Fear 2012 - 2 in 1 Choose Obama Reelection – US News and World Report – Who Can’t Best Obama – The Import of the GOP Primaries

The primary process will decide who faces President Obama in 2012 Election: pictured Newt Gingrich and the President - image form bet.com


U.S. News and World Reportsare citing multiple polls that suggest 2 in one American’s fear Obama’s reelection more than any other event in 2012. Second in events is a rise in taxes, something that seems inevitable with a second Obama term. However, the poll that they cite is internet based, and one must be extremely cautious when approaching internet polling. It is the Gallup daily tracking poll that suggests reelection is unlikely at this time – other polling institutions, such as those that are campus based, or those that are politically ideological (see Rasmussen as leaning right and Public Policy Polling as leaning left), are sometimes suspected of leaning in favor of the GOP and/or the Democrat Party. In the end, it is the reality of the economy, foreign policy decisions and extremely unpopular legislation that is the crux of the matter - and those factors, regardless of the political party, will signal a change in administrations.

Therefore, the voting public has a decision to make, if not Obama - then which of the Republican field is best suited to lead the nation forward? The pollsters, pundits and Washington Establishment (which includes members of Congress, and the aforementioned) appear to be pushing Mitt Romney as the inevitable nominee, however, the truth of the matter is, at this point in time, any one of those candidates, from the lowest polling to Romney, are capable of winning the White House – it comes down to the voters choice, and the order of states in which voting takes place. Today there will be a vote in New Hampshire, and although Romney is the favorite there, and has been touted in the media as going into New Hampshire with a “win” in Iowa (it was a small amount of votes, but a win non-the-less, not a mandate), the main problem with Mitt Romney, or perhaps Mitt Romney’s main problem is that he does not resonate with the primary voters. The reasons vary, from the very superficial to those who feel his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts left a record behind of increased taxes and a loss of small business, and many broken promises to those who aided him in his campaign for Governor and then President in 2008. He also has a history of extreme changes in policy regarding not only social issues, which drive a percentage of the GOP, but in all policy – he is a moderate to the core – a point that one must carefully examine and challenge prior to casting a vote.

The moderates of the GOP are not unlike the DNC candidates, in both temperament and ideology – some may feel that is necessary for compromise, others find this to be untenable and most believe that the moderate wing of the GOP (the Snows, the McCain’s, the Romney’s) cannot differentiate themselves enough from the status quo and will therefore be ineffective in governing – it is that moderation that crosses the line between being principled and voting against one’s own political party at times in order to work for the American people, rather than doing what one feels will win an election or popularity with the media and or their peers. There are others who will stand steadfast in their beliefs regardless of their party affiliation, and will act independently – a good example is one Senator Scott Brown, who, prior to the election, and although a Republican, noted that he would not always vote with his party, but for what he felt was best for his constituents. He has done just that in his tenure in the Senate, and although facing reelection is favored to win – he is extremely popular in Massachusetts, even though he angers those on the left and the right for voting in the Commonwealth’s interest. That is the type of candidate that the nation is most likely to elect – and that mold does not fit either the President or Mitt Romney – those who will do or say anything to get elected, and then, when in office, to serve the public, appear to serve themselves, and their party.

Understandably, the choice is not always clear, and the notion that an extended and nasty primary with multiple candidates is not in the nation’s best interest, is hogwash. The primary seasons ends in June with the nominating Convention held in August, therefore to push a particular candidate as the eventual nominee, before the first vote was cast, is an insult to the public. This will be true regardless of which political party and philosophy one subscribes – the primary process, in its entirety, gives more time for the public to decide which candidate, from both sides will better serve the nation. It is a job that not many would want to take, and the motivation could not be financial reward , nor the fact that the President is viewed as the most powerful figure in the nation (or should be), a leader that is shapes Foreign policy and the economy, someone with the backbone and the knowledge going into the job, that they are most likely to be challenged and berated at every step – turned on by members of their own party, and the public – it accounts for the overnight aging one sees in each President, as they either enjoy peace time or war, a good economy or bad, it is an inevitable part of the “job” for which the American public hires a President. That is what is lacking – it is the humility, regardless of primary primping and hubris that some candidates may display, that the candidates shows when speaking of the office as one in which they are working for the American people, hired on a temporary basis in order to steer the ship.

As a nation, it is doubtful that choice has been made, and it becomes more evident that many candidates on the GOP side are doing their best to ensure that the most powerful (media, pundits and those in the Washington Establishment) allow a person to make up their own minds – which is most important in this election year. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, are all, to a man, pointing out Mitt Romney’s “faults” as a candidate – and that is not always seen as a positive – but it should be. The two or three or four candidates that go forward, beyond South Carolina and Florida, and stay in the race on Super Tuesday, will do a larger service than the American Public may know, and one of those will be the nominee. It may be Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman, or Ron Paul or Rick Perry, it will be their showing in this (to borrow a thought from Speaker Gingrich) tortoise race to the finish, that will produce the nominee, and that nominee will be battle hardened and tested, not only by the negatives coming from their own peers, but by the race itself and the peoples in those primary and caucus states that will be voting for one over another.

The focus on money and the billions here and millions there that are necessary to run ads, and keep a campaign in the black to continue, is appropriate to an extent, and one should know that a individual may be polling last, and yet, when one wins or places in this large a field, money does come in from all sources, and that includes the PACS.

Therefore, one must choose their vote based not on the media, nor the polling, but on what that particular candidate offers in the way of similar beliefs, and how well that candidate is prepared to take on the roll of the President. There will be a healthy back and forth, and in the end, there will be those that drop out of the race, perhaps after today’s New Hampshire decision (which is unlikely), perhaps after the South Carolina primary (which is more likely), and those three or four that are still standing on Super Tuesday, will ensure that the public has a fair advantage in choosing the nominee. The notion that one candidate alone can win the White House is a fallacy, especially in this election cycle – it is the one that will be vetted after a protracted primary process that will be the best choice. Again, it may be Mitt Romney, it may not, it may be the Speaker Gingrich, and it may be Ron Paul (regardless of the fact that many pundits and the media as well as well as rank and file Republicans may naysay his chances due to his Libertarian leanings). It may be any one of those that are in New Hampshire today or heading this morning to South Carolina, or already there, campaigning.

It is the candidate that the people choose, not the media, nor the Beltway that will win the day – regardless of the polls, and regardless of the constant rush to nominate – the last candidate in the position of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, at this stage in 1979 was one Ronald Reagan – and he led the nation to years of prosperity and peace – therefore it behooves every one that is casting a vote – to choose with both head and heart. There will never be another Regan, but there may be a Gingrich or Santorum or Perry or Paul, or yes, Romney that will shape the course of history and drive the nation back to prosperity and peace, and in our lifetime. The choice is the public’s to make.

One last note on endorsements: Although the endorsements from the media, movies stars, peers and pundits appear to play a factor in the race, they most often boost a candidate’s moral, and on the flip side, loose votes, depending on how the public views the endorser, as well as the endorsee. It is the endorsement of the voter that counts – and that is best to be kept in mind.

CNN Tea Party Debate Review: Overall Winner – The Tea Party – All Candidates Rumble Showcase Ideas and Mettle – Palin If In - Strategy Brilliant

CNN-Tea Party Express Buses - Normalizing the Norm for America - image: humble libertarian.com


In what had begun as a grass roots revolt against higher taxes, the size and scope of the U.S. Government, government regulations run amok and a return to the U.S. Constitution, the Tea Party Movement (Taxed Enough Already), has been characterized as a right-wing, terrorist, crazy group of individuals, who’s raising political voice, terrorized the media and certain members of Congress and the Obama administration. The transition from fringe to mainstream was completed last evening by CNN News who co-hosted with the Tea Party, what has been to date, the best debate forum by any network, at the Tampa Fair Grounds. Wolf Blitzer took questions from both the audience in Tampa and remote location “watch parties” in three states. The size and scope of the Tea Party was made evident, and the questions posed to the GOP candidates were sound, having more to do with policy than frivolous “What would Jesus do?” questions heard in previous years debates. The pace was fast, yet, Blitzer gave time to all candidates insuring that although the alleged “front-runners” rumbled back and forth (Perry and Romney), each candidate was asked to weigh in – repeatedly. One might have expected such a move from FOX News and/or the ratings hungry MSNBC, in order to boost ratings, rather, CNN, has now become the voice of moderation – we have entered the political twilight zone.

As to winners and losers on technical points, Rick Perry held his own, yet appeared to be somewhat shaken by the repeated questions by his peers of his Executive Order mandating vaccination of pre-pubescent girls against the HPV virus, with an opt out, rather than an opt-in for parents. In addition, Perry’s in-state tuition for those on a pathway to citizenship was met with criticism. During both of these incidents, Romney remained silent, coming at Perry over the issue of Social Security. Romney, who became more apparently ruffled, looked on the verge of losing his temper on several occasions during the discourse. Bachmann appears to be still in the game and then some, appearing confident and much stronger than in the previous debate held on MSNBC, and Santorum, Gingrich and Cain offered reasonable options, along with the most moderate of the bunch, Huntsman. The perennial candidate, Congressman Ron Paul, went off the proverbial rails when he began to cite The U.S. as the cause of the attacks on September 11th, citing Osama Bin Laden – he was consequently, booed by those in attendance, and came off sounding less Libertarian than Progressive. Overall best line of the night went to Newt Gingrich: In an exchange between Romney and Perry regarding the disaster of Social Security and Romney assertion that Perry is “scaring the elderly”, Gingrich shot back: (paraphrased) "Obama is scaring everyone."

In watching the debate one began to have a sense that almost everyone of those individuals on the stage would bring ideas and leadership skills to the table, regardless of where the current standing is in the polls – the exception being, in this opinion, Ron Paul, who although brilliant, does differ from most Conservatives in regards to the root causes of September 11th, foreign policy overall, and the question of open borders. Moreover, it is clearly too early to call a permanent front-runner, as fortunes in the polls, come and go between September and the Debates of November and December, mere months before the first primary and caucuses in 2012.

This leaves room for additional candidates, a la Ronald Reagan, to enter the fray. Immediately following the debate, Sarah Palin weighed in on the debate and the performance of the current candidates, on Fox New with Greta Van Susteren, (video below). Asked and answered at least a thousand times, Palin continues to hold that her entry (or non-entry) into the 2012 field will be a time of her own choosing, not dictated by the media. However, the run-down on all candidates and the overall impression during her analysis was that she was readying to take to the field, as to timing of an announcement that is for Palin to decide. As a strategy, it may prove to be brilliant: first Mitt Romney lead the field, with his background in economics, and a short stint as Governor of Massachusetts, he was closely followed in the polls by Michelle Bachmann, who won the Iowa Straw Poll, and was within points of Romney. Perry entered the race to much anticipation, and shot past Romney, effectively pointing out to anyone with a grasp on reality that Romney has trouble holding his own in this field, and polls gave the favor to Perry, by double digits over the former Bay State Governor.

However, after last evenings debate, questions are clear as to Rick Perry’s management of the Executive order (and a possible tie to cronyism, which, although down home in style, Perry has been in a political office for the majority of his career – double points), and his immigration stance. This took a bit of shine off the Texas Governor. The points scored against Perry, as noted by the Austin Statesman came from “Second Tier Candidates” not his “chief rival”. One can view this as either Romney taking a break and letting the rest of the “pack” beat up Perry, or Romney preferred not to go where the tables could be turned on Romney.

Therefore, as the front runners so often take so many hits, and then begin to slide in the polls, a late entry not only picks up support from those candidates who no longer can sustain a campaign (too early), and /or those top tier candidates who are less appealing than at first glance. This is especially true, if one is in third place in polls, after several debates, having not announced any intentions. Those that want to ensure the nominees now, based on the current field, may have to wait, till the ides of September, or beyond – however, it is most likely that Palin will make an announcement sooner than later in order, in her words (paraphrased) to be fair to her supporters.

Fox Post Debate Palin Video Below

or linkVideo Foxnews.com/Palin vs.crony capitalism

In CNN’s post debate analysis, Bachmann scored the most points – suggest reading the transcript at www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/gop-debate-analysts/index.htm, for a take on the proceedings from the network who has, as of last evening (and possibly before as the CNN Express travels with the Tea Party Express), most accurately portrayed the Tea Party and its members as viable to the U.S., the World, the Military and Latino’s as it simulcast the debate on all of its channels.

Note: tips being what they are in the world of bloggers previous to the debate, from three different sources - “She will not appear at the debate (referring to Palin) or announce this evening” – “She’s not in Tampa….” When, may or may not be speculation at this point, but out of respect for the Governor, and in light of speculation being just that, one might hold off in noting a specific date mentioned. (In the event that this is not shear speculation) The pre-debate “intel” had Palin in Tampa, about to participate, (from a variety of forums/sites) and or weigh in at some point, which she did, from Alaska.

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.