Romney Running Mate Talk (Part 2)

With Mitt Romney close to officially clinching the Republican nomination, talk of his potential running mate pick has heated up.  The Drive-By Media, as usual, is calling the bad ideas brilliant and the good ideas bad. According to them, if you're wimpy and moderate, you're perfect, if you're solidly conservative and strong enough to call out Obama, you're a bad option for Mitt.

Genuine political wisdom for Republicans is to ignore the Drive-By Media's suggestions and go the opposite way, so that's what I'm about to recommend. So here comes some real, solid recommendations (and non-recommendations) for Romney's #2, categorized as Good Ideas, Bad Ideas, and Wild Cards (essentially good ideas that are unlikely to happen).  Today we'll continue with part two, Bad Ideas:

Bad Ideas

1. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: Yes, I know a few conservatives love Governor Christie (looking at you, Ann Coulter) and I know he's a Republican rock star. And yes, he has the stones to attack Obama, which the Romney camp needs.  But there are a few reasons why Governor Christie is a bad idea for Romney.  For one, he's a fellow Northeastern Republican. He's also a moderate on many issues.  He's pro-choice and pro-gun control, to name two.  He can't help Romney win the South and he doesn't have the genuine conservative credentials to balance our Romney's perceived moderateness.

2. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush:  Yes, I know Governor Bush can deliver Florida.  But his name alone needs to discount him. President Obama wants to run against "Bush" as best he can anyway. It doesn't matter that he means former President George W. Bush and not Jeb. Giving Obama the ability to run against "Bush" is a horrible idea. Furthermore, the Bush name stands for two things in the GOP: the Republican Establishment and moderateness. Both Jeb's brother and father governed as moderates in many ways. Both set back conservatism. We do not need another Bush, friends. Period.

3. Ohio Senator Rob Portman:  Yes, Senator Portman is, unlike the above two names, a solid conservative. He also makes Mr. Rogers look like Mick Jagger. He actually manages to be even more boring than Mitt Romney, which is an accomplishment. (As Al Gore how picking someone even more boring than you worked out for him when he picked a running mate?)

4. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels: Governor Daniels manages to put the issues of Christie and Bush together with the issues of Portman: He's BOTH moderate AND boring! He also doesn't want the job. Not much else to say there.

5. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty:  T-Paw has the same problem Congressman Portman has...he's dryer than toast and about as exciting. Like Portman, he has conservative credentials, but he's not the attack dog Mitt needs to win and he doesn't balance out Governor Romney's perceived roboticness.

---------

Any of these five men would make terrible picks for Governor Romney's running mate.  It would be as if the Romney Campaign asked President Obama who he'd pick for the Romney campaign to make his re-election campaign easier.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about the Wild Cards.  All of these people are good options but are also unlikely.

Romney Running Mate Talk (Part 1)

With Mitt Romney close to officially clinching the Republican nomination, talk of his potential running mate pick has heated up.  The Drive-By Media, as usual, is calling the bad ideas brilliant and the good ideas bad. According to them, if you're wimpy and moderate, you're perfect, if you're solidly conservative and strong enough to call out Obama, you're a bad option for Mitt.

Genuine political wisdom for Republicans is to ignore the Drive-By Media's suggestions and go the opposite way, so that's what I'm about to recommend. So here comes some real, solid recommendations (and non-recommendations) for Romney's #2, categorized as Good Ideas, Bad Ideas, and Wild Cards (essentially good ideas that are unlikely to happen).  Today we'll start with part one, Good Ideas:

Good Ideas

1. Florida Senator Marco Rubio:  Despite the Drive-By Media's attempts to say otherwise, Rubio would be an absolute home run. He's popular in Florida, so he can help nail down that critical state.  He's a proper and genuine conservative, and one who can effectively communicate the message of conservatism.  People who hear Senator Rubio speak are reminded of President Ronald Reagan. He also can deliver that crucial conservative support (not just votes, but strong support both financially and emotionally).  He can also deliever strength with the Hispanic vote. Finally, since we know the Vice President is usually the heir apparent, he can give conservatives the hope they need to recognize that Romney is a stop-gap, but someone better is on the horizon.

2. Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan:  Ryan is the man who proposed a real change in our spending and put forth a plan really rein in spending and put our nation on a solid fiscal path. He also can bring in an important swing state in Wisconsin, where Ryan is well supported. And like Rubio, he can give conservatives the hope they need to recognize that Romney is a stop-gap, but someone better is on the horizon as the heir apparent when Romney is done.

3. Congressman (and retired Colonel) Allen West:  Colonel West has the strength to go after Obama and the Florida connection to help win that crucial state. He also has the military strength and experience that can help Romney when elected in matters of Defense.  He's also a solid co nservative with no fear of attacking Obama.  Further, like Rubio and Ryan, he can give conservatives the hope they need to recognize that Romney is a stop-gap, but someone better is on the horizon as the heir apparent when Romney is done.  Perhaps most importantly, he can give socially conservative African-Americans the emotional type of support to vote their conscience while not feeling like they have to vote for Obama because of his race. (Sad but true fact).

4. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindall:  Governor Jindall is solidly conservative and well spoken. He's an American success story, like Senator Rubio, the first generation of his family born in America.  He's got a Deep South connection as governor of Louisiana and solid conservative credentials. Further, like Rubio, Ryan, and West he can give conservatives the hope they need to recognize that Romney is a stop-gap, but someone better is on the horizon as the heir apparent when Romney is done. 

---------

Any one of these four would make a great VP pick for Governor Romney. They all are solid conservatives that will help Mitt get the conservative backing he genuinely needs, both financial and emotional, to get conservatives to fight for him at work, at home, and with their friends.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about the Bad Ideas (you know, the people the Drive-By Media calls "Good Ideas"). 

Plenty of Liberals Support SE Cupp Against Hustler, but Where is N.O.W.?

For those of you who missed it, Hustler magazine recently published a faked pornographic picture of conservative columnist S.E. Cupp and is now hiding behind "free speech." Now I must admit I was not there, nor is my DeLorean time machine ready (my big hangup has been perfecting the flux capacitor), but I do not believe our founding fathers intended the 1st Amendment to be used to photoshop a woman into a sexualized situation without her permission. Just a guess.

Hustler's big claim has been "it's satire." Yeah.  That's the definition of satire. Memo to Mel Brooks: Next time you want to make fun of the lack of an English accent in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, instead of making a witty and intelligent parody film, instead just take a picture of Kevin Costner and photoshop him into a pornographic image. That's apparently the new definition of satire.

When I heard this story, my first reaction was "I'll bet we won't see any liberal publications, feminists, or N.O.W. rebuking this tasteless attack on a conservative woman." I'm pleased to say I was only 1/3 correct.

- Liberal Feminist Gloria Steinem said this: ""As another of the countless women who have been attacked, defamed and endangered by Larry Flynt and Hustler over the years, I am proud to stand with S.E. Cupp and defend her right to free speech and respect."

Gloria Steinem, Women’s Media Center Denounce Hustler Attack On Conservative Commentator

- On her Twitter feed, Sandra Fluke, the woman who was the subject of a major news story a few months ago regarding birth control said:  "@HustlerMag depiction of @secupp so offensive. Sexualization of female public (figures) attempts to limit them to being sexual figures and (nothing) more."

- Even liberal Salon.com got into the fight to defend S.E. Cupp...although they also got upset about Cupp and other conservatives in the Media making the same guess I did that the Liberal Media wouldn't support Ms. Cupp.

I think I stand with all conservatives in saying "IT'S ABOUT TIME!" It's about time you people got off the bench and defended a conservative woman when she is attacked in a manner that, if even 10% of the equivalent attack was levied against Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama, would have been the subject of tremendous outcry. However, this time, the Left primarily got it right. Even The View and Whoppi Goldberg defended S.E. Cupp! 

Of course, conspicuous by it's absence is N.O.W.  Where is the National Organization for Women?  The sound of crickets is drowning them out.  Even on something so blatantly sexist, N.O.W. can't be found. Might as well change their name to N.O.L.W. (National Organization for Liberal Women) because honestly they don't seem to care when a conservative is attacked.  Apparently you don't qualify as a woman if you're conservative, according to N.O.W.  That's the attitude, right?  Because apparently real women wouldn't be opposed to abortion or against Planned Parenthood.  That's sad.

For the record, I agree that S.E. Cupp is a beautiful woman.  She is also intelligent and witty (and yes, a New York Mets fan).  Noticing this and appreciating it isn't a problem. Having a "celebrity crush" on her isn't a problem either.  However, this isn't what Hustler did. Hustler has degraded a woman in a manner they wouldn't dare do to a liberal woman. This is unacceptable. 

I stand with S.E. Cupp and I applaud the media outlets, including some liberal ones who I have disagreed with many times like Salon.com and Gloria Steinem.  Thank you for doing the right thing. As for N.O.W., all I can say is shame on you. Women do not need N.O.W. If they can't cross party lines for this, then they are useless to the cause of genuine feminism. Period.

An Open Letter to Pastor Charles L. Worley

If you haven't seen the video already, Southern Baptist Charles L. Worley called for for death to "queers and homosexuals." It is my prayer that this Open Letter reach Pastor Worley as a loving rebuke from one Christian to another. In that regard, I do hope you will help this letter on it's way to the Pastor that this loving rebuke might come to his eyes, as instructed by 1 Corinthinans 5:12.

Dear Pastor Worley:

I am writing this open letter as a fellow Christian, following what I believe is the requirements set forth for Christians to correct other Christians when they fail to live up to the high standards of Jesus Christ.

I found your statements calling for death to ""queers and homosexuals."  As a Christian, I find this attitude appaling, not because I agree with homosexuality or gay marriage, but because I believe, as the old adage says, "Thus, but for the grace of God, go I," and so do you, my friend.

I know I am a repentant sinner, not a perfect person, and that I was guilty of sin but that I am no more, not because I am righteous but because of the spotless blood of Jesus Christ, my Savior and Lord who took the penalty for my sin on the cross at Calvary so that I wouldn't have to pay my own penalty.

Your theology on sin is not wrong, my brother. But here is where you are wrong: You too are a sinner, one washed in the blood of the Lamb, as I am, and declared righteous by Christ through faith.  I would like to remind you of what the Apostle Paul wrote:

 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NKJV) (Emphasis Added)

Were you a thief before you were saved? Even once? Did you covet before you were saved, even once?  Your speech alone qualifies you as a reviler, my friend. We were all lost sinners before we were saved by the Blood of Jesus, my friend. Or did you forget:

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. - Romans 3:23-24 (NKJV) (Emphasis Added)

Do you recall the actions of our Lord Jesus with the woman caught in adultery?

³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, ent out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” 
- John 8:3-11 (New King James Version)

Pastor, I must say you are missing the entire point of our faith. 

I understand your frustration in the way some Christians have failed.  Certain of the more liberal elements of our faith focus on "Does no one condemn you...neither do I" and they are wrong for ignoring that Jesus did call people to repentance. I share in your frustration at this attitude among Christians, forgetting that important addition "Go and sin no more."

However, you failing to recall the mercy that our Lord showed this woman. Clearly, Jesus hated the sin. He did not say "keep committing adultery, that's just fine I accept you anyway." But, and this is important, if He followed your dictum, Christ himself would have cast that first stone at her.  He did not.

Our God is a God who separates His love of a person from his anger at their actions. Christ saw people and He also saw sins.  Separately. He hated the sins, but He loved the sinners...like you and me, for example. While we may not be guilty of one particular sin, it doesn't mean that the sins that we are tempted with are somehow worse.  (I know of a pastor who has said to me on multiple occasions that he wishes that all sin was as unenticing to him as the sin of homosexuality...I share that sentiment with him.)  I am, however, tempted with other sins. 

Remember, I pray, the gift that you received...and that it is not your own righteousness, for only one who is righteous on his own can rail on PEOPLE with such visciousness.  Until that day, I pray that you will remember that you were a beggar once too...one who was shown where to find bread...and then remember that your goal should be to show more beggars where the bread is, instead of demanding other beggars be killed.

In Christ,

Christopher C. Bastedo - Editor of Biblical Conservatism

You CAN Judge a Book by it's Cover...(Sometimes)

Wait...what?  Hear me out, friends...

We've been told for years "You can't judge a book by it's cover."  Unfortunately, this takes away one of mankind's best resources for judging reality...discernment.  Some might even call it "discrimination," and accurately if you're using the proper definition of this word. (When going to cross the street, you do discriminate whether or not it is best to cross at that moment given the amount of cars coming or lack thereof.)  So let's talk about when it is okay to judge a book by it's cover, shall we?

For the record, it is not okay to judge a person by their biological features. The most prominent example is skin tone.  It is wrong to make a judgement call about a person based on race. (Or hair color, or eye color, or any other biological trait.) Where it is perfectly reasonable to judge a person is their own choices. In other words, it's perfectly acceptable to judge a book by it's cover IF the book chose it's own cover!

Many people assume that if they are uncomfortable around a black person who is dressed like a thug, it must be some inherent racial bias in themselves.  They then proceed to feel guilty about it. (I admit I had that issue too at one point.) Then I realized something...when I saw a person who looked like this:

Source: http://menzclub.blogspot.com/2009/01/alfani-three-button-black-pinstripe.html



I felt absolutely no fear or discomfort. Shortly after, I also saw a man who looked like this:

Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/white-supremacist-gang-member-sentenced-to-death-.html

My ingrained warning signals fired to at least be aware that there might be a problem. I was concerned, and thought that I at least might need to be afraid.

It turned out it wasn't the race of a person that caused me to be afraid...otherwise I'd be uncomfortable around the man in the top picture and perfectly comfortable around the man in the bottom picture. That wasn't the case.  The man on the top was biologically born with very high quantities of melanin in his skin (for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that means he is a black man). The man on the bottom was born with very low quantities of melanin in his skin (for those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that means he is a white man).

These traits were not choices. It would be wrong to judge them by that "cover."  Yet there are other "covers" that are valid to judge a person by on each man...covers that were choices.

The man in the top picture made a choice: he chose to be clean cut, free of gang symbol tattoos etc, and wear a suit and a tie. He is also wearing a smile...a warm smile at that...which suggests he is a friendly person. In my experience, men who are clean cut with no gang symbol tattoos and a suit and tie are rarely to be feared. Actually, these "covers" are a sign of an upstanding citizen, irregardless of their skin color.

The man in the bottom picture also made a choice: he chose to have a tattoo on his neck bearing the symbol of the Schutzstaffel, aka the NAZI SS. He further chose to cut his hair in a mohawk style* (specifically at the age of I would guess 45 years old) and have a menacing look on his face.  All of these traits, at least in conjunction with the each other, suggests a person who an upstanding citizen like myself should be wary around.

Each of these two men made choices with their appearance. They are communicating something about themselves nonverbally...in the case of the man in the top picture it is a communication of "fine, upstanding citizen" and in the case of the man in the bottom picture it is, for lack of a better term, "criminal." Both men made a choice to do this, whether it was in the clothes they put on in the morning or the tattoos they choose to have put on their body. Granted, I have chosen extreme examples. However, the same rule applies to me when I see these four men:

        

        

The two men on the left do not concern me. (Granted the man in the top left's choice of clothing does tell me this guy might be a hipster, but then again, I've never been concerned about being attacked by a hipster.) The two men on the right do. Their skin tone doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's their choice of covers.

Once again, the issue here is choices of clothing. People do make a choice of how they present themselves. It can have positive or negative consequences. When I was a manager of a restaurant, one aspect of my job was interviewing prospective employees.  The way an interviewee chose to present themselves made a big difference.  If you showed up to your job interview in a baseball cap with pants around your knees and a t-shirt and a huge gold necklace, guess what, you didn't have a snowball's chance in July of being hired. You know why? Because you CHOSE not to present yourself professionally. Your choice presented yourself as someone I do not want to hire. Keep in mind, however, I did not judge someone who wore a collared shirt that was shabby over one that was new differently...I assumed that was the best shirt that individual could afford.

So before you start believing tropes like "you can't judge a book by it's cover" ask yourself this: Is the cover the result of a choice or the result of biology? If the cover is a result of biology and you judge a person by it, then shame on you. However, if your judgement of a "book by it's cover" is based on a choice a person made, then guess what...you have chosen to present yourself that way. That's your choice. And I'm justified in judging someone by that choice.  After all, you put on that cover.

*Specifically, I am concerned when a 45-50 year old man is wearing a mohawk.  When a teenager wears that haircut or someone in a rock band it is not a sign to be wary in my opinion.

Dear Mitt: Don't Try to Be Civil with an Uncivil Opponent

Last week, presumptive GOP Nominee Mitt Romney asked a Super PAC that supports him to not run a political ad that would speak about President Obama's longterm spiritual relationship with controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright. As someone who has told Governor Romney that he absolutely must continue the level of political attack ads that he ran during the primary campaign, I'm thoroughly displeased with the Governor.

I know what the attitude is from the Romney campaign..."we've got to be civil...that way we'll reach those people who clamor for civility." There's only one problem, which I have covered so many times on Biblical Conservatism:

Saying "I wish the election could just be about ideas and not mudslinging" is one of those great statements that self-described "moderates" who "make up their mind on each issue" use to sound intelligent. They are also the same people who will believe it when the Drive-By Media tells them that Rick Santorum wants to take away women's birth control or that Herman Cain sexually harrassed women even though the individuals who made the claims are either annonymous or have a history of making false sexual harrassment claims. They will be convinced when Obama starts telling fairytales about Bane Capital.

The fact of the matter is President Obama WILL run an attack campaign. There is no question about it. He will lie about his record or outright ignore it and instead make this campaign about Romney personally rather than his own failures. Moreover, President Obama and his campaign will have a hair trigger on the race card. He will play it at will, and frankly there is absolutely nothing Governor Romney can do to avoid it.  The Left will make something up when real evidence doesn't present itself.

So Governor Romney, in the words of Mickey from "Rocky"...GET UP AND FIGHT THIS GUY HARD!  The President will not allow a campaign of ideas because HE WILL LOSE. He has to instead demonize you because he knows that on the issues he is a one-term President for sure. Do not let the President limit your ability to fight back. Ultimately, it will not help you...the same "moderates" will believe whatever the Drive-By Media tells them to believe, which will be the Obama talking points. So darn it all fight back, and you will win the Presidency.

Media Bias Watch: Turns Out George Zimmerman's Story Was True...

Media bias is back on parade, my friends, and this time it's shown in the new evidence that has come out in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.

For the record, until this point I've basically refused to give me thoughts on this case. I felt there was insufficient evidence and I was simply unwilling to get on board with either side until I knew more. In the meantime, I've watched the Drive-By Media use this case to make up for every slight of the Civil Rights movement.  Whether it was showing pictures of Travon Martin when he was twelve and showing pictures of George Zimmerman's mug shot or continually begging the question of why Zimmerman never went to the doctor the day after the alleged attack from Martin occurred followed by Zimmerman's admitted killing of Martin (allegedly in self defense). 

Now the truth has come out:  Zimmerman DID go to the doctor the day after the incident and furthermore, his injuries along with the autopsy on Trayvon Martin paint a picture that clearly back up his story. 

According to court documents, Zimmerman's injuries included: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, that means "Evidence of a severe beating."
Also according to court documents, Martin's injuries included: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.

Consider a few things, friends.  One, it takes considerable force to break the skin on the knuckles.  You have to be beating the snot out of somebody to do that. Meanwhile, Martin did not have any signs of being hit by Zimmerman. His only wounds are the presumably self-caused wounds from striking Zimmerman and the gunshot wound. In other words, only Martin was landing blows on Zimmerman, and judging by Zimmerman's medical report they were severe blows.

While we're at it, let's talk about how the Prosecution in this case has established it's own prima facie case (for those of you without degrees in Communications that means proof "at first look," in other words without hearing the other side responding):

 The Prosecution's brief says "Zimmerman “confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." Now, "confronting" does not mean "attacking," friends.  (Remember, this is an attorney writing this brief so trust me, if they meant "attacked" they would've said so.)  When I managed a retail store years ago, I remember I once saw a child of about 10 or 11 years old slowly walking out of my store, trying (poorly) to look casual with his hands in his pockets. I asked him to empty his pockets at which point I found two bottles of chocolate milk the boy was attempting to shoplift. I had just confronted the boy. (For those of you who are wondering, I did let the boy go without calling the police because he was, after all, just a kid.) I did not tackle the child or attack him. I simply stood in front of him and said "what are you doing?" Considering that Zimmerman was a member of local Neighborhood Watch and was on patrol, I'd say that's reasonable, yes?

Now there's the claim that Zimmerman used the racial slur "f***ing coon" on the 9-1-1 call. Actually, when the audio was played, highly enhanced, it sounds like he said that it was "f***ing COLD."  (By the way, friends, that's liberal CNN, before you Fox News haters start on that line.)  Honestly, even if it was proven that Zimmerman held racial anger toward African-Americans, it doesn't mean he's a murderer.

Either way, the evidence for this is pretty slim, especially since he is of multi-ethnic decent: Zimmerman's mother is primarily Peruvian (that's from Peru...aka Latino, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) and his father is caucasian. Usually TONS of racism comes from children from multi-racial families (sarcasm).  Oh, and by the way, Zimmerman's great-grandfather on his mother's side was black.  Whoops!

Everything I've just noted has only come out in the Drive-By Media over the last few days.  It's not like the medical report wasn't there to be found. It wasn't like a tiny bit of investigative journalism couldn't have yielded this information, such as the fact that Zimmerman was severely beaten as well as Zimmerman's ethnicity. Then again, I don't suppose I should expect better from the same Drive-By Media that tells us that a man whose mother is Peruvian (Zimmerman) is in fact white but at the same time tells us that Elizabeth Warren (who is supposedly 1/32 Cherokee) is legitimately American Indian.

Those of you who keep telling there's no bias in the media, I'd like to present exhibit one billion for the affirmative. Stupid facts. They always get in the way of liberal talking points.

Obama Edits Himself Into History to Gain Support



Picture Source http://www.foxnews.com/


In a move that reminds this blogger of nothing more than the movie "Forrest Gump," the Obama Administration has now edited the White House Website's biographies of former Presidents, adding in details about President Obama.  Some of them are harmless tidbits which would've been appropriate for any President like:

President Reagan designated Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; today the Obama Administration honors this tradition, with the First and Second Families participating in service projects on this day.

Fine. No problem. Fun fact of the history of a national holiday and a comment about how the current occupant of the White House continues the tradition. 

Unfortunately, there are other examples that are no where near so appropriate (or accurate) and are a clear attempt to co-opt and rewrite history to make past Presidents who were beloved sound like Obama.

-----
Here's one of the most egregious from Ronald Reagan's page:

In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.
This quote ignores history completely, taking Reagan out of context. The truth is this: When Reagan gave this speech, the top marginal tax rate was 50% and Reagan ultimately cut that rate to 28%. He did, however, eliminate significant numbers of tax loopholes and deductions that made it possible for people in that 50% bracket to pay 0% of their income in taxes, meanwhile middle class taxpayers paid 10% of their income in taxes.

Reagan's solution was to reduce the rate to 28% but to expect people in those brackets to actually PAY that rate. Quite reasonable, actually. Reagan in essence said "We're going to cut rates to 28%, but we're also going to expect you to pay it." That was Reagan's "fair share." Obama's "fair share" is "The 35% you're paying isn't enough, so pay 50%."

-----

Here's another blatantly political inclusion, this time from Harry Truman's page:

In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has "an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama Administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.

Look at that! President Obama is the great anti-discrimination President, right? Never mind the fact that race is absolutely 100% certain a matter of biology and genetics, something that cannot be said with any honesty about sexual orientation.  But hey, whatever it takes to make Obama smell like a rose, right?  I suppose I should be pleased that the White House didn't equate the decision to send in Navy SEALs after Bin Laden to Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb.

-----

This one is from Lyndon Johnson's page:

President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.

Wow, so Obamacare is JUST LIKE Medicare! Okay, not really, since there is no such thing as "no cost-sharing" in any service in the World...seniors are just paying for it (along with the rest of us) in taxes, instead of in the form of a co-pay.

-----

This is from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's page:

On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.

This one is just a blatant lie. President Obama hasn't done a darn thing to save Social Security for coming generations, save for cut the primary fuding of it with his continuing Payroll Tax holidays and pretending that we can just raise taxes to make this program soluable. Nice try, Mr. President.

-----

As I said above, most of the edits are quite harmless, like the comment above about Martin Luther King Day or this quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower's page:

President Dwight Eisenhower established the President's Council on Youth Fitness on July 16, 1956 (now known as The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports) after learning from a study that American youth were less fit than European youth. Today the Council is still going strong—with Olympians and professional athletes on board—working in conjunction with the First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiativeto help promote healthier lifestyles.

(Again, I should be surprised the President didn't equate his orders to go get Osama Bin Laden with teh Normandy Invasion.)

However, there are also the above four which are blatantly political and often rewriting history. I'm surprised there aren't also doctored videos of President Obama telling President Kennedy that he's "gotta pee" or telling stories about Obama somehow being the one who broke the Watergate scandal with a call about a flashlight in a window.  The fact is the President is doing his best to edit himself into history.  I guess that's because he hasn't done anything in terms of policy worth bragging about on it's own? I'll let you decide.

Obama is losing Independents, Women

The writing is beginning to show up on the wall...even in liberal polls. In a New York Times/CBS Poll released this week, Mitt Romney is now beating the President by a rate of 46% to 43% overall with all registered voters (remember, once you eliminate the 30% or so of registered voters who don't show up to vote, Republicans usually gain 2-3%). 

More troubling for President Obama is this: Romney is defeating Obama 43% to 36% with Independent voters....a 7% margin of victory, comfortably outside the margin of error. Furthermore, Governor Romney is beating President Obama with women 46% to 44% (within the margin of error, but still statistically tied). The President's lead also shrunk to a statistical tie with Adults 18-45 years old; he now leads Governor Romney 46% to 44%.  (This all happens while Mitt Romney isn't yet officially the Republican nominee.)

Compare that to the same poll in April (conducted with the same people, as explained by the poll) where the President was statistically tied with Governor Romney on Independents (Romney lead Obama 42% to 41%) and was winning comfortably with women (Obama lead Romney 49% to 42%).  With adults 18-45, a key demographic for the President as he needs to win the votes of people too young to have figured out the failures of liberalism yet (in April the President lead Governor Romney by a comfortable enough margin, 50% to 42%.)

This is bad news for President Obama, friends, very bad news. If the President loses Independents by a 9% margin, his loss overall will be significant. If the President can't carry women, his loss overall will be significant. If the President can't win adults under 45 years old and do so significantly (by at least 5-10%), he doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of a second term.

When the New York Times is admitting Obama's weakness, that should tell you something. That's precisely what the Times is doing. So let's focus on pushing Governor Romney to the right, friends, because in 2013 it looks like President Romney will be inaugurated. Not a moment too soon, my friends.

Obama's Being Lauded for Doing Nothing on Gay Marriage

Last week, President Obama gave his "decision" on the gay marriage issue.  In short, he said, "I believe we should extend marriage to homosexual couples, however, I do not believe this is a Federal issue and should be handled by the states."  Translation: The President wants to be thought of as progressive on the gay marriage issue, but doesn't have the juevos to support doing anything about it.

I don't intend to talk about feelings on this issue.  To quickly rehash my previous statements:  I believe the word marriage has a specific meaning, that it is a faith based institution and that it is between a man and a woman.  Also you should know that I respect the Constiutions equal protection clause enough to say that the best solution is to either a) create a separate institution with similar rights for gay couples or b) simply remove the word marriage entirely from the legal license and make all legal unions "Civil Unions."

What President Obama knows...what everyone should know really...is that this nation is not in favor of extending the meaning of marriage beyond one man and one woman.   Yes, I realize that polls recently are showing a shift in this debate...but there's just one problem: This never bears out any time the subject of gay marriage goes on a state wide ballot!  Even in California, one of if not the most liberal state in this country, voted to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2008.  The states where some form of gay marriage has been legalized

My best conjecture on this is that people are not willing to say "no I do not believe marriage should be extended to everyone" in a poll, where another person is listening to their response and quite possibly judging that statement...but when they get into that polling booth, just them and their conscience and faith, they vote their conscience and vote no.

So what the President has done, in essence, is say "All you people who agree with gay marriage, I'm with you, but all you people who disagree with gay marriage, I'm not going to go against your wishes with any legislation."  Translation: President Obama hasn't done a darn thing. He's not supporting gay marriage in anything but words. He's not advancing legislation in any way. He's not making any decision. He's wimping out.

So to those of you who are applauding President Obama's decision, please hear me: President Obama did nothing.  He expressed his support and then promised not to back that support with any of his Presidential authority. The President is trying to ride two horses with one rear end, yet again. I hope you will wisely not be swayed by it.

Obama loses ground with Likely Voters over Registered Voters in Polls

Another detail we can glean is the difference between registered voter polls and likely voter polls. Ignoring how clearly doctored two of the included registered voter polls are, the average of registered voter polls is Obama 46%, Romney 44%. But likely voter polls from the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average is Romney 48% to Obama's 46%. That means a net swing for Romney of +4% once we go from registered voters to likely voters!

Then there's that once in a while poll that someone tries to put up that asks all adults, regardless of if they're even eligible to vote.National Journal did that a few weeks back. They found in a poll of adults that 47% preferred Obama to 39% who preferred Romney.  But this was just plain adults! What percentage weren't even registered to vote? Let's compare.

Please note the following polls are 2 plus weeks old. We're just giving a baseline comparison.

That week, the average of polls of registered voters showed the President beating Governor Romney 47.625% to 44.75% (within the typical margin for error). The one poll off likely voters showed Governor Romney beating President Obama 47% to 44%.

So to look at the swing, the margins went from +8% for Obama with all adults to about +3% in favor of the President with registered voters but a +3% victory for Governor Romney over the President with likely voters.

So when you go from adults to to likely voters, you go from a +8% victory for Obama with adults (including people who don't get to vote because they aren't registered) to a +3% victory for Governor Romney with the people who are likely to show the heck up to vote.

This is yet another example of liberal poll doctoring, friends. They are using the groupings that are most favorable to the President followed by using polling samples that are skewed toward Democrats.

Here's the bottom line, as I discussed yesterday. The Drive-By Media wants to dishearten conservatives and Republicans. They want us to believe Obama will be re-elected and we might as well give up. But the reality is Obama is very weak and is highly vunerable for electoral defeat. Don't believe the hype. Or the cooked polls. Obama is expecting defeat in 2012. We should too.

Gender is Immaterial in the Abortion Debate

If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me my Pro-Life stance was invalid because I was a man, I'd be incredibly wealthy. I bet a lot of you are in the same place, yes?  However, it's at best a sidestep argument intending to push one's opponent out of the debate. Ultimately it's an issue of requiring an unreasonable level of connection to an issue to even discuss the topic, not to mention a way of validiation of ignoring reasonable objections to maintain one's own position.

Now this isn't the case for all, and frankly most, of the people who use this argument. Actually, the real perpetrators of this argument are those who began to use this defense of abortion. It's not hard to win an argument when you automatically remove half of your opponents from the field, especially when men of the Pro-Abortion ilk are not told their opinion isn't valid.  It's an issue of allowing the other side to set the premise of the debate, one we must not allow.

This is so critical, because  we must not allow the Pro-Abortion lobby to wipe away the objections of men because of what our objection to abortion is in the first place!  Our objection to abortion is that we believe a human being is a human being, whether born or unborn, and that destroying an innocent human being is always murder. Being (hypothetically) the mother of the child vs. the father has absolutely nothing to do with the situation!

Let's imagine we all woke up this morning and opened our favorite online newspaper (or perhaps hard copy newspaper if you're one of the seventeen people who still read the hard copy paper while also still consuming blogs like this one) and read this headline: "Father Smothers 6-year old son with Pillow."  Would anyone consider it a valid statement to say to a woman, "You know what? You're not a man so you can't possibly understand why a father would snap like that and kill his child!"  Absolutely nobody would accept this argument!  Nor should they. It does not require someone to be male or be a father to believe it's reprehensible for a parent to murder their child. Period.

Yet somehow the Pro-Abortion lobby wants us to suspend our own personal outrage at destroying an innocent human being because we don't have a uterus. It's silly. Our issue is protecting a human life. That's the issue. We can have an honest and open debate about it without having to disregard someone's valid opinion because of their gender. It's a false rejection of a position.

Bottom line, if you're going to debate with somebody, don't disregard positions for such frivolity as gender. Especially when the question at hand genuinely ought to be "is that unborn child human," with the logical conclusion being "if the child is human, abortion is wrong, if the child is not human, abortion is fine."

Unfortunately, debate on this premise is not going to help the pro-abortion lobby's position in the least, because the most logical conclusion is, at least for now, fall on the side of caution. It is better to protect something that isn't human than to accidentally destroy something that is human.

Obama is losing, so the Drive-By Media Cooks Some Polls

It's happening, friends. The Drive-By Media is releasing cooked poll after cooked poll to show President Obama as stronger than he really is in head to head polls against Mitt Romney.  We talked about it in late April when the offender was NBC.  This time we have two offenders: Reuters/Ipsos and Tipp Online. Both have Obama beating Romney. Both have skewed poll samples to favor Obama.

Important to note is what these two polls do to the Real Clear Politics average.  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, what Real Clear Politics (henceforce referred to as RCP) does is take all polls in a given election and give a straight average, whether the poll is of adults, registered voters, or likely voters.) What these two polls have done is given the President a slim lead in the RCP average of 46.2% to Romney's 46%. (So close it's a statistical tie.) However, this includes our two doctored polls. More on this later.

Before we go into the two polls, let's once again set the baseline in this country for conservatives, moderates, and liberals. As I've said so many times before, this is far more accurate than naming party affiliation, because so many people in the South especially are still registered as Democrats but vote conservative...holdovers from a past where a conservative Democrat was a real thing. However, it is reasonable to presume that conservatives will vote Republican and liberals will vote Democrat, leading the moderates as the group who may or may not vote down their party line or be a swing voter.

So, in 2011, Gallup did, as in past years, conduct a series of polls to establish the ideological demographics of this nation. In January 2012 Gallup published their National Ideology Poll.  At that time, 40% of Americans self-identified as conservative, 35% self-identified as moderate and 21% self-identified as liberal.  So a legitimate assumption would be to presume 40% of Americans to lean Republican and only 21% to lean Democrat. Even if we assume 20% of those moderates are true swing voters (as conventional wisdom proclaims) and split the remaining 15% with the two parties as moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, that means 47.5% Republican leaners and 28.5% Democrat leaners. (Translation, they need ALL the true swing voters to win.)

The first offending poll is Tipp Online.  Tipp shows the President beating Mitt Romney 46% to 43% amongst registered voters (not likely voters, registered voters).  Even Tipp admits that "Race Tightens, Obama Lead Over Romney Narrows To 3 Points" in their headline.  But there's a problem with their polling sample. They gave Democrats a 7% advantage! You have to look at the very bottom of this poll to find it, but when Tipp asked the individuals polled which way lean politically, 38% self-identified as Democrat, 31% self-identified as Republican, and 27% self-identified as independent. 

That's a 7% advantage simply handed to the Democrats...one that does not exist in reality!  The only way to justify this poll is to claim, erouneously, that 65% of all moderates lean Democrat while only 35% lean Republican.

The second offending poll is Reuters/Ipsos. The poll shows Obama with a mildly comfortable lead of 49% to 42% over Mitt Romney (not likely voters, registered voters). There's just one problem...they went and handed a 9% advantage to Democrats in this poll! Whooops!  Their polling sample was 47% Democrat leaners to 38% Republican leaners! Holy cow! Once again, this does not match up with the real electorate and their political ideologies!

The only way to justify this poll is to eroneously claim that 74% of self-identified moderates lean Democrat. Nice try, but no dice. This does not add up to any reality.

So back to that RCP average that we talked about. Let's take the other polls involved, including two 3-day rolling average polls in Gallup and Rasmussen; as well as two polls of likely voters rather than registered voters in Rasmussen and Democracy Corps (ironically, these guys are a Democrat polling organization yet they're being more honest).

Rasmussen has Romney defeating Obama 49% to 44%, a 5% margin of victory (2% above the margin of error). Gallup has Romney defeating Obama 47% to 44%, a 3% margin of error (exactly the margin of error).  Democracy Corps has a tie of 47% to 47% for both candidates.

These three polls have an average of Romey 47.75% to Obama 45.5%.  This means Romney averaging a +2.25% margin of victory.  Compare this to the RCP average including the cooked Tipp and Reuters polls, which shows Obama beating Romney 46.2% to 46%.  So by publishing cooked polls, these two organizations push the RCP average from Obama losing to Obama winning.

Friends, the Drive-By Media likes to do this to dishearten conservatives, to make us give up on winning the White House. They want to make you believe that Obama will be re-elected so you won't work hard to defeat him. But what polls like this show is that they are very worried. They are trying to convince you (and themseleves) that Obama is a stronger candidate than reality shows. We must not let him. We will defeat Obama in 2012!

Can we stop talking about dogs in the 2012 Campaign, please?

Both sides. Seriously, friends. I get it, ok. Nearly thirty years ago, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a car-top dog carrier on a road trip. Also, over thirty years ago, as a child, President Obama was served dog meat and ate it.

I love dogs too, people. Seriously. I'm one of the world's biggest dog lovers. But this is blatantly stupid. So stupid that I'm even defending the President here.

Let's look at these stories realistically. We've come a long way in thirty years when it comes to safety. I'm willing to bet the Romney boys were quite possibly not buckled up and were in the cargo section of the station wagon. Simply stated, we as a society weren't as safety conscious as we are now.

Let me give you an example: How many of you have seen 1983l's National Lampoons Vacation?  In this famous scene, Clark shares a beer with his young teenage son during a roadside break WHILE DRIVING.  (A lot of modern parents would absolutely flip over giving half a beer to a kid that age.  I don't agree with that, provided this is done in responsible quantities (ie a half glass of beer or wine) with parental supervision is a good thing...takes the mystery away from alcohol.)  There are numerous other examples of films where a dad is driving his family and drinking a beer at the same time.

That was the time, friends. We were less safety conscious. Seat belts were in cars but not required/enforced by law. Drinking and driving was very loosely enforced if at all. Open container laws were nonexistent. People had 900 pound televisions on top of a TV tray.

As far as President Obama eating dog...he was a child. He was eating what he was served. Furthermore, eating dog meat is prevalent in many parts of the world, including nations that would be equally repulsed by the eating of beef. It's a cultural difference, friends. Some of the same people have pet sheep or pet pigs.  We eat those.  Tons of people have pet fish. Ultimately, they are all animals, friends.

I wouldn't want to eat a dog or a cat, don't get me wrong. But that is because I live in a culture where dogs and cats are pets. I have had multiple pet dogs. I have a pet cat now. Amber and Jazz and Buster and Shelby were/are dogs that do or did belong to me or a close relative. Same with my cat Benny. To me they are friends. This is because I am familiar with them and keep/kept them as a pet.  They were all socialized as pets and treated as members of the family.

As I understand it, in the nations where cats and dogs are food, they are not raised as pets then eaten. They are raised like we raise cows and pigs as I understand it. This is a cultural difference, friends, not a crime against canine kind. As I said, animals are ultimately animals, not human beings.

At the end of the day, friends, let's move on and talk about real issues. We have serious problems that require serious solutions. This election needs to be about the health of this country, not 30 year old stories about dogs. So let's move on to real issues. I'm begging you.

Obama Kicks off Re-Election Campaign 3 yrs into Re-Election Campaign

It happened this past Saturday. President Obama "officially" kicked off his re-election campaign. Which is ironic, because the man has been trying to get re-elected since he first got elected. 

Think about it, friends. Obama has been using canned quick slogans like "pay their fair share," (likely in an anticipated campaign against Mitt Romney) and "we can't wait" (to pass my Socialist "reforms" Constitutionally...let's circumvent it).

 

He's told us that his plan is better than "the Republican plan that means dirty air, dirty water, and fewer people with health insurance."

 

Friends, the President has simply made his active campaign official.

So what will this campaign look like? Something completely unlike most incumbent campaigns in recent history. The President is going to try to campaign like a challenger.

• When Ronald Reagan campaigned for re-election in 1984, the focus was "It's morning in America...things are really turning around, so why would you want to go back to where we were 4 years ago." Reagan's recovery was real, plummetting unemployment and seeing inflation drop. He had something positive to run on.  And he won.

• In 1996 Bill Clinton ran again on success. (Granted, the success wasn't really his...he'd just gotten the heck out of the way and let Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution do their thing.) The economy was booming. Unemployment was 5.4%. Deficits were dropping.  He won.

• In 2004, George W. Bush was able to run on success as well. Unemployment was 5.5% and, just as importantly, three years after the 9/11 Attacks we had not seen a similarly large attack on American soil.  He won.

 

Now in 2012 Barack Obama wants a second term. There's only one problem. Unemployment hasn't dropped in any real way, and the only way a drop can even be claimed is because somehow 2 million jobs have up and disappeared from the workforce, thus making the percentage lower so that the same number of people manage to be unemployed but because there are less jobs the percentage drops. Obamacare is as unpopular as ever. The Stimulus did not live up to the sales pitch (unemployment not only went above 8% but it's STILL over 8%).  Really all the President can do is "punt the football" about the capture of Osama Bin Laden, even though he simply (correctly) made the only reasonable decision available.

So he's got to use catch phrases like "Forward." He's got to act like a challenger. We must not let him. If we do not let him run this campaign as if he has no record, he will lose. Period.

Conservatives Need Not be Pessimistic in 2012

I've noticed a very disturbing trend amongst conservatives in this election: pessimism.  There simply is no logical explanation for it.

Obama's approval is in the toilet still (in polls of registered voters or likely voters his approval is below his disapproval). In head to heads with Romney, while Obama is in some instances winning (generally not in polls of registered/likely voters) he remains below 50%, a mark which is not a good sign for an incumbent.

Furthermore, as we showed recently, these Obama poll wins require significant oversampling of Democrat leaning voters (a reality that is 99.999% unlikley to occur in reality) and many young voters are not planning on showing up to vote for Obama.

Another sign that I find very interesting is the fact that Drive-By Media outlets have largely failed to release new polls in a couple weeks. When you eliminate polls that are 2 plus weeks old, you see a head to head tie between the two with Romney taking a slight edge (and that's before Mitt's really started to campaign, friends.)

There is no real reason for any of us to be pessimistic about losing this election. This is not 1996, friends. Obama is not popular. He is not seen as a success. He cannot say "give me four more years and I will give you more of the same" and receive votes. His ratings on specific issues are significantly below his ratings on the whole which suggests people like the President far more as a person than they approve of his job. 

Friends, Obama is not a strong candidate. Stop being pessimistic. The attitude should not be "let's make sure we at least keep the House and win the Senate."  Rather, it should be "let's make sure we also keep the House and win the Senate," because the White House is likely going to be ours. We are going to make Obama a one-term President. Game on.



Occupy Bombers is Yet Another Example of Liberal Media Bias

Last week, five members of the Occupy Cleveland movement unsuccessfully planted a bomb in Brecksville, OH (a suburb of Cleveland). The Drive-By Media is glossing over the legitimate involvement of Occupiers in this plot. Remember, this is the same Media that gleefully assumed the Tea Party's involvement in the 2011 Tuscon Shooting and the 2010 New York City Car Bombing.
Before I continue I want to make one thing abundantly clear. I recognize that these five individuals were not acting on the authority of the Occupy Movement and that they were simply members who took the cause too far. I get that. I am not equating this action with the Occupy Movement.

HOWEVER, this is yet another nail in the comparison coffin that is being glossed over by the Drive-By Media, not to mention another great example of liberal Drive-By Media bias.

Remember when the Tucson Shooting occured in 2011? The immediate reaction from the Drive-Bys was to blame Sarah Palin for using a target on Giffords' district saying that we were targeting Giffords for an electoral defeat at the hands of a Tea Party candidate. Remember that? Then, they immediately presumed (or hoped) Jared Loughner was a Tea Party conservative.  Turned out he wasn't. Actually, depending on who you ask, Loughner is either apolitical or a radical leftist.

Or how about in November of 2011? A group of Chechen (that's from the nation commonly called Chechnya, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL...a former Soviet Bloc nation) carried out a bombing plot to attempt to assasinate Russian President Vladmir Putin. The Media called it the "Chechen Tea Party Bombing." Intriguing since the Tea party is a uniquely American movement. The Drive-By Media willingly and gleefully propegated this lie.

The third example as alluded to above is the 2010 New York City Car Bombing.  Once again, the immediate assumption perpetuated in the Drive-By Media was "Tea Party involved!" It turned out the Tea Party wasn't involved. It turns out the perpetrator was a Pakistani terrorist. Whoops! Fingers crossed hopes that the Tea Party could be blamed for this again are foiled!

So this week we have legitimate Occupy Cleveland members engaging in domestic terrorism. Is this being blamed on the Occupy Movement? No. Nor should it have been. Five members of a group exceeding the prescribed boundaries of their group is not indicative of the group itself. That is not my point.

My point is rather that the Drive-By Media has, in the last two years, done their darndest to blame anything they can possibly shoe horn into the narrative on the Tea Party, both without evidence and without apology when they are disproven. Then when confirmed Occupiers attempt to blow up a bridge, clearly it's not the Occupy Movement's fault.

Liberal Media Bias is on parade again, my friends. Show up early for good seats.

Newt's Out...Now What?

Ok...it's not exactly news. Newt announced he'd be dropping out over a week ago. He just had to have time to get his ducks in a row to do it (translation...thank volunteers, dispatch employees, etc). However, it means, unless you're so delusional that you believe Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in July (which he never had) that Romney is officially our nominee.

Yet there is going to be a backlash from conservatives who, like me, genuinely wanted one of the more conservative candidates in the race to win instead. These individuals have a choice. They can join me in the realistic camp and recognize that whatever Romney's imperfections are, he's still better than Obama...OR...they can clamor for a third party candidate, split the vote and pretty much guarantee Obama a second term. (Does ANYONE other than me remember the Election of 1992? 19 states including California, Georgia, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee would have likely swung to Bush and won him re-election if it wasn't for Ross Perot.)

Additionally, what this misses out on is the opportunity to push Romney to the right. He needs to court conservatives, friends. He needs us...and irregardless of what he is presenting now, he knows it. Instead of replacing Romney, let's get Mitt to campaign and govern according to his personal principles (rather than how he ended up having to govern in Massachusetts).

Newt would've been a great conservative candidate. Unfortunately, we can't have our wat in that. So our choice is to either a) back Romney, push him to the right and beat Obama or b) find a 3rd party candidate, enjoy our principled loss, and deal with four more years of Obama. I think the choice is clear. I hope you do too.

Obama: Don’t “spike the football”…unless you need to get re-elected...

It was one year ago that U.S. Navy SEALs successfully killed Osama Bin Laden.  Then, about ten minutes later, Barrack Obama proceeded to take the credit.  Makes sense, after all…he did make a decision that any President with an IQ higher than a grapefruit would make…why shouldn’t he take all the credit (even though the SEALs did all the work and were the real heroes).  Then, ever one to try to ride two horses with one rear end, Obama refused to release the pictures because, and I quote, “we don’t want to spike the football.”

After that, Obama’s approval managed to creep above 50% for the first time in over a year…for about fifteen minutes (in case you’re keeping score, the President’s approval rating hasn’t been above 50% since May of 2011). Suddenly, Obama was humble…ish…about it. Then an election year rolled around. Now Obama’s on thin ice, regardless of what the Drive-By Media is telling you, with voters…left with minimal successes to trumpet when asking for a second term, the President has to bring up the one thing he managed to not screw up: the killing of Bin Laden.  

He can’t talk about the “success” of his stimulus, because there wasn’t any: Remember, if we passed the stimulus unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%...it hasn’t dropped below 8% since.  (Not to mention the only way he can claim it as a success is if he moves the goal line with “it would’ve been worse if we hadn’t acted,” even though it can’t be proven.) He can’t talk about the “success” of Obamacare: it was supposed to lower healthcare costs and instead they went up. (Also it’s about as popular as a Red Sox fan in the Bronx.)  Then there’s Obama’s billions in “Green Energy” subsidies that have done nothing to lower gas prices (but at least a lot of the companies who were invested in have gone bankrupt so there’s that). 

He can’t talk about his policy successes. So he’s got to talk about killing Bin Laden. A lot.  He’s got to go to Afghanistan and trumpet it a year later.  One can’t help but ask if this isn’t the same President who talked about not wanting to give Al Qaeda a “recruiting tool”?  Using legitimate interrogation tactics on the battlefield to save American lives (that are made to look like patty cakes by the practices of Al Qaeda) are going to be used to recruit…but not going on a celebration tour a year after the killing of Al Qaeda’s leader WON’T be?  Sure. Makes sense.

Bottom line: The President is now “spiking the football.” It’s incredibly clear why: he wants a second term…he needs SOMETHING to trumpet…and his legislative record sure isn’t it. So now it’s just fine to “spike the football.” After all, it’s all about Obama. 

Soldiers lives? Never mind, Obama has to get re-elected.  Propriety? Never mind, Obama’s has to get re-elected.  Not making a fool of yourself? Never mind, Obama has to get re-elected. “Don’t spike the football?”  Never mind (you guessed it), Obama has to get re-elected.  After all, it’s all about Obama. Not America.

Obama's Losing the Youth

Something that you won't see in polls that use "adults" or "registered voters," mind you, but Obama's losing the youth vote.  Don't get me wrong, friends...the youth still support Obama. There's just one key issue...a huge chunk of them AREN'T PLANNING ON SHOWING UP TO VOTE!

44%, to be specific, of registered voters 18-29 years old, do not necessarily plan to vote, according to a Gallup Poll from last week.  The same youth who flocked to vote for Obama have apparently lost interest. It turns out actually political concepts and policy ideas are not as attractive to young adults as "Yes We Can" and "Change." It also turns out that you can't wax intellectual about "change" when you've had three years and things haven't changed...at least not for the better.

Make no mistake about it, friends, Obama NEEDS the youth vote. Mitt Romney, in kind, needs the senior citizen vote. Good news on that front: 86% of that group (registered voters 65+) intend to vote...and plan to vote for Romney by a 12% margin over Obama. The type of people who are likely to vote for Romney are reliable. Obama's base...not so much.

This of course demonstrates why polls of adults and registered voters are less reliable: Not everyone will show up to vote. The more one leans toward a Republican candidate, the more they are likely to show up. If you look at the polls where Obama does the best, it's a poll of adults, or registered voters. He loses more and more support the more likely the voter gets.

It's early, friends, and Romney has barely started his campaign against Obama. But Obama is already looking very weak in this election. Losing the youth vote just proves it further.