Team Obama’s Latest Attacks On Ryan Asks “Why The Hell Romney Picked” Him

  Bookmark and Share  In what can only be considered the epitome of the liberal hypocrisy that is a fundamental component of the thought process that Democrats undergo, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina recently issued a letter to supporters which tries to convince them to make a financial donation to the President’s reelection effort by claiming Paul Ryan was selected as Romney’s running mate for the sole purpose of raising money from radical Republicans for  his own campaign.

Laced throughout the letter are a litany of lies, a host of hysterically hypocritical claims, and a dubious dose of deceitful distractions designed to do for the Obama campaign all that the letter claims Romney is trying to do by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate.  It even asks “why the hell” did Romney pick “this guy” and claims that the reason is so that Romney could “reassure and inspire ultra conservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency”.

With the President’s campaign spending money at a pace that is quickly becoming faster than his ability to raise money, this letter is simply trying to fire up his base and motivate them to finally start donating.  The letter also seems to indicate that many people who have been Obama supporters in the past have not yet made any donation to his campaign this time around.  That would help explain the air of desperation that this letter reeks of and why President Obama is finding himself having to even deceive even his own supporters.

To understand just how deceptive the President is being, let us break the letter down.

A.- “Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent”:

  1. If that were true, Congressman Ryan would never have drawn brutally harsh criticism for his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and subsequent vote for the auto bailout, both of which seem to fly in the face of Ryan’s conservative based economic ideology.  However, at the time when the world economy teetered on an unprecedented collapse because of crumbling financial institutions which were freezing lending and thereby halting worldwide commerce, Paul Ryan allowed himself to temporarily forsake ideological purity for what was seen as the immediate need for practical measures to avert a crisis.  TARP was a massive interference in the free market that was sold to Ryan and 90 other House Republicans as a necessary evil to prevent an economic collapse caused by greedy bankers and toxic assets. Predictions that ATMs would be empty, payrolls would be unmet, and that checks would be valueless, provided the incentive to believe that civil disobedience would become the norm and that Armageddon was just one evolution of the earth away, allowed Ryan to compromise his traditional approach to such matters. But that ability to compromise is not an indication of rigid extremism, it was the sign of a man who was willing to make the hard choices needed to provide what at the time were perceived to be suitable and necessary solutions for unique problems involving unique circumstances.
  2. If Paul Ryan was such an extremist, how does Team Obama explain away Ryan’s winning of seven elections in a congressional district that went for Michael Dukakis in 1988,  Clinton in ’92 and ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and Obama in 2008?
  3. If  Paul Ryan is so radical how is that Erskine Bowles, a liberal described Paul Ryan as “amazing” and called the Ryan Budget that liberals are trying paint as too extreme, to be “sensible, honest, and serious”?  Bowles a two time candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina happens to have been  President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and was President Obama’s co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  According to some on the left, if given a second term in office President Obama is likely to have Bowles replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Cleary, Paul Ryan is not the irrational, radical, extremist that liberals are falling over themselves as they rush to make him out to be and it is also quite obvious that Paul Ryan is far more popular than the left want you to think.

B.- “His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters”;

  1. First, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, does not dismantle Medicare, it reforms it by making it solvent and preserving it for future generations.  President Obama is the one who reduces Medicare spending under Obamacare which creates what he calls the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of 15 unelected government bureaucrats, who will ration care to seniors by underpaying doctors and hospitals.  Ryan’s plan gives seniors more control over their own health dollars by allowing them to choose the plan that provides them with the best value for their money through free market competition.  Furthermore; those who are over 55 will have the option to stay under the old plan.  The Ryan plan simply allows future beneficiaries to put a voucher toward “private health plans,” which  would be regulated by the government and required to offer coverage to all beneficiaries.  So the Ryan plan, does not dismantle Medicare!
  2. Second, the claim that Ryan’s plan is unpopular, especially among undecided voters, is to say the least am unreasonable stretch of reality. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked Americans whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports changing Medicare for those under 55 to a system where people choose their insurance from a list of private health plans and the government pays a fixed amount, sometimes called a voucher, towards that cost.” 38% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Ryan’s Medicare reform, 37% are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 18% say it makes “no difference” in determining their vote, and 7% are not sure.  This does not paint the picture of the electoral death wish that liberals are painting for Romney’s decision to select a running mate who has the courage to present an actual plan to reform a broken system that needs fixing.
  3. A new Gallup/USA Today poll shows that the age group that Democrats would hope to scare the most by Ryan’s Medicare reforms, senior citizens, are actually most receptive to his budget which outlines those Medicare reforms. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president. That’s the highest total among the age groups tested.

That all tends to contradict Jim Messina’s claim that Ryan’s proposals are as unpopular as the left would like us to believe.

C.- “Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for.”:

  1. Forty percent of voters identified themselves as politically independent in 2011. According to a  2011 Gallup poll more voters identified themselves as politically independent than ever before.  The poll showed that 40 percent consider them independent, a new high that surpassed  previous record of 39 percent in 1995 and 2007.  Gallup’s historical data shows that the proportion of independent voters in 2011 was the largest in 60 years and little has occurred to change that in 2012.  So why would Mitt Romney assume that he doesn’t need a running mate who can appeal to self-described independent voters?
  2. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sunday and released Monday indicated that among independent voters Ryan’s favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.  Does that sound like the selection of a running mate who will not be used to appeal independent voters?
  3. If selecting Paul Ryan for Vice President is not in part, an attempt to appeal to independent voters, I must again ask  how Team Obama explains away Ryan being elected and reelected six times in a swing district that has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988?
  4. Most independent voters are fiscally conservative and appreciate the type of fiscal responsibility and sanity that Paul Ryan represents.

Those factors demonstrate the illegitimacy of the second claim in the Obama campaign letter.  To suggest that Ryan can’t appeal to independents and that Mitt Romney is not even concerned with winning independent voters is either an indication of just how profoundly unintelligent Team Obama is, or of how absolutely disingenuous they are.

D.- “That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama”;

  1. As demonstrated by Politifact even before the 2012 campaign began, President Obama was already the reigning king of negative campaign ads. No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008.  It is how he defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democrat’s presidential nomination and how he won the presidential election. Given that undeniably truth alone, is not obvious that President Obama is guilty of using the majority of his money for the same thing he suggests is an evil practice that Republicans will conduct?
  2. President Obama has now officially spent more money on his campaign and done so more quickly than any incumbent in history. So far he has spent well over $100 million on television commercials, outspending Mitt Romney by 5-1, and in some battleground states Obama has outspent Romney by as much as 8-1.  Even more damaging is the fact that as reported by Forbes, 85 percent of the President’s advertising has been a barrage of negative attack ads aimed at Mitt Romney.

So can someone please tell me why President Obama’s campaign is trying to actually demonize Mitt Romney for following the President’s example and competing in the climate that he created?

The answer is simple.  The President and his supporters have a tremendous problem.  It’s the President’s record.  It’s a record so dismal that it makes it impossible for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to promote his candidacy with any positive reasons to vote him.  Can the President run ads touting the longest sustained high rate of unemployment we have seen in history?  Can he run ads promoting his accumulating a national debt that is greater than the sum total of the debt accumulated by Washington to George H.W. Bush combined?  Can Barack Obama offer Americans a “Morning In America-like” Ronald Reagan style ad?  Hardly.  This has demoralized the left and the President’s supporters.  As such, polls indicate that Republicans are far more engaged in the campaign than Democrats or unaffiliated voters  are and this Obama fundraising is indicative of that.  The only way Obama can inspire his vote is to breed a degree of hatred for his opposition that provides the motivation for them to go to the polls and vote against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

This fundraising letter from the Obama campaign manager is a sure sign of just how desperate things are getting for Team Obama and the Democrat Party.  This letter not only incorporates all 3 aspects of the left’s 3D strategy of distortion, distraction and division, it also highlights the degree of absolute hypocrisy and total lack of integrity behind the Obama reelection effort.  But what I find most striking about it is that the Obama campaign finds it necessary to raise money among his own supporters by offering them so many lies and distortions.  If Obama is willing to decieve his own supporters in order to raise money from them, how far you do you think he will be willing to go in decieving undecided voters?

Bookmark and Share

No Comment

With Democrats fleeing the Democrat convention, the DNC has turned to local popular mayors.  Now, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will be providing the keynote address.  Not too long ago, Obama mistook Mayor Castro for a Whitehouse intern.

Along with Senator Claire McCaskill, several other prominent Democrats are skipping out, including nearly every Democrat from West Virginia.

Mayor Alvin Brown, D-Jacksonville, FL

But even among popular Democrat mayors, Obama is struggling to gain traction.  I have noted before how Mayor Alvin Brown of Jacksonville has been notably absent from Obama’s visits to the city.  Jacksonville.com reports that even if Mayor Brown was in town, he wouldn’t have been at the event.  While stopping short of endorsing Romney, Brown has stated that he intends to steer clear of the election and not get involved at all, including offering no endorsement for Obama.

He had no such inhibitions as a staffer for the Clinton Whitehouse.

Then again, Clinton and Obama are two completely different kinds of Democrat.  Clinton was a liberal, but he knew how and when to moderate.  Clinton understood that not only did business owners “build that”, but they were essential to a growing economy.  Brown understands the same thing and has been growing Jacksonville by going out and bringing business to town.  He hasn’t tried to grow the city through wasted stimulus spent on friends and campaign supporters, and in fact he has refused to raise taxes. Instead, he has cut the size of local government to close budget gaps.
If Obama had any illusions of bi-partisanship, support for businesses, or winning Florida, Mayor Brown is the type of person he would want to pursue for things like making key speeches at the convention.  Yes, Castro is more popular in San Antonio.  He got 82% of the votes (totaling about 34,000).  Brown on the other hand, with about 97,000 votes, only barely eked out a victory over his Republican challenger.  Or perhaps Obama believes that Texas is a more attainable prize than Florida.

Obama has already lost the Reagan Democrats, but he may also be in danger of losing the Clinton Democrats.  They won’t vote for Romney, but if they don’t vote for Obama, he’s sunk.

The Veiled Message in Clinton’s Endorsement

A highly strategic political game is being played out right before our eyes between the leader of the old-school liberal Democrats and the leader of the new-school socialist Democrats.  When Bill Clinton atoned for his sins in a New York City joint fundraiser with Obama, all I heard was “This Obama guy is no Bill Clinton”.

We got the message…

Don’t misunderstand Clinton when he calls Romney qualified and praises Romney’s business record.  Clinton is not giving up on his party affiliation.  If anything, he is trying to convert his party back to what it was before Obama.  Dick Morris is likely right when he insinuates that Clinton doesn’t want four more years of Obama.  But Clinton doesn’t necessarily want to see his party fail.  Nor does he want to lose the power and influence he has amassed for himself in the DNC.  He just wants to see Obama fail.

That is why Clinton’s endorsement was not a call to support Obama, but a veiled warning to stay home in 2012.  Clinton reminded the crowd that he is the one who gave them four balanced budgets.  Contrast that with Obama who has increased the deficit by a trillion and a half dollars every year in office, and whose wildest dreams of a budget won’t balance even ten years after he leaves office.  Every Obama budget has been voted down bi-partisanly as outlandish to both Republicans and liberal Democrats.  Nothing says “vote for the guy who’s added $6 trillion to the deficit” like an endorsement from someone who’s record is the polar opposite.  Clinton flaunting his budget record in his Obama endorsement was no mistake or gaffe.

Now, Clinton is not a deficit hawk.  He is not pro-austerity, and he certainly is not a conservative.  Anyone who has been alive long enough knows that it was Newt Gingrich who dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into those balanced budgets.  But Clinton’s perception of himself is as a non-socialist compassionate liberal who cut spending and saw it work.

Clinton cannot support Romney.  First, Clinton is not a conservative.  He opposes Romney on social issues.  He doesn’t really agree with Romney on fiscal issues.  Second, Clinton has no higher ambition at this point than to maintain what he has: his life as a Democrat celebrity.  An actual endorsement of Romney would destroy the Clinton dynasty.

But at the same time, Clinton knows what works and what doesn’t.  Even he can look at the Obama record and see what danger our country is in if the new-school socialist Democrats win.  Setting aside Clinton’s personal and racial beef with Obama, he understands what Obama’s out of control spending will do to the Democrat party’s legacy, and by extension his own, if Obama is given another four years to outspend revenues by over a trillion a year.

If Obama is smart, he will find a way to keep Bill Clinton in whatever corner of the country he has kept Joe Biden for the last four years.  However, don’t count old Slick Willy out yet.  Obama may be about to get schooled by the original campaigner-in-chief.

 

Politics IS a Contact Sport

Newt hopes to land knock-out punch with attack ads, but is Mitt's mitt bigger and stronger?

So, Newt has launched an attack ad on Mitt, and no doubt the Democrats are watching with glee.  There are no doubt worries that attack ads damage the Republican Party, just as many worry that American politics is too divisive. Does all the “infighting” damage Republican chances?

Well, no.

Attack ads are part of politics. Politics is divisive. This is because folks disagree, and they rightly disagree on important points of principle and policy. Of course the candidates attack each other, and why not? The prize is big; these are passionate people who feel they deserve a run at the number 1 job on the planet. Otherwise, they might as well play paper and scissors for the right to run.

Cast your mind back to 2008, and the exchange of “shame” accusations by candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

You can see her attack here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg&feature=share and Obama’s response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkR9kw81Cx8&feature=share. You can also see the Obama attack ad, comparing Hilary Clinton to Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo, which is quite a laugh given that Democrats are the Orwellian nightmare party!

Both parties share the tactics of attack, and it goes a long way back. Hilary’s barb that Obama was following Karl Rove’s playbook was foolishness; it doesn’t take a village to work out that attacking the candidate, or in soccer parlance playing the man rather than the ball, goes back a lot further than Rove.

In fact, the earliest example of attack ads was launched by Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, in his attack on Barry Goldwater. Known as the “Daisy Spot”, it showed an innocent girl picking daisies followed by a countdown to nuclear catastrophe, which shocked audiences at the time. The idea was that Goldwater’s aggressive stance on the Cold War would lead to nuclear destruction. [You can view the ad here: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/media/daisyspot/]This will be the same Johnson who thought escalating Vietnam was a good idea.

Hilary and Obama attacked each other without pulling their punches. She lost, Obama won, and despite all the punches Hilary laid on Obama he won the White House. Like Hilary’s husband said in 2008, “This is a contact sport, politics. You can’t complain about being attacked. It’s like Yao Ming complaining about being fouled playing basketball.”

The narrative that the attack by candidates is damaging is simply a way of attacking the Republicans, while President Obama as incumbent and the official nominee come September can stand serenely above the action and appear, well, presidential. That is, until his Republican opponent is selected and can turn his attention to attacking Obama’s record 100%.

For this reason ending the attacks is important, we need to see the main bout start. The chief result of Newt’s attacks on Mitt is to bring Mitt onto the canvas ready to land his punches. Newt’s attack ads are the last attempts to land some body blows on Mitt, but Mitt’s mitt appears to be the bigger and stronger of the two. Once the attacks are done, the choice is made, the Republican nominee can step onto the canvas and win the prize fight that will take him to the White House.

Bill Clinton was right, this is a contact sport. He was wrong to compare it to basketball though. This is a fight, and it is a fight to the end. Unlike Johnson’s Daisy ad the countdown is not to nuclear destruction, but losing to Obama will see more destruction of the American economy and the nation.

Cain Falls Back on the “B” Word

In a 5pm news conference on Tuesday, Herman Cain addressed the sexual harassment charges against him by saying there were groups trying to keep him out of the white house for one key reason.  He is a Businessman.  He is not an establishment politician.

Cain once again resisted the temptation to play the race card and accuse his accusers of racism, even though it’s pretty obvious in some cases.  Yesterday Martin Bashir interviewed Truther Toure and Karen Finney on MSNBC who both referenced Herman Cain as a “sexually aggressive” black man towards white blonde women.  They basically warned that GOP’ers should keep their women away from the black man.  Amazingly, these racist comments on MSNBC have not received much replay.

Cain stared America in the face today and said he did not recognize Sharon Bailek.  This is a risky move, since hotel records and other travel records may be dug up to show that she was in Washington at the time, which will just add more doubt for Cain supporters.  However, for now Cain has bolstered his position by addressing the accusations head on and flatly denying them.  Of course, Clinton did the same thing.  But Clinton had the advantages of a compliant mainstream media and compliant witnesses like Monica Lewinsky who he could illegally coach.

Cain did not attempt to downplay true sexual harassment or assault.  He called such things very serious and mentioned that he had dealt with those issues with his employees in past occasions.  Cain also pointed out that Mitt Romney had not agreed with the accusations, but had simply spoken about the nature of the charges which Cain agreed with.  He handled the press conference very well and demonstrated the sort of political competence that many had alleged was missing from his campaign.

What Cain did today was restore “innocent until proven guilty” to his corner.  But if he is proven guilty, the ramifications will extend far beyond his 2012 primary race.  It will hurt his family and his career, but it could also hurt the entire Republican party.

What Cain Has In Common With The Boyscouts

Cain may not be a current member of the Boyscouts of America organization, but he does share something in common with them.  Today Cain became the latest target of Gloria Allred, a liberal feminist lawyer who once sued the Boyscouts because they wouldn’t let a girl join.

This isn’t the first time Allred has played attack dog for the left either.  Allred represented Rhonda Miller in the 2003 sexual harassment case against popular GOP Gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzeneggor.  The case was eventually dismissed and Arnold won, despite admitting that in his youth he had “behaved badly”.  What that meant wasn’t revealed until after his time as governor came to a close.

Allred is the feminist version of an ambulance chaser.  She even went as far as to represent Kelly Fisher in a lawsuit against Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with her to date Princess Diana.  How about that, fellas.  How would you like to be sued for breaking up with a girl?  Of course, Allred dropped the suit when the evil Fayed died with Diana in an infamous automobile accident.

There are some high profile cases of women being harassed, and even raped, that Allred has ignored. Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and Juanita Broderick come to mind.

So now there is a name and a face to the accusations that have been coming up against Cain.  There are also two unreleased affidavits of unnamed friends who allegedly can corroborate her story.  Interestingly also, Bailek and the other accusers were all former employees, disgruntled employees, or employees on the chopping block.  Cain apparently was smart enough not to sexually harass any permanent employees.  Meanwhile, Cain continues to deny all of the accusations.  Is Sharon Bailek telling the truth?  Now that we have a name, and timeframe, it shouldn’t be too hard to check some of the details.  As more backstory comes out, the public will continue to develop their opinion of what is truth.

Meanwhile, this is not good news for the Cain campaign.  Cain has the unfortunate privilege of being a member of a party that still cares about morality.  If Social Conservatives begin to turn on Cain, he is finished.  However, if the story simply does not pan out the backlash against the media and the racist left will seal Cain’s victory.

Why the Cain story is so big

Let’s be honest.  There really isn’t much to this Herman Cain story.  After a week of the media acting like Cain had raped a woman, had an affair with an intern or broken some federal laws or something, all we know is that he allegedly did something to someone a couple decades ago. In the grand scheme of things, the Cain story is the biggest non-story since we discovered that George W. Bush was a drunken AWOL airman because Dan Rather had a fake letter that said so.

The intensity with which the media has been following this story has consumed major media resources.  So let’s look at what the Cain non-affair story might be hiding.

– Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Solyndra affair continue to get juicer as Congress subpoenas the administration for documents they have been slow about releasing

– Occupy Oakland protests show the true nature of the Wall Street Mob as protestors get violent and start destroying public property.  The movement is finally stooping to the level we have come to expect from liberal, leaderless mob protesters, especially union supported mobs.  Now the media is working hard to find OWS protesters who look enough like they are in charge of something who will disavow the violence.  Of course, poll that crowd and you are sure to get even responses either way.

– Speaking of union led protests, a story that has barely entered the Cain filled news cycle is yet another document shred drill at the ACORN offices in New York City.  ACORN is shredding documents and firing workers as fast as they can to cover up the extent of their involvement behind the scenes with the now Democrat bought and owned Occupy Wall Street movement.

– Wall Street meanwhile ended a winning streak on Friday after job growth came in lower than expected and downright anemic compared to what the economy needs to start making significant strides towards reaching reasonable employment levels.

– After taking millions in bonuses, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae execs are reporting billions in losses and Freddie Mac is asking for $6 billion in new bailout funds.

– Obama’s jobs tax hike bill continues to face bi-partisan opposition, though he is choosing to blame it all on Republicans.  Meanwhile, Democrats are blocking Republican jobs provisions that don’t kill jobs at the same time by raising taxes.

– And perhaps the biggest scandal fresh on the scene and being ignored by major media outlets is the Jon Corzine fraud story.  Remember Bernie Madoff?  He was the guy who tricked investors into giving him money in a grand pyramid scheme which worked great until he ran out of money.  Corzine did it the legal way.  Corzine’s investment company, MF Global, found a legal loophole that allowed him, without investor knowledge, to take funds out of investor accounts as a “loan” to fund business operations.  When the investors went to get their money, they found it wasn’t there.

So how is what Corzine did legal, you might ask?  Simple.  Jon Corzine is a well connected Democrat, former senator and New Jersey governor.  He was a star at Goldman Sachs where many administration officials cut their teeth.  When Obama regulators considered eliminating the loophole that allowed Corzine to steal from his investors’ brokerage accounts to fund business operations, Corzine himself personally lobbied them (all his friends), into not regulating out that loophole or even requiring proper accounting for it.

Throughout the 2012 campaign, we will continue to hear the same mantra about how we need regulation to prevent what happened in the past from happening in the future.  In this case, we have another example of the hand in glove relationship between Democrat politicians, Democrat corporate CEOs and Democrat regulators.  And as usual, the media ignores it.  Why?

Because a conservative allegedly did something offensive to a female employee 20 years ago.  For all we know, he picked his nose while she was in the room.  No names, no specifics, just enough to inspire the tabloid writers we used to take seriously.

Cain, Gingrich Make Headlines; Paul’s Missed Opportunity

Cain’s Race Card

I have no respect for candidates who play the race card, and so far Cain hasn’t.  In what is an obvious smear against Herman Cain, the candidate has not resorted to what the left finds so natural.  In fact, Cain traced the allegations back to a former campaign staffer who was hired by Rick Perry as Kempite wrote earlier this week.  This hasn’t stopped Cain’s supporters from making the connection.  After Clarence Thomas and the racism that blacks on the right have experienced, the attacks on Herman Cain for doing some undisclosed thing to some anonymous women is just enough to get any conservative’s blood boiling.

This is especially true when you look at how the media has portrayed the whole thing.  Immediately questions were being asked about if there was a double standard on the right because conservatives were not as upset with Cain for having allegedly done something to someone as they were when it came out that Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern (Monica Lewinsky), possibly raped a woman (Juanita Broderick), sexually harassed a woman (Gennifer Flowers), lied about it under oath (like Scooter Libby, who lost his career and faced jail time), and coached witnesses (obstruction of justice).  Of course, Bill Clinton also kept his job as President.

The attack on Herman Cain is already starting to backfire on both the media and the left.  And finally, Uncle Tom is getting the attention it deserves as an often used racist “codeword”.

Gingrich Keeps Rising

There is plenty to be negative about on the GOP field.  But there is also plenty to be positive about and that is the angle Newt has used to kickstart his second wind in this race.  The Hill questions the wisdom of Gingrich’s refusal to go negative on his fellow candidates.  I think he is making the best decision.  While Mitt Romney gets torn down by the Social Conservatives, and Cain and Perry continue to duel, Gingrich has been slowly sneaking back into the top tier through his focus on Obama and better ideas.

In fact, I gained interesting perspective from my vacation in Connecticut.  No matter where I go, red state or blue state, and who I talk to, I get the same response on Gingrich.  He is the smartest man in the room.  He knows what he is talking about.  He has the best ideas.  We would pay money to see him debate Obama and enjoy every minute of it.  But he has baggage.  In fact, Newt entered this race with the most personal baggage.  But now voters are taking a new look at the man who reigned in Bill Clinton and produced balanced budgets and record growth, two things our country desperately needs.  Depending on how Cain’s unnamed issues with unnamed people turns out, Newt could end up being the cleanest of the top tier candidates.  Every debate makes him look better and better.

Paul Could Be A 3rd Party Winner

I love talking politics with friends and family.  Actually, I just plain love talking politics.  It is always interesting to hear different perspectives, often from where you least expect it.  Well, here’s one for you: Ron Paul could win some electoral votes as a third party candidate by running in blue states.  In many blue states, it is not so much a matter of fiscal liberalism winning out over fiscal conservatism.  In some cases it is a matter of social liberalism overriding fiscal conservatism.

The fear of a Paul third party run has been that he would steal votes from the Republican candidate.  But Paul would actually have a hard time winning any red state in a national election.  On the other hand, put Paul with his limited social conservatism and strong fiscal conservatism and anti-war stance into California, New England, New York and other blue states, and he has a message that would resonate.

Part of Paul’s problem though is missed opportunities.  Ron Paul is like a cult classic movie.  Low budget, but adored to the point of insanity by many.  In 2008, there were Revolution signs strewn across the country in conservative and liberal districts alike.  Somehow Paul supporters manage to stack every conservative straw poll that comes out.  Yet Paul has failed over and over to convert that ravenous support into electoral votes.  Now, put Paul in to states like Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine where a Social Conservative will never win but there is a strong libertarian under current, and Ron Paul could have a huge impact in the general election.  For the Libertarian movement, winning even one state could be a huge victory for their future.

 

Where America is economically 1,000 days into the Obama Administration

Today marks 1,000 days of President Obama’s administration and the race for the GOP nomination is in full flight with the American economy facing perhaps its biggest challenges since the great depression.

As U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recently told a Florida radio station, ”The U.S. election in November 2012 will be a “referendum” on the Obama administration’s handling of the economy.”

So what is the economic report card for the Obama Administration’s first 1,000 days.

  • Since President Obama took office, the National debt has increased by $4.3 trillion with America now borrowing $4.2 billion each day, to keep the country going. The total National Debt now stands at $14.9 trillion dollars.
  • 6.5 million jobs have been lost in the private sector and 290,00 in the Public sector, in last three years.
  • Four million bankruptcies have occurred during this period.
  • The unemployment rate has been above nine percent for 840 of the 1000 days, and the average unemployed worker has been without a job for more than 9 months.
  • 2.4 Million Homes have been foreclosed on.
  • Health Insurance premiums have increased by on average 13%.
  • 1 in 6 American’s are now officially classified as poor largely due to rising unemployment and 49.9 million American’s are uninsured, the biggest in more than two decades.

In fairness, the President has done some good work by extending the Bush era tax cuts and unemployment benefits. He also saved the automobile industry which regardless of your political view, is a hard fact to deny.

What we have seen from the Obama Administration though is bigger government, more regulations, and massive amounts of government spending in the hope of stimulating the economy. The trouble is that it simply hasn’t worked, as the numbers have shown. President Obama Promised that his $787 billion stimulus would save or create 3.3 million jobs by the end of 2010.  It simply hasn’t, in fact, his stimulus bill has caused nothing but problems with states now seeking more money to keep teachers and other public sector workers on the payroll, President Obama calling for an additional $35 billion funding bill today for the states. There has also been the wasted billions on green energy projects and the no so ready, shovel ready job projects.

The President has been touring the country over the last month, trying to sell his $447 billion jobs package or as most people call it, Stimulus II. It was defeated in the Senate last week on a bi-partisan basis. I actually don’t blame the president entirely for the state of the economy. I blame those academic advisors and special advisors he brought into his administration in the early days. They applied their theories without really having the practical experience of working in the economy ironically, a lot of the criticism’s which people are labelling against Herman Cain and Mitt Romney at present is based on their having real life experience. Where are President Obama economic experts 1,000 days down the road, they’ve abandoned the sinking ship.

The two big strategic mistakes President Obama did make in his first 1,000 days are as follows; firstly, he should’ve waited until his second term to pursue and implement his signature piece healthcare legislation “Obamacare”. The first mistake he made is what President Bush Snr (41) made, if you don’t look after the domestic economy, you can have all the success in the world on every other front however, people want jobs and want to know they are better off now, then they were four years ago. President Obama should’ve focussing on getting the economy right in his first term and leaving Obamacare until his second term.

The second mistake President Obama has made strategically in his first 1,000 days is not moving to the center and working with the Republican Congress after the mid-term election defeat. In 1994 when the Republicans won control of Congress under the Contract of America with Speaker Newt Gingrich, then President Bill Clinton knew in order to get re-elected, he had to work with the Republicans and move to the center. President Clinton did and worked effectively and in fact, gained the upper hand winning over independent voter by the time the next presidential election came around in 1996. It is Independent voters that decide the outcome of elections not the respective party faithful.

President Obama with all respect may be the only person who believes he has done a good job on the economy. Beyond that, he may be the only person who believes his current rhetoric and embracing of protests against entrepreneurs and successful and hardworking people, will get him re-elected next year and win over independent minded voters although I sincerely doubt it.

The eventual GOP nominee needs to emphasise the best of American traditions and empower the private sector, liberalise the markets and stimulate the education system to restore America’s economic engine. It will require strong leadership, collaboration and the involvement of expertise from both the public and private sectors until the economy is back in good health. It will require sacrifice in the short term and there will be no short term fixes.

Above all, it is clear that the rhetoric going into next years election is going to be based on class warfare and aimed at dividing people something President Obama promised he wouldn’t do. It is a very sad day when a president resorts to that tactic in order to win an election.

I would hope that any GOP nominee has the courage and conviction to refrain from engaging in such low level politics and be a president for all the people regardless of creed, colour or religion.

Is It Too Late?

Some very wise political analysts wrote that things have changed since 1992 when Bill Clinton got into the race late and managed to win. The need to build a national campaign network, raise money and meet the demands of 24/7 campaigning without making a single mistake are hurdles that put late joiners at a serious disadvantage. Mitt Romney has been raising money, performing in debates, bringing in endorsements and satisfying local political committees necessary for the early primaries. He can do it because he has a network in place to do most of the work for him, leaving him free to focus on interviews, debate prep and meeting with the big donors. Gov. Perry, as a relative late-comer, is floundering by comparison. The overwhelming demands on his time in places he has no network and from people with whom he has no intermediaries have strained his ability to focus on improving his debate abilities. His big lead has slumped and he is at risk of simply fading away. By the time he gets a full national campaign in place, his mistakes may have made him irrelevant. Soon Herman Cain will face the same problems. These were the reasons various pundits said Christie should definitely not get into the race. It was too late, even if he had changed his mind.

But is it too late? Being in early and ahead in the polls is no guarantee of success. The pages of campaign history are littered with the failed campaigns of big names, with national support and early planning. Perhaps the right question is not whether it is too late, but rather is it too soon? It is clearly too late to get into the race and compete against the established campaigns. There is not enough time to get a national campaign up and running effectively between now and the early primaries while simultaneously engaging in frequent televised debates. But, that doesn’t mean it is too late to get into the race at all. It just means it is too early to be a late entrant.

Look at the poll numbers Perry pulled in just due to hype. Christie saw the same, although he ended up not running. Cain made one great debate appearance and his numbers shot up. However, Perry and Cain now have to find a way to sustain that popularity for months before it can translate into votes. Just ask Michele Bachmann how that straw poll victory is treating her now. Frankly, getting in early opens the door to constant attacks by a vengeful media and the inevitable mistake that will get blown out of proportion just to have a news story to report. Romney and Paul are somewhat immune to these problems because they were already attacked in the last election and there just isn’t much new to attack them with. Their names are already out there and they have a base of support in place, so they don’t need the big performance to gain a position in the rankings. They just need to not trip over themselves and wait it out until the primaries get closer and they start spending the piles of money they built up. Everyone else has an uphill battle and has as much to fear from sudden success as from a major mistake.

With so many primaries happening so close together and so early in the year, a late entrant could ride the newcomer media hype to a handful of early victories. Then, by absorbing the staff and network of candidates who are forced to drop out, basically walk into a national campaign with enough time remaining to still effectively raise funds for the general election in November. This would not work for just any random candidate, but there are some big names who stayed out who have the skills, policy knowledge and connections to pull it off if they time it right. A December entry could steal the nomination.

I’m not saying that is what should happen, will happen or would be desirable. It is just that the old logic that there is a time after which a new campaign cannot succeed is very likely no longer valid. Like it or not, the media does manipulate public opinion in elections. Playing the media against itself may be a better strategy than traditional campaigning. After all, then Sen. Obama had nothing to offer on policy or experience, but the media carried him to victory. The media may be generally against conservatives, but they just can’t help themselves from hyping anyone new. Even if the hype is full of negatives, it raises the recognition of that candidate and usually results in a rise in the polls – at least until the hype dies down or the candidate withers under the spotlight.

A well-timed late entrant would face significant challenges, but could play the media hype into a surge in the polls just in time for it to translate into real votes. I’m sure Rick Perry wishes the early primaries had been in August when he was the talk of the town. Had they been, he’d probably be in this against Romney alone instead of falling back into a still crowded pack. The lack of consensus on a candidate and the infighting between them during the debates could be justification enough for one of the big names that decided not to run many months ago (when Obama looked stronger) to reconsider and come in to ‘unify the party against Obama’. While such an entry would never work if it came this month or in November, it could potentially play in December – especially if the field doesn’t slim down between now and then.

Second Thoughts?Who could pull off this last minute capture of the early primaries and the nomination? There are two that immediately come to mind: Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels. Conversely, two names that couldn’t pull it off are Sarah Palin and Chris Christie. They both bowed out too recently to change their minds so soon. Barbour and Daniels could be ‘drafted’ back in if they plan such an effort. They are not the only ones, but the ones with the best name recognition (Daniels) and existing connections (Barbour) to generate the necessary media hype and channel it into sudden victories. With the voters still divided, no real excitement for the ‘inevitable candidate’ and a compressed primary schedule, there may never be a better time than December to capture the race without having to face the withering pressure of public scrutiny of every minor decision they ever made. With so many of the big names that got out early still sitting silently and not endorsing anyone, one has to wonder if they are pondering the same thing I am. But, only one could pull it off. If two jumped in, they would both lose. If Barbour and Daniels go to dinner, Romney should start to worry.

New Poll Has Herman Cain Beating Perry and Romney Among Likely Republican Voters

Bookmark and Share   In a new Zogby poll that was taken in the three days following the most recent Republican presidential debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, the man who rocketed past Mitt Romney as soon as he announced his candidacy and hs been the presumed frontrunner, has plummeted 18% among likely Republican voters and likely Republican primary voters.  Benefiting from this drop was not the former frontrunner, Mitt Romney.  That swing in voter sentiments went to none other than Herman Cain, the man who on the very last day that this poll was taken, shook the political world with his first place showing in the Florida “Presidency 5” Straw Poll.

According to the latest poll, Herman Cain increased his support by  16% percent since September 2nd.    In the same time period, Texas Governor Rick Perry lost 19% percent of his support and Mitt Romney picked up 3%.

For Herman Cain, this means that a star is born.  But it is important to remember that stars fall to earth faster than they rise and frontrunner status nows makes Cain a target.  A target of his Republican opponents, liberals, and the mainstream media which had already begun to abuse Cain before his win in the Florida straw poll.  So how long Cain can maintain frontrunner status is questionable, but one thing is for sure.  This news now breathes new life into a campaign that Herman Cain has twice considered ending.

For Cain, the results of this poll could be as significant or even more so than the Florida straw poll victory.  Unlike Presidency 5, the Zogby reflects not a state sentiment that could be written off to regional appeal, it is the reflection of Republican attitudes nationally.  That can provide Herman Cain with the ability to raise significant anounts of money and add strength to his campaign.

As for the rest of the field, they must come to grips with something which I have been stating repeatedly.  Voters from the TEA movement to your traditional conservative base, do not want politics-as-usual.  They want an anti-establishment candidate, the non-politician.  And they don’t just ant any non-politician.  They don’t want a Ross Perot-like moderate.   They don’t want some Kumbaya candidate who promises to “compromise” for the sake of moving the same, failed political agenda forward.  They want someone who will defend traditional American values, and enforce a pro-growth, liberty based free-market approach to our economy.  And they want someone who will do so not by promising to tinker with the failed policies. They want someone who will, as Herman Cain said in Florida, “alter and abolish” the failed approaches and policies of Washington, D.C.

At the moment that man is Herman Cain.  And it is that way because none of the other candidates have convincingly put forth a reform agenda that dramatically changes either the way Washington works or the failed and outdated policies holding us back.  All the other candidates are being overshadowed by the political reputations that precede them.  Meanwhile Herman Cain is discussing things as scrapping the current tax code.

But there are several important points to remember.  Herman Cain is quite inexperienced at campaigning. And while his lack of experience as a politician is a plus for him right now, at some point experience will be an issue and voters are going to want to know that Herman Cain has the know-how to achieve that which he promises within the very political system that he contradicts.

Point two.  Rick Perry may be don but he is not out.  The best example of that is Bill Clinton in 1992.

Early on in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton had low national poll numbers.  He was running against Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, Robert Kerry, and Tom Harkin.   He lost in Iowa and while trying to compete in New Hampshire against  Paul Tsongas, the Senator from neighboring Massachusetts, Clinton got caught up in the Gennifer Flowers scandal.  Despite Tsongas having favorite son status in the Granite State, Clinton was leading over Tosngas in the polls.  Then when the Flowers scandal broke, he plummeted.  But when the primary was over Clinton still pulled off  surprising second place showing.

  • Paul E. Tsongas 33.2%
  • Bill Clinton* (24.8%)
  • Bob Kerrey (11.1%)
  • Tom Harkin (10.2%)
  • Jerry Brown ( 8.0%)

Even though Clinton lost, his ability to come in second caused him to be dubbed the Comeback Kid.  So Rick Perry  cn easily comeback.  Just because he faltered in the most recent debate does not mean he broke his leg and needs to be shot.  He can survive and live to run a powerful campaign despite his ” having no heart” remark which will continue to haunt him.

The third point.  Mitt Romney has been maintaining a consistent percentage of support that is in the mid teens.  This consistency means something.  It means that unlike all the other candidates, Romney has a solid base.  He has yet to experience wild swings in his poll numbers.  Such a fact means that Romney’s consistency as a candidate could prove to be a major factor that leads to his winning in the end.

The last and final point is the wildcard.  It is the opportunity for a candidate like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie to jump into the race and suck the air right out of the room.  It is also the possibility that someone like Rick Santorum or  Newt Gingrich turns things around with a series of events and positions and missteps by some of the top tier candidates.  Ultimately, the variables are endless and anything can still happen.  Did you think that Herman Cain was actually going become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination with just a little more than three months to go before the Iowa caucuses?

The only thing that is looking certain, is the decline of President Obama.

In the same Zogby poll that has Cain ahead of the pack, 57% of voters disapprove of President Obama’s job performance, and only 37% believe he deserves to be reelected.

Bookmark and Share 

Gingrich Preparing New Contract With America

Newt Gingrich has promised a new Contract with America to be revealed next week in Iowa.  Newt seeks to turn around his fortunes after stellar debate performances have failed to spark a surge in the polls.  While most will acknowledge that Gingrich is one of the smartest, if not the smartest person in any political room he enters, many are turned off by his low charisma, history with regards to the Clinton impeachment, and perceptions about a floundering 2012 primary campaign.

I wrote last week that there is a disconnect surrounding Newt’s campaign.  So here are my questions for the readers:  Will Newt’s new Contract with America help his campaign?  Do you like Newt?  Why or why not?  And this is an entirely different question: would you vote for Newt?  Consider this post a research project.

Operation Old TEA Bag: President Obama’s Inevitable Reelection Strategy

Bookmark and Share As the sun came up over Brooklyn on September 13th, 2011, Lewis Fidler received a phone call reminding him to support Democrat David Weprin in the special election taking place in CD-9. 
 The recent special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District did more than just elect a Republican to a seat that hasn’t been in the hands of the G.O.P. since 1923. As evident in Bill Clinton’s get-out-the-vote phone call, it also shed some light on the desperation of Democrats and what direction they will throw the ball in when they try to salvage their 2012 election fortunes with a last minute Hail Mary pass.  It offerred us insight in to the type of campaign that President Obama will resort to once he catches on to the fact that things like his third stimulus plan and his latest spending program to create jobs aren’t working for the country and aren’t being bought by the people.

In the race that pitted liberal incumbent Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin against retired businessman, Republican Bob Turner, Democrats struggled to find the issues that their candidate could run on to win voters over. Initially they did not even do that. At first it was assumed that as always, whichever Democrat they ran, would sail to victory and succeed sex texting addict Anthony Weiner. But then in August, Democrat polling showed something strange. It showed that Democrat Weprin was not getting the amount of support that Democrats usually get. This then suggested to them that they actually had a real and competitive election on their hands.

So they got to work and started to develop the issues they would campaign on.

What they found was that Weprin and Democrats had no positions on the issues that would excite voters and convince them that Weprin was their man. Even in a relatively liberal district like the ninth, there were no issues which Democrats held a popular position on.

There was the issue of gay marriage which Weprin recently supported the passage of in the New York State Assembly. But with a heavy Hassidic Jewish population in the ninth, legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex was far from popular.

There was the issue of our national debt. On that issue, Weprin held a typical Democrat line which supported big government and big government social programs. But even in a left leaning district like the one that spans the working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, voters know that our debt has become a deepening crisis for our nation and as such, they understand that more government spending is not realistic. That left Weprin with the opportunity to use the traditional liberal language of tax increases to pay for all the spending. But in the middleclass communities of NY-9, tax increases, even for those who earn $250,000 or more, doesn’t really go over well. The ninth congressional district is comprised largely of those people in the middle……the ones who get hit from both ends and are not poor enough to benefit from government social programs, but are not wealthy enough to take advantage of the tax loopholes and credits that the political establishment has arranged for. So these people did not want to hear the Obama “make the rich pay their fare share” rhetoric. Many of them are afraid that a liberal definition of “rich” would include them.

There was the issue of immigration. However on that issue, Weprin has a liberal “Dream Act” position that does not solve the illegal immigration issue that impacts on his district’s residents. They do not want their money going to fulfilling the dreams of illegal immigrants. These people, many of which remember seeing the World Trade Center from their windows and worked within its shadows, want our borders secured.

So like many other issues, that was out.

There was Israel. After all, with a population of Jewish voters that is disproportionately larger than in many other districts throughout the nation, as an Orthodox Jew himself, Weprin could certainly and convincingly argue his support for Israel and ride high on the popularity of that point. Unfortunately though, being a Democrat, most voters linked Weprin to President Obama’s unfriendly policies towards Israel. And Weprin’s argument to voters that they should trust him on israel because he would fight for Israel from within, didn’t have wings.

Short of a total condemnation of President Obama by Weprin, the Jewish vote in his district simply viewed Weprin as a congressional rubberstamp for Obama’s polcies.

The further Democrats went down the list of issues important to the middleclass voters of the ninth, the more they realized that there were no issues which allowed them to present a position that they could derrive district-wide support for.

So what is a candidate with a competitive election ahead of him to do?

Why, resort to the liberal playbook, of course!

That meant scare citizens. That meant to try and distort the Republican position to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those on it and those expecting to soon be on them. It meant denying the Republican position to preserve those programs for future generation with reforms that will strengthen Social Security and medicare. It meant do your best to make vulnerable senior citizens believe that if a Republican won, they would deny them the money that many seniors have come to rely upon.

That was a good start but Weprin and his Democrat strategists and Washington puppet masters needed something else to attract some voters outside of the senior citizen demographic. That’s when the orders from Washington came down. And that is when the strategy to run against the TEA Party came into play.

So in early August Operation Old TEA Bag went into effect. That is when Weprin campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr first argued the following:

“Bob Turner’s doing anything he can to distract voters from his plan to end Medicare as we know it, which would cost seniors in Brooklyn and Queens an extra $6,400 every year,” .

And from there, the tactics to scare senior citizens began

Then when the news that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the country’s credit rating because of fiscal uncertainty came out and dominated the headlines, Weprin’s campaign defined Bob Turner as a TEA Party extremist and charged that because of their “irresponsible demands”, “Republican Tea Party extremists” facilitated the downgrade and the fallout from it.

From that point on, the Democrat campaign for Congress in NY-9 began.

It was a constant barrage of trying to make the TEA Party the enemy that voters had to unite against. It was a never ending campaign to define Bob Turner as the TEA Party candidate. In Between those lines of attack was tossed in the same old scare tactics intended to frighten senior citizens that predate the Reagan Administration.

For his part Bob Turner campaigns argued;

“Career politicians like David Weprin have taxed and spent this country into a crisis. They have jeopardized the entire social safety network by irresponsibly borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend,”

And as one Turner campaign aide put it;

“Businessman Bob Turner is running to protect Social Security and Medicare for every American over 55 years old and to put those essential programs on a sustainable path for everybody younger than that.”

But Bob Turner didn’t just defend himself against Operation Old TEA Bag. He spent most of his time denouncing the Obama policies that even urban, middle-class Democrats have lost faith in. Like the days of Ronald Reagan, Bob Turner found himself addressing a new generation of Reagan Democrats. Democrats who do not appreciate the condition of our nation and do not have faith in the direction their Party is heading in under a liberal President.

Yet as the campaign continued and the polls tightened, D.C. Democrats from the DCCC, DNC, and from the state and local Party apparatus, double-downed on their last hope……Operation Old TEA Bag. Even when only days before the special election was to take and polls showed that Turner turned the tables and was now ahead of Weprin, Democrats found themselves desperately trying to make a success of their fear campaign of senior citizens and their efforts to make the TEA Party the common enemy.

The plan was perfect. It even concluded on a high note…….a recorded phone call from former President Clinton which tied the TEA Party and Medicare together as he stated “and he’ll oppose the TEA Party plan to destroy Medicare” But ultimately, what Democrats thought was the perfect strategy, proved to be as unsustainable and useless as their economic policies.

Like driving a car on empty, it was a last ditch, desperate attempt to run a camping not on any issues, just on fear. The only problem is that in the end, senior citizens were less afraid of distortions about Bob Turner than they were of the truth about the current direction our nation is headed. In the end, the voters of the ninth district decided that the TEA Party was not their problem. Democrats were.

Unless Democrats start singing a different a tune, they will still be the problem in 2012. And just as Operation Old TEA Bag did not work for them in CD-9, it will not work for them in the 2012 elections. With few accompishments of his own to point toand with most Americans wanting to repeal his signature achievement…..Obamacare, President Obama is likely to  do little else but resort to scaring senior citizens and trying to run against the TEA Party.  Operation Old TEA Bag did not end in the streets of Brookjlyn and Queens.  It is really only just starting at Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bookmark and Share

Yeah, but isn’t Social Security a ponzi scheme?

Talking about Social Security like it is just some government program that takes taxes from young workers and gives it to retired seniors as a ponzi scheme used to lose elections for Republicans.  But that was back when young, optimistic voters actually thought Social Security would be there for them.  Seriously, is there anyone out there still that gullible?

The height of our nation’s fiscal health came when Bill Clinton played a shell game with Social Security and called it a balanced budget.  Obama has cut Social Security taxes by 2%, despite the program’s fiscal uncertainty, and now wants to cut Social Security taxes in half and pay for it with taxes on the rich that even his own party wouldn’t vote for in 2009 when he last proposed it.  Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in last night’s debate, Obama has now threatened twice to cancel Social Security checks if Republicans don’t vote for his budgets.  What was an illusion of certainty to generation X is a joke to the youngest voters.

Who should be scared, seniors or future retirees?

When Rick Perry says Social Security is a lie and a ponzi scheme, believe it or not he resonates with my generation and younger.  We grew up being told that Social Security was a broken system and not to count on it.  We all got 401k plans and IRA plans because we knew Social Security wouldn’t be there for us.  Honestly, I don’t know a single person my age or younger who says “Boy, I can’t wait to retire and collect Social Security”.  We know it’s a lie, and if we get it, it will be icing on top of what we have saved for ourselves.

So let’s cut through the crap.  Who really has the best answer on Social Security?  Rick Perry wants to move it to the states and let the states run it.  Romney wants to increase the retirement age and change the way Social Security is calculated so that you don’t get paid as much.  But the majority of the candidates on last night’s stage want to offer private accounts for Social Security that future Presidents can’t dip into to balance their budget and future Presidents can’t cancel if they don’t get their way with the legislature.

In fact, of the candidates with scary language on Social Security, Perry and Romney are the ones whose stated plans would keep Social Security closest to what it is today.  Both have acknowledged affinity for private accounts, but both are looking to fix and make the current program solvent.  Cain leads the way on a fundamental overhaul of Social Security by turning it into private accounts, while Newt and Bachmann both support the idea.  Ron Paul’s view on social government programs seems a little up in the air after this last debate, going from a scrap it all approach to a we should get rid of it, but probably won’t approach.

Social Security will never be fixed until we are honest about it.  That much, Perry has spot on.  And Republicans who attack Perry for verbally assaulting Social Security may win senior Democrats, but will lose young Republicans.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme, and Perry isn’t the first person to call it that.  It is a lie, especially when it is slated to go bankrupt before most of us (including myself) will start collecting.  It is not a guarantee as long as the President can withhold checks or raid the fund in order to pretend he balanced the budget.  It is not supported by the Federal constitution.

Democrats can fear monger with seniors on this issue all they want, but anyone under 38 years old should think twice before voting for a party that can’t be honest and speak plainly about Social Security.

 

 

Will 2012 Ruin 2016?

In 1996, after Democrat President Bill Clinton had embarked on a regime so liberal that he swept Newt Gingrich and Republicans into power in 1994, it seemed for Republicans that it was Bob Dole’s time. However, with Republicans being frowned upon for shutting down the government and Clinton getting credit for reigning in spending, Bob Dole’s clear path became more and more difficult. It didn’t help that a third party candidate was stealing GOP votes or that Dole showed the charisma and enthusiasm of Fred Thompson at 3 in the afternoon.

In 2012 things may not be so different.

Noemie Emery writes in the Washington Examiner that the class of 2012 for Republican candidates may be the weak link in the GOP ascendancy. CPAC showed just how deep a divide exists between the different brands of Republicanism. None of the current field is an across the board favorite, and as I mentioned last week even Mitt Romney scares some conservatives.

Contrasted with the candidates who could be prominent in 2016, the 2012 class seems dull and divisive. As Emery points out, 2016 could see figures who have emerged as highly popular among conservatives and have already proven themselves as leaders. She mentions Marco Rubio. I would add Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Chris Christie, Allen West, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and Paul Ryan to that list.

Each of these politicians have become rock stars among the conservatives in their constituency and are starting to build national respect.

As wide as the 2012 field appears right now, it may end up being the year of lost potential. Many candidates who could have injected the young vibrancy of the conservative resurgence into 2012 have made other commitments. Mike Pence will likely run for governor of Indiana. Chris Christie is staying put in New Jersey. The candidate who best embodies the conservative values that swept into Congress in 2010 also happens to be one of the most divisive among conservatives in Sarah Palin.

So what about Emery’s suggestion that Republicans would be better off losing in 2012? Honestly I don’t think we can afford to lose in 2012. And when I say we can’t afford it, I don’t just mean the Republican party.

 

Thanks to a friend who posted the Emery article at u4prez.com

Santorum’s Social Conservative Stance Could Bring Him The Iowa Victory

Bookmark and Share

As candidates continue to make stops in the early caucus state of Iowa making speeches at local GOP events and signing books, one thing is apparent – Iowa is an important step for a Presidential contender. More specifically for a Republican presidential hopeful, Iowa’s high percentage of evangelical Christian social conservative voters (60% of caucus voters identify as such). They drove Mike Huckabee to victory in the 2008 caucuses and even Pat Robertson garnered a 2nd place Iowa finish in 1988. As he begins what appears to many to be a run for the 2012 Republican nomination, Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is banking on his strong social conservative background to propel him to victory in the Hawkeye state.

While Huckabee remains the favorite once again in Iowa, Santorum’s past history on social issues shows that he has the ability to draw many of those evangelical Christian voters especially with Indiana Congressman Mike Pence announcing that he will not enter the 2012 fray. As Santorum himself has said, “Never underestimate the power of social issues.”

In 1994, when Santorum was a second-term Pennsylvania congressman seeking a U.S. Senate seat, he took on then President Bill Clinton’s proposed assault gun ban and rode Pennsylvania’s legion of deer hunters, who saw the legislation as an assault on civil liberties, to victory. Only 36, Santorum won by 87,000 votes becoming the first conservative elected to the Senate from Pennsylvania since 1952. Santorum had one of the Senate’s most conservative voting records and was floor manager of the most important legislation of the 1990s and one of the most highly contested social issues: Welfare reform.

Santorum and his wife have a large family of seven children, the youngest of which, Bella, is severely disabled with Trisomy 18, a condition caused by a chromosomal defect that prevents more than 90 percent of its victims from reaching their first birthdays. Being a staunch pro-life advocate the former Senator is dedicated to trying to reform today’s abortion culture that he see’s as being ever to willing to treat lives such as Bella’s as disposable.

There aren’t many candidates willing to touch the abortion issue but Rick Santorum has shown he isn’t going to shy away from the social issues that he feels are important to the future of the country and it may make him THE sleeper candidate heading into the Iowa caucuses where social conservatives decide the outcome.

While most candidates are focused on the countries economic ailments, many social conservative voters may be feeling neglected. Heading into Iowa, Rick Santorum has a good chance of filling the void. With Mike Pence out and Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin having to make tough decisions to leave lucrative television jobs, Rick Santorum may very well sneak up on America, starting in Iowa.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: