Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

Advertisements

Ryan Wins Debate as Biden’s Bizarre Laughing Grabbed the Spotlight

  Bookmark and Share    The first and only vice presidential debate consisted of substantive questions that were occasionally met with equally substantive answers, at least in the case of a well prepared Paul Ryan.  Unfortunately the content in the answers were overshadowed by the awkward, bizarre, and often discomforting laughing fits that Vice President Biden consistently launched in to for the first three quarters of the forum. (See video of the full debate here)

Each time Paul Ryan offered an answer to a question, ol’ Joe reacted with a disturbing, uncontrolled, obnoxious, laugh that often made him look like the crazy guy on the bus that mother’s shield their children from.  At one point, Biden’s grimaces and forced cackles made him a perfect candidate for Jack Nicholson’s role in a remake of Stanley Kubric’s “The Shining”‘.   All that was missing was a wild eyed Biden writing “Redrum” across the desk that he sat behind on the stage of debate.

In between Biden’s exaggerated and disrespectful, chortling and snickering, the two men did ignite fireworks as they hammered each other on such issues as Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, taxes, and Medicare.

The sparks flew immediately after moderator Martha Raddatz asked the first question on the hot button issue of the terrorist attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.  Raddatz essentially asked if there was a failure of intelligence leading up to the attack.  For his part Biden, never directly answered that question but he tried to claim that the Administration knew everything it needed to know and acted responsibly and appropriately to the circumstances leading up to the attack, and in the response to the attacks in the days following them.

Congressman Ryan took the opportunity to hammer the Obam-Biden ticket on the issue as he launched in to a familiar but well stated criticism of the way Benghazi was handled.

“It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack,”

 Ryan said;

“This Benghazi attack would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a larger problem,” adding that Obama’s policy toward the Middle East is “making the world more chaotic and us less safe.”

Ryan also charged;

“What we are watching on our tv screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,”

Laughing Joe responded “Not true,” and added;

“With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey,”

The Vice President continued his attack on Ryan’s remarks by also falsely suggesting that proposed Republican cuts in embassy security of $300 million were the reason for the lack of security that made the attacks possible.  Biden further lied by claiming that the Administration knew of no requests for additional security in Benghazi.

Paul Ryan came back by making it clear that we now know there were requests for additional security but the  requests were denied by the Administration.

One of the best lines of the night came from Ryan who reminded voters of just how often Biden puts his foot in his mouth.  After the Vice President tried to distort Mitt Romney’s past controversial remark at a fundraising about 47% of voters, Ryan fired back;

“With respect to that quote,  I think the Vice President very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way”

To which a still laughing Joe responded”

“But I always say what I mean”.

For his part, throughout the debate, Paul Ryan was articulate, knowledgable, convincing, respectful, confident, and firm.  As for the Vice President, he was quick but disingenuous, as he performed in a way that was childish, disrespectful, arrogant, smarmy and at times goofy .  While Biden often made remarks that contained a perfect working class pitch to his base, between his demeanor and attempts to interrupt Ryan a total of 82 times, any possibly strong statements made by the Vice President were overshadowed by his disrespectful, cocky and often flippant attitude.  All of which was compounded by his disconcerting, wacky fits of laughter.

It was clear to me that after President Obama’s disasterous debate performance last week, several strategic decisions forced the Obama-Biden campaign to approach this debate in a way that was intended to make Ryan seem like he did not know what he was talking about and that his ticket was detached from reality.  So they decided to have Biden go on the attack.  Then they also decided to try to take advantage of Biden’s lengthy political career and advanced age as compared to the younger Ryan who was only four years old when Biden was first elected to the Senate.  They had hoped that by laughing at Ryan, Biden would look like the experienced elder statesman who was facing off against the clueless, young punk.  The strategy could have work were it not for two things.  The first being that Ryan knew what he was talking about and lacked the type of arrogance that could have allowed him to fall into that trap.  The second problem with the Biden strategy was that Biden’s laughing was taken to a level so exaggerated and flamboyant, that it came off as unnatural , dismissive, and inappropriate.   In the end, the strategy backfired on Joe and his ticket.

In the final analysis this debate did not reveal anything new to us about the candidates or their positions.  But it did go a long way in  leaving voters with  another negative impression of the Obama-Biden ticket and another positive impression of the Romney-Ryan ticket.  And while  Joe’s shots at Paul Ryan did whip up liberals who were already voting for Obama, he failed to make the case for why another four years of Obama-Biden will be any better the last four.  As for Paul Ryan, his steady demeanor and performance combined with his command of the issues, went a long way in convincing the all important independent and undecided voters that the Obama-Biden ticket is failing us.Bookmark and Share

Why I Love Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

Let me start by saying this: were I the supreme commander of the United States with absolute control, the Romney tax plan would not be the final product.  I have been and will always be a fan of a pure, simple flat tax where anyone can file with anyone else and the government cannot punish or reward you for how you choose to live your life.

Preface #2: I am a licensed tax professional with experience in preparing thousands of personal, corporate, state and some types of international tax returns, so I do have a little bit of street cred on this issue.

paul ryan

The Romney tax plan is something Paul Ryan can proudly run on

All that being said, I love Mitt Romney’s tax plan.  First, it is not wimpy.  It is not RINO, status quo policy.  The Romney tax plan will be easy to run against for someone like Obama, who is willfully choosing to run as dishonest a campaign as he possibly can.  It has necessary trade offs and it destroys the leverage of special interest groups.  It makes it so that billionaires can no longer zero out their tax returns.  It will be a small tax hike for people like Mitt Romney, who can sit back and collect carrying interest and dividends and live comfortably on that income.  It will be a tax break for the middle class.

The best thing about the Romney tax plan is that it ends the power of special interest groups that is built into the tax code.  Currently, people and corporations are punished and rewarded by the tax system for certain behaviors.  For example: if you go to school, you are rewarded.  If you rent your home, you are punished.  If you put all your money in interest-free muni bonds, you are rewarded.  If you sell your capital assets with less than a year holding period, you are punished.  While there is still uncertainty as to which credits, deductions and loopholes Romney would eliminate, the key is that he will be eliminating many and trading them for a 20% tax cut across the board.

That brings me to the second best thing about his plan: it means a simpler tax return.  Just when you thought it was impossible enough to do your own taxes, with Obama’s plan, now you will have to record your health insurance on your tax return, and if you make a certain amount you will have 3.8% in extra taxes on investment income and .9% extra on wages.  Have fun with those IRS schedules, and don’t screw it up or they’ll catch you two years from now plus interest and penalties.

The Romney plan will eliminate pages of schedules and forms from your tax return and trade them for a simple across the board rate reduction.

If Democrats knew enough about the tax code to understand what this plan does, they would support it too.  Instead of lobbing an extra 4.7% tax increase at taxpayers (including small business owners) who make $200,000, plus an additional 3-4.6% if Obama has his way with the Bush tax cuts, the Romney plan eliminates the tricks that the mega rich use to cut their tax rates below 15%.  It is a targeted change to the tax system, not a hatchet rate increase that harms employers.

If Romney is raising taxes on the super-rich who shelter their income, won’t that hurt growth?  No, and especially not compared to Obama’s plan.  Obama’s plan is to increase the dividend rate to the income tax rate.  That’s a tax hike of up to 19.6 percentage points.  Obama plans to hike capital gains taxes by 5 percentage points.  Romney would leave those taxes as is for the wealthy and eliminate them for people who make less than $200,000.  In other words, if you are middle class you will be able to invest money without paying 15% off the top to the government.  That will change the risk reward ratios for millions of middle class investors and shift capital ownership while encouraging saving among the middle class and not discouraging investment among the rich.

Then there are the tax cuts for businesses to make the US more competitive with other countries.  Also, by switching to a territorial tax system, Romney let’s multinational companies invest in American growth without being penalized and removes the incentive to keep investments off-shore.  This will allow companies to bring overseas profits back to the United States to build headquarters, offices, and manufacturing plants here instead of keeping it in other countries to avoid a US tax hit.  Then the income from this new American growth will contribute to American tax revenues going forward.  With the current system, we tax multinational companies if they want to invest dollars in the US, even if they have already paid foreign taxes on those dollars.

Romney will have some difficulty with certain groups.  For example, if he takes away the $250 deduction for teachers buying teaching supplies in exchange for a 20% tax cut, you can bet there will be ads run with poor children holding out their empty backpacks and a subtext about how they used to have school books but Romney took them away.  If Romney touches the mortgage interest deduction in exchange for a 20% tax break, you can bet the National Association of Realtors will be running ads with homeless people talking about how Romney took their opportunity at home ownership away.  Those special interest groups will hang on tough.  Democrat city mayors who would normally decry the rich for sheltering their income will suddenly discover that tax free interest on municipal bonds is the only thing keeping society from turning into some sort of post-apocalyptic jungle.  Never mind that middle class families will pay less in taxes under the Romney plan; threaten to take away their mortgage interest deduction and most do not know enough to be OK with that.

Then there is the valid argument that the rich already pay their fair share of taxes.  But the Romney tax plan doesn’t target the rich who invest their money in American businesses like Obama’s plan does; it targets the rich who get high life insurance payouts tax-free, who shelter their money in tax-free municipal bond interest, who invest in oil and gas wells to shelter income through high amortization expenses, and so on.  Won’t that hurt investment in oil and gas, you may ask?  Not with Romney as President instead of Obama, because he will open up the avenues for exploration to the point where major companies can hire and get involved.  Then average citizens like you and I will have more opportunity to invest in companies that buy and develop oil fields.  And on top of that, we won’t have to pay taxes on our dividends and capital gains from those investments.

I’ll be honest: I liked the Bush tax cuts, but I didn’t love them.  They made some things more complex and left much of the rest of it at the same complexity.  Meanwhile, they cut taxes across the board.  I applauded their passage and re-passage under Obama, but they didn’t fundamentally change our tax code from the garbled, complicated special interest buffet that it is right now.  I hated Herman Cain’s plan; it would have been a more complicated mess than what we have now, and would have been a huge tax hike on the poor and middle class.  I’ve written extensively about it here at Whitehouse12.com.

I love Mitt Romney’s tax plan, and I never imagined that I would.  Additionally, he hired the right guy, Paul Ryan, to explain it, because it will be much easier to distort his plan for political gain than to spell it out in a way that people can understand.  To be sure, it is an over-all tax cut.  There is no denying that.  However, if it inspires growth as it is designed to, the revenue increase will make up the difference and keep it revenue neutral as promised.  Even the Tax Policy Center, which originally claimed Romney would hike taxes on 95% of Americans, has come clean and admitted his plan is viable.

In my mind, no tax plan will be perfect until it is flat and cuts spending by at least $2 trillion.  But this is the next best thing.

Team Obama’s Latest Attacks On Ryan Asks “Why The Hell Romney Picked” Him

  Bookmark and Share  In what can only be considered the epitome of the liberal hypocrisy that is a fundamental component of the thought process that Democrats undergo, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina recently issued a letter to supporters which tries to convince them to make a financial donation to the President’s reelection effort by claiming Paul Ryan was selected as Romney’s running mate for the sole purpose of raising money from radical Republicans for  his own campaign.

Laced throughout the letter are a litany of lies, a host of hysterically hypocritical claims, and a dubious dose of deceitful distractions designed to do for the Obama campaign all that the letter claims Romney is trying to do by selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate.  It even asks “why the hell” did Romney pick “this guy” and claims that the reason is so that Romney could “reassure and inspire ultra conservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency”.

With the President’s campaign spending money at a pace that is quickly becoming faster than his ability to raise money, this letter is simply trying to fire up his base and motivate them to finally start donating.  The letter also seems to indicate that many people who have been Obama supporters in the past have not yet made any donation to his campaign this time around.  That would help explain the air of desperation that this letter reeks of and why President Obama is finding himself having to even deceive even his own supporters.

To understand just how deceptive the President is being, let us break the letter down.

A.- “Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent”:

  1. If that were true, Congressman Ryan would never have drawn brutally harsh criticism for his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program and subsequent vote for the auto bailout, both of which seem to fly in the face of Ryan’s conservative based economic ideology.  However, at the time when the world economy teetered on an unprecedented collapse because of crumbling financial institutions which were freezing lending and thereby halting worldwide commerce, Paul Ryan allowed himself to temporarily forsake ideological purity for what was seen as the immediate need for practical measures to avert a crisis.  TARP was a massive interference in the free market that was sold to Ryan and 90 other House Republicans as a necessary evil to prevent an economic collapse caused by greedy bankers and toxic assets. Predictions that ATMs would be empty, payrolls would be unmet, and that checks would be valueless, provided the incentive to believe that civil disobedience would become the norm and that Armageddon was just one evolution of the earth away, allowed Ryan to compromise his traditional approach to such matters. But that ability to compromise is not an indication of rigid extremism, it was the sign of a man who was willing to make the hard choices needed to provide what at the time were perceived to be suitable and necessary solutions for unique problems involving unique circumstances.
  2. If Paul Ryan was such an extremist, how does Team Obama explain away Ryan’s winning of seven elections in a congressional district that went for Michael Dukakis in 1988,  Clinton in ’92 and ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and Obama in 2008?
  3. If  Paul Ryan is so radical how is that Erskine Bowles, a liberal described Paul Ryan as “amazing” and called the Ryan Budget that liberals are trying paint as too extreme, to be “sensible, honest, and serious”?  Bowles a two time candidate for U.S. Senate from North Carolina happens to have been  President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff and was President Obama’s co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  According to some on the left, if given a second term in office President Obama is likely to have Bowles replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

Cleary, Paul Ryan is not the irrational, radical, extremist that liberals are falling over themselves as they rush to make him out to be and it is also quite obvious that Paul Ryan is far more popular than the left want you to think.

B.- “His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters”;

  1. First, Paul Ryan’s budget plan, does not dismantle Medicare, it reforms it by making it solvent and preserving it for future generations.  President Obama is the one who reduces Medicare spending under Obamacare which creates what he calls the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of 15 unelected government bureaucrats, who will ration care to seniors by underpaying doctors and hospitals.  Ryan’s plan gives seniors more control over their own health dollars by allowing them to choose the plan that provides them with the best value for their money through free market competition.  Furthermore; those who are over 55 will have the option to stay under the old plan.  The Ryan plan simply allows future beneficiaries to put a voucher toward “private health plans,” which  would be regulated by the government and required to offer coverage to all beneficiaries.  So the Ryan plan, does not dismantle Medicare!
  2. Second, the claim that Ryan’s plan is unpopular, especially among undecided voters, is to say the least am unreasonable stretch of reality. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll asked Americans whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports changing Medicare for those under 55 to a system where people choose their insurance from a list of private health plans and the government pays a fixed amount, sometimes called a voucher, towards that cost.” 38% are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Ryan’s Medicare reform, 37% are less likely to vote for that candidate, while 18% say it makes “no difference” in determining their vote, and 7% are not sure.  This does not paint the picture of the electoral death wish that liberals are painting for Romney’s decision to select a running mate who has the courage to present an actual plan to reform a broken system that needs fixing.
  3. A new Gallup/USA Today poll shows that the age group that Democrats would hope to scare the most by Ryan’s Medicare reforms, senior citizens, are actually most receptive to his budget which outlines those Medicare reforms. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan’s plan over President Obama’s plan, while 42 percent back the president. That’s the highest total among the age groups tested.

That all tends to contradict Jim Messina’s claim that Ryan’s proposals are as unpopular as the left would like us to believe.

C.- “Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for.”:

  1. Forty percent of voters identified themselves as politically independent in 2011. According to a  2011 Gallup poll more voters identified themselves as politically independent than ever before.  The poll showed that 40 percent consider them independent, a new high that surpassed  previous record of 39 percent in 1995 and 2007.  Gallup’s historical data shows that the proportion of independent voters in 2011 was the largest in 60 years and little has occurred to change that in 2012.  So why would Mitt Romney assume that he doesn’t need a running mate who can appeal to self-described independent voters?
  2. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Sunday and released Monday indicated that among independent voters Ryan’s favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.  Does that sound like the selection of a running mate who will not be used to appeal independent voters?
  3. If selecting Paul Ryan for Vice President is not in part, an attempt to appeal to independent voters, I must again ask  how Team Obama explains away Ryan being elected and reelected six times in a swing district that has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis in 1988?
  4. Most independent voters are fiscally conservative and appreciate the type of fiscal responsibility and sanity that Paul Ryan represents.

Those factors demonstrate the illegitimacy of the second claim in the Obama campaign letter.  To suggest that Ryan can’t appeal to independents and that Mitt Romney is not even concerned with winning independent voters is either an indication of just how profoundly unintelligent Team Obama is, or of how absolutely disingenuous they are.

D.- “That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama”;

  1. As demonstrated by Politifact even before the 2012 campaign began, President Obama was already the reigning king of negative campaign ads. No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008.  It is how he defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democrat’s presidential nomination and how he won the presidential election. Given that undeniably truth alone, is not obvious that President Obama is guilty of using the majority of his money for the same thing he suggests is an evil practice that Republicans will conduct?
  2. President Obama has now officially spent more money on his campaign and done so more quickly than any incumbent in history. So far he has spent well over $100 million on television commercials, outspending Mitt Romney by 5-1, and in some battleground states Obama has outspent Romney by as much as 8-1.  Even more damaging is the fact that as reported by Forbes, 85 percent of the President’s advertising has been a barrage of negative attack ads aimed at Mitt Romney.

So can someone please tell me why President Obama’s campaign is trying to actually demonize Mitt Romney for following the President’s example and competing in the climate that he created?

The answer is simple.  The President and his supporters have a tremendous problem.  It’s the President’s record.  It’s a record so dismal that it makes it impossible for the Obama campaign or their surrogates to promote his candidacy with any positive reasons to vote him.  Can the President run ads touting the longest sustained high rate of unemployment we have seen in history?  Can he run ads promoting his accumulating a national debt that is greater than the sum total of the debt accumulated by Washington to George H.W. Bush combined?  Can Barack Obama offer Americans a “Morning In America-like” Ronald Reagan style ad?  Hardly.  This has demoralized the left and the President’s supporters.  As such, polls indicate that Republicans are far more engaged in the campaign than Democrats or unaffiliated voters  are and this Obama fundraising is indicative of that.  The only way Obama can inspire his vote is to breed a degree of hatred for his opposition that provides the motivation for them to go to the polls and vote against the Romney-Ryan ticket.

This fundraising letter from the Obama campaign manager is a sure sign of just how desperate things are getting for Team Obama and the Democrat Party.  This letter not only incorporates all 3 aspects of the left’s 3D strategy of distortion, distraction and division, it also highlights the degree of absolute hypocrisy and total lack of integrity behind the Obama reelection effort.  But what I find most striking about it is that the Obama campaign finds it necessary to raise money among his own supporters by offering them so many lies and distortions.  If Obama is willing to decieve his own supporters in order to raise money from them, how far you do you think he will be willing to go in decieving undecided voters?

Bookmark and Share

Why Ryan Is A Strong Choice For VP

Saturday morning, Romney announced his VP pick to be Ryan — no, not Ryan Seacrest — Paul Ryan, budget wizard and Wisconsin representative. Ryan is arguably the most prominent Republican in the House. He is young (42), personable and energetic and has over a decade in Congress. He knows how Washington works and why it doesn’t.

Also, like Romney, he appears to be clean. Everyone has skeletons, especially politicians, but as far as anyone knows to date, the Romney-Ryan ticket may be the cleanest duo since Batman and Robin. It would be a surprise if a real scandal related to either man was uncovered. This may not win them an election but it should win them some fence-sitters.

Ryan is considered the go-to-guy regarding the budget. Nobody in Congress possesses the detailed knowledge he does which is why he chairs the House Budget Committee.

Ryan also knows how to campaign, in fact, he’s never lost an election. He’s 7-0. He has successfully defended his seat against both Democrats and Libertarians. During his first campaign Ryan received 57% of the vote. This is the lowest of his career. Since, he has never dipped below 63%, typically pulling in 67-68% range. In 2010 he earned 68% of the vote.

He is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans. He, along with Rubio, Walker, and other young conservatives is symbolic of the future for the Republican party.

But like all of us, Ryan is not perfect.

He has been on Romney’s short list for months so there’s no doubt the Left has a dossier and media packet on Ryan already prepared for shipping. The Left will also unroll articles comparing Ryan to other short-list folks like Portman (much more “real” experience) or Rubio (could have delivered Florida) to make Ryan appear a weaker pick than he is.

A lack of foreign policy experience will be something the Left tries to exploit. This will create a few headlines but Republicans should be capable of over-coming the criticism by pointing out this election is more about getting our house in order than world affairs. Besides, Obama had no foreign policy credentials a few years back and he was running for the top spot, not VP.

Ryan has proposed an aggressive plan that includes substantial changes to entitlements. Obama mocked it on live television — with Ryan seated in the front row — and the Democrats have already sliced and diced it. Now, with Ryan directly involved in the election, this plan will become a prominent issue. Already distorted, the Left will continue to have at it. To his credit, Ryan is a communicator, so if anyone can effectively walk the common folk through some of the plan details, it’s him.

He’s also likely to be labeled extreme or a hard-Right tea-bagger with draconian outlooks. This is a heavy distortion as Ryan’s “yes” votes on the bank bailouts and on Medicare expansion program prove. But it fits in well with the Left’s tired rhetoric — ‘Republicans want dirty water, polluted air and will abandon the old and poor’.

Many will ask if Ryan on the ticket will put Wisconsin in play? Except it already is. Sure, Obama won Wisconsin by 14% in 2008. That’s huge. But today, that has been trimmed down to about 6%. And don’t forget the message Wisconsin sent during the Walker recall. The better question is — can Ryan deliver Wisconsin? That is unknown but what is known is that Obama and the Democrats, still black and blue from the beating they took during the recall, will now be compelled to spend time and money in Wisconsin, perhaps to the detriment of a different swing state.

Because Ryan is a communicator he should hold his own during the VP debate. Ryan is not a punch-line kind of guy so Biden may score a jab or two. But if properly prepped, Ryan should be able to counter. And if the debate actually delves into issues of substance, Ryan is likely to badly embarrass Biden and show him as the buffoon he is. Ryan’s expertise on budget matters should help bring Romney up to speed, too.

Romney’s selection of Ryan has, intentionally or unintentionally, changed the nature of election. Probably not as much as most pundits think. The economy will remain the primary issue but now political ideology has been introduced. Team Romney must be confident the common folk want to hear about fiscal responsibility and changes to entitlements — complete with fine details. Ryan offers this. Obama wins here also as he now has ideological distortions to exploit. Both sides, particularly the super PACs, will play to this — do you want the anti-America radical Left or the rich loving polluters on the Right — but the reality is voters that answer to strict ideology have already made their decision. Independents aren’t likely to be swayed by the well worn cliches. It is likely to boil down to who the voters feel can get us out of this mess.

People vote for president not VP. But if there is one politician in America currently capable of explaining America’s nasty financial situation, in painful detail, it is Ryan. The Left, by pushing ideology, will guarantee Ryan has to break out the charts. But that’s a Ryan strength.

Like every candidate, Ryan has some shortcomings. But his positives far out distance his negatives. And compared to Biden as a VP, he’s gold. Ryan is informed, intelligent, and a proven leader. He isn’t an elite live audience orator but there are few better with television interviews and presentations. Romney definitely could have made a worse choice. He may not have been able to make a better one.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Why Obama/Biden are Scared of Romney/Ryan

The morning of the Ryan pick, Obama already had a graphic up from the “truth” team declaring that Ryan was going to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, ban birth control, end Medicare, end green energy, and so on.  The only things they left out were shoving Grandma off a cliff in her wheelchair and poisoning us with e.coli.  But why go overboard when Mitt Romney can already use cancer to kill people.

On the other hand, word on the street is that Biden had to change his pants after the 60 minutes interview with Romney and Ryan.

It’s not that Obama is the one that cut $700 billion out of Medicare.  It’s not that Obama’s green energy initiatives remind everyone of Solyndra.  It’s not that Obama is lying when he says Romney/Ryan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans.   It’s not that Most Americans don’t want to force pro-lifers to pay for other people’s $5 birth control that destroys after conception.  It’s more that Ryan is smarter and more articulate than the other three on the tickets.

Don’t hate me, Palin fans, but Ryan is not a cheerleader.  He is a teacher.  He turns platitudes into tangible facts that people can hold on to.  Obama and the Democrats are running around with the mantra that Ryan will get rid of Medicare.  But anyone who is paying attention knows that it was Obama who cut popular programs like Medicare advantage.

Ryan, on the other hand, wants to give seniors the same options for healthcare that Congress has.  He wants to put choices in their hands.  The scary thing about Ryan is that he actually is understandable on these points, and he has the credibility.  No one has worked more on the US budget and solutions to Medicare, Social Security, and healthcare than Paul Ryan.

Democrats aren’t scared that Biden is an inarticulate gaffe machine.  They have the media on their side.  All Biden has to do is coherently string ten words together in a debate without telling someone in a wheelchair to stand up or make an Indian 7/11 joke and the press will announce he exceeded expectations.

Democrats are scared because the media can only do so much.  Eventually Paul Ryan will be heard, and he speaks a language even independents can understand.

Bookmark and Share

The Rubble of Newt 2012

Newt Gingrich has announced on his facebook page that his campaign will start fresh in Los Angeles on Sunday.  This is after he returned from a vacation in Greece in time to have his campaign manager and several other key aides resign over the direction of his campaign.

Gingrich's campaign staffers throw in the towel

Gingrich continues to travel through key early states doing a mixture of campaigning and conservative rallying, and he maintains a strong following through his weekly blogs.  However, it has been a rough campaign since Gingrich tried to distance himself from the Paul Ryan plan and made comments about Obamacare’s individual mandate and personal responsibility that were quickly taken out of context.  Many wrote him off at that point without waiting for an explanation or attempting to square his statements with the consistency of his 18 year anti-mandate record.

A fresh start will help Gingrich, but it may take more of a miracle to get his campaign moving in the right direction: upward in the polls.

%d bloggers like this: