Truth Freedom Prosperity: Commentary on the Economy, Markets, and Current Events
Pro capitalism, liberty, individual rights and limited government. Anti socialism, big government, radical environmentalism and political correctness.
Truth Freedom Prosperity
GOP Primaries
The GOP primary season is fast becoming a disaster in my humble opinion. With Obama's miserable failure of a presidency, the Republicans went from looking like a shoe-in to practically ensuring his reelection in a matter of months.
Romney has been playing the political equivalent of the four-corners offense, simply stalling in hopes of a win. He takes no chances, doesn't answer attacks and seems dumbfounded when questions about his business experience and taxes are raised. At times he barely appears to have a pulse. Despite his recent surge due to his fiery personality and well-timed attack on the media, Gingrich is erratic, a big-government Republican, rates low on likeability and will seem to do anything to win. The Dems must be watching the mud-slinging going on with glee, led by the truly odious Ron Paul. Was it not Reagan who said "speak no ill of fellow Republicans"? Boy, how far have we come!
There is still time as much of this rancor will be forgotten by November. I am still in Romney's camp but this guy better start showing some spunk soon or it will be over. Maybe there is still time to draft Daniels or Ryan.
Here are a number of views:
The GOP deserves to lose: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Romney, the man who gave us Newt: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn
South Carolina: we don't want Romney:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288973/south-carolina-s-message-thomas-sowell
I have my doubts about Newt's electability, but maybe his fire will play. I am not one to cater to the independents to get elected, but Gingrich faces an uphill battle.
For crying out loud Romney, answer the slanderous attacks on yourself regarding taxes. Never mind that this guy gave over 15% of his income to charity last year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289054/key-test-romney-campaign-john-hood
Romney has been playing the political equivalent of the four-corners offense, simply stalling in hopes of a win. He takes no chances, doesn't answer attacks and seems dumbfounded when questions about his business experience and taxes are raised. At times he barely appears to have a pulse. Despite his recent surge due to his fiery personality and well-timed attack on the media, Gingrich is erratic, a big-government Republican, rates low on likeability and will seem to do anything to win. The Dems must be watching the mud-slinging going on with glee, led by the truly odious Ron Paul. Was it not Reagan who said "speak no ill of fellow Republicans"? Boy, how far have we come!
There is still time as much of this rancor will be forgotten by November. I am still in Romney's camp but this guy better start showing some spunk soon or it will be over. Maybe there is still time to draft Daniels or Ryan.
Here are a number of views:
The GOP deserves to lose: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Romney, the man who gave us Newt: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288873/man-who-gave-us-newt-mark-steyn
South Carolina: we don't want Romney:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288973/south-carolina-s-message-thomas-sowell
I have my doubts about Newt's electability, but maybe his fire will play. I am not one to cater to the independents to get elected, but Gingrich faces an uphill battle.
For crying out loud Romney, answer the slanderous attacks on yourself regarding taxes. Never mind that this guy gave over 15% of his income to charity last year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289054/key-test-romney-campaign-john-hood
Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Over $200k
Like most of Obama's tricks, Warren Buffett's secretary has been used as a red herring to distract the American public from the real issues. The only problem is that Buffett won't say how much she makes. This analysis puts it north of $200k.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/
The Buffett Tax Ruse
Why Obama and Buffett are dishonest about capital gains taxes and why raising them is a bad idea. Make no mistake, Obama's ideas on taxes are bad policy and driven solely by his desired to redistibute wealth and buy votes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577183250095478594.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577183250095478594.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Volcker Rule Penalizes Foreign Debt
Leave it to the bozo Democrats to create a piece of legislation fraught with potential danger. It seems the Volcker Rule, which would prevent banks from prop trading (using their own money to take risk) applies to all sovereign debt except....wait for it...US Treasuries! Why? Because the US is so in debt that OF COURSE we want our banks to load up on it and make bets on interest rates. But the debt of foreign countries, some of which may soon be better credits than the US is TOO RISKY, so we have to prevent banks from owning these securities.
During times of stress this type of moronic legislation could create a liquidity crisis. The Canadians are not pleased. I suggest that other countries ban their banks from owning our crap paper. That would teach Obozo and the other clowns in DC who supported this piece of garbage.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-financial-reforms-pose-risks-to-canada-carney-warns/article2314788/
During times of stress this type of moronic legislation could create a liquidity crisis. The Canadians are not pleased. I suggest that other countries ban their banks from owning our crap paper. That would teach Obozo and the other clowns in DC who supported this piece of garbage.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-financial-reforms-pose-risks-to-canada-carney-warns/article2314788/
Hedge Fund Managers Only Ones Getting Rich
According to this author, when you account for survivor bias and excessive fees, most hedge fund investors are not making out very well.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/hedge-funds-buy-ferraris-clients-often-get-phantom-gain-books.html
Nick Saban is Still Yanking Around Players/Recruits
Despite new SEC rules designed to prevent the questionable practice of over-signing, Alabama coach Nick Saban is up to his old tricks, promising a scholarship to a kid only to yank it when he runs out of places. If you want to see an explanation for the SEC's recent college football dominance, scroll down to the chart showing the top over-signers between 2008 and 2011. Seven of the top ten spots are held by SEC schools with the entire SEC West and three of four of their national champs represented. Saban may be a great coach but he is also a jerk who games the system as well as anyone. The SEC has not been playing on a level field.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/rules-nick-saban-introduces-face-oversigning-151901075.html#more-13129
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/rules-nick-saban-introduces-face-oversigning-151901075.html#more-13129
Newsweek's Andrew Sullivan: Dumbest Columnist Ever
Dying liberal rag Newsweek has a cover story by Andrew Sullivan titled "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" Sullivan, a self-described centrist and unabashed Obama supporter then goes on to say he was appalled by Bush's record of war, debt, spending and torture...his exact words. Uh, message to Sullivan: Obama has expanded three out of the four of these! Irony alert! Is Sullivan actually this stupid?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71501.html
Ranking the BCS Champions (and Others)
Any attempt to determine the greatest teams of all-time in any sport is difficult and open to all sorts of conjecture. In college football, at least the sport has become less regional, has had the recent addition of conference championship games, and has done away with the automatic conference tie-ins in bowls with highly ranked teams. Rating the best teams of the BCS era is similarly challenging, but perhaps more relevant given that the system is supposed to give us a matchup of top teams.
To determine the best teams of the BCS era, I looked at several factors: record, average margin of victory, wins versus teams sitting in the top 10 at the end of the season and wins by fewer than 10 points.
1) 2001 Miami - the experts generally rate this team as tops in the BCS era, and I would agree, though it is close. Miami outscored its opponents by an average of 33 points per game, had only one win of fewer than 10 points and sent tons of talent to the NFL. On the flip-side the Hurricanes scored only one win over a top-10 team, played in the weak Big East and drew an inferior Nebraska team in the BCS Championships, a team that wasn't even IN its conference championship game, instead of Oregon or Colorado.
2) 2005 Texas - why this team rates third or fourth in most "experts" polls is beyond me. The Longhorns set BCS champion team records for points (50) and margin of victory (34), beat the consensus #2 and #3 teams in the country and had only two wins of fewer than 10 points. One of those big wins was of course against the "unbeatable" USC Trojans in the BCS title game, a team that had not lost in two years and that had been called the greatest ever. The Horns get down-graded by the perceived weakness of the Big 12 that year, but the conference's bowl record (5-3) proved otherwise. Like Miami, Texas sent an insane amount of talent to the NFL. Given all this, I can make a strong case for Texas as #1.
3) 2004 USC - Outscored opponents by 25 points per gam, beat three top 10 teams and blew out #2 Oklahoma, but had four very close shaves. The 2005 USC team "greatest ever" that lost to Texas was arguably better and probably warrants a 3b here. USC's NFL talent is well documented.
4) 2000 Oklahoma - another team that is underrated by the football pundits, in my opinion. All this team did was beat four top-10 teams including Kansas State twice, who may have been the second best team in the country, and outscore its opponents by 22 points per game. OU went into the title game and proved to be way too much for Florida State, a team that was heavily favored.
5) 1999 Florida State - Impressive average margin of 21 points per game, but beat only one top-10 team, Virginia Tech in the title game.
6) 2008 Florida - the top one-loss team on my poll, the Gators and one Tim Tebow steam-rolled opponents by an average of 31 points, had only one close shave, but inexplicably lost to Mississippi. Also, it is unclear if Florida was even the best team in the country that year, as they drew Oklahoma in the BCS game instead of what many considered to be more deserving Texas, USC or Utah teams.
7) 2011 Alabama - the top BCS era defense which only gave up 8 points per game and was rarely challenged. On the flip-side, only two top-10 wins, mediocre offense, defensive stats padded by playing poor offenses, no quality wins out of the SEC and did not even win its conference. Really hard for me to take this team too seriously.
8) 2009 Alabama - outscored opponents by 20 points per game but had a few close shaves and got a huge break when Texas' Colt McCoy was knocked out of the title game. I will never believe that this team was better than Texas with McCoy.
9) 2003 LSU - outscored opponents by 23 but had one loss and drew an inferior Oklahoma team in the BCS game instead of clearly more deserving USC.
10) 1998 Tennessee - unbeaten but generally pretty fortunate, especially when Arkansas QB Clint Stoerner fumbled late in their game without being touched, leading to the winning score.
11) 2010 Auburn - 14-0 but by far the worst defense of any BCS champ. The masters of the great escape winning seven games by fewer than 10 points, including an overtime game where Clemson dropped a potential game-winning pass. Yeah, this team had Cam Newton but they were alson incredibly lucky.
12) 2002 Ohio State - another master of the great escape, also won seven games by 9 points or less including a miracle versus Purdue. Won a controversial title over heavily-favored Miami, helped by a phantom pass interference call in overtime.
13) 2006 Florida - one loss, only two top-10 wins, six narrow victories. It is not clear at all that this was the best team in the country.
14) 2007 LSU - one of these things is not like the others, LSU is the only two-loss champion. One six tight games and backed into the title game when higher ranked teams dropped like flies during the final weeks of the season.
One quick note on all-time team rankings. I would generally put modern era teams ahead of any from earlier times, as the players are far better, the schemes are more sophisticated, there is far more talent in general, scholarship limitations have leveled the playing field, and the game is more national although schedules are still unbalanced. Sure, 1940's Army, 50's Notre Dame or Oklahoma, 60's Texas, 70's Nebraska or Oklahoma or late 80's/early 90's Miami were great teams in their era, but I just don't see any comparison. Maybe 1971 Nebraska.
I would put one team from just before the BCS era as the greatest ever, however, and that is 1995 Nebraska. All the Huskers did was blitzkrieg opponents by an average of 38 points per game while beating four top-10s and not winning a single game by fewer than 14 points. They dominated the Big 8 in its final year before becoming the Big 12. All the Big 8 did that year was place three teams in the final top 10 and 4 in the top 13. It was clearly the dominant conference that year and Nebraska was not even challenged. Nebraska humiliated Florida in the de-facto title game to top things off.
So my all-time top 5 is -
1) 1995 Nebraska
2) 2001 Miami
3) 2005 Texas
4) 2004/2005 (despite the loss) USC - counting them as one team
5) 1971 Nebraska
To determine the best teams of the BCS era, I looked at several factors: record, average margin of victory, wins versus teams sitting in the top 10 at the end of the season and wins by fewer than 10 points.
1) 2001 Miami - the experts generally rate this team as tops in the BCS era, and I would agree, though it is close. Miami outscored its opponents by an average of 33 points per game, had only one win of fewer than 10 points and sent tons of talent to the NFL. On the flip-side the Hurricanes scored only one win over a top-10 team, played in the weak Big East and drew an inferior Nebraska team in the BCS Championships, a team that wasn't even IN its conference championship game, instead of Oregon or Colorado.
2) 2005 Texas - why this team rates third or fourth in most "experts" polls is beyond me. The Longhorns set BCS champion team records for points (50) and margin of victory (34), beat the consensus #2 and #3 teams in the country and had only two wins of fewer than 10 points. One of those big wins was of course against the "unbeatable" USC Trojans in the BCS title game, a team that had not lost in two years and that had been called the greatest ever. The Horns get down-graded by the perceived weakness of the Big 12 that year, but the conference's bowl record (5-3) proved otherwise. Like Miami, Texas sent an insane amount of talent to the NFL. Given all this, I can make a strong case for Texas as #1.
3) 2004 USC - Outscored opponents by 25 points per gam, beat three top 10 teams and blew out #2 Oklahoma, but had four very close shaves. The 2005 USC team "greatest ever" that lost to Texas was arguably better and probably warrants a 3b here. USC's NFL talent is well documented.
4) 2000 Oklahoma - another team that is underrated by the football pundits, in my opinion. All this team did was beat four top-10 teams including Kansas State twice, who may have been the second best team in the country, and outscore its opponents by 22 points per game. OU went into the title game and proved to be way too much for Florida State, a team that was heavily favored.
5) 1999 Florida State - Impressive average margin of 21 points per game, but beat only one top-10 team, Virginia Tech in the title game.
6) 2008 Florida - the top one-loss team on my poll, the Gators and one Tim Tebow steam-rolled opponents by an average of 31 points, had only one close shave, but inexplicably lost to Mississippi. Also, it is unclear if Florida was even the best team in the country that year, as they drew Oklahoma in the BCS game instead of what many considered to be more deserving Texas, USC or Utah teams.
7) 2011 Alabama - the top BCS era defense which only gave up 8 points per game and was rarely challenged. On the flip-side, only two top-10 wins, mediocre offense, defensive stats padded by playing poor offenses, no quality wins out of the SEC and did not even win its conference. Really hard for me to take this team too seriously.
8) 2009 Alabama - outscored opponents by 20 points per game but had a few close shaves and got a huge break when Texas' Colt McCoy was knocked out of the title game. I will never believe that this team was better than Texas with McCoy.
9) 2003 LSU - outscored opponents by 23 but had one loss and drew an inferior Oklahoma team in the BCS game instead of clearly more deserving USC.
10) 1998 Tennessee - unbeaten but generally pretty fortunate, especially when Arkansas QB Clint Stoerner fumbled late in their game without being touched, leading to the winning score.
11) 2010 Auburn - 14-0 but by far the worst defense of any BCS champ. The masters of the great escape winning seven games by fewer than 10 points, including an overtime game where Clemson dropped a potential game-winning pass. Yeah, this team had Cam Newton but they were alson incredibly lucky.
12) 2002 Ohio State - another master of the great escape, also won seven games by 9 points or less including a miracle versus Purdue. Won a controversial title over heavily-favored Miami, helped by a phantom pass interference call in overtime.
13) 2006 Florida - one loss, only two top-10 wins, six narrow victories. It is not clear at all that this was the best team in the country.
14) 2007 LSU - one of these things is not like the others, LSU is the only two-loss champion. One six tight games and backed into the title game when higher ranked teams dropped like flies during the final weeks of the season.
One quick note on all-time team rankings. I would generally put modern era teams ahead of any from earlier times, as the players are far better, the schemes are more sophisticated, there is far more talent in general, scholarship limitations have leveled the playing field, and the game is more national although schedules are still unbalanced. Sure, 1940's Army, 50's Notre Dame or Oklahoma, 60's Texas, 70's Nebraska or Oklahoma or late 80's/early 90's Miami were great teams in their era, but I just don't see any comparison. Maybe 1971 Nebraska.
I would put one team from just before the BCS era as the greatest ever, however, and that is 1995 Nebraska. All the Huskers did was blitzkrieg opponents by an average of 38 points per game while beating four top-10s and not winning a single game by fewer than 14 points. They dominated the Big 8 in its final year before becoming the Big 12. All the Big 8 did that year was place three teams in the final top 10 and 4 in the top 13. It was clearly the dominant conference that year and Nebraska was not even challenged. Nebraska humiliated Florida in the de-facto title game to top things off.
So my all-time top 5 is -
1) 1995 Nebraska
2) 2001 Miami
3) 2005 Texas
4) 2004/2005 (despite the loss) USC - counting them as one team
5) 1971 Nebraska
SEC Has Been Good - And Lucky
I turn momentarily from economics, markets and politics to the relatively unimportant (to some) topic of college football.
As an advocate for a playoff system I finally had it this year with the corruption of the BCS, which gave us an awful rematch between two supposed titans from the 500-lb gorilla of the game, the SEC, and thus a guaranteed sixth-straight title for that league. The game between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama featured two dominant defenses loaded with NFL talent, but two putrid offenses. As a result, we got an almost unwatchable and incredibly less exciting game than the first matchup, a 9-6 LSU overtime snoozer victory. This one ended up 21-0 in favor of 'Bama as LSU could do nothing on offense. 'Bama was a little better but could only muster five field goals until a late garbage-time touchdown. In over eight quarters of football these two teams could only manage one touchdown. Great defense or stunning ineptitude on offense?
Many of the sports media buffoons and SEC sycophants have naturally declared Alabama #1 without doubt, but this is idiotic. 'Bama barely faced a top 50 offense all year and no quality opponent out of conference. Declaring a champion at this time is pointless as the conferences have stopped scheduling tough opponents and play unbalanced schedules. The rematch should have never taken place in the first place given that according to the BCS, the season is an "elimination tournament". I, and most unbiased football fans would have loved to see either LSU or 'Bama play a high-powered offense. At least one of the teams from Oklahoma State, Stanford or Oregon deserved a shot. I suspect they would have performed better than LSU.
Unfortunately, one reason we got this awful rematch this year is that the SEC won the previous five title games. Thus, it now assumed that the SEC is dominant. We get polling bias that states "they are good because we think so". While it is true that the conference has been great in big games, and I would agree that in most years it has been the best top-to-bottom conference, it has also been very lucky. I was going to write an entire post on this topic, but this writer did the dirty work for me.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/sports/la-sp-0109-bcs-lsu-alabama-20120109
To expand on or reiterate points about the SEC's good fortune in title years, I will take them one at a time.
2003 - LSU did not have to play AP #1 USC and instead got an Oklahoma team that had just lost its conference title game by four touchdowns! So egregious was the slight that the BCS revised its formula (one of many tweaks) and AP split with the BCS. Nobody in their right mind thought that OU deserved to be in that game.
2006 - Florida was lucky to sneak in when one-loss USC dropped a late season game. USC subsequently crushed one-loss Michigan.
2007 - Not only did two-loss LSU back in when teams fell like dominos, but again did not have to play two-loss USC, who many thought to be the best team in the country.
2008 - Florida lucked into playing Oklahoma instead of Texas due to computer rankings. Texas had beaten OU by 10 points earlier in the season. The result? Florida by 10. Also snubbed - one loss USC and undefeated Utah, which blew out Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. At the end of the season Florida, Texas and USC all had one loss while Utah finished unbeaten. A clear #1? I don't think so.
2009 - Alabama knocked out Texas' Mr. Everything Colt McCoy on the first drive, but still almost lost to a Freshman QB playing his first game. It was a field goal game with five minutes to play before two late Texas turnovers doomed them.
2010 - Unbeaten Auburn narrowly beat unbeaten Oregon on a final play field goal, but unbeaten TCU never got a shot.
To summarize, here are teams that deserved a shot but never got one: 2003 USC, 2006 USC, 2007 USC, WVU and others, 2008 - Texas, Utah, USC, 2010 - TCU, 2011 - Oklahoma State, Stanford. SEC teams polled better than these deserving teams every year.
The good news is that the country appears to be tiring of the SEC's boring brand of football. Ratings for this years' game were at an all-time low. Outcry over the rematch has led calls for reform to reach a fever pitch. At the very least, an "and one" game to be played after the bowls seems likely very soon, if not a playoff. If nothing else, I cannot wait for the SEC's reign to end.
As an advocate for a playoff system I finally had it this year with the corruption of the BCS, which gave us an awful rematch between two supposed titans from the 500-lb gorilla of the game, the SEC, and thus a guaranteed sixth-straight title for that league. The game between #1 LSU and #2 Alabama featured two dominant defenses loaded with NFL talent, but two putrid offenses. As a result, we got an almost unwatchable and incredibly less exciting game than the first matchup, a 9-6 LSU overtime snoozer victory. This one ended up 21-0 in favor of 'Bama as LSU could do nothing on offense. 'Bama was a little better but could only muster five field goals until a late garbage-time touchdown. In over eight quarters of football these two teams could only manage one touchdown. Great defense or stunning ineptitude on offense?
Many of the sports media buffoons and SEC sycophants have naturally declared Alabama #1 without doubt, but this is idiotic. 'Bama barely faced a top 50 offense all year and no quality opponent out of conference. Declaring a champion at this time is pointless as the conferences have stopped scheduling tough opponents and play unbalanced schedules. The rematch should have never taken place in the first place given that according to the BCS, the season is an "elimination tournament". I, and most unbiased football fans would have loved to see either LSU or 'Bama play a high-powered offense. At least one of the teams from Oklahoma State, Stanford or Oregon deserved a shot. I suspect they would have performed better than LSU.
Unfortunately, one reason we got this awful rematch this year is that the SEC won the previous five title games. Thus, it now assumed that the SEC is dominant. We get polling bias that states "they are good because we think so". While it is true that the conference has been great in big games, and I would agree that in most years it has been the best top-to-bottom conference, it has also been very lucky. I was going to write an entire post on this topic, but this writer did the dirty work for me.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/sports/la-sp-0109-bcs-lsu-alabama-20120109
To expand on or reiterate points about the SEC's good fortune in title years, I will take them one at a time.
2003 - LSU did not have to play AP #1 USC and instead got an Oklahoma team that had just lost its conference title game by four touchdowns! So egregious was the slight that the BCS revised its formula (one of many tweaks) and AP split with the BCS. Nobody in their right mind thought that OU deserved to be in that game.
2006 - Florida was lucky to sneak in when one-loss USC dropped a late season game. USC subsequently crushed one-loss Michigan.
2007 - Not only did two-loss LSU back in when teams fell like dominos, but again did not have to play two-loss USC, who many thought to be the best team in the country.
2008 - Florida lucked into playing Oklahoma instead of Texas due to computer rankings. Texas had beaten OU by 10 points earlier in the season. The result? Florida by 10. Also snubbed - one loss USC and undefeated Utah, which blew out Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. At the end of the season Florida, Texas and USC all had one loss while Utah finished unbeaten. A clear #1? I don't think so.
2009 - Alabama knocked out Texas' Mr. Everything Colt McCoy on the first drive, but still almost lost to a Freshman QB playing his first game. It was a field goal game with five minutes to play before two late Texas turnovers doomed them.
2010 - Unbeaten Auburn narrowly beat unbeaten Oregon on a final play field goal, but unbeaten TCU never got a shot.
To summarize, here are teams that deserved a shot but never got one: 2003 USC, 2006 USC, 2007 USC, WVU and others, 2008 - Texas, Utah, USC, 2010 - TCU, 2011 - Oklahoma State, Stanford. SEC teams polled better than these deserving teams every year.
The good news is that the country appears to be tiring of the SEC's boring brand of football. Ratings for this years' game were at an all-time low. Outcry over the rematch has led calls for reform to reach a fever pitch. At the very least, an "and one" game to be played after the bowls seems likely very soon, if not a playoff. If nothing else, I cannot wait for the SEC's reign to end.
Obama's Reelection Strategy in Two Statements
I can sum up Obama's reelection strategy in two simple statements. "The wealthy (code for anyone with positive net worth or making more than $100k per year) are taking from you (code for the poor, unemployed and minorities) and those who don't support me are racist!" I dare anyone to refute this.
Here is a great cartoon that sums up his strategy:
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/chipbok/2011/04/19/86825
Here is a great cartoon that sums up his strategy:
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/chipbok/2011/04/19/86825