In the past few months, during the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and now Moammar Gadhafi, have all assumed room temperature.

Friday, Obama announced that all American Troops will be gone from Iraq by the end of this year, completing a campaign goal he made in 2008 when he proclaimed the war in Iraq a misguided mistake by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

All of these “victories” mean that Obama’s re-election should be a no-brainer, right?

Wrong.

As reported at gallup.com:

President Barack Obama’s 11th quarter in office was the worst of his administration, based on his quarterly average job approval ratings. His 41% approval average is down six percentage points from his 10th quarter in office, and is nearly four points below his previous low of 45% during his seventh quarter.

These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking from July 20-Oct. 19, 2011. During this time, Obama’s approval rating ranged narrowly between 38% and 43% for all but a few days of the quarter. The 38% approval ratings, registered on several occasions, are the lowest of his presidency to date.

The most notable event in Obama’s 11th quarter was probably the negotiations to raise the federal debt ceiling in late July and early August. Shortly after the agreement was reached, the stock market plummeted after Standard and Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating. Later, the government’s jobs report showed no new net jobs were created in August, a sign the economy was still a long way from recovery. The president has been unsuccessful so far in getting Congress to pass the jobs bill he proposed in early September.

Only one elected president since Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, had a lower 11th quarter average than Obama. Carter averaged 31% during his 11th quarter, which was marked by a poor economy and high energy prices. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were the only other post-World War II presidents whose job approval averages were below 50% in their 11th quarter in office.

So, why is this formerly worshiped false messiah being kicked to the curb by his former sycophants?

It’s the economy, stupid!

Per csm.com:

Many economists say applications need to fall consistently below 375,000 to signal sustainable job growth. They haven’t been below that level since February.

Economists have been closely watching unemployment benefit applications since fears of another recession intensified this summer. Layoffs and applications tend to rise at the beginning of recessions.

Employers have added an average of only 72,000 jobs per month in the past five months. That’s far below the 100,000 per month needed to keep up with population growth. And it’s down from an average of 180,000 in the first four months of this year.

In September, employers added only 103,000 jobs last month, and the unemployment rate remained 9.1 percent for a third straight month.

Employers pulled back on hiring this spring, after rising gas prices cut into consumer spending and Japan’s March 11 earthquake disrupted supply chains. That slowed U.S. auto production.

Auto output has rebounded in the past couple of months and gas prices have come down from their peak in early May. In September, consumers increased their spending on retail goods by the most in seven months.

Those trends likely boosted growth in the July-September quarter to about 2.5 percent, economists predict. That’s an improvement from the 0.9 percent annual rate in the first six months of this year. But it’s not enough to spur much job growth.

The number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose 25,000 to 3.7 million. But that doesn’t include several million additional laid-off workers receiving extended benefits under an emergency program paid for by the federal government and put in place during the recession.

All told, 6.7 million people received benefits in the week ended Oct. 1, the latest data available.

Gallup.com reported Wednesday that Americans are more than twice as likely to blame the federal government in Washington (64%) for the economic problems facing the United States as they are the financial institutions on Wall Street (30%).

On January 20, 2009, at his Inauguration, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama said:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.

But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart [Share the wealth!] — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Grand plans, Mr. President.  Poor execution.

Your economy.  Your responsibility.  Your failure.

When President Ronald Reagan passed away in 2004, newsmax.com reported the following story:

Moammar Gadhafi expressed regret Sunday that President Ronald Reagan died before standing trial for 1986 American air strikes that killed the Libyan leader’s adopted daughter [some say his sister] and 36 other people.

Reagan ordered the April 15, 1986, air raid in response to a discotheque bombing in Berlin allegedly ordered by Gadhafi that killed two U.S. soldiers and a Turkish woman and injured 229 people.

“I express my deep regret because Reagan died before facing justice for his ugly crime that he committed in 1986 against the Libyan children,” Libya’s official JANA news agency quoted Gadhafi as saying.

JANA, in reporting Reagan’s death Saturday at age 93, described former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a partner in the strikes because some of the warplanes took off from the United Kingdom.

“Ronald Reagan, Thatcher’s partner in the failed American-Atlantic aggression against the house of the brother leader of the revolution, in Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986, died,” JANA reported.

The United States branded Libya a rogue state in the 1980s, alleging state-sponsored support of terrorism and imposing trade sanctions on the country in 1986.

Only in the last year have relations warmed substantially, with Libya meeting U.S. demands stemming from the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. A Libyan agent was convicted of involvement in the bombing and Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of the 270 victims.

Gadhafi agreed in December to dismantle Libya’s biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, and in February, Washington lifted a ban on use of American passports to travel to Libya. In April, President Bush took steps toward restoring trade and investment ties with Libya, allowing the resumption of oil imports and most commercial and financial activities.

But the United States continues to list Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism, which prohibits U.S. aid or arms sales to the country, and hundreds of millions of dollars of Libyan assets remain frozen in American banks. These restrictions are seen as an inducement for Libya to resolve its remaining differences with Washington.

On 3/7/11, msn.com reported:

A former top CIA official who helped oversee the agency’s investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, tells NBC News there is “no doubt” that Moammar Gadhafi personally approved the bombing.

“There are two things that you can take to the bank,” said Frank Anderson, who served as the agency’s Near East affairs chief between 1991 and his retirement in 1995. “The first one is, Pan Am 103 was perpetrated by agents of the Libyan government. And the second thing is, that could not have happened without Moammar Gadhafi’s knowledge and consent.

“There is no question in my mind that Moammar Gadhafi authorized the bombing of Pan Am 103.”

The Libyan Madman’s life ended yesterday, as myway.com reports:

Moammar Gadhafi, Libya’s dictator for 42 years until he was ousted in an uprising-turned-civil war, was killed Thursday as revolutionary fighters overwhelmed his hometown of Sirte and captured the last major bastion of resistance two months after his regime fell.

The 69-year-old Gadhafi is the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring wave of popular uprisings that swept the Middle East, demanding the end of autocratic rulers and the establishment of greater democracy.

“We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Moammar Gadhafi has been killed,” Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril told a news conference in the capital of Tripoli.

There were conflicting accounts about Gadhafi’s final hours, with the interim government saying he was captured unharmed and later mortally wounded in the crossfire from both sides. A second account described how he was already wounded in the chest when he was seized and later sustained the other wounds.

Of course, President Barack Hussein Obama came on television yesterday morning, to verbally complete a victory lap:

President Barack Obama hailed the lifting of the “dark tyranny” over Libya after the new government confirmed Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, issuing a warning to other dictators in the Middle East – and particularly Syria – that they could be next.

Although Obama did not name Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, it was he Obama had in mind when he said the rule of the iron fist in the Middle East is inevitably coming to an end. Those leaders that try to deny the push for democracy will not succeed, he predicted.

Obama was speaking in the White House Rose Garden after footage was shown worldwide of what appeared to be Gaddafi’s bloody corpse. “One of the world’s longest-serving dictators is no more,” the president said.

The Libyans had won their revolution and “the dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted,” Obama said.

Given the number of false claims in recent weeks that Gaddafi had been killed or captured, Obama was careful not to say categorically that he was dead.

Instead, he confined himself to a carefully chosen formula: “We can definitively say the Gaddafi regime has come to an end.”

He promised US help for Libya in establishing an interim government and in the holding of fair and free elections, but anticipated “difficult days ahead”.

Bin Laden, Awlaki, and now Gadhafi.  For a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama sure has been involved in a bunch of killings, hasn’t he?

Not that those guys did not deserve it…

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in later on Thursday:

“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi’s death by an aide in between formal interviews.

Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC).

The reporter asked if Qaddafi’s death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.

“No,” she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying “I’m sure it did” with a chuckle.

She wishes. 

There was a reason President Reagan didn’t finish off the late, unlamented Colonel Gadhafi.  He didn’t need to.  Gadhafi was crazy, not stupid.  He kept his mouth shut and behaved for 20 years after his house was bombed.

So, what happens in Libya now that the Rebels are in charge?

On March 25th of this year, cnn.com posted the following article by Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister:

Dr. Abdulmonem Hresha knows first hand how Moammar Gadhafi’s regime works. He says the seeds of his opposition were sown when he was age 10.

He and classmates were taken to witness the public execution of a political opponent of Gadhafi.

“They hung him up in front of thousands of small kids,” Hresha said. “He did that to scare people.”

Hresha, who taught physics at Tripoli University, later fled to Canada.

The prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood now lives in London, and anticipates the group could become an important player in a post-Gadhafi environment.

As in Egypt and Tunisia, the Brotherhood in Libya has been energized by the sudden upheaval sweeping the Arab world.

It says it has no organizational links with the Brotherhood elsewhere, but shares the philosophy of the pan-Arab Islamist movement founded in Egypt in the 1920s.

Largely drawn from the devout educated middle classes and university campuses in Tripoli and Benghazi, the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the mid-1950s.

Islamist opposition to the Libyan regime gathered force in the late 1980s, as part of a wider Islamic awakening or “Sahwa” in the region and in reaction to what many saw as an attempt by Gadhafi to hijack and interpret Islam for his own purposes.

While jihadists launched a brief but unsuccessful campaign to overthrow Gadhafi in the 1990s, the Brotherhood focused much of its efforts on clandestine preaching and social welfare efforts in Libya.

In 1998, Gadhafi’s security services launched a crackdown against the group that saw more than 200 members imprisoned and hundreds more forced into exile, including Hresha.

Despite years of repression, Hresha claims the Brotherhood still has thousands of members scattered across Libya, with chapters in almost every single town, including Sirte, Gadhafi’s birthplace on the coast west of Tripoli.

In 2006, its leaders were released after reconciling with the Libyan regime. But now the Brotherhood is siding with the rebellion…

We all know how well the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood is working out for the Egyptians, especially the Coptic Christians , don’t we?

…and “Arab Spring” continues…

Things got a little testy last night between candidates presently in second and third place, respectively, during the Republican Presidential Candidate debate in Las Vegas.

Per thehill.com:

In an already testy debate, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry got into a fight over Romney’s hiring of a lawn-mowing company that had hired undocumented immigrants in the past.

“Those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized, and Mitt, you lose all of your standing in my perspective because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year.” Perry said. “The idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you’re strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy,” he said at the CNN debate in Las Vegas, Nev., an early voting state that Romney won big in 2008.

Romney tried to deny the charges, of course, and asked Perry for the evidence.

Perry responded and things quickly dissolved into into a scene reminiscent of  two kiddies playing in a sandbox:

Romney:

This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick and I understand that you’re going to get testy, but I’ll tell you what — let me take my time and then you can take your time.

Perry:

You stood here in front of the American people and did not tell the truth that you had illegals working on your property and the newspaper came to you, brought it to your attention and you still a year later had those individuals working for you. The idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having an immigration issue is beyond me.

Of course, this charge was made against Romney during the 2008 presidential debates.

Perry then interrupted Romney as he was starting to respond and the brylcreemed one got a little hot under the collar:

You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. And I would suggest that if you want to become president of the United States you’ve got to let both people speak.

Of course, all the candidates jumped on frontrunner Herman Cain.  His recent meteoric rise in the polls has placed him in the number one position on everyone’s (Democrats and Republicans) hit parade:

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota led the verbal assault moments after the debate began, saying his call for a 9 percent federal sales tax would only be the beginning, with the rate rising later.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania wasn’t nearly as gentle, citing one analysis that found that taxes would go up for 84 percent of the nation’s households if Cain’s proposal went into effect. “We’re talking about major increases in taxes,” he said, adding that a single person and a couple with children with the same income would pay the same tax under Cain’s proposal.

Undeterred, Cain insisted the charges were untrue. He said he was being criticized because lobbyists, accountants and others “want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million- word mess,” the current tax code.

Cain’s proposal is for a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax and a 9 percent national sales tax.

The former pizza company CEO is the latest and unlikeliest phenomenon in the race to pick a Republican rival for President Barack Obama. A black man in a party that draws few votes from Africans Americans, he had bumped along with little notice as Romney sought to fend off one fast-rising rival after another.

That all changed in the past few weeks, after Perry burst into the race and then fell back in the polls. However unlikely Cain’s rise, Tuesday night’s debate made clear that none of his rivals are willing to let him go unchallenged.

“Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something, you don’t need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out,” Perry said to Cain. “Go to New Hampshire where they don’t have a sales tax and you’re fixing to give them one,” he said, referring to the state that will hold the first primary early next year.

As Gov. Perry and his fellow Republican Candidates were eviscerating Perry in Las Vegas, the only Democratic Candidate for President, Barack Hussein Obama, was joining in with their cacophonous chorus last night during an interview with ABC News:

President Barack Obama says GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan would be a “huge burden” on middle-class and working families.

The president says Cain’s plan would make sure that the wealthiest pay less – and replace the revenue with a sales tax hitting the less well-off.

Obama said that approach isn’t new. And he said that across the board he hasn’t heard any new ideas on helping the economy from Republicans, either in Congress or the candidates.

Excuse me, Mr. President.  I have a question:

How about some new ideas from you, first, Scooter?

I agree with something Former Speaker of the House and current Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich said in response to all the sniping at last night’s debate:

Let me just point out for a second that maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House.

And the audience applauded…because the Candidate that all the Republicans should be attacking, lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

You’re the Democratic Party.  The president whom you thought was going to make the oceans rise and fall, can’t  seem to muster the leadership ability to handle the daily duties of the office.  What do you do?  Do you beg Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run against him in the primary?

Well, you can forget that idea.

From nationaljournal.com:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton once again quashed rumors that she’s still interested in running for president, this time in an interview with NBC’s Today on Monday.

“I’m really old-fashioned. I feel I have made my contribution,” Clinton said. “I’m very grateful I’ve had a chance to serve, but I think it’s time for others to step up.” Writing, teaching, and working on issues that affect women and girls will be in her future, Clinton assured NBC’s Savannah Guthrie; that and relaxing at home.

Clinton shrugged off speculation that she should run against President Obama in 2012—or that she should have been elected instead of him in 2008. “It feels irrelevant to me,” Clinton said. She praised Obama for doing “an excellent job under the most difficult circumstances.”

Clinton acknowledged that serving under Obama was initially awkward. Obama did, after all, beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“It was a hard-fought election. I wanted to beat him, and he ended up beating me,” Clinton said. “But he asked me to serve.” She added, “at the end of the day, you have to be bigger than politics.”

Clinton said she gives Obama political advice “every so often,” but declined to elaborate.

Clinton attributed her current popularity simply to her two decades in the public eye. “Because I have been on the public consciousness for so long and on the television screens and people’s homes, I think there is a comfort,” Clinton said.

A comfort, huh?

I would call it desperation.

Heck, there’s even been a rumor floating around that Hillary and Sheriff Joe Biden would switch jobs, with Ms. Clinton becoming VP in the next Obama Administration and Biden would be demoted to Secretary of State.

According to Jonathan Alter (former host for MSNBC), writing for businessweek.com, it’s a compelling argument:

Obama would swallow his pride and try to use wit to disarm attacks that he’s acting desperate, cynical and weak. He would admit publicly that he needs the help of both Clintons to restore the good economic times of the 1990s. The Democrats’ message would be: “Vote for Obama if you want the Clinton economy back. Vote for Romney if you want the Bush economy back.” That’s a compelling enough argument to make an imperiled president do something he would hate — let Bill Clinton drag him over the finish line.

Biden would reluctantly agree because his consolation prize is a job he can truthfully argue he has coveted for 20 years. It would leave him less humiliated than incumbent vice presidents like Henry Wallace, whom Franklin D. Roosevelt dumped from the ticket in favor of Harry Truman in 1944, and Nelson Rockefeller, booted by Gerald Ford to make room for Bob Dole in 1976.

Clinton would say yes because she is dutiful to a fault and because everyone asked to be on the ticket for the last 40 years has accepted, with the exception of Colin Powell turning down Dole in 1996 and John McCain rebuffing John Kerry in 2004 (that’s how liberal McCain was then).

Job switches of this kind are hardly unprecedented. In 1985, Ronald Reagan arranged for Treasury Secretary Donald Regan and White House Chief of Staff James Baker to swap positions. In 1992, Baker reluctantly resigned as secretary of state and returned to the White House as George H.W. Bush’s chief of staff in an unsuccessful effort to save Bush’s foundering re-election campaign. All of these guys do what it takes.

A job swap at this point probably wouldn’t help anyway.  Per gallup.com, Democrats aren’t that thrilled about the upcoming 2012 elections to begin with:

In thinking about the 2012 presidential election, 45% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, while nearly as many, 44%, are less enthusiastic. This is in sharp contrast to 2008 and, to a lesser extent, 2004, when the great majority of Democrats expressed heightened enthusiasm about voting.

Democrats’ muted response to voting in 2012 also contrasts with Republicans’ eagerness. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans, 58%, describe themselves as more enthusiastic about voting. That is nearly identical to Republicans’ average level of enthusiasm in 2004 (59%) and higher than it was at most points in 2008.

That apathy extends to other potential Democratic Primary opponents, too, evidently.  None of the Democrats seem to want to run against Obama.

Eleanor Clift, writing for thedailybeast.com says that running against Obama is a useless exercise:

So what’s the point? For Ted Kennedy and the progressive challenge to Carter in 1980, it was about reasserting the liberal Democratic agenda that Carter, a Southern moderate focused on fiscal discipline, seemed to be eroding. The discontent then was not unlike what progressives are experiencing today. It’s the passionate base, hear me roar! The difference now there is no Kennedy heir-apparent figure on the horizon, and we’re talking about the first African-American occupant of the White House in a party identified with civil rights. “Who wants to feel responsible for costing the first African-American president his reelection?” says Cook. What’s more, blacks vote heavily in key primary states.

Anyone contemplating a run against Obama must consider the consequences of not only defeating the president, but the likely repercussions to his or her own career. “If he were white, he would have a progressive challenger,” says Bill Schneider of the Democratic group Third Way. Because Obama is this historic figure, challenging him would hamper the prospects of anyone who wants a future in elective Democratic politics. “Blacks would be deeply offended by a challenge, and that’s no way to score points in the Democratic Party,” says Schneider. African-Americans are the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, and while they too are disappointed in what Obama has been able to accomplish, they are not going to abandon him.

Well, Eleanor, even if blacks ignore the plight of all of their friends and family who are suffering unemployment at the highest rate in America under of this president, you can bet your chair at NPR that the rest of Americans won’t forget who is responsible for this unholy economic mess when they step into the voting booth on November 6, 2012.

As Harry Truman said:  The buck stops here.

If you are old enough, you, like I, have memories of the iconic scenes of the Civil Rights Struggle in America and the symbolic leader of that movement, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yesterday, a monument featuring a 30 foot statue of the slain Civil Rights Leader was dedicated in Washington, DC.

In a speech given at the dedication, United States President Barack Hussein Obama likened his failed economic plan and the fight to pass Obamacare over the wishes of the American people, to the hard-fought struggle by Black Americans to gain their Civil Rights:

On this day, in which we celebrate a man and a movement that did so much for this country, let us draw strength from those earlier struggles…

…When met with hardship, when confronting disappointment, Dr. King refused to accept what he called the ‘is-ness’ of today. He kept pushing for the ‘ought-ness’ of tomorrow.

…And so, as we think about all the work that we must do — rebuilding an economy that can compete on a global stage, and fixing our schools so that every child … gets a world-class education, and making sure that our health care system is affordable and accessible to all, and that our economic system is one in which everybody gets a fair shake and everybody does their fair share, let us not be trapped by what is,” he shouted into the microphone.

…If he were alive today, I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there; that the businessman can enter tough negotiations with his company’s union without vilifying the right to collectively bargain. He would want us to know we can argue fiercely about the proper size and role of government without questioning each other’s love for this country — (applause) — with the knowledge that in this democracy, government is no distant object but is rather an expression of our common commitments to one another. He would call on us to assume the best in each other rather than the worst, and challenge one another in ways that ultimately heal rather than wound.

I am not shocked that the president of the United States of America took this inappropriate moment to push his politically socialist agenda.  We Conservatives have come to expect this type of Class Warfare rhetoric from President Obama.

However,this one will blindside you.  Ladies and Gentlemen, courtesy of  foxnews.com, I give you…Eric Cantor?

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Sunday that he gets the growing frustration of too many unemployed and underemployed Americans and the need to encourage people at the top of the income scale to “actually put their money to work to create more jobs so that we can see a closing of the gap.”

“We know in this country right now that there is a complaint about folks at the top end of the income scale, if they make too much, and too many don’t make enough,” Cantor told “Fox News Sunday.”

“We are about income mobility and that’s what we should be focused on to take care of the income disparity in this country,” he said.

Ignoring criticism that he referred to recent protesters across the country as “mobs,” Cantor said that more important than his vocabulary is the effort by some Democrats in Washington “to blame others rather than focus on the policies that have brought about the current situation.”

“A lot of folks on the other side of the aisle want to boil this down to personality,” Cantor said. “Let’s take some of the credit or blame here in Washington. … I mean, these are policies that they put into place and there’s a lot that can be done here in this town to turn the economy around, and promote against income mobility and not go in and excoriate some who have been successful. We want success for everybody.”

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

-Karl Marx

So, now the GOP Elite wants to split America up into the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, also?

Criminently.  No wonder they’re trying to hand Mitt Romney the Presidential Nomination as quickly as possible.

Mitt Romney was interviewed shortly after Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama for president in 2008. The McCain/Palin ticket had already labelled Obama as a socialist. According to an article posted October 20, 2008, on boston.com, “Mittens” was asked if he believed that Obama was a socialist.  Romney replied:

I’d say he’s a real liberal. He’s not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I think he’s more liberal than that. I don’t think mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton, would be excited about the proposals he’s made. And I think his comment about redistributing income is one which would certainly scare a lot of people. Certainly scare away a lot of jobs, hurt the creation of small businesses, which is of course, been the source of job growth in our country.

So, I think he’s off of the left wing of the party. And after all, that’s how his votes have also lined up.

How…brave.

As Norman Matoon Thomas, Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said in 1948:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

A NOTE FROM KJ:  Back in 2007, Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote an article using the term “income mobility” to decribe how America allows a hard working individual to change their own economic status.  However, Eric Cantor and the Republicans are beginning to attack the Wall Street Fat Cats, the people who generate American jobs.  Without jobs, there is no “income mobility.”

When I break for lunch at my 9 to 5 job, I go out to my car with whatever is in my lunchbox and spend my time clicking between Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham on the car stereo.

Yesterday, I got my money’s worth.

During a capitalism break on Rush’s program, I tuned into Laura’s show, and heard the familiar Southern drawl of my state’s (Mississippi) Governor, Haley Barbour.

The word has been out for years that Barbour is a member of the Republican Elite, so, what I heard yesterday was quite a surprise:

If this election is where it ought to be, and that is a referendum on how President Obama is doing, Republicans are going to win. If Herman Cain is our nominee against Barack Obama, I think he’ll sweep the south.

I think if it were today my wife would vote for Herman Cain. One of my sons, I have grown children, you know, from the first day said ‘Dad, do you know Herman Cain?’ I said sure, I’ve known him since I was Chairman. He said “Man, I like him, I like what he says,” and that is one of his great strengths Laura. He is likable. He does not give you the impression that he is full of himself, but rather than he is a straight-talkin’ person who, will tell you, he call it like he sees them. He’s not trying to sugar coat anything and at the same time he is not trying to be shrill and a chest beater. He’s a straight talker and I think that makes him very, very attractive to people.

Herman Cain?  But Governor, your friends in the Republican Elite are trying to ram Mitt Romney down our collective throats.  Just ask Rush Limbaugh:

Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn’t. What he has going for him is that he’s not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he’s done it a long time.

…. I’m not personally ready to settle on anybody yet — and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we’ve even had a single primary! All we’ve had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment’s trying to nail this down and end it.

And Republican Candidate Rick Santorum is not exactly thrilled about the situation:

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum is speaking out against his fellow GOP Presidential Candidates who he accuses of trying to frontload the primary schedule. In an interview for ABC News’ “Subway Series with Jonathon Karl” Santorum described the early primaries and caucuses as “a travesty.”

“This is clearly Mitt Romney and Rick Perry I’m sure, who are very interested in running the clock out and trying to get this vote out as quickly as possible because they’re in a position right now where they have resources and name recognition and the shorter the time frame the less opportunity for other candidates to come up and catch them from behind,” said Santorum.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney successful lobbied Nevada Republicans to break Republican National Committee Rules and move up their states caucus. On Wednesday, the Nevada GOP announced the state’s caucus will be held on January 14.

Former Nevada Gov. Bob List told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that “Romney’s people were pushing for us to move into January.” However, List said that’s not why the final date was chosen.

According to the latest polls, Romney is a front-runner in the Nevada caucus. Winning Nevada in mid-January could help offset a lost in one of the other early states.

Florida’s GOP recently voted to move that state’s primary to January 31. As more states seek earlier primaries, it becomes increasingly difficult for an outside candidate to compete. A 2012 hopeful like Santorum, with relatively little campaign cash and organizational capacity compared to the top tier candidates, will have little chance to compete. (Sticking up for the traditional early primary states can’t hurt his chances their, either).

New Hampshire and Iowa are considering holding their primary elections and caucuses in December. Santorum is concerned that a caucus the day after Christmas would have a negative impact on the holiday season.

Santorum firmly believes that Christmas is a time to be focused “on the birth of our savior” and not on” someone’s political games that could help them get elected.”

“It undermines the elections by having this very important decision as to who our nominee will be, being done over a period of time when the American public is legitimately distracted from these types of activities,” said Santorum.

By moving the primaries forward, Romney and the Republican Elite are trying to secure the Presidential Nomination for him as soon as possible, before the rest of Republicans figure out what Governor Barbour has, and what Rush Limbaugh and a lot of us already knew:

Mitt Romney is not a Conservative.

And since the majority of Americans are Conservative in political ideology, the longer Romney campaigns, the worse his chances for the nomination will be.

After all, Familiarity Breeds Contempt.