Racism & the Left

So I'm a little confused. Janeane Garofalo says that because I'm a white, conservative male, if I don't support President Obama it's because I'm a racist. She also says that if I support Herman Cain I'm also a racist.
Huh?
President Obama is black, but so is Herman Cain. They couldn't be more different in their backgrounds. They have different "real-world" experiences. They have different ideologies. They have different, well, just about everything. The one thing they share is a high degree of pigmentation in their skin.
So what does that have to do with anything? Plenty if you agree with the open minded and brilliant Garofalo.
According to her, the only way Herman Cain could possibly be a conservative is by being brain washed or displaying Stockholm Syndrome. I don't recall reading any stories where Mr. Cain was held hostage by Conservatives but not reading something isn't proof, right?
I mean, I have no proof that when she was young Garofalo was dropped on her head and scrambled what little brains she has. But that doesn't prove it didn't happen.
The issue I have is that Garofalo loves to call racism when it is convenient for her or gets her some publicity. If you are calling out Herman Cain specifically because he is a black conservative, that makes you racist.
There, I said it. Garofalo is racist. She hates all Conservatives. She hates Palin, Bachmann, Perry and whomever else is on the right. They are all "brain damaged" in her words. But none of them have been accused of being brain washed. Just Herman Cain.
She specifically made that point that as a black man, he must have had something horrible done to him to make him a conservative. The logic follows that any black who is a conservative (hello Justice Thomas) has been broken and not intellectually strong enough to overcome their brain-washers.
Or, there is one other explanation. That the vast majority of blacks have been brain washed to believe that they should automatically be liberals and vote for Democrats.
If you asked what values are taught in black homes I am confident you would hear: God-fearing, hard working, honest, self responsibility... etc. But those are all Conservative ideals. The problem is the left has successfully made blacks think that Democrats are their only choice. Without Democrats there wouldn't be food stamps, welfare checks, etc. But in the same breath the left (rightfully) points out that there are more whites in those programs that blacks.
So why do blacks vote in such majorities for the Democrats? Because they have been brain washed by the left. They leave out details like the Republican party was founded to end slavery. They leave out the John F. Kennedy didn't push for civil rights because he was afraid of losing votes in the South. They ignore that former Democratic Senator, the late Robert Byrd (known as the conscience of the Senate) was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
But the point of all of this is when someone like Janeane Garofalo pulls out the racism card, maybe you need to look at why she is trying to play it. Is there really racism going on or is it a ploy to demonize one side of an argument with no factual evidence.
Is the TEA Party racist? I'm sure you have heard it is, but where is the proof? Are Republicans racist as a whole? Where is the proof? Is Janeane Garofolo a racist? Yes, because you can simply listen to what she says and know you don't need any more proof.

Flip flopping isn't good?

I am a Romney supporter. I was a Romney supporter last election cycle and again this cycle. Why? I had different reasons in 2008 but this time its pretty clear: the guy is a turn around specialist.
His career is based on going into broken companies and fixing them. He did it with the Salt Lake Olympics, he did it with company after company. He even went in as a Republican and worked in a very blue state to fix the big dig, health care in Massachusetts, etc.
But he's a flip flopper, right?
Yes.
There I said it.
But what's wrong with being a flip flopper if you are flipping from the wrong position to the right one?
Conservatives have been debating with liberals for as long as those terms existed. So those on the right want to let those on the left know how wrong they were (and vice versa.)
Winston Churchill said "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain." So the entire point is that as you get older, you should get smarter and move to the right.
Isn't that what Mitt has done? He had some positions that were in line with the abortion movement (I don't call it pro-choice, maybe that will be my next post). He hasn't always been a strong proponent of the second amendment. He hasn't always been a traditional conservative.
But you know who else wasn't? Ronald Reagan. Yep, he was a Democrat. Go look it up. I'll wait. See? He was.
Now, Romney has moved to the right on many social issues. He is against "abortion on demand." He is for marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman. (And you can still be pro-gay rights without letting them get married.)
Essentially, Romney has evolved into what most people would call a Conservative. Is he as conservative as Rick Perry? Well, last time I checked Perry isn't exactly on the side of the right when it comes to immigration. Is he as conservative as Ron Paul? Well, I don't see anyone on the right claiming Paul is a defense-hawk, traditionally the position of republicans and certainly the position of Reagan.
Romney has also been accused of going into companies, cleaning house, and then selling for a profit. For me, this is the perfect scenario for the next President. I want someone who will go in and kick out all of the bloated fat that is in Washington. I want unemployment in DC to explode. But I also want someone who will cut the business-strangling regulations so that everyone who loses their government job will be able to find one in the private sector.
Romney is that person.
So Romney has evolved in the past twenty years. Sure, it would have been great if he started off being a conservative when he was 16 and never wavering in any of his stances. But how many people can actually say that? Certainly not most.
So here we are. We can vote for a guy that has flip flopped on issues over twenty years, moving from the left to the right, or we can vote for another republican that doesn't have the track record of turning things around and making them work.
Personally, I think Romney is the only person who makes sense. Someone who has learned from his mistakes and moved on to become more conservative. He also has a record of fixing broken organizations. And if you don't think America's government is currently broken, I guess you will be voting for the incumbent...

GOP Debates

I will start of by saying that I am a pro-Romney guy and will vote for any Republican who wins and is up against President Obama, but realistically I can't help but wonder why the format for these debates is how it is.
When you have nine people on a stage and you only get a minute to answer a question, do you really have an opportunity to better understand the individuals running for office? Yes, I think Romney is very polished. Rick Perry loves Texas. Ron Paul loves the Constitution. And Herman Cain might be the most entertaining candidate ever. But really, is this the format we should be going with?
I propose a few changes, the least of which is never, ever going back to MSNBC. It's like having an Israeli Prime Minister debate in Tehran. It just doesn't make sense. The Fox News debate was fine, but really, how about you take 1 member of each of the military branches to ask questions. Do you think a Marine Gunny is going to let Rick Perry off the hook on his horrible answer about Pakistan losing a nuke? Or an Army Captain isn't going to take Ron Paul to task for his stance on foreign policy? *(I just came up with this idea... yea, I think I love this idea!)
But here go the changes I would propose:
First, can we please get rid of that freakin' bell, or buzzer, or whatever. How about this: the moderator asks a question, the candidate answers, the moderator or one of the other candidates challenges him/her on the answer and it actually turns into a debate. Could you imagine this exchange:
Gov Perry: "I don't know which Mitt Romney we are going to see because he changes his position every 24-hours. He was for abortion before he was against it, then he was for gun control before he was against is... which is it Governor?"
Gov Romney: "You know Governor, you make a great point. I have had to change my position because I have been wrong on some things. I made mistakes with RomneyCare because I was stuck with a Democratic dominated House in Massachusetts so they made changes I didn't want. And I have always been pro-life, but I made a mistake by giving money to an agency that promoted abortions when I wanted the money to go to helping women in a tough situation. But I can't control those things. But there is one thing I can control, I didn't ever sign up to be the head of a serious bigwig of the liberal movement like Al Gore. So, why did you support Al Gore, Governor? Are you telling me you still support him because if you don't, then you changed positions, which you just said was a horrible thing, right?"
Gov. Perry: "Well, in Texas, we uh, well, you see Texas is great because we do things there like threatening to secede from the Union. It means we don't ever back down from a fight, right Ron Paul?"
Rep Paul: "Sorry Governor. I'm all for the Constitution, which says Freedom of Speech is guaranteed. And it sounds like you are exercising you right to melt down."
Gov. Perry: "But I said I would do things differently, like sew Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain together into the greatest Frankenstein VP ever and let him have a tax credit to go to Texas, because illegals aren't monsters, and monsters aren't illegal, they are just trying to dig holes like Gov. Johnson's neighbors dogs...."
Audience: Cricket, Cricket, Cricket.

I mean, don't we all want to see that debate?

There is one more thing I would change about the debate...
Do we really need 9 people on the stage? I mean, I loved the shovel ready project line by Johnson, but does he really have a chance in hell of becoming the President? How about Rick Santorum? Or John Huntsman? I think if you can't pull at least 5% you should have to go to a different debate.
Let's take a note from the English Premier League (soccer, for those of you who don't know.) Every year they have 20 clubs play the season and the bottom four get sent to the lower league and are replaced by the top four from that league.
So if you had, say a "Top 5" debate, according to RealClearPolitics polling, it would have been Perry, Romney, Cain, Gingrich and Bachman.
Ron Paul would have just missed out because the most recent poll by Rasmussen had him 6th. But if you averaged the last three polls, he would be in. So while you have the Top 5 debate, the next night you can have the "Everybody Else" debate to actually hear where they stand. You don't think that a bad showing in the Top 5 by Bachman wouldn't drop her into the EE debate? And after last night, maybe Cain gets bumped up. Its a win/win for everyone.
The heavy hitters have a chance to really show off who they are, the 3rd tier guys actually get a chance to be heard and America might find out what the candidates actually think.

I have some other changes, but I think that is good for now. Realistically, it doesn't matter who the Republican is because if unemployment stays above 9%, the economy grows at less than 2% and gas is over $3.50 nationally, Obama is toast. But hopefully American also give the supermajority to the Republicans and whomever is in the White House actually acts like a Conservative. I hope they will, but I hoped for that with President Bush, too (shaking head....)

After I wrote all that, I went back to proof read. That's when I came up with the military moderating the debate. Really, isn't that a freakin' brilliant idea? (If I do say so myself!)