The Myth of "Zero Sum" Economics

In this election year, we have occasionally heard the phrase "Zero Sum".  What does this mean?  Well, simply put, it is a term used to illustrate the concept of "people getting rich off of the backs of the poor".  The people who adhere to this concept will tell you that for every dollar a man makes, especially a rich man, another person loses a dollar.  Thus, if a CEO made $5 million last year, $5 million was taken away from other people and as a whole those other people are $5 million poorer.  In other words, the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer.

This concept is based in nothing that resembles common sense or fact.  I could try to explain on a macro level why this is not the case and how it is possible, no wait, ESSENTIAL that all economic levels of a society grow in wealth in order for an economy to grow.  But I won't do that.  Instead, I would like to bring it down to the simplest of levels... a garage sale transaction between two people.  In  fact, this very thing happened to me today.

I bought an item from a person at a garage sale today.  Brand new, this item would retail for about $50, so let's say the seller paid $50 for the item.  In this case, they may have thought the price was too high or too low, but that is irrelevant.  The fact that they bought the item suggests that their demand for the item was high enough to justify paying $50 for it.  Perhaps they had the item for 3 months or 3 years before they decided to sell it.  Again, an irrelevant point.  They gained everything they could from the item and no longer had any use for it and put it up for sale at a garage sale for $2.  This suggests that they believed that they pretty much got their money's worth.  If they didn't believe that, they may have tried to sell it a different way that would have generated more money, perhaps ebay or amazon.  The fact that they were selling it at a garage sale for $2 should say to us that they just want to get rid of it, that it held VERY LITTLE VALUE TO THEM.

Here's where I come into the picture.  I walk up to their sale, see the item, determine that I will be able to resell the item for $10, and then purchase the item.  Does this mean that the sellers are now $10 poorer?  Of course not.  The item had zero value to them.  They paid $50 for it, but they no longer want it.  They've derived all value from it in their minds.  So, they made $2.  They didn't lose $10.  If I had not bought the item, they may have given the item to charity or just plain thrown it away.  So they benefited from the item as did I.  In this situation, BOTH of our incomes grew.

Now, I will sell this item to someone for $10.  This person, it turn, will turn around and sell it for $20.  Does this mean that I lost $20 or that the original owner lost $30 (the combined gross income of myself and my buyer)? Of course not.  As you can see, everyone gained from this.  The original buyer made $2 off of what he felt was a worthless item (by virtue of throwing it in a garage sale).  I made a net profit of $8 and my buyer made a net profit of $10.  Ah, but what about the guy at the end who buys the item for $20?  Well, he is participating in the free market system.  He is buying a product he believes is worth at least $20.  So he gains the product.  As a result, this item, which was deemed to be nothing more than a $2 product by the original owner actually injected $18 of wealth into the economy and was put to good use by another owner who may just start that cycle all over again.

No one lost ANYTHING!  I won't even go into everyone that benefited from the original purchase of the item (the manufacturer, their employees, etc.).  So, the next time you are presented with the same old line, "the rich get rich off of the backs of the poor", keep this little scenario in mind.  It's not a zero-sum game.  Both parties benefit from a fair market transaction!  Yes, people lie, cheat, and steal all the time, but that's going to happen.  Do you blame the guy who over-inflates his prices or the sucker who over pays that price?

420

I'd like to take a minute and post about the date, April 20th, or "4/20" as the legalize pot crowd calls it. Let me say this first -- Smoke 'em if you got 'em. I'm fine with you doing it in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not exposing it to anyone who doesn't want to smell it or just be around it. In fact, I'm all for legalizing marijuana. I believe that if we legalize it, the unemployment problem in this country would vanish. Just imagine how many jobs would open up after all the potheads light up for days following the great emancipation of "the chronic". Thousands would call off work and thousands would be fired as a result!

Anyway, that's another rant. The topic for today deals with just how annoying the "420" crowd can be. Just like clockwork, 12:00 AM this morning, people start posting on Facebook, "Happy 420, man! Light 'em up!", as if they are part of some secret inner circle and only they and a select few other "cool" people know what "420" means. I personally do know what it means and I find it ironic that so many people celebrate the "day" 4/20 when "420" has absolutely nothing to do with April 20th. I know that most of you probably know what it means too and that is why I don't find it necessary to go into explaining it. Google it.

But anyway, a message to the "420" crowd: You're making asses out of yourselves. I understand how you feel about pot, but give it a freaking rest, for chronic's sake. Jeez! We get it! You smoke pot. You engage in the ganja. You like to fire up a blunt. OK already! Quit your pissing and moaning about how "the man" is demonizing pot and actually get off of your lit asses and do something about legalizing it! Sitting around in circles and talking about how George Washington smoked weed and how the timber industry is against legalization accomplishes absolutely nothing. Get up, take a shower and write to your congressman. Try to be civil about it too. Don't get all hippy on them. Start a petition.  Donate money to pro-pot publicity groups. Yes, we know that Bob Marley is your own personal savior and that you never missed a Grateful Dead or Phish concert, but don't sit there and pretend like this is your civil right movement.  Don't even compare your struggle to those who faced fire hoses and had to sit at the "colored" table.  Marijuana is illegal as of this moment.  So, deal with it.  If you decide to break the law, then fine... do it.  You will be responsible for your actions and I won't feel sorry for you if you get caught.  Fight through the legal channels to get it legalized and I just may light one up with you.

Me?  Well, I smoked it... a bunch, and quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is... on either side.  For those who think pot is an evil drug... no, it's not.  If we're going to assign "evilness" to drugs, I would actually say that pot is less evil than alcohol.  Now, to the potheads out there who think that marijuana/hemp is the cure for all that ails society, no it's not.  I know, you can make clothes and rope and everything under the sun out of hemp, but I can make fertilizer out of my own poop... that doesn't mean that it's the best.  I know that pot is used for medicinal purposes as well.  There is a pill form of THC (the compound found in marijuana that makes it "sooooo awesome, dude!) but most doctors don't prescribe it because other drugs are much more effective than THC.  Some people swear by it... I'm fine with that -- to each their own. 

So my stance on the whole thing can be summarized like this:

"Legalize it!  So they'll shut the hell up!"

Not Another Isolated Incident

The comments last week by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen have sparked debate about the role of the stay-at-home mother. Rosen's comments should come as no surprise to anyone who regularly follows politics. The left have always despised the stay-at-home mom and the role she plays in our society, and there are 2 big reasons:

1. The Women's Liberation Movement

A stay at home mom is a threat to the women's movement. The traditional role of the woman in the home was always what you saw in the 50's and 60's TV shows and movies. The woman stayed at home, took care of the kids, cleaned the house, and had dinner and a pipe ready for the man when he walked in the door. That was how it was back then. I'm not saying it's right, but that was a woman's ideal role. Unless you were a teacher or a nurse, you did not belong in the workplace. The 70's saw a women's liberation movement... a well-needed one. Women started going to college en masse and entered the workplace. The pay was horrendous, as chauvinistic employers who retained the traditional thought that "a women's place is in the home" would either not hire women or just pay them much less for doing the same job that a man does. This led to equal opportunity laws that made it illegal to discriminate based on sex.  

These were all positive changes in our society.  However, with so many women entering the work force, there were an increasing number of homes with both parents working.  My home was one of them.  Kids would have to go to after-school day care or in the cases where the children were older, they would come home from school to an empty house.  These kids soon  earned the moniker, "latch key kids".  Each home was different.  For some, the situation was fine and the home didn't suffer.  For others, the kids would start getting into trouble.  Some parents, (mostly moms) started deciding that they didn't want to miss out on their kids' childhood.  A lot of women who were heavily involved in the women's lib movement saw this migration back to the home as detrimental to their movement.  "We worked hard for your freedom to escape the shackles of domestic bandage and now you want to return to your captor?"  That kind of thing.

The women's lib movement found a home on the left.  This was no surprise.  As I illustrated, the single-worker family was destructive to their movement by promoting the "traditional" family of the man working and the woman staying true to her maternal instincts and staying home.  But this disdain towards those women who chose to stay home was severely misplaced.  The pre-lib woman stayed home because society said she should.  The post-lib woman stays home because she chooses to do so.  This freedom of women's choice is ironically frowned upon by the left-wing social elites in this country.  The women's liberation movement reached an iconic status, almost to the point of dogma.  If you're a woman, you have to go to college and get a "real" job.  If you choose not to do that, you are inferior to those who do.  It actually goes against the whole original idea of the movement of freedom of choice and actual "liberation".  Now, non-working mothers are derided and shunned today almost the same way that working mothers were back before the movement.  Personally, I believe that every woman has the freedom to do with her life what she wants.  I also believe that single-worker families are ideal for raising children.  In today's society there are even examples of double-worker families that allow one of the parents to stay home and work, and I think that's great.  But it all comes down to what you believe in and what choices you want to make for your family.  Stay-at-home moms (and dads) contribute as much to this society as anyone else.

