When talking about political conventions, it is best to be brief. I don't want to dwell on how this or that speaker "hit one out of the park", and I have already said plenty about the MSNBC peanut gallery. However, a few closing thoughts are in order.
The best speech was (as expected) by Marco Rubio. You are looking at a future presidential candidate.
Similar comment as to Paul Ryan. You may not like his ideas, but you have to admit, he does have ideas. He is a serious thinker and a man to be reckoned with. I am salivating thinking of his upcoming debate with Joe Biden.
Like them or not, the Republicans are coming up with a young generation of people who have ideas. Ryan and Rubio are two leading examples, but there are many more. Who do the Democrats having coming up the ranks? Tony Villaraigosa and Elizabeth Warren.
As I mentioned before, MSNBC made it a point to not show the minority speakers. They clearly wanted to continue the image of the Republicans as the party of old white men. People like Allen West, Mia Love, Ted Cruz, and Susana Martinez have a great future ahead of them. More than anyone, Condi Rice has made the Republican party (and the country) proud. She exemplifies grace and dignity. Yet, the liberals and Democrats castigate them all as Aunt Jemimas, Uncle Toms, Tio Tacos and showcases. They are independent thinkers who don't follow the crowd, and they have ideas. Their treatment has been shameful on the part of the left.
As for Clint Eastwood, it is easy to take potshots at this traitor to the Hollywood set. He showed his age. His hair was out of place. He bumbled. Yet, he was not reading from a teleprompter (and that is not directed specifically at President Obama). But the crowd loved it, and I would guess most of the TV audience loved it too (unless they are for Obama). The empty chair image has gone viral, and we will see it again and again.
As for Romney's speech, it was good, but not much more than I expected. Walking up the aisle was a mistake. It only buttressed Chris Matthews' caustic comment about Romney being wheeled out on the stage after his wife's speech. The best speech I ever heard him give was four years ago when he dropped out of the primary. Ann Romney's speech was good-especially at the end. She is an accomplished speaker in her own right and an impressive woman. She will be a fine first lady.
All in all, I think the Republicans did a good job this week. I am starting to feel more confident about this election-especially watching the changing (more desperate) tone of those e-mails I get from the Obama campaign asking for more and more money.
Today, I feel that Romney is going to win.
"Paul Ryan. You may not like his ideas, but you have to admit, he does have ideas."
ReplyDeleteYeah, so did Hitler. Hitler was a powerful and charismatic debater too. He won an election after all. He headed a powerful mass party. If you were a Harry Potter fan, you might not like Voldemort's magic, but you have to admit, he does have magic.
Ryan is not a man to take lightly. He is a manipulative liar. He creates solutions in search of problems, then supplies the problems to justify his solutions.
The only "problem" with social security is that, the surplus having been invested in T-bills, then simply merged into the federal budget as a bookkeeping measure, in order to meet the government's obligations, some modest tax increases would be required. The surplus could last for 30 years, and very modest tweaks in taxes and benefits could keep it solvent.
It is the money already paid in, as FICA taxes, that Ryan and his buddies don't want to pay back, because... well, they want tax cuts, and the government obligations are paid by tax revenues, so they hope to wave a magic wand, make this obligation vanish into thin air, and let the wage workers of America take a Greek hair cut.
I only hope Obama, and Biden, have the courage to call him on it.
Properly structured, the partial privatization of Social Security on a voluntary basis would absolutely, positively guarantee a continuing and perpetual surplus in the retirement leg for as long as there were participants.
ReplyDeleteThis surplus could be used to fund, partially or totally, the other two legs.
In addition, participants would have a virtual guarantee of moderately to significantly higher reitrement income, while non-participants' retirement income would be unaffected.
Not difficult to do at all.