Here’s a snippet from an editorial which appeared in the Jacksonville Observer entitled, “Governor Romney, Welcome Back!” regarding Mitt’s visit there last Monday:
Romney’s speech was principled, impassioned and conservative to the core. He spoke about the dire effects of big government spending and taxpayer funded bailouts crippling an already frail economy, versus limited government which spurs economic growth and empowers Americans to pursue greater opportunities.
In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s national G.O.P. revolt in Virginia and New Jersey, Romney released this statement: “The American people have sent a very strong message to the liberals in Washington, D.C.; that big government is not the answer and that conservatism is alive and well.”
Romney, as many recall, beat his closest opponent, Senator John McCain, by a 3-1 margin in Duval and the surrounding counties.
I guess they hadn’t heard it was “The End of the Line for Romney.”
November 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Here’s a news article someone might want to slip into Mitt’s inbox because it supports the point he makes: Emerson Electric expects to move more manufacturing abroad because the business climate in the US is strangling domestic manufacturing and business.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The link doesn’t work.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
#2: Link.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
It’s fixed now.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
News travels slow in Jacksonville? ; )
November 11th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Mark,
“because the business climate in the US is strangling domestic manufacturing and business.”
Dude. That’s been going on for 30 years. It’s called “free trade.” It means Mexico, China, and India manufacture everything, and we borrow money to buy it.
Under Bush II, about one out of every three manufacturing jobs was lost.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
MWS-It’s also called the United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world(only behind Japan) so if that rate was cut to atleast 25% that would make things much favorable for businesses to stay here.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Exactly Sean … some people simple have never been in a manufacturing environment,and don’t have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. Many modifications can be made to provide incentives, but still be completely ‘free trade’.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Nothing like an unbiased reporter printing the facts about a former presidential candidate coming to Florida.
Unless of course, it is Nancy Peek McGowan who was “In 2007, she was appointed Duval County Co-Chair “Women for Mitt Romney” for President 2008.”
November 11th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“an editorial which appeared in the Jacksonville Observer”
Kinda. It’s a guest editorial written by the 2008 co-chair of Duval County’s Women for Romney. Not surprisingly, she still likes him, but it’s not necessarily proof that “they” like him.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
You beat me to it, Tex.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
So are we expecting a Mitt endorsement in the Senate race? If he’s consistent then he won’t, just like NY23.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Sean,
That’s part of it.
Here are the top 10 imports from China, and the top 10 exports to China, as of 2006.
1. Computer accessories, peripherals and parts …US$28.9 billion (10.1% of China to U.S. exports)
2. Miscellaneous household goods (e.g. clocks) … $26.5 billion (9.2%)
3. Toys & sporting goods (e.g. bicycles) … $22.2 billion (7.7%)
4. Computers … $17.4 billion (6%)
5. Non-cotton household furnishings & clothing … $14.6 billion (5.1%)
6. Video equipment (e.g. DVD players) … $14.5 billion (5.0%)
7. Household furniture … $13.2 billion (4.6%)
8. Footwear … $10.7 billion (3.7%)
9. Cotton household furnishings & clothing … $9.9 billion (3.4%)
10. Telecommunications equipment … $8.3 billion (3.0%)
Total value of Chinese Exports to U.S. $287.8 billion.
Top ten U.S. Exports to China:
1. Semi-conductors … US$5.9 billion (10.6% of China from U.S. imports)
2. Civilian aircraft … $5.3 billion (9.6%)
3. Soybeans … $2.5 billion (4.6%)
4. Plastics …. $2.2 billion (3.9%)
5. Raw cotton … $2.1 billion (3.7%)
6. Industrial machines … $1.97 billion (3.6%)
7. Copper … $1.86 billion (3.4%)
8. Computer accessories … $1.82 billion (3.3%)
9. Aluminum … $1.7 billion (3.1%)
10. Steelmaking material … $1.69 billion (3.1%)
Total value of U.S. Exports to China: $55.2 billion
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_chinese_exports_imports#ixzz0WbRLCvFh
You will notice that all 10 of China’s top 10 exports to us are finished goods. Of the top 10 US exports to China, 3 are finished goods, 2 are semi-finished, and 5 are raw materials. We have a mercantilist relationship, and we are the colony.
You will also notice that the value is Chinese exports to the US is about 5 times higher than the value of US exports to China. How do we balance the books? Our government issues Treasuries. Yes, our trade deficits finance our budget deficits, and our budget deficits practically necessitate our trade deficits.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Do you think any reporters asked Mitt who he would be endorsing, Rubio or Crist? Or did Mitt not take any questions?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I think that if Mitt were going to make an endorsement he would have already. This race has been big news in the political geek world for several months now.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
conservative,
“some people simple have never been in a manufacturing environment”
Well, that stands to reason, as our country has shipped most of its manufacturing jobs overseas……..
November 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Mitt will wait to see who wins. ; )
November 11th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
That’s conviction, Romney style.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I still say Mitt will come out at the right point in time endorsing Rubio…putting him over the top.
Yes MWS, but my point is that it wouldn’t have to be that way, and we could still have something perfectly called ‘free trade’.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
MWS –
Pres Clinton pushed through trade agreements with Asia, Mexico and Canada.
- FYI
November 11th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The strangulatory government tax-and-regulate penchant in this country is not a component of free trade, MWS. Our legislators and executive branch authorities have capitulated before every groovy movement that has some sort of ambition to shut down commerce in the name of feel-good policies to “Save X,” whether X be the whale, the spotted owl, the polar bear, or the rare blue-bellied mosquito of the Mississippi Basin.
Both parties — but most egregiously the Democrats — have done all they can to increase costly domestic red tape (often as barriers to market entry that favor heavily lobbying incumbent corps) and raise taxes and fees. We’ve been told that all of this is for our good in a much broader, much more august and elusive “good” for the planet, future generations, the solar system, etc.
Problem is, if we restrict production by intentionally ham-stringing it into failure, aren’t we merely offshoring the possible real resultant problems to other parts of the world where rule of law is far less important?
Free trade by itself hasn’t driven every business overseas. But it has been used in the three-card-monte trick to keep us from recognizing the failures caused by domestic policy makers.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
broses,
“Pres Clinton pushed through trade agreements with Asia, Mexico and Canada”
……….and……………..
November 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
You are exactly right MarkG.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I doubt he would support Crist for a number of reasons. I know I don’t after what he pulled on Romney during the primaries.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Mark,
#21. I completely agree with everything except the last paragraph. Our red tape wasn’t put up overnight. Yet practically overnight, we went from trade surpluses to trade deficits with Mexico, as soon as NAFTA was put into effect, and we’ve never looked back. Now how did that happen?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Let me ask some of you who know Florida better than the rest of us: Why do you think Mitt was able to beat McCain by near 3 to 1 in this county, and generally be strong in northern Florida….what is there about that area that cause them to like Mitt much better than the others running in 2008?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“what is there about that area that cause them to like Mitt much better than the others running in 2008?”
Mormons?
(sorry, couldn’t help it. I’m done now……..)
November 11th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
9, 10. Ha ha. Well, at least we know they like Romney 2 times as much as they like Huck. Someone here keeps repeating that Huck will take FL, but in ‘08 Romney beat Huck 31-14.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
27, And you call me the religion baiter. The truth is that its you that has a religion problem, not me.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Mark,
How does the fact that Americans won’t work for near-slave wages factor into the “red tape” argument?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Martha,
Oh, get off it. It was a joke. But can you name any other demographic that Romney carried 3-1 over McCain, except people with the last name of “Romney?”
November 11th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
(here’s the part where Martha nails herself to a cross)
five……… four,,,,,,,,,,,three……… two………….
November 11th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Remember that Hannity, both on his radio show and on his cable show, announced that Huckabee had pulled out of Florida.
Now why would he do that? Who was he trying to benefit? Why would he lie?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
MWS,
Would you label yourself a protectionist?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Tommy,
Yes. Along with every President on Mt. Rushmore, and every Republican President from Lincoln to Eisenhower.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I ask a serious question, only to have MWS interupt it…what cause this area of Florida to be strong for Mitt?
I know he didn’t campaign hard there the last week, but I don’t remember him saying he pulled out….there is a difference. He didn’t pull out…he got shillacked (sp).
November 11th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
MWS, it’ll make your head spin how quickly dormant rules and regs and court rulings can be implemented. The most local example in my neck of the woods is the total shutdown of coal surface mines, just because the EPA had the established authority under the Clean Water Act to suspend previously approved surface mine licenses “pending further review.”
Aside from that, some 82 out of 150 planned coal-fired power plants have been stopped dead, even though our nation’s growth depends on having access to cheap electricity. And for those who respond with pure emotion that coal is dirty: Existing regulations that the industry has lived under make coal and coal-generated electricity amongst the cleanest in the world — not least because we have rule of law. But for the enviro-freaks, their mission isn’t accomplished until every activity has been brought to a total halt.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
CR,
Perhaps because McCain and Huckabee were bad fits for the Jacksonville region. Anyone know how did McCain do compared to Romney in the Panhandle,NW Florida region?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Mark,
“MWS, it’ll make your head spin how quickly dormant rules and regs and court rulings can be implemented. ”
I understand that. But what dormant rule or reg just so happen to coincide with the implementation of NAFTA to turn our trade surpluses with Mexico into deficits?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
MWS:
Why is it that after you go after Romney’s record, you attack him personally, and after you attack him personally, you go after Romney supporters and their Religion….Your the blog bully, quick and mean spirited.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I don’t see where Romney won any county in Florida 3-1. Romney carried Duval County (Jacksonville) 41-28 over McCain. That’s impressive, but it’s not 3-1.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#FLREPMAPprimary
November 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
MWS, for one, many of the most monotonous, most back-breaking jobs would either be done by manual labor overseas in countries with dirt-cheap labor, or they would be replaced by automation domestically.
Let’s not forget that minimum wage laws have meant that the dollar values for those “near-slave wages” have consistently risen significantly since 2006, by the way. If anything, higher taxes, fees, and other government actions have made the basic costs of living rise even faster. And much of this cost increase has come about thanks to red tape.
Altogether, our labor productivity has risen thanks to automation and thanks to trade, too. Job creation has outpaced job loss until recently. And the biggest recent change in policy has favored more aggressive regulation, higher taxes, and more protectionism.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Romney carried the counties that touch Duval by margins ranging from 6-15. None of them 3-1.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Petraeus on 2012: What about no don’t you understand?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/petraeus-on-2012-what-about-no-dont-you-understand/
Pawlenty heading to New Hampshire
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/11/pawlenty-heading-to-new-hampshire/
November 11th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
31. MWS. You always bite on anything remotely close to talking about Mormons – as you did earlier today. That’s what I’m talking about. You seem to have an issue.
32. You lost me.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
33. Texas,
Hannity correctly noted that Huck pulled advertising out of FL. Why did he report that? I guess because it was true.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Mark,
It was protectionism that helped create the industrial juggernaut that was once America. I’m rusty on my stats (pardon the pun) but in the 50s, I think we built something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the world’s manufactured goods.
Our industrial ascendancy corresponded to Britain’s industrial decline (in the late 19th and early 20th century) when they started answering the siren song of “free trade.”
November 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Balance-of-trade accounting says little. Germany, for instance, enjoys large surpluses against many countries, but growth has been lackluster despite that fact. Unemployment has remained stubbornly high, and wages remarkably stagnant (following the slow growth and high unemployment).
November 11th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
#43, yeah Duval was 43 Mitt 28 McCain 13 Giuliani Huck ?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
McCain won the Panhandle/NW Florida region while Romney won the Jacksonville region. It seems a little counterintuitive for McCain to perform better in the former and Romney to perform better in the latter.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Scozzafava Interview
CNN’s exclusive interview with Dede Scozzafava, former Republican candidate for New York’s 23rd district.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2009/11/11/am.intv.scozzafava.cnn
November 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Huck may be doing well in the polls right now, but Romney cleaned his clock in ‘08. Of the 19 states they both competed in before Romney dropped out, Huck only bested Romney in 6. Of those 19 states, Romney won 32% of the vote, while Huck won only 20%.
I don’t know how in the world anyone thinks Huck can overcome those stats. Especially when neither man has changed dramatically since then.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Mark,
And when I’m talking about “near-slave wages” I’m not talking about the minimum wage in the US. I’m talking about Chinese workers making a few bucks a week.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Mark,
“Balance-of-trade accounting says little. ”
It says how much of our capital leaves the country each year.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
For all the pessimism people seem to have about this country’s future, it’s interesting when you think about how much of the actual innovation still happens here.
Think for a sec about the tech companies that have made the most impact over the past 20 years. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, IBM, Adobe, Facebook, YouTube…all American companies. How about media and entertainment? Or you can also point to biotech as a future industry we are poised to dominate.
People talk about the loss of manufacturing like it’s some horrible thing (what did the poster say above – we’re a colony of China?), but would you rather work in an economy based on sweatshop labor, or one based on services and innovation? I don’t see us as the colony in this equation.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I didn’t even mention the caucuses, where Romney did even better.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Perhaps. But it also accompanied Japan’s rise and nearly 20-year-long decline, from which the country has yet to recover.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
WA,
That’s all great, but we’re still not exporting enough of that great innovation to compensate for all the things we import- on borrowed money. Net result is a huge capital outflow from this country every year.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Mark,
“Perhaps. But it also accompanied Japan’s rise and nearly 20-year-long decline, from which the country has yet to recover.”
Give it time. We’re only 2 years into this one. I don’t think the other shoe has fallen yet, but it’s payback time now for 30 years of debt-fueled prosperity. Consumer debt. Business leverage. Government debt. Anyone can live high on the hog while they max out their credit cards, as long as the limits are high. But at some point, they have to do something productive, and start paying them back……..
November 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Erm, it says more and less than that all at once.
Sorry to be cagey here, but I gotta run for now.
Balance of payments is more theoretically complex, yet it is also less of a recognizable distinct factor in the health of an economy at the same time. I’d also point out that, for whatever its usefulness as an indicator, our current borrowing is outpacing all other balance-of-payment components.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
cr,
Huck got 16 in Duval county.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Martha,
Hannity did not say that Huckabee pulled his advertising out of Florida, he said that Huckabee pulled out of Florida. I heard it myself both on TV and Cable. I called Huckabee’s campaign personally to tell them what Hannity was saying about Huckabee.
Huckabee confronted Hannity about it, and Hannity told a lie, saying that he did not say that.
Now again, Hannity did not want McCain to win, and he knew Giuliani probably was not going to win. So why say it? Who was he trying to benefit?
Huckabee was campaigning in one of the Super Tuesday states when Hannity pulled that stunt. Huckabee was flying back to Florida that night, and had to somehow tell the voters that he was still campaigning in Florida.
Why o why did Hannity lie?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
and
Perhaps they think it because, as your first quote says, he is currently doing so.
What happened in ‘08 is a useful indicator, but no more — do you think McCain would beat Romney again if he ran in ‘12? Based on what you say about Huck and Mitt, apparently so.
Today’s polls are not definitive either, but they are a better indicator than ‘08 results.
I don’t like the fact that Huck is doing well any better than you do, Martha, but it’s foolish to deny reality.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Bob,
The other thing that Martha fails to mention is that the map and calendar was much more favorable to Romney in ‘08 than Huck. Consider that by the time that Romney dropped out:
1. Every single mountain state had voted.
2. Only half of southern states had voted.
3. Romney’s semi-home state of MI had voted, as well as MA.
4. The Big Blue states of CA, NY, NJ, and IL had all voted.
In other words, the primaries and caucuses held on or before Feb. 4 were much more fertile ground for Romney than those held afterwards. So what was left? Largely the South and Midwest, where Romney had not done as well. So the picture that Martha loves to paint of ‘08 as a Romney landslide is a touch misleading.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Nancy Peet McGowan:
MWS:
MWS again:
Are you saying that Romney’s county co-chair is a fibber, MWS?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“I don’t like the fact that Huck is doing well any better than you do, Martha, but it’s foolish to deny reality.”
Amen Bob.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Bob,
“Are you saying that Romney’s county co-chair is a fibber”
Far be it from me. I’m just suggesting that the results have yet to catch up with the memory of Romney’s county co-chair.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Yeah, that darn CURRENT reality thing!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
She does have a qualifier in there: “Romney, as many recall, beat his closest opponent …”
Of course, she’s not the only one to engage in a bit of selective enhancement of the past.
Did I ever tell you about how close I came to winning the Heisman Trophy?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
65. Oh come on now. I didn’t even mention the caucuses either – where we know Romney really killed the Huckster.
I believe past history is at least as valid, and is probably more reliable than polls 3 years out in which Huck is clearly benefiting from media exposure. Maybe not, we shall see. I wouldn’t discount the major hurdle Huck has in changing those stats state by state. Not going to happen.
Tell me which states Huck can flip in 2012, and beat Romney. I don’t see any.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Uh… ok. You’re right. Crown Mitt. ; )
November 11th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Martha,
Regarding the past, Romney won exactly zero primaries that were not either a) his home state b) his dad’s home state or c) Utah.
Regarding the future, you have absolutely no idea what the next 2 1/2 years bring. These things aren’t static. The campaign hasn’t even begun. For goodness sake, did Romney end ‘08 where he started? Why would you expect anyone to end ‘12 where they ended in ‘08? That’s ridiculous. Was Huck in Jan. of ‘08 where he was in Nov. of ‘07? Was Guiliani?
C’mon. Even if ‘08 was the first campaign you really paid attention to, you can discern all these things just by looking at how dramatically things changed from month to month. And you want to declare Huck as “no chance” based on ‘08 results. Huck bounced more in two months in the ‘08 campaign than he needs to bounce in the next 2 1/2 years to win the nomination.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Wait in 5..4..3..2..1
MIKE is going to remind us we need to unite as Republicans.
Followed by his next 20 sarcastic posts ripping on other candidates.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Apple pays Chuck Norris 99 cents every time he listens to a song.
Gotcha, Micah!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Bob,
As some might recall I won Mr. Universe in 2005, shortly after inventing cold fusion.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
Chuck Norris doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Well Chucks got a way to go before he can match the gifts given to him while Governor.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Huck owns Chuck! In fact I beleive Huck received more gifts as Governor than any other politician! Congrats Huck!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
77. There we go, Micah
THAT was funny, my friend.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Plausible — but your point above was not that a case could be made that Mitt could win (which I readily concede), but that no case could be made that Huckabee could win: “I don’t know how in the world anyone thinks Huck can overcome those stats.”
To reiterate — it’s very reasonable to think he can overcome the stats from 2008, because he has already overtaken Romney in most of the recent polls. If we were to go on trajectory, Huckabee’s performance over the past year would indicate that he would leave Romney (and everybody else) so far behind by 2011 they would concede before the first corn dog is eaten at an Iowa county fair.
That won’t happen, of course — momentum changes. But you need to get yourself out of this habit of looking at everything based on how you want it to be. Huckabee has a very, very real chance of winning.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Martha,
I made phone calls for Huckabee. I spoke to voters who wanted to vote for Huckabee, but said they thought he was not going to win, so therefore they were going to vote for McCain.
Now what was the perception drawn out for the viewers-that it was a two man race (for Super Tuesday-even though there were 4 still in the race) And who pushed that perception: Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingraham, Levin, etc
Well now the perception has changed. People see how far Huckabee got on so little money and so little establishment support. What do you think all of the tea party protesters are going to want in 2012? A candidate who needs to buy his way into the white house? A candidate who has the backing on the Washington establishment? Or do you think they want an outsider who is not afraid to tell Washington they are wrong? That leaves only a few candidates, and Romney is not one of them.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I picked up Chuck’s new book today on my way home from work… : )
For Chuck Norris, every street is “one way”. HIS WAY.
Chuck Norris is not Politically Correct. He is just Correct. Always.
Chuck Norris actually owns IBM. It was an extremely hostile takeover.
Rules of fighting: 1) Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. 2) Don’t bring a gun to a Chuck Norris fight.
He, who laughs last, laughs best. He who laughs at Chuck Norris … dies.
Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
ONE MORE: (I promise on this thread)… They were going to release a Chuck Norris edition of Clue, but the answer always turns out to be “Chuck Norris. In The Library. With a Roundhouse Kick.”
November 11th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.”
I think that was my favorite.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Just wait!
Martha WILL pull that lever for…
Huckabee in 2012.
Her eyes will be closed, lips
tightened and shoulders slumped
BUT Mike; it’ll be!!! : )
November 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
83. MWS, mine too. : )
November 12th, 2009 at 12:07 am
I’m in favor of industry and new trade theory shows free trade isn’t the neat perfect thing it is made out to be.
Still protectionism doesn’t work for long. Other methods of bolstering industry are preferable to protectionism.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:12 am
86 Doug,
What kinds of other methods of bolstering industry?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:51 am
Huck/Chuck ‘12
November 12th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options
President won’t accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead to clarify when responsibility would be turned over to the Afghan government.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/official-obama-rejects-afghan-war-options/
November 12th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Mitt is still sublime I see.
So much so that if Mitt suupports Rubio I’ll back his judgment. But as I said BEFORE NY23 this endorsement obsession is boring.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:41 am
If you don’t endorse political friends that you agree with…
you’ve got a HUGE problem.
Good luck with that weak “strategy”, Mr. Romney.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:21 am
“Bob,
The other thing that Martha fails to mention is that the map and calendar was much more favorable to Romney in ‘08 than Huck. Consider that by the time that Romney dropped out:
1. Every single mountain state had voted.
2. Only half of southern states had voted.
3. Romney’s semi-home state of MI had voted, as well as MA.
4. The Big Blue states of CA, NY, NJ, and IL had all voted.
In other words, the primaries and caucuses held on or before Feb. 4 were much more fertile ground for Romney than those held afterwards. So what was left? Largely the South and Midwest, where Romney had not done as well. So the picture that Martha loves to paint of ‘08 as a Romney landslide is a touch misleading.”
Shhhhh, that is part of the real reason Mr. Romney dropped out of the race, he was not going to do very well in the remaining sates.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:27 am
#47…MWS…..Not to pick on you, but it’s interesting that you choose the 1950’s as your example of “protectionism made America great”.
Actually, America became so great in the 1950’s because after WWII all of America’s competition had been bombed into the Stone Age, America was able to capitalize on great new technologies it developed during the war or brought home as war spoils (like rocket and jet engine technology from Germany), and because as the new world leader it was able to set the agenda for world cooperation and stability. I was also after the war that America reversed it’s pre-war protection policy and promoted free trade while also serving as a sponge for exports from developing countries. One major example comes to mind: America bought huge quantities of goods from Japan while allowing Japan to nearly close its borders to unwanted imports, including those from the United States, from the time of the Occupation until the early 1980s for some product categories.
Also, the decline of the British Empire resulted from the slow death of British imperialism and mercantile economy, massive destruction to British assets in two world wars, and the inability to compete with America and other countries in the post-mercantile economy.
So for whatever reason, you seem to have your history and the economic lessons learned from it a little mixed up.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am
#82….Okay, I got all of questions in MarK’s science quiz right, but I don’t get this joke: Chuck Norris knows the last digit of pi.
Help me out
November 12th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is done! He is not conservative. I don’t know why he is part of the Republican Party and making some speeches every where he goes. He is another Rino’s. He is hurting the Republican Party.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Jerald,
(I didn’t get half of marK’s jokes), but Pi is theorized to go on forever without any discernible repetition to the pattern. Computers have worked Pi out to millions or billions of places beyond the decimal, but nobody (but Chuck Norris) know how or if it ends.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Jerald,
It was just the 50s. It was the preceding 180 years where America followed almost exclusively protectionist policies. The 50s was kind of the high water mark, as free trade policies started eroding America’s manufacturing base thereafter.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:40 am
#97 It was ***not*** just the 50s.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Except for massively importing as much labor and capital as possible.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Mark,
I don’t see how importing labor and capital is necessarily anti-protectionist.
I’m referring to tariffs, not closing up the border and embargoing the world.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Kavon,
Clean up on aisle 4. You already warned anonymous….. Do us all a favor and send that pathetic troll packing.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:00 am
MWS…….Thank’s for the help with the “pi” joke, although I thought the everything about Chuck Norris was tough guy, so I didn’t understand the link to him suddenly being God like and knowing the last digit to pi (if indeed there is one).
Also protectionist policies during the 18th and 19th centuries….Every country had them…that’s one of the reason the theories on free international trade of Adam Smith et. al. were so revolutionary.
And most of America’s growth during that time had little to do with protectionism and a lot to do with having a free and stable government, a nearly empty continent as a country that you can fill with millions of immigrants and families with 10 kids, huge supplies of cheap resources, and huge swathes of land for free or nearly for free. It was the classic “developing nation economy” coupled with a huge population growth rate and plenty of empty space for growth that also included the “borrowing” of technology from Europe and a free enterprise system that protected intellectual property rights to promoted domestic innovation.
And as was mentioned by MarkG, Europeans wanted in on the profits and provided huge sums of investment capital (not to mentioned skilled workers) to stoke the fire.
Given all those blessings, the social and political stability made growth easy.
That has a whole lot more to do with the difference in the economy before and after the 1950’s then the fact that there was also some protectionism, especially considering that almost every country at the time was protectionist to one extent or another.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:04 am
MWS…….We should also remember that there was a growing movement toward free trade at the beginning of the 20th century and it was the knee-jerk protectionist meassures taken by the US and other countries at the beginning of the Gread Depression that made everything worse. That experience was one of the reasons during the current recessions the leading countries pledged not to follow the path of protectionism this time around.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am
MWS…..Sorry, pressed the button too soon.
That, however, does not mean the US has to be everyone’s sucker and buy their stuff even if they block our goods from their markets……that’s not free trade and we shouldn’t take it sitting down.
However, turning our companies and industries into government welfare cases is not a winning strategy……conservative principles work for companies just as they work for people and governments…..true growth becomes strength which leads to competitive and freedome from relying on government handouts.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:09 am
It isn’t anti-protectionist, necessarily. But it isn’t protectionist either. You’re allowing two production factors into the country, but taxing the production output from outside the country.
Another parade example of failed protectionism is the experience of India until the last decade or so. India essentially blocked the import of all sorts of manufactured goods with the aim of building domestic manufacturing giants. Those manufacturers were essentially protected against outside competitors that could have made them more competitive. Instead, India produced motor vehicles, for instance, that rivaled the quality of those produced in soviet command economies.
Similar protectionist policies were pursued by Brazil, Argentina, and other states in the “non-aligned movement.” These countries did not enjoy any of the growth or improvements in living standards enjoyed in the post-WWII years in the rest of the developed world.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Jerald,
Indeed, there were many factors that lead to America’s growth in the 19th century, as you note. But protectionism helped insure that we were not simply exporting raw material, but actually manufacturing and finishing goods. Famously, the South wanted free trade, and never developed a very industrialized economy in the 19th century (for several reasons, of course). But had they remained independent, their industrial growth would have been stifled, and they would have remained overly reliant on agriculture, specifically cotton.
Finally, the UK did actually start pursuing free trade policy in the second half of the 19th century, and their manufacturing base started eroding as a result, and they lost massive market share to the US.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jerald and Mark,
Couple questions:
1. Would you make exceptions for industries directly tied to defense, for the purposes of national security? Seems to me that if we rely on other countries to make our steel, tanks, bullets, etc…. we are extremely compromised.
2. What would you do to correct our trade deficits? Do you even see them as a problem?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I’m persuadable on this issue. But I still see the regulatory burdens as being the largest contributor to driving “dirty” heavy industry overseas.
It’s like what happened here after the Three Mile Island nuclear energy scare: We responded by essentially banning nuclear energy, and we ceded a whole generation of engineering advances to other countries that did not follow the hysterical alarmism.
Fortunately, we didn’t lose out entirely, and still managed to keep some research programs running that should help us contribute to the technological progress — and finally use it to our own benefit.
I do see the balance of payment imbalances as potentially problematic, especially since we’re ramping up our foreign borrowing at a breakneck pace. We’re in uncharted territory on this. We’re conducting a real-time, real-world experiment on our economy and finances. I just wonder how far we can push the imbalances until something breaks and brings us back to some sort of equilibrium.
But let’s not forget (as Palin has pointed out) that a substantial share of our trade deficit comes from importing the oil that our government has arbitrarily prohibited us from exploiting within our own lands and waters. Again, our government itself is a major contributor to the problem, such that it is.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
72. I wasn’t talking about which states Romney won. I was comparing Romney’s performance to Huckabee’s.
Tell me again which state where Romney beat Huck, that Huck can now overtake Romney.
Here they are. The only one that was not a blow-out was Missouri, where Romney beat Huck by only 3 points.
NY, UT, MISSOURI, NJ, MASS, IL, ARKANSAS, CA, DE, AZ, CN, FL, MI, NH.
80. Huck is leading in these recent polls, but only slightly, and usually within the margin of error. He has a slight momentum, it’s true. We shall see.
I seriously doubt that when things get real, the GOP is going to be clamoring for Huck. Come on.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:32 am
#9
Easy buddy! Your disdain for Mitt shows in virtually everything you say about him, as it does with when Huck speaks about him. Mitt Romney never utters a negative word about Mike Huckabee and the pettiness of Huck will not allow him to be a grown up.
You don’t need to follow this same bad example just because Huck hates Mitt. It is typical of most Huck supporters to hate Mitt because their leader does.
I think you have the potential to overcome this and set yourself apart from this type of unmanly behavior.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:36 am
#17, 18
I predict Mitt will endorse Rubio. He would have won Florida without Crist’s endorsement had McCain not told the lie 2 days before the voting.
In other words, Mitt does not need a Crist endorsement to win Florida and Rubio is far more conservative.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Romney will endorse Crist. Romney and Crist are Rino’s. Romney is not conservative.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
America has never elected a wealthy businessman to the Presidency, and it never will. It wants a man of the people, and Mitt just isn’t that man. America wasn’t interested in 2008 when Mitt spent a fortune. There was just too much internet evidence of principle being sacrificed to political expedience. He should give up trying to do what his own father was unable to do, and find another way to serve his country. Of course, then all those internet writers he supports would have to do something else for a living.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I don’t think Romney will endorse Crist. If he does, he’s an idiot.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
@DavidE73
Romney is the smartest of the bunch. While Palin is pushing her book and OVER EXPOSING herself day-after-day, while Huckabee apears on his weekend show and daily on Fox, THEIR NUMBERS are in the SAME AREA as MITT who has been under everyone’s radar. Romney is QUIETLY raising money and campaigning for conservative candidates in many KEY states. DeMINT (SC), Toomey (PA), Whitman (CA), etc, etc. Palin TWITTERS while ROMNEY actually DELIVERS! McDONNELL (VA), Christie (NJ) have all benefited from his hard work. Palin was AWOL in those states. Its hard to campaign from TWITTER. It requires a little SHOE LEATHER and BRAINS! I wonder who all his HELPEE’S will endorse in 2012? Just imagine what will happen to Mitt’s numbers when he begins doing the popular networks (Fox)! He’s already TIED or AHEAD (Huckabee/Palin), and he’s done VERY LITTLE media! And then theirs his book out in March of 2010! Oh, Isn’t that when there are several National elections? —–;-)
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
November 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Romney with Demint….hmmmmm. I think I like it.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I am pretty sure that Romney and most prospective candidates will stay out of Republican primaries except in rare circumstances. The Republican nominee will need the support of whoever is the eventual winner. The less outsiders involve themselves the better. That is why the NRSC getting involved was so unfair. Sen. Cornyn later admitting the mistake and avowing to stay out of contested primaries from here on out. A fair local primary contest is all that is important. Let the local voters choose their candidate. Then endorse them against the democrat. Either one can earn the support against the democrat. While we conservatives have favorites, Floridians deserve to choose for themselves and they will choose the one who they think is best for Florida.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:02 am
The numbers came out this morning (Fri Nov 13) and we had the biggest jump in exports vs imports month over month since 1993. Clinton was President then and Obama is President now.
Romney is capable of revising trade agreements that are more in our favor, as he spoke about doing in the primaries… but as we all know, he didn’t get that chance and Obama has no experience in business or anything related to this issue.
Green manufacturing jobs are also pouring over to China (see Evergreen Solar for example) while Obama pushes for Cap and Trade to finance this with our dollars and further punish American companies with higher taxes who wish to continue doing business here. Wall Street will have access to those C&T credits to trade for profit, not you and not me.
Palin was for Cap and Trade in the elections, see the VP Debate for further information. So was McCain, he was fighting Romney on that in the primaries. She also raised taxes on oil in AK.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Gov Crist told other state Republicans to withhold endorsements of any candidate in the primaries and at the last minute, threw his own support and state political machine in behind McCain which was totally dishonest. It appeared he was looking for that VP selection from McCain but he didn’t get it.
Crist also allowed McCain and Huckabee supporters to violate Romney’s Constitutional Rights in the name of “free speech.” Religion is not allowed to be used to deny someone the Presidency, fyi.
Anyone who says Romney would support Crist was not paying attention in the elections.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am
It is true that Romney is not as “far right” as someone like LaRouche.
He also made in clear in NY that he was not going to support a third party candidate running against a Republican, he’s a Republican and that’s no secret. If he doesn’t agree with the person who Republicans chose, he’ll stay out of it as long as he/she is still in the running.