Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Monday, February 25, 2013

Texas Employers Need to Promote Economic Literacy


One criticism I often hear about Texas recruiting businesses in California is that we don't want a bunch of liberals moving here and voting in liberal policies.  That's true, but Texas also needs capital.  The easiest capital to recruit is in Blue States.  That means the capital Texas needs is often accompanied by an economically-illiterate work force.  To help maintain Texas' economic climate, Texas employers owe it to themselves to increase their employees' economic literacy.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won the overwhelming support of small business owners; unfortunately, Obama won small business employees.  If employees of small businesses voted the same way as small business owners, Mitt Romney would be President.  When employer taxes went up at the beginning of the year, that tax increase was voted in by their own employees.

Left-wing politics takes hold when 'the Rich' are seen as some distant entity.  It's a lot harder to demonize someone if you know them personally.  For Texas employers, that means your employees will be less likely to vote in bad tax and regulatory policies if they see you being hurt, as opposed to some Wall St. fat cat.

Many employers will object that they don't have the time or they don't need another responsibility.  That's fine, no one expects you to teach Phd. level dissertations; just the basics on government spending, taxation, and regulatory policy.  Cahnman's Musings will roll out some ideas to help Texas employers accomplish this task in a cost-effective and efficient manner in the coming weeks.

Texas' business climate isn't an accident.  It is the result of prudent decision making over the past decade.  As a result, Texas has become an attractive location for capital fleeing hostile regimes.  While that capital is a very good thing, an economically-illiterate workforce often accompanies it.  Texas employers owe it to their bottom line to help sever this link.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Governor Rick Perry on Economic Growth and the Hispanic Vote

I was at this event with Governor Rick Perry last summer in Austin; the economic stuff is pretty standard stuff for Rick Perry, but the section on Hispanic voting in the middle is one of the best discussions of how Republicans can compete for Hispanic votes I've ever heard:



Highlights:
  • "If you're going to run for the Presidency of the United States, you gotta get in early."
  • "I would highly recommend not having major back surgery six weeks before kicking it [a Presidential campaign] off."
  • U-Haul Rates:
    • California to Texas: $1800+
    • Texas to California: $700 and change.
  • "The Federal Government is supposed to do a few things well, then get out of the way and let the states compete."
  •  What the nation can learn, economically, from Texas
    • Low Taxes
    • A Fair and Predictable Regulatory Climate
    • Don't Allow Oversuing
  • "If the Federal Government would focus on the military and defending our border and leave the rest of these problems to the states, America would be a lot better off."
  •  Hispanics and Republicans:
    • Patriotism
    • Traditional Judeo-Christian values
    • "If you want to live free, you will become a Republican."
  • "If you're going to govern according to your values, you're going to be attacked by those who don't."
  •  "We don't need a President who does 'bold reforms,' we need a President who respects the Tenth Amendment."

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Sen. Ted Cruz: On Making the Argument


Sen. Ted Cruz just finished speaking at the TPPF policy orientation.

What happened in November?!?
  • November 6th was a very ugly day.
  • This election was not a popular affirmation of Obama policy.
  • Republicans didn't make the argument
  • 47% encapsulated the narrative of this election; Romney made a fatal mistake in writing them off instead of speaking to them about uplifting themselves.
What's the path forward?!?
  • Opportunity Conservatism -- Talk about policy in terms of economic ascent.
  • Conservative economic policies make people's lives better.
  • The policies of the Left have "wreaked devastation" on minorities and the poor.
    • "School Choice is about giving poor kids the same options as rich kids."
  • Big Business does great with Big Government.
  • The rich do just fine in socialist countries; you just don't see new rich people.
  • Small Business is the biggest threat to big business.
Texas Must Lead:
  • Texas is America on Steroids.
  • People don't necessarily connect the policy environment of Texas with our economic success.
  • "It is my goal to make the Texas Legislature's job much more difficult."
Upcoming policy debates:
  • "The only hope of have any sort of policy shift between now and 2014 is to maximize our few point of leverage to maximize policy concession."
  • Divided Government -- Whoever owns the default has the advantage.
  • "THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE HAS ZERO TO DO WITH DEFAULT ON THE FEDERAL DEBT."
  • With a  backbone, we can extract meaningful concessions on spending and growth.
Update: Here's the video....

Ben Domenech: What went Wrong and How We Get it Right: Conservative Media in 2012 and Beyond


Cultural Disconnect:
  • The Paulene Kael line about not knowing anyone who voted for Nixon is still true.
  • They think we're a bunch of cousin-marrying hicks.
Combating Media Slander of Texas:
  • The onus is on those of us who know the truth about Texas to put out the truth.
J-School prepares journalists very poorly:
  • Reporters frequently don't understand the policy issues they're covering.
There's been a 20 year gap where people have consciously forgotten the lessons of the 1970's and the 1980's.

Pop Culture is VERY political:
  • Look at the coverage of Fluke and the perception of Mitt Romney would ban birth control.
    • Me: The under-30 set hasn't ever been exposed to conservatism, but they've been watching MTV their entire life.
A shift in the way people on the Right engage media:
  • We cannot count on the new generation of reporters to have the cultural chops to cover the issues that will be prominent over the next decade.
Building Alternative Institutions:
  •  The vast majority of Americans engage in politics in the context of problems right in front of people's faces.
  • Conservative media assumes the people reading us have far more knowledge than we think they do. 
Education is an argument that Conservatives have definitively won, but we never talk about it.

Moral arguments, moral arguments, moral arguments.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Tea Party will tame Mitt; an open letter to James Taranto


Dear Sir,

Yesterday, in your Best of the Web column, you engaged in the following speculation:
Since the House is expected to stay under Republican control, Romney may actually turn out to be the one who has the skills to tame the Tea Party.
Over my dead body.

The Tea Party is currently pulling Mitt, along with a number of U.S. Senate candidates, across the finish line.  When Mitt wins, which he will, Mitt will owe us.  We intend to collect.

One dirty little secret about the Tea Party is that we didn't arise in response to Barack Obama, we arose in response to TARP.  To be sure, Obamacare resistance put us on the national radar, but we were around before that.  The Tea Party cannot wait to hold a Republican President accountable.

I addressed this topic at length last month, but once we get into year two and three of President Mitt's administration, policy will take a major Tea Party shift.  We'll probably pass Paul Ryan's budget in year one, but in year two we will come back and demand Congress pass Rand Paul's budget followed by the Uproot and Overhaul proposal from Rick Perry's Presidential campaign.  Over the next decade, the Tea Party will follow Ted Kennedy's legislative strategy in reverse; take what you can get, then immediately ask for more.

In his speech at FreePAC Dallas July, Sen. Mike Lee pointed out that it took 15 years to get from the original Boston Tea Party to ratification of the Constitution.  America's founders got the country where it needed to get, but it didn't happen overnight.  This is a long-term fight, and the Tea Party is not going anywhere.

Sincerely,
Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
November 1, 2012

Thursday, October 18, 2012

An Open Letter to 2008 Obama Voters


Hi,

You don't know me.  I live in Texas.  In 2008, I voted for Sarah Palin.

 I don't know why you voted for Obama in 2008 and, honestly, I don't care.  What I do know is that a good number of you have soured on the man.  You might not be sold on Mitt, but I want to make sure you understand your options.

It's ok to stay home.

Let's face facts: it hasn't worked.  Our national debt is bigger than our GDP.  Unemployment is persistently high, even though the Obama administration is cooking the books.  Obama forced through a corrupt Health Care law against the will of the American People.  Our border is on fire.  Our embassies are being attacked overseas and Obama continues to lie about it.  But maybe you're not (yet) comfortable with Mitt.

That's fine; it's ok to stay home.

Personally, I think Mitt is different from George W. Bush.  I think Mitt will listen to the American people in a way George W. Bush never did.  You might not.

That's fine; it's ok to stay home.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to earn your vote.  I'd prefer to earn your vote.  In order to make the changes America needs, Mitt needs to win as big of a landslide as possible.  But I'm also realistic enough to understand that you might not be convinced in the next 19 days.  In that contingency, I want you to understand your options.

It's ok to stay home.

My only request is that you pay attention after Mitt takes office.  After Mitt takes office, you will see meaningful tax simplification, meaningful spending cuts, and meaningful changes abroad.  While I'd love you to vote for Mitt, I know it might be impossible to convince you in the final 19 days.

It's ok to stay home.

Sincerely,
Adam Cahn
Austin, TX
October 18, 2012

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

President Mitt: The Long Haul


I want to touch on an aspect of Mitt that many have missed: over time, I think President's Mitt's administration will be more open to conservative influence than any administration in recent memory.

As I said when I endorsed him, I only have two expectations for President Mitt: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him and be a better Commander-in-Chief.  Any other domestic policy leadership Mitt shows is a bonus.  I also think that, given his business background, Mitt might produce many Tea Party friendly outcomes for different reasons than tea partiers might name.

That's fine.

Big picture items will dominate President Mitt's first year: Economic Recovery, Entitlements, Cleaning up the mess abroad, Vladimir Putin, and Repealing Obamacare.  I'm not sure anything Congress and President Mitt produce that first year will set hearts afire, but it'll be good enough.  The 60 to 70 percent of what we want that we'll get under President Mitt is a lot better than the zero percent we'll get in an Obama second term.

Once we get into year two and three of President Mitt's administration, however, I think we could see policy take a major Tea Party shift.  The silver lining of the late Bush/Obama spending spree is that it woke up the conservative grassroots.  The conservative grassroots is more engaged than we've been in a long time.  We've learned that it's not enough to elect our candidates, we have to influence the policy-making process as well.  We're not going anywhere.

The tea party is going to grow more mature and sophisticated over the next five years.  As Sen. Mike Lee pointed out at FreePAC Dallas, it took 14 years to get from the Boston Tea Party to the Constitution.  Tea Partiers understand this is a long term fight, and we're in it to stay.

President Mitt's first year will be (a lot) better than the alternative.  It might not be great, but it'll be good enough.  From year two onward, however, a maturing Tea Party could exert tremendous influence over his administration.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Highlighting Female Entreprenneurship

This video, from a group of conservative Women in NYC, illustrates the impact Mitt's economic policies will have on female entrepreneurship:


Well said.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Art Laffer debunks Obama's attack on Mitt's Tax Plan

Yet Another Obama lie demolished:


(h/t Engage America)

Highlights:

  • Mitt wants to broaden the base and lower rates.
  • Taxes make an activity (ie. work) less attractive
  • For more information on how base-broadening, rate-lowering, tax reform will make our society more prosperous, click here.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Election 2012: A Tale of Two Ads

I saw two ads today that perfectly encapsulate the state of the Presidential race.

First up is this ad from American Crossroads, a pro-Mitt SuperPAC:


Compare that to this (parody?!?) ad from Barack Obama's campaign:


That should tell you everything you need to know.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Mitt's good, but not great, National Security speech

Mitt spoke about National Security today in Virginia:

Highlights:

  • The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.
  • A larger struggle is playing out across the Middle East.
  • The 9/11/12 attacks were committed by folks aligned with the folks who pulled off 9/11/01.
  • Iran has never been closer to nukes, more emboldened, or less deterred than it is now.
  • Hits Obama had for squandering our victory in Iraq.
  • Mitt thinks Turkey is an American ally; it's not.
  • FREE TRADE IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF OUR STRATEGY.
  • The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.
  • No flexibility for Vladimir Putin.
  • Endorses Palestinian State (barf!)
Bottom Line: On the biggest issues of Peace through Strength, Trade, Iran, Russia, and standing up for our friends, Mitt did a really good job.  Unfortunately, the strong parts of the speech were mixed in with too much George W. Bush style "freedom agenda" talk.  That being said, the strong parts of the speech are solid, and I think, over time, conservatives can disabuse Mitt of the notion that greater 'democracy' (ie. Sharia) in the Middle East is an American interest.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

A 'Global Test' for Obama's Corrupt Media


The past few days, one of the excuses Obama's corrupt media has offered to explain Obama's debate backside-kicking is that John Kerry won the first debate in 2004.

There's just one problem with that narrative: it's not true.

The first debate in 2004 was the one where John Kerry uttered his infamous 'Global Test' comment; in response to a question about approving pre-emptive military action, John Kerry said he would do so only if said action:
passes the global test where...you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Translated into English from bullcrap, that means giving France and the UN Security Council a veto over U.S. Military action.

(Sidenote: That's exactly what Obama did in Libya)

Global test was the biggest takeaway from that debate, and the Bush campaign ripped Kerry on it for the next month.

With all due respect to Obama's corrupt media, Big Bird is no global test; try again.

#WAR

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Official Endorsement: Mitt Romney for President


I haven't kept secret my intention to vote for Mitt Romney; I'm officially endorsing him because there are several issues on which Mitt Romney is better than recent Republicans.

First things first, it's important to understand that Mitt will only have two responsibilities as President: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and be a better Commander-in-Chief; any other leadership President Mitt shows will be pure bonus.

I've discussed National Security, and the continuous orgy of treason that is Barack Obama's administration, at length recently.  I don't want to re-hash ground I've previously covered.  Suffice to say, I like what I've heard from Mitt so far on this topic.  While I'm not (yet) sure that Mitt understands the threat from Islamic Cultural Subversion, I trust Mitt's instincts and ability to learn over time.  Trust me, I'll be watching.

On several other issues, however, Mitt has taken positions that are substantially better than anything proposed by recent Republican candidates or Presidents.  Consider the following:

  • Spending -- Mitt Romney has released the most detailed plan to cut Federal Spending since Ronald Reagan, if not Calvin Coolidge.  Much like his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget before putting him on the ticket, Mitt's proposal shows his understanding that spending reduction is a key component of economic revival.  Again, Mitt's proposal might not go far enough, but it's a major step in the right direction.
  • Tenth Amendment -- Last night, Mitt discussed the role of states as 'laboratories of democracy."  Mitt has endorsed block granting Medicaid to the states.  Romneycare, for all its flaws, is a policy Mitt defends on Tenth Amendment grounds.  As discussed above, Mitt's energy policy is based on empowering states.  Who knows, maybe Mitt will even champion Uproot and Overhaul.
I harbor no illusions about Mitt Romney.  I don't think his election will be some magic elixir.  I think the real action is, and will remain, in Congress.  I do, however, think Mitt will sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and I think he will be a much better Commander-in-Chief.  In addition, several of Mitt's policy proposals are dramatically superior to anything we've seen in at least 30 (if not 90) years.  For those reasons, Cahnman's Musings unapologetically and unconditionally endorses Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Memo Reveals post-debate WH messaging.


I have the greatest sources....:)
From: Axelrod, D.
To: ABC News, Associated Press, CBS News, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Washington Post.
CC: Burton, B; Carney, J; Center for American Progress. 
 Re: Post Debate Messaging
Guys,
Here's the template for tomorrow night's debate; obviously, we'll start with Politico and CAP, then the rest of you will pick it up from there. 
D
P.S. Debbie will, as always, be so over the top that you can maintain professional credibility.
---
Romney's Debate Disappointment
[insert byline here]
Desperate to reverse his campaign's falling poll numbers, Mitt Romney launched racially-tinged and Islamophobic attacks at President Obama during tonight's Presidential debate in Denver.
 Romney, who refuses to release his tax returns, revived Newt Gingrich's discredited Primary attack against President Obama as the 'food-stamp President,' seeking to tie the first African-American president to longstanding racial stereotypes about 'welfare queens.'
 [INSERT ROMNEY QUOTE HERE]
 Romney's appeals to nativist sentiment continued in the discussion of foreign policy; Romney referred to last month's protests in Egypt and Libya against an offensive YouTube video as a 'terrorist attack,' an Islamophobic term that blames Muslims for acts of violent extremism, including bombings of abortion clinics in the United States.
 [SECOND ROMNEY QUOTE]
 "Mitt Romney knows he can't defend the failed George Bush policies of tax cuts for billionaires and shoot-first foreign policy or his own record of outsourcing and denial of contraception" said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. "Instead, Mitt Romney chose to launch baseless and bigoted attacks."
Experts warn not to underestimate the appeal of racially-coded language during times of economic uncertainty.
 "From Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy to Ronald Reagan's dog-whistle appeals to 'states rights,' subtle appeals to racial sentiment have a long history in Republican campaigns," said Thomas B. Edsall, a journalism professor at Columbia University.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Corrupt Polling -- An Unintended Consequence?!?


"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20

The past few weeks, as public polling has become increasingly comical, a consensus has emerged that the media is deliberately skewing their polls to demoralize Mitt voters.

I agree with that consensus; I am starting to wonder, however, if the result of this corrupt polling will be different from the consensus expectation.

What if corrupt polling makes Obamaites complacent?!?

Think about it: how many Mitt supporters do you know who are anything other than chomping at the bit to vote?!?  Not bloody many.  After everything the corrupt media has done to sabotage Republican candidates this cycle, how many people on our side are going to fall for this obvious psy-ops operation?!?  Not bloody many.  Even if Obama wins (which ain't gonna happen), people on our side are going to want to register their dissent, so they'll definitely vote.

Obama's voters are a different story.  A substantial chunk of Barack Obama's 2008 voters are permanently lost.  Moreover, it's not exactly secret that Obama's voters aren't enthusiastic.  Their side feels no sense of urgency.  Is it hard to believe, having been fed a steady diet of 'our guy is winning,' that a meaningful percentage could forget to vote?!?

On the one hand, you have a group of already-motivated voters whose efforts are denigrated by a media they despise; on the other hand, you have a group of unmotivated folks being fed a steady diet of 'we are winning.'

If, on November 7th, we learn that a meaningful chunk of Obama's voters didn't show up due to complacency, I would not be surprised.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Pat Caddell: "The Media Have Become the Enemy of the American People"

I've seen this speech floating around Facebook for the past few days.  I was expecting the bigger sites and talk radio to be all over it.  Since they haven't been, I present it to you in it's entirety.


Highlights:
  • We're at the most dangerous time in our history regarding the media.
  • Media changed in the 1980's.  (Author's note: I'm not sure.)
  • The Constitution deliberately did not place checks and balances on the press.
  • National Security Advisor Tom Donilan is "the most amoral person I know in politics."
  • 60% of Stimulus money went to Obama donors.
  • With the Libya incident, the press crossed a new line.
  • The Republican Establishment's inability to fight allows this to happen.
  • Some of the screwy polling "is deliberate."
  • The referees on the field are sacking the QB of one team.
  • Make the press themselves the issue.
  • The Fundamental threat: if the media discredits its integrity, the first amendment won't withstand a demagogue.

Monday, September 24, 2012

The Taranto Principle, Leftist 2004 myths, and why Obama will (probably) lose (big)


Several years ago, Wall St. Journal columnist James Taranto introduced an idea that came to be known as the Taranto principle, it states:
the liberal media often ill serves liberal politicians by creating a feedback loop in which both sides reinforce each other's prejudices while public opinion goes its own way.
I think the 2012 election could become the biggest vindication of the Taranto principle since Paulene Kael in 1972.  At a minimum, the Obama re-election campaign has based its strategy around liberal myths about George W. Bush's 2004 re-election that leave it disconnected from reality.

The liberal 2004 mythology can be summed up as follows: "after a horrific first term for Bush, thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) knew Bush couldn't win so he brought in the Swift Vets to trash warheroJohnKerry(tm) and thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) also ginned up anti-gay sentiment to get his base to turnout."  All of the preceding statements are false.  Consider the following:

  • The Swift Boat Veterans were telling the Truth -- It's impossible to overstate the importance of the Swift Boat Veterans to the myths leftists tell themselves about the 2004 election.  Heck, leftists have event turned 'swift-boating' into shorthand for an underhanded smear campaign.  Unfortunately, for the left, the reason the swift boat veterans charges stuck is because they were true.  Leftist attacks against Mitt, by contrast, are laughably false.  That's why the over these over the top attacks aren't working.
  • Homosexual 'marriage' wasn't a particularly important issue in 2004 -- First things first, Karl Rove didn't make homosexual 'marriage' a campaign issue in 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme court did.  That being said, homosexual 'marriage' wasn't particularly important.  Most of the states that had marriage referendums were solidly Republican and, in Ohio, the marriage referendum passed with a wider margin than Bush's victory.  Bush's 2004 voters weren't motivated by homosexual 'marriage,' they were motivated by post-9/11 national security issues.  Fast forward to 2012 and you see why the 'War on Women' narrative has been such a flop against persistent unemployment and embassies going up in flames.
In 2004, you had a reasonably successful, if unspectacular, incumbent (whose real policy disasters were still in the future) going against a challenger who told serious fibs about himself.  In 2012, by contrast, you have an incumbent with a disastrous record going against a challenger who has, if anything, undersold his own record.  Team Obama cannot replicate George W. Bush's 2004 re-election strategy, largely because they don't understand how Bush's victory happened in the first place.