Andrew Romanoff’s perpetual campaign meets Mike Coffman’s Elmer Fudd style

I don’t usually get personal in these columns, but this week I have to send out a “what’s up” to someone who’s made me feel like a member of his family: Andrew Romanoff.

Many readers will remember Andy from his endless running for office, along with time spent in the Colorado Legislature during his tireless crusade never to have a real job.

I come from a small family, and even when I include my various in-laws and outlaws I don’t really have a pestering relative who is always trying to get me to buy into multi-level marketing or borrow money he says he’s going to pay back when everyone knows that’s not going to happen.

Enter Andy Romanoff. I can’t even quite list the number of elected offices Andrew’s tried to get himself into since being term-limited out of his nice, safe legislative district, but it’s pretty impressive.

Now he’s trying to get elected as a United States congressman and unseat Republican Mike Coffman for the 6th Congressional District in the metro Denver area.

Pretty much every day — or at the very least, twice a week — I get emails from Andrew or one of his seemingly endless family members announcing his birthday or other such meaningful event, because we care about him. These emails also offer me the opportunity to invest in Andrew’s future by making a generous campaign contribution.

Now, I finally know what it’s like to have that indolent brother-in-law who thinks he can make a living writing commercial jingles or doing something wonderful with the Internet.

The difference here is that it’s possible that Romanoff could win, according to a political analysis done by the Cook Report, which specializes in looking at political races. They call the 6th Congressional District a toss-up. That’s not as surprising as it sounds, since the Republican in that office, Coffman, has managed to articulate his conservative philosophy with the communication skills of a young Elmer Fudd.

This isn’t to say that Coffman’s not a pretty solid performer and doesn’t have an impressive commitment to his country, which is shown in his military background. The problem for him, as with a lot of Republicans, is he doesn’t make much of a case for himself or his principles.

It’s a continuing problem we see with many of the second- and third-tier politicians from the Republican side who wander lost in a forest of conservative platitudes, occasionally shouting out: “Smaller government!” “Fiscal discipline!” And don’t forget the ever-popular, “I’m more like Ronald Reagan than my primary opponent!”

Most of these folks have a hard time explaining what they want to see government accomplish because simple, effective solutions are not what we’re schooled to believe in anymore. For instance, it ought to be what we want to accomplish, not some hazy “government.”

Everything is supposedly much too nuanced for the average person to understand, and uncomplicated answers — such as the economy works best with minimal bureaucratic involvement — sound scary to a lot of Republican legislators. Consequently, they don’t say anything of substance and peep out occasionally to say just a bit they hope will sound pleasing to their supporters.

The Romanoffs of the world take a different tack, they never stop talking — not working, mind you, just talking. You do the working and paying; they do the talking and supervising.

Conservatives like Coffman need to get rid of the notion that as things don’t work out, liberals will see the error of their ways and get behind solutions in line with human nature.

It won’t happen because the left doesn’t see failures of economic policy as failures of policy but failures of obtaining enough power and money to make the policy work. They think if it were not for uncontrolled tea party smart alecs and talk radio pundits, policies that have failed at every single attempt for the last 5,000 years of human history would have succeeded.

The short message to Republicans: Advance a plan that’s simple, understandable and tested. Also, the next time the Romanoffs of the world pester you for money, ask them if they’d like to invest in your perpetual motion machine. Just like their ideas — with enough money it could work.

Rick Wagner writes more on politics at his blog, The War on Wrong.


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


Because I like to think of words as “units of measurement” of human ideas, it is always a real pleasure to stumble across a sentence or paragraph that describes reality with perfect accuracy. In today’s column, Rick Wagner wrote just such a paragraph:
“Conservatives ... need to get rid of the notion that as things don’t work out, liberals will see the error of their ways and get behind solutions in line with human nature. It won’t happen because the left doesn’t see failures of economic policy as failures of policy but failures of obtaining enough power and money to make the policy work. They think if it were not for uncontrolled tea party smart alecs and talk radio pundits, policies that have failed at every single attempt for the last 5,000 years of human history would have succeeded.”
That explains in a nutshell why serious conversations with the Left are impossible: they don’t want serious conversations based on facts and logic. They just want to get their spoiled brat little way by using Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt’s tactic of marginalizing and demonizing those with whom they disagree.
Professor Murray Rothbard said: “At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will.” To me, that means leftists (collectivists), by nature and preferred strategy always deliberately pretend as if there were no such thing as the economic laws of Nature. But there are: 1) whatever you tax (productivity, honesty, integrity, ingenuity, hard work, etc) you get less of, and 2) whatever you subsidize (unemployment, sickness, poverty, unwed motherhood, scamming, etc) you will get more of. Pay a man not to work, and he won’t work. Similarly, 3) if demand is high and supply low, the price will be higher, and 4) if demand is low and supply high, the price will be lower.
The insurmountable core problem with leftist/collectivist ideology is that it is inherently in direct conflict with the most basic characteristics of empirically observable human nature. Collectivism necessarily requires herd/government coercion/violence to control “The Other”, when the individual human critter inconveniently (for so-called “liberals” or “progressives”) just happens to have been created (or “evolved” if our atheist friends prefer that word) — with a survival need for individual self-ownership and self-determination. It is a logically self-evident fact that Control Over The Other and individual self-ownership are completely irreconcilable and, therefore, anathema to each other.
So Wagner was 100% correct when he used the phrase “in line with human nature.”

There are two basic types of political animals: 1) those who believe the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are a specific-performance two-party (citizens and government) contract which by law creates a level-as-humanly-possible economic playing field of equal opportunity (not equal outcome), and which may not be unilaterally altered by one of the parties (government) via simply lying about the terms of the contract, ignoring them, or strategically misinterpreting them (à la John Roberts and so-called “Obamacare”), and 2) those whose criminal-minded intent for wanting to get into government in the first place is so they can benefit financially by running other people’s lives. This second group has always made, and will always make, false promises to the plentiful supply of low-information people ignorant enough and gullible enough to vote for the lying manipulators.
The reason the second group represents an inherently unsustainable paradigm is because of the what I like to think of as the third great “human glitch.” That third of the great human problems is economics-based. I call it the “Producer-Consumer Glitch.”
The way to identify and define a liar is if he disagrees with this absolute self-evident fact and statement: every single one of us, as an individual, wants to get paid as much as possible for his own labor and products, while simultaneously paying as little as possible (cheap is good, free is better) for the labor and products of “the other guy.” For some reason, we humans tend to perceive the physical effort (aka “work”) required in the material plane to provide food, clothing and shelter for our robes of flesh (aka “bodies”) as pain to be avoided if possible. Hence the inclination to try to live off of someone else’s labor.
The solution to the economic problems caused by the less desirable traits (aka “The Dark Side”) of inherent human nature is not for everybody to use lies and manipulation to compete for the political power with which group A (rulers) can control group B (subjects) and steal B’s labor. The solution is to use technology, decentralization and self-sufficiency to produce products useful to humans and sell them at a profit in a free marketplace (100% devoid of coercion) comprised of willing buyers and willing sellers making 100% voluntary exchanges. That (honest competition) is the only means by which the cream of human ideas and products can rise to the top, thereby facilitating and enabling humankind to reach its full spiritual, intellectual and material potential.
Because “value” is an individual subjective notion residing 100% in the eye of the beholder, free marketplaces (both of ideas and of products) are the ONLY means by which we can realistically measure the worth of A’s labor in terms of B’s labor.
No person or group is smart enough to control wages and prices in a manner that all of society can prosper. Collectivism is impossible.

That is why Obamacare’s unsustainable underlying “principle” of using government violence/coercion to force individuals to buy a product they don’t want and can’t afford from other individuals who are going to benefit financially from such coerced purchases is inherently evil.
The axiom is “there is no right way to do a wrong thing.” Obamacare is not designed to provide health care at the cheapest possible price for so-called “poor people”. It is designed to confiscate the assets of the middle class and put them in the pockets of transnational corporate oligarchs.
That, in my view (apparently shared by millions of freedom-loving Americans), is why Obamacare its criminal inventors, sophistic promoters, and intellectually clueless defenders are all evil.
Because Obamacare flies directly in the face of self-ownership, and because captive markets inherently only guarantee higher prices, I predict it will never be accepted by a majority of Americans. Most Americans can see through it and don’t like it. This will only worsen as millions continue to lose their health insurance and get stuck with exponentially rising prices and “taxes”.
Rick Wagner is also correct that Republicans had damn well better find out a way to adequately articulate these Economics-101 realities to the voting public.

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy