Paul Ryan…the Much-Needed Spark

I remember the first time I really paid attention to Paul Ryan, the Vice-Presidential pick of the presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney.

It was the 2010 Healthcare Summit, when he looked President Barack Hussein Obama in the eye and said this:

Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You’re right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That’s $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents’ generation, our generation, our kids’ generation. Medicaid’s growing at 21 percent each year. It’s suffocating states’ budgets. It’s adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it.

Now, you’re right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said — and I totally agree with this — I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can’t score your bill, because it doesn’t have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it’s very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day — very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?

Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion.

It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That’s the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does — it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the chief actuary of Medicare, he’s saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare’s providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on — who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can’t say that you’re using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That’s double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

And I think, probably, the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don’t think we should cut doctors 21 percent next year. We’ve stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.

We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit, that bill was — that provision was taken out, and it’s been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn’t add up.

And so let’s just — I’ll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we’re bending it up. He’s claiming that we’re going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it’s really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

And we’ve been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it’s basically this. We don’t think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we’ve offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It’s got to get fixed. It’s bankrupting families. It’s bankrupting our government. It’s hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this

But we don’t think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I’ll just simply say this. And I respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or whether we’re qualified to speak on their behalf. So…

(LAUGHTER)

… we are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I’ve got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you’re not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean- sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health care costs and not raise them. And that’s basically the point.

That bravura performance aside, why did Romney pick Ryan?

Robert Costa writes in nationalreview.com that:

“We’re very much inclined in the same direction,” Romney told NRO in March. “We [have spoken] together about my plans on Medicare, for instance, and ultimately the Wyden-Ryan bill is very similar, if not identical, to what I proposed some time ago. We all have ideas about what should be done with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security — and we’re on the same page.”

According to Romney insiders, Romney deeply appreciated Ryan’s willingness to privately share his critique of the campaign during the heated Republican primary, where Romney often struggled to make his case. As he watched from afar, long before he endorsed, Ryan drafted a series of detailed strategy and policy advisories, and discussed them with Romney over the phone. For Romney, those corporate-style memos made a lasting impression — and catapulted Ryan into Romney’s circle, where he has remained since.

Okay. the team is set. Now, let’s see what they can do.

I hope that Ryan can stoke a fire under Romney, as Sarah Palin tried to do to John McCain.

The time for “go along to get along” is over. Mitt needs to get up on his hind legs and fight.

For America’s sake.

Evidently, Mitt Still Likes Mandates

On Tuesday, Democratic Super PAC Priorities USA issued an ad featuring a steelworker, blaming Mitt Romney for his loss of health insurance after Bain Capital closed down the plant he was working at.

Later, his wife suffered and passed away from cancer.

Yesterday, the Romney campaign put both feet in its collective mouth.

Romney Press Secretary Andrea Saul told Fox News that the steelworker would have been fine, if that person had lived in Massachusetts. He would have been covered under the former governor’s health law.

Quoteth this genius:

If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care.There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President [Barack] Obama’s economy.

So, who is this young lady, who just inadvertently showed American Conservatives exactly what Mitt Romney thinks of them?

Per p2012.org:

Press Secretary Andrea Saul

(announced March 3, 2011 as communications advisor to Free and Strong America PAC) Press Secretary for Carly Fiorina’s U.S. Senate race in California. Communications director for Gov. Charlie Crist during his recent U.S. Senate run but resigned in April 2010 upon his decision to switch party affiliation. Press secretary to U.S Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) during much of 2009. Director of media affairs for McCain-Palin, responsible for organizing all television, radio and surrogate activity. Director of media affairs at the Republican National Committee, 2007-08. Associate account executive at DCI Group, 2005-07. Graduate of Vanderbilt University, 2004.

An establishment approved Press Secretary for the GOP Establishment Candidate.

Back on 5/10/11, USA Today published an opinion piece by former Massachusetts Governor, and favorite of the GOP Elite, Mitt Romney, Entitled Romney: As first act, out with ObamaCare, it contained the following statement:

If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.

The needle on my Irony Meter, at the time I wrote that post, pegged so hard it snapped in two.

Back in 2006, Romney was singing a different tune as he signed a massive health-insurance overhaul into law as Governor of Massachusetts. “Romneycare” was packed with subsidies, exchanges, and mandates to extend coverage to the uninsured. Four years later, it became the model for the national nightmare known as Obamacare, the very National Healthcare Law that he now promises to eliminate.

During a New Hampshire Presidential Campaign Debate on Jan. 6, 2008, the following revealing moment transpired:

Debate moderator Charles Gibson of ABC News: “But Gov. Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.”

Romney: “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”

GOP contender Fred Thompson: “I beg your pardon? I didn’t know you were going to admit that. You like mandates.”

Romney: “Oh, absolutely. Let me tell you what kind of mandates I like, Fred, which is this. If it weren’t –“

Thompson: “The ones you come up with. Bingo”

Later, during an April 19, 2010 interview with Newsweek’s Andrew Romano, Governor Romney added the following:

I’d like to clear something up about that federalist argument. During one of the 2008 debates, Charles Gibson said, “You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis.” And your response was, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.” Were you saying that you supported federal mandates then, even though you say you don’t now?

No. We created an incentive for people to get insurance at the state level. Our plan is a state plan. I oppose a federal plan for purposes of federalism. It would be like saying, a father has spanked his son. Do you think that the federal government should be allowed to spank children?

So people are misinterpreting that quote?

I do not favor the federal mandates that are part of Obamacare.

Back in February 2007, you said you hoped the Massachusetts plan would “become a model for the nation.” Would you agree that it has?

I don’t … You’re going to have to get that quote. That’s not exactly accurate, I don’t believe.

I can tell you exactly what it says: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

It is a model for the states to be able to learn from. During the campaign, I was asked if I was proposing that what I did in Massachusetts I would do for the nation. And the answer was absolutely not. Our plan is a state plan. It is a model for other states—if you will, the nation—it is a model for them to look at what we’ve accomplished and to better it or to create their own plans.

There are obvious similarities between Obamacare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

Well, Governor, evidently your Press Secretary doesn’t think so.

As a Vice-President of Marketing, I can tell you, a Marketing/PR Professional, like a Press Secretary’s, job is to communicate the information they have been given by their boss.

Perhaps “what we have heah is failure to communicate”.

Perhaps not.

Good luck, Mitt. (And God help us.) Pandora just opened the box.

Why I am So Hard on Romney

I was 17 years old in 1976. So, I mercifully missed having to vote in the election of Jimmy Carter. But, the Lord blessed me. With my first vote in a national election, I was able to vote for the greatest American President in our lifetimes, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With that vote, the standard was set in my mind and heart, as to what an American President should be.

Watching Ronaldus Magnus as a young, impressionable 20-something, making his way in the world, I marveled at his grace, humor, and unflinching, steely reserve in the face of America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, whether princes and principalities, or those unseen forces that dwell in the dark recesses of our society.

I have been looking to elect an American President like that, ever since.

Needless to say, I have been sorely disappointed.

That’s not to say that I was and am, not supportive of George W. Bush.  He was the right man to be in that chair in the Oval Office on September 11, 2001.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Carter, Clinton, or, God forbid, Obama, was president during the worst Terrorist Attack on our soil in American History?

I refuse to even consider the possibilities.

That being said, Dubya remains a good Christian man, who loves his country. Although, his record of spending as president leaves something to be desired.

However, his record of spending OUR money pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve.

If Obama’s failure as president was simply judged by his horrible economic policy, which has trashed our country like the aftermath of the Frat Party in National Lampoon’s Animal House (without the fun), that would be bad enough.

However, culturally speaking, he has taken our country in a Liberal, Marxist, and Godless direction.

From his declaration during his campaign,in a private meeting with donors, that we Americans living in the Heartland were bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles, to his bowing to our enemies and embracing of the granddaddy of Islamic Terrorist Organizations,  the Muslim Brotherhood, to his  repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his crowning achievement: his destruction of the greatest Healthcare System in the World, Obama has consistently governed against the wishes of the majority of the American citizens he is supposed to be serving.

His darling wife hasn’t exactly been a peach, either.

While other First Ladies have embraced causes such as poverty, child hunger, and illiteracy, Michelle Obama decided that American parents were not caring for their children properly, and decided to be their surrogate parent, under the guise of fighting chldhood obesity. And, if that wasn’t enough, last year, she and her Food Police decided that the fittest among us, our Armed Forces, weren’t eating properly and, is now going to make them eat arugula, or something. Heck, even the Subway Sandwich Shops are putting avocado and raw spinach on their sandwiches, now.

Then, there’s her remark during the 2008 campaign that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”. And, as an Honor Guard passed by her and the president, during the solemn 10th anniversary remembrance of 9/11, she leaned over to him, and said, “All this for a flag.”…and, the President of the United States nodded in agreement.

So, why am I so hard on the presumptive Republican nominee for President?

America is in desperate need of a leader…a man in the mold of Ronald Wilson Reagan, possessing not only traditional American beliefs and values, but, also possessing the courage and conviction necessary to stick his neck out for those beliefs and values, and not put them on the back burner for the sake of poltical expediency.

In 1984, President Reagan said:

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Yesterday, The Examiner reported the following:

Speaking with reporters in Nevada, Mitt Romney refused to enter the Chick-fil-A controversy that has occupied most of the nation’s attention this week.

During the press conference, Romney was asked whether the Chick-fil-A controversy – or the controversy about Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – should be part of the national conversation.

“Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign.” he answered shortly, after explaining that he wasn’t in the business of telling people what to talk about.

Lacking the courage of his convictions?

And, that’s why I’m so hard on Romney.

American Conservatives/Chick-Fil-A…GOP Elite/Bread and Circuses

While Conservatives and “Independents” have been out fighting the good fight against Fascist Liberals by standing or sitting in their car, in massive lines at their local Chick-Fil-A, they have all been wondering:

Where’s the Republican Establishment?

Like the Main Stream Media, they’ve been ignoring the situation.

There is some good news ,though:

It appears that the apparent Republican Nominee for President has taken a stand after all.

On the Chick-Fil-A situation, KJ? Nope.

In his own defense.

FoxNews.com has the story:

Mitt Romney lashed back at Harry Reid on Thursday in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, saying the Senate majority leader needs to “put up or shut up” after airing allegations about Romney’s taxes.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, first raised eyebrows Tuesday by saying in a news interview that someone had told him Romney went 10 years without paying taxes. He would only identify his source as an investor in Romney’s former venture capital firm, Bain Capital, and he acknowledged, “I’m not certain” it’s true.

That didn’t stop Reid from taking to the Senate floor Thursday to accuse the Republican presidential candidate again of paying no taxes, part of a broader Democratic attack on Romney for declining to release more than two years of tax documents.

“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said. “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.”

But Romney forcefully denied Reid’s allegations on Hannity’s radio show Thursday.

“Harry’s going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong,” Romney said. “It’s untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong.

“So, I’m looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we will probably find out it’s the White House.”

Romney’s campaign earlier rejected the majority leader’s statement as “shameful.”

Reid also raised eyebrows for invoking Romney’s late father, himself a one-time presidential candidate.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid told the Huffington Post.

George Romney, a Michigan governor, released 12 years of tax returns during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. His son has released only his 2010 tax return and an estimate for 2011, years when he was preparing for his own presidential bid or already running.

Reid doubled down on the claim late Thursday, firing back at Romney in a written statement.

“People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes,” Reid said in a written statement. “When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up. But as a presidential candidate, it’s his obligation to put up, and release several years’ worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades.

“It’s clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.”

Reid’s comments come in the middle of a scathing critique of the former Massachusetts governor’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center, which Romney has called “an objective third party” in the past, noted that his proposal would give benefits to high-income earners while giving a tax increase to middle-class Americans. Romney’s camp has disputed that analysis.

Meanwhile, another well-known Moderate seems to have found his…err…backbone also. 

Thehill.com reports:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) lashed out at President Obama during an interview Tuesday, saying the president has “never even had a real job, for God’s sake.”

Boehner was discussing the presidential election, and accusing President Obama’s campaign team of using “over-the-top” rhetoric to distract from his economic record.

“Sometimes I have to catch my breath and slow down because the rhetoric in this campaign is just so over-the-top,” Bohener said during an appearance on “Kilmeade and Friends.” “And that’s because the president’s policies have failed. Listen — 93 percent of Americans believe they’re a part of the middle class. That’s why you hear the president talk about the middle class every day, because he’s talking to 93 percent of the American people.”

Then the Ohio lawmaker lit into the president’s qualifications to discuss job creation.

“But the president has never created a job. He’s never even had a real job, for God’s sake,” Boehner said. “And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works.”

In the same interview, Boehner blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for his suggestion on the Senate floor Thursday that Mitt Romney paid no federal income taxes for a decade.

“I don’t know how you go out there and make a statement like that without any facts,” Boehner said. “It’s one of the problems that occurs here in Washington, people run out there without any facts and just make noise. The American people are too smart for this, they’ll get to the bottom of this, it clearly is not a fact, and I would think that the Senate majority leader would be smart enough to know that.”

While Americans have been taking a stand this week against the tyranny of the Minority, what have the leaders of the Republican Party (which we will be dragging across the goal line) been giving us?

Bread and circuses.

Romney: Slipping in the Swing States

Before I begin the subject of today’s post, let me re-iterate:  on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, I am going to hold my nose and pull the voting lever for the Massachusetts Moderate, Mitt Romney, because I have no other legitimate choice.

Evidently, a lot of Americans aren’t as sure about their vote as I am.

USA Today reports that ol’ Mittens is having some trouble convincing folks in the Swing States:

In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of swing states, an overwhelming majority of voters remember seeing campaign ads over the past month; most voters in other states say they haven’t. In the battlegrounds, one in 12 say the commercials have changed their minds about President Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — a difference on the margins, but one that could prove crucial in a close race.

At this point, Obama is the clear winner in the ad wars. Among swing-state voters who say the ads have changed their minds about a candidate, rather than just confirmed what they already thought, 76% now support the president, vs. 16% favoring Romney.

“We gave them new information,” says Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “Romney had been out there claiming success as governor,” but Democratic ads have prompted voters to “take a look at his record” on job creation and as head of the private-equity firm Bain Capital. Messina also credits a $25 million buy for a positive ad “about the challenges the president inherited and what we had to do to move this country forward.”

To be sure, Obama’s ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse calls the findings unsurprising. “It is expected to find that more voters say their views have changed about Mitt Romney; they simply don’t know him all that well,” he says. “On the other hand, there are few voters who are going to say their views have changed about President Obama. They know him pretty damned well.”

Obama and his allies have outspent Romney’s side on ads so far by almost a third. Although the TV spots didn’t start earlier than in recent elections, there have been more than ever before — including a negative flood from the new breed of super PACs — and they are continuing without the traditional summertime letup.

On July 3rd, thehill.com reported that

Mitt Romney has a sizeable lead in 15 battleground states, according to a CNN/ORC poll released late Monday.

The Republican candidate leads President Obama 51 percent to 43 in 15 states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election.

Obama won 12 of these battleground states in 2008 — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — and will need to keep about half of those in 2012 if he’s to secure reelection. The poll also included Missouri, Indiana and Arizona as battleground states.

Why is Scooter gaining ground on Mittens in these key states?

Last Thursday, after Romney aide, Eric Fehrnstrohm, earlier in the week, put both feet in his over-sized mouth, by stating that the Romney Campaign agreed with the Administration that Obamacare was not a tax, The Wall Street Journal posted the following:

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it’s Mr. Obama’s fault. We’re on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that “Obama isn’t working.” Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.

Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.

All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney’s main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.

Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.

The FACT is:  this country is looking for a leader, a man of conviction.

Governor Romney hasn’t told us yet what he stands for…and it does not help his poll numbers that, from week to week, his convictions seem to change.

Americans want another Reagan.  Unfortunately, right now, Romney seems to be acting more like Clinton.

Class Warfare Being Turned Into Race Warfare?

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, said the following while delivering a very famous speech at the base of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Unfortunately, sir…we aren’t there , yet.

“Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems with people who are like him,” Politico’s Joe Williams said on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir program today. “That’s one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in some town hall settings, why he can’t relate to people other than that. But when he comes on “Fox & Friends,” they’re like him, they’re white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company. So it really is a very stark contrast, I think and a problem that he’s not been able to solve to date and he’s going to have network harder if he’s going to try to compete.”

And evidently, it’s not just Mitt Romney that’s a bigoted silver-spoon sucker.  It’s all of us “crackas”.

The University of Minnesota – Duluth (UMD) is now sponsoring an ad-campaign designed to achieve “racial justice” by raising awareness of “white privilege.”

The project disseminates its message, that “society was setup for us [whites]” and as such is “unfair,” through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures. The ads feature a number of Caucasians confessing their guilt for the supposed “privilege” that comes along with their fair features.

The self-titled Un-Fair Campaign, is sponsored and supported by the University of Minnesota – Duluth, along with several liberal organizations including the NAACP, YWCA, and The League of Woman Voters.

“You give me better jobs, better pay, better treatment, and a better chance – all because of the color of my skin,” reads one poster that features a close shot of a Caucasian male.

The Un-Fair campaign also held a series of lectures and events on campus last semester. One included a presentation by Tim Wise, author of Dear White America. In his book, Wise confesses a “longstanding fantasy” where he turns to a man with a “God Bless the USA” button and asks him, “why can’t you just get over it?”

These lectures were publicly endorsed by university Chancellor Lendley Black. Black sent a message to the campus community in April describing his effort to “create an inclusive campus climate for all” through providing “support and… leadership to the Un-Fair Campaign.”

FLASHBACK: UMD Administrator Calls Conservative “White Supremacist” for Giving Away Free Pocket Constitutions

Documents obtained exclusively by Campus Reform this week, through a public records request, however, show that students on campus have expressed outrage over the administration’s support of the racially-charged campaign.

One student, whose identity was redacted in the documents released by UMD, e-mailed Chancellor Black expressing his discontent, writing that the Un-fair campaign “is in fact UNFAIR.”

The student proceeded to write: “It may be drawing awareness to factors that we might otherwise not pay attention to, but it’s creating a gap between people. It’s only making people more racist on both sides.”

LI’s Campus Reform contacted the school seeking further comment, but was unable to reach a spokesperson for comment by the time of publication.

On April 25th of this year, wsj.com ran the following article:

After securing victory in all five Republican presidential primary contests last night, Mitt Romney told an audience in New Hampshire that President Obama is resorting to class warfare because he can’t run on his record.

Last week, Mr. Obama told an audience that “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” a clear swipe at the privileged background of Mr. Romney. And yesterday the president told a group of college students that student loan debt “is something Michelle and I know about firsthand . . .. [W]e’ve been in your shoes. Like I said, we didn’t come from wealthy families.”

In his speech last night, Mr. Romney pushed back. “You might have heard that I was successful in business, and that rumor is true,” he quipped and then went on to defend his background in private equity. But the real issue in this campaign, he added, is what do we have to show for three-and-a-half years of President Obama.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?” asked Mr. Romney. “If the answer were ‘yes’ to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements, and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions.”

Ol’ Mitt sure called that one, didn’t he?

Given the failure of the OWS movement, could this be a new tactic to distract from Obama’s miserable record?

You betcha.

Ted Nugent and Franklin Graham Have Something in Common?

Legendary Rocker “The Motor City Madman” Ted Nugent, and Evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham, son of the great Reverend Billy Graham, have something in common.  The administration does not want them near our “Best and Brightest”.

Per Foxnews.com:

The U.S. Army has nixed Ted Nugent from the lineup at a Fort Knox concert scheduled for late June, after the outspoken rocker made controversial remarks about President Obama.

The decision comes after Nugent met with Secret Service officials Thursday — the Service said at the time the issue had been “resolved.”

But the Army went on to cancel Nugent’s performance set for June 23 at the Fort Knox annual summer concert.

“Co-headliners REO Speedwagon and Styx remain scheduled to perform,” a statement on the Fort Knox Facebook page said. “However, after learning of opening act Ted Nugent’s recent public comments about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided to cancel his performance on the installation.”

Organizers are offering refunds, though the statement said they may find a replacement for Nugent’s act.

Nugent, who recently endorsed GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said during a recent National Rifle Association convention that the Obama administration was “vile,” “evil” and “America-hating.”

He also said that if the president is re-elected, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Nugent later said his remarks were not a call to violence.

Obama and his minions have a habit of “banning” those who say something that they don’t like, from speaking to the troops.  Remember this from The Washington Post of April 22, 2010?

The Army has withdrawn an invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at a special Pentagon prayer service next month because of his controversial views on Islam, said Col. Thomas Collins, spokesman for the U.S. Army.

Colins said Graham’s remarks were “not appropriate. We’re an all-inclusive military. We honor all faiths. … Our message to our service and civilian work force is about the need for diversity and appreciation of all faiths.”

Graham issued this statement: “I regret that the Army felt it was necessary to rescind their invitation to the National Day of Prayer Task Force to participate in the Pentagon’s special prayer service. I want to express my strong support for the United States military and all our troops. I will continue to pray that God will give them guidance, wisdom and protection as they serve this great country.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation objected to Graham’s scheduled appearance at the prayer event, largely because of his past remarks about Islam as an evil religion. “Lady liberty is smiling today,” said Weinstein, MRFF president, who sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, objecting to Graham’s scheduled appearance. Weinstein said the invitation offended Muslim employees at the Pentagon and would endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists.

Weinstein said the foundation’s DC attorney, Victor Glasberg, was planning today to go to court to seek a restraining order against the entire prayer event as unconstitutional. Last week, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. “We congratulate the Pentagon for making the right decision, but it’s a shame that it had to be made under duress.” Weinstein said the Pentagon plans to replace Graham with “a more inclusive” interfaith figure.

Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, was invited to speak at the event by the Colorado-based National Day of Prayer Task Force, which works with the Pentagon chaplain’s office on the prayer event. The task force organizes Christian events for the National Day of Prayer. Graham is president and CEO of both Samaritan’s Purse, a Christian international relief organization in Boone, N.C., and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association in Charlotte.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion.” In a later op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Graham wrote that he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but “as a minister …. I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching.”

Last month, in a video interview with On Faith’s Sally Quinn, Graha, repeated some of those remarks, but also said “I am not on a crusade against Muslims. I love the Muslim people . . . I want them to know that they don’t have to die in a car bomb, don’t have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it’s through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone.”

The MRFF claims to represent 17,000 members of the armed forces — 96 percent of whom are Protestant or Catholic. “Those who hate us really hate us today,” said Weinstein. “But those who love us really love us.”

Collins said the National Day of Prayer event at the Pentagon “will continue as scheduled under the administration of the office of the Pentagon Chaplain.”

It’s no secret that the 44th President of these United States is thin-skinned.  In fact, it’s become the stuff of legend.  As we head toward the General Election this November 6th, it could very well be his Achilles’ Heel.

Now, it’s up to Mitt Romney to take advantage of it.

Romney and Those Darned Christians

On March 27th, 2012, gallup.com released the following lists of the 10 Most Religious and Least Religious states in America. Most Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011 Least Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011

As of the writing of this blog, Mitt Romney has come in First Place in the following states’ Republican Primaries: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

The only state that Romney will possibly win among the Most Religious List is Utah.  Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but, the only reason he will carry that state, is the fact that he is a Mormon. (Yeah, I said it.)

The Pew Research Center released some interesting information last month.

A poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that nearly 60% of Romney supporters believe that churches should step back from political and social issues, while 60% of Santorum supporters believe churches should play a more active role. These sentiments were echoed by another sharp divide found between the candidates’ supporters regarding their views on whether there’s too little expression of religious faith by political leaders. For Romney’s camp, there’s little concern, with 24% agreeing that there’s not enough religious discourse. But 55% of Santorum supporters see a deficit in religious speech by politicians. As for the nation on a whole, the poll unearthed another interesting trend. The largest number of Americans in the poll’s 10-year history believe there is too much expression of religious faith by politicians. In 2010, the last national election year, 37% said there was too little expression compared to 29% saying there was too much. Now, the numbers are nearly reversed, at 30% and 38% respectively. Democrats were found to be nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there’s too much talk of religion by politicians, 46% to 24%. Among white evangelicals, Santorum’s most prominent base of supporters, only 14% thought politicians focused on religion too much. As such, it comes as no surprise that 54% see the Republican Party as being friendly toward religion, compared to 35% for Democrats. The largest divides in the poll were on President Obama’s perceived friendliness to religion. A majority of Republicans, 52%, categorize him as unfriendly, compared to 5% of Democrats, while 15% of Republicans see him as friendly, compared to 59% percent of Democrats. The poll was conducted between March 7-11 with 1,503 individual interviews and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

If I’m interpreting this poll correctly, both the majority of Romney supporters and the Majority of Democrats have an aversion to religious values playing a part in the governance of our country. With 78% of Americans, per Gallup, identifying themselves as Christians, this could be a problem for Romney, if he continues on to the nomination.

But, is it his Mormonism or his flip-flipping Political Ideology that has alienated the Conservative Base of the Republican Party?

TheBlaze.com reported the following on March21st:

Following a win in the Illinois GOP primary Tuesday and a key endorsement from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney’s top adviser Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN where he answered questions concerning whether his candidate had gone “so far right” in the primary campaign.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Fehrnstrom said. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Fehrnstrom’s answer is likely to rehash concerns from many critics within the conservative base and general electorate who have long alleged that Romney is a “flip-flopper“ and has ”no core values.”

The campaign of Romney’s strongest rival Rick Santorum has immediately pounced on the gaffe.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” Santorum’s National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement.

“With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repealObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would ‘shake up and restart’ with when Romney hits the general election.”

If you have spent any time at all on Conservative Blogs during the Republican Nomination Process, you have seen Mitt Supporters label Christians, especially Evangelicals, as narrow-minded bigots, if they express any concern of the political ideology of Mitt Romney.  These “fans” stand at the ready to identify genuine concerns as anti-Mormon bigotry, where there is none.

The simple fact of the matter is, as Rush Limbaugh himself stated on February 2nd:

There is a Republican primary going on right now, and who votes in a Republican primary?  Starts with a C.  Conservatives.  There are elements of conservatism that are fundamental.  And we conservatives, we have radar.  We know when somebody isn’t.

Additionally, if the Romney supporters knew their Christianity, they would be familiar with the gift of discernment.

The Etch-A-Sketch and the “Exaggeration”

The GOP Front-runner, Mitt “The Legacy” Romney may have to adopt the  nickname “Pinwheel”, due to all the spinning he’s having to do.

Romney senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was asked on CNN whether Romney may be forced so far to the right by rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in the primary race that it might hurt him if he’s the party’s nominee in the fall. Fehrnstrom responded: “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch — you can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

That was Tuesday.  By Wednesday, Romney was spinning like Lindsey Lohan’s head after a night on the town.

CNN.com has the story:

Mitt Romney promised Wednesday that he would not change his positions if he wins the Republican presidential nomination, hours after a top adviser compared the general election to an Etch A Sketch toy and claimed that Romney can “shake it up” and “start all over again” in the fall.

That remark – uttered by longtime Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN Wednesday morning – was pounced on by the Obama campaign and Romney’s GOP rivals, who called it another sign of Romney’s willingness to change his positions for political gain.

The Etch A Sketch quip became such a distraction on the web and on cable that the candidate himself addressed it to reporters after a town hall meeting near Baltimore.

Romney explained that “organizationally,” a general election effort looks very different from a primary campaign. There are larger staffs and more fundraising support.

But he said his positions would remain the same if he wins the nomination.

“The issues I am running on will be exactly the same,” he told a pack of reporters eager for a comment on the day’s conversation-driver. “I am running a as conservative Republican. I was a conservative Republican governor. I will be running as a conservative Republican nominee, at that point hopefully, for president. The policies and positions are the same.”

He then turned and walked back to the curtained area from which he emerged, confusing reporters who were expecting a longer question-and-answer session.

“Actually this isn’t an avail,” Romney responded when more questions were shouted. “It was a chance to respond to a question I didn’t get a chance to respond to.”

Romney’s explanation is unlikely to satisfy his Republican opponents Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, who both used Etch A Sketch toys as props during the day to accuse Romney of once again shifting his positions.

Santorum spokeswoman Alice Stewart lingered amid the satellite trucks parked outside the Romney event in Maryland, handing out mini Etch A Sketches to reporters.

Stewart said Fehrnstrom’s remark “confirms what a lot of conservatives have been afraid of.”

“He used to be pro-abortion, he used to be pro-gay marriage, he used to be pro-Wall Street bailouts, climate change,” Stewart said of Romney. “You know now he’s talking a different language, but the campaign acknowledges that if need be, if he won the primary, he would go right back to the middle in order to win the general.”

A Conservative?  How can we tell?

Back on October 25th, 2011, ABCnews.go.com published “Romney’s Top 5 Contradicting Comments”:

The Flat Tax

…While Steve Forbes was running for president in 1996 on a flat tax platform, Romney took out ads as a “concerned citizen” that said the flat tax was “a tax cut for fat cats.” In 2007 Romney reiterated his opposition to a flat tax, telling the Des Moines Register that “one person’s flat tax is another person’s unfair tax.”

But as the idea of a simplified tax code gains popularity this election cycle, Romney has toned down his criticism for a flat tax, which institutes one tax bracket for all income levels. The GOP front-runner has stopped short of fully endorsing the plan, emphasizing its tendency to raise taxes on the middle class and lower them on the wealthy.

“The flat tax has positive features,” Romney said earlier this month at an Iowa town hall. “But then again you have to look and make sure it doesn’t raise taxes on middle income Americans.”

At a New Hampshire campaign stop in August, Romney said ‘the idea of one bracket alone would be even better in some respects,” than his multi-bracket proposal, but noted “I want to make sure of this: that we are not going to cut taxes for, if you will, the wealthiest 1 percent.”

Massachusetts Health Care

…While Romney consistently claims that he does not support the state law being implemented nationally, in the hardcover version of his book “No Apology,” Romney writes “we can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

In the paperback version of his book Romney amends that line to say, “It was done without government taking over health care,” a change Romney’s spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said was made after “Obamacare” was signed.

“They were simple updates to reflect that we had more information at the time the paperback came out,” said Fehrnstrom.

At the Las Vegas debate last week, Romney said, “It would be wrong to adopt [the Massachusetts law] as a nation. “In the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts,” Romney said.

Abortion

…While running for governor in 2002 Romney said he supported abortion rights.

“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said during a debate against his Democratic opponent Shannon O’Brien. “I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself.”

During his term as governor Romney, vetoed a bill in 2005 that would expand access to emergency contraception. In an op-ed explaining his veto he wrote that he was “pro-life.”

“While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state’s abortion laws,” Romney wrote.

Six years later, amid is second presidential bid, Romney clarified is current anti-abortion stance, writing in a National Journal op-ed that he supports overturning Roe v. Wade and defunding Planned Parenthood.

“If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America,” Romney wrote.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

…During his 1994 Senate campaign, Romney sent a letter to the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a gay rights political group, asking for its endorsement and praising “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a “step in the right direction.”

“I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military,” Romney wrote. “That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”

Then in 2007, while running for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney said he “would not change” the policy.

“It’s been the policy now in the military for what 10-15 years and it seems to be working,” Romney said at a GOP debate. “This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point. We can look at it down the road.”

Constitutional Amendment Defining Life

…At a campaign stop in Iowa last week, the White House hopeful said he agreed with the premise of a possible amendment, that “life beings and conception, birth control prevents conception,” but said he was “not campaigning for an amendment of some kind.”

But two weeks earlier Romney told Fox News host Mike Huckabee that he would “absolutely” support such an amendment.

Evidently, when Romney wants to appear Conservative, he just shakes his Etch-A-Sketch, and changes positions.

The GOP Elite Wants the Primary Over With…Now.

The new message from the Republican Establishment is that a long Primary Battle is not in the best interests of “the Party”.

Well…duh.  However, it is in the best interest of the American people…especially the Conservative ones.

Politico.com has the story:

Republican strategist Karl Rove argued Monday that the long GOP nomination process has switched from an asset to a burden for the party, calling recent weeks some of the “worst moments for the Republicans.”

“I think, overall, you’d have to say that the scales have moved from the long process being a positive to being a negative,” he said on Fox News.

Rove joined former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, in that assessment.

“I don’t think anybody in their right mind thinks that this way the primaries have played out has been good for the Republican chances,” Barbour said on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Rove also agreed with Barbour’s point that Republican infighting should have given President Barack Obama a boost in the polls, which hasn’t materialized.

“Hayley made [an argument] in addition that I thought was very much on point, which is: given the fact that the Republicans are cutting each other up and it’s an unpleasant picture to look at, the president ought to be, as Hayley said, soaring in the polls and he’s not,” said Rove.

“We had ABC/Washington Post and CBS News/New York Times [polls] last week showing the president is in terrible shape, even at one of the worst moments for the Republicans,” the strategist added.

The GOP Elite should be as fine as frog hair split four ways, shouldn’t they?  I mean, their candidate, Mitt “The Legacy” Romney, just captured all the delegates in Puerto Rico (Si. Si puede.).

So, why are they upset about how long this coronation…errr…Republican Primary is taking?

Perhaps, they are starting to think ahead to the General Election.

Dr. Thomas Sowell explains:

The biggest single reason why Governor Romney is the front runner is that he has had the overwhelming advantage in money spent and in “boots on the ground” running his campaign in states across the country.

Romney has outspent each of his rivals — and all of his rivals put together. His campaign organization has been operating for years, and it has put his name on the ballot everywhere, while neither Santorum nor Gingrich had a big enough organization to get on the ballot in an important state like Virginia.

In the general election, President Obama will have all the advantages against Romney that Romney currently has against his Republican rivals. Barack Obama will have boots on the ground everywhere — not just members of the Democratic Party organization but thousands of labor union members as well.

Incumbency alone guarantees the president plenty of money to finance his campaign, not only from enthusiastic supporters but also from businesses regulated by the government, who know that holders of political power demand tribute. And the mainstream media will give Obama more publicity than Romney can buy.

How does anyone ever defeat a sitting president then? They do it because they have a message that rings and resonates. The last Republican to defeat a sitting president was Ronald Reagan. He was the only Republican to do so in the 20th century.

He didn’t do it with polls. At one point during the election campaign, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan with 58 percent to 40 percent in the polls. So much for the polls that so many are relying on so heavily today.

The question is not which Republican looks better against Barack Obama in the polls today, before the general election campaign begins. The question is which Republican can take the fight to Barack Obama, as Reagan took the fight to Carter, and win the poll that ultimately matters, the vote on election day.

The biggest fighting issue for Republicans is ObamaCare. Can the author of RomneyCare as governor of Massachusetts make that an effective issue by splitting hairs over state versus federal mandates? Can a man who has been defensive about his own wealth fight off the standard class warfare of Barack Obama, who can push all the demagogic buttons against Mitt Romney as one of the one-percenters?

Rick Santorum, and especially Newt Gingrich, are fighters — and this election is going to be a fight to the finish, with the fate of this country in the balance. Mitt Romney has depended on massive character assassination advertising campaigns to undermine his rivals. That will not work against Barack Obama.

Even a truthful account of the Obama administration’s many disastrous failures, at home and abroad, will be automatically countered by the mainstream media, 90 percent of whom voted for Obama in the 2008 election.

It is truer in this election than in most that “it takes a candidate to beat a candidate.” And that candidate has to offer both himself and his vision. Massive ad campaigns against rivals is not a vision.

Some, like President Bush 41, disdained “the vision thing” — and he lost the presidency that he had inherited from Ronald Reagan, lost it to a virtual unknown from Arkansas.

The vision matters, more than the polls and even more than incumbency in the White House.

As of right now, the only vision that Romney and the GOP Establishment seem to be relating is “You HAVE to vote for Romney.  He’s inevitable! …And let’s end this Primary quickly before Republicans figure out that he’s not a Conservative.”

Whatever happened to “May the best man win?”