What do Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and John McCain have in common?

Barack Obama, John McCain and Ted Cruz have all come under scrutiny over their right to be or become the President of the United States under the Constitution vis a vis where they were born. Under the Constitution it states one must be a natural born citizen, however, that clause includes the roles of one’s parents. Therefore if one’s mother or father is a citizen, they are considered natural born.

When Ted Cruz recently released his mother’s birth certificate the document clearly states his mother was a citizen of the United States, therefore Cruz is indeed a natural born citizen. (CBS News)

John McCain, who ran the unsuccessful campaign in 2008 against then Senator Barack Obama, had his birth origins challenged, being born in Panama, but having parents that were U.S. citizens. McCain, has forgotten that jab, however, as he is now questioning Senator Cruz’s eligibility (Daily Kos)

Finally, unless on has been living under a rock, our President, Barack Obama had his citizenship questioned, as his father was not a US citizen and he spent some of his childhood outside of the US – however his mother was clearly a US Citizen. . (Politico).

It is the season of campaigns, and of course, if one is chasing a front runner or is not liked by those who live in glass houses, one has to prove themselves.

All three men, and there were others, have been questioned on their ability to run for the highest office in the land based solely on their birth.

The Clinton – Obama Transition – Spitting Into the Winds of Hate and Division

The Washington Post has an interesting article regarding the transition of power from President Obama to Hillary Clinton entitled: “The tricky Obama-Clinton handoff begins”. The gist in a nutshell: How Hillary Clinton can assume power from Obama and maintain the same policies as he has in place now, while driving a wedge between the American Public and the newly minted Republican Congress, and at the same time keeping a massive distance between herself and the President. (Washington Post)

Perhaps more aggravating than any concept of a dynasty of political elite assuming they are going to just take the power, pre-election, are the comments made within the article by those in “power” in the DNC.

“President Obama’s legacy is now entirely dependent on the election of a Democratic successor as president who will protect and extend it, not demolish it,” said David Brock, a Clinton ally and chairman of the pro-Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “Should she run, they both now have a common enemy in a Republican Congress that will define politics through 2016.”

(Washington Post)

Common enemy – here we go again, years of backbiting and accusations of us vs. them in a never ending quagmire that is Washington DC and those that believe they “own” the people.

Frankly, whether it be a dynastic figure from the Republicans (think Bush 1, Bush II, the Return of Bush), or a dinosaur from the Democrats, those types of elitists no longer should hold sway with the general public. Those would the people who have hired them.

Should there be political disagreements with sound discourse? Absolutely, but slogans and premeditated malaise is not going to be a welcome respite for the citizens- rather, it was this type of partisan division and the sense of entitlement and ownership among the political elite, that led to more individuals staying home due to sheer depressions, and those voting, having had enough.

They never learn.

Favorite part of this entire article is the point made that no matter who follows Obama as the next Democrat President, rest assured, they will be in lockstep with his policies.

Political Party annihilation for Dummies – should be a new “how to” for those who feel they are above it all.

So Long Harry and Thanks for All the Fish! The President’s Legacy – Will He or Won’t He Work with the GOP once freed of Reid?

The title is in reference to Douglas Adam’s 5 part trilogy beginning with A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and ending with “So Long and Thanks’ for All the Fish”. Basically if one has any familiarity with this irreverent take on life and its karma – then Harry Reid is about to become of those characters, the villain who is given his comeuppance, as the party faithful flee.

Tomorrow will be a day of historic proportions some pundits suggest, however, it may also be the tipping point in a mid-term where the population, in general, rejects, not only the Administration’s policies, but the progressives as a whole. Time of course, will tell, however, a recent Suffolk poll on the Massachusetts Governor’s race is telling. The Marginals (here) are chock full of surprises: In this poll, Baker leads Coakely for the Governor’s office by 4 points, and the President’s approval in MA remains underwater at 44%, Hillary Clinton’s visit to help out Martha Coakley had a net zero effect, with 61.4% suggesting it made no difference at all and finally, 28% watched Fox News more than any other network. The poll was based on Massachusetts political enrollment, 51% Unenrolled, 11% GOP, and 38% Democrat (approximately) – which does not bode well across the board for Progressives. The Ballot questions are also of interest, most favor keeping the casino and reject including bottled water, etc. in the states bottle return program.(Boston Herald)

North to New Hampshire, is the Scott Brown Race against Jean Shaheen, which is, at present a tie, Iowa was a tie, until a Des Moines Register Final poll showed no contest at all, with Earnst up by 7 points, and the Democrat Candidate suggesting she looks like Taylor Swift (Politico)

It is indeed a world gone somewhat wild. Given that the Republicans are set to take upwards to 10 seats (as some models show Iowa as a toss-up), and additional congressional seats, the President will be in a position to get things accomplished, should he be of that mind. With Reid gone from the equations (possibly a loud and obnoxious voice in the Senate to be sure, but no longer hampering votes and legislation from seeing the light of day, the President will have more opportunity to pass or veto as he sees’ fit.

Should the President reject overtures of bi-partisanship from the new Congress, then they have a loud enough group going into 2014 to continue to “Bushwhack” him, and the White House will also fall to the GOP – which, given history, is more than likely to happen even if the President was granted sainthood.

That said, a legacy is at stake, and rather going down in history as the rival to Jimmy Carter, he does have the opportunity to come out of this looking a lot more like Bill Clinton. The question remains, will he use the next two years to thwart the congress by any means (including overreach of the Constitution), or will he “play ball” and give and get in the dance of legislation?

Elizabeth Warren 2016 – NY Post Headlines – Done Deal?

The New York Post blazed the story regarding President Obama’s choice of Elizabeth Warren for 2016 over Hillary Clinton, suggesting that sources insist that the President’s advisor, Valerie Jarrett is actively pursuing the coronation of the newly minted MA Senator, Elisabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton for the Progressive Democrats Presidential Nomination The story was written by Edward Klein, who is seen in the left circles as not reliable – unnamed sources aside, Klein wrote the book: The Truth About Hillary Clinton, and, although no one can actually substantiate fact or fiction based on hearsay, those on the left don’t care for the tome.

In order to counter the attack on Ms. Warren, or bring her out of the closet too soon, the Wire, suggests that the story is full of nonsense, especially considering the ability of Klein to tell a story that appeals. What is interesting is the fact that incorporated into the story by the wire are select “tweets” on Warren’s “American Indian” Heritage, as if to imply, picking on Warren is not appropriate.

It appears from all things Massachusetts that Warren is indeed, running for the highest office, a neophyte, not unlike the current President, also both academics and both raging Progressives. However, it is doubtful that providing a substitute for Clinton, gaffes and all, that Warren would succeed with anyone outside of the base – given this nations inability to elect a qualified woman to run the show. In 2008 the best choice was Clinton and she was thrown under the proverbial bus by progressives who preferred (in Congress, literally), to anoint Obama to the nomination, regardless of the fact that Clinton had both the popular vote and the delegates – the pulled an end run with the use of the Super Delegates – and the rest is miserable history.

Therefore in summary, although Klein may use “sources” and sensationalize a bit here and there, it would not surprise if Warren beefs up during the next year, pumps up the base and moves promptly to the middle – softens her image, and reminds everyone that will listen that she is more independent, having been a Republican in a previous life.

While Rome’s borders are burning (see Texas, Arizona and California), the fiddler may well be choosing the next successor to the Progressive policies that are destroying the nation. Of course, many will suggest that the rush on the border, like so many of the other “surprises” that have seems to assail this administration are premeditated, it is precisely the lack of experience coming from an academic with theoretical governing credentials that caused this entire debacle in the first place. If Warren were a man, truly, the nation would go on for round two, and as much as a qualified female would be this bloggers preference for the head office, that criteria is not present in Warren, as an academic and a one half term Senator from the State of Massachusetts.

Dem Dilemma – 2014 Looms with Obama Care (Affordable Health Care Act) – 15 Senate Seats that May be Lost before the Campaigns begin.

Image: Woman in CA who has lost insurance policy – she can no longer keep her insurance and must choose between a primary care provider and/or the Cancer doctors who can keep her alive Full story HERE at New York Daily News

As the nation begins to realize that some insurance carriers are dropping coverage, and coverage that is not substandard, and that the administration and those in the know (Congress/Senate) were aware this would take plan 3 years ago, nervous Democrats are reaching out to the White House for reassurance that all will be well – the main focus being the website – rather than a host of other issues from Obama Care plans that will lack comprehensive coverage of both doctors and/or hospitals one might currently use, or the 93,000,000 people who may be out of an insurance policy and forced into the exchanges. (Los Angeles Times).

It is not those Democrats alone who appear to be in a bit of a pickle, as both the President’s and the Congresses approval ratings are sinking faster than the Titanic, anyone who supported or signed onto the bill (See Moderate Republican) are most likely going to lose their jobs as the public becomes more aware of the fiasco that is – Obama Care (or Romney Care on steroids). An anti-incumbency sentiment is growing at a rapid rate according to ABC News reporting on polling by (Poll data here) by ABC/Washington Post released on October 22.

One can imagine that since that date, that sentiment has grown. Consider the VA Governor’s race, where the Democrat, Terry McAuliffe with a double digit lead, ended up winning in a squeaker after help on the trail from Obama and Biden. The National RNC, of course, were not about to help a “Tea Party Candidate” and came up a day late and several dollars short – otherwise, Cuccinelli would be the Govenor of Virginia today.

Elsewhere in City and State Elections, Incumbents lost regardless of Political Party (two parties in total – Republican and Democrat) – it was not an across the board sweep – but there will be new mayors in Western Massachusetts, regardless of how “popular” an individual may have been or how “competent” (See Results here at Masslive.com). Generally, in Western Massachusetts, one might see the Democrats win hands down regardless of a race, or on the local level, political affiliation is not that critical, and therefore, it’s more about being familiar with the “name” – enter the voter who is “mad as hell” and already talking about and acutely aware of 2014 and 2016.

Massachusetts is not the rest of the nation, however, as sold blue and reliable as it is, this also played out across nearby states.

Now, the President’s low approval ratings (39) are being blamed (one might think sarcastically) on Congress suggesting the shut down, etc. and Congresses low approval was somehow engineered by the Republicans (also in the single digit)who will certainly win re-election and control of the house.. One might argue that those Republicans, especially in the Senate, are in as much trouble as the Democrats running to the White House for Reassurance from a President who lied outright to the public upwards to 30 times regarding the ability to keep one’s insurance policy. Seriously, these are supposed to be smart people in the Senate.

One who is politically in tune to the changes in sentiment taking place on the ground (including the “low-information” voter) understands there are opportunities at hand for a serious shift in the political landscape of both major parties.

Ted Cruz will be appearing on the tonight show on the 8th of November, set the dvr, or you will miss the new face of political think and possibly with a major upset in 2014 should Obama care not be revised dramatically (allowing individuals to purchase insurance from private carriers across state lines, with no mandatory insurance purchases required – two suggestions) – You might be seeing the next Senate Majority Leader or as some who hope the next President of the USA.

Trouble in Beantown! MA 2013 Senate Race - Markey up by Only 4 Points over Gomez – Michelle Obama to Boston for Markey Fundraiser on May 29th

Markey (left) and Gomez (right) - image AP via Politico

Ed Markey, the long-serving Democrat Congressman from the Massachusetts 5th District, is up against some narrow odds against newcomer, GOP candidate, Gabriel Gomez. A national poll from PPP (which is a Democrat leaning pollster), has Markey and Gomez only 4 percentage points apart – with a margin of error of 2.5%.

Gomez is starting out as a pretty popular candidate, with 41% of voters rating him favorably to 27% with an unfavorable opinion. Beyond having good numbers with Republicans he's at 42/24 with independents, and actually seen narrowly positively even by Democrats at 33/32. Voters meanwhile are more divided on Markey, with 44% holding a positive view of him to 41% with a negative one. He's at 31/50 with independents.

For a Republican to be competitive in Massachusetts they need to win independents by a hefty margin and get a fair amount of crossover support from Democrats, and right now Gomez is doing both of those things. He's up 47/31 with independents and winning over 21% of Democratic voters. Both those numbers suggest that some folks who supported Stephen Lynch in the primary are being a little reticent about supporting Markey in the general.

(PPP)

The pollster goes on to note that the good news for Markey is that Obama is very popular in Massachusetts. However, that did not work out so well for Martha Coakley who ran against Scott Brown in the 2010 special election.

Coakley was considered to have made mistakes, gaffes such as being unable to name a sports team; however, one might also point to the fact that in yet another high profile race, Markey is nowhere near the 15 point lead that Coakley had out of the gate. Coakley was known statewide, while Brown was little known. In this instance, Gomez had been working the state in person for months, as well in advertising buys introducing himself during the primary, to households throughout Massachusetts. Markey on the other hand, is not that well known, and his advertising amounted to little more than Al Gore like claims and the usual pro-choice messaging. Social issues are not a pivotal issue in this particular race, as Gomez is the candidate the Democrats wish they had.

Gomez is young, Hispanic, smart, successful and a former Navy Seal – compared to Markey, who looks like a great-grandfather of NARAL.

How much trouble is Markey in? Given the popularity of Obama in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe is reporting thatMichelle Obama will be headlining a fundraiser for Markey on the 29th of May – the ticket is priced at $37,600. The Globe goes on to note that the White House is prepared to do anything to help Markey – a reliable progressive voice in the Congress. The problem with Markey is he won by a margin of 58 to 43 percent.(Boston Globe) which sounds like a solid Democrat lead, however, those Lynch Democrats, and the Republican’s, and Independent's that voted for Lynch as a Blue Dog Democrat, will, in all likelihood, end up in the Gomez column.(See PPP Poll for Verification.)

Again, as a reminder, Obama personally came to Massachusetts to campaign for Martha Coakley in 2010, and that did not work out as well as expected. (Politico) That may necessary again, considering the circumstances – Gomez is not Scott Brown, he is extremely aggressive, out of the gate, with in-state and out-of-state ground troops that came in during the primaries. Brown did have ground troops, but that came weeks before the special election. There isn’t justification to compare Brown to Gomez (yet, so many articles in the news are dubbing Gomez, the next Scott Brown), they are in no wise similar, the only link is that they both are – Republican’s in Massachusetts, and Gomez is, of all things, an Hispanic Republican.

While Markey represents everything that is wrong is Washington – the status quo.

The only attributes that would make Gomez even more dangerous to the Democrats – if he were a woman and African American, making him a representative of the three “guaranteed Democrat voting blocs”, but one, being Hispanic is dangerous enough. What next? With Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, making a dent in the Democrat “owned” demographic,

Democrat heavyweight William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III has openly questioned the legitimacy of Texas Senator Ted Cruz's Latino heritage based solely on the Texas senator's politics

(On ABC This Week – Richardson stated :)

"I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic. He’s a politician from Texas, a conservative state...."

(examiner.com)

Perhaps Richardson ill need to make a trip to Massachusetts with Michelle Obama to remind the base that Gomez isn’t really Hispanic, he’s a Conservative….

Of course, as the progressives try and paint Gomez as “Tea Party”, which is laughable, they may indeed attempt to lump Gomez, with Cruz, Rubio, Martinez – all Hispanic Republican’s – who, despite some Tea Party support for the later three, those Hispanics that are conservative are no different than anyone else who finds that defending their political points of view, comes with labels, some of which have overtones of racism. Democrats (national) for all their party of inclusion hype, are starting to sound a lot like the narrative one hears about the counter-party – racist, angry old white men.

“Fiscal Cliff” Impasse – Pelosi, Boehner, Obama, Reid – What Compromise? Tax Hikes Certain, No Cuts Likely; Debt has No Ceiling, Nothing but Political Chicanery

The Impossible Task: Getting anything accomplished - image Al.com

One might come to the conclusion that the whole lot of those who “we the people” elected to make decisions on our behalf are, for lack of a better set of phrases, “out to lunch” and “out of touch”. The last three weeks or so, the big deal on the horizon has been the “Fiscal Cliff” – or where the government must act to prevent a slew of tax increases from occurring, while cutting the budget, and keeping both businesses happy, in order to continue recovery, and sustaining or increasing entitlement spending in order to please “everyone”. It’s all about the body politic and has little to do with reality.

The basic concept of spending money is not unique to this current crop in Washington; it is a lifestyle that has proliferated since the “temporary” income tax (to cover costs to fight WWII) morphed into a permanent stream of income for the Federal Government. The problem occurs when the Federal Government has fewer “taxpayers” and more programs than one can shake a stick at. The fact remains that without taxpayers, the government has no income- does not produce a product, does not offer a commercial service, does not have an unlimited trust fund from an old rich aunt or uncle. When, late in 2008 it appeared as though the world would end due to the burst of the housing bubble, and banks bad business decisions (some due to government regulations), with the prospects of a dire economic collapse on the horizon, President George W. Bush called the troops to Washington and they all agreed to bail out the banks. When President Obama took office in 2009, he decided to stave off more layoffs and underwater mortgages by jump starting the economy with a “Stimulus” in the billion. That tactic did not works as most of the money either went unspent or went to those who worked for a government – teachers, for example, we hired more teachers. We (as a nation) also bailed out and took ownership of “GM”, which was nearing bankruptcy, in order to “save jobs”. Apparently that didn’t work as, one has to have a stream of tax income from the private sector in order to pay for those teachers, and government employees of various skills, as again, the Government makes no money of its own.

How difficult is that to grasp? The government has two choices, increase revenue by raising taxes, and cutting unnecessary items from the budget – the only way that we, as a nation will get our house in order. The problem lays in the fact that the GOP would rather stick a fork in their collective eye than raise taxes, and the DNC (with the President at the head), would rather do the same than to cut one duplicate or totally unnecessary budget item and delete it from the budget. We appear to have an impasse and the press is screaming “Fiscal Cliff!

Apparently, no one in Washington is smarter than a 5th, 4th or 3rd grader (who is in a private school setting); otherwise, this debate would not even be occurring. The alleged debate has turned into name calling and avoidance.

Last week, as the specter of the Cliff loomed, Republican John Boehner, Speaker of the House, came up with a plan that mirrored, former speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s plan as to tax increases and limited to no cuts (and throwing those down the road a bit) Conservatives were (and still are) ready to throw Boehner to the proverbial wolves, so anti-tax, and anti-spend a group has never graced the halls of congress since, the 1990’s.(Human Events). The plan was immediately rejected by the President. One might recall that the President and Nancy Pelosi play on the same team. It was John Boehner reaching across the aisle and giving an opening to the “other team” in an attempt to be bi-partisan. Suddenly, Boehner is under fire, for his “Plan B” (the Pelosi Plan) from and Harry Reid, Democrat, Senate Majority Leader got into a “pithing” match with Mitch McConnell (Republican) - over the whole shenanigans. Reid would not sign any bill that came from the house offering only taxes on those earning 1 million or more (the Pelosi-Boehner plan), and McConnell filibustered over Reid’s insistence that we raise the debt ceiling (increase the already limitless ability of the U.S. to borrow money (or print money that doesn’t exist). (Huffington Post).

The latest gambit is that the President is going to veto Plan B, and will not sign a bill unless the tax hikes go towards those earning $250,000 or $400,000, and he has put Social Security on the table, in return. (Reuters)

This was followed by the President, saying ”Take me out of it” (NBC News) and the GOP calling the President: “Irrational” (NRP)

Something the collective “we” should remember – we pay these people.

That‘s why we pay taxes, to pay for these collective idiots to screw around like 10 year olds at the playground.

Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

Here’s the most likely outcome: we, the collective, will all pay more taxes, either through income tax increases, or elimination of child tax credits, mortgage deductions, and bear the brunt of the new taxes on the Affordable Health Care Act (Obama-care) including the $53 tax on every insurance policy in order to build a “pool” to cover those who have pre-existing conditions, and the tax on medical equipment (which includes everything you may need from a crutch to a pacemaker). The debt ceiling will no longer exist as there will continue to be a need to feed the collective trough, and those left with any taxable income will have a little bit less income and make due. Unlike those we sent to Washington, who will continue to live in la la land, and refusing to craft a reasonable budget and make some hard decisions – such as cutting duplicate programs. We’ve paid higher taxes before (before George W. Bush), and so it’s not the end of the world. Who doesn’t like eating more pasta? Or carpooling if possible? What is incompressible is that this is occurring at all.

It’s time to pay the piper, the American taxpayer saw this coming from a mile away (ok, Tea Party Members), and the idiots on the hill, are putting their heads in the sand. There will be, by the way, no cuts to government programs, only increases in government programs.

Will it be the “end” of the way the U.S. does business? Will we be “Greece”? – Hardly, what we will be are the people paying for the mistakes of those we hired. We have an opportunity coming up every 2 years to change the situation. If one thinks its one party alone, then one is as out of touch with reality as the entire lot in Washington – it’s both parties. Whatever can we do? Vote out incumbents; bring in a bunch of individuals who have no ties to Washington in any previous life, and hope for the best. One can hazard to guess if tomorrow, the Congress and the Senate, was composed of Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Handymen, Construction Workers, and name a career path other than professional politician, things would move forward as all of the aforementioned have to balance budgets, make cuts and care for those less fortunate, and manage to do it, day in and day out. – Therein lays the solution, the problem is finding anyone who is willing to take on the job for starters, and then getting those so used to pulling a lever for an R or a D to do the opposite.

For now and the foreseeable future we will be “paying Caesar”, no matter which party, no matter how ridiculous the debate becomes and no matter who blames who.

Additional Reading: Opportunity to step away from ‘fiscal cliff’ dissolves into one-upsmanship” (Las Vegas Sun

2012 Election – What about Voter Fraud? – Did the Democrat Party Steal the Election? Some Conservatives Display Denial in the face of Reality. Op-ed

Yes, Virginia,Voter Fraud Exists but...the Ground Game Trumps - image from motherjones.com

The election is over and President Obama is about to begin his second term, yet there are those that remain unconvinced that GOP Candidate Mitt Romney was defeated fair and square, but that there was some shenanigans afoot. That there is cheating via ballot stuffing, double voting (or triple voting), the Bridgeport, CT voting method of throwing ballots into the bay, busing out of state voters to the polls, and more tricks than a pony can come up with – all verified by 8 X 10 color glossies and hastily buried news reports during the election. That said, in order for the Democrats to have handily defeated Mitt Romney they would have had to come up with at least 5% of the vote total, if the polls were right. Understanding that this was to be a “close election” the fact that the Democrats needing to cheat up to 5% of the total vote makes no sense at all, however, all polls were weighted to the voter totals of the previous election or plus 8 for the Democrats. If one assumes the margin of error at plus or minus three, deducts that from the GOP candidate, then adjusts 8 points for the Democrats, one has a need to “catch up “by 5 points in order to push the Democrat candidate over the top. It would have to be “that” close. Cheating up to 5% is really pushing the envelope – yet, that’s what the Washington Post suggests, the founder of “unskewedpolls.com” believes. So much so that he began a new website regarding voter fraud. The site Barackofraudo.com looks at the swing states where the ballot returns appear to be out of sync. Welcome to Massachusetts.
However, in reality, what is more than likely the case is that the GOP failed to deliver the bodies to the polls. The election is like a chess game, where both parties need to push X amount of voters to the polls, and they need an infrastructure in place in order to do that. The Democrats have this down to a science, and it is on display in Massachusetts, add a little bit of obvious cheating (say 30,000 votes), and there is a one-party lock on the Commonwealth. In order for Republican’s or Libertarians or Tea Party (More on that) to win, they have to change the way in which they deliver voters to the polls.
The theme this year, and in past years, is simply the base is energized, so they’ll get out and vote, yet, and yet, the estimated landslide of evangelical and conservative voters never materialized. It was not as if they weren’t “out there”, they were, in droves, but they never made it to the polls. It is the organization that has been in place by Democrats, and is continually checked and doubled checked, right down to the precinct level, getting people to the polls. Poll watchers check to find out who hasn’t shown up, and has the ability to make a call and someone goes and picks up that extra vote, or extra 10,000 votes. Republican’s, don’t appear to have voting down to a science. Perhaps it’s the emphasis on individual freedoms versus the collective political ideology that appears to get them into trouble, or relying on what appears to be common sense (that’s something that no longer exits). The reason that the President won reelection by, what most would consider, a slim margin, was simply that his party was able to combine cheating and getting out the vote, better than the other party.
There are Democrats who have been totally turned off by the Progressive Socialists who now run my father’s party, and one would think they would be natural Republican’s, but the two-party system, for some people, is so broken beyond compare, that they have gravitated to that all maligned, Tea Party. Go figure. However, that said, some of these individuals one finds, and it’s shocking to say the least, also know how to get out the vote – the problem is, there appears to be a lack of enthusiasm when it comes to actually getting out the vote and working in the precincts. So much better for those Republican's to throw an annual cocktail party –than get in the trenches and troll for likely voters and new party members. It is frustrating, and must be for both sides to work so hard, and come up with nothing, or just above nothing in the vote totals. That frustration aside, (and there is much to be frustrated about in Massachusetts, if one is awake, looks at the legislation pending, follows the Governor ‘s doings, and basically - takes a valium in the hopes of waking up in a more “balanced state. Therefore, unless and until the Republican’s start to act more like Democrats, in the manner of getting out the vote, and getting the grassroots on board. Including those whom the media brands “rightwing”, and is generally dropped out of the GOP program so that the moderate candidate can appear to have distanced themselves from the people who are most likely to get out the vote in the first place.
So, the Democrats did not cheat any more or any less than they have in the past (See my father’s party , which gives insight into how that particular party has worked elections), they just are better organized on the ground. Therefore, if Republican’s want to win a general election – they need to include all voters on their radar, and actively court them, they need to put people in every single precinct, working in the same blocks and neighborhoods as their counterparts. Once that somewhat utopian ground game is in force, then the playing field will be level. It may take years, but, no time like the present to quit your bitching and do something about it. Checkmate.

Romney Campaign On the Move, Obama Campaign Shifts Focus in Final Two weeks – Reuters: White House Knew About Libya Attacks in Real Time

Mitt Romney - Presidential - Image: watchdog.org

In the final two weeks of the U.S. Presidential Campaign, the Romney Campaign has seen a positive shift in most battleground states, and is actively campaigning in Colorado (NBC News) (As well as taking the lead in the polls in CO), has not ”ceded Michigan” in the least (CBS News) and has increased the Campaign presence in Wisconsin(Green Bay Press Gazette). Overall Romney has taken the lead, or come into the “margin of error” in most polling nationwide. Politico has suggested that the Obama Campaign has ”shifted to an 11’th hour strategy”, having wasted months trying to paint Romney as something he clearly is not, underestimating Romney is debate performances and the numbers of viewers who had the chance to see Romney as capable and Presidential. In summary: it may be too late to recover. (Politico).

In viewing the Real Clear Politics Electoral college map, Romney stands at 206 projected electoral votes, with the President at 201, and 153 electoral college votes shown as toss-ups, (see map here). however, when looking at states considered a “lock” for each candidate, the President has a “lock” on 10 states that are considered automatically as “safe Democrat”, to Romney’s 13 states, in those that are leaning strongly towards Obama, the count is 5 for the President, and 8 for Mitt Romney. Those that “lean” towards Candidates: Obama 2, Romney, 3 States. Finally, there are the toss-ups; those include 10 states that are allegedly not leaning one way or the other at this time (two weeks before the election). The map is interesting in the fact that all polls for this contest, state by state, are included. Take Pennsylvania for example: Polls results are averaged from all sources, beginning with a public policy poll, taken in January of this year, prior to knowing which candidate might be the eventual Republican nominee - The average gives the nod to the President, with an advantage that is still within the margin of error. Also consider that the majority of polls continue to weigh the 2008 election model, (adding 8% more Democrats than normal based on the prior election) and there is a “built in skew” towards the incumbent.

Going back in to the 1980 election, where pollsters had the race tied between Carter and Ronald Reagan right up to the night of the election, startling everyone when Reagan won all but 4 states, the electoral college and popular vote by a landslide, the public and press looked for answers as to what had happened. The Polling specifically has Reagan losing to Carter in Pennsyvlaina (Reading Eagle, Nov. 2nd, 1980), however, in the end result, the polls were based on the voting trends of the previous general election, which gave Carter an advantage of more Democrats than were actually available – No one saw it coming.

If one were to take those states currently on the Real Clear Map and project based on the last several polls, allowing for an 8 percent weight (or extra) Democrat advantage, in the 153 Electoral College votes shown as “Toss Ups”, Romney wins Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Romney is within the Margin of Error in PA, and the list goes on. When one takes the states, generously giving the President the initial 10 states he shows a “solid Democrat, and includes those that are polling solid, there would be a Romney win that is nothing near “close” in reality. One might think that Gallup, having been burnt in the 1980 election along with all other pollsters, has a reason for showing two scenarios: one with registered voters showing a slim margin between the two contenders, and then a “likely voters” model, where Mitt Romney is currently showing a margin of 50 to 46. One might conclude based on these models that Romney is the inevitable President Elect.

To add more fuel to the fire, Reuters has reported that based on newly obtained emails, the White House (President Obama’s situation room), the State Department, etc.) were aware of what was happening in real time as American’s were murdered by Terrorists in Benghazi. There were zero mentions of a movie; however that is all the public heard for several days. Apparently having a major foreign policy problem this close to an election, was not “optimal” for the president (Reference to the Presidents’ remarks on a comedy show prior to the debates).

In conclusion, those who say that the race is close, should continue to do so, it will keep Romney on his game, and the President in a constant state of “catch-up” – this Bay Stater cannot help but feel pride in bringing g home the Presidency to Massachusetts, where the first shot was “heard round the world”, and history pervades every corner of the Commonwealth. It is not without some hope that Massachusetts will also lend a helping hand to the Governor, though every conventional model shows this simply will not happen, that would be the icing on the cake. (As was the case in both 1980 and 1984 – Massachusetts was immediately cast into the safe Democrat category and ignored, until the day after the election when it was found that Massachustts had voted for Ronald Reagan.)

Election 2012 – Obama vs. Romney – focus on swing states? Why are “Safe Democrat” States Polled Less than 2 Weeks Apart? Opinion Essay

Mitt Romney, former Governor of the Bay State, Candidate for President 2012

It was surprising to more than a few households in this conservative enclave in Western Massachusetts that their phones rang yesterday and they found themselves answering an automated poll! The polling, conducted by Public Policy Polling (a pre-recorded announcement) – is a bit surprising for two reasons. One, the Bay State is rarely polled, and several pointed out that they had never been polled before (and we’re quite thrilled to put in their two cents), the second reason, Public Policy Polling just polled Massachusetts on September 18th, a poll in which it shows President Obama with a substantial lead and a 52% approval rating. The question, why are they polling a second time? Perhaps it was to focus on the Warren Brown Race, (but that was only one of several questions, the majority focused on voter trend and the Presidency: who did you vote for in 2008, if the election were held today, who would you vote for, and then the demographic questions. (Age, Gender).

Perhaps they are shoring up their data, counting their electoral votes before they are hatched, or perhaps to emphasis that Obama is doing just fine – in Massachusetts?

What one has to consider in these polls, is the geographic data. When one looks at the state of Massachusetts and voting patterns, one find that, yes, there are Republican’ and Republican leaning independents in this state, but, the big but, they are spread and most of this is geographic: Therefore, if one were to call Worcester (Central MA) one would find a majority of Conservative, or for that matter several areas on the north and south shore. However, Western Massachusetts is similar to say, Cambridge, a much smaller population that the balance of the state, and home to the left of center and reliable Democrats, the actual Republican is rare, and Conservatives (part of the Unenrolled who are the majority of voters in MA), might be few and far between, and generally found in certain cities and towns and pockets. One neighbor remarked after the Brown election in 2009, that the neighborhood was crawling with Republicans! (A polite and avid Progressive, who expresses frustration over this fact fairly consistently.) That said, from the Connecticut River West and North along the eastern edge, the political ideology is more 1960’s than 1980’s, replete with tie-dye, long white hair and beards, and bongo’s – it’s referred to as quaint! There’s the urban center, such as Northampton, birthplace of Calvin Coolidge, the last Republican from Massachusetts to attain the Presidency. Northampton, home to Smith College, (Think Rachael Maddow), has the lovely town of Amherst to its left – home of UMASS, or locally referred to as the “People’s Republic of Amherst.

Now, understanding the lay of the land, one would anticipate that there would be no need to poll, considering one poll affirming the huge Obama lead was just produced by the same pollster and polls cost money. But, and here is the big but, Massachusetts has recently been redistricted, due to population loss. The entire state, when viewed on a redistricting map, has all of Western Massachusetts in one district (formally two) the 1st District cover’s half of the state – the most reliably Democrat part of the state. There was one district that was gerrymandered to include a the conservative enclaves of central Massachusetts, taking some of hoe more reliability Republican cities and towns, and pushing them away from the former 3rd district into the 4th, the fourth also lost the large urban centers of New Bedford and Fall River. This is the main reason Barney Frank retired, he had a close call in the 2010 elections, managing a 10 point lead over his challenger Sean Bielat (and that is with the dead voting). Most reasonable people would think a 10 point lead is huge, however, in Massachusetts, most Congressional Candidates enjoy a project 75% win, and that year, according to the New York Times, Barney Frank was going to sail through the election process, so was Richard Neal, the Democrat from the former 2nd District. They both had first time Republican Challengers, and the expectations we’re low. However, those that had, in the past, run minimal ads, or perhaps sent a direct mail piece – were actually campaigning and were forced to spend huge sums, call in big name party favorites – such as Bill Clinton, to help them win. The lay of the land, therefore, had changed.

Yet they still won, even if the margins were considering higher than anticipated.

Looking at this scenario, one would then wonder why, if election data from 2010 is so readily available on the Secretary of States Website, (from return of votes by city and town, drilled down by party,) why not use the most accurate data. However, if one were able to direct a poll, especially via robocalls, (which can be programmed to avoid or include specific area codes, and cities and towns) – it would make sense for a pollster, in support of a particular party, or commissioned to poll by a particular organization, to call into an area believed to be 100% Democrat.

There have been a few polls lately on the state, what with the race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, which makes sense, but, looking at those polls, one of which supplied geographic data, it was surprising to see a large percentage of those polled came from Western Mass, two to one, over those polled in Central Mass. Therefore the odds of polling a Democrat were greater.

One has to ask, why aren’t pollsters and that goes toward any pollster, but especially the professional firms, employing the state data, to evenly proportion a state based on geography combined with voter trends from the last federal election. This would produce a more accurate poll, the rest of the polls. Therefore, as polls are being conducted without regard to voting patterns in a state, or worse, intentionally targeting a particular section of the state that favored, say one party over another, they are –in a word-useless.

Perhaps they believe that by producing poll after poll which is fed to the media, and those pundits that sit upon their Beltway thrones, that somehow, should it appear one candidate is winning, then that candidate will eventually win, a combination of psychology that most of the “masses” will vote for the most popular candidate (the one ahead in the polls), and the fact that those supporting the underdog, will become concerned, and being to blather on about how that individuals campaign is sinking.

Will it work again? It worked swimmingly well in 2008, but there were other factors at play in 2008. John McCain was the weakest of three candidates standing as August reared, the strongest was Hillary Clinton, who, for all intents and purposes had the popular vote in the primary, and a choice between Clinton and McCain was a no-brainier. But, in the face of a Super-delegated candidate Obama, at the DNC convention, one had no choice but to vote for McCain, if one leaned Conservative at all. McCain, although a nice guy was just not in the least exciting, and also to be fair to McCain, the Republican brand had been so damaged, the ghost Ronald Reagan could not have been elected.

This election is a bit different however.

There are sides drawn and candidates are focused on swing states, the news tells us that these are the y keys to Obama’s victory. The polls tell us so. The pundits are assailing Romney for not being hard enough, or aggressive enough, or what-have-you, while the left (the press and the Obama Campaign) blast Romney for the most incredulously ridiculously inflated non-starters. They recycle old news, as if its breathtaking revelations as to how “bad” a candidate Romney is.

To someone who is, admittedly supporting Romney, but, that was not always the case - watching these polls and pundits repeating the negative mantra vis a vis Romney, it makes one believe that those who swear by these polls, are blindfolded.

Which is why one questions all of the polls, but, especially polls coming from individual States from swing to those that should be “in the bag” for Obama or any Democrat. PPP should poll the north shore of the Bay State – a recent poll commissioned by the partisan RNCC, gave the Congressional Challenger a fairly large lead over the incumbent Democrat, but more shocking and no less of import, the poll indicated that Romney and Obama were tied, and Brown was running away with the race in that district. The marginals showed the percentage of households in the state, with the results, and they were indeed skewed to favor the Republican. But, after looking at the city by city statistics and voter by party affiliation, one found the poll to be – perfect. It was based on the right percentage of voters Democrat, Republican and Unenrolled in that district.

A district Obama had won in 2008 by 20 plus points over McCain, a District that was redrawn to protect the seat of the Democrat.

If PPP has knowledge of that poll, and how it was conducted, then calling all of Western Mass makes sense, given the fact that it was withdrawn to be heavily Democrat. If PPP were a Democrat Polling firm Supporting the President. It could very well be the expense.

But it still begs the question why would they poll a State that is considered Safe Democrat, where a Republican can rarely win? The last Republican Governor was Mitt Romney, the 1st Republican Senator in decades is Scott Brown, and the last Republican to attain the White House from the Bay State was Calvin Coolidge. One would think there would be no need to poll. Maybe once, or twice, but repeatedly? Polls taken twice in the space of two weeks by the same pollster?

Unless that poll commissioned by a partisan group – somehow ended up being the most perfect poll as far as data is concerned – in recent memory, caught the eye of a campaign or pollster, instead of a “citizen” who writes opinion in a small enclave in Western Massachusetts.

In this opinion: Romney is doing everything right, and call it crazy, but his even tone, his measured response, and even his “alleged” gaffes, are ringing with those in the center, in the middle, the moderates, those unenrolled. He’s not a politician in the usual sense of the word, not the most charismatic (being charitable here), and not the most polished when it comes to off the cuff performances – but is the perfect looking, most popular guy in the class, really what the nation is looking for in a President this time?

We won’t know, we can’t know, because the polls are simply guessing games unless they are drilled down to the city by city, district by district level and that would cost too much. Therefore, what we, the consumer, are left with is anyone’s best guess, and if one feels their candidate is down in the polls, then one is most likely heading to a phone bank, plant a yard sign, or silently wait to go to the polls and show support by voting.

Those pundits who never set foot out of the heartland, or the broadcast booth, might want to trip into one of those swing states, or even the state next door to get an idea of how people are thinking, they might be surprised, that the gaffe the media considers shameless is being cheered on by the “masses”.

2016 Obama’s America – Stun – Packed Massachusetts Movie Theater Erupts into Applause – Review

Movie Posters with 2016 Obama's America at a Virginia Theater, image dailylife.com

The Documentary, 2016 Obama’s America, by scholar, Dinesh D'Souza, surprised the film industry this weekend, by coming in 8th overall for the weekend, against the blockbusters, films playing in over 3000 theaters, to the current and expanding 1091 theaters showing the documentary. In addition, it easily surpassed the all-time record breaking political films by Michael Moore. (Deadline: Hollywood). The Los Angeles Times on Friday suggested that the film could see 6 million in sales for the weekend(*LA Times) - the weekend total: 9.4 million (*Deadline Hollywood).

My husband and I decided to see the film after reading a review at CBS Local Boston, entitled: “’2016: Obama’s America’ Movie Is Disturbingly Necessary” The review suggests that the author was not inclined to put much stock in the documentary because hard right commentators such as Sean Hannity appeared to promote the film. He changed his stance once he saw the film.

We decided to see the film during a convenient Saturday afternoon showing yesterday, at the Rave Motion Pictures in West Springfield, MA. The thinking was that it was unlikely the film would be crowded, as it was a documentary and the day was pleasant and sunny. At first that appeared to be the case – as we entered the theater there were only 4 to 5 individuals at the showing. Again, Saturday afternoon showings of feature films hardly fill the theaters, let alone a documentary. It was 5 minutes before show time, previews were running and the theater began to fill - with families, single movie goes, old, young, and most importantly, diverse. Needless to say, we were both somewhat surprised.

The Movie itself was an eye-opener, as I personally felt I knew enough background to form an opinion, and had written about a few of the elements contained in the film – I was wrong - D’Souza’s research was impeccable, and the approach of the film was one of a curiosity seeker and not overly partisan, although counting the fact that D’Souza speaks about being a conservative in the film, does not quantify him as a “hard-right partisan” – he negates that by utilizing fact.

As the movie came to an end, the packed theater erupted into applause. That was the most shocking element of the film. A group of 100 (estimating what a full theater might hold), diverse individuals, applauding a documentary, was a first experience. In times past, popular films of fiction might elicit that response, but a documentary? Hardly. This is especially intriguing since this documentary was playing in the heart of Western Massachusetts, the most left of center area of the Bay-State, outside of Cambridge. My husband quipped, “These are voters”. My thoughts on that, if an individual was not intending to vote, and was of an age to vote, this movie is a game-changer.

If one has not seen the film, and wants to experience the theater (rather than wait for the DVD release), locations and ticket times can be found at http://www.fandango.com/2016obamasamerica_157117/movietimes

The movie trailer is below:

Mitt Romney and the Media – “Fighting Uphill Battle” Unequivocally Stating the Obvious Negative, or Subliminal Reporting On Mitt Romney the Norm

Romney and Obama - a Tale of Two Ideologies and the Press - image mrmediatraining.com


From Politico: the Headline: “Romney: 'I'm fighting uphill battle' in media” covers the remarks made by Republican Presumptive Presidential Nominee in reference to the type of reporting from what has become known as the “mainstream” media – which is consistently negative, and growing more contentious and sensational by the day.

If one watches the morning news, it is obvious that the President is treated, on the campaign trail, as above the fray, while Romney is consistently vilified – based on remarks or “information” coming from campaign sources. The print press has been relentless, and the blogs that feed the press – even more ridiculous. What the independent sees, however, is a disparity, wondering what those in the media whose obvious support for one candidate over another, is doing – besides alienating at least fifty percent of the electorate – and fueling a greater partisan divide. The fact that Romney has been successful in his career, has been fodder for the media to portray the candidate as an “out-of-touch”, mean-spirited, rich guy – which, when one looks at past presidents from both major political parties, Romney’s “wealth” is sometimes dwarfed by those know by Progressives as coming from the Second Estate – the Robber Barron’s who made their wealth through dubious means, and emerged as the nation’s leaders – the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedy’s. When the last Senator Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980, there was little mention of his off-shore holdings – which is common knowledge in the Bay State. Fast forward to the current contest, and the fact that President Barack Obama is not, decidedly, in the poor-house, but doing quite well in the Millions category – apparently is given a pass. Of course, there is a pass given to this President, not due to the fact of race, or competence, or anything other than a shared ideology – it is a political bent that is fueling the coverage of both Candidates.


The question now remains is the public buying into all of the negatives – it’s quite possible that, unlike the eight years the press hammered away at President George W.Bush, (and sometimes to be fair, deservedly), which was pivotal is allowing John McCain to be painted with the same “Bush” brand, and made it impossible for anyone with an – R – in their resume, to be elected (or re-elected) in 2008. By 2010, something occurred that shocked the media – apparently, this Tea Party thing, and the general public, decided to upend the entire Congress and almost caught the Senate – Now with Romney, there has been a) too much time between Bush and Romney to draw any specific comparison (although they have tried), and b) too little time to do as much damage as they hope. It is a matter of trust, and the trust in the instructions of News, both print and other, is in the tank –and not by half of the nation, but by two thirds or more.

Gallup Polling’s annual “Trust in Institutions” polling from 2011 indicated that merely 28 and 27% of the respondents put their trust into newspapers and televised news. The 2012 poll suggests that the situation has not improve with a 21% suggesting Televised News was trustworthy, and 25% placed their confidence in newspapers.


Gallup is not knows as a politically motivated, rather bi-partisan polling firm, therefore, these numbers should be fairly accurate.


The Headlines:


The Sample of Headlines from Google News alerts regarding Mitt Romney from one alert (an alert may contain one to 10 articles and there are multiple alerts throughout the day) dished up the following:

From the Boston Globe: Romney attacked on Bain Question”

The LA Times: Dick Cheney Hosts Fundraiser for Romney (one must read the article to get the full effect)

The Boston Globe Mitt Romney and his tax returns: Déjà vu?” (Reference to the Obama Campaign requesting Romney release scores of tax returns, which is neither precedented nor unprecedented in the political arena).

Upstate ”Romney gets rocky reception from NAACP”

The Washington Post Mitt Romney’s Cynical Response to NAACP Booing”

New York Daily News: Mitt Romney Uses Old Hilary Clinton Footage to Attack President Barack Obama”

The Dickenson Press: Stinky Economy Plays into Mitt Romney’s Hands”

And on and on and on...

However, if one has a Google Alert set up for the President – one finds the following – far too many mentions to post in one short blog – 99.9% of those in supportive verbiage – rather than any mentions of missteps, such as Solyndra, or Fast and Furious, or the drums of war beating again as the U.S. heads towards the Persian gulf.

It is a divide so obvious and so great, is it any wonder that a) the press has scored so low in Gallup’s polling and b) Romney is raking in contributions, and not, as portrayed in the press, at just those big fundraisers (the President has those as well but they are reported in glowing, rather than “negative” terms) but at the clip of $3.00 to $10.00 per donation, adding up to a net plus in the last reporting to $34,000,000 more than the President managed to amass.


The political cheerleaders in the U.S. media may find a backlash – similar to the one in 2010, but more important, a need to replace the ever decreasing readers and viewers who simply cannot stand another issue/broadcast – regardless of the coupons, crossword puzzles, and other “exclusive news”. It has little to do with the internet, or Fox News (often vilified), or the “blogs” (guilty as charged) – if one reads all material, or one watches all network news (and cable news network’s) one sees a definitive difference in reporting on the same event – from the press to MSNBC in the extreme, to Fox offers straight news, with no inflection of opinion, and opinion programming, clearly marked as not news, yet compared to MSNBC, extreme right, to CNN, where there’s a seeming middle ground. CBS, NBC and ABC, both local and national is clearly in sync and clearly invested in the campaign.

Romney, however, is most likely the least surprised at the fact that he will never be friends with the media, and will have little to no fair coverage, nor would any other candidate who may have been the front-runner and the presumptive GOP nominee. It would not have mattered one bit, the treatment would be the same.


This is why, in a short history lesson, the Founders, in letters published in the Federalist Papers, debated heavily over giving the Press certain rights, there was keen opposition mainly due to the possibility that the press might actually try to change or overthrow the government – from the Federalist Papers #84 – written by Alexander Hamilton

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

To put the essay into perspective, the Bill of Rights was put forth by the State of New York, insisting that the language in totality be included in the framed Constitution. There was a rather heated debate – much of which is available in biographies of Madison, Jay and Hamilton. That said, the questions raised in the past, were not, obviously unfounded. In the end it was included by a vote as well as the need to keep the New York contingent in the fold.


To be certain, the document is timeless and somewhat prophetic – in not the way that the press would cause a revolution, per se, rather in how the press would choose political sides, and a progressive ideology to support and include in their “opinionated straight news”. That is not to say the press is without purpose, nor that the entire body is to be maligned, as there are obviously solid journalists with integrity who will not inflict their personal opinions into an article to make one appear less than perfect, or perhaps use video footage that has been so badly edited, one is immediately caught (Andrea Mitchell, editing Mitt Romney’s on the campaign trail),or consistently being forced to retract incendiary headlines or statements, under threat of law suit (too numerous to mention).





If for example, the media woke up tomorrow, and began to report straight news, and use investigative journalism in reporting for good, or ill, on both candidates, one can bet the house, there would be a renewed subscriber base or viewership – one that had the highest score in Gallup’s trust in institutions polling. That would have a net effect of creating more jobs in journalism and the trickledown effect of an increase in revenue. The aforementioned is, of course, wishful thinking.


Mitt Romney might, in the long run, wish to thank those in the press for being so gung-ho for one political ideology, as only 30% are listening with attention, while the balance are not buying it – like the collective boy who cried wolf, sooner or later, the people will rise up and elect a Republican candidate – just as they did in 2010 and with each negative article or broadcast, as the cash pours into the Romney Campaign, it may represent a return to 2010, at all levels – the only way the press has to prevent this is to treat each candidate – equally.

Romney and the Etch-A-Sketch - The Perception of Flip-Flopping Politicians – The Strategy Santorum Should Adopt Post Haste.

Mitt Romney’s top advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom’s remark on CNN produced a bit of brouhaha – or a joke if one will, regarding the former Massachusetts Governor’s ability to move from position to position in what appears like lightening speed. He’s quickly shrugging it offaccording to CNN, however, in looking at Politician’s, especially from Massachusetts or similar states (Illinois anyone?), one knows there is a pattern that is strictly political, that of taking up one position and quickly changing that position as public opinion, the political climate and geography are considered.

It is a fact of life in a State such as Massachusetts that one can be a conservative on the inside, but in order to get into office, one must swing to the left – or vice versa, this is regardless of political party. Even in Massachusetts, during the aftermath of 9/11 and the rise of George W. Bush’s approval ratings, politician’s doing door-to-door retail politics, (on a local scale) we’re not readily admitting to party affiliation. When asked about party affiliation, one aspiring candidate noted that he was a “conservative”, when pressed as to what that meant, he honestly replied that if he were to say he was a Democrat he might not get the votes he needed (there are pockets of Republican’s even in the Bay State) – that type of honesty got the vote, even in a State where it was assumed a Democrat would win (which he did not), but at the least he was honest. It’s a rarity here, and elsewhere, that a politician stick to a position for very long – and the two most noted for changing position rapidly in Massachusetts are John Kerry (D-MA) and Mitt Romney, referred to as the “Etch-a-Sketch”.

If one sticks to a position, or does not make excuses for their beliefs or background, then it is as if that individual has some sort of flaw – if one stick to the middle, or swings with public opinion then that person appears to win out. The fact that voters have short-term memory can be counted on in every election, in every state of the Union, by these politician’s who one cannot tell if they mean what they say even ten percent of the time.

Case in point is Romney’s gubernatorial campaign against a Democrat rival who was as conservative or more conservative in some area’s than Mitt Romney – Shannon O’Brien and Romney both tried to “out-pro-choice” each other in the final weeks leading up to the election, and O’Brien put her foot in it, watching a 15 point lead evaporate to a deficit by the time votes were cast. The fact that Romney was not clear on his position (pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice) even had the Massachusetts GOP concerned when acting Governor, Jane Swift, urged Romney to make his stand on abortion clear(Boston Herald). One can imagine that the issue of abortion, especially in Massachusetts is a non-issue, but that is not entirely the case, there are “degrees” of how pro-choice even Catholics can be – using the argument that “I personally would not advise abortion, but who am I to say what someone else can do” – it is Freedom of Choice that is primary in those voters minds, as they go to the voting booth – and depending upon how the argument is framed, the politician either wins or loses – in Romney’s case, he won by standing on both sides of the issues.

Would he have been re-elected? That’s debatable, one can point to a myriad of reasons why not, but the most likely would have been his “Conservative Stance” in Massachusetts on the budget and the cuts that he made to balance the budget, the fees that he raised or instituted that aided in brining in the cash needed to balance the budget – and the Democrat Party in Massachusetts poised to spin or tell the truth, either way – about his “flaws”. Meanwhile, Conservatives in the State were souring on the Governor for his stance on raising fees (taxes), and his Universal Health Care law. One has to understand that there is a streak of independence in Massachusetts whereby even the sane laws are challenged – the seat-belt law, helmet laws - making it difficult for politician’s to appease everyone and keep smiling and in office.

There are exceptions to this rule, however, and one who supports Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, is one of them. Brown does not vote or write legislation to appease the political winds, he does not change his mind in opportune moments, he is who he is, which can confuse the Conservatives and Democrats alike – he is, aside from polls indicating his rival in November, Elizabeth Warren, anywhere close to unpopular – he is a self-described independent, which ends up being a moderate in some people’s minds, a conservative in others. He makes no excuses for who he is, or the positions he takes, and if challenged by his constituents, he explains why – he is the exception to the rule in Massachusetts. Yet, there are those on the right who supported his candidacy, and now feel that he is too far to the left, and there are those on the left who feel he is too far to the right – that make’s Scott Brown the only Senator from Massachusetts who is doing his job - which gives independents, or the majority of voters, exactly what they want.

Rick Santorum is another example, one who does not change his position or make excuses for whom he is, however, he is competing on a national scale, against a chameleon who is practiced at the art of political chicanery and who is counting on voters to have a memory lapse during the general election. There are steps, even at this late date, that Santorum could take to capitalize on the “Etch a Sketch” remark, however, buying the toy, and using it for props (he was not the only one do to so), might have been used as a joke, rather than a serious statement on what everyone who is a political junkie and paying attention at this point, knows – Mitt Romney changes his mind faster than most people change underwear.
Santorum stands steadfast in his religion, as a Catholic, as a Christian (Catholic means Universal), he stands steadfast also in his foreign policy views, his views on the economy – he has some brilliant fixes, and articulates those points in a way that appeals across the broad spectrum of the electorate. He has been, however, dogged by the stigma of “social issues”, and perhaps refuses to take the bait, yet it is costing him. People fear his Religious views, without understanding that he has no intention of pushing his views on others. The problem is he has to ask and answer these questions every time he sets foot in front of a camera. He needs to resolve this issue, similar to what his rival, Mitt Romney did in 2008, when Romney held a press conference on religion, and moved one. Of course, Romney lost that election, but it was not the religions aspect, it was a field that had a GOP pre-conceived nominee in John McCain, and a Mike Huckabee who would quit. Huckabee too was branded “religious”, by virtue of his person, and the fact that he was a Minister. If one is a Christian (Evangelical, Born Again), these types of candidates are like a gift from God, but to the balance of the population, those occasional Catholics, or occasional Christians (pick a denomination), those candidates are frightening. When one hears, via the news, that the candidate is one-sided, and is only interested, in Rick Santorum’s case, in running the country with his Catholic Faith, no matter how false a claim that may be, it instills a fear which translates into a vote for Mr. Etch-a-Sketch. Santorum should, from this point of view, make his case once and for all, and drop the subject, and that includes all social issues – people already know where he stands on those fronts, he is a practicing Catholic in his personal life, he is pro-choice – move on – before it is truly too late. It is not to say Senator Santorum should deny his faith, it is to say that is something the general public, his staff, his potential voters, already know – the media can and should be forced to hear the economic and foreign policy points, the social issues can be left on the sideboard – now and in the general election.

It is going to be a point of fact that the Obama administration has more political intelligence on Mitt Romney than any other candidate, so for the media to marginalize Santorum to this extent, should be sending up alarm bells all the way around – he is the last candidate the Democrats want to see nominated, (because he appeals to their voting bloc when he gets a chance to talk about manufacturing, for instance, and he has a record in the Senate to back up his claims), and the media, might just be happy to see Santorum sunk without ever having to publish or broadcast one bit of his voting record, or policy. Romney on the other hand presents a field day – maybe – he is a corporate/political animal, and a corporate/political understands how to play against similarly positioned opponents. Case in point, the President has changed his mind on several issues, alienating his base at times and making the appearance of being pro-pipeline (for example see his recent trip to Oklahoma), while being over the top devoted to his “Green Jobs’ program (see visit to Green plan that employed 5 people while spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do so). Should Romney be the nominee, it will, in essence, give voters a choice between two very similar politicians. It is not the ideology that is in question, because it is difficult to pin down exactly what that ideology is, once the ads start running and September is upon us.

The Etch-A-Sketch remark will undoubtedly make it into an Obama for President advertisement, while, perhaps the hypocrisy of the pipeline visit in Oklahoma will end up in a Romney ad – it will be two candidate who are both trying to out-moderate each other – and whoever tries harder may end up losing as the exaggerations of policy are ramped up in the debate over who is more this, or who is more that. Look to history to see a very close race with no clear differences between two candidates.

Rick Santorum would not have it easy, in running against the President, but the difference is his convictions may be more appealing if he were able to get off the pulpit, both real and perceived. That would result in a clear problem for the incumbent, a coal-miners son, who supported legislation in the Senate that put his own Political Part’s panties in a bunch as it was pro-labor, and who also never over promised nor under delivered. Dragging up dirt on Squeaky Clean will be a challenge; therefore, they are marginalizing the candidate now - on both sides of the aisle – to prevent him from getting the nomination and possibly ousting the incumbent, and the other, as they hold a deep seated belief that no Conservative can win a general election. This is how short-term memory works – the GOP has forgotten that the man it most touts as representative of the party is the one man that they wanted out of the race – Ronald Reagan.

One has to understand that when Mitt Romney is endorsed by Jeb Bush, and of all people, Bob Dole, he is the party’s perfect moderate candidate, however if he were to somehow win, it would defy history, and it would be against the odds.

Ron Paul Chasing Romney in NH – The Big What If Game Changer for Romney and the GOP Establishment - Gingrich and Paul as the Last Men Standing

Paul and Gingrich in the debate format - image abcnewsradioonline.com

From the Boston Globe’s: “Paul sparks passion in Granite State”comes an article that speaks to the depth of “passion” supporters of the Texas Congressman who would be President, elicits from supporters. These supporters have, in the past, been younger – college students and those in their mid-to late 20’s – times are a-changing. Paul is now garnering support not only from his traditional base of the youth vote, but from those who might otherwise be considered more conservative and not shocking at all, more liberal. Paul, who is a Libertarian and runs as a Republican, has a philosophy of limited government, individual freedom, and, perhaps most appealing to a great range of age demographics, a non-interventionist policy towards use of the military.

In random “kitchen table” conversations over the holidays, one found that those that are traditional Democrats are looking at Ron Paul as an alternative to the standard GOP as well as the incumbent, President Barack Obama. Generally, those in Massachusetts that are considered “solid Democrat” are also anti-war, on a scale that is perhaps larger than the balance of the nation. To find those individuals seriously considering, or committed to the Ron Paul campaign is at first startling, as it crosses party lines that are rarely crossed (see Massachusetts General Election voting history, where in only two cases in recent memory did the Bay State vote Republican: twice for Ronald Reagan.)

Paul appeals to those who are “sick of government” or “tired of all these wars” and alternately, those who want “government out of our schools, and our lives” – from hard-line Constitutionalists (i.e. Tea Party) to those who are still banging bongo drums in protest of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the youth who see no recourse and no hope for the future as long as the government remains in the status quo.

It may explain why Paul is doing so well in Iowa; he has the ability to attract the grassroots support necessary to push a win in a Caucus state, one that allows independents to participate in the nominating process. Iowa is not the only state to prescribe to the “open primary or caucus” – in fact Paul’s supporters are well aware of the 17 states that allow open primaries, and of those states, most take place on or before Super Tuesday. That said, the GOP has released the 2012 delegate playbook (PDF download here form the Weekly Standard,) which suggest that some states adopt a “Winner Take ALL “ delegate allocation, however, it is anticipated that certain states will continue to offer “proportional delegate allocation”. In this process, states that are designated as winner take all release all delegates to the candidate that amasses 50% or more of the total primary/caucus vote. In states where the rules are proportional allocation, delegates are allocated based on the percentage of the vote candidates receive (see “participation trophy”). Those states are few and far between after Super Tuesday.

In general, the candidate that amasses the most delegates by mid-March is seen as the eventual nominee, not only in terms of the ability to raise money based on their standing, but also in the makeup of the balance of the primary states.

The Polls: From Real Clear Politics one finds a variety of GOP polls , from national to the primary states, using a method of a “combined” score used for all candidates (averages all polls taken to rank a candidate). At this stage, Ron Paul ranks third nationally, behind Romney and Gingrich; all three have double digit leads, with Gingrich and Romney showing double Paul’s percentage. However, at this early stage in polling, these numbers are extremely fluid, and are subject to change on a weekly basis. In Iowa, Paul leads within the margin of error, with Romney and Gingrich following, In New Hampshire Romney leads, with Paul and Gingrich following. In South Carolina, Gingrich has a commanding lead of 37%, but again, Romney and Paul follow and the same scenario exists in Florida. These are the first four states that hold either a caucus or primary.

As attack ads from the Romney and Paul campaigns have weakened Gingrich’s lead in New Hampshire and Iowa, the consequence has been a rise in the polls for Paul. In addition, in Virginia, the Republican Committee disqualified over 1,000 signatures for both the Gingrich and the Perry campaign (Gingrich was leading Romney in the polls in Virginia and Romney is considered the “GOP establishment choice for nominee”). The only two that qualified for the ballot were Romney and Paul. In 2008, Paul bested Romney by a large margin in Virginia – the state GOP in attempting to block Romney’s competitors, set up a probable win for Paul in that Super Tuesday State.

Taking all of the preceding into account, the opportunity for Paul’s campaign to take the lead in several states, with Gingers continuing to poll high in South Carolina and Florida, sets up a 2008 déjà vu for Romney, and the possibility to Paul to seriously compete, especially in states where there are more liberal/moderate primary and caucus voters, and large delegate shares. This brings up the question as to who the Democrats would rather have as an opposition candidate – Romney is their first choice due to the media and GOP focus on Romney, the Obama campaign amassed vast amounts of political intelligence on the former Massachusetts Governor, all but ignoring the rest of the candidates. At this stage it the game, it would be difficult but not impossible to attempt to garner the same intelligence against Paul and Gingrich, who both have long and open records, which are more difficult to distort. In addition, both Gingrich and Paul can claim Washington “outsider” status – Gingrich on the length of team out of Congress and Paul simply because of his Libertarian ideology. In Paul’s case, especially, an ideology that appeals to the Democrat anti-war base.

All bets are currently off the table as to which way this primary will go, however, the eventual nominee, should the current Presidential Approval rankings hold, will face an incumbent that has an average approval well under 50%, with a majority of American’s dissatisfied with the direction of the country, in numbers not seen since 1979 (the last year of the Carter administration, where President Carter, not unlike President Obama, saw a job approval spike in the later end of that year – to no avail.) Therefore, either Gingrich, Romney or Paul would be in a position to win the general, however, it is more likely, given the historical makeup of the 2008 general GOP primaries, that both Gingrich and Paul will be the last men standing, unless Romney can, on a national and state by state level, move past is 20 – 25% support, with New Hampshire currently, the only state where he is above 20% in pre-primary polling.

Debt Ceiling “Crisis” Evokes Sandlot Politics – Republican Mitch McConnell plans with Reid to raise Ceiling again – e tu Brutus? A Taxing Rant

The tax raising culprits, Mitch and Harry - image Huffington Post


From the Heritage Foundation: House Republican’s have crafted a plan – Cut, Cap and Balance – a bill that goes to vote today, which would accomplish at least three reasonable measures: Cut unnecessary Federal Spending, Caps future Federal spending and promotes a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution – along with the ability to raise the debt ceiling – again. The measures however, would insure that there was a process in place that would lower the national debt, with no need for further increases in the debt ceiling – a political football that several economist have noted as unnecessary (see Heritage Foundation). The Bill should pass the House, it may not make it through the Senate, and if it somehow does, the President will out-of-hand Veto the bill, as it does not allow Democrats to have their cake and eat it too. At least the House is made up of somewhat “average” citizens, those members who must campaign in their own districts every two years in order to return to the City on the Hill, therefore, one can expect a range of proposals from the House: absurd to sound on any given day.

The Senate is a different story – each Senator enjoys a six year respite from having to explain their actions to their constituents. They tend to appear more “lofty” than their lower House counterparts, and therefore “more expert” on subjects that directly affect each American Taxpayer.

Enter Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate who has been locked up with Harry Reid (who by some strange miracle continues to be the Majority Leader), and will remain locked up, along with all Senate members, until a deal is reached, voted on and passed. The current option on the table, worked out by Reid and McConnell, and best truncated by the Los Angeles Times

A plan by the Senate's two top leaders to allow President Obama to raise the debt limit without congressional approval is emerging as the most likely strategy to avoid a looming federal default.
The plan being drafted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada would lock in about $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years — a figure considerably smaller than Republican leaders and Obama had been seeking.

There is a reason why McConnell’s plan is now being referred to in fiscally conservative arenas as “Mitch McConnell’s Pontius Pilot Act”. What is not referred to in the article by the LA Times is the establishment of a “Debt Commission” that will have a veto proof ability to raise taxes. Therefore, what the American Taxpayer can expect from this group of ivory tower elites that apparently believe the fifty percent of those people (taxpayers) that support all the programs that support the 50 percent of those who don’t pay taxes (which may come to an abrupt halt), are capable of doing more and will forget during their six year hiatus from the campaign trail, that they were actually culpable in making lives of average American’s even more miserable.


The poor getting poorer, 5000 line up for shelter vouchers in Dallas - image newsone


A rise in the debt ceiling immediately

The veto of Cap, Cut and Balance, which would at least put in safeguards against yet another five or ten dollar devaluing rises in the debt ceiling.

Cuts spread out over the course of 10 years that will do little to nothing as far as putting a dent in the deficit.

The establishment of a Commission designed to raise taxes without permission from Congress.

Suggested Immediate reading: Red State’s Now We See It All Mitch McConnell’s Pontius Pilate Act is A Cover for Tax Increases an eye-opener.

As this vote goes before the Senate, one can bet the house it will not be a roll-call vote, but a vote by voice, most likely once the C-Span camera’s are shut down for the day.
While playing to the never ending “crisis” mode of the White House and the Media, some Republicans and Democrats (not all, to be sure, in the House), are trying to at least avert a major crisis for the American Taxpayer, the Senate apparently is trying to be popular with the Press and their Peers, while completely ignoring those left paying taxes.
Which as a reminder to those who may not be aware, taxes from individuals, corporations and in Massachusetts, dogs, is the only source of income for both the Federal and the State governments? The only source in an economy where unemployment is over 9%, the cost of food, clothing, fuel and housing is on the rise, and apparently, taxpayers are expected to pay more, to cover the costs of failed programs and programs rampant with waste and abuse.
If the Bureau-crazy that is Washington, would clean house, literally, there would be little need for any of this circus in the first place and, not only would the deficit disappear, there would be a slush fund available even if taxes were rolled back father than the Bush Cuts.

1. There is known waste and fraud in all entitlement programs – clean it up. We’re talking billions per program, which add up to trillions over the years.

2. Departmental budgeting: Each year, a budget for every single office and department is awarded, at the end of the budget cycle, that department must spend like drunken sailors any monies left in order to get the same amount or more in the next budget. Imagine if each department as expected to pull a MacGyver in order to get by, and those that found ways to reduce costs, and come in under budget were rewarded (bonus), while those found to be wasting money were shown the door (this would also require getting rid of government workers unions – a known oxymoron). Each agency and department within would not be penalized by a lesser budget, but given the same budget each year adjusted for inflation. The same process would start again. Having personal knowledge of one small department, of one small agency, which, finding itself two months before budget deadlines with a paltry two million dollars, revamped an entire office – complete with kitchen areas, (new refrigerators, stoves, etc.) furniture, and the like. What happened to the new furniture from the previous budget? Tossed or taken home (a perk perhaps?).


McConnell needs a dose of reality, as well as every single lawmaker, regardless of which side of the aisle upon which they sit, by spending six months in an “average American’s home” and seeing what someone with a gross income of $250,000 per family, two children, a few pets and debt up over their eyeballs, (plus an already hefty tax bill from both State and Federal Governments) lives. Better yet, with the Bush Tax Cuts set to expire (which will raise taxes across the board), and a Commission in Place that will do the same, spend some time with a family of exact makeup who’s gross earnings are at $60,000.
They might take a lesson or two away from this experience and begin to cut when its painful (like so many taxpayers now do), and to take a look at waste, fraud and abuse, climb down from that ivory tower and get it right for once.

There is a letter available here Red State – United to Oppose McConnell These lawmakers need to know how the taxpayer feels.

Stop acting like one political party, if you are unpopular because you don’t cross the aisle, get over it, and if you for a moment think that the people will not remember, think again. Get to work fixing the programs that don’t work, cut the programs that are non-essential, and save a few bucks. Don’t put another yoke around the necks of those that supply the Governments only income. Eventually, those taxpayers will be unemployed as well, (remember, nothing being done to stimulate business here), meaning, less income and yet another raise in the debt ceiling and more taxes on those that are left.

It is not that we don’t mind paying taxes for services that the Federal, State and Local Governments provide it is the excessive nature of the beast that is Washington which rankles.