What Theme Should Democrats Choose For Their Convention?

      Under the theme of “A Brighter Future”, Republicans are preparing to participate in a national celebration of their conservative principles that will culminate in the nomination of Mitt Romney for President but as Democrats prepare to respond with their convention the following week, an effective reelection theme seems to elude them.  Afterall, what appropriate themes could there possibly be for an effort to reelect a President whose Administration has cast a shroud of doubt and despair over the nation that is second only to the days of malaise brought upon us by Jimmy Carter in the late 70’s?

While Republicans prepare to dedicate an entire night of their convention to contradict the President’s “You didn’t build that…. Government built that” ideology, Democrats are left with having to come up with a competing theme that tries to reconcile President Obama’s past record of failures with a pitch for a better future that is based on forging ahead with the same failed policies that got to where we are today.

Currently the Obama campaign has adopted the slogan “Forward.” as their tagline.  The unoriginal and intentionally ambiguous tag line is a very uninspiring rehash of the theme Democrats tried to adopt in 2010, right before they suffered landside defeats at the ballot box.  Below is an ad in which Democrats briefly used the “moving forward” theme in August of that historic election cycle. 

It didn’t work.

Following that ad American’s rejected Democrats in historic numbers and gave control of the House of Representatives to Republicans by wide a margin.  In 2010 Americans did not want to move “forward” with Barack Obama’s policies and they made that quite clear.  So why Democrats believe that two years later, Americans would want to move “forward” with Barack Obama is a little hard to understand it makes it quite clear that with their convention fast approaching, Democrats need some help.

So we at White House 2012 would like to give them some help by having you offer your own suggestions regarding the theme that Democrats should adopt for their convention.  Just pass along your suggested theme in the comments sections of this post or post it on Twitter @ #DEMTHEME  .

We will put the 5 best proposed Democrat convention themes will be put up for a vote in a public poll here on White House on Thursday, August 30th, once the Republican National Convention has concluded.  And the creator of the winning theme will receive a free gift from the White House 2012 Campaign Store.

What Does Paul Ryan Bring to the Ticket?

   By picking Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, Democrats will claim that Mitt Romney, a wealthy and heartless robber baron who has killed people through his business dealings, has picked a running mate who pushed grandma off a cliff and is trying to make the wealthy richer by starving the poor.  Democrats will claim that the Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan aligns the G.O.P. with it’s most damaging and ideologically extreme policies.

Less than two hours after nominating Romney for Vice President, the Obama-Biden campaign went up with a new website that can be found when one goggles Paul Ryan or ask the questions who is Paul Ryan?  Typing that question on your keyboard will bring up barackobama.com/paul-ryan,  an Obama  website that defines the Romney-Ryan ticket as the “go back team”  and claims that Paul Ryan is the architect of a plan to end Medicare as we know it and which raises taxes on the middle-class in an attempt to create tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

An hour after Romney named Ryan as his Vice President, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina issued a statement claiming that Congressman Ryan “is best known as the author of a budget so radical The New York Times called it ‘the most extreme budget plan passed by a House of Congress in modern times’.”

So it is clear that Democrats are ready to do exactly what they were expected to do ——- escalate their political terrorism and double down on their class warfare tactics.   But they do so at the risk of falling right into the trap which Republicans have baited with with a tempting target that has hidden in it the issues that lie at the heart of the 2012 election —– the budget and the economy, the two issues which Democrats must avoid if they want to be elected.

By endorsing Paul Ryan as his running mate and embracing the Ryan approach to fiscal sanity, Romney has dared Democrats to continue their fear mongering.  And if Democrats continue to take the bait, they will be ensuring that the very issues they are trying to make voters fear the Romney-Ryan ticket for, are the very issues brought to the forefront of the campaign.  The selection of Ryan as his running mate is both courageous and brilliant.  It demonstrates that Romney is committed to fiscal responsibility and unafraid of defending conservative economic policies against the harsh distortion and demonization of demoncrats.  But by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has also plotted a brilliant strategy that now puts him in control of the political agenda by reframing the campaigning on the big issues which lie at the heart of our nation’s future.

While Obama and his fellow demoncrats try to describe the fiscal responsibility of a Romney-Ryan ticket in divisive class warfare terms, they will be forcing the Romney-Ryan ticket to explain their ideas and shed the truth on those ideas.  By going on the attack, demoncrats will be forced to actually have to debate the economy and the budget, something which they would rather not address.   The liberal strategy of distractions and distortions will give Republicans the opportunity yo fully explain the big fiscal decisions that will have to be made but which demoncrats refuse to address.

The demonization of the Romney-Ryan economic policies will provide Republicans the perfect chance to explain why it is not Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney who are endangering Medicare, but that it is the status quo of the the left and their nominee President Obama, which is endangering Medicare.   The attempts to demonize Romney and Ryan and scare senior citizens into believing that Romney and Ryan are throwing them under the bus, the ensuing national debate will force the truth out and shed the light of day on the facts that Ryan’s entitlement reforms not only reduce the national debt by $6 trillion dollars without raising taxes on anybody, but that it makes Medicare solvent and preserves it for generations to come, without making a single change to the program for those born prior to 1954.

Beyond Romney’s selection of Ryan taking control of the political agenda, it reinforces the impression of a leadership team that has the courage to propose bold plans and actual solutions that demonstrate an ability to get our nation back on track, something which the Obama-Biden team has been unable to do.  It also corners the market on the critically important independent swing vote which is made up largely of fiscal conservatives who want ideas turned into actions and actions turned into solutions more than they wish to hear politicians turn distortions into accusations.

In addition to placing someone on the Republican ticket who can appeal to independent voters, having Ryan as Romney’s running mate makes the usually blue state of Wisconsin fertile territory for Republicans.  History demonstrates that running mates can increase a tickets plurality of votes in their home state’s by as much as four percent.  Before nominating Ryan, the RealClearPolitics average of the most recent polls in Wisconsin has President Obama leading Romney by 5.4%.   Now with Ryan on the ticket there is good reason for Republicans to target that state in the months ahead, and as such, Wisconsin is likely to be deducted from the current projections of President Obama’s electoral college count.  And while Ryan’s popularity in neighboring Midwest states combined with his appeal to blue collar workers and personal background has still to be measured,  at this point in time he  can’t be seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in that region.

But picking Paul Ryan was much more than an attempt to select a regional nominee or a candidate who could help deliver a particular case.    It was a decision to pick a national nominee that would reframe the campaign and focus it on the big issues, the tough but unaddressed issues which Democrats are trying to avoid but will now be forced to confront because of Paul Ryan’s solutions and Mitt Romney’s courage to fight for those solutions.  Picking Paul Ryan will force voters to have to choose between two clearly different paths for our nation.  One path is a series of  tax and spend policies of an Administration which has refused to address our problems or even admit that the problems exist, and which has turned our economic woes into such a systemically debilitating problem that it is now the biggest threat to our national security.  The other path seeks to be hoinest with the American people and stop pretending that federal treasury is an ATM machine that issues a staedy and endlesss stream of free cash.  This other path is one which acknowledges our problems and addresses them by making tough decisions, to implement bold solutions and reforms that will help to prevent the United Sates from following in the footsteps of Greece.

What does Paul Ryan bring to the Republican ticket?

He brings us the opportunity to confront the demons that are haunting our economic health and the chance to slay them before they consume us.  He brings the promise of an issue oriented debate that reclaims the narrative of this election in a way that will allow it to focus on the problems that we face instead of the the distortions that left tries to create.   He also brings to the ticket the bait that will entice Democrats to take their class warfare strategy and lies to an extent so profoundly outrageous and exaggerated that they will lose what little credibility they have remaining.

Obama And Democrats Try To Supress Votes In Swing State

Isn’t it Republicans that are supposedly dedicated to suppressing votes? Isn’t it Republicans that, when requesting voter IDs requirements, are actually re-instituting poll taxes? Isn’t it Republicans that want to make it so painful a process to vote that grannies, gran-pops, youngsters and the poor all release deep sighs of frustration and stay home?

In short, isn’t it Republicans that want to secretly strip certain citizens of their right to vote?

Guess again, crusaders, because apparently we got that all wrong. It’s Democrats. And the proof is in a lawsuit.

The Obama campaign, the Democratic party in Ohio and the DNC have all joined forces to try and strike down a Ohio state law that grants members of the military a few extra days to vote.

Given military deployments, exercises and other demands placed upon the people actually responsible for the nation’s protection, it seems reasonable to offer men and women in the armed forces a few extra days to cast a vote, yes?

Nope. Not according to Democrats. They disagree and feel the law has “no discernible rational basis.”

Don’t you find it interesting how looming military cuts, a 2012 swing state, and Obama’s re-election campaign all come together to create a sudden need to address an Ohio voting law because it has no rational basis?

We’ll skip discussing the well known disdain for Obama within the military.

This is nothing more than a devious, dastardly and despicable attempt at voter suppression against a population – military men and women – that should be given as much flexibility to vote as can be reasonably legislated.

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

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius – Revisted

If you read my post Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius, composed just a few hours after the supreme court ruling, you’d know that I promoted the idea that, although Roberts didn’t strike down Obama-care, his ruling gave those against Obama-care some tools with which to work. This outlook was in the minority. It was based upon the idea that by ruling the Democrat’s use of the commerce clause was unconstitutional, Roberts took away one of the pillars on which Obama-care was based. He also ruled that the mandate had to be a tax. This was beneficial to the citizens because, as a tax, it could be repealed by vote. Additionally, by ruling the mandate a tax, Roberts forced Democrats to have to defend tax increases in a recession and in an election year. My last point was that by ruling the federal government’s threat to yank funding from states was unconstitutional, Roberts opened the door for states to reject Obama-care without suffering a severe penalty. And if numerous states reject Obama-care the idea of a “national” healthcare system is obviously jeopardized.

And now two weeks after the SCOTUS ruling, with emotions more controlled, let’s take a look at recent events, shall we?

Yesterday, as you may know, the Republican-led House voted again to repeal Obama-care in its entirety. Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Senate is likely to stop the repeal in its tracks. But, this forces Democrats in an election year to justify standing with Obama-care and the associated taxes. They will be pulled from the shadows and subject to the intense glare of the American people. By the way, the Left is going to flood the media with the idea that less Democrats voted to repeal Obama-care this time than in previous votes, implying the outlook toward Obama-care has changed. Don’t be fooled. Since Obama-care was rammed down the people’s throat, there has been a purging of its supporters in Congress. So, were there fewer Democrats supporting this repeal? Yes — because there are fewer Obama-care supporting Democrats in existence. But the job is not done. The Senate will reject the Obama-care repeal. There are still too many liberal-socialist Democrats in the Senate. They must be purged, too. The Senate elections, crusaders, must be a focus.

With their new found freedom based on the ruling, the list of states that have already rejected Obama-care or have announced they are not likely to implement it include: Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia and Missouri. From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57” states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it, that I have heard, since his short, bitter-sweet victory speech the day of the ruling.

As the election year progresses, pressure will increase to reduce budgetary outlays. You can bet Obama-care will be targeted. Because it is such an outrageous monstrosity, you can become a political hero by successfully attacking small pieces of it — trial runs, pilot projects and subsidies come to mind. The administrative and regulatory demands of Obama-care are extremely complex. Limit the flow of cash and the implementation of Obama-care gets hurt badly. As a bonus, you get some votes. It will be interesting to see as the season progresses if any Democrats, feeling they need votes, join Republicans in attacking aspects of Obama-care funding.

The interpretation that Roberts’ ruling possessed a silver-lining has proven to be accurate. Many people will continue to bad mouth him based upon complex interpretations of law, the ‘true’ meaning of words and the implications of precedent. I’m not a judge, nor am I an attorney or law clerk. My expertise in law is limited to the times I’ve been on the wrong side of it. So, to these judicial gripes I can not comment. Others will remain bitter because they feel he should have just struck down the law. Perhaps. But he didn’t. He left it up to the people. He tied Obama-care and the supreme ruler to the same fate and handed that fate to the American people.

If you want to rid yourself and your descendents of the horrors of Obama-care, then you must rid the country of Obama. It is as simple as that.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

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.

 

The Student Vote

There is a truth that Obama will have to face in 2012.  The majority of reasons students voted for Obama in 2008 are irrelevant or evaporated in 2012.  He is not running for the historical title of first black President in 2012.  He did not close Gitmo or bring our troops home, in fact he started a war in Libya.  He did not provide free health insurance for all.  Most of all, he has done nothing to guarantee all these sociology and philosophy graduates jobs when they graduate.

John McCain was not inspiring for student voters.  He was old, determined to win the wars America got into, white, male, loved America, and he was a Republican.  Students have it drilled into their heads that this represents the great satan.

Romney may not be the next great satan to the educational institution, but he certainly isn’t the hip symbol of progressive diversity that Obama was.  However, Romney doesn’t need to win the student vote.  He just needs Obama to lose it.

Obama is still popular with teachers, who by and large are enslaved to their unions and engrained socialism.  But students now have a record to go on, and the novelty has worn off.  The funny thing about students is that they tend to be idealistic purists as often as they are naively ignorant.  The same student who would trade an A for a six pack might also skip the Avengers movie because certain details don’t conform to the comic books.  Obama is certainly not everything American students hoped and dreamed about.  In fact, students who are honest with themselves would realize Obama is nothing that they hoped and dreamed for.

Obama has a special sort of hypocrisy that attentive students will sniff out.  Obama might flash his environmental credentials to a crowd of students, but then in front of business owners he touts how oil extraction has increased under his Presidency even if he had nothing to do with it.  He might tell students how he is bringing our troops home, but then he celebrates excursions into Pakistan to kill terrorists and Libya to do nation building.  He may make overtones to the gay community and talk about equal rights, but look how fast his administration is throwing Biden under the bus for endorsing gay marriage.  Perhaps in 2008, young students might be fooled.  But now Obama has a record.

Obama can’t even win on student loan rates since he demonstrated those take second place to his healthcare legacy.  Republicans wrote a bill to keep student loan interest rates low, but Obama has opposed the bill since it is paid for by tapping a special fund created by his healthcare law.  Obama would rather pay for it by borrowing more from China, which will cause interest rates to balloon even more in the long term.

The difference between a student voter and nearly any other of Obama’s target groups is that as purists students will not vote for the lesser of two evils.  Students won’t vote for Obama just to keep Romney out of office.  They have been taught two things very well: follow your heart, and your vote doesn’t count.  This frees them to vote for Rosie O’Donnell, write in their dorm-mate’s name, or skip the voting booth altogether to stay home and put those free morning after pills to good use.

Can Obama afford to lose the student vote?  Not if you believe the statisticians who put the student vote at 1/5th of the population.  A significant decline in this voting block for Obama means Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia,  and Colorado, even if they simply stay home.

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.

A Dog Eat Dog Campaign

By now, no doubt, you have heard how Mitt Romney is a cruel animal hater who put his dog in a kennel on the roof of their station wagon for a family trip in 1983.  The story has been running since 2007 and has been ramped up in recent weeks by comedians and animal rights groups.  Apparently, “dogs are not luggage” T-shirts are all the rage.

What we did not know until recently is that while Romney has questionable ways of transporting his K-9 friends, Obama apparently has better taste when it comes to dogs.  Literally.

I’ll be honest, at first glance at the various headlines, I thought the story was that Obama ate dog food as a kid.  After all, growing up in private school and a half a million dollar Hawaiian house and eventually going to Harvard can make someone very poor.  And then you have those pesky Republicans out there who seem bent on making people eat dog food by subjecting them to abject poverty.

But no, it turns out Obama actually ate dog.  Not so much as a result of poverty, but more as a traditional food served by his stepfather.  Big deal.  Seriously.  Yes, there will be plenty of jokes and puns, but the only people who should be concerned are the crazy dog lovers who think dogs are equal to people, Muslims and Jews whose laws forbid dog eating, and our friends at PETA.  As of this point, I haven’t heard if PETA has made a statement about Obama’s childhood pet’s unseemly demise.  Of course, obviously it’s not fair to call those dogs family pets, but after all this is politics.  Since when did fairness have anything to do with it.

Once you get over the shock of the “Man Puts Dog On Car Roof” headline and think about things like conditions in any dog humane society where they are kenneled the majority of each day, putting dogs in kennels in Airplane luggage holds, and some of the other things people subject their poor pets to in order to get them where they are going, what Romney did doesn’t seem so bad.  In fact, my wife still tells the stories of when they would put their family dog in a duffel bag in order to sneak her into “No Pets Allowed” hotels on family vacations.

People muzzle dogs, attack electric shock collars to their necks, etc.  Haven’t you heard of choke-chains?  In the grand scheme of things, rigging up a station wagon roof kennel with a wind shield for a family vacation should endear Romney to crazy, inventive US dads across the country.  Eating dogs probably won’t help Obama relate any better to the average American.  At least not any better than pictures of him riding in the back of his limousine with his dog.

Democrats Betting on Gridlock

Steny Hoyer is leading the charge among Democrat Senators to put the brakes on an extension of the 2% payroll tax cut.  After nearly a month of blaming Republicans for the delay in passing the extension and parading around middle class Obama supporters saying how much $40 will change their lives, now Democrats in the Senate look likely to be the ones who kill this extension.

Why are Democrats defecting after a deal had been worked out?  Because the current payroll extension bill makes new federal employees contribute 3.1% to their own pensions.  Apparently we should share sacrifice and have skin in the game unless you are a federal employee.  Currently they contribute .8%.  The government picks up the rest of the tab and returns on the pension are guaranteed.

Meanwhile, many middle class Americans contribute anywhere from 3-10% to their 401k plans with no guaranteed returns and a maximum 3% matching contribution from their employers.  However, Democrats have characterized the plan to increase federal employee pension withholding as a budget war on federal employees.

Democrats appear to have figured out that they are succeeding in blaming congressional gridlock on Republicans.  It also appears that their strategy is to maximize gridlock even if it hurts the middle class.  But if Americans figure out why Democrats are holding up this tax cut extension, sentiment could turn pretty quick.  Democrats are betting against the intelligence of American voters.

Republicans Should Capitalize on Obama Budget to Nowhere

Class warfare has become a central theme of the Obama campaign.  In his 2013 budget released earlier this week, President Obama proposed major tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans – those making $200,000 per year or families making over $250,000.  Indeed, the “debt reduction” that the president claims is dependent largely on these tax increases alone. Class warfare and raising taxes on the rich may be beneficial to his political campaign, but it is bad for the economy as it merely redistributes wealth, not create it.  The Republican nominee needs to be committed to capitalism and battle the President’s class warfare, big government, Keynesian economic rhetoric using free-market principles, stressing economic growth, job creation, and wealth creation through lower taxes, less regulation, and smaller government.  Despite what the President claims, his budget does not promote growth and has the potential to be a weak spot that Republicans can capitalize on.

Included in the President’s proposal is around $1.5 trillion in new revenue coming from tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.  These tax raises take various forms; a 9% raise in capital gains tax rates, the dividends rate jumps 25% from 15-40%, the carried interest tax on investment partnerships rise from 15 to 39.6%, and the estate tax rises to 40%.  In addition, the budget calls for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, raising the top-level income tax rates to 39.6%.  Then there’s the new “Warren Buffet Rule“, which requires all those making more than $1 million per year pay at least 30% of their gross income in taxes.

Obama signing The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010

Perhaps the most damning, however, is the tax hike on businesses; Obama has yet to announce his new corporate tax rates, but included in the budget is a “financial crisis responsibility fee” on large banks that amounts to $61 billion, taxing energy companies $30 billion over a decade by ending tax cuts, $148 billion in new taxes on multinational corporations, and another $87 billion by changing how businesses value their inventory.

Romney Stumbles Right and Left

Perhaps we should call it the curse of the front runner.  Romney has made two gaffes and managed to put himself on the wrong side of the left and right.  But the second gaffe, the one to correct the first, should have conservatives thinking twice.

First, Romney was trying to explain how he was focused on the middle class.  But he didn’t say he was focused on the middle class, instead he said he didn’t care about the poor.  Reasonable people know what he meant, but not everyone in the political world is reasonable.  For example: Democrats.  But as Romneyites have pointed out over and over in this campaign, the Republican nominee is going to have to deal with the unfair media and lies from the Democrats and we can’t go nominating someone who is unpredictable and brash who is going to say something off the wa…oh wait.

I know what he meant.

But then Romney tried to fix things by proving to liberals that he cares for the poor as much as they do.  Romney promised to raise and index the minimum wage to inflation.  I wonder if Coulter will defend that one.  Raising the minimum wage is a great way to get poor people to vote for you.  It helped Democrats in 2006.  And then shortly after raising the minimum wage, unemployment among teenagers, college students, and single mothers skyrocketed to record levels.

The idea of the federal government telling states what they should impose on private businesses as a minimum wage should give any conservative, including Ann Coulter and Mitt Romney, pause.  Frankly, the idea that someone who parks cars in Burbank should make the same as a burger flipper in Mobile is pretty crazy by itself.

The proper response would have been something like this: No, I’m not going to raise the federal minimum wage.  I am going to raise wages for everyone by shrinking the size of government and growing the size of the private sector so that everyone can get better jobs for better pay because we will have a better economy.  And I will abolish the federal minimum wage and trust the states and local governments to handle that themselves like the constitution requires.

Mitt has a problem that needs fixing quick if he is going to be the nominee.  He is a panderer.  If he is not careful, Republicans will start asking the same question they did in 2006, no matter how stupid and irrational it is.  Wouldn’t it be better to let Democrats win so everyone can see how terrible they are than to elect a RINO so that Republicans can screw it up?  Hint, no.  We’ve had almost six years now of “wouldn’t it be better to let Democrats win” and it has nearly destroyed our freedoms and capitalist system.

So somebody please remind Romney what side he’s supposed to be on in the debate on the size of government.  This is important.

Realigning the American Political Psyche Estblished by the Liberal Paradigm

   I have spent a lot of time listening to Democrats and President Obama in particular, preach about fairness and making people pay their fair share.  I have listened to an endless stream of liberals position themselves as federal cherubs who are trying to be little government sponsored guardian angels who just want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and that everyone gets what they deserve.    Sometimes I swear I am listening to Tinkerbell talking to Peter freaking Pan, or listening to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, tell me that if I click the heels of my ruby red slippers together, I will suddenly find a magical rainbow that will lead me to a government provided pot of gold.

What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better,  but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes.  It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency,  a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate.  For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans.  Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people.  It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take.  It is how much of what we earn  can we keep.  In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%.  Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes.  But the truth is, that it is no favor!  It is the only decent thing to do!  Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards.  Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people.  Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it.   Until we all realize that,  we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”.  Other liberals phrase it differently.  President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”.  But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair?  Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness.  And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness.   But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator.   And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I.  Barack Obama can not take credit for me.  Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me.  Is that a definition of fairness?  Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy.  Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American.  Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America.  In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee.  They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth.  The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact  that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have  an average wage of $81,258.  Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers  is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make.  Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth.  And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is  a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in.  And that is just on government jobs.  It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people.  The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”.  But few took him at his word.  And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government.  But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives.  We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others.  We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012.  It’s nothing new.  But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare.  And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

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.

Yeah, but isn’t Social Security a ponzi scheme?

Talking about Social Security like it is just some government program that takes taxes from young workers and gives it to retired seniors as a ponzi scheme used to lose elections for Republicans.  But that was back when young, optimistic voters actually thought Social Security would be there for them.  Seriously, is there anyone out there still that gullible?

The height of our nation’s fiscal health came when Bill Clinton played a shell game with Social Security and called it a balanced budget.  Obama has cut Social Security taxes by 2%, despite the program’s fiscal uncertainty, and now wants to cut Social Security taxes in half and pay for it with taxes on the rich that even his own party wouldn’t vote for in 2009 when he last proposed it.  Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in last night’s debate, Obama has now threatened twice to cancel Social Security checks if Republicans don’t vote for his budgets.  What was an illusion of certainty to generation X is a joke to the youngest voters.

Who should be scared, seniors or future retirees?

When Rick Perry says Social Security is a lie and a ponzi scheme, believe it or not he resonates with my generation and younger.  We grew up being told that Social Security was a broken system and not to count on it.  We all got 401k plans and IRA plans because we knew Social Security wouldn’t be there for us.  Honestly, I don’t know a single person my age or younger who says “Boy, I can’t wait to retire and collect Social Security”.  We know it’s a lie, and if we get it, it will be icing on top of what we have saved for ourselves.

So let’s cut through the crap.  Who really has the best answer on Social Security?  Rick Perry wants to move it to the states and let the states run it.  Romney wants to increase the retirement age and change the way Social Security is calculated so that you don’t get paid as much.  But the majority of the candidates on last night’s stage want to offer private accounts for Social Security that future Presidents can’t dip into to balance their budget and future Presidents can’t cancel if they don’t get their way with the legislature.

In fact, of the candidates with scary language on Social Security, Perry and Romney are the ones whose stated plans would keep Social Security closest to what it is today.  Both have acknowledged affinity for private accounts, but both are looking to fix and make the current program solvent.  Cain leads the way on a fundamental overhaul of Social Security by turning it into private accounts, while Newt and Bachmann both support the idea.  Ron Paul’s view on social government programs seems a little up in the air after this last debate, going from a scrap it all approach to a we should get rid of it, but probably won’t approach.

Social Security will never be fixed until we are honest about it.  That much, Perry has spot on.  And Republicans who attack Perry for verbally assaulting Social Security may win senior Democrats, but will lose young Republicans.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme, and Perry isn’t the first person to call it that.  It is a lie, especially when it is slated to go bankrupt before most of us (including myself) will start collecting.  It is not a guarantee as long as the President can withhold checks or raid the fund in order to pretend he balanced the budget.  It is not supported by the Federal constitution.

Democrats can fear monger with seniors on this issue all they want, but anyone under 38 years old should think twice before voting for a party that can’t be honest and speak plainly about Social Security.

 

 

Did Rick Perry Threaten Ron Paul During the Presidential Debate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Watch the entire debate below this post.

 

 Last night’s presidential debate was the first one of the 2012 campaign to actually began to shape opinions and sway voters.  While most voters have not yet placed their bets, the exchanges that took place on a stage in the Air Force One wing of the Reagan Library finally began to provide voters with a true sense of the candidates, their styles, their records, and their vision.  While the program did tend to be dominated by a Perry versus Romney narrative.   The other six did get brief opportunities to shine, but few did so in any signficant way.

 

 While I will leave an in-depth analysis of the debate to other White House 2012 posts entitled “A Two Horse Race” and “Quick Debate Recap“, I will offer a few points of my own about moments in the debate that I believe were quite notable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to see the complete debate