The VP Matrix

Excitement continues to brew about who Mitt Romney might choose as his Vice President.  Today a story hit the news circulation that Marco Rubio is not being vetted, but Tim Pawlenty is being given serious consideration.  Romney found himself on the defensive this evening.  But before you get too excited about a Marco Rubio candidacy, or too upset about it, you may want to take a breather and consider who Romney is and what kind of campaign he is running.  Flash and splash are not the orders of the day.

Mitt Romney’s campaign need do no more than promise a stronger economy and let Obama continue to create a weaker economy.  In fact, Mitt Romney’s tour through small town USA promoting the private sector and values of competition is exactly where he needs to be.  Obama is spouting a controversy mixed with a gaffe every day.  Why jump in front of a train wreck?  Romney’s VP choice will be about as blockbuster as a sandwich from a WaWa vending machine.

Get out your VP scorecards and consider the following:

Mitt’s VP choice will not be a fresh face.

Mitt Romney is not looking for a candidate with little national experience.  Nor is he looking for a candidate who everyone on the far right loves.  Romney doesn’t need a shot of adrenaline or steroids.  The last thing he needs is someone who is going to distract from the national disaster of the Obama Presidency.  Romney does not need a divisive TEA party figure.  He certainly doesn’t need someone who could be perceived as inexperienced.  If Romney picks a veteran, the media will be cautious about trying to embarrass them as a rookie.  But media types smell blood in the water when there is fresh meat.  Even a studied, prepared candidate might not be able to field a trick question like “do you support the Bush doctrine”.  However, a veteran is less likely to be asked that question.

Obama’s inexperience took a back seat in the media when McCain brought in Palin

This is bad for Allen West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Susana Martinez, Scott Walker, and Paul Ryan.  Could be good for Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, Condi Rice, or Rudy Guiliani.

Mitt’s VP choice will not be old and tired.

The death knell for a Republican candidacy, fair or not, is being old and grey.  Nothing plays into stereotypes of Republicans more than an old, grey haired, slow talking wrinkly man.  While Romney doesn’t need a shot in the arm, he also doesn’t need something contributing to the stereotypes more than he does already.  Right now Romney is Reaganesque in his looks and style.  But an older veteran running mate would turn his campaign into the old rich white people’s ticket.  Again, it may not be fair or right, but don’t expect a VP over 55 years old.

Don’t expect Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, or Rob Portman.  Could be good for Bobby McDonnell, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie

Jack Kemp and Bob Dole combined had nearly two centuries of experience

Mitt’s VP choice may not be female or minority.

There is this idea that the only way to defeat Barack Obama is by running a female or minority VP candidate.  Aside from that strategy failing miserably with Sarah Palin, the problem is that Republicans pay far less attention to race and gender than Democrats do, and Democrats virulently hate conservative women and minorities.  We have seen in recent years just how much visible hatred has been directed toward Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Allen West, Nikki Haley, Michelle Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, etc.  There is a clear desire on the left for female and minority Republicans to fail.  In Mitt Romney’s case, he is not looking for diversity for diversity’s sake.  That’s not to say he won’t pick a female or minority candidate, but if he does it will be someone respected by both sides and unassailable.

This makes Allen West, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez less likely.  However, it doesn’t necessarily knock Condoleeza Rice out of the running, although she will carry the stigma on the left of being chosen for diversity’s sake.  Again, might not be fair, but since when were politics fair.

Mitt’s VP choice will not be controversial.

It’s bad when your VP candidate has almost as many quotable gaffes as Joe Biden

Mitt Romney is not looking to cause trouble for himself.  He doesn’t need a loudmouth or a controversial character.  Don’t expect any candidate who is going to make serious waves.  As I said before, Romney doesn’t need a distraction from the freak show of the Obama economy.  Expect a well respected candidate who is as smooth politically as Romney himself.

You can scratch the Donald, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Allen West, and Newt Gingrich off your list.  This is a strike against Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice as well.  But it favors Mitch Daniels, possibly Bob McDonell, and John Thune.

Expect a strategic pick.

Romney’s not going to choose a popular governor from a red state.  But he might choose a popular candidate from a purple or blue state.  And there are a few to choose from.  Rubio would lock of Florida.  Bob McDonnell could secure the nearly must win blue state of Virginia.  Tim Pawlenty could inspire votes from the teetering Great Lakes states.  Rick Snyder of Michigan could really bring in some blue states, but he is likely disqualified for being old and a fresh face at the same time.  Brian Sandoval might help swing Nevada to Romney while also providing the opportunity to highlight Harry Reid’s role in the destruction of our economy.

This set of criteria will hardly provide a definite pick.  In fact, some points are contradictory.  But it should provide some ideas for people who are looking at the potential VP picks.  I could hardly make a prediction even based on this criteria.  But I do believe it comprises the factors that Romney will be looking at when making his pick.

Advertisements

Can Donald Trump Run as a Realistic Third Party Presidential Candidate?

Bookmark and Share   Ever since most of the Republican presidential candidates declined to turn the presidential election in to a Jersey Shore-like, MTV reality TV show by attending a Donald Trump moderated presidential debate, Donald Trump has gone out of his way to try to prove that he is relevant and deep enough a person to be considered for President.   First he maintained that he if none of the Republican candidates met his “you’re fired” inspired “The Apprentice” television show standards, then he would run for President himself.

Then after being personally offended by the fact that most of the candidates did not take him serious enough to attend the Newsmax sponsored debate that he was scheduled to host, like a child in the middle of a tantrum, he ditched the Republican to make a well publicized switch of his party affiliation to that of Independent.

Personally, I was relieved when he left the G.O.P.

The way I say it, we have enough problems as a Party and really do not need the utterly pointless baggage, controversy, and distraction that is Donald Trump.  So when Trump switched Party, I said good riddance.  It was probably the very best thing he could have done for Republicans ever since he became one.

But in the days to follow Trump’s much appreciated exit from the G.O.P., he has done his best to make clear that if he is not happy with the Republican nominee, he will jump into the presidential race as an Independent candidate.

Now to be honest, if Trump were to do so, he would essentially single-handedly elect Barack Obama to a second term.  I can’t deny that Trump would hurt Republican chances of defeating the President in 2012.  Unfortunately there is a vast segment of voters who can relate more to celebrity news and gossip then they do the intricacies of politics and such things as nuclear proliferation.  They tend to pay far more attention to the latest trials and tribulations of Lindsay Lohan than they do to public policy and the allocation and transfer of power in political decision making and the roles and systems of our government.  In other words, Donald Trump’s sensationalism and celebrity trumps politics for far too many people and those people would easily support Trump if for no other reason than the fact that they are more familiar with him  than political figures like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry.

So Trump would indeed make it more difficult to defeat Barack Obama if he were to run if for no other reason than the fact that he would dilute the strength of the anti-Obama vote by splitting some of it between him and the Republican nominee.  And that really is a sad situation.  Especially since if Trump did run, there would be very little chance for his candidacy to be taken seriously by most voters.

Case in point was this very public tweet from Donald Trump’s Twitter feed which he sent out earlier today;

Donald J. Trump

realDonaldTrump   Donald J. Trump

The Mar-a-Lago Club has the best meatloaf in America. Tasty. http://www.maralagoclub.com/
  Favorite   Retweet     Reply

After reading that, I could not help but think to myself, “how stereotypically aloof that was”.

I mean in this day of liberal inspired class warfare when running against “Country Club Republicans” is a popular populist chant among the boisterous radicals who use their rhetoric to great success in the mass media, how helpful is it to be a candidate who is not only a rich Republican, country club Republican, but to be the owner of the country club?

And here is Donald Trump praising the meatloaf served at his exclusive Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

I guess in his world, talking about savory meatloaf helps people relate to him better than if he discussed the delicious château brion he ate for lunch.

Making matters worse, when you click on his Twitter link you are introduced to his Mar-a-Lago website and a personal message that includes tidbits like this;

“It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the Mar-a-Lago Club, one of the most highly regarded private clubs in the world. Located within 20 acres of perfectly landscaped gardens and with ocean views, Mar-a-Lago is truly the crown jewel of Palm Beach and an acknowledged landmark in the National Register of Historic Places. Members enjoy all of the finest amenities that the club has to offer, from our incredible beach and pool facility, to the spa and fine dining as well as world class entertainment.”

 

Trump adds;
“Since purchasing this landmark in 1985, I spend many weekends and holidays at this home away from home. When I made it a club in 1995 (126 rooms made it a very big house),”

Way to go to show how well you realte to the plight of the American voter, Donald.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to deny Trump his legitimate participation in the free enterprise system, and I am not trying to suggest that his wealth and success precludes him from possibly being a viable presidential candidate.  Afterall, Mitt Romney is not exactly your average middle-class American and I do not disqualify him.  But what I do question here is Donald Trump’s judgement.  I always have.  His recent Twitter simply confirms my doubt about his judgement.

Here we are in the middle of an election in which a devastating and stagnant economy is the preeminent issue, yet Donald Trump is tweeting about meatloaf at the exclusive country club which he is not simply a member of, but the owner of.

It leads me to suggest that if Donald Trump is actually still considering running for President, he is a bigger ass than I thought he was.

Bookmark and Share

Paths to Victory

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

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

Newt Gingrich

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

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

Mitt Romney

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

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

Ron Paul

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

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

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

Rick Perry

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

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

Jon Huntsman

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

Michele Bachmann

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

Rick Santorum

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share

Welcome to the top, Herman Cain

The most recent debate is over, and Herman Cain is discovering what Rick Perry felt like when he was the front runner.  The way the debate went, there was clear recognition of Cain, Romney and Perry as front runners.  The other candidates almost seemed to be helping in the vetting process as though they were seeking to help Americans choose from one of those top three.   So here goes, the latest debate in retrospect.  And the winner is…

Romney back in the driver seat

Mitt Romney.  Mitt Romney had some good news today.  He picked up an endorsement from Chris Christie, which is huge.  He also had some bad news.  Rush Limbaugh questioned Romney’s conservatism compared to other candidates and gave the death knell that took down Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman.  Rush called him the Republican establishment candidate.  Still, Romney was his usual comfortable self.  His adopting the Trump doctrine on China will help build that portion of his base.  Cain did Romney a huge favor by asking him about his 59 point plan and giving him the chance to explain it and expound on it.  In fact, the questioning session turned into an opportunity for the other candidates to seem to vet the apparent front runner candidate.  Romney’s own question to Michele Bachmann was very gracious and showed the kind of class that simply makes Romney likeable.  Romney’s answer on Dodd Frank was pure gold.  He was polished and Presidential.  Romney still has to get a little bit stronger on his conservative stances and lose a bit of that obvious shine in order to pick up more of the anti-politician minded rightwing, especially the TEA party.  But for this debate, Romney managed to edge out…

Newt Gingrich.  Newt Gingrich is the best debater.  As the best debater, Newt spewed pure common sense.  His best was when he bluntly spoke about how absolutely stupid the debt commission is.  His answers put him above the fray and he maintained his mantra that any candidate on that stage would be better than Obama.  However, Newt did not get enough face time.  He took no arrows, shot no arrows at the other candidates, but simply did not have enough chances to speak to make a difference.  Newt has won several of these debates, but winning these debates is not enough for him at this point.  He must so completely knock each debate out of the park that everytime a front runner falls he is there to pick up the pieces.  In this case, he did not even mention his campaign’s new contract with America.  It was a lost opportunity.   So far he has not accomplished what he needs to do in these debates.  I can’t give him first, no matter how well deserved.  But as a representative of the Social Conservative flavor of this party, he did outperform…

Cain has his work cut out for him

Herman Cain.  Cain’s 9 9 9 plan finally got the inspection it deserved.  A striking moment was when Rick Santorum polled the audience on who wanted a new 9% sales tax, and who thought a 9% flat income tax would stay at 9%.  Not a single hand in the audience was visible.  Santorum hit the nail on the head.  The result is Cain will be in trouble after this debate.  He must now find a way to explain his plan in a way that resonates with Americans.  He made a good start when he talked about how the 9% sales tax would replace a 15% payroll tax, which of course we all pay.  If he can hit that point and solve the question of how to prevent future Presidents from turning his 9 9 9 plan into a 35 35 35 plan, he can salvage his front runner (by my calculations) status.  Cain took a huge hit on the federal reserve when Paul questioned him too.  Later when he spoke about fixing the Fed, Paul made easy work out of Cain.  Still, his likeability level and pure down home realness will keep him afloat for at least one more round.  At this point, if Cain falters I predict voters will finally give Newt Gingrich a second look.  Another candidate they might be looking at is…

Rick Santorum.  Rick Santorum did very well.  He made a key point when he said he did not support the bailout.  He called out Cain’s 9 9 9 plan and struck a very strong blow on it.  He exposed Cain’s naivete beautifully.  But that was the extent of Santorum’s stunning performance.  Like Gingrich, he simply did not get enough other face time to make a huge difference.  No one is afraid of him becoming the front runner any time soon, so there wasn’t much interest in him among the debate moderators.  While Santorum did not make a strong case for himself as President, he certainly gave voters a lot to think about with the latest rising star in Herman Cain.  That may be his purpose at this point.  There is very little chance of his campaign being successful.  Almost as little chance as…

Jon Huntsman.  Jon Huntsman did not do bad for the most part.  His answer on China will not connect with Americans and for a good reason.  Being nice to China does not sell when as Romney pointed out we are already losing to them because they are cheating.  Two debates ago I said Huntsman’s campaign is over.  Nothing changed with the debate tonight.  Feeling our pain because he helped run the family business and was a good governor is so cliche at this point, it’s really forgettable.  But not as forgettable as…

Michele Bachmann.  Michele Bachmann did well.  She spoke on Obama’s failures and conservatism.  But mostly she was forgettable.  At one point, it sounded like she said she raised 28 children, 22 foster and 5 biological.  I could understand, with that many kids, how easy it would be to get the math wrong.  But it’s not good when that’s what sticks out in my mind.  No highlights, no major gaffes, and in fact her role in Congress became even more forgettable when Gingrich asked why the House has not made any move to repeal Dodd Frank or Sarbanes Oxley.  I was left wondering where her actual leadership has manifested itself.  The exchange with Romney was her one saving grace, proving that at least she is not one dimensional unlike…

Popularity off the debate stage won't save these candidates from earning low marks in this debate.

Ron Paul.  Ron Paul did ok.  He made it pretty clear he isn’t a fan of the fed.  But on the fed, especially Bernanke, Newt stole his thunder.  What else did Paul speak about?  Again, another forgettable candidate.  Paul fans, don’t hate me for saying that.  Step outside of the movement for a minute and ask yourself if he truly made a splash.  Did we hear anything new about Ron Paul that would make us want to make him in charge of everything the President of the United States is responsible for?  No, but I’d be happy to see him head up the Fed audit once we get a President who has that as a priority (which apparently is not Herman Cain).  But even Ron Paul did better than…

Rick Perry.  Rick Perry came across as a something between a walking cliche and a deer in the headlights.  He simply does not debate well.  He again was slow in his responses and his wording did not connect.  He came across as very unprepared once again.  His good answers were copies of other candidates, and his bad answers seemed to drag on with his drawl.  I’ve said before that I would love to see Newt Gingrich debate Obama.  I would not love to see Perry debate Obama.  I’m not sure I would be able to watch.  Can Perry turn things around?  Possibly.  I’m not ready to give him the Dead Candidate Walking title along with Huntsman just yet.

Democrat Ad Highlights Class Warfare Through Romney Meeting with Trump

Bookmark and Share    Today, as Mitt Romney becomes the latest Republican presidential candidate to kiss Donald Trump’s ring, the Democratic National Committee took the opportunity to reinforce their pathetic attempts to wage class warfare in the 2012 election.  In an ad entitled “Trump, Romney; You’re Fired[see ad below this post], Democrats attack both individuals as privileged rich men who merely victimize the middleclass in an attempt to gain more wealth.

In the first opening lines, the ad charges that both Romney and Trump have done well for themselves.

Stop! Stop right there.

Let’s analyze that.

Is it not un-American to attack someone because they have done well for themselves?  Or is it that ideology the and Party that believes in that ideology which are un-American because both seek to demonize individuals for being successful and because both try to make others dislike people because of this success?  Perhaps the DNC does not remember that 6 of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats.  Maybe they forget that people like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry, as well as Senators Jay Rockerfeller, Diane Feinstien, Frank Lautenberg, and Richard Blumenthal, are just some of those who are the richest.  But as we will see, wealth is not a bad thing if you’re a liberal.  Only if you’re a Republican.

President Obama recently accused Republicans of charging him with waging class warfare.  His response was that he is not waging war, he is actually just a warrior for the middleclass.  Well the truth is, this ad makes it clear that the President and his Party are indeed waging class warfare.  The first three lines of his Party’s new ad makes this painfully obvious.  And as for being a “warrior for the middleclass”,  President Obama is not fighting for the middleclass, he’s destroying the middleclass.  Under his Administration, America’s poverty rate has increased to extraordinary highs that we haven’t seen in decades.  Under his Administration, the middle class is seeing the longest recession in history and one of the highest long-term unemployment rates in our history.  Under the Obama Administration, the middle class is seeing prices rise faster than the salaries of those who are lucky to have a job.  And under leadership of President Obama, the middleclass has seen their interest on the national debt multiplied many times and while our national economy is growing by a painfully low rate of 1.7%, our national debt is growing at a rate of 15.21%.  Is it any wonder why our credit rating has been downgraded?

With the points about President Obama and the left waging class war fare and who is really the middleclasses’s enemy,  made clear, let’s go on with the rest of the ad.

With images of limousines and private jets, President Obama and his Party claim that the G.O.P. is promoting policies to help only the rich and corporations, and they resort to their typical scare tactics of senior citizens by claiming Republicans are trying to kill Social Security and Medicare.  The DNC attack ad goes on to blame Republicans for cutting funds to schools, research development, and healthcare, and of eliminating investments that can help cretae jobs and keep America competitive.

 These arguments may sound good on the surface.  But unfortunately for the left and the President, they only sound good to the left, not mainstream America.  Mainstream America has come to understand that the left is waging class warfare, scaring senior citizens, and creating policies that are making America less competitive in the world and preventing investment, economic growth, and job creation.  Simply put, most Americans have come to accept that the Obama economy and the liberal policies that account for the Obama economy, are not working.

Americans have come to understand that when liberals mention a buzzword like “investment”, what they really mean is more stimulus spending and higher taxes.  They understand that when the left talks about jobs, they mean government spending and when they throw out phrases like “save Social Social Security and Medicare, they mean deficit spending and an array of tax increases ranging from payroll taxes to death taxes and higher rates that no matter who they are raised on, are passed on to consumers.

Many have come to understand that Republicans seek not destroy Medicare or Social Security, but they do seek to insure that it is solvent for those who are on it now and that there is way for a form of the two to exist for future generations not yet paying in to those sytems yet.  They realize that when Republicans talk about jobs, they are referring to self-sustaining private sector jobs that are created by private sector investment, and sustainable econmomic growth, while at the same time, trying to get government under control so that our economy is growing at a rate faster than our national debt.

So this new atack ad is preaching to the liberal choir.  Like Jeremiah Wright preaching hatred to his flock, the DNC is preaching hate inspired rhetoric to its audience, an audience of liberals who they want to insure do not sit home on Election Day 2012 because they are embarrased by their Party’s performance.

The new liberal attack ad takes this opportunity to preach to their choir, by trying to tie Mitt Romney together with Donald Trump.

There are some negatives that do go with such a meeting.  Personally, I despise Donald Trump.  As I have written before, I believe he is an assclown.  I believe he hurts the conservative cause more than helps it and given his record of business scandals and failures, I believe he is the very last person in the world that the United States should call upon to lead it.  Ultimately, I would appreciate a Republican presidential candidate who stands up and makes that point.  I would even be more appreciative of them if they refused to feed Trump’s ego by kissing his ring.  But Trump has vowed to make his opinion known in 2012. He has even claimed that if he doesn’t like the Republican nominee, he will run for President himself.  My opinion of Trump aside, many Americans are driven by the pop culture mentality that is ruled by reality TV programs such Trump’s The Apprentice (and let us not respect the despicable lowlifes of the Jersey Shore).  So the reality is that between his money and popularity, no matter how I feel about Trump, he could be a factor in the 2012 election.  Therefore, there is a line of candidates waiting to meet with Trump.  Mitt Romney is merely the latest.

However, the Democratic National Committee sponsored web ad does not raise any of  my concerns.  It simply focusses on trying to associate Mitt Romney, a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, not so much with Trump, but with rich people in general.  In other words, they are trying desperatley to wage class warfare. This new ad merely uses Donald Trump, not for any of the positions that they may disagree with him on.  They don’t use Trump because they want to focus on the issues or his record.  They merely use him because he is rich and because his meeting with Mitt Romney provides the DNC with the opportunity to advance their class warfare campaign against a potential opponent by demonizing the wealthy and highlighting Romney’s wealth through guilt by association ad.

Yet as I told you earlier in this article, demonizig the rich or those who are well off becuase they have been successful is only bad if you are Republican.  Need proof?  Do you think the D.N.C. will be running an ad featuring Warren Buffett as the speaker at a Chicago-area fundraiser benefitting President Barack Obama’s re-election bid on October 27th?  I doubt it.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: