Barry Goldwater:"Grow Up Conservatives"

51 years ago I watched the Republican Convention in Chicago on TV. A United States Senator, I had never heard of, took to the podium and told Conserves to "Grow up" and then withdrew a draft Goldwater move by some Conservative delegates who were unhappy with Richard Nixon. That was my first intoduction to Barry Goldwater.

Mitt Romney is no Richard Nixon but it is again time for Conservatives to "Grow Up." Ronald Reagan is NOT in the race and Mitt Romney will be a good candidate and President.

Jay Nordlinger from National Review makes some good points in his column today"

If you’re a conservative, perhaps you’ve had this same experience: In the past few weeks, several people have said to me, “Have you made your peace with Romney? Have you accepted him as the nominee? Are you resigned to him?” My answer is: I actually look forward to his nomination. And to his candidacy in the general. And to his presidency.
********
But I think Romney is sufficiently firm. I also think he would be much more conservative as president than he was in Massachusetts. Think how free Bill Clinton was, once he left the Arkansas electorate behind! He could unleash his inner McGovern, so to speak. (Both Bill and Hillary Clinton — or whatever she was calling herself in those days — were lieutenants in the McGovern campaign.)
********
In 2008, National Review endorsed Romney, and I thought that was a good endorsement.
*******
When you look at the Republican field today — when you watch one of the debates — do you see anyone besides Romney who can beat Obama and be president? Do you really? I find it difficult. And if the nominee is to be someone else, I hope I’m wrong.

WASHINGTON WEEK Part I

This is a re post of a post I make every year when the Oregon Ducks play the Washington Huskies with a few minor changes.

To every Oregon Duck Fan "Washington Week" is the week the University of Oregon Ducks play the University of Washington Huskies in football. This year the game will be Saturday in Seattle at the "Mistake by the Lake." 7:30 PM (PT) on FSN/Root TV.

There has been bad blood between these two schools for years.. It started in 1948 when there was a tie between Cal and Oregon to go to the Rose Bowl. In those days ties were settled by a vote of the Pac 8 schools. (the Arizona schools were then not part of the conference.) Oregon expected the Northwest schools to stick together but Washington voted for Cal and as a consolation the Ducks led by QB Norm Van Brocklin went to the Cotton Bowl. Before Autzen stadium was built Oregon would play some of it's home games against Washington at Multnomah Stadium in Portland. In the 50's it was not unheard of for fistfights to erupt in the stands between Duck and Washington fans. In 1968 I drove to Seattle to watch Oregon beat Washington 3 to 0 on a Ken Woody field goal during a rain swept game. During the 1970's, 1980's and into the 1990's Washington dominated the Ducks and were the premier team in the Northwest. Husky fans would descend on Eugene and Autzen Stadium in their god awful purple and would almost outnumber the Duck yellow and green. They would fill up Eugene hotels like locusts and bring their large band. Husky fans became known for their arrogance. Once on a trip to Seattle I ask a Husky fan the outcome of a game and was treated like a fool to expect anything but a Husky win. My Dad, not a football fan, was treated the same way when he struck up a conversation with a Husky fan at a hotel before an Oregon/Washington game. I know it's only a game but I learned to hate the Huskies and their fans. At Husky home games they would blow their siren after each score as they beat the sh** out of hapless Duck teams. That all ended on October 22,1994, and I was there!!! (Has it been 17 years!) To be continued... Lets Go Ducks

Win the Day

The Divider vs. the Thinker

"While Obama readies an ugly campaign, Paul Ryan gives a serious account of what ails America." by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal.

A few quotes:

People are increasingly fearing the divisions within, even the potential coming apart of, our country. Rich/poor, black/white, young/old, red/blue:.......

*******
What was the glue? A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings;

*******

"To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the civil war fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

*******

But there is a broad fear out there that we are coming apart,.....

**********

Where is the president in all this? ......
he feels free to exploit divisions. It's all the rich versus the rest, and there are a lot more of the latter.

*********

Which gets us to Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan receives much praise, but I don't think his role in the current moment has been fully recognized. He is doing something unique in national politics. He thinks. He studies. He reads. Then he comes forward to speak, calmly and at some length, about what he believes to be true. He defines a problem and offers solutions

To read the rest click on the title for a link.

I love the quote above from the historical novel "The Killer Angles" which was made into the movie "Gettysburg." In the movie Jeff Danial's, as Union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain a collage professor from Maine, turned solder, speaks the words to a group of Maine deserters just before the battle of Gettysburg. One of the most powerful moments in the movie and in movie history.

Here is the complete quote from the movie:

This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you'll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we're here for something new. This has not happened much, in the history of the world: We are an army out to set other men free. America should be free ground, all of it, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow, no man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here is the place to build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end... we're fighting for each other. Sorry. Didn't mean to preach.

Later that day he wins the Congressional Medal of Honor for holding the end of the left flank of the entire Union Army on the "Little Round Top" at Gettysburg. When his men run out of ammunition he orders a bayonet charge that breaks the Rebel attack.

Who will hold the line in 2012 ?

It's Not Too Late .... Your Country Calls in It's Time of Need !

The Weekly Standard Blog just posted this letter from a "reader from Garland Texas"

Dear Congressman Ryan:

This is now my fourth letter to you. Please reconsider.

Other than Gov. Romney, no announced candidate for the Republican nomination can be taken seriously as a candidate. Not one can speak persuasively regarding the fiscal crisis our country is facing and the types of difficult solutions necessary to reform our entitlement programs and to right our economy.

Still, with all due respect to Gov. Romney’s expertise in the area of business, he has failed to demonstrate in his career that he is a conservative who genuinely believes in, and will fight for a return to, limited government and the diminution of the regulatory state.

After all the years Gov. Romney has run for President, have we yet heard a convincing argument from him concerning the seriousness of our fiscal situation with regard to entitlements? Will the Democrats and their allies in the media even allow a serious discussion regarding entitlements when all they have to do is say one word: Romneycare?

Is there any sense that Gov. Romney will use the 2012 campaign to do anything other than achieve the Presidency? If the Republican Party selects a candidate who fudges the great economic issues during this campaign because he or she is afraid to lose, then we will deserve defeat.

The 2012 election campaign must become a time to persuade the public to do what needs to be done. We need a candidate who knows the case inside out and who is capable of making it in a convincing fashion, one able to withstand the demagogic attacks of the opposition.

Please reconsider. Do not allow this opportunity for our country to pass by.

Respectfully,

I like Romney but I like Ryan more !

Paul Ryan's speech today: "Saving The American Idea"

“Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division”

House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan is delivering the following remarks at a speech today at the Heritage Foundation:

We’re here today to explore the American Idea, and I can’t think of a better venue for this topic. The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

These are the principles that define the American Idea. And this mission has never been timelier, because these principles are very much under threat from policies here in Washington.

The American Idea belongs to all of us – inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.

What makes America exceptional – what gives life to the American Idea – is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity.

The perfection of our union, especially our commitment to equality of opportunity, has been a story of constant striving to live up to our Founding principles. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when he said, “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve.”

This commitment to liberty and equality is something we take for granted during times of prosperity, when a growing economic pie gives all Americans the opportunity to pursue their dreams, to provide brighter futures for their kids, or maybe just to meet their families’ needs.

These are tough times. We know all too well that too many Americans are hurting today. And these hardships have reopened our longstanding national debate over what it means to be an exceptional nation. Have those periods of unprecedented prosperity in America’s past been the product of our Founding principles?

Or, as some would argue, have we made it this far only in spite of our outdated values? Are we still an exceptional nation? Should we even seek to be unique? Or should we become more like the rest of the world – more bureaucratic, less hopeful, and less free?

The American Idea is not tried in times of prosperity. Instead, it is tested when times are tough: when the pie is shrinking, when businesses are closing, and when workers are losing their jobs.

Those are the times when America’s commitment to equality of opportunity is called into question. That’s when the temptation to exploit fear and envy returns – when many in Washington use the politics of division to evade responsibility for their failures and to advance their own narrow political interests.

To my great disappointment, it appears that the politics of division are making a big comeback. Many Americans share my disappointment – especially those who were filled with great hope a few years ago, when then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois.

Do you remember what he said? He said that what’s stopped us from meeting our nation’s greatest challenges is, quote, “the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics – the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.”

I couldn’t agree more.

And yet, nearly three years into his presidency, look at where we are now:
•Petty and trivial? Just last week, the President told a crowd in North Carolina that Republicans are in favor of, quote, “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.” Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?
•Chronic avoidance of tough decisions? The President still has not put forward a credible plan to tackle the threat of ever-rising spending and debt, and it’s been over 900 days since his party passed a budget in the Senate.
•A preference for scoring cheap political points instead of consensus-building? This is the same President who is currently campaigning against a do-nothing Congress, when in fact, the House of Representatives has passed over a dozen bills to help get the economy moving and deal with the debt, only to see the President’s party kill those bills in the do-nothing Senate.

Look, we put our cards on the table. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives advanced a far-reaching plan filled with common-sense reforms aimed at putting the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.

But instead of working together where we agree, the President has opted for divisive rhetoric and the broken politics of the past. He is going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans, setting up straw men and scapegoats, and engaging in intellectually lazy arguments, as he tries to build support for punitive tax hikes on job creators.

The tax increases proposed by Senate Democrats and endorsed by the President – when combined with the new taxes in the health-care law, and the President’s other tax preferences – would push the top federal tax rate to roughly 50 percent in just 14 months, while doing nothing to promote job creation.

This tax increase on so-called “millionaires and billionaires” would actually constitute a huge tax hike on the nation’s most successful small businesses. According to the Tax Foundation, the surtax would hit roughly 35 percent of small-business income.

As P.J. O’Rourke put it, “The good news is that, according to the Obama administration, the rich will pay for everything. The bad news is that, according to the Obama administration, you’re rich.”

Actually, the news is even worse. As a practical matter, when you try to chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax increases, you eventually run into a brick wall of math.

The President has been talking a lot about math lately. He’s been saying that, quote, “If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit… the math says… we’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.”

This is really a stunning assertion from the President. When you look at the actual math, you quickly realize that the way out of this mess is to combine economic growth with reasonable, responsible spending restraint. Yet neither of these things factors into the President’s zero-sum logic.

According to the President’s logic, we should give up on trying to reform our tax code to grow the economy and get more revenue that way. Instead, these goals are taking a backseat to the President’s misguided understanding of fairness.

Remember that 2008 debate, when ABC’s Charlie Gibson pointed out that raising the capital gains tax rate actually tends to drive revenues down?

Obama replied: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” That’s the kind of logic we are unfortunately seeing today.

Also according to the President’s logic, spending restraint is incompatible with a strong, well-functioning safety net. The belief that recipients of government aid are better off the more we spend on them is remarkably persistent. No matter how many times this central tenet of liberalism gets debunked, like Brett Favre, it just keeps coming back.

The President has wrongly framed Republican efforts to get government spending under control as hard-hearted attacks on the poor. In reality, spending on programs for seniors and for lower-income families continues to grow every year under the House-passed budget – it just grows at a sustainable rate. We direct tax dollars where they’re needed most, and stop spending money we don’t have on boondoggles we don’t need.

The President’s political math is a muddled mix of false accusations and false choices. The actual math is apolitical, and it’s clear: By the time my kids are my age, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the size of government will be double what it is today.

Government health care programs alone will have grown to consume 45 percent of federal spending. The primary driver of this increase is runaway inflation in health care costs, which are rising at 2 to 3 times the rate of GDP.

It’s impossible to keep funding health care expenditures at this rate. Even President Obama has said, quote, “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”

So the real debate is about how best to control these unsustainable costs. And if I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to empower patients. Their plan is to empower bureaucrats.

The Republican plan gives individuals the power to put market pressure on providers and make them compete.

The President’s plan is to give 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington the power to cut Medicare in ways that, according to Medicare’s own chief actuary, would simply drive providers out of business. This would result in harsh disruptions and denied care for seniors.

Pain like this simply can’t be sustained. So when it comes to out-of-control spending on entitlements, the President’s math simply doesn’t add up.

And his math is no better on the tax side. Let’s say we took all the income from those the President calls “rich” – those making $250,000 or more. A 100 percent tax rate on their total annual income would only fund the government for six months. Just six months!

What about some of the other tax hikes the President likes to talk about? Under the President’s policies, deficits are set to rise by a whopping $9.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
•Letting the top two tax rates expire would equal roughly 8 percent of that planned deficit increase.
•Eliminating tax subsidies for oil and gas companies would only equal 0.5 percent of the President’s planned deficits.
•And what about corporate jet owners? That provision would reduce those deficits by just 0.03 percent.

Look, I’m all for closing tax loopholes – but you can’t close our nation’s deficits by chasing ever-higher spending with politically motivated tax hikes here and there. Instead, tax reform must broaden the base and lower rates.

This policy approach, which has attracted strong bipartisan support, would bolster our fiscal health by increasing competitiveness and encouraging more investment and job creation.

Lately, the President has been fond of taking Ronald Reagan quotes out of context, in an effort to persuade Republicans that Reagan would have agreed with the idea of using fear and envy to push a partisan agenda of permanently higher taxes.

Every time he does this, I can picture Reagan shaking his head: “There you go again.”

Obama quotes Reagan as saying that bus drivers shouldn’t pay a higher effective tax rate than millionaires. Well, that’s a no-brainer. Nobody disagrees with that.

But it is simply disingenuous to use this quote as evidence that Reagan would have supported the tax increases that Obama wants Congress to pass.

Reagan was attempting to build support for the landmark 1986 tax reform, a revenue-neutral law that reformed the tax code by lowering tax rates while broadening the tax base.

Reagan’s point – which President Obama clearly missed – was not that we should raise tax rates to chase out-of-control spending in Washington.

His point was that we should get rid of loopholes that are exploited by the few, so that we could lower everyone’s tax rates and help the economy grow.

The House-passed budget includes this kind of tax reform, which many agree would provide an immediate boost to the economy. Our budget proposed getting rid of scores of loopholes, lowering the hurdles for job creation and economic growth, and making our tax code fair, simple, and competitive.

In his address to Congress last month, the President said he agrees in principle with this kind of reform, especially when it comes to the uncompetitive way we tax our businesses.

This made Republicans think, well, we might have an opportunity here for the kind of genuine consensus-building that the President talked about as a candidate.

Yet he chose not to pursue this kind of tax reform. Instead, he sent us a partisan bill filled with the same stimulus proposals that failed two years ago, only this time he also asked for permanent tax hikes to go with them.

He’s also failed to work with us on another area where one would think we could find common ground: ending the lavish subsidies and government benefits that go to those who are already successful.

The House-passed budget was full of proposals to get rid of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.
•Why are tax dollars being wasted on bankrupt, politically-connected solar energy firms?
•Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?
•Why have we extended an endless supply of taxpayer credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instead of demanding that their government guarantee be wound down and their taxpayer subsidies ended?

Rather than raising taxes and making it more difficult for Americans to become wealthy, let’s lower the amount of government spending the wealthy now receive.

The President likes to use Warren Buffett and his secretary as an example of why we should raise taxes on the rich.

Well, Warren Buffett gets the same health and retirement benefits from the government as his secretary.

But our proposals to modestly income-adjust Social Security and Medicare benefits have been met with sheer demagoguery by leading members of the President’s party.

The politics of division have always struck me as odd: the eagerness to take more, combined with the refusal to subsidize less.

Instead of working with us on these common-sense reforms, the President is barnstorming swing states, pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class.

This just won’t work in America. Class is not a fixed designation in this country. We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups.

The Treasury Department’s latest study on income mobility in America found that during the ten-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher income group by 2005.

Meanwhile, half of all taxpayers ended up in a different income group at the end of ten years. Many moved up, and some moved down, but economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most people over this period.

Another recent survey of over 500 successful entrepreneurs found that 93 percent came from middle-class or lower-class backgrounds. The majority were the first in their families to launch a business.

Their stories are the American story: Millions of immigrants fled from the closed societies of the Old World to the security of equal rights in this land of upward mobility.

Telling Americans they are stuck in their current station in life, that they are victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that government’s role is to help them cope with it – well, that’s not who we are. That’s not what we do.

Our Founding Fathers rejected this mentality. In societies marked by class structure, an elite class made up of rich and powerful patrons supplies the needs of a large client underclass that toils, but cannot own. The unfairness of closed societies is the kindling for class warfare, where the interests of “capital” and “labor” are perpetually in conflict. What one class wins, the other loses.

The legacy of this tradition can still be seen in Europe today: Top-heavy welfare states have replaced the traditional aristocracies, and masses of the long-term unemployed are locked into the new lower class.

The United States was destined to break out of this bleak history. Our future would not be staked on traditional class structures, but on civic solidarity. Gone would be the struggle of class against class.

Instead, Americans would work, compete, and co-operate in an open market, climb the ladder of opportunity, and keep the fruits of their efforts.

Self-government and the rule of law would secure our equal, God-given rights. Our political and economic systems – rooted in freedom and responsibility – would reward, and thus cultivate, traditional virtues.

Given that the President’s policies have moved us closer to the European model, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that his class-based rhetoric has followed suit.

We shouldn’t be surprised... but we have every right to be disappointed. Instead of appealing to the hope and optimism that were hallmarks of his first campaign, he has launched his second campaign by preying on the emotions of fear, envy, and resentment.

This has the potential to be just as damaging as his misguided policies. Sowing social unrest and class resentment makes America weaker, not stronger. Pitting one group against another only distracts us from the true sources of inequity in this country – corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless.

Ironically, equality of outcome is a form of inequality – one that is based on political influence and bureaucratic favoritism.

That's the real class warfare that threatens us: A class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society. And their gains will come at the expense of working Americans, entrepreneurs, and that small businesswoman who has the gall to take on the corporate chieftain.

It’s disappointing that this President’s actions have exacerbated this form of class warfare in so many ways:
•While the EPA is busy punishing commercially competitive sources of energy, a class of bureaucrats at the Department of Energy has been acting like the world’s worst venture capital fund, spending recklessly on politically favored alternatives.
•While the unemployment rate remains stuck above 9 percent, a class of bureaucrats at the National Labor Relations Board is threatening hundreds of jobs by suing an American employer for politically motivated reasons.
•And while millions of Americans are left wondering whether their employers will drop their health insurance because of the new health care law, a class of bureaucrats at HHS has handed out over 1,400 waivers to those firms and unions with the political connections to lobby for them.

These actions starkly highlight the difference between the two parties that lies at the heart of the matter: Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome.

If you believe in the former, you follow the American Idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line, and rewards are proportionate to merit and effort.

If you believe in the latter kind of equality, you think most differences in wealth and rewards are matters of luck or exploitation, and that few really deserve what they have.

That’s the moral basis of class warfare – a false morality that confuses fairness with redistribution, and promotes class envy instead of social mobility.

I’d like to introduce President Obama to the Ronald Reagan he isn’t so eager to quote – the man who said, “Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?”

President Reagan was absolutely right. Instead of policies that make it harder for Americans to rise, let’s lower the hurdles to upward mobility.

That’s what the American Idea is all about. You know, in the midst of all the joys and sorrows of our everyday lives, I think we sometimes forget why America was considered such an exceptional nation at its Founding, and why it remains so.

To me, the results of the Founders’ exceptional vision can be summed up in a single sentence: Throughout human history, the American Idea has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.

Americans, guided by our ideals, have sacrificed everything to combat tyranny and brutal dictators; we’ve expanded opportunity, opened markets, and inspired others to resist oppression; we’ve exported innovation and imagination; and we’ve welcomed immigrants seeking a fresh start.

Here in America – unlike most places on earth – all citizens have the right to rise.

Thank you.

I sure wish he were running for President !

What did Cliff Harris do ????

My Oregon Ducks beat Colorado in a 45 to 2 blowout in Boulder yesterday. Bryan Bennett filling in for injured QB Darron Thomas did a great job. Someone said it was like going from Joe Montana to Steve Young.

However the question on many Duck fans mind is what did Oregon corner back, Cliff Harris, do to draw a 15 yard "unsportsmanship penalty" BEFORE the game from the refs.

The Oregonian has this report:

First, he received an undisclosed 15-yard penalty before kickoff that led Oregon coach Chip Kelly to elect to receive rather than kickoff after winning the coin toss.

Kelly said after the game that he didn’t know what the penalty had been for. Defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti knew, but declined to reveal the information.

“I choose not to comment on that,” he said.

The penalty resulted in Colorado kicking off from the 45-yard line rather than the customary 30.

However NO ONE seems to know what he did. Inquiring minds want to know !!

Later in the game Harris tried to field a punt inside the 10 yard line and went back into the end zone and was tackled for a safety giving Colorado their only points in the game. Coach Kelly pointed out punt returners are coached not to field punts inside the 10 yard line.

Harris has been in coach Kelly's "dog house" for some time after getting a ticket on I-5 for going 118 miles per hour in a 65 zone. It ended up he already owed thousands of dollars in fines in Oregon and California on other tickets. When the police officer smelled marijuana in the car and asked where was the Marijuana, Harris replied, "We smoked it all."

To be fair, Harris at times has been spectacular on the field, but just as often he has hurt his team. It didn't matter yesterday against Colorado but it could in future games !

Go Ducks .... win the day beat Washington State !!


UPDATE: It is being reported he was taunting the other team before the game. How?

UPDATE 2: Today, Monday Cliff Harris was stopped and cited by the Eugene Police Department for Driving While Suspended, no insurance and not using his seat belt. His Mustang convertible was impounded by the police department. The saga continues. How self destructive can he be?

Congratulations !!!!!!

A shout out to someone who has just overcome a big obstacle. Have a few drinks and then "Get 'er done"

Oregon vs Colorado 1979

On Saturday my Oregon Ducks will play the Colorado Buffalo's in Boulder. Thirty two years ago in 1979 my wife and I attended another game there between the Ducks and Buffalo's. We had been married just a few years and it was before kids. It was a late summer car trip to the Rocky Mountain states. My brother-in-law was a graduate student at Colorado in astrophysics. (or something like that). We visited him and slept on the floor of his studio apartment. Before I left I had gotten tickets from the Oregon Athletic Department for the game. On the Saturday of the game he took us by his graduate department and introduced us to some of his fellow grad student who were so condescending about the game. "Hope you can give us a good game" etc.

This was just about the middle of the "Dark Ages" of Duck Football so not much was expected of the Duck by anyone.

Colorado had just hired "hotshot" coach Chuck Fairbanks as their new coach. He had been the head coach for the New England Patriots and before that at Oklahoma. This was his first game for Colorado and much was expected. The Ducks came into the game as big underdogs. It was a nice day in Boulder and when we got to the game we sat with a small contingent of Oregon fans of 100 or so. In those days Colorado sold Coors beer at the stadium. For Oregon an unheralded JC Quarterback named Reggie Ogbourn" ran for over 108 yards in a 33 to 19 upset victory for the Ducks.

After a few beers the Oregon fans began singing "Rocky Mountain High" with a new word...."Rocky Mountain High.... OREGON...... Rocky Mountain High......OREGON." I remember walking out of the Colorado stadium feeling 10 feet high !! Go Ducks.... Win the day and beat the Buffalo's !

Gaddafi Dead !

It is always a good day when a tyrant dies ! Remember Pan Am Flight 103 !

The Romney Train is pulling out of the station !

Mitt Romney was the clear winner of tonight's debate ! If the Republican Party wants to beat Obama then Romney will be the nominee of the party.

Herman Cain will be clubbed to death over 9 9 9, regardless of it's merits, by the Democrats if he is the nominee as he was tonight by his fellow Republicans. He was weak on foreign policy questions particularly the answerer he gave earlier to the question about trading an American hostage for the prisoners at Guantanamo. I still like the guy.

I grew to really dislike Rick Perry tonight. He was more animated but he is an empty suit. He was a jerk to bring up the very old story about the company that did Romney's home landscape maintenance and which hired illegal aliens. It was a bad strategy to keep interrupting Romany. This is a minuscule issue and Perry made himself very small by bringing it up. Romney was great when he told Perry: "I know you have had a couple of bad debates."

Rick Santorum was booed by the audience for interrupting Romney and even Newt was prickly tonight.

Tonight my head AND heart belong to Romney. If you want to beat Obama then the only viable choice is Romney !

"Romney demonstrated who the is leader of the pack." Rich Galen from his Mullings column

"He (Perry) didn’t look tough, just rude." John Pitney Jr., Professor of Government Claremont McKenna College

Weekend

Had a good weekend. Went to the South Medford vs. Grants Pass football game Friday night and watched South Medford run over the Cavemen from Grants Pass. Saturday morning woke up in time to watch ESPN Game Day live from the University of Oregon. Then, that afternoon took a charter bus from Medford to the Oregon vs Arizona State night game in Eugene. My friend Bob and I were the "Bus Captains" and had a good time keeping the other fans happy with food and games on the trip North. The game was on ESPN and started at 7:30 pm and so we didn't get back to Medford till 2:30 am Sunday morning. It was a roller coaster of a game but the Ducks won in the end. Had a record crowd at Autzen of over 60,000. Slept in on Sunday and talked to both kids on the phone. Watched the movie "Ghost Writer" which was a far leftist "we* dream" directed by fugitive from justice Roman Polanski. Technically it was Ok but our CIA was the villain. Had a happy ending in the same way Easy Rider had a happy ending. Ended the weekend by watching the TV show Pan Am.

New Romney Ad

What is the White House worried about ?

9 9 9 is a "wonderful plan" so says Art Laffer

Reagan economist and creator of the "Laffer Curve" says that Herman Cain's 9 9 9 tax plan is a "wonderful plan" He says it will "lower the tax rate and broaden the tax base” while provide people with the least incentive to cheat on their taxes"

"Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9.”
Laffer also said that “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”

In addition Congressman Paul Ryan likes it too:

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,”

The budget chairman went on to say that ideas like Cain’s plan could help shape the debate over tax reform moving into 2013.

“It’s great to see such bold ideas,”

I admit that I was skeptical of 9 9 9 but I am becoming less so if Laffer and Ryan like it. Go Herman !

"Populust demagoguery"

Charles Krauthammer on President Obama:

this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It’s dangerous. Obama is opening a Pandora’s box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation’s leader.

To read more click on the title

Help Me Make it Through the Night !

Christian Schneider from National Review:

In 2011, Republicans are sitting at the end of the bar, and it’s 2 a.m. Ryan and Christie have already gone home, and the GOP is looking for someone to keep it company. As Joan Jett’s “I Hate Myself for Loving You” plays, Mitt winks at them from the other end of the bar. Right now, he’s the best the GOP has; how the night turns out is yet to be seen.

To read more click on the title for a link.

p.s. my favorite Sinatra album cover. My folks owned the record album when I was a kid and it really fascinated me. I downloaded the album from Amazon about a year ago.

Morality, Not Theology

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent column today on the Mormon Cult issue and Mitt Romney. A few quotes:

Robert Jeffress introduced Texas governor Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit on Friday. He started a great big hullabaloo by asking, “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person, or one who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?”

Before we go on, let me just say, I’d probably go with curtain No. 1......

Is Mormonism a cult? Yes, no, maybe — who cares? From a Jewish perspective, you could say that Mormonism is simply one of the more recent additions to a very long line of cults. From an atheist (or agnostic my add)) perspective, it’s cults as far as the eye can see.

But from a moral perspective, contemporary Mormonism is squarely within the Judeo-Christian tradition, promoting decency, self-restraint, family values, etc.

Click on title for full column.

What did he know and when did he know it ?

Is Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, a crook ?

Click on the title for an interesting article from the Washington Times titled:

"Holder’s honesty before Congress disputed in earlier high-profile cases"

An investigation into the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” gunrunning probe, which allowed hundreds of weapons to be illegally “walked” into Mexico, is not the first time Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s truthfulness has been challenged by members of Congress.....

Lying to Congress is a federal crime. Just ask Roger Clemons who has been indicted for it.

Romney Wins Again !

In my opinion Mitt Romney won last nights debate in New Hampshire. He came across as a leader and I like the way he pays attention to the other speakers, in a kind way, when they are speaking. Herman Cain came in second and Newt Gingrich was third. I do have doubts as to the sales tax provision of 9 9 9 advanced by Herman Cain.Cain will make a good VP choice for Romney after he is divorced from his 9 9 9 gimmick. Rick Perry who "had" to do well was very subdued and did not make much of an impression. John Huntsman came across as a not very nice person who acted like he was too good for the other candidates. He often would not watch the other debaters and kept looking at the audience when other candidates were speaking. He gave the impression he wanted to be someplace else and he soon will be. Rick Santorum had a good point that family is important in a democracy but often reminded me of the kid in class who raised his hand all the time. Ron Paul was Ron Paul. I just can not warm up to Michelle Bachman.

In the end, it comes down to this. The United States and the world are are facing an economic meltdown and who do you want at the helm of the ship of state in such a storm. Someone who is politically pure or a smart, leader like Romney. Romney and his family will never embarrass the United States.

What with the Chris Christie endorsement and his debate performance it was a good day for Mitt.

Game Day on Thursday ?

Yes it is Game Day ! My Oregon Duck are playing the Cal Bears on the ESPN Thursday night college football game. Game start 6 pm PDT. It's great for the TV money but it's hard on we Duck fans who live outside of Eugene. In about an hour I will take a Oregon Duck charter bus from Medford to the game and back and will arrive back here Medford early Friday morning. For those of us still working in America, Friday is a working day. I do like night games. Go Ducks !

Romney - Cain Ticket ! or Cain - Romney Ticket !

Now that Sarah Palin, and the "Big Guy" Chris Christie have decided to not seek the Republican nomination that leaves Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Rick Perry as the most likely candidates to win the nomination. I am supporting Romney but Herman Cain now has my heart. With Marco Rubio saying he would say "no" to a VP spot, how about a Romney - Cain ticket or a Cain - Romney ticket. I can't wait till the next debate next week Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Michael Medved on Herman Cain

"The surging support for presidential contender Herman Cain stems in part from his warm, likable personality, his status as an outsider, his record of accomplishment in the world of business, and his bold, upbeat program for reform.

But it also reflects the stupid, petty, mutually destructive nastiness that’s recently afflicted the campaigns of Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, leaving the two frontrunners badly damaged and creating an obvious opening for the Hermanator—or perhaps for someone else."

To read the rest of Mr. Medved's column click on the title for a link.

Bob Dylan for Nobel Prize in Literature ?

Click on title for story. He has my vote !

"There was no point arguing with Dave (Van Ronk), not intellectually anyway. I had a primitive way of looking at things and I liked country fair politics. My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who reminded me of Tom Mix, and there wasn't any way to explain that to anybody. I wasn't that comfortable with all the psycho polemic babble."

Bob Dylan, Chronicles, page 283

Raising Cain

The very different life lessons of the president and his challenger.

By FRED BARNES

What did Cain and Obama learn from their families and education? “One of the most important lessons Dad taught us was not to feel like victims,” Cain writes. “He never felt like a victim. He never talked like a victim. And both our parents taught us not to think that the government owed us something. They didn’t teach us to be mad at this country.”

Based on his career, Obama didn’t draw the same lessons. He concluded America is an unjust country. He became a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state senator,
a U.S. senator, and president—all the while pursuing liberal efforts to aid perceived victims of the free-market economy through strong government intervention.

The more I know about Herman Cain the more I like him. To read more of Fred Barnes article about the two men and their upbringing click on the title for a link