2012 – Obama’s Reelection Appears More Difficult by the Day – Look to Massachusetts and Beware the Trojan Horse

An article from Politico: Map Narrows for Obama Reelection speaks to the difficulty the President may have due to the shift in political think of key states who had voted Obama in 2008, shifting Republican in 2010 mid-terms. True, the President’s approval ratings are currently at 44% which at below 50% going into general election cycle does not bode well for the incumbent, however, there is one "stragey" that Obama White House Advisor, and anticipated 2012 Campaign Manger Advisor and Campaign Manager, David Axelrod, may employ which would allow Obama to be elected to a second term.

The Massachusetts experiment:

Back in 2007, David Axelrod (commentary from MyBarackObama here intended to use Massachusetts and Deval Patrick’s 2006 win, (click here for discussion screenshot) to propel Obama into the White House. It was a perfect model, right down to the slogans, which every move was revived in 2008 – “Yes, we can”.

Forward to the 2010 Massachusetts Governors Race:

It goes without saying that Axelrod’s comments on the eve of the 2010 Mid-terms regarding his keeping close eyes on Massachusetts bears some scrutiny. Deval Patrick won the race for election primarily due to Tim Cahill, a former Democrat in the Patrick Administration, who suddenly decided to run for Govenor as an Independent. Cahill took an astounding 8% of the vote (which is unusually high for an independent running in Massachustts), leaving Patrick with a 49% win, had Cahill not been the Trojan Horse in the race, Charles Baker would have been Govenor. With Patrick’s’ campaign allegedly inside the Cahill campaign, it was glaringly apparent that Patrick would prevail under this scenario - the “Independent” candidate being a front for the Patrick campaign.

Therefore, as the nation moves forward to 2012, should an independent candidate, or candidates emerge, with any ties to the Democrat party, (especially if that individual suddenly, like Cahill, decides to enter the race as an “independent”), that candidate or candidates should be carefully vetted by the people – be mindful of the Massachusetts model.

Dissecting Massachusetts - The 2010 Mid-terms - From Dysfunctional to Viable – The State GOP and Baby Steps – Analysis

Jennifer Nassour, the Face of the Mass. GOP, image Massgopconvention.com

It began with the hope that Massachusetts would step forward and join the rest of the nation November 2, 2010 by electing Republicans to both state and congressional offices – it did not happen – reality is that change of that magnitude does not happen overnight. From the press, both local and national, to progressive community organizations, to a Democrat organization has roots in every possible nook and cranny in the State; the odds were stacked against the election of Scott Brown in January of 2010. When Brown won, against the odds, expectations for the GOP rose inside the state, however, from the outside, the pundits, specifically Beltway and the Massachusetts Press, continued to pound home the fact that Brown’s win was an anomaly and would most likely not be repeated. When the mid-terms steamrolled into November 2nd, the GOP losses were taken in stride by the press and the pundits, as if the State GOP and the Massachusetts electorate acted in a manner that was par for the course.

The celebratory Press touted the reelection of Democrats from the State and Federal offices without once acknowledging the fact that these incumbents had to fight for their positions, using every means available, the majority of them for the first time in decades. The adjectives used in the press regarding the State GOP were predictably negative and dismissive; most recently an article in the which speaks to the State GOP and finger pointing at party chair Jennifer Nassour .

Smoke and mirrors are in play at this point in the game, along with some local political maneuvering that is typical of any party when faced with a loss (GOP) and the possibility of a trend developing (State DNC and Press). One has to look realistically at the facts about what took place in Massachusetts during the past two years, to understand the magnitude of the state politics – it is far from business as usual – no matter how often the pundits, the press, and the majority party attempt to hammer home a growingly tired message.

This resurgence is said to have begun with Scott Brown and his election to the U.S. Senate in January, however, the truth of the matter is, there were individuals Republicans across the state who had already committed to running for offices (State and Federal) long before the Brown candidacy was announced. These individuals, along with the states individual conservatives, several of the Town and City Committees and a growing Tea Party movement, were specifically responsible for Browns win. What surprised many who had worked tirelessly for Brown’s campaign was how quickly his election was dismissed as an anomaly – these grassroots activists and candidates knew that it was just a beginning, and that, having grown tired of a State that was overburden with taxes and entitlement programs, and a deep seeded opposition party, the road to victory would be long and arduous. The State GOP’s convention in April was shockingly well attended, and the party atmosphere that pervaded was buoyed by the Brown win, a win that was the result of those activists, the majority of whom were not in attendance. The candidates who emerged from the convention to run for the State offices: Charlie Baker specifically, appeared to be more than capable of taking the Governor’s office and then summer barbeque's and visits with local GOP offices began, and despite the constant drumbeat of press releases from the State Party Chair, Jennifer Nassour, the press barely looked at Baker, instead focusing mainly on Patrick and Democrat turned Independent (for the election) Tim Cahill, if the race or any race were mentioned at all. Nassour one must understand, did not control the Baker Campaign, that was left to others, and reports from the South Coast suggest there was little effort put into that area from the beginning to the end on Nov. 2nd. Cahill, who took 8 points, (higher than any other independent running previously for Governor), was the key to Deval Patrick’s victory, and should have been minimized from the outset (Monday morning quarterbacking).

By the time September rolled around and the Commonwealth held its late primary contests, the candidates which emerged had little time to get out and amongst the electorate, raise funds and get out the “vote”. It was not that the electorate was apathetic; it was that Massachusetts was being touted nationwide as a state that was “safe democrat”, across the board. This sends a message that funds diverted to Massachusetts are basically wasted. One race did get national attention and that was the race in the 4th Congressional District, where Sean Bielat ran against a growingly annoyed Barney Frank; Bielat’s campaign did get the money necessary to mount a solid challenge, while the balance of the state’s federal and state challengers had to rely on individual in-state contributions and loans. What is most interesting however, and goes unmentioned is the fact that all 9 offices had to be defended, for the first time in decades, and that the usual 75% or more votes accumulated by Congressmen such as Frank, Neal and Tsongas, were reduced to 50plus% leads over their GOP challengers. They were forced to spend money, the state DNC and the National DNC were forced to spend money as well as bring in the President and former President Bill Clinton in an attempt to buoy up incumbents, who by all reports outside Massachusetts , were virtual shoe-ins.

Four years ago, one had a Dickens of a Time finding an active Town or City GOP, today, there are more in place, some of them functioning, some not. One local Western Massachusetts City Committee, held the last meeting in the Spring, and decided to sit out the summer and the election, in order to “help the candidates”, where reason would dictate that time would have been better spent coordinating with local Tea Party groups, and recruiting new members, knowing full well that Democrats were registering as Republicans by the hundreds, and had been since January of 2010. How much of an impact did that have on the races? It is hard to tell, however, one can bet an engaged City Committee coupled with grassroots organizations could move Massachusetts towards a purple hue in a matter of two election cycles.

The grass roots are neither disheartened nor disbanded; of course, there were the usual few days of angst over having worked so hard to find that one’s chosen candidate had fared well, but missed the mark – it is a natural course of events. However, the State GOP, including the Chair Jennifer Nassour, would do well to understand that those grassroots actives are now meeting and looking towards 2012, with specific goals and targets in mind. The word is out on the ground - hold onto those signs.

It is naiveté on the part of those grassroots organizers? Hardly as they understand how close so many came with so little financial backing to unseating deeply entrenched incumbents, and how, within a matter of 13 hours Democrats, aided by Community Organizers managed to rouse thousands to the polls in order to ensure the State remained blue.

Although it is also natural to blame the “head coach”, in this case one Jennifer Nassour, the State Party Chair, one must also take a moment to understand that Ms. Nassour came into an office that had previously done little to nothing, with the exception of electing Mitt Romney to the Governor’s office. There was no base, or a small base to energize, coupled with a group of city and town GOP Committees that may or may not get involved (other than an annual barbecue, golf game or cocktail party). No mean feat to pull off an election to the position of dog warden under those circumstances, given the time frame. Therefore, if the State GOP and Ms. Nassour are remotely interested in taking the gains made in 2010 (and yes, there were gains, considering the overall results), then it is time to tap into every single group, regardless of how the Tea Party may play in Boston, or Northampton, or Amherst, or the Log Cabin Republicans may play in Worcester, or if a candidate might not be up to the Country Club sniff test – they all need to be incorporated into one machine, given a good deal of attention – including listening to ideas that are sound on how to roll out the 2012 elections to win more seats, even Congressional seats – it is possible, but it takes time to build an organization, and one has to have the will and the ability to work with every available hand on deck.

So to those who think someone else may be better suited to Chair the State Party, they had best have the interest of all the Bay State Conservative factions in mind, or the party will self-perpetuate. That is the Party infrastructure, not the individual grassroots candidates and organizations forming in more cities and towns by the day (there are an astounding number of these conservative committees in Massachusetts), and those will be taking the credit for moving a state legislative, senate or Federal Congressional candidate forward to victory in 2012.

In conclusion, it is easy to play the Monday-Morning quarterback, however, looking at the overall results, given the restrictions of time (both as Chair and in the general cycle form the primary to the election), Nassour performance was just fine. She worked with what she was handed, and although one can agree more could have been done to take advantage of grassroots and attempt to get those existing Committees to organize on the ground to get out the vote for all candidates, one must also agree that type of herculean effort takes a bit more time. Yes, Virginia, there is a conservative base in Massachusetts, one that has grown to be competitive with the Democrats, one that has watched tactics and is prepared to follows suit, but one that must be acknowledged and given the tools necessary to get out the vote – and it can be done, in 13 hours, on both sides – if instead of bickering or finger pointing, the work begins today. If not, then, like the Brown election, it will be those grassroots standing alone, who will, office by office, stand up to business as usual in Massachusetts. It will not happen overnight, it will take decades if the various factions in play do not work together.

Change You Can Believe In - Obama Debt Panel - Cut Medicare, Social Security

Democrats have consistently been the party most often known for their dedication to social entitlement programs, however, times appear to to have changed. Bloomberg is reporting that Obama's Debt Panel has called for cuts to Social Security and Medicare - to the tune of $3.8 Trillian.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020.

“This country’s out of money and we better start thinking,” said co-chairman Erskine Bowles. Without “tough choices,” he said, “we’re on the most predictable path toward an economic crisis that I can imagine.”

There are other solutions that have been offered by previous administrations, most recently, George We. Bush suggested that Social Security be privatized, allowing those who would receive benefits the option of participating in a retirement savings plan similar the the one used by employees of the Federal Government. His suggestion was met by near hysetria from the Democrat Party at the time (2004 his second term).

Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA8) Up for Re-election in 2012 – Battles to Maintain Power in Congress – Capuano (D-MA) No to Pelosi – Boston Globe Scolds

Pelosi Seeks Power - here with Obama - mutual adoration apparent - image PatDollard

Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, is determined to seekthe position of Democrat Minority Leader, regardless of the fact that some in the Democrat Party would prefer another member take the lead. Pelosi, who, despite support for her Republican Opponent in 2010, John Dennis, coming from every corner of the 8th district, including the endorsement of Cindy Sheehan, won re-election by a an astounding 80.1% of the vote. Pelosi, who along with the House Democrats, lost leadership positions when Republican’s regained control of the Congress in November, simply refuses to go away. Perhaps it is the fact that she did so well in her own District, or the dogged nature of the Progressive, whose ideology trumps reason in all cases, that leads the most unpopular figure in American politics to compete in what is partially, a popularity contest.

All leadership positions, regardless of which political party controls the house, are subject to politics inside the party; members must convince their “peers” that they deserve a specific leadership post. Nancy is now in the stages of doing just that, while the GOP is perhaps her biggest cheerleader. Her biggest detractor however, comes from the Bay State, where one would think that Progressive Democrats would heartily support Nancy’s quest to be the Minority Leader – not so.

The Boston Globe reports today, (or more to the point opines and blasts several Democrat incumbents for bad manners) suggests that Michael Capuano (D-MA8), is not pleased with Nancy’s performance and suggests she seek retirement. Capuano, unlike the balance of the 9 Massachusetts Congressional Representatives, did not face a tough fight for reelection this year (he ran uncontested. He understands the consequences should Pelosi remain the face of the Democrat Party. It was the numbers that came into play in the once “secure” Democrat Commonwealth of Massachusetts that made Mike stand up and take notice.

Normally, members of Congress in blue states like Massachusetts and California, do not even face a serious challenger, and go unchallenged for decades. In 2010 that changed, and both California and Massachusetts saw challengers in Districts that are home to some of the most previously powerful in Washington. For example, when looking at Districts the New York Times suggested would be taken by each incumbent with at least 70 plus percent of the vote, they actually came in a tad too close for comfort. The MA2 (Richard Neal (Formerly seeking Chair of House Ways & Means), saw 1st time challenger Tom Wesley with little financing, take 42.7% of the vote, MA5 (Niki Tsongas), saw 1st time challenger, Jon Golnik take 42.3% of the vote, the open seat in the 10th District, Democrat Bill Keating won by merely 4 points, and in the MA4th, Barney Frank (former Chair Finance) was chased by Sean Bielat, and won by 10 points, which had Barney Frank fuming (see Globe article on Frank’s bad manners.) The balance of the races, were in the same vein in MA, with entrenched incumbents coming in with lower overall percentages than in previous decades.

Capuano understands that those results are encouraging, not to the Democrats, but to those who are now considering run in 2012 at the same Congressional Representatives who only won by 10 points or even 20. The challenges will come, and these former powerful members of the House, will have to begin fundraising again, to battle opponents unknown. It is that with Nancy Pelosi’s face as leader, which will be used in every possible ad against those who support her, which has smart Capuano running as far away from his former protégé as possible.

It will be interesting as the infighting continues, to see if, between now and January when the new Congress convenes, who will take the titles of Democrat Minority Leader and Whip. Capuano may be hoping it is a moderate face, however, Nancy is not going away quietly, and may, in the end, manage to take the lead. According to the Globe, all Nancy Pelosi needs is the backing of the California Congressional Representatives (D) as well as the 10 Democrat Massachusetts Congressional Representatives and she will be well on her way to meet her goal. Note that report was made prior to the Capuano announcement/analogy vis a vis Pelosi and baseball (the losing coach is normally fired (paraphrased), leaving Pelosi, 1 short. Surely there are other Progressives, left in the Congress who will stand for Pelosi, and give the GOP the opportunity of taking the rest of the House and Senate in 2012. Of course, this depends on whether or not the GOP stands on its principals and delivers on the promises made - that is the only option before these new Congressional members.

White House Leaks – Rumors of Obama’s Prescription Drug Use and Invocation of the 25th Amendment Start to Roll on the Web

Obama's Temper Flares at a Rally - image clutchonline

For weeks rumors have been persistent regarding the President’s use of anti-anxiety medication, apparently, white house staffers and certain members of Congress have grave concerns over the presidents temperament and his use of prescription medication. This has been word of mouth throughout the month of October, where it was suggested that a member of the administration had given an interview to a Ukraine press, where they disclosed the Presidents depression and subsequent drug use. To date, there are no references on the web to verify that occurred. However, there are now articles on the web that have been attributed to both White House Staff as well as Members of Congress, that the Presidents Temperament, prescription medication use, and fears of his inability to govern, will allow for a invocation of the 25th Amendment.

The first blog with the oldest reference dates Opinion Maker.org notes that the President’s trip to Asia was at the suggestion of the staff, in order to get him out of town after the mid-term election losses. Google, Bing, So much so that blogs, from both the right and left side of the political thought process are running articles. The article chronicles “bizarre behavior” the president displayed at a fundraiser at Brown University in Rhode Island as late as October. Apparently, top donors are a little more than rattled, as well as those in the White House, who are now suggesting that Michelle Obama’s aids are making decisions:

White House leaks about the ineffectiveness of Obama's presidency are expanding beyond the revelations attributed to a former high-level Obama administration insider and which have been reported by a blogger named "Ulsterman." Some White House staffers have described a "reign of terror" in the White House over continued leaks and a troika of leadership that is making decisions without any input from the president. The troika reportedly consists of First Lady Michelle Obama, presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett, and the president's mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, who resides in the White House.

Not to be deterred, some White House staffers have sought out journalists and have arranged to meet them at nearby Starbuck's cafes to discretely convey to them inside information about the current disarray within the Obama administration. Some staffers have personally born the brunt of Obama's temper and witnessed his extreme narcissistic behavior. WMR has also learned from White House sources that Obama is taking presciption anxiety medication.

In addition, the blog suggests that teams of ex-CIA have been sent to scour the world for documents and “evidence” in order to solidify a removal of the President under Article 25 of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, this procedure is nothing new with the office of the President: Nixon, Clinton and Reagan, all were subject (for a variety of mental health issues) to this type of scrutiny.

This is hardly a “right-wing blogger” conspiracy, as the left has weighed in with much the same information, Posted on COTO Report: “Fit Hits Shan at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue”, an article in much the same vein as that posted on Opinion Maker. (however, the language, is a great deal more colorful and partisan left):

Biden has been tasked to consider invoking the 25th Amendment against Barry Soetoro, our beloved Narcissist-in-Chief, Barak Hussein Obama. President Obama is allegedly using prescription anti-anxiety medication for weeks now and is also using his wife, mother-in-law and Valerie Jarrett to deflect his former key staff members from direct contact. For those unfamiliar with the viciousness of executive staff when a leader shows weakness, this means that the titular head of state is without portfolio (i.e. we’re screwed) and our nation could become a WalMart subsidiary at any moment.

The article closes with: “Come on, America, decide who you are, already! Then we can let soul-brothah Barry know so that he can tell his mother-in-law to go kick some Republican ass up and down the National Mall.”

Other references about and have begun to take shape, specifically mentioned that the Black Caucus would go along with invocation of the 25th, amendment, leaving Biden in charge of the country. As the Democrats no longer control the Congress, the Speaker of the House would be next in line should something happen to Biden, as the Constitution was not written for succession and political parties, the line of succession to the Presidency is by title.

The text of the Constitution is clear:

Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession.
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

According to the historical data here the amendment was shored up and passed in 1967 after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

With growing unease over the President’s behavior by members of his own party (and or persons who are professed to be members of the party), this lends some credence to the articles, and as such, if the press has any inkling (as in White House staffers begging reporters to investigate and offering them evidence of such (source: opinionmaker.org included above added for emphasis)then the Press is being criminally negligent.

Although one might also play Devil’s advocate and suggest that disgruntled White House Staffers are airing grievances, where no smoking gun exists. Additionally, certain members of the party, both moderate and left, preferring anyone, including Joe Biden, at the helm, in order to stave off further disaster in 2012, therefore, planting a seed of doubt would be to the benefit of the Party – regardless of the accuracy. Also of note, prescription medication, and anti-anxiety medication, depending on the type, is used by millions of American’s with no obvious side effects, and one that has the most difficult job of all, would be forgiven if that were the case. The office of the Presidency ages and is not-forgiving. However, should the mood swings, the fact that Obama is not making decisions, be proven to be fact, and then it is far better to have a President removed for medical reasons, than have the nation led by someone who is incapable of performing the duties of the office.


H/T to Hillbuzz.org who is asking “How long it will take the Media to begin speaking about this situation.

There are a growing number of both national as well as international articles on the removal of Obama as President using the 25th Amendent: Links Folllow:

Committee for the Republic of Canada
Message Boards on Topics
Fellowshipofminds blog
Cauldron.com - Cleveland State University
Associated Content
Iran Press
Market Watch Reports

Nancy Pelosi faces challengers – Names mentioned as Replacement: Richard Neal (D-MA2)

Richard Neal Next Minority Whip? Progressives add to List of Pelosi Replacements: image Kerry.senate.gov

Not without a little interest as the Congressman Richard Neal represents the MA2 district, a bleep on a bog: www.leftinalabama.com speaks to the question all Progressives are asking: “Dose Nancy Pelosi Deserve to be the Dem Leader?” (Title of the post on leftinalabama) The question asked is met with a variety of no’s, most often with reference to sports and what happens to the head coach when any given team suffers massive losses.

Then the roll call of who might be acceptable to Progressives, since Ms. Pelosi is clearly not (in Alabama and one would suspect elsewhere outside of the main media): John Larson, Ed Pastor, Richard Neal, Ed Markey, Norm Dicks, Bob Brady, David Price, and Anthony Weiner.

Richard Neal, who the Progressives may champion, (as they did with the recent get-out-the-vote to reelect Neal to yet another term in Congress), does not necessarily project the personality nor the power to become the whip. Although objectively, one has to look at Neal, who is a team player in the Obama administration, managed to survive the first challenge he faced in decades to win reelection, and managed that to the tee.

When one questions what does the minority whip do? They count votes and bully their peers into seeing things their way. Hardly sounds like Neal’s style, however, that may be the reason why his name came up at all – the fact that (old adage again) one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, coupled with a threat of some sort, that would surely never make the press. Neal is the epitome of discretion.

One knows this especially when one is a constituent simply because the Congressman is barely heard of or from during the period between elections. More to the point, even during elections, there is little to find out about Richard Neal, other than very positive stories run in the local press, followed by glowing endorsements from the same. Neal won the election, some might say, handily, however, when looking at the reality of the race, he had to fight harder than usual, as one Tom Wesley, of Hopedale, a veteran and businessman, managed to get 40% of the vote, but did that distraction of a war for his seat of “power”, prevent any negotiations elsewhere? Most likely not. Neal is no idiot, knowing his political fortunes were about to be seriously diminished, it would make sense, for him to turn from visions of Chairing the House Ways and Means Committee (no longer an option) to Minatory Whip. He’s progressive, he has Obama’s back, and yet, he appears non-threatening.

Although one must understand that this is from one comment on one progressive blog, early in the conversation, one must factor that it has at least some traction. Suggestion: Set Google Alerts to Richard Neal, Minority Whip.

Mitt Romney Readies For 2012 – With Backing from Republicans for Cuomo?

Mitt Romney, 2012? Image from the Moderate Voice

It is no secret that former Massachusetts Govenor, Mitt Romney is looking at a run at the White House in 2012, and as such, every move he is making is beginning to come under a microscope. In a recent blip (hardly an article, more of a “teaser” on Politico, Ben Smith writes that Mitt Romney, who is in the process of nailing down financial backers for the run, has the backing of CNBC’s, Anthony Scaramucci, who “defected” to the Cuomo camp in the 2010 NY Gubernatorial race.

The fact that donors, especially, switch parties to support a candidate they feel can offer benefit to their specific industry is nothing new. It is a payoff in a manner of speaking for protection. In this case, Wall Street and business is speculating on a Romney win, for the good of the economy. While in 2008 Unions, specifically the United Auto Workers, received 17.5% of the GM shares (stocks) during the Obama bailout. CBS.

One comment on the Politico article noted that “politics makes for strange bedfellows”, while the balance bantered back and forth about Romney ridding the Republican Party of the Tea Party (not in those words) and others who noted the fit was perfect calling Romney a “RHINO” – Republican in name only.

One has to look beyond the rhetoric, to understand that in order to run, one must have not only the cash but the support of a wide range of possible constituents; Romney, a savvy businessman, would understand that better than anyone (with the possible exception of Donald Trump (no kidding). The fact that one has the backing of someone who ping pongs between parties is simply of no consequence. Individual donors, like the rest of the voting public, are, with increasing frequency, switching parties, and therefore, it does not mean that Romney would, as some suggest, rid the Republican Party of the “Tea Party” or, at this point, anyone willing to provide funds for a successful bid. No more so than any other candidate that will come down the pike with few exceptions.

Romney’s Conservatism is called into question, time and time again, not unlike that of former Governor Mike Huckabee. Both of the aforementioned attempted to govern states with legislators that were heavily stacked with members of the opposition party, and actually made inroads on policy and budgets that resulted in stable economies, for both the State of Arkansas and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Governing, often involves reaching across the aisle, and making compromises, which the later can be done without sacrificing principals. Governor Mike Huckabee, was blasted for being a “liberal” (i.e. a RHINO) Republican in Name only), during the 2008 Republican primaries, based on the fact that he did cross the aisle, Romney, for his part, did pretty much the same in governing Massachusetts – with the understanding that he was greatly outnumbered.

As conservatives would prefer a leader more in line with a Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater (note: Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl), one has yet to emerge that would carry the party on principles and stick to their proverbial guns, with the glaring exception of Sarah Palin, other candidates may be in the wings that would do the same, however, at the moment, the three here, represent the media’s main targets for a 2012 run.

Therefore a caution to conservatives, and others who are anxious on seeing Romney with a donor on his list that may or may not look like a staunch conservative – it is one donor only an in the grand scheme of things, one that is tied Wall Street. Should Romney start getting the backing of the Teachers Union, Emily’s List, the SEIU, or George Sorros, then one might have reason to be a bit taken aback, and cast their primary vote elsewhere. However, although it is far too early to speculate on who will complete and or lead the field in 2011-2012, it is not too early to begin planning – which Romney has been doing since he lost the bid to McCain and Huckabee in 2008; With Huckabee conceding last to McCain.