New Romney Ad Ties Obama to Pelosi and Middle Class Tax Hikes

   Bookmark and Share                A new 30 second commercial being run by the Romney-Ryan ticket finally begins to interject a narrative into the presidential race that can effectively counter the Obama class warfare strategy being aimed at middle class Americans.  (see ad below this post)

While the ad is far from groundbreaking what it does do is cast a large shadow of doubt over President Obama’s policies by pointing out that not only will they lead to higher taxes on the middle class… they ‘already have’ raised taxes on the middle class.

The ad which is aptly titled “Already Has” bases the claim on a very reliable and non-partisan report issued by the Congressional Budget Office back in July.  The report essentially concludes that between Obamacare and Obama economic policies the federal government will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit by much less than the President claims.

According to the C.B.O. revenue increases built into in the Obamacare law would essentially lead to a trillion dollars in higher taxes.  These taxes include revenues from Obamacare-driven individual and employer mandates, combined with a so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost benefits and additional taxes on drugmakers, medical device manufacturers and insurers.   All of which in addition to raising medical costs will also place direct and indirect tax increases on middle class taxpayers and their families.  The report also concludes that this would all result in  a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period.

All of this spells disaster for taxpayers and the American economy and none of it should provide thinking Americans with  good reason to reelect President Obama but to really drive the point home, the ad goes a step further by featuring a picture of the President with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  The image is a politically damaging reminder of just how ideologically close Obama and Pelosi.  It is a point that can only help to turn the stomachs of any fiscally responsible voter.

Unfortunately, most casual observers will not want to get into the nuts and bolts that explain the charges in Romney’s new ad.  However, by just bringing it to the attention of the 6% or so of the independent voters out there in the six swing states that will determine who the next President is, Romney is finally on track to establishing a narrative in this campaign that could provide him with the momentum he needs to turn those currently uncommitted voters in to committed Romney voters.

Bookmark and Share

The Dumb Blond Joke Behind the Democratic National Convention

“Why don’t women wear a watch?

“Because there’s a clock on the stove.”

Tell a joke like that and you can rest assured that the person who told it will not be a winning candidate for dog catcher, no less than President of the United States.  And with good reason.  It suggests that a woman’s place is in the home where she plays a subordinate, supportive role to her husband and family.  In this day and age, women have stepped out of the shadow of such untrue and degrading gender based assumptions.  They were assumptions which women from Joan of Arc, to Florence Nightingale proved wrong in days of yore and whose examples which contemporary women from Golda Mier, to more recently Margaret Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice continue to prove wrong today.  These are all women who defied attempts by others to define them as helpless damsels in distress and stewards of the kitchen.  They are women who didn’t even rely on men to achieve their own greatness.  Thatcher, and Rice did not marry into power.  They are proud self-made women who shattered the sick sexism of society without parlaying their husband’s last names and political careers into their own careers. They are perfect examples of strong women who have proven the shameful stereotypes perpetuated by the tasteless badinage of the aforementioned wisecrack to be utterly false and sublimely ignorant notions.

The recent Republican National Convention went to great and not so subtle, but natural lengths to demonstrate just how false those outdated stereotypes of women are.  They featured women in their natural roles as leaders, self-made leaders who rose to power thanks to their own determination, talent and ingenuity.  From Cathy McMorris Rodgers to Mia Love and Governors Susana Martinez and Nikki Haley, Senator Kelly Ayote , Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and dozens of others, the G.O.P. convention allowed women to be themselves and make the case not just for those of their own gender, but for all Americans.  But as Democrats gather to hold their convention in North Carolina, they are about to use women to exploit the very stereotypes they have fought so hard against.  At their convention, Democrats will depict woman in a way that should make militant liberal feminazis like Gloria Steinem so violently ill that it causes them to burst into spontaneous episodes of painful, involuntary, heaving that produces dangerously powerful projectile vomiting.

Much like the Republican National Convention, women will be front and center at the Democratic National Convention.  Well some women will be.  The most powerful woman in the Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be out of the country and even out of the hemisphere as she embarks upon an apparently critical mission to the string of 15 small islands in the Pacific known as that Cook Islands.  From there the President is sending her to Siberia. Really, he is.

But Clinton’s politically timed exile from the convention to the far reaches of Siberia aside, Democrats are gearing up to feature liberal women like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz… two people who argue that unless the government finances the interests of women, woman can’t succeed.  Other women they will feature include women’s rights activist Lilly Ledbetter, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards, National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, and the highly accomplished and well-known Georgetown Law School Graduate Sandra “Who”  Fluke.

All of these women will try to have you believe that Republicans are trying to kill women.  They will try to offer up tear jerking tales that depict women as helpless victims who are at the mercy of the hands of government… the big hands of big government.

Lilly Ledbetter will try to claim that the G.O.P. opposes a woman’s right to equal pay for equal work.  She will highlight the bill named after her which was the first legislation President Obama signed into law.   Ledbetter will claim that while it assured women the right to equal pay, Republicans opposed it.  She will not mention that the bill actually simply extended the amount of time a woman had to sue an employer if they believed they were a victim of pay discrimination.  She will not mention that it does not guarantee women anything ant that the whole Lilly Ledbetter law was merely a symbolic political  attempt to make it look like Democrats were focused on helping women.

Cecile Richards will argue that Republican attempts to ban the tearing off of limbs of infants during late term abortions, or to ban the termination of a life because of its sex are cruel examples of some sort of Republican hatred of women.

Nancy Keenan will argue women want a President who believes that the only way they can make the personal, private medical decisions that are best for them and their families is if the federal government takes charge and makes those decision for them by increasing the size, scope, scope and cost of government.

And in what will perhaps be the most amusing argument of the entire liberal convention, Sandra Fluke, a truly inconsequential personality whose greatest accomplishment is that she graduated from law school without getting pregnant, will try to convince Americans that if the evil and heartless heartless Republican Party and its candidates had their way and stopped Americans from seeing their taxes pay for her birth control, she would be barefoot, pregnant and without a law degree.

Then on Thursday night President Obama will portray himself as a princely knight in shining armor who rushes in to save the stereotypically helpless fair maidens of America.

It’s a message that should have all women truly doubtful of how much respect Democrats have for them.  Their characterization of women as a monolithic bloc of one issue voters who will support the failed liberals policies that we are all suffering under because of the liberal promise to hand out free birth control, is a narrative that should insult all women but especially the left wingers behind such liberal entities as Emily’s List.

Traditionally, liberal women’s rights groups like  Emily’s List and similar organizations have touted the strength of women and celebrated their independence and endless abilities.  But today, Democrat groups like those are hypocritically going out of their way to paint a much different picture of women.  They are portraying women as helpless, lost souls with no self-control or capacity to stand on their own without a federal government that mandates their healthcare treatment and like a good husband, gives the little lady an allowance. In this case, a taxpayer subsidized federal allowance.

Gone from the liberal lexicon are the portrayals of women as leaders who have taken control of their own destiny and led themselves, their families, their towns, cities, states, and nation to a better life.  Gone from the Democratic Party are the days when women had their own voice because according to today’s Democrat Party, government provides them with a stronger voice than their own.

The whole liberal inspired election strategy that claims Republicans are waging a war on women is akin to the telling of a bad joke about blonds.  Their claim that women are helpless without government in control of their lives and the lives of their families, is as offensive as the President standing before the nation and quipping;

“How do you make a blonde laugh on Monday?”
“Tell her a joke on Friday?”

It is a mocking and odious approach that does not address the real problems facing women; it simply operates under the false premise that women are gullible enough to believe they need someone to provide for them.   And it is ultimately based on the real question that President Obama has been asking advisors…  “How do I get women to vote for me and fellow Democrats on Election Day?”

For Democrats the answer to that question is “lie to them and hope that they don’t realize the truth till at least the day after the election.”

And the truth they hope that women will be too slow to understand in time for Election Day is that under President Obama, women have lost much of the parity in society that they have fought for over the past four decades.  Under President Obama women have had to endure their highest rate of unemployment in over 17 years as they account for 92.3% of the jobs lost since he took office, an accomplishment that distinguishes President Obama’s record on women’s participation in the labor force as the worst ever.

These are not points you will hear Democrats talking about at their quadrennial celebration of liberalism.  In fact at the Democrat’s convention there will be few if any direct and turthful references to things the President has actually done “for” women.  The overwhelming result of his record on women is one which has done more to them than for them.  But with the women’s vote in several key swing states being critical to Obama’s reelection, Democrats will continue to exploit women as helpless and reliant citizens married to the trough of government and they will continue to pray that their attempt to make women believe that Mitt Romney is The Boston Strangler and that Paul Ryan is Jack the Ripper takes hold.

Bookmark and Share

Democrats Remain Torn Over Convention Theme

Bookmark and Share  Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus recently announced that the theme of the G.O.P.’s convention in Tampa Bay that begins on  August 27th, will be  “A Better Future”.

According to Priebus;

“Americans are ready for a new direction, and that’s why our convention will focus on the Romney-Ryan vision for a better future.”

“After four years of high unemployment and skyrocketing debt, we need America’s ‘Comeback Team’ to get the country working again and protect the American Dream for our children and grandchildren,” said Priebus.  “During our convention, the American people will hear about the priorities, experience and knowhow of our nominees and their plans to secure a better future for our country.”

“This convention will bring together Americans from every corner of the country and every walk of life,” said convention Chief Executive Officer William Harris.  “Whatever their background, wherever they’re from, they know too well that our country faces serious problems.  But they also know that the American people have confronted difficult challenges before, and that together, with strong leadership, we can overcome those challenges and secure a better future for generations to come.”

While the G.O.P. finds it’s base energized and increasingly enthusiastic with the prospects for our nation’s future that a Romney-Ryan ticket brings to it, Democrats find themselves weighed down by their ticket.   These days, between the Obama Administration’s dismal record, a host of scandals, and a string of verbal gaffe’s from both the President and the Vice President, Democrats are finding it hard to get excited over the prospects that renominating Obama and Biden will bring.   That lack of enthusiasm has created a minor glitch in the Party’s attempts to gear up for their national event.

Democrats who will be holding their convention 4 days after the gavel comes down on the G.O.P.’s shindig, but they have not yet made any official announcements on what specifically their theme will exactly be.  Phyllis Stine, a spokeswoman for DNC Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told White House 2012 that Democrat leaders have “narrowed their choices down to several promising themes that offer powerful messages.  One of the most popular at the moment is “It’s Not That Bad”.  However many convention planners are currently pushing for us to make, “It’s their Fault” the overriding theme of the convention.” 

But Reed Dicuolous, a spokeswoman  for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told White House 2012 that the Minority Leader is of the opinion  that creating one specific theme for the convention would be a mistake.  According to Diculous, “Leader Pelosi has repeatedly stated that organizers of the convention will have to watch the convention before they could possibly know what will be in it“.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokeswoman Devoida Lahjick, revealed that Senator Reid is trying to insure that the convention focusses on nothing other than Mitt Romney and he urges to Democrats scrap any attempts to establish a single theme.  “Planning ahead is dangerous and it would risk committing ourselves to a message that we may need to change as the elections plays itself out.  Besides, we haven’t made plans for a federal budget in four years and look at how well that’s worked at turning our economy around,” said Lahjick.

Devoida Lahjick explains that  Senator Reid believes that regardless of any theme convention organizers settle on, the 4 day convention should concentrate on nothing other than attacking Mitt Romney and defining him as an evil business baron.  “By the time we are done with him, Americans should view Mitt Romney as a contemporary cross between Ebenezer Scrooge and Mr. Bumble”,   said Lahjick.

Meanwhile Daniel Kurtzman an intrepid online political columnist at about.com, has come across the Democrat’s preliminary schedule for their convention:

  • 4:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony – sponsored by CNN
  • 4:05 PM – Singing of “God Damn America ” led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
  • 4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama
  • 4:15 PM – Ceremonial ‘I hate America’ led by Michelle Obama
  • 4:30 PM – Tips on “How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you travel the world” – Hillary Clinton
  • 4:45 PM –Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar “How to have a successful career without having a job.”
  • 5:00 PM – “Great Vacations I’ve Taken on the Taxpayer’s Dime Travel Log”Michelle Obama
  • 5:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer Speaks on “Family Values” via Satellite
  • 5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States – Nancy Pelosi
  • 6:00 PM – Sen. Harry Reid – 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat’s appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the country, improve employment and to boost the economy.
  • 8:30 PM – Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
  • 9:00 PM – “Bias in Media – How we can make it work for you” Tutorial – sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times
  • 9:15 PM – Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO – Michael Moore
  • 9:45 PM – Personal Finance Seminar – Charlie Rangle
  • 10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers
  • 10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
  • 11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies
  • 11:15 PM – Free Gov. Blagovich rally
  • 11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
  • 11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama Presiding
  • 12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and ChrisHe sends a thrill up my legMatthews
  • 12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior
  • 12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing
  • 3:00 AM – Biden Delivers Acceptance Speech

Bookmark and Share

Be Afraid – Be Very Afraid

Bookmark and Share  We now know Obama-tax is the law of the land. It’s a big-ass beast that’s here to stay unless the people kill it. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, you’re probably not digging the idea of a big tax hike during a “recession”. Americans For Tax Reform estimates some $500 billion over 10 years and further, it includes 20 new or increased taxes already in effect or right around the corner. And not all but lots of these are applicable to wage earners at the $250,000 a year level or below. A level Obama swore he wouldn’t exploit. Worse, just yesterday CNBC reported the house ways and means committee says there are “21 tax increases costing more than $675 billion over the next ten years” and “75% of the costs could fall on the backs of those making less than $120,000 a year.” Geez, what happened to the $250,000 mark?

And as a result of Thursday’s ruling, The American Action Forum (AAF), says, because states now know they can cut their Medicaid rolls back to the federally designated minimums, that tax payers will get hammered further. AAF chief Douglas Holtz-Eakinand said,”It seems safe to say that the [health law] will leave the taxpayer on the hook for “an additional $500 billion or so in federal costs over the first 10 years.” Not good.

Recall in March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ government adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — here we go — $1.76 trillion. Now, according to AAF, we can throw another $500 billion or so on to that. Super.

Let’s be honest, whether it’s $940 billion or $1.76 trillion or over $2 trillion (if you add in AAF’s new $500 billion) this is absurd. This isn’t a 2-cent increase on everyone’s phone bill, you know, an unpleasant little creature hiding under the stairs. This is a colossal beast — dirty, drooling, dim and dangerously destructive. Doctors don’t like it, businesses don’t like it and the majority of people (about 60%) don’t like it. Who does? The supreme ruler, San Fran Nan and other liberal-socialist politicians and their followers. But they represent the minority.

You’re going to hear lots of speeches that include personal stories of how Obama-care helps Joe. You’ll see lots of television commercials about how Sally was saved by Obama-care. These are designed to tug on your heart. Don’t be swayed. Unrolling benefits before costs was an intentional move by Democrats. Everyone knows the bill always comes after the meal. Pay close attention. It will be interesting to see how many seniors are paraded out as examples of success and how many times the phrase cost-utility analysis is used.

Cost-utility analysis is used to estimate the ratio between the cost of treatment and any benefit in terms of the number of years lived in full health by the patient. Basically, it’s a financial calculation to determine whether a medical procedure is worth it. For example, does an Obama-care bureaucrat authorize heart surgery for a 74-year old? Does a government bureaucrat authorize a life long, expensive prescription to a 15-year old? And what if, say, the prescription doesn’t really bring “full health” but rather just maintains the 15-year old at his or her current level of impairment. This is the Obama-care you won’t see on television or hear in rah-rah speeches — a bureaucrat running cost-utility analysis on a spreadsheet in a cubicle in Washington. Are these death panels? You tell me.

You’ll also be presented with the false choice of Obama-care or back to the old ways. I’d wager virtually everyone in America would be receptive to re-working healthcare. The argument is that this particular healthcare proposal sucks. Sure there are some strong concepts, but the rest just blows — big time. It wasn’t thoughtful legislation. It arose from emotional and fanatical, liberal-socialist ideology — it’s been a wet-dream for the Left for a 100 years — quick we’re in power, rush, rush, sign, sign. It wasn’t even written when it was passed.

All I’m saying is deranged Doc Barack, his loony lab assistant San Fran Nan and the other liberal-socialist scientists had their shot at mixing the test tubes and they concocted this monstrosity. And now it’s on the loose. We need to destroy this monster now, before it destroys us. There are other ways to approach healthcare that don’t need massive government, outrageous taxes and costs or bureaucratic death panels — pardon me, cost-utility calculations.Bookmark and Share

If It It, It Is. If It Isn’t, It’s Un-constitutional.

Bookmark and Share

In keeping with my quoting former President’s in discussing the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare we will quote the (in)famous William Jefferson Clinton:

“It depends on what the definition if ‘Is’ is.”

The SCOTUS decision rendering the Obamacare mandate legal only under the Congresses power to tax is not even a week under the belt but has most still hot under the collar. Conservatives are up in arms that they were betrayed by one of their own at the last moment as Chief Justice John Roberts apparently changed his mind at the 11th hour and liberals are scrambling to explain how they can still support it as a ‘tax’ which will impact millions of middle and lower class families.

The President says it’s not a tax. His chief of staff says it’s not a tax. Pelosi says it’s not a tax. John Carney says it’s not a tax. Most Democrats, especially those up for re-election who supported the bill are screaming that it’s not a tax. ***BREAKING NEWS*** The Supreme Court of the United States of America says IT’S A TAX. You wanted a ruling in your favor…you got it.

So….as most pundits and armchair constitutional lawyers try and wrap their heads around what they feel is a very complex situation, allow me to simplify it for you.

The SCOTUS ruled it’s a tax. If you are going to continue to claim publicly that it is not a tax then you are making the argument against your own bill. Which by the way AS A TAX can only be disputed after someone has to pay it which will happen in 2014. If it is not a tax then you arguing that it is in fact unconstitutional. Good, we agree on something.

So, for those of us who believe this ruling to be a gigantic infringement upon one’s personal liberty as well as a Pandora’s box of the government’s power to tax, take a chill pill. The administration and it’s surrogates are making the disputing of the ‘tax’ easy for us by claiming, despite the ruling to the contrary, that it is not a tax.

It all depends on what the definition of ‘Is’ is.

Bookmark and Share

Obama: Vote for Romney

Obama made a huge ecnomic policy speech in Ohio today.  He reiterated much of his Keynesian stump speeches from the last four years.  Then he gave a clear, unintentional endorsement of Mitt Romney.  Obama said “If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney”.

Obama’s self-delusional miscalculation is that he thinks things are better now than they were 6 years ago.  In fact, Democrats in the House and Senate might really want Obama to just shut up now.  Let’s consider the “polices of the last decade”.

When Pelosi/Reid took over Congress, they inherited a 4.4% unemployment rate.  At the end of 2008, it was 7.3%.  The last time unemployment was under 8% was January, 2009.

Since 2002, George W. Bush had 27 months of unemployment under 5%.  Obama had one month, his first in office, with unemployment below 8%.

The last month Republicans controlled the House and Senate, December 2006, unemployment was at 4.4%.  The last month Democrats controlled the House and Senate, December 2009, unemployment was at 9.9%.

In fact, Obama has a job growth chart that he loves to show (right up until May) that shows jobs lost and gained.  But he only shows it since 2008.  I’ve included the graph below since 2001.  Note the correlation between job growth and who controls Congress.

Was Obama talking about Bush, or Pelosi/Reid?

Obama has attempted to hit Romney on job creation by saying Romney’s state was as low as 47th in job creation.  But what Obama does not mention is that at that point Massachussetts already had 4.7% unemployment.  It would be the equivalent of saying LeBron James is short because he grew fewer inches than any fifth grader this year.

While Obama cheers an unemployment rate that has dropped to 8.2%, real unemployment remains at about 14.5%.  This rate includes people who have dropped out of the workforce and people who have taken interim under employment.

The last time the deficit was under $1 trillion was 2008.  The last time the deficit was under $500 billion was 2008.  In fact, even adjusted for inflation, you would have to add up all of Bush’s deficits going back through 2004 to equal one of Obama’s.  The last time we had a monthly budget surplus?  September, 2008.

The message from Obama was clear.  If you want 4.4% unemployment, you need to elect Mitt Romney and Republicans to the House and Senate.  If you want deficits under $500 billion per year, you need to elect Mitt Romney.  If you want unemployment at 9-10%, give Pelosi/Reid control over Congress.  If you want another four years of trillion dollar deficits and unemployment over 8%, re-elect Barack Obama. If you want the policies of the last decade when we had a record number of months of job growth, then do what Obama said.  Vote for Mr. Romney.

Debunking Obama’s First Ad

With Obama’s first campaign ad of 2012, he has made one thing clear.  He cannot win by being honest about his record.  In his new ad, Obama makes four dubious claims that can easily be debunked.  The ad makes Obama sound like some sort of super President who has changed the country for the better, but it accomplishes this with misrepresentations and outright lies.

Here is the ad:

Go

The first claim that Obama makes is that “some said our best days were behind us”.  This is an easy and unverifiable claim to make.  Who said that?  “Some”.  Actually, no one has said that.  Obama’s deceitful ad shows a picture of the TEA Party, but offers no sources.  Why?  Because there are none.  Obama could have said “Some say blacks are inferior” and showed a picture of the TEA Party and it would be just as dishonest as what he has portrayed here.  This lie is an unfair, intentional smear against his perceived enemies.  The President of the United States is treating an American political group as his enemies.  Frankly, it is the sort of thing one would expect from a Central American dictator, not the President of the United States.

“Today the auto industry is back”.  If by back he means relocated to Italy, that would explain his positive portrayal of what he did with Chrysler.  If by back he means that the taxpayer investment into GM and Chrysler has somehow been paid back, then this too is pure dishonesty.  Yes, the heavily subsidized industry may be pumping out vehicles again, but what about the amount of debt it took to get them there?  This claim is political massage of the facts at best.

“Our troops are home from Iraq”.  If by home he means Afghanistan, then yes this is accurate.  While Obama drew down troops in Iraq, he turned around and surged in Afghanistan.  Obama is correct about our troops being out of Iraq, but even that wasn’t by design.  Obama had planned to keep 3,000-5,000 troops in Iraq until 2013, but could not negotiate a simple immunity agreement to keep Iraqi police from arresting our troops.  This bit of political pandering to the anti-war crowd is dishonest.  It is one more example of Obama taking credit for something beyond his control and contrary to his intention.

“Instead of losing jobs, we are creating them”.  Mix this with Obama’s chart of 4.2 million jobs created and this is the biggest whopper in the ad.  Obama has not created 4.2 million jobs.  His net job growth is negative 2.5 million.  That is a 6.7 million job gap between his claim and the truth.  Contrast Obama’s job performance with Bush, who actually netted a positive 1 million jobs.  In fact, Bush’s most significant job losses were after Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over congress.

Sandwiched between platitudes, Obama filled his ad with outright lies and misrepresentations.  Surely Obama knows that these ads will be fact checked and easily debunked.  Unfortunately, this ad demonstrates his opinion of the American voter.  Yes the ad is full of lies.  But in his opinion the majority of Americans will fall for the platitudes and never check the facts.

Then again, he’s already fooled us once.

Paths to Victory

I have heard recently several conservative commentators marvel about how Newt has risen to the top and stayed there and how Mitt has never gotten over 30%.  It shouldn’t be a surpriseI explained it all months ago.  I’ve said as long ago as this that Mitt is in deep trouble.  He looked pretty good when there were six candidates splitting the other 70% of the vote and 40% were still undecided.  But Romney has always only appealed to fiscal conservatives.  He coasted through the first several months of this election and many in the establishment, now including George Will and Ann Coulter, assumed that his steadiness and assumed front runner status had something to do with him being the best candidate.

So can Romney win?  What about Paul and his recent rise in the polls?  Does he have a shot?  Here is a strategic look at where the candidates stand right now.

Newt Gingrich

Newt has managed to be that candidate who attracts social and fiscal conservatives.  It is his nomination to lose.  So far he has handled attacks perfectly.  Consider Nancy Pelosi’s claim that if he runs she will have a field day spreading every secret from his ethics investigation.  How does he respond?  By stating that out of 84 counts, 83 were dismissed and the 84th was a simple mistake he made and how if Nancy Pelosi is willing to spread secrets from the ethics committee investigation that proves just how corrupt she was in that investigation.  That’s Newt 2, Pelosi 0.  Those type of responses will continue to bolster him.

Next, he has to keep making speeches like he did to the Republican Jewish Coalition.  Newt showed the intelligence and wit that makes conservatives like me giddy about him opposing Obama.  Newt has to keep running on those ideas, setting the record straight, and not going after fellow Republicans who attack him.  I think he slipped up a little when he said Bachmann is factually challenged.  Newt’s message has to stay positive and focused on undoing and being the opposite of Obama.

Mitt Romney

As I said before, Romney’s only prayer in this race is to come out strongly to the social conservative side in a big, public way.  Maybe he needs to go protest in front of an abortion clinic, spend some of his Newt attack ad money on an ad clearly denouncing Obama for making bibles illegal at some military hospitals, or something like that.  Romney will never win this election with only DC establishment backing and fiscal conservatives.  Right now he barely has better electability to run on.  And the attacks from his surrogates are easily being linked back to him.  His smooth Reaganesque style and kindness on the debate trail is getting ugly with people like George Will calling his opponents book selling charlatans and Ann Coulter accusing Newt Gingrich of wanting to do something similar to teaching school kids how to masturbate.  None of this reflects well on Romney.

Romney has to do very well in this next debate at highlighting better ideas, but definitely smaller government ideas.  Newt tends to talk about ideas that he could not do as President but would help the country.  Romney needs to jump on that and be the smaller government alternative.  Romney needs to win the 10th amendment fight in this next debate, while still appearing to be a stronger social conservative than everyone thinks he is.

Ron Paul

Paul’s biggest liability is himself.  His second biggest liability is his supporters.  One of the reasons Ron Paul hasn’t gotten higher in the polls is that people don’t want to support him if they think he is their enemy.  Paul has worked very hard to make himself the enemy of anyone he considers to his left.  In the debates he comes across as abrasive and angry.  His pet issues cloud many great issues that most conservatives would agree with him on.  Hint hint, Ron Paul, constitutionalists want to like you.  But when I sit there and think about my life, I really can’t think of what I did to cause 9/11 or why terrorists can kill Americans because of Jimmy Carter’s foolish foreign policy and what every President has done since then.

Part of Paul’s problem is that his foreign policy approach reflects history, but not reality.  Paul can pontificate all he wants on how we got here, but most conservatives don’t like his solution for how we get home.  In a quick draw, when you drop your gun turn around and walk away, Bin Laden types usually just shoot you in the back.  Who cares if it’s your fault you got in that situation in the first place.  Personally, I don’t want to be shot in the back.

Ron Paul was his best this year when he was talking about domestic policy and when he showed even an ounce of grace in the debates towards his fellow Republicans.  One last thing, Paul will never win over conservatives with his states rights approach to abortion.  No true pro-lifer is going to vote for a guy who is going to ensure that abortion stays legal in most of the states.

Rick Perry

Perry really needs to reassess his chances.  His only shot is a good showing in Iowa, as in 2nd place or better.  He needs to nail every debate going forward.  Perry needs a “My Fair Lady” transformation.  For starters, he can learn how to pronounce Nukuler.

His ideas are not bad.  His tenth amendment stance is very good.  But he has a lot of competition among candidates who are pro-tenth amendment, and his HPV vaccine debacle ruins his credibility on personal freedom.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman could easily be in the 2012 Presidential race.  All he has to do is switch parties.  I’m being completely serious.  Jon Huntsman could guarantee that Obama does not have another four years by changing to Democrat and running against Obama in the 2012 primary as a moderate.  Of course, he would have to kneel before Pelosi/Reid to get the necessary credibility.

Michele Bachmann

In order for Bachmann to win, two things have to happen.  First, Obama has to get so low in the polls and believe it or not do even more stupid things so that anyone could beat him (even Trump).  Then, Bachmann would have to convince TEA Partiers that she is their candidate more than Newt, Perry or Santorum.  Unfortunately for Bachmann, if absolutely anyone could defeat Obama and electability wasn’t an issue, there is another candidate who would still take the TEA Party vote before she would.

Rick Santorum

If the TEA Party is going to come home to anyone, it would be Rick Santorum.  Get ready, it could happen in Iowa.  Santorum has never been taken seriously because people doubt his electability.  He lost in Pennsylvania.  Of course, that year every Republican in Pennsylvania lost.  Not only that, but some of our best Presidents won after losing senate races.  If you listen to Newt, you know two famous historical names, Lincoln and Douglas.  Did you know Lincoln’s victory was a rematch of their senate race two years before?  Guess who won that senate race.

If one more star is going to rise before this primary is over, it will be Santorum and it will be because the TEA Party takes Bachmann’s advice and says screw electability.  If that happens, Santorum has to be ready for the vetting process with ideas that will knock our socks off and make Romney and Newt look like morons.  Santorum has to not be George Bush II on the war and he has to convince fiscal conservatives that he can get spending under control.  He also has to convince libertarians that he will stay out of their homes.  That’s a tall order for Santorum.

Trunkline 2012: Monday Mentions from The Republican Presidential Race – 12/5/11

Bookmark and ShareThe “late” edition of Trunkline 2012 has talk of Newt, Mitt, Michele, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Chuck “the Schmuck” Todd, Nancy Pelosi, some advice from Mark Levin, the lies involved in Fast & Furious, and more news from the campaign trail.

 “I just think it’s time to have a president whose idea of being “hands on” doesn’t mean getting a better grip on the golf club….” – Mitt Romney

  • Tweet of the Day:

PublicPolicyPollingppppolls  PublicPolicyPolling

 If Gingrich meets the same fate as the last 2 front runners, Mitt well positioned to win in Iowa: http://tinyurl.com/c5upzmx
Bookmark and Share

Debunking Newt Mythology

Ok, hold on a minute.  Let’s talk about Newt.

The left has gone all in on Newt.  After three years of seeing that the Democrats have an empty hand with Obama, they have put all their chips on the table and dared us to run Newt.  And as usual, we are folding.  Same thing happened in 2008 when the left and the media scoffed at Mitt Romney and said that the only candidate who could ever beat their guy was John McCain.  Believe it or not, we listened.  For the smarter party, Republicans sure can be stupid.

Now the left is saying it will be a cake walk if we run Gingrich and the only serious candidate who can beat their guy is Romney, or maybe Huntsman, although they seem to have figured out that one is a hard sell.  So why are we listening again?  Ann Coulter came out slamming Newt and endorsing Romney.  George Will has attacked Newt Gingrich.  And what for?

Newt got $1.8 million from Freddie Mac.  Not really, it was actually Newt’s company.  But he did it by lobbying.  Well, again, no.  Newt did not lobby for Freddie Mac, but his company did provide consulting services to Freddie Mac.  Now, I am a businessman and a lot of what I do involves consulting.  Does that mean I can never run for President in case one of my clients does something bad someday despite my advice?  Maybe.

Let’s take it out of the business realm.  Pretend you own a garage and you fix cars.  If George Soros drives up and asks you to change the oil, will you turn him away?  Are you a liberal if you change his oil?  What about Bernie Madoff before he was caught?  Are you part of his illegal pyramid scheme because you changed his tires?

It would be one thing if Newt counseled Freddie Mac on how lose billions of dollars, get bailed out, and pay everyone huge bonuses.  But if you are looking for that smoking gun, you are looking at the wrong person.  Try Franklin Raines, Jamie Gaerlick, etc.  Enough with the guilt by association.  Newt did consulting for large businesses, and they paid his company rates that large, multi-billion dollar businesses pay for high level consulting.

Ok, but Newt sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.  Yes, he did.  He also had debates with Cuomo, Kerry and Sharpton.  Newt Gingrich is not going to implement cap and trade to prevent global warming.  That’s about as crazy as saying Mitt Romney is going to support partial birth abortion.  Seriously, you have my word that neither of those will happen.  Newt wasn’t endorsing Nancy Pelosi any more than Al Sharpton was endorsing Pat Robertson.  If Sarah Palin stood next to Michelle Obama and did a PSA saying its good for kids to have a healthy diet, would you suddenly think that Palin supports federal government takeover of school lunches? Newt has fought vigorously against cap and trade.

Well, what about Newt supporting a healthcare mandate?  When Hillary was pushing Hillarycare, which would take responsibility away from people, Newt signed on with the Heritage Foundation’s alternative that included an individual mandate. After researching it, Newt backed off that position.  He never implemented it for an entire state, or for anyone actually.  Newt is not going to implement a healthcare mandate on the entire country.  Guess what, neither is Romney.

In fact, let’s talk Romney for a minute.  Mitt Romney is pro-life.  He opposes gay marriage.  He makes Huntsman look like Hillary.  He supports tax cuts for the middle class and not raising taxes on employers and producers.  As much as Romney has been painted as the liberal in this bunch, he was the most conservative viable candidate in 2008 after Fred Thompson dropped out.  He may not be a card carrying TEA Party member, but he has said himself that he supports the TEA Party and shares all of their goals.  By the way, I never got a card either.  I really don’t think they issue them, even if Bachmann has one.

Why did Romney lose in 2008?  It all came down to two reasons.  Number one, Romney was not moderate enough to get the “independents”.  He was too conservative.  Only John McCain could beat the Democrat in 2008 by reaching across the aisle and not being so extreme.  Reason number two, the infamous time-table for withdrawal charge.  Romney said that when the time came to draw down the troops from Iraq, he supported a time-table for an orderly withdrawal.  His opponents turned that into Democrat style cut and run.  No matter how many times he tried to explain that was not what he believed, that became the mantra.

What about Rick Perry?  Why aren’t we going around saying that Rick Perry is going to implement cap and trade because years ago he was a Democrat working on the campaign of the future Nobel prize winner and global warming snake oil salesman, Al Gore?

The only person we have to actually worry about doing half the crazy stuff he’s been accused of thinking is Ron Paul!

So let’s not let people choose our candidate for us.  Research what you hear about candidates.  Just because George Will thinks you are too dumb to vote doesn’t make it so.  Each of the candidates left have some great ideas, and each one will do a far better job at running this country than the current President.  Did Cain have some foreign policy gaffes?  Shoot, the last three years have been an Obama foreign policy gaffe.

Part of this election cycle that Romney has skipped sofar has been the knife in the back from the right and the dare to run that candidate from the left.  Considering how well Newt is handling this complete onslaught from the right and left, wouldn’t you rather have him going up against Obama than the candidate that no one is vetting?  McCain got plenty of vetting after Romney dropped out in 2008.

This is not an endorsement of Newt.  I will make an endorsement of a candidate after the Jacksonville, Florida debate in January.  But this is a serious question to our party.  Why do we have to self destruct again?

Jim DeMint & the Potential “the Less We Do, the Better” Presidency

Jim DeMint

Senator DeMint

Bookmark and Share    Jim DeMint recently brought the Senate to a halt after threatening to hold all legislation unless it was pre-approved by his office. Initially, he claimed that his reasoning for the unprecedented maneuver was strictly for the purpose of insuring that he and his staff had the chance to fully read through proposed bills before voting on them —- a technicality that seems to be lost on people like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who not long ago told the people that we needed to pass the healthcare bill so that we can see what was in it.

The move was one that did not help to counter the propaganda of Democrats who paint Republicans as “the Party no”. But in many ways Jim DeMint is on to something here.

While Democrats try to gain traction out of calling the G.O.P. “obstructionists”, DeMint takes a head on approach when addressing the word and description by explaining that there is a lot of liberal legislation that needs to be responded in the negative and that obstructing detrimental legislation is a positive thing.

But as it turns out Senator DeMint, in an interview on the daily Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association, revealed that there was more behind his reason for preventing the Senate to forge ahead with business as usual.

While talking about the move with host Bryan Fischer, the Senator stated “this idea that government has to do something is not a good idea.” He went on to say “the less we do, the better”.

The sentiment was further expressed in the following exchange:

FISCHER: “Do you think some kind of gridlock is possible and what do you think will happen if that ensues?”

DEMINT: “Well I had a group of businessmen tell me the other day “if you can just stop the tax increases on us and then have two years of gridlock, that would be the best thing that could happen for business because at least we would know what to expect.” Right now they don’t know what the government is going to do to them next. So this idea that government has to do something is not a good idea. So I think the less we do, the better except maybe to dismantle some of the federal programs that are making it harder for America to be competitive”.

 

In a different interview, when DeMint was asked about the issue of obstructionism he responded;

DEMINT: “The problem is secretly passing bills without reading them, without debating them, and without voting on them. Over 90% of the bills that come through the Senate are never voted on, never debated, they pass by unanimous consent. I’ve never heard one person across America want more bills to pass more quickly.”

Senator DeMint’s position may seem harsh to those who believe that the government, especially the federal government, must do more….regulate more, control more and tax and spend more, but an increasing number of Americans are coming to see that the less the federal government does, the less things get screwed up. And the fact that Jim DeMint is willing to come out of the political closet and essentially say so, is not only brave, it is commendable.

But Jim DeMint goes beyond just talking the talk. His recent efforts to stop action in the Senate demonstrate that, ironically,  he is a man of action.

As indicated by the trends being seen as we head into the homestretch of the 2010 midterm elections, most Americans might actually appreciate a government shutdown. Under the current makeup of the House, Senate and Obama Administration, it might be the only way to save some money and put an end to reckless spending and the fact that Jim DeMint seems willing to go to such lengths is encouraging.

Doing nothing may not exactly make for a very successful platform for a presidential candidate to run on but if Jim DeMint is willing to keep addressing the issue he, will certainly continue to gain favor with the conservative base of the Party and help force whomever the eventual Republican nominee for President is to at least adopt a minimalists federal platform that will give states more rights and help keep the federal government slim, trim and out the way.

Bookmark and Share

Romney Sticks It To Dems at Values Voters Summit

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

 

Bookmark and Share  At the annual Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C., Mitt Romney csme out swinging and never stopped.  He opened up with a series of sharp quips that ranged from claiming that “Harry Reid’s, Nancy Pelosi’s and President Obama’s “numbers were going down faster than a Jet Blue flight attendents” to a fitting shot at President Obama’s new love affair with golfing and how “America is better off when he takes advice from caddy rather than his economic advisors.

What Values Voters really got a chance to see and hear though was a glimpse at a more relaxed, more fluid, confidentand hardline Romney than we saw in 2008.

In his speech, Romney called these fiorst two years of the Obama Administration, an abject failure.  He backed the claim up by listing a litany of things done by the Administration which have failed the American people in the area of the economy;

“Raising taxes on small businesses — hurt.  Hiking some taxes on investment by almost as much as 200% — hurt.  Pushing Cap-and-Trade — hurt.  Stalling agreements to expand trade witrh other nations — hurt.  Sharply slanting the playing field in favor of union C.E.O’s — hurt.  Handing GM to the U.A.W. — hurt.  The federal takeover of healthcare — hurt.   Trillions of dollars of new debt — hurt.  And the scapegoating and demonizing of the very people who we need to invest in people and jobs also hurt.” 

Romney added that we have  seen the most “anti-growth, anti-investment, anti-jobs measures in our lifetime.”

One of the most powerful lines caqme when Romney stated;

“We have seen the federal government decalre wars on drugs and we have seen them decalre war on poverty but this is the first time we have seen the federal government decalre war on free enterprise” 

The Romney speech was the work of a man who has seemingly become an experienced butcher and each of his points sliced into the Obama, Pelosi, Reid regime like a machete.  It was alos the work of a man whom you can tell is going to go after President Obama on the economy, which is Romney’s strong suit, unmercifully.

But Romney’s speech before a group of voters more interested in family values than economics, did not foucus only on the economy.  It simply demonstrated Romney’s ability to all the issues together as segued from the economy to human values and morality after pointing out that Barack went from being the man of “yes we can” to the man of “no he didn’t” and mentioned how “the man who said he would unite the country, turned out to be the most divisive in history”.

In general Romney offered a preview of a presidential candidate who is on message and focussed.  He also demonstrated the keen ability to tie his economic experience to the social issues that willmotivate the Republican base that he will need to inspire if he wants to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012. 

Below you will find the entire Romney speech on video.  Take the time to view it for yourself and I believe that you walk away with the sense that Mitt Romney is both hungry and polished.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: