Bill Cammack » republican

The Current Republican Problem

Bill Cammack — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:11:46 +0000

I started paying attention to American Presidential politics 6 months ago, which is 2 months longer than my second-longest relationship, but that’s neither here nor there… >:D

So far, everything’s gone exactly the way I said it would, except for a few things I didn’t know about when I started blogging about this stuff.

The only reason people were pumping Bachmann was because she was a protest vote against Romney.

As soon as Perry announced he was in the race, Bachmann was over, because they’re the same person, except he’s male and she’s female, which means he wins the votes.

Bachmann disappeared.

I wanted Jon Huntsman to be sent against President Obama, because that would have been an interesting contrast of ideas, AND Huntsman carries himself Presidentially, which makes sense, since he’s been an ambassador for the USA for ages, AND Huntsman was #1 in job creation when he was Governor of Utah, which is what the American people need right now.. Jobs.

Huntsman never gained traction and disappeared.

Buddy Roemer had a lot of good ideas, but never gained traction and is now running as an Independent.

They tried to pump Rick Perry up as Steve Austin, the 6 Milliion Dollar Man by posing him in commercials with American flags and soup-up music and narration, but as soon as he started speaking, it was clear he wasn’t ready for the national stage and needed to stay in Texas.

Perry bounced.

Cain was a joke from the beginning, but gained traction for being the only candidate to actually say what he planned to do.

While everyone else was just saying “boo, Obama”, Cain was pubbing his 999 plan, which Americans gravitated to, because SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, which is what the rest of the Republican candidates are offering.

Anyway.. Cain got sidetracked because he’s been paying some chick’s rent for 13 years behind his wife’s back, so either he’s a sucker or he was gettin’ some on the side this whole time.

In order to not have any MORE of his skeletons fall out of the closet, Cain bounced.

That left us with our final four:

Ron Paul isn’t a real candidate. He’s just hanging around collecting delegates so he’ll be able to request a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention and talk about liberty.

Newt Gingrich is a jerk, according to a bunch of people that have worked with him in the past.

Not that a jerk can’t get elected President, but there’s too much dirt on him and Romney’s team demolished him with videos that are still available on YouTube to this day.

In fact, Republicans are scared that if they run Gingrich, they’re going to lose seats in Congress as well as lose the general election, so they’re doing anything they can to prevent him from succeeding.

I had predicted Gingrich’s exit from the race way before now, but what I didn’t know was that a billionaire could (and did) singlehandedly back his play and give him millions of dollars to afford to keep running.

If I would have known at the beginning that a) nobody can be ejected from the race because it’s clear that they’re not going to win, or even for gross incompetence (in the case of Perry, Cain, and Bachmann), and b) all you need to run for President is money, so as long as you still have it, you don’t have to “suspend” your campaign, I would have said that Gingrich was going to stay in as long as he has money.

Rick Santorum is mostly known for getting kicked out of office by 18 points in 2006 => campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/why-did-santorum-lose-2006/376896

At this point, he’s known for being a religious fanatic that can’t stay on-message about jobs and the economy.

In fact.. Here’s what he had to say recently *ABOUT* jobs and the economy:

YouTube Link => youtu.be/bYH20Go9cgo

He said “I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s gonna be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on employment rates and growth rates.”

So the people sitting at home watching this are going “Why the **** should I vote for THIS guy, when he’s not focused on getting ME a job?”

Santorum is another one that should have been out of the race by now, except he has a billionaire Sugar Daddy pumping funds into his Super PAC.

That leaves Mitt Romney, whom I said from the beginning was the only real candidate this entire time.

There are two basic reasons I believed this.

The first one is that none of the rest of the candidates were viable. This is obvious to the most casual observer. It’s like sending an 8-year-old Little League pitcher to Major League Baseball and expecting him to strike out grown-ass men. These people were jokes from the beginning, and it’s embarrassing that they lasted so long.

The second one is that nothing that Romney says is believable, which is an asset, because he’s the only one that’s going to be able to turn around in the general election and say “hehe :D I didn’t actually mean any of that stuff I said during the Republican candidacy process. I was just saying that to get those yahoos to send me to the big dance.”

None of the rest of them can make it back to the center for the general election.

Santorum has entrenched himself as a zealot.

Gingrich has entrenched himself as a jerk.

Paul isn’t a factor.

Romney is the only one that has videotape of himself advocating for BOTH SIDES of a lot of important issues. Right now, he’s being attacked for that, but, in fact, it’s the only thing that gives him the slightest chance of defeating President Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

YouTube Link => youtu.be/cKtNYmsarUE

YouTube Link => youtu.be/X6NArPUFLRI

They’re making a big deal out of what’s supposedly a “gaffe” by Romney’s homeboy, but he’s telling the truth. Romney’s going to pivot away from the last several months of tomfoolery and present himself as a viable alternative to Barack Obama.

He’s going to do that by appealing to Independents and Moderates by telling them what they want to hear. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul are too far gone to try that.

Another thing I didn’t realize until my fellow Facebook pundits, Sam & Rahsan pointed out to me, is that there’s a subset of Republicans called Conservatives.

I thought they were all on the same team, and that they had all agreed that what they wanted most out of life was to make Barack Obama a one-term President. That’s why I thought they were going to back Romney relatively quickly.

In fact, Conservatives know that Romney IS NOT a Conservative, and nominating him is a toss-up. There’s no telling if he’s going to do *ANYTHING* that Conservatives want done. That’s why they’ve been clamoring to elect ANYBODY but him.. I mean, besides religious issues.

So, the current Republican problem is that they can’t trust the only guy that could POSSIBLY defeat President Obama to do anything DIFFERENT than what Obama would do if he’s reelected to another 4-year term.

This is why some of them are backing Santorum, even though he was never viable in the first place, and digs his hole deeper every day, with his ridiculous, shoot-from-the-hip comments that he says in front of people that agree with him and then are publicized over the internet to millions of people that DON’T agree with him.

At this point, I feel like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels refused to enter the Republican race because they knew that they would have been nominated.

If they would have been nominated and then *LOST* to Barack Obama after all this trash they’ve talked about him, they would have gone down in history as major losers.

By sending Romney, they win either way. If he wins, none of their names have been tarnished, and they can try to run for President in the future. If he loses, none of their names have been tarnished, and they can try to run for President in the future.

It will be interesting to see what happens… I think Ann Coulter called it from the giddyap:

“Game Change” Review [Part 01 of 02]

Bill Cammack — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:35:23 +0000

What It Is

“Game Change” is an HBO film about Sarah Palin that was based on a book that was written by the dude that called President Obama a dick on national television:

YouTube Link => youtu.be/449FGJwDQRY

According to the interviews I’ve seen, the book is actually about both the Democrat and Republican races in 2008, but since they had to condense it to a 2-hour movie, they elected to focus on the Palin angle.

Also according to video footage I’ve seen, both Palin and John McCain have denounced the film, even though neither had seen it at the time of their interviews, but that makes sense if they weren’t personally consulted about the script and the potential authenticity (or not) of the book it was based on.

Why I Watched It

I don’t give a flying **** about politics. The only reason I’ve been paying attention to the 2012 Presidential race, and blogging about it, is because I was entirely amazed that the Republicans (in my non-politics-following estimation) threw up a “Hail Mary” and forfeited the 2008 Presidential campaign by selecting Sarah Palin to run as Vice President with John McCain.

As soon as Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America, my quest in life became to figure out WHY the Republicans made that choice. That’s why I’ve been closely monitoring the 2012 nomination process, and I’ve been learning, but “Game Change”, fictional or not, gives me the insight I’ve been craving, as to how this could possibly have happened.

Initially, I felt like the 2008 election was going to be fascinating, yet typical. I thought the best thing that could possibly happen is that the Democrats were going to run Hillary Clinton and lose decisively in the general election, merely on the male vs. female President issue.

I had never in my life heard of Barack Obama as of February 09, 2007, when I posted the video “WHEN Hillary Is President” => http://billcammack.com/2007/02/09/reelsolidtv-episode-39-when-hillary-is-president/

YouTube Link => youtu.be/EZBf472OsnM

Eventually, I heard (probably because I walked by a television that was running somewhere, because I don’t watch the news) that a black guy was running, and he was actually a viable candidate this time, not just a symbolic “Non-whites can be President, too! :O” social token.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_candidates_for_President_of_the_United_States

In 1888 Frederick Douglass was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention. Afterward during the roll call vote, he received one vote, so was nominally a candidate for the presidency. In those years, the candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency were chosen by state representatives voting at the nominating convention. Many decisions were made by negotiations of state and party leaders “behind closed doors.” Douglass was not a serious candidate in contemporary terms.

In 1972, Shirley Chisholm was the first African-American major party candidate for president. She was a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination and participated in the Democratic primaries in numerous states.[1] She campaigned in 12 states and won 28 delegates.[2] In 1984 and 1988, Jesse Jackson was the first major party black candidate to run nationwide primary campaigns. He also ran as a Democratic Party candidate.[3]

In 1992 Alan Keyes was the first African-American candidate to run in the Republican presidential primaries.[citation needed] Keyes ran again, unsuccessfully, in 1996, 2000, and 2008. In 2004, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton ran as unsuccessful candidates in the Democratic primaries. “Tea Party” Republican Herman Cain has announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2012, though he has since suspended his campaign.

So I was fascinated by this concept and wanted to know how the American people were going to respond to a real candidate, as opposed to one of these “Run, Jesse, Run! :D” situations that was immensely historically significant while simultaneously logically ridiculous => en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson#1984_presidential_campaign.

I was totally like “It’s possible… It’s possible…. It’s possible…..” until I heard the Republicans selected Palin, at which point I immediately said to myself “Barack Obama is going to be President! :D” HAHAHAHA I mean, I had no doubt in my mind that the race was over when I heard about Palin.

President Palin

The reason I knew it was over was because the Republicans shifted the focus from disinterest in McCain to VIRULENT opposition to “President Palin”.

I see, from “Game Change”, why they selected her, and it may have been the best thing they could have done to try to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but to someone like myself, who doesn’t care about politics at all, this became the entire focus:

“This dude McCain doesn’t look all that healthy. If he croaks in office, we will have unwittingly elected Sarah Palin President of the United States of America.”

That concept, Palin being the actual President, was enough to get *ANYBODY* off their asses and to the polls to prevent that.

Once I found out about that, I was like “people are going to vote like crazy *AGAINST* the Republican ticket, even if they weren’t already going to vote *FOR* the Democrats”.

This all happened immediately for me. There was no doubt in my mind AT ALL that the Republicans were extremely desperate and the race was over as soon as they announced Palin… This was *BEFORE* we found out all the extra stuff about her in the upcoming weeks.

It’s like when you’re going to select a team for sports. First, you want to pick a good quarterback. If you can’t throw the ball and you can’t scramble, you’re probably going to lose. SECOND.. You have to pick a good wide receiver. If the WR can’t get open, there’s nobody for the QB to throw to, and you still lose.

When Obama picked Biden, that was the 1-2 punch. I was like “McCain is going to have to pick a GOOD Vice President in order to..” then they announced Palin, and I was like “It’s over! :D”

I think one of the major miscalculations the Republicans made was thinking that all females are similar. They aren’t.

Just because lots of people were ready to support Hillary Clinton, that doesn’t mean you can pick any woman out of a hat and run her one 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from being President.

Anyway.. I wanted to give my personal background for watching “Game Change”.. In fact, if I had known they were making this movie, I could have saved myself the last six months of misery, watching the Republican nomination tomfoolery, trying to get a clue about how a Palin selection was even possible, *AND* whether the Republicans had any better selections, four years later…

Game Change

This film wasn’t created by asking Palin or McCain what actually happened, but the filmmakers claim that they researched the situations with a lot of people that were there and witnessed it, such as Nicolle Wallace, one of Sarah Palin’s top advisers, who was featured prominently in the film, and who said that “Game Change” was true enough to make her squirm.

That doesn’t make the movie authentic, but it’s different from just speculating about what someone was thinking. You have people that stood there and listened to her say what she said and watched her do what she did.

I wanted to say that up front, because this is a theatrical presentation, which shouldn’t be taken as “word is bond”, but more like an approximation of what probably happened behind the scenes.

YouTube Link => youtu.be/IPhh7mch5zo

I think the first important point is that they selected Ed Harris to play John McCain.

Ed Harris is a *BRILLIANT* actor. He plays people that you’re supposed to hate, but you root for them anyway, such as the super-evil badguy expert sniper in “Enemy At The Gates”. He picks somebody off, and you’re like “OOH!.. NICE SHOT! :D” instead of “DAMN HIM!!! :(”

Also, Ed Harris is currently in good shape. In 2008, John McCain was not. One thing that was missing from the film was the horrific concept that I mentioned above, which was “What if McCain keels over?”.. Pretty much, you feel in the movie that if McCain would have won, Palin would never have become PotUS (which history shows us at this point is true, because John McCain is currently still alive). That’s one of the feelings that I missed from the presentation. It didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the film, but I noticed that it felt different while I was rooting for Ed Harris to become President, even though I already knew the ending to the story.

Julianne Moore was *FANTASTIC* as Palin. Seriously. Excellent job, from the look to the facial expressions to the speech patterns to the accent. Great! :D

The only thing that broke my immersion of “Moore = Palin” is that they have slightly different body types, with Palin having more bounce to the ounce.

I’m not going to be able to explain to the ladies reading this what difference that makes, but it definitely makes a “That’s not actually Palin” difference. >:D

The other thing that broke my immersion (although I’m sure this was a deliberate scripting and acting decision and not a deficiency), is that when I’m listening to Palin speak, the real one, I can tell that she’s deliberately stacking up comments that bolster the point she’s trying to make, or the opinion she wants people listening to her to have, whether her statements are true or not.

I didn’t get that from Moore’s performance. She didn’t deliver that “I drank Jim Jones’ Flavor Aid” look that you can see ‘behind’ people’s eyes when they’re not honestly interacting with you, but they’re deliberately trying to influence you and they know it.

For the ladies out there, that’s the look you see when you already drove by your man’s car at the strip joint parking lot and then, when he gets home, he tries to sell you that he was working late tonight. It’s a look that’s derived from thinking in the background while you serve your agenda to people. It’s like they’re not really there, but following a script.

Anyway, I didn’t get that from Moore’s performance, which caused the Palin character to be way more endearing. “Game Change” was more of a “fish out of water” story than a “deliberate manipulation of the uneducated masses” story.

Woody Harrelson was really good as well. Really good. :) The only thing that broke my immersion with his performance is that I’ve seen that guy Steve Schmidt that he was playing on television a bunch of times, and Woody would have had to put on a BUNCH more pounds to physically resemble that guy, other than the baldie haircut, which was accurate.

Out of the three main actors, the one that skewed the story for me the most was Ed Harris, because he didn’t look anywhere near 72 years old, and he didn’t look like he was about to keel over any second.

Part of the whole problem in the actual 2008 campaign was that nobody was sure that McCain was going to live through his entire term, meaning that a vote for him was an inadvertent vote for Palin as President, which would have meant that *SHE* could have been the one in charge of our current foreign affairs situation.

YouTube Link => youtu.be/28z5aTiN4UI

So, in “Game Change”, I wasn’t concerned about Harris’ health, so I was able to relax and not feel paranoid about what could have happened if the Republicans had won. That was decidedly *NOT* the case during the real election.

Also, the way Moore portrayed her character, she made Palin seem like way less of a loose cannon than she appeared to be during the incessant “liberal media” coverage of her statements, decisions, and actions during the real election.

This combination allowed me to actually root for McCain and Palin to be elected while I was watching the film. :)

I knew the entire time that Jude Law was going to vanquish Ed Harris in “Enemy At The Gates”, but I was still rooting for Ed when Jude had already gotten the drop on him. There’s an integrity that Harris beings to his characters, where regardless of what you think about them as people, you still have to respect them.

Continued in “Game Change” Review [Part 02 of 02]
–
Follow Bill via YouTube | Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Republican Candidates Play To Stall, Not To Win

Bill Cammack — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:30:26 +0000

Yawn

The pundits are going to bore me for the next few weeks, asking stupid questions about when Gingrich or Santorum are going to drop out of the race against Romney.

They don’t even want to talk about Ron Paul… As usual… In fact, Ron Paul took 40% of the vote in Virginia, with Romney taking 60% because they were the only two on the ballot:

In Virginia Romney Beats Paul In A Head To Head Contest

Romney only took 60% of the vote, against *ONLY* Ron Paul? o_O

Nobody’s getting out of the race. There’s no reason for them to. Ron Paul has already said he’s going all the way to the Convention. Gingrich and Santorum both have billionaire sugar daddies funding their campaigns. They’re running on someone else’s money. There is no reason for *ANY* of the candidates to suspend their campaigns.. AT ALL.

Obstructionist Tactics

By now, Republicans are famous for obstructionist tactics. Mostly in Congress, but they employ those techniques in lots of situations.

For instance, when you ask them why Romney wouldn’t denounce Limbaugh’s statements, they say that he’s not going to go off-message and talk about distracting things, yet, when he has the chance to speak, he talks about how tall the trees are, and all other sorts of nonsense, when he could plainly say that he disagrees with what Limbaugh said in the same amount of breath, but that never happens.

When you ask them why Santorum says the nonsense he says about contraception, they tell women to hold aspirin between their legs so they don’t get pregnant.

When Obama says “Pass This Bill, Right Now”, they say “No”, but they don’t offer anything at all that will get teachers, construction workers, and war veterans jobs.

I could go on and on, but we’re all used to their tomfoolery by now. It’s boring.

My point is that they apply the same techniques to themselves that they use against the Democrats.

This is why the pundits need to STFU and talk about something else BESIDES when these guys are going to drop out of the race.

Santorum and Gingrich are not campaigning to win. They’re campaigning to BLOCK. ROMNEY. FROM. WINNING.

Numbers Game

If you look at the current standings, Romney has 415 delegates:

projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates

or

elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

If he wins every single delegate from now on (which he most definitely will not), he can’t possibly clinch until April 03, 2012, in Wisconsin, where he would finally have 1,173 delegates.

It’s currently March 08, 2012, so that guarantees a full month of Republican tomfoolery and declines in favorability ratings before Romney even gets to stop fighting other Republicans and focus on President Obama.

His next chance after that is April 24, where there are 231 delegates up for grabs, and then he would have to wait until May 08, when 132 delegates come online, so we can probably look forward to not one, but TWO more months of Republican muckraking before they turn the corner to focus on the general election.

The waiting game isn’t even Romney’s main problem… The fact of the matter is that if he doesn’t secure the required 1,144 delegates before the Republican National Convention, he has *ZERO*, I repeat *ZERO* claim to the nomination, and the Republicans can decide to send someone else against Obama in what they call an Open, Contested, or Brokered Convention, which is what I said three months ago, back in December, 2011 => billcammack.com/2011/12/11/brokered-conventions/:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

A brokered convention is a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates ‘won’ during the presidential primary and caucus elections for a single candidate to have a pre-existing majority, during the first official vote for a political party’s presidential candidate at its nominating convention.

Once the first ballot, or vote, has occurred, and no candidate has a majority of the delegates’ votes, the convention is then considered brokered; thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse-trading, and additional re-votes.[1][2][3][4] In this circumstance, all regular delegates (who, previously, were pledged to the candidate who had won their respective state’s primary or caucus election) are “released,” and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate before the next round of balloting. It is hoped that this ‘freedom’ will result in a re-vote resulting in a clear majority of delegates for one candidate.

This means that if Gingrich and Santorum can block Romney from making it to 1,144 delegates, all the millions of dollars he and his Super PAC spent were wasted, because they are not obliged to nominate ANY. ONE. OF. THEM.

This opens the door for Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, or even SARAH PALIN to be the 2012 Republican nominee for PotUS.

Eyes On The Prize

So the actual goal here is *NOT* for Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum to arrive at the convention with more delegates than Romney, it’s for Romney to arrive short of the delegates he needs to clinch, and for the other candidates to have bargaining power at the Convention.

On top of that, they’re not spending their own money… If it weren’t for the new Super PAC rules that allow infinite funding of candidates’ campaigns, neither Gingrich nor Santorum would even be running anymore. They would have gone broke and had to step to the left.

As it stands, both of them are funded all the way to the Convention. Ron Paul has no reason to exit the race either.

Having said all that.. I don’t actually BELIEVE that Romney’s team is going to fall short on securing the necessary delegates before the Convention, which is August 30th, in Tampa, Florida.

I believe Romney will make it, and he’ll be nominated, and he always was the only real Republican candidate in this race, but another two or three months of his own self-defeating sound bites and of Gingrich and Santorum talking trash about him, and Romney will arrive to the general election as a severely weakened and flawed candidate.

What’s actually worse for him is that the only reason I considered him a viable candidate is because he’s flip-flopped on so many topics that there’s just as much video footage of him talking about one side of things as there is of him talking about the exact opposite side.

Romney’s the only one that could turn around to the American people and say “hehe I was just kidding about all that nonsense we were talking about during the nomination process! :D haha I never believed any of that. I just said it to appease the yahoos so they’d vote for me, and now, here’s what I’m REALLY going to do as President…” and he could have made it back to the center and gotten Independents to vote for him.

The longer he has to prove that he’s more radical than Santorum and Gingrich, the shorter the amount of time will be available for him to sprint back to the center, and the more video footage there will be of him saying ridiculous things with no factual foundation, which will be used against him incessantly in the general election.

So anyway, pundits.. Please stop speculating over when Gingrich or Santorum are going to exit the race. They aren’t. So long as their sugar daddies are paying the bills, they’re going to be right up in every single contest, hoping to block Romney from clinching, and hoping that *THEY* will be the one nominated at a Brokered Convention.
–
Follow Bill via YouTube | Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 02]

Bill Cammack — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:13:38 +0000

Continued from “What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 01]“

Voluntary Deportation

The problem is that the USA already *HAS* a society of working peasants. They’re called Illegal Immigrants.

Being that this entire land mass was originally inhabited by so-called “Indians” (because Columbus was *NOT* in India when he got here) and what are now known as Mexicans, which is why Eskimos north of the USA and Mexicans south of the USA don’t look too different from each other, the native inhabitants tend to leak back into this country.

Since they’re broke (poor, destitute), yet have skills in landscaping, carpentry, whatever, company owners know that they can pay them sub-Minimum-Wage rates, right here in America.

What are they gonna do? o_O Tell the cops and get deported? :D

So, the same way “Job Creators” get money overseas from foreign people that they don’t have to pay “properly” for working, the same thing has already been done right here, for a long-ass time.

This is why you hear Republicans clamoring about deporting 11.5 million Mexicans (make no mistake, they’re not talking about Swedes and Japanese when they say Illegal Aliens). They need to clear these people out to make space for the new peasant class that they’re going to create by abolishing Minimum Wage.

Meanwhile, if you listen to them speak, they have no actual plan on how to deport 12 million people. Even Bill O’Reilly asked them to their faces what they were going to do and they stuttered and stammered when he asked them whether they were going to go door-to-door, rounding up Illegals… Bachmann said that when one of them commits a crime, the ICE agents should deport them. O’Reilly said “ok.. What about the people that don’t commit any crimes? o_O” and she had nothing to say for herself.

This is because they’re trying to sell a dream to poor people.

They’re trying to convince them that they actually intend to deport a bunch of non-Americans, so all those CHOICE JOBS like being a busboy or grape-picker for sub-minimum wage will be available so broke Americans can get off of Welfare and Unemployment.

People want to complain that Illegals are TAKING their jobs. That’s not true. Business owners are GIVING the jobs to whomever the lowest bidder is. Americans are currently disallowed to bid less than $7.25 to work for you, while illegals can work for you for $.25 an hour if they’re that desperate.

So, the actual solution isn’t deporting people, but getting business owners to AGREE not to hire Illegals to do anything for them.

According to Mitt Romney, this should set off a round of self-deportation:

YouTube Link => youtu.be/OpQgAzAJQ7I

Everybody knows it’s better to be broke in Mexico than it is to be broke in Los Angeles. :/

So, again.. You have to realize that Illegals aren’t coming here and Bogarting your jobs. People are finding it economically feasible to hire people that they don’t have to pay very much. If Minimum Wage gets eliminated, all kinds of $2/hour jobs will become available to you, which is way less than the bum makes that stands outside of McDonald’s and opens the door for you, begging you for some change on the way out.

If that dude bums a quarter off of four people in 10 minutes, he’s effectively making $6/hour… begging.

Serfs Up

This is one of the reasons why Welfare programs need to be cut down. You can’t get people to work for less money than they can get by doing nothing and receiving government handouts for free.

Personally, I liked that brief period of time where people had to sweep the floor or something in order to receive their Welfare benefits… SOMEBODY has to sweep the floor. :D

Unfortunately.. In order to take people off of welfare, you have to have JOBS for them to do. If you’ve shipped all the jobs overseas and you’re hiring Illegal Aliens to do all the sub-Minimum-Wage jobs that no American actually wants to do anyway, you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

So, the idea is that by decreasing social services, you’re going to be able to force people to join the workforce, even though there aren’t any jobs for them to work, and you want to clear out jobs for them to work by deporting Mexicans.

But Wait! :D There’s More! :D

I’ve been seeing television commercials recently about how some groups are also trying to slow down *LEGAL* IMMIGRATION!!! :D

YouTube Link => youtu.be/-Ls_u4Gt43Y

That has to be the dumbest idea in history.

Slowing down highly-skilled workers and entrepreneurs from LEGALLY becoming a part of the United States economy? :D

Just stupid.

So it appears that the “Jobs Plan” is merely to remove the competition. Remove the low-level workers from the Minimum Wage jobs, and disallow high-level workers from remaining in the USA and contributing to our economy instead of whatever country they came from.

So these particular *IDIOTS* would have liked to have deported Sergey Brin so he could go create GOOGLE in Russia! :D

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Brin

Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin (Russian: Сергей Михайлович Брин; born August 21, 1973) is a Russian-born American computer scientist and Internet entrepreneur who, with Larry Page, co-founded Google, one of the most profitable Internet companies.[4][5] As of 2011, his personal wealth is estimated to be $16.7 billion.[1]

So, without intelligent immigrants, we’re going to need Americans to get college educations, right? :D

YouTube Link => youtu.be/NkjbJOSwq3A

WRONG!!! :D hahaha This tomfoolery is going to be the demise of the current Republican party. By the time these dudes are finished saying really stupid things, the Republican brand will be tarnished to the degree where they’ll get crushed AGAIN in the 2012 general election the way they did in 2008, or worse.

Alternate Philosophy

Perhaps the reason that Republicans seem to have no jobs plan whatsoever is that they appear to have a different philosophy from the Democrats about how jobs are created.

You’ll often hear them say that government doesn’t create jobs, the private sector does.

I wouldn’t know either way, because I’m not a “Job Creator”, but if that’s what they believe, then it would make sense that none of the roads they’re describing leads to anyone getting a job.

Instead, their goal may be to create the circumstances under which in their opinion the market will attain the certainty it needs to cause American business owners to start hiring people… Like, there IS no plan to create jobs because you CAN’T create jobs.. All you can do is enrich and enable the ENVIRONMENT in which jobs are created.

If this is the case, they’re going about it all wrong. They counter a plan by President Obama with “No, we don’t like that”, but they never have an alternative plan.

It would be better if they made their points clear by saying something like “That plan would not stimulate the economy by enabling the private sector to blah blah blah”.

Also, they don’t look intelligent when they counter proposals to put teachers, construction workers and war veterans to work with no plan to put anybody to work.

In fact, the only plan I’ve heard of, which they talk about every single day for some odd reason, is this pipeline they want to build.

According to the Republicans, building the pipeline from Canada will create 20,000 American jobs (other reports have the number as low as 3,000 jobs), *AND* help the USA become energy-independent.. Two things that appear to be in everyone’s best interests.

The problem is that Nebraska is concerned that a spill would contaminate their drinking water => businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/transcanada-to-build-texas-segment-of-keystone-xl-pipeline.html, so 3,000 or 20,000 jobs might not be worth a bunch of people getting poisoned, right? :D

Get On-Message

Here are some links where you can go read what the candidates have to say for themselves:

1. mittromney.com/jobs

2. ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

The problem is that when people are running for PotUS, you shouldn’t have to go find what they’re saying somewhere. You should KNOW what they’re saying. More importantly, you should BELIEVE what they’re saying.

Right now, I should be able to say “Romney’s plan is better for America than Santorum’s plan because XYZ” or “Paul’s plan is better than Gingrich’s plan because XYZ”. I can’t do that. Not because I haven’t been watching and listening, but because all they want to talk about is Gingrich cheating on his wiveS and Santorum being a fanatic and Paul’s foreign policy being potentially disastrous for the USA and Romney being out of touch with commoners.

They’re so busy tearing down each other’s reputations that they’re not telling the public ANYTHING that would convince them to vote for one candidate over the other, much less to vote for them instead of President Obama.

The ultimate winner of the Republican nomination will *NOT* be the guy with the best plan, but rather the one who’s most successful at reducing the favorability ratings of his competition.

Obviously, reducing favorability during the nomination process STICKS during the general election, so Obama will be facing a majorly diminished opponent by the time they figure out who that’s going to be.

Of course, Republicans like to spin this and say that the more this drags out, the more they get issues out of the way so Obama can’t use it against them in the general. Unfortunately, this is the YouTube age, and all that material that Gingrich and Romney’s Super PACs posted about them will be available to the Reelect Obama team, so all they really have to do is cut and paste what the Republicans ACTUALLY SAID to make effective campaign ads.

Speaking of Super PACs, they really ruined the process for the Republicans. Without them, Romney wouldn’t have been able to trash Gingrich’s reputation with millions of dollars’ worth of attack ad commercials playing incessantly on television, and Gingrich and Santorum would no longer be in the race without their respective Sugar Daddies that are paying millions of dollars for their boys to stay in the race.

By now, the race would have been down to Romney and Paul, so the R’s would have already rallied around Romney as their candidate, and he could a) speak EXCLUSIVELY about the differences between himself and President Obama, and b) stop digging a deeper hole for himself by trying to match lunacy with Santorum, trying to prove that he’s a Conservative (which he isn’t) by spouting all these outdated and fanatic ideas that are currently on the wrong side of history.

Romney would have been able to focus on the economy and jobs and his experience as a businessman in the private sector, and attempt to make the general election what Republicans claim it’s going to be, which is a referendum on Obama’s achievements during his Presidency.

In fact, it will *NOT* be a referendum on Obama. It will simply be “Would you rather have Obama or THIS LUNATIC in control of the United States of America?”

Santorum is betting that there are enough people that see his statements as “right and good” to counter the number of people that have now deemed him more dangerous than Sarah Palin (which is a major accomplishment, and one that I didn’t believe could be achieved).

The Republicans are energizing the Democrat’s base FOR THEM. They’re giving the people that might have otherwise stayed home and not bothered to vote for Obama in 2012 some very good reasons to make their voices heard and presences felt, if not as a vote FOR Obama, then strictly as a vote *AGAINST* Santorum or Romney.

So, Like I said in Part 01.. “Assuming a Brokered Convention, in which case, there would be a Republican running that I might actually vote for… In order for me to vote for that person, it would require that a) they could prove to me that President Obama’s plan is *BAD*, and b) they could convince me that their jobs plan is *BETTER*.”

This would require the Republicans to get ON-MESSAGE and talk about things that are important to people without jobs.

If Gingrich has the best jobs plan for America, nobody cares how many wives he cheated on.

If Romney has the best jobs plan for America, nobody cares how rich he is or how he got that way.

Without clear information about who has the best ideas, this nomination *WILL* be decided on social issues and the perception of electability.

That means that even out of this weak final-4, the R’s won’t be sending their best man against Obama, which is a very bad idea.

I felt from the beginning that Romney was the only real candidate, and he’s the only one that has a chance of doing decently in the general election. That was before the candidates started speaking… By now, I think it’s even MORE IMPORTANT that the R’s rally behind Romney and end this nomination process as soon as possible.

If they send Santorum, spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories against Obama, it’ll be an automatic loss.

Who Cares? \o/

In a two-party political system, you end up with the best results when both parties “come correct”.

If both parties are making intelligent arguments and both seem to have plans that would be beneficial to their constituents, then both teams have to put their best foot forward, and/or make compromises they wouldn’t otherwise have made.

If one of the parties offers clearly incompetent candidates and/or people that will be summarily written off by the casual observer as fanatics, lunatics, zealots, or demagogues, regardless of how good their message is, the other side knows they’re going to win once the people really get to know the competition.

That’s like if a dude tries to steal one of your girlfriends and he’s a bum.. Who cares? :D Let him get as much light as he wants. She’s not going anywhere.

But if his presentation is proper and he seems like he might actually abscond with your chick, you might have to amend some of your policies and step your game up to make sure you stay in position. >:D

So the reason I’m interested in this (can’t really say that I “CARE”) is that I would like to see a competitive 2012 Presidential election.

The odds of that occurring get slimmer every time the Republican candidates talk about some nonsense and don’t focus on what they’re going to do to accelerate the country’s economic recovery, and what they’re going to do to put millions of Americans back to work.

So I would LOVE to hear something from Romney that makes me think he has a chance against Obama, but I haven’t heard that yet. He’s too busy faking being a Conservative and trying not to say things that make him sound rich, like he is.

I think if Santorum gets the nomination, every group that he’s so carefully disrespected over the last few months is going to motivate everyone they know (and everyone they don’t know) to vote against him so they don’t have to live through the world he describes in his speeches.

Ultimately, regardless of whomever the nominee is and regardless whom is elected President in 2012, the net result needs to be a *WIN* for the American people.

If the Republicans can provide that win, I want to know how.

If the Democrats can provide that win, I want to know how.

After four more months of this Republican tomfoolery and negative campaigning against themselves, it will be too late for messages about jobs or the economy. People will vote for Obama off of general principle, because they feel creeped out every time they consider the alternative.
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 01]

Bill Cammack — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:58:00 +0000

Brokered Conventions, Yet Again…

I’m an Independent. I can vote for whomever I want.

In order for me to vote for…. ok, wait..

I can’t actually see myself voting for any of the current Republican candidates, so let me not even type that. :D

Let’s assume that what I told y’all about 2 1/2 months ago, back in December 2011 (which the pundits, late as usual, are talking about on every single television show now) happens, which is a “Brokered Convention” => http://billcammack.com/2011/12/11/brokered-conventions/

At this point, they’re also being called “Open Conventions” and “Contested Conventions”, but the song remains the same. If none of the Republicans secure the required 50% of delegates (1,144 out of 2,286) to clinch the nomination, none of them can claim to be the legitimate nominee at the Republican National Convention, which means that any of them, or, more importantly, NONE OF THEM might be nominated, and some totally different dude might be selected to run against Obama, such as Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jed Bush, Paul Ryan, or Haley Barbour.

In my opinion, this so-called “Contested Convention” will be highly likely if Romney loses in his home state of Michigan, which we’ll know after tomorrow, Tuesday, February 28, 2012.

Romney’s main problem is his inauthenticity. His other problem is his religion, even though none of the pundits want to talk about it.. They just keep saying “He’s going to have problems winning in the South, and any state where 40% of the voters classify themselves as Evangelical Christians” and don’t bother to discuss it any more than that. Romney himself doesn’t want to discuss it, as he keeps saying “My Faith” and refuses to utter the word Mormon, so we’ll see how that works out for him.

Anyway.. The point is that so far, Romney has only been able to pull ~30% of the vote in any given situation. This means that if Gingrich drops out (which he won’t, because he’s still trying to get Romney back for dragging his name through the mud with attack ads that are still being watched on YouTube every day), that leaves the other ~70% for Santorum and Paul, and with Paul only pulling around 20%, that leaves a consistent 50% for Santorum to potentially snarf, which will be important once the contests change over from proportionally assigning delegates to winner-takes-all, after April 1, 2012:

conservapedia.com/Presidential_Election_2012

It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.

About 1,144 delegates[2] are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), will be winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts.[3] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York will only be winner take all if one candidate wins more than 50% of the vote.[4]

Today is February 27, 2012.. If this source is correct, this tomfoolery will continue until June, which is FOUR. MONTHS. FROM. NOW! :D haha By that time, all of their names will be mud before the Democrats even begin to tell their side of the story.

So I got sidetracked. :D Let me start again…

WHAT. IS. YOUR. #*$&#^#$. JOBS PLAN???

I’m an Independent. I can vote for whomever I want.

Assuming a Brokered Convention, in which case, there would be a Republican running that I might actually vote for… In order for me to vote for that person, it would require that a) they could prove to me that President Obama’s plan is *BAD*, and b) they could convince me that their jobs plan is *BETTER*.

It’s really that simple.

As you can tell if you’ve been following my blog, I’ve been writing about this Republican nomination process since September 08, 2011, which is more than 5 months, or approximately 150 days, and I have no idea whatsoever how anything that the current Republican candidates are saying translates into Americans receiving job opportunities, either in the near or the foreseeable future.

I’m not joking about that or being biased. I honestly don’t see it, and I’ve actually been *LOOKING* and *LISTENING*, so I’m sure that the millions of voters that haven’t been paying attention to this process don’t have a clue what the Republican Jobs Plan is either… Assuming they even know who’s running.

“News With A Twist Hits The Streets: Do You Recognize Republican Presidential Candidates?“

I get the basic points of what they’re saying.

It begins with the Convenient Cycle of Rights, where federal rights aren’t supposed to trump state’s rights, and state’s rights aren’t supposed to trump personal rights, but individuals should be restricted from doing things, NATIONALLY, based on the candidate’s opinion about something = federal rights trumping individual rights, so you can play Rock, Paper, Scissors all day.

Next is that America has enough natural resources to be Energy Independent, but Obama won’t let more oil rigs be constructed COUGHbpCOUGH, and he’s putting the environment ahead of humans, according to Santorum.. Except… *DUH*… Humans have to LIVE. IN. THE. ENVIRONMENT. so it isn’t cool to poison people’s water in Pennsylvania to get gas that’s going to be used in New York City.

Next is that federal government doesn’t create jobs. The private sector creates jobs, so the best way to get them to do that is to make sure the “Job Creators” have more money, so whatever you do, don’t raise taxes on rich people… Feel free, however, to NOT CONTINUE A TAX BREAK = RAISE TAXES for middle-class people, because they’re workers, and don’t create jobs for anybody, so who cares if they have money? \o/

Also, the argument is that the tax break for the middle class is actually being taken out of the Social Security fund, so it’s making a bad situation even worse.

Next is not to tax money being brought back to the United States by the “Job Creators” who created jobs anywhere else in the world, *EXCEPT* for in America, because it’s easier to get cheap labor in countries where you have a bunch of desperate people:

forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

So the response/answer to this is supposed to be to not tax “Job Creators” when they bring money back from their overseas businesses, because that’s supposed to give them incentive to create jobs in America… As opposed to creating MORE JOBS anywhere EXCEPT America, like they’ve been happily doing up until election time.

What’s supposed to pave the way for these jobs to return to America is either lowering Minimum Wage, or abolishing it, entirely.

For y’all non-Americans, this is what Minimum Wage is:

dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htm

The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both.

Now.. I worked for minimum wage exactly once in my life, and that was a favor I was doing for my parents when I was a little kid, folding papers and putting them in envelopes for a local social organization.

At the time, my “income” was based on my weekly “allowance”, which, again, for y’all non-Americans, is money that you get for free from your parents every week, without your having to do anything at all.

I bring that up because I wasn’t working for minimum wage because I needed the money. I was basically wasting time, doing my parents a favor, and the money was incidental. I only did it one day a week, for probably 4 hours each time (maybe 3.. don’t remember), so, like Romney would say about his exorbitant speaker’s fees, the money I was making was negligible and unimportant. :D

I always knew I was never going to work for minimum wage, because “who does that? \o/”. If I wanted to work for minimum wage, I could have done that directly after elementary school… hmm.. I guess I could have done that after junior high school (8th grade), because I think you have to be 14 years old in the USA to get “working papers” which allow you to work for somebody, which I wouldn’t know, because I wasn’t even *THINKING* about working when I was 14 years old.

The point is that factories and jobs are moved to foreign countries because you don’t have to pay those people American minimum wages.

While I would never ever in life consider working for minimum wage, people in other countries line up BEGGING for sub-American-minimum-wage jobs. Companies can make themselves look more profitable, instantly, by hiring people that they don’t have to shell out a whopping $7.25 USD/hour for.

This is why they want to get rid of Minimum Wage. The idea is that if someone doesn’t have to pay $8 for one person to work, they can pay $4 each for two people to work, or $2 each for four people to work. This would bring unemployment down very quickly.

Of course.. It would also create a society of peasants.

Who cares? So long as they’re WORKING peasants, right? :D

Continued in “What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 02]“…
–
Follow Bill via Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscription | RSS Feed

Bill Cammack » republican

The Current Republican Problem

Related Posts

“Game Change” Review [Part 01 of 02]

What It Is

Why I Watched It

President Palin

Game Change

Related Posts

Republican Candidates Play To Stall, Not To Win

Yawn

Obstructionist Tactics

Numbers Game

Eyes On The Prize

Related Posts

What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 02]

Voluntary Deportation

Serfs Up

Alternate Philosophy

Get On-Message

Who Cares? \o/

Related Posts

What Is Your Jobs Plan? [Part 01]

Brokered Conventions, Yet Again…

WHAT. IS. YOUR. #*$&#^#$. JOBS PLAN???

Related Posts