First Lady Michelle Obama Draws a “Dozen” to “Hundreds” of supporters In Springfield, MA – the Bluest City in the Bluest State

Springfield Residents Wait outside the Basketball Hall of Fame to catch a glimpse of the First Lady Michelle Obama - image WAMC.org

It is not often that a notable politician or U.S. Dignitary visits Western Massachustts for a political fundraiser, or rally, or event at one of the dozens of colleges and universities in the area. Springfield, which is the largest city in Western Massachustts, rarely is offered the opportunity to stand out, and line the streets to rally support or conversely “protest”, the appearance of a “notable”. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) The City of Springfield is the largest city in Western Massachusetts, with 152,000 residents of which 22.3% are African American, and 38.8% are Hispanic or Latino, making Springfield the most diverse City in Western Massachusetts. . It is also has the largest voting bloc of registered Democrats. According to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Website Of the 91,780 registered voters in Springfield, 47,780 are registered Democrats.
Therefore the news accounts today of Michelle Obama’s visit to Springfield, even if it was only for a fundraiser, are mind-boggling:

From Mass Live (Springfield Republican)

A motorcade brought the first lady into the basement garage of the Hall of Fame. She was then to be brought to the MassMutual Room, where the fundraiser event was underway…
A number of people appeared to be just hanging around the Hall of Fame complex to try to get a look at Obama…
Onlookers, however, got no glimpse of the first lady. Her motorcade, preceded by state police motorcycles, was all business as it pulled into the front entrance of the Hall of Fame’s parking lot and down into the underground garage….

From WGGB (ABC /Fox)First Lady’s Stop to Springfield Brought a Big Crowd

Michelle Obama made a stop on Friday to the Basketball Hall of Fame to support her husband’s re-election campaign.
Hundreds gathered outside hoping to meet her because the last time a first lady came to this side of the Bay State was in 1994 when Hilary Clinton came to speak at Springfield College, so for people in the Pioneer Valley, this was an opportunity that doesn’t come often.
“I’m proud to be an Obama support and happy to be able to see Michelle Obama today,” said Nancy Tener of Newton.
Unfortunately, not everyone got that opportunity. The only one’s who did were the people who paid $1,000 for lunch or $2,500 for lunch and a photo.

(Note Newton is located approximately, 82 miles east of Springfield)

Finally, the big crowd reported by WGGB, according toMass Live, the Springfield Republican, was a “dozen” onlookers.

What one has is a visit by the First Lady, Michelle Obama, to a region of the Bluest State, with a population that is predominately Democrat, to raise funds for her husband, President Obama’s reelection campaign. This took place, in a State where the President’s, competition, Mitt Romney, not only resided, but was the Govenor. Additionally to all polls taken by the local Universities, the President should consider MA a fairly safe bet for reelection. Additionally with over 12% of the City officially unemployed, and the close proximity to major enclaves of Democrats from Holyoke to Northampton and beyond into the Hills – it begs the question: Why weren’t there thousands of people lining the streets to waive at the First Lady’s car as she arrived? The First Lady – a pretty big deal if one is a Democrat, Independent or none of the aforementioned.

A little background on visitors to Springfield or the area of note:

The last political notable to visit the City was former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, in 2008 as a then candidate Clinton who Clinton drew capacity crowds in Springfield, where 5,000 people turned out to hear her speak at Springfield College.. In fact, it was impossible to get near the event, as the traffic leading to the College was impossible a half hour before the event (blogger personal experience).

Heads of State, Religious Leaders: The Dalai Lama visited Northampton in 2007 where he drew a crowd similar in scope to Hillary Clinton (5,000) (Sun Journal Lewiston/Auburn)

The Press: The first notice came from Mass Live on on July 10, 2012 Channel 22, the local NBC Affiliate, also announced the visit, noting that a rare event would draw large crowds. On July 19 and July 20th, the Local CBS Affiliate mentioned the visit as the City of Springfield was fixing potholes ahead of the First Lady’s visit. On July 31st the ABC/Fox Affiliate announced that the “First Lady’s Visit was Just Days Away”, Mass Live announced the preparations for the First Ladies Visit on August 1st On August 2nd the NBC Affiliate offered a “First Lady Traffic Advisory” there may have been more, however, this is based on Google News results.

Or perhaps the lack of crowds was a result of the timing of the work day. That said, surely the Teachers Unions, retirees, and those who work Second Shifts make up a large enough percentage of the population to muster more than dozen supporters? – given the 47,000 registered Democrats in Springfield alone (and the import from Newton).

Or perhaps it is the lack of voter enthusiasm – or lack of enthusiasm due to high unemployment, or the traffic advisory, or the fact that, perhaps, just perhaps, the State of Massachustts is not quite as “blue” as the pollsters, pundits predict. Hypothetically, (based on those aforementioned polls), even if there are more Romney supporters in Massachusetts, coupled with less enthusiastic Democrats, the fact that a notable, someone as notable as the First Lady, Michelle Obama, visited and merely a dozen or even reports of “hundred” showed to rally or stand on the sides of streets. It is a missed opportunity for the Obama Campaign and a missed opportunity for the MA Democrat Party, that in an election year they did little to no advance work to pull crowds in the thousands in honor of the First Lady of the United States of America.

Final Local News Coverage

Video on visit by CBS Affiliate

CBS 3 Springfield - WSHM

2012 US Job’s Reports – July sluggish – again “unexpectedly” – Historical data suggests continued loss under Administration. - Economics Simplified

President Obama with Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, a company that did not pay Federal Taxes and Shipped whole companies overseas - image buzzbox.com

A Primer on simple economics

Reuters: U.S.Non-Farm payrolls (i.e. private sector jobs) showed a gain of 100,000 in July, 20,000 more than in June – and this was “again unexpected”. One has to break this down in very simple terms - One: the government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. Therefore if the private sector (those horrible rich people and corporations) are not hiring due to costly regulations, or uncertainty, specifically on tax issues, those lost jobs, are actually lost revenue for the government. Understanding that the government can only bring in income from those who pay taxes working for the private sector, is the key to understanding how the nation works – literally. Yes, the nation needs those who work to keep our government running, from clerical positions to law enforcement on the federal level, to the teachers, and municipal workers at the state and town level – but the distinction between a public employee and an employee at a private firm is this: those jobs created at the public level, do pay taxes, but their salaries are generated by the taxpayers – taxpayers who have private sector jobs. It is a fallacy to propagate the myth that by creating jobs in the public sector the economy would come roaring back – it would have been fair to say that if one had allowed the private sector a “tax holiday” or a corporate tax decrease, that money would have brought about hiring – those jobs, then created and filled would not only pay the government but supply the salaries of those teachers who rely on the government for their paycheck.

So much for the anti-trickle down argument – to recap: when corporations are taxed less, that money goes to hiring and research, those hired, pay taxes, which keeps the government running – the more small businesses are allowed to thrive in a lower tax environment – specifically the entrepreneurs – even more jobs are created, giving the government more money to hire more teachers, and SEIU members. (Who rail against the corporate machine as if it weren’t the real source of their income?)
The idea of giving tax cuts to those making under $250,000 maybe a great campaign speech, but, when one look at the fact that most individuals earning in the 30 to 40K range pay zero taxes (estimteed at half of the tax payers – half of the eligible tax payers – pay no taxes at all) – that leaves those making $250,000 or more left holding the bag for the “rest of the nation” and those are the “job creators”. Corporate tax rates are also more inviting in other nations, which leads large American Concerns to flee overseas and well, build and hire there – consider General Electric Corporation, whose CEO is an associate of the current administration. They have built factories in other nations due to our tax climate, and actually making billions in revenue paid no taxes to the U.S.

If one considers the brouhaha over Mitt Romney’s taxes – consider the following hypothesis while considering someone making 40,000 a year pays not one dime in taxes and may be eligible for further refunds under the current tax structure. If Mitt Romney paid 14% (the figure thrown about in the press) on $20,000,000 – that would be revenue to the government - in the amount to a payment to the Federal Government of 2.8 Million dollars. This would be enough to keep several SEIU executives on the payroll or a year! When viewing Romney on the wealth scale (for purposes other than divisive politics (see Obama Campaign class warfare). Forbes recent article on the “Richest Americans: (400 profiled) at here at “Forbes.com-400) includes the top earners in the nation - those with the most capital at hand, the last is one Dan Snyder, who earns 1.5 billion - (to those partisan’s -Romney is not on this list having that measly 20 million taxable dollars). It is not clear who pays taxes on the list - Warren Buffet does not - but one might hope that the other 399 might pay the same rate as say, Mitt Romney.


What Happens when the top earners pay the Romney Tax Rate?

Which would mean that 400 plus individuals are supporting the government and those people who are supported by the government, either in entitlements or through payroll (including teachers, and clerical workers) – without those individuals, giving millions in taxes each year (compared to those who pay no taxes), these billionaires and millionaires should be touted as government hero’s!

The false logic that the government creates any jobs is just that false. The government creates debt – and that is all it can create – as it has no source of income of its own. Period.

The only way that a government can create jobs, is through incentives to businesses that will hire massive amount of employees in a relatively short period of time. In order for business to do so, they must feel conformable in the environment and know that there is going to be set of regulations and tax codes in place, that are not subject to ridiculous changes and additions as well as increases.

It is that simple. It is contrary to everything that the President believes. It is also contrary to everything that past President Jimmy Carter believed – both men are “progressives”. (A share the wealth attitude – unless one’s friends are wealthy). The historical fact beginning with the administration of John F. Kennedy and then followed by the Reagan Administration is that tax cuts to corporations produce the following: jobs and revenue for the government. The two Presidents were from two different political parties, and yet understood that “trickle down” is not a fallacious argument that Mitt Romney is making – it has sound historical economic footing. The Brookings Institute the Obama campaign is quoting may have missed the fact that what Romney is suggesting, although modified a bit, is a way to boost the economy, and – get this –create jobs. Romney’s plan is similar in structure to two past-Presidents who had great success with the process. While the current administration is parroting a progressive ideology that when put into practice has disastrous results – also backed by historical data.

There will always be ups and downs in an economy – weaknesses come from so many sources, there may, for example be a drought, there may be a spike in oil prices, there may be other natural disasters or terrorist attacks that costs the nation billions of dollars. These situation are beyond the control of the man in office, and do nothing to help the economy - but... with a pro-business , which is pro-labor policy in place – jobs, private firm, whether small or large, will be created, and the monies needed by the government to run, will be increased.

Additionally, one must consider management – if one is an experienced manager, and has been successful in that position, then one understand the moves necessary to keep a nation running, hiring the right advisers, for one, individuals whose areas of expertise actually fit the job description – they should be niether friends, nor political appointees – rather experts with a track record. (With the glaring exception of the V.P. choice, who may or may be a strategic political appointee, but in the case of Mitt Romney, one can bet the house there will be some sort of business background in his choice of V.P. Candidate).

Jobs numbers, again, reflect the fact that the private sector is concerned about increased taxes and burdensome regulations, so much so that any job growth is not likely as projected by numerous economists through 2014 – which begs the question: If the administration is bent on maintaining the “war on people who can create jobs”, then there is only one hope for the economy.

Chick-Fil-A Day – Lines Out the Door Across the U.S. In Support of First Amendment

Chick-Fil-A - Lining up for Chicken and Constitutional Rights - photo: urbangrounds.com

The politically embattled fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A, saw a massive increase in customers yesterday – the day dubbed by Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential Candidate, Mike Huckabee called for a Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day via email and social media. Huckabee, according to the blog Gawker, saw 600,000 individuals sign-up for Huckabee’s event on Facebook alone. “A counter-protest called "National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A" was planned for this Friday, but the event's Facebook page appears to have been deleted.” (Gawker). Politicians across the nation, from Boston’s Mayor to the Mayor of Chicago and points in-between suggested that the firm be shunned (and denied access to build in these cities) because the CEO Dan Cathy expressed his view that he supported traditional marriage – to a Baptist press. The fact that the company operates on Christian principle, closing on Sundays, and treating customers as they would like to be treated, apparently did not factor into the CEO’s personal belief structure when it came to denouncing the chain as “anti-gay”. This set up both a religious backlash as well as a first amendment backlash – resulting in greater support for the food chain. The new mantra, which if one is “for traditional marriage” means that one is “anti-Gay” is generalizing to the extreme. One might even point out that Barney Frank, the retiring, openly gay Congressional Representative from the MA 4th District, got into a heated debate with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews, on the Democrat Party’s Platform inclusion of Gay Marriage as an issue:

The drafting committee has said that it will include same-sex marriage in the party platform. Matthews wondered if it would support leaving the issue up to the states or creating a federal law to allow same-sex marriage.
He asked Frank, a member of the committee, if the Democratic Party’s platform would support such a law.
"I literally don't understand what that means," Frank answered. "There is a fundamental confusion here. There has never been a practical law saying that's what marriage is."
He say that Democrats' stance on gay marriage was already clear, especially in the recent vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. Frank went on to argue that even after the Civil Rights Act, there was never a federal law passed to allow interracial marriage.
"There are other precedents," Matthews argued. He said that the Civil Rights Act was a federal law that mandated access to public accommodations.
"It says nothing about marriage, Christopher!" Frank shouted. "You are wrong, you are wrong, Christopher!"

(Huffington Post)

More on the subject from Mediate suggests “Frank made it clear he opposes such a federal law and wants to leave the issue to the states” (Video on site). Frank’s views on the subject are more centrist, which is how one would imagine that the majority of the public might be.

The extreme over-reaction to an individual (who also happens to be a large and growing employer with restaurants across the country – that might lose business, and as a result cut or not create needed jobs, apparently did not enter into the equation, specifically since there have been no charges on record for bias by this company – had there been, that would have at least lent credence to the Politician’s stance. (Making it less politically opportunistic).

The backlash by politicians and the press over the rights of Dan Cathy to hold his religious beliefs and be public about those beliefs in an interview with a religious (Baptist) press service, was seen by those standing in long-lines and in 100 degree heat, as an attack on religious freedom and perhaps more so, freedom of speech. Huckabee’s involvement can be seen from both perspectives, given the fact that he was a Baptist Minister at one point in his multi-faceted career history.
How “successful” was the day for Chick-Fil-A? – Photo’s on Huckabee’s Facebook Page, with comments, suggest it might have been more than the company could handle – just about. From Huckabee’s Fan page at www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee, one finds that the general public ate a lot of chicken in places such as: St. Augustine FL, Boone, NC, North Palm Beach, FL, Pataskala, OH, Hamilton, OH, Albuquerque, NM (where it was.100 degrees with individuals standing in a long line outside of the building), Indianapolis, IN, San Marcos, CA, State College, PA, points in-between – especially interesting were the locations in Washington, DC and The Chick-Fil-A at the University of Minnesota – all with lines out the door. (One can view the photos by visiting the link provided to Mike Huckabee’s Fan Page).

The politicizing of this event, by both major political party’s (on the Democrat Side re: Gay Marriage and on the GOP side – Individual Rights) somehow does not begin to actually do justice to any side of the argument. For starters, both those who support Gay Marriage as well as those, who for Religious or traditional reasons (that being tradition of marriage – secular), both have a right to say, in this nation, what they choose. If either group cares to protest, there is that right to assemble. The “group identity”, which academics and politician’s neatly place one, in a category (Black, White, Gay, Straight, Woman, Asian, ad nauseum) may make those individuals who strongly believe in the Progressive “class system” (that of elites and then the masses), a bit horrified when one “group” (i.e. “right-wing-religious-zealots” (or to the point, those who, for reasons either First Amendment or Religious (both protected by the Constitution), stands up and protests. The act of buying chicken is not anti-anyone - t – the point is Freedom from Politician’s and over-reach by the Government (and possibly freedom from fund-raising off the issue by any politician regardless of Party) It also doubtful those who are firmly hold the belief that to disagree is to “hate”, will ever understand that there are issues that are multi-faceted, and related to personal liberty – including the rights of those who believe in Traditional Marriage, as well as those who believe in Gay Marriage. Both sides of the debate should be able to stand for and support – by protest, in print, or by what-ever means their point of view.

New Obama Campaign Tactic – Compare Romney to Bush – Negative Campaign Continues - Amnesia: "Miss Me Yet?" New Scientific Polling - Analysis

The Obama2012 Campaign is running a new ad in Colorado - which compares 2012 GOP Candidate, former MA Governor, Mitt Romney to former President George W. Bush(Politico) The video is available here on the Obama Campaign’s YouTube Channel. It may be tactic that works with the base, however, the target should be the Independent – especially if the polls (and internal polls) suggest a close race – and one has to wonder if this tactic will work as well as intended. The fact that, on several occasion, former President Bill Clinton has endorsed and/or stood by President Barack Obama, hardly suggests a comparison between the two men. In fact, President Clinton, the most popular American President in recent history – has made very flattering comments regarding President Obama’s opponent – the most recent in June, ”praising Romney’s sterling business career” (ABC News, June 1, 2012) Therefore, when one is in the same political party, one generally is endorsed, heartily or half-heartedly by the political party leaders, both past and present. Additionally, Romney’s governance of Massachusetts (which, indeed, he does have a governing record going into the campaign, rather than a legislative record), could in no wise be compared to Bush’s style, on both fiscal and social issue levels, no more than President Obama can compare his style of governing the nation to President William Jefferson Clinton’s.

Furthermore, as much as former President, George W. Bush, is still loathed by the left, there are those darned ” Miss Me Yet” billboards and the popularity of the “Miss Me Yet” t-shirts”that come into play.

If, the polls are correct and every vote counts, the constant negative drumbeat, coming from the Obama Campaign and the press, specifically regarding Mitt Romney, (pick a topic) can’t help. This was true of the attacks on Romney and his association with Bain Capital which, according to a USA Today Poll, had no affect on the preference of potential voters, who 2 to1 chose Mitt Romney on the economy.

Further, fundraising has been on the slow side, with the exception of Hollywood – as Politico stunningly reports that the President is donating to his own campaign, a commonplace event amongst Politicians’, however, one might not want to announce that to one’s potential donors – even as a “scare tactic”. A smart campaign has PAC’s running negative ads, allowing the campaign to either run positive messages or compare and contrast ads. A compare and contrast ad is one which compares a specific vision or issue or record of one candidate to another – with a bit of detail. The ad running in Colorado compares Romney’s vision to George Bush’s (perhaps not completely accurately), to President Obama’s vision - one which notes a $250,000 as the tax-cut (Bush era tax cuts and the $250,000 threshold) – as “wealthy” (not by small business standards), and reiterates the “rich can afford to pay more” message that generates class warfare.

Perhaps President Obama’s Campaign plans on running to the center after the election, but then they would be counting on the very short-term memory of the electorate and a massive economic turn-around. Negative messaging worked successfully for the Romney Campaign during the brutal 2012 GOP primary, but, and the big but, then Candidate Romney could point to a PAC rather than his campaign as the culprit. The latest Romney Campaign ad “Believe in Our Future” (watch here on the Romney Campaign You Tube Channel) speaks to Governor Romney’s experience in business and governing, and how he will apply those experiences to the Office of the Presidency.
The difference at this point is that Romney has run to the center, the way he governed in Massachusetts – which, can at times annoy the hard right – but at the same time, attract the moderate, the independent and yes, the Democrat. (Note: The Romney Campaign uses President Bill Clinton’s quote in the ad referenced above.). The negative advertising coming directly from a campaign makes one wonder what the internal polling shows – perhaps a race that is not quite as close as the polls currently suggest.

Note on polling: There is an interesting article from Reuter’s India entitled “Analysis: Scientists go beyond the polls to forecast U.S. election” in which analytics are applied to forecast the outcome of elections – not unlike actual polls, where samples can and do vary, the polls by U.S. academics, suggest a close election, including a quantifier that uses “racial bias” in the equation.

Three years after emerging from a deep recession, the economy has not recovered. The unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for 41 months -- nearly Obama's entire time in office.
For his model, University of Iowa professor Michael Lewis-Beck looks at decades of data on job creation and presidential approval. His preliminary forecast, made with Charles Tien of the City University of New York, gives Obama 46.9 percent of the vote and Romney 53.1 percent.

(in.Reuters.com - reference link in above para)

The balance with modifications, have the two candidates within points of each other – (based on popularity and trends), - they have been as accurate as other posters – on the popular vote, which, in races that are within hair-breaths – the Electoral College trumps all models.

Yet, one has to ask which forecasters model is correct – the one that uses economic data with trends (shown above) or the models that are consistent with current polling – one might look to the negative ads and the increased vitriol against one candidate over another by the press to make an educated guess.

Romney Receives Endorsement of Poland’s Lech Walesa, New Hill Poll – Election 2012: Competence Trumps Likeability 93% to 7%?

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Not a Romney Fan! - image: Haaretz/AP


From Politico – The Headline: “Walesa proclaims solidarity with Mitt”, reviews 2012 Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s Overseas Tour, and his last stop in Poland and visit with legendary Polish Leader Lech Walesa, who heartily endorsed Romney:

“I wish you to be successful because this success is needed to the United States, of course, but to Europe and the rest of the world, too,” Walesa said through a translator...

Then, with a bang of his fist on a wooden table, the Nobel Prize winner urged the Republican to claim victory: “Gov. Romney, get your success — be successful!”

The gist of the surrounding text: all moves were prepared for a photo opportunity – never taking into account that perhaps Walesa meant his comments and purposefully let the press (especially the U.S. Press) know it. The rest of the article reviews his successful visit to Israel by outlining his allegedly “racist” comments regarding Romney’s stance on Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and his take on prosperity in Israel. The Palestinian’s were somewhat put out that Romney did not take the time to visit with their head of state, Mahmoud Abbas as well. The Palestinian’s pulled the race card?

The U.S. Press wasn’t the only outlet decrying Romney’s stance – Iran and China also weighed in : Haaretz: After Romney's visit, Ahmadinejad slams U.S. Republican for 'kissing Israel's foot' speaks to the Iranian Presidents obvious unease over Romney’s remarks about the Iranian Nuclear Program and his support for Israel – China also criticized Romney :

A commentary Tuesday by the official Xinhua News Agency said Romney's "hawkish remarks" ignored the sensitive nature of Jerusalem. It said the comments disregarded the Palestinians' claim to the war-won eastern sector of the city, which was annexed by Israel in 1967 in a move that is not internationally recognized.
…..
Romney, who was on an overseas trip that also included stops in Britain and Poland to bolster his image ahead of the election, has previously upset some in China by threatening tougher action on Beijing in trade disputes if he is elected president

If Romney has both Iran and China “upset” – some might believe that’s a successful trip – especially those who neither fans of the Iranian President, the ongoing Palestinian terrorist actions against Israel, and the Chinese government’s trade and currency practices. (One might include the U.S. Press along with the aforementioned.)

Stateside: the Hill released a new poll yesterday, that hasn’t gotten a great deal of traction: (PDF link to marginals here): In choosing and voting for a Presidential candidate: Policies and Competence rated 93%, Likability 3% and Not Sure: 4%, Honest & Trustworthy: Obama 44%, Romney: 46%, Not sure: 10% - which leaves a statistical tie between Romney and Obama with the margin of error. (See Crosstabs link above in PDF). Although it now less than 100 days from the November election that will decide who leads the nation forward in the next four years; early indicators suggest a close race in nearly every poll, with few exceptions. However, should push comes to shove, and competence trumps likability and one refers to a recent polls conducted by both Gallup and USA Today where Romney trumped Obama 2 to 1 on the economy(Analysis TownHall.com) – it’s not quite as close as the polls currently suggest.

One can anticipate one of two outcomes based on polling to date: that this election may be yet another “cliffhanger” polling suggests the electorate gives a slight edge to either candidate, President Barack Obama or former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney – leaving little room for either candidate to pull away by a comfortable 5 point lead (with one exception and that being Rasumussen where Romney polled 49-44%(Business Insider).

The other outcome may be more “Reaganesque” – based on Gallup’s annual state by state Presidential job approval rankings – President Obama ranks at 50% (50.1%) in 10 out of 50 states – with moderate to significantly lower approval rankings in 40 states. The 10 states where the President is over 50% include Massachusetts and Hawaii, hardly significant when it comes to electoral votes – see analysis here.

All polling, of course, is subject to change given economic circumstances, and other factors – i.e. the infamous “October Surprise” which has yet to be a factor in recent memory- these particular polls referenced are early indicators only – should the trend towards voters choosing competence of likability continue, along with Romney’s improving likeability (see TownHall on polling), and Romney maintain a 5 point lead going into October, then the odds favor the challenger over the incumbent. As to Romney’s overseas trip – the success depends upon the perception of the candidate and the overall ties to the nations visited – not the perception of the press.

First Lady, Michelle Obama’s Olympic $7000 Wardrobe versus Anne Romney’s $990 Choice – Much ado about nothing but Sexism As the Press Turns

Michelle Obama Olympic Fashion - from ABCNews.com

First, the fascination with our political group, and specifically the fashion worn well, or not, of those women who would dare to enter the arena, is in a word, ridiculous at times. The fact that any Contender for the highest office (Think Hillary Clinton) or First Lady or potential First Lady, should be subject to nit picking as to choice of wardrobe just goes to show how many American’s are obsessed with the “haves and have not’s” of “celebrities”. Cases in point are several articles on the Olympics and what the First Lady and GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s, wife Ann, wore at the Olympics. In what should be seen as independent choices, these wardrobes become political fodder – as to the women themselves, who, just happen to be married to either the President or a Presidential Nominee (or running for office – See Hillary Clinton).

ABC News covers wardrobe, and what’s up with the First Lady, Michelle Obama at abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS - note the word politics in the web address – yet one is treated to what can only be seen as a fashion show – complete with pro’s and con’s – a what not to wear or what to wear, regarding women who, through whatever happenstance, are married to men who are in the spotlight.

The Brouhaha apparently started when the Fee Beacon did an article on the First Lady and Ann Romney’s wardrobe entitled “The First Lady Has Nice Cloths” perhaps in response to an article in Politico (yes, Politico) Ann Romney’s $990 shirt - worth it?”. One is an actual fashion article while Politico’s is a page out of “Occupy Wall-Street” – Actually, the article should not have been written with a price tag – or if, perhaps where one might find a similar item for less. – Since Politico is now on the same level as say –Harper’s Bazaar.

The same goes for the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who took heat for wearing a beautiful dress to the Olympic Opening Ceremony from the right – A link from the Drudge Report to the An Article at Gateway Pundit, titled She Feels Your Pain – Michelle Obama Sports $6,800 Jacket to London Soiree …Update: Jacket Cost More Than What Average US Family Makes in 1 Month” sums up the problem. A conservative site publishing an article on Michelle Obama, our First Lady, who represents our nation and who looks, in a word, beautiful, doing so, (even to those critics who for political reason, or fashion reasons, disagree), has published what amounts to a “get-even” piece, but ends up sounding more like the Occupy Wall Street – “Let them Eat Cake” mentality – they, above anyone else, should know better, and the commenter's as well, who offer up some lines that are not worth repeating – anywhere. It is difficult reading the aforementioned to figure out if the group is left or left – as the mantra of “Let them Eat Cake” is just a hairsbreadth from being visible.

It does no-one justice – and shows no respect for either woman. They both dress well, have different tastes, and, here is the kicker, both women’s husbands, make enough money to support whatever they choose to wear – look at the tax returns from the White House and the Romney’s for the past two years, and it is evident that these are the people who can afford the clothing coming from Saks, Bendal's, and private designers. Women not in the aforementioneds income bracket may prefer TJ Max or its sister Marshalls, or runway after-sales to pick up items that are current and won’t break the bank. Again, there are two big reasons why the First Lady and Anne Romney, by extension, can and should look their best, even if it means spending $990 on a shirt, or $6800 on a dress – a) they can afford it – get over it, and b) they both look lovely – and should as they represent our country.

That is especially true of First Lady Michelle Obama, who looked elegant in her white capped gown, with pleated skirt as she attended an Olympic Reception. She always portrays herself with the stature and dignity of the “office” of First Lady – an Office that may or may not be welcome to any woman, as it is just an extension of one’s Husbands’ achievements – rather than one’s own – Imagine that? Therefore, to all of the fashion critics, on the left, and stunningly on the right, stop stooping to each others levels and find something less “snarky” to write about. Perhaps the accomplishments of said women would be good for starters and if of a political bent, there would be a reason to agree or disagree. One might agree or disagree about a style of dress – true, but does making that sweater or that dress an icon of the "haves and have not’s" really matter in today’s economy? – These types of articles only serve to diminish the woman, not the man who is the office holder or potential office holder (in this particular case). Granted, your usual suit, tie, and jacket is boring, but why not take it from there?

The only purpose of the articles, both, appears to be “revolutionary” – as if “French revolutionary” in nature, and anyone who has any inkling of the true nature of the French Revolution, should know better.