David Axelrod Visit to Boston – Greeted by Hecklers – Axelrod Fumbles Through Stump Speech

Romney Supporters Heckle Axelrod - See Suits, Signs - image from nationaljournal.com

On the other hand -


More hecklers, They do not appear to be Romney Supporters per se, rather disgruntled Mass. citizens - who will likely vote for Romney - not shown in videos - image: weaselzippers.com

President Obama’s Senior Advisor (White House and Campaign), David Axelrod, paid a visit to Boston to stump for Obama’s reelection. The Premise was to point out Obama’s opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s failings. However he was met with pro-Romney (according to the press reports) protesters. The headline from Politico sums it up: ”Axelrod Assails Mitt Battles Hecklers”. Apparently, the premise that Mr. Axelrod is hanging onto is the polls coming out of Massachusetts showing Obama with a wide lead over the former Governor Mitt Romney, as if that is bell weather for the Obama campaign. The problem lays in the fact that polls in Massachusetts can’t be trusted until the results are in. For example, a poll commissioned by the Boston Globe performed by the University of New Hampshire days before the special election of January 19th, 2009 for the vacant Mass. senate seat, had Democrat Martha Coakley up 15 points over Republican Scott Brown. The outcome was somewhat different.

Some facts about Massachusetts and past presidential polling: When Jimmy Carter was running against Ronald Reagan, it was anticipated that Carter would easily win Massachusetts, as well as the rest of the nation based on early polling (Washington Post). The fact that Reagan actually won Massachusetts (twice) which is touted as “Safe Democrat” in every election, was due to the high number of “unenrolleds” in the “Bluest State”. Massachusetts' electorate is 50% plus Unaffiliated or unenrolled voters. Therefore, for Mr. Axelrod to count on a poll, any poll, at this stage of the game as proof that Obama will sweep the Bay State, apparently shows his lack of expertise in the area of historical trends in polling. In addition, the fact that, especially in Massachusetts and neighboring states, University polls tend to be somewhat inaccurate in certain races (refer to Coakley) may not be the best bet. (Unless one is on a team of uncertainty - then use what you have on hand and punt.)

That said Axelrod may be correct about Massachusetts - if one were to use trends in job approval rankings as a statistic on election probability (combined with polls), it is quite possible that Obama would take Massachusetts over Romney – along with 9 other states where his approval rating is hanging onto 50%, the other 40 states, however, are most likely in jeopardy. Therefore, to win 10 states alone, one cannot win the Presidency.

The main point - regardless of polls and or statistics at this point, it is still far too early to rely on either, one must look to mid-October polling – the polls now are purely indicative of what may occur, rather than predictive of an outcome.
Of course being on the stump, and being heckled to boot, might have given Axelrod the “heebie-jeebies” as he most likely anticipated a larger crowd of Obama supporters in what is supposed to be a friendly state. As he stumbles through his speech, drowned out by "Romney supporters", he appears particularly uncomfortable. It is also assumed the hecklers were all Romney supporters, rather than a mixture of anti-Obama protesters. (Tea Anyone?) – the chant “Where are the Jobs” is not necessarily a “Romney Chant” – however from the angel of the video one cannot clearly see the “crowd” - rather a few in the front holding Romney signs. By the sound alone, one can well imagine there were more than a handful of Romney Supporters making such a din – the din, that as one can see below, rattled the Advisor in Chief.



What is clearly unusual about this particular instance in the minds of those on the left is the fact that – they were heckled, instead of doing the heckling! – This election one might find, in the end, will not be about political party affiliation as much as it will be about a choice between the lesser of two “evils” – those independents will be the deciding factor, even in the 10 states where Obama still holds onto a 50% job approval rating – Axelrod may find himself in similar situations as he moves about the country – he may find it more comfortable, going forward, to stump in Chicago.

Planned Parenthood Endorses Obama, Starts Anti-Romney Ad Blitz – While Vanity Fair Ponders “Why Are Women Warming Up to Mitt Romney”? – Seriously

The Choices: Romney or Obama - image blackchristiannews.com

Planned Parenthood has formally endorsed President Barack Obama for - President - the publicly funded entity, which provides services for women, mainly abortions, also began an ad campaign in key swing states against the non-abortion candidate, Republican Mitt Romney. (LA Times). The Los Angeles Times article goes on to state that abortion activists are not entirely happy with the President as he “has generally supported legalized abortion, although he disappointed pro-choice advocates in 2010 when he signed an executive order affirming a ban on federal funding for most abortions.”(LA Times).

Romney on the other hand, changed his position from pro-choice to pro-life while Governor of Massachusetts – while Obama has not wavered in his support for abortion, including rejecting the “Born Alive” bill in Illinois while he was in the State Legislature. (Born Alive was instituted to save the lives of babies that were literally born alive after a late term or “botched” abortion and summarily left to die.)

It is not so much the endorsement of Obama by this particular institution that is problematic, rather the fact that a government funded program (regardless of the argument by Planned Parenthood that the funds are used solely for purposes of contraception) is endorsing any candidate for anything, including dog catcher. Planned Parenthood has a business model that accepts credit cards, insurance and will, if no other method of payment is available, perform pro-bono services, including abortions – all fall on the taxpayer’s dime.

(Note: This blogger is pro-life, preferring that there be no state sanctioned abortions nor state sanction executions – life is life.)

One would think that as Planned Parenthood begins its campaign against that monster, Mitt Romney who’s out to prevent abortions and keep the separation of Church and State by not mandating that religious organizations who are against contraception, sterilization and abortion be provided by say, the Catholic Church, is just not “good for women” they might want to bone up on the latest polls.

Apparently Planned Parenthood has not been paying attention to the polls, either the national temperature on issues, specifically abortion, nor a stunning discovery by Vanity Fair: that women are “warming up to” Mitt Romney” (Vanity Fair) – they attempt to understand it by noting that it must be the very likeable Ann Romney who is making her otherwise not likable husband into a likeable guy. Seriously, they are all missing the mark.

Polls in general have shown a swing in this nation from pro-choice to pro-life by a majority of individuals - Gallup: in 1995, 56% favored abortions, while 33% opposed, the balance had no opinion, that changed over the ensuing decade (along with the development of more sophisticated obstetric testing such as ultrasounds, putting, perhaps not a name, but a firm knowledge that there was a) a heartbeat and b) a living outline (now more three-d) of a real baby). The shift occurred in 2009, by the pollster’s numbers and now as of 2012, 50% consider themselves pro-life while 41% consider themselves pro-choice. (Gallup)

Of course, the issue, important to some, is not the top priority of American’s – that would be the economy and jobs, with social issues of less concern – which also answers the question posed by Vanity Fair – Women work, women pay the bills, woman worry about how to support families, women (sorry guys) bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to household finances, regardless of whether or not they are a “Stay at Home Mom” or a “Spouse” who works. Women overall are not stuck on one issue, for the sake of argument, “contraception and abortion” or the so called “war on women” – they are capable of multi-tasking – a genetic trait that is not necessarily shared by both genders (note: science meets feminist sarcasm). Therefore, on the top of the list would be the economy, the cost of feeding one’s families, rising costs of utilities, rising cost of fuel (to drive to work or heat or cool off one’s home), and clothing.

Therefore, women have a clear and defined choice, not that all women are politically thrilled with the choices, but that’s the way of it: one the one hand one can vote party line, or one can vote with one’s pocketbook – Romney is looking more appealing by the second, no matter how charming Ann Romney is, women are listening to the message of “economic growth” that is imperative to the survival of the basic family unit and/or that gorgeous pair of Jimmy Choo's. They are less concerned if Planned Parenthood even exists – what use is that organization or others for that matter, regardless of intent, if one cannot afford to pay the rent? – A woman may be homeless, but by God, she’ll have her contraceptives and free abortions! This may not be the best messaging. In fact, in some perverse center of the universe, the ads by Planned Parenthood ranting about how Great Obama is for abortion and contraceptives while Mitt Romney is not – may actually have the unintended consequence of backfiring – on both Candidate Obama and Planned Parenthood.

Women are not idiots, (although treated as such as equal pay still fails to exist) it doesn’t matter if they are pro-choice, pro-life at this point, it matters that they know money is being spent on something that is of little consequence if one does not have a job, and they understand that Planned Parenthood, on some level is using taxpayers funds to run the ads, while they may be a heartbeat away from a pink slip, or thinking how much further their paycheck could go if programs like Planned Parenthood, which could be privately funded (and are by insurance receipts), were not included in the increasingly heavy tax burden faced by all socio-economic groups. Taxes are not necessarily just those taxes one sees coming out of one’s paycheck (annoying enough), but the taxes on paper goods, the fact that the price of fuel directly affects the price of orange juice at the market, the myriad fee’s of both state and federal agencies one finds in one’s water bill, electric bill and cable bill (just to name a few.)

The correct answer is: Mitt Romney is appealing simply because he is not – Barack Obama.


The President is less appealing because he is associated with all the financial pain and suffering that women are enduring at this point – no matter how many times he blames Bush, or the alignment of the stars, or whatever excuse he may dream up, it boils down to the “bucks stops” at his desk. His fault – some may argue, some may argue otherwise, the scope of the economic problem was so large, that the President just could not take care of it in four years. To those one might suggest: read up on Ronald Reagan – the economy was in the tank under Carter – Reagan took office, and in two years, the economy was booming – he did what he had to do and the economy was his focus. It worked, go figure. Not every President is Reagan, or more to the point, there will never be another Ronald Reagan, however, those we elect are supposed to be smart enough to be able to read, and since we have historical data indicating that certain economical principles work, while others result in a dismal economy, and re-election failure, one would think – being a smart guy, one would follow the course that had proven, time and again, that it works. (Go back to JFK – reminder: a Democrat – in case partisanship is one’s pleasure).

Therefore, in the end, it is this opinion that Romney will do well with women, based on economics - the economy and jobs, Planned Parenthood might find they wasted a few million dollars on ads, and the best quote of the prior century is still valid: President William Jefferson Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Mass. Democrats – Back-up Plan for U.S. Senate Run Against Scott Brown(R) – Insure DeFranco Get’s Delegates to Force Warren into Primary Fight

From: New England Cable News: Meet Marisa DeFranco, the Immigration Attorney who is seeking 15% of the delegates at the Mass Democrat Convention on June 2nd in Springfield, MA – that would insure DeFranco would be able to challenge Elizabeth Warren in a primary.

Warren, who has gained nationwide notoriety for her ability to exaggerate her ancestry, (Washington Post) while dodging questions regarding a plaguerized cookbook based on the aforementioned, (Politico)she appears to be doing well in the polls so far, against incumbent Republican Scott Brown. That’s Massachusetts polls, the same polls that showed Martha Coakley with a 15 point lead over Scott Brown just days before the final election – the outcome was not quite what was expected.

Both Coakley and Warren have certain things in common – they are flawed, and they tied themselves to the Obama administration – which, on the surface, one might think that’s a bonus in Massachusetts or any heavy Democrat state, however, it is simply not the case. (Ask Martha Coakley, or more recently, in a “stunner” as the Houston Chronicle dubs it, long time Texas Congressman, Reyes, was ousted yesterday by a newcomer – who did not have the President stumping for him.(Houston Chronicle). 2010 and 2012 may be similar in that the Tea Party is still alive and kicking and the angst within both major political parties is glaringly apparent – as incumbents lose on the left and on the right – the people have had it – again.

(Of course, there is a little talked about priority of Tea Party activists to get elected by running as either a Democrat or Republican – once elected, there’s a different agenda, and the elections include races from the Party Representation Level to the Congress. Since most Tea Party members are unaffiliated, or former Republicans or Democrats (no kidding – despite the media drumbeat that they are Republicans), this ruse is a no-brainer. Think of them as guerilla politicos.)

What appears to be shaping up here according to the Boston Herald, is a Democrat Mutiny to Sink Warren, where the Herald suggests that Warren is more flawed than Coakley. That said, there is some history in Massachusetts, within the Democrat Party that holds a bit of “Hatfield and McCoy” flavor – the 2008 Convention fight, where Hillary Clinton clearly swept Massachusetts, making Clinton Democrats furious when “Party Leaders” such as the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, et al, put forth Obama instead. The divide continues to exist as does the rancor.

Therefore, it is no stretch of the imagination to suggest that DeFranco will get her 15% (or plus) and push Warren into a primary and debate, possibly upsetting her in the primary, or at the very least, forcing her into positions and comments that will be of us to the Brown Campaign.

Last thought on Elizabeth Warren, although one has not seen her debate, anyone watching the Coakley-Brown debates understood that Coakley was outclassed – if Warren, as suggested by the Herald, might not be the best debate performer – the very popular Senator Scott Brown, should repeat his performance of 2009 – (that includes dead voters, missing voters, Disney character voters, all plugging for Warren, if she wins the primary.)

What boggles the mind, with all the very competent Democrat women who could make themselves available (Marisa DeFranco for example), why does the State DNC continue to put forth candidates that are so obviously flawed?


Debate between 2012 Democrat Candidates for Senate - DeFranco versus Coakely

Obama Fund-Raising Down in Massachusetts – Boston Globe cites Enthusiasm, Warren Campaign and Three Dem’s Fighting Hard for Seats

Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren - Warren Contributions taking away from Obama in MA according to the Globe< - image: familysecuritymatters.org

The Boston Globe Headline: “Obama donors lagging in Mass. (sub) Far fewer give maximum as enthusiasm wanes”speaks to the woes of the Obama Campaign in Massachusetts, and how this Democrat “Cash Cow” state, has seen numbers dwindle since 2008. It appears there are several factors at play, according to the article, chief among them are House and Senate races, specifically the race for Scott Brown’s Seat, challenged by Elizabeth Warren, whose claim of Cherokee Heritage has everyone talking, and three hotly contested Democrat Congressional Seats: Tsongas, Tierney and Keating.

There is also a Kennedy who is running for the 4th Congressional District Seat vacated by Barney Frank, much gerrymandered to be more Conservative (yes in Massachusetts) and possibly unwinnable by even a Kennedy – given the new make-up and the competition, the fact that with a heavily Democrat favored district in 2010, Frank barely held on by Massachusetts standards, winning by 10 points, instead of 50 (as is the norm). The same was true for the aforementioned three in need of funds.

Giving money to Warren’s campaign, is akin to spitting into the wind at this point, although she is seen holding on in polls, or close to leading, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) holds his own and then some with the largest voting bloc in the state, Unenrolleds, who make up over 50% of the electorate. Warren can count on the 35 to 36% of basic Democrat votes, (those who pull the lever, no matter who is running), and possibly 5 points in Unenrolled, dead voters, and those multiple voters, however, it is shaping up to be more of a Coakley-Brown Repeat, with Coakley merely stumbling and having no baggage.

Quotes from the Globe re: the aforementioned:

“Elizabeth Warren has sucked a lot of air out of the room,’’ said a 2008 Obama fund-raiser who asked not to be identified out of deference to the campaign. “She has supplanted Barack Obama as this year’s phenom. So with Obama without a primary opponent, it’s like, what’s the sense of urgency?’’

Many Bay State Democratic fund-raisers have also been energized by Joseph Kennedy’s congressional campaign, and some incumbent House Democrats, such as William Keating, Niki Tsongas, and John Tierney, are also fighting to hang on to their seats.

What is not discussed in depth, rather in passing is the economy. Massachusetts, although touted as improved, has its cash and unemployment woes, rising costs at the grocery store and the pump, just like the other 49 states – People simply do not have the money to donate to political campaigns in 2011 - 2012 that they had in 2007 – 2008. Not mentioned: the fact that there is a challenger (Mitt Romney) raising money in the same Commonwealth) – those donors may run in different circles, with the exception of the died in the wool Dem’s and Republican’s in the state, it’s the Independents again, that will pay the cash and the vote in MA.

A national snapshot follows via the FEC: From 2011-2012 – Individual donors nationwide have contributed $169,058,434, to President Obama’s campaign, with $98,170,540 Contributed to Romney’s campaign. In addition, Romney’s campaign has $0 debt, while Obama has debts owed of $1,200(FEC) Understanding that this does not include “bundlers”, or funds coming from political parties and/or Super Pac’s – those can be found here - where currently one can see the disparity for the President as to the PAC’s and national parties, special interest groups and PAC's against Obama outweigh those for Obama (both in number and in cash).

Although in almost every contest, one is told the Cash value of a candidate weighs in on his/or her future as an incumbent, however, in this race, at this time, it may be more of a clash of the Titans, (as far as cash is concerned, and an army of those who have had enough heading to the polls.

If any one indicator stands out on enthusiasm, it is the numbers coming in for the President in the Democrat Primaries:
In Massachusetts for Example: Obama received 89% of the primary votes with 11% showing no preference: total votes: 127,264 Obama, 16,239 No Preference. When compared to the Republican Party Primary: Romney received 79%, with Santorum 12%, Paul 10% and Gingrich 5%. In addition on the ballot were Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry and yes, No Preference. (Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman had pulled out of the race earlier). Total votes cast for Romney: 265,110, total votes cast in the Republican Primary: 340,264. No Preference: 1,860 votes cast.

What makes this interesting is that the Democrat Party in Massachusetts had a concerted “get out the vote” effort to show party superiority in that Primary, lest the Republican’s show more enthusiasm (obviously did not work) – in Primaries, the diehards vote, (i.e. political junkies), and those that have enthusiasm for a candidate. It could be argued that Romney did better than Obama purely because there was more hoopla about the Republican contest, however, again, this is Massachusetts.

Therefore, although shown as “Safe Democrat” again, and again, and again, ad naseum (including the Scott Brown special election of 2009), this time Massachusetts may, yet again, re-elect a Republican Governor, as President. There is clearly a lack of enthusiasm among the rank and file, both in opening their wallets and the party leadership getting their people to the polls.

Memorial Day Reminds US that Freedom Isn’t Free – The reasons we remember

The Battle of Yorktown - image britishbattles.com


To most of the U.S. Citizenry, Memorial Day marks the beginning of the summer season, some area vaguely aware that here is another element, one which those who are not necessarily commercialized understand deeply. There are those who have fought in conflicts and war since the Revolutionary War, that are honored each Memorial Day for the Sacrifices they made to ensure that the nation was kept safe. Today, those who had fought, their relatives and friends, and those citizens who understand that the men and women on the frontlines of any conflict, are risking life and limb – for each and every one of us.

There is an old poem found, that sums up the “why we celebrate memorial day” question, as well as gives us the origin of the red poppies we find our veteran’s handing out in exchange for donations for the many things they do for their brothers in arms – “In Flanders Field"
From the Arlington Cemetery:

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

A fairly decent synopsis of the history of Memorial Day can be found here:at www.usmemorialday.org.
From the Revolution to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, one is reminded of those who loved country, this country so much, they put everything on hold, to defend the United States against those who would destroy our nation – in the very beginning, even before the first shots were fired, a unique streak of independence proliferated in the land where personal dreams became a reality, and no man, or woman, was subject to live a life a “state” or “monarchy” “suggested”, rather they were and remain free to make choices every day, on where to live, work and worship – all without fear – there are few nations that offer those options, and only one where the history of sacrifice runs as deep, for so long, as does those who have fight, and continue to fight for the United States of America.

The Ultimate Sacrifice for Freedom by conflict from the Congressional Record:

Revolutionary War: (1775-1783) 4435
War of 1812 (1812-1815): 2,260
Mexican War (1846-1848): 13,283

Civil War (Union Forces Only) (1861-1865): 364,511
Spanish-American War (1898-1901): 2,446

World War I (1917-1918) 116,516
World War II (1941-1946) 405,399

Korean War (1950-1953): 36,574
Vietnam Conflict (1964-1973): 58,220

Persian Gulf War (1990-1991): 383

From: fas.org, through 2010 Operation Enduring Freedom: (2001 – 2010): 973

Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2110): 4,365

Of the later two, it is imperative to note that wounded service members far exceed KIO.

The above is given as a remember to those who may not know the scope of the lives given, from the first shots fired to set the United States on its course as a Free and Separate Nation, though the major conflicts. The PDF referred to above, also lists minor conflicts and related deaths of which there were many – although cold statistics, one cannot help feel that this day set aside, once a year, to honor those who have fallen is imperative: Give thanks to those who have died so that as a whole this nation can continue to allow the rest of us to speak out minds, no matter what may be the subject, and move about the nation, without fear of reprisal, to chosen were to live, and what manner of work or career one might choose.