2.  "It Takes a Village"

We all remember Hilary Clinton's quote, "It takes a village to raise a child".  This can be interpreted a few different ways, but let me tell you how I think the correct way to interpret it is and then I'll show you how it is used by the left as a reason to bash the stay-at-home mom.

I believe that it does "take a village" in that you obviously can keep your kid locked up in a cage until they are 18.  Obviously, they need to interact with society.  School, sports, the playground, the grocery store, etc.  We all look out for each others kids.  Growing up, I was just as afraid of getting caught doing something by my neighbors or my teacher or my friend's parents than I was my own parents.  I knew that there was a communication network and that my folks would find out from someone that I was up to no good.  For the most part, this kept me in line and that's how I was essentially "raised by my village".  But in the end, my parents by far had the greatest role in raising me.  Yes, as I mentioned before, I was a latch-key kid, but that wasn't until I was well into middle school.  When my folks weren't there after school, my friends parents were.  I would spend time at their house.  It wasn't the ideal situation, by my parents had to support the household in any way they could and I respect them for that.  They still were very active in my upbringing and I will always view them as the driving influence for the values that I have developed to this day.

However, the way the "village" quote is interpreted by many on the left is "you don't completely know what you are doing as a parent.  The village will raise your kid while you go out and work."  This mentality is so engrained in our society that we are often throwing in the towel on parenting and letting our schools run the show.  Do you ever wonder why there is a constant push to make the schools more and more a part of the equation?  There is a very strong notion, almost dogmatic as I've said before, that the schools (and therefore the government) can raise your children better than you can.  Therefore, you will better serve society if you go out and over-pay for a four year liberal arts degree so that you can enter the work force like a woman is supposed to.  Those that CHOOSE to go the domestic route shall be deemed "inferior".


This is an ideology that has been present in our society for 4 decades.  I will repeat, I am not against working women!  I know that those of you on the left reading this will immediately brand me as "anti-woman" and "sexist", but I have absolutely no problem with a woman who decides to enter the work force on her own free will.  The left seems to think that free will only goes in one direction and they snub their noses and look down upon the stay-at-home mom.  What Hilary Rosen said about Ann Romney was not an isolated incident.  She just made the mistake of being honest about how she felt.  Ms. Rosen was merely expressing the view point that is held by several elitists on the left.  Here are her comments as reminder followed by the distinguished Bill Maher <gag>.



Go to 4:40 to hear the comments specific to Ann Romney...

Will the Media Treat This Guy the Same as Limbaugh?

Fellow Southerners (I call myself a "Southerner" now since I've been here for 14 years), in case you didn't already know, there are those in the North who look down upon you.  I used to be one of them.  Then again, I used to think that we were causing global warming too, but that was back when I was young and naive.

There is a belief prevalent among the so-called "enlightened" northerners that those of us who live in the south are a bunch of mouth-breathing hicks who just sit around in our overalls chewin' "tobaccee" while playin' the banjo.  The worst are the liberal academic elitists.  They think that the way the south is depicted in episodes of "Family Guy" is true and accurate.  It's true, the south may have been that way once... several decades ago, but it surely isn't now.  It reminds me of growing up in Pittsburgh in the 70s and 80s and out-of-towners coming in and being astonished at how clean the city was.  Their perception of the city was the same as what they were taught in school -- a smoky, dirty city.

Listen to this guy and tell me if you find him more or less offensive than Rush Limbaugh and his now infamous "slut" and "prostitue" statements. By the way, this clip is now 4 days old and I am just hearing about it for the first time.



When should the families of these "grease spots" expect an apology?
How many sponsors will leave this idiot's show?
When should southern Christians expect an apology for being portrayed in this light?

I'm not going to hold my breath.  The outrage at Rush is much less about people being offended at his remarks and more about getting him taken off the air and silenced for good.  I, on the other hand hope that this liberal talk show host continues to stay on the air and spout off the bull crap that he does.  Let the chips fall where they may, as long as it's not in the south.  The only chips fallin' down here are cow chips!  YEEEE HAWWW!!!

Rush Limbaugh May Have Been Right. Here's the Math!

I really have to sit back in complete admiration of the mainstream media today. They have held a clinic on how you systematically alter the focus of a debate this week.

As most of you know, a Georgetown Law student by the name of Sandra Fluke testified before congress about the inhumanity of Georgetown University not offering free contraception as part of its health plan to students. Rush Limbaugh responded to the testimony by basically calling Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute.

Now, I'm not going to fall into the trap of defending Rush Limbaugh.  He can do that himself -- he's an adult.  The debate has been shifted towards him and Ms. Fluke has been turned into a political martyr of sorts.  Instead, I will address the two most provocative words that he used and tell you what I think:


"Slut" -- This word is used mostly in an insulting manner to describe an individual, though it is usually a female, who is sexually promiscuous.  Ms. Fluke's claim that contraception costs $3,000 over the course of law school needs to be examined here in an attempt to ascertain the appropriateness of the term, "slut".  A prescription for birth control pills (without insurance) at Wal-Mart is $9.  That's the cheapest I found, and if I were testifying before congress on the affordability of contraception, I would find the lowest price possible so that I could not be debunked.  I would expect a law student to do the same.  Here's the math I came up with:

Starting contraception budget:                        $3000
- $9 a month * 36 months for law school          $324
- Diaphragm (not taking any chances here)        $75
-----------------------------------------------------
Amount left in the contraception budget          $2,601

Let's use a high price for condoms, say $1 a condom.  This leaves us with enough money to buy about 2,600 condoms, or 216 boxes of 12.  Despite the fact that we're already on the pill and using a diaphragm, we want to be as safe as we can possibly be.  So, we use a condom each and every time.  In order to use up 2,600 condoms over the course of three years (1,096 days assuming a leap year), then you would have to use 2.37 condoms a day.  In other words, sex two times a day and occasionally three.  Now, in my younger years, this would have made for a great weekend, but I would have been useless on Monday and Tuesday.  So, I would think that a single partner would be out of the question to maintain this kind of pace for condom consumption.  So, I think we have to assume multiple partners, most likely dozens.  Therefore if you are spending $3,000 on contraception over the course of 3 years, then you probably are a slut.  I'm sorry, but let's call a spade a spade.

"Prostitute" -- Prostitution suggests that the person paying is the recipient of the sex.  Since Ms. Fluke is asking the college to pay for her contraception (as thus to have sex), then she really can't be considered a prostitute unless she has sex with every student who pays tuition.  Georgetown Law School's enrollment in 2010 was 2,017 students, so current enrollment is probably very close to that number.  Let's assume half of these are men, which gives us about 1,000.  Let's assume 10% of these are gay.  That gives us 900.  This means that with her contraception budget, she could have sex with each tuition paying heterosexual male in the law school about three times over the course of three years.  Hmmm... maybe Rush was on to something here.

An Example of Responsible Reporting

This is a great example of journalism being used to affect positive change.

Preventative Health Care Does NOT Reduce Health Care Costs!

I'm taking a break from by "break", so to speak, to address a premise that everyone in this country seems to accept as gospel.  The premise is this:

"A healthier America will reduce health care costs for all".

I've heard this argument over and over again. It is the main talking point in favor of legislation that controls trans-fats, taxes cigarettes, mandates universal health care or any other of a myriad of excuses to expand the role of the Federal government in all of our lives. No one challenges this premise. It sounds reasonable... less fat people, less heart attacks, less diabetes, less money being spent on unhealthy people.

There are a few problems with this argument, and I'm frankly shocked that I haven't heard anyone else put the pieces together.

1. Everyone dies.  I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but we do.  Some die when they are 40, others when they are 90.  If I choose to smoke, drink, and eat 5 cheeseburgers a day and die when I'm 40, am I putting a larger strain on the health care system than if I live a healthier lifestyle and linger on long into my 90's?  I wouldn't think so... that's 50 years of preventative health care we're talking about... probably costs a lot.  The guy who dies at 40 probably hasn't spent much on his own preventative health care so his "footprint" isn't as large as the healthy guy.

2.  Capitalism.  Supply and demand dictates that the more demand a product or service has, the higher price you can charge for the product or service.  If there is a sharp increase in the popularity of preventative health care, the providers will be able to charge more for it. 

3.  More People.  If we are somehow able to legislate our way into a utopian system where there is no obesity, diabetes, smoking, drinking, etc., then a logical conclusion would be that there would be a whole lot less people dying young.  We're already starting to see the Baby Boomer generation enter retirement and we are worried about how we are going to pay for them.  More people = greater health care costs.

Now, I'm not against preventative health care, just the notion that it is the irresponsible among us who are placing a strain on the system.  Bringing the government into our lives by way of bans on trans fats or examining a child's lunch box to ensure that the food pyramid is being followed will not reduce health care costs...

... no matter what the First Lady thinks.

Former Congresswoman Wakes Up From 26 Month-Long Nap!!!

In a miraculous turn of events, former Democratic congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, a Catholic from Erie, Pennsylvania, finally realized what a bill contained for which she cast a vote in December of 2009. Doctors were mystified by this sudden awakening and as of this evening, have no explanation of this event.

The "event" took the form of a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. The statement read,

"I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception.”

One theory on which doctors are working is the idea that Ms. Dahlkemper was stricken by a mini stroke or some other debilitating disorder when she voted for the bill. This theory is based mostly on the fact that the bill was available for her to read before the vote. However, there is another theory being thrown around that the entire Democratic side of the isle was stricken by an unknown virus that affects the portion of the brain responsible for reading and comprehension. Evidence that supports this is given in this video of Nancy Pelosi who doesn't seem to know herself what is in the bill...



Doctors are hopeful that this is a sign that the other politicians who were hit with this nasty bug will soon "snap out of it", as one doctor put, under the condition of anonymity.

So what exactly IS a legal hit?

This past Monday, the NFL ruled that this was a legal hit:



Earlier in the season, this earned the Steelers' James Harrison a suspension:



So what EXACTLY is the difference between these two hits other than the fact the Pierre Thomas was knocked unconscious and Colt McCoy was not?

Farewell For Now

Due mostly to a lack of readership and partly because of a lot of things coming up for the first half of this year for me, I will be suspending posts on this blog. I may pop in if the need warrants, but I feel like the effort that I put into this thing really isn't worth the half a dozen page views I get a day.

So, for those of you who have faithfully read this blog, I thank you. Hopefully I entertained you at the very least. For those of you who haven't been faithful readers, well, you're probably not reading this anyway so I guess I won't waste my breath.

I will continue posting under a different blog. It will be mostly miscellaneous stuff going on in my life. You know... normal blog stuff. Don't know the blog name yet... I'll post it on here after I set it up.

Thanks,

Norm

Dictator in Chief

 This week, President Obama performed a deliberate end-around, completely bypassing the Senate and appointing three people to the National Labor Relations Board through what he called "recess appointments".  A recess appointment is the legal act by a president of appointing people to positions while the Senate is in recess for at least three days.  The problem with Obama's appointments is that the Senate was in session.  He completely bypassed the Congress of the United States because he could not get his appointments through the legal way.  Here is some video of him explaining his actions:



Not only is what he did illegal, it was premeditated.  Check out his thoughts on Congress (at least when HE is President):



Notice how the crowd is eating it up.  They are actually APPLAUDING the notion that he should break the rules in his favor because it is good for the country. He even has pauses built in for the applause. Kind of sounds familiar:



By giving Congress a figurative middle finger, along with the Constitution and the idea of separation of powers, he is DICTATING what he will do. I know it seems harmless -- it's just some board members on the National Labor Relations Board that we are talking about here. But it must have been pretty important to him to throw checks and balances out the window. Will it end here? I doubt it. Expect more drastic actions from him if it looks like he is going to lose in November, and heaven forbid he gets reelected and becomes a lame duck president who isn't running for another term. Of course, if he wants a third term, he can just write an executive order repealing the 22nd Amendment.

My Thoughts on Iowa

Up until now, I've refrained from endorsing a Republican candidate for President. I've found that making an early commitment is pointless especially when so many candidates are still in the race, but we are now at the point where people will be dropping out soon. The Iowa caucuses are today and many candidates will make decisions on whether or not to stay in the race based on the results.

Now, I'll lay this out there right now -- ANY of the candidates in the Republican field would be an improvement over President Obama. That doesn't mean that I would be an enthusiastic supporter of all the candidates. I voted for McCain in 2008 because I knew what an Obama presidency would bring us, but I held my nose while I did it. I will have the same attitude towards a few of the candidates still in this race.

So, here is my list of candidates that I would support in order of my enthusiasm for that candidate:

1.  Rick Santorum -- As close to a true conservative that there is in the field.  Intelligent and well spoken about the issues, Santorum should fare well in the debates.  He will come under attack for his stances against abortion and homosexuality, but he also does not believe that the federal government should have a role in moral legislation.  He believes that these decisions should be placed in the hands of the people at a state level.  His fiscal conservatism along with his strong stance against Wilsonian Progressivism make him number one in my book.  He will get my vote if he is still in the race on March 13th, when Mississippi voters go to the polls.

2.  Michelle Bachman -- Pretty much carries the same message as Santorum, which is why I believe that if one or the other dropped out of the race, the surviving candidate would inherit a lot of votes.  I had to put Michelle at number two for two reasons.  First, I thinks she'll be more effective by staying in congress in a leadership capacity.  Second, she is female.  Now just hold on... let me explain.  The fact that she is female does not make her less competent.  I don't care about race or gender when it comes to who I vote for.  However, history has shown that any time a conservative comes on to the scene who doesn't "fit the mold" of what a conservative should be (i.e., rich, white, and male), then the left does their best to drag the person through the mud for daring to hijack a demographic that has traditionally belonged to them (minorities, women, etc.).  Don't believe me?  Clarence Thomas.  Sarah Palin.  Herman Cain.  Condolezza Rice (double whammy there).  You can add Michelle Bachman to this list if she is the nominee.  I could see her as a possible VP choice, but you may have the same target on her back if that happens.

3.  Ron Paul -- Now it gets interesting.  A Ron Paul presidency would be interesting, to say the least.  Most of his comments regarding 9/11 and foreign policy in general leave me scratching my head, but there is no doubt that he would run the country as a fiscal conservative, which is priority number one for me.  Instead of President, I would prefer Paul to be named Secretary of the Treasury.

4.  Rick Perry -- I'm not a big Rick Perry fan.  I don't necessarily disagree with his politics, it's just that he doesn't seem to think on his feet too well.  Plus, I'm not going to be able to stand all the comparisons to G.W. Bush.  Perry will undoubtedly make another gaffe in a debate with Obama and that will be the end of it.

5.  Mitt Romney -- Definitely the most charismatic and "presidential" of the candidates.  However, Mitt has shown that he will cave in and compromise on his principles just to give the impression of being a "moderate".  If you feel that you have to pander to the mythical "independent voter" to win a national election, then you are sorely mistaken.  Ask John McCain.  Those who claim to be "moderate" in their political views are one of two things -- liberals embarrassed to call themselves liberal or conservatives embarrassed to call themselves conservative.  As the race is heating up, there seems to be a battle amongst the candidates on who is the most conservative.  It's a little too late for that, Mitt.  We know about your liberal tendencies, but it is refreshing that the candidates are making a mad dash to the right instead of to the center.

6.  Newt Gingrich -- Probably the most dangerous of all the candidates in the field.  This man led the '94 Republican revolution.  Remember the Contract With America?  He is a self-described conservative, but his track record suggests otherwise.  He supported the prescription drug program (Medicare Part D) which at the time was the largest Federal spending bill ever.  He is in support of mandating all vehicles made in the U.S. be flex fuel compatible.  He is on board with the man-made global warming myth and believes that Teddy Roosevelt was a great president.

7.  John Huntsman -- Don't know much about the guy.  He hasn't showed up in the polls and he really doesn't have a prayer.

Regardless of the order I've placed these people and regardless of what I've said about them, I would vote for ANY of them against President Obama.  For anyone who complained about John McCain in 2008 and how he wasn't a conservative enough candidate, NOW is the time to get it right.  ALL of these candidates are electable, so we as Republicans need to select the man (or woman) who is best for the JOB, not the one who will do well in a debate or who will appeal to the "center".  Like I've said before... the President drew the line in the sand.  He is anti-capitalist.  I would even venture to say that he is borderline Marxist.  We need to have a candidate that is going to be equally pro-capitalist if we want to win this thing and move the country in the right direction.  If you give the independent voter a choice between right and left, they'll be forced to vote on policy instead of charisma.  The time for compromise is over.  For the left, compromise (bipartisanship, moving to the center, whatever you want to call it) is defined as agreeing with them.  We've let the left steer the ship too long.  It's time we wrestle control of the boat before it gets slammed into the rocks.  NOW IS THE TIME!