National GOP Looks Towards “Moderates” – Again – Obama Approval Falling – the Partisan Fight for the Soul of America.

They are at it again, conservative members or those who identify with the Republican Party, may be, once again, sadly disappointed at the Beltway’s choices for the 2016 Nomination. In a recent interview former 2012 Presidential GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, laid out some “suitable “names as candidates for the GOP –including Jeb Bush, but especially New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie (Huffington Post). Understanding that Gov. Romney knows how to run a business, and get elected to an extremely liberal minded state, does not make him eligible to name candidates that would be acceptable to run for the Presidency – there are obvious reasons. For more obvious reasons, he did not mention the name of Ted Cruz as one of those contenders (Huffington Post) – perhaps it was an oversight or more probably due to the fact that Cruz is an actual – conservative (or otherwise known as the hard-right-tea-party type). Romney it appears, is now the front man for the National GOP – slamming the President for Obama care this past week – which would have all been fine, had it not been for the kettle calling the pot black system, considering Romney Care leaves lot to be desired. Perhaps the roll out went smoothly enough – but there are unreported families not enjoying health care and paying the penalty to the Mass DOR, limited choice for doctors and yes, high insurance premiums. –

To the Nation – Welcome to Massachusetts.

On the theme of “denial”, Gallup is showing the President’s approval ratings taking the plunge as daily tracking shows it had fell to 40% approval in the period ending November 2, 2013. Perhaps it was that nagging question of whether or not he either lied about, or just was not aware of the fact that individuals (93,000,000 of them – that’s 93 Million) would lose their health insurance and might not be able to keep their doctors. The Wall Street Journal interview with one man who is trying to stay alive (gall bladder cancer), and has lost health insurance as well as access to his doctors speaks to the matter quite eloquently (Wall Street Journal).

Therefore, the President either lied or is clearly clueless, and that goes for any number of instances that have caused the proverbial poop to hit the fan in recent years. Either scenario is not appealing to the general public, but, the public is increasingly aware.

White the media scrambles to excuse, they still have to have a connection with what’s left of their subscribers and/or viewers – a perfect example is the USA Today editorial where they headlineObamacare's critics justified: Our view”.

Even the Kingmaker, otherwise known as Advisor and Campaign Manager to the President (and other Progressives, with little time in government that either hold or may hold a political office) got a round of “tough” questions as he Faced semi-hostile journalist on “Meet the Press. (Politico) The question of whether the President knew or not that the American Public would lose their health insurance. The key word not for plans of choice by the Public that are being cancelled and revamped to meet Obama Care standards is – substandard. Apparently, the substandard plans may not have all the mandates attached to the law by the carrier. Some may attach them and one will see increases of 400% or, they may just drop them entirely and take the first road out of Dodge.

The entire bill is a house of cards for the Democrats, as well as those moderate GOP members who supported it and slammed those who did not. It is – in essence a disaster, that is bringing attention to other disasters that had previously been swept under the rug – Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS Targeting, et al.

It does not bode well for those who have that stamp of moderate or Progressive as the nation heads into the 2014 election – So bent out of shape are the General Public, the chances of those who hold office, from any party, maintaining that office is growing slimmer by the day. Watch local elections to see how incumbents fare.

Lastly, one get’s the final impression that Justice Roberts, in allowing the “tax” ruling on the program, which allowed the program to go forward, has the disaster in mind from the get-go. If he had struck the bill down, the Democrats would have had a leg to stand and campaign on – by letting it live and then die a grizzly death (along with American’s who critically need coverage), he insured the demise of those less than Conservative law makers. That’s hypothesis mind you, but it underscores the premise of hyper-partisanship that is – DC.

How this all plays out in the coming months – going into the November elections and the 2014 mid-terms, is going to be of grand interest to those who watch political ideologies change in the minds of the general public.

AP Fact Check’s President Obama’s Speech – AP Defends Romney – Gallup Polling – Attempted Bullying by Obama Campaign’s Axelrod for Romney Lead!

The Obama-Biden Campaign Team Wraps Up the DNC Convention - image bayoubuzz.com


The Associated Presshas Fact Checked President Obama’s closing arguments speech for a second term and here is what they found:

President Barack Obama laid claim to a peace dividend that doesn't exist when he told the nation he wants to use money saved by ending wars to build highways, schools and bridges.
The wars were largely financed by borrowing, so there is no ready pile of cash to be diverted to anything else.
The claim was one of several by Obama in his acceptance speech Thursday at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., and by Vice President Joe Biden in earlier remarks that did not match the facts. A look at some of their assertions:

...THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially "pay down our debt," as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the "extra nation-building" he envisions.

...THE FACTS: Some of the proposals the Obama administration has floated in budget negotiations with Congress would ask Medicare beneficiaries to pay more. Among them: revamping co-payments and deductibles in ways that could raise costs for retirees and increasing premiums for certain beneficiaries.

...THE FACTS: Obama has claimed an increase of some 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 29 months. But this is cherry picking by the president. From the beginning of Obama's term 3 1/2 years ago, manufacturing jobs have declined by more than 500,000, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Manufacturing jobs have been on a steady decline for nearly two decades.

...THE FACTS: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's proposal is actually aimed at encouraging investment in the U.S., not overseas.

...THE FACTS: Biden wasn't referring to any Medicare plan of Romney or running mate Paul Ryan, but to the consequences of fully repealing Obama's health care law, which is unpopular with seniors even though it has sweetened Medicare in certain ways. A Medicare plan put forward by Ryan in Congress would have no immediate effect because it would apply only to future retirees.

(The Associated Press)

Well, knock me over with a feather!

In another recent development – The Daily Caller is in possession of emails between Gallup Polling employees and David Axelrod, Sr. Campaign Adviser for the Obama Campaign. These emails apparently are an attempt to bully the polling firm into a more modified methodology – especially as Mitt Romney was leading the President at the time – Gallup declined and has been threatened with a DOJ lawsuit. The DC goes on to suggest that other polling firms may have caved into the Obama Campaign’s strong-arm tactics and the result is more favorable polling for the President in other firms analysis. Read the entire story here at http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod-criticized-pollsters.

Making sense of the polling data showing a dead heat for an extended period of time has been a bit mind-boggling considering that Gallup, which is the most conservative polling institute (and by conservative, the meaning is a-political, suggesting careful in their analysis rather than to the right or left), has taken year by year, state by state Presidential approval polls – all of which show the President with approval ratings breaching 50% in only ten to a dozen or so (in the most recent) states. This would suggest that the polling methodology would match a nation that is far from split or evenly divided – See Analysis on electoral college here here at this blog.

To maintain a 39 state disadvantage in approval ratings for a three year period of time does not bode well for an incumbent President, therefore, polling should suggest that the incumbent would have a disadvantage out of the gate, with any challenger. The polling should suggest the same, and likely voters polled on any given day would give the challenger an advantage an advantage in those states. In using data that projects a model that is not in line with the most recent national elections, either in polling and/or predictions of election outcomes by pundits (i.e. using data from 2008 to project 2012, rather than 2010 or present available models to project 2012) is creating the allusion that one candidate has a lead or is even, when the opposite is more probable. The mood of the nation has not improved since the 2010 Congressional drubbing of the Democrats, rather it has declined. To use older models, instead of current models, as was done in 2010, makes for a shocked nation that consumes the national news outlets when the election results are tallied. National or State “mood” at the moment generally trumps candidate versus candidate polling – the best example of which was the 2009 special election for the Massachusetts Senate Seat won by Scott Brown. The Boston Globe ran a poll days before the election showing Brown’s competitor, Democrat Martha Coakley with a 15 point lead – this poll was produced by the University of New Hampshire – In fact, the Globe was so convinced that on the eve of the election a screen shot of the outcome suggested by the Globe showed Coakley with a sweeping win! That was removed once the “news” of the screenshot went viral. The outcome of that election, with the dead voting and the ballots overstuffed was a 5 point lead for Brown. With the current mood of the nation, and the tone of negativity and divisiveness coming from the Obama Campaign, one would suggest an electoral projection that gives the Republican Candidate, Mitt Romney, a solid advantage at the moment. The fact that the AP was compelled to “Fact Check” the President’s campaign speech and honestly report the facts as have been suggested by the Romney Campaign is also telling. Whether the national news organizations will report this particular gem from the AP is another story entirely – and a screen shot appears below to confirm its very existence.

Finally the fact that the race appears close is favoring the challenger rather than the incumbent, call this assertion crazy if one must, but consider that in fundraising appeals from both sides – the race is a tie! This induces the recipients who favor one candidate over another to send more than the usual donation. In the latest FEC filings, the candidate that brought in the most individual donations under $200 from all areas, including urban areas where they have been weak in previous reporting, is Mitt Romney. Therefore, it appears that those pollsters who intended or were coerced (see Daily Caller) into a more favorable poll for the President have unintentionally helped the Romney Campaign – oh the irony.



AP Fact Check Obama Speech 1


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 2


AP Fact Check Obama Speech 3

Obama Comes to Mass for Cash – Channel's Patrick - Warren Acts As Attack Dog – Romney's Sense of Humor – Drives Circles Around $18K Obama Fundraiser!

The Master and the Mentored: Obama, Patrick, Axelrod - Anyone see a theme here? - image (Obama/Axelrod) Masslive - Patrick - New York Times


When a sitting President visits any state, even Massachusetts, it’s a big deal, if the President takes the time to say hello to the people who might have got him elected – unless of course, the State is a Commonwealth and that Commonwealth is Massachusetts – where Democrats overwhelmingly preferred Hillary in 2008. That said it does not prevent the President to turn to the Progressive faithful in Boston in a whirlwind grab for much needed Cash – before campaigning elsewhere, or going elsewhere for more money. The Boston Globe’s”Money is the focus during Obama’s Boston visit” - with a few interesting points:

“President Obama thanked Boston Monday for trading Red Sox third-baseman Kevin Youkilis to his Chicago White Sox, but he owed far more thanks to the supporters who donated thousands of dollars to see him at three Boston-area fund-raisers.”
“The whirlwind day — with stops at Hamersley’s Bistro in the South End, Symphony Hall, and a private home in Weston — was intended to tap a Massachusetts well that has yielded fewer maximum individual contributions than the president collected in his 2008 campaign. The number of Bay State supporters who contributed the $2,500 maximum to Obama’s campaign fund had plunged by nearly half when compared with the same period four years ago.”
President Obama spent more than an hour inside Hamersley’s Bistro, whose front windows were covered. At the restaurant, 25 supporters, hosted by Boston advertising executive Jack Connors, paid $40,000 each to attend.
Many held signs, including one that read, “The 1% of Boston Welcomes Obama.”
At Symphony Hall, general-admission tickets for a crowd of 1,800 people started at $250, with a limited number at $144 for younger supporters. And at the day’s final event at the Weston home of Judi and Douglas Krupp, 100 people who attended dinner with the president paid $17,900 each.
The pressure on the president has been ratcheted up by Mitt Romney’s fund-raising performance. In May, for the first time, Romney’s joint fund-raising committee collected more money than Obama, $76.8 million to $60 million. Despite being outpaced last month, the president’s return to Boston just before the end of the fiscal quarter should boost his numbers.

What one reads in the Boston Globe is the following: Obama’s fundraising is down, even in Massachusetts, he’s being welcomed by the 1% - or those who are not associated and make sure one knows it with “Occupy anything” – rather those that are characterized for their “Corporate Greed.” In order to attend the least pricey event, only 1800 had the $250 bucks to see the President speak, or wanted to part with it – but 100 individuals from the more elite Progressives had at least $17,900 to sit down with Obama in a private home. Finally Obama is feeling the heat from Romney’s fundraising Prowess – or his own lack of fundraising ability this time around – especially in the Bluest State, where if a Democrat isn’t a shoe-in to being with, those loafers can be made to fit.

Meanwhile – the Los Angeles Times Suggests that the Progressive Democrat Senate Candidate, Grandma Warren, is now Obama’s attack dog – the opening act for the President in Boston (maybe he’ll do us all a favor and Ms. Chow Wow Pow on the road.) The Times goes so far as to suggest that Warren has “joined forces with the President”. Joined Forces – that’s brilliant! Her motto with Romney – Bain, Bain and more Bain, with a little smattering of Outsourcing – which would be nice, if Romney had been at Bain, at the time, which he was not, and which most Democrats agree is somewhat of a toxic take on attacking Romney – but – she’s running for the Senate in Massachusetts – as a Democrat.

Remember, Warren started the Occupy Movement, which makes one wonders how she reconciles sitting down to dinner with the 1%’ers who support her better half (Obama)


Romney and His Bus - He even pumps his own gas! (image: greenautoblog

Not to let an opportunity to pull a prank go to waste, the suddenly humorous former Governor of Massachusetts, and yes, Obama foe, Mitt Romney, took his campaign bus out for a ride around downtown Boston, once again circling those Obama supporters they could find. (Weaselzippers). The left of course felt it was truly awful. Over at TMP, the word “heckling” as bandied about instead of “honking”. The point – Romney is a smart guy, if he’s doing anything, he’s recruiting! – Something that the President is, according to the Boston Globe (see beginning paragraphs) not doing in Massachusetts, but holding onto at least 50% of his 2008 supporters. Romney’s drive-by’s are simply Romney having a sense of humor, Romney being ever entrepreneurial and Romney turning Lemons into Lemonade! What happened to our national sense of humor?

As a matter of fact, Romney’s sense of humor and the more he applies his pranks, makes him ultimately more appealing, especially to those who are sick and tired of the gloom, doom and indecision that has caused the malaise that now permeates every nook and cranny of the country. Therefore, in the beginning one might have been tempted to vote for Mitt Romney because he was not Obama, now, one might be tempted to vote for Romney because he’s still not Obama, but he has a sense of humor to boot – and contrary to Elizabeth Warren’s ranting about greedy corporations, the fact is not all corporations are greedy (especially when one reads about politicians just stopping in at the Commonwealth bank of Progressive Ideology), Corporations both employ people and they pay taxes. Those taxes support Warren while she’s at Harvard teaching how to write Native American Cookbooks without even trying very hard or using one’s own materials. Mitt Romney, of course, is not running against Elizabeth Warren, he’s running against Barack Obama, and something has to make this contest interesting for those of us in the state most likely to vote – Democrat (Maybe)

One has Mitt Romney’s sense of humor or the wish to have been a fly on the wall during the debate prep between President Obama (playing himself) and John Forbes Kerry (I park my Yacht in RI to stiff the Commonwealth), playing Romney! (Boston Globe)

Saving the Best for Last:

From the Globe: :
“They figure that if we simply eliminate regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, then the market will solve all of our problems,” Obama said of Romney and the Republican Party.
“We don’t need more top-down economics. What we need is some middle class-out economics, some bottom-up economics. We need a plan for better education and for better training, for energy independence, for innovation, for infra¬structure that can rebuild America,” Obama added.
If that speech sounds familiar, it echoes the notes Governor Deval Patrick struck as he won reelection in 2010. He shares a political adviser, ¬David Axelrod, with the president.

He also shares his notes, and his mantras: Yes you can, Yes you Can, Yes You Can – However, this time next year, the President may be wishing he had a different adviser, used someone else's “cliff notes” on riling up crowds and getting elected”, and had taken a few economic courses from someone other than Jimmy Carter.
From the State that turned Red Twice in the last 50 years in a Presidential election – (ironically with more Democrats in Power and Carter in office.) the President is now heading to warmer climates in the hopes of coming up with more Cash before the end of the quarter.

Illinois Polls Give Romney the Edge by 14-15 Points. A Test of Turnout and Impact of Negative Advertising – Will ILL be a Repeat of MS for Santorum?

Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney - the last men standing (given recent results and current polls in upcoming primary contests) - image Salon.com


There are two polls taken over the weekend that give GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, a considerable lead over his nearest rival, Rick Santorum – Romney leads in both polls by double digits. The first, a poll by American Research Group has Romney up by 14 points over Rick Santorum with Gingrich at 13% and Paul at 8% - The poll taken between March 17-18 used a random telephone survey method of 600 participants and has a margin of error of plus/minus 4% .

The second, by Public Policy Polling, released yesterday used a random telephone survey, of 506 respondents over a two day period, the focus was mainly on the urban and suburban areas, 20% Urban, 48% suburban and 31% rural. In this poll, Romney has 45 % to Santorum’s 30%, Gingrich at 12% and Ron Paul at 10% - The two polls are rather in concert as to the outcome, given the point difference between the two firms in a random sample of respondents per candidate.

That said, in looking at PPP’s marginals, the question becomes one of geography, in a poll released last week by the Tribune, there was a 6 point difference between the two top tier candidates, with Romney outside the margin of error by one point. In that particular poll, the geography was taken into consideration with 95% of the state outside of Chicago and suburbs, having equal population, with Santorum over performing in the state outside of Chicago, and Romney over performing in the Suburban areas. It will be of interest to see how geography factors into this contest dubbed as the “next critical” state for Romney to win. At this point, taking away the hype, both Santorum and Romney need to win each state going forward, as the game of attrition of delegates is quickly becoming outside the grasp of candidates Gingrich and Paul, as the focus is on the front-runner Mitt Romney and the his potential replacement – Rick Santorum. (This based on voters preference and placement in the second half of the March contests.)

On paper it appears as if this primary should be a “walk in the park” for Romney, and Matt Drudge can be predicted to once again, announce him as the “winner” at approximately 4PM eastern, well before the polls close in ILL. The site did so based on polling on the Mississippi Primary, and had to adjust the message as the votes began to be tallied – the final message of the evening: Rick Santorum wins Mississippi.

It is not that Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report was wrong about the polls, and that Romney was clearly ahead in Mississippi, however, what was taking place on the ground was a two-fold phenomena that clearly favored Santorum – low enthusiasm and voter turnout for Romney and exit polls indicating that voters were clearly turned off by the deluge of negative advertising.

Moving to Illinois, there are difference from state to state, but voter turnout is critical – something that the Romney team has yet to be able to effect with the exception of New Hampshire, Massachusetts (although there were zero signs of a Romney Campaign in MA), and in Puerto Rico. The organization is, from sources, apparent in Illinois, but in the Suburbs focused on Chicago, rather than the 95% of the state which is considered stronger for Santorum – The enthusiasm gap between Santorum supporters and Romney supports has been evidenced in the past as far as the get out the vote effort is concerned. There are several factors in play to consider: Romney has the establishment GOP and those earning 100K or more Republican’s, while Santorum continues to pull blue collar, and those earning less than 100K in each state. Those with more to gain and less to lose generally are more enthusiastic when it comes to getting out the vote. In addition, the constant media hype of Romney as the front-runner and eventual nominee has not helped his campaign rather, it has made his target voter complacent - complacent voters generally vote in absentee or depending on the weather, not at all.

Finally, the negatives advertising which had a huge impact on the upset in Mississippi, may or may not have the same impact moving north to Illinois. In Mississippi exit polls from CNN showed that negative advertising factored 2 to 1 in decisions to vote for Santorum over Romney. As of now, Negative ads run by the campaigns and certain Super PAC’s supporting both candidates (outside of the control of both candidates), are giving Illinois the Mississippi treatment but by a larger margin. According to PoliticoRomeny is outspending Santorum 21 to 1 in Illinois, specifically in the Chicago Market (includes Super PAC’s). Obama Advisor, David Axelrod a big believer is spending on advertising, noted that “Romney will Roll in Illinois” due to what he termed a” Mittzkrieg”. Axelrod is the brains behind the careers of both Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and President Obama – obviously watching this contest closely.

But will negatives work in Illinois? That is the question. Between Apathy, or lack of enthusiasm (The Atlantic) affecting voter turnout and the notion that a vote against Mitt Romney is a vote against Negative Campaign adverting (Chicago Examiner) one has to wait and see how this will play out in when the polls close at 7PM central – 8PM eastern.

If the networks (or the AP) do not call the race within the first 10 minutes, then look for a long night – if Romney begins with a larger lead, and holds it, then the polls play out, however, if it is a repeat of Mississippi (polling similarly had Romney up over Santorum outside of the margin of error) , with lower voter turnout (especially in the suburbs and urban areas), and a distaste for negative ads is a factor, watch for a long night and a possible Santorum upset.

David Axelrod will be watching as well, and looking toward framing the message that the President will use in his reelection campaign going forward.

Where to Watch: CNN – best primary coverage hands-down: Based on: Wolf Blitzer and Jon King and the “map”, with real time results coming from reporters covering counties that are normally critical in elections, giving the avid political junkie, an inside scoop of factors affecting a win in a pivotal county, and exit polls that reflect the trends in diverse sections of a state and by demographics.

Gingrich a Look Back – The Bush Take-down and Rise of the Republican Congress – Reviled and Respected by Both Parties – The Negotiator and Deal Maker

Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton talking Budgets - image Washington Post

From the Washington Post: a column by Bob Woodward, offers insight into the rise and fall of Newt Gingrich within the Republican Party and those in the establishment who still harbor resentment for actions taken by the powerful Speaker of the House. In brief, Gingrich is blamed by President H.W. Bush for his eventual loss of the Presidency, not for the fact that he actually was drummed out of office on the pledge that he would not raise taxes, then did so in a deal with Democrats, but because in this article, Gig rich clearly would not sign onto a deal that he felt was not in the best interest of the American People, and was not well negotiated, it was a bad deal.

This is of course, paraphrased, in an article that covers the history of Gingrich and the House by Woodward, and it is suggested that he entire article be read to fully understand how an outsider, one who does not go with the Republican Party, is treated by the Establishment, as well as how a Powerful Speaker who is also a Republican, and who works closely with a Democrat President to get things done (President Bill Clinton), is anathema to both parties who would prefer to sit back and draw partisan lines in the sand and call it a day.

Key words that stuck out like a sore thumb, better negotiation and deals – if that does not make Gingrich sound like the Donald Trump candidate, no one does. Which brings up a point – Trump has stated on numerous occasions that if the Republicans’ fail to nominate the right candidate, then he would run as an independent. Understanding that he may not be referring to Gingrich at all, but speculating that he may given the verbiage used and the former Speakers ideology about negotiating from a point of strength, in addition to the latest move of the Establishment GOP to oust Gingrich off the Virginia Primary ballot by disqualifying over 1000 signatures, insisting that each one must have a voter ID, whereas that was not a previous requirement, smacks of a set-up to knock Gingrich out of the race. (See the point that Romney may not make it past Super Tuesday and the possibility that Ron Paul may take Virginia) – Should Donald Trump carry through on his promise to run given the circumstances of the Republican nomination and not knowing which candidate he feels would be the best to broker deals and be the best negotiator, one can only understand that Trump will take votes from both Democrats and Republicans, in numbers sufficient to throw the race back to Barack Obama. It is the Democrats Dream.

The scenario of a third party candidate was the exact circumstance that led to the reelection of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts by one point – an election, David Axelrod, Obama advisor and campaign guru, watched closely and hoped to put into play for the 2012 general.

The Newt Gingrich as anti-Republican, and in plain language egotistical, is seen in the latest article from Politico, that headlines: Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton battle over 1990s legacy one finds that there is no quote from Bill Clinton, rather those “Democrat Strategist” pulled for the beltway to remark on events in which they were clearly not involved. This completely contradicts Clinton’s own words, in an interview with Newsmax (Article Here: in which he Praises his “Old Foe, Gingrich)

Suffice it to say, that not one of the pundits have a crystal ball, nor the blogger or the hundreds of pollsters how have come out of the woodwork lately, to give an indication of how the vote will go in the GOP primary – but the constant media drumbeat is as follows: Mitt Romney will be the nominee, Newt Gingrich will continue to decline in the “polls”, and Ron Paul is not a serious candidate. One might recall the constant drumbeat for Romney in 2008 and McCain in 2008, two individuals who are keen moderates in the vein of an Olympia Snow of Maine, and who the Republican Party believes will be able to “play ball” and keep the status quo. It is the conservative candidates that who might cross party lines to get the job done, without caving in completely (See current Speaker Boehner), that are poison to both he GOP and the DNC.

It may well be that Romney is the nominee, and in that case, everyone from the Obama campaign (who has the opposition research to launch a very aggressive campaign against Romney) to the establishment Republican’s who have another Bob Dole or John McCain, will be thrilled, while millions of independents and Republican’s (not the political class) will find themselves either staying home, or going to the polls knowing that the vote they cast may have one of two results. Romney would lose, similar to those who have gone before with the same ideology and marketing, and /or Romney will win, and that means we have a former Governor of Massachusetts in the White House, and from this perspective, it will mean little change from one administration to the other – there will be no bold moves, and lots of compromises in order to maintain the status quo.

Of course, a lot will depend on Donald Trump and Ron Paul, who one can gather will have an impact on the outcome of the 2012 election. It appears that the GOP has grossly underestimated Ron Paul’s constituency, and his national appeal to those who would cross party lines – to vote for a man who has a foreign policy ideology that is slightly more progressive in practice than President Obama!

To achieve the above scenario, one must also takes into consideration that the media does not hold the sway they did in 2006 to 2008, and that the negative ads that Romney and Paul have unleashed on Gingrich will then be turned upon one-another. It will be a Phoenix that rises out of the ashes of that fiasco that will eventually gain the nomination. One thing may be stated without one prediction being made; the race may indeed be decided by March. The outcome of which, is anyone’s guess, but looking at current polling and should the GOP keep its hands off the state’s primary process, then that candidate may well be Newt Gingrich. Suggest watching Clinton Interview with Newsmax.

The “Vetting” of Newt Gingrich – From Pelosi to Axelrod to a a Few Select Peers to The Media – Fear Drives The Ridiculous Into Action

The Targets: Gingrich, Pual and Romney - image allvoices.com

Of all the GOP Presidential Candidates, Newt Gingrich has one of, if not the most, public record available. For that matter, his public record exceeds that of the current occupant of the White House, President Barack Obama, and other GOP front runners has risen to the top, they were also picked apart, accused, assessed by the opposition, only to be dismissed (or put on hold) by those who are watching the debate process. If credit were to be given to the press and those pundits who can’t pick a fish out of a barrel of one, then the entire process would have been wrapped up long ago – but the nominating process is a slow one, and rightly so, it gives times for those interested in the candidates who may be President of these United States, the opportunity to either succeed to fail, according to what they do in their public appearances, generally the debate arena.

Herman Cain, who now is allegedly a “footnote”, which the media would have one believe was due to the many “women” who came forward to accuse the man of everything from sexual misconduct to assault, to a thirteen year affair, has suspended his campaign, yet will continue to be involved in the process – one need only go to the http://thecainsolutions.com to understand that Herman Cain intends to remain a force in national politics. There is, of course, Mitt Romney, the one who is preferred by the Beltway, political class, and, as a moderate, the one who is least likely to achieve his goal – if the polls are any indication (and at this stage, they tend to be the winnowing of the wheat from the chaff, Romney will see a repeat of the 2008 primary process. There is Dr. Ron Paul, who is rising above Romney is Iowa now, a staunch Libertarian, running on the Republican ticket, who has the financial credentials, as well as time spent in the Legislator and the ability to appeal to the youth and more over, a wide spectrum of the political process. If anyone had predicted that going into the home stretch of the beginning of the primary process that the two candidates to rise to the top would be former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Dr. Ron Paul, the Libertarian from Texas, would be at the top of the “heap”, they would have been summarily dismissed.

Why? It was a 24/7 Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin show on the media, beginning with appearances in late 2010 (immediately following the mid-terms) on late night talk shows (Letterman and Leno) and the daytime crew (The View) – it was expected, or implied more to the point, that one or the other would be at the top, and stay there. However, time and the ups and downs of politics, with a little help from the left and those who would see a different candidate in place, resulted in a front-runner that is a bigger thorn in the side of the DNC than any candidate in decades. The idea man, the guy on the bench in Congress who, while writing a ton of legislation and getting his legislation passed, also became a back-bench whip, insuring that GOP congressional leadership, at the time, got the votes they needed. The man rose to the position of the Speaker of the House, worked with one of the most moderate of modern Democrat President (William Jefferson Clinton), and together, they balanced the budget, and pushed through health care reform. During his entire tenure, he continued to write legislation, some which passed, and some which never made it out of committee. He was, and continues to be a man of ideas, as well as a man who puts those ideas into action – all of this information is available in the Congressional Record, which is online, and involved a bit of research on the part of anyone who really wants to know what their Congressperson, or Senator has accomplished. It was during Newt Gingrich’s rise as the Speaker, that the problems began, those problems are known as opposition ethics charges. Charges that are based on theory, rumor, and some facts, and are played out in “secret committees” (according to Nancy Pelosi), and the subject is generally censored if found guilty of say fifteen or so charges of income tax evasion (See Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, or any number of high profile Democrats that committed crimes, and then were “chastised” by a group of their peers.) The process for the truly guilty is to stand in the well of the Congress and say “I’m sorry” to the members of Congress – all is then forgiven and life goes on as normal. Problematically, when Newt Gingrich was being “investigated by Nancy Pelosi (say that carefully and then think about it carefully), he did what most Republican members of the Congress or Senate had been known to do – resign. Although Gingrich was cleared of every charge but one (something to do with forgetting to sign a Congressional document – that is not a joke). Therefore, as far as records go, the man came up with great ideas for the country, implemented a good percentage of those ideas through legislation he wrote, and then rose to the Speakership and worked across the aisle, and he also bullied those in the GOP who were not overly happy with that situation (Those you can find on talk shows noting Newt Gingrich’s lack of leadership skills – in other words, someone who refuses to tow the party line, and “just say no” rather than get something done.

However, one did not get the impression that Newt was pure as the driven snow, he was of an age, and he was in Washington, and let’s face it, from a women’s perspective, he’s a man – all of which leads to some moral and or ethical issues that, in the world of Democrats would lead to impeachment, and a bump in the polls, but which is now considered, unforgivable by the same – go figure. People make mistakes, people change their mind – over a period of two decades, Gingrich came to a new place, with the same intellect and the same political drive, minus the ethics and moral issues not generally associated with the GOP – which is considered to be made of rapid right wing Christian’s who carry bibles in one hand and guns in the other. In reality –however, that is hardly the case, those who are Christian, look at the mettle of the man or woman, and if decades have passed, forgive and move on.

The GOP has taken a different mold, their members are varied, from young and old libertarians, to former Democrats, to the hard –right, it’s a mixed bag – and that is driving the Progressive Democrats to distraction.

Enter Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House, and Mistress of the Closet of Skeletons, who was reported as saying: Hill.com (blog from the Nation’s Capital)

One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Thousands of pages of distraction is more like it, with baseless nonsense designed to embarrass and stymie and stop the forward march of then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich – the aforementioned charges that were dropped, except for that horrid neglect to sign a “document” charge. Three words for Miss Pelosi: “Freedom of Information”. If Pelosi had anything on Mr. Gingrich, she would have been spouting it from the rooftops, however, she appears to have nothing more than innuendo – and why?
Newt has risen 20 points in the polls and he is four weeks out from Iowa, and in a statistical tie with Obama.
Plus, face it, Nancy likes the press, the limelight and she says the darndest things- all taken with a grain of salt.
The “Old Newt” as a Republican would have hidden under a rock and exited the race in shame”, (theoretically mind you), however now - not so much.

The very same Blog of the Beltway (Can that really be a good thing?): offered Newt’s response: in true Gingrich style:

Newt Gingrich said that a threat from ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to disclose information she learned while serving on an ethics committee investigating him during his time as Speaker of the House would "totally abuse the ethics process" and violate rules of the House of Representatives.
"I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for what I regard as an early Christmas gift," Gingrich said at a press conference in Manhattan Monday.

If Newt were able to publicly humiliate Nancy Pelosi, (and even an attempt may count), he would be a national hero and one could just skip the primary. Outside of Washington, the media, and per made for Nancy District #8 (only San Francisco – they broke up the 8th district, taking the more conservative San Mateo County out, in order to allow Nancy to have her own Kingdome that would actually elect her – the 8th District of California includes only one city - San Francisco) Frankly, the only way to get rid of Nancy is for someone who is a more ridiculous a figure , to challenge her in a primary and win, otherwise, she will be the Robert Byrd of California’s 8th. – We’re stuck with Nancy – safe in her made for lunacy 8th District – for now. That would be a Christmas Present, Mr. Speaker, for the entire country.

David Axelrod, chief engineer of “How to Elect Barack Obama” an obscure state senator with zero experience to the office of the presidency, while basing every move on an even more Obscure figure, the Governor of Massachusetts as a model (Yes – we can (do what?!) – is now chatting on about Newt Gingrich. Axelrod, a Chicago Political Consultant, is on talk shows (usually MSNBC or somewhere on a blog) has now, according to “Polticifact” coined a phrase for Gingrich: “The Godfather of Gridlock”. Interesting in that the phrase has little to do with the amount of legislation Gingrich managed to get passed in his lengthily tenure in the House, but none-the-less, a sign that Gingrich is now the guy that worries the Obama Campaign more than any other. Axelrod is the Obama Campaign, and if he’s looking for a “Yes we can” slogan for his “masses”, that will fire up the base against Candidate for President Newt Gingrich – “The Godfather of Gridlock” is snappy, but easily dismissed as ridiculous. Is Axelrod losing his touch – or did he run out of really pithy slogans like “yes, we can”.

Finally, the media has joined with Axelrod and Nancy to do its due diligence to keep any Republican out of the White House, and therefore, are picking up on anything Gingrich has to say (and that man has to say a lot, as he has a lot of suggestions to make, probably more that one can imagine, as there are more things just wrong enough with this country, that could be so easily made right, with a bit of tweaking, a la Newt, that in his multiple books, appearance and now on the campaign trail, sound bites a plenty appear on an almost second by second basis.

Over at CBS the media has taken some umbrage at the fact that Gingrich, in a debate, suggested that youth be taught the value of working for a dollar, to build a sense of accomplishment, and teach youngsters how to get a job, keep a job, and save some cash in the process, thereby becoming, eventually, upstanding citizens, rather than gang members about to shoot at the White House. The key words here are “youth” and “work”. This somehow translates into “horror of horrors – breaking the “child labor laws”. Under the current systems, millions and millions of today’s youth cannot work until they are sixteen (and must obtain a permit) (Massachusetts state law). If they want to be newspapers carriers (that time tested, 50’s model of earning a few bucks), their parents must take on the job, and be hopeful they don’t’ get caught letting their kids deliver the Sunday paper. The Child Labor Laws were originally designed to avoid putting an under aged youth into a factory setting that involved twelve hour shifts, and since has morphed into the ridiculous – which may account for the high rate of unemployment among today’s youngsters, who may even want to work. His plan which involved pretty much the paper route, and or community service route, for these youngsters, especially in inner cities, to earn and appreciate the value of a dollar, to have some self-respect, and to become more vested in their futures, is a bad thing? This coming from one who as a child, picked beans for 25 cents a bushel in a farm down the road, moved to the paper route, as soon as one was available, and at the age of sixteen, was working in retail looking forward to saving enough money to go to college and of course, buy a car. Then Jimmy Carter came along and blew that up. But, this adult now has no fear of work, and understands the value of a dollar, and as soon as able, pushed her sixteen year old (the age of the “work permit”) into finding a job, keeping the job, keeping up her grades, and learning to manage her finance. When that child saw her first paycheck, one has to wonder who was most proud, the child or the parent?

This is one of Newt Gingrich’s ideas, one which has been summarily dismissed by the lot of idiots who are currently in charge of the way we are supposed to think and our government. Is it any wonder that he is being attacked form the left and the left in order to stop him from going back to Washington, as a President who might work with the speaker (regardless of the party in power), and the Senate (again the same), and who might actually get the nation on the right track economically and get a few kids off the street at the same time?
It makes sense, so it must be dangerous to Axelrod and Company, because if the moderate voter thinks Gingrich is ok, then there is trouble in Chicago.

Should, and as those who follow politics know, another candidate take the lead in these last weeks before the primary/caucus begins (say Ron Paul, who is next in line by the polls), then what can those in Chicago and San Francisco, due to the Good Doctor? Stay tuned. The problem that Team Obama has is that every one of the candidates, including Herman Cain, are perceived as being able to do a better job at managing the affairs of the country – specifically by the GOP and those who vote in those primaries, and those who vote in those primaries are, sometimes moderate Conservative Feminist, former Democrats, newly minted Republicans, all with the notion that there just has to be a better alternative. It will not be an easy race, by any means, the race to the GOP nomination and the race to the White House, but a race that is clearly competitive on the side of the GOP and the eventual nominee, be it Gingrich or Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman or Michele Bachmann’s to win.

The Blame Game Begins – NY’s 9th and NV Flip Congressional Seats To GOP in Special Elections - Dem Infighting Over The People’s Houses - Analysis

Progressive Name Calling: Image from HillBuzz.org with article article: "Next Time someone says Governor Palin is Polarizing - tell him no she's the Polar Opposite of Obama" This, in part, describes the "blinders" worn by the current administration, unions and progressives, as well as career politicians.


From Politico, the headline: “Republican wins Democratic New York House Seat” explores yesterday’s historic loss of a Congressional Seat in New York’s 9th District, which had been held by Democrats since the 1920’s, and a seat in the Nevada 2nd, which Democrats had challenged as a referendum on the President, while quoting a variety of Democrats who just don’t appear to “get it”. The press continues to see the U.S. political landscape in terms of two major political parties, however, the New York special election, in an overwhelmingly Democrat voter registration district, by political novice, Bob Turner, defies that theory, it was in New York, as it was in Nevada, the people’s seat and the people’s voice that led to these victories – a referendum on politics and usual and the inherent belief that political party’s “own” seats.

The article goes on to describe the mayhem caused as Democrat party leaders saw the New York District turn on a dime – blaming Obama, the unions non-involvement, and everything but – the policy of progressive think by all involved, from the top down.

Perhaps most telling of a case of the “blinders” is Politico report on Organized Labor:

It was a nightmare scenario for Democrats that threatens to repeat itself on the national level, as major unions turn away from their traditional level of engagement. AFL-CIO leaders have talked about focusing their spending on state-level races. The giant SEIU has discussed replacing what had been an all-out campaign for Obama in 2008 with a campaign more focused on the issue of jobs.
And labor union leaders in Washington watched with frustration as a heavily Democratic, pro-union, blue-collar district slipped away.
“Obama needs to reconnect with labor, get in the trenches with us again,” said a veteran labor official. “There is, among my members, a sense of disconnect with him. He needs to signal to us that he is a labor champion, not just supported by labor.”

Apparently, the unions missed what the people did not: From Real Clear Politics “Swing Voters Recoil From Unions, and Obama” referring to a joint rally held in Michigan featuring Jimmy Hoffa the younger, and Obama. Hoffa used language such as (paraphrased) “take the Tea Party Out”, “Mr. President, we’re your army” - while Obama did nothing to refute, rather appeared to support Hoffa’s statements. In addition, in Washington State, members of the Longshoremen’s union, destroyed equipment and took hostages in an attempt to make a point (Daily Caller). On the east coast, striking Verizon workers cut cable lines some of which were critical to emergency services, in a recent strike – Verizon refused to settle, everyone went back to work. (hotjoints.com).

In “Job Stimulus II”, the Presidents’ attempt at following up on the failed “Job Stimulus I”, saw David Axelrod, Obama’s mentor, campaign manager and Senior Advisor noting that Republican’s in the house could “take it or leave it” referring to the Presidents "legislation" – allowing for zero compromise in a time when the nation’s poor are slipping further into poverty.

It is the us or them, the union/Progressive (i.e. socialist) ram it down the people’s throats, pass laws without reading them (Health Care Legislation, i.e. Obamacare), the blame the corporations and the Republicans’ attitude (those Tea Party Republicans) and philosophy, that has the people looking for less traditional leaders going forward. That message was soundly delivered in New York’s 9th District, by the people, divesting themselves of party politics as usual and sending a strong message to Obama, yes, but the rest of the political class as well – “We’ve had enough”.

For edification: the headline from the Washington Post speaks volumes: ”Republican Wins Democrat New York House Seat”, the seat belonging neither to a Democrat or a Republican in truth, rather to the constituents of the district, who chose to send someone other than a career politician tied to a party that is vested in Labor Unions, Progressive think and a total disregard for what the people might need – less government, less spending, a sane business environment which would create more jobs.

Therefore, this scenario will replay itself out throughout the upcoming political season of 2012, as the incumbent faces a loss, more so if backs labor literally, or continues policies that failed in the 1970’s under Carter, (sadly that ship has sailed, but adding to the already fragile economy with a jobs bill, no way to pay for it but taxes, investing in extended unemployment benefits (4th year), and infrastructure (union) jobs – is continual political suicide. Debbie Wasserman, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney “Dodd-Frank regulate the Banks to Death” Frank, and the rest of the “Progressive Democrats”, are in danger of becoming extinct politically. It is not just Obama’s failures, but a combination of failures supported by organized labor and progressive think that has the United States on the verge of electing a citizens legislature and a citizens President for the first time in history.

Although Politico notes that the Democrats, bravely continue with a glass half full front in discussing Obama’s possible opposition for 2012:

Asked who he’d like to see the Republicans nominate, Montana Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer suggested: “Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry - those would all be good ones to run against.”

One might suggest that those are exactly the types of candidates that the people who are sending Bob Turner to Congress in New York, might send to the White House in 2012.

Therefore, bickering aside, politicians from both sides of the aisle and their supporters should understand that the populace is now vested in how they vote, and they know how to research roll calls, the populace is in favor of: corporate tax cuts to repatriate businesses, creating jobs, shutting down the border, repealing burdensome regulation such as Dodd Frank, ObamaCare and anything else that smacks of yet another burden the small or large business which will be passed onto the people. It is not, as Hoffa suggested a “war” between the Unions and their President, Obama”, it is a renunciation of the type of rhetoric, the reality that those who consistently drink at the till of the government trough at the taxpayer expense, are about to be handed the proverbial pink slip. 2012 will be a referendum on a political philosophy, one that is followed by the President, and the many Senators and Congressional Representatives who will also be up for reelection in 2012.

A side note: If in the NY 9th, the Democrats could not manufacture enough votes to overcome a challenge, what will happen in the rest of the City, and for that matter in Massachusetts, where all incumbent Democrats, (with one exception) had to fight hard to hold onto seats in 2010, and where in 2012, those same districts (less one), will be challenged again? No matter how it will be spun, and no matter that Obama has become the new “sacrificial lamb” of those as guilty of a political ideology as the President, it is what it is, the people will vote, and once again, the potential for historical turns in both houses of Congress, but especially the White House, are more probable than not.
As Hades is freezing over, one might suggest that should Palin announce her intent to run (when), a women will be standing guard at the gates of that “shining city on the hill” that is America, backed by an assembly of the people, working on behalf of the people’s interest. First; "Yes Virginia, there are moderate Democrats, who vote with follow a new pro-Constitution philosophy" - Tea and Common Sense anyone?

2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Roundup: Sarah Palin and the Ides of September, Romney’s Too Elite? Huntsman on Bachmann – She’s Pretty!

Romney Palin and Bachmann - image Sunshine State News

As the drama from the “Debt Ceiling Crisis” continues in the Senate (Prediction: Obama get’s his debt ceiling, Republican’s get some cuts, but not enough to make a difference, and the general public, taxpayers, will enjoy prolonged fiscal pain due to lack of Leadership.) it is to the point that most American’s are disgusted, and clearly appalled by how the Congress, Senate and White House are basically dysfunctional. Reference to playgrounds rather than politics is a popular theme; followed by “kick the bums” out. It’s fantastic that we’re having a “dialogue”, however, how about taking some action, specifically in areas where one can get rid of waste, double dipping by government agencies, fraud and abuse? One Senator, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, has a report on the aforementioned that should be used as a model for first things that the Congress and Senate could do to start saving billions today. The report is available here at coburn.senate.gov/public//index it is suggested reading (PDF).

Therefore, since the “crisis” is somewhat of a foregone conclusion, as far as Washington is concerned, the week starts with a look at who could lead this nation out of the pit of apathy, and onto a road to recovery both fiscal and psychological
Over at the Washington Times, Henry D'Andrea, rolls out his reasons for believing that Sarah Palin is running for the Office of the Presidency in 2012. The reasons are sound, and if anyone were to be able to pull off an “unconventional” campaign that would be Sarah Palin.

Although the field continues to be at best ho-hum, to the point where Donald Trump is considering running if the “right person” is not nominated by the GOP. One thing that was missing in D’Andrea’s article, Sarah’s visit with Donald Trump. Although merely speculating here, Trump has commented on certain candidates, liking Bachman more than some others, however, he way rather “coy “for “The Donald” when asked about his visit with Palin. Both individuals play by a different set of rules than the usual “politico’s” – which is a) unnerving to the media and b) smarter by setting the pace, and letting the pundits speculate the outcomes. A September announcement by Palin would not only shake things up a bit, but add much to the debates that are scheduled throughout the fall and winter leading up to the first primary and caucus.
Note to D’Andrea: This blog believes Sarah Palin will run – out of a sense of duty to the nation.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney can’t seem to please anyone, either it’s the way he dresses, or his perfect hair, and now, it’s his perfect education: From KSL, Utah comes the latest nonsense that Romney’s Ivy League Education would hurt rather than help him as a candidate, given the anti-Ivy League (i.e. Elite) stance of that darn Tea Party. One should note that Tea Party meetings generally have speakers on the economy, et al, and those speakers hold degrees from Ivy League Universities. Go figure. Romney is Romney, he’s the perfect person, and he’s smart, and willing to compromise, perhaps a bit too much for the taste of many conservatives. He prefers the word “fee” to the word “tax”. Frankly, the later is more of a turn-off than whether or not he was educated at Harvard or Yale, or if spent six years at a local community college – makes no difference. Is there anything else that the media can think of that makes Romney just “too perfect”? One has to feel sorry for the guy. Our candidates should be judged on their prior experience, not their religious preference, how they dress, their gender, if they are too perfect, or if they went managed to get through school on collage loans and work study, going through several schools to do so, until they could graduate. It simply does not matter – what matters? Do they have those leadership qualities that are so desperately needed by this nation, and are they fiscal hawks, not just conservatives, but hawks.


Finally, the most ridiculous and way to stick foot in mouth award goes to Jon Huntsman (who?) 2012 GOP Candidate: Apparently, according to Mr. Huntsman, his problem (and other lower tier candidates) cannot get enough press, because, get this: it all goes to Michelle Bachman “because she’s pretty!”

What an idiot! Michelle Bachmann receives media attention because she’s campaigning, and since she’s in Congress, she’s got a ready made platform – she’s also smart, savvy and oh yes, Tea Party. Anyone that is that petulant over not getting enough press, and uses the “pretty card” to attack the only announced female candidate to date, has to be fairly desperate. Of course, one has to wonder if Huntsman feels the same way about Mitt Romney? Is Romney too Pretty (there’s that debate again, pretty/perfect)? How about Herman Cain, who just won the Colorado Straw Poll (in Huntsman’s back yard)? Is Herman just too pretty?


Cain, Palin and Romney - image Republican Redefined Blog

It is the usual garbage that is associated with a woman running for higher office – although one has to admit, it’s a lot nicer (in a cry-baby, whining sort of way), than other things the press has leveled at Ms. Bachmann, and Sarah Palin should get an award for handling a press that is not only hostile, but sexist to the extreme! Look at the handful (one hand that is) of woman that have run or God forbid (media take) been nominated to a major party ticket or ran for the nomination, from the wonderful Geraldine Ferraro, to Hillary Clinton, to Sarah Palin, (a 30 odd year span one must note between the first and the second) – the treatment of these woman has ranged from the frivolous to the bizarre, but all of it has been – because they are women. If a policy were being discussed, and one did not like a certain policy, that’s fine, but those articles just can’t stop there, they have to include “what she wore” or some comment that just roils!

To sum it up this blog believes, Palin will run, (and will be President), Romney is still too perfect, it is time to take the focus off the his good looks, perfect what –have you, and focus on his governing in Massachusetts, Bachmann is a stellar campaigner, and like Palin, she is taking the heat, and staying out of the kitchen- that’s honorable. Huntsman, the media adores him – enough said.

Although it is far too early to really begin to speculate about which candidate might make it through even three primaries, and or announce, it is imperative that those who are looking for leadership, begin to watch and read about these candidates, and make some choices, whether it is Cain, Perry, (any day now), Palin (September), Bachmann, and or Mitt – as Obama’s numbers stand now, (a continual slide south), there is little chance that the man can be elected unless of course, a third party candidate comes forth to split the vote (Hint, find out who Donald Trump thinks is an acceptable GOP candidate and then get behind that person 100%). If a third party candidate runs (which is David Axelrod’s desire), a Massachusetts scenario will ensue, whereby, the incumbent manages somehow (Deval Patrick) to be reelected by 1 point. – Repeat 1 point! Choose early, choose several but choose – and as the field narrows, should your preferred candidate does not make it so to speak, make a second choice, or a third – the alternative, is unacceptable.

2012 General Elections Beginning to Take Shape – Democrats and Republicans Alike Early Eyes On Congress and the White House

2012 - The Games Begin - image media.eyeblast.org

For months news of David Axelrod, Obama’s 2008 Campaign Manager and White House Advisor, move to Chicago in early 2011 to start the President’s 2012 election campaign has made headlines. As 2010 closes, CBS News (via Politico) is reporting that Obama will campaign for reelection from Chicago, rather than D.C. or nearby Virginia as his predecessors had done.

On the GOP side, the AP via Boston Globe is reporting on potential Senate Challenges in 2012. With 33 Senate Seats up for reelection as well as the entire Congress, those that are considering challenging incumbents are beginning to come forward.

Polling on the Presidential contest has been taking place for the past year, with hypothetical match-ups against a variety of well-known Republicans versus Obama, with one of the latest a CNN polls showing 2008 Candidate, former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, leading the pack of “hypothetical’s”. Huckabee, a virtual unknown in 2007, went on to win the Iowa caucus in 2008, eventually bowing out to John McCain after all states had a choice in the primary contests. 2008 saw speculation that high-profile Republicans such as Condoleezza Rice, former Bush administration, Secretary of State would seek the nomination, which she did not.

One thing is certain, after the 2010 mid-term Democrat losses in the Congress based on public distaste for runaway government spending, high unemployment, and the health care reform bill, the issues that will surface as challenging for either party in 2012 are, as of this point, unknown. The fact of the matter is that the economy may remain strained for the next two years, as it undergoes recovery, the new Congress, with a good percentage of the members part of the Tea Party movement will, undoubtedly, be more vocal than the average politician, specifically when it comes to spending, however, they must buck a Senate controlled by Republicans and Democrats alike who are less fiscally conservative. Depending on which side of the economic coin the President stands, along with Democrat members of the House and Senate, will either make or break the nations focus on the economy and who is to "blame".

The last hours of the 111th Congress, and the passage of several bills that appeased the Democrats Progressive wing of the party, has, according to NY Congressman, Charles Rangel staved off a primary challenge to Obama from the left. That does not, however, mean there will be no primary challenge to the President, as hopes of his compromises with Republicans on the Bush Tax Cuts would appease those in the middle, has yet to be determined.

As both major American political parties, as well as the independents and minor party hopefuls, begin to play their cards for 2012, it will be, as always, what makes the United States of American one of the most unique and inspiring nations in world history. The fact that any U.S. citizen, regardless of socio-economic, religious or ethnic origins can rise to the occasion, run for political office, and be elected by a majority of the citizens, continues to engage the world.

Speculation: Clinton Returns to Private Sector – Replacement: NM's Bill Richardson – Clinton Presidential Run Still Not Out of the Question

Hillary Clinton 2003 - Life Magazine Profile


The Examinerled with the question: Will outgoing New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson replaces Hillary Clinton as Sectary of State? Richardson, who had been offered positions within the Obama White cabinet in 2008, was one of the key Super-Delegates in Obama’s win at the 2008 Democrat convention However, at the time he was asked to join the Obama cabinet Richardson represented one more “scandal” in Obama’s cabinet choices, and declined the offer until the Indictments were cleared (Google news: Moscow Pullman Democrat, January 1, 2009).

The speculation on Hillary’s “retirement from public life” began with a few quotes from Clinton herself when queried whether or not she would seek the Presidency in 2012 – both were asked and answered on foreign soil, in early December from Bahrain and again from New Zealand, neither the time nor the place to make an announcement of that sort. She then answered the question on Fox News Sunday – once again, a resounding no to the question of a run against Obama in 2012.

Clinton, who had served as a New York State Senator, and ran against Obama for the 2008 Democrat Presidential Nomination, according to recent reports, is stepping aside to spend more time with her family. Clinton has spent the last two years working the globe and holding her own in the Obama administration - considering the vitriol of the campaign trail and the subsequent “Super Delegate” coronation of Obama over Clinton (who had the popular vote) at the Democrat Convention in 2008, her tenure with the association is nothing short of diplomatic acumen on steroids. That said, it could very well be that Hillary Clinton is tired, and wants to spend time with family and friends.

Meanwhile, David Axelrod hints at Obama’s run in 2012, and a “shake-up” at the White House, and Administration Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, denies any major changes will be taking place. Obviously, something is afoot. Axelrod left for Chicago early in order to set up the campaign strategy for Obama’s 2012 bid, and has been the mastermind behind the Obama elections since he first rolled out Massachusetts Govenor Deval Patrick as test case for Obama in 2006. Axelrod used the same Massachusetts strategy for Obama’s 2008 bid, down to the slogan: “yes we can”. On the eve of the November mid-terms, Patrick was, this time, in a battle for the Governor’s office, however, what aided the most unpopular Govenor in Massachusetts in his reelection (by 2 points), was the former Democrat turn Independent Patrick staffer, Timothy Cahill, running as an independent. This move effectively pulled independent voters away from the Republican Challenger, to tip the scales towards Patrick. As of now, Michael Bloomberg, believed to be the national Tim Cahill, has denied he would run, however, watch for an unexpected change of heart from a semi-plausible Democrat turned independent in 2011-2012 with an announced intention to run against Obama and Brand X Republican. This scenario is not out of the question.

Back to Hillary Clinton: According to Republican Strategist, Carl Rove, via the Huffington Post, Hillary will run in 2016. Speculation perhaps that should Obama run again in 2012, regardless of the number of times he invokes the name of Ronald Reagan, he does not have the time to pick up enough of the independents that he lost over the past two years, therefore, a Republican would win the election in 2012. Thereby, the preceding scenario would open the doors to a Clinton run in 2016.

Of course, Hillary Clinton may be finished with politics, for now and she has repeatedly denied an interest in seeking the White House, hasn't she?: from CNN: 2003:

Former first lady Hillary Clinton says she has no plans to launch a bid to become the country's first woman president in the next two elections.
It has often been speculated the former first lady would make a bid for the White House, but in two interviews Sunday, she said she had "no intention" to run for president in 2008 -- and would turn down invitations to run in 2004.
Clinton said she is enjoying her current political role as a senator for New York.

The fact of the matter is that no-one, at the present time, knows who will run in 2012 on either ticket (or in the case of Axelrod’s campaign strategy, who the “straw man”may be). However, with Clinton free of the White House, and the potential candidacy of the likes of Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and, of course, Sarah Palin, with a Republican controlled Congress and the more than likely 2012 Republican controlled Senate, would the need to run, both for the Democrat Party and for her own vindication, be out of the question? It may be far too early to place any bets, however, one might be tempted to look at Clinton for 2012. She would be a formidable candidate, both during a campaign against Obama (who has the Progressives, but not the overwhelming numbers of Moderate Democrats), and a national campaign against a right of center conservative. This former Goldwater Girl would be able to run directly at the middle. In the aforementioned scenario, the Press would, after a brief period of mourning for their candidate of choice, get behind Clinton in droves, as she would be more representative, at least in part, of the ideologues who are the U.S. press.

Of course, at the present time, it is clearly speculation, but in the opinion of this writer, Clinton would have been the clear choice in 2008 (based on her record in the senate alone), should Hillary Clinton decide to run in 2012, it would be for the love her political Party and her County. What one has to ask, is there anyone else that can match Hillary Clinton on the horizon for 2012, and would one rather have four years of one party rule beginning in 2012? As a nation, we have seen what can happen when one political party is left to its own devices while holding the Executive and the Legislative Branch, (both the Republican and Democrats). It would, to be certain, a sacrifice on Clinton’s part, but will she have the ability to turn her back on her country and the Moderate Democrats? Only time will tell.

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

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

The Massachusetts experiment:

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

Forward to the 2010 Massachusetts Governors Race:

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

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

Desperate Dems Invoke “Karl Rove” in New Ad – Axelrod Challenged by CBS’s Bob Schieffer – “Is That All You’ve Got?” – Incumbents Avoid Debates

David Axelrod (left) invokes the name of Karl Rove (right) in weak attempt to rally base - image: Reuters

White House Advisor, David Axelrod, on this Sunday's CBS’s “Face the Nation” was chastised by journalist, Bob Schieffer for a recent DNC advertisement that offers an outright fabrication regarding Karl Rove, former George W. Bush advisor, Republican’s in general and the Chamber of Commerce taking foreign monies to finance campaigns. Schieffer categorized the assertions as “Peanuts” and when pressed for details, Axelrod came up empty. Schieffer queried “Is that all you’ve got?” (Video clips below)

The UK’s Telegraph offered: “Epitaph for Barack Obama's Democrats: 'Is that the best you can do?'”, an excellent article outlining the latest attempt by Democrats to salvage the Mid-Term elections.

Axelrod may be thinking that anything goes in campaign finance due to the Obama campaigns use of then

"Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed."

(Washington Post 10/28/2008 article)

Democrats, who apparently will not defend the legislation passed by the Congress, nor campaign on issues due to the aforementioned legislation, are now digging deep into the well in the latest attempt to rally the base by accusing Rove and “Big Business”.

The simple fact that Democrat Incumbents are avoiding Debating opponents nationwide is telling. (Google Democrats avoid debate and find countless articles) Apparently, when one cannot stand on one’s record, entering the debate forum is a risk.

Not all Democrats, however, are adverse to risk nor concerned about the Debate forum, as Massachusetts Barney Frank,(D-MA4) who is “continuing to lose ground”(AP) to Republican Sean Bielat, entered the arena yesterday twice, once on WRKO and a later debate on NECN (clip below). After watching the debate on NECN (three segments available here, one understands why Democrats are not eager to face their Republican opponents. Bielat trounced Frank in both debates, calling the long-term incumbent out on occasion for Frank’s usual refusal to acknowledge statements made on any given subject, regardless of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.



Meanwhile, in the Hamdpen 2nd, the Richard Neal campaign has issued a press release that notes they have agreed to two debates, however, however, the release features no date of release nor offers a clue as to when the debates might take place. The first is allegedly tentatively scheduled for October 15th at 7:30 pm on WGBY Springfield (the local PBS station). Neal was also asked to participate in “Town Hall Style Debates” and is said to have declined.

With Congress convening in order for the House and Senate Democrats to hit the campaign trail (while allowing Bush Tax Cuts that affect every single taxpayer) to expire, one would think they’d find the time and take the opportunity to get out and face their opponents head on. (Especially in Massachusetts and the 8th District in California (Pelosi) That said, they may fear constituents response might be similar to that of Bob Schieffer’s: “Is that all you’ve got?”

MA 2010 Governors Race: Deval Patrick Tea Party Motivated by “Hate”, Charlie Baker(R) Ties Patrick (D) in Latest Polling, Cahill (I) an Afterthought

Deval Patrick(D) and Charlie Baker (R) Statistical Tie


A Rasmussen Poll on the Massachusetts Governor's race released on Friday, gives the embattled Democrat (and Obama-Axelrod Field Test) a 3 point lead over Republican Candidate Charlie Baker. The poll is well within the margin of error (45 to 42 with a 4.5 % margin), which is a statistical tie. Included in the poll is the third candidate, Democrat turned conveniently independent Tim Cahill, who was part of the Patrick administration.

As earlier predicted, Independent candidates normally receive under 6% of the vote in Massachusetts which can make for many a close race. That said, Cahill’s had some problems paying taxes, which appears to be a resounding theme this year among candidates – following in the footsteps of “Tim Tax-Evading” Geithner who was confirmed by the Democrat controlled Congress, despite having made some “errors” using Turbo Tax. That apparently has left the door open for all candidates regardless of party. Although, Cahill may have stood a better chance had he done a 360 and changed political parties – as in run as a Republican. Historically third party candidates don’t do well in the Bay State.

Now that Mr. Cahill is quickly becoming an afterthought – The Baker Campaign has the opportunity to move those poll numbers to Scott Brown/Coakley levels or possibly beyond – given the governors general approval ranking, which has mysteriously risen in the past three months of furious campaigning (by the state media) up to, according to Rasmussen’s poll, 49%!

That said there is discontent in the Bay State over higher taxes (implanted by Patrick and company in July of 2009), and interestingly enough, his push to fund college education for illegal aliens. Baker is scoring higher in the “viewed favorably” section of Rasmussen poll, and name recognition, across the Bay State has not reached full potential. Therein lays the rub, the more the voters get to see Charlie Baker, the more they like him.

In a recent on air gubernatorial debate, Govern Deval Patrick discussed the Tea Party – (audio embedded below) and how members are “fueled by hate” (which is the party line in places such as Cambridge, and Amherst), however, a recent Friday gathering of Tea Party Activists, shown in poor quality photos below (given the fact that this blog has no talent in regards to photography), depicts individuals expressing their freedom, although the photo’s are not representative of the entire group (as it coverage both sides of a major rotary, the signs held and visible were Patriotic not hateful – which is the norm, unless one is an incumbent Republican who is running against a Tea Party backed candidate or any Democrat. Therefore, with the dogma in place, and the race tightening, one can see the following taking place within the next three weeks: Baker (R) leading Patrick (D) by 5 points, with Cahill, a blip on the radar, nothing more and nothing less.


Audio of Deval Patrick Tea Party Hate Rhetoric



Tea Party Rally, Signs: American Flags, Don't Tread on Me, a few signs referencing Taxes and Tea.... (Chicopee, is in Richard Neal's (D-MA2) District)


Hundreds line both sides of Rt. 33 in Chicopee, MA in Tea Party Rally