An easy message

Is this race about to get dirtier?  The more crazy moves Obama makes, the greater the temptation will be for Republican candidates to start slinging mud at each other.  I’ve said since the start of this primary that Republicans need to focus on Obama, but so far Newt Gingrich is the only one who has been able to accomplish this.  The result is that he continues to post poor showings in the polls as few Americans are paying attention to anything he is saying.

So why are Republicans getting more comfortable attacking each other?  The right is getting more and more confident of a 2012 victory with every misstep this President makes.  I still maintain though that Republicans need to make this election about defeating Obama.  Already, Romneycare, Perry’s HPV order, and Bachmann’s gaffes are going to make it that much harder for the GOP nominee to win in 2012.  Obama has done plenty of things to run against, and I give credit to Newt Gingrich who has been pointing them out in his weekly newsletters.

I thought I would provide a refresher course to the Republican candidates to help them stay focused. For example, do they want to focus on jobs?  President Obama is the President whose policies have driven unemployment up to 9.1% while running annual deficits over a trillion dollars a year.

In the meantime, he is also the President who is blocking the opening of a US manufacturing plant in South Carolina because it is not a union factory.

He is the President whose federal agents performed an armed raid on a US manufacturing plant because they were buying materials overseas and manufacturing them here in the US instead of manufacturing them in India.  Yes, you read that right.

He is the President who took a public US corporation away from the company’s bondholders, sold the company overseas to an Italian company and gave the proceeds to the United Auto Workers union.

He is the President who unilaterally shut down US oil drilling in key areas of the Gulf of Mexico.  When a judge said his moratorium was unconstitutional and tossed it, Obama simply wrote another one.  In the meantime, he heavily invested US tax dollars into drilling operations in Brazil and promised the US would be one of their best customers.

He is the President who today proposed $1.5 trillion in cuts in private investment and consumer spending through higher taxes, after proposing $400 billion in tax hikes just a week and a half ago.  That’s $1.9 trillion in proposed tax hikes over a two week period when he was promising new policies to create jobs.  By the way, these are the same tax hikes his own party wouldn’t pass in 2009 or 2010.  All this and he is the one proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

How about government waste?

He is the President who after taking $850 billion in stimulus dollars and funneling it to unions and pet projects such as duck ponds and skate parks is now asking for another $450 billion to fix the 152 bridges he neglected with the first stimulus.

Speaking of the first stimulus, Obama is the President who invested billions of our tax dollars into various “green energy” projects that have now gone bankrupt.  And it gets worse:

He is the President who gave a $529 million taxpayer loan to a company owned by one of his biggest supporters, multi-billionare George Kaiser, despite knowing that the company was failing.  Then he restructured that loan so that when the company went under Kaiser would get paid first and taxpayers would get what was left over.

Barack Obama says we need to cut private investment and consumer spending through higher taxes because the rich need to pay “their fair share”.  But when it came to Solyndra, Obama specifically made sure that the rich got their millions of dollars back at the taxpayer’s expense.

How about in Afghanistan?

As Obama slowly draws down forces and quickly pulls out of combat roles, he also keeps fighting for cuts in military spending.  He seems uncommittedly committed to the war in Afghanistan.  Could that have any correlation to there being nearly twice as many US deaths in Afghanistan in Obama’s three years in office as there were during the entire Bush Presidency?

What about Obama’s management of the Justice Department?

While letting the black panthers off the hook for voter intimidation when they showed up in military garb with clubs at the voting booths, Eric Holder took pro-lifer’s to civil court and sued them over standing too close to abortion clinic driveways.

And of course, Fast and Furious.  This was the operation where this President’s Justice Department sold guns to violent Mexican druglords.  Those same guns were used to kill border patrol agents.  Meanwhile, Obama has sued Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws on their own.

All that, and I didn’t even mention Obama’s disastrous healthcare legislation.

If 2012 Republican candidates feel the urge to take a swing at a political opponent, might I suggest that Obama makes for an easy target?

Oh, and one last thing.  Report@whitehouse.gov might be a thing of the past, but if you disagree with what I wrote you can always report me to Obama’s new citizen watch website, http://www.attackwatch.com.

Conservative in a Liberal state? Or Liberal in a Conservative country?

Mitt Romney is becoming more trustworthy, and less likeable. Some of the polish came off of his perfect appearance as he attempted to dissect and differentiate Romney Care from Obamacare. But in the end, the nation of soundbite voters seems to be only hearing the fact that Romney made no apology for his experiment.

Romney gambles on voter education

Of course, Romney is right. At least as far as his healthcare provision enacted on a state level being different than the federal level, he is right. Whether Romneycare was constitutional on the state level, or whether or not it was a good decision, are two completely different questions. Honestly, no conservative is going to look at Romneycare and say “oh, that was a good idea because he did it on the state level.” Romneycare, like abortion, like many other issues that spot Mitt’s past, will be one more thing that Americans will have to trust he won’t pursue as President.

Massachusetts is a liberal state. I grew up in Connecticut and I know that the whole northeast region is owned by the liberals. Even the Republicans in the northeast are split between fiscal conservatives and libertarian conservatives. There are very few good ole’ southern social conservatives in the Northeast. But can Romney win the trust of those social conservatives? As sure as New England is blue, it will also vote for Obama in 2012. Honestly, any President who takes Massachusetts in the general election is probably not the President the majority of Republicans want.

Romney may have an argument when he claims that he was a Conservative running a Liberal state. But the majority of Republicans, especially TEA party Republicans, are hungry for principles, constitutionalism, and trustworthy conservatism. They don’t want a President who is going to jump the Conservative ship because he thinks that’s what the country wants. They don’t want a President who is going to make liberal moves and then turn around and try to justify them. They want a Conservative who justifies conservatism.

Mitt Romney may have a tough time in a debate with Obama convincing the country that he was right and Obama was wrong on healthcare. But despite his perpetual front-runner status right now, Romney will have an even tougher time convincing primary voters that Romneycare was the right thing to do in Massachusetts and the wrong thing to do for the rest of America. Honestly, I was more comfortable with Romney when he was just a flip flopper.

%d bloggers like this: