate widely admired in 2000 and an independent leader of great force in the years after." (Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008, p. 95)
I received the following from Sharon. I agree with her completely.
Concur 100% -- don't waste time on the unappeasables that John McCain will never please no matter how hard he would try. All you have to do is look at how pro-life Sen McCain has been verus Romney and yet the so-called conservative leaders are going to Romney. Makes no sense. They have been pandered to for so many years that it is their way or no way even if it means losing elections. Believe this group has driven a lot of people in the Republican Party to quit being active or register as Independents -- we need to get them back in the Republican Party or we are going to keep losing elections.
Past time for the Republican Party to reach out to voters and welcome them without a litmus test. Long time Conservative who prefers to call herself a Common Sense Republican today.
Thanks for inviting those of us from the Rudy camp to join you! We will work just as hard to elect Sen McCain as we would have for Rudy.
Sharon Caliendo
Norman, OK
Note: Sharon is the founder of the Yahoo Group for Rudy Giuliani, which has now become the Rudy Supporters for McCain. She's one of the finer people in American politics.
The following is from Greg:
I did something last night that I said I'd never do....I watched the Fox News Channel. Specifically, the "All-Stars" on Special Report.
They were talking about whether conservatives could rally around Romney quick enough to change the dynamics of the race, and particularly by Tuesday. Fred Barnes said, "Too late." Mort said, "Romney should campaign hard for the nominee (McCain), and position himself as the next in line for the presidency." [Shudder] As usual, Charles Krauthammer had the most insightful insight: He noted, in looking at the polls running through this primary season, McCain and Rudy split about 50% of the Republicans, and with the post-Florida Fox News poll showing McCain with 48% of Republicans support, Krauthammer's conclusion is that McCain got ALL of Rudy's supporters.
And the reason for this is because of Rudy's behavior after Florida. Other candidates who have gotten out of the race and endorsed one of their opponents have never acted like Rudy -- joining themselves to the hip of their former opponent, being seen everywhere with them, going on The Tonight Show together. Rudy's enthusiasm -- genuine enthusiasm -- for McCain, apparently, has brought all of his supporters over to McCain. I know I wouldn't be very enthusiastic for McCain if it weren't for watching Rudy's support for him over the past four days. It's truly quite amazing.
As for conservatives rallying around Romney, the only ones I've seen over the past few days come to Mitt are some talkshow hosts -- Mark Levin, Sean Hannity. Rush hasn't formally endorsed, but he's been savaging McCain for weeks now. I think what's interesting is to see how little impact these people actually have among rank-and-file Republicans. GOP voters are ignoring these talkshow hosts, including Hugh Hewitt who has been shilling for Romney for the better part of a year. By dumping on the presumptive nominee, they're marginalizing themselves. Frankly, I'm delighted their flailing is falling on deaf ears.
Greg (of RudySupportersforMcCain on Yahoo)
Friday, January 25, 2008
IMMIGRATION; GOOD FOR WELCOMING COUNTRIES
This weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I've have one of those columns that goes on . . . and on . . . and on about John McCain and immigration. However, I urge you to read the previous column, borrowed from Sanity102. She writes about some thoroughly misguided criticisms of McCain, including those by Hugh Hewitt, a talk-radio shill for Mitt Romney. In previous columns, you'll also see my comments about future President Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska.
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
Several of the ideas on my immigration columns will come from one of my favorites sources: The (London) Economist. In an opinion piece called "Keep the Borders Open," the magazine's sub-head is: "The backlash against immigrants in the rich world is a threat to prosperity everywhere."
The Economist's general point is this: ". . . Most often migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work. History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity."In other words, the standard anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the far-right, the nativists, is far removed from reality. More to follow this weekend . . .
Here's more of what The Economist says about immigration, which sounds a lot like what Senators McCain, Kyl, and Graham say about it:"History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of million of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign born are doing in America today. Many migrants return home, with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion -- more, in many countries, than aid and foreign investment combined. Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world's poor than stuffing any number of [checks into appeals from charities]."
- The Economist points out that immigrants play a critical, positive role in the American economy. For example:
- Roughly one-third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in Physics in the past seven years were born abroad; and,
- About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants; and,
Approximately one-third of Silicon Valley companies were started by foreign-born individuals (mainly Indian or Chinese).
However, what about low-skilled workers, many of them from South of the U.S. border? In fact, their skills levels are about the same as those of our immigrant grandparents or great-grandparents. There's a tremendous need in our country for people who will do work that native-born Americans avoid.
What The Economist is saying is what John McCain believes. Oh, and those beliefs happen to be accurate.
More to follow on Saturday . . .
A SANE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION
In The Economist, January 5-11, 2008, the London-based publication has a fascinating 14-page special report on “migration” (called “immigration” in the U.S.).
In our country, immigration has been an extremely contentious issue, and Senator John McCain’s support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) has hurt his candidacy. He’s been accused – falsely, I believe – of favoring “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, and that kind of accusation can be the kiss of death in Republican politics.
The Economist’s position is that immigration is a good thing – a source of diversity, technological advances, and prosperity. In other words, it thinks people like McCain (which the magazine generally favors) are right, while their critics are wrong.
The publication says, “. . . Most often, migration is about young, motivated, dynamic people seeking to better themselves by hard work.” It adds, “History has shown that immigration encourages prosperity. Tens of millions of Europeans who made it to the New World in the 19th and 20th centuries improved their lot, just as the near 40 million foreign-born are doing in America today.”
Much of the debate over immigration involves sloganeering, such as “the rule of law.” In fact, the U.S. has modified many laws that were irrational or immoral, such as the “law” that Black people counted for three-fifths as much as White people. It also eliminated the law that said women couldn’t vote. In the past generation, the country modified the law for those fleeing Communist Cuba, allowing those who reached our shores to stay.
The real issue will immigration – legal or even illegal – boils down to this: Is it a good thing, or a bad one? That is, do people immigrating to this nation provide more benefits than debits?
The Economist admits there can be negatives associated with immigration. It notes that politicians have a tendency to pander to “xenophobic fears. Also, it admits that large numbers of immigrants can provoke job fears among natives. What’s more, it’s clear that huge disparities of income across borders could result in a stream of incomers turning into a flood.
Yet, the magazine sees immigration mainly as a plus. It notes that “many migrants return home with new skills, savings, technology, and bright ideas. Remittances to poor countries in 2006 were worth at least $260 billion . . . Letting in migrants does vastly more good for the world’s poor than [sending off charitable contributions.”
In addition, “The movement of people also helps the rich world. Prosperous countries with graying workforces [America, Europe, and Japan, among them] rely ever more on young foreigners . . . . Around a third of the Americans who won Nobel Prizes in physics in the past seven years were born abroad. About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.”
In short, The Economist disagrees sharply with the nativist wing of the Republican Party. The points the magazine makes are the same kind that motivated John McCain, Jon Kyl, Lindsay Graham and others to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In the face of persuasive arguments, anti-immigrant slogans aren’t enough.
Sanity102: Why McCain's "The Man"
If you want to sign up as a blogger/onliner for Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, a future U.S. President, you can do so by going to Adam's blog. Sarah, I'd recommend that you talk soon to Senator John McCain. It's increasingly likely he will choose you as his running "mate."
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com. Please visit her fine blog, and do the same with Christoper in MI: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/, as well as the blog of GenXDad.
Excuse me?
Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?
Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture. And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"
EXCUSE ME??
I'm borrowing the following column from Sanity 102, who posted it at: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com. Please visit her fine blog, and do the same with Christoper in MI: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/, as well as the blog of GenXDad.
Excuse me?
Ok, Hugh Hewitt has gone too far.Did you know that McCain's adopted "black" [actually, she's Asian] daughter was "given" to McCain and his wife to adopt by Mother Theresa? Did you know that the war in Iraq would never have turned around if McCain had not pushed for the Surge?
Did you know that if his "gang of 14" had not agreed to being reasonable, there would be no Alito, no Roberts, No great judicary picks on the Appellate Courts because the Dems would STILL be filibustering. And if the GOP had used the "nuclear option", the now Democratic majority would be able to do the same?
Did you know that the reason McCain fought against the tax cuts was because he wanted what MOST Conservatives complain that Bush and Company DIDN'T do...cut spending at the same time?
Did you know that while most civilians think torture is ok, MOST of those serving, especially in combat, do not? That part of the reason for McCain's disapproval of torture for prisoners is because he spent years during the Vietnam War as a POW and experienced first hand torture. And unlike Hewitt whose connection to the military is a wife's father, McCain served his country for over two decades.Did you know that his father and grandfather served? And that at least one of his sons is serving now in the war zone? Can any of the major candidates claim that type of dedication to our nation?
Did you know that as a border state senator, he has pushed for funding for border security and REASONABLE method of dealing with illegals...and that his border state has returned McCain to Congress 4 times...the last 6 year run in 2004...2 years AFTER 9/11 (the year that the border situation was supposed to have become vital)?
Did you know that McCain was pro-life before Reagan, Fred Thompson, and Romney were pro-life? Yet...today Hewitt pointed out that the next president would appoint 4 maybe 5 judges to the SCOTUS...and asked, "do you TRUST McCain over Romney and Rudy to appoint strict constitutionists?"
EXCUSE ME??
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
HUGH HEWITT'S MITT ROMNEY PROBLEM
"Hugh Hewitt, a reputation is a terrible thing to waste."
Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.
When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.
However, as a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.
In fact, Mitt Romney is not a effective candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens.
There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.
Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and cease the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.
On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.
So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).
steve maloney
FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowdQuestions
by Jerry Bowyer
Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?
When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment.
Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process?
Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?
Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]
If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?
Are used goods, non-taxable?
If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?
What about the transition period?Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought?
If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.
[Other big questions follow]Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?
If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.
If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?
That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.
Hugh Hewitt of Townhall.com is a person with a well-earned reputation as a talk how host and blogger. However, he is spending his reputational capital in much the manner of McCain's overly indulgent sailor.
When it comes to candidate Mitt Romney, Hugh quite literally "wrote the book." That is, he has a financial interest in Romney's doing well -- and perhaps even winning the presidency.
However, as a responsible political analyst, Hugh has an obligation to look at any candidate -- including his beloved "Mitt" -- in at least a mildly objective way. That means examining the canidate's pros and his CONS. It means outlining where a candidate is weak -- and where he's strong.
In fact, Mitt Romney is not a effective candidate. In some polls, his "negatives" come close to equalling those of Hillary Clinton. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney squandered big early leads in the polls and ended up finishing a distant second. In national polls, he's been stuck in the low teens.
There's no evidence he could come close to winning in a national election against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
American voters generally look at Mitt Romney as too rich (and pouring big chunks of his vast fortune into the campaign), too slick, too liberal (in liberal states), too disingenuous (in conservative states), and much too quick to "go negative," hurting his own campaign and that of others'.
Hugh, I appeal to you: stop the cheerleading, and cease the gushing about "Team Romney," which is a losing "team." Hugh, you're looking like a political "Johnny-One-Note." Your readers are now making fun of you, and that's not a good situation.
On this blog, I note the candidate(s) I favor and don't fail point out their warts. Romney is spending a lot more money than his opponents, and his performance is not good. It would strengthen Hugh's credibility if he showed some basic signs of balance, which he doesn't when it comes to Mitt Romney.
So, Hugh Hewitt, stop compromising your reputation -- and invest your time instead on giving a clear-eyed analysis of the many fascinating political developments. I've done that on my own blog, and in this case the teacher (you) needs to learn from the student (me).
steve maloney
FAIR-TAX A NON-STARTER?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JerryBowyer/2008/01/09/questions_for_the_fair_tax_crowdQuestions
by Jerry Bowyer
Why do you think that a sales tax is less prone to corruption and complexity than an income tax?
When the income tax was originally promoted by William Jennings Bryan and other populists it was labeled as being fairer, since it would not hit the poor. When initially implemented it was very simple. However, over time special interest groups were able to lobby for exemptions, deductions, and other special treatment.
Why would a sales tax not undergo the same process?
Does the fair tax somehow magically abolish selfishness?Are sales taxes, where they are currently in operation, simple and free from special interest lobbying?The Europeans have a sales tax, called the VAT, which is extremely complex. Why wouldn’t that happen here? States have sales taxes, which, even despite their low rates still have long lists of items which are exempt or not exempt, and they still have people who cheat on them. If this happens at low rates, why wouldn’t it happen at much higher rates? Does moving the concept from Europe to the U.S., or from the State level to the national level, somehow render the legislative process more pure? If so, why is our income tax so riddled with complexity and special pleading to begin with?
Does it apply to non-profits? [And if not, why not?]
If so, then they’ve become taxable and it would discourage charity. Also, wouldn’t churches become taxable? Aren’t there constitutional issues here? If not, then the tax advantage of non-profits disappears. If they’d be taxed the same way as businesses, wouldn’t this remove a great deal of tax encouragement for non-profit enterprise and shift talent and treasure away from that sector?
Are used goods, non-taxable?
If so, this means less goods production, more yard sales, eBay stuff, etc. Won’t this hurt traditional retailers and goods producers? Why wouldn’t this encourage evasion through rehabilitation? After all what exactly constitutes New vs. Used? If I repair a car, it’s used, but what if I upgrade it? New engine, but old chassis, is that new or used? Computers, too. New hard-drive, but old CPU; is that new or used? How does this not get complicated?
What about the transition period?Before the sales tax takes effect, won’t there be a buying binge? Afterwards, won’t there be a buying drought?
If so, doesn’t that cause a debt spike to finance purchases before the ‘sale’ ends? The implications for banking and currency policy are way too complicated for me to foresee.
[Other big questions follow]Isn’t it true that the rate is not really 23% but 30% at least, because it’s tax-inclusive?And even this does not count dynamic effects in which changed behavior and evasion narrow the base and raise the rate.How do we determine the interest portion of mortgage payment?
If non-specified, business will simply give big discounts on price and then make up for it in the interest calculation, as interest is deemed non-taxable. These calculations are highly malleable and can become very complex. Homes will be financed with low-ball prices and high interest rates, and sup-prime mortgages will skyrocket.
If a cap is put on excludable interest, then at what rate? Federal rates?
That makes the Fed a tax-setting agency and hyper-politicizes monetary policy.
Mr. Bowyer [of Allegheny County, PA] is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a [frequent] CNBC contributor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
