Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

Conservative Formula Plays Out

Imagine if you single-handedly picked Presidents.  The choice is up to you.  No need to consider electability, lesser of two evils, third parties, spoilers, or anything else.  Your choice is it.  Now, imagine you live in Montana, Minnesota, or Colorado and delegates aren’t rewarded based on your primary vote.  It’s pretty much the same situation.

The result?  Ron Paul got his standard 10-20% of libertarians and conservatives seeking radical constitutionalism, Romney got his standard 30-40% of fiscal conservatives who want a strong businessman, and the social conservatives split the rest.  Except in states where electability, lesser of two evils, third parties, and spoilers don’t matter, Newt Gingrich barely registered.  Instead, Rick Santorum, deemed unelectable from day one, swept bigtime.  It’s like “What’s My Line” where the points don’t matter.

Social Conservatives demonstrated what they really want, and it ain’t Mitt or Newt.  Mitt Romney is striking out with Conservatives, first with support of increasing labor price floors, then with information about his imposing abortion coverage on private companies like Obama is doing now.  Both of these are huge question marks on Romney’s record.

But Newt hasn’t done much better, with most of the country now thinking he was Freddie Mac’s number one lobbyist and had more sex partners than your average Mormon.  Romney has succeeded in dragging Newt down, and Newt hasn’t helped himself.

So does Santorum have a shot?  Probably not, but he does have something Iowa didn’t really give him: momentum.

Now Santorum can face the Romney attack machine for a while.  It started with the Donald saying that since Santorum lost in Pennsylvania he can’t possibly win the Presidency. Of course, that is a pretty funny standard to be judged by when it comes from a multi-billionaire business-owner who has declared bankruptcy four times.  I would think Trump would be able to relate to Santorum’s tenacity.

The problem with Santorum is that he doesn’t have that Presidentiality  that stupid, ignorant, and independent voters look for in a President.  He doesn’t have the hair or the chin.  Oh, and as Scarlett Johannson pointed out, he is unelectable because he wears sweater vests.  What Johannson underestimates is how many people out there who would take a bag of rocks wrapped in a sweater vest over our current President.

I pick on independents, but social conservatives aren’t much better.  When delegates are back on the table, don’t hold your breath for another Santorum sweep.  That would require conservatives looking themselves in the mirror and asking what they actually want in a President, not just who can beat Obama.  Tuesday’s message was loud and clear.

Michele Bachmann: Is She Gambling Her Congressional Seat Away?

  Bookmark and Share  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann called in to Wednesday night’s broadcast of Mark Levin’s radio program and discussed her blueprint for economic prosperity and job creation. Toward the end of her interview, Mark asked Bachmann indicated that he is not sure how it works in Minnesota but he asked if she is also running for reelection to her congressional seat.

The question was a good one, because there are some states where you can run for two separate offices on the same ballot.

The ability to do that makes the decision to run for higher much easier if you hold , say a safe House seat and wanted to run for the U.S. Senate, or even Vice President or President.  You could still run for one of those offices and be secure in the fact that if you lose, you will likely still be reelected to Congress.  But such an opportunity is varies from state to state based upon such allowances in their individual state election laws.

In Minnesota, state law prevents a major party candidate from running for President and Congress at the same time.

In Bachmann’s case, that means she would have to give up on running either for President or for reelection to her congressional seat.

In answering Mark Levin’s question, Bachmann made it clear that she is running for President and nothing else.  The Congresswoman indicated that she feels  that our nation is at critical crossroads and the direction we go is so important that she will put all of her energy in to becoming President and assure that we head in the right direction.

Then Bachmann casually added;

“I think the filing deadline to run for office in Minnesota is in the summer and we will know who the nominee is by then”. 

That statement suggests that Bachmann is definitely aware of the fact that she will have the opportunity to seek reelection to her seat in the House of Representatives and more than likely knows what her answer is.

The truth is that the cutoff period for filing is not in the summer but it’s close enough.  According to the deadlines established on Minnesota Secretary of State’s website, the filing deadline for Bachmann is May 5, 2012, and by that time, we will surely know who the Republican nominee will be.  If Republicans do not know who their nominee will be by May of next year, then they will be in big trouble.

So while Bachmann may indeed be sincere about her desire to run only for President, she knows very well that she will probably be running for reelection to the House.

On a side note, there is precedence for candidates running for two offices at the same time, on the same ballot.   In 1960 LBJ ran for Vice President and for reelection to his Senate seat from Texas.  In 1988, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, also from Texas, did the same thing as Michale Dukakis’ running mate.  Texas law specifically permitted them to do so. The Texas state legislature passed what is commonly called the LBJ law, specifically for his benefit back in 1959. But while Texas law allows you to run for any two seats simultaneously, other states like Missouri and Connecticut only one of the two offices that a candidate simultaneously runs for to be for that of the Presidency or Vice Presidency, only.

`
One of the most recent such cases occurred in 2000 when Democrat Al Gore chose Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate.  Luckily for Lieberman, he was able to run for Vice President and reelection to the senate at the same time.  While Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and the general election, Joe Liberman carried Connecticut for the democratic ticket and won reelection to his senate seat.

Aside from examples of dual presidential and senate candidacies, in 1968, Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John Dent ran for both renomination to the House and for his Party’s  U.S. Senate nomination.  Dent won renomination for his congressional seat but he lost the senate Democrat Senate nomination to incumbent senator Joseph Clark.

As for Michele Bachmann, she clearly can run for one or the other not both.  But with 100,000 voters needed to be cut out of her current seat due to redistricting, it is not known how strong a Republican seat her congressional district will be.  Insiders suggest that it will still lean Republican.  Another good sign for Bachmann is that there are still no Republican names knocking down the door to replace her.  Still, when asked about running for reelection to her 6th district seat in the recent past, Bachmann has for the most part, avoided the question.
Bookmark and Share

Did Rick Perry Threaten Ron Paul During the Presidential Debate?

Bookmark and Share  While most of the on air sparring in last night’s Republican presidential debate took place between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, apparently there was a little brouhaha during one of the station breaks. 

As captured in the photo shown here, it was during one of these breaks that Governor Perry strode up to Ron Paul, grabbed Paul’s wrist and raised his other hand to point a finger in Paul’s face in an attempt to make a point to the Congressman.

According to RonPaul.com, here’s how it went down:

“During a commercial break at Wednesday’s Republican debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul continued their spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul’s forearm while aggressively pointing his index finger towards the Congressman’s face. Alerted by Perry’s menacing gestures, Ron Paul’s bodyguard (front left) was standing by, ready to protect the Congressman.”

What exactly was said is unknown but that won’t prevent Pauliacs from trying to use the image against their feeble three time presidential candidate.  So far they are on a campaign to try and claim that Perry was threatening and intimidating Paul. 

If the photo is capturing a truly heated exchange you can rest assured that Governor  Perry most likely urged Ron Paul  to stop the blatant lies Paul’s campaign has been promulgating about Perry, including the one about Perry having been a national chairman for Al Gore.

In past debates, live streams allowed internet users to catch glimpses of the candidates and how they were interacting during commercial breaks but MSNBC’s live stream of last night’s debate did not offer such an opportunity as they simply cut the  feed during commercials.  Had they not, we might have at  least seen the Perry-Paul exchange.

So far, there is no official comment from either Paul or Perry regarding what the exchange consisted of, but that has not stopped Ron Paul fanatics from trying to lift their messiah ever higher by alleging Rick Perry assaulted their guy. 

Until it is known exactly what was said, drawing conclusions is futile, but in the end, it my be in the best interest of Ron Paul that Rick Perry’s words remain unknown because if I know Rick Perry, his words probably did not provide for the type of praise that Ron Paul  would want to duplicate in an ad promoting his candidacy. And it will probably make many Paulbots look truly stupid for their exaggerations and lies.

Bookmark and Share

Update:  The truth comes out and the Ron Paul crowd does indeed look stupid.  See the conclusion here.

The Third Major Republican Presidential Debate Starts Setting the Tone for 2012

Bookmark and Share    Watch the entire debate below this post.

 

 Last night’s presidential debate was the first one of the 2012 campaign to actually began to shape opinions and sway voters.  While most voters have not yet placed their bets, the exchanges that took place on a stage in the Air Force One wing of the Reagan Library finally began to provide voters with a true sense of the candidates, their styles, their records, and their vision.  While the program did tend to be dominated by a Perry versus Romney narrative.   The other six did get brief opportunities to shine, but few did so in any signficant way.
 
 While I will leave an in-depth analysis of the debate to other White House 2012 posts entitled “A Two Horse Race” and “Quick Debate Recap“, I will offer a few points of my own about moments in the debate that I believe were quite notable.

NBC debate moderator could not help but begin the program by entering into a statement that suggested Americans blame conservative policies for all the economic problems we are experiencing and insinuated that at the same time, most Americans do not believe President Obama’s policies are as liberal as they should be.   Not only is this incorrect, it was also another subtle but blatant editorial opinion being interjected into a conversation by a member of the lamestream media who is suppose to be impartial and non-partisan. 

Another very memorable moment in the debate can be seen about 26 minutes into the  video of  debate that is proveded  below this post.

As Politico’s John  Harris pursued a line of questioning designed to inflame an internecine ideological debate over healthcare, he through the floor open to Newt Gingrich and said;

“Well I’m frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans to fight against eachother…….You’d like to puff this up into some giant thing.  The fact here is that every single person up here understands Obamacare is a disaster.  It is a disaster procedural, it was rammed through after they lost Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, it was written badly, it was never reconciled, it can’t be implemented, it is killing this economy.  And if this President has a concern for working Americans, he’d walk in Thursday night and ask to repeal it because its a monstrosity.  Every person up here agrees with that!”……….

At that point the audience broke out into one of the largest round of applauds of the night and once the clapping died down Newt went on to say……….

” And let me just say…since I still have a little time left……….let me just say, I for one….and I hope all of my friends up here —- Are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated, and all of us are committed as a team……. Whoever the nominee is we are all committed to defeating Barack Obama”

To which the audience again broke out into another round of applause but this was even louder than the last.

It was probably one of the best statements of the night and the most real display of anger offered by any of the candidates on the stage last night.  However, it was not enough to propel Newt into the race as an immediate threat to anyone in the front of the field that he trails.  But it did renew my appreciation for Gingrich and made me realize that when the election is over, he might just be perfect as the Republican national Committee Chairman or the new President’s Press Secretary. 

 Beyond that, I again suggest that you see theexcellent analyses provided in the two White House 2012 links above and also that you see the debate by clicking on the link below.  It is a good oner that should not be missed.

Click here to see the complete debate

Bookmark and Share

Quick Debate Recap

And the winner is:

Good night for Romney

Mitt Romney.  Romney was the adult on the stage.  When the moderators tried to pick a fight between Perry and Romney, Romney put a quick end to it.  When the candidates attacked each other, Romney said that any one of them would be better than Obama.  Romney drove home the point that Obama is in over his head.  He drove that point so well that it stuck out above the fray.  Instead of seeing animosity, disagreements or even easy shots from Romney, he gave honor to Reagan’s golden rule and even offered Perry a “mulligan” on mandatory vaccinations.  Romney, having just released his plan, had that to stand on in the debate.  Romney has also been paying attention.  After last debate, Obama complained that none of the candidates mentioned the middle class.  Romney responded by saying that the middle class has been hurt most by Obama, while not referencing the President’s criticism by name.  Romney also corrected the moderators on the myth of TEA party “membership”, and then followed up by spelling out exactly what the TEA party stands for and endorsing them.

Newt Gingrich is a great debater and did not disappoint.  His attacks on Obama and focus on Obama, not on other Republicans, showed why he is a great candidate for the GOP.  Gingrich showed a fire that I think most people have lost sight of as he has faded between major events like this.  Unfortunately, because Newt has struggled to gain national attention outside of the debates, this debate as well will probably not give him a bump.  But his performance was a solid 2nd place performance.

Michele Bachmann did not carve out a huge chunk of attention for herself or particularly stand out, but she didn’t make any mistakes either.  She was even able to field the $2 a gallon gas question by pointing out that it was below that when Obama’s presidency began.  I think Americans are understanding better than Huntsman and others what she means when she says she can produce $2 a gallon gas.  But the key for Bachmann was her expounding on why she would not accept a taxes for spending cuts deal.  I think she just beat Gingrich to the punch.  At the Reagan Library, Michele Bachmann reminded us of Reagan’s deal with Democrats where he was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in taxes increased.  Instead, as she put it, he got $3 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts.  This was a shining moment that explained away what could have been easily used in the general election as an attack on the Republican candidate’s uncompromising stance.  For the short amount of time she was given, she met expectations and in that one instance vastly exceeded them.

Rick Perry described himself as the pinata in the party, and as the front runner he could probably have expected this.  He also got a perceived majority of the time as the moderators and other candidates spent a great deal of time fleshing out his positions and attacking his record.  Some of the shine will certainly be gone after tonight.  At one point he seemed to stumble and go into slow motion on one of his responses.  He was beat up a lot and a lot of issues came into the spot light that perhaps he wishes hadn’t.  Perry didn’t back off of his social security rhetoric, which will win him some supporters and lose others.  In the end, Perry survived the night and still came out strong, but I think his front runner status is going to be in danger going forward.  Enter Sarah Palin?

Herman Cain focused on the word “solutions”.  He sounded like a CEO.  He mentioned some of his plans and ideas, but a great deal of it sounded very much like platitudes.  I think in a few weeks I will write a “Where are they now?” blog post about former candidates in this primary who had so much potential but then faded into the background and eventually out of the race.  Pawlenty, Gary Johnson, Mitch Daniels will all make that list.  Is Cain destined for the “Where are they now?” post?

Jon Huntsman did a pretty good job connecting for most of the debate.  A lot of his answers sounded pretty reasonable and brought him further from the edge of moderate liberalism that he had been occupying.  He was doing a pretty good job.  And then he started talking about global warming.  Perry’s slow motion, botched response with simple homey reference to Galileo still put Huntsman to shame on global warming.  Huntsman’s answer on science will distance him from a vast majority of the right base.  Even the vast majority of evolutionists on the right still wouldn’t destroy the economy over global warming science.  Mark my words, this is the death of Huntsman’s campaign, although I doubt he will figure that out for another month or two.

Santorum had an odd look on his face the whole evening.  It almost seemed like every time the camera pointed at him, he was asking himself “what the heck am I doing here?”  I had the same question.  Santorum is a great guy, but his ideas are stale and his campaign is stalled.  Most of his answers echoed Newt Gingrich and the ones that didn’t were the answers of a candidate from a different time than we live in now.  I think Santorum has done a good job of presenting his issues and making sure they are a topic in this primary.  He should gracefully bow out now.

Ron Paul was in rare form.  Well, not really rare form, just rare for what we’ve seen in this year’s more civil, tame campaign.  We didn’t see any of that civil, tame version of Paul tonight.  The moderators, between asking the right questions and denying him equal time, played Ron Paul like a fiddle.  The result was some gems, like Paul saying we should take air conditioners away from troops in the green zone, that gas would only cost a dime if our coins were still made with silver, and that if we put up a fence to curb illegal immigration eventually that fence would be used to keep Americans from leaving.  His performance was completely unpresidential, and he made Perry look like a moderate.  Paul will still appeal to about 10% of America with this debate performance, and they are a very loud 10%.  But he did a great deal of damage to the liveable campaign he had been building to date.  I think he will even lose many of the moderates and independents his anti-establishmentism had been attracting.

Libertarian “Golden” Boy/Bachmann Tebow Complex

Ron Paul’s Golden Portfolio

Ron Paul is well known for his pro-gold policies.  He is a little less well known for his golden portfolio.  While most Americans have been watching their retirements quickly shrink, Ron Paul is doing OK.  He might not be as rich as Mitt Romney, but he could buy Tim Pawlenty.

Is Paul ready for the leftwing media meat grinder?

The question is if this will become an issue for Ron Paul down the road.  Unlike half the GOP field this year, Ron Paul had not been considered a threat so no vetting (as the left calls it) or smear (as the right calls it) has taken place yet.  Still, could Paul’s golden investments and golden ambitions of a gold backed currency be viewed by liberal opponents as a conflict of interest?  Already liberal bloggers are pointing out Paul’s use of earmarks, so more “vetting” may be on the way.

One question that had me scratching my head is why Paul would advocate fixing the debt ceiling deal by having the Fed write off the QE1 and QE2 loans it had printed and made to the Treasury.  Of course, this would make the hundreds of billions involved unrestricted cash and could result in inflation. At the same time he voted (contrary to his son Rand) against Cut, Cap and Balance.  Ron Paul’s constant votes against any appropriations bill that doesn’t adhere strictly to the constitution should be viewed as a principled approach to representing the people who sent him to DC.  But it sure hasn’t hurt his portfolio either, as imperfect but more conservative bills fall to more liberal compromises that can pass without him and others who vote like him.  Paul has bet on instability and it has paid off.

By the way, Paul’s holdings don’t include major stockpiles of gold, but are actually all in gold mining companies.

Should Bachmann Be Third String?

Meanwhile, on the mainstream side of the GOP Michele Bachmann is suddenly finding herself where Pawlenty was just a couple weeks ago: a solid third place.

This made me think of Tim Tebow who was recently put at the Broncos’ third string behind Brady Quinn and Kyle

Tebow was local hero as a Gator

Orton.  I love Tim Tebow.  When he gets the ball and runs, or dumps those short touchdown passes over the defensive line’s heads, we all go nuts here in Florida.  Bronco’s preseason makes Floridians happy because we get to see Tebow.  He was a local champion who got everyone on fire for him, and when he went pro his Broncos’ #15 jersey was the number one seller in the whole NFL.

But Tebow is not a polished player.  His faith endears him to Christian NFL fans.  The excitement he brought to the Gators with his competitive and unpredictable playing style built him a huge fan base.  But his accuracy is off.  He is no Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.  He might fill the stadium, but he is not the quarterback to bring the Broncos to the Superbowl this year.

Can Bachmann be the GOP starter?

So why does he make me think of Michele Bachmann?  Bachmann has a huge fan base.  She became a national sensation as the darling of the TEA Party.  She fills stadiums and is exciting to watch and listen to.  But she is unpolished.  Her accuracy is off.  She’s no Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.

So for now, like Tebow, Bachmann is going to remain third string until she can prove she’s a starter.

Pawlenty’s Demise Focuses Crosshairs on Obama

Tim Pawlenty bowed out of the race  on Sunday morning.  He cited a poor showing in Iowa and no clear path forward.  In his exit statements, Pawlenty offered what had been missing from his campaign.  Pawlenty said:

“I’m doing this because I love this country and I want to defeat Barack Obama because I think he’s got it on the wrong course…but I don’t get my identity or my sense of worth or my values or my faith from politics. I get it from my personal faith in God, and I believe in this country, I love this country, I thought I would have been a great president.”

And with that he summed up what he should have been saying all along in this campaign.

Pawlenty's strategy of attacking frontrunners failed to rocket him to the front

Instead, Pawlenty became memorable for coining the term Obamneycare, attacking Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul for never accomplishing anything, while allowing himself to easily slip into the category of being a copy of another candidate.  Pawlenty was the governor who balanced the budget without increasing taxes beyond a cigarette tax.  But that didn’t separate him from nearly half the other candidates.  In fact, Pawlenty’s biggest differentiation was that he was the sole candidate outside of Ron Paul to go after his GOP rivals in a race that thus far has been mostly focused on Obama and liberal policies.

The loss of Pawlenty and inclusion of Rick Perry will help focus this race more on Obama as each candidate contrasts themselves with him instead of with each other.

Pawlenty was a good candidate with good credentials coming into this race.  However, after his performance in the last Iowa debate I was surprised that he did as well as he did in the Iowa caucus.  Pawlenty is making the right choice by stepping out of this race, and the tone of the race will be better without him.  The key to winning the 2012 GOP primary is becoming more clear.  Candidates need to contrast themselves with Obama and then win on ideas.  In this stage of the game, going after fellow GOP candidates is not yielding much fruit.

Debate Recap

The commentators in the Iowa debate finally succeeded in getting the Republican candidates to go after one another, and the result was a distinction between the boys, the girl, and the men.  Here is my assessment:

Newt Gingrich

I would name Newt as the winner of this debate.  He presented something the other candidates could not, a clear record on the economy and government with the exact results Americans want today that was left mostly unassailed.  Newt vented his frustration early at Chris Wallace over what came across as unfair questions, but was able to then produce reasonable responses.  Gingrich had a better grasp of history and economics and managed not to contradict himself.  I doubt it will be enough to kickstart his campaign again, but he looked and sounded most like the candidate who could turn our economy around.  Newt said what every American was thinking, the supercommittee part of the debt deal is a stupid idea and Obama should call Congress back to fix it.

Mitt Romney

Romney proved once again how effortless this race has been for him.  When Pawlenty shot across his bow with a jab at how much property he owns, Romney shrugged it off like Michael Jordan would if he wasn’t picked first in a neighborhood game of pickup basketball.  Romney looked and sounded like a professional and did not allow Wallace, Pawlenty or anyone else to shake his demeanor.  In fact, he made almost everyone else look like amateurs, especially Pawlenty and Bachmann.  Romney positioned himself as the successful businessman, accomplished politician, and leader.  In fact, when Cain touted his independent business success, when Pawlenty talked about balancing his budget and cutting spending and taxes, and when Pawlenty and Huntsman talked about leadership, Romney kept coming to mind.  He ignored interparty skirmishes and focused on Obama, which is a key in this race.  His only slip up was trying to discuss the semantics of state versus federal constitutional restrictions.  I think his point was a good one, especially when he asked Wallace what he knew about Massachusetts constitution, but ultimately the point was lost on the other participants.

Ron Paul

Republicans still don’t like Ron Paul, and he is still abrasive.  However, he came in third in this debate because he toned down the abrasiveness and instead mixed in some well earned “told ya so”.  Paul made key points on the Fed, the debt, the debt ceiling deal, the precariousness of our currency, and the costs of war.  These were timely points and made well.  He did not leap into easy traps on military spending that he has fallen into before that come across as disrespect for men and women in uniform.  Paul was also able to better articulate his views on social issues.  In the past he has come across as more liberal than libertarian.  This time he was able to articulate what be actually believes about gay marriage and abortion, stating that our liberties come from our creator, not government.  He may not win over the mainstream religious right, but will win over some more religious libertarians and constitutionalists.

Rick Santorum

Yes, believe it or not, Rick Santorum is fourth on my list.  His performance will most likely not change anything, but as a second tier candidate he exceeded expectations.  He was well prepared, made logical answers to the questions asked, and avoided harmful entanglements with other candidates.  He continues to represent George Bush neo-conservatism and will continue to bring useful balance to the debate.  He still has no chance of winning.

Herman Cain

Cain came across as the most unknowledgeable of the candidates.  He presents a good story of a businessman outsider seeking to change Washington’s business side.  However, Cain does not present a well rounded candidate that voters would trust on issues of foreign policy or domestic social issues.  Until he can get past soundbites to real plans and strategies he will not garner the needed support.   He was the only candidate to drive home the growth aspect of turning our economy around in a real and tangible way.

Jon Huntsman

Who?  His late entry, semi-liberal credentials, and lack of energetic or unique performance make Huntsman an afterthought.  He was like an off-brand candidate.  Aside from cyberwar with China, nothing he said really stood out.  If Huntsman was not at the next debate, I doubt most viewers would even realize it.  For example, remember that candidate from New Mexico, the Ron Paul wannabe?  What was his name again?

Tim Pawlenty

Chris Wallace was able to get under the candidates skin and even inspire direct confrontations between candidates.  Mostly though, the culprit ended up being Tim Pawlenty.  In a role usually occupied by the perennial anti-GOP establishment candidate Ron Paul, Pawlenty went after Bachmann, Romney, and whoever else got in his way.  He came across as a third place candidate trying to remind people why he is in this race, or at least that he is in this race.  I did not enjoy listening to him.  When he wasn’t on the attack, he was apologizing for cigarette taxes or highlighting things he did as governor that both Romney and Huntsman have on their resume.  In a race where the focus needs to be on Barack Obama, Pawlenty allowed himself to fall into the hands of the commentators and make for some great controversial TV.  Personally, I think this primary would come to a much better result without Pawlenty.

Michelle Bachmann

The loser of last night’s debate was Michelle Bachmann.  When Pawlenty attacked her, she fought back and lost.  Pawlenty managed to paint her as more of an ideologue than a successful conservative champion.  Pawlenty highlighted her lack of results, and she let that stick.  I believe she did receive some of the more unfair questions, including the one about submitting to her husband, but instead of recognizing those questions for what they were, she showed why she is not the caliber of Newt or Mitt and engaged the questions as though they were credible concerns.

Honestly though, what earned Bachmann the F was when she failed to return to her podium on time after the commercial break.  She is trying to overcome this idea that she is an unprofessional activist, not a serious contender.  However, her tardiness, fumbling over major points such as combining pro-life and taxes in bills, and engaging Pawlenty in unscripted arguments show why Bachmann’s runner up status has been purely on the substance of her popular TEA party beliefs, not because she is a polished candidate.  Conservatives may like her in the polls, but when they go to vote I think we will see them be more likely to send a quarterback than the mascot in to play.

So Now Michele Bachmann is Killing Gay Kids

Bookmark and Share    Recent reports about a school district in Minnesota have suggested that Michele Bachmann is behind the tragic suicides of nine school students in a period of two years. According to different sources, the teens who killed themselves were either gay or perceived as gay, and/or the victims of bullying .

MSNBC,or as WH12 refers to it, the Mostly Slanted News Bias Company, used the station stooge and political hack, Lawrence O’Donnell, to air a report  that ran with the premise that Michele Bachmann’s position on homosexuality was responsible for the suicides.

Soon after the MSNBC allegation, the ever so reliable news source, Perez Hilton, picked up on the charge and wrote a story entitled “Why Are So Many Teenagers Committing Suicide In Michele Bachmann’s District?”  Perez Hilton? I mean really. Can there possibly be a drama queen who is a more sickeningly despicable figure and unreliable source than that negatively stereotypical nightmare who is an embarrassment to the gay community, than Perez Hilton is?  The often controversial gay, entertainment, gossip columnists makes Paris Hilton look like Walter Kronkite. But both Hiltons aside, trying to associate Michele Bachmann with, and to lay blame on her for, suicides in her district is about as legitimate as Bill Clinton swearing under oath to a grand jury that he did not have sexual relations with that woman (said the semen stain to the blue dress).

One may not agree with Michele Bachmann and she may not agree with them but to extrapolate from your disagreement that she essentially drove kids to kill themselves, makes about as much as sense as something reported by Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC or written by Perez Hilton……oh wait, they were.

The issue of teenage suicide is a serious one and it should be addressed seriously. But to exploit it for political purposes designed to tarnish a legislator because they have become a viable presidential candidate, is more than a disservice to the problem it is an insult to the children who endured so much personal agony that they found it easier to die than to live.

MSNBC goes further in their attempt to suggest that Michele Bachmann is behind these suicides by referring to a 2006 vote she cast as a Minnesota State Senator. It had to do with an anti-bullying bill and Bachmann opposed it. For her part, the congresswoman offered a valid reasons for her vote. She stated;

“There’s always been bullies. You know, always have been and always will be. I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to a point zero tolerance and what does it mean? What will be our definition of bullying? Will it go the point where we are stifling free speech and expression?”

Such a view is legitimate. This is especially the case if one were to consider how this specific bill that she voted against was written and what exactly was contained in it.

Yet liberal entities frame the debate in such a way that immediately paints Bachmann as the catalyst behind nine suicides.

The bottom line is that the left once again is showing their hypocrisy. While they are accusing figures on the right of not being tolerant of gays, they are demonstrating their own intolerance of differences of opinion. In this case, they are doing so without shame as they throw political bombs over the graves of the children whom they are exploiting.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann Makes It Official. She’s Running for President!

Bookmark and Share    Michele Bachmann used the first question she was asked in tonight’s presidential debate to announce that she has filed the papers to run for President and will make an official announcement shortly.

The announcement makes Michele Bachmann the only woman running for the nomination this year and the first Republican woman to ever run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann Needs to the Pull the Knife Out of Palin’s Back

Bookmark and Share   After hiring controversial veteran Republican strategist Ed Rollins, it is expected that Minnesota Congresswoman and Congressional TEA Party Caucus Chair Michele Bachmann, will at any time announce her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. If she does run, while Bachmann could very well prove to be formidable in early nominating contests like Iowa and South Carolina, her plight to become the Republican presidential nominee will be far from easy. Now, thanks to her new loose cannon political operative, Ed Rollins, that plight has just gotten much harder.

On a radio show hosted by Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, Rollins took the opportunity to trash Sarah Palin.

In addition to claiming “Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” Rollins stated “She [Palin] got the Vice Presidential thing handed to her, she didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance, she gave up her governorship.”

Rollins who was up until recently an operative for Mike Huckabee, claimed that now that Mike Huckabee’s not in the race, in terms of the Republican running for President, Bachmann is “probably the best communicator” He also added “Michele Bachmann and others worked hard, she has been a leader of the Tea Party which is a very important element here, she has been an attorney, she has done important things with family values.”

And Sarah Palin hasn’t?

At 68, perhaps Rollins is losing what good judgment he has left. His claim that Palin “has not been serious” is not only an utterly ludicrous charge, it is a very politically dumb and strategically damaging statement for him to make. Millions ….. “millions”… of Americans take Sarah Palin quite seriously and they take her efforts to elect limited government, family values oriented, fiscal conservatives who have an appreciation for the U.S. Constitution, very seriously.

As for the charge that Palin can’t be taken seriously because she was, as he argues, simply handed the vice presidential

Ed Rollins

nomination in 2008 and then gave up her governorship, perhaps Rollins memory is slipping. I guess he forgets all the legitimate reasons why Palin was picked to run for Vice President. Some of those reasons include her willingness to oppose and defeat a popular sitting Governor from her own Party after rooting out corruption and standing up for justice. Another reason includes her defense and promotion of family values and her ability to govern as a Mayor and a Governor in a way that was fiscally responsible and legislatively efficient.

As for her giving up the governorship, Rollins should really avoid using the propaganda of liberals to promote one conservative and denounce another. As unbelievable as it may seem to Rollins, Palin is not your average politician. She brings to her politics a level of sincerity that is rarely seen in the D.C. beltway that Ed Rollins is familiar with. And it is that sincerity which forced Palin to decide that stepping down was the best thing for the state of Alaska because it would have allowed her very capable Lieutenant Governor to continue the business of the state, unhindered by the ridiculous number of expensive, time consuming, frivolous lawsuits that liberals were relentlessly attacking Palin with.

Ever since she was nominated for Vice President and delivered some energy to the lackluster campaign of John McCain, the left lost all self control and could not give up on trying to tear Palin apart. She embodies everything the left fears in a conservative. And so they undertook an assault on Palin that she believed was not in the best interest of the people Alaska. So instead, she allowed Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor, to take the reigns of power and run with the agenda she set, but to do so unincumbered by the liberal effort to take Palin down. Palin could have easily thought of what might have been best for her personal political career. But she didn’t. Instead she put the people first. And when it was all said and done, what new responsibility did Palin undertake? She set out on a mission to help insure that in 2010, true conservatives got elected to positions as Senator, Congressmen and Governors.

Rollins may not want to see it that way. But it is obvious that he doesn’t want to see the truth. The truth makes Sarah Palin the greatest threat to Michele Bachmann’s popularity and success that there is.  So instead Rollins resorts to trash talk.

But that’s Ed Rollins. For as good as he once was….and he was good, Rollins has also shown a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth.

In 1993, after working on the upset victory of Christine Todd Whitman over New Jersey Governor Jim Florio, Rollins deposited himself right into in the middle of a scandal that involved political campaign payoffs to New Jersey ministers. He told Time Magazine

“We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, ‘Do you have a special project?’ And they said, ‘We’ve already endorsed Florio.’ We said, ‘That’s fine, don’t get up on the Sunday pulpit and preach. We know you’ve endorsed him, but don’t get up there and say it’s your moral obligation that you go on Tuesday to vote for Jim Florio.'”

He later tried to backtrack by claiming his original statement was an exaggeration.

This latest gaffe, only enforces the perception that Rollins is losing it.  For someone who was hired to promote Bachmann, in just a few moments of air time, he has hurt her far more than he has helped.  One need to go no further than Michele’s Facebook page to see evidence of that.

In just a matter of hours since Rollins comments came out, hundreds of Face book “Fans” have begun to turn on the Congresswoman. For instance there was this from Allen Pishotta:

“Why have you stabbed Sarah Palin in the back after all she did for you last year? Why have you forsaken the Tea Party Movement in order to become a “stalking horse” for Mitt Romney and yes we all know that you are working for the RINO Romney campaign so it is no secret. What was the political bribe needed to become a “Judas” and sell …conservatives out? I once heavily supported you now I will never give you another dime after this. You nickname is now Michele “Backstabbing” Bachmann because that is what you did.”

And this from Doreen Graney:

“Hey, Michelle, the last time Ed Rollins was part of a winning campaign my oldest son was a newborn baby. Today is his 30th birthday. Hope you’re not paying him much. You won’t be getting any support from me, financial or otherwise.”

Sue Lynn writes:

“Lost my support….Your just another politician…Backstabbing a good friend that helped you get re-elected…So much for that Christian talk you talk about…sure don’t practice it…I will never support you in the future because of your actions to a good friend”

Jolyn Colon demands an apology and states:

“Ed Rollins has a reputation for being a bomb thrower. Did you know that when you hired him? You need to step up personally and 1.) issue an apology to Sarah and 2.) fire this idiot before he steps in it again. Anything else is not good enough.”

And Gary Jackson was particularly mad:

“Michele, Sarah Palin and her millions of supporters have ALWAYS had your back. ALWAYS! Now you go hire one of the biggest scum bags on earth to run your campaign and the first thing he does is trash Sarah Palin.

You realize you have effectively ended any chance you ever had at ever being elected, right?

Good luck winning your House se…at again without any Palinista support and $$$$

What a pathetic loser you are.”

Most offhand comments usually have a short political shelf life. So very often statements like those made by Rollins,  which inspired the type of anymosity seen in the words above, are normally healed by time. But that is not the case here. Unless Michele Bachmann makes some very substantial overtures to Palin  and isnure that not only are Rollins’ remarks are retracted, but that she in no way shares his thinking about Palin, Bachmann will be seriously hurt by this. As Republican red as Palin supporters are, they are also true blue to Palin and quite defensive of her.  After witnessing over two years of endless, unfair, attacks on her and her family, Palin’s supporters have a right to be defensive. And they especially have a right to defend her against one who is suppose to be on their side.

Ed Rollin’s remarks were incredibly stupid, in every way. Politically, he alienated Palin supporters, the very people who could have easily been backers of Bachmann if Palin does not run, and cost Bachmann that potential support .  And there was absolutely no reason for that. Just this past Sunday, when Sarah Palin was asked by Fox News’ Chris Wallace, if there was room for her and Michele Bachmann in the 2012 Republican presidential race, Palin gave Bachmann credit for having stregths of her own that she would bring to the race, and went on to say that Bachmann would be a welcome addition to the race…. “the more the merrier” said Palin.

Unlike Rollins, who claims that Palin is “not serious”, in that answer, Palin proved to be more politically savvy than Rollins, a so called political expert. Well now it is time for Michele Bachmann to show how politically savvy she is. Does she have the ability to correct the wrong done to her by her own political consultant? Short of firing him, Palin supporters may not ever believe so.

Bookmark and Share

Michele Bachmann’s Ready To Announce Her Candidacy for President

Bookmark and Share White House 2012 had previously made clear that the month of May, would begin to set the Republican race for President in stone. Most potential candidates had indicated at the latest, a June deadline for their decisions. As such, any of them who were leaning towards announcing their candidacy, would more than likely have to make some preparation that would not go unnoticed by either the media, political insiders, or both. That is now the case with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

The recent decisions by Donald Trump and most especially Mike Huckabee, seem to have taken her from giving a run some serious consideration, to being sure that she will run.

According to political reporter and analysts Chris Stirewalt, on Monday, on the heels of both Huckabees and Trumps decisions not to run for President, advisors to Congresswoman Bachmann let it be know that she is likely to jump in to the race and that she has begun searching for pollsters, consultants and all the other necessary staff components for a presidential campaign. According to Stirewalt, one D.C. based consultant close to Bachmanns camp said This is now beyond speculation. They are doing this.

I have been leery of Michele Bachmanns intentions to run for President in 2012. This is not based on any disapproval of the Congresswoman. To the contrary, it was based on a hope of for the longevity of her ability to be a maverick political forceon the inside of the system.

Beyond two of the first three nominating contests, I fear that the Congresswomans chances of winning enough primaries and caucuses were out of her reach. Bachmann can and probably will do quite well in the early contests of Iowa and South Carolina. These two states are uniquely ripe for her character and politics. And as is Bachmann, these two states are strongly influenced by evangelical principles and activism. In fact they are dominated by evangelical forces, especially in the case of Republican politics. But once the campaign moves beyond Iowa, and South Carolina, that influence which is a strong suit for the Congresswoman, will become more and more diluted. This is especially true in contests outside of the Southern Bible Belt.

Even New Hampshires primary, which falls in between the Iowa Caucus and the South Carolina Primary election, Bachmann is not likely to do very well. But a loss there would certainly derail her candidacy. New Hampshire id a state closely connected to Mitt Romney and he expected to be the winner there. Besides, if Bachmann could bookend a loss in New Hampshire with wins in Iowa and South Carolina, New Hampshire will be nothing more than a bump in the road.

After South Carolina, Bachmann will still have a fair shot at Florida, another state that has a highly active evangelical Republican structure. But here Bachmann will begin to struggle with a the more diverse electorates of the more heavily populated states in the nation. Ultimately, I believe that while Bachmann will start strong I do not believe that she will finish strong and in the end, not win the Republican presidential nomination. It is for that reason, that I have doubted Bachmanns willingness to run for a nomination that she is less likely to win than lose and give up her seat in the House of Representatives in the process.

Recent events though, shed some light on why Michele Bachmann might be inclined to not seek reelection in the House.

Bachmann knows that in 2012, with president Obama at the top of the ticket, Democrats are going to target her. The Congresswoman is a thorn in the lefts side and so in addition to wanting to try to take enough seats to recapture control of the House, they would love to do so by ridding themselves of Republican firebrands like her. But Bachmann has never shied away from a tough race and she has usually prevailed. This time though, in addition to being targeted by Democrats, Bachmann will be a victim of redistricting. How much her district will be redrawn is not yet established, but no matter how it is drawn, she will have to campaign for reelection among voters that are new to her and those voters will probably not be as conservative as they are in her district as it currently exists.

The combination of the knowledge that Bachmann will be damaged by redistricting and that she will be a top target by Democrats and President Obama himself, may account for Bachmanns willingness to choose a run for President over standing for reelection to Congress. Additionally; there is nothing to say that if the Congresswomans presidential campaign starts to wane early enough, she could always pull out of the race in time to file her papers for reelection to her current House seat.

So Bachmann may not have much to lose by running for President while at the same time, she could have much to gain. Her presidential candidacy will advance the issues that are important to her. It will also raise her visibility and national ID which in turn will elevate her level of influence in conservative circles.

If Bachmann does in fact run, while she may not have the best chance at winning the nomination, her candidacy will certainly have a large effect on who is or isnt the nominee. In many ways, Congresswoman Bachmann could play the same role in the 2012 nomination contest that Mike Huckabee played in the 2008 contests. She could be strong enough to attract enough votes from other candidates like Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and/or Mitch Daniels, to allow Mitt Romney to win.

That is the effect that Mike Huckabee had in 2008. He attracted enough votes away from Mitt Romney, to make it possible for John McCain to ultimately win the nomination. And like Mike Huckabee, now that he is out of the race, Congresswoman Bachmann could easily win the Iowa Caucuses. At the very least, this could all help delay the emergence of a clear frontrunner.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann Brings Home the Bacon

In this case, I don’t mean pork spending. Michelle Bachmann outraised front runner Mitt Romney in the first quarter of 2011 according to the Politico. The fiery Minnesotan TEA Party favorite has come from the political shadows to the forefront since the 2010 Republican sweep, which heavily favored TEA Party candidates.

Bachmann outraises front-runner Mitt Romney

Bachmann’s greatest challenge sofar for 2012 has been distinguishing herself from Sarah Palin, the other fiery TEA Party activist with a funny northern state accent with the occasional hilarious gaffe on her record.

Still, her message has been clear and unwaivering social and fiscal conservatism. While pundits fear she cannot bring swing state independents to the polls, Bachmann did very well at bringing Republican voters to the polls in her district and others in 2010. She has also done well bringing funds into the party coffers.

For now, Bachmann seems to be stuck in the same spot as many other GOP primary potentials. Republicans agree with almost everything she says, we would vote for her over Obama without hesitation, but no one really thinks she’ll be the one in 2012.

From Des Moines, Bachmann Says She Is Encouraged To Run for President

Bookmark and Share During her 5 day swing through Iowa, in a live interview with Fox News from Des Moines, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann confirmed being encouraged by the level of support she is receiving in the early caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Bachmann states that ultimately she and her husband must make a decision based upon whether or not they truly feel running for President at this time is the right thing to do. That decision is expected to come in a matter of weeks.

When asked if Bachmann could ultimately be competitive with President Obamas expected $1 billon in campaign funds, if she decides to run, the Congresswoman believes that she can. She points out that in the 2010 election cycle, she broke all fundraising records for members of Congress by raising more money than all others. She is also quick to point out that from what shes seen among the electorate, the atmosphere is right for making sure that President Obama is a one term President.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann Barnstorms Iowa for 5 Days Straight

Bookmark and Share Michele Bachmann is using the one week recess that Congress is in, for a five day campaign style tour of Iowa, the state that holds the nations first presidential caucus.

So far her tentative schedule is as follows:

Wednesday:

  • Speech at the state Capitol building in Des Moines for a Christian home school educators event,
  • Speech at another home school event at a Des Moines hotel.

Thursday:

  • Numerous private meetings
  • 5 :00pm EST, Bachmann will hold Facebook town hall
  • Meet and Greet at Iowa Renewal Project’s event at the Sheraton in West Des Moines
  • Hold an after-dinner reception for the Iowa Renewal Project

Friday:

  • Private meetings

Saturday:

  • Speaking at the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines
  • Many other to be announced stops and impromptu gatherings will take place.

Bachmann is slated to fly out of Iowa, late Saturday.

The Congresswomans staff intends to provide a live stream of her public events on her website

Bachmann has repeatedly said that she wants to make sure that she helps to shape the national debate that goes during the time leading up to the presidential election. The statement allows for defining her intentions of 5 days of campaigning in Iowa with a broad brush, but to place this much emphasis on trying to structure the debate in one particular state, is enough to suggest that she is looking hard at trying to shape that debate as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

If Bachmann were to run, her greatest impact would likely take place in Iowa where a strong evangelical base is particularly in tune with and supportive of Bachmanns conservative social values as well as her conservative fiscal thinking and TEA Party message. However, even if she were to win the Iowa caucus, her lead will likely be short lived as the campaign moves to New Hampshire and beyond where other candidates with greater regional appeal than Bachmann will be much more competitive.

That short-lived success could help benefit one potential Republican candidate most. That would be Mitt Romney.

Romneys campaign is in the race for the long haulyet a win for him in Iowa is going to be rough. But if someone like Michele Bachmann were to split the Iowa Caucus vote between contenders like Pawlenty, Huckabee and Barbour, Romney would be dealt a chance to finish better than expected. And should Bachmann happen to win in Iowa, that too will help Romney. The Congresswoman is not likely to last much further than South Carolina and so if she were to prevent other long term candidates such as Mike Huckabee, or Haley Barbour from getting a lock on frontrunner status, it will make it much easier for Romney to do as the nomination contest moves beyond South Carolina.

Perhaps the biggest question to all this though, are the plans of Sarah Palin. Palin would be another candidate in this for long haul and if she were to decide to run, it could be the decisive factor that makes Bachmann decide not to run. Palin and Bachmann essentially appeal to the same base and both are TEA Party favorites who could significantly dilute their effects on the election if they split that vote between one another.

Bookmark and Share

Bachmann’s Eventful Swing Through New Hampshire

Bookmark and ShareMinnesota Congresswoman recently embarked upon a two day swing through New Hampshire. The tour was filled with campaign-like stops at everything from a local diner, to a GOP fundraiser.

In the speech provided in the video below, Congresswoman Bachmann addresses a New Hampshire Republican State Committee fundraiser in Nashua. Here she addressed everything from liberal spending on things like Cowboy poetry festivals, to haphazardly issuing Obamacare waivers to states like Maine.

Also at this stop was a few moments of disruption by protesters who suddenly began chanting, “Michele Bachmann, we insist. End the AIDS treatment waiting list.” The reference was to the policy by cash trapped states to stop or reduce funding of the AIDS drugs distribution program. In some cases state’s are creating waiting lists for AIDS patients to go on before they can get assistance for the very expensive drugs they need.

At a separate event in Nashua, Bachmann began to talk about the principles which found our nation and referenced Lexington and Concord and the historic battle that occurred their, to have taken place New Hampshire. The events actually took place in neighboring Massachusetts. On Saturdaqy Bachmann acknowledged the gaffe in a twitter statement that read;

“So I misplaced the battles Concord and Lexington by saying they were in New Hampshire. It was my mistake, Massachusetts is where they happened. New Hampshire is where they are still proud of it!”

Of all that took place and was said during Bachmann’s, this gaffe is what will be getting the headlines and most of the attention among the left. But as a reminder to them I present the following video of a man once who Senator Barack Obama. While running for President he infamously elevated the number of states in the Union. And apparently all those extra states voted for him too. Oh wait…. that was ACORN.

For a more detailed history of President Obama’s incredible oratory skills and knowledge, see the video below;

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: