Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Chart of the Day

Comrade Doug Ross shares:

This chart has so much to offer, and I couldn't agree more.

Here are my interpretations:

Doug uses it to justify his support for Sen. Cruz.  Correctly.  I use it to support my current favorite in the GOP race.

A comrade, who will remain nameless, recently fell into the liberal/media trap by saying 'America hasn't had a conservative to vote for since Reagan.'  Wrong-o!  W. was the second most conservative in 2000, behind Keyes.  Keyes got my vote in the primary, and W. got my vote in the election.  A lot of historic revisionism has been pushed on us about W.  Do you remember he ran on a $1.6B tax cut.  Then, under pressure in the general election dropped it to $1.2b?  Do you remember what it ended up being?  $1.6B.  Then he passed a second tax cut - $1.2B - I recall.  Do you remember W.'s position on abortion?  Do you remember him calling out not just terrorists after 9-11, but the states that harbor them?  Liberals don't do that.  RINOs don't either.  I am amazed at the power the media, and what war fatigue can do to a class guy like W.  And please, save the space in the comments about his deal with Teddy Kennedy on education.  No excuses here, but that was pre-9-11 status quo DC.  The prescription drug benefit?  Pretty brilliant taking an issue away from the Democrats when emerging generics made it a cheap win.  TARP - a desperate measure in desperate times that was abused by the subsequent administration. 

And yes, I too put W. as more conservative than Reagan, but that could be that I was paying closer attention to W. than Reagan.  Reagan made a bigger impact - remember the USSR? - but I would argue that is more a measure of leadership and determination than ideology.  This comparison is also flawed as Reagan had Democrat majorities in Congress whereas W. did not in his first six years.

The only data I question is that of McCain, which is also the problem with these concepts.  Who is measuring the 'conservativeness' of each?  What is their criteria?

Last, and only partially related: Trump.  He is bitch-slapping the GOP lineup right now, yet he isn't a conservative.  Did you know his solution to ObamaCare is to replace it with another government healthcare law?  It isn't ideology that is putting him on top.  It is a combination of common sense, a command of his message and the media, and his tapping into an anger within the silent majority.  I expect Trump to flame-out before the primaries, but at the moment he is in a position to prove this chart wrong.

Did I miss anything?


DAN III said...

Regarding Cruz, he is NOT a natural-born citizen. His father was/is a Cuban national. Thus he is ineligible to be POTUS per Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. Rubio is also disqualified for having foreign-born parents. This is the reason neither of these men challenged soetoro-obama' Constitutiinal ineligibility. They didn't want to draw attention to their own ineligibility.

But what does it matter ? soetoro-obama was anointed, the Constitution be damned. Fact of the matter the Constitution is dead. The fUSA no longer has borders. The nation exists in name only. Micky Mouse for POTUS. What does it matter anyway ?

sth_txs said...

I'll be staying home once again. After the Republicans cheated Ron Paul that pretty much did it for me. Bush was just another big government conservative and I did not support him years ago. The Bush family are nothing more than eastern carpetbaggers; they could not compete in the northeast so they went south to ply their legacy.

Republicans have a majority in Congress and now they are saying if we just had a Team R guy in the Whitehouse stuff would get done. Where have we heard that BS before?

Trump is fun to watch and all the GOP candidates rightfully deserve whatever abuse he can heap on them.

Cruz says the right words but have no idea what they mean either and I agree with the assessment of the poster above that he is not a natural born citizen.

As Aaren Clarey at Captain Capitalism says, enjoy the decline.