Update on “Occupy Wall Street, and Santa Cruz….”, Obama Won the Western GOP Debate

I walked by the courthouse steps around 10 this morning. That’s where the “Occupy” crowd “occupy” Santa Cruz. The signs there still outnumber the people present but the ratio is changing. It’s not that there are more demonstrators but that some of the signs have been retired. This morning, the ratio was about 20/40 (40 signs). I am sure it means something but I have no idea what. There was one sign I really liked: It said, “Nixon is a ….” It made me suddenly feel young. Would I make this up?

My assessment of the Western GOP debate: Obama won! (I cribbed that from a caller on the Rush Limbaugh show before I had a chance to think of it. He was probably an easterner, had three hours of wakefulness on me.)

Making a left-liberal like Anderson Cooper the moderator was a really bad decision. Of course, he had to trivialize the debate. I am not saying he wanted to but there is no way he could have avoided it. The liberal mind is inherently trivial. There is not reason to expect it to acquire seriousness of purpose just because it’s dealing with Republican politicians. The reverse is true. When they think of conservatism, left-liberals’ minds fall into the crudest of stereotypes or else, they go blank. Anderson was on automatic during the debate. There is no question on my mind.

Congresswoman Bachman is out. Her heart is in the right place. She has the right instincts. But she is too ignorant and it shows. Even Pres. Obama could see through her if he had to.

Gov. Perry is so shallow it’s embarrassing. Again, he came unprepared; again, he brought a knife to a gunfight. He was not even prepared for the obvious questions about immigration. Then he got into a puny junior-high fight with Romney. Perry is out and everyone knows it. He was a flash-in-the-pan magnified by our desperate wishes.

Congressman Ron Paul was his equal intelligent self. He will always get 20% of the Republican vote; he will never get 25% of he Republican vote. His Libertarians march in locksteps. They are out of touch with other conservives because of their rigid isolationism. Even if they were right (they are not) hey would be wrong to be right in this crowd. Plus, Ron Paul is personally uptight, like an old teacher who has been saying the same simple things year after year and is sick and tired of the repetition.

Newt’s presence in the debate was welcome. He kept forcing back the discussion to useful, important, tangible issues, against Cooper’s steering. Gingrich will not be a candidate. He has too much personal baggage. I don’t know if he knows it but everyone else does.

Herman Cain looks better and better. He was lackluster in the debate because he was not given much material by Cooper. Also, he is a rational man; he has not digested the idea that you can take any question thrown at you and give it an answer to another question not even related to the questions asked. This lack of elementary skills is why I have expressed skepticism before on his candidacy: Mr Cain has all the high intellectual aptitudes but few of the low practical skills. To be a politician, you must also not be afraid to appear stupid. Mr Cain is still afraid.

Mr Cain’s appeal in the field of candidates is two-pronged: First, he is likable. Thats’ simply because he is straightforward, not twisted. You sense he would make a good neighbor. Second, he is the only candidate who says: Here is the problem and here is what I will do about it. His 9/9/9 plan left many perplexed precisely because it sounded so simple in the description but so obscure in its consequences. Today (10/19/11) it received a ringing endorsement in the Wall Street Journal by no less than Arthur Laffer, the best popularizer of supply-side economics.

I don’t care if Gov. Romney once hired an illegal to mow his lawn. Don’t fricking waste my time! I don’t care about Mitt Romney’s religion. Anderson Cooper had to try to focus on an unfortunate remark made by a minor pastor with a big mouth because that flattered his liberal worldview (right-wing bigot against right-wing bigot). Not only do I not care personally about Romney’s religion, (they are all cults.) but I believe most Americans don’t care much more than I do. And I think Romney would confound Barak Obama in a debate. I have other issues with Romney, not as a candidate, but as president.

The first issue is that he has never really explained well or apologized for his Mass. health care plan. That’s a biggie given that the first job facing conservatives is to dismantle Obamacare. The second is that he sort of believes in global warming. I am concerned because this is the most intelligent tool collectivists have devised in fifty years to make us less free. If he does not recognize this fact, he does not have a conservative mind. Finally, I wonder why, after five debates, I still don’t know anything about Romney’s basic ideas about out to deal with the rest of the world.

Here is what I fear will happen: I will end up voting for Romney because he will be the lesser of two evils. But then, almost anyone would be, including Hillary Clinton. Gee, I hope I am completely wrong!


About Jacques Delacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Update on “Occupy Wall Street, and Santa Cruz….”, Obama Won the Western GOP Debate

  1. Martin Anding says:

    9/9/9: Arthur Laffer’s curve and idea is based on the premise that we should maximize the state’s income. Within some range of tax rates there is a local maximum where the state’s income in maximum. All this is pretty abitrary. We know the end-points of the curve. At either a zero tax rate (no taxes) or a 100% tax rate (nobody will work for zero return) the income of the state is either zero or minimum. Just knowing the endpoints says nothing about the shape of the curve between them. Some tax rate will generate some income for the state. Duh. But at what tax rate the curve “bends over” the state income start to fall is anyone’s guess. Given a graduated income tax rate there are probably many solutions that increase the state’s revenue with small increases in the tax rate or the graduation numbers. I can’t determine this just for myself. When will I decide that more income taxed at a higher rate will cause me to say “Enough! I’m going home. It not worth enough to keep working.” Cain’s whole attraction is that he can keep us all working and feeding the state “better than the current system”. My personal goal is not the maximize the state’s income so the whole idea nonsense.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Thank you, Martin but, as I said. Laffer is a popularizer. He is very important as such. That’s true irrespective of whether one understands the sage development you give us. Few people would have ever paid attention to the matters you evoke without Laffer’s help fifteen (?) years ago. I am baffled by your statement that the Laffer curve is based on the idea that we should maximize the state’s income . I don’t think he ever said any such thing. I may be wrong and I would be grateful to be corrected on this blog, in big letters!

      • jacquesdelacroix says:

        I believe that the Supply Side Economics argument goes like this: ” Several good things happen in the economy in general, higher growth and higher employment, when you lower axes. And, by the way don’t worry about government revenue, it goes up too.” That’s different from an intent to increase government revenue in and for itself. If my perception is correct, it’s important to reassure ordinary conservatives who don’t especially want the state to wither away, right away, in a crash. I, for one, don’t want our soldiers (federal employees all) to hitch-hike int the next battle because they have no money for fuel!

  2. Martin Anding says:

    Baffled? Isn’t that the implication that state income receipts increase with lower tax rates? Wasn’t that Laffer’s whole argument for lowering tax rates – state revenue wouldn’t drop and might even go up? Do you make something else from Laffer’s ringing endorsement?

  3. Richard Allan says:

    “The second is that he sort of believes in global warming. I am concerned because this is the most intelligent tool collectivists have devised in fifty years to make us less free.”

    If “facts matter” then why does a potential misuse of climate science have any bearing on the validity of that science? If you don’t think climate science is valid in and of itself then say that outright. But, to paraphrase your article further, even if you were right about that (you’re not) you’d be wrong to be right in that crowd.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      “Climate science”is divided. The fraction that supports the view that there is: 1 meaningful, 2 man-made global warming that 3 we need to worry about is thoroughly discredited because of its own corruption (See the fraud revealed by emails, not the only part; see also the “hockey stick” disaster). Besides, I don’t need to understand the science and I don’t need to trust those who speak of it to know that what is trumpeted by ignoramuses as proven results is incompatible with some of the things we know, by common knowledge, without any doubt. One of those is that the Norse of Greenland ate large quantities of beef. That was around 1100, 1200.
      Your own rage when you read these calm, measured words will speak loudly about he religious aspect of the warmist creed.

      • Richard Allan says:

        Yeah, “rage”. Or a gentle chuckle that it was even worse than I was expecting. At least you left out “hide the decline” which is like a shit-barometer, warning you when shit winds are comin’

      • jacquesdelacroix says:

        Thank you, Allan. It’s a boring subject until the warmists come up with something that is not a lie or, at least, something that is an interesting lie. Believers in global warming are often good for my natural laziness. Whenever I am about to check something or other again on the topic, one of them says something really stupid that convinces me it’s not necessary to check anything..

  4. Pingback: Woman’s Mind; The Mysteries of “Occupy;” the Libertarian Side of the Movement; Syrians « Notes On Liberty

  5. Pingback: Rights of “Occupy” Crowd Violated « Notes On Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s