David Dewhurst: The George Pataki of Texas

"Announcer: This is an official warning to all Texas conservatives. Your TV is about to be jammed with political commercials, from politicians you’ve never heard of, making empty promises you’ve heard too many times before. So how do you sort through it all? Don’t just listen to what they say; look at what they’ve done. In the race for U.S. Senate, only one candidate has balanced five budgets without raising taxes, and cut taxes 51 times. It’s Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst. Only one candidate repeatedly cut spending and passed strong pro-life legislation – David Dewhurst."

- David Dewhurst Campaign Radio Ad

As the U.S. Senate race in Texas heats up, I keep hearing this radio ad from Lt. Governor/U.S. Senate candidate David Dewhurst.  The ad, has aired the past few days on Glenn and Rush's radio shows, is bullcrap; Lt. Governor Dewhurst is claiming credit he does not deserve for Governor Rick Perry's record.  As Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst has led on nothing and obstructed much.

I want to draw a simple analogy for east coast political reporters: David Dewhurst is the George Pataki of Texas politics.  Pataki, the former governor of New York State, is best known for claiming credit for Rudy Giuliani's record.  As someone with roots in both New York and Texas, I can attest to the parallels.

It's an open secret in Austin that Dewhurst and Pataki are good friends.  Indeed, I first met Dewhurst at a 2010 event he did WITH Pataki.  The level of contempt David Dewhurst and George Pataki hold for regular people is palpable.

The best way to understand David Dewhurst and George Pataki is to look at their respective records' when Rick Perry and Rudy Giulani are taken out of the picture.  Between 2003 and 2006, Dewhurst repeatedly advocated increasing taxes.  In 2011, Dewhurst was all over the place regarding Texas' rainy day fund.  George Pataki's record as Governor of New York was similarly atrocious.  These are only a few examples.

Some people get into politics for principle, most get in for power.  Rick Perry and Rudy Giulani are courageous reformers; David Dewhurst and George Pataki were crony capitalists in the right place at the right time.  Rick Perry and Rudy Giulani have taken on special interests and won; David Dewhurst and George Pataki have cut deals with those special interests.  If you can't resist special interests in Austin, what makes you think you can resist them in Washington D.C.?!?

Based on his pathetic record David Dewhust does not belong anywhere near the U.S. Senate, but the character issues revealed by his willingness to claim credit for Rick Perry's accomplishments takes the cake....

Free Market America and Paul Harvey: The Sincerest form of Flattery

The other day, this online video started making the rounds:

It's obviously based on this old Paul Harvey commentary that went around about six weeks ago:

It's almost like the Devil wants America to fail economically, but that would be crazy....

POTUS 2012: Data vs. Critical Theory

There's an aspect of Mitt Romney's background about which I'd forgotten; if I'd have remembered it earlier, I'd have opposed his nomination far less strenuously.  A massive opportunity exists for Mitt Romney if he can use the same skill set with Barack Obama that he used with new hires twenty years ago.

Mitt Romney's background, prior to becoming Governor of Massachusetts, was turning around failing companies and organizations.  When Mitt Romney ran for President in 2008, I read Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon in the White House.  Hewitt's second chapter, titled "Bain Washed" not "Brain Washed" details Romney's business career.  As Romney told Hewitt, his approach to solving tough problems was to:

"let people sit at the table and let them bring in different viewpoints and arguments and then support them with reviewable data that could be confirmed." (58-59)

 In contrast with Mitt Romney's data based background, Barack Obama is steeped in something called critical theory.  While critical theory is often presented as something high-falutin', at its core it's nihilstic bullcrap.  Critical theory is the tactic the left has used on numerous topics these past five years: like George W. Bush and Iraq, Health Care and the Tea Party, and the Debt Ceiling.

The short version of critical theory is that its practitioners relentlessly criticize their opponents without presenting an alternative.  Critical theory is against everything and for nothing.  The purpose of critical theory is to demoralize your opposition while disguising your intentions.  This video, from PJTV, outlines the history of critical theory:

Mitt Romney's background with data makes him uniquely suited to confront critical theory.  The weakness of critical theory comes when you demand your opponent present their alternative, backed up with data.  Romney told Hewitt his approach was:

"the approach of gathering people who represent different viewpoints and then insisting they argue but with data and analysis allows people to reach consensus and points out where self-interest is driving a particular argument rather than mutual interest." (58) Emphasis Mine

 Hewitt summarizes Romney's approach by saying that "[T]he 'Bain way' presumes a common interest in success. (58)"  It's also a unique tool to highlight Barack Obama's refusal to argue in good faith AND the media's corrupt complicity.  Consider the following examples:

• Does a corrupt trillion dollar 'stimulus' that was written years earlier, and has failed to meet its own standards, represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does shredding 1000 years of bankruptcy law to give the Auto Companies to the Unions while lying about their performance represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does Obama's corrupt Health Care Law represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does special interest banking legislation that fails to address the underlying causes of the housing crisis represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does abandoning national interests in Iraq while simultaneously launching a treasonous war in Libya without Congressional authorization and helping the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the region represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does creations a national clusterf**k in Afghanistan while classlessly taking credit for the actions of the Navy Seals in the bin Laden raid represent national or parochial interests?!?
• Does ignoring a growing alliance between Gog and Persia Russia and Iran, while forcing Israel to indefensible borders, represent national or parochial interests?!? :)

(Author's note: And I didn't even mention the border)

If Mitt Romney can force Barack Obama, and his buddies in the media, to argue with data instead of critical theory, Romney will win BIG.  The basic math is so obvious a fourth grader can understand it if it's presented with data.  Barack Obama cannot discuss his plans with data because, if he did, he's be lucky to win 30%.  Many Americans instinctively understand how terrible Barack Obama has been; if Mitt Romney can educate them about the facts while demanding that Obama and the Media argue with data, the contrast will speak for itself.

Official Endorsement: Texas Budget Compact

This past Monday, Governor Rick Perry introduced the Texas Budget Compact at an event in Houston:

Cahnman's Musings officially endorses the Texas Budget Compact.  The notion that politicians think they can attach strings to our own money is an outrage; this is just as true in Austin as it is in Washington D.C.  The Texas Budget Compact keeps our own money in our own hands in the first place.  The Texas Budget Compact is the Uproot and Overhaul of State Government.  This long-term solution to Texas' budget shortcomings is based on the following five common sense principles:/div>

Practice truth in budgeting.

Support a Constitutional limit of spending to the growth of population and inflation.

Oppose any new taxes or tax increases, and make the small business tax exemption permanent.

Preserve a strong Rainy Day Fund.

Cut unnecessary and duplicative government programs and agencies.

If you ever wondered where Rick Perry's sentiments really are, you need look no further.  If Goveronor Perry were not a Tea Partier at heart, he wouldn't have proposed the Texas Budget Compact in the Middle of Legislative primary elections.  The Texas Budget Compact is the Howitzer that will allow the Tea Party to systematically eliminate the corrupt leadership of the Texas Legislature, starting with Speaker Joe Straus'.  Texans need to demand their state legislative candidates endorse Governor Perry's Texas Budget Compact.

[Author's Note: In case the Secret Service is reading, "systematically eliminate the corrupt leadership of the Texas Legislature" refers to the ballot box.]

The Texas Budget Compact makes spending restraint a legal requirement.  It permanently binds the legislature. For those of you unfamiliar with the Texas Constitution, the budget is initially proposed by a body called the Legislative Budget Board, the only legal authority the Governor has is his veto power at the end of the process.  Governor Perry's veto won't be around forever.  The Texas Budget Compact will bind the legislature from now to eternity.

In 2013, the Legislature needs to make the Texas Budget Compact its top priority.  Permanently restraining spending will get us just as much crap ONCE as cutting spending on an ad hoc basis every two years will get us till eternity.  We can always cut spending further at a later date, like 2015 and 2017.  And we will....:)

We've already seen the corrupt leadership of the Texas Leadership make a really lame attempt to sidestep the Texas Budget Compact.  Speaker Joe Straus said:

Speaker Straus has a long-standing policy of not signing pledges; his pledge is to keep his commitments to and provide quality representation for the constituents of District 121 and the people of Texas.

Other Republican legislators have expressed similar sentiments to their corrupt Speaker.  Just so we're clear, saying "we don't sign pledges" is Austin Capitol Insider bull-crap for "Texans can go fuck themselves."  I know the language is strong, but I use that phrase deliberately to illustrate the contempt in which many legislators, led by their corrupt Speaker, hold regular Texans.

Over the next six weeks, motivated citizens can send a message to the corrupt leadership of the Texas Legislature, starting with Speaker Joe Straus.  We need to go out and teach people the full implications of the Texas Budget compact.  Failure to pass the Texas Budget Compact will destroy the economic foundation of Texas Civilization.  The Texas Budget Compact will enforce budgetary righteousness on the corrupt and wicked leadership of the Texas Legislature.  Cahnman's Musings unapologetically endorses this Urgent Priority!

Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Chaos at Democrat County Conventions in North Carolina

A few weeks ago, I wrote about How Obama Just Can't Win; North Carolina plays a key role in that analysis.

This morning, a source in Texas pointed out this story to me.  It reveals utter chaos in the North Carolina Democrat Party and it's worth quoting at length:

The executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party resigned Sunday amid increasing frustrations and ire among party activists over high turnover at the party headquarters and harassment allegations there.... 

The dustup following the [sexual harassment] emails led party activists meeting at county party conventions Saturday to call for the resignations of Parmley and party Chairman David Parker....  

Parmley's departure is the latest setback for a state party that has been coming to terms with Republicans controlling the state House and Senate for the first time in 140 years. Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue surprised many in January by announcing she wouldn't seek re-election, forcing other Democrats to scramble to mount primary campaigns. Six Democrats are running in the May 8 primary.... 

The Democratic National Convention will be held in Charlotte in less than five months.

Ouch.  This is disastrous for Democrats in North Carolina.  Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out about much bigger financial shenanigans down the road.

How to Sell Uproot and Overhaul to Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney had a long and wildly successful career at Bain.  Bain's business model is based around maximizing value at poorly managed and under-performing institutions.  According to Bain's website:

Bain CRG quickly assesses a company's financial health through data-driven competitive and market intelligence, identifying both external and internal sources of distress and sustainable value creation. Encompassing all four components of a successful turnaround–financial, operational, strategic and organizational–the group combines the decisive, short-term capabilities of traditional restructuring firms with Bain's proven track record of strategy and operational expertise across multiple industries.

To translate this statement from vague corporate gobbledygook into normal English, companies like Bain turnaround failing organizations by identifying (and fixing) the organization's core capabilities while jettisoning other activities.

In the case of the Federal Government, the core capabilities fall under Article I Section 8, Article II Section 2, and Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; everything else is covered under the Tenth Amendment.

Uproot and Overhaul, introduced by Governor Rick Perry during his brief White House run, is the road map by which you jettison all the unnecessary stuff.

The Difference between Republicans and Tea Partiers

Last night, I went to an event hosted by Republicans; I define Republicans as people who either work for the Party, work at the Capitol, or lobby the State Government.

To be clear, this isn't personal.  I had an awesome time and everyone was super-cool.  That being said, in discussing the primary in HD-121 someone made a comment that epitomizes the difference in mentality between Republicans and Tea Partiers:

As a citizen, I'd love to see Joe Straus go down; as a lobbyist, he's great on our issues and we support him.

Excuse me?!?  You support Joe Effing Straus?!?

The Joe Straus who uses the exact same rhetoric as Barack Obama?!?

The Joe Straus who wants to bring Casino Gambling to Texas?!?

The Joe Straus who became Speaker by sleazily collaborating with Democrats?!?

THAT Joe Straus?!?

To me, supporting Joe Straus is unfathomable; perpetuating a system where a slime ball like Joe Straus gets to dole out committee chairmanships offends my basic sense of right and wrong.

If you want to understand the difference in mentality between Republicans and Tea Partiers, you need look no further than the race for HD-121 in Texas.

Vote Matt Beebe!!!

Who's REALLY Imposing Their Values

Who's forcing their beliefs on whom?!?

• Who forced legal infanticide on the country with Roe vs. Wade?!? The Left.

• Who is using the force of government to corrupt a definition of marriage that has existed for Millenia?!? The Left.

• Who is going around forcing people to tear down crosses at Military Cemeteries?!? The Left.

• Who has used government funded sex education to teach perversion to impressionable children in Public Schools?!? The Left

• Who made Marijuana illegal?!?  The Left.

• Who is Mandating that Christian organizations violate the Sixth Commandment?!?  The Left

• Who is slowly making smoking tobacco illegal?!?  The Left.

I could go on, but the point is that the left is ALWAYS the aggressor in the culture war and the only thing Christians ever do is play defense.

Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Pennsylvania

I've been saying for some time that, based on how he has alienated specific groups in traditional swing states, Barack Obama simply cannot get to 270 electoral votes.  This past weekend, the Wall St Journal examined the swing states, and in so doing revealed the lameness of the conventional wisdom with which most people view this election.

Going through each of the swing states would be too time consuming, so I'm going to limit my analysis to what they say about Pennsylvania:

His [Obama's] campaign strategy in Mr. Biden's home state is threefold: In Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania, emphasize manufacturing.  In the Philadelphia suburbs, hit social issues.  Elsewhere, argue that the administration's policies are more fair to the middle class.

 Let me translate for those of you who don't speak bull-crap: when Obama talks about 'manufacturing' it's code for green energy.  When Obama talks about "fair to the middle class" it's code for food stamps. I'll save the discussion of 'social issues' for another day.

This means that, in the Western two-thirds of Pennsylvania, Barack Obama is going to run for re-election based on Windmills, Solar Panels, and Food Stamps; can someone say Solyndra?!?

Contrast Obama's message of Hippie power and welfare against a Republican argument that will be based around traditional energy development that will simultaneously lower gas prices AND increase employment.

Oil and Gas vs. Solar Panels and Welfare.

It's that simple.

Why Barack Obama REALLY Needs His Base

"The first step in Community Organization is community disorganization....Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation.  All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.....The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression."

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, p. 116

"There is nothing more draining, nothing more fatal, than this classical politics, with its dried up rituals, its thinking without thought, its little closed world....As the welfare state collapses, we see the emergence of brute conflict between those who desire order and those who don't....To the point that any return to normal is no longer desirable or even imaginable....It is now publicly understood that crisis situations are so many opportunities for the restructuring of domination....How does a situation of generalized rioting become an insurrectionary situation?!?

- The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, pp. 11-19

"[W]e decided to declare May 1st, 2012 a People’s General Strike. Instead of calling upon unionized Labor to make a specific demand (illegal under Taft-Hartley), we are calling upon the people of the world to take this day away from school and the workplace, so that their absence makes their displeasure with this corrupt system be known."

- OccupyMay1st.org

Barack Obama cannot win this election.  He knows it.  That's why he's deliberately sowing chaos.

For months, people have been accusing President Obama of ginning up his base to help his re-election effort.  They miss Obama's purpose by a country mile.  Barack Obama isn't ginning up his base to show up at the polls, Obama is ginning up his base to riot.

The dirty little secret is that Obama's base isn't big enough to win an election.  That is why Democrats have to lie and pretend to be conservatives in order to win elections.  Furthermore, Obama's base doesn't reliably vote.  But people who don't vote will still riot.

Barack Obama's base consists of certain minorities (mainly blacks), Jon Stewart's audience, and the Unions.  If you look at who is fomenting chaos, it's these three groups.  The New Black Panthers are the Black element.  Occupy Wall St. is Jon Stewart's audience.  Unions are notorious commie thugs.  I expect La Raza to get into the action soon.

 The purpose of riots is to disrupt daily life, which confuses and frightens the broad apolitical middle.  This has three potential benefits for the left:

1) Overwhelming the New Administration - I think this is the real objective; as I wrote in February:

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

2) Bullying the Broad Apolitical Middle so they 'volutarily' Give The Left What They Want -  If the situation gets stressful enough, people who don't follow politics closely may decide that the path of least resistence is to give the rioters what they want.

3) Instigate a Massive Crackdown - This is what Glenn Beck thinks is the end-game.  George Soros has expressed similar sentiments.  I'm skeptical; as Alinsky says:

As an organizer I start where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be — it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be.

I don't think the American people are far enough gone, yet, to accept a massive crackdown.  A crackdown could wake up the broad apolical middle to the point where they wise-up to the left.  To me, instigating a massive crackdown seems too big a risk to the broader Marxist project.  On the other hand, if they could instigate a massive crack-down several years down the road, under a Republican, then they could demonize it.

If Barack Obama's base is angry, they'll create chaos, which is Obama's real objective. Historically, authority figures cave to this sort of thuggery, or tragedy ensues.  The possible difference, this time, is that there might be a critical mass of citizens who understand the game being played.

Conservatives need to wrap their heads around this reality.  We are going to win this election, then we're going to assume power amidst massive chaos.  When that happens we need to understand the game the left is really playing.  As the Invisible Committee said:

The Goal of any insurrection is to become irreversable. (130)

Forewarned is forearmed.

Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Interesting Jewish ##'s

Politico has this story about Jewish Voters today.  Money quote:

A new poll of American Jews, conducted by Public Religion Research Institute, finds that 62 percent of Jewish voters prefer Obama over a generic Republican.

This is progress, compared to the 78 percent who voted for him in 2008.

Slow and steady wins the race....

Marginalizing SCOTUS: Obama's Revolutionary Consistency

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

- President Barack Obama, April 2nd 2012

This attack on the Supreme Court is a calculated component of Barack Obama's long-term strategy; he needs demons to blame for 'obstructing' his promised Utopia.  For months, I've been saying that one of Obama's long-term goals is to replace the constitutional authority of Congress with unconstitutional Commissions and Czars.  He's playing the same game with the Supreme Court.  Yesterday's cheap display of Hugo Chavez demagoguery and straw-men furthers his goal to sow hatred of constitutional government among stupid people his base.  Barack Obama is moving to insulate the Government's agenda from Constitutional Accountability while daring the rest of us to stop him.

The Supreme Court has been in the cross hairs of the left for over a decade.  This is the same group of people who have been demonizing the Supreme Court since it shut down Al Gore's unconstitutional and illegal attempt to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and steal the 2000 election.  Barack Obama is going to accuse the Supreme Court of 'playing politics with people's lives' and he'll propose putting decisions about the role of government in the hands of 'experts' instead of 'politicians.'  He'll accuse the Supreme Court of 'protecting Special Interests' when, in reality, those special interests supported Obamacare and even supported it at the Supreme Court.  As Thomas Lifson said today:

if it [the Supreme Court] displeases him, he will appeal to the segments of the American public utterly ignorant of the Constitution and not really paying close attention to the news. And he will in effect tell them that the Court isn't really legitimate. This is a Chicago-style "if they bring a knife, you bring a gun" threat.

As Obama continues this cheap straw-man Hugo Chavez demagoguery, one thing he said yesterday is particularly galling:

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law."

What a load of bull-crap; the purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the Government and it's perfectly legitimate for the Supreme Court to throw out acts of Congress that exceed Congress' Article I, Section 8 authority.  As Rush said today:

Everybody knows that judicial activism is not what Obama is explaining it to be. Judicial activism is the court MAKING law. Judicial activism is the court WRITING law. What Obama is trying to say here is that the court will be engaging in judicial activism if it judges the law according to the Constitution. That's not what judicial activism is. I know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to take this term, and they're trying to redefine it publicly to fit their needs and redefine the language (as they constantly are). But, folks, I'm gonna tell you something. It is preposterous, and it's even a little scary to hear such abject ignorance from a supposed constitutional scholar.

This is a man, Barack Obama, who was once paid to teach law, constitutional law, and he doesn't even know the meaning of the term "judicial activism." No one ever accuses any judges of judicial activism for following the Constitution! Judges are accused of judicial activism for not following the Constitution, for legislating from the bench, for writing their own law. This is basic knowledge. Now, maybe this is why we've never seen Obama's grade transcripts, if he really doesn't know the difference. But I suspect that he does know the difference, and I suspect that he's trying to redefine terms here to fit. Because this has become a template argument for the left.

What Rush misses, however, is that Alinsky's fourth rule was: "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules."  With this demagogic Hugo Chavez Straw Man, Barack Obama is trying to force us to live up to a book of rules he has created to which we have not agreed.

Ultimately, I don't think this cheap straw-man Hugo Chavez demagoguery is going to intimidate the Supreme Court, but it can turn the Supreme Court into another mythical source of power blocking Obama's promised Utopia.  Barack Obama wants riots in the streets when this legislative abomination is overturned.  Barack Obama is deliberately sowing chaos and a constitutional crisis while daring the rest of us to stop him.

And stop him we will....