Jan. 26 GOP Debate, Florida

Stream of Conscious. Here we go….

Romney’s hit on Gingrich regarding immigrations… Awesome. I hope this becomes more of a standard for Romney, especially against Gingrich. Gingrich has played bully far too long on that stage. Besides, Romney’s right.

Housing…. Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Romney started off with a hit directly on Gingrich, tying his work there with some of the failures. It’s obvious that Gingrich is a touch uncomfortable and, surprisingly, it looks like he’s not quite sure how to respond. Is Romney really having that kind of impact?

Gingrich’s response is, of course, “Romney is lying.” The consistent “he’s lying” whining is pretty lame. And his follow up? Romney has shares in these two companies. Wow… Really? Especially, as Romney points out, his investments are held and have been held by a blind trust AND Gingrich has investments in the same! Awesome.

Romney is rocking Gingrich. That, more than anything, is painfully obvious.

If this were a boxing match… DING DING!

One general comment… Paul and Santorum are struggling to get time, and that’s been true for two straight debates. It’s apparent that the debates and campaigns are narrowing.

Paul, by the way, is right. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have been liquidated. It would have hurt immediately, but the long-term advantage validates the move.

Santorum’s response called for reforum, namely decreasing the size of mortgages available through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, and nice call by Santorum to drop the lines of attack on Gingrich’s time in Congress and Romney’s wealth/business expertise. If nothing else, it’s a couple brownie points (here you go… eat slowly, it might be the only ones you get).

First break, and a VERY obvious win for Romney. Second round looks like transparency. I expect that this will be a tough one for Romney unless he is completely clear.

Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, but, as Blitzer points out, Gingrich has made this an issue again and again. Pretty two-faced.

Romney’s hit back was AWESOME! “Wouldn’t it be nice if Gingrich didn’t make statements he wouldn’t talk about in debates?”

So far, Romney is answering strongly, clearly, and concisely. It’s pretty obvious that Romney has practiced and seen how this hit him in SC.

Gingrich is calling for a two-way truce? Uh…. You don’t get to call the truce when you are the aggressor simply because the one you attacked is suddenly crushing you.

Flat tax vs simplified? If I actually get the choice… either. I think the simplified with multiple rates based on straight income is best, but I’d take a flat as well.

Paul said a veritable mouthful (something he struggles with to be honest), but he’s fun. Loved Paul’s challenge to the 25-mile bike ride. Honest guess? He’d win.

By the way, I’d like to welcome you to “EVERYONE GANG UP ON GINGRICH” night. This has not been and is not a good night for Gingrich. Maybe he can pull it out in the end, but he’s getting hit from every side.

All candidates, in regards to space, are pointing to privatizing space programs. I agree. The wealth of space in technology advancements alone is worth the investment to a private company. I strongly believe that the next generation of major companies will be space-based companies who develop the next generation of space technologies.

And there’s Romney burying Gingrich again. Sigh… I do like seeing Gingrich being hit again. And again.

And again.

And again.

hehe….

And now Paul is hitting Gingrich.

I’m thinking that Gingrich is desperate for a break.

Santorum–Personal message to you… WE DON’T CARE ABOUT ROMNEYCARE!!! Have you noticed that you are the only one hitting on this anymore? Drop it.

There goes Santorum with his stupid shake of the head…. I need to slap something (Santorum preferably).

Santorum is also pushing health care to the federal level…. WRONG. This is a state issue, and Romney is dead on. This should be handled on the state level.

Seriously Santorum… My love. DROP IT!!! You are sounding stupid. Again, by the way.

To the break. Who won this round? Paul, possibly Romney. Definitely not Santorum, and Gingrich once again found himself fighting off the ropes for a good chunk.

As much as I seriously dislike Santorum, I recognize his value in keeping Gingrich’s numbers down. However, I am looking forward to the day when he can just go away.

Cuba… Is this generational? Do older generations feel that Cuba should be shunted and ostracized? I don’t know that younger generations feel that way. I don’t feel that way, especially about Cuba. I think Paul is right on this issue. Continuing to put Cuba in this position is continuing to push Cuba as an enemy. I simply don’t see Cuba as an enemy. I don’t agree with the Cuban government and the despotism (of course), but I see little reason to continue to put sanctions on them and restrict them so heavily.

Given how much I typically disagree with Paul on foreign policy issues, I sometimes surprise myself on agreeing on this issue.

Palestinian issues… I think both Gingrich and Romney are right, but I would add one thing. Palestine is legitimate, and one of the issues is the lack of recognition many in the world give in that direction. Yes, Palestinian leadership must support the peace process and yes they must be willing to work with Israel, but a good first start on our side is to recognize that Palestine has legitimacy.

I’m disappointed that only Santorum addressed the Puerto Rico question. That deserved more time.

New break. No clear winner and an honestly benign round.

It looks like the debate is closing up. Looking at these closing statements, the nomination is dividing into two clear groups: Paul, pulling about 20% and the other three battling out for the remaining 80%.

And that’s the debate.

Winner? Romney definitely in the early rounds, but the debate kind of settled down and turned gentle. If you had watched the last hour, you’d have to assume that the debate was a draw, but given Romney’s strong first half, the win definitely goes there.

Good night for Romney. Arguably one of his best debates.

Solid night for Paul. He lost nothing, but also won’t gain much due to his ceiling.

Gingrich… eh. He’s okay. He didn’t kill himself, but he was largely unable to fend off the repeated attacks from Romney, and it seems he may have once again hit his peak. I do not see him pulling the win in Florida, and that should start the beginning of the end.

Santorum? The same. He and Gingrich are continuing to feed of each other’s voters, and the simple truth is that they’ll keep each other down. Fine by me. By the time Santorum does drop (after Florida?), it’ll be just a tad too late for those supporters to put any energy behind Gingrich.

Whew…. Saturday, hopefully I’ll have the Libertarian party rebuttal to the State of the Union. I looked for it (and the Green Party’s) on Wednesday, but nothing had been posted yet. They seem to take a day or two, so I’ll check back later.

Review: Republican Rebuttal to the State of the Union

As promised, here’s the Republican rebuttal of Obama’s State of the Union. This address was offered by Gov. Mitch Daniels, and, as always, follows my typical format.

Coming up: rebuttals from the Libertarian party. I will also try to find rebuttals from other parties, but they don’t always do that. We’ll see.

The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight. But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse: the percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today.

Here come a whole series of quotes…. Obama was elected on the premise of change and hope. I still laugh every time I see that “How’s the whole hopey, changey thing working out?” bumper sticker. With that being said, Gov. Daniels is correct that Obama–in terms of his campaign goals–has not been a successful president. I’ll leave it for history to decide is overall effectiveness, but on that criteria, Daniels is right.

And may I just say that that last sentence is a truly scary statistic? If we want to talk about future impact, that is a substantial number of people who should be building and growing in the prime of life that are not. This will have far reaching consequences over the next several decades as these people continue to find themselves playing catch up.

In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

I was admittedly surprised that Obama didn’t address the debt and deficit more than he did. Personally, I agree with Daniels. Our nation has many issues facing it–the debt is just one, but it is a substantial 900-pound gorilla sitting in the room and Obama and many others can’t seem to see it.

As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.

I know there will be some that take exception to Daniels turn of phrase at the end there, but he’s right. We are a nation that has come to expect instant gratification and instant success. We grow up in our parents’ home with all the comforts of life and leave that home with the goal of immediately replacing it. Do we not get that it took dad 30 years of work to achieve that?

The idea of being a soon-to-have is correct. It puts in perspective the eventual success that comes from hard work and long-term commitments to family, to God, to country.

Oh, and just to be clear… Mom and Dad? Stop sending junior to college on your dime. Stop giving your kids a “leg up.” There’s a very real difference between supporting your kids and enabling them. Supporting them allows them to grow and earn it on their own. Enabling them creates dependencies and expectations that just are not valid.

The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today.

Earlier, Daniels mentioned that Obama’s plan of creating a middle class of government workers was a failure. This is the opposite. Our government has never been larger, and that has to change. Vibrant economies are private economies that can grow and build based on real successes and not just the mandated success that comes with a government check.

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

And there’s the pipeline issue…. Again, I agree with Daniels. I think the pipeline should have been approved.

Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can’t, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most.

Daniels is speaking about Medicare and Social Security. Again, I completely agree with this. A few things I’ve never understood is why the Social Security tax is capped up to a certain income. You only pay that tax until you reach roughly $106,000 (I think). Why does it end?

Second, why is there no means testing in place for Social Security? If I have $40MM in the bank, do I really need a $750 check from the government?

Third, why can’t I opt out? Please…. You can even keep my employer contribution for Social Security, but let me opt out and create my own plan. Sure… mandate that I still have to save at least an equal amount to what I would have paid. That’s fine, but let me opt out.

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have.

And I have to agree. One of my most consistent complaints about Obama has been the whining that “I’m trying to reach across the aisle!” No, he’s not. He has been more divisive than any other president. He’s treated his presidency like a populist poll. Sorry, Mr. President. This isn’t your high school prom. Your decisions have real impacts on me and my family, and up until now you’ve only listened to your exclusive club of left-wing elites while pandering to the crowd that you’re actually working with everyone.

I promised you three years ago that if you would actually work across the aisles you would have my vote. Well, you don’t have it. Of course… Gingrich could win the GOP nomination, and then I’d consider because, well, Gingrich would make your paltry efforts actually worthy of the peace prize you so undeservedly got. Anyway….

In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb!

AMEN!!!! GET OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!

And that’s the end.

That was actually a remarkably short rebuttal compared to normal, but it was full of strong statements which I obviously agree with. I’m not a republican by any means (I’m an independent), but I lean that direction in my ideologies.

Overall thoughts? I’m not quite sure. I preferred Daniels speech to Obama’s. Obama had more ideas actually drawn out, but Daniels had more to add in the department of approaches. Where Obama called for unity, Daniels did so in a fourth of the words and with twice the effectiveness (for me). At the same time, Daniels did mention that there is a failure of belief on the part of America that we can actually work this out. I admit to feeling that way sometimes.

I’ve become remarkably pessimistic at times, which is odd for me, especially when thinking about this country. I guess I’m just not sure it’s possible to break the cycle anymore. We simply don’t have the leadership in Washington anymore. Of course, the answer is simply to step forward on our own levels, and I do. Will. I may be dissatisfied with Washington, but I refuse to let Washington determine the fate of my local system and my community.

Maybe I’m not so pessimistic about it all after all….

Review: State of the Union, 2012

Finally!

This might be my most favorite series of pasts every year. I love the state of the union and various rebuttals. It gives such an unfettered look at some of the key goals and plans.

In case this is a first for you, I take the transcript of the speech (found here) and then pull out and comment on only the bits that really stand out to me. It’s a stream of conscious post in other words. I don’t edit, I don’t review… I just write. Enjoy!

NOTE: As usual, I did not watch the address. I prefer to read them because I can work through the content faster without all the annoying pauses for applause. The debates, on the other hand, I much prefer to watch because the human interaction between the candidates is vital.

Here we go….

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

A  couple thoughts… First, I certainly hope that our soldiers have been good ambassadors to the world, but I fear that this is not the case. I believe in our troops (I’m a military brat after all), and you’ll never find me not supporting them. Where I disagree with Obama is on the idea that the world supports our troops. I’m simply not convinced that the majority of the world likes what is essentially the USPD. In this, I agree more and more with Ron Paul.

And yes, I’m grateful that we are no longer in Iraq, though I hope we left that country in a better condition than we found it. I genuinely fear for their future. Same for Afghanistan.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed [our soldiers] example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

One of the issues facing our nation–perhaps the most critical–is the idea that our parties and the ideologies of our parties are too far apart to find common ground. This is false. And yet our parties preach that doctrine and I’ve encountered plenty of people who refuse to see the good in other ideas.

The idea that we could achieve that is indeed possible as Obama says in the next paragraph, but it cannot happen with our current culture of divisiveness. Unfortunately, while Obama is right to preach it, I have seen little from him (or others) to suggest that this is actually a priority. This, more than anything is really just a talking point. It’s cute, it’s wanted, and it gets the applause, but where is the action?

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

And now we’re going to disagree…. Obama is taking the greatest generation concept, the unity concept, and is turning it into a commentary on our current economic and class structure. Again, this all plays well and is correct on the surface, but I’m waiting for the twist….

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

Right on the jobs leaving our shores. Right on technology growth (wrong to paint that as a negative). Right on the increasing income. And he’s even right that the ability to “keep up” became harder. But where is the personal responsibility?

I was talking to a friend just this morning, and I pointed out to him that I once took a contract job that paid me almost $90,000 a year. It was an incredible income, and I don’t say it to brag. During that single year, Courtney and I realized that we had a huge opportunity to either (1) do what everyone else was doing and rack up the debt and the personal possessions or (2) pay off all our debt, knowing that this was a one-year contract.

We chose #2 and paid off all of our consumer debt and built ample savings. When I lost that job at the beginning of the recession, being debt free allowed us to immediately take the first good job that came my way. It was a huge pay cut for us, but it didn’t matter! Being debt free had truly made us free.

I always get a little annoyed when I hear a politician acting like personal choices are not the responsibility of the person who made that choice.

Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

Yesterday I read Obama’s first State of the Union. Interestingly, he stated then that in three years (now in other words), he’d triple our internal energy development. Last week he vetoed the Keystone pipeline that would have, pretty much, done just that.

Personally, I think the promises are nice, but they are hollow. Most of them are anyway, and I don’t want to hear more empty promises.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

Interesting concept… what would you actually propose, though?

We should start with our tax code. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut.

In the sake honesty, the previous quote is bunch of snippets from four paragraphs in which Obama outlines greater details. Yes, starting with the tax code is a good idea, but I have a few issues with his ideas. While I agree with the general concept that we should reward business done in America, I don’t agree with the idea of putting those rewards in the tax code. What we’re asking for at this point is another 10,000 pages in the tax code with 10,000 loop holes for key industries. We don’t need a more complex tax code.

How about this: Instead of adding to the tax code, dump it. Replace the corporate tax code with a simple 10% or 15% corporate tax. Period. Take our rate from one of the highest in the world to one of the lowest. The benefit is that business done here is rewarded for doing it here with a low rate. Those companies that do off-shore business will have the incentive to return because of the better rate. Don’t punish companies by making it harder and more expensive to be a business! Reward them by limiting government influence, taxes, and regulation, and you’ll see those businesses naturally respond with growth.

Pretty simple.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.

Good enough, but I want to see the impact on American business from this. The truth is that no man (or company) is an island. The impact of this unit may (or may not) have an impact on other areas.

Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job.

And now we hit at the crux of the issue. The recession never really happened to me. I was laid off for two months, but since that time I’ve had a great job. We are MUCH better today than when the recession started, although most of that I credit to making wise financial choices and avoiding debt of any kind.

However, regardless of my own personal successes, the recession never really happened to a lot of educated workers. The problem here is not a lack of jobs, but a lack of education. A lack of marketable skills that are valued and needed.

I like to think of my life as, as Dave Ramsey would call it, You Incorporated. He refers to You Inc in terms of finances, but I also see it as more a global commentary of life. A company that refuses to maintain or improve the product they offer goes bankrupt. Period. Personally, if we refuse to grow, learn new trades, or expand our offerings, we’ll go bankrupt.

The problem with the recession and specifically the hit on blue collar workers is as much an education problem as it is a manufacturing problem.

It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

Yeah… So Obama just basically said what I did, and this sentence is kind of the highlight of that long piece. And I agree with the idea in general. Where I’m going to disagree is where Ron Paul would disagree. This is not something to handle on the federal level. Turn this over to the states who, ideally, should turn it over to individual communities.

The few times we’ve turned to the government for assistance, I was always blown away by the paperwork, the reporting, the bureaucracy. We spent more time dealing with unemployment and aid offices than I did looking for a job. And the one-size-fits-all approach was disgusting. I still remember the WIC lady looking at Courtney, who was 8-months pregnant at the time and telling her to basically lay off the Twinkies and the Ho-hos. I should point out that this was when Courtney was experimenting with vegetarianism and was basically eating pure, whole foods.

No… make a community system where my needs can be dealt with directly by the people most capable of dealing with them.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

Okay, but why is this a federal program? This should be done on the community level.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college.

Obama goes on to talk about helping keep interest rates low on college debt. How about focusing on eliminating that debt entirely? How about helping more students understand that an English degree from your community college will work just as well as an English degree from a private school when all is said and done.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country.

Fair enough, BUT do not require everyone to be benefited. This is where I struggle with some of these ideas. This is the same philosophy that gave us the No Child Left Behind act that didn’t account for the needs of individuals. I’m game, but give this to the states and communities that can actually work with people instead of ideologies.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy…. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

Can I point out Keystone, Mr. President? You just vetoed that last week due to political pressure. Now, that work, those jobs, that money, and that energy will likely flow due west to Vancouver and off this continent. It could have been ours and it was offered to us.

Bad call….

We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

And I can agree fully with this. I don’t agree with subsidies in general, especially to profitable companies that don’t need it. However, I do believe that we need to put forth greater efforts to lead the world in clean, reliable energy. We can be the Saudi Arabia of clean energy if we want. I think that’s a worthwhile goal.

Responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

Why not? Look…. I bought my home knowing that the value would go up and down. I’m intelligent, I weighed the risks and the rewards, and I decided that it was worth it. I did. I don’t want the government to ride in on their charging bronco and “rescue” me. I don’t need to be rescued. And frankly, no one else should be rescued either.

I flat out disagree with the government saving people from their own decisions. Where is the personal responsibility?

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

So your answer is to charge the banks a fee to lower the interest rates they charge to customers who willingly signed up for the loans they have in the first place? How is this a win? This pushes all the responsibility onto the institutions who took much of the risk in the first place.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

And yet you seem awfully willing to not insist on responsibility. You blame the wealthy for not paying their “fair share.” You blame the banks for wrecking mortgages and home values. You blame Wall Street for greed and corruption. How about blaming the American people for being so debt hungry and possession hungry that they consciously entered into agreements they couldn’t keep? How about blaming the government for encouraging the banks to do what they did? You are pushing all of this on other groups and other people with little thought of personal responsibility by the citizens you represent.

A call for personal responsibility from you is pretty outrageous.

I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

Only one issue here…. Why shouldn’t an insurance company charge women differently from men? The issues both groups face aren’t the same. Insurance companies don’t do it to be prejudiced against one. The rates are based off actuarial tables which predict, with pretty reliable accuracy, the issues that any given sample of the population will face. Guess what? The costs are different.

That’s called business.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis.

Well that’s an easy one. Start with President Clinton mandating that loans be offered to higher-risk groups. Follow it up with President Bush’s policies that continued that. And let’s be honest; had the housing crisis occurred later, you too would have continued those policies, Mr. President. That was an easy one.

Taxes….

Okay, so that’s not a direct quote, but it was a long piece that I didn’t want to copy over entirely. Plus, you already know what it said: Raise taxes on the wealthy.

Look…. I get tired of the fair share argument. I will agree that millionaires can pay more in taxes if you’ll agree that 47% of Americans paying no tax is also a problem. Can we at least agree on that?

I have long thought that our tax code should be reformed to one of two options:

1. A very simple flat tax that asks ALL Americans to pay X no matter what the income level is and has NO loopholes or deductions. I love the way the church does it. Tithing is 10%. That’s the “tax code” of the church. Why can’t the nation have a similar tax code? Filing my taxes would be a dream.
2. Knowing that a true flat tax like I mentioned would never fly, I’d be prepared to look at a graduated flat tax that was still a flat tax by income level. So, for example, $0 to $20,000 a year would pay maybe 5%. Flat. No deductions, not exceptions. For $20,001 to $40,000, maybe it’s 7%. And so on. When you hit that magic million mark or whatever mark is decided on, the rate could very well be 50% or higher. That’d be fine by me. But make it so that I can figure out my taxes on the back of an envelope instead of paying someone $350 each year to do it for me.

I’d be very happy with either of those tax codes.

Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

I admit that I didn’t pull a quote for quite a while and Obama talked about a lot of things. The last… quarter? … of his speech was about unity. About building the nation together, and this quote pulls that together nicely.

I started off talking about how one of the critical issues we face is the inability of many people to recognize the value in other ideas. I also think it’s critical that we step back from these hard lines we’ve drawn in the sand. These hard lines create hard stances and immovable “values.” They create roadblocks and the inability to move. Frankly, I’d be more than satisfied if I could be met halfway.

I recognize that not all of what I believe should happen will happen, and when did that become a bad thing? When did incomplete success become total failure? Instead of building up those willing to compromise and work towards the center, we have people on both sides punishing them for not being obstructionists and holding the line.

I look at the current GOP field. The race is on to be the most conservative. The most unwilling to work with others. Seriously? I’m a Romney fan because he is a centrist. He’s a moderate. Gingrich throws around Massachusetts Moderate like it’s a really long four-letter word. And it’s sad.

If we’d elect more moderates, we’d be a better nation.

If you’re truly tired of the infighting in Washington and the vitriol, stop sending to Washington people who take those hard lines, people unable to recognize the good in other ideas, people unable to see the common ground.

As much as I truly dislike Obama, I’m starting to see something in him that NoSurfGirl has said many times. She’s consistently pointed out to me that Obama is not a great crisis president. My comeback is, of course, when is there not a crisis? But as I really look at that, Obama would have done well in an environment of open, honest communication where both sides are willing to talk. That’s not our environment.

To be honest, I’m eager to see him as ex-president Obama, and not necessarily because I want him out of office but more because I think he’ll be an incredible ambassador for our nation, especially if he takes the role of elder statesman and stays above the petty fighting. Carter’s greatest weakness right now is his inability to see the other side. Had he stayed above that….

Sigh… the opportunities we lose because we can’t see the good are startling.

Behavior Change Myths–Part 6, The Power of Triggers

As usual, my thoughts come from this presentation by Stanford University’s Persuasive Tech Lab.

I’ve already written a lot about triggers in previous posts on this topic, but it’s nice to get a post dedicated to triggers by themselves.

Triggers are, of course, things that prompt a response, in this case behavioral. A trigger can be any thing that causes that response, including emotions, events, people, smells, sounds, words, and so on. The classic example is Pavlov and his dogs. You all know the story of course… The bell rings, you give the dog food. Eventually you can ring the bell and cause the dog to salivate in anticipation of getting food.

This kind of trigger is a learned response, and we give ourselves learned response triggers all the time. Habits are generally made up of learned responses, and that’s important to recognize that when dealing with addictions.

Addictions (and behaviors) do not begin in vacuums. We gain them over time as we continue to practice the behavior. If we can control the triggers that promote the behavior, we will have greater success in avoiding the behavior.

What is it that you do or experience that promotes the opportunity for the negative behaviors?

We’ve talked about environmental conditions as being a part of triggers. Are there elements in your environment that push you certain directions?

An important point to remember is that triggers work both ways. Often when we talk about behavior change, I see many people focusing on the negative aspects of behavior and eliminating negative behaviors, but there is real change in using these principles for positive growth as well.

In the arena of weight loss, my wife often tries to pay close attention to what her body is telling her and even verbalize it. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being starvation and 10 being throwing up from overeating, she’ll rate her current “fullness.” When she reaches comfortable and satisfied (around a 7), she stops eating. In many ways, my wife is teaching her body to respond to the natural built-in triggers she already has to tell her to stop eating.

Similarly, I’m one to create encounters as I like to call them. If I am trying to create a habit or remind me to do something, I put triggers in places where I will encounter them. My scriptures go by my shoes, and I put them out the night before. This simple trigger reminds me to call the family together for morning scripture study.

The subtext to this slide says that no behavior happens without a trigger. I don’t know if I agree completely with that, but I will agree that behavior is within our control and triggers are essential to modifying and controlling that behavior.

One last thought…. Our emotional behavior is also within our control and also responds to triggers. If you find yourself consistently getting frustrated with a situation or angry or whatever, what is that is promoting that response? Those are your triggers. While those triggers are important to understand, you have to recognize that you still have the choice and the responsibility to choose regarding those triggers. Those triggers do not make you angry or frustrated. You do. And that is your choice.

And while you can’t always remove all triggers that influence you, you can put in place other triggers to help you.

One that often comes to mind for me was something our bishop taught us a year or so ago. For him, he made it a habit to say a short prayer asking for help each time he faced a specific temptation. In many cases, temptation is brought about by a trigger, and his prayer-based response was an attempt to shift the behavioral response. In some sense, his triggers led to another trigger that led to a positive response.

The point is this: You are free and enabled to choose how you will respond to any given trigger. If you choose to become angry and frustrated, you made that choice yourself. Next time, make a different choice. My wife uses the “Good Choice or Bad Choice?” question when disciplining Katherine. In analyzing our own behavior and responses to triggers, it might be helpful to ask ourselves if our response to a particular trigger was a good choice or a bad choice.

If bad, we have the power to change and be different. Behavior is NOT self anymore than what you wear defines your true appearance. Behavior is, however, an external manifestation of your strengths and weaknesses. Like any strength or weakness, they can be changed. They can be strengthened. And they can be weakened.

The choice, however, remains yours.

January 23, GOP Debate–Florida

I missed this debate last night because of Family Home Evening, which begs the question: Can you really miss something that you actively decided NOT to do in favor of something that is worth more? Hmmmm….

Anyway, I decided I’d do a slightly different review this time than normal…. LIVE! Well, not really since I’m watching the debate post-live, but still…

My thoughts will be in the moment so to speak. If you’d like to catch where I’m referring, here’s the link to the online video. I’ll try to give a clock time in relation to my comments so that you can follow along. And here we go….

0:26–I love the idea that anyone even follows the “rules.” I do like the rule to hold applause. I thought the last debate was very much influenced by the audience.

2:50–Why the Speaker should be nominated…. Most of the examples that Gingrich is using are not uniquely associated with his successes. He can claim some of that, but to think he was everything in that is false, and it ignores the fact that he was pretty much removed from his seat.

4:20–Romney nailed it for me. Gingrich had four years at the head of the party, and he resigned in disgrace. That doesn’t even touch on the rest of his character flaws.

5:20–Gingrich: I’m not going to spend the evening chasing Romney’s misinformation. In other words, you have no argument. Dodging the question doesn’t invalidate the question. Gingrich makes me sick.

6:40–Romney’s going after Gingrich, and I like it. I’m glad for it. I’m not normally one to really encourage the negativity, but I honestly have to wonder if people realize how bad a choice Gingrich could be. The man is angry, rude, and full of revenge. I don’t want that.

10:35–Santorum: Any prediction you make is probably going to be wrong. Now that’s an understatement. I still really dislike Santorum, but I’m glad he’s still running. As long as he’s in, I think he has a dampening effect on Gingrich which is important.

And you can’t argue that he does stand firm on his beliefs. I’ll give him credit where credit is due.

13:14–The question turns to Paul, and I don’t really want to comment on his answers but just say that I like him. I was disappointed to see that he’s not holding for Florida, even though it makes sense not to compete in a winner-take-all state where he’s not polling as well.

14:45–Nice to see Paul set the record on Gingrich (personally there).

16:30–Gingrich talking about building a coalition…. Right….

16:50–Is anyone else tired of the “release your tax returns” train? Romney (and the others) have released what they are required to release. And if you really want to see his returns, are you going to release yours? Seriously people…. NON-ISSUE!!!

17:50–Romney made a nice shift from his taxes to the taxes that people pay. I like his tax plan. It’s a simple change in the near-term followed by broader changes that I strongly agree with.

19:15–Yet another nice shift from talking about his taxes to moving to tax reform.

21:14–Is Romney surprised about the attacks on his wealth? I don’t think he has been necessarily surprised, but I think he (and me) are shocked at the attacks from the right. His line (I will not apologize for being successful) is the right response, and anyone who disagrees with has a basic misunderstanding of economics and finance.

Success is not a sin.

24:24–Gingrich’s contract with Freddie Mac…. This is one that I’ve wanted to see for a while. Gingrich–Romney did consulting, I did consulting. And then he asks why Romney is considered lobbying. Uh… Context? For a smart guy, Gingrich can be pretty thick when he believes he can fool someone.

Gingrich was working with government institutions. Romney worked with corporations. Lobbying is a government function. Simple as that. And hearing Gingrich claim “LIE” is almost as obnoxious as Santorum’s shaking head.

26:30–Romney’s response…. I wish Romney would play this face and this card more commonly. It’s a passion that he typically doesn’t show. I was talking to a friend yesterday he made reference to Romney as a robot, and it’s a fairly accurate portrayal of him. He’s very automatic and trim. This new Romney is a nice change.

28:20–Gingrich tried to hide his work again, but Romney is pulling it back again. Gingrich is trying to make it stick to Romney, but Romney is doing a great job of pushing and pushing and pushing.

FUN stuff.

29:20–Now THAT is awesome. Romney pushed Gingrich to the point of silence, so much that Gingrich had to step back and go back to his “you’re wrong” line that is frankly weak. I hope that people start to recognize that Gingrich’s primary defense isn’t evidence, it’s a claim that “you’re lying!” Ugh….

30:40–And Romney lands the death blow…. Sorry, Gingrich–You’re a lobbyist, and Romney nailed you to the wall on it.

And that’s the first break….

Current thoughts? Romney is nailing Gingrich hard, and I’m glad. Paul and Santorum were largely silent and ignored. Winner goes to Romney for this round.

On to round 2.

32:10–Did government make it too easy to get homes, which caused the housing bubble? Uh… duh? Yes, of course it did. And it’s important to recognize that this was NOT a conservative led initiative. This was a liberal agenda hallmark which set this up. Now, I will admit that neither side did much to stop it or control it, but this was a liberal initiative on its face.

33:30–Paul is talking about the housing crisis, and he’s right that the government forced this issue on the country by being too involved in the banks. Paul could and would run circles around any other financial argument the other candidates could make, and it is for this reason alone that Paul is high on my list. The man is brilliant and dead on!

Win or lose, I desperately hope that people catch on to Paul’s ideas in this area. I’ve said it before–If Paul ever won and got his ideas through, we’d enter the deepest depression we’ve ever seen, BUT we’d come out of that stronger than ever. The price is high, and it is worth it.

38:00–Romney is talking about regulations on banks. He’s right that regulations need to exist, but that they should be modernized and effective. I do believe that regulations are essential, but they should control the situation, not mandate it. Our current regulations mandate too many things and force institutions to make decisions that they would not typically make.

39:00–Speaking of Cuba…. I have to disagree with Romney and Gingrich. Both are talking about taking an aggressive stance. I don’t know why I disagree so strongly, especially since I agree strongly with them on a related issue, such as Iran. Why is Cuba different for me? I guess I don’t see Cuba as dangerous. I don’t see Cuba as an enemy.

Ron Paul is… right on this issue of foreign policy. As he said, “The Cold War is over.” Cuba would benefit from an open communication, and I think they are ready for that. I think we are ready for that. Maybe that’s the difference between Cuba and Iran for me.

43:00–And Santorum is right back to the hardline “beat them into the ground” policy on Cuba….. Sorry, it’s not the right approach.

44:30–Straight of Hormuz… Romney says closing the straight is an act of war. I think I agree and not because of oil. That is an internationally recognized waterway. Now, do I think that we should be the ones to police it? I don’t know. We’ve been that police arm of the international community for too long. I would like to see that shift to more of an international response.

46:00–Gingrich points out Obama’s weakness in canceling the training exercise in the Straight. Gingrich is right on this point, and it’s one of his greatest strengths. As much as I dislike Gingrich, he has very real strengths in the foreign arena. Not saying he’d make the best decisions, but that he’d have strong policies that he’d push through.

48:00–Paul on the Taliban and the Straight. He’s pointing out that our efforts in the Straight is an act of war by us on Iran. And he’s right. I’ve softened considerably on this position over the last few months as I’ve come to recognize that our own actions are part of the problem.

At what point do we all just take a time out?

And that’s the second break.

The winner of this round is Paul. With the heavy focus on finances and foreign policy, he was arguably the most consistent and stable voice. I’m a little surprised to find myself saying that since I’ve disagreed with Paul for so long on foreign policy, but on these specific issues (Cuba, the Taliban, the Straight of Hormuz), Paul is clearly right.

Round 3 (49:30)

50:00–Santorum on Iran. And here’s where I still struggle with Paul on Iran. Paul would claim that our actions have led Iran to do what they are doing, but I also see what Santorum is saying.

It comes back to the idea of when do we all just take a time out for a while?

One more point… How does only one side cause the conflict to subside? It’s a simple truth that it takes two to tango. We can encourage it, but I think we have the right and the obligation to push back as well.

54:00–English as the official language of the US. Ugh… this is such a non-issue. We’re a nation that has assumed hundreds of languages over the course of our history. English-only is not a recent initiative nor is it a recent “need.” However, the way we encourage English as our official language is not by mandating English-only policies. People will adopt the language over time in a natural and normal process.

Now, where I do agree with English-only policies is in the expectations of the nation. We are an English speaking country, and I do not expect nor want to see road signs in another language. I do not expect or want to see businesses mandated to speak Spanish, French, Chinese, and so on. Government is performed in English, but we don’t need to mandate it.

57:45–And Paul is totally right that this needs to be handled on the state level as well.

57:30–The Dream Act…. Gingrich supports allowing people in the military to gain citizenship through that act. I can support that. Romney agrees.

58:30–Deporting illegals…. Romney promotes self-deportation. In a nutshell, if we can control the employment for illegals, it becomes a disadvantage to stay here, thus self-deportation. I can agree with that.

The point I struggle with on illegal immigration is that illegal immigration requires a long-term commitment to consistently break certain laws. I have a problem with that. If you want to be a citizen, respect the law. Ah… Santorum just said almost that same thing. Agreed.

1:01:00–Sugar subsidies… Maybe subsidies in general? I haven’t quite made up my mind about subsidies in general. A lot of the subsidies are in place to encourage low-value–but essential–crops and products.

Romney wants the subsidies gone, and the truth is that if something is truly valuable, it’ll find a price at which it is profitable to make. Gas is a proof of that, and its fluctuations represent that changing value and need. The issue I see is that removing the subsidies could bring inflation.

1:03:00–Romney is going after Obama…. Ah… music to my ears.

And that’s the end of that round.

Winner? Hard to say. Romney had a great attack on Obama’s economic policies, but no one really stood out. I’m calling that round a draw.

On to Round 4 (1:04:47)

Terry Schiavo? Really? I didn’t know that was still an issue.

I’m VERY much looking forward to Paul’s opinion on this. Hopefully he gets asked.

Gingrich is talking about the role of government in this issue (and related issues). He believes there should be some government oversight (that’s not the right word…). Still waiting on Paul….

And here he is…. Paul is putting the responsibility on us through living wills and talking to spouses. Such a simple solution, and I hope everyone does just that. Courtney knows what I want, and I know what she wants.

1:08:45–Space Race! First, a disclaimer: I’m a HUGE NASA fan.

Romney thinks go. I agree. It needs to be done intelligently and more effectively, but I do say go. The benefit of the technologies developed and the advances made makes space exploration beneficial and an effective use of our resources.

Gingrich also agrees. Like Romney, he believes that space exploration should be a combination of government and private enterprise. He also advocates the prize system for encouraging development and growth in this effort. I think that’s a valid and legitimate means of achieving that end.

And that’s Round 4….

Again, I’d call it a draw. Pretty benign.

On to Round 5 (1:13:15)

1:13:40–What has Romney done to further the cause of Conservatism? First response? His family. Second? His work in business. Third? Involved politically. That works for me.

1:15:00–Gingrich’s turn…. He’s outlining his efforts in government. It’s an impressive list, but it speaks closely to being a Washington insider. That may or may not be a positive.

1:16:10–Santorum on electability. Romneycare. Gingrich on individual mandates. Santorum doesn’t believe that either candidate is capable of defeating Obama on that issue. And this is one of the reasons I don’t like Santorum. He comes across as a firm line kind of person who is unwilling to listen and look at other options.

I’m fine with standing tall and firm on issues and principles. What I struggle with is someone is so firm on some things that they cannot learn, cannot grow, and cannot create a unified platform that makes sense. Washington said that part of our responsibility in government is to create that central, unified position, and Santorum is a key figure of why that doesn’t work in our government.

Paul, talking about his definition of conservatism, is painting a better picture. Santorum paints strong lines that cannot be moved. Paul paints lines that are based on broad position, such as limited government. I can find principles in that position that work with more people than Santorum’s hard lines.

And there are doing closing thoughts now…. I’m not so much interested here, so I’m going to stop commenting on the debate itself.

Coming away from this debate, Mitt Romney is still my candidate of choice, but I’m recognizing Ron Paul’s ideas and his attitudes. Hmm…. Am I shifting?

I don’t know yet. But in the face of a potential Gingrich candidacy, Ron Paul is looking awfully attractive.

***

Looking forward, this week is going to BUSY with reviews of the State of the Union address and the various rebuttals. It’ll take time to get them all out, but look for them!

To sum it up perfectly…

A friend sent this to me this morning. It sums up my feelings on Gingrich perfectly.

 

Results: South Carolina GOP Primary

A week ago, Gingrich’s big win would have been almost impossible to predict. While still a major upset, some of the shock of the win was effectively dampened by the numerous polls showing that it would happen. Personally, I was a little surprised at the breadth of the victory. Gingrich took almost ever demographic in the exit polls and showed a broad-based support that bodes for a long, drawn-out election season.

As usual, here’s my thoughts written out by candidate.

Rick Santorum

What a difference a few weeks make. Despite picking up the belated Iowa victory and some strong debates (although I still want to slap him every time he shakes his head), Santorum’s numbers didn’t show all that well in South Carolina. However, with the first three states now being split between three different candidates, the justification to go on is definitely there. Personally, I hope he does if only to help split the vote from Gingrich. Remember, at this point, I’m on the “anyone but Newt” bandwagon.

Ron Paul

I was surprised at his low showing. Granted South Carolina was pretty much guaranteed to be a poor state for Paul, but I had thought he would challenge Santorum for third. With a Third, Second, and Fourth place showing in the first three contests, Paul is certainly capable of continuing his run, and I hope he does as well if only because he is an interesting counter point to everyone else.

I will only hope for Paul to drop if it becomes apparent that his candidacy is pushing Romney out in favor of Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich

Barf… The mere thought of electing such a moral vacuum makes me feel ill.

While his win is certainly something to hang his hat on, it is not the nomination. It is one state. I think Gingrich will put Santorum away with this win (unfortunately), and the race will settle down to Gingrich vs Romney, with Paul. I expect Gingrich to continue to do well across much of the south with Romney staying close enough to nip his heels. In the north and west, I expect Romney to win with Gingrich nipping at his heels. What does that all mean? Long. It means a really long primary season, which plays well for the Democrats (and the Republicans as well potentially). At the end of the day, however, I still expect the nomination will go to…

Mitt Romney

South Carolina is a downer, no doubt about it. But it is not the nail in the coffin like it was in 2008. I always laugh when someone pulls out the fact that South Carolina has always picked the eventual nominee since 1980. So over the last 32 years…. And what about the 150+ years over the life of the Republican party? Trends do not make facts.

This little trend has a good chance of dying in 2012 as well simply because of the uniqueness of this election and the volatility of the campaigns. Newt has been declared dead twice and is still in it. Romney has been declared inevitable more times than I can count and yet here we are. To think that the election ended at South Carolina is a grave mistake, especially given that Romney is polling quite well in Florida. If Romney pulls Florida with a good margin of victory, we’re right back where we started with Romney once again being “inevitable” and Gingrich being “dead.” Now if Gingrich wins…. We’ll see what happens.

Two little side notes…

1. I’ve never donated to a campaign before, but I’ve already been on the Romney donation site half-a-dozen times in the last week. I haven’t clicked Donate yet, but the itch is there. I dislike Gingrich enough that I’d gladly donate to that cause. I guess I’m waiting through Florida to make sure that South Carolina is a fluke and not a sign of things to come.
2. I’m searching for alternatives should Gingrich win the nomination. I’ve long believed that my vote isn’t necessarily important in who wins the presidency but rather as a chance to let my voice be heard. Win or lose, I relish the opportunity to make a statement about my beliefs and opinions regarding this country. Should Gingrich win the nomination, you can be sure that my search for my ideal candidate will expand to any number of third parties and even include [choke] Obama… [gasp]

Last notes… The week ahead is exciting! GOP debates on Monday and Thursday, and my MOST favorite political event of the year… State of the Union Address plus all the rebuttals. As I do each year, I’ll be reviewing each speech from the major parties and even a few of the lesser parties. Something to look forward to.

GOP CNN Debate

First things first, Ron Paul had the line of the night when he called Senator Santorum overly sensitive. It was the only moment I clapped and cheered (Courtney can verify that).

I’m soooo sick of Santorum. Every time he shakes his head, I want to slap him. He comes across as a whiny, wimpy, wienie, and I personally cannot wait for him to go away. GRRR!!!!

End of rant.

Here are, as usual my thoughts on the debate:

Ron Paul

Well done. He did an excellent job of staying above the fray between the other three candidates and particularly between Gingrich and Santorum. He was likable, had some great moments, and acquitted himself well. Like I said earlier, when he called Santorum overly sensitive, I cheered. And it’s a move that only Paul could have pulled off with that kind of grace. He’s not my first choice for president, but he’s high up there.

Newt Gingrich

His start to the debate (refusing to address his ex-wive’s comments) was ridiculous. Talk about pious baloney. The only one I dislike more than Santorum at this point is Gingrich. The man is a pig. He’s rude, he’s mean, and he’s got a vendetta. YES, his character matters. He can act like it doesn’t, but it does. He can claim to be changed, but he’s showing more and more that he’s not a changed man and he’s the same person who was thrown out of his Speaker chair.

Rick Santorum

Ugh… Can I just avoid this one?

Mitt Romney

He was right to pass on attacking Gingrich over his character record. As much as Gingrich was wrong to refuse to answer, Romney was right to let Gingrich hang. As opposed to Monday’s debate, Romney actually performed well and performed strongly.

I get frustrated with some of the attacks that Romney faces, especially from Gingrich and Santorum. The attacks they place on Romney fail to recognize the context of the situations and especially fail to recognize full facts. In the end, I hope the electorate is capable of understanding truth and fact and fiction and attack.

Romney still has my vote. If not Romney, Paul. But I did make this promise earlier today…. If Gingrich wins the nomination, you will NOT find me on his side. You will find me actively campaigning against him, and you will even see me seriously considering an Obama vote. I strongly dislike Obama. I don’t like him and I think he’s bad. However, I do agree with NoSurfGirl that Obama at least has his heart in the right place and honestly believes what he is doing is the best choice. Gingrich? This is a power grab. This is purely about the size of his considerable head and ego.

Santorum and Gingrich keep trying to position themselves as the anti-Romney. Well here’s one for you: I’m an anti-Gingrich. Anyone than Gingrich. Period.

Down to Four

Perry dropped out this morning, leaving only four candidates in the GOP race to be the nominee for President.

Thoughts? Good news for Gingrich, bad news for Romney.

Romney is thriving on having the evangelical vote split among several candidates, one of them being Perry. With Perry out of the way, that vote is now only split two ways. More than that, however, is that with the vote split only two ways, the pressure on Santorum (weaker than Gingrich at this point) builds to drop out as well.

If Santorum drops, this is suddenly nowhere near over. In fact, if Santorum drops, I think the momentum shifts back to Gingrich.

At this point, Romney has got to put the race away on Saturday if he wants to win this. His debate performance Monday night was weak (for him), weak enough that the door is clearly open for a second front runner candidate to step in and establish himself. Tonight, Romney needs to go on the offensive, he needs to be openly defensive instead of privately defensive (his defense of the tax returns is his single worst mistake so far, and he lost huge points there). He needs to put the arguments in his camp and his corner instead of battling on the others’ fields.

To be honest, I had hoped that Perry would hold out through Saturday if only to disrupt the evangelical vote. With that option out of the way, Romney is going to have to hold his own camp AND convince the rest his ideas are the best. He is fast running out of the split-vote advantage that gave McCain the win in 2008.

This nomination is still Romney’s to lose, but South Carolina has changed from a really-nice-to-win state to a MUST-WIN state for Romney. The longer this is drawn out, the more likely it is that he’ll lose. Simple as that.

***

A couple thoughts on religion…. With Perry dropping out, this virtually guarantees that a non-protestant will win the nomination. Romney is LDS (Mormon), Gingrich and Santorum are Catholic, and Paul is Baptist. Should Paul win (he won’t) he’d keep the protestant streak alive for the GOP.

The religion of a candidate shouldn’t matter, of course, but I do think it interesting that this election will likely put out a candidate that pretty much goes against all the stereotypes some would place on the GOP.

***

A couple thoughts on  Sarah Palin…. Last night, Gingrich stated that he would certainly consider having a seat at the table for Palin should he win the nomination. As a former Alaskan who thought Palin a strong governor, may I just say BARF!?! I’m not an Obama fan (that much is clear), but I’m not a big Gingrich fan either. However, if Palin is on the Gingrich ticket, I will run screaming for the exits. She was a capable and good governor in Alaska. She is NOT ready for primetime.

I was initially very excited when McCain tapped her as his running mate. But it quickly became evident that she was nowhere near ready.

Sarah Palin–Thanks for all your work in Alaska. Please go home.

***

A couple thoughts on Super PACs…. I desperately hope that the concept of Super PACS is revisited post-election. They are incredibly dangerous for our democracy, especially the complete lack of accountability. If nothing else, I hope that current campaign finance laws will be applied to Super PACs to help control them.

An Unscheduled Visit to the Hives

Well… hive I guess, since Hive 2 died back in November/December.

Yesterday, I had that gut feeling that told me to go heft Hive 1. I did, and I was surprised to find it on the light side. Light enough that I could lift both deeps with just one hand. I may be only a first-year beekeeper, but even I know that being that light means problems.

This winter has been so weird. It’s been extremely mild with very little snow. In fact, our first snow fall was only a week ago, and it was so minor that it was hardly worth mentioning. Saturday, it got over 50 degrees, and the bees were out in force. It’s been interesting.

Because of the warmth, though, I don’t know that the bees have ever truly clustered or that they ever really stopped raising large quantities of brood. They are tearing through their reserves at a remarkable pace, and the hefting confirmed that yesterday.

I tried to get a hold of Aleisha (my mentor), but when I couldn’t get her, I jumped to my second favorite source of instruction: YouTube! Most of the videos I saw showed people doing either a 2:1 sugar syrup OR just dry sugar. I did see one video where a guy put in two full frames of honey he had in reserve, and that’s when I remembered that I lost Hive 2 and that Hive 2 left behind a full deep full of honey.

I tried to find some support for putting that deep on top of Hive 1–essentially expanding the hive upwards to three deeps–and I couldn’t. I also, however, didn’t see anything online saying not to do it, so….

Late last night, in the rain, and with a friend holding a big umbrella over Hive 1, I did just that. It was very dark and kind of cold, so I worked very fast (less than 30 seconds with the hive actually open). I didn’t get to see too much of what was going on inside the hive because I was using the car headlights to give me light (horizontal instead of vertical light), but the bees did pour out the top when the lid came off. They also poured out of one general area, so it looks like they were at least somewhat clustered.

All in all, I’d claim it a success. I’d certainly rather not have to do that, but I’m glad I had the option.

Now, the pros:

• I much prefer feeding the bees their own honey as opposed to sugar syrup or dry sugar. It’s just more natural for them.
• The frames I added also had pollen in them, which is a second bonus.

For the cons:

• It was cold. I wish I could have avoided that, but it looks like winter is finally settling in on us, and I could either do it now or in several weeks. I don’t know that they would have survived that long.
• I gave them frames from a hive that died, and I still don’t know the cause of death. Right now, I’m assuming Varroa weakened the hive and then wasps finished it off, but I just don’t know. The good news is that the freezing temps we have had should have killed off most any dangers on those frames, but I simply don’t know.
• I no longer have those ten frames to give the bees an early start in the spring.

I was also a little worried about getting them back down into two deeps, but since I plan on splitting that hive, I’m not all that worried.

Last note… Right before adding the third super, I hefted the box once more. I was probably off on my initial estimate (not as light as I thought), and doing the math in my head, I realized that they probably ate about half of their stores, which is roughly where they should be (roughly half-way through winter = half of their stores). So there is a chance I over reacted. But acting with less than complete knowledge, I did the best I could.

Now I’m hoping for validation from the rest of the beekeepers who read this…. (sitting here waiting with fingers crossed….)