Mitt Romney

Winning the White House

by Bill O'Connell on February 11, 2012

Share and Recommend:

 

At the conclusion of Newt Gingrich’s speech as CPAC a colleague and I discussed the Republican chances for the White House. That day we heard from Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt and we both agreed that winning in the fall should not be hard. But a couple of conditions had to be met.

[click to continue…]

Share and Recommend:
Share and Recommend:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich don’t like each other. Okay, okay, they hate each other at a visceral level. If our core goal is to replace Barack Obama, what are we to do?

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

The Deadly Embrace: Gingrich and Romney

by Bill O'Connell on January 28, 2012

Share and Recommend:

 

If you ask conservatives what their number one priority is in the 2012 election, most will agree it is to unseat Barack Obama. Yet unless Rick Santorum can expand his base beyond social conservatives, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney may hand the election to Obama on a silver platter.

[click to continue…]

Share and Recommend:

Nasty Newt Attacks Free Market Capitalism

by Bill O'Connell on January 10, 2012

Share and Recommend:

 

As if sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming wasn’t enough, Newt Gingrich seems to have taken a seat next to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to attack free market capitalism.

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

Rick Santorum. What Now?

by Bill O'Connell on January 4, 2012

Share and Recommend:

 

Rick Santorum timed the wave perfectly and rode it to within eight votes of Romney in the Iowa caucuses. Whether it was timing or real support is not certain, but where does he go from here, and I don’t mean geographically?

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

Who Would Obama Rather Run Against?

by Bill O'Connell on October 24, 2011

Share and Recommend:

Don’t pay attention to what you are hearing from Obama’s supporters. What they really want may be the opposite of what they are saying.

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

Why I Like Rick Perry

by Bill O'Connell on September 1, 2011

Share and Recommend:

Photo by Robert Scoble

And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can. And at the same time, we’ll be freeing our families and small businesses and states from the burdensome and costly federal government so those groups can create, innovate and succeed. — From Rick Perry’s speech announcing his run for the presidency.

That is the pledge of a person who deeply respects the Constitution. It is the sentiment of a person who understands the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Click to read more

Share and Recommend:

Beware the Barracuda

by Bill O'Connell on July 4, 2009

Share and Recommend:

If anyone thinks that Sarah Palin is beaten and is about to become a footnote in history, I would say to them, “don’t bet the rent on it.”  In her address where she announced she was stepping down, she used a basketball analogy.  After all, it was on the basketball court where she got the name “Sarah Barracuda.”  She said what a good point guard does when facing a full court press is protect the ball, keep her head up with her eyes on the basket and she passes off at the right opportunity.  What she didn’t say was what happens next.  If anyone who watched Michael Jordan play knows, after passing off they don’t go sit on the bench.  They maneuver into position to make the big play and if you take your eye off of them, they’ll kill you every time.

The Full Court Press

In the last year Sarah Palin has been hit with eighteen ethics complaints.  Her record so far in these complaints is 15-0, with three still pending.  The results of these complaints have been a lot of needless time and money spent by state employees investigating these complaints and clearing her name every time.  The concern she expressed yesterday is that these are a distraction, a waste of state time and money robbing the people of Alaska of the limited government they deserve and it is also costing her family a fortune to defend.  As you can see below, one of the ethics complaints is that she is raising money to pay her legal fees.  So the full court press is throw every frivolous ethics complaint you can at her, complain if she tries to raise money to defend herself, bankrupt her if you can, and later you can complain that she spent too much time on these issues rather than on state business.  Here is a summary of the complaints:

  1. Troopergate — this one is the well known case where a state employee was fired for not doing his job.  It also involved her sister’s ex-husband.  The firing was deemed lawful.
  2. Palin was accused of helping someone get a job in state government.  I’m shocked, shocked that someone in politics actually helped someone get a job.  Complaint dismissed by state personnel board.
  3. Palin was accused of taking a public position on a mining ballot initiative days before the vote.  Wow, she actually took a position.  How refreshing for a politician.  Any issue about it taking place within days of a vote is our misguided “campaign finance reforms” that curtail our First Amendment rights in the name of better government.  Complaint rejected by the Alaska Public Public Offices Commission.
  4. Palin filed “self disclosure”  to get the Troopergate issue resolved once and for all.
  5. Complaint filed by employee union over the firing of Mike Wooton, the trooper in Troopergate.  Complaint dismissed.
  6. Monagan, the individual fired in the Troopergate ethics complaint against Palin asked for a hearing to clear his name.  The panel said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for such a hearing.
  7. Complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission about the $150,000 the Republican Party spent for her wardrobe.  FEC said the expenditure was not banned.
  8. Palin charged with abuse of power for charging the state when her children traveled with her.  The personnel board found no wrongdoing.  Palin agreed to pay $10,000 to the state to cover the costs.
  9. Palin was accused of conducting an interview in the Governor’s office about the Vice Presidential campaign.  Complaint dismissed by the state personnel board.  I guess she should have conducted the interview outside.  Let’s see, November in Alaska outside, perfect!
  10. Palin accused of violating ethics law for campaigning for Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss.  Dismissed by state personnel board.
  11. Complaint that Palin misused funds of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to promote her political ambitions by using advertisements featuring her.  Her crime was that she allowed the board to use her image and did so before she was picked by John McCain.  Complaint dismissed after a personnel board investigation.
  12. Complaint alleging interference in job hiring by an individual whose identity could never be verified.  The name used was that of a character in a British soap opera.  Palin’s attorney said that no one in  the state of Alaska could be found with that name and the filer refused to use a real name so the case was dropped.
  13. This and 14 allege that two employees on Palin’s staff worked on state time to help Palin before and after her Vice Presidential campaign.  This complaint is still pending.
  14. Same as 13 covering the other employee. Pending.
  15. Complaint Palin improperly used state property, time and equipment for partisan political purposes, including posting on the Governor’s web site that she was running for Vice President.  Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
  16. Palin accused of a conflict of interest because she wore clothing with an “Arctic Cat” logo on it because Arctic Cat sponsored her husband’s team.  Dismissed.
  17. Complaint alleged that Palin’s work with a PAC violated ethics laws by misusing her position and accepting outside employment. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
  18. Complaint alleging Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by accepting money from the Alaska Fund Trust.  The fund was established by supporters to help Palin defray her $500,000 in legal bills run up by fighting all these ethics claims she keeps winning.  Brilliant strategy.  Hit her with baseless ethics claims and then fight her ability to pay her bills.  This is still pending.

Add to this the personal attacks by the likes of David Letterman, the recent Vanity Fair article and her enemies standing at the ready to file ethics complaints every time she tries to defend herself, let’s her opponents set the agenda.  If allowed unchecked for the next three years, no one could recover from that.  On top of that is her personal focus to do what is best for her state.  She does not want to waste state money and time on dealing with ethics complaints rather than governing, but these complaints have to be dealt with and they seem to be coming at a rate of about one every three weeks.  She defeats everyone of them but it is a drain.

An Unconventional Move

The pundits are saying this is the end of her career.  But let’s look at this.

  • By stepping down, the ethics complaints will stop.
  • The people of Alaska can have a government that is not wasting time on these issues.
  • Her legal bills will stop climbing
  • She can probably make $50,000 to $100,000 per speech on the speaking circuit and quickly pay off her legal bills
  • She can hit the campaign trail for Congressional and Senate candidates in 2010.  She is still very popular and a very successful fund raiser.  This will pile up political IOUs for 2012
  • She can speak out forcefully against the reckless policies of the Obama administration, raising her profile without complaint (ethics and otherwise) that she is neglecting her state duties.
  • She can work on burnishing her foreign policy credentials.  Remember she was only on the campaign trail for about 60+ days, trying to get in sync with John McCain’s positions while being mishandled by his staff.  Now she can stake out her own positions, carefully and thoughtfully

Is this a risky move?  Sure.  But to continue the basketball analogy, how conventional was Michael Jordan’s style of play?  He did things that no one ever saw coming.

The 2012 Campaign

Some pundits are saying that Mitt Romney probably can’t stop pinching himself with his new found good fortune.  Is that premature?  After all, he and Sarah Palin are basically in the same position.  They are both former governors.  Yes, it can be said that Romney finished his term in office while Palin is stepping down.  However, Romney as governor of liberal Massachusetts has some things on his resume that he would probably like to live down.  Palin accomplished a lot in a short time in office without the same albatrosses.  She is doing what she thinks is right for herself and for Alaska, not following some tired political playbook.  Her approval/disapproval rating among Republicans is 73/17 compared to Romney’s 57/18.

Brand New Ballgame

Not being in office allows her to set the agenda rather than having to react to other people’s agendas.  She doesn’t have to hold back.  Consider how Dick Cheney came out forcefully so speak against Obama’s policies when others in the Republican party were trying to find their voice.  His poll numbers rose dramatically.

Sarah Palin can speak with conservative principles that win elections.  When Republicans stick to their conservative roots they win.  When they try to be moderate they lose.  It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but I can see Palin having just passed off the ball driving to the basket while her opponents watch the ball, and soar into the air for the ally oop and the score.

Share and Recommend:

The Auto Bailout Clings to Life

by Bill O'Connell on November 20, 2008

Share and Recommend:

It’s not over yet folks, although your voice is being heard.  The big sticking point seems to be whether the bailout money should be taken out of our left pocket ($700 billion TARP bailout package) or our right pocket ($25 billion fund to provide re-tooling for green production).  The only people talking about going Chapter 11 are people on the right such as Mitt Romney, who actually knows something about it having watched his father, George Romney, try to save American Motors, as CEO.

Politics Trumps Problem Solving

Barney Frank has weighed in to make sure the class warfare card is played.  He compared the bailout of AIG with the bailout of the auto companies as White Collar (AIG) vs. Blue Collar (GM). A blog by dbeale points this out very well.  This begs the question:  where does it all end?  Where do you draw the line?  If you bail out AIG, you have to bail out GM because they have blue collar workers.  If you bail out GM you have to bail out (fill in the company name) because they have (fill in special interest group).

But if you read the post carefully you can see the true political objectives of the Democrats and their supporters:

  1. Give the auto companies a bailout
  2. Fire most of senior management for mismanagement
  3. Threaten bankruptcy but don’t do it
  4. If the auto companies don’t reinvent themselves (which they can’t do without bankruptcy), nationalize them.  Don’t call it nationalization, call it a “quasi government takeover”
  5. Make sure the focus is on building high mileage cars, and whatever else the green program demands.  Anyone who gets in the way of that goal should be fired. To quote dbeale, “every one involved in undermining gas efficiency standards must go.”
  6. Appoint a automobile czar (don’t call it nationalization) to oversee the companies to make sure that the management isn’t paid too much, that union contracts are reinforced, the “right” kind of cars are built.
  7. Bailout with more government money every 3 years, because the root cause the problem is never addressed.

A Workable Solution

The root of the problem is that the auto companies as they are today, are not competitive.  Here is my proposal

  1. Eliminate the CAFE standards.  The CAFE standards were introduced 1975 in response to the energy crisis.  At least that was the stated objective.  The real objective was to curtail the importation of foreign cars, particularly Japanese cars, which could already meet the standards.  If you wanted to buy a car that got good gas mileage, you could.  This was a attempt by government to force U.S. car companies to make cars of similar economy.  However, their cost structure would not allow them to compete with the imports at the low end of the market.  G.M., Ford, and Chrysler don’t seem to have a problem making a profit on the luxury end of the market, on SUVs, and light trucks.  But if, for example the standard is 27 MPG, and your Cadillac only got 20 MPG.  You would have to sell eight compact cars that get 28 MPG for each Cadillac to comply with the standard.  However, it is estimated that GM is at a cost disadvantage of $2000 per vehicle.  At the luxury end there is enough margin to cover that.  At the low end there isn’t.  So, GM as a direct result of government policy has to sell eight cars at a loss to allow them to sell one car at a profit.  Why not let them sell as many cars at a profit as they can, sell no cars at a loss and let the market decide?  If need a high mileage car to save on gas for your long commute, buy a foreign car.
  2. File bankruptcy.  Reorganize and get rid of those things that are killing you.  That’s what the bankruptcy laws are for.  Yes, shareholders may get wiped out, union contracts will have to be renegotiated, commitments to continue paying revenue bonds for plants that are no longer needed can be renegotiated or voided, pension commitments revisited, etc.
  3. Slim down, come out of bankruptcy, and get competitive again.  The Big three made about 17 million vehicles in 2007.  Does any rational person believe that if the Big Three go into bankruptcy that the people and companies that bought that many vehicles will no longer need cars?  If they still need cars, someone has to build them.  That can either be the foreign makes, the slimmed down Lean Three, or new companies that are formed to take advantage of this huge demand for 17 million vehicles that no one, or not enough are stepping up to the plate to meet it.  People will be re-hired, sub-contractors will have new subcontracts, and the auto industry can actually thrive and not just limp along from bailout to bailout.

The key to this working is to get government out of the mix.  We are facing a plethora of problems and most of them can be traced to government intervention in the market place.  The financial crisis is a direct result of government programs such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Community Reinvestment Act, the strong arm tactics of the Clinton Justice Department and HUD to demand more sub-prime lending, and the resistance of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for more oversight.

The tragedy is that we have problems created by the government and we think that more government is going to fix them.  Keep up the fight.  Let your representatives and senators know, NO BAILOUT

Share and Recommend:
© 2012 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.