What Theme Should Democrats Choose For Their Convention?

    Bookmark and Share  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.

Bookmark and Share

What Does Paul Ryan Bring to the Ticket?

 Bookmark and Share  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.

Bookmark and Share

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

Bookmark and Share 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

Bookmark and Share

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.

%d bloggers like this: