Today he released an ad saying that he was sorry for just “the wrong choice of words”. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R57E3S8RO7A&feature=player_embedded. Does he not understand as to what the firestorm is all about ?

The fundamental problem is not his pro life views or the wrong choice of words. The problem here is the bogus science and “phony doctors” to back his beliefs. He doesnt understand that his set of evidence to back a strong pro life view makes not just him but also the pro life social conservatives look like extremists. His ad does not address this bogus evidence piece.

I feel pained to see this happen to Akin. We knew he was a strong pro life person but had no idea of his evidence to back this belief. I now feel ashamed to have supported a stupid guy. What a waste of money and that too in this critical election. I strongly believe that stupid people like Akin should even be stripped of their right to vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/bachmann-former-campaign-chief-shame-on-michele/

Ed wants Michelle to apologize on the floor of the House. Do we need these kinds of nonsensical stuff that dilute our brand when we are already fighting a tough battle for Romney ? Today along with the birther Sheriff Joe and this news item, we have to once again spend time not on the serious issues but on proving that we are NOT rightwing nuts.

God save us please !!!!

First the Cons

Obama has spent the last 3 1/2 years blaming Bush. He attributes the lack of economic growth to Bush. So with Bush campaigning, the MSM would continue this BS story. Yes I get it.

Now to the Pros

With Bush on the campaign trail, we would see a resurgence of American exceptionalism. Who better to lend a voice in this dangerous world than President Bush. Bush could easily articulate the tools he had left for Obama to nail Osama Bin laden. Obama’s so called foreign policy success would be obliterated when Bush clearly articulates the programs he had put in place for the next president and excoriates the apologizing tours.

Bush had/has a stronger favorability with the Latinos. If Bush could get another 3-5% of the latinos in the Swing states, Romney could happily sit pretty.

Bush’s strong religious conservative ideals could re-energize the social conservatives. The fiscal conservatives/Tea party conservatives may loathe Bush but we can live with that as our bigger goal is to get rid of Obama.

Bush has remained completely non critical of the current president and has proven to be a leader above mundane stuff. His campaigning now could boost the credibility of the Romney campaign.

Considering the pros and cons, shouldn’t the RNC rope in Bus to actively campaign for Romney ? With or without Bush, Obama will be blaming Bush for Obama’s failures. So why bother about this one problem and instead look at the benefits ? I am advocating for Bush to campaign as that would re-energize the base and I don’t see Romney picking a strong conservative VP or doing/saying anything that would excite the base.

I am one of those conservatives who is willing to vote for Romney but not spend/work for the Romney campaign at least for now

1. Defense of Marriage

CA was expected to be the first populous state to change the definition of marriage. However, that proposition was voted down handily. No amount of judicial activism is able to change that. Even in SFBA, that measure was soundly rejected. Religious freedom is at its best here. No parent here wants their child to learn about Gays etc in school. We respect every human being but don’t subscribe to changing the definition of marriage and we value the family as a unit. Don’t get fooled by seeing hippies in SF.

2. Pension Reform

We are starting to see the public sector unions taking a pounding here. Yes CA is a hotbed of unionism. However, SFBA is not.

3. Taxes

I do concede that the individual and private business state taxes are among the highest in the country. However, the SFBA economy is a tad different from the rest of the country. Here the tech industry and innovation rule the roost. We are free to start our own technology company and the success of the venture depends solely on private equity and venture capital investments in our ideas. In this respect, we have the private sector freedom on steroids. We are happy if the state reduces our taxes but taxes are not the real game changer here. None of us in the SFBA would venture to start companies/hire people based on Government tax policies. We play big. We win big and we lose big too.

So what is the key issue we are interested in ? We bear the brunt of the effects of globalization. The work in technology can be easily moved offshore (read India) and that creates a lot of volatility. So we have high paying jobs here but that soon can vanish in the blink of a eye. The fundamental question here is should the US government stay out of private sector hiring ? It might sound stupid at the outset but scratch the surface a bit you will see the problem. If the federal government stays out of private sector hiring decision making process, especially in the tech industry, firms are free to “BRING in” as many people from India as they want. Remember there are 1 billion people in India who would gladly come here, learn the job, reduce wages and then take over those jobs to India. Currently there are 2 visa categories (H1B and L1) that enable companies to bring in foreign talent. H1b visa is capped at 65000 a year. The US chamber of commerce wants unlimited visas. This is why you hear the corporate shill stories of talent shortage, bad education system blah blah etc. If the visa caps are removed, the private sector firms do well, may be government could collect taxes from these foreign talent but the US citizen loses. Both the democrats and republicans  favor the industry and don’t care about the people. In short, the government and private firms win but the people will lose. Will conservatism help us solve the issue ?

Now dont confuse these people on H1B / L1 visas with the mexican (il)legal immigrants because these people take over high paying jobs. So what should be our response on this ?

Now with Tax cuts. Why is Ryan hell bent on including tax cuts ? Majority of the budget is focussed on reigning in spending and suddenly out of nowhere, he provides a $2T tax cut ? Why ? In this polarized environment, wouldn’t it be fodder for Democrats ? Our first goal should be to reign in spending to bring down the deficits, if not debt, to manageable levels without tax increases. The fact that he brings tax cuts to the table with the already tough medicine of tough spending cuts makes his budget DOA. Remember, tax cuts are not for the poor but spending cuts are targetted at them.

P.S. Don’t tell me tax cuts promote growth. Out here in the heavily taxed San Francisco bay area, entrepreuners thrive like nowhere else.

1. Romney will have NO credible and differentiating platform of issues to run against Obama. (HealthCare, Religion, Reaching out to the common voter are off the table).  All we are left with are the economy and Gas prices. Economy now seems to be a weaker argument to run on and campaigning on gas prices is the riskiest if not a Hail Mary strategy.

2. Santorum would be an awesome Social conservative candidate but may not be able to build a national organization in a short span of time post June if not September. In addition, his policy on manufacturing flies against our core principle of not wanting Government to pick winners and losers. Remember, if he is the nominee, he would not only have to fight the Obama machine but also the establishment. It would be tough for him pre and post elections and we would only set him up for failure.

3. Gingrich is a very good fiscal conservative with all the experience and successful record to showcase. He has a far tougher task against the establishment than Santorum has. Remember, most in the establishment dont want to deal with him. In addition, his main plank of $2.5/gallon gas is fundamentally flawed, populist and flies in the face of rational intelligence. I am not even going into his personal baggage which, in my opinion, is a sideshow that can definitely not help him.

I would suggest that we let the establishment have its candidate this presidential election cycle. Since the odds of failure are getting higher, let them take the hit. In the meantime, let us fortify Congress with conservative members so that we dont get let down by the likes of Boehner and McConnell. This would ensure that Obama would not ram down his liberal agenda.  I may sound like I am giving up but I am being practical here. As I said earlier, it pains me to write this diary