Christian Witch Hunt? Chick Fil A Original Interview, Taken out of Context – Fueled by Boston and Chicago’s Mayors and the Press – The First Amendment

Mr. Dan Cathy - Who Publicly Funded Muppet's Attacked - Unjustly - image from chick-fil-a-junkie.com

In the past few weeks, the “controversy” surrounding one of American’s finest fast food chains, has blown up into a national, anti-Christian, anti-business, rant by the American Press, the UK Press and the mayors of Boston and Chicago. According to the aforementioned, a fast food chain, owned and operated by a Baptist Family, is not welcome to open in either Boston or Chicago due to their “anti-gay marriage” stance, which has morphed into something near “hate crime” status. The fact that none of the aforementioned is true is beside the point; the Press and both mayors are running with it as fast as they can.

In an article from Reuters “Boston mayor to anti-gay-marriage Chick-fil-A: stay away” notes that the Menino has banned the food chain Chick-fil-A, whose president has publicly opposed same-sex marriage, urging the chicken sandwich sellers to stay out of Boston…the chain took heat from Menino, gay rights activists and even the Muppets. (The Muppets, one should be reminded are publicly funded puppets.)

The Daily Mail then follows with ” Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to block Chick-fil-A from building in Chicago after gay marriage scandal! One get’s the gist of the nature of the article from the headline.

What exactly did Mr. Cathy, of Chick-Fil-A say that was so anti-homosexual, so hateful, so scandalous? The original article, available on-line and easily accessible in the event any of the aforementioned, either politicians and/or the press, have a no handle on how to Google, one merely types in Baptist Press Service, does a quick search on their site and in a blink of an eye – the actual interview that is so controversial appears. No kidding that simple.

The gist of the interview is that the man in question, and family who run the business, do so from a Christian perspective, in the way they treat their staff and customers alike, apparently that works well. Moreover, in this interview, there is a segment on Christian Businesses, which is addressed, as such by the same “Anti-Gay” Mr. Cathy, as follows: “There is no such thing as a Christian Business” (BNP), rather the family that owns the chain operates the business on their Christian principals and faith. When asked about family and marriage, Mr. Cathy mad a remark that many a politician has made – including the President, past Presidents, and those who, for either personal faith reasons, or political reasons, not they are for traditional family marriage. In the case of the aforementioned politicians this is usually in response to a question on Gay Marriage, however, in Mr. Cathy’s case – it was not. One cannot find, either implied, or subliminally designed, a comment or question in the article below that specifically points one finger at anyone who is Gay/Lesbian/Transgender or purple – it just states that man believes in traditional marriage – which is in line with every single religion in the world, with a few exceptions – most of the practice of multiple wives, or even harems, is in the historical context as now, marriage is mainstreamed worldwide.

Therefore, what else is riding the wave of attack on this one man, who committed no crime, or slur or otherwise towards any “special interest group”, or indeed treated anyone differently from anyone else. One can imagine given the multiple of video’s on his site about how his employees are trained, that should a gay couple decide to hold their reception Chick Fil A- they would be greeted politely- served publicly and given the same treatment as anyone else – however, that has never been tested in Boston or Chicago, where the city leaders found it necessary to react first to some advantage.

Or perhaps there was a different reason. That being that the individual in question owns a Christian Business and is a Christian. Going back a few months, there was a bit of a dust up between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration over the church being forced to offer services contrary to their tenants of faith. It was, in a manner of speaking an assault on all Catholics, all Christian’s or any one of faith (including Christian denominations, as well as Muslims of faith) and played fast and loose with the Constitution – separation of church and state – works both ways.

Now, maybe the Obama administration and the press and the mayors of Chicago and Boston might think that the Baptists, maybe not the heavyweights that the Catholics are, so we can easily shut down the business, which will cost jobs, and revenue in both cities, as there is no need to have someone of faith, who insists that the business is run on Christian Principle but is not a Christian Business, open a restaurant due to being for traditional marriage.

In doing so they are not protecting any specific group, they are, however, attacking a rather large chuck of the American Public – those who practice religion – and happen to not be shy about it – therefore, that brings up a violation of the U.S. Constitution: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech for starters. Even if Mr. Cathy has said, “and I especially oppose gay marriage” it would not have been unconstitutional and therefore, as he was not taking steps to further his faith in traditional marriage, only open a business in a city, employ people and pay taxes, one has to wonder. What else could it be?

Maybe someone in the family gave a donation to the Republican National Committee in this election year? Is that possible? (Open Secrets.org)

Would government officials and the press go after a company that had given monies to the Republicans? – One might want to ask those Guitar Making Guru’s in Tennessee, who were shut down, for not one violation, just suspicion of – losing 300 jobs, plus – Gibson Guitars. – They also gave to Republicans.

If this is the case, then poor Mr. Cathy is in serious trouble in today’s United States, as he has a double problem – First, he’s a Christian, and unabashed about how he runs his life and business, second he’s a Christian who owns a successful business, and three, he may be related to someone who gave money to people that neither Menino, Emanuel or the Press are particularly crazy about – Conservatives or Republican politicians or party.

The real truth is there is no scandal, there is nothing but a persecution of a man for following his faith, making a statement of faith, and then becoming a success – it can be applied to so many, and yet, not in the United States apparently.
The full interview:


Original Interview from the Baptist Press News Service:

CARY, N.C. (BP) -- Dan Cathy oversees one of the country's most successful businesses. As president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, Cathy leads a business with 1,608 restaurants that had sales of more than $4 billion dollars last year. They sell chicken and train employees to focus on values rooted in the Bible.

His father, S. Truett Cathy started the business in 1946, when he and his brother, Ben, opened an Atlanta diner known as The Dwarf Grill (later renamed The Dwarf House). In 1967, his father opened the first Chick-fil-A restaurant in Atlanta. Today, Chick-fil-A is the second largest quick-service chicken restaurant chain in the United States based on annual system-wide sales.

Dan Cathy's success has not erased the biblical values he learned as a child in a Baptist church. He is a warm, common man who is deeply committed to being a faithful Christian witness. And he is fully involved in New Hope Baptist Church in Fayetteville, Ga. He drives Chick-fil-A's efforts to provide genuine hospitality, ensuring that customers have an exceptional dining experience in a Chick-fil-A restaurant. Based on Matthew 5:41, Cathy is on a mission to provide customers with "second-mile" service -- exceeding even the highest expectations of a typical fast-food restaurant.

"We don't claim to be a Christian business," Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, "There is no such thing as a Christian business."

"That got my attention," Cathy said. Roach went on to say, "Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me."

"In that spirit ... [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are," Cathy added.

"But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

Rather than leading from his corporate office in Atlanta, Cathy chooses to spend the majority of his time traveling to the chain's growing family of restaurants and interacting with Chick-fil-A's committed team members. His actions stem from a belief that working in the field provides a clearer understanding of the needs of Chick-fil-A customers. Leading from the front line also enables him personally to convey his servant spirit to the chain's 61,000-plus employees.

Cathy believes strongly that Christians are missionaries in the workplace. "Jesus had a lot of things to say about people who work and live in the business community," he said. His goal in the workplace is "to take biblical truth and put skin on it. ... We're talking about how our performance in the workplace should be the focus of how we build respect, rapport and relationships with others that opens the gateway to interest people in knowing God.

"All throughout the New Testament there is an evangelism strategy related to our performance in the workplace. ... Our work should be an act of worship. Our work should be our mission field. As long as we are stateside, let's don't think we have to go on mission trips by getting a passport. ... If you're obedient to God you are going to be evangelistic in the quality of the work you do, using that as a portal to share [Christ]," he said.

When asked if Chick-fil-A's success is attributed to biblical values, Cathy quickly said, "I think they're inseparable. God wants to give us wisdom to make good decisions and choices." Quoting James 1:5, he spoke of how often he asks God for wisdom.

"Frequently Jesus challenged us to just ask ... we're simply not asking as often as we should. We need to be more faithful to depend on a God who does love us and wants to have a relationship with us, and wants to give us the desires of our hearts."

There is another success story attributed to Cathy's organization. They have a positive influence in the world of Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and Southeastern Conference (SEC) football.

There was a time when the Atlanta college football bowl game, which is now named after Chick-fil-A, was called the Peach Bowl. The annual bowl features teams from the ACC and the SEC. It struggled for a long time. Then 15 years ago the Chick-fil-A organization got involved. It was rebranded as the Chick-fil-A Bowl and has been incredibly successful with 15 consecutive sellouts.

"We are the only bowl that has an invocation. It's in our agreement that if Chick-fil-A is associated in this, there's going to be an invocation. Also, we don't have our bowl on Sunday, either," Cathy said.

In 2008 Chick-fil-A began sponsoring a Chick-fil-A Kickoff game matching two of the nation's top teams and hosted on the first weekend of the season in the same stadium (Georgia Dome) as the Chick-fil-A Bowl. This year Chick-fil-A will host two kickoff games, one on Friday and one on Saturday.

"That's never been done before," he said.

The pair of Chick-fil-A Kickoff games is expected to generate more than $60 million in economic impact. The bowl website describes the event as "a college football celebration of epic proportions."

When questioned about Chick-Fil-A's "Closed on Sunday" policy Cathy responded, "It was not an issue in 1946 when we opened up our first restaurant. But as living standards changed and lifestyles changed, people came to be more active on Sundays."

The policy has not changed over the years as malls began changing their policies by opening on Sundays.

"We've always put in our lease that we will be closed on Sundays," Cathy said. "We've had a track record that we were generating more business in six days than the other tenants were generating in seven [days]."

"While developers had no identity whatsoever with our corporate purpose to 'glorify God and be a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and have a positive influence on all that come in contact with Chick-fil-A,' they did identify with the rent checks that we wrote to the mall, that were based on our sales.

"So, they would make an exception for Chick-fil-A when they wouldn't make an exception for anybody else, simply because they knew we would pay them more in rent than any other tenant would that was open even seven days a week."

The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

"That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

(Baptist News Service Article)
>
Anyone sane can understand that man was talking on a personal level, and anyone is challenged to find the word “gay”, “homosexual”, or other in the above referenced article – it is simply not there, and neither is any “subliminal context”. Witch Hunt, one has to wonder who’s next?

2012 Presidential Debate Schedules and Formats – 3 Debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and 1 Debate for Joe Biden and GOP V.P. Candidate

From MyFox Philly via the APThe dates and formats of the 2012 Presidential Debates and one Vice Presidential Debate have been set by the Commission on Presidential Debates the schedule is as follows:

Presidential Debates:

Oct. 3 at the University of Denver

Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.

Vice Presidential Debate

Oct. 11 at Centre College in Danville, Ky

The First and Third Presidential Debates will take a 90 minute format divided into 6, 15 minute segments. There will be a question followed by a two minute reply from each candidate – the candidates will be seated with a moderator instead of standing at podiums. All topics will be released to both candidates and the public prior to the debates, allowing time for study by the candidates and in order to facilitate discussion as well as potentially drive up viewership by the public. The first debate will focus on domestic policy and the third debate on foreign policy.
The Second Presidential Debate will feature a town-hall style format – with questions submitted and chosen by the Gallup Research firm. The candidates will have two minutes to answer, with a moderator guiding follow-up discussions.

The Vice Presidential Debate format will be 90 minutes divided into 10 minute segments on both foreign and domestic policy. The usual two minute response with a moderator offering rebuttal time and time guidance will be offered. (AP)

According to the Commission on Presidential Debates moderators for the debates will be announced in prior to end of summer 2012.

For additional information visit the Commission Website at www.debates.org. Note there is a debate history section of the site, with debates from 1858 through 2008.

Sr. Diane Feinstein on National Security Leaks and the White House Involvement – The Implications and Backpedaling – Leaks: Treasonous

Timeline: On June 6th, Diane Feinstein (D), Senator from CA, with her Republican counterpart, spoke with CNN regarding highly classified national intelligence leaks and the impact that these leaks have on national security (See Video Below)



Diane Feinstein is the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. and as such is bound to insure that the secrets that the U.S. Intelligence services and their allies have are kept so, in order to preserve the peace of the both our nation and those who would help us abroad – as well as to prevent acts of war on the U.S. and its interests abroad.

The beginning of the investigation (video above) suggests that the committee understood the leaks were coming from the highest offices.

On June 8th, the Atlantic Wire Reported that the Senator would find herself against the White House (i.e. her political party in an election year)

:
"Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's reputation for toughness when it comes to cracking down on national security leaks is bringing her dangerously close to butting heads with the White House. As Reuters' Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell report, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman is considering joining Republican calls for an outside investigation of U.S. national security leaks, but according to a transcript from the White House's Thursday press briefing, President Obama is adamantly opposed to such an investigation."

On Thursday, Feinstein joined the House intelligence committee's Republican chairman Mike Rogers and Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger for a rare Capitol Hill press conference to lament a series of leaks regarding President Obama's classified "kill list" and CIA cyber attacks to The New York Times. Feinstein said she's still pondering the idea of a "special counsel" but finds the leaks damaging to national security. "I am deeply disturbed by the continuing leaks of classified information to the media, most recently regarding alleged cyber efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program," she said. The White House, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with an outside investigation of the leaks, as Thursday's press gaggle with Jay Carney revealed:

Video Below – Feinstein “The White House has to be aware that the leaks are coming from the White House”


On July 24, the Hill reported that Feinstein’s remarks were direct in that someone at the White House is behind the national security leaks – but not the President.

A few Hours Later she cautioned:“I stated that I did not believe the president leaked classified information,” Feinstein said in the statement on Tuesday. “I shouldn’t have speculated beyond that, because the fact of the matter is I don’t know the source of the leaks.”

This was most likely due to the fact that Mitt Romney as well as conservative news outlets began to look at this revelation as it should be viewed, regardless of the source, as a huge mismanagement of the public trust, specifically as it regards the safety of the nation and our allies. In addition, regardless of whether or not it was a bungle by a member of the White House staff, who has access to highly secure information, trying to get out the “news” of what a great job the Administration is doing on the Terror Threat we live within the U.S, it is, regardless of intent – treasonous under the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution, Article III (The Judiciary) Section 3, states: - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Notes on the definitions: The Constitution explicitly states that there may be no "corruption of blood," or that the children and relatives of the traitor not be considered traitorous simply by relation; the "no forfeiture" clause basically means that once the traitor dies, "payment" for the crime ends.(usconstitution.net)

This opens up a huge can of worms, one which, politics aside, should be alarming regardless of which political party has been involved. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “as bad as” the Plame revelations (outing of a CIA operative who was no longer an operative) by a Bush Administration official. This involves ongoing efforts by the U.S. Intelligence agencies to secure U.S. safety, puts lives at risk for those in hostile lands that might have helped us, and/or makes the likelihood of anyone thinking of helping the U.S. – zero.

There should be not only an internal investigation by the White House under the direction of Attorney General Holder, but due to the partisan nature of the administration, an independent council should be assigned to investigate the matter – as was done under other administrations who had not strayed so close into the area of Treason as defined by the Constitution. As to Senator Feinstein’s backtracking on first naming then denying she has the knowledge, one finds that somewhat incredulous due to her position on the Committee and the fact that this has been going on for months that the public is aware of. However, the pressure brought to bear by the White House on the Senator must have been somewhat crippling, even though, as some pundits suggest, she has a very “safe seat” in her upcoming bid for reelection to the Senate, and therefore, should continue to stand up for the nation, rather than the party, if she is certain. One would think that, if that were the case, then Senator Feinstein has some very deep soul-searching ahead of her – specifically if the joint committees investigations conclude that the leaks could come from nowhere but the White House – and should an independent counsel find the same, then a full prosecution should take place as directed by the U.S. Constitution. In that wise, the Senator would have been indirectly complicit in denying knowledge, if knowledge existed. One would think that she is above that fray, given her passion for the protection of the U.S. and, should she find herself in such a position, specifically backtracking if she does know the leaks indeed came from within the administration, then it would be hoped she has the chutzpah to stand up and do her job as the Committee Chair of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, and pay due attention to the Oath she Took when she attained her office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Week's Polls – Obama Owns Economy – Romney Leads 2-1 on Economy in USA/Gallup Poll, Obama Blamed 2-1 for Economy in HillBlog Poll

Mitt Romney favored 2 to 1 to lead U.S. on Economy - image UPI

The summer has seen a good deal of negative ads by the Obama Campaign and general U.S. press for 2012 Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, specifically on his stewardship of Bain Capital and subsequent split from the firm in 1999, have had little impact on Romney’s chances in November. A USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that “By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years.” The poll, a rolling 4 day survey of 1030 adults concluded on the July 22, 2012, suggests that although the President is more “likeable” than Romney, the President appears to own the economy. In addition, Republican and Republican Leaning Independent voters are showing more enthusiasm towards voting by 18 points, compared to their Democrat and Democrat leaning counterparts who are “less enthusiastic” than usual. (See complete article here at USA Today.com)

In a separate poll conducted by the The Hill. com, taken on July 19th, with a similar number of survey participants (1000), concludes that “Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else”… 53 percent of voters say Obama has taken the wrong actions and has slowed the economy down. Forty-two percent said he has taken the right actions to revive the economy, while six percent said they were not sure. (See Marginals here at thehill.com (PDF) Further in breaking down the marginal’s this poll shows that, there is little difference in opinion between genders and those polled that are in the 18-39 demographic, with party affiliation split to more accurately define the electorate, while on age demographics, those 65 or older were not polled as strongly as those in the 18-39 and 40-64 brackets, which made up over 85% of the poll. That said, if the economy is the issue, the data may not have changed a great deal as the “baby boomers” in that 65 plus bracket are on fixed incomes, or forced to return to the workforce to supplement their income.

What this tells us is that the economy is the driving force behind this election, that negative ads are either ignored or no-one is paying overly much attention to these ads, either on the web, television, radio or print as the summer months finds fewer people consuming the “news”. Additionally, Gallup’s June, 2012 confidence (trust) in institutions polling on Political Party lines finds that Television News is held in high esteem by 17% of Republicans, 17% of Independents and merely 34% of Democrats, while print news is only slightly higher, at 22, 20 and 37% respectively. The highest confidence is in Small Business, across the board as well as The Military, the Police and Organized Religion. Of note, two of the categories that have lost the most confidence in this series of polls by Gallup, are the Presidency and Organized Labor, along with Public Schools. . This is a dramatic shift, specifically by those polled as Independents and Democrats, as far as their levels of confidence are concerned.

Therefore, the lack of confidence in consumer news (be it CBS, ABC, Fox, or the daily paper), appears to have impacted this election similarly to that of the 2010 election, where those numbers began to decline among Independents and Democrats. Viewing the data among party lines, one finds that the lack of enthusiasm in the Democrat Demographic has held steady. Those who are generally perceived to be Democrat voters, academics and labor, with the largest block being labor, are now in agreement, in growing numbers with Independents and Republican counterparts.

“Jumping ship” in politics, can be seen starkly in Massachusetts, in the Senate Race between Scott Brown(R) and Elizabeth Warren (D), where it appears that weekly, Brown is being endorsed by Office-Holding Massachusetts Democrats. Boston Globe. Elizabeth Warren, responsible for the “You didn’t build it” (paraphrasing) concept used by the President in a recent speech, has been running approximately even in the polls with Brown – for now. Although viewed as the “bluest state”, Brown was elected in 2009 by 5 points, with the dead voting. Warren, is every bit or more flawed a candidate than Attorney General Martha Coakley, who ran against Brown in that election. The press is suggesting Obama’s connection to Warren as a key to her win in the one of 10 states where the President’s approval is still over 50% (Gallup Survey, consecutive 3 years.). (Examiner) However, that did little to boost the chances of Elizabeth Warren, including a visit to the Bay State during the last weeks of the campaign to bolster Coakley. One might hypothesis that Coakley’s loss was based on her assumption that a Democrat in Massachusetts is a shoe-in, which may be way – Warren does not mention party affiliation in her advertising. Therefore, to those who are feeling the economic sting in Massachusetts, it may be a Reagan moment come November. In 1980 Carter was polling well in MA, but lost the Bay State to then Governor Ronald Reagan.

Of course, polls change with each week, as the economy and other factors that drive the electorate are apt to change on a dime – it is still far too early to project outcomes in November from any data on the specific races – yet, one might understand that if the Gallup institution polling is accurate and remains so – then there is, indeed, change in the future. To paraphrase America’s beloved President William Jefferson Clinton – “It’s the Economy Stupid”, may well be the bellwether in this 2012 election.

Mitt Romney Campaign Outpacing Obama Campaign in Small Donors – Obama Campaign Runs Deficit in June – Spending on Polling in Millions

Mitt Romney (R) and President Barack Obama (D-Incumbent) - image MNN.com

From the Associated Press via the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “Obama effort spends more in June than it takes in”notes that Obama spent more campaign donations 2 to 1 over Mitt Romney – specifically on ads regarding Bain Capital – an investment that is yet to show signs of paying off – as the country remains politically divided in the national polls and has not moved either up or down by more than 2 to 3 points (See Gallup or Rasmussen daily presidential tracking polls). Moreover it is early in the campaign cycle, given the fact that most U.S. voters don’t begin to really pay attention until the final months of the campaign, which begs the question – will anyone remember in this 24/7 ads based on “seeds of doubt” sewn in early Summer when they are making decisions in late October?

The AP article also mistakes the type of donations being received by the Romney Campaign as follows:

Much of Romney's financial advantage — he raised $106 million last month with the help of the Republican Party — came from larger donations in a handful of battleground states. Those included Florida, where the Romney Victory Fund pulled in about $4.4 million in individual contributions, records show.

This contradicts the New York Times article ”Obama Spends the Most, but Romney Raises More”:

But Mr. Romney sharply improved his take from small donors in June, with checks of under $200 accounting for about a third of his fund-raising, suggesting that Mr. Obama’s advantage might not persist.

In addition both articles note that the candidates’ campaigns will not yet be able to avail themselves of the national Party’s donations until after the Conventions – right now they are relying on personal finances as well as donations from both large and small donors.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has taken a more fiscally responsible route in the past, in February, during the primaries, when the campaign began to show signs of possibly running a deficit, they reigned in spending:(Clevelend Plain Dealer)

The campaign stopped conducting expensive polling ahead of the Michigan primary. Instead, it now counts on lower-cost voter ID phone calls, which aides contend are nearly as accurate as internal polls. Romney also stopped using the 150-seat plane that could accommodate the press after Super Tuesday and is instead flying with a small group of aides and Secret Service agents on a smaller and cheaper aircraft.

Further, his staff is pursing what it calls creative ways to maximize free television coverage to supplement a flood of paid television advertising. Romney notified local media, for example, that he's scheduled to arrive at the San Juan airport Friday at 2:30 p.m., although there are no formal remarks or events planned for that time. That's not typical for the buttoned-down campaign with the tightly controlled media schedule.

The media portrayed the cut-backs as a sign of problems, rather than Romney being Romney as a fiscal conservative running a business in the “black rather than in the red” and therefore, balancing the campaign budget – which in light of the huge deficits run now by the U.S. Federal Government, this would be a plus rather than a negative.

Now, the shoe is on the other side of the aisle – so to speak. In going over the campaign finance reports to the FEC – the Weekly Standard, a Conservative news magazine, found the following:

A line item for the Obama Campaign’s kick-off event found that the campaign spent $93,000 for rental of a 20 thousand seat stadium, which ended up being half-full and, more telling that the campaign in June spent $2,639,265.72 on public opinion polling, which the Weekly Standard suggests is a record for political campaigns. It is well known that from campaigns staffers to advisers and even the candidate make decisions during a campaign that can be viewed as a “mistake” in hindsight, but the polling in particular is of interest. All campaigns poll, down to the state level, however, relying on public opinion polls without a seriously astute analyst, might end up as poor decisions in ad spending – too much – too early. Especially given the fact that the national political parties, both Democrat and Republican are also conducting polling, one might think a camp gin would rely on both – allowing for a reduction in spending at the campaign level. One might look at this two ways: One, the Obama campaign has decided to run on public opinion, which can be risky, as the public changes its collective mind as fast as it changes cable channels and two, this gives insight into the type of campaign being run – one that is tailored to meet what “people want to hear” rather than what the candidate has to offer.

From the beginning the 2012 race has been projected to be a tight race, plus or minus 4 points in national polling margin of errors, meaning that either candidate can win in November, however, it is early and the economy is the driving factor in this race – no matter how either campaign frames its message, come October, should the economy remain the same, then one can expect these numbers to move – even if it appears slight – in polling a 5 to 8 point lead by Romney would be an indicator that (conservatively speaking) of some trouble for the Obama Campaign. However, it is far too early in this game of politics to forecast a win by either candidate based on assumptions of future events no one can determine. Finally, the money game played out in campaign finance only gives an indicator of the “executive in charge” of a given campaign and how that individual might conduct the “people’s business”, as of now, the more fiscally sound campaign appears to be the Romney campaign.

Romney Heads Abroad – Britain, Poland and Israel Tour – Press Dubs Trip - “Audition”

The Headline from ABC News: “Romney Plans Foreign Trip, Audition as US Leader”, is a reminder to those who follow “local and national network news” that Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, is both running for the office President Obama holds and is somehow “lacking” in foreign policy experience. )(ABC News) One might revisit the 2008 campaign where, then candidate Barack Obama, planned his first foray into foreign travel as a Presidential Candidate prior to the Democratic Convention, to acclaim: “In Western Europe, Hulsman said, Obama is "fanatically popular. People here, they're mesmerized by the notion an African-American could be elected president. They see Obama talking and hear Kennedyesque strains in what he says, and think maybe America isn't as bad as they thought."(McClatchy) Although the President had spent time abroad with his parents as a child, his political career in the Illinois Statehouse, and a term in the U.S. Senate hardly gave him the experience to deal effectively with foreign policy – rather it was more a “popularity contest”. In other words, no one who is running for the office of the President – with perhaps a few exceptions earlier U.S. History – has or had serious foreign policy experience.

On Romney from the ABC News article (Para.1):

For the Republican presidential hopeful — a former private equity executive and Massachusetts governor with little formal experience overseas — it's a chance to demonstrate competence in settings often occupied by presidents. He'll hold formal meetings with foreign leaders give public speeches and visit historic sites.
Aides say it's a chance for the candidate to forge links with strong U.S. allies and show that he'll stand up for shared values.
There's also risk: Romney, sometimes prone to misstatements, faces higher stakes wading into delicate diplomatic disputes than he does on the more familiar campaign trail at home. And executing a complicated trip through three countries over a weeklong span presents the most difficult logistical challenge Romney's campaign has yet faced.

Therefore, message is that due to Romney’s lack of “formal overseas experience”, and his “sometimes misstatements”, plus no prior “staff experience in planning overseas trips” there are “challenges”.

One must live under a rock therefore, if one is buying the ABC message. For starters, the argument against Senators and Congressional Representatives running for office is primarily their lack of governing experience and that includes foreign policy. However, Governors are another story, they routinely deal with aspects of foreign policy, including meeting with heads of state and foreign dignitaries who are either visiting and/or have business in the U.S., including Massachusetts. Unlike most candidates, Romney also has the Utah Olympics under his belt, one of the reasons he was chosen was his business credentials, those credentials, allowed him to deal with the logistics of the massive Olympic Games – which, if one needs reminding, requires contact with foreign nationals – and their governments.
Therefore, he is armed with at least a tad more “experience” than one’s average contender. As to Romney’s “misstatements” – apparently the President or any Presidential candidate has never before “misspoke”, even on foreign soil? – Seriously.

The way the “foreign press” sees Romney’s “tour”, maybe somewhat different – as the Republican nominee is not running on a “Rock Star” tour, rather, a visit to London to meet with past and present leaders of both parties, as well as a stop at the Olympics (naturally), in Poland, it will be more of the same, and in Israel he will meet with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders – although one article found in the Jerusalem Post indicates the upcoming visit: will be Romney’s 4th , while President Obama visited once on the campaign trail and has not visited since. (Jerusalem Post)

It is merely a rite of passage for any U.S. Presidential candidate – the outcome of which will be known to the world only during and immediately following the visit. One might read the press in the nations visited – Google supplies a translate this page feature which is quite helpful. In addition, one’s lack of experience prior to an election, cannot in any wise prepare that individual for what might take place globally once the office is attained. One must remember, Foreign nations do not “elect” the U.S. President, and their opinion of the U.S. President is really a matter pertaining to those who either fear, loath, or disrespect the “Leader of the Free World” and that can be as simple as a nations conservative or liberal point of view. At this point in time, globally, it really boils down to matters of the economy – and who is most competent, in the eyes of the world to set the U.S. on the right economic foot – as the U.S. standing affects all nations – be it our debt or our generous foreign aid, rather than any misstatements or lack of “experience” or even a personality contest.