Sweethearts Candy Blog's

One of President Barack Obama’s 2012 themes will likely revolve around what his aides call “the contrast” — a portrayal of Obama as a responsible, moderate adult harassed by infantile Republicans who favor the wealthy.

Yes, more often than not, politics is about image rather than reality.  The truth is that Barack Obama is a far-left ideologue who neither understands economics nor cares.  The far left believes that wealth exists independently of effort, work, investment and risk taking, sort of like manna from heaven:  it just appears, as if by magic, like sunshine, flowers and rainbows.  The rich are those who have managed to grab more than their fair share, leaving the slower and the tardy to fight for scraps.  It is therefore the job of the far left to take some of the manna away and redistribute it to the poor folks.

Obama is neither responsible nor moderate, and his belief system is not that of an adult.  His belief system is more that of a radical college sophomore who is high on pot and believes passionately in the manna-from-heaven theory of wealth, and his holy mission to rearrange reality so it is more to his liking.  We absolutely cannot bear another four years of this radical college sophomore, lest we become the next Greece, with all of its economic failings, crushing debt and widespread riots.

Michele Bachmann, US Congress Representative from Minnesota, has entered the fray to become the GOP's nominee for President of the United States.  The Democrats have already begun their proactive sliming of Bachmann, as they do for any serious opposition candidate.  They will belittle her accomplishments, misquote her, scour her background for any potential negatives to exploit, and do their best to destroy any credibility she may have as a candidate.  Like they have done for Sarah Palin, the Dems want to paint Bachmann as a non-serious airhead.  Bachmann, however, is no such thing.

Investor's Business Daily tells why.

Meanwhile, Politico does its part to belittle Bachmann and is refuted by Legal Insurrection.

Kevin McCullough, a syndicated talk show host, says he is the first pundit to predict Obama's presidency in 2008.  He is now predicting that Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the GOP nominee and the victor in the presidential election of 2012.

I could live with that.

McCullough gives five reasons why Perry will be the guy.

Jon Huntsman, whom I have never heard of before today, was once the governor of Utah and has worked in the Obama Administration for the past two years (he was ambassador to China).  He has also just announced his candidacy for president as a Republican.

The warmth and acclaim being afforded Huntsman from the left means he is dead on arrival to the national election scene.  We have been expecting some RINO to appear and be praised to the heavens by the left as the greatest GOP candidate ever, or painted as the candidate most likely to cast fear into the hearts of Democrats everywhere, in an attempt to make Republicans like the guy.  The Daily Beast loves him; Harry Reid endorses him; Chris Matthews is probably getting a new thrill up his leg.

The left's real reason for praising Huntsman:  he is a weak candidate whose nomination would give Obama a better chance at reelection.  He is an unknown who hasn't said much on issues most important to conservatives -- though he has mouthed off a bit too much on his love of the Green movement, or as we like to call them, the Luddites.

Jon Huntsman, "the candidate that Democrats fear most."  Yeah.  R-i-i-i-i-ght.

Read Time's fantasy here.

The second Republican candidates' debate took place yesterday in New Hampshire.  Unfortunately, the media are saying that Mitt Romney appeared well informed and presidential.  I have a feeling that he will eventually emerge as the GOP candidate for 2012.  Nevertheless, I will support more conservative candidates.

Michele Bachmann apparently did very well.  Herman Cain didn't win this debate.  His lack of specifics on foreign policy is beginning to hurt him.  He needs to study this area and come up with a tentative but workable plan.

The Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) will try very hard to push the Republican they think will be easiest for Obama to beat.  Be suspicious of anyone the New York Times and the Washington Post find desirable as our candidate.

A new and independent film about Sarah Palin may change minds about the former Alaskan governor.  It is called "The Undefeated," and critics say it will show Palin in a much more favorable light.  The film is produced by filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon.

Elisabeth Meinecke at Townhall.com describes the film:

Though the film production timeline was not, it appears, done with any kind of presidential 2012 campaign in mind, it is capable of giving people a second impression of Palin and one that could prove useful in a 2012 discussion, because it’s a documentary based on facts that show the governor as an astute leader and a smart woman, unlike how she has been portrayed for the better part of three years. Bannon himself is a Harvard grad and was impressed with how Palin governed the state. He also said even some liberals in the entertainment industry are garnering a great appreciation for her as a person of substance.

Read more about the film here.

Herman Cain

I watched the first Republican debate tonight.  It was held in South Carolina and included the following candidates:

Ron Paul
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty
Gary Johnson

Frankly, I was impressed by all five.  All of them could think on their feet, answer tough questions convincingly, and all had worthwhile ideas on how to improve the economy and save the US from financial collapse.

Herman Cain was especially impressive.  He came across as a common-sense, straight talking man with a sense of humor and practical ideas.  He was the only candidate that stressed energy independence by exploiting our oil and gas reserves here at home.

A panel of South Carolina Republicans was hosted by Fox News, and asked who they thought won the debate.  Herman Cain was the overwhelming winner, for the reasons I described above.  (See video embedded below.)

In truth, I could vote for any of the five in good conscience.  Tim Pawlenty convinced me that his earlier exploration of the costs and benefits of cap and trade was a mistake, and that his fact-finding on the subject had convinced him some years ago that cap and trade was a bad idea.

I have been worried about Ron Paul's stand on Israel, but he did a good job of deflecting my fears, at least momentarily.  My opinion of Ron Paul continues to rise.

Gary Johnson's explanation of what should replace the "war on drugs" was quite impressive and struck me as much more effective than the criminalization of drug use, the system that we have now.

What I saw tonight was a group of convincing problem-solvers.  I think the Republican field is impressive for the 2012 elections.  Hope lives!

Colonel Allen West, a black Marine, is now Representative Allen West, Republican Congressman from Florida. I am loathe to jump on the PC bandwagon and insist on a black candidate to match the Democrats black candidate, but Allen West seems like the real deal.  The points he made in the closing speech at CPAC yesterday were solid conservative gold.  Therefore I now consider him a conservative hero and stalwart whom I shall henceforth take seriously.  West "gets it" and deserves our moral and political support.

Mitch Daniels

According to the Drudge Report, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels "wowed 'em" at the CPAC conference in Washington this week.  Daniels is exploring a possible run for the presidency.   I read Daniels' speech here, and it has a lot of good ideas, none of which are especially new, being the staple of the conservative movement for some time:  smaller, more efficient government, the cessation of unnecessary and wasteful spending, paying down the national debt, a vigorous economy as the path to greater opportunity for all.

My antennae went up, however, when Daniels alluded to broad coalitions involving liberals.  Liberalism is the disease, and mixing the disease with the antidote seems a self-defeating strategy for economic recovery.  He said:

Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his “conscience became a good girl.” We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying “I told you so” or “You should’ve done it my way.”

Second, Daniels seems to allude to the class warfare strategy and implies we should embrace it, that is, the rich vs poor scenario, where we advance the theory that both cannot prosper simultaneously, or that by looking out for the rights of the successful and productive we somehow undermine those "on the first rung of life's ladder."  He says:

We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some.

The last sentence in this paragraph makes me feel quite uncomfortable.  Daniels appears to be throwing out a sound bite to the mainstream media who love the false dictum that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," and that the GOP wrongly supports the former over the latter. I prefer the truism that "a rising tide lifts all boats."