Caffeinated Thoughts

What Other Classic Toys Would Mitt Romney Take to the White House?
Establishment, Not Ron Paul Supporters at Fault in St. Charles, MO Caucus Brouhaha
Romney Responds to Etch A Sketchgate: “I’m Running as a Conservative Republican”
Grassley, Johnson Push for Legitimate Payment Limits in Upcoming Farm Bill Discussion
Steve King Endorsed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Mitt Romney: the Etch A Sketch Candidate

What Other Classic Toys Would Mitt Romney Take to the White House?

Posted: 22 Mar 2012 02:37 AM PDT

What I Have Written, I Have Written (Until I Erase It)

Like the little kid who never grew up, Mitt Romney is able to draw his strongly held beliefs on a child’s toy. Then, “poof”, he is able to shake up that belief and rewrite it again, without a trace of the former view to be seen. It’s magic. Like an Etch-A-Sketch aficionado, he can turn those knobs with equal ease, to the right and then to the left. He’s an artist alright.

All you conservatives out there who are voting for Mitt Romney, you are in for a real surprise if the Plastic Toy Man wins the White House. What other things does he carry in his toy chest?

Play Dough or Silly Putty? (What will he and his policies look like tomorrow?)

Tinker Toys? (Don’t expect him to make any real changes in Obamacare or the economy)

Transformers? (Able to go from machine to man and back again)

Slinky?

Yo-Yo?

Any more ideas out there?

Establishment, Not Ron Paul Supporters at Fault in St. Charles, MO Caucus Brouhaha

Posted: 21 Mar 2012 06:30 PM PDT

I stand corrected. When I make a mistake or have the facts wrong even when I'm just writing my opinion and not a hard news story I want to correct the record. I jumped the gun on the St. Charles, MO caucus shut-down story. I am sorry. I know there were a number of people linking video, but honestly, when you get spammed by Paulbots you tune them out.

Sorry guys, but your methods are ineffective. Coming over here and calling me names won't convince me to listen to you. However a regular reader of Caffeinated Thoughts who supports Ron Paul, whom I also have known for years (I was his youth pastor), shared the video below. So thanks Josh for setting me straight.

In it we clearly see a couple of things.

The temporary chair tried to appoint a permanent chair. Definitely against the rules, as with the caucus experience I've had people are nominated and the group votes. That wasn't the case here.
Missouri GOP rules states their needs to be a vote to adjourn, the chair can't decide to do that.

Anyway, I stand behind my disagreement with Paul's strategy, but in this instance it was the establishment, not Ron Paul supporters, who were wrong. Even if you don't agree with Paul's strategy it doesn't give you the right to go in and change the rules to suit you.

Did some Ron Paul supporters act inappropriately? I'm sure there were some who didn't handle it the best, but the simple fact is this they were responding to inappropriate action by the caucus chair.

Romney Responds to Etch A Sketchgate: “I’m Running as a Conservative Republican”

Posted: 21 Mar 2012 05:00 PM PDT

The Etch A Sketch candidate, Mitt Romney, responds to the stupidest remark a staffer could ever make by saying to the media that "he’s running as a conservative Republican." How will you govern though???

He went on to say "I was a conservative Republican Governor." Oh, that’s how he’ll govern. He and I have a completely different idea as to what it means to be a "conservative Republican Governor." It means first off that you actually do conservative things, not just give lip service to it.

But hey we’re just a bunch a sheep right? Apparently he has it in the bag since the state who also elected two Governors who are sitting in prison said so (they must have a thing for dishonest politicians)… Mitt says he’s (severely) conservative so just believe it. Don’t think, just vote. You know he’s the person who is the *most electable* too.

HT: Daniel Foster

Update: Jennifer Rubin wrote an unbelievable piece of ~~crap~~ spin saying this was a non-gaffe gaffe. C'mon Jennifer is that lawyer speak? I expect better writing out of you, especially like when you linked to me and said I made a good point. That was brilliant.

Grassley, Johnson Push for Legitimate Payment Limits in Upcoming Farm Bill Discussion

Posted: 21 Mar 2012 03:30 PM PDT

WASHINGTON – Senators Chuck Grassley and Tim Johnson today are introducing legislation that would place a hard cap on the farm payments an individual farmer could receive in a year and would close long-abused and well-documented loopholes in the farm payment program.

The new Grassley-Johnson payment limits bill sets a hard cap for farm payments of $250,000 per married couple, and closes loopholes that allow non-farmers to qualify for federal farm payments.

The senators had introduced similar legislation earlier this Congress, but wanted to be sure the legislative text would accommodate any type of safety-net program adopted in a new farm and nutrition bill. This is particularly important in light of the growing prospect that direct payments will not be included in a farm and nutrition bill.

"A strong safety net is critical to ensuring a safe and affordable food supply. In order to maintain that safety net, we can't have the mentality of the past where the government looked the other way and allowed people with no connection to the farm to take farm payments," Grassley said. "It's unacceptable that small- and medium-sized farmers get so little of the very program that was created to help them."

"The farm safety net was designed to help family farmers but it has increasingly led to a windfall for owners of our nation's largest farms. Congress should act to close the loopholes and better target payments to our small and mid-sized family farmers. This legislation represents our best chance to move forward with reforms as consideration of the farm bill continues," said Johnson.

Specifically, the new Grassley-Johnson payment limits bill has a hard cap on marketing loan gains of $75,000 ($150,000 for a couple). The remainder of the payment limit would be a cap on the total amount a farmer can receive in safety-net payments in general. For instance, if the Congress were to adopt a shallow loss program, the Grassley-Johnson bill would set a limit of $50,000 ($100,000 for a couple) that a farmer could receive.

In addition, the bill closes loopholes that allow people with ties to the farmland that consist of a conference call and nothing else. The bill sets a measurable standard for someone to qualify as actively engaged in farming by providing management for the operation, and the bill provides an exception for farming operations where there is only one manager of the farm. This exception should help the Department of Agriculture administer the standard.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's statement submitted for the Congressional Record upon introduction of the bill today.

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
The Rural America Preservation Act of 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rural America Preservation Act of 2012. I appreciate Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Enzi, Brown of Ohio, Gillibrand, and Nelson of Nebraska for joining on this bill, and in this effort.

As the Senate Agriculture Committee continues working on the next farm bill, one thing seems to be clear. The Title I safety-net is going to look quite different than current programs.

It appears the direct payment program may be done away with entirely. Some of my colleagues and agriculture groups have proposed a variety of new ideas as possible replacements to the current commodity title.

No matter what commodity program we create, my bill sets the marker on payment limitations. I introduced a similar payment limits bill last year, but this bill should better address whatever type of safety-net program we adopt going forward.

The premise remains the same. We need firm payment limit. And we need to close loopholes. I support having a safety-net for farmers. This nation enjoys a safe and abundant food supply. Certainly a lot of that can be attributed to the ingenuity and hard-work of the American farmer. But the farm safety-net helps small and medium-size farmers get through tough times that are out of their control.

We need an effective safety-net to assist farmers. But equally important is for Congress to develop a defensible safety-net. I will continue to work with my Agriculture Committee colleagues to figure out what type of program will be most effective.

We already know the steps that need to be taken to make it more defensible. Defensible means setting firm caps on the farm payments any one farmer can receive. The current approach does not have any overall cap.

There's nothing wrong with farmers growing their operations. But big farmers shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to get even bigger. When the largest 10% of farmers receive 70% of farm payments, something is wrong. There comes a point where some farms reach levels that allow them to weather the tough financial times on their own. Smaller farms do not have the same luxury, but they play a pivotal role in producing this nation's food.

If you want to witness how farm payments to big farmers create a barrier for small and beginning farmers, look at land prices.

The current system puts upward pressure on land prices making it more difficult for small and beginning farmers to buy ground. This is not unique to Iowa. This upward pressure on land prices is occurring in many other states.

This bill proposes an overall cap of $250,000 for a married couple. In my state, many people would say this is still too high. But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise. Strong payment limits will ensure farm payments are helping those who payments were originally created for, the small and medium-size farmers.

Having an overall cap is more defensible from a federal budget stand point as well. This nation needs to make tough decisions regarding all government programs. And we need to find savings across the board. Setting strict caps on all commodity programs should be a no-brainer as we look to find savings and increase accountability in farm programs.
Having a defensible safety-net also means closing loopholes in the current law. For all the rhetoric that comes out of Washington D.C. about eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse, making sure non-farmers don't game the system is a common sense step to take.

It's simple, if you are not a farmer, you shouldn't get a farm payment. The bill I introduced last year, and this bill, has language that closes the loopholes.

After I introduced the bill last year, we received some questions regarding the language from two camps of people. The first camp of people I would say were critical because they don't want the loopholes closed. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact people game the system. They would have us turn a blind eye to the fact we have nonfarmers who claim to help "manage" the farm by participating in one or two conference calls a year. To those people, I cannot satisfy your concerns. I will not turn a blind eye to abuses. These are loopholes that need to be closed.

To the other camp of people, who have provided constructive feedback, I would say, we have listened. The revisions we made addressed the issues raised. We have improved the language closing the loopholes. This bill provides a tangible, workable, and fair approach. Closing these loopholes is the right thing to do for the American taxpayer. And it's the right thing to do for the American farmer.

Hard caps on farm payments and closing loopholes should be supported by anyone who wants an effective and defensible farm safety-net.

As the Senate Agriculture Committee heads toward a mark-up of the farm bill, I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Steve King Endorsed by U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Posted: 21 Mar 2012 02:30 PM PDT

Washington, DC – Congressman Steve King received the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's endorsement this week. In the letter announcing the endorsement, Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the Chamber, wrote, "On behalf of the world's largest business federation representing interest of more than three million businesses and organization of every size, sector, and region, I am pleased to inform you that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors has endorsed your candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives."

Donohue goes on to say the Chamber's goal is to elect a pro-business majority in Congress. "Your record of support on pro-business issues earned this endorsement," he stated. "We believe your re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives will help produce sustained economic growth, help create more jobs, and get our country back on track."

Congressman Steve King, a member of the U.S. House Agriculture and Small Business Committees, and founder of King Construction, has long been a champion of pro-growth economic policies. "Businesses in the United States need a smaller, more efficient government to create an environment for opportunity," King remarked. "I am pleased to receive the Chamber's endorsement and will continue to work for our shared priorities of jobs, economic growth, and prosperity."

King started his company, King Construction, with one bulldozer and the drive to succeed. As a business owner, he dealt with dozens of government agencies claiming his time, energy, and money. "We need to free business owners from unnecessary regulation and allow them to do what they do best," King stated. "I know what they are going through because I have lived it, too."

King is seeking re-election to Congress in Iowa's new 4^th District. He is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee and chair of the Conservative Opportunity Society. King was born and raised in the new 4^th District where he resides with his wife, Marilyn, as do their three sons and their families.

Mitt Romney: the Etch A Sketch Candidate

Posted: 21 Mar 2012 01:30 PM PDT

In an interview with CNN, Eric Fehrnstrom, senior advisor to Mitt Romney, said better that I could why conservatives like myself are concerned about Mitt Romney as the nominee:

John Fugelsang: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election.

Eric Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.

Here is the video for the entire interview so you can have the context.

Look, who wants an Etch A Sketch President? I sure don't. This is what I've been saying over and over and over again is that Mitt Romney will tell you what you want to hear. He is not a man of firm convictions. The joke that's been going around lately about Mitt Romney is so true: "A conservative, a moderate and a liberal walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, 'Hi Mitt.'"

His record shows that he is a political chameleon. The only ones who are rallying around Romney contrary to what Fehrnstrom says are the Republican establishment. When he says they've won over the conservatives, what exit polling is he looking at? That's simply not true. Romney's problem is that he wins mainly among moderates. He also wins in urban areas. But he does not perform well among the bread and butter of the Republican Party. You can look at the Illinois Primary map and see that. If he had broad appeal he would have beat Santorum in downstate Illinois, but he didn't. He out spends his competition seven-to-one to eek out victories. Do we really think Romney will beat Obama in urban areas? Do we really think Romney will be able to outspend Obama? Romney does not have the base of the Republican Party behind him. Will they rally around him? Some may, I would say it is very likely a large segment will not. I haven't even made up my own mind in the matter. I don't want to see Obama win sure, but nobody has convinced me that Mitt Romney will do better.

Because he says he will? His record is just as liberal as Obama's. Right now he looks to me to be Obama's Republican "mini-me." Not inspiring. His rhetoric means nothing to me. I don't care what you say show me what you've done. Some say they will vote for him because of his business experience. Look George Soros is obviously an experienced, successful businessman. Would we want him as President. Soros deems Romney to be a palatable candidate by the way because there is very little difference between him and Obama. Exactly.

Do you want big government and personal liberty eroded faster or slower? That is the choice you'll face if you have to decide between Obama and Romney.

I was asked if a conservative running mate would help him. I frankly don't know. Sarah Palin certainly gave John McCain a boost, but we also saw what Romney surrogates did to her during the general election. So this talk that Romney helped McCain is utter nonsense. I think any conservative picked to be his running mate would likely be marginalized so I don't think that will necessarily sway me. I can't speak for anybody else.

Romney has slightly over 500 delegates. He's still a long way off. He doesn't have it in the bag. Those of you who have yet to vote you can help turn this around. Romney is a consummate liar. The record is plain. He flip flops and he changes his message depending on who he is speaking to. He certainly doesn't deserve your vote.

I think a brokered convention is much more likely than a coronation at this point.

Update: Rick Santorum caught studying Mitt Romney's campaign strategy.

Update 2: Santorum's response as reported by L.A. Times. Gingrich's response at campaign stop see video below:

Update 3: And there is now a website devoted to this.

Update 4: Meet Mitt Romney's newest adviser on Twitter – Etch A. Sketch (@ExecutiveEtch), the Karl Rove of Toys.

Update 5: Santorum Campaign's official statement. Missed this earlier:

Verona, PA – This morning on CNN, senior advisor to the Romney Campaign, Eric Fehrnstrom, admits his candidate and their campaign is based on the "etch-a-sketch" model when asked by if the positions he’s taken in the Republican primary have been too conservative.

Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: "We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts. With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repealObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would ‘shake up and restart’ with when Romney hits the general election.

Voters can trust that Rick Santorum will say what he believes, and do what he says. They may not always agree with Rick Santorum, but they can trust him because they know he is a man of principle. Clearly, the same cannot be said of Governor Romney."

HT: Stacy McCain

Update 6: I'm obviously not a Daily Kos fan, but this was funny.