Trunkline 2012: Monday’s Election News Wrap-Up From the Campaign Trail

Bookmark and Share   Leading the buzz from the campaign trail in today’s Trunkline 2012 news and views wrap-up are stories dealing with Romney’s growing lead among women, Hispanics, and in battleground states and the White House 2012 Electoral College projection, good reasons why gays should be voting for Mitt Romney, how Romney’s $171 million dollar September fundraising haul will shape his final push towards Election Day, unions fining members for not attending a rally for Massachusetts liberal Senate candidate Betsy Warren, a great ad from the T.E.A. movement, and as always… much more;

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Tuesday’s Tidbits from the Campaign Trail – 10/9/12

Bookmark and Share   Today’s tidbits from the trail include news about Romney’s rise in the polls,  Obama’s supporters threaten to riot, the DNC ‘s cash shortage, the President’s obsession with Big Bird, Obama’s initial belief that he won the first presidential debate, his lies about Romney and his own record, the president’s declining support among African-Americans, 10 dates from Obama’s first term to remember, the continued fallout from the Libyan terrorist attack and more:

Bookmark and Share

The Left Admits Romney Wins First Debate

It was a game changer. Romney cleaned Obama’s clock. Romney wins the night. It’s not debatable, Obama stumbles. What is so sweet about these opinions, crusaders, is that they are from the New York Times. And HuffPuff. And Politico. Left, Left and Left.

CNN, running a post-debate poll reported a 67% to 25% Romney win.

At the New York Times, Michael Goodwin wrote, “When it came to defending his record, Obama resorted to filibusters that moderator Jim Lehrer was too willing to tolerate. As though his handlers were whispering in his ear, the president trotted out his favorite campaign clichés: millionaires and billionaires, oil companies corporate jets, fair share, fair shot. It was all stale stuff.”

Bill Maher — i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

Michael Goodwin again, “As for specifics, I have no more idea what Obama would do in a second term than I did before the debate.”

“They know they lost tonight,” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

Joy Behar of The View — “Obama blew it. I hate to say it but Romney was lying and Obama didn’t hit him on it.”

Here is Left-lunatic extraordinaire, Chris Matthews, in all his glory.

The best part is the pathetic Obama performance wasn’t missed by the supreme ruler’s subjects either. Have some fun today, crusaders, and read some post comments at Politico, HuffPuff, the NY Times or any Left-leaning publication of your choice. Here’s a few to get your engine started.

Raw6464 — The man is a typical wimpy Democrat. After the debacle of last night I hope his staff will light a fire under his ass because one more debate loss and he’ll be a one term president…The thought of Romney choosing the next 4 Supreme Court Justices scares the shit out of me. If and when that day happens, the Right Wing will rule the world.

Jill — Was so depressing to watch that I turned it off after the first 45 minutes.

Slangwhang — OBAMA FAILED…..THE ECONOMY! THE COUNTRY! AMERICA

Balthasar — Obama looked tired to me; seemed to be having trouble keeping his eyes open as Mitt delivered his closing argument.

MileHiDem — Obama is still blazing in the polls and one debate won’t change it much, perhaps a little.

The Apostate — More debates coming, but Mitt will most likely take a lead in the polls over this debacle.

Donealready1 — This IS Obama without a teleprompter. He has been protected by everyone and this time, he was on his own. We finally got a glimpse of the true Obama……disaster

JaxSax1 — Wake up call to Obama. Yeah you are a nice guy. NOW FREAKING STOP IT. Stand up and punch back because this election was yours to lose.

Enjoy!

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Democrats Run On Empty As Gas Prices Reach Historic Highs

  Bookmark and Share  Today marks another historic milestone in the presidency of Barack Obama.  After more than three years of prices at the fuel pump steadily rising, this past month saw prices spike a whopping 9% and bring the national average of a gallon of gasoline up to $3.61 a gallon for the year, 10 cents more a gallon than it cost in 2011. All of this adds up to what will be the most expensive year for drivers in history.

Now to be fair, the truth is that Presidents and Congresses have only a certain amount of control over the price.  But they could have a a dramatic effect on stabilizing costs.  Fuel prices are largely established through the price set for crude oil on the world market.  Oil, regardless of what nation it comes from is thrown into one big economic bucket and stamped with one price throughout the world.  That is something which many, including Republicans often ignore when they argue for the need for the United States to increase domestic drilling.

While augmented domestic drilling is certainly a wise policy, it would not necessarily solve all our problems or drastically reduce the price of gas.  However; by tapping into the vast wealth of natural, domestic, energy sources like crude oil, the United States would certainly have a stabilizing effect on the energy market and the price of oil.

The high price that we are seeing at the pump now is, despite a sluggish and troubled economy, a direct result of the fact that worldwide demand is up and supplies are coming from increasingly unstable and even dangerous locations of the world; i.e.: the Middle East.  This means that if the United States which consumes most of the world’s oil supply, happened to increase its  production of domestic oil it would help to stabilize the world oil market by increasing the number of stable, secure, and reliable locations that are contributing to the world market, thereby adding a boost to the supply side of the supply and demand dynamic that is causing the unsettling run-up in fuel costs that we are now experiencing.

But President Obama and the liberal lock that Democrats have on Congress through their majority in the U.S. Senate, refuse to take advantage of our ability to exploit domestic natural resources.  It is a policy that not only continues to put undue pressure on the world oil market, it also denies Americans jobs, something which more rational political leaders would see as a necessary initiative at a time when our nation is experiencing its 40th consecutive month of unemployment in excess of 8%.

In this tough economy, while our federal government should be doing everything that is possible to get the economic engine of our nation moving again, it is clear that President Obama and his fellow liberals will be of no help on this issue.  Since coming to power, the only discernible efforts they have taken in the area of energy have been on the mishandling of the 2009 Gulf oil disaster that saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil gush into the Gulf of Mexico for several months, and feeble attempts to prop up misguided alternative energy efforts such as the one involving the unfolding Solyndra scandal.

And as the average price of a gallon gas is predicted to reach as high as $3.90 a gallon by year’s end, Democrats, including President Obama happen to be missing in action on the issue.

As Democrats gear up to re-nominate their messiah for President, a deafening silence has fallen over the liberal lala land that the left occupies.

There are no complaints from limousine liberals over the price of gas or even the high unemployment rates which could be reduced by incorporating an all-of-the-above strategy into our national energy policy.   This newfound silence of the left offers a stark contrast to the reaction that liberals had to the high cost of gas in 2006 when it briefly spiked to point in excess of $3.00.

At one point, as Democrats were gearing up for the 2006 midterm elections and gas prices were reaching their highest of the Bush years, Chuck Schumer held a press conference and stated;

“Well, we knew this was going to happen.  Prices are now back up to over $3.00 a gallon again.  If we do nothing, within all too short a time prices they’re going to be at $4.00 a gallon and $5.00 a gallon.  And there’s going to be a giant hole getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, in every consumer’s pocketbook or wallet.

Back then, The New York Times, the now tarnished, Gray Lady of liberal propaganda, proudly extolled;

“Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.”

Six years later and the soaring price of gas is something the left is now seemingly trying to keep a secret.  But in the words of Harry Reid, “the word is out”.

That genie is out of the bottle and at the moment, Democrats don’t seem to have any way to put her back in the bottle or to explain her escape.  No matter how many distractions the left concoct, no matter how much President Obama and his campaign henchmen try to defame Mitt Romney, and despite all the attempts to divide Americans and then piece together a majority of the vote for the President’s reelection, far too many Americans are uniting together under what are becoming very negative campaign ads for Democrats —- the signs which contain the high price for gas that the Obama energy policy is forcing Americans to pay.

Back in 2006, under the direction of Senator Schumer who was the Chairman of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and in charge of getting liberals elected to the Senate, made bashing Bush on the high price of gas a mandatory theme for candidates to run on.  Fast forward to 2012 and Democrats are not running on the price of gas, they are trying to run as far away from those prices as many Democrats who are up for reelection are running as far away from the democratic National Convention as they possibly can.

It’s just another sign of the liberal hypocrisy that forms the foundation of liberal logic but in the meantime, our President has once again made history.  In addition to making history as the first President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for simply getting elected, other historic firsts include his success in putting nearly a third of the U.S. economy under government controlling by delivering socialized healthcare to our shores, the accumulation of a total debt that greater than the sum total of all previous presidents, his capping of salaries in the private sector, the first downgrade of the U.S credit rating, and the longest sustained period of unemployment in excess of 8%.  Now he has achieved the historic honor of presiding over the most expensive year for motorists ever.   The problem is, I am not sure how much more of the President’s historic achievements Americans afford?

Bookmark and Share

CPAC and Sarah Palin mark a turn to unity

 

A vintage fiery performance: Palin told delegates we'll keep our guns, God and Constitution, and Obama can keep the change.

The most remarkable event of today’s CPAC was Sarah Palin endorsing unity. Instead of showing her support for any one candidate, she called for unity, saying that whoever the nominee is the GOP must defeat Obama. Whoever the nominee is conservatives must work together, she told an ecstatic audience, and the nation will have a true conservative in the White House.

The unity message, great!

It followed the announcement that Mitt Romney had narrowly won the CPAC Straw Poll, following his mission to the conference to prove his conservative credentials. It seems it may be mission accomplished. Certainly Romney will be feeling a lot better about his appeal to the conservative base after today.

The other remarkable performance came from the ever-popular Daniel Hannan, British Member for the European Parliament. Warning America not to go down the European road, he was amazed that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror and overtaking them!

After his talk, I had a good conversation with him, as we walked through the hotel, including a detour through the kitchens! I asked him if he endorsed any candidates? He, just a little coyly, suggested it was difficult to choose, but stressed it was important for the party to unite behind a candidate and get Obama, who earlier in the day John Bolton called the “first post-American President”, out of the White House.

Daniel Hannan warns America not to follow Europe down a path and off a cliff

Hannan also urged me to write that the GOP must stop having so many debates, as it is only serving to divide the party. He also said Republicans need to focus on the budget, not all the side issues that divide conservatives. With that he headed for the airport, though many didn’t want him to leave and asked if he could be made an honorary American instead.

This has been an important few days for conservatives, and may finally signal the road to unity. Romney should start to pull firmly into the lead, and though Santorum and Gingrich will no doubt continue, they will see their numbers dwindle.

The New York Times carried a report ahead of Sarah Palin’s speech that she didn’t think a brokered RNC would be a problem. This is just a liberal wet dream. The reality is, Sarah Palin has signalled this important moment, and shown that there is less stomach for infighting.

I picked up my media credentials on Thursday at CPAC fearful of a divided party that would succeed only in rolling out the red carpet for President Obama. After three days, I happily left making my way through the handful of sorry-looking OWS protesters feeling that I can see November from here.

Iowa’s King Predicts a Third Place Finish for Gingrich

Bookmark and Share   Iowa Congressman Steve King is a sort of conservative kingmaker in the Hawkeye State, yet he refused to playthat  role in the Iowa presidential caucuses.  Instead he is going down to wire claiming to be one of the 41% of caucus goers who are still undecided about who to support when the Caucuses begin at 7:00 PM.

But according to New York Times national political correspondent Jeff Zelney, King has predicted a third place showing for Newt Gingrich.

The prediction mirrors my own optimistic hopes for a decent showing by Gingrich.  As I have previously contended, a third place finish for Newt will allow him the opportunity to remain realistically viable.

While King is now predicting that Gingrich will fare better than polls currently indicate, he did not explain who he thinks will not live up to the expectations set by the existing polls and underperform.  In my book, the candidate who is most likely to not meet expectations is Ron Paul.  And if King is right, Gingrich’s third place showing would most likely mean a fourth place showing for Ron Paul.  That would be a disastrously poor showing for poll.

In recent days, the bar for poll was quite high as poll numbers indicated that he was at times in first place.  Those expectations will prove to be a humongous let down if Paul is beaten by Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Going in tonight’s caucus, I am standing my own earlier prediction and am giving the edge to Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich simply due to Newt’s lack of any truly effective organization to coordinate his ground game in Iowa.  But I am quite hopeful that Steve King is right.

Bookmark and Share

Newt vs. the CBO

You can tell the left is afraid of someone when they bring out the big guns.  Relying on his credentials as a former conservative, Bruce Bartlett has come out attacking Newt Gingrich for policies from over a decade and a half ago that Bartlett claims are responsible for today’s Congressional malaise.  Apparently, Ginrich’s reforms were not so terrible that Nancy Pelosi would want to change them when she had the chance.

One of Bartlett’s grips is that Gingrich consistently calls for an end to the CBO because of the way the CBO does projections.  Unfortunately for Bartlett, his faith in the CBO does not have a great track record to back it up.  After recalculating Obamacare costs and tax savings of all the various bi-partisan deals that have come out, the CBO has recently had to come out and admit they blew their projection of how much Obama’s stimulus was going to save the economy, and the number of jobs saved.

The problem with the CBO is that they don’t do dynamic budgeting.  They do projections.  In other words, Bartlett points out that the CBO figured the losses from the Bush tax cuts to be $3 trillion, but those losses are calculated based on the growth during Bush’s presidency and assumes that growth would have happened no matter what.  On the other hand, dynamic budgeting would look at this prolonged Obama recession and see that we have lost close to a trillion dollars a year in tax revenues because of stagnant growth and 9% unemployment.  The CBO, and Bartlett, are not smart enough to figure that out.

Bartlett thinks the CBO is smarter than Newt.  Actually, they just use different processes.  CBO processes are the perfect product of government bureaucracy economics that assume all things are equal and that policies will have no effect beyond the typed text of the bill.  On the other hand, Newt attempts to anticipate how ideas will affect other areas of the economy.  It’s more of a successful business approach where the results of the study mean more than giving one party ammo to sell a bill, like Obamacare.  For more info on the CBO’s recent record, there is a less than flattering article over at Biggovernment.com.

So which budgeting approach is better?  Depends on if you actually care about the results, or if you are a jaded former conservative writing for the New York Times.

Yes, he can?

In the volatility of the Republican 2012 primary, one thing is for sure.  Calling this race now would be like predicting the Superbowl in September.  How ’bout them Eagles.  Of course, I called the Eagles faltering before the season started.  I’m usually pretty good with my football picks.  So, allow me to apply some of that prophetic magic here.  FYI, this post is not for the faint of heart.  I’m just giving it to you straight.

Romney is all set as the Republican establishment candidate.  He has had that spot locked up really since before Mitch Daniels dropped out of the race.  Now the one stable thing in this race is that Romney will get the establishment vote.  He will also get a lot of mainstream Republican votes.  But he is going to run into a real issue, and that is with the anti-establishment movement within the Republican party.  All that is about to blow wide open this week as the NYT releases a story about opinions among establishment Republicans of the TEA party.  The GOP is about to have a civil war on its hands.  Whether they can recover by next November will be huge in determining whether or not Barack Obama is President in 2013.  Mitt Romney absolutely must nail down his conservative support and soon, or he will lose Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.

Cain's 999 plan could be his undoing

I like Herman Cain a lot.  I think he would make a great Vice President.  I think he would be a star on the campaign trail.  I think he would bring a lot of conservatives to the table and would bring the TEA party and anti-establishment wing to the table.  Here’s the problem: Herman Cain’s 9 9 9 plan sucks.  He would do better to drop that plan completely and advocate a Fairtax, which I also oppose for various reasons you can find here.  But even the Fairtax is better than 9 9 9.  Cain’s 9 9 9 plan has several Achilles’s heels hidden in its simplicity.  Perhaps the worst is the 9% flat tax on corporation’s gross profits minus purchases and dividends.  Unless Cain plans to include payroll with purchases, his 9% flat tax could turn into an effective 99% tax, or even higher, on low margin service industries with high labor costs.  But simplicity and feel good soundbites are what drives the Cain campaign.  Sometimes those soundbites are the common sense we are all thinking, but nobody who represents us is saying.  In those times, I love Herman Cain.  Other times it’s not much better than the soundbites written on a Wall Street mob sign.  Great for riling you up, until you stop and think about it.

Right now, we are watching the French Revolution in the TEA party and anti-establishment wing of the Republican party.  And who can blame them?  I should say, who can blame us.  Our party had the President who initially signed TARP.  Now, of course I don’t think Bush ever imagined TARP would be used to give the treasury secretary ultimate powers to steal companies from their bondholders, sell them overseas and give the proceeds to unions.  But he should have.  Conservative Constitutionalists are praying, quite literally, that we don’t get fooled again.  The result has been the rise and fall of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain.  Each time, the anti-establishment establishment is looking for that perfect, conservative candidate that we can get behind and support.

Now, suddenly Newt Gingrich is inching back into the top three.  In fact, while Cain tops out the very volatile state of Florida, Gingrich has hit double digits.  As a matter of fact, Gingrich’s facebook page shows a photo of him on the Drudge Report with a story about how he is still in this.  And he definitely is.

The difference between Newt and the other candidates is that Newt’s laundry has been on the line for years now.  Everyone knows who Newt Gingrich is.  He isn’t going to come out with a plan that sinks his campaign a month from now.  No one is going to learn during a debate about him forcing 12 year old girls to get vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases.  Everyone knows how imperfect his past is.  That’s why he hasn’t been in this race up to now.  And that is why he will be very dangerous if Cain falls on 9 9 9.  Of course, I mean “dangerous” in the best way possible.  Newt versus Mitt with no specter of late arrivals and no more candidates left to shoot up to the top could solidify January’s primaries.

Newt can carry Iowa and South Carolina easily once the other social conservatives lose their votes to him.  Newt was the first in the debates to really highlight how Obama was preventing jobs from coming to South Carolina.  And Iowa will pick the social conservative every time.  In a Newt/Mitt race, it will all be about Florida.

Could the debate in Jacksonville, FL determine the next President of the United States?

On January 26th, Republicans will hold the last GOP debate that matters before the primary.  I know, there will be one in Tampa the night before the primary.  No one is going to change their mind because of the Tampa debate.  It will all come down to January 26th in Jacksonville, Florida.  Mitt Romney versus the TEA party favorite.  The last time the Superbowl was held here, the Patriots won.

Add Another Name to the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame

Picture from Roll Call

Bookmark and Share  As most of us know, the lamestream media is dominated by mushy minds that have been brainwashed by liberal propaganda and media elites. Of course there are in fact many true journalists, who if charged with delivering just the news, can do so without even subtle hints of political bias.  But  journalists of that sort seem to be far and few between .  They are also the ones whom the liberal media holds up as evidence when they try to claim that the media is not biased.  Sadly though, there are far more examples of media bias than there are of impartial reporting.

Take for example the treatment of the rise of the TEA movement as compared to the spread of the “Occupy” protests which have taken place.

While TEA Party protests and demonstrations gathered tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, the Occupy “Whatever” protests have

produced numbers in the hundreds.  But despite the obvious lack of populist appeal of the liberal endorsed demonstrations, the mainstream media tends to downplay the TEA movement and inflate the  Occupy protesters.  For example, when anywhere from 200,000 to 400,00o or more TEA activists showed up in Washington, D.C. , on September 12th of 2009, newspapers reported that there were tens of thousands in attendance.  But now that a few thousand leftwing, anti-capitalists band together with big union organized,  professional, protestors, the event is described as “outrage” that “ has spread all the way to Anchorage, Alaska” and  as “a group of protesters that is certainly growing in size and  diversity.”  Those comments came from so called “reporter”cilia Vega.  On that same “unbiased” news” program, Vega and World News anchor David Muir, spoke of how the Wall Street protests have supposedly “gone global

But as the TEA Party rose, it was described as little more than a group of angry Republicans and was accused of being violent and racist.  That certainly isn’t the case here.  Put a smiley face button on a person wearing a tie died t-shirt and put in their hands a sign with anything liberal written on it, and you have what the mainstream media is describing as being similar to “the Arab Spring of uprisings in the Mid East.”

As I said, none of this is new.  We have all come to expect liberal bias from the mainstrem media.  And I am not talking about clearly defined opinion programs such as Hannity or the Rachel Maddow Show,  or periodicals like National Review or New Republican.  I mean straight news services like CBS News, or The New York Times.

Which brings us to today’s new entrant into the Mainstream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

His name is Steve Peoples and he works for Roll Call while the Associated Press often farms out some of his work.

Now according to Asssociated Press their mission is to “be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the
highest quality, reliability, and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.”

Given that description, I find it hard to accept Mr. People’s October 10th story (and I do mean story) entitled “GOP presidential candidates keep focus off the economy“.

In  it, Peoples, along with contributors Holly Ramer and Philip Elliott, try to live up to the AP’s mission of objectivity by writing a piece which insinuates that Republicans are trying to avoid the topic of the economy.

Peoples writes;

In an election that’s supposed to hinge on jobs and the economy, the Republican presidential contest in recent months has been defined by almost everything else.

Immigration and children’s vaccines. Race and religion. Homosexuality and health care. The issues range far from the economic woes that concern most voters, but they have captivated Republicans in New Hampshire and other early voting states, providing the candidates with ways to distinguish themselves from  their rivals. The biggest applause lines on the campaign trail usually have little to do with a candidate’s economic positions.

I am not sure if Mr. Peoples realizes it or not, but we are not electing a Chairman of the Federal Reserve and their running mate, the Secretary of Treasury.  We are in the midst of a long campaign to elect or reelect a President and Vice President of the United States.  That responsibility deals with a host of issues, including those that are a part of the economic priorities that no one is doubting.  As such, all issues are, and should be discussed.  Additionally perhaps, Mr. Peoples missed the coverage of the economic programs which almost all of the Republican candidates dedicated their very first major policy announcements to.

To be sure, there is no doubt that the economy is in such dire straits that it is indeed a priority.  To deny that would be like claiming that it is more important to put someone’s cigarette out while a woman is hanging out of the window of an inferno filled house, right in front of your face.  But it is equally absurd to deny that the economy is not a primary issue in the Republican presidential primaries. Republicans have been and continue to make it a theme of their campaigns.  Why wouldn’t they?  Furthermore, the economy is just about the only issue that all the Republican running for President have similar ways to address.  And all agree that the first thing to do is everything that President Obama is not doing.

Did Mr. Peoples dare write a similarly “objective” piece in 2009  about  President Obama when many argued that the President made “a colossal miscalculation” by choosing the wrong priorities and instead of focussing on the economy “like a laser beam”, he essentially prevented government from dealing with anything else other than healthcare reform?  Which ironically has proven to do little more than exacerbate the economic predicament we are in by creating a greater uncertain future among investors and businesses.  I seem to have missed the story that Mr. Peoples and his liberal collaborators wrote about the President not devoting enough time to the Obama economy back then.

Did Mr. People’s accuse President Obama of avoiding the issue of the economy when he turned the nations’ attention to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?  Did he criticize the President and prompt people to provide him with quotes criticizing President Obama for traveling to El Salvador to discuss immigration and drug trafficking with President Mauricio Funes, instead of focussing on the economy?  Or does  Mr. Peoples just not understand that the presidency of the United States does not allow one to drop all else for the sake of just one aspect of life in America.

Even though his opinion on this issue is greatly flawed, Mr. Peoples’ article might have a place in an opinion oriented tabloid if it were written by an admitted partisan author.  But it has no place in a newspaper or on an online newspaper, and especially not coming from a “news” outfit that claims its job is to be objective.  You see,  there is a difference between opinion and news.  White House 2012 makes it clear that it covers the Republican race for the White House.  It does so by also making clear that it covers the race from a conservative viewpoint and with opinions of the facts.  Contrarily, the Associated Press bills itself as a news organization, a “premier” news organization, that delivers the news, not editorials.

You might think that this one story is not enough to hold one person up as a example of unsavory  journalistic conduct.  And that might be right……..if it was the only example.  But it’s not.

Before jumping to conclusions, I tested my suspicions about Steve Peoples by researching past stories he wrote.

While there were many accounts of obvious bias that he penned under AP’s banner of objective reporting, one of the most interesting discoveries was an article by Tom Blumer for News Busters.  In his September 7th piece entitled “AP’s Partying Peoples and Blathering Blood Celebrate Tea Party Negatives in  Cooked AP-GfK Poll“, Blumer writes that Steve Peoples tailored an interpretation of poll results to “celebrate” negative sentiments towards the Tea Party that were created by a skewed  AP-GfK .  Blumer goes on to note that  somehow, People’s article  “failed to report on the  president’s growing negatives found in a separate AP-GfK poll report with the  same respondents.”

It is all just indicative of how careful Americans must be when it comes to trying to have a real picture of public sentiments and our political environment.

One must really be careful about what information they use as a foundation for establishing their own conclusions.  What may seem to be fact is often in fact, not.  Steve Peoples is just one example of that.  And there are many other examples of  Peoples’ and the AP’s crimes against journalistic integrity, but suffice it to  say, White House 2012 is confident in the knowledge that Steve Peoples truly deserves to be hung in the Lamestream Media’s Liberal Hall of Shame.

The Associated Press’ picture has already been hanging there for quite some time now
Bookmark and Share

The Field Is Set: And Herman Cain Could Win

Sarah Palin has now announced she will not be running.  It appears the 2012 GOP Primary is ready to kick off.  So you heard it here first: barring a major disqualifying gaffe, Herman Cain will win the 2012 primary.  Here’s why.

Cain passes on the right to pull even with Romney

Ok, seriously.  No one knows at this point how this  is going to go down.  Candidates surge and fall, as Rick Perry has proven.  I don’t really know that Herman Cain is going to win the primary.  But he does have a clear path to victory.  Right now it is his race to give up.

But wait, isn’t Romney leading the polls??  Yes, but as I pointed out in my last blog Romney’s majority is an illusion caused by a split vote among social, TEA party candidates.  As Perry continues to fade and Cain continues to pick up his supporters, you will see more polls like the most recent CBS poll that shows Cain and Romney tied.  Perry’s demise is all upside for Cain while Romney maintains his solid base of support.

So why Cain?  Why didn’t Bachmann, Gingrich, or Santorum gain any momentum from Perry’s fall?  Perry dropped 11 points in this CBS poll while Cain jumped 12 points.  Gingrich and Santorum both got small bumps, but are still considered unelectable and still cannot shake their baggage from the last 20 years.  Santorum continues to come across as an unelectable champion of family values with a support base that loves what he says and believes but won’t vote for him because they’d rather have Obama gone than lose with the most socially conservative candidate on the stage.  For Gingrich, conservatives have already written the USA Today, Time Magazine and New York Times headlines in their heads about his failed marriages, hypocrisy in the Clinton impeachment, global warming commercials with Nancy Pelosi, and other things from his decades in the spotlight.

Bachmann, with a relatively small public history, is a different story.  Although her message, naivete on some issues, and ability to stir a TEA party crowd mirror Herman Cain, she somehow comes across differently.   While Herman Cain gets away with announcing that no future President will raise the rates on his 999 plan, Bachmann promises $2 a gallon gas and becomes the laughing stock of the mainstream media and even conservatives.  Bachmann tells stories of raising her kids and foster kids and is seen as homely and amateurish.  Cain tells stories of him and his brother sneaking drinks from the Whites Only drinking fountain as kids and the story simply tugs at anyone’s heart strings.  Bachmann embellishes Perry’s Merck connection and the potential health risks of the HPV vaccine and the media drags her through the coals on it.  The media tried to make hay out of Cain’s comment about blacks being brainwashed into voting Democratic and the story was dead on arrival.

Perhaps the greatest difference that speaks to American hearts is that Cain is not bitter or angry.  Yes, he is the first to tell us that Obama’s policies are destroying the country.  But he does it with an air of policy sincerity, not partisan gamesmanship.  Cain doesn’t seem to have a racist bone in his body, to the extent that some Democrats seem to think he is racist against blacks.  Cain simply comes across as a successful American who believes in America and in every American’s ability to become whatever they want to be.  Cain brings back with sincerity something that politicians have been falsely touting for years: a sincere belief in the American dream and the ability of Americans to achieve it.  His simple, Reaganesque faith in the American people and freedom will be enough to preserve his seat as the top social conservative.  As other social conservatives call it quits, Cain will continue to swallow up their supporters and surpass Romney.

Just a month ago Cain was barely on the radar.  With Perry’s self-destruction and the Florida straw poll, Cain now has the potential momentum to carry him through.  The key will be surviving early Romney primary wins until the race narrows to just Cain and Romney.  From there he can coast to GOP victory.

Republican Morning Memo for Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Bookmark and Share

Why Haley Barbour isn’t running

How Haley Barbour’s moves shakes up the 2012 field

Nate Silver, “Schmuck of the Week”. And it’s only Tuesday

Santroum says health law fueled his possible presidential run

With gas prices on the rise, Pawlenty hangs energy policy around Obama’s neck

Surprise! Ron Paul to begin his third campaign for President today in Iowa

President Obama tries to make his campaign seem like the underdog rather than the incumbent

Jim DeMint. Not running for Prez, but headed to New Hampshire to make sure that a Republican President is elected

The potential First Spouses. A look at the spouses of the potential Republican presidential candidates

Bookmark and Share

The Pomposity of the New York Times’ Nate Silver

Bookmark and Share Wow. I believe pompous arrogance would be the most fitting way to characterize Nate. Silvers recent analysis entitled On The Largely Irrelevant News About Haley Barbour Not Running for President.

First of all, for Mr. Silver to characterize Haley Barbours decision not to run for the Republican presidential nomination as irrelevant, is mind numbingly ignorant. The Barbour decision is one of the most important decisions to have been made regarding the 2012 presidential election to date. As noted in White House 2012, Governor Barbours decision not to run, has freed up many supporters and much money. Furthermore; whether Silver wants to deny it or not, that decisions has increased the chances that one of the top tier Republican presidential contenders, Governor Mitch Daniels, will run. This is far from irrelevant.

But beyond this, Mr. Silver takes it upon himself to bestow great credit to himself for never having given much thought or ink to the possibility of a Haley Barbour presidential candidacy. This is not something which I believe he deserves either personal or public credit for. Perhaps part of the reason as to why Silver did not take the potential candidacy of Governor Haley Barbour seriously was because he is utterly blind to the art of political campaigning and its powerful ability to overcome some negative perceptions, and to accentuate positive ones. Perhaps another reason is because Mr. Silvers liberal biases do not allow his mind to be as open as he would have us believe.

Haley Barbour is conservative, a point that I am sure did not go unnoticed by the New York Times Nate Silver. And it is that point which more than likely accounted for his tendency to not take Barbours potential candidacy seriously.

The fact of the matter is that for Mr. Silver to give himself a Super Bowl ring for Monday morning quarterbacking a game that has not yet even begun, is a bit silly. For him to imply thepossesion ofsome greater political instinct or knowledge than others, including Jonathon Martin of Politic, simply because he had not given much ink to the possibility of a Barbour presidential candidacy, is utterly ridiculous.

Two days prior to Governor Barbours announcement, I made my own assessment here in White House 2012 and in it I questioned the certainty of a Barbour presidential campaign. The accuracy of that post did not give me license to arrogantly discount the opinions of others and claim or imply that I have shrewder political instincts than George Will, Charles Krauthammer or Jonathon Martin.

The truth is that Mr. Silver may not have wanted to advertise the possibilities that existed within a Barbour candidacy, but that didnt make him any more correct than those who refused to deny those possibilities. While Barbour had several obvious handicaps, most of which White House 2012 acknowledged, he also had the capacity to rise above them. His fundraising ability is almost unmatched, his organization reach and ability was endless, and his record, policies and vision were more than powerful enough to build a credible candidacy on. But Mr. Silver claims he never believed so, so he deserves credit.

Credit for what? Denying the potential that existed? I dont think so.

Although I tend to believe that Haley Barbour and his family, decided against a run for President because of the obstacles, I do not believe the decision was reached because they concluded that they could not overcome the obstacles. I believe they decided not to run because they did not know exactly how committed they were to insuring that they overcame those obstacles. It is that uncertainty of commitment that Haley Barbour cited as the reason for deciding not to run. Yet in his analysis, Nate Silver suggests that his colleagues would be best advised to not take what those they write about so literally. I suggest that Mr. Silver listen to what those he writes about have to say and instead of automatically discounting the truth in what they say, perhaps he should first be open to thepossibility of thetruth.

Bookmark and Share

Hung Out to Dry

If ever there was a time for conservatives to stand up for Sarah Palin, now would be it. Palin is certainly a front runner for the Presidency, even as a TEA Party outsider in the Republican Party. This makes her an easy target.

Oops, did I say target? The absolute ridiculousness with which the left has attempted to tie Jared Loughner to Sarah Palin should have every Republican up in arms. The ease with which Loughner’s actual political leanings and mental stability can be documented should add fuel to a conservative fire that overturns years of a subtle left-wing bias in the media. It should be pretty obvious right now which way the mainstream leans.

So why aren’t conservatives standing up for Palin? When given the chance to stand up for Palin and shred the media’s unjust attacks, Newt Gingrich stated that Palin is the one who needs to be more careful about what she says. Immediately left-wing bloggers seized on Gingrich’s words and reposted them with glee.

Shortly after the Tuscon shooting, left-wing loudmouth Keith Olbermann associated Loughner with Palin. Though he obviously put his foot in his mouth, speaking out of ignorance, mainstream Republicans did not respond. Finally Palin did.

The result? Palin was attacked by the left for responding. But she was also attacked by the right. Ross Douthat, supposedly a conservative New York Times columnist (yeah, I hear they found bigfoot and UFOs too), echoed the establishment complaint that Palin’s response was unpresidential. I wonder if anyone ever confronted Andrew Jackson, blood flowing from an open wound, gun still smoking, fresh from winning a duel (or losing as he did on one occasion) that he was acting unpresidential.

This one was a slam dunk. Loughner was a druggie, fed on 9/11 conspiracy theories and hatred of women in power. He didn’t listen to talk radio and certainly wouldn’t have followed the details of Palin’s TEA Party successes this past fall. Republicans had a chance to take on the the lies that were coming out and show the country exactly how the left had chosen to politicize the shooting. But they didn’t.

I have tried to reconcile the lack of conservative response. The person who came closest to defending Palin and the TEA Party movement was the President himself when he called on Americans not to blame each other or point fingers.

Most likely, mainstream potential candidates are trying to avoid putting themselves in a situation where they face the same grueling attacks that Palin has. Possibly, some establishment candidates may be secretly satisfied to see their stiffest competition for the 2012 primaries knocked out as a result of the media’s unnecessary roughness.

Dark Horse Potential?

From George Washington to Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower, the US has a long tradition of the “war hero” President.  In most cases, this has been beneficial for the US.

So why not have a candidate who has stayed out of the political rancor of the last three elections, has a blank political slate, has served both President Bush and Obama, and has succeeded once already in a war that was pronounced unwinnable?  It should also help that he has a Masters of Public Administration and Ph.D. in International Relations from Princeton.

I am speaking about the highly decorated four star general, Gen. David Petraeus.  Even the Moveon.org attack ad in the New York Times from a few years ago has done nothing but bolster Gen. Petraeus’ popularity among most in America.  After the last few White House occupants, Petraeus seems to carry an air of honor and earned respect that seems almost unworthy of this highest post.

General David Petraeus

Gen. Petraeus is certainly qualified.  So why isn’t he showing up in any media chatter or straw polls?  Probably because among all the candidates who have claimed they have no interest in running, his claim sounds the most sincere.  When asked about it in a 2007 Foxnews interview, Petraeus offered what he called a “Shermanesque” response.  Sherman was the popular Civil War general, who when asked if he would run for office responded by saying “I will not accept if nominated, and I will not serve if elected”.

Was Petraeus simply participating in the time honored tradition of denying Presidential ambitions until the time is right?  I tend to feel that was sincere, but only time will tell.

%d bloggers like this: