Why Obama's Stance on Same-Sex Marriage won't Matter Against Romney

You know if you have read this blog throughout this Republican primary that I was opposed to a Mitt Romney nomination, however, that is not how it turned out.  I think it is important as conservatives not to just follow the party line. However, that does not mean we cannot champion Romney's campaign. 


The choice is Romney or Obama, and even though I was proud of Obama coming out in favor on legalizing same-sex marriage, that does not mean I will support his campaign.  This election is about the economy, and it should be that way.  It won't matter much if Obama is president when it comes to legalizing same-sex marriage, because Romney and Obama effectively have the same stance, they both feel the issue should be left up to the states - even though I believe civil rights should never be left up to the states, because history has repeatedly shown that to achieve equality for everyone, we must have a strong - enough- national government, the states have only hindered that goal. That does not mean that the federal government needs to be involved in every aspect of our lives, but some are important.  Abraham Lincoln understood this, and brought the country to the brink of destruction in order to save the union.  In the process, he was able to set in motion the end of slavery in this country.

The Real War on Women (Baby Women)!

It is sad to watch videos like this. What is even worse is that a signification number people think this is OK to do.  The lady that did the undercover sting at Planned Parenthood outright told the  counselor (adviser) she was planning to abort the child if it is a girl, and what happened next is unbelievable.  I suggest you watch it, because words cannot accurately express what seeing it with your own eyes can accomplish.  


WATCH THE VIDEO NOW. 


You see what I mean, the Planned Parenthood counselor coached the young woman on how to first deceive a doctor that may judge them because of how developed the fetus may be - which is bad enough - and how to abuse Medicaid  to pay for detecting the fetus's gender for a later term abortion.  Once Medicaid pays for the medical care, then the young woman is advised to go for the late-term abortion. The the undercover young woman asked if she could get pregnant again soon after.  The lady that did the interviewing states "there's nothing wrong with getting pregnant immediately afterwards."  To add insult to injury, she was smiling and laughing the entire time.  This was nothing more than a jolly day at work for the worker at P.P. 


The video shows that at least one worker at Planned Parenthood is willing to advise on how to get an ultrasound from a local OB/GYN to confirm the sex of the baby for a discriminatory sex-selective abortion.  The folks at Live Action have shown how horrible this situation can be. "They could refuse to continue to see you if you're just going to terminate, you know what I mean" said the P.P. worker.  

Romney May Need More than a Double Vanilla Ticket

In the above video we have Newt Gingrich being, well Newt - going Newclear.  This video brings with it an important question; what should Mitt Romney look for in a Vice President pick.  Many people have already said that Romney will go with another boring white guy(Vanilla).  But is that what he needs?  


The demonstration in the above video iterates the most effective way to deal with the left leaning media, by going directly at them - something Newt has done effectively over the years.  Is a boring white guy going to be able to do that, the simple answer is no.  Romney may not want to risk looking like he picked another Sarah Palin, but he also needs to be carfare not to bring on someone that cannot help the ticket in a meaningful way. 


The obvious choice is Marco Rubio, because he brings a lot to the table - young, articulate, popular, and he listens to Jay Z.  Rubio can not only deal with the media, he also is not considered extreme in his own party.  His willingness to attempt to develop a Dream Act, shows that he will do what he feels is right, not just what may bring him more votes in his state or nationally if he ever does run for president. 


The only draw back with Rubio is that he does not have a lot of experience, on the campaign trail or in national politics, which could be a boon or hinder Romney's chances.

Dewhurst Leaps even Lower in Texas Senate Race

There is a way to tell how a person will govern by looking how they run their campaign.  Dewhurst has recently gone of the deep in (my words), because he wants voters to believe that Ted Cruz supports amnesty.  You know this is a desperate addition to his attacks on Cruz because if it were true, he would have used it much earlier. Think about it, in Texas, this would have been one of the most powerful attacks if it were true. Why would he wait until now to use it, when it would have been more effective to let the word spread.  Dewhurst knows that this is not true, and is hoping just enough people hear about this, and vote for Dewhurst or don't show up. The idea is that there is not enough time to effectively get the truth out. That is where the grassroots comes into play. 


 In a email to supporters of Cruz, JoAnn Fleming states that this attack "is completely false, but it’s also shameful race-bating."  She also nails it when she states this is nothing more than a power play designed to hold on to power.  She moves on to point out that Cruz "successfully defended Texas’s right to execute an illegal alien for raping and murdering two teenage girls."

Fleming writes "As chair of the Advisory Committee to the TEA Party Caucus of the TX Legislature,[she has] watched the Lt. Governor very closely. Here’s the truth on David Dewhurst:

1) Supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

2) Waffled on a border fence.

3) Refused to pass legislation fining Texas employers who hire illegal immigrants at the expense of hard-working Texans.

"As we say in East Texas, “That dog won’t hunt!” said Fleming

Does the Left still want to talk about the Grades of Our Presidents?

Lets start by iterating that I often used to say that Bush's grades had little effect on his effectiveness as a president. Be honest, you do know that the president is surrounded by so many experts that all he or she has to do is decide - you know, the great decider.  So even though in this post I am going to discuss how well Obama did in school, the premise is not that he is a bad leader if in fact he was a bad student.


President Obama's supporters have often championed him as a "brilliant [man]", in fact one of the smartest to ever hold office.  I always found this to be shallow, since I've never seen anything from him that would indicate superior intelligence, at least not compared to some of the smartest people in the world. Bill Clinton is widely known to be very intelligent. Prior to graduation from Georgetown, Clinton won a "Prized Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University in England for two years." It is plain as day that Clinton was a smart man, who was going to do good in life on the strength of his intelligence. President Obama is different in the sense there is nothing from his past that would have allowed people to make that assumption.  


Now comes this: Charles C. Johnson of "Breitbart News has established that Obama's grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush."


They have apparently learned that "the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time." 

President Obama and the Blame Bush/Republicans Campaign

In 2008, President Obama was able to run his campaign on the promise that he would not be George W. Bush, which was a wise choice considering the state of the economy and the approval ratings Jr. came out of office carrying.  Knowing this, then it should come as no surprise that the president is not going to run his campaign focused on what he did while he was in office, he will try to direct the voter anger towards Republicans by linking them with Bush. 


The problem with this is that much of what Obama has done while in office has in effect been a continuation of what Bush had been doing when he left office. 


Lets start with the most glaring similarities between the last two presidents, foreign policy. 


In 2010, Tony Karon of Time Magazine said this:

Obama's promises of outreach to adversaries and consultation and coordination with allies certainly cleared away some of the negative atmospherics left by the Bush Administration. However, his substantial policy positions have proven to be remarkably similar to those of the second-term, chastened-by-reality George W. Bush. Indeed, anti-war Democrats groaned when the President, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, referred to "evil in the world" and hailed America's willingness to use force abroad over the past six decades as an essential component of global security. The neoconservatives cheered.

The reality is, for the most part the president as acted much in the same way Bush would have.  In some ways Obama has done what the Democrats had wanted the country to believe Bush did, launch wars of choice with out the approval of the other side.  Obama launched the war in Libya without congressional approval.  If Bush would have tried that he would have had to spend the next year explaining why he defied the will of the elected government.  Of course, Bush had not launched a war without congressional approval, he went to the house to get permission to strike both Afghanistan and Iraq.

President Obama issued this statement regarding the United States’ involvement in Libya: “Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.”

 
This statement had no doubt sounded much like one that would have been given by Bush.

Ted Cruz: Fighter

Ted Cruz has launched a new statewide TV add for the state of Texas. He is over halfway to his goal for the “Defeat the Establishment” Money Bomb!  You can go help get over the top here. It is getting to that time where people have to decide where they want to be in this race. I've already said I support Cruz and I hope you will join me. 

Obama/Clinton would be Bad News for Romney

Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard recently wrote a piece encouraging President Obama to dump Vice President Joe Biden, and run Hillary Clinton on the ticket instead.

"...a truly grand victory [for Romney] requires worthy opponents. Barack Obama is one. With all due respect to our affable vice president, Joe Biden is not" said Kristol, before adding that "we’d like to see a decisive triumph for Romney and his running mate over two formidable representatives of contemporary liberalism[Obama & Clinton] , rather than a discounted victory over a flawed ticket with only one strong candidate. So we sincerely suggest to President Obama: Dump Joe Biden."

This is an interesting tactic, if indeed that is what it is.  I would not like to see the Obama campaign become stronger than it already is, and adding Clinton to the ticket would strengthen it - and would bring the Democrats that have left Obama but are not very fond of Republicans right back into the fold.  Remember, the "white, working- and middle-class Americans who supported her in the 2008 primaries."

So one has to wonder, is Kristol up to something here, or does he really just want to make sure the opponent is worthy of the heavy weight fight. Either way, I think it would be a disaster if the president had decided to - and accomplished convincing her - run with Clinton instead of Biden.  I have a hard time excepting that this is something that Romney wants to see happen, and I am willing to stake money on it.  Why would team Romney wish to see his opponent become stronger?

When will the "There you go again" Moment Happen in this Election Cycle?

In every election, something[s] is said, done, or not done that defines that election.  This election, we have not seen a defining moment that will forever be attached to this election - or have we.  That still depends on what happens in the next 6 months.  It could be said that the Mitt Romney adviser's Etch-A-Sketch comment may come to define this election, but that was not said by the candidate, and by now everyone knows that Romney has altered his views depending on the audience he is speaking to.  To deny that would just be silly, Romney is a politician, and in light of how he is doing this cycle, it can be argued he has been an effective one.  The list of people who have even won their parties nomination is small.  Romney will forever be known in American Politics, whether he win this race or not.  In 2008 it can be argued that neither of the candidates running for president had the line that will forever stick with people; Sarah Palin claiming that she can see Russia from her house may just go down as the line people talk about when they talk about 2008.


Here are some other famous quotes that stick out. Though not all of them, because there are so many. 

What not to do as a News Correspondent!

If you are easily offended, you may not want to watch this video. The blog does not support anything said in this video. I only wanted to point out a lesson that needs to be learned from situations like this.

I will be the first to admit that I know little of the rules of being a news correspondent.  In the above video, a newscaster had decided to read the racist rant of a hateful young man.  Newscasters mostly observed the rule of decorum in such matters, but not in this instance.  I do not even like writing it, so I am not sure how the news correspondent in this video thought it would be a good idea to read the deranged young man’s Facebook page, which had the epithet.  She could have shown at least a little tact when reporting this story.  This video is somewhat old, but New Busters does a good job of catching the media when they make mistakes. The correspondent should have said the young man used the present participle of the F-word, and then followed it by use the N-Word.  Then iterate how disrespectful it would be anyone to use these words.  I know we all make mistakes; some are just bigger than others are.  I hope at least we can all learn from this, and not use these words in any setting. 

Can Team Romney catch up with Chicago “advantageous new media ability”?

Can Team Romney catch up with Chicago “advantageous new media ability”?

Over at The Nation, Ben Adler article titled “Will Romney Catch up to Obama Online” raises an important question about the ability of the president’s team to “develop clever, creative features on their website.”

The Obama campaigns “website posted a feature called ‘The Life of Julia,’ which was meant to show the important role of government programs in the life of the average American.  Julia attends a head start school, a high school that participates in Obama’s Race to the Top program, gets a loan to start her own business from the Small Business Administration and so on. And with each step we are reminded that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut all of these programs.  Conservative bloggers and columnists went ballistic with their derision and mockery, composing alternatives such as ‘Julia is enrolled in a Great Leap program where she will learn critical community organizing and obedience skills.”

Adler is correct in his assessment that the Obama campaign apparatus has been efficient in their management of the “advanced interactive tools” used to give [would be] supporters something tangible that also provides the campaign an outlet to advance its talking points.

Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist who specializes in new media, contends that “Digital is the biggest department at Obama’s headquarters,” and that the Democratic campaign retains a large lead-time over Romney when it comes to infrastructure rather than “messaging state-to-state.”  He also claims that when “[he] worked for the Bush campaign [in 2004] [he] had all sorts of advantages over the Democrats in terms of data, field, and infrastructure operations because we were running uncontested.”  It does not take much to imagine that Obama has a similar advantage this time around.  Ruffini also points out that this part of the campaign [digital] is going to become increasingly important for Romney in the general election.

Where this is true, it is also valid what Zac Moffatt, digital director for the Romney campaign, said in the Adler’s piece.  He points out that it is not the “interactive widgets” that are going to be important; they are not as useful as social media is going to be.  However, this is also a tool that the president’s team is known to excel at.  Indeed, most people probably do not come across campaign content at the actual site, rather they will see this stuff at sites that they already spend their time at – Face Book, Twitter, and various other social media – because people will be able to not only see the stuff, but also comment on it and give their own commentary.  It is questionable whether Romney will ever catch up with Obama on his use of the social media to get the message out.  The president has already had Face Book and Twitter town hall style events, and that was before the official start of his campaign.

Even though Moffatt claims that no one is going to see these widgets this far out, the fact that Obama is ahead is still something that Romney may want to treat as a priority.

Why did none of the Other GOP Candidates find the Bullying Story?

This story has been out for a while now, and I am not sure what is true and what is not.  If Romney is guilty, he should be ashamed that he treated someone different because of the fact that that said person is different. One would expect someone who grew up Mormon, that they would empathize with those who are picked on because of what they believe or who they are.  

However, I think what he did in high school is not the issue. It is the pattern of behavior that Romney has shown throughout his whole career that is more disturbing to me, which is a willingness to do and say anything to win.  

Why did none of Romney’s opponents find this story during the primaries? 


Romney was being accused of bullying Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and anyone else who threatened to win the nomination.  Either the teams charged with building the opposition packages were horrible at digging up stuff, or no one thought that it would be used because of how long ago this supposedly happen.  I do not think it changes the way I view who Romney is as a person, I already had a low opinion of him.  Even less so after watching him continue to pander to the fringe of the party even after having the nomination locked up.

Christian, Conservative, and Same-Sex Marriage: Legacy of a Shaken Faith

I do not mean to beat an issue repeatedly, but since gay marriage is the issue of the week, month, and to many people, of a lifetime, then it is important to keep talking to about the issue.  The pastor in this video makes a well thought out argument for same-sex marriage.  It is important to note that he is a pastor, and he is making the case for not discriminating against same-sex couples.  

Should we change the Fourth Amendment of the constitution to make sure gay couples cannot marry, asked the minister?  The minister pointedly asked should we be putting people’s rights up for a vote, and then compares this to putting minority rights up for a vote.  I am not sure if he is right - that if you put minority rights up for a vote in the south, the people would strike down civil rights laws -  nevertheless, his point about whether this is an issue where a Christian has to be on the side of the ban is correct.  I have said that in my view, this is a conservative issue.  If you call yourself a conservative, and want smaller government, then I am not sure why you want the government to be big enough to ban gay marriage.  Those opposed are not happy with just making it illegal, they want to make it illegal for a population to change that the law is illegal.  

I am not the expert on conservatism, but it does not make much sense to me to have a government so large that it can ban a person from marrying whom they want to, based on religion.  From what I gather it often comes down to the definition of marriage, which in the religious sense it is defined as a man and a woman.  However, to the non-religious, what in the constitution bars them from seeing it differently, and then acting on it.  If it cannot be proven that it is harmful for society, then one of the only ways (and most used), arguments advocating that same-sex marriage is wrong is to use a religious argument. 

What I hear often from people is that it is about tradition.  That is true, but it is a religious tradition, therefore, it is a religious argument.  Laws are written by men all the time that are not based in religious tradition.  Some are, but never in a way that can be argued that because God commands it, it must be so.

Society passes laws for the benefit of its citizenry.  Murder is against that law because the people need to be protected.  That is the fundamental difference between most laws and same-sex marriage.  There is not a clear moral argument against same-sex marriage outside of a religious argument.  Without the religious argument against same-sex marriage, what do opponents have? 

Arguments that do move outside the realm of religion often take the tact that same-sex marriage would harm society, based on the effect on society being a negative one – reduction in stable families and children growing up to be less productive - without any real evidence to prove this position. 

Another argument against same-sex marriage is that redefining marriage will “further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble due to high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births.  Moreover, many predict that giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.” 

Romney cannot get his Story Straight on Gay Marriage Issue

Political correctly reported today that Mitt Romney has continued to dodge the gay marriage issue, at time saying that it is a state issue, and other times saying he would fight for a federal ban on same sex marriages.  Conservatives like myself, ones who support gay marriage being legal, are not well liked by the echo chamber. Case in point, my recent banning from Red State.com (they tend to just get rid of dissent, and cater to their readers views, no matter how absurd they are).  Now if Romney thinks he is going to be able to straddle the issue like Obama has for the last three years, he has made a mistake. The reason Obama likely came out in support of gay marriage was to force Romney to take a stand one way or another.  

 To be honest, Obama's recent support for gay marriage was not that brave, he had little to lose.  Those who would not vote for him because of that issue are already planning to vote for Romney.  Romney, now he would have to stand up to his own party to come out and support gay marriage. This is something he has not shown the willingness to do, and when you see him giving lame excuses as to why he does not want to take a position in the issue.  If it is up to the state, then Romney cannot say he would support a federal ban on the issue. He is smart enough to understand this, so why did he not come out and just say he is against gay marriage, or say he is not going to decide one way or another. I think it is time this issue is dealt with, and I hope the next president can move the bar closer to equality.

Not only Indoctrinated Liberal's Support Gay Marriage, the State has too much Power as it is

A few days back I wrote a post here, and over at Red State that explained the reason I believed Romney should have used the instance of Ric Grenell (Romney’s former gay foreign policy advisor) leaving the campaign to push for toned down rhetoric coming from some of the people who were coming out harshly against the hireling. 

During this process, I let it be known that I am a person who is a supporter of gay marriage. I also said that DESPITE what happened Romney should have used this to talk to the voice of intolerance out there.  Many people had something to say, and I respect others views, even if they do not respect mine.  I find it hard to respect those who come with insupportable claims and ad hominem attacks. It is not that I am expecting to confront many literati on comment boards, but it would have been less liberal like to come with substantial arguments.    

Because I do feel this is an important topic, and an issue that is not going away, I decided that I would point out some of the things that were said to me, and provide a rebuttal.

First, I will start with the nonsense that people do when they have nothing valid to add to the conversation.  I have been called a liberal and told I was indoctrinated, which I guess by that logic, everyone is. How many people have not listened to others views?  I will cover more on that later in the post.  I am not trying to confront people, only ideas.  You can find them all here. 

I have been told these things here:

“The gay activists don’t just want tolerance they want everyone to submit to them.  They want everyone to embrace, condone, and help them indoctrinate people to see homosexuality not just “equal” but the same as heterosexuality by force.  They want the whole world to change to accommodate them, so they don’t feel bad about being gay.”

My answer would be “in what instance does a gay person ask that someone summits to them.  If asking for the right that everyone else has is the same as asking someone to submit to them, then how is it ok that anybody ever asked for their rights. This makes what our founders did a horrible thing, considering that at the time, they had chosen to do something that was against the law.  If this was true, then the whole debate over civil rights was attuned to wanting “the whole world to change to accommodate them, so they don’t feel bad about” about being (fill in the blank).

“Social conservatives in this country don’t want to stick gays in ovens or slaughter them.  They are the type of people who think everything can be fixed and corrected.

I am not sure who thinks social conservatives want these things; in fact, 9 times out of 10 I agree with the battle that social conservatives are fighting; just never when it requires government to force a prohibition on an individual’s rights, when it does not affect others.  Abortion kills babies, clear moral wrong, and in most people’s eyes if it happened out of the womb, retribution would be called for.  Gay marriage is not so black and white, so to speak.  There is not real evidence that says a gay people are a threat to society. Some people thought these same things about minorities, and the country did not fall apart, it became stronger. An ideology (socialism, liberalism) started the downward spiral, but not a group. 

        

“The “centrists” who think it is bad for a candidate to wear his religion on the sleeve are now the ones who want a guy like Romney to put on the rainbows and inverted purple triangles?  Get real”

I think this is an over generalization.  Supporting gay marriage does not even mean you support the lifestyle, only the person’s right to make that choice without government intervention.

Would Huckabee be a Wise choice as VP for Romney

Robert W. Patterson, over at philly.com, contends that for 20 years strategists have advised presidential campaigns to stay away from social issues, because they can be toxic in general elections.


He then states  that "Huckabee’s greatest asset would be his “killing-with-kindness” knack for negotiating the enduring social questions that bosses of both parties wish would go away but that resonate with heartland voters and played a central role in Rick Santorum’s remarkable second-place finish in the GOP contest. The gifted Southerner with working-class roots would be able to highlight the nexus between declining family demographics and a sputtering economy with a Ronald Reagan likability that neither Obama nor Romney possesses."


Where this may be true, it is also not likely going to happen.  I do not see Huck running as vice president, when he would not even run for the top of the ticket again.  Lets remember, the Huckster turned down a chance to be a national front runner for the nomination because he wanted to keep his show on Fox News, why should anybody believe that he is now willing to give up that spot to be Romney's VP.


Yesterday I wrote that I thought Romney missed out on a chance to tell social conservatives that his campaign is not about social issues, it is about fixing the countries economic troubles.  If the campaign is not about that, Obama will win.  The exact thing the Democrats want is for Romney to pick a social conservative as a VP, so they can scare the living crap out of everyone not against gay marriage, which is a growing population these days.


Rubio, Christie, Ryan, and Daniels have all been great statesmen.  They would all be smart choices for Romney to make, for different reasons each.  But I do not think Huckabee would be a wise choice, and I do not think he would do it if asked anyways.    

Romney Chose to Hide from the Voices of Intolerance, and that was the Wrong thing to do

The last few days have been pretty interesting when it comes to politics.  Mitt Romney made a huge mistake when he, or a member[s], of his team pushed out Ric Grenell, who is gay, and was his foreign policy spokesman.   


Michael Kinsley of Bloomberg News said this:

"Grenell was told to sit in on conference calls with reporters and not say anything, which is tantamount to firing him. He was told to be silent not merely on gay issues. He was told not to talk about anything, even foreign policy. A spokesman who is not allowed to speak -- even internally --doesn’t have much of a job. So Grenell quit, three weeks after he was hired."

This was a big mistake by team Romney, and that is the case even if Kinsley does not have the details exactly right.  


Team Romney was likely worried about the evangelical segment of the Republican Party, because many of them would not be OK with a gay person working for the nominee.  But that is where Romney made the big mistake, because this was a chance for him to separate himself from the social conservatives that really tend to scare the independent voter. 


If Romney would have went to Ric Grenell , asked him to say, and then given a speech about the importance of showing tolerance even when people do not agree with someones way of life, he would have taken the race to a whole new level. The support he may have lost in the evangelical community would have been offset by the respect he would have gained by everyone else, including the media.

Ted Cruz is the Candidate that You Want to Win

Are you standing with Ted Cruz, I am, because the United States Senate does not need another blue blood pseudo conservative, and that is what Dewhurst represents.



If you have not gone to tedcruz.com, then it is time you do. If you are not from Texas, you can
still have a say in this race.  Politics is often about money, whether we like it or not, it is the way it is.  Dewhurst has a lot of it, and he also has the backing of the Republican establishment.  Ted Cruz has the backing of conservatives.  That alone says enough about who Mr. Cruz is. I hope you take the time to find out, if you have yet to do so.

Newts Words Used Against Romney, Effectively I would Say

We knew it was coming, and frankly I am surprised this came this soon. I can tell you this, it is a powerful ad, and one that is not going to be easy to explain.  Newt Gingrich knew at the time he was doing Romney great damage if he was going to be the nominee, and frankly, the establishment was always going to push Romney hard.  Now what Romney has to do is have Newt come out and explain this away, but even that is easier said that done.  It is extremely difficult to go back once a candidate uses such harsh language. 


The thing is, we should not blame Newt for this. Romney is the one who started to go really negative during this cycle, and he is the one that had something to prove. The conservative base did not want him, and because of that, Romney came out very negative.  Newt became fed up, and started to hit back, but not only where it hurt him in the primaries, but also where it could potentially do damage to his prospects of beating President Obama.  But another way to look at it is that Romney did the same thing to Newt, so if Romney is angry over this ad, he need only look at himself as to why this happen.  Newt wanted to run a positive campaign based on issues. 


On the bright side, this primary did show us that Team Romney is willing to fight, and that is something they will need to do once the media goes into full blown attack Romney mode. 

Only in America can you See a Guy like Joe the Plumber Run for Congress, and likely Win

If you have not read the Article by Joe Wurzelbacher (Joe the Plumber) from over at Red State, you really should get to it.  If you do not remember Joe, he was the the guy who got Obama to admit that he wanted to spread wealth, even though he is often fond of saying that is not what he is trying to do.

"When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" Said President Obama. 

The fact that Joe the Plumber has a shot at being a Congressman is golden for two reasons, first being that he represents a moment when this president told the truth about what he wanted to do, and second, is that this is America, it is wonderful to see that no matter who you are, you have a shot at making yourself successful.  The government is not going to ever be the entity that fixed this country, it will always be the people.  Until we have a president that understands this, we will see anemic growth in our economy.  

In case you had the idea that Joe the Plumber does not get it, read this:

"Your burdensome and punishing regulations made sure that job-creating small businesses suffer like never before. And yet, through it all, your friends, bundlers, and campaign contributors seem to be doing just fine. Thanks to your “spread the wealth” message, we’ve got people “occupying” legitimate businesses and industries, terrorizing the children of business leaders in their own homes, and calling for government control of everything and everybody. I thought you’d like to hear how all that is working out for us out here in the real world."

You have to love the idea of a random guy walking up to the most powerful man in the world and asking him a question, not getting the answer he wanted, and then proceeding to run for a position in that same government so he could try to help people like himself.  Joe is the American Dream, maybe not the exact dream, but he represents what can be done if you take advantage of the opportunities you are given.  People can go to school, many people start business, because millionaire athletes, some own teams, and some even do all of these things.  Authors write books that lead to multi-million dollar franchises.  And that is the point, the government can do very little to help foster this, but can do a whole lot to limit it.

I am proud to say I endorse Joe the Plumber for the U.S. Congress. 

The Democrats not so Clandestine Role in Changing the Osama killing Narrative

President Obama wont give Bush the credit he should get, but the SEAL seem to be ready to speak up.

Amid all the talk of Romney’s lap of luxury, and the fictional statement where Romney supposedly said he would not have gone after Osama Bin Laden, many people are forgetting something: the men and women who really did all the real work when it comes to this important American success.  The intrepidity of all who fight should never be forgotten. 

In President Obama’s brazen attempt to use the killing of bin Laden to gain a political foothold in the area of foreign policy, he has sparked a conversation about who actually is responsible for finding and killing bin Laden.

There is no doubt that President Obama deserves credit for making the right call, and for anyone to try to deny him of that, should really just rethink the whole thing for a while.  However, for the President too not give credit to the men and woman who gave him the chance to make this choice, is just as asinine. 

 Jose A. Rodriguez Jr, who is the former Director of the National Clandestine Service (D/NCS) of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has an op-ed over at Washington Post that stakes the claim that without Bush era capturing and interrogations of al-Qaeda terrorist, none of this would even be talked about.  If Obama wants to say that Romney would not have killed bin Laden, the same can be said about him.  Obama may not have approved the methods that were used to gain the intelligence that led to bin Laden's whereabouts in Pakistan.  

   

Rodriguez rightly points out that when Obama was running for President, he had claimed that the methods that were used were “unproductive and contrary to American principles” and that the president was wrong on both counts.

“Shortly after bin Laden met his maker last spring, courtesy of U.S. Special Forces and intelligence, the administration proudly announced that when Obama took office, getting bin Laden was made a top priority.  Many of us who served in senior counterterrorism positions in the Bush administration were left muttering: “Gee, why didn’t we think of that?” said Rodriguez.

The Bush administration worked tirelessly to get bin Laden since before the attacks on 9/11.  President Obama team rightly made the choice to build onto information that was already available to his team. Rodriguez contends that they would not have gotten a chance to make the call to kill the most wanted terrorist if not for the capture of an al-Qaeda terrorist, one of them was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the terror organization’s operations in Iraq.  

According to Rodriguez, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was obstreperous and uncooperative, even after being taken to a CIA “Black Site” and it was only after using the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (not waterboarding) did he tell Rodriguez and his team that bin Laden had stopped communicating by anything other than using one courier who went by the name of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.  Armed with the pseudonym of bin Laden’s courier, they went and asked other detainees if they had ever heard of the name.  Apparently, Khalid Sheik Mohammed damn near freaked out when he was confronted with the name, and interrogators later intercepted communications between KSM and other inmates at the black site saying that the other inmates were not to talk about the courier.

Paul Ryan would be a Wonderful VP Choice for Romney

It is always fun to watch Debbie Wasserman-Schultz attempt to debate people on Obama care, because she just loves to ignore facts.  So I decided to post two videos of Paul Ryan easily putting her talking points to task.
    
It is just strange that the Democrats constantly put her out there, when she seems to constantly get schooled by the grown ups in the Republican Party.  I guess when you argue from a position of weakness, the only outcome that is going to consistently happen is child like behavior from Democrats.  War on women, war on children, war on college students, war on medicare, war on seniors, and war on Obama.  This is all Democrats seem to do, they do not want to argue over facts, so they have to attempt to scare voters.


If you watched the videos, you may already be thinking this, but Ryan would be an effective VP choice for Mitt Romney to make.  For all the liberals hyperbole about Ryan being toxic because of his budget fixing bills, the truth is he is skilled at the debate. Ryan understands that Congress always waters down bill to the point that they really have know affect on fixing the deficit, so it is better to start the debate at a place that is far more than you actually think you are going to get from the Senate. 


Why would that be?