Out With The Old. In With The New.

ImageLast week should have been a wake up call for the GOP.  They received more positive press than they have in a very long time on the heels of Senator Rand Paul’s 13 hour ‘fillibuster’ in which he ranted and raved against the vague policy of the use drones on American soil.

Standing with Senator Paul and lending their assistance to the filibuster were a couple of the newer members of the GOP Senate.  Most notably Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  Young Senators who seem unafraid to take on the establishment.  The next day the ‘establishment’ was markedly upset and doing what they could to disparage the younger Senators stand against an administration who felt the need to not only not define a very dangerous policy, but who refused to answer simple questions regarding it when asked.  I am of course speaking of Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

What, I asked, would drive 2 influential Senators such as McCain and Graham go on the offensive against members of their own party who had taken a very popular stance and received more positive press for the Republicans than they have had in a couple of years?  Could it be jealousy?  McCain and Graham were both at a dinner with President Obama at the time of the filibuster reportedly trying to iron out a compromise to end sequester spending cuts.  Were the established GOP lead dogs upset that they were upstaged by their younger counterparts?  Whatever the reason for their attacks and name calling the day following the filibuster one thing became clear.  The old dogs need to retire to a shady spot under the porch if the GOP is to ever shed the “Old white man’s party” perception that it has. 

Youth and newness can be a good thing for a party that needs to do some serious reputation rebuilding after years of a war of rhetoric for the public perception that they have been losing and losing badly.  I find it reprehensible for Senators with the clout within the party that McCain and Graham have to try and make illegitimate the best positive polling the party has had in recent memory.  I have to wonder.  Are they dumb, senile or so full of themselves that they feel the need to take shots at their own when the spotlight is shone elsewhere within the party?

Regardless of the reasoning for their name calling outbursts, what happened with the filibuster should serve as notice the the GOP leadership.  There is a youthful movement within the party.  That movement is part constitutionalist, part libertarian, part tea party and part conservative.  If you don’t come to grips with it and learn to embrace what it brings to the table in regards to helping erase the perception of the ‘old white man’s party’ then be prepared to stare at the outside of the White House for a very long time.

Romney’s to Lose

If you’ve followed recent polls, you might be tempted to buy into the media consensus that the race is over.  However, if you know whose side the media is on, it’s easy to figure out why they have come to this consensus.

Has Romney really lost?  Try this: conduct a poll of your own.  Do you know anyone who voted for McCain in 2008 who is voting for Obama in 2012?

Obama will argue in the debate that the economy is getting better because the stock market is over 13,000.  However, the high mark for the Dow is an expensive mask to cover the ugly economy we live in.  The government has borrowed more than a trillion dollars a year from our grandchildren and the Fed has deflated our future by $2.8 trillion to help get us to that 13,000 figure.

In the meantime, unemployment is over 8% and average wages have dropped.  So Wall Street is richer under Obama and the rest of America is poorer.  Where’s the 99% when you need them?

It has been pointed out that Obama cannot expect to receive the same levels of support among various segments of society that he did in 2008.  He has alienated many black voters with his support of gay marriage and failure to produce results that help them.  He has alienated many Hispanic voters as well by failing to keep promises on immigration reform and by selling weapons to Mexican drug lords.  Obama is not as cool as he was in 2008, which will hurt the youth vote, and many Americans have realized that assuaging their racial guilt is not worth the cost to the American economy.  The National Journal shows Romney with an 8% advantage among independents.  Obama cannot win if independents swing to Romney.

So how can Romney lose?  Simple: disaffected Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians may stay home or vote third party.  Obama doesn’t need 50% of the country to vote for him.  He just needs his 47% and 7% to stay home or vote third party.  Even with the awful job Obama has done, it is still very possible that 7% will stay home or vote third party.

Many Christians will not vote for a Mormon.  They won’t vote for a Black Liberation theologian either, but Obama didn’t need them in 2008.  Obama knows this and has started push polling Catholics with robo-calls asking if they can vote for a Mormon.  Many Christian Republicans will avoid Romney because he is perceived as more liberal and a Mormon, whereas they might have voted for McCain in 2008 even though he was also perceived as more liberal.

Libertarians will feel free to vote for a third party candidate because they don’t see any difference from their perspective between Romney and Obama.  Many of these are idealists who support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and see Romney as a big government Republican.

Conservatives may stay home if they believe Romney is going to lose.  Conservatives lean more realistic than idealistic, but are more likely to allow their vote to be suppressed by negative news and polls close to the election.

Romney’s key to success will be preaching the American Dream from a small government, individual responsibility perspective.  Believe it or not, his 47% “gaffe” may end up working in his favor.  Americans could use a healthy dose of optimism and a restoration of faith in the American Dream.  Even independents will vote for that.

Will Isaac Force Republicans To Cancel the Convention?

Bookmark and Share   Odds are that the convention won’t be cancelled but chances for it being severely altered are rising.

As Hurricane Isaac strengthens and plots a potential path of destruction aimed at the U.S. Gulf Coast, the Republican campaign for President finds itself captured in the eye of that storm as the schedule and fate of the Republican National Convention now becomes dictated more by wind speeds,  tidal surges and landfall timing than by the polling, performances and prime time speaking engagements that were suppose to shape the winning trajectory for the Romney/Ryan ticket in November.

On Sunday, as Isaac trekked across the Caribbean and entered the Southern Gulf of Mexico as a tropical storm, its potential proximity to Tampa, the location of the convention, forced G.O.P. convention organizers to essentially cancel the first day of the four day event.  It was a decision based on the priority of personal safety over  political performances.  And it was the right decision.  With over 50,000 visitors traveling to and from an arena that hangs on the edge of Tampa  bay as winds in excess of 65 mph swirled torrential rains around the heads of delegates and white caps of a tidal surge that was consuming the land convention goers stood upon, the chance of injury and even death is all too real to ignore.  For that reason, the cancellation of the first day’s events at the convention is not just good public policy, it is also good political judgment.

One could see a scenario where a line of 2,000 convention goers waiting to get in to a particular entrance at the Tampa Times Forum became ground zero for a freak accident that saw an electrical power line come down and electrocute those standing in an inch of water while in that line .   Or maybe that same line saw dozens in it struck by a store sign that was shredded off a nearby building by a strong gust of wind that carried it into the line of people filing in to the convention.   Such tragedy would not only have taken the headline away from the event those people were attending, Republicans would rightfully have to explain how they could be expected to safely run the nation when they could not even safely run  their own convention?

So Republicans made the right decision and by putting personal safety first, they also made the right political decision.

But now as the exact track and strength of Isaac continues to develop, even though Tampa and the Republican convention remains on its periphery and largely outside of the storms most violent conditions, it is anticipated to strike areas of the Northwestern Gulf Coast and right about when the prime time coverage of the convention is to begin on Tuesday night.

Isaac currently remains a tropical storm but as it meanders over ocean waters that approach temperatures in excess of 90 degrees and is expected to slow down and continue gaining strength from those temperatures, it is expected to become a hurricane with winds up 95 mph and a tidal surge that could range anywhere from 6 to 12 feet high.  Just as Isaac builds up to that strength its eye is expected to be fast approaching the Gulf Coast somewhere around Louisiana and Mississippi at the same time that Republicans begin to make their case for Mitt Romney.

While the convention itself will be taking place approximately 450 miles from ground zero for the landfall of Isaac’s eye, its participants will not be in any danger by any means but just as people like Ann  Romney are suppose to be praising her husband and pointing to the merits of his becoming their next President, a few million Americans from the coast of East Texas to the western panhandle of Florida will be experiencing the most damaging effects of Hurricane Isaac.  This does not create an appropriate setting for a national political celebration. Putting aside for a moment the paramount concern for life and property that will be in jeopardy, the Republican convention would find itself sharing a split screen that is displaying images of roofs being blown off of homes in New Orleans as a throng of jubilant convention goers waving flags and banners while wearing odd hats as they cheer the hard hitting words of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie offering the G.O.P. keynote address.   The surreal dichotomy between the havoc of Isaac and the hoopla of Christie or other engaging Republican speakers would leave a negative impression on those witnessing the spectacle which could be extraordinarily detrimental to Republicans.

So it is with justifiable caution that Republicans are now prepared to augment their convention even more than they already have by cancelling the first day of its schedule.  it is all contingent upon exactly how powerful Isaac will ultimately be as it hits the Gulf Coast and how damaging its torrential rains will be in the days following landfall as the jet stream sweeps its waterlogged remnants over the Eastern U.S. from the Gulf states to the New England states.

The consideration of additional changes to the convention and even its possible cancellation is based upon worst case scenarios and it is the worst case scenario which plays a significant role in the predictions and public warnings issued regarding Isaac.  Hopefully the worst case scenario will not come to fruition.  But if it does, Republicans will be prepared to deal with it accordingly.   However, as the G.O.P. prepares for all the possible scenarios they know that no matter what, they will share the headlines with Hurricane Isaac.   That will ultimately have at least a minimal impact on the bounce that Republicans get out of their convention but it will not drastically alter the final outcome of the election.

Bookmark and Share

Chris Wallace’s One-On-One Interview With Mitt Romney: Complete Video

  Bookmark and Share  A day ahead of the scheduled beginning of the Republican National Convention, Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace aired a one-on-one interview with Mitt Romney, the soon to be official presidential nominee of the G.O.P.

The approximately 13 minute interview (see the complete interview below) provided viewers with a side of Mitt Romney that is not often seen…his more hard hitting side.  In this interview, Mitt Romney was quite direct in his answers, specifically in the areas concerning such things as the President’s attempts to distract voters from the real issues in this campaign.  Romney also offered very blunt but genuine responses to such questions as the practices used by those who have been in control of Romney’s blind trusts.

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

Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: