When I was in seventh grade, I was about 4 feet tall and I sat in front of a guy named Tony Skinner.  Tony seemed to be at least 7 feet tall, was built like a NFL Tackle, and wore Buddy Holly-style glasses.  Tony’s favorite hobby was picking on me.  One day, I had enough.  I grabbed my 2S drumsticks which I used to play the drums in Jr. High Band and nailed him right between the eyes.  Of course, we were both sent to the Principal’s Office.  When I told Mr. Norville, the Assistant Principal, what had happened, he just laughed and sent me back to class.

Last night at the CNN Debate, featuring the Republican Candidates for their party’s Presidential Nomination, Newt Gingrich nailed his bully right between the eyes, also.  And he did it with his opening remarks:

Newt Gingrich slammed CNN’s John King for opening Thursday’s debate with a question about the former speaker’s ex-wife’s claim that he wanted an “open marriage.”

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich said.

“Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Gingrich was not finished, yet:

After King noted that the report had not been on his own network, Gingrich said, pointing his finger, “John, it was repeated on your network, you chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else for it.”

Gingrich received a standing ovation for smacking the bully between the eyes with his drumsticks.

On a day which saw Texas Governor Rick Perry drop out of the race and endorse the Former Speaker of the House, Gingrich showed no signs of slowing down, or conceding anything.

In fact, as the debate was going on, he even released his Income Tax Returns:

The income tax return shows that for 2010, Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich owed federal taxes of $994,708 on an adjusted gross income of $3,142,066. $613,517 of the tax amount owed had been previously withheld or otherwise paid, and the couple paid the remaining balance due of $382,734 (which included an estimated $1,543 tax penalty) with their filing.

Included in the wage and salary income reported on Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich’s tax return is $450,245 in combined wages; $41,625 in income from speaking and board of directors fees; $6,853 in rental income from real estate holdings; $11,892 in ordinary dividends; $5,990 in qualified dividends; and $2,525,683 in income from partnerships and S corporations, including the Lubbers Agency Inc. and Gingrich Holdings, Inc.

For the year 2010, the Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich reported $4,184 in net short-term capital gains and $32,541 in net long-term capital losses. Over the course of the year, the couple also contributed $81,133 to various charities, including the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

As opposed to Mitt Romney, who estimates that he paid an Income Tax Rate of 15%.  Romney was asked about whether he will release his Income Tax Returns during the CNN Debate:

Seconds after saying he’ll “probably” release more than one year’s taxes, Mitt Romney got asked about his father setting a standard for releasing several years worth of returns and, would he follow that example, didn’t repeat that statement.

“Maybe,” Romney said, smiling tightly. He got booed as he went on.

“I’ll release multiple years. I don’t know how many years,” Mitt said, which is what earned him boos.

He said he would not apologize for being successful, a line that then earned him cheers, and helped him close the answer strong. He said he’d earned his money himself, and didn’t inherit it from his parents.

But it was the second time he has struggled with the tax question in a debate in the past week.

Earlier he said he didn’t want to release his taxes “drip by drip” because it would give the Democrats something to attack on, and he would do the last year’s in April “and probably for other years as well.”

“I obviously pay all full taxes, I’m honest in my dealings with people, people understand that,” Romney said.

Newt Gingrich, who’s been pressing the issue, said, “If there’s anything in there that’s gonna help us lose the election then we should know it before the nomination.”

Per politico.com:

Newtmentum is back, per Public Policy Polling: the company’s second of three daily tracking polls, released tonight, shows Newt Gingrich in first place in South Carolina with 35 percent, with Mitt Romney 6 points behind at 29 percent. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul were tied for third with 15 percent each.

The first tracking poll, released last night, also showed a two-man race with Gingrich over Romney by 6 points: yesterday, Gingrich took 34 percent and Romney had 28 percent.

Though many other polls have shown a tightening race between Romney and Gingrich, the two PPP polls are the first ones to show Gingrich edging Romney for the lead. PPP is a Democratic polling firm, but its results generally tend to track with other public polling.

Perhaps Gingrich is leading in the polls, because the public has figured out that, while Newt is smacking the bully right between the eyes with his drumsticks, Mitt is still deciding what size drumsticks he needs to buy.

As a man with 2 ex-wives, I can understand exactly what Newt Gingrich must be feeling.

On a day which showed him gaining in the polls, heading into the South Carolina Republican Primary, ABC News announced that it would air a brutally bombastic interview with one of his ex-wives, Marianne.

Last night, around dinner time, drudgereport.com ran the following story:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.

But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted.

Gingrich canceled a press conference on Wednesday to deal with the matter.

“He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected,” Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s wife of 18 years, explained to ESQUIRE last year.

Then, later in the evening, Breitbart.com reported:

An ABC News executive tells The Associated Press that the network has interviewed Newt Gingrich’s second wife and is likely to air the segment Thursday on “Nightline.”

That’s two days before the South Carolina primary, where the Republican presidential candidate is trying to topple GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

The ABC News executive did not indicate what the ex-wife, Marianne, said in the interview and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plans for airing the interview were tentative.

The ex-wife has said Gingrich proposed to her before the divorce from his first wife was final in 1981. Her marriage to Gingrich ended in divorce in 2000. Gingrich admitted he’d already taken up with Callista Bisek, his third wife.

Gingrich has said he has no relationship with his second wife.

Can you say, “Dan Rather”?

Concerning the original placement of the interview after the SC Primary, Fox News Host Greta Van Susteren was thinking the same thing that ABC initially announced:

There is often no perfect answer…you just have to use your best judgment and hope in the end it is the right thing to do.

I have no idea what this ABC interview is other than the limited stuff I am reading on DrudgeReport at this hour. I am flying blind in this posting and my opinion is only based on what little I know now.

What I DO know is that we are only 2 days out from the South Carolina primary and there is a high risk from the Drudge Report description of an explosive interview of unfair poisoning of those going to the polls. There simply is not enough time for a candidate to respond to the explosive report and fairness also includes fairness to the candidate.

This is not to say that news should be suppressed (it should not) but news should also not be used to ambush. Thus…in light of the close time to the South Carolina primary…if I were ABC, I would hold this interview until after the polls close on Saturday (or I would have showed it a week ago.)

Yesterday, Newt told a crowd in SC that he expected an attack.  However, he was expecting a different culprit:

Newt Gingrich warned a crowd of about 350 in Warrenville, S.C., he expects Mitt Romney to attack him for the remainder of the week.

“I fully expect the Romney campaign to be unendingly dirty and dishonest,” Gingrich said. “They thought they could buy this. They’re discovering they can’t buy this.”

He concluded his 40-minute town hall by encouraging attendees to help him combat attacks.

“I think they have internal polls showing them losing,” he said. “I think they will do anything at any level.”

Gosh.   Could ABC’s decision to air part of the interview before the SC Primary have anything to do with the Democrats’ wish to face Mitt Romney in the General Election?

Mmmmm.  It’s a possibility.

This just in…Mitt Romney receives an endorsement from a Former President:

Former President Jimmy Carter wants to see Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination and run against President Obama next November.

“I hope he wins,” Carter said of the former Massachusetts governor in a Thursday night interview with MSNBC. “I’m not taking a position, but I would be very pleased to see him win the Republican nomination.”

Carter, a Democrat, added that he thinks Romney would lose in a match up against Obama, and that he supports the president’s re-election.

I alluded to Dan Rather earlier.  Remember him?  The former anchor of the CBS Evening News had a long, distinguished career.  And then, he got just a wee bit overzealous, leading to the incident now affectionately known as “Rathergate”:

CBS News, owned by Sumner Redstone’s Viacom multimedia conglomerate, announced January 10, 2005, that it had fired four CBS News employees, “including three executives, ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story” about George W. Bush’s military service, which aired September 8, 2004, on 60 Minutes.

The story relied on four documents which suggested that, first, Bush had “disobeyed an order to appear for a physical exam,” and second, that “friends of the Bush family tried to ‘sugar coat’ his Guard service.”

The authenticity of the documents allegedly written by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, “one of Mr. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard commanders in the early 1970, … were raised almost immediately.”

“Some critics said the documents were most probably forgeries prepared on a modern word processor. Other critics questioned whether Killian would have – or could have – written them.”

“After a stubborn 12-day defense of the story, CBS News conceded that it could not confirm the authenticity of the documents and asked former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former Associated Press President Louis Boccardi to conduct an independent investigation into the matter.”

CBS said that its personnel “action was prompted” by the independent panel’s 234-page report. The panel concluded that CBS News “failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece” and that CBS News “compounded that failure with a ‘rigid and blind’ defense” of the 60 Minutes segment.

As a result, “Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy” were asked to resign. Mary Mapes, the producer of the piece, was terminated.

CBS also reported that CBS News anchor Dan Rather had announced in November 2004 that, in March 2005, he would be “stepping down as anchor of The CBS Evening News on the 24th anniversary of his first broadcast as anchor,” but would “remain with CBS News as a correspondent for 60 Minutes Sunday and 60 Minutes Wednesday.”

So, now one of Newt’s ex-wives wants to “end her ex-husband’s career with a single interview”?

I not only question the timing…I’m sure of it.

As the Republican Candidates for the Presidential Nomination engage in the circular firing squad known as American Politics, life goes on.

And while life was happening, someone finally asked one of the questions that I’ve been wanting asked at the Daily White House Press Briefings, for a long time:

Ed Henry, FOX News: “I don’t know how many years, maybe you do, George Romney released of his college transcripts, but Republicans like to complain that the President has not released his college transcripts. What is the stated reason for that?”

Jay Carney, White House: “I would refer you to the campaign.”

“I think we’ve answered this a bunch. The tradition of releasing income tax records for serious potential nominees, and nominees of the two parties is well established. It’s not a law. But it’s well established. It’s one this President abided by when he was a Senator. It’s one numerous Republicans and Democrats have abided by and we think its a good idea.”

As you’ve just read, however, Jay Carney, Obama’s Press Secretary, did the ol’ Washington two-step in response.

The Income Tax Records referred to in the exchange belong to Republican Mitt “The Legacy” Romney.  Romney, in his usual wishy-washy style, almost made a promise to release them:

“If I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year, and that’s probably what I would do,” Mr Romney said at a debate among Republican rivals seeking their party’s nod to run against Democratic President Barack Obama.

Rivals Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, as well as President Obama, have called on Mr Romney to release his income tax records.

“I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period,” Romney said, referring to US tax day.

“I’ll keep that open,” he said of whether he would indeed do so.

His private business record has come under in recent weeks, including Mr Romney’s former firm Bain Capital, for culling jobs, and candidates behind him in the polls are hoping to expose any cracks in the former Massachusetts governor’s past.

Mr Romney maintains his history as a corporate turnaround wizard who helped establish brands like the Staples office supply store, fit him perfectly to reboot the crashed US economy and create jobs.

But for the Obama campaign, Mr Romney’s past seems a perfect match for the president’s narrative that Wall Street’s greed-laced rampage deprived the middle class of a “fair shake” at the American dream, and have relished his fellow hopefuls jump on him to release his tax records.

What will the records show when he releases them?  Mitt gave us a clue yesterday:

…Mr. Romney said his effective tax rate is “probably closer to the 15% rate than anything.”

The former Massachusetts governor has been pressed by his his Republican opponents to release his tax records as soon as possible, and at Monday’s GOP debate, he said he is considering doing so in April.

The details Mr. Romney relayed Tuesday indicate that he, along with many high-earners, benefits from lower tax rates than some middle-income families. The question many are raising is whether Mr. Romney’s compensation, including his retirement package, at private equity firm Bain Capital was taxed as ordinary income with rates as high as 35% or was his compensation considered “carried interest,” which is taxed at the 15% capital gains rate. If his compensation was considered a management fee, it would taxed at ordinary income rates. Democrats in Congress have tried to end capital gains treatment for carried interest, but their efforts have been met with fierce lobbying.

For the past 10 years Mr. Romney’s income has overwhelmingly come from past investments, he said. “I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. And then I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much,” Mr. Romney said.

Well, that’s more than ol’ Scooter has given us, concerning his transcripts.

From an article Ross Goldberg wrote for the New York Sun, published September 2, 2008:

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates’ grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush’s transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry’s transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did…

The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released. But observers speculated that one reason might be the racially charged nature of the election. Mr. Obama has acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, and details about his academic performance might open him up to critics eager to accuse him, probably unfairly [or, possibly justly], of receiving a free ride, Mr. Kabaservice said…

Obama will never release his transcripts…willingly.  

Why?  Because the light of day illumines everything.

It was the best of campaigns.  It was the worst of campaigns.

The worst belongs to Jon Huntsman, whom, despite the blessings of being an handsome, highly-educated former governor and businessman who speaks Mandarin Chinese and has extensive foreign policy experience, never rose above single digits in any national poll.

He ended his exercise in futility yesterday:

Jon Huntsman couldn’t help but fire a parting shot at his Republican rivals, even as he withdrew from the presidential race and backed front-runner Mitt Romney Monday morning.

‘This race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people and not worthy of this critical time,’ he said during an announcement in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Huntsman, a former Utah governor and the President Obama’s ambassador to China, must now navigate the tricky waters of supporting a candidate he slammed as an unelectable, untrustworthy flip-flopper.

Shortly after Huntsman told his staff Sunday night he was planning to quit the presidential race, videos and statements criticizing the former Massachusetts governor disappeared from Huntsman’s campaign website.

‘I will always put my country first. It seems that Gov Romney believes in putting politics first. Gov Romney enjoys firing people; I enjoy creating jobs. It may be that he’s slightly out of touch with the economic reality playing out in America right now, and that’s a dangerous place to be,’ he told reporters right before the New Hampshire primary.

Lest anyone forget Huntsman’s harsh words, the Democratic National Committee produced a greatest hits list of the most cutting remarks by the former candidate.

And Huntsman’s endorsement of Romney was no ringing embrace. Instead, he simply cited Romney’s electability.

‘I believe it is now time for our party to unite around the candidate best equipped to defeat Barack Obama. Despite our differences I believe that candidate is Gov Mitt Romney,’ Huntsman said at a news conference with his wife and children.

Huntsman staked his presidential bid on making a name for himself in last week’s New Hampshire primary. But his candidacy never really gained traction and he came in a disappointing third place behind Romney and Texas Rep Ron Paul.

Campaign sources said Huntsman was dropping out now because he didn’t want to pull support away from Romney, which could prolong the GOP presidential primary.

Romney gladly accepted the affirmation from his fellow Mormon.

‘I salute Jon Huntsman & his wife Mary Kaye. He ran a campaign based on unity not division, & love of country. I appreciate his support,’ the candidate Tweeted moments after the public announcement.

Romney’s campaign, at the moment, has to be considered the best.  Of course, it helps that the G.O.P. Establishment decreed him to be the front-runner before the Primary Race even began.  “The Legacy” became the focal point of the Republican Debate held in South Carolina last night:

Mitt Romney’s Republican rivals attacked his record as a private businessman and challenged him to release his federal income tax returns Monday night in the first of two debates before a pivotal weekend primary in South Carolina.

“I’m proud of my record,” the former Massachusetts governor responded, but he avoided an answer on making his tax returns public.

The debate unfolded hours after former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman withdrew from the race and endorsed Romney.

That withdrawal raised the stakes of the debate – and one on Thursday night – for Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

Gingrich and Perry led the assault against Romney’s record at Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that bought companies and sought to remake them into more competitive enterprises.

“There was a pattern in some companies … of leaving them with enormous debt and then within a year or two or three having them go broke,” Gingrich said. “I think that’s something he ought to answer.”

Perry referred to a steel mill in Georgetown, S.C. where, he said, “Bain swept in, they picked that company over and a lot of people lost jobs there.”

Romney said that the steel industry was battered by unfair competition from China. As for other firms, he said, “Four of the companies that we invested in … ended up today having some 120,000 jobs.

“Some of the businesses we invested in were not successful and lost jobs,” he said, but he offered no specifics.

It was Perry who challenged Romney, a multimillionaire, to release his income tax returns. The Texas governor said he has already done so, adding he believes Gingrich will do likewise later in the week.

“Mitt, we need for you to release your income tax so the people of this country can see how you made your money. … We cannot fire our nominee in September. We need to know now.”

Santorum stayed away from that fight, then started one of his own.

He said a campaign group supporting Romney has been attacking him for supporting voter rights for convicted felons, and asked Romney what his position was on the issue.

Romney initially ducked a direct answer, preferring to ask Santorum if the ad was accurate.

He then said he doesn’t believe convicted felons should have the right to vote, even after serving their terms. Santorum instantly said that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney hadn’t made any attempt to change a law that permitted convicted violent felons to vote while still on parole, a law that the former Pennsylvania senator said was more liberal than the one he has been assailed for supporting.

Romney replied that as Republican governor, he was confronted with a legislature that was heavily Democratic and held a different position.

He also reminded Santorum that candidates have no control over the campaign groups that have played a pivotal role in the race to date.

Romney added that the millions in outside dollars are “one of the things I decry” about the current system. At the same time, he has repeatedly refused to denounce the negative ads that the group supporting him has been spending millions to run in early states.

“It is inaccurate,” Santorum said of the ad assailing him, seeking the last word. “I would go out and say, `Stop it. That you’re representing me and you’re representing my campaign. Stop it.'”

But, Mitt won’t.  You see, Rick, he is a Karma Chameleon politician.  He comes and goes.  Back in 2008, he famously said,

No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

On 3/22/10, in The National Review, Romney wrote about the passage of Obamacare: 

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

On 12/7/11, Philip Klein interviewed Romney for the Washington Examiner.  Concerning what actions he would take as President against Obamacare, Romney said:

I think people recognize that if I’m elected President of the United States, that we are not going to have Obamacare with its full panoply of benefits and costs. The American people don’t want it. I don’t want it. And we’ll repeal it. And if the waiver process is able to successfully stop it in its tracks, as we think it will, great. It doesn’t stop everything of course. Some elements go on. The tax being collected and so forth, that you can’t get out of that by waiver – it requires the ultimate repeal.

As I said, he comes and goes.

If I, as a Reagan Conservative, am given the chance to vote for somebody else on the Republican side for president than this flip-floppin’ Karma Chameleon, I will say:

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done.

If you have spent any time lately on Conservative Websites, you have probably noticed in the comments sections, what appears to be an organized effort by supporters of Mitt “The Legacy” Romney to attempt to convince Conservatives that the Republican Primary is a fait d’accompli.

The number of Romney supporters who have suddenly flooded these sites is reminiscent of the return of the seven-year locusts.

Fuhgeddaboutit, they write.  It’s a done deal.  

There’s just one problem with that.  He’s only won 2 states.  We’re just getting started.

Boston.com explains:

Even if Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, does well enough in South Carolina on Jan. 21 and Florida on Jan. 31 to retain front-runner status, new party rules that distribute delegates in proportion to the vote in later states may prolong the campaign. Some Republicans fear this will weaken the ultimate nominee. Ron Paul has signaled that he intends to compete for a share of convention delegates in small caucus states over the next couple of months.

South Carolina polls have placed Romney at the head of the pack, in front of Rick Santorum and Gingrich, by an average of 10 points. The last time he faced voters in South Carolina, in the 2008 presidential nominating contest, Romney placed fourth, behind John McCain, who won, and Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, who came in second and third.

Romney must do a lot better this time to prove to conservatives around the country that he can perform well in Southern Bible Belt states, not just in the Midwest and moderate New England.

Highlighting the importance of South Carolina as the first major conservative test: No Republican candidate has won the party nomination since 1980 without winning the South Carolina primary.

Winning there would keep Romney on a strong trajectory heading to the Florida primary; placing second in a state where 70 percent of poll respondents are weekly churchgoers, many of them evangelical Christians, would also be respectable for the first Mormon in US history challenging strongly for the White House. But, respectable or not, a second-place finish for Romney would mean that the winner becomes a viable alternative to him. That could prolong the race and cause him problems down the road.

Sorry, Mittens.  There is more to the country than New England.  

Welcome to the South, Bubba.  The Conservative South.  In fact, the whole country’s still mostly Conservative, per gallup.com:

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

The percentage of Americans calling themselves “moderate” has gradually diminished in the U.S. since it was 43% in 1992. That is the year Gallup started routinely measuring ideology with the current question. It fell to 39% in 2002 and has been 35% since 2010. At the same time, the country became more politically polarized, with the percentages of Americans calling themselves either “conservative” or “liberal” each increasing.

Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. Relatively few Americans identify with either extreme on this scale, although 2 in 10 Republicans self-identify as very conservative — double the proportion of Democrats calling themselves very liberal.

…The majority of Republicans say they are either very conservative or conservative, but the total proportion of conservatives grew 10 percentage points between 2002 and 2010, from 62% to 72%. At the same time, the percentage of moderates fell from 31% to 23%. Relatively few Republicans say they are liberal — just 4% in 2011. Republicans’ ideology largely held at the 2010 levels in 2011.

I conducted a web search using bing.com in an effort to see how my fellow Southerners felt about “The Legacy”.  All I could find was articles written by non-Southerners concerned that we ig’nant inter-marrying rednecks would not vote for “Mittens” because he’s a Mormon.

Reality Check, Boys and Girls:  Mitt’s Mormonism does not bother Southerners as much as his flip-floppin’ political ideology.  You see, down here, a man’s word is his bond.  That’s one reason that Unions are not as prevalent in the South as they are in other regions.  Major business negotiations are oft-times settled in the South with a handshake.

So, how can we support “The Legacy” when we don’t know what he stands for, from one day to the next?

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Obama earning 44% support to Romney’s 41%. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, while eight percent (8%) are undecided.

If Romney is the great Republican Nominee that his locust-like internet troops proclaim him to be, shouldn’t he be absolutely burying the worst president Americans can remember in a landslide of popularity?

Or, judging from the results of Gallup’s Political Ideology Survey, is the reality of the situation, the simple fact that America is still a Center-Right country, and not, despite the protestations of the G.O.P. Elite up in the Northeastern Corridor, a Center-Center country?

Hmmmmm.  It’s a possibility.

You know, I guess it’s more interesting to imagine this conflicted situation here and a strong woman and a, you know, but that’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced, that I’m some angry black woman.

First Lady Michelle Obama spoke those words on CBS This Morning yesterday, during an interview with Gayle King.  The interview was in response to a new book, written by New York Times Reporter Jodi Kantor.

The book is a look into the inner workings of the Obama White House.

Among the book’s claims is that Obama had doubts about Rahm Emanuel, her husband’s first chief of staff, and that their relationship was “distant and awkward from the beginning.” Obama said she in fact has “never had a cross word” with Emanuel, and that he and his wife are some of her closest friends.

Obama also disputed the portrayal of her as having a more hands-on role in the West Wing than the public would have known, and said she has rarely sat in on senior staff meetings or even visited the West Wing other than for official functions.

“I do care deeply about my husband. I am his biggest ally. … I am one of his biggest confidants. But he has dozens of really smart people that surround him,” she said. “That’s not to say that my husband doesn’t know how I feel.”

People want to believe the claims because they feed into their preconceived notions, she said.

Where did these “preconceived notions” come from?  Why do we peons out in the Heartland view The First Lady as an “angry black woman”?

Could it be something she said?  Mmmmmm…could be.

Jake Tapper of ABC News reported the following on February 18, 2008:

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Then in Madison, she said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Some conservatives out there seem to find Mrs. Obama’s quote offensive, wondering why a 44 year old woman never felt proud before today.

Asked for a response to the remark, Obama campaign spox Bill Burton said, “Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change.”

She wasn’t particularly proud of her city, either:

Mrs. Obama worked in the Daley administration between Sept. 16, 1991, and April 30, 1993, according to City of Chicago personnel records. She was hired by Jarrett, then Daley’s deputy chief of staff.

Kantor writes Mrs. Obama “disapproved of how closely Daley held power, surrounding himself with three or four people who seemed to let few outsiders in — a concern she would echo years later with her own husband.

“…She particularly resented the way power in Illinois was locked up generation after generation by a small group of families, all white Irish Catholic — the Daleys in Chicago, the Hynes and Madigans statewide.”

When Jarrett was forced out of City Hall in 1995 — even though she was close to Daley — “the Obamas were horrified, their worst suspicions about the world confirmed.”

While living in Chicago, Michelle and Barack attended Trinity Church and sat under the teaching of Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years.

In fact, on page 293 of his book “Dreams for My Father,” Obama recounts Wright’s “The Audacity of Hope” sermon.

Obama quotes this passage:

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!

In the March 10th, 2008 edition of The New Yorker, a 10 page article titled The Other Obama,  covering the future First Lady was published.  Here’s an excerpt:

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

Now, for the life of me, I just can’t figure out how we peons in the Heartland ever came up with the notion that the First Lady of the United States of America is an “angry black woman”.  Can you?

Last night, Mitt “The Legacy” Romney won the Republican Primary in his home state of New Hampshire solidly, but still got only 38% of the vote.  His closest challenger was Ron Paul, who garnered 24%.

Paul’s Campaign Chair, Jesse Benton, then proceeded to issue the following statement (You had better sit down for this one.):

Ron Paul tonight scored an historic second-place victory in the 2012 New Hampshire Primary. Below please find comments from National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton:

“Ron Paul tonight had an incredibly strong second-place finish in New Hampshire and has stunned the national media and political establishment.

“When added to Paul’s top-tier showing in Iowa, it’s clear he is the sole Republican candidate who can take on and defeat both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

“The race is becoming more clearly a two-man race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the candidate of authentic change. That means there is only one true conservative choice.

“Ron Paul has won more votes in Iowa and New Hampshire than any candidate but Mitt Romney.

“Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have been shown in national polls to be the only two candidates who can defeat Barack Obama.

“And Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two candidates who can run a full, national campaign, competing in state after state over the coming weeks and months. Ron Paul’s fundraising numbers — over $13 million this quarter — also prove he will be able to compete with Mitt Romney. No other candidate can do all of these things.

“Ron Paul is clearly the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney as the campaign goes forward.

“We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.

“Ron Paul has the boldest plan to cut spending, a dedication to protecting life, and a lifelong dedication to the Constitution and limited government. He also has the necessary support to campaign nationwide against Mitt Romney.

“Our campaign is already planning ahead for South Carolina, Florida, and beyond. Soon Ron Paul will head to South Carolina to begin a feverish round of campaigning.

“Ron Paul is in this race for the long haul. And he is ready to fight.

“See you on the campaign trail.”

Cheeky, huh?  You don’t know the half of it.  

But…but…he embraces the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers! (per the Paulnuts)

Even if he does… it does not take our enemies years to travel the ocean to attack us anymore.  He lived through 9/11/01.  Is his memory that short?

Per Michael Filozof at americanthinker.com:

It’s often believed that if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons capability, they’d nuke Israel.  I’m not so sure of that.  An Iran-Israel nuclear war would be a textbook example of Mutual Assured Destruction.  The doctrine of MAD requires a credible second-strike capability by the target country, and Israel would be certain to retaliate.

But the Iranians would have many options to maximize their leverage without resorting to an all-out nuclear exchange.  The greater concern should be that the Iranians would use nuclear blackmail to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and embargo 40% of the world’s oil supply.  Oil could spike to $400 or $500 per barrel overnight, crippling the global economy and turning the West into scene from a Mad Max movie.

If the Iranians were to create a nuclear blockade by threatening to use nuclear arms against any American vessel attempting to transit the Strait, would the threat of American nuclear retaliation be credible?  Of course not.  The U.S. did not use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Numerous presidents have publicly stated the desire for nuclear disarmament and ultimately a nuclear-free world.  President Obama even declassified the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. now possesses.  If the Iranians can be 100% certain of anything, it is that the U.S. will not use its nuclear arsenal against them, especially if they threaten to detonate, but do not actually detonate, a nuclear weapon in the Strait.  Since deterrence theory requires a credible threat of retaliation, and U.S. threats are hollow, deterrence will not work, and the Iranians will have a free hand to strangle the world’s oil supply.

The other problem with Paul’s foreign policy is his assumption that we oughtn’t “interfere” around the globe, especially without congressional declarations of war.  But we’ve been doing exactly that to protect American interests since the country was founded.  President Jefferson, the paradigmatic states’-rights, small-government, libertarian president, prosecuted the First Barbary War against — no surprise — Islamic pirates in the Mediterranean, and did so without a formal declaration of war by Congress.  (According to Paul’s theory of foreign policy, maybe American ships shouldn’t have been sailing in the Mediterranean in the first place.)

Paul is a libertarian who believes in the power of free markets.  But he must be naïve to think that a nuclear Iran would want a global free market for oil.  If the Iranians had nuclear weapons, they’d surely succeed in cornering the global market by closing the Strait.  So, oddly enough, a preemptive intervention to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb would enhance free-market libertarian principles, not violate them.

Now, I could write a novel about what an absolute whackjob this septuagenarian, perennial also-ran is,  or I could offer this mini-rant I published recently, as my reply to all of the obnoxious Paulnuts out there in general, and last night’s official statement from the Paul Campaign, specifically, which strains credulity:

Reality Check: Ron Paul is a old man, who has run for President several times. He is this generation’s Pat Paulsen (look him up). He is anti-semitic, pro-Iranian, and is a cranky, old isolationist nutjob, whom one would expect to find in a corner somewhere, with his underwear on top of his head, babbling , “I like cheese!” If he was the genius you idiots claim that he is, he would have won the presidency by now.

Loosen up your tin foil hat, boy. It’s shaping your head into a point.