By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party
“This might be the last election to turn things around before we go down the road
to socialism.”

Those were Michelle Bachman’s words as she gracefully exited the Presidential race on January 4th, 2012.It’s an ominous statement, leaving room for plenty of debate on just how bad things have become in our great nation and whether or not there is time to turn things around.
There’s a typical list of liberal responses that pop up whenever conservatives start discussing the evils of socialism. First comes denial that socialism is their goal, then insults to our intelligence (you’re confusing socialism with communism!), and by the end of their argument comes a rationalization of socialism and why it would be great for our country (or already is), even though they deny promoting it.
What cannot be denied is that Barrack Obama, a liberal democrat, has brought America closer to the brink of socialism, with the ensuing economic ruin, than it has ever been before. He was not alone in this effort. There are countless liberals in Washington and throughout the country who would like to bring this country down to its knees California style. To my own shame there have been numerous Republicans who helped them along the way for the promises of district pork and warm fuzzies from the leftists press. But in the end the buck stops at the White House, and there can be no greater argument than this that America needs a new President.
Here we are in 2012 and we have a chance to elect a new President. Incumbents traditionally have the advantage (Bush 2004, Clinton1996), but not always (Carter, Bush Sr.). Barrack Obama’s performance has certainly mirrored more of Jimmy Carter’s than Bill Clinton’s. The question now is who will Republicans put forth to challenge him?

It has currently come down to a choice between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. I’ll be the first to say that neither of them were my first choice, although both would be a stellar improvement over Barrack Obama. There is much to like and dislike in both of them.
Mitt Romney is an American success story. He didn’t inherit or marry into his money; he earned it. He’s a charming, warm personality with a strong belief in family and experience in job creation. Unfortunately, he’s also a bit too moderate for my tastes. I’m afraid his campaign will look more like Bob Dole or John McCain’s than Ronald Reagan’s, as Romney will pull his punches in futile attempts to be liked by everyone.
Newt Gingrich is also a story of success, for political conservatives. He led the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 (I participated then as a college republican), ending 40 years of stagnant democrat domination. For his success, Newt has been demonized by the left more than perhaps any conservative in our history barring Sarah Palin. Newt is also a fighter, hitting some of the biggest home runs in the debates (his response to Juan Williams was inspirational) as he champions getting poor people off welfare, into jobs, and out of poverty for good.
But Newt has troubles of his own. I will admit to being given pause when I consider his poor choices as a husband. I am not a big fan of divorce and neither are a lot of conservatives. Still, half of married Americans have been divorced now, and there are few people left who honestly can cast stones at someone else’s marital difficulties.
When you consider the damage the Obamaconomy has done to millions of American families, Newt Gingrich’s economic policies might be just the boost a lot of married people need.
Ultimately, I think that conservatives now have to go with Gingrich. He is the present unification of our efforts, and our best chance of unseating Barrack Obama. At the very least, there will be no debate in which Obama will not have his bell rung multiple times.
While Gingrich can win debates, this does not always equate with winning elections. He needs a vice presidential candidate with the ability to cover the south and raise a lot of money (Rick Perry?). He needs the help of a unified conservative base who will set aside the smaller debates and stay focused on the greater good.

Newt Gingrich will both need a newly invigorated TEA Party, and his candidacy will help create it.

I for one am starting to be excited again. Our country may have hope beyond 2012 after all.

By Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party

Recently on Post Scripts, Jack gave a good review of a great action movie called Battle Los Angeles. It’s a movie about some marines from Camp Pendleton defending a small area of Los Angeles from evil space aliens. Lots of action, shooting, explosions take place along with some good chest thumping bravado scenes. And of course the Americans save the day. It was a good movie and it made a lot of money at the box office.
It also made a lot of money for the location it was filmed. But it wasn’t filmed in Los Angeles.
You can read about it here in the Los Angeles Times.
That’s right, Battle Los Angeles was actually filmed in Louisiana! Baton Rouge to be exact. The people of Louisiana got a nice economic bump, as the movie production hired a crew of 200 people, 3,000 extras, and spent about $46.5 million on the local economy.
Does this seem strange to anyone? Why would a movie about Los Angeles not be filmed there? Isn’t LA the home of Hollywood, where movies are made? Isn’t Hollywood filled with liberals who hate capitalism and should be proud to pay more to film in their home state? I guess not.
It turns out that Louisiana offers a huge tax break for movie productions. The kind of tax break we don’t like to give the “rich” in this state because it’s wrong. But are tax breaks wrong, or just competitive for business?
Louisiana offers a 35 percent tax break for production costs of major films. California only goes up to 25 percent and they cut that off if the production goes over $75 million (which means most movies you see on the silver screen these days).
What it boils down to is that tax breaks work, especially for states that are competing for business. California is losing that competition, along with a lot of jobs, because we are no longer competitive. As businesses and jobs leave our state, you can watch the revenue to pay for teachers and police plummet. At least we can feel superior that we’re not cutting any breaks to the evil capitalists, I guess. Unemployment anyone?