Obama’s Race Based Hate Speech Isn’t Really News

  Bookmark and Share  As the sun set on our nation last night, an exclusive video unearthed by Daily Caller Editor-In-Chief Tucker Carlson was aired on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity”.  It was a video of a speech being delivered by then Senator Barack Obama back in 2007.  In it, Senator Obama who was campaigning in a tough race against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, addresses a predominantly African-American audience which he tries to fire up by essentially telling them that the federal government hates black people.  Of course the President didn’t use those exact words.  Instead he painted a picture of a federal government that doesn’t care as much about minorities as it does for other people.

The President made his charge in this speech by trying to claim that that the federal government is unwilling to help minorities who are victims of disasters such as those in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 (see video of the remarks below).

And while he did not exactly say that the federal government is  a bigoted extension of the white man, he tried to explain that survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid while residents of majority-black New  Orleans did not because according to him, the federal government considers those victims in Florida and New York to be “part of the American  family” but it does not considers the minorities of New Orleans to be “family”.

He reached that conclusion by falsely stating that the federal government refused to issue the same fund-matching waiver to the mostly minority communities torn apart by Katrina Katrina that were offered to more affluent and caucasian communities such as the one in Manhattan which was destroyed during the attacks of 9/11 on the Twin Towers.  In addition to being irresponsibly inflammatory, the charge was also false.  As it turns out, the federal government did issue the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that it offered to the victims of other disasters throughout the nation.

As seen in the clip below, Tucker Carlson sums the video up probably better than anyone else.  According to him, Obama’s words were “shocking”, “divisive”, “demagogic”, and “untrue”.

Since the initial reporting of the story, conservative activists have been a buzz. For some, like Tucker Carlson, the story has the makings of that oft mentioned “October surprise” that every campaign hopes to avoid but prays to see their rival’s campaign have to figure out how to recover from.  The problem is that this conservative activist doesn’t see it that way.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe this speech will have any impact on the election.

While the video most certainly shows the soon to be President lying and while it also reveals him to be speaking in what is described as a highly “urbanized African-American accent” which is undeniably uncharacteristic of Barack Obama, what the video does not do is present anything new to us.

We have already seen President Obama launch into his chameleon-like ethnic accents that are designed to endear him to the audiences he addresses.  It is practically a standard operating procedure for the Obama-Biden campaign.  It was perhaps best displayed back in August when Vice President Biden stood before another predominantly black audience in Danville, Va. and shouted with an exaggerated Southern drawl… “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

This latest Obama video also does not make news by revealing to us that President Obama is a liar.  Many of us already know that President Obama lies. We know that he lies straight to our faces.  Recent events in Benghazi have made that more than obvious.

Furthermore; we  also know by now that President Obama is anything but a uniter.  We have long understood that this President has built his entire political career on a divide and conquer strategy.  And it has long been understood that this President’s entire reelection effort is based on  a class warfare strategy designed to pit some against others.

If there is anything worth reporting here it is that Mitt Romney raised this very issue back in August while speaking at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio.  It was there that Romney first told us the following;

“Over the last four years, this president has pushed Republicans and Democrats about as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others,” Romney said. “His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51% of the pieces.”

He then added;

“Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.”

So I repeat… President Obama’s hate filled, lies in this speech are nothing new and as such, nothing new will come from this latest example of his deceitful, race baiting tactics and divisive political tendencies.  The truth is that the 47% of the electorate that opposes Barack Obama knew this about him long ago.  So this video will not change their votes.   The other 47% knows Obama is a divisive liar but they refuse to admit it.  So those Obama supporters will also not be changing their vote because of this video.

As for the remaining 6% who describe themselves as undecided, they will be seeing this video through the filter of a  primarily pro-Obama, biased media that will excuse the President’s comments away.  As they get fed the liberal spin on the President remarks, these six percent who claim to be undecided but whom I see as simply slow, dazed, and confused , will accept the liberal narrative given to them.  As such, most of these “indecisive” voters will never realize how much the President’s past words undermine his attempts to portray himself as a unifying force in American politics.  Because of the media’s biases, this swayable six percent of the electorate will probably never allow themselves to accept the fact that President Obama is playing us all for fools.  They should, but they probably won’t.

Bookmark and Share

“We’ve Heard It All Before”

As Democrats kickoff their convention and try to make the case for President Obama’s reelection, Republicans have released a video reminding voters that they’ve heard it all before.

The video offers a compelling comparison of the words used by President Obama in 2008 when trying to explain why he should be elected and the words he is using now, four years later in his attempt to explain why he should be reelected in 2012.  As it turns out, they are the same words.

It helps to emphasize the fact that with the President offering us more of the same rhetoric, is there any reason to believe that his next four years will offer us any results that are different from those which are different from the ones he achieved in the last four years?
Bookmark and Share

Watch Live Streaming Coverage of the Republican National Convention on White House 2012

Watch the White House 2012 Livestream of Gavel to Gavel Coverage of the Entire Republican National Convention

Bookmark and Share White House 2012, your online headquarters for election, news, information, analysis and conservative opinion on the presidential election is proud to provide readers with a livestream of the convention proceedings, including every speech and video.  We also urge White House 2012 viewers to communicate their support for the ticket and enthusiasm for individual speakers and things being said at the convention by offering comments via their Facebook accounts and Twitter accounts.  When doing so, please b e sure to use the hashtags #GOP12 and #RomneyRyan2012 .

Beneath White House 2012’s livestream of the convention, you can follow all the latest news and analysis of the convention as well as the latest on all the political events that will continue to shape the election.

Bookmark and Share

Chris Wallace’s One-On-One Interview With Mitt Romney: Complete Video

  Bookmark and Share  A day ahead of the scheduled beginning of the Republican National Convention, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace aired a one-on-one interview with Mitt Romney, the soon to be official presidential nominee of the G.O.P.

The approximately 13 minute interview (see the complete interview below) provided viewers with a side of Mitt Romney that is not often seen…his more hard hitting side.  In this interview, Mitt Romney was quite direct in his answers, specifically in the areas concerning such things as the President’s attempts to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign.  Romney also offered very blunt but genuine responses to such questions as the practices used by those who have been in control of Romney’s blind trusts.

Bookmark and Share

Barack Obama’s “Irresponsible” and “Unpatriotic” Presidency

  Bookmark and Share  Together, the Romney/Ryan ticket’s concentration on their proposals to put our nation on a path to prosperity will force voters to have a national discussion on the economic crisis we are currently struggling through and the cataclysmic economic cliff we are close to falling off of.  As seen in the video below, that discussion will make it impossible for President Obama to avoid being held accountable for his actions and his words.

The message in that video  focuses on several incontrovertible points;

  1. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama called George W. Bush “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for accumulating a debt of nearly 4 trillion dollars.
  2. In 2008 that debt amounted to $30,000.00 owed for every man, woman & child in the nation.
  3. In 2012, President Obama has accumulated more debt than all 43 Presidents before him, combined.
  4. Now, in 2012, president Obama’s accelerated creation of debt  places a tax burden of more than $50,000.00 for every man, woman and child in the nation. That’s $20,000.00 more than under Bush.

Those undeniable points must force every voter to ask themselves whether or not they truly believe that in the next four years, President Obama’s liberal tax and spend  policies will produce results that are any different than the results they achieved during the past four years.

It also forces President Obama to have to explain whether or not he holds himself  to the same standards that he holds other to and if he does, can he explain exactly why voters should not conclude that his reckless accumulation of more debt than any President in history is anything but “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic”?

And while he’s at it, could President Obama please tell us exactly why in the name of all that is decent and good, Americans should reelect a President who is “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic?

Bookmark and Share

Where Obama Ranks For Jobs With Other Presidents

Bookmark and Share   Our beloved supreme ruler is jumping from swing state to swing state on his America’s Recovering Elect Me Tour beating his chest as he proclaims the private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months. Let’s hear it for the supreme job creator…

Hip, hip, no way!

Huh?

As usual he’s only telling part of the story. He mentions the “jobs created” number but conveniently skips the inconvenient “jobs lost” number. Sure, the private sector created 4.5 million jobs over 30 months (a pathetic monthly average, by the way) but ultimately it lost more than that. Obama has a net loss of jobs of over 300,000 during his presidential term according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, how bad is it?

Unemployment rose in July making it 42 consecutive months over 8%. Also, this recovery, to use the term loosely, has produced the slowest economic growth of any recovery.

“It is the slowest recovery ever,” said Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, who put together a new study. “I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all.”

Seriously?

Yep. And the last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever, too.

It’s that bad?

It’s pimple-butt bad. Obama’s job numbers, as de Rugy points out, are far worse than Kennedy (3.6 million), Ford (2.1 million) and Carter (10.3 million) who, as Presidents, served for similar or shorter terms than our venerable supreme ruler. In fact, he ranks dead last in jobs, the bottom of the barrel, for all presidents since 1945.

Ouch.

There’s more. He says the private sector is doing fine.

Does he? Well, clearly he needs to put the fruit back in the cake.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

The Veiled Message in Clinton’s Endorsement

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

We got the message…

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Obama’s Red Badge of Courage

From listening to the tale retold, you would think that not only was Obama on Seal Team 6, but that the choice to pull the trigger was as a more difficult decision then say giving military the order to shoot down civilian planes, as one President did ten and a half years ago.

Don’t get me wrong.  Obama deserves as much credit for giving the kill order as Bush does for letting the CIA waterboard the terrorists who eventually gave Bin Laden up through actionable intelligence.    In fact, the one thing the Bin Laden anniversary should do is bring the country together.  Instead, Obama has made a political blunder by seeking to use the Bin Laden killing for divisive political gain.

Obama has released an ad suggesting that the decision he made to allow Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden is a decision Mitt Romney would not have made.

The only word I could think of to describe this crazy political  attack is disgusting.  The next word that comes to mind is ridiculously unbelievable, which is a reputation that Obama cannot afford.  Obama won 2008 based on a fraudulent image of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin which was promulgated by an overzealous media and semi-unbelievable overselling of hope and change.  Now that 2012 is here and Obama’s hope and change have not materialized, he is in desperate need of credibility.  This idea that he is the hero of the Bin Laden raid and Romney would have flinched destroys Obama’s credibility even with the most ardent leftists.

But this blunder also highlights a bit of Obama hypocrisy that can only hurt his chances in 2012.  When things go bad, Obama finds a scape goat.  Three and a half years later, he is still blaming the last eight years.  When things go good, even if he simply gave the go on a plan that started with an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, included waterboarding, and was only possible because of the intelligence community and strong military who he has sought to minimize and defund, Obama suddenly is riding a metaphorical victory chariot in full military garb through the cities.  Ironically, Obama campaigned on shutting down Gitmo and ending the wars.  I’m sure those are two promises Obama is pretty happy he failed to keep.

The two days of the Obama administration that we haven’t felt the full contempt of the left towards the military were the day Obama gave the order to take out Bin Laden, and the one year anniversary.  In fact, the Democrats used the military as a pawn in budget talks when Obama had spent us out of house and home.

Whether they approve or disapprove of military spending or war,  I would have to think that at some point news outlets would have their own reputations to think about.  Obama has skipped through this Presidency like a comic character in a movie, surrounded by straightmen who clean up after him.  The media has happily turned their heads as though the only reality is the one they report.  But moves like this that display unbelievability and hypocrisy will change American minds.

For those who continue to either blindly follow Obama, or put up with his gaffes for the “greater good”, I hope they at least pause for a moment and think: It would have been nice if the President used today to unite the country.  It would have been nice if he allowed liberals and conservatives to raise their glasses together and toast the death of one of the most infamous war criminals in American history.  Instead, Obama tried to make today all about his re-election.

More “Muppet” than “Buffet” – Obama goes for populist message instead of leadership on tax.

President Obama’s “Buffet Rule” Tax push on millionaires represents most of what his term in office has come down to; lots of rhetoric filled with theatrics and little or no long term beneficial substance for the nation. President Obama himself said Wednesday, “Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, won’t do enough to close the deficit, Well, I agree.”

The so-called Buffett Rule, which aims to set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent for Americans who earn more than $1 million annually. The president theatrically surrounded himself with some wealthy campaign contributors to make another pitch for a higher tax rate on the country’s biggest earners, even at one stage suggesting President Reagan would have supported it.

I use the term Muppet, instead of Buffet, as the current administrations cynicism, theatrics and contempt at which they treat the public is bordering on a scene from the “Muppet Show.” The White House honestly believes ordinary Americans, and others,  are not intelligent enough to see this latest stunt as nothing more then politicking at its worst.

If the President respectfully was serious about addressing the nations’ financial woes and put as much effort into getting the United States Democratic Controlled Senate to pass a budget, that would do more good for the nation and the economy, then the $49 billion the Buffet rule would bring in over ten years. The U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in almost 1080 days surely as president and leader of the nation, this serious matter deserves more than a fleeting moment of his time and attention.

President Obama’s claim that the Buffett Rule “is something that will get us moving in the right direction toward fairness” would be more convincing if his actions where more reflective of such rhetoric too. Three years into his presidency, President Obama has not introduced a plan for comprehensive tax reform, arguably the most important aspect for repairing America’s finances and boosting long-term economic growth. The fact is, this is a president who appointed the Simpson-Bowles commission only to then completely ignore its findings and is devoid of  purposeful ideas. He has failed to lead on tax reform and will no doubt return to more rhetoric about Congress failing to act, when it is voted down in Congress next week.

Where the president and Washington have got it wrong is their disregard for the ordinary person. Yes inequality is a huge and growing problem across America, and in other countries however; it is not a “Fair-Share” as President Obama argues that people want pushed. People want a “Fair-Society” where there are opportunities for personal and business growth, success and financial reward.

It should be every leader’s aspiration to create the circumstances to get as many people into the workplace as possible, not become dependent on the state for handouts. How can it be a “Fair-Share” when you are penalised for success if you attain it. If government steps back and respects individual liberty, successful people will reinvest in the economy and it will involve more people in the work environment ultimately delivering a better, more prosperous and “Fair-Society.”

Make no mistake about President Obama’s attempt to frame this as an issue of social equality; it has nothing to do with equality, or any tangible benefit except for the president, as the “Buffett Rule” polls well.

How much time has the president spent trying to sell this $49 billion Buffet Rule to the American people compared to solving the spending and deficit issues in Washington? American’s and others looking on, are not stupid Mr. President. It is a pity that a presidency which promised so much at the outset has become so arrogant in their belief that they can treat their public likes a bunch of Muppet’s.

The fact is yesterday’s speech and this populist token exercise has nothing to do with growing the American economy or tackling the more serious issues facing the nation. It does not serve the American people, it is fundamentally and solely electioneering at its worst.

Unfortunately, this presidency has lacked any real ambition or effort at meaningful tax reform. If the president and his administration believe the “Muppet Rule” will fool the ordinary American in exchange for their vote well, I believe ordinary American people are a lot smarter for themselves then the Obama administration believe them to be. Sadly, sound bites have well and truly replaced substance in modern American public service and politics while the people fail to be served.

Democrats Seeking to Neutralize Romney on Economy

An Improving Economy Means Republicans Need a ‘Plan B’ To Beat Obama

This is the headline of a Morgan Korn article at the Daily Ticker, where he explains exactly what I wrote on March 2nd, when I said It’s Not About the Economy, Stupid.  So despite the high gas prices, the lower homesales in February, the still anemic job growth, the still high unemployment rate, the story the media will be touting is how the economy is recovering and we don’t need Mitt Romney.

This is all part of the Democrat strategy playing out.  First they focused on Romneycare and Obamacare, trying to take away the biggest issue of the 2012 election.  In fact, they may have succeeded.  Romney both supported an insurance mandate and allowed the legislature to turn his healthcare plan into everything Obama has been dreaming of.  The state’s rights defense may calm the fears of his supporters, but the premise behind the plan doesn’t make most conservatives feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The question you may be asking yourself right now is how Obama is going to convince everyone the economy is fine when gas hits $5 this summer.  The jokes on you.

First, Obama and the AP have done plenty of groundwork to provide Obama with scapegoats.  Greedy oil companies, speculators, even you are at fault for high gas prices.  Have you inflated your tires?  Are you still driving that old gas guzzler?  It’s odd to think that this strategy will fool anyone, especially when Obama and Chu’s stated goal was European gas prices here in America.  But Obama only has to fool enough people to get re-elected.  He can say he has vastly expanded oil drilling, in fact he does say this, and anyone who doesn’t know any better believes him.

The second thing Obama is counting on is timing and the short memories of US voters.  What happens to gas prices in October every year?  I’ll give you a couple hints.  Summer vacations are over, half the country rolls down their windows and turns off the A/C, the kids go back to school, and the price of oil drops.  When this happens, mark my words, Obama will say that it is because he has done all the things that today he is saying wouldn’t work or make a difference.

Mitt Romney has to learn how to run on small government, the constitution and social issues.  It’s the only thing the media can’t take away from him.

Obama’s Energy Ideology Failure

T.Boone Pickens commented today that the US is the “only country in the world that doesn’t have an energy plan.”  In an article discussing natural gas prices, he spoke about his support for the bi-partisan NAT GAS act which is making it’s way through Congress and will probably be vetoed by Obama.  But it seems that criticizing Obama is not a popular move among people who have a lot to lose.  So Boone Pickens was slow though to criticize Obama, saying that gas prices were not Obama’s fault but were instead the fault of limited global supply.

That would be kinda like saying “The Jets bad year wasn’t Rex Ryan’s fault.  They just had bad coaching last year.”

Boone Pickens got another thing wrong.  The US does have an energy policy.  It is Obama’s energy policy which is designed to increase the price of gas until the pain causes entrepreneurs like George Kaiser of Solyndra to invent new forms of energy and consumers like you and me to buy them.  He enacted this policy again on Thursday when he lobbied Democrat Senators to ensure that they killed the Keystone Pipeline again.  Driving up gas prices until we all stop using gas and save the planet is a noble idea, as long as stopping the specter of Global Warming is such an honorable goal that we are willing to sacrifice the poor on its altar.

Consider this: I have an older car that gets about 28-30 mpg.  I have already inflated my tires and it didn’t seem to make gas prices go down.  Obama may have labeled oil the “Fuel of the past”, but if I put wind, solar, or algae in my gas tank, my car will not run.  So my choices are to pay $3.75 a gallon for gas ($3.25 in states that have access to Canadian sands oil, like Colorado), or buy a brand new electric car or hybrid.  A Chevy Volt costs about $31,000, and I’m pretty sure I don’t get a discount even though taxpayers own a sizable portion of GM thanks to Obama’s bailouts.  I would have to take out a loan.

I’m doing OK.  It’s a good year for tax accountants since the code just keeps getting more and more complex and the IRS keeps getting worse and worse when it comes to customer service.  I’m not rich by any means, but I could afford the payments on a Volt.  But what about the single mother who has to work just to put food on her family’s table?  What about someone for who one Chevy Volt represents a year’s wages?  Chances are there are lots of people out there who can’t afford $3.75 a gallon gas, but also can’t afford a $31,000 Chevy Volt and are not those “qualified buyers” they always talk about in the commercials.

Obama’s energy policy is: “Sucks to be you. Pray someone invents a cheap alternative that you can afford, and quick”

Here is the real kicker with Obama’s failed energy policy:  The people who are in a position to invent and bring to market an alternative to oil are not the same people who experience a motivating level of pain when gas gets up to $3.75 a gallon.  Obama’s strategy of hiking gas prices until it hurts so much that we invent an alternative will destroy the poor long before it ever affects someone who could actually accomplish that.  Why do you think his tax subsidized green energy companies keep going bankrupt.

Boone Pickens and other energy moguls are not going to invest in natural gas, wind, solar, ethanol and other forms of energy because they can’t afford to fill their tanks.  They are going to do it to make a profit.  This means they are going to do it when Americans can afford it and it makes sense as an alternative to oil.  They are going to do it when Americans can afford to buy Volts, solar panels, and cars that run on algae.  What Obama doesn’t seem to grasp is that the very thing that will put Americans in a position to buy green energy is economic growth that can’t happen when people can’t afford to drive to their jobs.

Obama calls “Drill Here, Drill Now” a bumper sticker slogan, not an energy policy.  It’s sad when a bumper sticker is smarter than the President of the United States.

 

It’s NOT About the Economy, Stupid

Republicans are preparing to come to a rugby game in their best golf pants.

The world is different than it was in 2008 when we were caught with a war candidate going into an election that was all about the economy.  This time we have the best business man money can buy and we are about to go into an election that is all about the constitution, social issues, personal freedom, and the size of government.

Yes, I know.  Today the economy still sucks.  However, with the expanded power of the Fed and the Presidency, we are going to see just how much the President actually can affect it in the short term.  For example, leading into the 2010 election, the Fed had over $2 trillion in stock securities on their balance sheet and Wall Street was inflated.  Mainstream Media and administration spokespeople called that Obama’s summer of recovery.  Obama also ramped up federal spending and provided tons of government jobs.  Unemployment, as it is in our current “recovery”, remained mostly unmoved.  Despite all the tax hikes hidden in Obamacare, Obama said he was a tax cutter.

So why did we win big in 2010?  Social conservatives, lead by the TEA Party, made the election about deficit spending, constitutional rights, social issues, and personal freedom.

I keep hearing that only Romney can win because only Romney is focusing on the economy.  But Romney’s solutions on the economy include a redistributive tax policy that hits up the top 1% and a plan to increase the minimum wage and price low skilled labor out of the work force.  So why is Romney the economic guru who can save us?  Because he is a successful businessman.  But that won’t get voters to the polls in 2012, especially when Obama sinks another trillion dollars in imaginary money into the economy this summer to make the election about what Americans really care about: social issues.

Think about it this way.  How much more would you pay in extra taxes if it meant abortion would be made illegal?  Or legal, if that is your preference.  Democrats are willing to pay a great deal to force everyone to cover birth control and abortion pills.  I don’t think most Democrats have realized yet just how much Obamacare is going to cost them in higher insurance premiums.  The only Democrats who don’t know that Obamacare is all about social issues and government usurpation of personal freedom are still waiting for insurance rates to magically fall.  I have bad news for them.

Obama and his energy secretary have openly admitted that they want to let oil prices keep going up so that Americans will stop using oil.  I don’t know about you, but I can’t put wind, solar, coal, nuclear, ethanol, or algae in my gas tank.  And I’ve already inflated my tires.  That’s ok though because it’s not about the economy, stupid.  It’s about social issues.  It’s about greenhouse gasses and global warming and Obama is going to win on that because Romney is focusing on the economy.  Instead of fighting Obama on the social issue of whether the government should steal our freedom to protect us from made up scientific threats, Romney will be talking about how he is the best guy to grow the economy.

When the economy is artificially inflated this fall and “I’m the best candidate to grow the economy” rings hollow, what will we have left?  Don’t be fooled, Obama is already running on social issues.  Obama and his party are fighting for big government that will take care of and coddle every poor voter they can get their hands on.  What will we have?  Someone who will promise those poor coddled voters that he will provide them with the opportunity to work hard and be successful?  That’ll get the moderates to the polls.

In general, Americans oppose taxpayer funded abortion.  They oppose federally mandated gay marriage.  They oppose federally mandated funding for abortion.  They oppose big government and big deficits.  They oppose the current size of government.  They oppose the President stealing their rights in the name of coddling them.  These are TEA party issues, not establishment issues.

2012 isn’t about the economy.  At least it won’t be.  We’re about to run the wrong candidate, again, based on January issues for a November election.  What will get people to the polls in November is whether we want a President who will prevent taxpayer funded abortion, or a President who once voted to let doctors perform abortions after the baby is born.  Where do you stand?

The worst possible scenario for Republicans in 2012 will be a race where a significant percentage of Americans don’t care who wins or think the candidates aren’t that far apart.  We saw that in 2008.  The only way Republicans will win in 2012 is if we run a distinctly conservative candidate who gives Americans a clear choice.  Vote for the radical Liberal or the radical Conservative.   The more moderate a candidate we run, the more moderate Obama will look in comparison.

If the moderates stay home in 2012 and the 40% of conservatives beat the 20% of liberals in the country, I’m ok with that.  The strategy of getting the moderate vote and praying the 40% of conservatives will hold their nose and show up is a sure loser.

See Rick Santorum’s Entire CPAC 2012 Speech

Bookmark and Share  Rick Santorum, the newest person to once again  be a frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, delivered a powerful speech at CPAC today that strongly argued that he is not only conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but that he is the best alternative to President Obama.

Video from RightScoop.com

Bookmark and Share

Hard Landing

Bookmark and Share
Newt Gingrich is limping out of Florida with no momentum, little money and not much to be happy about. After his substantial victory in South Carolina and visions of soaring to the moon, Newt has crashed back to earth. His supporters are pinning his loss on negative ads from the Romney side, but that argument is just sour grapes. The truth is that Newt hurt himself more than Romney did and very likely hurt the conservative cause in the process.

First, let’s dismiss the argument that negative ads are what sank Newt. That was true in Iowa. Conservative voters abandoned him and voted instead for Santorum. In New Hampshire without the attacks, the conservatives split fairly evenly between Gingrich and Santorum. In South Carolina, even with negative attacks, Newt won solidly. In Florida, Gingrich still won the conservatives – his voters did not run to Santorum as in Iowa. The negative ads didn’t bring Gingrich down. He secured his base, but it was a smaller base than in South Carolina. Hence, he lost.

To the moonHis real weakness was an inability to steal moderates from Romney. He only has himself to blame for that. His debate attacks were exposed as little more than stunts and his boasts exploded like over-inflated balloons. His image as a man with great knowledge and serious solutions backed by past experience suffered greatly. When he was caught with flagrantly incorrect ‘facts’ during the debates, it weakened trust in his criticisms of Romney. When his big spending promises in each State he’s campaigned in were called out during the debates, it weakened confidence in his ability to have real solutions. When his great claim to fame of balancing the budget was admitted to be false because it was done by robbing Social Security, it undermined his claim to be the experienced fixer the country needs. Gingrich didn’t just have some bad debates, he collapsed during them. His strong supporters may not see that nor admit it, but those who are not Newties were able to see it and the exit polls confirm it.

The real disservice Newt did in Florida was convince people that he is the only conservative who can beat Mitt. As a result, when Newt started to implode only voters who were shaky for Mitt stayed with him rather than go with another candidate. The race was viewed as being between Mitt or Newt and undecided voters found themselves with little choice than to support Mitt under the circumstances. Even if you add together the Gingrich and Santorum votes, Mitt still wins. That isn’t because of negative attack ads on Newt, but rather the inability of Santorum to gain undecided voters because they felt the only candidates who could win in November were Mitt and Newt. That two man view is something only Newt has been pushing and for which he must take the blame when his campaign stumbles resulted in an overall conservative loss.

Newt will likely double-down on his themes. He’ll say that he’s the only conservative that stands a chance. He’ll say that only he has the experience needed. He’ll whine about negative attacks. He’ll launch new attacks of his own which will likely be as weakly supported as his most recent ones in Florida that backfired. As I wrote after his loss in Iowa when he lost his temper and started his attacks on capitalism, Newt is his own worst enemy and his own undoing.

46 States to go…or so he says.

Bookmark and Share

Cain and Gingrich Capital Rise With Debate

Mitt Romney should take notice.  The Cain/Gingrich debate is EXACTLY what Conservatives are looking for.  It is something today’s liberals and Republican posers simply won’t do.  The two candidates from Georgia sat down with no time limits, no moderators, and no attacks on each other, they spent an hour and a half laying bold, smart, outside the box proposals on the table.  They complemented one another and tossed questions to each other that built each other up.  It wasn’t about me versus you.  There was no mud, no dirty politics.  It was pure and simple ideas and a clear demonstration why these two candidates deserve every Conservative’s consideration.  If Mitt Romney is smart, he will be begging to be part of the next debate, because his fiscal conservative, establishment support is not going to win him this primary by itself.

At the beginning of the debate, Cain and Gingrich stood side by side and joked about what the 2012 ticket might look like.  Actually, that’s not such a bad idea.

I got done watching the debate feeling much better about the GOP field this year.  Cain has been boxed in by his 999 plan in previous recent debates.  In this debate be broke out and showed that he is a far more complex and intelligent candidate.  He finally had a chance to explain his Social Security private option.  Their mutual respect and support helped lend Cain additional credibility.

Newt has been stellar in uncomfortable media run debates.  He soared even more in this debate.  Newt oozes leadership, and even in this debate was in charge.  It would be interesting to see if Newt would still rule the roost with Romney at the table as well.  At any rate, to the extent that this debate is replayed and seen by more Americans, Newt’s star will continue rise.  This debate highlighted Newt’s intelligence and communication skills.

Hopefully we will see more of these type of debates, and hopefully many more people will watch them.  And if the GOP wants to win in 2012, it would be great to see if Obama would step up and give this format a shot.

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.

The GOP Debate Disconnect

Moments ago, the Republican candidates finished yet another debate.  This time, CNN and the TEA Party Express were the odd couple sponsors.  Blitzer was in liberal heaven, getting every question the left wanted the candidates to quarrel about on the record.  But there were some very bright spots, which brings us to our debate winner:

I call Newt as winner

Newt Gingrich.  The GOP debate disconnect seems to be how Newt consistently delivers stellar debate performances, and in fact directs the flow of the debate away from where the moderators want to go, and yet continues to flounder in the polls.  Other candidates were taking their cues from Newt, and Newt was again successfully making the case that every candidate on that stage was better than Obama.  At the same time, he was showing why at least in debates, he is the best candidate on the stage.  Newt hit a couple home runs.  The first was in the Social Security squabble between Perry and Romney where Newt reminded us that it was Barack Obama who threatened twice to cancel Social Security checks if Republicans didn’t vote for his liberal budget policies.  Gingrich’s second big home run came again when other candidates were arguing about job growth.  Newt pointed out that Americans create jobs, not government.  He then gave credit to other candidates for what they did to create job growth, but ultimately gave the credit to the American people.  Lastly, on green energy tax loopholes for GE, Newt destroyed Obama’s attacks on the oil industry.  Newt showed that he is the smartest and most studied candidate on the stage.  When asked about whether he would compromise with Democrats in power, his answer was perfect.  Whether or not that reflects in the polls will be seen.

Michele Bachmann was on the attack, but her strikes were good conservative strikes and they hit their

Bachmann had a good showing

targets.  Bachmann came across as the conservative constitutionalist on the stage with a balanced approach to getting our nation back to the constitution.  Her strikes landed on Perry with Social Security, and the HPV vaccinations, she struck Romney on the constitutionality of his healthcare plan, and she landed shots on Perry and Huntsman for their help to illegal aliens.  She did not come across as someone struggling to take down the frontrunners ahead of her, but more like a principled conservative attacking the liberal tendencies of her opponents.  And no one hit her back on anything.

In this debate, Santorum finished a solid third place.  I had a feeling Santorum would do well with the TEA Party audience.  He looked far more relaxed and in control than in the last debate.  He maintained his conservative credentials, but introduced a new element: how he won multiple times in a blue state.  He also was able to identify himself with some of Gingrich’s success.  Santorum hit hard on Perry’s HPV issue and delivered a deadly blow on it.  Santorum and Bachmann are key elements in where I score Perry tonight, and both walked away unscathed.

Mitt Romney took some tough shots.  But despite the tough shots, he continued to show class and to handle attacks.  He was hit hard on Social Security, and in fact his position on Social Security was easily exploitable in front of this TEA Party audience.  Overall, he did a good job at taking some clean shots and his seven things we need to do to fix the economy and budget were spot on.  Romney fell into the expected trap and tangled with Perry too much on Social Security, and Romney’s support for Federal Social Security won’t win him TEA party support.

Herman Cain did a good job, but he continues to look amateurish compared to some of the more experienced heavy hitters.  Cain did well to expound on his 999 plan this time around, and he picked up the Perry/Romney social security fumble and ran it back for a touchdown.  But other than that his performance was unremarkable.  When Newt talked about private accounts for Social Security, he connected far better than Cain’s repeating of Neal Boortz talking points on Chile and Galveston.

Perry took it on the chin

Rick Perry took another beating, and this was a good one.  On social security, HPV and illegal immigration, Perry seemed to slip into his deer in the headlights slo-mo’ mode.  Perry’s argument that his state’s version of the dream act for illegal aliens was somehow a states rights issue was off-base and will not sit well with the TEA party.  Santorum and Bachmann nailed him on HPV and that one will stick.  At the same time, Perry’s role as the attack dog against Romney has soured this race somewhat.  Perry looked kind of amused/detached for a good part of the debate.  That mixed with his slow, Texan accent will remind some voters of a previous Texas Republican Presidential candidate, however unfair that comparison may be.

Ron Paul redeemed himself somewhat from his last debate performance.  However, his dodge on the Medicare Part D question may spark some serious questions that have been lingering in the darkest cellars about Ron Paul.  Is he as much of a purist as he seems?  Instead of quickly putting Medicare Part D on the chopping block, Paul kind of hemmed and hawed about other programs that should be cut first, including his biggest applause getters of the wars, the department of education, etc.  Paul, who is normally eager to take on unconstitutional spending programs, seemed to give an “if I get to it” response on Medicare Part D, which was one of the biggest social spending programs under George W. Bush.

Jon Huntsman just has nothing left in the tank.  His good answers were echoes of other candidates, and his bad answers were echoes of Barack Obama.  His Kurt Cobain joke fell completely flat.  His tax plan sounds exactly like Obama’s.  His stance on illegal immigration was wrong.  His Afghanistan rhetoric was meant to sound like the Afghan people needed to take more responsibility, but instead came across like America just wasn’t strong enough to fight anymore.  The best thing that happened to Huntsman tonight was no one asked him about global warming.

If debates drove polls, Newt Gingrich would be the front runner after tonight.  How Perry remains such a strong front runner with debate performances like these speaks to his clout and ability to run a public campaign away from the debate stage.

%d bloggers like this: