Obama Can’t Wait To Rip Apart Romney’s Running Mate. No Matter Who It Is

Bookmark and Share  In 2008, within moments of John McCain announcing Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, the campaign of Barack Obama immediately mocked the choice by describing Palin  as a “small town Mayor” who didn’t have the necessary experience.  The response overlooked the fact that Palin was in her second year as a Governor and it ignored all that she had accomplished up to that point.  They also neglected to mention that Palin had more executive and real life experience than did Senator Barack Obama.  The rest is history.  From describing her as a pig wearing lipstick, to claiming that her newborn child with Down syndrome was actually her daughter’s child and not her own and even trying to paint her oldest son as a Nazi sympathizer who joined the white power movement , Palin was mercilessly torn apart by Team Obama and the Obama loving media.

Four years later and the reelection campaign of President Obama can’t wait to make the next Republican vice presidential nominee a victim by “palinizining” them much the same way they did to Sarah Palin four years ago.

Evidence of this deep rooted desire to destroy the reputation of whoever Mitt Romney nominates recently surfaced in my email box, when I received the following from the Obama’s New Jersey State campaign director, Jackie Cornell-Bechelli.

As a loyal Republican operative, I try to make sure that I receive everything that the liberal opposition sends out.  Consider it a form of opposition research.  And despite the LiberalsRlosers@aol.com email that I use when I sign up on the oppositions contacts lists, the left sends me loads of useful examples of just how they are communicating to their base.  In this case, as a resident of New Jersey, the Obama-Biden campaign sent me the email shown above.  It is intended to fire up Obama’s liberal base in New Jersey by inviting them to give examples of how terrible a governor they believe Chris Christie is.

Similar emails have been sent out in the home states of several other potential Republican vice presidential picks including Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio, Ohio’s Senator Rob Portman, and Minnesota’s former Governor, Tim Pawlenty.

Of Pawlenty, Obama’s Minnesota state director writes;

“Both Romney and Pawlenty left their states worse than they found them.”

In Ohio, that state’s Obama campaign director writes;

“Rob Portman has been our senator for two years now, but the most damning pieces of his record involve choices he made as a senior member of the Bush-Cheney administration and conservative congressman, the consequences of which still reverberate on a national scale. As one of the architects of the top-down Bush budget, Portman practically invented the policies that punished middle-class families while exploding the deficit, and crashing our economy.”

And in the case of Florida, the Obama camp writes;

“You see, we know Marco Rubio — all the way from his time in the Florida House of Representatives to his election to the U.S. Senate. But most Americans don’t know him — or the extreme, tried-and-failed policies he’d bring with him to a Romney administration. As Floridians, it’s our job to share what we know about Marco Rubio with the rest of Americans.”

It’s a sign that the Obama campaign is trembling with the desire to assassinate the character and reputation of whoever Romney picks as a running mate.

Each email asks for negative testimonials of the potential GOP nominees from voters in their home states and each one the Obama campaign sent out is a sign of just how fearful the President’s team is of the daunting reelection effort before them.  They are signs of just how concerned the Obama campaign is about the strength of support they can count on from their own base, a portion of the electorate that should be more than willing to reelect the President but seems to be dwindling in size and losing enthusiasm for the President.

This tactic also signals the desperate atmosphere that surrounds the President’s reelection effort.  It is an atmosphere that finds a a helpless Obama campaign having to resort to negative attacks.  The lack of meaningful successes in the Obama record is forcing the Obama-Biden ticket to double down on their 3-D strategy —— distract, defame, and distort.  It’s a strategy based on the need to distract from the issues and the Obama record, and  to defame their opponents and distort their records.   In this case they don’t yet quite know which person to apply that 3-D strategy to as it applies to Romneys running mate, but they can’t wait to get started.  And the truth is that no matter who Romney picks as his running mate, President Obama will do all he can to destroy them personally and politically.  No matter who Romney picks, they will be palinized.

Even if Mitt Romney picked a Mother Teresa-like figure as his running mate, Democrats would set course to burn that person at the stake.  I could see the email to voters of the state that running mate came from;

Dear Voter;

What would you say if I told you Mitt Romney is choosing Mother Teresa for the VP slot on his GOP ticket?

It’s time to start thinking about it.

Mother Teresa is on Romney’s VP short list and she has been for some time. This week her name crept back into the news, and with Romney expected to announce any day now, Catholics have a job to do.

Most Americans don’t know the truth about Mother Teresa. If and when Romney selects her, those who know her best — and that’s us — need to be able to share the truth about Mother Teresa from the get-go.

We must make sure that they understand that Mother Teresa has spent her life exploiting the sick and the ill in an attempt to gain fame and become a candidate for sainthood.  We must make sure that all Americans know the true Mother Teresa, the deceptive right wing religious fanatic who refuses to accept the concept of separation of church and state and who uses the underprivileged and the most helpless in our society for personal gain.

Share what you think Americans need to know about Mother Teresa, and why a Romney-Mother Teresa administration would be a giant step back for middle-class families.

 Your feedback will help hold Mother Teresa accountable on the campaign trail, if it should come to that.

As you know, there’s no lack of material to work with here. Right now, it’s our responsibility to make sure others know what they’d be getting into, too.

Add your voice to the conversation today:

http://nj.barackobama.com/Your-Thoughts-on-Mother Teresa

 Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts,

~Team Obama

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

Who Do You Want Mitt Romney to Pick for Vice President?

Bookmark and Share As the race for President seems to have entered a perpetual state of boredom that is filled with a bumper sticker mentality of shallow stump speeches that offer little insight and a whole lot of repetitive pot shots and one liners, concerned voters find themselves left with but one last intriguing question —- who will Mitt Romney pick for Vice President?

Rob Portman

Aside from the actual election results, the question of who Romney will pick for Vice President is perhaps the only moment of suspense remaining in the campaign.  And as such, who he picks could actually make more of a difference than it has in most of the presidential elections in our recent past.  In fact, according to a CBS News/New York Times  poll released last Wednesday, 74 percent of registered voters said that a candidate’s running mate  matters “a lot” or “somewhat” to their vote,(26 percent  said that it matters a lot, while 48 percent said that it matters somewhat). At  the same time, 25 percent said that it doesn’t matter at all.  However; that sentiment is often expressed at this point in every presidential election, but by the time Election Day rolls around, it is a sentiment that is usually proven wrong.  Yet in the case of Mitt Romney and this extraordinarily polarized electorate, who he picks could make the difference between winning and losing.With swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin at stake, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan  could add the percentage or two to the election result in their respective states that is responsible for putting Republicans over the top in the Electoral College.But with figures like former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or New Mexico’s Susana Martinez also on the list of possible contenders, the combination of their being women and being representative of different minority groups, has the potential to erode an important part of President Obama’s base vote just enough to make a small difference in a multitude of states that Romney is currently considered less competitive in.

Marco Rubio

What Romney is thinking is anyone’s guess though and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. The only thing we know for certain right now is that some names are less likely to be selected than others.  Take Mitch Daniels for example.  He’s a highly successful and popular two term, conservative Governor of Indiana who I originally hoped would be our presidential nominee.  With his command of matters of the budget and fiscal conservatism in general, he would be a perfect running mate for Romney in a campaign that will be based on fiscal responsibility.  Daniels also has crossover appeal and would be a perfect balance for Mitt.  Unfortunately though, Mitch  has agreed to become the President of Perdue University at the end of his term in January.  So he’s out.  Unless of course that decision was thrown out to throw us off the track?

Paul Ryan

The there’s Chris Christie, or at least there was.  He has supposedly been given the honor of delivering the highly coveted keynote address at the Republican National Convention.  That essentially means he won’t be delivering an acceptance speech at the convention.  Unless of course the rumors about his being the keynoter were intentionally thrown out for public consumption to throw us off the track?Another very striking contender was Virginia’s popular conservative Governor, Bob McDonnell.  With his national star rising from Virginia, another key battleground state in this election, his presence on the ticket could deliver a state that is practically a must win for Republicans.  But McDonnell has been named chairman of the Republican platform committee, a job that brings with it the type of contentious floor fights and baggage that automatically scratches him off of any V.P. short list.So those are is at least one name you can take out of contention and two which you can stop taking bets on.  Maybe.

McMorris Rodgers

But that still leaves us with a mix of both likely and unlikely contenders who can potentially be nominated to join Romney on the G.O.P. ticket.  They range from names such Senator Kelly Ayote of New Hampshire, to Washington State Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and from Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, to Tennessee’s former U.S. Senator, Fred Thompson and a host of names in between such as Florida’s Allen West and Jeb Bush, or South Dakota’s John Thune and Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty.  In one scenario, even a Blue Dog Democrat, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler has been floated as a game changing decision for Romney. Polls about who most Republicans want Romney to pick vary based on the audiences that frequent those platforms offering such polls.  For instance, the conservative site Town Hall is probably seeing it’s far right readers choose dark horse contender Allen West, while other more libertarian geared sites might find that Rand Paul is the choice that it’s audience most wants to see selected by Romney.But when it comes to less partisan entities that happen to do professional polling and are therefore far more accurate at polling than those who conduct online opinion surveys , there is one name that keeps emerging as the favorite among voters —– Condoleezza Rice.

John Thune

A Rasmussen Reports poll that was conducted between July 15-16, found  that 65% of likely U.S. voters share at least a somewhat favorable view of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while just 24% view her unfavorably. Those results included 29% who have a Very Favorable opinion of Condi Rice and 6% who had a Very Unfavorable opinion of her. Twelve 12% were undecided in the poll.  (To see survey question wording, click here).  Other professional polling surveys have had similar results and for good reason.Condoleezza Rice is regarded as a very respectable, likeable, admirable leader.  She is also viewed by most voters as someone who is guided more by personal conviction and ideology than Party and partisan politics.  Such a persona could do nothing but help the G.O.P.  and hurt Democrats.  This is especially the case when you consider the fact that as both an African-American and a woman, Condi Rice does have the potential to make significant inroads into a base vote that President Obama needs to keep in his column and that Mitt Romney desperately needs to peel off and bring his way.  Furthermore; Condoleezza Rice can help Romney with the all important independent vote that will essentially determine who wins in November.Whether Romney agrees with that assessment or not is anyone’s guess but I will state this.  If he doesn’t agree with that opinion, he’s a dope.

Condoleezza Rice

While I like many of the potential candidates for Vice President, I believe that Condoleezza Rice is the one person  who can bring everything that Romney needs to the ticket.  And I mean everything.  Not only does she cover the electoral aesthetics of being a women and being African-American, her presence on the ticket adds a degree of historic value that can benefit Republicans much the same way it benefitted Democrats in 2012.  Add Rice’s ability to articulate conservatism and the traditional American values of independence, freedom, personal responsibility better than practically anyone else other than Allen West and what you have is a running mate who is an electoral goldmine.But it’s not just the electoral politics that makes Rice such a good choice for Romney.  It is her ability to be a great President that makes her not just a good choice, but also a potentially good President.  And afterall, is that not what a Vice President is suppose to be? Few politicians have the experience and knowhow that Condoleezza Rice has and few Vice Presidents would be more immediately prepared to assume the office of President at a moments notice as she.Still, there are three things that stand in the way of a Romney-Rice ticket.

One is the fact that Rice herself has not seen fit to show any interest in the job.  Yet despite the lack of interest, her recent penning of an inspiring editorial in the Financial Times raises some question as to exactly how disinterested the former Secretary of State is in getting her country back on track.  Problem number two is Rice’s stance on abortion.  Rice does not support banning abortion.  She does however strongly support placing many restrictions on how its practice.  While that position may be tolerated by some on the right, it will not be acceptable by others, especially those who are already doubtful about Mitt Romney’s own committment to the right-to-life cause.

Lastly is the political fear factor that Romney and his consultants may have regarding Condoleezza Rice’s ties to the Bush Administration.  They may fear that teaming Rice with Romney will provide Team Obama with an unintended campaign theme that links Romney to the not so popular former President.   While such political fears are worthy of considering, political reality should lead Romney to realize that Condoleezza Rice brings far more positives to the ticket than negatives.  And Team Romney should also realize that if the Obama campaign wants to revisit Condoleezza Rice’s record, they will be entering in to a very dangerous zone.  Rice will be able to defend her record and the Bush record better than anyone else and she will also be able to remind the American electorate that it is President Obama who essentially carried out her policies in Iraq and Afghanistan even though he and his Vice President ran against those policies in 2008.

All things considered, I believe Condoleezza Rice would be the best choice for Romney and while I would certainly be gleeful over the selection of someone like Marco Rubio or even the man whom I believe Romney will ultimately choose, South Dakota Senator John Thune, I can’t help but believe that only Condoleezza Rice can provide the momentum, gravitas, and appeal that Romney will really need if he wants to win the independents, and undecideds who will decide who the next President is.

What do you think?  Cast your vote for Vice President here.

Bookmark and Share

Do Democrats Destroy Cities?

Here’s a little nugget you can chew for a bit. The following list is the top ten cities (over 250,000 population) with the highest poverty rate. The year and the percentage of the population at or under the government defined poverty level is included.

City Name 2009 2010
Detroit, MI 36.4% 32.5%
Buffalo, NY 28.8% 31.5%
Cincinnati, OH 25.7% 27.8%
Cleveland, OH 35.0% 27.0%
Miami, FL 26.5% 26.9%
St. Louis, MO 26.7% 26.8%
El Paso, TX —– 26.4%
Milwaukee, WI 27.0% 26.2%
Philadelphia, PA 25.0% 25.1%
Newark, NJ 23.9% 24.2%

Can you guess what all of these cities have in common? They all have had Democratic mayors for at least the last two decades (note most of the cities have had Democratic mayors for more than 50 years).

City Name Democrat Since
Detroit, MI 1961
Buffalo, NY 1954
Cincinnati, OH 1984
Cleveland, OH 1989
Miami, FL All Democratic Mayors
St. Louis, MO 1949
El Paso, TX All Democratic Mayors
Milwaukee, WI 1908
Philadelphia, PA 1952
Newark, NJ 1907

So, can we conclude that Democrats and their policies have lead to the cesspool cities we see here on the list? Not definitively. The correlation, however, is striking.

It’s no secret that a major component to democratic policies is to enlarge the number of citizens that rely on government handouts. This is accomplished by depressing the economy, creating new entitlement programs or by changing qualifying requirements for entitlements already in place. Regardless of the approach and the “save society” rhetoric, it always boils down to taxing productive members of society and then redistributing that money to the less productive or to the outright unproductive. Those that receive something for nothing, in theory, get used to their situation. They want it, or better yet for the politicians, they need it to continue and will then re-elect the re-distributors. There’s no saving society. How can there be if you’re intentionally depressing the economy to create more dependency? That is a sales pitch. And there’s no genuine attempt at improvement for the individual and his or her situation. Again, how can there be when you re-define or create new programs that allow for or actually promote levels of unproductive behavior? It is money shuffling and nothing more. You and I know it as buying votes. This is all well and good for the politicians but over the longer term, buying votes creates significant problems for society.

The most obvious is, what happens when there are more people living off the government teat than are producing the milk? America is heading for that situation faster than any Liberal or Democrat will admit. The productive know however, and perhaps that is why the partisan rhetoric has been so shrill. But there is a second problem with vote buying that gets very little lip service and it is what leads to large percentages of poverty in our cities. It is known as the Curley Effect. (continued, page 2 link below)

Named after James Curley, a highly successful yet notoriously corrupt mayor of Boston, the Curley Effect describes the conditions wherein taxes or other government policies are targeted to the detriment of particular populations to the point where they head for the hills. In Curley’s case, as a Democrat he excessively taxed well to do yankee “Brahmins”. Curley not only bought Irish votes with the cash but chased the wealthy yankees out of the city. Raise taxes again and again and again and eventually those that can escape will do just that, leaving behind the poor and those reliant on entitlements. Less wealthy people in the city to tax also means less money for upkeep. Add these together and you get city cesspools with large populations of poor.

Although Baltimore, MD, is not on our list, it is another real world example of the Curley Effect running out of control. Steve Hanke and Stephen Walters write,

The city has lost 30,000 residents and 53,000 jobs since 2000, marking the sixth consecutive decade of population and employment exodus. About 47,000 abandoned houses crumble while residents suffer a homicide rate higher than any large city except Detroit. The poverty rate is 50% above the national average…

In modern Baltimore, the (political) machine has exploited class divisions, not ethnic ones. Officials raised property taxes 21 times between 1950 and 1985, channeling the proceeds to favored voting blocs and causing many homeowners and entrepreneurs—disproportionately Republicans—to flee. It was brilliant politics, as Democrats now enjoy an eight-to-one voter registration advantage and no Republican has been elected mayor in 48 years.

But Baltimore’s high property taxes have repelled investment in physical capital for decades. As that capital decayed and became scarce, labor became less productive and less prosperous. In 1950, the city’s median family income was 7% above the national average. Today it is 22% below it.

The practice of buying votes through taxation and entitlements, rather than sound government policy, is ultimately flawed. This is not to imply that all Democratic politicians intentionally try to run a city, a state or society into the ground. Clearly, for love of power, some do. Regardless of individual political motives, the practice inevitably leads to class warfare, population and industry exodus as well as corruption and urban decay. History shows productive Americans will tolerate taxation only to a certain point before they exit in mass or rebel. So for Democrats and Liberals to believe the American people will ultimately allow themselves to be excessively taxed, perhaps into poverty, is as silly and short-sighted as believing American society can be saved with entitlements.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Obama-tax Is Law, What Now?

It’s time for a vote. Don’t you think? A vote on Obama-care, sorry, Obama-tax. A recorded vote. A roll call. Let’s hear some good old fashioned Yeas and Nays. It’s time for politicians from both parties to go on the record regarding the Obama-tax. It should happen as soon as they return from recess. Playtime is over, kids, it’s time to answer to the American people. The Republicans will vote. In fact, there’s mumblings they’re scheduling one. I’ll try and confirm that. If so, great. Let’s make sure votes are recorded because we need Democrats on record as to where they stand on this massive tax.

Democrats shouldn’t have a problem with this. After all, they’ve have made it clear over the last three years they want to raise taxes — remember — to get people to pay their fair share. Well, now they can go on record and declare where they stand on Obama-tax. Most likely Democrats will resist this any way possible. But that’s why we pay the Republicans the big bucks. They need to figure out how to make this happen. We want names. Television coverage would be good, too. If we chant, if we rant and if we rave loud enough, there will be a recorded vote.

Consider that some Democrats up for re-election, as you read this, are distancing themselves from Obama’s policies. Some, I think we were up to 14 or so at last count, have bailed on the national convention. Some don’t want Obama any where near them or their state. To these politicians, Obama and all he represents, is toxic. Sort of the old, ‘thanks, but no thanks’. And now we can add Obama-tax as more radioactive fallout. Now is the time.

The Left knows this is a big problem. Already we are back to the word games. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the “fine” is really still just a “penalty.” It’s a penalty or fine when they need it to be — like when talking to the American people. But it’s a tax when they need it to be a tax — like when they argued in front of SCOTUS. San Fran Nan said tax or penalty, heck, it’s Washington-speak. I heard David Axelrod on television, perhaps it was Friday, call it a punishment on free-riders or free-loaders — it’s a punishment on somebody. Ain’t that a peach — Democrats now calling the “needy”, those they supposedly protect, free-riders.

Democrats are the entitlement party, they promote hand-outs and free-rides as a way to buy votes. Suddenly, they’re willing to admit they’re into punishing the peasants? Ax-man, you crazy cat, tell us something we don’t know.

And it’s going to be pricey. That’s a winning bet for sure. Jump back to March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — ready — $1.76 trillion. And if you bet that the middle class will bear the brunt of Obama-care, you’d have a winner, too. And just as certain is this, no matter what word games Democrats play — they can call it a fee or a penalty or punishment for freeloading — the truth is, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, calls it a tax.

And so now it is time to take action. Contact your representatives at the House and Senate. Phone them, email them, demand a recorded vote on Obama-tax. Someone more creative than I should come up with a catchy slogan the citizens can rally around. Maybe call it Phone Call – Roll Call or Pound the Politicians Day. Even better, we can make it a couple of days. Ring up their phones until their ears hurt. Pound away with emails. Prompt your family and friends and neighbors to do the same. Republican or Democrat, the people are in charge in America. We didn’t consent to Obama-tax. It was jammed down our throats. Let’s create such noise that we read headlines like “The people demand a vote”. Who knows, maybe we can take down Obama-tax in July. And if not, that’s all right, we know who to chase from office come November.

Obama’s Bain Capital Smoke And Mirrors

Bookmark and Share Memorial Day brings together family and friends in honor of those that gave the ultimate sacrifice for this country. And this holiday, with the exception of Independence Day, generates political discussion like no other. Some people will debate how all this occurred. Other folks will debate who is responsible. But what will not be debated anywhere, is the fact that America in rough shape.

Three plus years into the supreme ruler’s reign, enough time has now passed for all adult Americans to somehow be effected by the current state of things. Those with jobs, for instance, know family members or friends that have lost them. Perhaps they suffer anxiety wondering if today is the day they get called to the chopping block. Homeowners have lost their equity. Many Americans know friends or family or neighbors that have lost their homes. Shoppers have seen food prices rise and drivers have seen gas prices climb. The sad state of the union is more than apparent — it is painfully obvious.

Informed conservatives raised concerns about Obama being too anti-business before his election. Meanwhile, McCain and other establishment Republicans were either oblivious, didn’t care or were too timid to bring it up during the campaign. The media, of course, hide Obama’s background and political outlooks from the common folk.

Even post-election, as conservatives began putting the pieces of the puzzle together, as they supplied the meaning and intentions behind Obama’s political moves, skepticism and dismissal were the typical responses. Well, now the cat is out of the bag. Obama is indeed hostile to business. He has proven he will intentionally hurt industries (and therefore America) for his own political gain. Memorial Day conversations across the country can attempt to unravel whether Obama’s hostility toward business is good or bad for the country but, like the sad condition of the economy, his actual anti-business leanings cannot be disputed.

And that begs the question: just how moronic is Obama, really? For millions of Americans this election is everything about the economy. And yet, Obama and his campaign wizards, using Bain Capital as cover, think it best to attack capitalism. Is that wise? Sure, the hard left loves it but they’re votes are in the bag. And clearly Obama will get a percentage of naive college students to bite. Except all it takes is a good keg party to jeopardize those votes. So who is the target for the anti-capitalism message? Moderates? Is it for the moderates that are worried about when they have to face the chopping block? Is he targeting the moderates that are trying desperately to scrap together the cash for a summer vacation. Or is it the moderates that just saw Hewlett-Packard announce last week they’re dumping some 27,000 jobs because they can’t turn a profit. America’s economy is crumbling around us and team-Obama has chosen an anti-capitalism campaign message. How astonishingly ludicrous. Who’s in charge?

It’s no surprise that over the last couple of weeks some 15 Democrats have backed away from this simpleminded message, shouting ‘he said it, not me’ as loud as possible, including Massachusetts Governor and Obama-buddy, Deval Patrick. These politicians know who’s buttering their bread.

Didn’t Obama, or at least his campaign folks, watch the Republican primaries? If they had, they would’ve seen what you get from attacking capitalism — no matter how deftly you use Bain Capital as cover. You get backlash, you get scorn and get an immediate drop in numbers. Will he continue down this path? Saddled by an enormous ego and loath to admit mistakes, Obama may well indeed try to ride this hobbled pony to the finish line. Patrick and the others seem to think he will.

But it’s not rocket science. Ultimately, the candidate that successfully answers the most questions — who, what, where, when, why and how — regarding America’s ability to do business is going to get elected. Capitalism, not government, rings the cash register. And it is that sound, cha-ching, that Americans want to hear.

Bookmark and Share

View Marco Rubio’s CPAC 2012 Speech in its Entirety

Bookmark and Share   As one of the opening speakers at the 2012 CPAC event, Florida Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated why he is the future of the G.O.P. and the nation.  He offered a speech that marked with a wonderful mix of  humor, sharp criticism and hard facts that highlighted the differences between the left and right and the exceptionalism of our nation which stems from the conservative ideology that founded it.

One of the best lines comes when Rubio related to the crowd in telling of how as a freshman in the Senate, he was initially floored by being in the presence of so many respected, prominent, national leaders and at times could not believe he was there, in the presence of all of these powerful people.  He then recalled how six months later he couldn’t help but wonder how those same people ever got there.

Rubio’s speech was hard-hitting and accurate and he delivered it so fluidly and naturally that one could not help but tell that they were listening to a future President of our nation.

Video from Rightscoop.com Bookmark and Share

 

%d bloggers like this: