Rebuttal of Obama’s blatant debate lies

During the third presidential debate, Barack Obama stated a lot of blatant lies to cover up his sordid foreign policy record. Here’s a rebuttal of some of them:

1) He claims that ship numbers don’t matter because today’s ships are more capable and because the Navy has carriers and submarines today. But during the Reagan years (when the Navy was more than twice as big as it is today), the USN had far more carriers and submarines than today, and the Pacific Fleet alone was larger than the USN is today. Even during the Clinton years the Navy had more ships than today.

Furthermore, and most importantly, ship numbers matter a great deal, because a single ship, no matter how capable, can only be in one place at any given time. Yet, today’s Navy only has 284 ships, not even close to enough to meet even today’s requirements: the Navy today can meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’s needs for ships and only 61% of their needs for submarines.

And earlier this year, when CENTCOM commander Gen. James Mattis requested a third carrier group to be deployed to the Gulf, he was refused, because all other available carriers were needed in the Pacific.

Moreover, as two independent studies – one by the bipartisan QDR Independent Review Panel and another one by the CNAS – have found – the Navy needs 346 ships to execute all of its missions, not the meagre 284 it has today.

Furthermore, under Obama’s own plans, even if sequestration does not proceed, the USN’s cruiser, destroyer, and submarine fleets will decline precipitously below today’s already-inadequate levels, as documented by Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service. Moreover, comparing ships to “bayonets and horses” and thus implying that warships are relics of the past is not just wrong, it’s demeaning for the Navy. So Mitt Romney is right: the Navy DOES need a lot more ships than it has today.

2) He claims that when he sits down with the Joint Chiefs, he gives them what is needed to protect America. This is utterly false. Obama has only weakened the military, and significantly so. He has cut the defense budget significantly, killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, and used the defense budget as a piggybank for his domestic pet projects. In 2009, Obama ordered the DOD to kill over 30 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22, the Zumwalt class, the AC-X, the CSAR helicopter, the MKV, the KEI, and many others. In 2010, he signed, and rammed through a lame-duck Senate, the unequal New START treaty, which obligates only the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal deeply. In January 2011, his administration announced another $178 bn in defense budget cuts and “efficiencies”.

And on April 13th, 2011, he demanded another $400 bn in defense budget cuts without even telling his own Defense Secretary or the Joint Chiefs.

In the summer of 2011, in the debt ceiling deal negotiations, he demanded massive defense budget cuts and got them – in the form of first tier BCA-mandated defense budget cuts ($487 bn) and a $600 bn sequester (which was HIS idea, not House Republicans’, contrary to his blatant debate lie, as confirmed by Bob Woodward’s newest book).

And now, Obama threatens to veto any attempt to cance sequestration, and to let it proceed, unless Congress agrees to his demands of massive tax hikes. In other words, he’s holding the US military hostage to his tax hikes agenda. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIixemuEe1s)

The fact is that Obama couldn’t care less about the military’s needs. He cares only about gutting America’s defense and finding the money for his unconstitutional domestic pet projects.

3) Obama claims that Romney would take America’s foreign policy back to the 1980s because Romney called Russia “America’s #1 geopolitical foe.” But Romney does not advocate a return to the Cold War. He advocates a more realistic, sober policy towards Russia, instead of the craven appeasement of the Kremlin that Obama has pursued for the last 3.5 years (the utterly failed “reset” policy).

Russia has repayed this craven appeasement with bomber exercises off the coasts of Alaska and California (whereby the Russians said they were “practicing attacking the enemy”, i.e. the US) without prior notification as required by the New START treaty, providing continued diplomatic protection to the regimes of Syria, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Belarus (and providing the first two with modern weapons), threatening to use nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles against America and its allies, increased espionage, and an arms race against the US, driven by Putin’s hostility towards America as well as his desire to restore Russia’s superpower status. And with booming oil revenue, he has more than enough money to do that.

Russia has also harassed America’s ambassador to that country, expelled USAID from its soil, and withdrawn from the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, thus showing further its hostility towards the US.

Russia is no friend of the US. It’s a foe.

Romney’s plan is to treat Russia according to its ACTIONS, not according to Obama’s naive, childish dreams about “reset” and friendship with a KGB-thug-led Russia which sees itself as America’s enemy and practices attacks on the US. He will not start a new Cold War with Russia, but he will not cave in (or pledge any “flexibility”) to Russia either. For the first time ever, Putin will have to deal with a tough US president, not three successive appeasers (Clinton, Bush, and Obama).

4) Obama claims that Romney wants to add $2 trillion to the defense budget over the next 10 years. This is also patently false, as I have already documented here. To wit:

First, some simple math. Adding $2 trillion to defense over the next decade means adding $200 bn every year on average. If, in one year, the increase is smaller than the $200 bn average, increases in later years would have to be higher.

Spending $8.3 trillion on defense over the next decade would mean spending $830 bn every year, on average, on defense.

Mitt Romney does not propose anything even close to that. His proposals are far more modest, and very modest by historical standards.

Let’s start with the size of today’s (FY2012) base defense budget. It amounts to $531 bn, i.e. 3.47% of America’s GDP (which is $15.29 trillion) and less than 15% of the total federal budget. Obama’s proposed FY2013 base defense budget amounts to $525 bn, i.e. 3.43% of GDP.

(The Overseas Contingency Operations budget, i.e. the war costs, are planned to be $88.5 bn in FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 before the US withdraws from Afghanistan, but they’re separate from the base defense budget; in any case, Mitt Romney’s pledge, and his detractors’ false claims, pertain to the base defense budget, so we’ll look only at that one for the purposes of this analysis.)

A 3.47% of GDP base defense budget means that, excluding the late 1990s, America is now devoting less (as a percentage of GDP) of its own wealth to its national defense than at any time since FY1941.

Mitt Romney’s plans

As stated above, Gov. Romney proposes to raise the base defense budget to 4% of GDP.* As stated above, America’s GDP is currently $15.29 trillion, so 4% of it would amount to $611.6 bn, or just $86.6 above what Obama plans for FY2013.

How the base defense budget would grow thereafter would be determined by how fast the US economy would grow, since Gov. Romney pledges to peg the defense budget to the economy’s size. If the economy doesn’t grow, neither will the defense budget; if it grows slowly, so will the defense budget.

Even if it grows at a fast pace like 4% per year, the defense budget would, as a simple mathematical consequence, also grow only by 4% per year under Romney’s plan.

Let’s assume, for example, that next year, the economy grows by 4%, from $15.29 trillion to $15.9016 trillion. Assuming even such luck with economic growth (i.e. a rapid recovery), the base defense budget, as a 4% fraction of GDP, would still amount only to $636.064 bn in FY2014. But that’s totally dependent on the economy growing rapidly. Even then, under such optimistic economic growth assumptions, the FY2014 base defense budget would still be only  $103 bn per year higher than Obama’s plan for FY2014 (which is 533.6 bn, see Figure 1-3 on page 1-3 of this DOD document).

And remember, they claimed Romney wants to increase base defense spending by $200 bn on average! Which only shows how badly wrong they are.

But let’s assume optimistically that within the next five years, by 2017, the economy grows to $17 trillion (a highly unlikely scenario). Even if that happens, that would still leave defense spending, as a 4% of GDP item, at $680 bn in FY2017 or FY2018. By comparison, Obama plans to spend $567.3 bn in FY2017 on defense. (See this DOD document, page 1-3, Figure 1-3.) The difference is $113 bn, far short of the $200 bn difference the Obama camp and its liberal allies claim.

Rebuttal of lies about Romney’s defense spending plans

The Democrats and their propagandists, such as Soros-funded “Center for American Progress” hacks, and their media allies like CNN, falsely allege that Mitt Romney plans to increase base defense spending by $2 trillion over the next decade (FY2013-FY2022) compared to Obama’s plans. They allege that this would be the result of increasing the base defense budget to a full 4% of GDP (which Romney pledges to do).

Amazingly, the non-liberal media, such as the Washington Times, have repeated that lie robotically without any critical look.

But it’s a blatant lie, and I’ll show you why.

First, some simple math. Adding $2 trillion to defense over the next decade means adding $200 bn every year on average. If, in one year, the increase is smaller than the $200 bn average, increases in later years would have to be higher.

Spending $8.3 trillion on defense over the next decade would mean spending $830 bn every year, on average, on defense.

Mitt Romney does not propose anything even close to that. His proposals are far more modest, and very modest by historical standards.

Let’s start with the size of today’s (FY2012) base defense budget. It amounts to $531 bn, i.e. 3.47% of America’s GDP (which is $15.29 trillion) and less than 15% of the total federal budget. Obama’s proposed FY2013 base defense budget amounts to $525 bn, i.e. 3.43% of GDP.

(The Overseas Contingency Operations budget, i.e. the war costs, are planned to be $88.5 bn in FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 before the US withdraws from Afghanistan, but they’re separate from the base defense budget; in any case, Mitt Romney’s pledge, and his detractors’ false claims, pertain to the base defense budget, so we’ll look only at that one for the purposes of this analysis.)

A 3.47% of GDP base defense budget means that, excluding the late 1990s, America is now devoting less (as a percentage of GDP) of its own wealth to its national defense than at any time since FY1941.

Mitt Romney’s plans

As stated above, Gov. Romney proposes to raise the base defense budget to 4% of GDP.* As stated above, America’s GDP is currently $15.29 trillion, so 4% of it would amount to $611.6 bn, or just $86.6 above what Obama plans for FY2013.

How the base defense budget would grow thereafter would be determined by how fast the US economy would grow, since Gov. Romney pledges to peg the defense budget to the economy’s size. If the economy doesn’t grow, neither will the defense budget; if it grows slowly, so will the defense budget.

Even if it grows at a fast pace like 4% per year, the defense budget would, as a simple mathematical consequence, also grow only by 4% per year under Romney’s plan.

Let’s assume, for example, that next year, the economy grows by 4%, from $15.29 trillion to $15.9016 trillion. Assuming even such luck with economic growth (i.e. a rapid recovery), the base defense budget, as a 4% fraction of GDP, would still amount only to $636.064 bn in FY2014. But that’s totally dependent on the economy growing rapidly. Even then, under such optimistic economic growth assumptions, the FY2014 base defense budget would still be only  $103 bn per year higher than Obama’s plan for FY2014 (which is 533.6 bn, see Figure 1-3 on page 1-3 of this DOD document).

And remember, they claimed Romney wants to increase base defense spending by $200 bn on average! Which only shows how badly wrong they are.

But let’s assume optimistically that within the next five years, by 2017, the economy grows to $17 trillion (a highly unlikely scenario). Even if that happens, that would still leave defense spending, as a 4% of GDP item, at $680 bn in FY2017 or FY2018. By comparison, Obama plans to spend $567.3 bn in FY2017 on defense. (See this DOD document, page 1-3, Figure 1-3.) The difference is $113 bn, far short of the $200 bn difference the Obama camp and its liberal allies claim.

All of these figures – even those based on very optimistic assumptions about future US economic growth – are also far short of the $830 bn annual average that Romney would have to spend if he were to spend $8.3 trillion on defense on the next decade as his detractors falsely accuse him of wanting.

This means that either they can’t do simple math or they are deliberately lying to distort Mitt Romney’s plans (or both). In any case, such blatant lying out to be a disqualifier for anyone who engages in it.

Constitutional and budgetary process issues

Moreover, by engaging in such attacks on Gov. Romney, they have also shown their utter ignorance of the Constitution and the federal budgetary process of today.

The Constitution grants “the power of the purse” exclusively to the Congress, not the President. It is the Congress, not the President, that sets spending levels (including defense budgets). It is the Congress who decides how much money will be spent, and on what exactly.

To see 4% of GDP (let alone 830 bn per year) devoted to defense, the Romney Administration would have to ask the Congress to appropriate that money and convince it that it’s necessary (good luck convincing the Congress to do that in a time of budgetary constraints). Top Romney Administration defense officials would have to testify in front of no less than six separate Congressional committees and convince all of them that America needs to devote this or that amount to defense.

Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to spend a full 4% of GDP, let alone 830 bn per year, on defense. It may very well avert sequestration (which Republicans and Democrats agree is a disastrous and dumb idea), and a Republican-controlled Congress might pass a defense budget slightly larger than the one proposed Obama. But that’s the best-case scenario the DOD can hope for. Congress is highly unlikely to appropriate anything more than that.

Such attacks on Romney’s proposals also reveal these authors’ ignorance of the federal budgetary process. As Bruce Bartlett has demonstrated in the Forbes magazine, today, a president’s budget request is almost irrelevant. Congress passes budgets it, not the President, deems wise. It’s a far cry from the pre-1974 era, when the President’s budget proposal was the starting point for any discussion, because, among other reasons, it was the only document where complete numbers for the entire federal government could be found. Nowadays, the president’s budget proposal is just one among many.

The proposal that stands the highest chance of passing both houses of Congress is Sen. Toomey’s budget plan, which, for the entire next decade, would set base defense budget levels at the caps instituted by the First Tier of the Budget Control Act, while OCO spending would have to be phased out by no later than FY2018.

Mitt Romney’s detractors also try to portray him as a hypocrite because he has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, and Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act and proposes to increase defense spending over Obama’s plans only by a modest amount.

But Romney also proposes only a modest defense budget increase, and unlike Ryan, Gov. Romney opposed the Budget Control Act from the very beginning, in large part BECAUSE of its defense cuts provisions. Moreover, Romney has said that Republicans made a big blunder by agreeing to this bill and to its defense cuts provisions.

Regarding Ryan’s proposal to cut foreign aid, it’s the right proposal. Foreign countries – or at minimum, those which aren’t friendly to America – should no longer milk American taxpayers’ subsidies.

So Mitt Romney’s detractors’ claims are completely false:

• Mitt Romney does not plan to increase defense spending by 2 trillion dollars over the next decade. Not even close.
• Mitt Romney does not plan to spend 8.3 trillion on defense over the next decade. Not even close. It wouldn’t be close even if the US economy suddenly began to grow rapidly.
• Mitt Romney is not hypocritical despite picking Paul Ryan – both gentlemen would like to increase defense funding only to a modest degree, and Romney has said that Congressional Republicans (including Ryan) made a huge error by agreeing to the BCA and its defense cuts provisions.

Romney should pound Obama on sequestration and previous defense cuts

When Barack Obama visited Virginia on his propaganda tour this week, Mitt Romney and other Republicans rightly pounded Obama for his massive defense cuts, including sequestration. However, they did not appear to do so effectively enough, because Obama retains a lead over Romney in Virginia.

Yet, it will hit the military, the defense industry, and the entire Nation hard on January 2nd, 2013, if it is not cancelled. Over 103 bn dollars will be cut out of the base defense budget if it isn’t. The consequences for Virginia would be, inter alia, the following:

1) Every shipbuilding program would have to be cut deeply by the same percentage. And, as Secretary Panetta says, since you can’t buy 3/4s of a ship, that means no warships could be bought at all.

2) At least one, and perhaps more than one, carrier group would have to be eliminated.

3) The Virginia-based Northrop Grumman can forget about the opportunity to build a next-generation long-range-bomber for the Air Force.

4) The Navy can forget about adding the Virginia Payload Module to its submarines or modifying any further cruisers or DDGs with BMD capability. In fact, the Navy would have to be cut to below 230 ships – thus becoming smaller than the Russian Navy – down from today’s already-inadequate fleet of 285 ships. No prizes for guessing where most of these decommisioned ships would have to come from – NS Norfolk, VA, the Navy’s largest base.

5) At least one CAW, probably two, would have to be eliminated. Again, no prizes for guessing where that CAW would come from – most likely NAS Oceana, VA.

6) Hundreds of thousands of troops, including thousands of those based in Virginia, would have to be laid off immediately.

7) Massive layoffs would occur in the US defense industry, with up to 1 million jobs on the line. Virginia would be hit harder than any other state except California.

And that’s just for starters, and just the consequences for Virginia.

Barack Obama and his propaganda team falsely claim that these cuts are part of some sacred agreement that Republicans agreed to, and that they’ve not presented any serious solution to sequestration.

But that’s not true. Republicans HAVE presented serious solutions: the Sequester Reconciliation Act (authored by Rep. Paul Ryan and passed by the House), the Ryan Budget Plan (also passed by the House), and the Down Payment to Protect National Security Act (H.R. 3662, which would replace only 1 out of every 3 retiring government workers).

Yet, Obama has threatened to veto both Acts (he can’t veto a budget resolution) and any other legislation that does not raise taxes on the most productive Americans (those who earn more than 250,000 dollars a year), even though his own SECDEF says that sequestration would be an utter disaster.

It is also not true that Republicans created this problem. Obama demanded massive defense cuts – on top of all the cuts Secretary Gates had administered and scheduled before April 2011 – long before the need to raise the debt ceiling even arose. He demanded them in a GWU speech on April 13th, 2011. Then, in negotiations on the debt ceiling deal and the spending cuts that accompanied it, it was Obama and his Congressional Democrat chums who demanded deep defense cuts as a part of any deal, with Obama saying he wanted to deeply cut defense to protect welfare programs. The eventual deal contained 487 bn in immediate defense budget cuts and a sequester threatening to cut another 550 bn out of defense, starting in FY2013, if the Super Committee could not agree to any savings (which it couldn’t, so now the sequester has kicked in). Both of these tranches of defense cuts were included at the Democrats’ and Obama’s insistence.

The sequester itself was created by them specifically to force Republicans to choose between massive defense cuts and massive tax hikes, because Obama and the Dems know that Republicans hate both. It was a purely partisan tool to start with.

And yet, Obama, along with the Democrat-controlled, do-nothing-Senate, still uses the sequester as a political tool to extract massive tax hikes from Republicans. He continues to threaten to veto any legislation that does not raise taxes on the most productive Americans.

Republicans, including Mitt Romney, need to call Obama out on this in stronger words than those used so far.

To hold the US military, national security, and industrial base at risk for the sake of a political agenda (of raising taxes) is the most despicable thing a President can do. It completely disqualifies Obama from being President and even dog catcher. By doing so, Obama has proven that not only is he unfit to be President, he’s unfit to be a toilet cleaner.

Romney needs to wage a no-holds-barred offensive against Obama for that reason – in Virginia and beyond.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/07/open-letter-president-obama-ahead-virginia-visit

Why conventional wisdom and “Republican strategists” are wrong

The Hill magazine has recently published an article profiling Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s rise in stature in the Senate and the ranks of the GOP, primarily due to her study of, and hard work on, defense and FP issues. She has been especially outspoken about the dangers – military and economic – of sequestration, which would cut $600 bn (not $500 bn as the Hill claims) out of the defense budget over the next decade on top of the 487 bn cuts already mandated by the First Tier of the Budget Control Act:

“Freshman Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) has turned the threat of $500 billion in defense cuts into her signature political issue, raising her Senate profile and sparking speculation that she could become Mitt Romney’s running mate.

Her focus on defense has helped her carve out a unique space among the vice presidential contenders; she’s frequently mentioned as a sleeper pick behind a top tier that includes her colleagues Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

And her work has given her a platform alongside big-name defense hawks like Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, has praised her efforts, even throwing in some flattery on the Senate floor on Friday.

“Our most eloquent member has arrived on the floor,” McCain said of Ayotte. “Not to mention other attributes that we are lacking in.””

However, as the Hill notes, several (if not most) “Republican strategists” are still propagating the conventional wisdom that the economy is the sole issue of this election (or at least one that the GOP ticket needs to obsessively focus on) and that defense and FP issues are unimportant, if not irrelevant. For that reason, they are dismissing Ayotte and other figures who specialize in defense and FP:

“This is an economic election, and while she is from a battleground state and that’s important, her credentials may not match up with what the campaign really needs, which is a No. 2 who can speak eloquently on the economy,” said one Republican strategist.

“If this was post-9/11, she would be a perfect VP candidate,” the strategist said. “I’m not saying she’s not qualified — she could do a very good job — but her skill set is only part of what’s needed, not all.”

But they and Washington conventional wisdom are wrong, as usual.

Firstly, while the economy is the #1 issue of this election, it isn’t the only one, nor is it one that eclipses all others in terms of importance. There are also several other crucial issues which the GOP ticket MUST be prepared to credibly address. Defense and foreign policy are two such issues.

Secondly, knowing Romney’s limited knowledge of and experience in foreign policy, the Obama team plans to savagely attack him on this issue. They will be merciless and will not, unlike Republicans, restrict themselves in any way – whether in terms of the scope of topics they will discuss nor in terms of the blatant lies they will state and methods of attack they will employ.

If Romney does not educate himself adequately on defense issues before the presidential debates, he will be savagely attacked and may lose the election. And you can take that one to the bank.

OTOH, if Romney picks a person knowledgeable about defense and FP, such as Ayotte or Kyl, he will gain a credible defender on that front, will inoculate himself against such criticism, and will even be able to credibly attack Barack Obama. Which brings me to my next point.

Barack Obama’s national security record, as I have documented here and elsewhere, is disastrous. Not just bad; it’s downright disastrous. (For the latest examples of that, see here, here, and here.) It gives Republicans a HUGE opening to attack and defeat Obama – if they are willing to do so and know how. If they do so competently, they can add greatly to Obama’s woes and defeat him. Attacking him on defense foreign policy is even more important given that Romney cannot credibly criticize Obama on socialized medicine – because he instituted the prototype of Obama’s scheme in Massachusetts in 2006. It would be a foolish mistake, one which would cost Republicans the election, to waste this great opportunity to pound on Obama’s disastrous national security record.

Those Republican strategists and Washington conventional wisdom are wrong. Romney does not need a veep who can eloquently speak on economic issues. Romney can do that himself, and is an expert on the subject. He already has the economic front covered, so to speak.

But Romney is very inexperienced in, and not knowledgeable about, foreign policy – and Obama will exploit that weakness mercilessly unless Romney selects a defense/FP expert as his running mate.

The only thing that disqualifies Kelly Ayotte – although it’s really a disqualifier – is her lack of experience and proper vetting. She’s been a Senator for just 1.5 years, and this is her first elected office. Prior to that, she was an appointed AG of New Hampshire. She has little political experience and has not yet gained the stature of John C. Stennis, Barry Goldwater, John Warner, John McCain, or Jon Kyl. And, due to her short (so far) stint on the national stage, she has not been properly vetted yet. Nominating her for vice president would cause the American people to doubt Ayotte’s qualifications for the Vice Presidency and Romney’s wisdom and decision-making skills.

Fortunately, Romney does not have to choose between an experienced running mate and one who is knowledgeable about defense and foreign policy. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl meets both requirements, and also has no skeletons in his closet.

Jon Kyl should be Romney’s running mate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/236029-tough-defense-talk-ups-ayottes-veep-creds

Mitt Romney tries to dodge the Tampa GOP debate

As has been reported by the media, Mitt Romney is trying to dodge the upcoming Tampa GOP presidential debate, which will be held before the Florida GOP presidential primary on January 31st.

Why is Romney trying to avoid it? Because he doesn’t want to debate with Newt Gingrich. And why doesn’t the Massachusetts RINO want to debate with him? Because he’s too afraid of him. In fact, he’s scared to death of him. Gingrich is an excellent debater and can take on anyone, while Romney is a lousy discussion partner who gets angry and discomfortable whenever he’s challenged, criticized, or asked a difficult question.

But if he can’t debate Newt Gingrich, how can he take on Barack Obama?

The answer is: he can’t.

Republicans must not nominate this proven RINO loser. If he were to win the GOP nomination, Obama would have a field day with him.

My opinion about potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates

One of my friends has recently (yesterday) written on his blog:

“Ron Paul’s age is going to be an issue for sure, but the man will draw supporters and on economic issues involving trade, debt, spending, printing money out of thin air, etc, etc, there is no one smarter or better. He does deserve consideration.”

You must be kidding. ANYONE is smarter or better than RP. He’s a moron who spends every day lecturing other people about issues he knows nothing about.

Regarding the rest:

Pawlenty: I don’t know enough Pawlenty to judge him, although what he has said so far is good. Maybe he’d be a good presidential nominee, maybe he wouldn’t be.

Romney: Hmmm, what should I say about Romney? On the one hand, he’s been vigorously fighting for low taxes, limited government and a strong defense, and against disarmament policies, tax hikes, bailouts, the porkulus and the crap-and-trade scheme. On the other hand, he’s the author of a state socialized medicine scheme (he signed the relevant legislation with a grinning Ted Kennedy in the background), and he’s liberal on social issues (although he claims he’s not).

Petraeus: I respect General Petraeus, so I’ll just say that the time Republicans spend daydreaming about President Petraeus would be better spent identifying viable presidential candidates.

Daniels: The guy is liberal on social and defense issues. He wants a huge reduction of defense spending. HELL NO!

Mike Pence: I like him, but a mere Congressman would not be a good presidential candidate.

John Thune: A freshman Senator would not be a good president. Vide barack Obama.

Jim Demint: Hell yes! Except that he’s a senator, not an executive.

Fred Thompson: Not really. A guy who doesn’t even want to run for the Presidency will never win the primaries, let alone the 2012 general election.

Bobby Jindal: He’s an accomplished governor, but he’s too young, his opinions on most issues are not yet known, and he said that he does not want to run for the WH during the next presidential election.

Sarah Palin: She’s an accomplished governor, and has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. She scares the ‘Rats to death, electrifies crowds, and attracts more grassroots fans than any other Republican. She has over 2 million fans on FB, while no other Republican has even half a million fans on that website (except maybe Romney). She’s a conservative who, unlike all of us, had actually to PROVE herself as such, by making decisions about, for example, whether or not to abort her own child. Because of her policies, Alaska’s economy is growing, the state has a budget surplus, spending has been reduced during her term by 14% in real terms, and a new pipeline from AK to the CONUS is now being built by American workers. However, Palin has made her mistakes, she’s polarizing, and many Americans remain unconvinced that her 2009 resignation was the right choice for Alaska.

Mike Huckabee: The most liked of all Republicans, a damn likeable guy, Huckabee runs the most highly rated political cable news TV show these days. He has been consistently beating Obama in the polls for several months, and has served as governor for 10.5 years. But if America cannot trust him to protect Americans from criminals, how can he be trusted to protect Americans from OBL, Putin, Kim Jong Il, Ajad, Chavez and Assad?

Newt Gingrich: The best, most qualified, most accomplished of all the potential 2012 Republican candidates, bar none. He’s a towering giant compared to the others. He’s a staunch conservative and offers America a complete, specific, credible portfolio of CONSERVATIVE POLICIES which serve as stark alternatives to Obama’s socialist policies. The root cause is that Obama believes that adult Americans are utterly unable to manage themselves, their families and their businesses wisely, prudently and responsibly, and so, they need to be micromanaged by the federal government. Gingrich rejects this ludicrous belief, and considers Americans to be responsible adults who can easily be trusted with huge responsibilities.

IN SHORT: Newt Gingrich should be the GOP’s 2012 nominee.

My conservativemetre

Yesterday, I’ve devised and published my conservativemetre, a table which measures how conservative politicians are. It’s the best such device in the world.
1) How does it measure politicians:
It includes a wide range of issues (e.g. the FairTax, the American nuclear arsenal, and federal pork-barrel spending). Currently, there are 27 issues listed in that table. Every politician’s speeches and record related to that issue are measured by how conservative they are. That is, he’s measured by how conservative he is on that issue.
Each candidate receives 0 points for each issue on which he’s liberal, 1 point for each issue on which he’s moderately conservative and 2 points for each issues on which he’s ultraconservative.
For example, Fairtax is one of the issues on which politicians were measured. Giuliani opposes it but favours a flat income tax, so he’s moderately conservative on that one. So he received 1 point for it. Hunter, Huckabee, Thompson and Tancredo favour the FairTax, so they’re ultraconservative on that issue. So they received 2 points each for it.
His total number of points is then countered against the total number of points available (currently 54, because there are 27 issues) to calculate a percentage. That percentage is his final badge, which will indicate how conservative he is.
2) How well must someone fare to be declared a conservative by me:
To be a conservative politician according to me, your cons. percentage in the CM must be no less than 75%.
3) How many politicians have been measured:
So far, 8. These 8 politicians are or were all 2008 presidential candidates.

The myth that Romney is a conservative

Romney is not a conservative because he’s a liberal. On every issue, Romney has delivered liberal speeches and he has a liberal record. His claim that he could bring together the Reagan coalition of military conservatives, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. He won’t get the votes of any of these 3 groups, because he’s a socioeconomicomilitary liberal.
Several exemplary liberal policies of Romney:
1) Abortion: Romney said that abortion should be legal according to the American law, and his record confirmed that.
2) SSM: Romney claimed he’s a proponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment, yet he did not ban SSM when he governed MA, nor does he have any other conservative marriage-related record.
3) Taxes: Romney increased fees by $700 mn as a Massachusetts governor. He doesn’t favour the FairTax.
4) The UN: Romney claimed he would work with “a reformed UN”, even though the UN is unreformable.
5) The US military: Romney would spend only 4% of GDP on the US military, which is an insufficient level. Moreover, Romney’s corporation, Bain Capital, was actually collaborating with the Chicomm military to produce weapons for that military. Romney is a traitor. Moreover, Romney refused to admit that the Iraqi war was a good decision (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PURfrORhWPc&feature=related).
6) Torture: Romney has refused to answer whether waterboarding is torture or even to say what is torture.
7) America’s infrastructure: Romney opposed Huckabee’s infrastructure-related plan which would’ve modernised and expanded America’s transport-related network. Unless America’s infrastructure is modernised and grown, the US economy will not grow any faster than now, and America will not become independent from foreign oil.
8) The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution: Romney is an advocate of infringements of that constitutional rights. He said in 2002: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them”. And his laws reflected that declaration.
9) Veterans: Romney insulted Robert Dole, a WW2 hero.
Today, I’ve compiled this table of eight Republican Presidential candidates from “eight” – i.e. the year 2008 – who were measured by how conservative they are (these 8 candidates were judged by both their records and their speeches). Romney fared the worst, because he was the least conservative of all eight candidates. His conservative score was merely 27% (15/54).
By endorsing Romney, NRO editors, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham proved that they are not conservatives, but liberals.
Several myths about Romney have been posted on AT. I will now dispel them:
1) “Mitt had to govern a very left liberal state with dems running both state houses.” No. He volunteered to govern it because it was the only state where he, an ultraliberal, would’ve been accepted as a governor. He’s a liberal, so MA was a perfect state for him.
2) “Mitt on the other hand has shown that he can work”
He has produced no good results. Bain Capital was collaborating with the Chicomms – enemies of the American people. The 2002 Olympiad has burdened SLC with a debt. As governor of MA, Romney introduced Hillarycare (taxpayer-funded HC), preserved women’s right to kill children, and preserved infringements on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
3) “Romney can bring together social conservatives, military conservatives and fiscal conservatives.” He can’t. As I’ve already proven, he isn’t a social conservative, nor a military conservative, nor a fiscal conservative.