It is not that teenagers across this nation do not die or suffer brutal violence every day in this nation, some of which is propulgated by gang fighting, or hazing, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is the society and specifically politicians who have taken the breakthroughs evidenced in the late 1960’s – 1980’s and turned the nation into separate states – camps if one will – where racial and ethnic groups having been pigeonhold by the govenrnment and the media are at odds with one another. One has to ask how on earth did this happen and how did we, as U.S. Citizens, allow this to occur? Whether one is Hispanic, or African American, or White or Purple or Green, it should matter not – there are laws in place that define all of us as one under one national flag. Therefore, one asks why there are separate neighborhoods, and why there is a poverty about that hangs over certain communities, not a cloud that is defined as financial poverty but poverty of the soul – where one feels the need to become a part of a violent society, rather than to drag oneself out of poverty and move up in the world. It is not as if we are all not given the opportunity so lacking in other nations, where one is born to a class, and one stays in that class for life – moving neither up, down or sideways.
What has happened in Florida is a tragedy of imaginable sorrow for the parents of this child, all parents who have lost a child, or who watch their child leave with a group of friends, who appear at best dubious, are always fearful that perhaps there will be a knock-on the door before the dawn comes. This is happening across the nation and it is irrespective of race, religion, or ethnicity. We have lost our youth to violence and most importantly apathy.
In schools across the nation, the drop-out rate is unacceptable - once upon a time it was a rarity for a student to drop out of high school, or for that matter, to suffer an expulsion. Criminal acts were defined by the mundane – stealing a hub cap could mean a sentence in a Juvenile Dentition Center. Somehow, during that time, (the 1950’s to 1960’s) there was less of everything: teen pregnancies, teen dropouts, and teen deaths.
One can blame the music, with its anti-feminist rhetoric that paints all women in the most degradable forms, and makes a clear celebration of the joys of shooting and killing someone – anyone, and retaliating in kind. Is that fair, however, as artists are imitating life as they see it?
One can blame the parents, many of which are from single family homes, work several jobs, and have little to no communication with the child, let alone the schools. Is that fair? Hardly, parents, no matter the socio-economic background, no matter the race, creed or religion, do their utmost to protect their children and yet, when a child reaches a certain age, they are bound to become independent of the family unit, and it matters not that parents instill curfews, or suspend privileges, or move across the country (not something that can be done in this economy. – No matter where a parent goes to protect their child, that child will choose his or her own friends, and those friends, and the society that glorifies violence, through movies, and muses, is not match for the sound advice of a mother or father.
What of the schools? They are not in place to babysit, this is certain, but the curriculum, in many cases, focuses on separatism, and the object is to move students along, without disciplining in fear of lawsuits, or laws in place that bind the hands of the teachers as to the rights they may have even to protect themselves from a violent student.
Then a traded occurs, and in a day and age, where mobs of youth are running rampant in areas as diverse as Wisconsin and Philadelphia, breaking into stores, using racial epithets to terrify those sitting in a coffee shop or at a fair a picture is painted in the minds of two groups - and it is not as if these occurrences are not known, or not available in the media – what happens is there is a fear about the entire nation, a fear of each other – the youth are counting on that fear to show independence, while those adults, are afraid for their home, families, and their very lives – is it no wonder then that every day, there are more occurrences? Yet for one family, their grief has been compounded, by public statements from politicians, and by the “support” of certain celebrities, who feel they are somehow doing a service.
What is heartbreaking is that there are no answers for the moment, and unless and until we all start teaching our children that it race matters not, that ethnicity matters not, that we are all in this tighter – from the parent, to the teacher, to the politician to the entertainer, then we will get nowhere. Is there racism, absolutely, however, what are we doing, as nation, as a people to eradicate produce? Do we feel that it’s the “other” person’s responsibility? Perhaps it is naiveté that longs for a nation that ran in what appeared to be the beginnings of a “utopia” – where the civil rights legislation that was passed and signed into law by President Johnson (screaming and kicking all the way there), was that not the beginning of the end of the separation of the nation? Even though a sensible and reasonable person understood that there would be ignorance and bigotry still, would not the majority overrule that perception and with time eradicate the notion that we are separate because we are so “different”.
There is a difference one might note, between celebrating one’s heritage, and using one’s heritage as a means to separate oneself from society as a whole – and that occurs through the auspices of Federal and State Governments – we are, as a nation, categorized – and have been for years – minority groups are categorized for funding, to define demographics, and yet, the information and the funding apparently have done nothing more than to exacerbate this growing trend of separatism that festers violence and suspicion against one another.
Yet this one family is now the focus of the nation, as well as the family of the man who pulled the trigger – Politician’s are on the floor on the Congers crying “race”! as the reason the young man was killed, has-been actresses such as Rosie O’Donnell use social media to release the address of the parents of the man who pulled the trigger. This type of act is not to help the family by any means but to incite further violence and to get another fifteen minutes of fame. The politicians of course - one can chalk that up to pandering rather than any true sense of outrage. If it were real outrage, they’d start at the beginning, and roll up their sleeves to fix the problem, rather than rant from the almighty Washington Pulpit, that continues to “define” each and every one of us as “separate” – and “separate” in any way, shape or form, translates into “not equal”.
Women are a minority, and yet are “not equal” obviously needing the government to “protect” the largest demographic in the nation. African American’s are “not equal”, needing the government to know where they live, identify areas that are blighted, and then – doing nothing about it. Native American’s are not “equal” (actually the reservations are under treaty, therefore, they are separate nations), yet, it allows for the Government to categorize a people, a people that lives in some cases in abject poverty.
Gangs – how do gangs fit into the picture, for all the money spent by the Federal, State and Local law enforcements to eradicate gangs, the situation continues to worsen. Of course, that is given a helping hand by popular culture, and the notion that if one is categorized into a specific group, one has no hope of ever getting out of that “group” – it is a cast system that is based on nothing more than the need to drive elections. If tomorrow, the categories disappeared, and individuals were given the choice to be an American first, with all the advantages that implies, what would be the result? Until then, those who are supposed to know better, the politicians and the government, (who are hired by these same American’s categorized and pigeonholed), continue to look the other way, on all issues, or use those issues as a means to an end – reelection. It’s time to start helping parents – parents whose hearts are being broken every day by the outrage in this nation, by the violence against students, whether it be gang-related or bullying or hazing or some stupid right of “passage” designed not to inspire but to degrade, all with the unintended consequences that someone might end up with a life cut short. Someone who may have been a great doctor, or teacher, or business developer, or philosopher, or saint – one will never know, they were categorized, they were defiant in the face of no consequences to their actions, and they had no hope in a future – because they have been told there is no hope by the aforementioned.
From the Springfield, MA Republican: today’s top stories:
Springfield Man Stabbed while trying to break up fighting teens
Suspected gang members shoot off mouths, details of Vermont teacher's death stuns communities and more”
Suspected gang members shoot of mouths following Springfield Gun Arrest
Miami CBS Local, Dade Teen Shot While Fleeing Police”
And the beat goes on – the above are just a few examples of what is taking place daily in our nation – the challenge is – making our children understand that there is hope, that they are equal, and that there are no limits to who they can become, with an emphasis coming across from all mediums, the family, the church, the federal, state and local governments, (which includes the schools), and from the media – instead of more than half of the former, either glorifying or exacerbating the problem for political gain.
Kids will be Kids, whatever happened to that meaning they might grab a neighbor’s hubcap, or tip a cow in a field, or spray-paint their name on a building? Is it no one's fault or is it all of our faults.
Videos worth watching – Google teens shootings, gang shootings, and it’s just frightening
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
2012 Polling – Obama Leads Romney in 3 “Key States” –Are there Really Key States in the 2012 Election Cycle? Romney On Late Night – Presidentential
The two top Candidates (one by default) Romney and Obama - image Pat Dollard.com
An article from the Detroit Free Press highlights a recent Quinnipiac University Poll in which President Obama led GOP Candidate Mitt Romney in “Three Key States to Winning the White House”. The poll taken on the 28th of March 2012, focuses on three states: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all considered to be “key states” to a victory in 2012.
The marginals by state (available here), indicate that all three polls were based on a reasonable sample with a margin of error of plus/minus 2.8% . Apparently women continue to pull for Obama in this scenario, and Romney does better than Santorum by points in this poll – Pennsylvania in particular, is outside the margin of error by a half point, with Obama leading Romney by 3.
By now, however, anyone following the polls understands that it’s anyone’s best guess as to what may or may not happen, however, one might take a look at the last Gallup Presidential Approval rating to see how well the President might fare in a match-up against any Republican. In the 2011 State by State Approval Poll, President Obama continues to hold onto 10 states out of 50, with an approval rating at or above 50% with the balance of the states, below to rock bottom in approval. According to the latest Gallup polling on a national level (released in January of 2012): Obama’s 10 states are now: DC, HI, MD, MA, CT, NY, Delaware, NJ and IL, with California breaking into the top 10 by .1 (50.1%) Therefore, although the sample may have been a tad larger, one can see where his approval may have an impact on the general election. (See Carter Approval ratings on a national basis pre election with comparison on all recent Presidents versus Obama here.
At the beginning of the GOP Primary, Iowa was considered a “must win”, followed by “South Carolina”, considered to be the most predictive, gave Newt Gingrich the nod, and as anyone aware of the challenges candidates have face on the campaign trail, Gingrich will, in all probability, not be on the ballot come November. Next Up Ohio was to be the most Predictive, a state the Front Runner, Mitt Romney, pulled out a decent win, before losing the south (MS, AL, and LA) to Rick Santorum. The arguments formed for both Candidates were Romney can’t win in the South, and Santorum (the closet candidate to Romney at this point), that Romney barely won in mid-west states. This is nothing new in presidential contests, and this is where the nominee looks for a regional, strong, red-meat type running mate, in order to solidify areas of the nation where during the primary they had a less than robust showing.
In reviewing the data from Gallup, however, (Nifty interactive map!): In Florida, Obama has a job approval of 47.8%, and in Pennsylvania, 47.8% - Florida is at 50.1%, which of the three key states, one can hazard to guess given the two polls and data combined, that these states, considered again “key” to winning, will be battleground states, with the incumbent at an advantage only in Florida.
Therefore the more time candidate Romney spends on the national stage, one can hazard to guess his approval will continue to rise. A recent appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno has been characterized by the media as “Romney Tries for Personal Appeal(Dertoit Free Press) There were a few other headlines in there, that were taken as a lead, such as Romney noting Rick Santorum would be a Press Secretary, however, in watching the segment, that was prompted by Jay Leno. On Romney’s part, he was decisive, he was funny, and he showed respect to the other candidates, at one point noting he hoped he were the nominee, and that he Santorum the V.P., then followed up with “either way”. He was, above all, Presidential – Perhaps Mitt Romney has finally let his hair down (so to speak) or he's been painted as the "stiff candidate - that Romney appears to have left the building. He is now appearing to make a joke now and again, (and he is funny) and then come across as perfectly capable of running the country. The late night venues are perfect for pulling apart a candidate, and this appeared to be a segment run by Romney.
Of course, there are clips, and then there is the full episode, watch the full video to get the idea. One would love to see Romney on that partisan, for lack of a better word, moron, David Letterman’s show, if only to give Letterman that look that is now a Romney Trademark where one can almost hear Romney utter – “you’ve got to be kidding me?”
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Media Begins -Romney Fundraising Called Into Question or Herald as Strategy, Obama Vs. Romney in the Money Game
Pictured Romney, Santorum and Obama GOP candidates in total out-fundraising Obama - image Salon.com
The fundraising efforts of GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney were investigated by the AP through the FEC recently, and the fact that Romney’s campaign is amassing millions was originally addressed by the Catholic Online in an article entitled: Not yet begun to fight - Romney's secret weapon against Obama” – the opening paragraph:
Romney is a brilliant money manager and his war chest will still brim in August.
Media attention has focused on Obama's fundraising machine that is rumored to be preparing a reelection campaign war chest of almost $1 billion - although such an amount seems unlikely. Such a fundraising apparatus, if it exists and is working as advertised, could make Obama a much more formidable political opponent. However, Romney is quietly amassing a formidable war chest of his own.
From this sprung a version by Business Week, Romney's fundraisers are quietly amassing millions” – the opening paragraph:
Mitt Romney's presidential fundraising operation dwarfs those of his Republican rivals, with more than $75 million already in donations. It also operates mysteriously at times, withholding the names of Romney's major fundraisers who have helped amass much of its money”
The difference in the reporting lays in the innuendo’s of the Business Week report, as well as following reports from CBS News, one can anticipate the groundwork being laid by the media for a spin on Romney and his “wealthy” supporters versus the incumbent, President Obama.
However, when one compares the data available on the FEC website, there is a reason for the sudden scrutiny of the GOP front-runner – simply he’s bringing in more money.
In reviewing the detailed March report from the Romney Campaign Romney’s total contributions were: 11,554,514.25, the majority of which were itemized, with 1,071,118.66 not itemized, 207,603.17 was refunded to donors – total expenditures: 12,362,525.90 for the period and the total contributions in this election cycle to date: 74,755,068.90.
In contrast, Obama for America reports total contributions for the period were 13,873,901.12(including funds from authorized committees), with 7,459,172.14 not itemized. 207,544.30 was refunded to donors, with total expenditures listed as 12,590,672.44 – the Total contributions for Incumbent, including funds from authorized committees in this election cycle to date: 156,713,376.64 (Authorized Committees, political party disbursements i.e.: the Democrat Party).
In total, Republican Candidates from the beginning of this election cycle 2011-12 totaled 202.5 Million, with the Incumbent bringing in, with support from the Democrat Party: 157 Million.
Therein lays the crux of the matter - more money flowing in the opposite direction from the Incumbent - the Romney campaign has approximately 6 million less in contributions that have not been “itemized”, yet the press is suddenly focused on the Romney campaign and identifying the “Wall Street” donors, many of which, were donors to the Obama campaign in 2008.
This falls under: Obama is not bringing in the Billions anticipated, even with help from the DNC compared to the Republican candidates, who are not yet eligible to receive that extra boost – time to beat up the front-runner.
The bundlers: Courtesy of Open Secrets.org:
Romney bundlers versus: Obama’s bundlers indicates that the Obama campaign has received more contribution through bundlers, including lobbyists, as well as the Wall Street Firms tied to Romney in the Business Week article. The “smoking gun” is suddenly revealing the names of those who have contributed in a “bundled” environment”. The bundler is an individual who holds a fundraising event, each individual attending can give the maximum of $2,500, and these funds are then submitted as “bundled”. This has been a common practice and it is within the law that campaigns need not release the names of private citizens who have participated in the process. Suddenly the more mainstream media finds this to be a mystery?
Of interest: a positive note from the Huffington Post: ”Mitt Romney Campaign's Dramatic February Budget Re-Shuffling” a report from Sam Stein outlining the Romney budget during the month of February, and his campaigns ability to balance a budget. It gives insight into the candidate and his management team’s ability to make necessary cuts to bring a balanced budget to bear. What is interesting is that this fact was not played up by the Romney Campaign – It’s a selling point.
Posted by Tina Hemond at 6:05 AM
Labels: GOP Candidates Outfrundraising Obama, Obama Campaign Slow Fundraising, Romney Campaign Raising Millions, Romney Campaign Tactics for Balancing Campaign Budgets
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
President Obama's Open Mic Remarks to Medvedeve - Gridlock To Blame - Suggests Final Term would allow Flexibility – The Problem – World Perception
Former President James Carter was often referred to as a "Paper Tiger" - image althouse.blogspot.com
ABC news first reported that President Obama was picked up on an open mic noting that he’d have more flexibility after his election – this while speaking to outgoing Russian President Medvedeveon U.S. Missile Defense (ABC). The exchange, which lasted briefly, was immediately defended by the Administration as a simple conversation regarding the inability of the President to move things forward in light of the gridlock in Congress – the article Los Angeles Times article, Titled: Obama Clarifies Hot Mic Comment Made to Russian President” begins:
SEOUL -- President Obama pointed to an uncooperative Congress and hotly contested presidential election for his decision to put talks with Russian leaders over a missile program on hold, a rare instance of a president acknowledging domestic political limitations while on the international stage.
A slightly different version of events comes from the Wall Street Journal
article entitled: “Obama Makes Light of Missile-Shield Remark"
SEOUL—U.S. President Barack Obama is trying to downplay the significance of a comment, accidentally picked up by a live microphone, in which he cited his re-election campaign as the reason he won't tackle the divisive issue of missile defense this year.
The brouhaha over the comment came from Republican’s raising questions about the President position on missile defense changing if he were to be re-elected (WSJ). That is a reasonable considering the fact that “since President Obama took office, the White House has systematically undercut comprehensive missile defense and thereby placed the U.S. homeland and our allies at greater risk. On February 1, 2010, the Administration released its Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, which indicated that the Administration would continue to pursue a less-than-robust effort to protect the homeland against long-range missile strikes.” (Heritage Foundation.)
However, also reasonable is the fact that gridlock in Congress has dogged the President since he had taken office with the first two years with a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and the last two with a Republican controlled House and a Democrat Senate. (Washington Times) One understands that neither side is willing to move one whit, especially on areas of Defense, with Democrats insisting on cuts, while Republican’s put forth alternatives – specifically in areas of Domestic spending. The problem also lays on the campaign trail, as the President seeks re-election and the GOP nominees are battling both themselves and the President, the rhetoric is at a fever pitch – the assertion that somehow “Congress” is to blame for his inability to move forward, must be taken with a huge grain of salt, considering remarks the President makes both on and off the campaign trail. It is what it is, politics as usual from both sides of the aisle.
However, the point missing from this entire dust-up over an open mic is the fact that the President is seen on the world stage as one who has his “hands tied” and unless reelected will not be able to accomplish much, if anything at all. How does one imagine the Iranian’s or the Chinese or North Korean’s, or those nations to the U.S. Southern border, such as Venezuela views our President at this point (and previously for that matter)? The operative phrase is “paper tiger”, a moniker by definition meaing a weak or ineffectual leader
From the world stage run by theocrats and dictators (elections held in some nations being what they are), a President lacking the ability to move things forward without being able to forcefully convince his nation and his Congress to see his point of view, gives those nations the signal that a nation is of no threat to operations as usual. Therefore, in Iran, for example, where they are consistently testing ballistic missiles and developing their nuclear capabilities, one would understand that the Mullah’s who run that nation, are likely to be bolder in their “saber rattling”. What is of concern is that they stop showing the world and actually launch a strike, either at Israel or the U.S. as they feel no threat from the U.S. Administration or they may feel that the U.S. is incapable of striking back (See the Washington Times Piece on the cuts to the Defense budget.)
Therefore, it would behoove the President, to put the Congress on notice, both sides of the aisle, specifically Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, to get something done, and knock of the impasse. He might also cut back on his partisan remarks, but both scenarios are unlikely as this Presidency, more than others, has fanned the flames of partisanship, since taking office. It was, and still is, the go-to “Blame Bush” for all woes statements that continue to boggle the minds of those who are more bi-partisan – in a manner- Own the Office, and get to work.
It may be a tad late for that, as November is fast approaching and the current front runners in the GOP contest (Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum) would have the support of the conservatives in the nation, as well as (according to job approval ratings) independents. It is probable that 2012 will see a new face on the world stage, either a moderate Massachusetts former Governor, or a more Conservative, Reaganese former Senator – both would take a stronger fiscal and national defense stance – and both would, if not forceful in their approach to the job, appeal to the nation and Congress, be in the same boat President Obama finds himself in now. It is however, doubtful that they would blame former President Bush, and might even be courteous to the outgoing President and “own” the position to which they are both elected and entrusted. One must ask themselves, is it better to be feared on the world stage, and live in relative peace (something we, as a nation have not enjoyed), or to be derided or lack of strength, and run a real risk of a war which would be fought on our own soil. It does appear to be an extreme statement, but from an historical perspective, not so much. Should the press continue to allow pick-ups (apparently there needs to be some education on that front), regardless of who the President may be, and point out errors made (both in the U.S. and on an international scale, it will continue to harm whoever the President may be. Of course, a quick civics course, and an ongoing briefing of world affairs, may be too much for the average journalist to digest – that said there are editors who might be more inclined, even in this day and age, to figure out if something is in the interest of national security. This may be asking too much, considering the glee with which the New York Times and other notable publications treated the Bush Administrations “secrets” as headlines, regardless of the costs to national security.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Santorum Wins Louisiana, Left Goes Nuts Over New Web Ad – Santorum “Swears” at NY Times Reporter – The Delegate Math – Santorum Win Possible – Yes.
Then there were three - Image Salon.com
Rick Santorum won a decisive victory in Louisiana on Saturday besting Mitt Romney 49 to 26.7 percent, this compared to 2008, when Mike Huckabee narrowly beat John McCain 43.2 to 41.9% (NYT), gives credence to the Exit Polls from CNN that showed Santorum winning in demographics which are normally Romney territory – such as moderates and those who consider themselves “liberal”. In watching the returns, the conversations between John King and Wolf Blizter suggested that to be a “moderate” or “liberal” in Louisiana was far different than being a “moderate” in a different part of the country. However, the video posted on the CNN site, suggests a strictly Religious win with the report focusing on the Bible Belt CNN Video here. This may have been the case in the 1980’s, 1990’s, but with a fall in manufacturing in the Northeast and elsewhere, the migration has caused a shift in both political ideology and religious affiliation in that region. Both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul made a hardly a dent in the contest. Next up in Wisconsin and tensions on the left and in the Romney campaign are running high as the April primary comes into play.
Although reports suggest that Rick Santorum gave a rather aggressive response to the Presidents treatment of the tragedy in Trayvon Martin shooting, the facts are that his response was in line with the Presidents’ and any other parents “There are a lot of people who have very perverted views of reality, and obviously have, as we see, people who do horrible things for seemingly senseless reasons. And I think it’s hard to generalize from one heinous act something that is, trying to make a bigger point out of it. And I think that’s probably what Newt was getting at, and to the president and to everyone that we need to be supportive for the family that’s going through this tragedy.” (Mediaite). In comments on the site Mediate in this article on this post notes: “twitter is exploding with comments about Santorum cursing at an NYT reporter. According to one of Mitt's operatives CBS has video.” (Mediaite Comments) – with Politico reporting Rick Santorum suggesting that a New York Time’s Reporters question was “bullshit” and a distortion of his remarks: “The notion that politicians don't swear is almost as entertaining as the faux shock whenever they do publicly. But, it never goes unnoticed, and it's not exactly common for recent presidential hopefuls.” Frankly, Rick Santorum, given the pounding he has taken from Romney, his being pigeonholed as a one-dimensional religious candidate (and perhaps through his inexperience on the GOP Presidential campaign trail giving some credence to that school of thought) it is amazing that is the only word he has uttered thus far. The language was a far cry from those others have used as far as being “crass”. This one remark should be filed under: “nothing to see move along here”, but chances are that it will make headlines for at least 24 hours – of course, there is competition in that regards.
A web video released by the Santorum Camping has news outlets from NPR to the LATimes in hysterics – from the LA Times S"antorum's 'Obamaville' ad links Ahmadinejad with Obama" [video] suggests that the Santorum Campaign directly compares the President with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, however, if one views the ad (see below) on can see that the focus is on policy – (See video below or link to You Tube here) the ad suggests the price of gas, the loss of jobs, fear of unemployment, small businesses closing down, and longer waits to see a doctor, before it goes into foreign policy, and the rise of the Iranian theocracy - The President is pictured in the video, but not in a comparative sense, it is an overview of predictions of the causes of President’s policies - all of them. One looking at this video entitled “Obamaville” might not consider it to be the best in cinematography, nor that much predictive of two years hence, especially when one considers that everything in the video, is happening now. However, it is the negatives spelled out regarding Obama that is the crux of the matter coming from one Rick Santorum. This is evidenced in the comments connected to the article and a distinct anti-Catholic tone.
Further, Obama spokesman has taken the bait referring to the GOP candidates in primary as a “clown show”, a la, the media and opposition to Ronald Reagan in 1979-1980. To take that a tad further, ”Santorum in Reagan Mold” compares the GOP Candidate to Ronald Reagan, suggesting that the GOP will lose in 2012 and come back to win in 2016 (Philadelphia Inquirer).
It is the media turning on its heels to protect the President by stretching reality to the extreme in some cases, and making a mountain out of a mole hill in others, all with a little help from the opposition team of “Mitt Romney”. It’s all fair in love and politics, and as the Romney attempts to “seal the deal” repeatedly and it now appears a solid two-man race with both campaigns (Romney and Santorum) suggesting math is one their side. In any event, the fact that the media is in such hysterics over former Senator Santorum’s every word, is a tad on the suspicious side and brings to bear the question of which candidate the President prefers not to run against. Alternately, it could be they are honestly afraid of the fact that someone who has religious convictions is somehow “dangerous”, which gives credence to the “dumping down of America” theory. Apparently, that did not bother Reagan, and has not slowed down Rick Santorum, who, when tired of the media “BS”, just lets them know they are out of line, in his opinion.
(Bloggers note: As a Catholic, it is not Santorum’s Catholic faith that initially won support, it was his understanding of domestic and foreign policy affairs, specifically the problem with Iran. It was perhaps, more so his economic policy, a zero percent tax on manufactures to fast track them back to the U.S. to create jobs. Unfortunately that message has been buried by the “religious aspect” pounded home day after day, from the media, as well as, at times, the campaign itself. It would be this opinion that the negative advertising needs to go – with a focus on the positive side of the campaign – that ad above, attempts to contrast Santorum’s policy with that of the President, but it is framed in such a way as to come off in a somewhat “cheesy” at best fashion.)
Santorum is in Wisconsin, a state that is not friendly to the GOP in general – it will be interesting to see how the next few primaries play out – with Romney and Santorum literally the last two standing (given how poorly the insistent Gingrich and Paul are performing and unlikely to improve).
Is the race still winnable for Santorum – yes: from the New York Times: total delegates needed to win 1144, delegates remaining 1258 – Romney has 568, Santorum 273 – therefore Romney needs 576 more delegates, while Santorum requires 871, or a difference of 295 delegates separate the two competitors. With the 1258 remaining, it is not impossible for either candidate to reach the magic 1144. This is perhaps, why the left and the Romney campaign are now ramping up the attacks, looking for every possible religious reference or gaff to play to the hilt.