Is Barack Obama Really a Good Friend to Israel? See the Video

   Bookmark and Share   While Mitt Romney did a good job in the last presidential debate, there was one thing I really think he was remiss in not pointing out.  When the topic of Israel came up, the Governor should have mentioned the unprecedented proposal that President Obama made in 2011 when he told Israel to adopt its 1967 borders. (See the video at the bottom of this post)

With all the attempts by President Obama to claim that he has established the strongest relationship with Israel of any previous President, there are many facts which contradict that claim. Between his refusal to ever visit Israel during his entire term in office, his recent refusal to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Bebe was visiting the U.S. last month, and a history of Obama snubbing the Prime Minister on many occasions prior to that, it is clear that the American relationship with Israel is not as warm and close as it has been under previous presidents. But one of the most egregious acts against Israel committed by President Obama was his attempt to have Israel return to its indefensible 1967 borders.   It is a point which has not gotten the attention that it should in this election but for good reason, it must.

By trying to have Israel return it’s pre-1967 borders, President Obama was providing Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.  As explained in this video, a return to those borders would make it impossible for Israel to effectively defend itself against the enemies who surround them and have a great capacity to exploit added opportunities to launch ground and missile attacks.  Yet this is the position that Barack Obama proposed one of closest allies in the world to put themselves in.

During the last presidential debate, Mitt Romney had multiple chances to remind voters of this major Obama foreign policy initiative. And he should have.  At one point Romney reminded voters about Obama’s the apology tour to the Middle East he went on when first coming to office.  Governor Romney reminded us that while the President took the opportunity to fly to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq, he skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region.  It was around then that Romney should have at some point pivoted to President Obama’s 1967 border proposal by adding that while he has apologized to audiences that consisted of our enemies, he has also asked our friends to make fatal concessions to our enemies.  In this case it was a concession that would have moved Israel closer to extinction.

Obama’s attempt to have Israel adopt indefensible borders is a major issue.  It is another sign of his bass ackwards policies.  Policies which seek to placate our enemies and offend our allies.  A policy that is more in the best interests of enemies than our own nation.

When it comes to the Middle East, Israel is the only nation in the region that the United States need not fear a terrorist attack from.  If it is not our only real friend in the Middle East, it is certainly our best.  For that reason alone, it should not have a so-called friend who makes it easier for Israel’s enemies to destroy them.  Yet that is a part of the Obama foreign policy which was not mentioned in any of the debates.  So I have prepared the following video to make the point that Mitt failed to and that others have forget to.

Bookmark and Share

G.O.P. Unviels the Stage for Romney’s Nomination at the Republican National Convention

   Bookmark and Share   Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and convention Chief Executive Officer William Harris today unveiled the final stage for the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum.  This stage is a first of its kind for political conventions that utilizes 13 LED Screens with high pixel counts that will collectively create a large-scale backdrop with video capabilities.

Chairman Priebus said,

“I am proud to present you a stage that is fitting of the historic event that will kick off right here just one week from today. Our convention will connect with people across America and around the world from right here on this stage – through speakers and these incredible screens behind me. On any given night almost 40 million people will be joining us through television but we are also making an unprecedented effort to connect with millions more through our ‘convention without walls’ – a pioneering digital program focused on engaging people, building a strong community and amplifying convention messages.

“I am excited. The convention team is excited. Our party is excited, and America is excited. We are excited because we are ready for a new direction in our country. This isn’t just an election we have coming up. Nominating Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan here in Tampa at the 2012 Republican National Convention is the first step we are taking toward a better future for generations of Americans.”

Republican National Convention CEO William Harris said, “The stage is really incredible. We are using technology and digital capabilities that have never been used at a convention before. The high-tech stage brings this event to a whole new level and it will help people at home watching TV or watching us through YouTube online to be a part of the energizing experience here in Tampa.”

“A Better Future” Stage/Podium Facts & Figures

  • Approximately 318 production staff and crew built the podium totaling more than 30,000 man hours, 20,000 man-hours from the local production crew alone.
  • Some on the crew worked 16-hour days, and the main staff will work around the clock during convention
  • The team comes from 22 states.
  • The base crew began planning 1.5 years ago.
  • Set pieces are not made from disposable material like normal rock concertsthis set has all the highest quality material, incorporating the most advanced safety precautions.
  • Some set elements are so heavy that they had to be rigged from the ceiling to barely touch the rest of the set to keep the weight from crushing the podium.

PODIUM SCREENS

  • The Republican Convention is showcasing XL Video’s newest Pixled F-6 LED panels on world stage for the first time.
  • There are almost NINE MILLION total pixels in the screens and arena ribbons.
  • Screens are the backbone of the set. There are 15 LED screens total, 13 of which are on the stage. Screens are stacked in the space to create sense of depth.
  • They can form an unbroken panoramic image or be used individually to crate a collage effect.
  • The podium has a total of 2,402 square feet of LED screens, compared to standard 40’’ TV of 6.3 square feet.
  • The screens range in size from 8’6’’x 8’6’’ to 28’8’’x12’4’’. The largest screen is 381 square feet.
  • The stage/set uses three LED products:
  • Six center stage screens with 4 MM technology
  • Four screens with 6 MM technology
  • Canopy screens with 11 MM technology & Side screens with 11 MM technology
  • The set also includes live HD video feeds. The magnitude of this project required a 3-week installation
  • Screens are framed in 6’’ wood frames to keep screens from merging into one flat visual plane.
  • “Control Freak Systems” will be used to control the live HD video feed by combining TV truck feeds, cameras, video playback, graphics, social media streams onto screens. This includes 36 channels of HD Playback.

PODIUM DESIGN

  • The podium was designed with sense of “America’s Living Room.”
  • The design is based on a warm but modern approachtraditional American Prairie style architecture merged with modern technology.
  • The challenge was making a large-scale set that was also warm and inviting.
  • There are three canopy screens above the stage to frame it and contribute to its sense of intimacy. Mullions (vertical elements that form a division between units of a window) give the screens a feeling of skylight windows.  Angled side screens reinforce the design and showcase happenings to box seat guests.
  • Open frames and horizontal beams create a sense of architecture and balanced composition.
  • There are four tones of wood on the podium proper to provide texture and balance:
  • Frames: cherry wood faces with mahogany bevels
  • Steps: warm mahogany and threads of lighter cherry
  • Banding around stage: walnut and mahogany
  • Center of deck: warm light cherry

PODIUM LIGHTING

  • A custom-built gigabit fiber optic system is used to distribute data from the control panel to the individual lights using 14.79 miles of cabling and approximately 25,662 pounds of lights the  approximate weight of a U.S. Navy jet-powered drone.
  • There are 950 total lights including 267 incandescent lights and 390 arc lights.
  • The lighting system uses a color-mixing technology that creates an impression of texture.
  • State of the art fixtures include varillite, 30k, 3500k, 3500 spots, 3500 washes, PRG Best Boys, and Clay Paky Alpha Spot 700’s which produce the most crisp, clear lights.
  • The crew focused all of this lighting in the Times Forum in just six hours.

PODIUM SOUND

The convention acoustically treated 100% of the Times Forum ceilingthese are permanent improvements that will remain in the Tampa Bay Times Forum and allow for high-volume concerts, helping to attract future entertainment, business, and energy to Tampa.

The sound system contains 1.36 MILLION watts of amplifier power – compared to 300 watts used in a standard home stereo.

Total light and sound cabling equals 20.39 miles.

Sound system is made of:

  1. 159 JBL Line Array Speakers
  2. 22 Stage Monitor Speakers
  3. 202 Media Speakers
  4. 6 Digital mixing consoles
  5. 12 wireless microphones
  6. 80 standard microphones
  7. 348 press audio outputs

RIGGING

Certified rope access teams were hired to climb high beams and rig points to the highest parts of the Times Forum.

  • They rigged a total of 2,500 feet of trussalmost half mile.
  • 250,000 lbs. of lighting, audio and video gear are now suspended from the building’s roof.
  • There are 275 chain motors (rigging points).
  • The Times Forum’s 1,000 lb. Lightening Tesla coil suspended from the ceiling had to be moved to load
  • any materials onto the catwalk.

Bookmark and Share

Trent Lott Endorses Mitt Romney and Establishes Mitt as The Estasblishment Candidate

Bookmark and Share   CBS News recently posted an interview with former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in which he stated that he supports Mitt Romney over Newt Gingrich  because the former Governor of Massachusetts has a much better chance at defeating President Obama than Newt does [see the interview below this post]

According to Lott;

“I think we would be better off with Mitt Romney as our president.”

He added;

“We don’t need a good speech. We don’t need a good debater. We don’t need rhetorical passion, What we need is leadership and direction for our country.”

Last year Lott stated that he was backing  Romney, but he declined to openly criticize Gingrich.  But with Newt’s surge in the polls comes a new approach by Trent Lott who now aggressively seeks the opportunity to denounce Gingrich.

In addition to telling CBS that he just doesn’t think that’s what we need in a President, when asked if Gingrich could beat President Obama in the election Lott bluntly states;

“I’m sure he wouldn’t, frankly,”

The former Senate leader also went sfter Newtt for a reprimand rewgarding a ethics charge and says;

“It raises questions about management style, and it raises questions about why did he wind up with the result where you get punished by your ethics committee and wind up having to step aside,”.

He added

“People want to know what ended up happening there.”

Lott said the Ethics Committee wouldn’t have acted against him “if there weren’t some real problems.” He said the allegations and subsequent investigation gutted whatever hope Gingrich had to lead.

“We all make mistakes when you’re in leadership, we’re human beings,” Lott said.

“That was a very serious result and one that clearly undermined his ability to lead the House. “

Lott also accused Gingrich of taking too much credit for some of those things which were achieved during his four years as Speaker of the House, one of them being the balanced budgets that were passed.  According to Trent Lott, those balanced budgets were more the doing of former Ohio Congressman John Kasich and New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici.

The former G.O.P. Senate leader also claimed that the now infamous government shutdown during Newt’s Speakership, was a big mistake and that it was based on the political goal of beating President Clinton, not the policy goal of getting the buf=dget under control.

“He was the leader. He was really pushing it. He said, ‘We’re going to do it. We can take Clinton on and we can beat him on this,'”

Lott recalled.

“To me it wasn’t about beating Clinton, it was about getting things done without causing an uproar and a chaotic situation that was very unsettling to a lot of people. We could have gotten it done without that.”

Trent Lott’s assessment of the Gingrich years is certainly worthy of consideration.  I mean Lott was there and he was a part of the events which he speaks about.  But at the same time, as leaders of two different chambers of Congress, what Lott says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Furthermore, while he may have been their when Newt was in charge and established that he did not like what he saw, Lott was not their with Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts, so it is a little hard for Trent Lott to judge Mitt Romney the same way he does Newt Gingrich.  If Lott were sitting in a leadership post within the Massachusetts state legislature, he might not have liked what he saw in Mitt Romney either.

Ultimately though, Lott’s endorsement of Romney does little to either help Romney or hurt Gingrich.

Trent Lott is seen as a former member of the establishment, and the establishment is not really appreciated by most voters.  In fact, what many anti-establishment voters conclude from Lott’s remarks is that Newt Gingrich is a fighter who unlike the establishment, doesn’t just go with the flow.  And they like that.  So if anything, Lott actually helps Newt Gingrich, because by endorsing Mitt Romney, Trent Lott simply reinforces the negative impression that Mitt Romney is forced to combat,……the negative impression of being the establishment choice for President.

Ultimately, Newt might want to actually send a little thank you note to Trent Lott.  By helping to put the establishment seal of approval on Romney, Lott did a lot of good for Newt.

Bookmark and Share

Real Time South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Results

Final Election results of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

ACU Announces Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain to Address CPAC 2012

For Immediate Release: January 20, 2012

Contacts: Kristy Campbell, (202) 347-9388, KCampbell@conservative.org

 

ACU Announces Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain to Address CPAC 2012

ACU Preparing to Host 39th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference

 

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Conservative Union (ACU) today announced former Presidential candidates U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain will both be featured speakers at CPAC 2012 – the 39th annual Conservative Political Action Conference. America’s largest gathering of conservative leaders and activists will be held Thursday, February 9 – Saturday, February 11, 2012, in Washington, DC.

 

“We are proud to welcome Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain to CPAC 2012 next month in our Nation’s Capital. Congresswoman Bachmann is one of the House Chamber’s fiercest advocates for constitutional conservatism, and Herman Cain remains a favorite among many of our supporters across the country. Both are great additions to our exciting CPAC agenda,” said ACU Chairman Al Cardenas. “In less than one month, the American Conservative Union looks forward to hosting 2012’s premier venue for highlighting and advancing conservative leaders, principles and polices.”

 

Every year, the ACU brings thousands of grassroots conservatives and conservative leaders together in Washington, DC for three days of blockbuster speeches, policy discussions and networking opportunities – all celebrating the shared principles of smaller government, a strong national defense and traditional values. Based on this year’s theme, “We STILL Hold These Truths”, CPAC 2012 will feature grassroots training and strategizing to strengthen the conservative movement and ensure conservatives have the resources and tools necessary to defeat the Obama agenda in November.

 

CPAC 2012 features an all-star line-up that also includes former Governors Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter, Senators Jim DeMint and Marco Rubio, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Laura Ingraham, Congressmen Jim Jordan, Steve King, Paul Ryan and Allen West, Colonel Oliver North, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governors Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker and many more.

 

The American Conservative Union is America’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization and was founded in 1964. The ACU has hosted CPAC in the Nation’s Capital since 1973.  Admission tickets and hotel accommodations for CPAC 2012 are going quickly. Online registration for CPAC 2012 ends February 3, so reserve your space today at www.cpac.org.

 

 

###

32 Years Ago Today, Ronald Reagan Showed Us What a Difference a Debate Can Make

Bookmark and Share  Tonight the Republican presidential candidates will be gathering in New Hampshire for a presidential debate and in a matter of hours, they will be having another one on Sunday morning.

Both of the debates may not change the outcome of the New Hampshire primary being held on Tuesday, but they will have effect on it and the momentum that is established will play a role in the  South Carolina primary that follows New Hampshire’s contest.  How much af an effect is the big question.

My opinion is that of all the candidates still running, Newt Gingrich is the candidate skilled enough to maximize these two forums and use them to his advantage in ways that far exceed the others on the stage with him.

But the right opportunity could just prove to be pivotal to any of the participants.

Exactly 32 years ago today, Ronald Reagan literally established himself as a man  to reckon with in  politics when the moderator of another New Hampshire debate tried to silencehim.  When that man asked that his mic be turned off, Reagan turned to him and shouted, “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green”.

From that point on, in the minds of voters, Ronald Reagan established himself as fighter who will stand up to anyone and say it like it like it is.  He also established himself as a determined man who will stand up for all that he believes in and who was not afraid to do so.

As seen in the video below, Reagan’s forcefulness received not only a rousing standing ovation of shouts, cheers, and applause, you might also note that the men he was running against, stood behind Reagan and were giving their own energetic round of applause to their opponent.

Such a moment may not come up tonight or tomorrow morning, but you can rest assured that each man on stage tonight will be looking for the just the opportunity to repeat history and follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann’s Presidential TEA Party is Over

  Bookmark and Share    After canceling a planned campaign swing to South Carolina, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann scheduled a press conference in which she announced that she was suspending her campaign.

Bachmann who won the Ames Straw Poll several months ago, lost the state in it’s first in the nation caucus to all of her rivals except for one, Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who did not campaign in Iowa.

Bachmann began the announcement to suspend her campaign by discussing the great responsibility to defend our republic is and explained that she decided to take responsibility by running for President and that her decision was made on the day that Obamacare was passed.  She described Obamacare as one of the greatest threat to the very foundation of our Republic and that its repeal is her greatest goal.

She promised to consider to fight against President Obama’s socialist agenda, as well as capital cronyism, family, life, and religious liberty.

But Bachmann said that on Tuesday, the people of Iowa spoke loudly and as now she will step aside and support the Republican whom we must all unite behind in order to defeat Barack Obama in November.

What Bachmann did not do is throw her support behind any particular candidate yet.  However her departure from the presidential race begins to cut down on a critical factor behind Mitt Romney’s success in the Republican contest.  With her in  the race, Bachmann helped divide the social conservative voting bloc among at least 4 candidates.  That dilution of the vote helped Romney hammer together his frontrunner status.  But now with her out, a candidate like Rick Santorum who essentially tied with Mitt Romney in Iowa, may benefit the most as he begins to become the candidate that social conservatives begin to coalesce around.

While Bachmann may not immediately throw her support behind a single candidate right now, her own future will probably consist of her filing the paperwork that will make her a candidate for reelection to her Minnesota congressional seat.

While a  prospective Republican candidate to replace Bachmann in the House did step forward, Bachmann supporters and the Minnesota G.O.P. have largely been anticipating a Bachmann reelection effort.  According to the deadlines established on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s website, the filing deadline for Bachmann is May 5, 2012, a date that gave Bachmann plenty of time to pursue her presidential ambitions and still file her candidacy for reelection to Congress if that pursuit failed.  That scenario was predicted by White House 2012 back in October of 2011.

Last night it became clear to Bachmann that her pursuit for the White House did fail, but you can rest assured that Bachmann will not fail the conservative cause as she moves forward.  While her campaign may not have been a been a big success from a strategic standpoint, she performed valiantly and was a ferocious defender of our founding principles who most definitely kept the other candidates on their toes and deserves credit for a job well done.

Bachmann now becomes the second Republican presidential  candidate from Minnesota to fall victim to the voters of neighboring Iowa.  Back in August, when Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s own poor showing led him to end his presidential campaign a day later.

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Monday Mentions from The Republican Presidential Race – 12/12/11

Bookmark and Share  Gingrich and Romney trade barbs, Paul becomes appealing, Santorum raises money with Romney’s bet, and some juice on Marco Rubio and Ben Bernanke.   All of this awaits you in today’s Trunkline 2012.  And don’t forget to take the poll in it.

Between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, which of the two would be a stronger candidate against President Obama?   Vote here, now.

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Sunday Election News Review-12//11/11

Bookmark and Share Sunday’s Trunkline 2012 offers you a picure that is worth more words than Obama stimulus package, a video that summarizes the Obama Adminstration up quite well, the DNC’s attacks oln Newt, Bachmann’s attacks on Newt and Mitt, Perry’s poke at Romney’s deep pockets, Santorum’s telling interview with bloggers, a recap of last night’s debate, and more.  All for your information and consideration here at White House 2012, where being American and believing in American exceptionalism is a good thing.

Hat Tip To MoonBattery.com

  • Video of the Week:
Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Sunday Election News Review-12//4/11

Bookmark and Share ****Cain gone, Newt Ahead in Iowa, Coming in second: Ron Paul?? *****

With Cain gone, the field is looking more and more like Gingrich/Romney.  Meanwhile, liberal pundits and even some conservatives seem to be praying that Newt’s rise will be as long lived as Bachmann’s, Perry’s and Cain’s.  Is it really Santorum’s turn?  How about Ron Paul’s?

Bookmark and Share

Perry Tries To Reclaim Ground in Iowa with New Television Ad Buy

  Bookmark and Share  It may not be a good thing but there is no denying that there two critical elements in winning an election——–money and organization.  So far Rick Perry campaign’s has not demonstrated any great organizational skills but he has proven to be a prolific fundraiser and now we are seeing that money go to work. [see the ad below]

While there have been web ads produced and released, few campaigns have actually put those ads on television.  While web ads cost practically nothing to run on the internet, airing those ads on television can become expensive.  But in an attempt to regain some ground and establish momentum in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Perry has become one of the first G.O.P. candidates to run ads on network TV in Iowa.  Fred Karger was actually the first.

In the thirty second spot, Perry promises to create 2.5 million jobs Rick Perry promises to create at least 2.5 million new jobs.  He punctuates his promise by saying “I know something about that,”  “In Texas we’ve created over 1 million new jobs while the rest of the nation lost over 2 million.”

The commercial spot also taps in to the vote rich issue of domestic energy production as Perry states;

“I’ll eliminate President Obama’s regulations that hurt other sources of domestic energy, like coal and natural gas,” Perry says in the ad. “That will create jobs and reduce our reliance on oil from countries that hate America.”

The spot is a good one and if played enough times and seen by enough receptive Iowa voters, it can help to boost Perry’s image and at least establish a more positive subconscious impression of him in the mind of voters.  What will be interesting to see is if the new Perry television commercial goes unanswered by any or all of his G.O.P. presidential rivals.  Will one of them question Perry’s claims about his record on job creation in Texas, or will they allow his ad to allow Perry to reclaim the strongest argument he had going for him as America’s jobs Governor?

With 10 weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses are held, the strategies that each campaign hopes to employ in Iowa have to go in to action pretty soon.  Especially since the week to week and a half prior to the Caucus, most voters will be more focussed on the Christmas and New Year’s holidays than on Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan or what was painted on a rock nestled somewhere in the property owned by Perry’s family.

So running relatively early ads in Iowa could be quite important and in Perry’s case it is probably the prudent thing to do.  With his numbers in  Iowa anywhere between 6 and 9 percent, he is currently far back in the field holding on to fourth place, behind Newt Gingrich.   That means Perry has to start to somehow bring his numbers back up so that he has at the chance for a top spot in the Iowa Caucus results.

One thing that I will note here is that Rick Perry is a much better candidate when he is scripted.  In this particular ad, Perry is confident, convincing and sharp.  That is in total contrast to his live, on the stump, off the cuff appearances in which he often speaks in ways that are choppy and halting and cast an impression of awkwardness on unpreparedness on Perry.  Such is the case in his past debate performances and during other occasions where a teleprompter is not available to him.   In other words, good scripted commercials may be the best way for Perry to go.

And that brings us back to the two elements that are critical to any victorious campaign, money and organization.

Perry has the money but he needs to spend it wisely.  That means his campaign needs to determine whether he wants to make a real run for Iowa where if he pulls off a win, will have some momentum going into South Carolina.  Or does he want to just let Iowa fall where it may and focus on winning South Carolina and Florida?

Another alternative is to invest just enough money in Iowa to force his opponents to deplete their own resources in Iowa and avoid an embarrassing showing there, while maintaining a concentrated investment of time and money into South Carolina?

Whatever Perry’s strategy will be, it will have to go in to effect rather quickly.  With 10 weeks to go and only about 8 and half or 9 weeks to really utilize, time is running out.

Bookmark and Share

 

Gingrich vs. Perry. Whose Tax Plan is More Effective?

   Bookmark and Share  On Tuesday, former Speaker Newt Gingrich was quick to compare his flat tax proposal to that of Texas Governor Rick Perry’s flat tax plan which was released earlier in the day.

In his comparison, Newt convincingly argues that his plan is better than Perry’s.  Gingrich is also quick to point out that while the flat tax concept is something which Perry only recently decided to run with, he has been an ardent supporter of flat tax reform since as far back as 1997 when he stated that “There are things I would like to do like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS.”

The biggest distinguishing aspect of Gingrich’s and Perry’s flat tax plan is the rates which the two men arrive at.  While Perry set’s a high 20% flat rate for both corporate and personal income taxes, Newt Gingrich proposed two separate rates and each one is lower than Perry’s.  In Gingrich’s plan, which predates Perry’s, the Speaker calls for a 12.5% corporate flat tax and and a 15% personal flat tax rate.

Other distinguishing features of the two plans involve capital gains taxes, deductions for charitable giving and home ownership, and payroll taxes.

While Gingrich’s optional flat tax system seeks to eventually replace payroll taxes with personal accounts that  yield better results. Perry’s plan does not change the payroll tax at all.  And on the issue of capital gains and  deductions for charitable giving and home ownership, Newt argues that Rick Perry is adopting a liberal class warfare approach that only gives such deductions and eliminates capital gains taxes on  those making $500,000 a year or less.  Newt’s plan fairly offers it to everyone. [For the actual comparison and a list of references demonstrating Newt’s longstanding committment to a flat tax, see the table and lists that the Gingrich campaign provided, at the bottom of this post]

While Perry’s plan is most definitely a good one, and touches on a few things that Newt’s does not seem to, such as abolishing the tax on Social Security benefits, Newt’s plan seems to benefit economic growth more than Rick Perry’s does. Much of the reason for that is simply based on the fact that Gingrich’s rate is much lower than Perry’s.  In addition to that, Newt Gingrich has offered significant entitlement reforms that go far beyond anything that Perry has toyed with.  Together, those two factors alone make Newt Gingrich’s plan stronger than Rick Perry’s.

In a previous post, White House 2012 gave Perry’s plan which he calls Cut, Cap and Balance, two thumbs up.  Perry’s plan still gets both thumbs up.  However; the plan which Newt Gingrich proposed long before Rick Perry put his proposal out,  gets three, not two thumbs up.

Meanwhile both men have done better than all their opponents on this issue.  For his part, Mitt Romney offered a 59 point plan that included some tinkering with the tax code, but failed to realize that he is tinkering with a tax code that is defective and needs to junked.  And while his plan is a solid and accetable program of pro-growth policies, it fails to acknowledge the simple reality that we will be much better off scrapping the existing tax code instead of tinkering with it.

As for Herman Cain,  I am no fan of his hybridized version of a flat tax and a little disappointed in Cain’s evolution on this issue.

Cain was initially calling for a Fair Tax, which is more accurately described as a national sales tax.  The one day he suddenly turned it into 9-9-9, a plan that offers a 9% corporate tax rate, a 9% personal income tax rate, and a 9% national sales tax.  That is a plan I cannot support simply because I refuse to give the federal government the authority to play with a new tax…..the sales tax.

Of course Gingrich and Perry and even Romney may still change their own plans as this campaign plays out, but so far, Gingrich and Perry are at least on the right path to the right reforms and currently, I find Gingrich’s path to be the most prosperous one for the nation.  The big questions now is, which one can best sell their plan and which one can use it in a way that will get their campaigns moving in the right direction and win them the votes they need to become the Republican presidential nominee?

Photobucket

The following was provided by the Gingrich presidential campaign

Let’s Bump Plans: A Comparison of Gingrich and Perry’s Flat Tax Plans

Gingrich’s Plan Far Bolder than Perry’s Plan and Will Lead to Far More Robust Job Creation and Capital Investment in United States

Gingrich Perry Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Rate 15% 20% Gingrich has advocated for several years an optional flat tax rate of 15%, which when coupled with Gingrich’s bold entitlement and regulatory reforms, will usher in another era of booming economic growth and new, higher-paying jobs. The Perry rate of 20% is higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes proposed in his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign.
Who Gets to Make Deductions for Charitable Giving and Home Ownership?? Everyone Families making less than $500,000/year By creating two separate classes of taxpayers, the Perry plan buys into the same class warfare that characterizes the Obama and Romney economic plans. The fact that there are still two brackets – even under a supposed “flat tax” plan – calls into question whether this is really a flat tax at all.
State and Local Tax Deductions Not deductible in optional flat tax plan Deductible in optional flat tax plan The Gingrich plan has a lower rate so less need for state and local deductions.  The deduction is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher state and local taxes. Removing the subsidy would lead states to reduce state and local taxes, or adopt their own flat tax reforms. The Perry plan erodes states’ competitive advantages by making state and local taxes deductible in his optional flat tax plan.
Who Benefits from Elimination of Capital Gains Tax? Everyone Depends whether capital gains is long term or short term.  Perry’s plan eliminates cap gains only for long term. The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax. The Perry plan only goes halfway, and by levying up to 35% tax on short-term capital gains, it will discourage investment, venture capital, and new jobs creation.
Corporate Income Tax 12.5% 20% The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Perry plan relies upon a short term “tax holiday,” then only drops the corporate tax rate to 20% — only average in the developed world, and still over 20% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%.  Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Taxes Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results No change in existing payroll tax Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit Both the EITC and the Child Tax Credit are preserved in Gingrich’s optional flat tax system. No information provided. Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans. Gingrich passed the first child tax credit as Speaker in 1997, and will preserve this credit and the EITC under his optional flat tax system.
Record in Achieving Dramatic Jobs and Economic Recovery at the National Level? Yes. Substantial. See record at right. None. Speaker Gingrich’s Record (1995-1999):•    Eleven Million New Jobs
•    Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s.
•    Unemployment rate of 4.2%.
•    Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year).
•    Venture capital investments grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs.
•    Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty.
•    Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down

Gingrich’s Advocacy of the Flat Tax Dates Back to 1997

From Item 2 in Gingrich’s 21st Century Contract with America (September 29, 2011)

All tax filers would be given the option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions.

Release of Jobs and Prosperity Plan Upon Announcement of Campaign (May 13, 2011)
Move toward an optional flat tax of 15% that would allow Americans the freedom to choose to file their taxes on a postcard, saving hundreds of billions in unnecessary costs each year.

In his 2010 book, To Save America
To generate another lasting economic boom, we need fundamental tax reform, similar to that proposed by Steve Forbes. We should adopt the optional 15 percent flat tax with generous personal exemptions.

In his 2008 book, Real Change
This concept of an optional flat tax was developed by Steve Forbes when his flat tax campaign was undermined by criticisms that it would take away popular tax breaks. Steve Forbes and Stephen Moore have both proposed giving American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions. They call it the free choice flat tax, and it’s an idea whose time has come.

In a 2008 National Review op-ed with Texas Representative Michael Burgess
An optional flat tax would save taxpayers more than $100 billion per year and reduce compliance costs by over 90 percent. This is a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect on our American economy.

In Foreword to Steve Forbes’ 2005 Book Flat Tax Revolution
I believe there is a real opportunity for a similar grass roots revolution imposing the flat tax on Washington. As people learn how much money and time they can save through a flat tax they are going to demand a simple alternative to the complexity and uncertainty of the Internal Revenue Service. As people spend hours in frustrating and seemingly endless paperwork and record keeping and preparing they are going to demand the freedom for their own time offered by a flat tax….As people watch the endless maneuvering of the lobbyists and the special interests they are going to demand the fairness of a flat tax.

As Speaker of the House in 1997
There are things I would like to do like a flat tax with virtual elimination of the IRS.

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Saturday Political News in Review and Cinema Politico Movie of the Week for 10/8/11


Bookmark and Share

Brought to you by White house 2012 & Hulu.com, The Good Pope is a poignant retelling of the story of Pope John XXIII.  He was Pope for only 4 years, seven months and six days when he died of stomach cancer on the 3rd June 1963.  His lived during a period of profound change, and a time which produced some of the most significant events of the 20th Century and once he became Pope, he also  produced some of the most significant events in the contemporary history of the Catholic Church.

Bob Hoskins stars as The Good Pope.

Bookmark and Share

Romney Addresses Values Voter Summit After Bill Bennet Defends Him Against Bigotry

Bookmark and Share  Today Mitt Romney took to the podium at the Values Voters Summit and delivered a speech that gave all whom call themselves Christians plenty of reasons to vote for him.  Romney’s speech came a day after Southern Baptist Convention leader Robert Jeffress, introduced Texas Governor Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit and then proceeded to unleash extraordinarily unchristian-like conduct through bigoted statements that condemned Mormonism and disqualified Mitt Romney as a legitimate presidential candidate because he is a Mormon.

Upon hearing these statements, White House 2012 posted a scathing editorial which among other things, denounced Jeffress, suggesting he was anything but Christian in his conduct and attitude and called him a bigot.  The editorial also questioned the sincerity of Governor Rick Perry’s attempt to disassociate himself from Jeffress, who his campaign agreed to let introduce him at the Value Voters Summit.  In that post White House 2012 also called upon Governor Perry to not just distance himself from Jeffress, but to repudiate him for his bigotry.

I continue to stand behind this position.  It is a position that I have seen few other forums covering the Republican presidential nomination contest take.  For a while I was beginning to think that I was alone in  my harsh judgment of Jeffress.  Such loneliness left me with a feeling of great disappointment in my Party.  As I stated in the original post;

“In this day and age, for Americans to hold prejudices against a political leader because of their faith, is nothing other than an example of backwards thinking and a contradiction to the very constitutional principles that the G.O.P. is trying to stress the need for our nation to return to.”

To think that I was alone in that belief within the G.O.P., left me angry.

That is until today.

Prior to Jay Sekulow’s introduction of Mitt Romney, the events emcee, former Reagan Education Secretary and  George H. W. Bush Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Bill Bennett , addressed the remarks made a day earlier by Pastor Jeffress after Rick Perry addressed the gathering the day before [see the video below] .  Bennett called the pastor’s comments “bigotry” and added

“Do not give voice to bigotry,” …… “You stepped on and obscured the words of Perry and Santorum and Cain and Bachmann and everyone else who has spoken here. You did Rick Perry no good sir, in what you had to say.”

Can I hear a hallelujah, praise the Lord, and Amen to that!

I felt redeemed in my disgust with Pastor Jeffress and his anti-Christian remarks and at the same time, Bill Bennett helped redeem my Party.  I applaud him for stepping up to the plate and correcting the record for us all.  And at the same time, I must pat myself on the back  among the first to take the position which I did, a position that Bill Bennett happened to echo when he stated that the words which Pastor Jeffress spoke, did nothing to help his Rick Perry, his chosen candidate for President.

I presented the same argument when I wrote;

 “Jeffress did little to win over any converts to Perry.”

 Soon after Bennett spoke, Mitt Romney followed, and  stated;

“And how ’bout that Bill Bennett?  He really hit that out of the ballpark.”

After that, Romney proceeded to present a case which did not allow for any Christian to legitimately question Romney’s committment to faith, values, morals, and Christian principles.  He called for everything from the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and defunding planned parenthood, to reaffirming marriage as that of a union strictly between a man and a woman, and for our government’s need to respect religious values.  And he did so in a presentation that was relaxed, laced with mild injections of appropriate humor, and also outlined his presidential agenda beyond social issues.  In it’s entireity, Romney’s speech was articulate, convincing and a presentation of a strong case for his being our next Commander-in -Chief  [see the complete speech below this post].

Unfortunately though, the religious intolerance and bigotry of people like Pastor Jeffress was something which existed and among far too many of those attending this celebration of Christian values.  While those who possess the ugly prejudices which use religion to divide people rather than unite them were in the minority, the few that do subscribe to such intolerable conduct had often received levels of visibility that were distasteful representations of the Family Research Council which holds the annual Values Voters Summit.   For that reason, Romney found a legitimate need to allude to his opening references to bigotry, towards the end of his speech.

Scheduled to speak after Romney, was Bryan Fischer, a director at the American Family Association.  In the past, Fischer claimed that Mormons and Muslims have “a completely different definition of who Christ is” than the founding fathers did, and therefore, as a result,  do not deserve First Amendment protections.    That prompted Romney to note

“Now one more thing.  Our values are noble as citizens. And they strengthen the nation.  We should remember that decency and civility are values too.  One of the speakers who will follow me today, has crossed that line I think.”

And in a direct reference to Fischer’s call to deny Mormons and Muslims their rights, Romney stated;

“Poisonous language does not advance our cause. It has never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind. The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate.”

He added;

“The task before us is to focus on the conservative beliefs and the values that unite us – let no agenda  narrow our vision or drive us apart.”

It is both ironic and a shame that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, had to waste time pointing these things out to Christians. The shame is that Christians should be well aware of the point he made.  The irony is that a man of the very religion Christians are claiming is not Christian, is espousing the Christian values that some of them are not.    The whole incident helped to demonstrate to me that while Romney has changed his position on about three issues throughout his adult life, unlike some Christians who are inconsistent with their own values, Mitt Romney at least practices what he preaches.  For that reason, I am more than proud to disclose that I am moving closer to endorsing Mitt Romney for President.

With Daniels, Ryan, Pence, and Palin out, I am slowly returning to the confidence I had when I endorsed Mitt Romney over the false prophet Huckabee and the false Republican McCain in 2008.   I am close but I am not there yet.  I want to be sure that Republican nominee earns my vote.  As such, I am inclined to still give Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum the chance to do that.  All three of these candidates have served the conservative and/or represent the conservative admirably and have already earned my respect.  If any of them can prove to me that they would be a better candidate and conservative Commander-in-Chief than Mitt Romney, than  I will accept as the better candidate and support them until the end.

For now though, I will await for Governor Perry to do the right thing and like Bill Bennett, denounce his friend and political supporter Pastor Robert Jeffress for his bigotry and injection of hate in to the Republican presidential contest.  As I have indicated on a previous occasion.  This is Rick Perry’s Jeremiah Wright moment.

Bookmark and Share

Rick Perry’s Jeremiah Wright Moment

Bookmark and Share On Friday afternoon, at a meeting of the annual Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C.,  Texas Governor Rick Perry found himself involved in a controversy not of his own doing.  Instead it was the man who introduced him to the evangelical audience that brought the controversy on  to Rick Perry.

At around 2:30 in the afternoon, in his introduction of Perry, Southern Baptist Convention leader Robert Jeffress, who recently endorsed the Governor, described Perry as “the most pro-life governor in the United States of America.” He also touched upon the gaffes made by Perry in the last debate by saying, “do we want a candidate whois skilled in rhetoric, or one who is skilled in leadership?”.  He went on to call him “a committed follower of Christ.”

But 45 minutes later, when speaking to reporters, Jeffress told reporters that Mormonism is a “cult” and that voting for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would “give credibility to a cult”.  He also stated that he endorsed Perry only as an individual, and that he would not tell his church members how to vote. But he further stated that he is planning to give a sermon this Sunday in which he talks about “how a  Christian should vote.” Jeffress added that among the criteria is that the person they vote for be a Christian.

According to a live blogger at the summit reporting for the Washington Post, Jeffress also told reporters that many evangelicals were afraid to talk about Mormonism but would have a hard time voting for a Mormon candidate.

At the same time Jeffress also confessed that as a pastor he was “not nearly as concerned about a candidate’s record on fiscal issues or immigration issues” as he is with their social conservative bona fides.

That however is a view which contradicts the political realities of the 2012 election. And as demonstrated by the highly motivated TEA movement, is not the most important aspect that they are seeking in a candidate.  In fact for many of them, it is just the opposite.  They are looking more for a Republican candidate who while having moral values, will stay out of people’s personal lives.

That fact was not missed by Governor Perry.  For he delivered a speech that focused less on faith and more on his record of job creation.

Despite the fact that the group he was addressing was gathered together to celebrate the fundamentals of the Christian faith and socially conservative values, Perry chose to make the point that he was running on a message of economic recovery.  Such was most likely a tactical campaign decision based on an attempt to not allow rivals to paint him as a religious fanatic who would take the same priorities as Jeffress, to
Washington in 2013.

Ironically though, the remarks made by Jeffress did little to help his endorsed presidential candidate.  In fact, Jeffress only did more to hurt Perry.

Evangelicals have no problem with Rick Perry.  They know all that Jeffress tried to convey to them about Perry at the Values Voters Summit.  However, Perry will have a problem with voters who are leery of having a President focused more on social issues than the economic and foreign affairs issues that the office of President was designed to addressed and which are in desperate need of being addressed properly.  For those people, Jeffress did little to win over any converts to Perry.   And at the same time, he pushed a very sensitive button regarding religious tolerance and bigotry.

But Jeffress is probably less concerned with getting Rick Perry elected than he is with selling a new book that he has coming out.

For his part, after Jeffress made his off the cuff remarks, Rick Perry had his campaign distanced the him from Jeffress.  They noted that it was the organizers of Values Voters Summit that chose Jeffress to introduce the Texas governor, not the campaign. However it was later confirmed that Perry approved of having Jeffress introduce him.  Based upon Jeffress’ longstanding and well publicized history of religious intolerance, Rick Perry should never have allowed Jeffress to have the opportunity to be an representative of Perry’s supporters.  Allowing Jeffress to introdcue him was indeed a big mistake.  Either that or Perry does not see much wrong with Jeffress’ intolernace and bigotry.

Perry spokesman Robert Black did released a statement that read “The governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult. He is not in the business of judging people. That’s God’s job.”

Whether that is true or not, no one can’t know for sure.  All we can do is take Perry at his word.  But interestingly enough the words that Jeffress speak do happen to be suspiciously scripted.

According to CBS, during Jeffress’ post Perry speech comments, he claimed “I did not talk about my Mormon views” with Perry, and added, “I’m not insinuating that the governor shares those at all — he may not.” described himself as only an acquaintance of Perry’s.  “I did not talk about my Mormon views” with Perry.   He continued, “I’m not insinuating that the governor shares those at all — he may not.”

Jeffress then said the following words which rang some alarm bells with me;

 “I haven’t gone coyote hunting with him,”.

They were the very same seemingly unrehearsed words he spoke in an MSNBC interview  on August 14th  [see the interview below] .  Personally, it sounds to me as though there is a lot more coordination between Jeffress and Perry’s campaign than some are willing to admit.

In another interview, this one on Fox News Live, back in June of this year, Jeffress expressed his disappointment in Mike Huckabee’s decision not to run for President.  He also stated that without Huckabee in the race, Chrsitians may be faced with having to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.  Jeffress then claimed  to being non-partisan and then professed that he is  only concerned with “the next President being committed to eliminating the tide of un-Godliness and evil that is sweeping our country”.  He even admits  “while Romney may make a good President”,  but adds, “we better understand that if we vote for Mitt Romney we are not voting for a Christian”. 

Observe the video for yourself.  I believe you will find this religious leader to be preaching a level bigotry that is so obvious, that is actually offensive.  I can only say that thank God most true Chrsitians are not as ignorant, bigotted, and intolerant as Robert Jeffress is.  And when I write “intolerant”, I do not mean it in the politically correct sense which is to deny the truth.  I mean it in the sense of trying to defy logic and closing doors based upon perceptions, not actual facts.

 The only way for Rick Perry to really nip this in the bud is to do more than distance himself from Jefresss.  In many ways this could be Rick Perry’s Jeremiah Wright moment.  That is why Perry needs to denounce Jeffress for his prejudices and defend Mitt Romney for having what may be religious differences but are most certainly Christian values.  If he does do not do so, Mitt Romney could turn what initially seems to be a relatively minor verbal hiccups, into a major issue that he could turn around to his advantage.

In this day and age, for Americans to hold prejudices against a political leader because of their faith, is nothing other than an example of backwards thinking and a contradiction to the very constitutional principles that the G.O.P. is trying to stress the need for our nation to return to.

As for Robert Jeffress, I am sorry to say this, but he is an ass.

I say so not neccessarily because of his beliefs but because of his obvious insincerity and the mixed messages that he as a religious leader, sends.  Personally, I think he is more concerned with selling his new book than he is with either whom our next President is, or Jesus.

But how does Mitt Romney feel about it all?  We may get the chance to find that out on Saturday, when Mitt is scheduled to address the Values Voters Summit himself.  His approach to the evangelicals gathered there will be quite interesting, especially in light of the assault made upon him and his faith by Perry supporter Robert Jeffries.

Palin Will Still Be the Cause for the Next Big Media Driven Maelstrom of the Election

Bookmark and Share A day after Governor Sarah Palin made it official that she would not run for President in 2012, the leaders of Team Sarah sent out the following email to their extensive list of supporters.

Team,

We’re not retreating, we’re  reloading!

While the announcement that Governor Sarah Palin will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for the office of President of the United States came as a surprise and disappointment to many,  let’s not forget that we have all been called to “fight like a girl” in an effort to restore our country.  It’s a call to stand with Governor Palin and to continue fighting for the conservative values of smaller government, free markets, life, and family.

Team Sarah members will continue to march towards the 2012 elections advancing the values and principles that Sarah Palin represents in the political process.  We will join Governor Palin in the fight to secure many victories for commonsense constitutional conservatives at all levels of government.

The email seems to be representative of the sentiments possessed by most Palinistas.  While they are disappointed by the fact that there is no chance she will become President in 2012, they are not disappointed in her.

Palin’s supporters appreciate her seeming lack of ambition to hold political office.  That is why they understood the thinking behind her sacrificing the second half of her only term as Governor Alaska and did not hold it against her.  They understood that the political firestorm that came with the liberal assault upon her was going to make it easier for her successor to advance the agenda that she set, faster and further.  Palin’s lack of political ambition is what attracts most people to her.  They understand that her opinions and words are not driven by the political motives which are usually behind the  words and policies of your average politician.

That understanding and the enormous number of people who support Palin for her ability to articulate what they feel and think, and her desire to be honest and blunt about those sentiments, is the same understanding which gave birth to the TEA movement.  That is why for many, the two go hand in hand.  It is why Palin is a darling of the TEA movement.

It is also why Palin’s decision not to run, is likely to have as much of an effect on who will be the next Republican nominee, as she would have had if she decided to run for the nomination herself..

That is why pretty soon, the news will be dominated by another topic.

With names like Daniels, Barbour, Ryan, Christie, and Palin definitely out of the race, the endless speculation about who is running which kept many from getting behind any of the actual declared candidates, has finally stopped.  There is little talk about who can jump in and change the complexion of the race.  But with the front loading of the primary and caucuses actually forcing the first votes in the nomination process to begin taking place in as few as 12 weeks from now, the next media prompted maelstrom will be who Palin is endorsing.  There will be a similar media focus on who New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also endorses, but ironically and quite figuratively, the Palin endorsement will carry much more weight than Christie’s.  Her support of a candidate could open doors for candidates like Romney, Santorum or Gingrich, candidates who desperately need TEA activists to just consider them as viable choices.  Candidates like Herman Cain and even Rick Perry don’t need such an opening to the TEA movement.  They already have strong support from many sectors within the less spending, less government, more liberty cause.  But a leading candidate like Mitt Romney can ill afford Sarah Palin promoting one of his opponents.

That is why Sarah Palin is very likely to be pivotal in the Republican nomination contest. And probably more so in the nomination process than the general election contest where she will probably not be able to change the minds of those supporting or still considering supporting President Obama for reelection.

In the meantime, Palin holds the power to change the course of history.  If she so chooses, she can actually be a determining factor in who the next Republican nominee and subsequently the next President is.  Such an assertion is only made more evident by the above letter from Palin supporters which confirms their desire to stand with Sarah Palin through thick or thin.

Bookmark and Share

Even the “Average Joe” Knows President Obama Can’t Win in the Obama Economy

Bookmark and Share  Vice President Joe Biden is probably one of the G.O.P.’s best friends.  He has a real propensity for always saying the right thing ………..for Republicans.  His latest statements to verify that came Thursday at the Washington Ideas Forum, an invitation only, two day forum for leading newsmakers at the Newseum in Washington, DC. The event is sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

During an appearance at the forum, Biden stated that  the shaky economy has left many Americans in “real trouble“, and made clear that the Republican Party is strong enough to beat President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.  Note how he said “President Obama” and not “us“.  Joe may be dumb but he is not without an ego that would prohibit him from sharing the blame for the economy that he said will be responsible for the defeat.

According to Joe, a significant majority of the American people don’t believe the country is moving in the right direction. You think?  He adds that such a public perception is never a good place to be going into re-election (no kidding), regardless of whether it is the current administration’s fault or not.

Biden defended the Administration though when he suggested that the economy has still greatly improved under President Obama.  He states that he is  counting on voters recognizing how deep the recession was and how much the economy has improved under the Obama Administration.

To be fair, credit must be given when it is deserved.  Joe is right about the strength of the Republican Party going in to the 2012 presidential election.  However, honesty is not always welcome in politics, especially if you are a liberal trying to promote the benefits of unsustainable spending, increased taxation, and socialist policies.  For that reason, the Vice President is not likely to get a pat on the back and hear a sincere thank you from the President for his honesty.  Instead he might hear something more along the lines of “Way to go, Joe.  Thanks for the encouraging words”.

The episode does demonstrate one thing though.  It shows us that the Administration sees the writing on the wall.  So much so that even the “average Joe” can read it.  That means that the Obama re-election team is surely preparing a campaign based on desperate attempts to run an extremely negative campaign against the Republican ticket, regardless of whose names are on it.  If they understand that voters will have very little reason to support the Obama-Biden ticket for reelection, there only chance will be to make the opposition look worse.  That means that while the President will try to resort to discussing issues with little detail and great flowery, rhetoric, His surrogates and ad men will be attacking attacking the Republican ticket with verbal assaults that are based on personal matters, and far-fledged distortions of records.

This conclusion is only verified by Joe Biden.

His comments on the 2012 election at the Washington Ideas Forum offer us a glimpse of the Administration’s mindset.  They know that they can’t win on the one issue that is likely to dominate the election…… the economy.  Oh they will try to wage class warfare, they will incite the anger of their big union base and take advantage of the underprivileged.  They will even play the blame it on Bush card and try to morph the Republican presidential nominee into Bush.  But in the end, the American people understand that saying that sat upon President Truman’s desk and read, “The buck stops here”.   And the fact that no bucks are flowing in to the economy, will only make most voters more aware of who is responsible for that.
Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: