The Most Interesting – Rand Paul – Dr. vs. GOP and DNC Machine – What this means for 2016

According to Dan Pfeiffer, the top communications adviser to President Obama, Rand Paul is the Republican he finds the most “interesting”. This is due to his outreach to demographics currently believed to be “owned” by Democrats, and his stance on issues that would attract them. However, Pfeiffer went on to suggest that Paul does not have the organization heft. (BuzzFeed)

Buzzfeed is a left of center (for the most part) blogger platform, social media company, so articles written are more in the vein of “the top 15 this or that”. The audience is younger, which is what is playing to Paul’s favor. As to organizational heft, that’s to be determined, it is early in the game.

Although the rank and file members of the establishment GOP in DC have their hearts set on a standard Republican, a Mitt Romney, a Jeb Bush or yes, even a Chris Christie, it is not without a bit of angst on the part of those who would like to see a real change, that they are pushing the aforementioned. The simple truth is not one of them could actually win the Presidency. Breaking it down, Romney is a lousy candidate, nice guy, but he has baggage. It was not so much that he could not have won in 2012 – in fact, Mickey Mouse could have won in 2012, if, and this is the stickler – the 20 million evangelicals would have voted for someone in a religion they believe to be a cult. Simple reasoning suggests that were Romney to run again, the same religious fervor attached to voting, would once again rear its ugly head, and the Democrats could run say,. Biden, and lo and behold, we’d have a Biden Presidency. Bush has the name problem, part of a dynasty and one which there has not been enough time for the blind hatred towards his brother to elapse. Additionally, there is an anti-dynasty push through all demographics, therefore, not acceptable. Chris Christie, no explanation necessary.

What does that leave? Younger, qualified candidate that can attract not only the religious right base, but the independents as well as Democrats (some, not all), which is why this is going to be an extremely interesting race in 2016. If one understands that the vitriol pouring out against anyone who is not one of the Washington three (Romney, Christie, Bush), in the press, is due to the fact that populism is not in their favor, therefore they smear. The problem with this tired tactic is that while they retain their Washington lifestyle, Rome burns. Therefore, the man to beat, in this sense, would be Paul given the fact that there is grudging admiration on the left, and sheer hatred from the “standard right”. Of course that same may apply to Rick Perry and Ted Cruz, and other’s not yet known. This will be a determining factor in the sway of the entire nation towards a more constitutionally grounded government. Sometimes one just wants to throw the whole lot of them in a room, and suggest perhaps, just perhaps, they should let the process go its own way, and let the people actually decide, rather than their fully lined pockets. The aforementioned goes to both sides of the aisle.

Rand Paul best Hillary Clinton in 2016 Hypothetical match-up - Elizabeth Warren, Republican Turned Progressive, responds being credited with the Occupy Movement.

From the Lexington Herald Leader: Rand Paul has “narrowly” bested Hillary Clinton in a 2016 Hypothetical matchup – the Leader called it a “home court advantage”. The final advantage 48 (Paul) to 44 (Clinton) –which is the spread that separated President Obama from Mitt Romney.

Although several sources suggest that Clinton may not run and that the opponent from the left of center will be Elizabeth Warren, until the dust clears, there is little that can be gleaned from these polls other than who is better recognized at the time of the poll. As in 2012 when many top tier polling candidates eventually did not run, it may just be that early polling in 2016 will go the same way. That said, Mass Live (Springfield Republican)’s story this morning on Warren suggests she does not respond well to the truth:

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is taking exception to a characterization put forth by former student, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, as he tries to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor in Arkansas.

In a fundraising letter sent this week, Cotton, who studied under Warren at Harvard Law School prior to her 2012 Senate election, described his former professor as the "intellectual founder of the radical Occupy Movement" and someone who supports a "European-style, single-payer" health care system, according to Talking Points Memo. And on Saturday, Warren struck back with a fundraising plea sent to her thousands of supporters on behalf of Pryor, her colleague in the Senate.

Of interest in the Mass Live article is Warren’s going to bat for endangered Democrats: i.e. Franken in MN and Sheehan in NH and well as Pryor because should she fail, and these Democrats lose their seats, which appears likely in two of the three instances, then, that will leave her little credence with the democrats as to her “star power”. Additionally, using the tire d war on women may not be the best method to denigrate a GOP challenger at this point, given how that panned out after the 2012 elections.

Speculation abounds, however, the players are bound to change, especially should Clinton not run, and Warren become similarly toxic, who then? Joe Biden?

Biden-Ryan 2012 Debate – A Draw for the Bases– CNN Poll – Ryan 48% to Biden 44% - What of the Independents? Polling Continues in MA for Obama.

V.P. Joe Biden and V.P. Candidate, Paul Ryan - Ryan Wins Over Independents - image: Salon.com

The 2012 Vice Presidential Debate held last night in Danville, Kentucky between Vice President, Joe Biden and GOP Vice-Presidential Candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan has been considered a draw by the U.S. media. A CNN/ORC poll taken immediately following the debate indicated the following:

Ryan won the debate by 48% to 44% - with the margin of error at 5% (normally 4%) indicates a tie

50% suggested the debate made no difference in their vote for the top of the ticket, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

(CNN)

The polling sample used was smaller than average at under 400 surveyed, and CNN indicated that CBS polling gave Biden by a large margin, however, one might suggest it depended a great deal on the make-up of the viewership, and how each individual saw the exchange. From this perspective, Biden came across as more aggressive in answering questions, and, as one CNN Focus Group participant suggested (paraphrasing) following the debate, “he did better than Obama in the last debate” (which gave him the win for that man). On the flip side, Ryan came across as confident on the one hand, while being respectful of the office of the V.P. when Biden repeatedly interrupted Ryan, and allowed Biden to get away with a lot more than time, most likely allowed for Ryan to rebut. In total, it appeared to be a draw for both, a draw whereby the base on either side of the aisle would feel that their candidate won. That said, it was the independents who should have been the focus and that has not been discussed at any great length. Those watching CNN (chosen over other networks as it is not perceived to be either left or right, as in the case of MSNBC or FOX and for political junkies, has all the bells and whistles) were able to watch a focus group react to the debate in real-time. This focus group was made up of independents, using the usual dial approach, made up of male and female respondents. (The aforementioned is one of the bells and whistles.) Overall, the line was up over the bar whenever Vice President Biden spoke about appealing to the “middle-class”, however, as soon as he turned to campaign mode, it plunged, while Ryan enjoyed a steady stream of positive to flat when explaining issues, and had more ups than downs than his opponent. What was most interesting was that the females appeared to respond more positively to Ryan than to Biden.

It is the practice of rating on performance and points, and for that Ryan gets the nod for the win overall. He was not overly aggressive with Biden, nor the moderator, while Biden clearly was agitated and bombastic when asked questions that made him obviously uncomfortable, specifically the issue with the Libyan embassy attack. He answered the questions posed as clearly as possible, with the exception of one, and that was the challenge by the moderator to both men that they tell the voting public what each would personally bring to the office. Biden used the time to attack the Romney Campaign and Ryan defended Romney as well as reiterated the campaign messaging. Although neither candidate gave a direct answer, Ryan may have been able to define his relationship to those in his district and suggest that his bi-partisanship and record proved him the better V.P. That said, it is easy for anyone, the pundit or the opinionated, to “Monday-morning quarterback”. What to take away, Ryan won on points in the debate arena, not on “feelings”. Although others, (a conservative, a Democrat-liberal-turned independent and a staunch, right-leaning Republican) – all felt otherwise and gave the nod to Ryan overall. Granted that is an extremely small sample, but it does indicate that four people watching the same debate on different networks come away with a different point of view. Given the CNN after poll and the CNN real time independent polling, one would think that Ryan gave a bonus to the Mitt Romney team by appealing to more Independent voters than Biden. The polls taken over this weekend, however, are likely to indicate a total draw.

Worst moment for Biden: Looking into the camera and asking the public “Who are you going to Trust?”, Best Moment, speaking about Scranton and the middle class background. Ryan, steady, no one particular moment that was a negative, overall he appeared confident, if, and this is a note, he did appear on edge (either that or the man was extremely thirsty). Best moment for Ryan: his closing statement. It was that last statement that gave clarity and made the absolute difference clear between both camps. Biden’s laughter also was a bone of contention for some, however, one must understand that he had to appear more aggressive, the pressure was on from the Campaign to be aggressive, and he most decidedly overdid it, perhaps not for the base, but the base does not win an election.

The next debate is this coming Tuesday between President Obama and Govenor Mitt Romney, one might expect that Romney’s performance will remain status quo, given his ability, while President Obama is expected to be more aggressive. That said, Obama has to top expectations across the board, and the bar has been set pretty high, perhaps too high. Should the President have to defend his record, with Romney standing opposite, it will be a repeat of the first debate. (Which, in the first debate, is what derailed the President in the first five minutes of the first debate and Romney ran with it.) Should that happen and the final jobs numbers for September be revised upward to 8.2% due to the sudden revelation that a large state was not included in the mix, then this close to an election, with polls as they now stand and a draw with the VP debate for the base, while a win for Ryan with the Independents, one might suggest that Romney will remain in the lead through the finish.

One thing of note: During the debate, the VP referred to the Romney campaign as “not competing in Massachusetts”, which is not necessarily true, given the Campaign headquarters in Boston, and a very high profile Senate Race (Brown-Warren) in the equation. There have been several polls over the past three to four weeks, which focus exclusively on the Presidential race, another taken last night based on the Obama-Romney matchup, including questions for union members, such as: have you been approached by your Union to vote for President Obama, have you been called by a union member about voting for President Obama, do you think Mitt Romney or President Obama has the more negative ads, and so on.

This would suggest, with the focus so heavily leaning towards the President and union members, in Massachusetts, that there is indeed a need to secure the state by the Obama Campaign. The calls were made on the 11th, between 5 and 8 p.m., received at approximately 6:00 pm in Western Massachusetts households. At first neighbors were flattered, simply because no one, ever polls Massachusetts, now they are simply suspicious that there is more going on with the state and the Obama campaign specifically. To be fair, the area in which this is taking place in primarily Independent (or designated Unenrolled), the support and nod are going to Romney/Brown, but further west and north in the Western end of the state which is much less populated, the support should, by logic, be going to Obama. If this is occurring in a scenario similar to the 2009 special election, then the unthinkable may happen – Massachustts would, temporarily and on the surface be a red state. These are big if’s, the biggest being turnout for the Democrats (who can miraculously pull 30,000 votes out of a hat in under 13 hours), and the level of national interest in the Senate race, keeping eyes on the state (which would then make that 30,000 miraculous votes a bit more difficult to achieve –as was the case in the 2009 race for the “people's seat”. Suffice it to say, it may appear that the Romney Campaign may not be competing in Massachusetts (other than the television ads, and some door to doors, and phone calls which may be third party) but the Obama campaign certainly is.

Left Counting on Biden in Debate to Keep Obama Campaign Afloat – Biden Takes Six Days To Study Debate – Updated Predictions from the UDenver: Romney Wins – Grab the Popcorn

Image from the Guardian UK - One might anticipate this expression on Ryan's face while Biden is either a) telling an uncomfortable truth, or b) (pick an outrageous statement or expletive

From the Daily Beats Headlines: Joe Biden’s Turn to Take down Paul Ryan, can only be characterized as denial. It is apparent, of course, that this particular blog is “carrying water” for the Obama Administration, and anyone knows that Biden is fine in the debate area – however, fine against Paul Ryan is not going to cut it. The Daily Beast goes on to say that Ryan has zero experience in debate in front of millions, rather has spoken only to a few hundred here and there. Apparently forgetting about that Convention in August, where he as indeed in front of millions, granted that was the convection. One might also understand that Ryan is used to being in debate, as he is in the Congress, and spends, just like Biden, the majority of his time, debating legislation, one way or the other.

From the other side of the political spectrum, the Weekly Standard is reporting Joe Biden takes 6 days off campaign trail for debate prep. The Weekly Standard notes the following:

For this weekend, the White House provided the following guidance: "The Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled."

As for the next three days, Biden will remain in Delaware. "On Monday through Wednesday, the Vice President will be in Wilmington, Delaware. There are no public events scheduled." – (Weekly Standard)

On the Paul Ryan Watch Raw Story reports Ryan taking three days to prep for the debate with Joe Biden Ryan spent the day yesterday with with his family, away from debate prep,(Minneapolis Star Tribune. Apparently Ryan, who is , from some points of view, not only a policy “wonk’ but an outright genius may have all facts, figures, and taking point down in 3 days, rather than the 6 days it might take V.P Biden. Biden may have to learn not to tell the truth or be outrageously over the top, something that has dogged the Obama campaign every time the V.P. is out campaigning. Biden can at one time appear reasonable, then Biden the truth-teller shows up in his remarks about the middle class suffering since 2008, or the other Biden may show up – making claims about Romney putting people in chains. – Either or, it’s going to be worth the price of admission.

Ryan, for those who have only seen him on the clips, might want to go back through c-span footage and take a look at how he handles the Congress, one might also want to take a look at Ryan’s ability to resonate with all voters, despite the election partisan hype – he was the very few GOP Congressional Rep in 2008 that won reelection in his district. One might say so what? –True, Ryan’s winning his own district, may be a big so what? – However, his district voted for Obama, by a smaller percentage overall than for Ryan – and that District favors the Democrats disproportionately.

That’s something to chew on.

Of course, just like Mitt Romney’s first debate with Barack Obama, in which Romney’s performance can only be characterizes as stellar, the Pres will be “fact checking” fast and furiously (pun intended) Ryan’s’ every word. And every word of it, not unlike Romney’s, will be “suspect”. Of course, when reading or listening to these articles or newscasts, there is not specific reasoning for the statements to be suspect, except they were “fact-checked”. Which brings up the question, if one can debunk the Romney fact checkers in less than 30 seconds, how much more quickly can on debunk the “fact checks” against Ryan.

Romney did not lie in his debate, the statements he made and the programs he offered were just not in agreement with the narrative of the sleeping Obama, so the press had to jump in.

Meanwhile, over at the University of Denver, there are some science wonks – they deal in numbers and statistics especially when it comes to predicting who will win the Presidential race. Previously it was Romney, and it is still Romney only this time, Obama lost 5 more points. The new prediction gives Romney 330 Electoral votes to the Presidents’ 208. They will update that model again before the election. This model has been accurate for the last several elections. Of course, not to be outdone, Cambridge, offers a variety of Election models to contradict –they are available at Campbridge.org,.

On things is certain, models, polls and the like are grabbing attention – but the question remains whose? Most of those living and breathing polls are the pundits and the media, while the general public is generally not either buying it, or too financially depressed to care.

The VP debate is this Thursday. The next Presidential debate will be held on Foreign Policy – one would think that is the President’s bailiwick, as the media has portrayed Romney as a dolt when it comes to foreign policy – that said, SoundBits and carefully parsed phrase, can indeed make one appear less knowledgeable. However, unless the moderator has a stun gun pointed at Romney, the general public will be allowed to hear his plans and policy in their entirety, and so will the public. At the same time, one might ask if the President, taken off his stride by the sheer knowledge of Romney unleashed, might go into his Denver State of Mind (unlikely as he’ll be fighting for his life), but regardless, Romney will be prepared. For those who look for lively debates, all three offer a bit of something, no matter to which side of the aisle one is politically wed.

Hillary Clinton 2012 V.P. – Unlikely – Positive Replacement for both Biden and Obama – USA Today Poll: 2-1 Obama Voters Likely Not To Vote - Analysis

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton - image: thegloss.com

The calls for President Barack Obama to replace the, at times, embarrassing, Vice President, Joe Biden are coming from both the right(Meghan McCain on Clinton as V.P. Replacement), and the center(Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board), however there are two factors that would not allow this public cry for President Obama to switch V.P.’s. The first is that the President is sticking by Biden (Examiner.com) and the second, it is more likely that Hillary Clinton would not accept the position. Reason suggests as she is not attending the Democrat 2012 Convention in North Carolina and, would better serve the nation on the top of the ticket, there is zero chance of Hillary Clinton trading places with Joe Biden - she is Presidential material. Of course, the later is this opinion, and has been since the race for the Presidency in 2008 came down to three candidates: McCain, Obama and Clinton.

How much does Biden matter? It depends very little, considering that few people can even name a Vice –President, and the general political think is that those that vote generally vote for the top of the ticket, with the V.P. choice of either party being designed more or less to “attract the base” or core group of political ideologists from one side or the other that actually get out and vote. Therein lays the problem for the Democrats this year. A new USA Today poll, conducted by Suffolk University suggests that 90 million voters will stay home this year, with 2 in 1 of those backing President Obama’s reelection. What is, perhaps, most interesting about this particular poll is that of those polled, over half are registered to vote, and 80 percent of those have the government playing an “important role” in their lives (USA Today). Blame the negative ads, blame the fact that both candidates are not some votes cup of tea, or the fact that they are simply not interested enough to get out and vote, the fact remains that if the top of the ticket is unlikely to motivate two in one necessary voters that rely on the government, something in not currently working in the administrations drive to “spread the wealth” and maintain a edge in voters at the same time. Apathy is most likely fueled by the economy – one never takes into consideration that those who are working for a living and seeing their paycheck disappear at the grocery stores, are no different than those on the EBT card or whatever form of assistance, finding their “dollar’ also shrinking. Apathy, translates in to a political nightmare, and this poll, by a large margin, gives clues as to the real State of the Union which are far from encouraging to the man currently in the Oval office. Which brings up another reason why Clinton might not accept the position (other than she should be President), running on a ticket whose chances are appearing slim, (disregarding polls that assume it’s close), would be a colossal waste of time and treasure.

Romney-Ryan on 60 Minutes – Media response: Crickets – Choice of Ryan Ignites Race – Thousands Show Up To Rally - Fund Raising Up in first 24 Hours

Ryan and Romney in Wisconsin - photo: Drudgereport.com


Four years ago when Sarah Palin gave her first CBS interview to Katie Couric, the media blitz was immediate and negative – thousands of articles appeared on Google outlining the highlights of once 7 hours interview edited to a short segment. Fast Forward four years to last night’s interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, which was announced by several news outlets in advance – with articles highlighting the choice of Ryan as “risky”.(Orlando Sentinel). The segment which aired at 7:00 pm (approximately after the U.S. Open), apparently did little to diminish Ryan or Romney. They faced off against Schieffer who was quickly “handled” by both Romney and Ryan when he trailed away from policy issues. Ryan’s, “that’s distracting from the issues” moved the topics forward. The interview, in its entirety is below.

CBS Interview with Romney and Ryan


The “risky” choice of Ryan, according to the media has framed the debate for the election as one that is ideological, however, one might also consider that the debate is now issues based – specifically the issue of the economy. Although the left, and the media are doing their darndest to tear about Ryan’s budget plan, there are zero links in articles to the actual plan on the Congressional Record's site, which is written in, shockingly, plain English. Normally, bills, budgets and resolutions are written in legislative jargon one must look at 60 days till Sunday to glean meaning (unless one is trained as a lawyer, or is a career politician – but not the average citizen). Therefore the claims of Ryan’s policy affecting Seniors, the Middle Class, and tax cuts for the “rich” – are not based on Ryan’s actual budget proposal. The key word there is – proposal. Ryan’s plan seeks to close loopholes on the highest income earners, it does not change Medicare one whit for those 55 or older, while suggesting an option of purchasing private pay plans for those under 55. The Ryan budget does, in fact, reduce taxes on the middle class. However, that’s a fairly mute point, considering Romney is at the top of the ticket and will be making the final decisions on budgets, of which he has his own. Romney made that clear in the 60 minute segment.

As to the choice as “risky” – that may be true if one were trying to attract the Progressive arm of the Democrat Party – otherwise, Ryan’s appeal was immediately evident as rally’s over the weekend saw crowds in the thousands waiting to hear the new V.P. nominee speak. From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “VP candidate Ryan returns to Wisconsin to adoring crowd” – of 10,000 – in Waukesha. According to the U.S. Census that would be one in 7 of every single resident of the City of 70,000, 23.7% of which are under the age of 18. That’s quite a “homecoming” in a State that has been seen, until recently, as more of Democrat, rather than Republican in voter identity.

The Boston Globe reported on the rally crowds in North Carolina:

“A buoyant Mitt Romney and new running mate Paul Ryan propelled their bid for the White House through a series of boisterous events Sunday in the first day of extensive campaigning together since the former Massachusetts governor chose Ryan as his political partner.

His events having the energy of a rock concert, Romney fed on the fervor of the crowds, dispensing high fives, effusively praising his new pick, and at one point joined a chanting crowd: “Paul, Paul, Paul.”

Supporters stood in line for hours to get a glimpse of the new Republican ticket.”
(Of course, no article about Romney-Ryan would be complete without quotes from the White House.)

“Congressman Ryan is a right-wing ideologue, and that is reflected in the positions that he’s taken,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He is quite extreme — good, good person, you know, genial person — but his views are quite harsh.”

President Obama, who has sparred several times with Ryan over economic policies, made his first comments on Ryan’s selection during a fund-raiser in Chicago.
“I know him, I welcome him to the race,” Obama said. “He is a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney’s vision. But it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.”

Axelrod and the “new kid on the block” Progressive Democrat Senate Candidate in MA, Elizabeth Warren, were on the attack immediately, Warren quipped ”'Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy', specifically highlighting the economy (Springfield, MA Republican), which drew an immediate response from commenters that was less than kind to Ms. Warren’s point of view. One commenter noted that

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy and leave working people and small businesses to struggle in the mess.

It's already a mess... is she kidding with this statement... what planet are you on
Ms. Warren?

(Read balance of 60 plus comments at the Springfield Republican’s, Masslive site here

The “risky” pick also had the effect of the campaign raising 3.5 Million (in 24 hours) after the Ryan announcement (thehill.com)

The Romney choice of Ryan is also shedding new interest on the V.P. debate that will take place between Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan, insuring a ratings boost for the network which will broadcast the October 11th Debate at Centre College in Danville, KY.

From this perspective Mitt Romney chose a Vice President he felt was first, capable of not only working within the administration, but that would be able to assume the Office of the Presidency. Romney took the risk of choosing Ryan as the State of Wisconsin is not as strategically important as, Florida (Rubio – electoral votes). Additionally, Romney who is focused on policy and economics, chose someone who is of a similar mindset - in doing so, he would have a Vice President that would work, rather than one which was used for the Senate tie-breaker as the occasion might present, or someone who was not involved in policy of any kind - in other words, a proverbial ribbon-cutter.

In addition, Ryan stands for his principals, and respectfully agrees to disagree, even with the President especially when it comes to numbers, budgets, and what might be in the aforementioned. Ryan comes armed with statistics and facts, not pulled out of left or right field, but from reliable and non-partisan sources – Ryan, as a choice, was not in the least risky, rather brilliant, and above all, one that would work for the American People, rather than one that is merely politically advantageous. Of course, one must expect that the Press and the Obama Campaign must stress the negatives in order to attempt to achieve parity, however, one can anticipate a compare and contrast, uplifting tone from the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Gallup April 16, 2012: Romney 48, Obama 43 – Let the Speculation Begin – Romney Search for Running Mate and the Woman in Charge.

Beth Myers (to the right of Mitt Romney) is tasked with selecting potential GOP #2's - image Boston Globe

Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and now presumptive GOP nominee, has been tracked by Gallup in a match-up with Incumbent President Barack Obama since August of 2011 (Download complete details here: at www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx), the polling data history: August 2011: Romney 48/Obama 46, September 2011: Romney 49/ Obama 47, October: tied at 47, December: Romney 46/ Obama 47, December 16: Romney 48/Obama 50, January: tied at 48, February: Romney 50/Obama 46, tied again February 20th, March: Romney 45/ Obama 49, April: Romney 47/ Obama 45 and this past week: Romney 48/Obama 43. (Gallup).

At first glance of this polling history one finds a close race with 6 instances where Romney was on top, and 3 where President Obama held the lead, they have been tied on several occasions. However, since Romney’s main rival, Rick Santorum has existed the race, Romney’s clear path to the nomination, has, at least in the first month of polling, given him a boost, with the most recent, a 5 point lead over the President. One can anticipate that Gallup, will continue to see ups and downs, depending upon the sample of voters on and the state of the economy on any given day, however, the trend is definitely in Romney’s favor. If this were October 2012, one would be laying bets on Romney as the favorite to clearly walk away with the Presidency, however, as with any incumbent, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, the onus is on the challenger to make points.

Herein lays the good news for Mitt Romney, regardless of a left-centered media, the individual voter is now comparing their standard of living against a standard of living four years ago, and making choices based on those personal findings. In polling, one looks to the state by state Presidential Approval rating and finds 10 out of 50 states where the President is over 50% approval, and in several of those states, that is at .1% over 50%. This could be seen as an anomaly, however, Gallup, has had the same results, with a drop in approval overall for Obama in a State by State poll, two years in a row: Refer to: State of the State 2012 (Released in January), and a year earlier, February of 2011.

In addition, Carter wrote the book on what not to do to an economy, and Obama followed it to the letter, and added a few tweaks. Although to be fair to Obama, today’s consumers are not abandoning their cars due to long gas lines or shortages yet. (See 300 New England Gas Stations without Fuel).

Therefore, if one is in Romney’s shoes, one might start seriously casting about for a running mate, carefully choosing who would best complement Romney in the general election campaign as the number 2. Speculation on this process began from the moment all candidates hit the political limelight, but now, it is time to get more serious. The selection of a running mate has more to do with geography and the differential between voters by state than other factors, such as diversity, and/or the ability of the #2 to stir up the base. JFK chose a Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson, to help him secure the South, specifically the State of Texas. There was little love lost between the two men; rather it was a “marriage of convenience” so to speak. It is the strategy of choosing the right running mate that might deliver an all important state, or region of the nation in a general.

Romney, hired Beth Myers, his long-time aid, to oversee the search for the #2 slot. (New York Times). Myers was appointed as his Gubernatorial Chief of Staff in 2002(Boston Globe), left her position in 2006 to head his Super PAC (Boston Globe) and then became his Campaign Manager in 2008 (Reuters). She has ties to both Beacon Hill and Texas and one can bet the house, those that make the “cut” so to speak, will be well-vetted.

Therefore, unless one can channel Beth Myers, the speculation on who of the many options available will make the final cut, just might be a game of frustration.
The task presented to Ms. Myers is one of the most important functions, not only for the campaign, but for the American Public, as her choice may affect History. When one considers that the Team of Romney and X will be challenging the Obama/Biden team. In the last election, Biden was so heavily overshadowed by Obama, that few if any voters even knew who Biden was (search You Tube – one must sift through Biden gaffes first) – This time, Obama and Biden have a record to run on – enough said.

This has to be Quote of the Year: “If Tea Partiers Were Terrorists Obama Would Pal Around with Us” – Sarah Palin

A recent Boston Tea Party, yes Sarah Palin was there, in Boston Massachusetts - (see the symbolism) image frugal cafe.com


Let’s just preface this by noting that when it comes to finding the next scapegoat for screwing up the U.S. Public, no one does it better than professional politicians. From Harry Ried, to John Kerry, and yes, even some Republican’s, but especially those crazy kids at MSNBC (who support Obama, Reid, and their brand of politicians) – the new target – “The Tea Party”. Apparently, those in who are in Congress and Represent the “Tea Party”, are responsible for the slower than usual process that Congress is used to as far as rushing through bills that basically include more money for government and government employees (see Stimulus) and less money in taxpayers pocketbooks. In fact, no matter how often one say it, no matter how much evidence there is, The Tea Party is used as a “catchall punching bag” by the Administration and their friendly media, and are subjected to all types of slurs, simply because the name of the organization actually means “Taxed Enough Already” – and alludes to the famous Boston Tea Party of 1773 – where, you guessed it, our forefathers, or friends of theirs, decided they had been “Taxed Enough Already” by the King, and that kicked off a revolution, and the rest of it, as they say, is history.
It’s not even that those members of the Tea Party refuse to pay taxes, and or don’t’ believe in paying for services that the government provides, they simply feel (and this blog concurs) that we, the people are being squeezed mighty tight by City, State and then the Federal Government. In Massachusetts, just as an example, one pays taxes to the State and “fees” (i.e. a tax with a party dress on) for everything, from your dogs, no joke, to taxes on your cell phones, (even prepaid), your cable, your land line, fees for usage of everything you can imagine, so far, except the air (and that’s probably coming in Deval Patrick’s next round of tax increases). Meal’s taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, real estate taxes, and then the Fed’s kick in – grabbing what’s left and doubling taxes on telecommunications (cable, television, gasoline, and the favorite go to’s: cigarettes and alcohol.) Therefore, if one makes less than say $250,000 a year, one is still paying 30% of their income to the feds and states in payroll taxes and deductions alone – and yes, only 50% of the U.S. Citizens pay taxes, however, that’s the taxes one sees on the Federal level, the ones’ everyone pays, are the taxes on paper goods at the grocers, the taxes that are slapped on business, (state corporate taxes and federal corporate taxes, along with – all the other taxes) that cause layoffs (lack of money) and or higher prices in real goods and groceries (more out of pocket). Suffice it to say, the Federal and State Governments are constantly picking one’s pocket, even when one isn’t looking, so the concept that the Feds, along with some States, need to start acting like the people who’s pocket they pick, by living well within their means in this economy, is not – radical.

Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, a Republican and a Tea Party favorite, not to mention most likely 2012 Presidential Candidate (sometime after August), had the gumption to make a remark about the whole brouhaha caused over Tea Party Congressional members who stalled and demanded basically that there were no tax increases, a balanced budget, and spending cuts to Federal Programs, some of which are duplicates anyhow, but probably employ family members of other Congressional members and/or White House staff. Therefore, speaking plainly and honestly, as she is want to do, (despite rumors to the contrary), Sarah Palin, with great wit and a sense of humor to boot, said: If Tea Partiers were terrorists, Obama would pal around with us!”

Therefore, since no one else appears to have a sense of humor, and is able to use sarcasm with such aplomb, in simple enough terms whereby everyone gets the message (including John Kerry), Sarah Palin, has this blogs “Quote of the Year”, unless of course, she tops it in the next six months – which she might.

What they said: John Kerry “"You know the Chinese are looking at us right now and they are just gleeful and incredulous at the way in which one of the great competitors is imploding on itself, because a group of absolutists and extremists don't understand the implication of what they are doing, and prepared to hold the entire economy hostage and it is unprecedented of anything I have seen in all of the time I have been in public life, and I think it is damaging and dangerous and reckless and irresponsible," Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC.” (Real Clear Politics: Video Included)


A newspaper article on the original Boston Tea Party - image crwflags.com

Joe Biden (The Brilliant Vice President of the United States) with background included:
”Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.” (Politico).

Biden, of course, issued an immediate statement staying “I never said that”, of course, someone in the meeting was taping this for posterity”.

Seriously - Run, Palin, Run

Side Note: To those readers or causal visitors who might be interested in seeing “The Undefeated in New England, the documentary will be playing at AMC Lowes Plainville, 220 New Britain Avenue Plainville, CT 06062 - for Information: (860) 747-1071

Annual White House Correspondents Dinner – Press “Drools” Over Obama – Partisan Kid Gloves are On!

The Annual White House Correspondents Dinner, sponsored by the White House Correspondence Association took place last evening; available to the General Public on C-SPAN and cable news outlets such as FOX. In the past, the purpose of the dinner has been to poke fun at the sitting president, allow the sitting president to mock himself and his close associates, and overall, an opportunity for those covering the White House to “let loose a bit” and announce the incoming Association President. A comedian or comedienne generally delivers a diatribe of jokes, about the President, a roast so to speak. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are in attendance as well as a few celebrities, and certain members of the Presidents cabinet and close advisors.

The past dinners have been amusing and the Presidents gracious in their delivery, however, last evenings dinner took a sharp turn from the tradition, when Obama hosted his first of four such events.
Obama can be a funny guy, it appears that he is likable, yet, the majority of his “routine” was spent demeaning the opposing political party, which, was a departure from prior events. Additionally, comedienne Wanda Sykes, had very few references to the President, rather spent time attacking the following individuals: President George Bush (of course), Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh – the jokes were crude to say the least. For example: on Limbaugh’s statement that he would see Obama’s policies fail (specifically referring to Socialism), Sykes compared Limbaugh to the 21st hijacker, brought up his battle with drug addiction, and ended with (paraphrasing) “I hope his kidneys fail”. On the President: Sykes noted that going to bet a burger with Biden might be a mistake, and was most likely proposed by Nancy Pelosi (funny – until), a Hillary Clinton supporter (in reality Pelosi campaigned the hardest for Obama and took every opportunity to undermine the Clinton campaign.) The only “roast” delivered by Sykes to the President was should he (paraphrasing) “mess up: they would blame the half-white guy” – also, not particularly funny.

That said, the adoration of the press, (Hollywood, is a given), has reached new heights, an after dinner review by Politico correspondents, Amie Parnes and Carol E. Lee entitled “Obama's star shines brightest at WHCD” – is nauseating in its blatant worship of an elected official. The problem with a press that is so blinded by political ideology and a charismatic (to the press) leader is obvious – the occupation, which is to be a watchdog for the people, is no longer able or capable of functioning in that role. This does not, of course, apply to all journalists, and to those who are true to their profession (or calling), are still asking hard questions, although those non-partisans are few and far between. Unfortunately, the once-respected occupation, is now viewed by half of the American public, as merely partisan - and this perception has played a significant role in the loss of subscriptions and viewership for the organizations for which they work. The reason that he Internet is often credited for the demise of said organizations, is that those lost subscribers prefer to read unbiased (or possibly biased) blogs and new sites that do not openly pander to a given political ideology.

To gain perspective C-SPAN has a video archive of past events, from 1993 forward. One can note the difference in both the delivery by the given Presidents, and the attitude of the Press (Note: these videos are full length):

2006 WHCD – George W. Bush

1998 WHCD – Bill Clinton

2009 WHCD – Barack Obama


The outgoing Association President is Jennifer Loven, of the Associated Press, she will be replaced by Edwin Chen of Bloomberg News.

Pope Benedict Reads Riot Act to Pelosi – Will the Pope Rock the Catholic Vote in 2010?

Photograph: Catholic News Agency

Nancy Pelosi, U.S. Speaker of the House, and third in line to the Presidency (lest we forget), met with Pope Benedict on Wednesday. The Pope met with Ms. Pelosi as the Head of State of the Vatican, specifically not the “Head of the Church”, which, in itself was significant. Pelosi, along with other pro-abortion Democrat candidates, consistently use their Catholicism during campaigns, either by professing to be “ardent Catholics”, or making “newsworthy” appearance at churches; while vigorously campaigning for a women’s “right to choose”, and receiving endorsements from pro-abortion organizations such as N.A.R.A.L. CNA (The Catholic News Agency) has been reporting this meeting and printed the following from the Vatican:

Immediately after the meeting, the Holy See’s press office released a statement saying, "following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage."
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Further, Pope Benedict allowed no camera’s or press during the brief meeting, taking away any opportunity for Ms. Pelosi to use the press to further political ambitions. (It is estimated that Catholics make up one of the largest voting blocs in the United States and are a key “swing vote” in U.S. elections. , Additionally, 70% of Hispanics identify themselves as Catholic )

Benedict's Vatican, has been, by far, the most vocal in opposition to politicians and abortion worldwide. In October of 2008, the Prefect of the Vatican's Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, labeled the Democrat Party – “the Party of Death” in response to the pro-abortion policies of the majority of the party’s figureheads. The Pope’s statement issued after the private meeting with Pelosi, constitutes a strong rebuke of all Catholic Politician’s who profess their faith and then, to pacify their backers and some constituents, rely on the excuse of “choice”. Benedict is clearly not buying any of this.

Reuters reported that Ms. Pelosi issued a very brief statement after her meeting at the Vatican, however, did not mention abortion, rather praised the Catholic Church on its stance on peace and global warming.

A Catholic “pro-choice” group (oxymoron) “Catholics for Choice”, headed by Jon O’Brien, in an interview with “The Hill” hoped that the meeting with Pelosi would focus on “bigger” issues than abortion: “That would be a real conversation about choice, instead of this micro-obsession with abortion,” O’Brien said. “They made a very intelligent, diplomatic move.”
The Groups Website Article entitled “Catholic Voters and Policy Makers Lead the Way” written this past November by Mr. O'Brien praises the election of Barack Obama and the role Catholics played in electing such a pro-choice President, the following excerpt is chilling to this Catholic:

As pro choice Catholics, we celebrate the election of a pro choice President who has been a strong supporter of abortion rights, comprehensive sexuality education and access to reproductive health care. The next administration will have to work hard to repair the damage done to reproductive right during the last eight years: the Global Gag Rule, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, subordinating science to personal belief, and a pervasive program against family-planning efforts. Undoubtedly, concerns about America’s economic security and military engagements overseas will garner a great deal of attention. However, we urge the next administration and Congress to also work for advances in reproductive health care in the US and abroad.

In other words, Mr. O’Brien and like-minded politician’s who are staunch advocates of abortion – against the teaching of a Church they profess to follow faithfully - merely use the Church to promote their agenda.

What Mr. O’Brien and politician’s like Ms. Pelosi, Biden, John Kerry, etc. had banked on in the past was the disconnect between Catholics, specifically, moderate politically minded Catholics and more traditional Conservative Catholics, as well silence from the U.S. Church and the Pope. However, Benedict is far removed in temperament from John Paul, and the growing evangelical base within the Catholic Church, the inclusion of a very conservative Hispanic Catholic population coupled with an increasingly vocal group of U.S. Bishops, may actually put an end to the game of mixing politics and church by pro-abortion politicians seeking re-election.

The following AP Video puts the meeting and the Pope’s view of Politician’s and their role as “Catholics” into perspective: (Note: there are 1,057 articles in a Google Search: “Pelosi and the Pope”)


Speaking as an Evangelical Catholic, and a values voter – to cast a vote for a politician who pro-actively campaigns on the abortion ticket – regardless of religious affiliation would run counter to conscious for this Hispanic, first generation American. To use a phrase form one of the commenter on CAN’s article regarding the Pope’s stand: “Benedict Rocks!” It remains to be seen, with the 2010 elections on the horizon, how this will play out in states that have a significant block of Catholic voters.

Sarah Palin - Sexism and Politics - Why the Sudden Respect?

In September, when Sarah Palin was introduced to the nation as the Republican V.P. nominee, the press and the public entered into a love-hate relationship that transcended politics. She was hailed by conservatives, who had followed the Alaskan Governors’ career, as a stalwart conservative who was a breath of fresh air that the party desperately needed. She connected with “the people” at a personal level, a rarity for politicians. On the other hand, the press, and those in the Republican Party who would maintain the status quo, reviled her as less-than intelligent, a “bimbo” who was out-of-touch with mainstream values. The vitriolic reporting drove Palin to a level of celebrity status over night – from false allegations about her youngest child that made daily newspapers read like the worst tabloids. There was a never ending litany of complaints regarding her hair, her accent, her cloths, her religion, ad nausea – There were literally hundreds of negative “Sarah Palin - Google News Alerts” daily – up until November 5th.

One has to ask – What gives? From the San Francisco Chronicle’s Debra Saunder’s defense of Palin against anonymous campaign leaks to the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby article on Palin’s Political Potential the mood has changed a bit post November 4. There continue to be articles and blogs from the left that recycle, the “Palin as Inept” theory - Democrat Susan Estrich, writing in the Hartford Currant, dissects the choice of Palin as a V.P. pick noting: “The fact that anyone could believe a candidate for vice president was capable of being that ignorant is enough. and going on to rehash the Couric interview. One cannot fail to see the difference between those articles written by journalists and those written by partisan commentators. The difference: Palin no longer represents a short-term threat to Obama, but to another, yet unnamed Democrat in the future.

Two other women, who had reached high in national politics, Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, were subject to more intense scrutiny than their male counterparts, and scrutiny that had little to do with issues – rather the fact that they were women. Although, one would expect that a twenty-four year gap between vice-presidential and presidential candidates that just happened to be women, would have changed the rhetoric – it did not – in fact: “We’ve come a long way, baby”, should be “We’ve got a long way to go”. Clinton was treated to a review of her marriage, her pantsuits, her laugh and her cleavage; which was enough to drive conservatives to her defense, however, transparently sexist as the treatment Clinton received, nothing compared to the evisceration of Palin.

In this past contest, both Vice Presidential Candidates gave enough material to the press to be equally criticized, yet, Biden received a virtual pass. One might be inclined to believe that the pass given to Biden was partisan, however, examining article after article, it was clear that clothing, hair, children, and other feminine attributes took center stage – never the issues - sexism, plain and simple.

In retrospect, both Clinton and Plain although subject to unusual scathing from the press and from members of their own party, came through standing up and standing tall – taking the punches better than many of their male peers may have. It speaks volumes. Some may feel that the “glass ceiling” has become a “cement ceiling” – after all, what woman would want to go through what these two patriots have? One has to believe that both women have inspired, through their strength and ability to weather the “political storm”, others who will shortly follow in their footsteps. It is not that “our time has come”, rather it is that the notion that women are unable to grasp the brass ring, is no longer valid. Palin, who took the brunt of it, a working mother, a Governor, whose political future is now being trumpeted by those within her party as well as those in the press, has proven that women can aspire to and achieve anything. Love her or hate her, depending upon one’s political affiliation, she is owed a debt of gratitude from all women and parents who have daughters. Sexism was used to distract the general public for political gain. It was evident, and women have taken note. Will sexism be used again in politics and succeed? That question remains - hopefully, because of women like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, the nation will not have to wait another twenty four years before learning the answer.

Palin – The Opportunity to School The Press (1984-2008)

Had anyone watched the debates from Alaska and checked Palins overall approval rating in the state (which is based on performance, not a popularity contest) at 80%; one has to understand that she is a formidable opponent. Palin may not appeal to the majority of journalists and of course, NARAL (Pro-Abortion), rather to the average working woman with children, regardless of party, and the mighty Republican base. The problem that she has faced has been a reaction to her womanhood. Historically, there have been two women who have made it to the bottom of the ticket, Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin and one woman who has undertaken the task of running as a Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton – all three have come under the microscope and have faced a very sexist media. The phrase, “History repeats itself”, is apparent in the way the press and specific groups have gone after Palin; much in the same way they went after Ferraro in 1984. From the July 24, 1984 Pittsburgh Post Article ”Mondale is Planning to Keep Ferraro on a Short Leash” to attacks on family members ”FERRARO'S FATHER, IN '41, HAD LIQUOR LICENSE REVOKED” it is evident that a woman running in a traditional male bastion faces the task of getting past not only those who truly believe that a woman’s place is in the “home”, but also women who are more tied to a political party than any true sense of feminism – and continue to call themselves feminists – who attack a candidate based on issues ranging from family to personal choices made when putting themselves through college. Clinton suffered attacks from within her own party – stunningly from a media, specifically women commentators and journalists, who represent more ‘fluff’ in the industry than actual hard news. Male to female ratio in journalism is dismal, as it is in government. One would think that given the credentials of all three of these women, those who were capable of supporting them would not have taken cheap shots at everything from what they choose to wear to the occasional gaffe that all politicians make.

What remains to be seen is how the debate will play out tomorrow night. One has to understand that although Biden may have experience, his tone is rather boring and he is prone to gaffes, while Palin has a track record of being more formidable in the debate forum. Should she exceed expectations, which have become dismally low given the media’s constant drumbeat of “inadequate” the past three to four weeks, and impale Biden in this debate, the press will then face a daunting task and the attacks will become more vicious than to date. How important is the press in all of this? The more the press can keep the focus on Palin through attacks and “scandals’ yet to be created, the more they can keep the heat off their chosen candidate – Obama. Unlike Ferraro, both Clinton and Palin have been crucified in the press, not only because they are women (which does play a large factor), but more so because the press has an obvious agenda and that is to place their candidate in the White House. This perception of the press is what has killed rankings and driven subscriptions into the tank – the general public is suspicious of and generally scrutinizing each and every article and broadcast for hints of partisanship and sexism.

Palin has the base, McCain can count on those moderate conservatives as well as right-leaning independents and Clinton Democrats who are concerned with the overly Progressive tone of the party, while Obama has the dedicated Progressive Democrats and those independents that are looking for a change in party and would lean left in any case. This will bring the 2008 presidential race to the same conclusion as the 2004 race; where one must recall that polls were extremely kind to John Kerry, up to the exit polls that had most conservatives in the doldrums through the noon hour on Election Day, only to find that Bush had succeeded handily. The difference in 2008 is Palin; she will continue to draw on the working mom and most importantly the large Republican base, despite all the criticism from the press. A point she had made still is bandied about by those who the media targets: Palin did not get into this to please the press; she did it for the American People.

Addendum: Will Palin get a "fair shake" from the moderator? Gwenn Ifall, from PBS, (network funded and paid for by the taxpayer), will be releasing her new book on Inauguration Day - the Book, Pro-Obama. From past debates, Ms. Ifall has been obviously partisan towards the more Left leaning party. Gwen, most likely oblivious through arrogance and a sense of media self-import, should be true to style. Why not have Ophra moderate the debate - with intermissions featuring the Obama Children's Youth Choir (See Hitler) (Update: that particular YouTube video has suddenly been set to private, and all traces taken from public view). Fortunately, the average American has more common sense than most of these so-called "journalists" and pundits who are so blinded by the propaganda that they espouse, they can no longer see the forest through the trees. Suggest a double bag of popcorn for this debate.