Re: a first look at 2012
Frank J. Fleming writes,
I don’t know if Cheney is a real person or if he’s liberals’ fears of inadequacy on national defense given form.
When I predicted that the Republican presidential nominee of 2012 would be one of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, I forgot Dick Cheney, about whom I had a vague, evidently mistaken notion that he was retiring in ill health. Yes, by all means, please do add Mr. Cheney’s famous name to the list.
Mark Sanford, Bobby Jindal and even Tim Pawlenty are all interesting but, as I have explained earlier, 2012 will not be their year. Unless I am mistaken, one of the aforementioned five will lead the GOP in 2012. The five make a deep stable; no sixth seems likely to break through the door of it.
The Economic Nationalist, incidentally, likes and—as of now—warmly supports four of the five, the only exception being Newt Gingrich, of whom the blog is skeptical but who is probably the least likely of the five to be nominated in any event. Even Mr. Gingrich would be far preferable to George W. Bush or John McCain.
Do not credit the disappointment and fear, the doom and gloom, that seem to pervade the U.S. right today. Heading into 2012, thus far, the Republican party stands in fine shape; and there is no Bush or McCain on the scene, waiting to mislead it, this time.
Having stopped Mr. McCain, we’re going to be all right. You’ll see.
HJH
June 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
“Having stopped Mr. McCain, we’re going to be all right. You’ll see.”
I sure hope you’re right Howard, but it’s difficult to find much to be optimistic about:
- Obama is going to push for government run health care this summer, while he has a majority in both houses. The government can’t even run decent passenger trains (OK, there are a couple of exceptions, but you get my drift), what makes anyone think they can run medicine?
- Some pundits say the Sotomayor nomination is a crumb being thrown to the Latino pressure groups, since there won’t be amnesty this year. I disagree - I think Obama’s going to try to do that while he still has the political capital to spend.
- Bernanke’s comments yesterday urging fiscal restraint notwithstanding, Obama is going to keep spending, running up deficits, and then try to inflate his way out of trouble. The Democrats in Congress sense that this may be their best and perhaps last opportunity for a while to spend spend spend, so they are going to throw all caution to the wind.
- Obama is signaling weakness every time he sets foot on foreign soil and makes a speech. He’s basically putting a sign on our back as a country that says “kick me.” Someone is going to take him up on the invitation, trust me on that.
- Obama is going to indirectly make an attempt to shut down talk radio, through “diversity” and local contect regulations. I expect him to do the same to the internet as well. With the MSM in the bag for Obama already, where are we going to go if we want to hear a point of view opposing the Annointed One’s latest pronouncement?
- A VAT is being discussed to supplement the existing federal income tax. Some say it’s a trial balloon, but I haven’t heard any official of the administration disavow it, so I have to assume it’s being seriously considered.
Like I said, I sure hope I’m wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Dick Cheney served as the lightening rod for GWB and as such he has too many black marks against him to ever make it to the presidency in my opinion. He also has the strongest understanding of the job of all those mentioned in this list.
In the last round, Huckabee was identified as an open borders person, so how can we hope for any sort of national sovereignty with someone like that leading the nation?
Romney definitely has the right sort of experience background, but he brings a northeastern (Mass.) background (yes, I know he came from Mich.) that I don’t think people will trust. He seems like at neo-con at best.
Gingrich talks a good game, I think, perhaps the best. But we have seen what he has done in the past, and it wasn’t pretty. I do not think he will be able to gain the trust and support required.
Sarah Palin is probably the most exciting (and I mean that literally) of the group, simply because she is an attractive woman. I think she would do a sight better job than Zero, but I think the nation is going to be so fed up with a feminized president that she may not have a chance for that reason. I think a strong man is going to be required after Zero.
So….. I don’t see much hope for your list, Howard. I’m still looking for Superman to step forward, and I don’t have any idea what his name is. (That’s a bad sign, since name recognition is a part of the game!)
A VAT would be almost a joke. Nobody is going to be adding any value, because nobody is going to be doing anything at all. Everybody is going to be simply sitting around waiting for the Government to take care of them. What a great country! (We used to really have a great country, but that was back when …)
June 7th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The remarks are well taken, though I do not have much to add to them. I would offer only one comment on the value-added tax (VAT).
The prospect of a U.S. VAT is a technical matter that descends from the badly misguided General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), to which the U.S. is regrettably signatory, which establishes the World Trade Organization (WTO) of which you have undoubtedly heard. GATT makes it difficult for signatories to raise tariffs, but evidently it leaves a loophole for countries with a VAT to levy the VAT on imports while rebating it on exports, a maneuver which, though not a tariff in form, resembles a tariff in effect. The U.S., lacking a VAT, cannot exercise this maneuver, leaving us at a relative trading disadvantage to foreign competitors that can. The proposal is to give us a VAT to let us play the aforementioned game.
Personally, I don’t see the point; nor do I see the benefit to the U.S. of belonging to the WTO, where the U.S. vote carries the same weight as that of Trinidad and Tobago. A tariff is simpler, less bureaucratic, more straightforward and explicitly blessed by the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, illogically, the VAT is supposed to enjoy support by Congressmen who oppose a tariff. Were I a Congressman, I would probably take advantage of this illogic by co-operating with such fellow Congressmen to enact a back-door tariff by way of a VAT.
I like Mrs. Palin, too. I’ll take turns at watch with you on the wall, Dr.D, looking out for Superman, as you say.
Howard