The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

It REALLY bugs me when pollsters decide not even to include certain candidates in their polls. Hence I am disappointed in the PPP poll cited by John Tabin. There is no good reason to FAIL to include Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and others who CLEARLY intend to run.

Then again, I guess not being included in a poll is better than not being included in a debate. That’s the fate that befell Buddy Roemer the other day. It must be said, however, that Roemer risks making himself a laughing stock if he continues to insist that “The most important issue in this campaign  is: money in politics.” Really? With terrorists loose abroad, the Middle East in uproar, China gathering steam, our economy suffering, gasoline prices near record highs, food prices skyrocketing, and Obama appointees running roughshod over the normal bureaucratic bounds, is it even remotely within reason to argue that the most important issue is money in politics?  That’s idiotic. And I say that as somebody who sort of likes Gov. Roemer, despite having worked on a campaign that lost to him.

But back to Santorum and Cain: Methinks they both are making inroads. Methinks few polls will exclude them in the future. Nor should they.

View all comments (7) |

Oldefarte| 5.10.11 @ 3:37PM

Maybe Buddy's typical of their other Democratic products perhaps, ie Melancon?????????

Mike Rogers| 5.11.11 @ 8:03AM

Look, Roemer's a nice guy, and he's funny - if unintentionally: "Vote for me, I'm a cheap date - only $100 per ticket!"

The bigger scandal is the way the media emphasizes the old republican dogs that Dems will find easy to beat, and excludes interesting conservatives, especially black ones.

Red Phillips | 5.10.11 @ 5:33PM

For rhetorical reason I wouldn't say that money in politics is the most important issue (it just sounds silly), BUT if spending and debt and the seeming inability to make even minimal cuts is a very (the most?) important issue, then that cannot be separated from the money in politics issue. We can't cut spending because while spending cuts are supported by most in the aggregate, specific spending cuts will always be opposed by powerful lobbies (meaning money among other things) that are disproportionately invested in not seeing their specific program cut.

Notice the howls here when someone suggests cutting defense spending. We can always expect Guardiano or Tabin or whoever to whip up a quick post about why we can't cut defenses because of the rising Venezuelan menace or other such silliness. Or when Rand Paul suggested cutting foreign aid to all countries including Israel the machine went into action to make sure prosperous Israel didn’t miss out on any of the booty it gets from the besieged American taxpayer. Those two issues aren’t just about money in politics, but money is clearly a factor.

So Buddy Roemer is closer to right than you suggest.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.10.11 @ 7:57PM

Red,
I've said it before to you: Sorry, we just can't fix stupid here.
Isolationists are simply stupid.

Red Phillips | 5.11.11 @ 8:49AM

Ken, I was making a point about money in politics, and those are the two examples I chose. I could have chosen ethanol subsidies I guess.

But has it ever occured to you that the reason you think the US needs to spend on "defense" what the entire rest of the world spends is because people who benefit from that spending want you to believe that? Is the entire rest of the world "isolationist" and perilously poised on the the brink of destruction?

Clint| 5.11.11 @ 6:49AM

Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:

" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.

Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

e pluribus unum| 5.15.11 @ 8:35PM

HERMAN CAIN ("Like in the bible...but I didn't kill anybody!") has been my choice for about a year now. In addition to his extensive successful business background, his math/computer degrees, and his general all-around good common sense, the man has, much like Reagan, spent time touring the country giving motivational speeches. He doesn't need a teleprompter because he speaks from the heart and knows his subject. Listen to WSB radio streaming online for his show or check out clips and archives on boortz.com as Herman has substituted for Neal Boortz for a few years now.

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/10/re-trump-bubble-wheres-santoru

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

Lerner's Plea

Ray V. Hartwell | 5.23.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT