Dawn of the Weak

Ron Paul and the Spurs Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:50:00 +0000

Two things happened yesterday that allow me to merge two of my greatest loves, Ron Paul and the San Antonio Spurs. The first was the Texas Primary, where Doctor Paul was trounced by Mitt Romney by a margin not even worth mentioning. The second was the NBA playoffs where the Spurs trounced the Oklahoma City Thunder by a margin of nine points in the Western Conference Finals (the series that determines who plays for the championship). The political outcast has more in common with the elite club in San Antonio than the state of Texas itself.

"Crooked as a politician" is an unfortunate idiom, isn't it? In an ideal world wouldn't the people who set the laws, policies and oversaw our finances have a reputation for honesty and forthrightness? Isn't that what we want, someone we can trust to do the right thing with the power we give them? I'm not saying Mitt Romney is evil, but based on the way he thinks we should treat other countries and people he's far from a good guy.

I can understand someone not necessarily agreeing with Ron Paul's policies -- even if I think they're the most sane and evenkeel'd approach to just about everything -- because at the end of the day we all can't agree on exactly the same thing. What kills me is character and competence generally seem to be the utmost important qualities to have in a leader of the free world. Yet, the gentleman who seemingly possesses the most of these two traits with a high degree of character and perhaps the most studious politician we will ever come across (who actually made this whole "obey the constitution" idea popular again) is not only ignored, but mocked.

The Spurs can relate. In an age of prima donas, where pundits moan over the uncoachable athletes who do inexcusable things in their personal lives or on the field of play, they yearn for athletes to "do things the right way", but prove that good behavior is not rewarded. Bad news sells, and apparently that extends to the sports arena. The Spurs are the winningest franchise in not just the NBA but in all of sports over the Tim Duncan era, yet they're mocked as "boring" and "unwatchable" by the lay fan. Not that any of them actually watch them play, but resorting to those pesky labels are far easier when others have agreed to the terms.

The Spurs win "the right way", they play together, unselfishly, with precision, intelligence, and physicality. They're gritty and excel in crunch time.

Ron Paul predicts market crashes, wars and abuses of power. He runs a tight congressional office, takes nothing from lobbyists -- not even a meeting, and has experience as a doctor & military veteran.

Where's the rub?

It's difficult to boil it down to just one thing, but outside of the bulk of the excuses of marketability, age and style, I think the reality comes down to something far simpler. People are liars. They lie to their friends and to themselves. Changing their stance requires not only taking the time to learn/watch/listen, but to accept the possibility of being mistaken. It requires humility. You know, that thing we want everyone else to possess.

The thing we want is right in front of us all too often. The good guys doing it the right way, but like abused housewives we're addicted to the drama. Hopefully, the good guys will be there when we're finished being battered.

You can have your corrupt politicians who win, and your spoiled superstar jerks who lose. I'll sleep just fine tonight. The Spurs' fight is almost over, the other fight has only begun.

Rebuttal to John Hawkins on Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Recently, John Hawkins wrote a piece giving "Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage", where he gave -- surprise -- five reasons why he thinks gay marriage should remain against the law. Point by point.

1. "Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism)."

He goes on to note that what you feel doesn't make you evil or bad, and that tormenting and bullying anyone because of their sexual orientation is un-Christian. All of which I would have to agree with. I haven't found any real biblical evidence that gay marriage is compatible with Christianity, and neither is any hatred or gay bashing.

Something I find odd though is how divorce has little compatibility with Christianity as well, yet, the church has no problem endorsing countless second, third, fourth and fifth+ marriages. If there were to be some level of evenhandedness I would expect there to be the same level of outrage of adultery going on in the Christian community, since that is exactly what Jesus said divorce is according to Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12 & Luke 16:18, with the lone exception being divorce for reasons of sexual immorality.

So, when shall we see Prop 9 banning divorce?

2. "Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom."

This one is perhaps the most confusing. Marrying who we choose is a religious freedom, but creating a law that says otherwise flies against the 1st Amendment. It should be obvious our rights have already been violated by outlawing marriage of any kind (we'll get to the gray area this creates later). Banning gay marriage from all institutions doesn't jibe with the mission of retaining religious freedom. It can't. Particularly when government becomes the sole arbiter for what constitutes a valid marriage.

Once government can grant special privilege to one class of people but not to another, then you have crossed into inequality which is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, I do agree that the road we're on can lead to some religious persecution by forcing churches to marry people they otherwise wouldn't want to marry: homosexuals. However, that is the precedence being set by the religious sector fighting so hard to prevent equal rights. When you use the law as your own personal sword, what are you expecting when that sword is taken from you?

One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Paine, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Therefore, it is prudent to cease the attack and promote equality under the law. To be clear, I'm also not in favor of laws that give extrajudicial punishment to "hate" crimes. Someone assaulting a black man is no more egregious than assaulting me (a white man). The reasons behind the assault may be, but the assault itself should be what the punishment is based on, not necessarily on the reasoning of the attack. Otherwise the signal is that one set of people are more protected than another, and that too, is inequality.

3. "Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does."

Perhaps Civil Union advocates would be okay if we still segregated society? "Separate but equal", right? Other than having actual equality rather than the next best thing, the use of labels here is rather Orwellian and somewhat dehumanizing.

Reserving the power of a word for those we find acceptable to use it, it's telling those we disagree with that they're not worthy of having what they want, and we will use force to ensure that you never get it. Force is what the law is, otherwise law has no power. Using it over religious differences should be unacceptable to every American, no matter how vehement the disagreement.

Mr Hawkins goes on to say, "let's be clear: there are actually no 'rights' whatsoever at stake in the push for gay marriage...it's as much about dragging everyone else down as it is about raising everyone up." I'll forego all the pejoratives that may seem appropriate here, and try to address the facts.

There are a lot of laws on the books for marriage, not just for states but also federally. State's granting civil unions would not make these unions available for federal equality in such things as taxes, hospital privileges, health benefits, and possibly even things as simple as not being forced to testify against your spouse.

Now, I'm sure there's plenty of ways to correct all of these things in the books, but that's an awful lot of trouble to preserve a definition of something that government shouldn't be defining in the first place. Marriage is -- historically -- a religious institution, and I think all of these problems are solved by removing government jurisdiction over it and allowing churches to marry whomever they please. Restoring the 1st Amendment along with tolerance for our neighbors would go a long way in solving the issue.

4. "Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends."

In all honesty, John is probably right. There likely would be people wanting to marry their turtle or the tree in their backyard. So what? Do you seriously think this would happen on such a large scale that people no longer procreate? There is a stigma to being married to inanimate objects, so this wouldn't catch on like SARS. People can already bequeath their fortunes to animals so I'm not sure how much stranger our country can really get.

John is also concerned that brother will wed sister, adults will marry children, and so forth. I suppose John doesn't think these sorts of acts aren't already happening...hey, it was good enough for Adam & Eve's kids. What, no room for humor here?

At the end of the day one's marriage should be about one's own marriage. Your neighbor's vows have absolutely no bearing on your own, lest you condemn half of all marriages, in which cases we usually exercise some empathy, because who knows what our own future holds?

5. "Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage."

As a single man, I know nothing about how difficult marriage is. However, as a man who has watched his family go through countless divorces -- I literally cannot count how many divorces I've seen in my immediate family -- I do know that coming together is easier than staying together. I seriously doubt if it's any different for same sex couples, but that has much more to do with modern relationships than it does with the definition of marriage.

No matter what you call it, people will remain people, and there should be no reason to restrict privileges to each other short of violating each other's property. It's time for a new step in tolerance, one that says I don't agree with your lifestyle, but I'm not going to punish you for it. If steps aren't taken now to ensure an equal standing, the blowback that comes later will only hurt the cause of individual liberty by further using the law to push the agenda of whomever can gain the upper hand.

I think one solution is to remove government jurisdiction on marriage, allowing it to become a strictly religious institution. All legal protection should come in the form of contractual agreements with your xyz (insurance, will, bank, etc). There would have to be adjustments, but it would affect us all equally. The wrong move is to allow the federal government to decide these matters as it only gives permission to our already powerful central state to further invade our lives. That, is the last thing our country needs.

Here's to hoping for open minds.

CNN Arizona Debate 2-22-12 (John King)

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:13:00 +0000

Another day another debate. However, the CNN debate hosted in Arizona is the last prior to Super Tuesday, and could conceivably be the last one. I somehow doubt it, but it's conceivable.

Senator Rick Santorum received over 31% of the overall candidate speaking time with 24:57 (mm:ss) with Mitt Romney coming in behind just shy of 22 minutes. It should therefore come as no surprise that they both spoke the most often with 21 and 22 talking turns respectively, while Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich both spoke 15 turns each. The gap in turns can largely be found in the back and forth between Governor Romney and Santorum.

	Total Talk	%
Santorum	24:57	31.60%
Romney	21:49	27.64%
Gingrich	16:46	21.25%
Ron Paul	15:24	19.51%
Total	1:18:57	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	22	30.14%
Santorum	21	28.77%
Ron Paul	15	20.55%
Gingrich	15	20.55%
Total	73	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Santorum	2:34	6:50
Romney	2:38	7:06
Gingrich	3:57	9:57
Ron Paul	4:18	9:14

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	14	7	1
Gingrich	14	1	0
Ron Paul	12	3	0
Santorum	12	9	0
Total	52	20	1

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

I Am Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:02:00 +0000

I thought the latest video warranted some notes on why some things are the way they are. For one, I shot the people who showed up. I put out calls to local Ron Paul activist groups and to my personal friends as well, of the potentially hundreds of people who could've shown up only six people did (other than me and my co-producer Todd Sapio).

It would've been nice -- and we wanted -- to have all flavors of the movement represented, the young, the old, the families, the minorities, etc etc. However, can't shoot them if they don't show up and for this one I wasn't particularly interested in meeting any quotas. It's not that I don't think it's important, but I was more interested in shooting the video than in affirmative action. I'm big on reality, and the reality is those are the beautiful and wonderful people who showed up on a lazy Sunday afternoon to give me their time and I wasn't going to send a message that I cared more about their demographic makeup than their willing participation.

I also did not tell them how to dress. As long as no logos were involved I didn't care at all. I'm a fan of reality and this was not shot for payment so I'd prefer to let people be comfortable on camera, I think they have that right to represent themselves however they wish when donating their time and image. For the record, I thought everyone looked good and have no issue with any of the attire, they look good!

I'm sure it did not escape notice that there was a heavy bit of branding on the video, certainly not an accident. My previous video "Choose Stigma. Rebel." was reuploaded many times to others' channels, and while I was flattered that so many people liked the content enough to want to spread it, I was also put off by not getting the benefits of creating said video. So, to try and counteract that I decided to leave little room for doubt on where this production originated and built the titles into the presentation more heavily than before. Sorry if some don't care for it, but it's hard for the little guy to make an impact if no one even knows it's your work they're seeing.

Also, those aren't "devil horns" or "evil signs" at the end. At worst it should be taken as "rock on", as in "Rock the Revolution", and at best it means "I Love You" in sign language.

Lastly, and most important, I want to thank Todd Sapio for the seed idea that grew into this video and for producing this with me, would not have been an inch as good without his creative voice. He also produced the music -- which I LOVE -- and has an awesome band called "Language Room" that everyone should look for on iTunes and check out on their site LanguageRoom.net.

Rock the Revolution.

Stats: CNN Florida Debate 1-26-2012 (Wolf Blitzer)

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:08:00 +0000

Some heavy baiting coupled with a fairly hands-off style from CNN's Wolf Blitzer resulted in several tussles between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunners. Mitt talking the most of all the candidates with 24:09 (mm:ss) and Rick Santorum & Newt following closely with 22:08 and 21:31 respectively. Ron Paul once again lagging the rest of the field with 13:57 of speaking time, good enough for 17% of the overall pie.

It should be said that generally Wolf did a solid job of involving everyone in each topic even though he targeted Mitt & Newt more often in terms of questions posed, but the bulk of the extra time came from back 'n forth rebuttals. Whereas Santorum had fewer questions than the frontrunners and only four more turns than Ron Paul, he maximized his mic time by having longer answers and averaged 14 seconds longer per response than Dr Paul, 16 seconds longer than Mitt and 25 seconds longer than the Speaker.

It would be nice to have an effort that resulted in all of the candidates receiving an equal time, but overall when Wolf strayed from the campaign issues and focused on the policy issues he did a decent job of involving all of the nominees. CNN managed to squeeze an hour and twenty minutes of actual talking time, so that speaks well of how the debate was handled in terms of letting the Republicans use the stage time.

Here's the CNN Florida debate stats:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	24:09	29.53%
Santorum	22:08	27.07%
Gingrich	21:31	26.32%
Ron Paul	13:57	17.07%
Total	1:21:46	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Gingrich	31	32.29%
Romney	29	30.21%
Santorum	20	20.83%
Ron Paul	16	16.67%
Total	96	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	1:53	5:09
Gingrich	2:05	5:58
Santorum	3:18	10:25
Ron Paul	3:58	9:55

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Gingrich	18	10	3
Romney	17	12	0
Ron Paul	14	2	0
Santorum	14	5	1
Total	63	29	4

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Stats: NBC Florida Debate 1-23-2012 (Brian Williams)

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:48:00 +0000

Several things were clear tonight. Brian Williams was concerned with creating sparks between candidates, and discussing the election itself rather than the issues that need governing. Perhaps just as clear was the lack of interest in mixing Ron Paul into the conversation. Speaking an overall of 10:08 (mm:ss), Ron Paul received just 10 turns talking, and at one point even waited for the other candidates a combined 14.5 minutes of nominee talking whereas no other candidate even approached 10 minutes in between turns.

Mitt Romney made a point of calling out Newt's ethics violations and overall disdain the Speaker had from his own party. Speaker Gingrich made a point of being himself and refuting facts with redirection and audacious tones. The man deserves credit for being crafty, not that "crafty" is a good trait in a President.

The debate did maintain an air of respect, even if poorly moderated. With Gingrich riding high you can expect him to stay above the fray until he's next threatened in the polls. As long as Newt stays Newt, that could come at any moment.

Connect on Facebook, here's the GOP Statistics, they speak loudly:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	21:56	33.27%
Gingrich	19:44	29.92%
Santorum	14:08	21.43%
Ron Paul	10:08	15.38%
Total	1:05:58	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	27	36.00%
Gingrich	27	36.00%
Santorum	11	14.67%
Ron Paul	10	13.33%
Total	75	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	1:54	6:40
Gingrich	2:09	5:01
Santorum	5:17	7:40
Ron Paul	6:36	14:34

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	16	7	4
Gingrich	15	7	5
Santorum	9	0	2
Ron Paul	8	0	2
Total	48	14	13

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Chuck Norris is Wrong and Deceived About Newt Gingrich

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:03:00 +0000

In recent weeks Chuck Norris has been writing (part 1, part 2) about the qualities that he believes are important in the Republican Presidential candidate which ended with an endorsement for Newt Gingrich (link). While his list may be good or bad, the real question is whether he honestly applies his own criteria.

He doesn't. Not if he's forcing the square pegs of Newt Gingrich into those round holes. The guy has the stability of a white water raft. His entire life reflects this.

The 10 Questions of Chuck Norris:

1) Who is most committed to follow and lead by the U.S. Constitution?
Newt Gingrich fully ignores the 5th Amendment's right to due process by endorsing Presidential assasssination lists a la Barack Obama's Al Awlaki killing as well as disregarding the 4th Amendment's right to privacy vis a vis endorsing the Patriot Act. With standards like that, why should he even take an oath to defend it?

Jack Hunter also has an interesting piece regarding Newt's foreword to a 1995 book endorsing killing off our current form of government. (link)

2) Who has the greatest ability to rally, unify and mobilize citizens across political and societal spectrums?
Newt is as divisive a politician as any in recent American history. His solution to solve problems is to bitterly wage war and grandstand, claiming some superior moral high ground. How does he propose to reach out to black communities? Insult them by saying they should "demand paychecks and not be satisfied with foodstamps". (link)

That's recent without even digging into his past ethics violations as Speaker of the House (link; which was the first time in American history a Speaker of the House was punished for ethics violations), his "petty" (Newt's own words) reaction to not getting what he wanted on Air Force One as House Speaker (link) which led to a government shut down, and numerous disparaging remarks to many communities over his career as (satirically) covered by Jon Stewart (link).

That's some unifier.

3) Who has the best working comprehension of America?
To flesh this out, Norris adds: "The degree to which one comprehends America's ebbs and flows parallels one's proficiency to lead. As the adage goes, if one doesn't know history, he is doomed to repeat its mistakes."

Yes, Newt is a historian, but that will help as much as President Obama being a Constitutional lawyer helped in defending the Constitution. It really only means that whatever Newt wants to do he'll be able to pull the historic "facts" that help make his case since he clearly never applies history to defend the Constitution. Examples to come...

4) Who has the best ability to influence a volatile world away from the brink of destruction?
The "influencer" called for the assassination of Iranian scientists, which has since been done resulting only in the escalation of tension between Israel, Iran and us. Hardly a step back from the brink.

Luckily, Wired has detailed some of Newt's more "nuanced" positions on foreign policy and defense (link) with such gems as saying that Iran would install a democracy by 2004, that's Newt circa 2002, clearly since he contemplates a military regime change his prediction fell short. Hey, it happens, but he failed to predict the rising threat of terrorism and overstated North Korea's threat. I'm all for failed predictions, at least you have a view, but when your overreaction can start a war over false assumptions then there's reason to question your judgment. Republicans should have questioned George W Bush's judgment, but he was largely untouched.

To repeat, Newt is calling for a regime change, peaceful or militarily as well as assassination of their scientists. He's openly stated it should all be done covertly with deniability. The historian forgets that this is exactly what caused Iran's revolution in 1979, our 1953 coup to install the Shah by overthrowing the democratically elected Mosaddegh.

5) Who has clear and present moral fortitude?
Even if you overlook Newt's personal life -- he admittedly had affairs on his first and second wife & according to the 2nd wife he also asked for an open marriage (link) -- you should acknowledge his aforementioned ethics violations as a sign of shaky moral foundation. Another disconcerting moment came in a CBS News debate when Gingrich stated that Al Awlaki was convicted by a panel, the panel he's referring to is a secret CIA panel -- not a judicial conviction -- who has released no evidence (link). Supporting such a system for executing an American is in no way fortifying the moral system of laws that is a staple of what sets America apart.

Newton also does not think that waterboarding is torture (link) which is amazing considering the historian cannot recall that it was treated as such after WWII resulting in the hanging of Japanese officers (link). Either Newt is a bad historian or he's being selective with his facts, neither speaks well for the Speaker.

He also supports the death penalty for drug smuggling (link), and while I am not a drug user I want no part of that sort of morality.

6) Who has the best chance of beating President Obama, in and outside of debates?
If winning an argument means sounding the best in the moment and winning public opinion then I'll certainly give props to Newt on this one, he will say whatever it takes to score a point. However, if being right is what's considered to win debates then Newt will get tossed around in the debate's aftermath. Not only is his fact checking awful in followups from debates -- as noted by Awlaki & his views on the legality of torture -- but he also cannot even get the facts of his own life right. Not only did Newt lie about being a historian for Freddie Mac and received in the area of $1.6mm for "strategic advice" while primarily being in direct contact with Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist (link), but he was wanting John McCain to demand Barack Obama return contributions from Freddie & Fannie (link, transcribed by TPM). You have to think this will be run a few times.

Even if "best chance" means just overall beating him in the election then according to the latest CNN poll Mitt Romney & Ron Paul are the only contenders who statistically tie with President Obama while Newt is -9% (link).

In a political debate your record of consistency matters, Newt does not have it and will get shellacked over it (link).

7) Who has the best abilities to lead Washington politics and politicians?
What was Newt's first major campaign action after announcing his candidacy on May 11th (link)? By the end of the month he was on a Greek vacation (link) which was a factor for his staff quitting on June 9th (link), not even a full month into his campaign. People quit campaigns all the time, but your entire staff quitting before the first month? Recently his "relentlessly positive campaign" -- since he was killed in Iowa -- has taken a few detours into negative campaigning (link on Mitt's Romneycare for abortions & Planned Parenthood, link on Ron Paul "stunningly dangerous").

What about as Speaker of the House? He resigned early (link). So the result of all his magnificent leading was his party forcing him to resign? I can't imagine the sign of a good leader is being chased out once attaining the role of leader. It's one thing to be an outsider, but to be an insider-turned-outcast is nothing to be proud of on a resume.

8) Who has the best plan and leadership ability to restore America's economy?
What's most interesting about the Speaker's Economic Plan (link), is that he wants to break up Fannie & Freddie whereas in the past he not only took paychecks from Freddie, but even more astounding is that in a 2007 interview with Freddie he clearly had a different position, stating: "So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself". Not only did he not predict the economic crash (someone else did), but he was championing the backbone of the bubble all the way until it popped! The man has no clue about economics let alone the ability to understand how policy will affect the economic climate.

Point #7 of his Economic Plan is to "Balance the budget", but how? Well, "by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." Naturally there are absolutely no spending cuts mentioned, no timeline and therefore no real plan to balance the budget. Unless he thinks he can knock out a $1.6 Trillion deficit without making any noteworthy changes. He has no plan.

9) Who is the most fiscally prudent?
There is absolutely no way having two lines of debt at Tiffany's worth as much $1mm is anywhere near the sanity of being called "fiscally prudent" (link), and Newt was rightly raked over the coals for it by Bob Schieffer (YouTube link).

Gingrich's Social Security reform includes a public pension account option which “the government guarantees that all workers with personal accounts will receive at least as much in retirement as they would under the current Social Security system”, Forbes' Jeffrey Brown wisely points out that publicly guaranteeing a minimum return is a potential fiscal nightmare (to gravely understate it) and a moral hazard in waiting (link). When will we learn that there is an inherent flaw when the government backs investments? You simply cannot remove the element of risk in the marketplace if you wish the market to work properly. To think otherwise is fiscally irresponsible.

10) Who has demonstrated the highest regard for human life?
Pretending that abandoning two wives amidst life challenging afflictions does not apply here, instead let the focus be on policy. Newt's regard for life is that if he becomes President Gingrich then human life survives at his whim. Of his enemies he says, "Kill them," and of anyone he considers a terrorist, kill them (without any judicial oversight / due process), if you're an Iranian scientist he suspects of nuclear practice, "covertly" kill them (transcript, CBS News debate), if you're running drugs? Kill them. Seems like a one size fits all solution, and completely lacking any respect for human life. Creating safety for the public should not come at the expense of the public becoming the collateral damage in the effort to do so, or human life in general.

If you're to have both high respect for the Constitution and human life, then brandishing your own sword of justice is not the way of our national leader. Not if we are to set a moral standard for the entire world. The wars and sanctions in Iraq has cost upwards of a million innocent lives. The sanctions alone were responsible for half a million Iraqi children dying (link). How many innocent lives are justified in bad foreign policy? Newt certainly isn't looking to rein in the abuse of powers if he thinks that he alone has the power to take a life.

I hope Mr Norris is open to reconsidering his endorsement if that is indeed his criteria, along with anyone else with a similar set of guidelines. Newt is wrong, Barack Obama is not the enemy, but rather the enemy is politics as usual. He is the insider's pariah, do not let the prodigal son return.

CNN Republican Debate Stats 1-19-11 (John King)

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:43:00 +0000

Not all talking time is equal. Moderated by CNN's John King, I have to say that this was overall a fairly well moderated debate even if perhaps a bit on the Thunder Dome style. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich each tied for the most turns talking at 22, while Ron Paul spoke only 14 times. However, I think the tale of the tape is in the number of questions aimed at each candidate, and each candidate largely received the same amount at about 12 each. That means all of those extra turns were spent in defense of their record, rebutting each other.

Ron Paul only had two rebuttals, one dealing with the abortion issue. This was astounding. Rick Santorum actually implied that Ron Paul is anything but Pro Life. It should be pointed out that Doctor Paul is an OBGYN and has delivered over 4,000 babies and never performed an abortion. Perhaps next Rick Santorum will say he loves Carol Paul more than Ron does.

Dr Paul believes in the state's right to decide issues of violence as provided in the Constitution whereas Senator Santorum believes in the Constitution unless he doesn't like its restrictions. This would include war powers, privacy, marriage and due process -- which his two-sided arguments are indefinite detentions of US citizens are wrong even if you're accused of terrorism, but killing US citizens if you're accused of being a terrorist is fine, how he reconciles this paradox is beyond the scope of my ability to rationalize.

Now that the GOP Presidential race is down to four we can see a great overall rise in the amount of time distributed to each candidate. On Monday's Fox News debate the top talker, Mitt Romney, received 22 minutes of time speaking -- about the same here -- while all the other candidates had less than 15 minutes, so coupled with a more deliberate attempt at pinging each nominee equally (even with the wild west rebuttals) along with one less body on stage we can see a far more balanced approach to divvying up speaking time. I tip my hat to John King.

Hit me on Facebook, here's the debate statistics for CNN's GOP Debate:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	22:21	28.08%
Santorum	22:17	28.00%
Gingrich	18:40	23.46%
Ron Paul	16:17	20.46%
Total	1:19:36	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	22	27.50%
Gingrich	22	27.50%
Santorum	22	27.50%
Ron Paul	14	17.50%
Total	80	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	2:45	9:37
Gingrich	2:51	9:34
Santorum	2:52	7:01
Ron Paul	4:10	13:17

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Ron Paul	12	2	0
Gingrich	12	8	2
Santorum	12	9	1
Romney	11	9	2
Total	47	28	5

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Fox News South Carolina Debate 1-16-2012

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:11:00 +0000

If there was a winner out of this mess, I cannot fathom who it is. It does seem odd that as soon as I write an article about media bias that Fox News flies in to assure us that there is indeed a lack of objectivity. Bret Baier inserted his own slant by once again labeling Ron Paul as "far to the left of President Obama", he didn't quote any of the other nominees, he simply stated his own opinion. How can this be construed as anything but creating your own narrative?

In the opening segment -- dominated mostly by Bain and political attacks -- Newt Gingrich had three turns talking, Santorum had seven turns, Mitt Romney spoke eight times, Rick Perry twice and Ron Paul once. Even though Kelly Evans was seeking a followup to Ron Paul, Rick Santorum was allowed a response and then immediately a followup and then a fresh question. Three turns in a row.

This wasn't exactly unique considering Romney was allowed a fresh question directly after a response four separate times. Twice separated by a commercial break (he answered/responded before the break, and then received the next question upon returning from break), and twice in mid-debate where he was allowed a response and then a fresh question. Other than Senator Santorum's aforementioned back-to-back response/question, no one else received a fresh question after a string of responses.

If only that were the end of it. The most obvious possible self-created narrative was that eight of Congress Paul's 13 turns talking was regarding foreign policy, easily his widest point of conflict with the Republican base, but rather than receive one single question regarding the economy (he spoke eight turns about foreign policy, once about political ads, once about taxes, once about racism in the drug war and twice about gun rights) the line of questioning seemed to target his "left of the most lefty left thing in the galaxy" foreign policy. Never mind Ron Paul has created the only plan to balance the budget, was the only person on the stage to predict the housing bubble many years before it burst and is the reason so much attention is being paid to economic policy. Now, whether this is for good TV or to hurt Dr Paul I will not try to interpret, because who really knows other than Bret Baier, the lead moderator.

I normally try to make this column a little less Paul centric, but the moderating here was extremely irritating and it seems the stats back it up when broken down a little more granular than the normal overall stats would reveal. Otherwise, it looks like this was a fairly balanced debate where Paul/Santorum/Gingrich received nearly equal time, when it was anything but.

The highlight for me was during the response to Representative Paul, where Paul defended his ads stating Senator Santorum is guilty of bad policy and Santorum conceded his bad policy decisions stating, "I'm a strong conservative, but I'm not perfect. President Bush's signature initiative was No Child Left Behind, I voted for it, [but] I shouldn't have." Booyah. Well, that and when Newt refused to directly answer Juan Williams' question regarding Newt's statement that "blacks should demand jobs, not food stamps", because there's no hint of racism lurking in there. Hey Hannity, want to discuss that instead of Ron's 20 year old newsletters he didn't write? No? Perhaps we'll let Jon Stewart tackle that.

Here's the debate stats for the SC GOP Debate:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	21:59	30.76%
Santorum	14:13	19.90%
Gingrich	13:28	18.85%
Ron Paul	12:13	17.11%
Perry	9:33	13.37%
Total	1:11:29	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	26	32.50%
Santorum	16	20.00%
Gingrich	15	18.75%
Ron Paul	13	16.25%
Perry	10	12.50%
Total	80	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	2:15	11:50
Santorum	3:25	12:09
Gingrich	5:17	17:26
Ron Paul	5:21	13:49
Perry	8:44	18:45

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	10	11	5
Gingrich	8	4	3
Santorum	8	7	1
Perry	6	1	3
Ron Paul	6	4	3
Total	38	27	15

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Ron Paul's "Ceiling" & Media Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:42:00 +0000

I'm not big on conspiracies. I don't think the media is altogether conspiring to ignore Ron Paul per se, not in a clandestine way at least. Nope, I think the mainstream media is bias of course, but also lazy and cowardly.

It takes no small amount of courage to go against the tide of public opinion, and I cannot imagine how hard it is to do at your office amongst your peers. I've never stepped into a newsroom and seen writers battle with their editors, so I'm not coming from that perspective. I'm just a humble citizen journalist who is pointing out that the media often comes to a particular conclusion and to stand against your colleagues on something you're not particularly passionate about, for a cause you may not even agree with, can seem not only pointless but detrimental.

I cannot imagine many Republicans -- who wanted to go to war with Iraq -- were busy contesting the "evidence" that kept being thrown around no matter how badly it smelt. It fit the narrative that suited their purpose, and to question it is to possibly lose face with peers.

This is why I say it takes courage, because you not only have to question the narrative handed in by people you respect, but you may even have to report it against your own personal bias or worldview's advancement. I think that's what journalism should probably be about, truth above all else, but I cannot say that's the normal human operation.

The other issue is just plain laziness. The AP writes one article, that article is everywhere in syndication. It's what media sites pay for, to be able to use the vast resources of the Associated Press without having to hire a squadron of writers to cover the world. Maybe that's a form of laziness, but then there's the laziness of doing a writeup and not doing your own research and instead relying on wikipedia or just going with popular perception.

The best example was when music composer Maurice Jarre passed away in 2009 and a Dublin college student used the moment to test the media's fact checking diligence when he posted to wikipedia a false and unsourced quote (because it was fake) from Maurice Jarre that was too good to be true. The result was that it was picked up by hundreds of outlets around the world and after a month the student finally came forward fearing they would never figure out that the quote had no basis in reality. Oddly, wikipedia editors were quick to remove it within minutes of its original posting where the journalists never caught or questioned it. (link) I don't have a bone to pick with wikipedia, but it's not hard to imagine volunteer editors pick topics they have a passion about and use it possibly promote their worldview.

So, when I see someone reciting popular dogma about Ron Paul being "unelectable", or having an absolute "ceiling", I don't think they're following directions from their overlords, though I admit it's possible to have a company line "encouraged", I just think it's more plausible that they're being lazy and even more likely: cowards.

It was not so long ago that "...Ron Paul’s ceiling almost certainly remains about where it was four years ago," (WaPo Aug 2011) which is to say 5 to 10%. "Can Ron Paul Break the 10 Percent Ceiling?" (NewsMax Jun '11), which apparently can only be done by softening his message. "Ron Paul...appears to have a ceiling on how much mainstream Republican support he can draw" (AZcentral Nov '11). "But Paul’s libertarian support seems to have a ceiling." (NatJournal May '11).

There's more in December when WaPo decided to rethink their position, and admitted "Ron Paul has expanded his political brand enough to potentially win the Iowa caucuses in two weeks.", but continues, "Beyond that, though, victory is going to be hard to come by" which then cites one of their in-house polls as evidence that Ron Paul's new ceiling is around 25% because of his foreign policy views. (WaPo Dec '11) While not an awful analysis, it certainly lacks a full perspective without presenting any counterarguments whatsoever, such as perhaps other polls or the support he garners from independents switching to the Republican party. It seems a continuation of the storyline they've previously presented, particularly when you consider that their earlier assumption of a low ceiling was proven wrong.

If there's one time to reconsider your position, surely it's when your predictions were dead wrong.

There's gobs & gobs more if you turn on the TV, but the mystifying part is that the media culture is more focused on interpreting the news -- unevenly -- than just delivering it. Somehow it's ignored that the whole point of a campaign is to raise awareness on a nominee's platform, what they believe in. A poll is a basis for how things stand currently, which is based on a campaign's methods, but more nationally, on the media's coverage of the campaign. Delivering a rehashed storyline begins to create self-fulfilling "facts" that can perpetuate falsehoods. "Ron Paul is an isolationist", "Ron Paul is unelectable", "Ron Paul is a kook", the last is perpetuated more frequently by talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Carl Levin, which are in fact repeated by listeners, per my personal experience with family & friends.

There may be a type of revolution happening right before us, if there is then it's a more peaceful revolt than what we've seen in the Arab Spring or at the founding of America. As long as the media decides to continue being lazy and lacking integrity by not offering the full spectrum of facts & possibilities, this is the rope they'll continue to distribute that will be used to hang them. While Rush & Sean Hannity are still the biggest radio shows around, they're numbers have dramatically fallen by an average of around 30% since October. (link) I don't honestly know why, but I'm glad, they represent the unrepentant attitudes that I find repugnant in humanity.

Perhaps the media is increasingly facing a crisis of confidence from its viewers (link), because of the rise in opinion news that we know is based more on interpretation than on an attempt at delivering bare bones fact. Watching MSNBC tonight for the longest I've ever watched it (roughly 3 hours) I saw tons of commercials for MSNBC hosts where it wasn't just an ad to watch their show, but they were delivering their philosophy of higher taxes and paying your fair share. These are the people we trust to deliver unbiased news? No, we know it's biased so it makes sense why the distrust grows. Why would you trust someone you know is merely pandering to your worldview? (Fox News, I'm talking to you also.)

The most important point is that we are all walking journalists. Dissent is welcome. I love Ron Paul, but I'm not afraid to challenge him or dissent against him even if it frustrates my peers or gives ammunition to my enemies. If we don't do our own housecleaning (respectfully), then how can we challenge the elites on any moral high-ground? I don't think it will cost us the war, but instead gives credibility to our convictions to win over people to the cause of liberty.

In the meantime, the media now has to make sense of how someone with a low ceiling managed to grab a close 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in New Hampshire and is surging in South Carolina. Hopefully, a new storyline emerges.

What do you think? Is the media's coverage a product of pure editorial hawkishness, or something else? Dissent is welcome.

Debate Stats: NBC Meet the Press 1-8-2012

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:21:00 +0000

Overall a rather poorly moderated debate any way you slice it. Intent on driving cross-talk rather than creating equal opportunity for the Republican nominees to get their message out, Mitt Romney garnered nearly 28% of all the talking time allotted to candidates. For the 2nd debate in a row Ron Paul was denied opportunities (two on this occasion) to respond to criticisms invoked by his competitors and then was rushed in his final response.

Proving the ineptness of his moderating, David Gregory spent the first 13 minutes out of the overall 51 minutes of the debate talking about electability which created six rebuttals and used three follow-ups. There seems to be far more relevant topics than looking for ways to get the Reds to slice each other up. In the first segment alone Mitt spoke six times, Newt Gingrich five times, Rick Santorum four times, Jon Huntsman four times and Rick Perry twice, and the candidate running in second place in New Hampshire -- the location of the debate where Tuesday's primary is held -- Ron Paul? Once. He spoke once. How's that for relevant moderating?

Of course, Ron Paul only had six speaking turns overall for a grand total of 6:04 (mm:ss) and just under 12% of the overall allotted time. How in the world Jon Huntsman was allowed two more talking turns when he will be resigning from the race as early as Tuesday night is indeed a mystery. Perhaps his last rights? At least Rick Santorum has a case for gaining a heavy chunk of 21% of the total talking time with his recent coup in Iowa, even though he has as good of a chance of winning New Hampshire as I do, there's still a case to be made for him to have a platform for the moment.

Things will get interesting once Huntsman is bounced on Tuesday, and then Rick Perry -- who nearly shuttered after Iowa -- follows suit after South Carolina. Then there will be four, and I suspect Newt or Rick Santorum will not be viable for the long haul without money or a strong organization, let alone a message to rally around that doesn't include bombing your way to peace. Things will be slim by February, and scrutiny of the remaining candidates will be at their peak and then the nation will begin to focus on the real options: elect Obama's counterparts, or elect Ron Paul.

	Total Talk	%
Romney	14:19	27.74%
Santorum	11:00	21.31%
Gingrich	8:32	16.53%
Huntsman	6:18	12.20%
Ron Paul	6:04	11.77%
Perry	5:23	10.45%
Total	51:38	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	16	25.81%
Santorum	14	22.58%
Gingrich	12	19.35%
Huntsman	8	12.90%
Perry	6	9.68%
Ron Paul	6	9.68%
Total	62	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	2:09	9:09
Santorum	3:38	8:41
Gingrich	5:08	15:45
Huntsman	5:40	14:17
Ron Paul	7:35	12:40
Perry	7:42	10:46

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Santorum	10	1	3
Romney	9	6	1
Gingrich	7	2	3
Huntsman	6	1	1
Perry	5	0	1
Ron Paul	5	1	0
Total	42	11	9

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

ABC Debate Statistics 1/7/2012

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 04:40:00 +0000

I'm not sure if Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos are anarchists, but they're moderation style seemed to fit the mold. One minute responses to the questions and 30 second responses for rebuttals were the agreed upon rules, so we're told. For the record, of the 42 "questions" (I use quotations, because not all of the questions contained an actual question so much as a prompt to weigh in) 19 of them went over 65 seconds in length, and of the 22 rebuttals a whopping 17 went over 35 seconds with the average response time to all 22 rebuttals coming in at 46 seconds. As a deregulation kind of guy I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be in favor of this style or not. Just kidding, it may prove how regulations only hurt those who follow them.

Pedantics aside, this was a fairly open style of debate and anyone who decided to not take advantage of it cannot be all too irritated with the moderators as it was plain to sense that you were given ample time in your responses to get your platform off your chest. However, it seemed the opportunity to rebuttal was rather inconsistent and dished out arbitrarily rather than on the consistent principle of having one's name invoked.

The debate itself ranged from substantive arguments of foreign policy and the economy, to more fruitless discussions of Federalism regarding contraception, an issue that is not in the news cycle nor specifically a part of any candidate's platform which is why it seemed odd to press Mitt Romney for over two straight minutes and four follow-ups regarding the non-issue. It may have made more sense to me if after Mitt's non-answer and still lacking any philosophical substance to then pose to the rest of the candidates the issue of state's rights vs federal power regarding behavior in the bedroom, but it seemed George was leaning on Mitt as if he were playing Rick Santorum interrogating a Muslim. Too much?

As far as which candidate came out the winner in talking time, Mitt Romney fielded nearly 20 minutes of total talking time, good for over 29% of the overall speaking time allotted to the candidates. Rick Perry really had the short end with 5:20 and only seven turns talking. I expect that number to drastically drop after the South Carolina Primaries all the way to zero. Guess I'm feeling snarky today.

Here's the stats on the ABC debate:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	19:59	29.58%
Santorum	13:42	20.29%
Ron Paul	11:01	16.31%
Huntsman	9:17	13.75%
Gingrich	8:13	12.18%
Perry	5:20	7.90%
Total	1:07:35	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	22	28.21%
Santorum	14	17.95%
Gingrich	12	15.38%
Huntsman	12	15.38%
Ron Paul	11	14.10%
Perry	7	8.97%
Total	78	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Romney	2:57	9:30
Santorum	4:28	12:03
Ron Paul	5:07	11:33
Huntsman	5:17	12:05
Gingrich	5:44	19:57
Perry	10:18	15:46

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	10	7	5
Gingrich	8	3	1
Santorum	8	4	2
Huntsman	8	3	1
Ron Paul	7	4	0
Perry	5	1	1
Total	46	22	10

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Choose Stigma. Rebel.

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:02:00 +0000

In politics it is often, if not always, a necessity to build alliances in order to achieve political goals, specifically regarding passing/repealing legislation. Without the votes nothing will happen.

One of the things I find odd is how in today's political landscape the idea of achieving a philosophic or principled goal seems to be entirely ignored for the sake of filing in behind your chosen party. Primarily composed of Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps most find it a no-brainer, "Duh, they want to get reelected. You have to play the game to keep your job," some may say. I agree that's essentially what it amounts to, but what frustrates me is that our country allows it to continue.

Assigning blame is a difficult task, as Jack "The Southern Avenger" Hunter pointed out in a video log (YouTube link), we Americans have it pretty darn good. Perhaps so good that it became easy to let loose the reins of the people who wield the power of governance except on occasional superficial levels. It's kind of like being upset with a guy who gets married and puts on a healthy "spare tire". Sometimes it's just what happens when life gets good, you take things for granted.

That does not stop me from hoping for more from our society, such as the idea that you should hold your governing body accountable. It always seems that the politicos are more intent on tearing apart the politicians they didn't vote for rather than holding the feet of the one's they did vote for to the fire. This is completely backwards. I think that people would rather justify their decisions in the past rather than say that the guy they voted for didn't live up to his promises.

I have no problem admitting I voted for George W Bush in 2000, and if I had been registered in 2004 would have certainly did it again at that time. I also have no problem looking in hindsight and saying that he was an awful President and that I did not have a fully developed political philosophy. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 -- though to be clear, I voted for Ron Paul in the Texas primary -- and have no qualms about picking apart his policies that contradict what he campaigned on.

Why wouldn't anyone seek complete truth and honesty, whether it means saying you were duped or that your politician is simply fallible? It's life and it happens. What's not excusable is to pretend that the issues held so dear when your enemy violated them are suddenly forgivable, if not encouraged, when your own political savior violates those same issues.

In such times I hope we look beyond partisan lines and begin to build coalitions with people on issues we can agree on rather than look at something so trivial and deceptive as a club you've joined and say that sticking by your team is more important than sticking by your principles. Because then it isn't politicians who have failed you, but rather your lack of courage.

Perhaps it is time to vote for what you want, rather than vote against what you do not. Otherwise, your options render the same choice: The lesser of two evils, is still evil.

The "Dangers" of a Ron Paul Iowa Victory

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:59:00 +0000

Today Politico is running an article (link) about Ron Paul winning Iowa, and how such a situation basically negates Iowa's relevance. Quote:

"Paul poses an existential threat to the state’s cherished kick-off status, say these Republicans, because he has little chance to win the GOP nomination and would offer the best evidence yet that the caucuses reward candidates who are unrepresentative of the broader party."

It strikes with a level of irony that if you don't vote for the candidate that everyone wants you to vote for then your voice is null. Eh, what? Isn't the whole point of our representative democracy to say -- with your vote -- the kind of policies you want instituted best represented by an individual with those philosophies? Yet, when an overwhelming amount of people choose that individual, so many that that person wins the majority of a state's voters, that somehow they don't represent an important voice?

This is wrong. To be told "If you don't vote the way we want you to then you no longer matter," is to say that you already don't matter even though you represent a change in the wind of politics. This was evident when Barack Obama won Iowa, and went on to win his party's nomination and the election, and it's evident now that the tide is turning for Ron Paul.

Iowa is special in that it allows people to meet the candidates personally, a small population can help a small candidate become the next candidate. It gives a voice to someone without the funds to win larger states like Florida or California. The whole point of our electoral college system is to give a voice to smaller states with a smaller share of the population, lest they lose the attention of our Federal officials, and giving Iowa a prominent position in the Republican Primaries follows in this same thought-process.

Iowa matters, and if Ron Paul carries their delegates on January 3rd, you can expect those in danger of losing their high place of importance to suddenly shout every foul thing they can think of to deride the guy who wants to strip power from the powerful, because they know he's more than just rhetoric. He has a track record that shows he has the conviction to carry out his promises. Unlike Presidents past.

Iowa matters, and the real danger is that people with influence just may lose their power. Power that would be handed back to the people, where it never should have left. Iowa matters, it's the voice of the people exposed to the message of Liberty.

Fox News Debate Stats Sioux City 12/15/2011

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:17:00 +0000

A lot going on in Iowa these days as the state prepares for the first in the nation caucuses for the Republican primaries. Fox News hosts Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto and David Gregory each took turns quizzing the seven candidates on-stage on a list of topics ranging from Economic, Foreign Policy, Social Issues, the Judiciary, and even partisan politics. As a whole this was quite a contentious debate with a total of 14 responses between candidates, five of which were from Newt Gingrich, who not coincidentally had the most amount of total speaking time at 14:39 (mm:ss).

During Newt's Freddie Mac past, he stated, "Now, if you read the whole thing that they posted, I said that they need more regulations". Perhaps it is splitting hairs, but here is what he actually said in the article regarding regulations, "So while we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself," (Freddie Mac article link). Clearly, Newt is in favor of the Fannie & Freddie model and was not advising any structural changes whatsoever.

Furthermore. Perhaps the more interesting thoughts from that Freddie Mac interview with Newt was, "I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.", which is hardly the hallmark of a free market mindset. No, he reveals himself to be the Keynesian tinkerer that currently fills out our government body.

In the article, he continues, "Look at our own history. The government provided railroad land grants to encourage widespread adoption of what was then the most modern form of transportation to help develop our country. The Homestead Act essentially gave land away to those willing to live on it and develop it." The historian that Newt claims to be then he should surely know that the Homestead Act was widely abused for fraud and corporate monopolization of resources such as water. As for the railroad land grants he references, the mechanisms the government used were wholly inefficient and were frequently rebuilt having been constructed with such poor quality in the sprint to scoop up the subsidies. In fairness, the land grants did make it easier to raise investments for other rail companies who did a better job in their construction. (Mises link)

Other than Michele Bachmann (10:25) and Speaker Gingrich trading claims, Bachmann also mixed it up with Ron Paul (11:43) over foreign policy with regards to Iran. Specifically, Congresswoman Bachmann said that the latest IAEA report "said literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon." Ron Paul refuted that she was totally wrong, that there is no evidence. Who's right? Well, when has Michele Bachmann ever got anything right.

The November 2011 report (link) states on page 10, in section "K", that they (IAEA) have "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme", but this based on what they *don't know*, as stated in the previous paragraph: "the Agency (IAEA) is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all material in Iran is in peaceful activities." They flat out state they just don't know. This is not "literally" saying that "Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon", anything beyond 'we need more info' is pure conjecture, even though I do think it's reasonable to assume Iran would want a nuclear weapon since it is surrounded by them. (IAEA report link)

It's worth pointing out that even though Dr Paul did receive the third highest allotment of speaking time, after the foreign policy squabble he went the next 24:19 of candidate speaking time in silence, which was over seven minutes longer than the next longest wait (Santorum waited 16:57 at one point) where Congressman Paul was not allowed to weigh in on Energy, Immigration and Social Issues. Whereas in this same time frame every other candidate weighed in at least twice, and in the case of Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich, five times.

Great job Fox News, but at least your moderator did not try to paint Ron Paul as "running left of President Obama". Yes, that's sarcasm, and yes, that's you Bret Baier. Either moderate or commentate, but please do not do both at the same time. Peace and caution should not be labeled as some kind of left-wing extremism, some call it "wisdom".

Here are the debate stats, check back soon for a rollup of all the debates to see who the big winner is (my bet's on Mitt):

	Total Talk	%
Gingrich	14:39	20.07%
Romney	12:58	17.78%
Ron Paul	11:43	16.06%
Bachmann	10:25	14.29%
Santorum	8:09	11.17%
Huntsman	7:59	10.96%
Perry	7:03	9.67%
Total	1:12:59	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Gingrich	19	22.35%
Romney	14	16.47%
Ron Paul	14	16.47%
Bachmann	13	15.29%
Perry	9	10.59%
Santorum	8	9.41%
Huntsman	8	9.41%
Total	85	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Huntsman	8:07	0:11:47
Perry	7:53	0:13:55
Santorum	7:42	0:16:57
Ron Paul	5:28	0:24:19
Romney	4:48	0:15:31
Bachmann	4:46	0:11:28
Gingrich	4:02	0:10:58

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	10	2	2
Gingrich	10	5	4
Bachmann	9	4	0
Perry	8	0	1
Ron Paul	8	3	3
Santorum	8	0	0
Huntsman	8	0	0
Total	61	14	10

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

ABC News Debate Statistics 12/10/11

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:01:00 +0000

ABC News apparently could not hide their taste for bickering. Often times setting up the questions in order to generate some back 'n forth there was a solid 21 responses in total where candidates shot off to each other. While there seemed to be some even-handedness to the moderation, it was mostly an illusion due to having fewer overall candidates on the stage, with Herman Cain having dropped out of the race and Jon Huntsman not meeting ABC's qualifications for the Iowa debate.

Mitt Romney garnered the most time talking with 18:19 (mm:ss) and 16 turns talking, while Newt Gingrich spoke for 13:41 which was good enough for nearly 19% of the overall total speaking time allotted to the Republican Presidential candidates. Ron Paul, though running in a solid second place in the Iowa polls, received the fewest turns talking, 9, as well as the smallest amount of time at 8:40.

However, that did not stop him from having perhaps the largest impact with the time he did have. When confronted about the tough TV ads he has been running against Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul did not back down for a moment and instead restated and reinforced that Speaker Gingrich is indeed a serial hypocrite and reminded everyone of his ties to Freddie Mac and had received in the neighborhood of $1.6 Million for his "strategic advisement". A very strong move on Paul's part, and he may just be getting started.

	Total Talk	%
Romney	18:19	25.36%
Gingrich	13:41	18.95%
Bachmann	11:39	16.13%
Perry	10:19	14.29%
Santorum	9:35	13.27%
Ron Paul	8:40	12.00%
Total	1:12:13	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Gingrich	17	23.29%
Romney	16	21.92%
Perry	11	15.07%
Bachmann	10	13.70%
Santorum	10	13.70%
Ron Paul	9	12.33%
Total	73	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Santorum	7:13	18:03
Ron Paul	6:57	15:12
Bachmann	6:03	11:07
Perry	5:48	19:47
Gingrich	4:03	13:45
Romney	3:12	7:20

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	9	7	0
Perry	8	2	1
Ron Paul	8	1	0
Gingrich	8	7	2
Santorum	8	1	1
Bachmann	7	3	0
Total	48	21	4

Note: Qs = Questions; Responses (candidates responding to each other); Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Fox News GOP Debate Statistics (Mike Huckabee) 12/3/2011

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 02:56:00 +0000

Mike Huckabee hosted the latest debate for the Republican Presidential Primary race, which included only six of the last eight Republicans that showed up on the previous debate. Herman Cain having dropped out of the race earlier today, and Jon Huntsman chose instead to campaign on the ground in North Carolina.

Admirably, the vast majority of the debate was spent discussing Federal power versus state's rights, however, most did not seem capable of grasping any consistent philosophy for how they demarcate where Federal power begins and State's rights begin. For instance, Michele Bachmann thinks it necessary to enact a nationwide tort reform law rather than respect the 10th Amendment, yet, hates President Obama's healthcare law for trampling state's rights.

Perhaps the greatest moment of flip-flopping and lying arrived in the first segment with Newt Gingrich, saying, without any hint of self-awareness, "If you ask me, 'Would I trust a jury or a Washington bureaucrat?', I would rather have my fate decided by a jury of my peers than have my fate decided by a Washington bureaucrat." This is the same Newt Gingrich who has no problems allowing the Obama administration's secret panel to label and kill an American citizen as a terrorist without any judicial oversight whatsoever. Amazing. Apparently, the "conservatism" of Newt is whatever he shall deem it to be upon his whim and audience.

On Executive Power, Rick Perry finds it perfectly acceptable for the President to use his power to nullify legislation passed by Congress, yet maintains that he is against the abuse of the Obama administration. Oh irony, know ye no boundaries?

As for speaking time this was an unqualified success. Each candidate getting nearly the same amount of speaking time, where someone like Michele Bachmann spoke for about a minute less due to shorter response times and allowing her a greater number of topics and turns talking. Likewise, Santorum and Ron Paul received the fewest turns talking which is attributed to their lengthier answers and overall having more total time talking.

Not surprising, in the immediate post debate follow up on Fox News the conversation was slanted towards certain candidates as indicated by the number of times their names were spoken. Newt Gingrich was mentioned by name 12 times and Mitt Romney's name was said nine times. According to polling this seems like an accurate reflection, until you consider that "Ron Paul" was only said twice in which he was ostracized by Mike Huckabee as someone Herman Cain's followers would not jump ship to, which is an amazing bit of omniscience on his part. Especially since he seemed to think it perfectly reasonable that these same supporters would consider *all* of the other candidates, including Mitt Romney, as viable options.

Here are the debate stats:

	Total Talk	%
Santorum	9:41	17.56%
Ron Paul	9:37	17.44%
Romney	9:30	17.23%
Perry	9:13	16.72%
Gingrich	8:37	15.63%
Bachmann	8:30	15.42%
Total	55:08	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Perry	16	20.25%
Bachmann	16	20.25%
Gingrich	13	16.46%
Romney	12	15.19%
Ron Paul	11	13.92%
Santorum	11	13.92%
Total	79	100.00%

	Avg Response Time
Santorum	:53
Ron Paul	:52
Romney	:48
Gingrich	:40
Perry	:35
Bachmann	:32

	Qs	Follow-ups
Perry	11	5
Ron Paul	9	2
Gingrich	9	4
Romney	8	4
Bachmann	8	8
Santorum	8	3
Total	53	26

	Post Debate Mentions
Gingrich	12
Romney	9
Perry	6
Bachmann	5
Santorum	4
Ron Paul	2

Note: This is the immediate post-debate discussion on Fox News, not all channels.

Bonus Video: Are there any differences between the establishment parties?

CNN Republican Debate 11-22-11 (Wolf Blitzer)

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:15:00 +0000

Considering past disparities in candidate speaking time, Wolf Blitzer did a magnificent job in maintaining a very even hand in allowing each Republican candidate to have their fair share of speaking time. In fact, he did such a good job I was almost always able to predict who the next question would be aimed at based on looking at my spreadsheet and seeing who had been out of the loop the longest. Having tracked the talking time for each of the past debates, it is worth noting and commendation.

If a short end of the stick must be held, then it must be given to Herman Cain who only spoke for 5:31 (mm:ss), which accounts for a notch above 7%, but he did receive 10% of the talking opportunities so you could also say his short responses played a role as well as not getting into any back 'n forth with the other candidates. The crosstalk obviously cannot be held against Cain, CNN did a very diligent job of creating friction between Presidential hopefuls.

A few skirmishes broke out between the Republicans, perhaps the most notable between Dr Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich on the legality of the Patriot Act. Newt believing in sacrificing our civil liberties in order to attempt a more secure nation from terrorism, and Ron Paul advocating that our liberties should never be sacrificed for national security that cannot be guaranteed even with the erosion of our Bill of Rights.

Also of note was Michelle Bachmann headbutting with Rick Perry over the usefulness of foreign aid to Pakistan, with Rick Perry labeling Pakistan as a questionable entity with unknown intentions and Bachmann advocating foreign aid as a good use of American taxpayer money to keep an open line of communication for potential intelligence and to keep us in the good graces of a nuclear nation. Of course, lost in this dialogue was the fact that we are pitching good will to a hostile nation with nuclear capabilities, yet, see Iran as a nation to go to war with despite their lack of nuclear weapons.

While ranting against military budget cuts, Mitt Romney was refuted by Ron Paul when Paul pointed out that there are in fact no cuts on the table, that there are only reductions in the increased amount of spending. Much like saying we are spending $100 annually, and next year were planning to spend $200, but instead we will only spend $150 and labeling that $50 difference a cut, it's foolish economics that Representative Paul rightly pointed out. The only candidate truly offering cuts is Ron Paul, who wishes to reduce the deficit by one trillion dollars in his first year of Presidency.

All in all, anyone who tuned in were at least privy to a full debate where nearly all candidates were advocating war and unconstitutional laws that ignore the Bill of Rights, but the dissenting views of liberty-loving Ron Paul were given ample time to make the case for limited government and civilian respect.

	Total Talk	%
Gingrich	11:59	15.81%
Romney	11:29	15.15%
Perry	10:55	14.40%
Ron Paul	9:57	13.13%
Bachmann	9:16	12.23%
Huntsman	8:45	11.54%
Santorum	7:56	10.47%
Cain	5:31	7.28%
Total	1:15:48	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	14	15.91%
Gingrich	14	15.91%
Perry	12	13.64%
Ron Paul	11	12.50%
Bachmann	11	12.50%
Cain	9	10.23%
Huntsman	9	10.23%
Santorum	8	9.09%
Total	88	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Santorum	10:42	15:37
Cain	8:35	17:00
Huntsman	7:27	22:43
Bachmann	6:35	15:14
Ron Paul	6:16	15:05
Gingrich	5:41	19:05
Perry	5:40	11:39
Romney	5:12	20:00

	Qs	R	F
Perry	9	2	1
Ron Paul	8	2	1
Gingrich	8	3	3
Romney	7	5	2
Bachmann	7	3	1
Cain	7	1	1
Santorum	7	0	1
Huntsman	7	2	0
Total	60	18	10

Note: Qs = Questions; R = Responses (candidates responding to each other); F = Followups (moderator following up from the previous question)

Bonus Video: Are there any differences between the establishment parties?

GOP Debate Statistics: Thanksgiving Family Forum Citizenlink 11-19-11

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:43:00 +0000

Remarkably, when the GOP Presidential Debate deletes two candidates as well as switching from being televised to streamed online only there's a far more even balance in the distribution of talking time with each Republican in the race. Imagine that, only when it's all but guaranteed that there will not be a major audience does everyone have a voice.

Statistically, everyone spoke evenly with the exception of Rick Santorum whose numbers were inflated from a seven minute response he gave about the touching story of his daughter's difficult arrival to this world. Removing those seven minutes brings him perfectly in range of everyone else. In fact, the one person who talked the least, Herman Cain, was actually the contender with the most turns at talking so it was not from a lack of opportunity.

The roundtable open-discussion style moderated by Frank Luntz was conducted extremely well and impartially while giving anyone who wished to speak up ample opportunity and without limiting response times. Perhaps to some surprise, there did not seem to be any misuse and a high degree of respect to this process with candidates often speaking several minutes at a turn and without any cross-talk or bickering. Also of note was that there was far more time spent listening to the candidates than to the moderator, where this roughly two hour event managed to use nearly all of the time actually listening to the candidates for an hour and 45 minutes. Most of the televised debates end up using only a little over half the allotment in actual responses.

I'm sure adding in Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney will leave less time on the table for everyone, but hopefully the moderators will take notice of how you can let everyone have tons of time to address a subject allowing for a full civil and varied discussion about the GOP candidates.

Topically, the event surrounded the family and morality, which frequently turned into which candidate could out-Christian the others. The format was a fantastic change of direction, but it is anyone's guess if this brings any clarity to voters, though my gut instinct is that this was a very relevant and helpful discussion to the conservative Iowans that it was aimed towards.

GOP Debate Statistics:

	Total Talk	%
Santorum	23:54	23.39%
Gingrich	17:29	17.11%
Ron Paul	16:43	16.36%
Bachmann	16:07	15.77%
Perry	15:31	15.19%
Cain	12:26	12.17%
Total	1:42:10	100.00%

	Turns Talking	%
Cain	16	21.05%
Santorum	14	18.42%
Ron Paul	12	15.79%
Bachmann	12	15.79%
Perry	11	14.47%
Gingrich	11	14.47%
Total	76	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	(Longest Wait)
Perry	9:03	23:37
Ron Paul	8:29	16:40
Bachmann	7:52	22:36
Gingrich	7:41	20:06
Santorum	7:35	14:05
Cain	6:56	25:19

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Cain	12	0	4
Gingrich	11	0	0
Ron Paul	10	0	2
Bachmann	10	0	2
Santorum	10	0	4
Perry	9	0	2
Total	62	0	14

CBS News GOP Debate 11-12-11 Statistics

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:28:00 +0000

Saying Ron Paul was ignored in the CBS News National Journal debate on foreign policy is like saying the maiden voyage of the Titanic didn't go so well. It's an understatement. Speaking for a total of 87 seconds, out of the 34:44 of total time allotted to candidates, Dr Paul only had two turns to talk during the first hour of the debate. The first hour of this debate was the only televised time, the last half hour was only shown on the internet. If the average American used the internet to actually research their candidates then the debates would not be necessary in the first place. That is to say that the only time that really mattered was the televised time, because Majority America seems to need their election information handed to them sandwiched between Clean Coal commercials.

Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann each received twice the amount of speaking time as Congressman Paul while, mysteriously, Rick Santorum and Jon Hunstman chewed up even more time than them despite their disastrous positions in the polls. Who had the most floor time? Resurrected from the dead, Rick Perry spoke for 6:53 of the on-air time, followed by Herman Cain (6:19) and Mitt Romney (5:52).

Lest you think Representative Ron Paul is unqualified or unworthy of a foreign policy debate, campaign spokesman Jesse Benton quickly pointed out that Ron Paul is one of only two candidates on the stage who actually served in the military, Ron Paul has more donations from the active military than all of the candidates combined, he consistently registers third place in the polls with support in the double digits, and Dr Paul serves on the House Foreign Relations Committee.

Considering Ron Paul also has severely dissenting views on foreign policy from the rest of the candidates, advancing a non-interventionist position, the debate he brings to the floor is also substantial in terms of diversifying the field and would balance out the calls for war and torture. This debate honestly could have been run with the Texas Doctor on one side, telling the field why he disagrees with their positions of a nation-building empire of mass destruction.

Save Jon Huntsman, no one but Paul seems to desire defining water-boarding as torture. The discussion about that subject alone, in my view, warrants a full half hour at the least to dive into the depths that result in the use of torture. Such as the dehumanization of the torturer, that it's a recruiting tool for terrorists and allows them to further paint us as the enemy rather than an ally, is it effective, what is the precedence that we can glean from historic uses of torture, what are the implications on our civil liberties...there are many more things to consider than the two or three minutes it was given.

While this persistent failure to deliver a well-rounded debate continues, America is losing an important voice. I honestly don't think that this is because Ron Paul isn't liked, or even that his views are so fringe, but I honestly think this is age discrimination. Ron Paul isn't a sexy candidate. He's old, he doesn't always have his words together, his suits never fit quite right, he doesn't have a chiseled jaw or manicured haircut and he isn't worldly by mainstream media conventions.

No, his problem is that he's experienced. While he was racking up birthdays he managed to use his time on Earth to gain wisdom. No other candidate can refer to the Great Depression, or Vietnam, or the Korean War with any authority. The man has lived a full life and has learned from it.

He sometimes struggles to find the right word. Sure he does, because he has an entire vocabulary that requires choosing the best one. While he does have a repeated theme of liberty, he doesn't prepare his responses because he has already thought through all the issues. He has the philosophy inside his head, it requires real life thinking. The other candidates are either responding to how a question is phrased so as to "give the right answer", or are repeating rehearsed statements. We see how well they always remember their script, right Rick Perry?

His clothes will only show up on GQ as fashion don'ts. Imagine that. A candidate who preaches fiscal responsibility and actually lives it. Bloody amazing. Ron Paul gives back a portion of his congressional budget every year because he runs a lean ship. He's more concerned about the economy and current events than he is about trying to look and sound like a walking cliche.

As a lifelong San Antonio Spurs fan I'm well acquainted with having the very thing the media pretends to long for: a well-behaved team who performs night in and night out. No drama, no showboating. Just a flawless execution of the fundamentals. Ron Paul doesn't run his mouth carelessly to make a headline, he's evenhanded in the most irritating moments with the issues he has been fighting for for over half of his life. No one wants to spend time with someone they think is boring, no matter how fantastic the followers know it is.

No, the media doesn't marginalize Ron Paul mainly because of the substance that he brings to the table. His personality isn't fun, he's older. Sure, he reminds everyone that the real cure for America has been politely tapping them on the shoulder for the last four decades, an embarrassment to be sure. Rand Paul will not have these same problems, he'll receive vitriol without a doubt, but not a lack of coverage and adoration, because he's young, new. This is about reality TV, and Ron Paul is simply packed too full of substance, this is not what makes good television, you need to be full of something else.

Random Thoughts:

I find it odd that Herman Cain finds it impossible to say what he would do in *any* foreign policy scenario without having consulted with the ground commanders to get all the facts, yet, he has no problem saying that Barack Obama is doing the job wrong even though he has access to the very people that would guide Cain's decisions. Maybe, just maybe, Cain's ignorance extends to foreign policy and he couldn't point out England on a map.
Rick Perry's final comment about the French having a strong economy reveals his deep lack of global economic comprehension since many economists are predicting France to be next the next Euro crisis (link).
Empire of Mass Destruction. EMD. I like that label, considering the cultures and lives we have destroyed, I think it's fitting until we change our foreign policy.
Will the next debate finally learn from this process, or does the news media enjoy fueling the flames of conspiracy.

Stats on each candidate's speaking time for the televised first hour:

	Total Talk	%
Perry	6:53	19.82%
Cain	6:19	18.19%
Romney	5:52	16.89%
Santorum	4:46	13.72%
Huntsman	3:22	9.69%
Bachmann	3:03	8.78%
Gingrich	3:02	8.73%
Ron Paul	1:27	4.17%
Total	34:44	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Cain	10	24.39%
Perry	7	17.07%
Romney	6	14.63%
Santorum	5	12.20%
Gingrich	4	9.76%
Huntsman	4	9.76%
Bachmann	3	7.32%
Ron Paul	2	4.88%
Total	41	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Cain	4:41	11:20
Perry	5:34	7:21
Gingrich	6:02	7:33
Santorum	6:10	9:48
Romney	6:43	15:28
Bachmann	7:36	8:28
Huntsman	10:06	15:31
Ron Paul	12:35	20:40

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Cain	6	0	4
Perry	5	0	2
Romney	4	0	2
Bachmann	3	0	0
Gingrich	3	0	1
Santorum	3	0	2
Huntsman	3	0	1
Ron Paul Total	2 29	0 0	0 12

Stats on Entire 90 Minute Debate:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	9:02	16.15%
Cain	8:57	16.00%
Perry	8:20	14.89%
Santorum	7:03	12.60%
Bachmann	6:28	11.56%
Gingrich	6:07	10.93%
Huntsman	6:06	10.90%
Ron Paul	3:54	6.97%
Total	55:57	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Cain	14	21.21%
Romney	10	15.15%
Perry	9	13.64%
Santorum	8	12.12%
Bachmann	7	10.61%
Gingrich	7	10.61%
Huntsman	6	9.09%
Ron Paul	5	7.58%
Total	66	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Huntsman	9:53	15:31
Santorum	9:20	16:45
Ron Paul	8:08	20:40
Gingrich	8:01	15:59
Bachmann	7:14	8:53
Perry	6:48	12:16
Romney	6:12	15:28
Cain	5:16	11:20

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Cain	9	0	5
Perry	7	0	2
Romney	7	0	3
Bachmann	6	0	1
Gingrich	6	0	1
Santorum	5	0	3
Huntsman	5	0	1
Ron Paul	4	1	0
Total	49	1	16

President Bush & Obama. Two Faces of the Same Coin.

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:27:00 +0000

It's incredible how some Republicans consider Obama as the worst President in history. Not that it may be true, it could be, I somehow doubt they've studied all the Presidents we've had enough to have an informed opinion. No, it's surprising because there is remarkably little difference in Obama's policies and former President George W. Bush. Frankly, they're nearly indecipherable.

They both supported bailouts. Bush passed TARP shortly before leaving office, and Obama passed his own stimulus package shortly after arriving. Obama passed a huge regulations bill, Dodd-Frank, while Bush passed Sarbanes-Oxley. Bush even passed his own healthcare reform (link) that at the time was the largest expansion since 1965, costing some $400 Billion. Yes, Obama's was bigger and badder, but it wasn't without Republican precedent.

It's difficult to understand how easily conservatives sling mud at Obama while defending Bush. However, the exact same can be said of Obama supporters.

The cries were loud when Bush was self-declaring war and pushing through legislation that undermined civil liberties. Yet, Obama has mirrored the same policies and philosophies. Obama signed the Patriot Act, if you consider using a mechanical pen to be legal, which authorizes a plethora of Constitution-violating exceptions for authorities to spy on our citizens. Remember when we used to wonder how other countries allowed such a vile abuse of authority? (link)

Obama sent bombs to Libya, which is an act of war under even the lowest standards, without any congressional oversight and with no imminent threat to our national security. When it comes to drone bombings, our current President may be more prolific than the last with the rise in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen (link). Hardly worthy of any Peace Prize.

Obama was supposed to regain our civil liberties. With the TSA pat-downs I think it's a hard case to make that he has any intention of handing anything back that Bush's foot snuck into (hint: Bush created the TSA).

Bush is often cited as a friend of big business, but if you look at the contributions you can easily see Obama shares some of these friends, including Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan, among others (link).

President Bush and President Obama are not frugal in their spending either. Bush put us trillions more in debt, and Obama has followed suit. I cannot figure out any logical reason why Bush lovers loathe Obama, and vice versa. I would think they would either jump on board both Presidents or cast vitriol on both, but picking one or the other and pretending there is any difference in policies is absurd at best. Partisan politics at worst.

Perhaps we can stop analyzing along party lines and just admit both sides facilitate the same path of destruction? Let us look at politicians as individuals, regardless of how we, or they, label themselves. They are individuals, and should not get to hide behind collectivist positioning.

Vote the Individual. Not the Party.

CNBC Debate 11/9/2011 Stats on Candidate Talking Time

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:39:00 +0000

Tracking the speaking time of each candidate these past 6 debates has taught me nothing if not that Mitt Romney will get a nice chunk of time to pontificate. Mitt spoke for 14:47 (mm:ss), good enough for almost 22% of all candidate talking time, the next closest GOP candidate was Newt Gingrich who spoke for 9:10, which is five and a half minutes less.

Rick Perry will clearly be the headline grabber this go 'round with his slipping memory. Honestly, I'm beginning to feel bad for him at this point. Not only has he gone from getting 14 or 15 minutes to talk, but now he doesn't know how to fill the time he does get, which was 7:25.

Statistically speaking, Rick Santorum was at the short end of the stick, getting only 5:25 of the total 1:07:21, but also waiting the longest on average between turns at 12:23. He also had the fewest turns talking at four, and didn't speak the last 24 minutes, including the entire last segment, of the debate.

Is it time, yet, to kill off one or two candidates from these debates? I'd like to nominate Santorum and Jon Huntsman. Both trailing in the polls, in money and in organization. Gingrich and Bachmann fit those categories fairly well also, but Bachmann has at least shown the possibility of doing well, and Newt has shown a small surge in some polls, even though neither has any money or organized ground game in all the early states.

Note: I'll be traveling next week and will be dramatically late with releasing the stats for Tuesday's debate, but I expect to have it posted by that Friday evening. I will also be posting my first video soon which will go on my YouTube channel here, feel free to subscribe to get it first.

Here's the stats:

	Total Talk	%
Romney	0:14:47	21.95%
Gingrich	0:09:10	13.61%
Cain	0:08:23	12.45%
Huntsman	0:07:54	11.73%
Ron Paul	0:07:27	11.06%
Perry	0:07:25	11.01%
Bachmann	0:06:50	10.15%
Santorum	0:05:25	8.04%
Total	1:07:21	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	18	22.22%
Cain	13	16.05%
Perry	11	13.58%
Gingrich	11	13.58%
Ron Paul	9	11.11%
Huntsman	9	11.11%
Bachmann	6	7.41%
Santorum	4	4.94%
Total	81	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Santorum	0:12:23	0:24:08
Huntsman	0:10:49	0:17:55
Bachmann	0:10:38	0:15:17
Ron Paul	0:09:59	0:17:37
Perry	0:08:24	0:10:33
Cain	0:08:07	0:11:39
Gingrich	0:07:02	0:10:58
Romney	0:04:00	0:08:49

	Qs	Responses	Follow-ups
Romney	10	2	6
Gingrich	8	0	3
Cain	8	0	5
Perry	7	0	4
Bachmann	6	0	0
Huntsman	6	0	3
Ron Paul	5	1	3
Santorum	4	0	0
Total	54	3	24

*Note: Followups are moderators asking for another response directly after a question. Responses are candidates responding to each other.

Republican Economic Plans: Splurge or Purge?

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:37:00 +0000

An overweight man was approached by two men with two different ways to get his weight under control. The first man stated the obvious, "You need to stop eating all of that junk food, and overall cut back on calories."

The second man frowned and said, "No. Any reduction in calories could kill you. What you really need is to eat more. It'll raise your metabolism and burn more calories than you take in. Then, later on you can reduce your calories responsibly."

Now, approached with the options to cut back or consume more, which path do you think the already obese man will prefer? He got to where he is by over-consumption, so when he hears the (idiotic) idea that he can work his way out the same way he got there it is destined to be the greatest idea since (buttered) sliced bread.

In a nutshell, that's our political system. Those are the options. In the GOP Presidential contest there are two types of candidates. Those who say we need to cut the junk out now, to prevent the forthcoming heart attack, and those who say let's switch pudding for yogurt and kick the can down the road to the next guy. There are far more in the latter category than in the former.

If you listen to Herman Cain, he is all about fiscal responsibility, but there is nothing he actually wants to cut out. If politics were football, Herman Cain would be a safety with all of his backpedaling and turning around just trying to figure out where the issues are going to land.

Cain has no intention of getting the fiscal house in order. None. He has a tax plan that produces another foothold for taxation, and he is already quickly turning his simple flat plan into a plan with exceptions. I admit, he is trying to do what is right by giving lower income earners an out, but he has revealed that the plan is open to fiddling, and how long will it be before he starts creating loopholes for his business buddies? Even if he left it as-is, what he has proposed is something few Americans will vote for, because it is too easy to demagogue, and rightly so.

I think most Americans do not like paying taxes. The reason is simple: people believe they are better at spending their own money than the government is at spending their money. When I spend my money I know it is being spent on my local businesses, it helps my community. I can pay back my debts that were lent by local banks. When government spends my money it goes to dictators, bailing out Wall Street bigwigs and every rare once in a while it actually finds a way to do something good for someone. I think those good things would be done more efficiently by letting me do it myself, if I so choose.

I know that I volunteer at soup kitchens, foster kid's homes and donate to charities, among other charitable occasions like disaster relief. Letting me keep my money gives me more resources to pour out to businesses and charities, or simply getting out of debt. (For the record, I'm debt-free. It took a year, lots of OT, odd jobs and clinical research trials, but I'm not radioactive...to my knowledge.)

There are Rick Perries, Mitt Romneys and Herman Cains out there who speak of having "serious, adult conversations about the issues", and they say it incessantly as if the mere recognition that it is needed is evidence of their commitment to see it done. Perry as governor of Texas, my state, has overseen the state double in debt during his term (link). Mitt Romney claims to be the businessman's best friend yet he raised fees and fines to produce half a billion in new revenues (link). That may not be a literal tax, but to the governed it looks the same.

There are those who say we should grow our way out of the deficits rather than diet. Vote for a heart attack if you like, but what about those sane candidates who want to cut back?

Ron Paul, bold by any measure, has put out a plan to cut a Trillion in spending during his first year in office (link). Showing exactly what he would cut, such as militarism and five cabinets, he also manages to slice taxes to leave more money for businesses to be more competitive. Despite the tax cuts his "Plan to Restore America" is still able to show a balanced budget by the third year of his Presidency while finding a way to make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid viable.

Gary Johnson is the other candidate with a record that proves his fiscal sanity. He is on record as saying he will veto any unbalanced budget, and lays out his plan to slash taxes and reduce government intervention in the economy (link). As governor of New Mexico he balanced the budget while reducing spending and taxes, so his track record shows he is capable of following through on his promises.

Herman Cain thinks this is too bold. But hey, he's a pizza guy, he made a living getting the overweight to pig out.

Sean Hannity is a Statist.

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:35:00 +0000

In the last few days, Ron Paul has made a couple of appearances on Sean Hannity's shows, first his radio show and then his TV show. On both occasions he brought up a statement where Ron Paul was asked a leading question about the popularization of Paul's beliefs making statists like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin obsolete. Paul was quoted in response to that question saying that they aren't really limited-government people, but instead make a living fooling people into believing so. Hannity, naturally, took exception to this while Paul politely redirected the question to comment on his colleagues who label themselves "conservative".

Sean further went on and on about how he deplored the rise in government run medicine, the rise in George W. Bush's deficits in his latter years and misappropriated money as evidence of his very un-statist-like nature.

However, Ron Paul did tell Hannity at the end of a radio interview last fall, "That proves you’re not owned by the establishment part of the Republican Party." (link) Sounds rather complimentary to me. I'm not quite so lenient.

The reality is that Sean Hannity is indeed a statist. He believes in using centralized force to achieve purely political goals. He makes no bones about being very interventionist in his foreign policy in countries that pose no imminent danger to our country. Hannity backed W's venture into Iraq. In fact, he went as far as to say, "You know, we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation." (YouTube Link) Does that sound like limited-government?

Never mind his thinking process is outrageous to invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, and then demand payment for it. That's not too far removed from breaking into an abused kid's home, killing the parents and saying, "Now pay me for freeing you of your tormentors," shortly after camping on his couch while he screams for you to leave.

"Well, that's military," you might say, "he has a point on killing those who may someday, somehow, without any resources, want to kill us." Okay, then surely he's limited-government in his social views.

Well, Hannity does not seem to favor the legalization of gay marriage, which is just another way of saying that the government has an obligation to prevent two consenting adults from taking advantage of the same legal rights that others have solely because of the group society places them in (I come from the view that they're individuals, not two people in a group). Mr "Conservative" also favors the use of force on individuals who choose to use particular drugs, namely those the state forbids. (YouTube link)

That's essentially what statism is. According to Google, it's a "political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs". You see, Hannity is a conservative, limited-government fanatic so long as those limits favor his personal ideologies such as drug use and marriage. He favors government profiling in airports, which is another way of saying the government should be allowed to collect information on each of us and then say which US citizens can and cannot travel. If that's not what he means then the program he suggests makes absolutely no sense. Of course, he flip-flops on whether he supports wiretapping on citizens, the Patriot Act and such other things that limited-government advocates need not think twice about.

Apparently, Sean also favors government forcing a health care savings account. (YouTube link) To be fair, I'm not entirely sure if he's recommending that Americans *should* have one, or if he wants the government to replace the current medicaid/care programs with savings accounts. The former is simply advice, the latter is more statism, and frankly, he's already over his limit. Not that statists care about such things.

Stats on CNN Anderson Cooper Debate 10-18-11

noreply@blogger.com (Wes Hemings) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:23:00 +0000

Welcome to the wild wild west. There were some hay makers thrown, Mitt Romney mocking Rick Perry's past debate performances, Perry countering with allegations of Romney hiring illegal immigrants, as well as Ron Paul repudiating the field on state's rights & Occupy Wall Street. Jon Stewart will have a blast with this one. Herman Cain was either defending his 999 tax plan or turning the conversation to food. Pizza, fruits and breads, the man is a veritable kitchen of "alternative energy" possibilities.

Who received the talking time? Romney, as usual, however, with Jon Huntsman sitting this debate out there was more time to go around and it would seem it benefited the rest of the usually-ignored candidates. Mitt spoke 15:11, or nearly 21% of the total talk-time, Rick Perry got in 11:01, but Ron Paul finally got into double figures with 10:05. While this is a bump up from his previous high of 9:19 (MSNBC/Politico Debate), the real shock was that a day after putting out the most ambitious budget plan of any candidate, to cut one Trillion dollars in his first year of office, there was hardly any mention of it by Anderson Cooper except in passing to ask about cutting military spending. Instead, there was a lot of bickering about Herman Cain's 999 tax plan, which he did nothing to defend other than distract the issue.

While Romney and Perry once again dominated the majority of the Republican candidates' speaking time, their feud did nothing to help their image and may end up as time poorly spent. When a new topic finally popped up, Yucca Mountain, you could hear a pregnant pause as everyone held their breath waiting to see what Ron Paul had to say. A telling moment that shows the field is not confident in their philosophy, as they don't have one unless "just get elected" qualifies.

Tracking time was the most difficult yet with all the temper tantrums on display, so the time is tracked at some points twice, adding a few seconds to the total time as it was double counted in places. Also, these brief roughshod exchanges are counted in one turn talking rather than broken up into 5 turns each, as they only comprise milliseconds here and there. Here are the statistics on how much each candidate spoke and engaged during the debate:

	Total Talk	% of Talk Time
Romney	15:11	20.78%
Perry	11:01	15.09%
Ron Paul	10:05	13.80%
Bachmann	09:58	13.64%
Santorum	09:50	13.46%
Cain	09:06	12.45%
Gingrich	07:53	10.79%
Total	1:13:04	100.00%

*Note: This is uninterrupted talking time, except for audience cheer/applause in the middle of a response as this goes against their official response time. Does not include opening self-introductions.

	Turns Talking	%
Romney	18	19.78%
Perry	15	16.48%
Cain	15	16.48%
Ron Paul	12	13.19%
Bachmann	11	12.09%
Gingrich	10	10.99%
Santorum	10	10.99%
Total	91	100.00%

	Avg b/w Talks	Longest Wait
Gingrich	07:14	12:12
Bachmann	06:56	08:29
Santorum	05:50	19:49
Ron Paul	04:38	13:01
Cain	04:27	12:02
Perry	03:57	09:02
Romney	03:20	08:25

	Questions	Responses	Follow-ups
Perry	8	7	0
Bachmann	7	3	1
Gingrich	7	2	1
Cain	7	7	1
Santorum	7	3	0
Romney	6	11	1
Ron Paul	6	6	0
Total	48	39	4

*Note: Followups are moderators asking for another response directly after a question. Responses are candidates taking shots at each other.

Quote of the night: "If you want better competition, better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine...we need more competition in medicine...as soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, the insurance companies line up.." - Ron Paul