I Believe I Can Fly- Off the Fiscal Cliff

Republicans can win the fiscal cliff debate. President Obama has turned public discourse into a parade of emotional arguments. Instead of negotiating with congressional leaders he is going on tour and starting twitter campaigns, building a cultish support for his plan to raise taxes. He has framed it publicly as Republicans holding the middle class hostage to protect the rich from having to pay their fair share.. which is ironic because he's the one holding the gun. The ultimatum he has given republicans is "increase taxes on the rich.. Or everyone's taxes will go up and the world will burn." He even pulled out the pen to prove it.

He is the master of the national hostage crisis. Backing opponents into the corner and forcing them to do the bad thing and then share in the responsibility for it. It's easy to make emotional arguments when logic and data are completely inconsequential. As Reagan loved to say, "facts are stubborn things." When you have an electorate that just voted against facts, logic, reason and statistics it becomes a lot easier to back those with actual integrity into these political corners.

Republicans would be foolish to cave on taxes because we already know the outcome. We know that not only will tax hikes kill jobs and slow the economy, but we know spending will continue to rise and the deficit will continue to grow. Because the presidents plan to tax the rich has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit; there aren't enough rich people in America to pay it down through tax revenue. So what would be the point of caving on something we know to be catastrophic? If the first mate on the titanic had gotten word about the ice berg with enough time to dodge it should he attempt to change course or should he shut up and go along with the captains orders all the way to the bottom of the Atlantic? With math on our side we must hold our ground and make the greatest and most public case possible for it.

We have to pass a one year extension of the bush tax cuts and a short term resolution on the fiscal cliff so that a new congress can take the time to outline both a plan for tax reform and a plan to address bleeding, bloated entitlements. Neither of those can happen in the weeks before January first, thus the temporary resolution is necessary. We must explain why Pro growth tax reform will generate much greater revenue than Obamas asinine plan to tax the top 2 %. The president has done half the work for us, acting as a cheerleader for 98% of the bush tax cuts. We have to make the case for the one year extension of the top tier. Raising the taxes n the top 2% is NEARLY revenue neutral, so any educated person pushing for these tax hikes is doing it for "fairness" or "redistribution." We should be able to convince people that the downside of raising those taxes (killing jobs, slowing growth when growth is already nearly in negatives) is greater than the upside which is nothing more than that happy feeling that comes with revenge. The next case to make is the need to make cuts. This should be the easiest case to make, considering that its the only path to actual deficit reduction and staving off the oncoming fiscal avalanche- a fate much worse than the fiscal cliff. The American people need to understand that there will be a day of reckoning and the more we spend and the more debt we build the more painful that day of reckoning will be. There's not a reset button or a do over for national debt.

House republicans should stop attempting with the President. Or attempting to negotiate. Draft legislation for an extension of the tax cuts, even if its temporary, along with the temporary stop on the fiscal cliff. Undoubtedly senate democrats will block it because they are the real obstruction party, but at least the republicans put plans and options on the table. We will go off the fiscal cliff because of the senate democrats and in January democrats will force a middle class extension of the bush tax cuts. Taxes on the top 2% will go up on January 1st and republicans will be forced to either block those tax cuts to force the democrats to put the tax cuts for the top 2% back on th table OR just pass the tax cuts on the middle class and do nothing on the top tax cuts. If we take option 2 we bear no responsibility for obstruction or for the economic collapse that comes. Jobs, markets, interest rates on our debt will all skyrocket and the democrats will completely own it. That's when the we have to hope that President victory lap will humbly acknowledge that America is a two party democracy. And that's the moment Harry Reid, the greatest problem in Washington finally becomes marginalized. The 2014 elections will reflect a shift in who the people trust to fix the economy.

Reagan talked about a "crusade of ideas" across America, explaining why conservatism was better than more government. Economic freedom and opportunity should never be substituted for unsustainable government programs. We have to believe in Americans ability to see and embrace Americans founding principles if we can deliver it in a way that wild make the gipper proud.

Election Day Thoughts: We Deserve Better

In 2008 John McCain said “I will not take the low road to the highest office In the land.” His opponent Barack Obama took a similar tone, stating almost prophetically “if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. “ 2008 candidate Obama, meet 2012 incumbent President Obama. While “hope and change” inspired a movement to be proud of in 2008, the closing argument of the same candidates current campaign has been widely recognized as the exact set of tactics the wide-eyed dreamer in 2008 warned against. In a time of economic uncertainty and unrest around the world, an election to the most powerful office in the world should be an election of ideas. It should be a war of plans, ideologies and competing visions for recovery.  It should be.. very different than what it is now. You may hate Romney’s ideas and think they’re terrible, but at least he has them. President Obama hasn’t furnished his own undoubtedly because he didn’t think he’d need to. A president that puts himself in the top four Presidents of all time couldn’t possibly have imagined a real challenge to his throne.  He has decided to face that challenge with the most negative, small campaign in generations, using a campaign of distraction and distortion to keep his job. I submit to you that he has not campaigned in a way that would make him deserving of your vote.

A few weeks ago, in an attempt to compensate for his sleepy first debate performance, President Obama used the subsequent third debate to unveil a new strategy: slash and burn. Instead of a debate on substance, it was an exhibition of “zingers” and punch lines his staff had undoubtedly thought of the morning after Romney delivered the biggest Presidential-debate beat down in history. This attempt at a comedic performance served as a sad representation for the 2012 election as a whole. An election that put plans for comprehensive tax reform against calls for opponents tax returns, and an election that pitted big ideas against big bird and big distractions. While one candidate focused on presenting plans and ideas, one focused on schoolyard punch lines. The campaign Obama has run is not only beneath the office of the President; it’s an utter embarrassment to the United States and the political process that maintains the greatest democracy in the world.

My biggest problem with the Obama campaign is that a majority of Obama’s attacks on Romney have been based on character. In an interview with Rolling Stone (a hard hitting interview to be sure) the President of the United States called his opponent a “bull-sh*tter.” This is a rare departure from normal presidential tradition of having campaign surrogates and vice-presidential candidates perform the heavy lifting in the “smear” department. He seemed to take his own administration by surprise because his communications director asked the Rolling Stone interviewer “not to be “distracted by the word” but to “focus instead on the importance of choosing a President they can trust.” That’s not to say Biden and the campaign surrogates haven’t been doing their jobs. In the early months of the campaign the Presidents surrogates called Romney a “felon,” accused him of somehow inflicting a women with cancer and killing her, and the vice President has spent weeks speaking directly of Romney’s “lack of character.” Biden also told a mostly-black rally audience that Romney and Ryan want to “put them back in chains.” But Obama’s eloquent and intelligent use of “bull-sh*tter” follows a line Obama has been pushing to  “destroy Romney” as campaign strategists described it early on.

In contrast, Mitt Romney came out with a 59 pt. plan over a year before the election started. It had specific details for job creation, deficit reduction and sustainable economic growth. He later narrowed it down to five specific steps to creating 12 million jobs (in part because the Obama campaign seemed to struggle with the wonky details). President Obama has not provided any economic agenda for a second term. He has no plans to improve on the unemployment woes that have somehow grown worse under his watch. The “budget” he presented (as a formality) was not only rejected by every republican in congress but by every democrat as well, perhaps because it added about ten trillion dollars to our egregious 16 trillion dollar deficit over 8 years. He has, however, proposed a tax. Not a tax plan, just a simple tax on the rich to further the class-envy strategy he has embraced when all else has failed. But the tax he supports is not an attempt to raise revenue to deal with the deficit, that revenue would only be used to pay for increased spending. Ernst and Young has concluded that this tax will kill 710 thousand jobs.

Every attack the President has made against Romney on an actual policy basis has fallen flat after it proved to be nothing more than a fundamental misunderstanding of policies. That or the Obama campaign is simply bad at math.  Obama’s charge that Romney wants to pass a “5 trillion dollar tax cut” was walked back by Stef Cutter, one of his own campaign managers. He has repeatedly said that Romney “wanted to liquidate the auto industry.” The president doesn’t seem to understand the basic economic principles behind the managed bankruptcy that Romney advocated, which is particularly interesting considering that it’s the same managed bankruptcy the President ended up ultimately taking it through. I challenge any democrat out there to find another substantial policy the President has addressed. The truth is the President hasn’t made dull old things like “substance” or “plans” a centerpiece or even an important piece of his reelection campaign. A brief glance at the tealeaves would suggest that this is because “substance” is not on the President’s side. Any economic measure would prove that the President has been an abject failure in every possible way. Unemployment is actually higher than it was when he took office, a change from 7.8 to 7.9. But you know these dull old “facts” and “statistics” already because they’re the one element that can’t be spun or twisted. Numbers are numbers and they aren’t on the President’s side.

I repeat my primary thesis: President Obama has not campaigned in a way to be deserving of your vote. If the Obama campaign model wins, America loses. The level of rhetoric and campaign seriousness will be forever denigrated. Future campaigns will focus on the character attacks, big bird videos and pathetic distractions. Don’t vote for him just because you identify yourself as a democrat. Don’t vote for Obama because you think Romney “just wants to help the rich” or “doesn’t care about the poor” because both are patently false. I urge you to reconsider an Obama vote because the best-case scenario by every possible measure if “more of the same” and that isn’t good enough, even for a democrat electorate that seems ready to settle. With the country in trouble, does Presidential wordplay like “Romnesia” give you comfort? With close to 24 million people looking for work, does a 30 second video about saving Big Bird give you confidence in their opportunities? With almost 20% of all children living under the poverty line does a condescending debate quip about Bayonets give you hope for their future?  While it may have led to backslapping and self-congratulating among the Obama joke writing staff (I imagine it’s composed of the dregs of NBCs most recent cancelled sitcom writing staffs) it doesn’t present a vision. Obama took what could have been an opportunity to make a case for his devastating defense cuts and used it to insult Romney both with the bayonet line and a sarcastic explanation of submarines being “ships that go underwater.” It’s no surprise that Romney almost immediately closed thegap with women. I am giving commentary on the specifics of Obama’s policy proposals because as far as we know, there are none. I am simply suggesting that before casting a vote for President Obama, you consider what his campaign implies. A candidate campaigns on what they think is most pressing to the nation and if you think Big Bird, binders, bayonets, and “Romnesia” are the most pressing issues for the country, than Obama is your guy. If you prefer a leader that calls him opponent names and accuses him of ridiculous crimes instead of explaining how he’s going to fix a bleeding economy, than Obama is your guy. But I think we both know that we deserve better.

A Failure and a Triumph of Leadership on September 11th

With record-breaking unemployment numbers and debt, we would be foolish to think this election will focus too much on anything BUT the economy. Foreign policy and national security will certainly take a back-seat, but after the events of the week we would be foolish to ignore the importance of national security and foreign policy. There's a storm brewing on the other side of the world and global leadership couldn't be more important.

This week, on September 11th, 2012, America was attacked. Not on the American continent but at our embassies in the Middle-east. Protesters breached the walls of our sovereign territory in Egypt, where they tore down our flag, and burned it to the ground. The same flag that we lowered to half staff to pay tribute to the fallen heroes of another September 11th. These protesters invaded our land chanting things like "we are all Osama." Meanwhile in Libya, protesters breached the walls of the Libyan embassy. They weren't focused on flags so much as finding Americans and murdering them. They dragged our ambassador through the streets, committing unspeakable acts to a man who was there to help them, to reach out to them diplomatically on behalf of the United States. Americans watched these events on the news around the world, fearing for the lives of our people trapped inside our own land. We saw our flags burn as news trickled out that an official had died. 

These events are of course very different than those of the same day eleven years ago. The numbers, the scale, I will not attempt to say they are the same or should be treated the same. But they were both major national security events and they both involved attacks on our people and our way of life. One of the greatest differences between the two, however, was the reaction of our Presidents and the style of leadership they exhibited.

For a full timeline of the events of September 11th, click here.

For a brief summary, the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 8:46 am. The second hit at 9:03 AM, and at the same moment, NORAD was informed it had been hijacked. President Bush was informed the details of events during a school visit and was on the air addressing the nation within 26 minutes. He explained that terrorists had attacked our nation and called for a moment of silence for the victims. He assured the nation that they were in good hands. 

Later that night, when the President finally made it back to Washington and had time to gather intelligence and prepare, he delivered powerful remarks to the nation. Here are a few excerpts from that and the full speech is embedded below.

"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve," and "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts...we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

Now for the contrast. After the attacks on both the Libyan and Egyptian embassies, the only comments we had from the Obama administration came in the form of a few tweets from the Cairo embassy. You can find all of them compiled here. But to summarize, while protesters gathered they tweeted "the US embassy condemns religious incitement." They released a fuller statement condemning a video that was said to be responsible for the anger shown by the protesters. The statement went on to condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims  Hours later, protesters scaled the walls, tore down and burned the flag, replacing it with a black Islamic flag. The embassy doubled down on it's first statement, condemning the inciters of the protest. Within hours reports came of much more violent protests in Libya and news trickled in of a state department officials death. Finally, Hillary issued a statement "condemning the violence in the strongest terms." Obviously seeing the weak position the Cairo embassy had taken via twitter, she also clarified that the video in question "was not justification" for the events. The Cairo embassy deleted their second tweet that doubled down on the condemnation of the video. Still no word from President Obama. (Mitt Romney also issued a statement which you've most likely already heard all about, but as this is a contrast between President Obama and President Bush, I won't address those)

After midnight, the first comments from the White House came from Obama spokesman Ben Labolt. However, instead of commenting on the events in the middle east, the attacks, violations of our sovereignty and the MURDER, he attacked Mitt Romney for his comments. 7 hours later, the second word from the White House came but it was just a confirmation that one of those murdered in Libya was ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Finally, at 10:42, 21 hours after our Egyptian embassy was invaded and about 13 hours after the confirmed death of a state department official, President Obama addressed the nation.

I won't spend too much time dissecting Obama's speech but I will say that it did not have the passion, the hope or the strength of Bush's speech. I did not feel confidence in our ability to bring the perpetrators to justice like I did on the evening of September 11th. 

When our nation is attacked, whether it be the New York skyline or our territory overseas, we hope for leadership from our President. We hope for reassurance and above all, we hope to know that those we elect to oversee our protection are on top of things. From President Bush we received that reassurance within an hour of the first attack. He didn't have all the knowledge of the situation, in fact there were still hijacked planes in the air when he addressed the nation. President Obama waited and even had the gall to criticize Mitt Romney for speaking out when he chose not to. He even said "Governor Romney has the tendency to shoot first and aim later." Did it take about 22 hours for the President to "aim" before commenting on the murder of our citizens? He spoke out almost immediately at the death of Trayvon Martin. He reached out to Sandra Fluke with tremendous speed when she was insulted by a conservative commentator. But when our nation was attacked in perhaps the greatest national security attack in his term, he was silent. That silence is perhaps due to the fact that he was campaigning in Las Vegas and going on the radio to talk about Flo Rida and the Miami Dolphins. Whatever the reason though, the President did not show leadership at a time when it was sorely needed. But isn't that the story of Obama's first term? He hasn't shown leadership in dealing with congress, as we have found out in recent weeks in Bob Woodwards new book. He hasn't shown leadership as unemployment has stayed above 8% for over 40 straight months and he certainly hasn't shown leadership in adding over 5 trillion dollars to the deficit. Moral of the story: looking for leadership? Vote Romney.

"IF YOU'RE NOT IN THAT BUNKER.. YOU'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE."

I'm sure you've heard the Laura Ingraham quote by now. "If you can't beat Barack Obama with this record then shut down the party. Shut it down, start new. With new people. This is a gimme election."

Let me tell you why this is ridiculous.

First, the election is about more than the presidency. The party that she wants shut down is the party that still has a good chance to take the Senate and maintain control of the house, not to MENTION the Presidential election that is still 56 days away. Let Laura Ingraham and George Will throw in the towel, we don't need them and we don't need this reactionary defeatist garbage. Laura Ingraham wasn't on the front lines when the republicans took the house and made gains in the Senate in 2010. The conservative movement, tea party movement, whatever you want to call it has never been led by pundits. It's an organic movement fueled by normal average Americans that expect better and fight for it.

Restoring Honor Rally- August 2010- 500k Conservatives Gather in DC

Second, our candidate is only as strong as his supporters. Obama has one of the worst records of any President ever to run for reelection, but his supporters don't seem to mind. They've chugged the kool-aid and are all on board for whatever lies and distortions their guy plans to run on. If Romney didn't get a "bump" after the convention it's not because his speech wasn't good enough. It's not because he didn't hit hard enough. It's because WE didn't carry the enthusiasm to the streets like his drones and shills in the media and everywhere else did. And that's what we're up against. Everyone knows (and fundraising also shows) that Obama does not enjoy the enthusiasm gap he had in '08, but the media will relentlessly portray it that way. We've SEEN polls showing that  Romney is KILLING it with Independents, which is really where the election is decided. But too many members of our own elite right wing pundits are telling us that the polls are bad for Romney and we should be afraid. They're not telling us to work harder, to make more phone calls and to knock more doors. They're telling us "if you can't win, shut down the party." As someone who HAS made phone-calls, knocked doors, organized phone banks, driven to neighboring states to help with caucuses and canvassing, and given whatever little bit I could in donations, here's what I have to say to those people: shut up.

Romney w/ Volunteers in Spring 2011. See anyone familiar?

We know how important this election is. We picked a candidate who is best suited to fix the economy. He's not going to light his hair on fire or wear war-paint to an anti-abortion rally like we might expect from a Rick Santorum. He doesn't have the authoritative, encyclopaedic knowledge of the supply-side Reagan years that Gingrich had. But he is a better all-around candidate than the others, and he is a FIXER when we need a fixer the most. And now he has wunderkind Paul Ryan to add the economy expertise on the ticket. The players are set and the fight is largely on our shoulders now. They have the debates and less than two months of campaigning to refine a message and reach out to as many voters as possible, but it's up to us to reach further and spread it wider. To reiterate something I said before: If you haven't made phone calls, knocked doors, donated any money that you have the means to donate, registered friends and family to vote, and actually argued the issues of this election, I couldn't care less what you have to say about our candidate or his chances in this thing. Like Andrew Breitbart said ""If you're not in that bunker because you're not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you're on the other side.” Time to get in the bunker. As Joel Pollak wrote yesterday, "We have not yet begun to fight."

Breitbart says all of this better than I could. And look at the people in the crowd. They are normal, everyday people like you and me. But they are fired up. We need that back. And we need it now.

Main Stream Media and the "Beam" in their eyes.

In thinking of the best vehicle with which to describe the tremendous media malpractice of the past week, I first thought of that great scripture in Luke. 

Luke 6:24 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

The main stream media has played a despicable game this week, and based upon the reaction in my twitter feed, it hasn't gone unnoticed. They seem to be trying to frame the entire election as "Racist old white men vs. the Obama, hope for America." We knew the Obama campaign would attempt this because nothing motivates liberals like a good race-war or even just the opportunity to call a few people racist. (especially with such a disaster of a first term to hide from). But I don't think anyone realized that the media would not only spear-head that tactic, but take it to desperate levels. The reason the scripture from Luke is particularly relevant is that they are showing their own terribly racist tendencies in the very attempt of painting others as being racist. They want to pull the mote out of our eyes, but will have trouble considering the terrible beam of bigotry blinding themselves.

Exhibit A : Reince vs. Liquored up Matthews.

(Chris Matthews will appear on here multiple times, as he has been known to go on drunken rants meant to "pull out the mote" from America's eyes.) The big topic in this is the "race card." Matthews said "he has an African name and he has to live with it." He goes on to describe the race-card and how the work requirement fits right into it. Matthews repeatedly says "foodstamps" and "welfare" which fit well with our second example in the next paragraph. But as you watch this clip, when you get to about the five minute mark you see how awkward Morning Joe and the rest of the panel seem to feel towards Matthews, who OBVIOUSLY had a few too many Bloody Mary's that morning. To Matthews, any mention of food-stamps or welfare is clearly tied at black people, because apparently they all need them or something. But as we'll find out later on, most of the people on foodstamps are actually white.

 

Exhibit B: Newt vs. Matthews

Picking up where he left off with Reince, when Matthews begins his interview with Newt he jumps straight to the discussion of foodstamps and welfare reform. He goes straight at Newt and says "what's this about the foodstamp President." (A term which I believe Newt himself coined during the GOP debates earlier this year) Watch closely, because Newt deftly exposes exactly what we're talking about with the beam in your eye discussion.

There are some important points here. Matthews says "Reagan talks about the welfare queen in Chicago who was African American." Huh? Newt responds "he never said African American." Matthews says "well he didn't have to." Actually, he would have had to to make your point legimate Matthews. Newt delivers the knock out by saying "We can't address foodstamps because your sensibility?" Matthews inferred that welfare queens had to be a reference to black people because apparently in his mind, people on welfare are black.

Exhibit C: MSNBC's "separate and unequal" coverage of minority speakers

The republicans had an incredible slate of speakers on the first night of the convention, several of which represent minority populations. The Daily Caller's Jeff Poor wrote

One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.

If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

Exhibit D: David Chalian

Poor poor idiot David Chalian. "The Romney's are happy to have a party with black people drowning." Watch this video but listen the voices caught in the background.

Yahoo News fired Chalian when the story broke according to Newsbusters. But it forces the question: why would Yahoo News hire such an ignorant idiot in the first place? On the bright side, this type of story would probably help his credibility in the liberal media and even though he was fired by Yahoo, I'm sure MSNBC wouldn't mind another willing to accuse republicans of racism. Nevermind the fact that the person who could actually assist the situation, the President of the United States is out campaigning. But if winning his first election wasn't enough to get him to stop campaigning, I doubt a little hurricane would slow him down. You'd think he'd be raising more money with all the time he spends out of the office..

These are four examples just from the media the past three days. There have most certainly been countless more but I can't handle more than a few seconds of MSNBC at a time.  It's amazing how racist liberals can be in attempting to describe how racist republicans are. Perhaps if they were to worry first about that beam in their own eyes, the media would be able to point out ACTUAL racism when it happens. Racism is a terrible thing and it deserves to be denounced whenever it happens, but when the main-stream media overzealously attempts to frame racism before it even happens, they lose their credibility to step in and expose the real thing. Mainstream media, we need and DESERVE better than you.

Conclusion: Political Pidgeonholing
Republicans and Democrats both have a tendency to pidgeonhole each other in stereotypes. Democrats call republicans "racist old white men" and republicans call democrats hippies and freeloaders. This made me think of a clip from the show "The Newsroom." In a moment of clarity, one of the few moments Sorkins characters aren't talking about how the tea-party is full of terrorists and republicans are all idiots, we are presented with a thoughtful scene. Liberal republican anchor Will McAvoy interviews fictional Sutton Wall, an African American homosexual who, in the greatest of paradoxes, was working as an advisor to "the bigot Rick Santorum." The character is closely based on the actual Robert Traynham, an African American homosexual who formerly served as Deputy Chief of Staff to Rick Santorum, according to Philly.com. Watch from the 2.45 mark.

"I am not one thing. How dare you reduce me to the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. How dare you presume to decide what I should find important." I constantly hear liberals say things like "I don't know how any gay person could be a republican." Well perhaps there is something in government they value more than gay rights. I'm not saying that they should, that's up to them, but as in this video clip, no person is just one thing. African American conservatives are often ridiculed for going against the overwhelming majority of their fellows who vote democrat. And I will admit that I am sure there are certain republicans who commit the same error. While the media appears to be constantly moving more and more in the direction of political pidgeonholing, I ask that before we assume, before we attempt to cast out motes and before we go on the defense that consider the implications of our accusations and the beams in our own eyes. That means you MSNBC.

Update: Lawrence O'Donnell Joins the Fray (what took him so long?)
This just keeps getting better. Lawrence O'Donnell, famous for long-winded Anti-Mormon rants, joins Martin Bashir, famous for his attempts to condemn Mitt Romney to hell by misusing passages of the Book of Mormon to dissect a leaked passage from Mitch McConnells convention speech coming up tonight. The passage says "Obama hasn't been working for reelection, he's been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour." Through a series of rhetorical gymnastics, the likes of which Gabby Douglas herself would be proud of, Lawrence accuses the Minority Leader of attempting to tie the President to the philandering Tiger Woods. (black, PGA tour, it makes sense right?) McConnell was CLEARLY trying to say that Obama is a philanderer by saying that he plays a lot of golf. Lawrence even speaks if he had a source in the speech preparation room that confirmed that the Tiger Woods connection was the intended purpose. Of course he didn't, but Lawrence is a sad, pathetic liar of the worst degree. Watch the video here.

Update 2: LA Mayor: "GOP Trotting out Brown Faces"
LA Mayor Villaraigosa said that Republicans can't just "trot out a brown face or a spanish surname and expect people are going to vote for your party or your candidate." The LA Times followed with the headline "Republican National Convention Puts a Brown Face on a White Party." Allen West, a black congressman from Florida said “It’s reprehensible,” West told a gaggle of reporters. “So I guess if you’re a brown face and you’re a Demcorat it’s acceptable. If you’re a brown face and you’re not a Democrat, you get castigated as a token [minority].” How dare anyone of color support republicans or work hard for the leadership positions that get them on stage at the convention. How dare they make their own choices and support candidates that speak to their personal views. It's insulting to these great leaders, their hard work and sacrifice, and the voters who put them there.

The "Shadowy Outside Group" Myth and the Faulty "Disclose Act."

The Senate Democrats are currently debating legislation called "the Disclose Act," a purely political ploy to attempt to paint republicans this election season as Harry Reid said "Angry white men trying to buy elections." We'll ignore Angry White Man Reid's odd Race-baiting to address the bigger point. Democrats would like all donors to be out and public so that they can publish their names in enemies lists and call them out on the Senate floor like Senator Lautenberg did just today. There is one glaring problem in this Disclose Act, and it's something that should disgust every single constituent of these senate democrats. This version of the "Disclose act" has carved out specific exemptions to allow unions to continue spending incredible amounts of money to defeat those like Scott Walker, who attempt to give power to middle class workers instead of greedy union bosses. Warner Todd Huston described the legislation in much more specific detail than I will delve in to now, but read his piece at the Liberty News Network for more details.

Senator Scott Brown voiced this in a statement
“The DISCLOSE Act is a cynical political ploy masquerading as reform and I continue to oppose it,” Brown said in a statement. “Rather than treat all sides equally as a true reform bill would, it contains special carve outs for union bosses and other favored interest groups. In Massachusetts, I took direct action to limit the influence of outside spending and Super PACs, and I am glad my People’s Pledge has kept third parties out of our state. I didn’t wait for Washington D.C. to come up with a solution to the problem of outside money, and I would encourage other candidates running across the country to do the same.”


 Just how much are Unions spending on elections? The Wall Street Journal released data disclosing that "on the record" (with the Federal Elections Commission) unions spent $1.1 Billion from 2005-2011.  However, additional political spending reported to the labor department revealed an additional $3.3 billion spent on political activity during the same period of time. Perhaps the most notable revelation in the Wall Street Journal's article is that corporate PACs give money from employees to candidates, ("unlike super PACs, which cannot directly support campaigns, corporate PACs give money from employees to candidates")  and in 2008 55% of the $2 billion from corporate PACs and 92% of the $75 million from Unions WENT TO DEMOCRATS.

So the next time you hear President Obama complain about "shadow groups" and the "faceless organizations buying influence in Washington" (as John Kerry said in a speech on the Senate floor just moments ago) remember that Labor unions spent $316 million in 2011. Kerry went on to say that this spending is going to "cripple the legislative process." The names of Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson are dropped like expletives as some sort of corruptocrats attempting to buy elections. Remember that from '05-'11 UNIONS spent 4.4 BILLION on political activity. Governor Romney's Super Pac has raised $61.4 million for the 2012 election cycle. Compare that to the AFL-CIO's $316 million in 2011 and the many tens or even hundreds of millions unions will yet contribute to their protector-in-chief President Obama. The Democrats will hypocritically attack "shadow groups" while simultaneously accepting a greater amount of corporate and union donations than Republicans could possible hope for from their own PACs.

Boehner's Bronze Nugget and What he Should have Said

John Boehner gave the democrats a bronze nugget with his "voters might not fall in love with Mitt Romney" quote. The following is from Roll Call:

Aside from Romney’s “friends, relatives and fellow Mormons,” Boehner said, most people will be motivated to vote for him in opposition to Obama.

The Ohio Republican made the remarks when an unidentified woman asked during a question-and-answer session: “Can you make me love Mitt Romney?”

“No,” Boehner said. “Listen, we’re just politicians. I wasn’t elected to play God. The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney. I’ll tell you this: 95 percent of the people that show up to vote in November are going to show up in that voting booth, and they are going to vote for or against Barack Obama.  

“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him. But that’s not what this election is about. This election is going to be a referendum on the president’s failed economic policies.

The reason this is a bronze nugget instead of gold or even silver should be quite simple to everyone who has had a pulse during the last four years. Republicans understand that we don't need to fall in love with a singing, dancing teen idol type to trust him or believe in him to be our President. We don't need a leader that girls worship with posters on their wall, or a leader that rappers write songs about. If the last four years have taught us anything, it's that those qualities have absolutely no correlation to one's ability to lead a nation. As a matter of fact, I would submit that the President's celebrity obligations may have actually deterred from his ability to effectively lead us out of our economic woes. But we are electing the leader of our nation, not the bachelor and not your new best friend. Though to be fair, I think Romney would do just fine on the bachelor. As someone who has met Romney multiple times, I look forward to the day when those accuse him of being "robotic" get to know him better and see how down-to-earth and friendly he actually is. We shouldn't be looking for a best friend in the White House, we should be looking for someone to fix the mistakes of the current "best-friend" in the White House.

Now here's what Boehner should have actually said in response to the "love Romney" question. "Can you make me love Mitt Romney?" He would smile, give a short chuckle and say "No.. but I can give you reasons why you should. He's a great family man, saved the olympics and legitimately wants to help our country. I like him as a Presidential candidate because he knows how the economy works from first-hand experience. He knows how jobs are created and his private sector experience proves that he knows how to fix things, and that's exactly what we need right now. If those reasons aren't enough to make you love him, then the alternative should be reason enough for you to support him. 4 more years of Barack Obama may take our nation to a place from which we cannot return. I urge you to support Romney and support your senate and congressional candidates, because having Republicans in congress is more important now than ever."

That is what Boehner should have said. I can guarantee it wouldn't have made it in to the media but it may have reassured one more West Virginia voter.

The President Might Think You're Stupid

One of my favorite lines in movie history came in the first Godfather. Michael Corleone is confronting his brother in law Carlo for betraying his family, a betrayal which led to the brutal murder of Michaels Brother Sonny. Carlo says he's innocent and Michael answers back with the iconic "don't tell me you're innocent because it insults my intelligence." When you tell someone something inaccurate you're assuming that they don't know the truth, that they're ignorant to the actual facts. Assuming anyone is ignorant can therefore BE rather insulting to one's intelligence. The Obama campaign messaging strategy is a massive insult to the intelligence of ANYONE who has actually been paying attention to the last four years.

In 2008 we saw what the media has lauded as the most savvy campaigns in modern history. "Hope and Change," while exceedingly simple became powerful standards for all who were willing to accept them at face value. While I will refrain from digressing into a diatribe about hollow words and failed promises, I will again credit the Obama campaign with powerful messaging strategy which fired up the masses. The President was a powerful orator (I said "was" purposely because I don't think his speeches have the same power after his words have proven to be so void of actual meaning) and ensured his followers with "yes we can." They believed it then but what is the Obama campaign giving them to believe in this time around? The President and his staff made some curious campaign moves last week that may illustrate the answer to that question.

First, the Presidents economic address. His communications staff billed it as a speech that would ensure the middle class that the President had their back.  It would ensure them that better times were coming. The caveat: there would be no new policy and no new ideas. Translation: "we know the middle class is struggling, but we aren't going to do anything about it. We will, however, speak directly to them so that we can at least get their votes." That's poor messaging, and that's just their "positive" campaign efforts.

Another little blunder came in the form of a rally comment in which the President compared the deficit to a dinner check, with republicans running up the tab and then leaving before the bill comes. I have three problems with that. 1) the President actually DID dine and dash the same week. 2) The analogy doesn't work on a factual basis considering that the President has already added more in his three years than his republican predecessor did in 8 years. and 3) It's not like every single democrat left DC during the Bush years, in fact they controlled both houses of congress after 2006, right when the economy started plummeting. So the "blame bush" argument is absolutely ridiculous.

The Tale of Two Buses

Audience at the Romney Bus Tour

The Democrats "Romney Road Show" Bus

The most ridiculous messaging of
the week though came from what Twitchy has labelled "The Tale of Two Buses." Brad Woodhouse, Democratic Party Communications director in the form of the #RomneyRoadShow bus. It was an answer to the "Every Town Counts"bus tour Romney is currently taking through swing states. The Romney bus is going from town to town holding rallies, pancake breakfasts, and campaigning with high-level surrogates from Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire to Rob Portman and John
Boehner in Ohio. The bus tour has drawn massive crowds and has even drawn the attention of the Democratic party. As a sort of answer to the Romney bus, the Democratic National Committee organized the "Romney Road Show" which would travel around and attempt to discredit Romney. The bus itself was a worn down tour bus with black and yellow signs seemingly fastened to the side of the bus with scotch tape. At the near-empty stops, volunteers unenthusiastically held up the aesthetically unpleasing "Romney Economics" which are the relics of the Obama campaigns ironic attempt to paint Romney's record as unsuccessful. It was an abject failure because a president that presides over a credit downgrade, the slowest recovery in history (which is actually looking more and more like a double dip recession everyday) and 30+ straight months of unemployment over 8% cannot attack anyone's economic record without looking like a complete idiot. For republicans, the #RomneyRoadShow has given some great entertainment in the form of tweeted pictures.  First, a picture of the sign-holding events. There is no enthusiastic audience, just a group of volunteers standing in front of a building holding these ugly signs. They also released photos from the launch of the bus, with a few supporters looking as though that was the last place they wanted to be. I've seen more enthusiastic faces than that at the back of the line in the DMV. These pictures were actually tweeted by Brad Woodhouse and the official Democratic Party twitter account along with the tweet "supporters crowd the Obama for America office in Exeter, NH for the kick-off of the DNCs #RomneyRoadShow.

There are two faces in particular that made me chuckle. The first was the gentleman on the ground. He seems to be looking longingly for an escape.. perhaps even oncoming traffic would be preferable to his role as a pawn in these shenanigans. While the gentleman to his left looks to be using a camera for the first time, he isn't even taking pictures with his. Just looking off into the distance at what is assuredly a better place then the pathetic sideshow he is witnessing. The Second picture (on the right) speaks for itself. Where is the fire of hope and change that led to such a sweeping victory in 2008?

The answer to that question is simple. It is impossible to fire up a party, a base, even volunteers to the message "ignore our record, that guy is (hypothetically) worse. Hope and change was a message that appealed to people. Now all the democrats want to talk about is how rich Mitt Romney is, how white he is, or how he pronounces his words. There is no hope, there will be no change, and the desperation is as pathetic as it is insulting to America's intelligence.

You may disagree with my presentation of the facts, and if you do I challenge you to see for yourself. Look at the following twitter timelines and ask yourself "if i wanted to support President Obama, what message would I consider the most exciting, the most inspiring and the best reason to vote for President Obama.
Brad Woodhouse- @woodhouseB -Democratic Party Communications Director
Lis Smith- @lis_smith -Obama campaign director of rapid response
The Democrats- @thedemocrats- Official Twitter of the Democratic Party
The "truth team"- @truthteam2012- The fighters for truth in the Obama campaign- their bio says "fight the smears" but there twitter is almost completely devoted to smearing and distorting others.
Jim Messina- @messina2012 - I can't really tell you what he says or does, because he blocked me for questioning something stupid and inaccurate that he said. Or something.

The Obama campaign is no longer about hope and change but about blaming other people, distracting from their own record, and attacking Mitt Romney for how me might hypothetically run the country. The media will let him get away with it, and they will even aid him in his efforts. In the age of 140 characters, where a simple #hashtag can tell a story, we must demand more. The President does not think voters are intelligent enough to see through his campaign, but in November he just might be proven wrong.