The Final Hours of the 2012 Election – The Polls: Too Close to Call, the Reminder to be Kind to One’s Neighbor regardless of the Outcome.

The American Presidents, a long history of who, we, as a nation, have hired, and fired in some cases, admired and despised, right or wrong, left or right, (or down the middle)both those long dead and those living remind American's what a great nation we are lucky enough in which to reside - image memorycrammer.com

This morning as most on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States prepare to go to the polls, it is not without a bit of excitement that, we, as American’s get to enjoy the opportunity to cast our vote for the next President of the United States. Although one might support one vision of American over another, or the popularity of a candidate, or maintain a blind allegiance to political party, it is our privilege to go to the polls and cast a vote for the individual who we, as a people, will hire to do the job as the Chief Executive Officer of these United States. It is a job that most of the nation would not want, despite the lofty title, and the aura of some sort of royalty (a cast off from our Colonial days), and that desire to serve, regardless of party, should be admired no matter if one is an also ran in the various primary contest, or the winner or loser of today’s election. Those who run put their lives and fortunes ahead of everything, for the love of the country, for the love of a vision that the individual firmly believes is the best course for the nation, or the world.

Those who support one candidate over another may become so heavily vested, emotionally in the person as well as the ideology that they may become a bit saddened or depressed should the outcome not be as they had hoped.

Therefore, with less than an hour before the polls open in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is with a bit of concern for those neighbors, both here and in other states that have fought so hard, on both sides, that one is compelled to ask everyone to be kind to those who may support either candidate. One will win, one will not and despite the aura of partisanship that pervades every nook and cranny of this nation, we all must try a bit of compassion rather than derision once that outcome is known. From personal experience, it has gone either way over the course of voting for President’s in elections since 1976. Some of those for whom I voted, did disappoint once elected, some of those whom I feared were grossly incompetent, pleasantly surprised me, and there were those who had little or no effect – the “safe” Presidents, who ran the nation seamlessly, working closely with a united or divided Congress. It is no secret, if one has read my various rants and essays, that I support Mitt Romney this year. It is also no secret that I believe the election will be a repeat of the 1980 election, with a few less states going to Mitt Romney than Ronald Reagan (the one who I feared, more than the one who disappointed, making a selection of a third party imperative in 1980, and a vote for Reagan a necessity in 1984). In all honesty, however, as strongly as I personally feel this is certain (given the polling, and the obvious similarities between 1980 and 2012 in both polling as well as the beliefs of the candidates), there has to be room for error and a realization that should the analysis be correct, there will be many family and friends who, for whatever reasons, are emotionally vested in the reelection of President Obama. Those family and friends will, if the scarier of the predictions prevail, need consoling, not derision, should the President not gain reelection.

What if the results are not the same as I anticipate? Then it will be another day, like any other day and in four years, there will be the opportunity for another campaign and candidates from which to choose. I don’t for a moment agree with the President’s positions on just about anything, and that is my right and prerogative, however, as of today, he is my President, regardless of whom I support. It was with pride that I wrote the day after the 2008 election about how far we, as a nation had come, and it was with great hope that I wrote about the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, this President would not disappoint. However, history does repeat itself, and for some reason, the specter of James Carter, the man whom I voted for with relish in 1976, a man with little experience , turned our nation into a fiscal disaster, our foreign policy into a nightmare, bailing out auto industries, wasting billions on jobs bills, which produced more government and fewer taxpayers, ad naseum. It was with a bit of shock that I watched as this President followed so closely the path taken by Carter, it began to appear as if one could predict the next move and the outcome.

Mitt Romney on the other hand, did nothing but irritate me as the Governor or the State, that’s the independent anti-tax, side of the coin. He did institute fees, and those fees nagged – but, when the picture emerged, and as I employed “Google new Archives” a different Romney than one I had thought, emerged. He ran the Commonwealth with an eye towards a business, and not with compassion for those who needed a hand up. He improved our schools, balanced our budget and wanted those unable to afford health care, an opportunity. He mostly drove those on the right – crazy and those in the middle were quite happy, while those on the left, well, nothing he did that would have qualified him as “liberal leaning” would satisfy those who are political activists.

Therefore, when the Gallup polling by state showed a job approval map that indicated the President was not doing his best in 40 of the 50 states, for three consecutive years, it was the time to take a hard look at those who, on the Republican ticket, would be his eventual replacement. Mitt Romney prevailed over a blistering primary, and he rightly won the nomination of his party.

I find it interesting that he is home, here in Massachusetts; casting his vote in the state he has called home a variety of times during his life, but also a state that may not cast their vote to elect him as the next President. It is however, the site of the Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill and Concord, all of historical significance. Although I had hoped that Massachusetts would deliver for the former Governor (and contend that the race here is actually a lot closer than one might image in)there, will, in all likelihood, (with the rampant dead voting, etc.) go to Obama, but by what margin? It is also one of the 10 states that Obama was project to win without a poll taken – “Safe Democrat” is the automatic label.

It is not discouraging, as I go to the polls and proudly cast my vote, in a state where one might think it is not worth voting when one is not a Democrat, there is the hope of the People’s Seat that continues to pervade and the fact that less than two years ago, MA stood up and rejected what was not truly history, but a political machine, and elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Therefore, I’m on the fence, but more confident in the states that do matter, in any combination, it hardly matters. It will be a long night of watching the polls, and should the east coast fall as projected, the rest of the nation will roll with it, and there will be a President from the Bay State tomorrow morning. The states: WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, Florida – will tell the tale of how the election will pan out. And that will be the writing on the wall. I have discounted the northeast, and Pennsylvania as those are considered “safe” and should Pennsylvania endorse Romney, it will, at that point indicate a landslide, if not, merely a win.

When this is over, and the final votes tallied, win or lose, it should not be taken personally, it gives either side an opportunity to take a break, celebrate or be disappointed, and then carry on as American’s are wont to do.

Breaking –Election 2012 – Attorney’s from MA and NY to Monitor Polls – in the Bay State.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney campaigning in PA, image US News & World Report online

The world has turned upside down – for some reason attorney’s will be monitoring the general election in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Mass. Lawyers Weekly. A Boston Attorney, Vincent DeVito, noted that “lawyers from New York will be on loan to help with the Massachusetts Republican Party’s poll-watching efforts on Nov. 6.”, and shockingly: “This year Massachusetts is a battleground state.” (Mass. Lawyers Weekly)

Of course, common perception is that Massachusetts is a completely Democrat state, however, the truth is – not so much. With over 50% of the electorate registered as “unenrolled”, and up until recently an extremely anemic Republican Party with few, if any contested races prior to 2010, there was little choice each election – resulting in votes for myriad cartoon characters.

That said, with the Romney PAC running ads in Massachusetts to reach New Hampshire, and the fact that New York City is a disaster area comparable to Katrina, with people diving into dumpsters to find food, electrical crews turned away from volunteering because they were non-union coupled with the unemployment rate in Massachusetts climbing for the third straight month and most importantly, Scott Brown’s race with Obama appointee and part-time Harvard Professor, Elizabeth Warren, the impetus will be a drive to the right by Independents.

Again, to emphasize, Massachusetts voters voter roles have again seen an increase in Independent (unenrolled voters) as of February 2012(Boston.com) and Masslive, the website for the Springfield Republican, noted this morning that “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is growing more popular in Massachusetts, particularly among independent voters.” This is based on poll findings by Western New England College/Masslive, which saw an increase for Romney in the Bay State: The pollster had Obama leading by 30 points, that lead is now at an incredible 18 points. This poll was conducted similar to the polls in the 2009 special election which gave then candidate Martha Coakley a 15 point lead over then candidate Scott Brown. (In that case, Democrats were counted as equal to the number of unenrolleds, and Republicans’ were over counted by 2 points, in addition, geography counts, Worcester County the second most populated area of the state, was counted at lower percentage than Western Massachusetts. Of note: Conservative leaning independents in the Worcester area are far more prevalent than the less populated, Western Mass area.)

In other words, the poll is suspect. A private polling firm released a poll on a Massachusetts District race in one of the most Democrat areas of the Commonwealth. In that poll, before the debates, Romney was tied with Obama. Granted that was a Congressional District Poll, but, again, in an area that actually leans Democrat. Therefore, with the Dead Voting, trolling for votes in Alzheimer’s wards, and other hi-jinks by the Democrat Party in MA, one might think that Attorney’s coming in to watch the polls is prudent at this stage. It is also known that the media is interested in what appears to be a “hotly contested race” for the Senate between Brown and Warren, so eyes will be on Mass.

The last time Massachusetts voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate: 1984 (also 1980) – for President Ronald Reagan.

The state’s “Independent Streak” which was responsible for the Reagan win, has broadened in scope since the 1980’s with the largest percentage growth of the electorate – as unenrolled. Therefore, if Romney is appealing to the Independents, it is quite plausible that Poll watchers may be necessary, and that Massachusetts with its 10 Electoral College votes, might bear watching. It is more likely, all polls now stand as “Safe Democrat” and the state was automatically put into the President’s column. It was also a given for James Carter.

November 6th – Is A Romney Landslide Possible? – Yes, Campaign Behavior to Press Caution – Opinion and Analysis.

One has to ask, why is Mitt Romney so confident that he will win in states that have been categorically stamped “Democrat”? Those states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and even New England States have seen an uptick in campaign ads in the last week from the Romney Campaign and supporting PAC’s. What one notices about these ads is the soft tone, the fact that they are continuing to remind those viewers that the economy is not improved, that groceries cost more -and that one individual is somewhat responsible – the end, one has a choice. The press and Democrats consider it to be one of several factors, none of which could possibly lead to a Romney victory. The most obvious one touted is that Romney has money to burn. Frankly, that does not sound like Mitt Romney at all. Romney was not the kind of Governor or businessman who would just throw good money after bad in a whim. This makes the decision to spend on ads in Michigan and Massachusetts (aiming for New Hampshire – but there is that trickledown effect), an odd-on bet that Romney is making investments that are, on paper, sound.

Of course, there are the prediction models, whether one used favorability or one uses the University of Colorado method of economic indicators, Romney is set to win by 330 Electoral College votes. Most national polls continue to see a tight race, and this includes NPR who has Romney leading by 1! Of course, there is history as well, that has a model that screams Romney victory – that is the election of 1980. In that scenario, the polls at the time had both Carter and Reagan tied, up to the eve of the election. What followed the day after left pundits and the press asking “what happened”? There is an article through Google archives that has the Gallup organization giving the explanation. They and other pollsters had used a model for their predictions based on the prior general election. That gave Jimmy Carter an immediate plus 7 in polling based on the numbers of Democrats who had voted in the previous Presidential election. The explanation: there were simply more Republican’s and Republican leaners from 1978 to 1980 than Democrats. That information was not included in the polling.

Fast forward a few decades and what happens? National poling firms are still using the previous election model to determine every single state and national poll – This gives President Obama and immediate 8 point lead. Therefore, the polls are “skewed” or artificially inflated. Internal polling is another story entirely – depending upon the campaign and their resources, the candidates may or may not decide to compete in certain states. There is the reason that Mitt Romney is confident.

Last night, a call came through from the only person in New York City that has power (no cable or no internet) – the request: To find out the equivalent ratio of taxes paid by “millionaires” such as Mitt Romney. The reason, an argument between two individuals, one who had called and a friend who was suggesting that the “millionaires” underpay taxes – which led to a Google search where an article, tucked away in Forbes found that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes. This was based on the fact that Romney paid taxes as a corporation and then as an individual. The author was quite perplexed that Romney was not pointing this out. The Article here at www.forbes.com was sent by text to use in a rebuttal.

The Obama supporter in question who was concerned that Mitt Romney did not pay his fair share, was up in arms due to an email received (during Hurricane Sandy) that suggested the Obama campaign was on its last dime, and that Romney had more money to spend and was going to beat Obama if the recipient did not immediately send cash. Apparently, Romney’s presence in Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio were proof of this fact. (Understanding that this is hearsay and unsubstantiated due to lack of said email) That said, the import of the aforementioned challenge between two friends, both liberal, one who had turned towards Romney, unwillingly at first, and now as gung-ho as any Midwestern Republican, the other a died in the wool Democrat who is blinded by rhetoric. One might suggest that if there are those in the middle of the most liberal leaning northeast, then there is truly trouble in the Obama Camp.

Does anyone, however, really have a crystal ball on which to predict a win or a loss? No – the models given those who predict based on odds (actual betting odds – overseas online betting) have Obama up in double digits. Those betting on Obama to win may end up making the house a ton of money. The traditional polls, with the exception of Gallup, are calling the race tied. But then there is history, of which said blogger is a buff and one thing that nags, is that history repeats itself in the right time, in the right circumstances. It is what makes the argument for a landslide in November for Mitt Romney completely believable, add to that a few internal polls that maybe pointing in a win direction, and there is good reason why these ad buys are being made.

Therefore, with less than a week before the election, there is no reason to believe the outcome will be other than a Mitt Romney win. It is that simple. This is regardless of the President’s handling of the crisis of Hurricane Sandy – which was remarkable – but one event does not erase an entire four years of policy. It is the enthusiasm that is evident among the Romney Supporters, and that includes generic Republicans, Independent voters, and those Democrats now looking for hard material with which to argue a case for Romney. It is the lack of enthusiasm from those core supporters that is evident, the “why bother to vote”, “let’s not discuss politics, please” and general avoidance that is prevalent, even in Massachusetts, New York and yes, California. That’s why Mitt Romney is confident that he will win, and that is also why the Obama campaign continues to push ridiculous ads, and a need for cash, as they cannot defend even the bluest states. This is not to suggest that New York, California, and Massachusetts won’t be in the Obama column (along with 10 to 13 other states), it is just that the national model does not support either an Electoral College, or popular vote win in the 2012 election.

Interesting articles this morning:

From the Boston Globe Belmont (Boston) makes plans in case Mitt Romney votes in his home district (complete with complaints that in doing so, the mere presence of Romney would cause some voters issues). (The Globe supports Obama)

From the Herald Mitt Set to Win Maybe by a Mile (The Herald endorsed Mitt Romney)

Of interest:

Politico: “One Term Celebrity” (on the NY Times Columnist who is predicting a blow-out for Obama

The Romney Campaign Prepares for Election Eve in Massachusetts – Worcester Telegram and Gazette Endorses Romney

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney with Presidential Candidate, Incumbent President Barack Obama - Image New York Times

On Election night November 6, 2012, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be in Boston, Massachusetts, waiting for the results which could propel a Massachusetts man into the Presidency. Although some might argue, that Romney is not a “native of Massachusetts”, it goes without saying that Mitt Romney spent a good portion of his life in Boston, from college, to his marriage and early family life, up to his Governorship of the Bay State. The Commonwealth, where a Revolution began that would challenge a mighty world power, and allow for the formation of the nation which became a beacon of hope for the world, has had a history of sending leaders to the White House – from Adams, to Coolidge to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

What of Massachusetts, the “bluest state”? Will the Commonwealth elect a former Republican Governor, or take the expected and anticipated path of casting its collective vote for the Democrat, in this case incumbent President, Barack Obama? That remains to be seen, although, again, logic dictates that this will be the case. Logic also dictated that this would be the case in 1980 and 1984, however, in both instances, one Republican, Ronald Reagan, turned conventional wisdom upside down, and watched Massachusetts turn “red”. A snapshot of the Commonwealth on a state level would have one believe that there is little to no chance of a Republican prevailing. The State House and Senate are overwhelmingly Democrat as is the Governor’s office, however, that is, in large part, due to the lack of candidates identified as Republican on the ballots. 2010 was an usual year in which there were over 227 Republican’s on state ballots, and more Republican’s won seats in the Legislature than in past elections, yet the number did not make a significant dent, as it did elsewhere in the nation. Those running for National Congressional seats on the GOP ticket were also denied, but, and here is the big but, not at the margins that were forecast by those pundits who appear to know the state. Those wins by incumbent Democrats were not at the 75% projected, but at margins much tighter – 2% to 11%. Understanding that a loss is still a loss, this was an indication of the angst, just two years ago, of a growing percentage of the electorate here in Massachusetts.

There are three concentrations of population in the Commonwealth – The eastern portion of the state, with Boston, and the north and south shores, holding the largest portion of the population in that sector, followed by Worcester County, and then Western Massachusetts west to the New York Border. If one looks at the polling to date, geographical, the pollsters have been targeting the Western Massachusetts area, the area of the state that has the lowest population, and the most Democrat leaning population – one poll giving that section of the state 40 plus percent of the total poll, and Worcester County a mere 15%. It is therefore, difficult to take the polls coming out of Massachusetts much credence, with the exception of the last PPO poll with the President at 14% (most show a 30% advantage), which, was over-weighted with Democrats, at 43% (the actual, according to the Secretary of State’s office, at 34%),noted that Romney had gained momentum, and is resonating with Independents – (which make up 51% of the States electorate) – this brings Massachusetts, into what one might call a state that elected then Candidate Romney to the Governor’s office, moving to the right. It may, in this opinion, based on what is clearly flawed polling data, may be a closer race than prevailing logic dictates.

Although in today’s media consumption, the endorsements by newspapers may not appear to be all that influential with younger consumers or consumers in general, as the competition from new media, see’s those who don’t agree with the style of editorialized news from traditional media, shopping elsewhere for news that is not “slanted” one way or the other (an impossible task.) – However, those that continue to read, or listen/watch these types of media, might be surprised at the Worcester Telegram Gazette, who heartily but with, what appears to be much thought, endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

The headline “Romney for president” with a subtitle “The experience and leadership America needs” released in the Sunday paper, reads as follows:

Four years ago, Americans placed the nation’s highest office in the hands of a largely untested senator from Illinois, granting him both the awesome responsibilities and the tremendous opportunities that come with the presidency of these United States. There can be no doubt that the economic challenges faced by this nation and the world during the recent recession were more severe than many realized. But the prescriptions offered over the last four years — on both the domestic and foreign fronts — have fallen disappointingly short of what is needed to restore America’s economy at home and rebuild our standing overseas.

The decision to turn an incumbent president out of office is never one to be undertaken lightly by voters. But good intentions, repeated promises and lofty rhetoric are no substitute for sound economics and a foreign policy grounded in realism and strength. It is time once again for change in Washington, and we strongly believe that Mitt Romney offers the right combination of experience, vision, leadership and moral grounding to reinvigorate the nation’s economy, bring a measure of control to the ocean of debt threatening to engulf us, and lay out a foreign policy that has the clarity and force needed to deter aggression while promoting international stability.

In sharp contrast to his opponent, Mr. Romney’s bid for the presidency carries the weight of a lifetime of repeated and proven success in business, as a management consultant, cofounder of the successful Bain Capital equity investment firm, and head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

As governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney balanced the state budget through a combination of closing tax loopholes, raising fees and cutting state spending. Critics are right when they charge that some of his actions as governor shifted the financial burden onto cities and towns, but the fact remains that Mr. Romney was willing and able to use his political capital to make hard choices in a state dominated by Democrats. Similarly difficult choices will face whoever occupies the White House next. We believe Mr. Romney is far more likely to make those choices.

President Barack Obama has had ample time to transform the “hope and change” of the 2008 campaign into positive results. The results have been deeply disappointing, and the tenor of his re-election campaign gives us no cause to hope a second term would offer anything better.

Many Republican and independent voters concur that former President George W. Bush made a series of costly blunders in his second term, spending far too much and doing too little to curb the excesses in the banking and housing industries that contributed so much to a deep recession.

But Americans are weary of hearing this president blame his predecessor. The trillions spent in bailouts, stimulus plans and subsidies have served mainly to deepen our debts. Meanwhile, the nation’s unemployment rate, while finally below what it was when Mr. Obama took office, understates the weakness of the job market. Fewer Americans are working, and too many have settled for part-time jobs or lower wages.

On energy, Mr. Obama’s anti-growth policies have sought cover behind increased private-sector production.

By contrast, Mr. Romney, while retaining federal investments and regulations, would place private-sector capitalism ahead of a government-first approach.

On tax policy, the president has waged a relentless campaign against wealthy Americans — one that will punish small businesses and the middle class.

But Mr. Romney understands that the path to higher revenues lies not in choking our key economic engines, but in expanding opportunity for all.

And no issue better illustrates the contrasts between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney than health care.

Unlike Mr. Romney, who brought universal health care to Massachusetts by working with the other party, Mr. Obama spent a year to win razor-thin passage of a divisive law that has spawned fights over expensive mandates, new taxes and infringement of religious liberties.

Even on foreign policy, Mr. Obama has turned positives — an early appeal for understanding with the Muslim world, and the killing of Osama bin Laden — into negatives, with a policy unraveling through artificial deadlines in Afghanistan, dangerous naivete with regard to Iran, and a failure to protect American lives in Libya.

The decision before voters on Nov. 6 is critical and clear. Mitt Romney has earned the opportunity to lead America for the next four years.

One must understand, that Worcester County is, by far, the most “conservative” of the Bay State sectors, yet, the endorsement by a major Massachusetts paper is non-the-less stunning. The Globe had endorsed President Obama, and the Herald, Mitt Romney. The Springfield Republican’s endorsement is, at this time unknown. In 2008, Western Massachusetts’ largest newspaper endorsed then candidate, John McCain at the last moment. This gives an overview of political differences in the press, let alone within the general electorate.

One might conclude therefore, that the state is not necessarily as blue as one might think (not to mention one Senator Scott Brown, seen by the national press as an anomaly, but in the Bay State, regardless of the over-hyped and downright nasty 2012 contest between Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren and similar polls to the national polls above), and it may, in the end, and once again, surprise a nation and a candidate for the Presidency.

The 2012 Final Presidential Debate – Obama Alert Aggressive – Romney Calm, Collected, Commanding – A Mix of Strategy Like no Other.

Mitt Rommney and Barack Obama, the final debate - image marketwatch

In watching the last of the 2012 Presidential Debates last evening – one might have thought, by the hype given to the final debate that it would move mountains for one candidate or another – there were no pivotal movements for either candidate. The President appeared to be the Hawk in this final debate, while Governor Mitt Romney appeared to be the man of peace, no t only through strength but through diplomacy. Although those who were looking for a smack down, drag-out final debate might have been disappointed, and it certainly appeared as those Obama was spoiling for a fight, Romney’s entire demeanor was one of steady hand, refusing to be drawn into a brawl, giving President Obama his due for what he had accomplished overall, and offering a slightly different version of what he might have done differently in some instances. Of particular interest was the difference in Romney approach to the turbulent Middle east and the education against radical Islam, while his view of the import of Pakistan, a country President Obama, in the 2008 debates, declared must be confronted, almost dismissively, was, perhaps, the approach that appealed the most; working with the former ally, but with conditional aid. In fact, Governor Romney is a stickler for conditional aid – one must do something to earn the aid, to ensure progress is being made – a carrot with a stick of one will, with an advantage for both the nation which is availing itself of aid from the U.S., and the U.S. taxpayer who’s faced with sending billions of dollars to foreign countries with little to show but continued strife and waste. Although one might be a partisan, either one way or another, it was clear the Romney was comfortable in the role as Commander in Chief, as well as in tackling the economy – the number one issue on most American’s minds. The debate, and both men’s performances, suggest it will do little to help the President at this stage of the game, and made Romney slightly more likeable in general and capable of handling the job.

The CNN-ORC Poll offered the President an 8 point win over Governor Romney, a smaller margin of victory than produced by the second, new more aggressive Obama seen in the second debate. On a whole the debate appeared a draw, giving Romney the same advantage when it came to trust in the position of Commander in Chief. The poll also suggests that it was weighed more towards Republicans than most polls, giving the Democrats 34 % to Republican’s 30%, or a poll, in truth more in line with voter registration than those polls taken over the course of this contest, which uses the 2008 electoral model – weighted 8 points more for Democrats, who came saw an increase in voter identification in 2008. This particular model also leaves one the impression that the race is extremely tight, as pundits suggest that the polls are tied nationally.

What was of interest was the CNN electoral college map, which gives Obama a hefty lead over Mitt Romney, again based on the prior election. One might want to take a closer look at the Real Clear Politics Model, a model that offers a combination of all polls taken, weighted as well, which now gives Mitt Romney the edge. To add to the confusion of those watching the polls, Gallup Polling, the most prestigious polling firm, (calling 18 of the last elections within the margin of error), has Romney with the edge at last count by 51 to 45 among likely voters. Although one might consider this a “close contest”, it may be worth noting that those pollsters, coming into the final two weeks, and using the 8 percentage point weight, will see the race as a draw, right to the end. Additionally to suggest that one state will make the difference in this contest, such as Ohio, one might want to consider that in times of deep economic upheaval, the challenger has won with slightly more of an advantage than the incumbent, confounding all traditional pollsters who had used a previous election model, including Gallup.

Best line in the debate goes to moderator Bob Schieffer who invoked his mother: “Go vote, it will make you feel big and strong”.

2012 Polling Update – Romney Lead increasing – Alfred E. Smith Dinner – Romney and Obama – both entertaining – Romney’s Sense of Humor – Hysterical.

Mitt Romney on the Campaign Trail - the Romney Surge image Washingtontimes

General update on polls and links to polls as they stand as of the morning of October 19, 2012:

Gallup :Romney 52, Obama 45

PennsylvaniaRomney 49, Obama 45(Washington Times)

North Caroline Romney 52, Obama 46(Rasmussen Reports)

Wisconsin Romney 49, Obama 48 (Romney 11 point swing in two weeks), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More polls as well as the electoral college map prediction on Real Clear Politics, shows Romney Leading in Electoral college for first time on that site Real Clear Politics – Romney Leads Electoral College

The Alfred E. Smith Dinner was held last night in New York City:

Mitt Romney – Hysterical



Full Video of both Govenor Romney and President Obama at Alfred E. Smith Dinner



Although there are still three weeks before America votes, Mitt Romney appears to have the momentum, as polling is beginning to indicate. If one takes into the account that these polls are weighted towards the 2008 election results, and the oversampling of Democrats as a result of that methodology, then one understands that this race, is indeed, going in Govenor Romney’s Direction.

On polls, this blogger has been wondering why Massachustts is being polled so frequently on the Presidential Race – There have been published PPP polls, but the other polls appeared to be internal – A note, if outside firms are polling Massachustts more than once in generations, then that gives one pause. Moreover, New York is being polled – go figure.

Both New York and Massachusetts are considered “safe Democrat”, as they were in 1980.

On the Alfred E. Smith Dinner – Romney is, indeed relatable, and rather than stiff, a man that can relax and dish out one-liners with the best of them – he was indeed funny. President Obama, as has been noted on this blog in the past, is a fine comedian – and that may be his second calling, but what was of interest, were his closing remarks, conciliatory, and deferring to Governor Romney. One would think, in watching the video (above), that should (and it appears that way) Romney be the next President of these United States, President Obama would like to make some inroads now, and be invited to the “party” of past-presidents on occasion – like Bill Clinton, rather than James Carter, who rarely has appeared with other Presidents (past and present) since 1980.

2012 Presidential Debate – A Draw – Neither Candidate Moved the Bar - Both smacked down by Candy Crowley – Romney Points on Leadership – Obama More Aggressive

Mitt Romney Looked Directly at the President when making a point, however, the President appeared not to make direct eye contact with Romney at any point during the debate - see video below - Image the Las Vegas Sun

The second of three debates as held last night at Hofstra University in Long Island, Candy Crowley of CNN was the moderator - A poll, by CNN/ORC gave President Obama the nod by a margin of 46 to 39, among registered voters. Obama received points for being more aggressive, and a 7 point advantage on being more likable, while Romney held an 18 point advantage on the economy, “Other questions showed little daylight between the two candidates among debate watchers on some key characteristics. Romney had a 49%-46% edge on which candidate seemed to be the stronger leader and 45%-43% margin on who answered questions more directly, while Obama had a 44%-40% advantage on which man seemed to care more about the audience members who asked questions.”. The poll included 33% Democrat and 33% Republican, assuming that the balance were Independent voters, as that is not addressed in the CNN article. Of note, most post debate polls appear within ten minutes from the end of the debate, this particular poll took over a half hour to produce, giving one the impression that the pollster was hard pressed to find registered voters who were watching the debate.

Romney for his part, when answering a question and dishing up a pointed barb towards President Obama, consistently addressed the President directly – while the Obama, when taking shots at Mitt Romney, did not. Romney appeared more direct, and Presidential. There were several moments when Obama appealed directly to the moderator for help – while attempting to interrupt Mitt Romney, which may have gone Romney getting points for leadership. Additionally, Romney gave President Obama deference while he was speaking, waiting until he has completed his thoughts before attempting to rebut. That said, the style of the debate, gave no time for rebuttal, and Romney had plenty of items on the table to refute. The President, on his part, was more aggressive, and also played fast and loose with the truth. Romney’s alleged miss-speak was in noting that the President did not address the Libyan Embassy attack immediately, rather he was off campaigning. In fact, the President did, after speaking at length in the rose garden about the video, mention that acts of terror would not go unanswered. The manner in which the President vaguely mentioned terror would give Romney, as well as anyone watching transcripts of the Press Briefing, a bit of a pause. Candy Crowley, for her part, did as best she could to moderate, but appeared more deferential to the President. Crowley, but that may have been due to his consistent interruptions, and speaking over Crowley and appealing to her directly.

Regarding the Press Conference on September 12th, 2012, a video directly below from ABC News, the President spoke at length about the embassy staff, about working with the Libyan government to track down the “killers” of the embassy staff. This was followed by a statement on September 11th, and then that there was an attack in Libya, At the 6 minute mark, the President speaks about making sure that justice would be done, again referring to the “attackers”. The ABC clip below of the entire conference does not appear to show the President addressing the situation in Libya as a terrorist attack, rather that there were “attackers”. Apparently, Romney watched this version of the Press Conference.

ABC Video Press Conference Immediatly Following Embassy Attack



As to addressing women’s issues, again the President played fast and loose with the facts as they pertain to Governor Romany, and his own work for women. The Lilly Ledbetter Act does nothing to address enforcing the law enacted in 1963 by President John Kennedy, known as the Equal Pay Act. The problem with the Equal Pay Act is that it is ignored and more so by those employed in the government than in the private sector. Romney did indeed include more women in his administration than any other Governor had, nationwide. In addition, many of those in Romney’s cabinet were also Democrats. The fact that Romney worked tirelessly to balance a budget while facing down a state government that is 86% Democrat, was not noted. He also raised no taxes in four years, and although this Bay Stater may have resented fees put in place under Romney’s governance, the fact of the matter is that he accomplished everything and then some for Massachusetts, and never took a dime of salary.

When the President refers to Romney being against Contraceptives for women, he’s misleading, as Romney was against the Obama Administrations force of government over the Catholic Church, demanding that they not only supply contraceptives, but abortion as well to their staff. One might, if one reads the constitution, find that the President overstepped. The Catholic Church has brought suit against the Federal government.

Romney has a record upon which to stand in Massachustts as Governor, which lends to his overall leadership qualities, as opposed to the President, who appeared to forget that he had a majority rule for the first two years of hid administration, which led to the 2010 rejection of policies and historical leads by Republicans in the Congress. In that time, the President could have addressed Immigration, and a host of issues, but he did not.

If one were scoring the debate on opening, closing and point on point questions and answers, Romney would take the debate hands down, it is called a tie by this blog, merely because the President was, as indicated by all news outlets, at the least more awake and at the most, more aggressive. However, it comes down to a matter of trust as to who is best equipped to represent the United States. That goes to Romney, as he is forthright, direct and confident. He did not stumble when addressing audience members by name, ensuring that he was correctly pronouncing their names as he address individuals. What was evident was that Romney was irritated with the President, who on the flip side, appeared angry whenever Romney made a point that was irrefutable.

What will tell the tale in the end will be the release of final viewership for this second of three debates. The first debate drew one of the largest audiences, surpassing the 2008 debates, while the VP debate drew half the audience as the 2008 debate. The fact that CNN lagged in finding viewers to poll, also suggests people were not tuning in, perhaps watching TLC or another cable network, rather than the Debate. One might find that viewership for the second debate has declined. Those numbers will be out between today and Friday. It is also follows that most of the debate watchers both Republican and Democrat along with the Independents have already made their decisions as for to whom they will cast their vote. This may also be the reason that the Democrats appear to be in a bit of a panic and required a more “aggressive’ but not necessarily strong performance by the DNC party head, President Obama. Unfortunately he came across, once again, on screen, as arrogant and slightly petulant, especially is asking the moderator for “help”.

It was a contentious debate, which made it more interesting for those heavily vested in the political arena, however, for those who were not, one suspects the channel was changed after the first two series of questions. Neither candidate, from this point of view, performed up to par, Romney, true to character, deferred to both the Moderator as well as the President and let many a false charge go unanswered, perhaps being the more diplomatic of the two, and appeared to have to constrain himself from being overly aggressive at times.

The President’s performance can best be summed up by a quote from the Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden: “Who do you trust?”, from this point of view, although answering the questions at length, and aggressively, sometimes stumbling over his words, the President appeared to be trying to sell the audience a bill of goods.

Best Quote: Obama “When I was President”

The debate in its entirety courtesy of the New York Times

Twitter Threats to Riot – Campaign Directed? – Twitter Members Post To Start a Riot if Romney Wins Election – Real or Desperate Campaign Tactics?

The above screenshot from Infowars.com, consistent in the language and message

Yesterday, the website info war, ran an article entitled “New Threats to Riot if Obama Loses Election”, the gist: twitter has recently seen a spike in both death threats to Candidate Mitt Romney as well as promises to riot in the event that President Obama loses the election. (Worth the read and available at www.infowars.com). That said, taking nothing for granted, when one searches Twitter for “Romney-Riot” there are hundreds of tweets suggesting a riot should take place if the incumbent is not reelected. The Twitters appear to be from a broad background, more anarchist than racial in tone – and the messaging is all so very similar. It is the similarity that is what is at question. Would thousands of individuals come up with the same idea and words to suggest a riot as a result of the outcome of a Presidential race?

Although one might point to the rhetoric of Luis Farrakhan, suggesting that race is the motivating factor to elect, Mitt Romney President. The aging “Nation of Islam” leader is backing the President as he did in 2008, using race as a factor. (McClatchy). That said, the “tweets” following the theme of alleged anarchy, possibly in the hopes of national media attention, rather than someone expressing what might be an actual sentiment (a la Susan Sarandon’s threat to leave the country if Bush was elected – she stayed), or as most individuals express either disappointment or outright depression if their chosen candidate does not win. It’s worked a bit, and made the Drudge Report Headlines, linking to the InfoWar site.

When one looks at who’s “tweeting” about a Romney win riot – it appears there are approximately thirty or so that pop up, but the repetition and the colloquial don’t “jive” – given the popular “hip hop” slant on some of the messages, while the others are somewhat “suburban housewife”. One might almost think that the “tweets” are part of a last ditch campaign strategy, a team with an alleged lock on only ten states, less than a month before the election, has to know that there is no way to crawl back into “first”. There’s something about the final waning moments of a Presidential campaign, where that point starts is now, in mid-October. That is the time when those die-hard partisan’s and supporters, no matter how much they wish things were different realize the game is over. Not unlike football, there is the final two minute warning, the quarterback has been sacked too often to be useful, the defense is falling apart, and when the special team is called in to stop the bleeding, they implode into giggles and grins. The opposition has the ball, they know how to run out the clock and there is nothing one can do but sit there and watch the final field goal (or touchdown in this case). Sometimes the losing team will try to Psyche out the opposition or its’ supporters, and with the David Axelrod at the helm of the campaign, looking for frazzled by the day, stammering in news conferences, and frustrated, one can imagine a last ditch of “threaten a race riot, and they either won’t vote, or they’ll not want to be labeled a racist” tactic. After all, race and division have been the one contestant them of this administration since day one, therefore that lends to the obvious question: how many were paid to tweet, and how many are jumping on the bandwagon as an actual excuse to riot – that might be difficult to tell.

One might take this with a grain of salt, or as an incentive to vote for Romney, especially if one is an independent and sick of the division.

The riot as part of election strategy might be a bit of a stretch – however, one would expect that the “angry” twitters are not down and out to the point where they have no iphone, or ipad, or similar device to post these tweets. Therefore, one might be tempted to think: these are either party operatives, or students, or sympathizers who are so vested in a candidate that they are expressing their feeling about rioting, simply because they are not Susan Sarandon and have no passport to take them elsewhere, or that might be “passé”. Understanding from Infowars that some were concerned about losing their government assistance – would not someone how knows how to work the system for government assistance be aware that partaking in a riot, as a criminal offence, would facilitate that loss? Or again, it goes back to the “campaign” – example from the Infowars article: Tweeter Pat 47% Entitled, suggests: “if every action IS met with an equal and opposite reaction .what should workers do to employers if Romney's elected? #Riot in the streets!!” That is not a racist sentiment, that is a union sentiment. Going back to the losing team for a moment – If one is reading internal polls that tell them even Massachusetts is in play, then one has nothing left but to start a division. However, one can bet the house, that if Romney is elected, the general public, just as when Reagan and Bush were elected, suffer no consequences, and the riots? They will be nothing more than a tweet, as the community organizers and union members get back to the business of organizing for the next election. Of course, the above is strictly hypothesis; however, given the pattern of not quite up to Machiavellian standards used in the past by this campaign, it might not be out of the question.

Romney Runs Away with First Debate – CNN Poll – Romney Makes History 67 to 25% - A Win – Obama Uses More Time – Debate Format a Winner – Opinion and Analysis

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Post Debate - Image Slate.com

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney clearly won the first of three debates with President Barack Obama, edging the President out in a CNN/ORC poll 67% to 25% among registered voters. In addition the pollster notes that the make-up of those polled, not used in most polling was 37% Democrat and 33% Republican, or 5 points more Democrat and 8 Points more Republican than the normal poll, or in truth, more in line with actual registered voters in 2010. The format, broken down into, what was supposed to be 15 minute segments, with 2 minutes allotted for each candidate to answer, and the balance more of a Lincoln Douglas debate format, was seen as some in the media as uncontrollable, however, that format allowed the viewer to see, for the first time, Romney and President Obama, both unfettered and unprotected by a moderator. The result was a win for the viewing public, let alone Mitt Romney, who clearly was in a comfort zone in the debate arena. Romney also has set the bar fairly high for the next debate, given the thrashing that he gave the President, although most pundits might disagree, what the public has seen of Romney on any subject has been limited by media coverage that is clearly made up of sound bites and somewhat slanted towards the Incumbent.

More on the CNN/ORC poll :

"No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.”

35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

Forty-nine percent of debate watchers said before the debate that they had a favorable opinion of Obama…Romney, whose favorable rating among debate watchers edged up just two points, from 54% before the debate to 56% after the debate.

The economy dominated the first debate and according to the poll, and by a 55%-43% margin, debate watchers said that Romney rather than Obama would better handle the economy. On the issue of taxes, which kicked off the debate, Romney had a 53%-44% edge over Obama. And by a 52%-47% margin, debate watchers said Romney would better handle health care, and he had the edge on the budget deficit by a 57%-41% margin.

By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.

Of course, the obvious win for Romney explains the flurry of media “Fact-checkers” which began immediately following the debate – with the “Fact-Checkers” clearly attempting to cover the President’s tracks – the biggest Fact being Romney’s charge that the President had hijacked $718 Billion from Medicare as being untrue, unless of course one has read the Law known as Obamacare. In the text, it clearly states that the sum in question, be taken from Medicare. In addition, the Act combines Medicare with Medicaid, two separate programs. The law also establishes oversight panels on payment and necessity of procedures. One only needs to download the massive bill here in pdf and search for “Medicare”, read it and weep.

Of course, there are more “questionable” things that Governor Romney must have said, however, he is a statistical wonk, therefore, one might be hard-pressed to find an inaccuracy in his statements, unless of course, one was just saying, without backup, that Romney’s fact’s were fiction. This appears to be more “opinion” than actual fact when dealing with – Fact Checkers!

Suffice it to say, that it is now clear that grabbing the popcorn is essential for the next set of debates – one questions whether the debates will make or break the campaign for either candidate, and it is this opinion that it may move only the small percentage of “undecided’s” (if there are truly any undecided’s), perhaps not enough to make a difference. One understands that polls, all polls, are not totally accurate, and that using a 2008 model based on return of votes by party enrollment is a recipe for inaccuracy. Therefore, what is most important about these debates, contrary to most opinion, is not to change minds, but to comfort and reinforce the decisions that individuals have already made. It is this opinion that the die has been cast, and that history will repeat itself based on the current model.

One final thought...Mitt Romney, exuded both leadership, and confidence on the debate stage, how much more would that same persona be apparent on the world stage? That is the question asked and answered for the nation in last night’s debate. Romney can clearly handle the stage. Next up, regardless of the format of the debate, the onus is on the President, not Romney to come in and defend his foreign policy. It will be Romney who will be in the driver’s seat, and although the media may have called some of Romney’s statements “gaffes”, it apparently depends upon one’s personal point of view. This suggests that perhaps, just perhaps, another larger percentage may agree with Romney’s take on foreign policy, regardless of the President’s experience (on-the-job-training). It is clear the major issue, the economy, is Romney’s purview, and he owns it outright.

The First Round – Debate in Colorado – Mitt Romney vs. President Obama – Bring on the Popcorn or - Not

The first debate between GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney and Incumbent President Barack Obama will be held tonight in Colorado. The media offers this primer: “Five things to watch at First Debate”: A Q&A of sorts from Politico via NJ.com The list in this article includes: “Can Romney win the first half-hour?”, “How hard will Obama attack?”, “How do "47 percent" and Libya play?”, “Who brings up Bill Clinton?” and finally: “Is Obama ready for prime-time?”.

On the first question posed, suggests Mitt Romney must not be overly aggressive for fear of appearing to attack the President. In reviewing all previous GOP primary debates, of which there were, one might think, too many, Romney never seemed to attack at all. His style is one where he weighs a statement, then answers – all without fiery rhetoric, but more to the point. A debate can be won or lost at anytime in the process. One memorable comment in the last 10 minutes may set the course not only for the debate win, but for the balance of the election. The second question is answered by the fifth, following the logic of the 5th questions response that the President may be a little Rusty, (which one cannot fathom, given multiple appearance and a continual debate with Congress and the campaign stump (which to this mind is a debate prep it itself that goes towards both men), would make one believe that the President is incapable of a debate attack. Perhaps the article is referring to the 2008 DNC debates between Hillary Clinton and the Senator Barack Obama. Clinton appeared to be the fire-brand, while Obama more “laid back”. On the “47 percent political strategy of Mitt Romney’s, and Obama’s foreign policy fiasco in Libya”, one can hardly compare the two, and to do so, show’s a great disconnect, between what one might consider a “gaffe”. In the case of Romney’s “47%” remark, he was speaking to a group regarding political strategy – which demographic he would focus on (the Independents), it is much ado about nothing more than a sound bite used by the Obama campaign in order to sway the electorate – (a fair play in political terms). As far as having full knowledge of an impending attack on U.S. interest, weeks before they occurred, and then blaming that attack on the outrage against America in the entire Middle East, for weeks after the world was aware that these attacks were pre-planned by Al Queda is, simply put foreign policy negligence. When the buck stops here, regardless of who dropped the ball in the administration, the narrative of the “movie” at fault, should have been dropped immediately. It is the press comparing apples to oranges, not that a great percentage of the population even is aware of either occurrence, due to lack of interest in watching news. The question of who brings up Bill Clinton first – does it matter? It depends, but one might guess not overly much. The focus will be on the way which both men handle themselves on the stage and the content and delivery of their answers and rebuttals.

The question hat is not asked: How hostile will the moderator be towards one candidate over another? Regardless of what plays out live during the debate, what small segment with opinion by the media will be shown on the evening news cast? Will anyone but a slim majority of the voters actually watch or will it be those who are interested in politics and have no access to alterative programming that will view the first of three debates?

The debate between Incumbent President Jimmy Carter and then Governor Ronald Reagan may have been a factor in Reagan’s sweeping victory in 1980 however,it was considered a victory over job approval in the end game, even though the polls were tied. Reference: Reagan Win Bigger than Prediction from The Evening Independent, November 5, 180. One has to understand that in 1980, there were millions more viewers of the only three available networks, and no alternative stations – viewership of 25 million per network was the rule not the exception. Now, those are entertainment numbers, with major news outlets vying against cable and other sources, including other non-news networks.

In winning the debate, one must not duck a question, answer straight forward, and throw in a zinger (for lightening the mood) and compare and contrast. Calling out one’s opponent for embellishing the truth is also not out of bounds, and worth points. This is criteria, of course, is personal, however, to win over this independent conservative, one must be able to offer more than pat answers, or party lines and deliver policy with conviction and honesty. One might not always agree with the individual standing at the podium, but if the candidate scores on well (by following) the above criteria, then that will indeed be a win. It may or may not matter to those actually watching, one might get the impression that if one is watching this debate, one has already settled on a candidate, despite polls and debates and the media. (Refer to prior paragraph).

Obama Campaign: What Polls? – Dems on Hillary Clinton’s Road to 2016 – Back Romney Best Option, Romney Should Switch Running Mate to Clinton – PUMA or Pragmatic?

Pictured Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney image Daily Beast – ArticleHillary Clinton and Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama

As the 2012 campaign turns – On the weekend Buzzfeed’s, Zeke Miller reported on the Obama Campaign in Wisconsin – Apparently the strategy is not to pay attention to the national polls, rather to focus on a few swing states:

Messina, who drove from Chicago to Wisconsin to be with Obama on his first trip to a state that appears to have come into play when Paul Ryan was selected to be Romney's running mate, predicted that the national polling will get even closer, but that the president's lead will hold in key swing states.

"I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward," he said. "What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That's why the national polls aren't relevant to this campaign."

In Wisconsin, Messina said the GOP is stronger than they are nationally, but maintained that the Obama campaign still has an edge

Perhaps the national polls are all tied, but the internals may have something else to say – which is why some Democrats are looking for a path for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and coming up with some options that appear to be somewhat far-fetched, but then again, the Clinton’s, both President William Jefferson and now Secretary of State Hillary, are the most popular Democrats in the country.

This weekend, Bill Clinton weighed in about a 2016 run for Hillary – which has the media salivating – ABC News discussing the Obama-Romney Debate (You Tube Video Here) speaks about Romney’s recent debate experience as a plus, and notes that he has the most to gain in the upcoming debates, although he would be considered an underdog – that back and forth morphs to Bill Clinton’s response to a Hillary Clinton 2016 run, which said anchors note there is speculation on the Democrat ticket for 2016 – and Clinton’s smiles is an affirmation of a Hillary run.(ABC News)

The speculation and what might be considered planning, began after the Democrat Convention – when the Daily Mail broke the news that a top Bill Clinton Aide planned to vote for Romney to help Hillary Clinton take the White House back in 2016. That’s just one example, of course, so not much there, one would think, but then again, there were others. Perhaps the best case found was made on Tumblr by the blogger, Prairie Pride who suggested voting for Romney (secretly supporting) would be the best road for Hillary Clinton, from an historical perspective. He refers to overall party fatigue as the means to the ends, citing elections back to George Washington – his end note: Romney 2012 – Hillary 2016.

The most ridiculous scenario was found on Salon, and one has the immediate reaction – satire! Then again, this is Salon. Alex Pareene takes a different tactic – suggesting in August that Romney “dump” Paul Ryan as his running mate and nominate Hillary – (This is a writer who refers to the “Right-wing press). He writes in glowing terms about Hillary’s accomplishments, and not so nicely about Paul Ryan – he suggests this is a serious option because “Bob Woodward” told him.

Although, with Romney, a place in the administration or cabinet for Clinton might not be out of the question – considering, as Governor, his cabinet included both women and, yes, Democrats. Romney is all business, and if someone brings ideas to the table that are reasonable –his decisions are not based on political party, rather on what would work best for the people (of the Commonwealth) at the time. It remains to be seen if this will be part and parcel of a Romney administration’s tactic, but one might project he would operate on the same success model.

Of course, this Moderate Conservative Feminist’s dream ticket was Palin/Clinton – but….a Romney –Clinton – makes one think – it would in the very least unite the majority of the nation and is extremely utopian. In reality it would cause political mayhem in both parties, and that is not the road to the White House for either Romney or Clinton - given there are those power brokers in the party and the base of each party. Plan B appears the best bet.

Happy Monday – one final note: worth listening to:

Howard Stern on Obama voters –

U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Yemen Under Siege – Romney and Reality – Administration Fumbled on Middle East Foreign Policy

Egypt Ablaze Against the U.S. - image: Salon.com

CNN International is reporting on a wave of violence against U.S. interests that is spreading across the Middle East – the U.S. Embassies in Yemen and Egypt are now under attack by “protestors”. The first wave came earlier this week on the anniversary of September 11, 2001, when coordinated Al Queda attacks against U.S. Embassies resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christoper Stevens, in Libya (ABC News) who was the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed since the Carter Administration in 1979 (*ABC News link to Arlington Cemetery online).

Mitt Romney released a statement on the 12th, condemning the attacks and critiquing the U.S. Foreign policy which did little to alleviate the growing problem in the Middle East - The U.S. Press immediately coordinated an attack on Mitt Romney! Must Read: Erick Erickson’s The American Media Beclowned themselves Yesterday: which presents a timeline of events that is factual, as well as disconcerting to those who understand the reason why the U.S. Media cannot garner more than 17 to 24% trust by Independent and Republicans voters, or, for that matter 34 – 37% of those who identify themselves as Democrats (Gallup – Trust in Institutions polling 2012.

The full text of Mitt Romney’s Remark’s are below – the audio of reporters at the Romney Press Conference(CBS News reporter is Jan Crawford and she was discussing this with the NPR reporter Ari Shapiro) coordinating questions is available here at the Right Scoop (NPR – Publicly Funded)

Via: Mitt Romney.com:

“Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic corps were brutally murdered across the world. This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
“Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya. And, of course, with these words, I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones, who have left behind, as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service and we mourn their sacrifice.
“America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We will defend also our constitutional rights of speech and assembly and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
“I also believe the Administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions. It's never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans, and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn't ‘cleared by Washington.’ That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.
“The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests. Over the last several years, we have stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril, if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.
“We must strive to ensure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter.”

Romney is correct in his assessment of the Administration, in his assertion and view of the U.S. Role abroad, and in the delivery of his statement in the first place. As the GOP Candidate for the U.S. Presidency, one would expect a statement – what one might not anticipate is that the delivery of the statement would be, by conservative standards, Reaganesque. Reaganesque in the tone, as well as the delivery – Romney appeared Presidential in the face of what has become a full-blown assault on the U.S.

Furthermore, the disgusting rebuff of Israel by the Commander in Chief of the U.S., (i.e. the President) refusing to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu over the imminent danger and threat of war between Iran and Israel is another foreign policy failure added to the growing list of Carteresque irresponsible boondoggles abroad based on inexperience and ineptitude.

The gist: Benjamin Netanyahu, requested a meeting with President Obama, Obama replied he was engaged elsewhere (Haaretz)– this elsewhere was a David Letterman appearance(Examiner), and several fundraisers and campaign stops. Meanwhile, the Canadian’s who are not blinded by stupidity, have pulled their embassy and staff out of Iran and have kicked the Iranians out of Canada. (Disclose TV)The writing is on the wall and the lines have been drawn, and for the first time in over 40 years, America is again on the wrong side, with the result being death to American citizens abroad and continued upheaval in the region. Unless and until the election in November results in a change of the guard (polls aside conventional wisdom indicates a change in leadership is eminent), there will be continued and increasing anti-U.S. Sentiment in that region. Carter never understood why, after befriending the Ayatollah and embracing the Palestinians, why they turned on the U.S., and one would think that someone as well-educated and versed in politics as President Obama would have avoided making the same mistake. Apparently not.

It is this opinion that there is more violence on the way in the Middle East and that by abandoning the Israeli’s in favor of the Iranians’ spells disaster for the U.S. The Israeli’s will respond as necessary, as they have in the past, without the “blessing” of any U.S. administration, or for that matter, the hypocritical, taxpayer funded, body known as the U.N. The setting for this current wave of violence began in 2009 when President Obama naively embraced those who would harm us on his trip to Egypt. His dismissal of our allies in favor of the camping trail is inexcusable. The economy continues to crumble and the world is burning, it is no better or not worse than 1980, and that outcome, with polls tying all parties equal, resulted in a resounding national mandate against appeasement foreign policy, ineptitude and failure.

Other Links of interest.
Presidnet Obama Skipped Intel Briefings Week before Embassy Attacks (Breitbart – Big Peace)

(Update)
Netanyahu conversation with Obama on Iran was 'good' (Jerusalem Post referring to mid-night phone call between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which apparently fit into Obama’s schedule)

Or

Obama’s Netanyahu Snub Puts Fla. at ‘Substantial Risk’ for Democrats” (Newsmax) was the quick call to Israeli’s PM a political ploy?

It is not that this blogger has always been a big fan of Romney, or did not hold out for hope and change like many American’s in 2009 as the young and hopeful President Obama set on course against division and renewal that, unfortunately did not materialize. The problems arise, not based on one’s race, or one’s religion, which factor race was proven not to be an issue by virtue of the election of Barack Obama by a majority of White Caucasians, and religion should not play a factor (the Press has little on which to attack Mitt Romney, so let’s discuss Mormons!). What should play a factor is some sort of experience, either in governing, or in business, and more than one term, be it in the Governors Mansion, or in the Senate, or Congress, or the Boardroom. What is necessary is a longer resume, and what the American Electorate decided in 2008 was to ignore history (which is no longer taught in Public Schools), and elect the second coming of Jimmy Carter (this was not in evidence until later in 2009). The concepts of Strength through Peace, and tax cuts providing a “trickle down” effect are not owned by the Republican Party – from JFK to Ronald Regan, those concepts lifted up the U.S. Economy and gave us a stable world. They are proven tactics for both the economy and foreign policy – which Romney espouses and the President disavows, in favor of Carter Policies which destroyed the U.S. Economy and resulted in the takeover of Iran and the Persian People by a radical, hate-filled and extremist brand of Islamic Elite Theocrats. The distinction is clear, it is not in the least muddy – it is heartbreaking to watch the burning U.S. flag, some 40 years forward, burning, as the Middle East once gains, murders our emissaries and displays ignorance in the face of a coming U.S. election. It is unfathomable that the President would be on the campaign trail rather than in front of the American People the hour it became known that there was something afoot, and it is unfathomable that the President and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (a woman who is admired), would only issue statements on the situation after Mitt Romney announced his intent to do so.

Fact Check – Governor Deval Patrick – Democrat Convention Speech – Pinocchio is Blushing!

Governor Deval Patrick (MA-D) speaks to Democrat Convention Party Goers - we've run out of Pinocchio's!

Massachusetts Governor, Democrat, Deval Patrick, gave the 9 o’clock hour speech at the DNC Convention in Charlotte last night, a rousing, come-to-meeting, call-to-arms riff that was short, sweet and to the point – however – chock full of, and shall we say, exaggerations and outright fibs.
The full text of the speech is available at The Huffington Post, an excerpt from that blog is shown below:

In Massachusetts, we know Mitt Romney. By the time he left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation—during better economic times—and household income in our state was declining. He cut education deeper than anywhere else in America. Roads and bridges were crumbling. Business taxes were up, and business confidence was down. Our clean energy potential was stalled. And we had a structural budget deficit. Mitt Romney talks a lot about all the things he's fixed. I can tell you that Massachusetts wasn't one of them. He's a fine fellow and a great salesman, but as governor he was more interested in having the job than doing it.


When I came to office, we set out on a different course: investing in ourselves and our future. And today Massachusetts leads the nation in economic competitiveness, student achievement, health care coverage, life sciences and biotech, energy efficiency and veterans' services. Today, with the help of the Obama administration, we are rebuilding our roads and bridges and expanding broadband access. Today we're out of the deficit hole Mr. Romney left, and we've achieved the highest bond rating in our history. Today—with labor at the table—we've made the reforms in our pension and benefits systems, our schools, our transportation system and more that Mr. Romney only talked about. And today in Massachusetts, you can also marry whomever you love. We have much more still to do. But we are on a better track because we placed our faith not in trickle-down fantasies and divisive rhetoric but in our values and common sense.

(HuffingtonPost)

In the first Paragraph, it is a given that Patrick should know Romney – they passed each other on the way in and the way out of Massachusetts. For example, Romney wanted to cut taxes across the board in Massachusetts, which would have helped businesses, middle and lower income families, as he had walked into a fiscal mess – but, the Democrats, worried that he might gain political advantage, stopped him in his tracks (Boston Globe, 04/26/2005)
Romney also had closed a 3 million dollar budget deficit by the time left office Boston Globe on Romney not seeking reelection

Romney left Massachusetts with a rainy day fund intact – in fact a surplus, which - which Deval Patrick ran through upon taking office – (Boston Globe Fact Check on Baker and Patrick 2010 Governors race) – the amount was in dispute, the amount that was in the rainy day fund, as well as the amount Governor Patrick ran through immediately upon taking office.

On wanting and doing the job of Governor Mitt Romney never took a salary during his time as Governor, he was asked to run by the State Republican Leadership

He was inclusive of both women and all ethnic groups – ask: Jane Edmonds, former Massachusetts Secretary of Workforce

Jane Edmonds is a self-described liberal Democrat and an African-American civil rights activist from Massachusetts, Politico reports. But more than that, she's Mitt Romney's friend. "I adore the guy," Edmonds told Politico. "I have seen him behind closed doors in Cabinet meetings. I have seen his compassion. I'm at a point in my life that the character of the human being we entrust to be president is important to me. He would make an excellent president."

(Desert News). Jane Edmonds was not the only woman or Democrat in Romney’s administration.

Deval Patrick’s speak to roads and bridges crumbling: the Big Dig comes to mind – of course, that billion dollar project was not begun by Mitt Romney, he inherited the mess – and fixed it (Springfield Republican) - without pointing a finger at anyone.

He reformed the corrupt and Democrat led Turnpike Authority (Boston Globe) and actually fixed crumbling roads, monies which went into politicians pockets went back to the state.

No need for link – the Massachusetts Supreme Court passed Gay Marriage under Romney’s administration – Deval cannot take credit for that, nor can the Democrats. (Except one can hazard to guess accurately that the Massachusetts Supreme Court is made up of - Democrats)

Romney cut income taxes, which put more money into the pockets of individuals and families as household income rose under Romney’s Leadership Pew Research
On Job creation in the state: the Boston Globe:Patrick often stretches the Truth while critiquing Romney on jobs(2006) – No Kidding – Stretches the truth is nice.

Romney brought education to its pinnacle, insured school choice, brought into play the charter schools, of which Deval Patrick sings praises as if he had something to do with it, and teed of the Teachers Unions, who would suffer if there was competition, he also did not push granny under the bus, or the poor, as he cut administrative positions that were unnecessary – not the necessary budget – (getting rid of the much expected cronyism in government job creation in Massachusetts in all areas)

Although Massachusetts Statistically did rank 47th, there was little place to go –as the unemployment rate was in the 4 percentile, jobs were plentiful,, businesses were in good shape, at least those who stayed after Romney Left realized the full impact of "tax and spend gone wild" (Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature) – because, Romney had to fight against the State’s Business taxes, which made Massachusetts the 4th highest for taxes Globally, and remains there today. Businesses do not readily come to Massachusetts, and since Romney left, so did millions of Massachusetts residents, seeking jobs, seeking a better life, seeking relief from the continues rounds of new taxes put into place by Governor Patrick to pay for expanded services and government. This is why Massachusetts lost a congressional seat with the 2010 census – go figure.

Deval Patrick has taxed Massachusetts to the brink – 19 new taxes passed alone in July of 2010 –including taxes on cable, wireless and other means of delivering entertainment, phone service and electricity to ones homes – he increased the sales tax, the income tax, and a tax on dogs. Everyone was hiding their grandmothers – she was the next “tax” on Devil’s list.

If Patrick were telling a smidgen of truth, he might have reversed the problems, he created, with the issues Romney helped and fixed, and that would have eliminated a plethora of errors.

As a citizen of the Commonwealth, and someone who did not care to learn to much about Governor Romney (as said Citizen was continuously looking at New Hampshire as a possible Haven), it is a process that one does when one vets a candidate – and Deval Patrick is something that happens when one does not vet a candidate. He flew into Massachusetts, on “yes we can”- sound familiar? – He’s the protégé of one David Axelrod (sound familiar?), and as Governor, the Commonwealth is in decline – he likes the job, his salary is available online.

No-one is fact checking the Democrats whose outrageous and inflated speeches only match their enormous egos (all politicians must have this as a prerequisite – well not all). The only one spotted so far was CNN those 4.5 million private sector jobs created by private industry (not Barack Obama) resulted in a net job gain of 300,00 over a period of years – not a huge plus.

Finally Deval Patrick cut Veteren's Benefits, it is the first item on the chopping block of those who suddenly found religion when it comes to the U.S. Military.
Additionally, there were some charges against Mitt Romney that went unanswered, this was due to time, and frankly space - if one were to Face Check Patrick, one would need greater bandwidth. It is the time of the season (political) when parties come together to - party - it's a national election - however, stretching the truth to this extent is just not acceptable. Especially from a man who won reelection by 1 point, with the help of a Democrat turned Independent until after the election was won, by that one point. Of note: one might also consider that Deval Patrick, a brother-in-arms, with Barack Obama, both under the tutelage and mastership of David Axelrod, might employ similar tactics while governing and stretching the truth- yes, yes they do.

Ann Romney - Delivers – To Women, To the GOP, to the Nation - Touches the World

Ann Romney during Convention Speech - image KasasCity.com

Ann Romney delivered one of the most energizing and charged political convention speeches in the last four general election conventions – from either major political party. The full transcript of Ann Romney’s speech is available at the Indianapolis Star. What one might have anticipated was a “get to know Mitt” speech, or as pundits suggested, a speech that ”humanized” her husband, the GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney”. (New York Times: “In speech Ann Romney Plays to the Heart) That was, of course, the point made by pundits across the nation – that somehow this woman would be charged to transform the man into someone who is “relatable” in a world that has a focus on the personality rather than the deeds of the individual. However, her speech changed the narrative in ways that were not anticipated, she hit home the fact that women are the backbone, and the force behind the nation – and have the ability to stand up and move mountains: The most compelling line in the speech: “We're too smart to know there aren't easy answers. But we're not dumb enough to accept that there aren't better answers.” Followed a litany of what women go through, regardless of socio-economic background, regardless of party – we do recognize that groceries are more expensive, we do understand that we have the major burden of the home and hearth, if there are children to care for, then the tasks multiple. We work and we worry – we see the passage of time as far too fast, and we are often disheartened and tired lately. She reiterated what we know, and she justified how we feel.

Perhaps that’s because she wrote the speech, spending the hours before the convention, “fiddling with turns of phrase” and reminding reporters that ““You have been covering me long enough and you know I’ve never gone off a written text.” (WSJ “Ann Romney Finalizes Speech Words & Wardrobe) Prior to last night’s convention speech, she spoke on the campaign trail “unscripted”. It is often that a campaign will write a script that a candidate or candidates spouse will deliver verbatim, and to be sure, there had to have been the usual campaign speechwriter that handed Ann Romney a text to deliver, which she changed to make it her own. It is a streak of independence rather than dependence that is what struck a chord. The personal narrative, the call to believe in “Mitt”, was, of course, part of the package, but the fact that Mitt Romney will carry the votes of even those who maligned him most; those who are not comfortable with his religion, or who might even resent the fact that he has “millions of dollar to hire political consultants”. Those are the women who, for what-ever reason, may not like him personally, or even not like his family all that much, but – and here is the but – the man who was not the first choice for those voters who supported other candidates in the primary – has their vote. They are the hard core base that stayed home in 2008, and they are driven by other factors. Ann Romney was not going to touch the base, although the base is broadly defined, Ann Romney was speaking to the rest of the nation, as well as the world, and the reviews are in – she nailed it.

From Germany: “Ann Romney Opens Hearts, From France: “Mitt Romney's wife made the show at the convention of his party. Energetic and emotional, Ann Romney will be a support rider for her husband, despite multiple sclerosis.” From Spain: “Ann Romney: "Mitt will move heaven and earth for this country” The Republican candidate's wife has requested an opportunity for her husband and has defended the role of women in society, and the list goes on, including the skeptical British Press who have noticed she has Welsh Origins (humble-noted). All of the articles are carrying the video of her speech – using translators as necessary.

Ann Romney did more than “humanize Mitt” (a term this blogger finds ridiculous to the extreme but will go along with the program), Ann Romney “humanized” the Republican Party, she also “humanized America” in the worlds eyes. If one is reading the headlines daily from Europe, Asia, South and Central America and so on, one understands we are still not well liked – period. Ann Romney accomplished more than perhaps she intended.

Unrelated to Ann Romney – in a way

It is not without a little pride in the State of Massachusetts, that this resident is feeling at the notion of the opportunity to put forth yet another candidate for the Presidency of these United States. From John Adams, to Calvin Coolidge, to John F. Kennedy, and those in between who are not mentioned or may have been “also rans”, the State from which the “Shot Heard Round the World” emanated, where the first Tea Party was held, and which has produced great thinkers, and politico’s from all facets of the political spectrum – has produced a candidate for the Presidency –with the odds in his favor, given the economy – Perhaps he gets extra points today - he was smart enough to wed Ann Romney.