Sunday, January 29, 2012

The Do Nothing Democrats

The President has decided to run against a do nothing Congress. A look at he legislative accomplish seem to bear out the President's premise, this Congress has indeed passed very little legislation. The Presidential blame of course falls at the feet of the House and the House Republicans. Yet this isn't right, it is the democrats in the Senate that allows legislation go there to die. It is not even debated and voted for or against. The House legislation is not filibustered, it just lies there waiting for some type of action.

According to ABC this morning Congressman Lynn Westmoreland urged Speaker Boehner to stop writing, passing, and voting for legislation without ensuring there are 60 votes in the Senate. This is the wrong attitude. This would play right into the President's campaign and allows Harry Reid off the hook for blocking legislation from even having a debate. The Republicans in the House could negotiate in good faith and have the 60 votes in the Senate and Harry Reid could still sit on the legislation. In fact that is what he is doing. Reid knows debating this legislation may get to 60 votes or at least make for some difficult votes for the Democrats in the Senate. So even if there was 13 Senate Democrats willing to allow an up or down vote, Harry Reid won't even think about the legislation unless Obama pushed the idea in the first place.

The House has passed 30 jobs bills. President Obama's own job commission recommended many proposals that are similar to those already passed in the House according to Boehner. Yet because passing this type of bill, it languishes in the Senate to die because it would make the President's campaign memes of a do nothing Congress and uncompromising Republicans mute points. The bottom line is it is the democrats that are uncompromising and the Democrats that are not doing anything. Our country deserves better people in our government then a political party bent on power rather than on what is good for the American people.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Careful Mitt

Mitt had best tread very carefully. Right now Mitt has gone all in and is attacking Newt falsely and otherwise. Having a campaign run attack ad and not knowing it is airing , let alone knowing if the attack is even true shows the lengths that you will use to purchase the nomination. Worse than not knowing the attacks a candidate is running is the fact that Mitt is very misleading in his attacks on Newt's ethics charges. As explained already in the debates, the ethics charges were trumped up by a political party out of power. Newt was exonerated of all charges and what we all should understand is the minority party trumped up charges just to make the Republican Speaker and the Republican party look unethical as the minority party attempted to gain favor with the American electorate just so they could again come into power.

These atatcks may be working to win the Florida primary. The attacks may or may not be enough to bury Newt. However, Newt is receiving over 30% of the vote. Newt will have significant numbers in Florida and should Santorum drop out before or even after Florida, Newt will still be formidable. Mitt, should you go on to win the nomination, you are going to have to rally all Republicans including the Newt supporters. Without the support of the conservatives, Mitt has no chance. Everyone knows Mitt is a moderate. A moderate is sometimes good for the country, but a Republican candidate that is moderate that can not energize the conservative vote has no chance in November. Mitt this is a political campaign and you have made it personal. By making it personal, you are making this campaign for the nomination emotional. While I highly doubt Conservatives could stomach voting for Obama, certainly they would consider staying home. You can't win without the conservatives. Be careful Mitt because when even the liberal media believes you attacks are out of bounds, you are on the verge of alienating the very voters you need to win the general election. Bottom line you can not win by resorting to the tactics of the left. While this tactic seemed to work in 2008 with Obama ultimately winning the nomination and the general election, the times were very different. A democrat was going to win the 2008 election there was never any doubt. In 2012, there is an incumbent President and there is no certainty that the Republican will or even can win, Alienate Newt's supporters at your own peril. Be careful Mitt, the backlash could very well vanquish you to the dust bin of history. Should you win the nomination and lose the general, you will come to feel the wrath of the grass roots Republicans.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Fairness or Envy?

social justice and economic fairness are the platform of the Food Stamp President. Of course Obama want to blame Bush but the fact is under Obama the food stamp program has over 46 million participants and is going. This represent an increase of 45% from where it was under Bush. Is the trickle up economics what we really want?

The last quarter saw our GDP grow at an initial estimate of 2.8%. For the year, that is increases the GDP to a whopping 1.7%. The 4th quarter GDP is being pushed as good news for the President. Yet, the increase this quarter seems to be due largely to increased inventory and not demand. This is not a good economic indicator, rather the slight gain this quarter barely is over what is needed to keep up with a growing populous. In 2010, we had a GDP of 3.0%. The second year out of a recession should be booming, yet in 2011 the GDP growth slipped by almost half. Yet Obama is pursuing goodies for his strongest 2008 supporters and more of the same gimmicks that provided the stagnant economy.

So now Obama wants everyone to be treated fair. Obama's policies will only make everyone poorer. My daughter last night for her part relayed this story to me that perfectly represents the socialist model that Obama is pushing as economic fairness. Here is the story:

A professor decided to try out Obama's model. The professor that decided that everyone would receive the same grade out of fairness. All of the points earned by students would be tallied and divided equally for all the students. The results of the first test came out and the students seemed satisfied as they all received a "B". everything seemed to be going well, sure those that studied harder had a beef in that there grade was lowered to "B" after earning an "A" but most were satisfied. Yet the results of the second test were even more revealing. After grading the second exam and dividing equally every student earned a lowly "D" for their efforts.

See what happened there? In the second test the higher performing students decided it wasn't worth studying if their grades were going to be a shade lower to bring up the poorly performing students. Yet it wasn't only the higher performing students that performed less it was almost the whole class. The middle also had to stop performing to lower from a "B" to a "D". We can see that happening in the economy now. Obama's tax the rich mantra has investors and businesses sitting on an estimated $2 trillion dollars. See the people with money are investing less because they fear that Obama will shave there hard earned profits to give away to those precious people Obama needs to win election. Instead of making everyone richer Obama is making everyone poorer.

The state of decline for the poor will be slower than the rich but everyone will be in a state decline. Of course after a few cycles of taxing the rich and making the rich fall precipitously to a more "fair" share will only reduce the government coffers to provide for the poor even further so the poor will fall by the wayside. The trickle up economics model from Obama will only result in a declining America. See it is not fairness but envy that is the driving class warfare going on. It is not fair to take from the hard working and risk takers to payoff the weak performers and moochers. Just like the "A" students decided it wasn't fair that there hard work resulted in lower grades. What happened the "A" became "C" students and "C" Students became failing students. Envy is the root of many evils. Envying the rich in the name of fairness will only result in everyone being poorer. Americans want equal opportunity not economic fairness. Americans want everyone to be prosperous not everyone to become poor. Stop the politics of envy it can't possibly result in a liberal utopia.


The pundits from all sides seem to agree that Romney is again the front runner and appears to have sealed up the nomination after last night debate. The media pundits also agree that Santorum was the winner of last nights debate. SO how is it that Romney wins by losing? The answer is collusion my friends. The establishment has decided they do not want Newt Gingrich to be President. The elitists have decided that Romney has to be the nominee in order to have an appealing Presidential election between Obama and Romney. The elitists have decided that they the 1% among us have decided Romney is the choice whether we like it or not.

Now if we look at last night's debate, Santorum won hands down. There was no other way to look at, Santorum made both Gingrich and Romney look petty and small. Santorum stole Gingrich's thunder by slamming the media before Gingrich had the opportunity. Santorum criticized not only the media for allowing the debate to get out of hand but also the candidates for bickering back and forth about peripheral concerns that have little if any bearing on how to fix a Nation that is on the wrong track. Santorum cleaned everyone's clock with one smart line that changed the direction and tone of the debate.

Gingrich did not have a great night, but he did manage to salvage some respect by agreeing with Santorum. Gingrich made a pledge that all candidates including himself stop with the petty attacks on each other and move onto the issues. Gingrich was able to defend his proposals well including his space exploration initiative. I'm not sure we can afford his proposal or even if the use of gimmicks (prizes) is worth even pursuing. Yet, Gingrich at least has an idea about space that goes beyond having NASA charged with glorifying the input to science from the Arab culture. Bottom line with the space proposals is Newt caught his opponents off guard with it and also proves Newt thinks outside the box. I believe the only way out of the doldrums and get us off the destructive path we are on is to change the paradigm within the Washington Group think.

Mitt Romney couldn't help himself. He was only prepared last night to attack Newt at every turn. It was obvious that his lesson learned from SC was to go on the attack against Newt. Romney didn't learn to tap into the despise the Republicans have for the media instead focused his venom and anger on Gingrich. Romney did come across as angry and let's face it unlike Newt when he is angry, Romney his emotion on his sleeve. The angry and attacking candidate is what Romney wanted to portray. When the debate changed direction Romney had to get in his last jab and then could only attack Newt rather than debate the issues. Additionally, Romney looked very out of touch when he didn't know what his own campaign ads were saying. When checked by CNN and informed that the ad was indeed an attack ad from his campaign, Romney had to even ask the context of the comments as he couldn't even stand behind what the ads said because he didn't even know the reference. Romney took third place last night and it wasn't even a close third.

Ron Paul debated good last night in that he was able to campaign for his base of support. He didn't say or do anything that would bring in more supporters. I liked some of Paul's witty comments. Paul has some good ideas and I hope he has enough delegates at the convention to at least get some of his economic solutions into the discussion.

Now with Romney coming in a distant third and looking angry and petty last night why is it he is all of a sudden in great shape to win. Again the answer is collusion. The meme of the day is Newt didn't do enough to win the debate last night to knock Romney out. Santorum for his part doesn't have the money to compete. The media refuses to even broach the idea that Romney looked wounded, scared, petty, and worst of all angry. This is unlike when Newt went on the offensive after Iowa. See all Newt had to say is that he was going to take the fight to Romney and all of sudden Newt was an angry candidate. Romney refuses to back off his attack lines even after a call for civility and somehow he is the big winner by losing last night? This is an elitist attack on the process, we no longer really have choices or even votes. The elitists will pump as much money into Florida as possible just to ensure the 1% get the nominee they choose.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Santorum Impressive Debate Performance

Rick Santorum is quite impressive tonight. He changed the whole tone of the debate by scolding Gingrich, Romney, and Blitzer for stooping into gutter politics where the candidates were making personal attacks rather than focus on the problems facing our Nation. From that point on Santorum was able to make his points and for the first time I believe connected with the electorate. I don't know if this will translate to a serious enough rise in Florida to win but he was impressive and proved he belongs in the discussion. I am a Gingrich supporter right now because he has shown to be a great debater with big ideas. Santorum just made me start to rethink who may just be the best candidate. America could do worse than Rick Santorum as President. In my mind Santorum is having the best night as a debater. Santorum is a social conservative in an election about the economy and social issues will play a minimal role. Yet tonight it seems Santorum has better command of economic issues than I have seen him in the past. Santorum is having a good night on stage and has always been a conservative. Great Debate for Santorum, America needs leadership and what i found tonight is this: While the left and the media is claiming a weak and flawed field, I don't see this Republican field as flawed, the Obama administration is flawed and America will win no matter which of the four on stage tonight ultimately wins the nomination.

Media Pawns

John King and CNN are really pathetic. Instead of waking up to what really happened during the South Carolina debate, the moderator and network are still trying to save some face over the confrontation. Now the Network is all giddy that Newt was a little misleading when he said he had offered up witnesses that would dispel his ex-wife’s comments. True enough Newt, said it was his daughters and not other witnesses. The problem though is that Newt didn’t win the point because he said he offered witnesses to ABC. Newt won the point when the question was posed by John King.

It was the opening question of the debate. The question was made as an attempt to make Newt look bad and get him on the defensive immediately. In other words it was a “gotcha” question that was an attack on Newt’s character. As I said in earlier posts, this question would have been valid had it come from the audience. It would have been valid at an appropriate time from a voter. It was inappropriate to ask the question as the first one out of the gate.

John King, you lost because the timing of your question was misplaced. People like you and others in the left wing media may think controversy and attacking (in the name of vetting) is appropriate. The issue is people believe the media is biased and slanted. Over 60% percent of America believes the media is biased and a plurality with a split of 47% - 13% believe it slants left. John King is not going to win his point by trying to justify the confrontation as Newt was misleading or ABC started it. That misses the point entirely. John King should just lick his wounds and move on.

The reason Newt won the point and made King look bad is the same reason Juan Williams looked pathetic a few nights in his attempt to push a racism meme. The media seems to have forgotten or lost sight of fact that elections are about the American people and not the media personalities. The debates are not about the media, we don’t care about their opinions or philosophy or ideology. We don’t care if the pathetic pawns believe in liberalism or left wing principles or for that matter if they believe in conservatism or right wing principles, bottom line it is not about the pawns in the media. John King was busted out for trying to sensationalize a non issue. Our economy is in the tank, we have 8.5 % unemployment at a time when the labor participation rate has fallen precipitously. We have an economy that has increased the food stamp program to record levels. We still have obscenely high foreclosure rates. With all of these facts concerning an economy on the brink of collapse and John King believes the first issue should be Newt’s marital problems? I think our country has much more to worry about than unfaithful husbands 15 years ago.

John no matter how you try to save face, you were wrong for asking that first question and no matter how misleading or not Newt may have been concerning his witnesses statements, you were wrong, you were busted for it, and you looked pathetic. Get over it, your ego doesn’t matter to your audience, we didn’t tune in for you, we tuned in to the candidates on stage so we can make appropriate election decisions and your question didn’t help that process one iota.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

The Establishment Fallacy

Obama is calling this a choice election and some of the political pundits are claiming if Obama is able to frame the election as choice election rather than a referendum on his performance, he stands a better chance at being reelected. Some political pundits believe that Newt is the candidate that best fits into the Presidents model and thus making him the candidate easiest for Obama to beat in November. The thought is if Obama can make the campaign about Gingrich and his baggage rather than about a dismal performance, Obama is the logical choice. I have to agree that Newt is the candidate that will run on the choices we have and he laid out those choices concerning differing visions for America in his victory speech after the South Carolina primary win. What I disagree with is that Obama can make the case that the election is about Newt and his baggage.

As the nomination process sits right now, the nomination process is about to turn very negative and get very nasty. We saw a taste of that last night when Brian Williams dedicated the first 30 minutes of the 90 minute debate to attacks between Mitt and Newt, rather than go straight to the ideas on the issues that matter most. Mitt was on the offensive with nasty half truths concerning Newt. For Newt, I think the debate concerning his ethics charges, resignation from the House speakership, and Freddie Mac, this early in the process is good for Newt should he win the nomination. Newt will largely be vetted, and the lapdogs in the media will only be bringing up old news the people will be tired of hearing about and those lines of attack will no longer be effective come the general election. Newt effectively parried Mitt’s assault last night. Neither really inspired the electorate with their performance last night and I am not sure it will change much in the landscape. I think the biggest take away from last night is that the media and the establishment politicos from both sides are very scared of what Newt is tapping into.

Brian Williams and the other debate moderators set the debate up for Mitt. First they muted the crowd, telling them from the outset that applause and standing ovations would be frowned upon. Brian Williams of course framed this as taking time away from the candidates to respond questions. Then the moderators began asking question from the left, acting as if they were the Obama stand in rather than acting from a typical voter perspective. The moderators muting the crowd, allowing Newt and Mitt to attack each other, and then spinning questions from the far left perspective took the emotion out of the debate. The debate lacked direction and became boring. This of course helped Mitt as it fit into his campaign style. If anyone believes the media and the left fear Romney as the nominee, I think they should readjust their thinking. In 1976 Carter was the outsider candidate and he won. The media despised Reagan in 1980, and did everything they could to get the establishment choice Bush elected, claiming the right was afraid of the conservative principles of Reagan; Reagan won the nomination and trounced Carter in the General. The media didn’t like Bush in 1988, but there was no meaningful resistance from the right and Bush won, more on the sentimental vote for Reagan than anything else. In 1992, Bush was the establishment candidate and the press attacked the conservative movement. In doing this the propelled Buchanan to lofty enough levels to make Bush appear weak, thus taking down the establishment candidate. Bush lost the 1992 election to an outsider candidate from the Democrats in Bill Clinton. In 1996, Dole was the establishment candidate again the Republican’s lost that election. In 2000, Bush was the outsider candidate in the primaries and won the election. In 2008 the establishment candidate McCain did not fare well at all, Obama beat the establishment candidate in Hillary and then vanquished McCain in the general. For the most part both parties and specifically the Republicans have done better with the grass roots “outsider” candidate than we ever did with the establishment candidate in the general election. Reagan and George W were the outsiders and won the Oval Office, George HW Bush, Dole, and McCain were the establishment choices and we lost those elections. From the left Carter, Clinton, and Obama were the outsider candidates and won, while Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Hillary were strongly backed by the establishment and either lost the nomination or the general election. The establishment candidates are pushed by both parties and the media. I believe the reason is the left wants the candidate they know how to beat or feel is safe. The media wants the choice to be between what they consider the lesser of two evils. The Right is afraid of true conservative candidates and prefers a more moderate candidate than the base prefers.

Newt is tapping into the angry electorate. I believe Obama is right in that this is an election about choice. I believe Newt laid out those choices effectively in his SC victory speech. I don’t believe Obama will be able to hide from his poor performance. The choice is effectively between an incumbent’s poorly performing policies that has weaken America both foreign and domestic, or a vision of strong American exceptionalism respected around the world. There will be a choice and right now Newt is articulating that choice perfectly. When the political establishment is scared of a candidate, that candidate wins in November, and that has been good for the country.

Religious Bigotry

Like Sodom and Gomorrah, a country devoid of morals will fall. Whether one believes in a religion or not, a supreme being or not, we must live under a basic set of beliefs and values. A nation, will not survive as a Nation devoid of a strong sense of what is right or wrong. Moral decay and religious bigotry will be the downfall of even the strongest and most powerful of Nations. We must, therefore ensure, we are a Nation of Laws following a moral code of conduct. There must be something that guides us down the path of building a solid foundation of values.

In this Nation, we have the right to express religious faith. We also have the right to refrain from religious faith. There is a separation of Church and State. The left uses the constitution as the means to express their religious bigotry. We have radical judges threatening to throw people in jail just for saying terms like benediction, prayer, invocation, or moment of silence. This is a disgusting over reach of judicial activism. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit religious faith. Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit taking the time to reflect from within. Whether one is religious or not, prayer, benediction, invocation, and even moments of silence don’t have to be considered religious actions. To some yes, it is a time to thank whomever one believes is the creator, for those that don’t believe it is an opportunity to reflect inward towards oneself. This is a private moment and doesn’t have to be considered religious whatsoever.

Many on the left criticize the Christian faiths whether it be the Catholics or evangelicals or one of the many other Christian based faiths. They criticize them for their beliefs and values. The left believes in abortion, so the attack the churches that disagree with them. The left believes homosexuality is fine, so they attack the religious faiths that disagree. What the left doesn’t say it that there must be guiding principles and just because some of the guiding principles may have been written in a religious environment doesn’t make them any less valuable.

Take the Ten Commandments for instance. The left doesn’t want them displayed in public/governmental buildings. My question is why? Just because they are the basis of a religious faith doesn’t make them any less valuable for a society. Shouldn’t we as a society honor our parents? Shouldn’t we always remember from where it is we came from. We must always remember our roots it is a part of who we are and what we have become. The first commandment doesn’t seem to be so religious in tone as to keep it from being posted anywhere in public. How about the second Commandment: Thou shalt not kill? Isn’t that a moral code everyone can live with? Does an atheist believe that murder should somehow be legal? Next is thou shalt not commit adultery. Certainly this seems appropriate; especially in light of the left making it such a big deal that CNN moderator John King made reference to adultery in his first question to Newt Gingrich in a Presidential debate. So even to the left, who despise religious faith, it certainly seems they believe adultery is an important question. How about thou shalt not steal? Again we are a Nation of Laws, stealing is considered wrong and doesn’t seem we need to equate that with some sort of religious belief. We can go on and on with the Ten Commandments. The bottom line is they are more a moral code than they are religious beliefs. One doesn’t have to be religious to believe in these tenets.

There are some that need to have a religious belief system in order to follow some basic right and wrong issues. Others may not need to have a religious background to have a strong commitment to what is right and what is wrong. What is important is that every society or civilization that ever rose to power and later fell the most common theme of failure is a moral decay from within. There those who believe in Sodom and Gomorrah in the literal sense. From the religious perspective they believe that their God destroyed these two cities for the moral decadence. However, just because many believe the story in the religious sense, does that make the story any less relevant to the decay of society? I would think that the guiding principles of religion concerning right and wrong are relevant to any society and relevant to all individuals; religious or not.

Every society needs to have laws based upon their values and belief system. The value system does not need to be based in a specific religion but it does need to be based on a moral code of right and wrong. I find it ironic that the left bashes religion; yet develop their societal agenda through the lens of anecdotal evidence. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had health insurance, wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had the same amount of money, wouldn’t be nice if every was treated equal regardless of capabilities? Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone respected the environment? See these are Utopian ideals that follow the basic tenets of the religion so many on the left love to hate. Stop the religious bigotry, and start living a moral code or watch as a Nation crumbles and falls.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Mitt's Deception

Wow, that is all I can say. In the debate tonight it amazed me when Mitt stood on stage claiming that after his South Carolina debacle, he decided he wasn't going to stand around being attacked. His claim that "they started it" is absolutely false. Mitt attacked Newt very hard in Iowa. Mitt's Iowa attacks are largely responsible for Newt's decline in the polls in December. It was Mitt that attacked and attempted to vanquish his competition in Iowa. It was Mitt that gave a victory speech in New Hampshire that sounded like he has the nomination all wrapped up. It was Mitt that became arrogant when he thought he would sail through South Carolina. Mitt is being deceptive tonight and from what McCain and Huckabee said in 2007 we know Mitt ha issues with the truth.

And by the way Mitt, I wouldn't care if you voluntarily paid a dollar more in taxes than you legally owed. I don't hold it against if you don't pay extra either but don't think its crazy to vote for someone that would pay more than legally obligated.

Attack Dogs

Newt Gingrich must have struck a nerve with the political elites with his win in South Carolina. Newt was declared dead and gone last spring when his entire staff up and left, eventually joining Perry's campaign. Newt overcame the odds and became the odds on favorite for Iowa in November. Under heavy attacks from Mitt, the Newt campaign withered. Newt fell not only in Iowa but nationally as well as the attacks went mostly unanswered as Newt attempted to take the high road and didn't stoop to meet the negative campaign tactic employed by Mitt. So Newt went on the offensive and all of a sudden the left wing media propagandist started pushing the angry Newt meme. Alas with the fall of Newt again the political establishment on both the left and right declared Newt dead in the water. Yet with two tremendous debate performances in South Carolina, Newt was able to resurrect himself yet again. By going on the offensive against the liberal lapdogs posing as moderators, Newt was able to cast himself as a political outsider. If there was ever a year for being a political outsider this is the year. Americans want someone that is not tied at the hip to Washington. Americans want someone to turn Washington on its head. Americans by almost 3-1 believe America is on the wrong track. We have a Congress with a 13% approval rating. We have a President with an approval rating of 46%, well under the 50% he needs for reelection. No one in Washington is popular and there is not only disgust with the politicians but also distrust in our governmental institutions. Americans want the change Obama once promised. Americans want hope that Obama has failed to deliver. Americans want change and Newt has been able to attack the very system that has made him who he is.

Maybe Newt is the candidate that can rally Republicans and beat Obama. Newt has been able to ignite excitement, garnering more applause lines and standing ovations from the debate audiences than any other candidate. Newt has been able to turn the media on its head as he dresses the liberal lapdogs down for their disdain towards Republican philosophies. Newt has become the outsider Americans seek. Through all the attacks from the media and other Republicans, Newt has become an underdog of sorts and Americans do so love their underdogs.

There is no doubt Newt has tapped into something that the establishment politicos fear. Newt has managed to strike fear into the elitists around the country. Newt through his feigned anger towards the media propagandists, has pitted the establishment against himself and that is the position every candidate should be aiming for in a year when it will be the establishment on trial. When MSNBC goes forward with outright lies to claim that Newt's "food stamp President" are thinly veiled racial comments we know it is Newt they fear and not Romney. When every political pundit from Fox, to ABC, to NBC, to CBS, push the Newt is unelectable meme you know he struck a nerve. When the media elite set out to destroy a candidate by making false claims and sensationalize Newt's marital issues, you know he has become a Republican winning the populist mantel that Obama so desperately needs to win in November.

Ever since Newt was handed a resounding win in South Carolina, he has been attacked from the left and the right. Newt has been attacked from the establishment and the elitists. Newt is striking the right chords, the American institutions are in rebellion at the thought of Newt making sweeping changes in the way government works. It must be said that if everyone in Washington is anger, something must be being done right. The elitists are saying Newt can't win; Newt doesn't have the discipline; Newt doesn't have the organization; Newt doesn't have money to win. Yet Newt has won South Carolina and by the polls of today leading in Florida. Newt currently is doing what Santorum couldn't out Iowa and that is push his momentum. I am not sure if Newt can maintain for another 8 days or not but one thing is for certain, Newt has become the anti establishment candidate. Unless Romney can recapture the imagination of the voting public he is in trouble. Mitt's stealth campaign that is of the mindset that its "his turn" isn't working. Americans aren't looking for the establshment to tell us "Who's turn" it is, but rather want an anti establishment candidate that will change how Washington works.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

GOP establishment Scared

After Newt won the South Carolina primary last night, I heard Brit Hume state that the establishment Republicans would be on the warpath against Newt because his negatives were high and this scares the Congress critters. Today I see that perhaps the tactics the establishment plans to use are coming to light. According to RED State's Erick Erickson, the establishment is going to seek donations for Santorum so he may be enabled to go on the attack against Gingrich.

The establishment does not want Santorum to win though. The establishment is backing Mitt Romney. But the establishment needs an attack dog other than Romney. The establishment doesn't want Romney to get his hands dirty with negative campaigning but would rather have Santorum do the dirty work to ensure Romney wins the nomination. Certainly, I hope Santorum sees this for what it is and doesn't fall for the dirty establishment trick. I wonder what besides propping up Santorums campaign with money the establishment plans for Santorums future? Besides making Santorum the lapdog that ends up keeping the conservative split between himself and Newt, what does the establishment plan to promise Santorum for him to become the Huckabee of 2008? Santorm needs to drop out and not keep the conservatives split. Santorum may have won Iowa but he lived there for months on end. Santorum may have won Iowa but the momentum has worn off and Santorum is running third or fourth out of four. Newt has the momentum for the conservatives and the only way for Santorum to rise is negative campaigning against Newt. In the end there is no path for Santorum to win. All Santorum can do by staying in the race is hand the nomination to Romney.

We need a change in Washington. The Republican establishment and Congress critters deserve to be scared. There is a reason why their approval rating is around 13% and it has nothing to do with Newt. The Congress is at 13% because they have forgotten who they work for. To most of the career politicians the voters are nothing but an inconvenience. The voters get in the way of siphoning taxpayer dollars and providing those dollars to their cronies. Romney is a Northeast Republican meaning he is far more like Scott Brown than he is Rick Santorum. We do not stand a chance of getting our fiscal house in order with a Fiscal moderate or liberal in the White House. Get over it establishment GOP and stay out of the Primary selection process. We don't need you bribing the third place finisher to become the attack dog on the winner of SC. Romney is still the front runner in delegate count not Newt. Rallying behind the conservative front runner is better to unite the party than allowing Santorum to attack his fellow conservative allowing a Northeast moderate to walk away with the prize.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Why SC Matters

South Carolina matters this year more than most Presidential primary cycles. This cycle Americans are angrier than in most years. This is the angriest electorate I have ever seen. Searching the past every election has a generalized theme. In 1976 Jimmy Carter faced an electorate that wanted to rid itself of the remnants of a corrupt government. In 1980, the theme was malaise and in 1984 happy time are here again. In 1988, we had the more of the same status quo election, followed by the out of touch campaign by Bush. We followed that with the strike against an overreaching Congress in 1996. In 2000, we were searching for something different than another four drama filled years. In 2004, we had the election of scandal. The last election was one of change and ending wars. This will be the year the voting public is angry.

The electorate is angry that Obama focused on his liberal agenda rather than the economy. The electorate is angry that the media failed to vet Obama but now demands a full accounting by every Republican. The electorate is angry that there are no jobs. The electorate is angry that Obama would rather extend unemployment benefits than build an American infrastructure project. The electorate is angry that America no longer has a AAA credit rating. The electorate is angry that with the elitists that would rather tell the people what to do rather than allow people to do what they do best. The American people want off government dependency and back on to innovation and creation.

Tonight Newt Gingrich won in SC and that means the Republican nominee process will continue on at least into March and maybe even longer. Far from being at risk of splintering the Republican Party is united and the Republicans are vetting their own candidates rather than allow the media to select their favored candidate to serve up as a sacrificial lamb for Obama. SC means the Republicans kept their process and didn't allow the media to meddle in the middle and select our candidate for us. SC means the angry public now has an opportunity to unite around the candidate they choose.

I think the anger is part of why Newt won tonight. Newt is portrayed as the angry candidate and as long as he can play into the anger of the American people he will do well. in the end Newt may not play well with the general electorate. For now though, Newt is tapping into every American that is angry over the dismissal of the power of the people by the politicians. Newt may be an angry candidate but the electorate is also angry. The primary today will allow the Republicans to continue tapping into an anger that will only change when Obama is voted out of office. SC matters because it extended the game. Last week the media was pushing the meme that when Romney won in SC it would be over. The media wanted that result. The media tried to undermine the candidates other than Romney because they want Romney as the nominee.

Romney may well end up the nominee as I know believe the eventual nominee will be either Newt or Romney, unless there is a brokered convention, in which case all bets are off. Romney will be a stronger general election candidate if he survives the process. Newt is already tapping into an anger that may well make up for his dismal favorable ratings. As the process goes forward the angry electorate will unite behind the nominee to defeat the marxist we currently have acting as the petulent child President.

It's Time For Santorum To Drop

After tonight it is time for Rick Santorum to drop out and endorse another candidate. We have had three different States and three different winners. Santorum may be thinking that he won one State, the same as Romney and now Newt. However, Snatorum is not doing well tonight and his Iowa win should have propelled him to a win in SC or at least a second place finish similar to Huckabee in 2008. That didn't happen, Newt destroyed Santorum tonight. The race now appears to be between Gingrich and Romney. Santorum dropping out will help solidify the social conservative base of the Republican party. I believe Santorum staying in any longer only makes him a spoiler for Newt and will hand Romney the nomination.

I believe if Santorum were to drop out the nomination will ultimately go to Newt. I also believe that Perry would become the VP nominee under Newt. I also believe a Newt/Perry ticket would be formidable in November. Perry would help keep the Conservative base and help with Newt's marital issues. I believe Newt is electable and can beat Obama. I don't want to have to vote for Obama lite but that is the choice we will have in November if Romney is the nominee.

As I said earlier maybe the best thing that could happen for Republicans is a brokered convention. For that to happen I believe Santorum needs to drop out. The only chnace of not having the choice of Obama or Obama lite, Rick Santorum has to drop out. If not tonight at least by early next week. Newt's momentum from tonight should translate into a tightening of the polls in Florida. Remember the first time Newt surged in the polls he was leading in Florida. If Santorum needs to get a feel for the landscape in Florida before making a decision so be it, but if after assessing his Florida chances he needs to bow out so we can see who wins what will basically be a two person race. While Ron Paul is a factor, he probably draws from Romney and a singular conservative "not Romney" candidate. Santorum and Newt are the last two "Not Romney" left. After tonight it should be clear that Santorum will not win the fight to be the "not Romney", Santorum can only ensure Romney wins the nomiation.

Gingrich Wins SC

The SC primary was called immediately as the polls closed in SC. Gingrich wins and it must have been a fairly comfortable win. From Fox News it appears that Gingrich won among conservatives, evangelicals, independents, and late deciders. In a race that has proven volatile with many candidates moving up and down in the polls it appears that Newt is catching a bit of momentum with a second look from the voters.

My thoughts are that it would have been better had the Republicans selected their heir apparant sooner rather than later. From the look of it now that is now a mute point as with three States in there have been three different winners. Having a longer primary does help in organization. As long ass the candidates are chasing each other the State level party officials are able to get their ground game up and running. Selecting early would have left little interest in voters and the ground game would have been in shambles come convention time. I still think perhaps a brokered convention may be the best thing that could happen for the Republican party.

A brokered convention is able to select any candidate they so chose. It doesn't even have to be someone that is already running. There may yet be time to run another candidate, especially if Newt's marital infidelity begins to again bring him down in the polls. Let there be no doubt Mitt Romney is preparing to go very negative on Newt. I know the Republican establishment is behind Mitt. In a normal election it may indeed be Mitt's turn. However, I believe this election is much bigger than we could ever imagine. Obama bury us in the ditch he so effectively slammed us into. While Mitt may have economical designs far superior to Obama , I don't think he is the Social conservative he makes himself out to be.

I like Newt and have been pushing for him for awhile now. I think he is a better conservative and far more electable than is Santorum. Gingrich can and beat Obama in any debate. Gingrich isfully capable of winning but is damaged because of his marital problems that will keep cropping up every time the left wing pathetic pawns thinks it will help their messiah. I'd like Newt for President but for that to happen Mitt needs to lay off and win on substantive issues and not dwell on the issues that wil divide Republicans. The Bain attacks may have been over the top but than again so were Romney's ads in Iowa. Republicans need to stay away from personal attacks and campaign in a positive manner. However, if in the end Republicans can't choose and the candidates bloody each other to badly maybe a brokered convention will be able to heal the party and find the electable candidate that will beat Obama in November. Just remember the only thing that is a must win is the contest between a strong and prosperous America and the socialist America Obama is trying to establish.

Fast and Loose With Facts

On Friday it seems that Nina Totenberg of NPR was very fast and loose with her facts. Totenberg claimed there were more people on food stamps under the Bush administration than currently under Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth. To top off her little falsehood (really she was lying through her teeth for her liberal audience), she claimed that it is Newt Gingrich who is playing fast and loose with the facts. So let me lay out a few facts for the liberal left that is eating up the pathetic pawn sycophant Totenberg.

First there were under 35 million participants in the SNAP program at the end of the recession ( a Full 6 months under Obama that I will use as the worst Bush year). Today there are in the neighborhood of 45.8 million participants in the program. This is a record all time high and means that fully 15% of the country is collecting food stamps. Sorry Nina it is not racist to point out that President Obama is the food stamp President, just look at the facts.

Second, Newt calling Obama the food stamp President is reality. No spin in the world is going to change the fact that more people are on food stamps today than ever before. Nothing is going to change the fact that trickle up economics is ever going to work. So where is the racism? It wasn't Newt that said African Americans that are a higher percentage than whites on food stamps. That is the left trying to put words in Newt's mouth to undermine facts. The problem is that the real racists sit there on the left. The left wing elitists like Totenberg are the ones that believe minorities are disproportionately the ones utilizing the food stamp program. It is the left like Bill Moyer that believe that African Americans are the ones that are predominately poor in this country. It is people like Andrea Mitchell that push the racism meme and put words in Republicans mouths for supporting school work programs for the youth of America. Sorry I don't think it is racism to provide opportunity.

In my heart of hearts I have to believe that the poor want jobs to earn a living. They don't chose to be poor and when given a choice between receiving government handouts or a job to earn a living, most Americans would chose to earn a living. The whole "Unemployment checks create more jobs than anything else the government could do" meme is hurting America. It will make Americans less likely to be ambitious and less likely to take risks. The food stamp president needs these people to always remain poor to keep them voting for the handouts.

The Food Stamp president is making this country worse off than she should be. The right answer is not to make everyone poor but to make an economic environment that where everyone has opportunity. For see if everyone has opportunity and more people are rising up the socio-economic ladder than less people will vote for the liberals. The pathetic pawns that make up their own facts (Totenberg) only desire to make everyone poorer so to keep the utopian, government knows elitists in power. So please Nina get your facts straight and stop with your bias towards the elitists. You are a reporter that should be impartial and report facts. Stop sensationalizing everything as being racist. Wake up and take a look around; Obama is the food stamp President and his trickle up economics are a dismal failure.

Marketplace Fairness Act

Indiana has become the 4th state to negotiate with online retailer Amazon to collect state sales tax on internet purchases. Rather than change policy based on the technological advances our society enjoys and changing, politicians can't seem to think outside the box to come up with new solutions to the consequences of technological leaps.

The complaint is that brick and mortar businesses have to collect taxes. Politicians want "fairness" by forcing online retailers to do the same thing. Instead of coming up with other sources of tax dollars the States like their sales taxes and want someone else to collect the taxes for them. To me this is what the unions do when they force employers to take out union dues for the union. Rather than have the Union employees pay their dues directly to the union, the union would rather have someone else be the bad guy in the equation. States want the same thing, merchants collect the taxes due for the State. This line of thought needs to change.

Internet sales should not be taxed. To make it fair to the brick and mortar businesses why not change the way taxes are collected on goods and services from the business collecting and paying to the state collecting? Why not increase income taxes? States know how much they require and statistically how much people currently spend out of their paychecks on taxable goods and services. Why not just set an amount of income taxes that would fill this gap? There is a reason why people will go to great lengths to avoid the tax liability in various states. People living close to the Delaware border will travel the short distance and purchase goods and services because Delaware charges no sales taxes. Get rid of the sales taxes all together and find an appropriate place to increase taxes to get the revenue back into State cofers. The answer is not to bring the future backwards into the way it has always been dome. The answer is to keep up with the times and move towards a one tax or two tax system where people can really see how much of their income really goes to keep the tax man happy.

States and the Federal government need to get rid of the hidden taxes and the taxes that are collected by outside sources and go directly to the payee and let them know exactly how much really goes to pay for the government leviathan.

Mitt's Taxes

The 2012 election campaign is not going to be a substantive debate on economical policies if the left has their way. See the left can not defend the Keynesian policies that have not been able to turn around the economy. The so called "great recession" officially ended in the summer of 2009. Yet two and half years later we have a stagnant economy where the unemployment rate is still well over 8%, the lowest participation rate since records have been kept, annualized GDP at 2% or less, a spiraling debt that is now over 100% of GDP, and a divided Government that is unable to get anything done. So the left can not talk about the stagnant economy and how we are going to get out of the Keynesian ditch we are in so instead the left wing pathetic pawns are allowing Obama to run a class warfare campaign and fueling the fires with a dose of racism.

The economy is exactly what makes Mitt Romney appealing. Mitt is a "technocrat" that has been in business for a very long time and has a good background concerning economical issues. As long as the economy is in the tank Romney is going to be relevant in the nomination process and election. Yet the media lapdogs want to shift the focus to Romney's tax records. The Washington Post was one of the first to push the meme about Romney's taxes trying to portray him as one of the evil rich 1% yet have ignored that their chosen candidate's failure to release of relevant records. America has not seen anything from Obama concerning his college transcripts. America hasn't seen where Obama registered for the draft and when did he do it. We haven't seen Obama's "citizenship" records proving he is a natural born citizen. The left knows full well that being born in America does not necessarily make one a citizen let alone a natural born citizen. The left wing pathetic pawns just take Obama at his word that everything is kosher in his past. When it comes to Obama the pathetic pawns are following the "move along, nothing to see here" mantra.

ROmney should say sure I'll release any relevant documentation desired, want my tax returns, fine then demand Obama's transcripts that show whether or not Obama attended his colleges as a foreign student. We have a constitutional requirement for our Presidents. Obama is obviously hiding something as we know nothing about him prior to his Harvard Law review days. Even his Harvard Law Review days are cloudy as we have not seen his dissertation (which for most people is a public record as colleges use dissertations as examples), we haven't seen how Harvard was financed, we haven't seen if Obama got into Harvard because of potential or if it was a race based decision.

It is funny how the pathetic pawns will only fight this campaign on Obama's terms. The people are saying the most important issues to them this cycle is the economy and jobs. Yet the media wants to focus the Republican debates on Romney's taxes, Newt's marital issues, Santorum's religion, and Paul's kookiness. None of these so called vetting processes have any weight on the economy and won't create jobs. Furthermore, these so called media vetting processes have never been used to vet their favored candidate. All the media wants to do is fight Obama's war along the lines of class warfare and racism, all just to prop up a failed Obama Presidency.

Friday, January 20, 2012


There is a buzz in conservative circles concerning the inadequacies concerning debate questions and moderators from the democrat lap dogs in the media. Over the course of 16 debates the most glaring problem with the debates is the media bias. For the most part the moderators don't ask substantive policy type questions but rather as attack type questions meant to make Republicans appear extreme. Stephanopoulos' hypothetical contraception question in New Hampshire is one such example. The question was a "gotcha" question attempting to make christian conservatives appear out of the mainstream. Last night, the first question asked was a question towards an attack on the morales of Newt Gingrich aimed at alienating christian conservatives.

Does Newt need to be asked to explain the he said she said marital infidelities that Newt is famous for? Absolutely, but it doesn't need to be asked by a media type that is more interested in undermining any republican candidate. Had this question been asked by someone in the audience or sent in as a question by viewers than it would have become the right forum and place. However to come out of the gate trying to take a candidate down is flat out wrong.

I think Newt handled the question appropriately by dressing down the moderator. Yet John King kept going at each of the candidates from the left. King even added a liberal spin to one of the audience questions turning it from a fairly innocent conservative question into how does this help the left type question. Someone should tell the media lapdogs that being a moderator in Republican debates does not mean a democratic standin point of view.

This liberal spin in Republican debates has been atrocious. Rather than bring out Republican ideas and solutions, all the liberal moderators seem to do is spin the questions that is aimed at improving Obama's chances rather than aimed at nominating a Republican. The debate question should be largely aimed towards the Republican base and aimed at the differences between Republican candidate ideas and Democrat ideas. The moderator should be appealing to the audience which is the base of the Republican party and not the typical CNN liberal viewer. I hope all of the Republican candidates follow Newt's lead and go on the offensive against biased moderators who want to go about selecting the Republican nominee that they believe will be the easiest for Obama to beat.

Thursday, January 19, 2012


Today was a good day for Newt Gingrich. With Perry dropping out and endorsing Gingrich will only help solidify the "not Romney" voters. From the polls today it appears the race is tightening in South Carolina with 4 polls (PPP, Augusta Chronicle, Rasmussen, and ARG) showing Gingrich with a lead. The Perry endorsement has to help Gingrich as I believe it will strengthen the resolve of Gingrich supporters to drive on. I believe the Gingrich support will be strong and unwavering while Romney is looking less electable everyday.

I believe Perry dropping out is the right decision. Perry had his supporters but after a disastrous entry into the race with a few misstatements and poor debate performances seemed to doom his campaign. While Perry looked stronger lately I think it was too late. Had it been Perry who got the second look rather than what appears to be a second look towards Gingrich I would have switched my support from Newt to Perry.

In the end I think the country could do far worse than a Newt/Perry ticket. Yes, I do believe that Perry has been promised the VP slot on the ticket. For Republicans wavering on Gingrich support I say this, Newt can and will debate Obama and win those debates. Newt as House speaker debated a sitting President to a draw. This is somewhat unheard of. The bully pulpit is a powerful tool all President have at their disposal and Newt was able to sit on a stage with Bill Clinton and debate the Contract for America.

I am not sure who Romney would select as VP but rest assured it won't be Rick Perry. It probably wouldn't be Marco Rubio and it probably wouldn't be Bob McDonnell. Romney is a moderate, a northeastern Rockefeller type Republican. Romney is going to have a difficult time winning over conservatives and would need a strong conservative on the ticket to have a chance in the general. I have no doubt Romney would be better than Obama, but I also believe Republicans can win with a more conservative ticket. By Sunday I expect Santorum will drop out and follow Perry with a Newt endorsement. Gingrich/Perry is a winning ticket that is capable bringing all three legs of the Republican stool together in unified support. Newt has proven he can take a punch. Under withering attacks by Romney in Iowa, Newt is still in position to win the nomination. After Iowa the media and political pundits called Newt angry and was wondering what he was doing with his attacks on Romney and his Bain days. Now it certainly looks like Newt wasn't angry and while the Bain attacks may have been an attack on Capitalism they also showed that Romney isn't as electable as the media would lead us to believe. Thank You Rick Perry, I think you made the right decision for your country.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Jobs Versus Public Dole

Obama today killed the Keystone pipeline and with it an estimated 20,000 jobs. These 20,000 jobs were not just some low paying service industry but rather good paying union jobs. Obama speaks about investing in infrastructure yet killed a project that would help rebuild a portion of American infrastructure. America would have been investing in in energy production in this country. Yet Obama believes miraculously that having people receiving Unemployment benefits produce more jobs than this project would have.

Here we are a nation with a debt greater than our GDP and Obama has the audacity to believe that yet again extending unemployment benefits is better than actually producing jobs. See the government could have saved some money on unemployment benefits for 20,000 people and allowed them to work for good wages that would have produced even more jobs. These jobs don't require the government to spend a dime as the project was going to be privately funded.Obama sold our country out to the Chinese in favor of a couple of votes from environmentalists. Obama in his infinite wisdom chose his failed trickle up economics rather than go with a project that would have had an immediate impact on the unemployment rate and perhaps allowed the non temporary temporary extension of unemployment benefits. See the smart one in the room doesn't believe in private industry, he only believes in Government knows best. Only government spending will get us out of the hole we are in.

This is a decision that will lead America down its current path of self destruction. Anyone that believes it is better to have people on the public dole rather than have a real job that earns real money, needs to be in an asylum for the criminally insane rather than the Oval Office. Every American should be very afraid of a President that is unwilling to do what is right for America for fear that they may not be reelected. All I know is we need jobs Mr. President and not the indirect low paying and service industry jobs that are maintained through Unemployment benefits.

That's right, an extension of unemployment benefits will not create one new job. Any of the indirect jobs that are created by extended unemployment benefits were created under the first law that extended the benefits. Any extension only maintains those jobs. All that happens with the Presidents logic is America will go further in debt and maintain the exact same jobs position we are currently in. The 20,000 new jobs would have also created even more indirect jobs as the newly employed had even more money to spend than they would have with unemployment benefits.

Having a job brings pride of having earned an income. The public dole creates shame in those receiving the benefits and does nothing for the person except make them even more dependent on Government handouts. There is a reason why Newt calls the President the "food stamp" President and its not because of racism; it decisions like these and the thought process that unemployment benefits are better than actually working.

The Knights of Labor

I have come to despise labor unions. Unions in America are no longer organized labor but rather organized corporations. Unions short sightedness towards labor and long term political hacks have changed my opinion of what a union strated out as and what it has become. Sure labor unions are responsible for establishing a 40 hour work week. Sure they are responsible for reducing sweatshops and the institutionalization of child labor laws but what have they done lately? We are having a crisis in our country and instead of working together with employers; Unions run million dollar recall election campaigns when they don't get their way. Rather than admit they have taken things too far and having ruined American manufacturing; Unions carry on a campaign against those that having the requirement to hire more labor. Unions are responsible for the bailout of the auto industry. Unions are responsible for the outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs. Unions are rsponsible for the ever growing and unsustainable compensation packages. I must wonder if Terence Powderly had a better long term Union solution than did Smauel Gompers.

We all hear that corporations have a social responsibility. We all hear Obama decry the disparity between the rich and the poor. We all hear about the social contract corporations should adhere to when employing resources. Yet Unions followed the Gompers method of extractingevery concession a union could from management. Violence was part of the strategy. Strikes were instituted to extract even more. In Gompers methodology everything came down to the here and now; the future be damned. By playing up the sympathy card and exploiting the individual laborers to garner empathy, many concessions were forced without any foresight into the unforseen consequences. We are suffering through those unforseen consequences today. Our jobs are traveling out of country. Our labor rates don't allow us to compete effectively. Detroit is a dying and decaying city with little hope in sight. The Gompes strategy was all about today, using tactics to extract political wins for labor that would have a negative impact far into the future. Whenever we here about the goodness of unions, the supporters have to go back 75 years or longer to pick out what good a union has done. They have done nothing lately ecept to continue squeezing blood from the employers. It is the Gompers philosophy that made adversaries of management and labor.

Powderly on the other hand didn't believe it was an adversarial relationship between management and labor. Powderly in fact was inclusive of management in his Knights of Labor Union. Powderly had a vision of shared commonalities between management and labor. The Powderly vision of inclusiveness between stakeholders was before his time. We want Companies to have a sense of social responsibility. We want our companies to beliee in the unwritten social contract. Yet Powderly lost his union because the results were longer term and didn't immediately satisfy labor. Now here we set in a country where a corporation (Boeing)can no longer decide where there build plants and products. We have millionaires and billionaires (read Basketball) pitted against one another over a couple of percentage points in profit sharing. We have an auto industry bailout that really didn't bailout the corporations but rahter protected the Unions. Isn't this why Powderly felt there were shared interests between management and labor? Wouldn't it be better for unions to spend their money on training their workforce rather spending frivilously on recall elections? The concept proposed by Powderly was before its time. In the end the Knights of Labor fell apart because of not being able to enforce dues. The KOL fell apart because Gompers beleived short term gains were better than long term goals. Unions do not have solutions to America's problem, they are a part of the problems we face. Tell something Unions have done for labor over the past half century. Tell me why Unions would rather spend laborers hard earned union dues on getting job killing politicans elected. What is good for today's unions is not good for America. If we really want socially responsible companies that adhere to social contracts, Unions have to stay out of politics and get involved more with management. Management and labor must work together to develop tomorrow's solutions. As long as Gompers philosophy of management and laborers being adversaries America is doomed to failure with a declining industrial base.

Democrat Temper Tantrum

Yesterday Wisconsin Democrats turned in what they claim is a million signatures for the Scott Walker recall effort. In light of the claims of fraudulent signatures the Democrats may need all 1 million just to have enough signatures to move forward. However, my issue is notthe fraud and money spent by unions and democrats to oust Walker, its that they are going the recall route at all.

Think about it, Scott Walker did exactly what he said he would do if electd. Scott Walker saved the Wisconsin taxpayer money and brought an out of control Democratic spending machine into some kind of order and balance. Yet because the get rich quick union schemes were called out and unions now have to collect thir owns dues, the Democrats are attempting to ignore the results of the last election and have a new one in hopes that Wisconsin turns Walker away.

Having come from Wisconsin, I hope a majority believe as I do, that the democrats and unions are just throwing a temper tantrum. The democrats already shirked their responsibility by running away rather than debate. The democrats can't stand being out of power and don't know how to act when in the minority. Hopefully the average Wisconsin voter knows this is nothing more than the democratic machine attempting to buy an election and buy a majority in the Wisconsin legislature. Unions across the nation have poured millions into this recall effort of Republicans. The 6 recall election last year plus this one are costing Wiscoonsin taxpayers 10's of millions of dollars. Maybe instead of costing the Wisconsin taxpayers for recall elections, democrats and unions could have better improved their image by spending the money more wisely on debate. If the democrats do indeed have enough signatures to move towards an election process, I hope Wisconsin sends a resounding get lost vote to the Democrats who are not in politics for the people but only for their corrupt cronies. Don't stand for the temper tantrum Wisconsin, send the whiney children back to their room; their Illinois hotel room that is.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Matthews: A Deceitful Liar

Chris Matthews is a deceitful liar. No wonder I call the media lapdogs "the pathetic pawns" of the Donkey party. How else can one explain the lies Matthews obviously told when
he claimed there was a mere increase of 13 federal public employees added to the payroll from 2009 to 2010? I mean Matthews shamelessly lies asking rhetorical questions and mocking the Republicans with talk of a leviathan government that merely increased by 13 people. The problem is Matthews knew it was really 13,000. Matthews knows full well that government spending increased over 23% under Obama. Matthews knew and rather than admit his mistake, just changed his his words for the re-airing of his show.

That is the deceitful part. See Matthews got his lies out there. No doubt the brainless left will eat up the idea that only 13 people were added to the federal payroll. By just editing the re-air of his show without admitting there was a mistake is just more propaganda and lies from the pathetic pawns that will do or say anything to get their false messiah elected to a second term.

There was a time that Mr. Tingles thought about running for an open Senate seat in PA. Hopefully, PA will never allow a pathetic pawn, a shameless liar, and deceitful blowhard win an election. Where is the rest of the pathetic pawns? If they wanted to retain what little credibility they have left (if any) they should be all over the air in their news and analysis shows pointing out how Matthews is a deceitful liar. Matthews is tarnishing every pathetic pawn in the media. Unless the other pathetic pawns point out this grievous lie they are no better than Matthews. MSNBC should not be allowed to air bogus lies and cover them up without a retraction or correction. Matthews is nothing more than a deceitful liar that will do nothing but further the propaganda of his left wing pathetic organization.

Monday, January 9, 2012


There was a great football game yesterday between the Denver Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers. The game went down to the wire and eventually Tim Tebow, the quarterback that shouldn't be, pulled off an upset of epic proportions. True Denver was at home but Pittsburgh was widely regarded as the better team. Yet in the end, Denver pulled out another improbable victory.

What was really interesting was the Omens that appeared to have presented themselves. First, as the Broncos kicked off, the ball clanked off the upright for a touchback. The ball finally stopped on the twenty yard line exactly where the ball is placed upon a touchback. Then there are all the references to 316. Tebow entered overtime with 236 yards, a seemingly inconsequential number, yet one pass latter there it was, an 80 pass play resulting in a touchdown. The Broncos won and Tebow had 316 yards passing. Next we learn that Tebow completed 10 passes for an average of 31.6 yards per completion. There is that 316 number again. Yet, I was always told that news good or bad comes in three. Could there possibly yet another reference to 316? Why yes there is, we find out that the playoff game had a viewership share of 31.6.

I don't know what this all protends. John 3:16 says:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

we all know that Tebow is a devout Christian. The left has gone bonkers over Tebow's prayers after good plays and wins. His almost iconic pose is what movies are made of. Yet these omens happened during a football game and bring to mind the "David versus Goliath" battle of biblical times. Denver had no business winning that game, yet there was Tebow throwing an 80 yard touchdown pass for a game total of 316 yards. This happened in the year 2012, the year in which the current Mayan calendar ends. Yes, it is true that in theory a new era should begin but there are some who believe that this year will have chaotic events that may lead to the end of the world as we know it. Now, I am not a big "end of days" believer but it certainly seems time to perhaps at least consider what the bible may have been telling us all this time. Maybe now is the time for those non believers to give Christianity another look. Perhaps it is high time we all got along with our neighbor. We will never know what yesterday meant beyond Denver winning a football game and perhaps that was all it was. Yet the omens presented certainly seem to be saying something.

Simply Wrong

In 2009, Obama told America that everyone needed to sacrifice and have some skin in the game. We were and still are in many aspects in the midst of the largest recession of our time. Obama knew we were in dire straights and even had the fortitude to tell America we were in for some hard times. Yet Obama, decided to have a lavish Halloween party, complete with Johnny Depp and punch filled blood vials.

Now Obama the transparent knew this was the wrong picture to send to the American people. So do you think the smartest man in the room decided to call off his party? Nope, rather than call off his lavish party Mr. Smarty decided to have the party and keep it secret. It's not so bad that Obama had a party in the White House. every President does that and after all he was elected to live there. What burns me and should burn every American is that Obama knew it was wrong and did it anyway.

That' right folks, Obama told the press they could report on the less lavish events of the day but no way should they ever report on the "Alice in Wonderland" themed lavish Halloween party. Obama knew the optics would look poorly upon him so instead of coming to grips with the reality of the optics and cancelling the event, Obama just decided to hide the event from public view. Here I thought Obama was supposed to be so transparent. I thought Obama was supposed to be smart. I thought Obama was supposed to be our savior and not our petulant child.

Brokered Convention

Perhaps the best thing that could happen for the Republican Party is to have a brokered convention. Perhaps in the end, nominating "none of the above" is the best course of action. Right now, we know the presumed front runner is having difficulty consolidating gains and garnering a clear mandate from the Republican electorate. Romney is not the choice of many outside the party establishment. There is concern about his authenticity. We have MSNBC saying Romney is the candidate that most feared by Obama. We have a clear majority of Republicans that want someone other than Romney to win.

Romney barely gets above 30% in most states if at all. From the latest polls it appears Romney will not even gather 40% in New Hampsire tomorrow. This is problematic. New Hampshire should be a bedrock of support for Romney. New Hampshire while having a history of voting Republican is still a North Eastern State that is more moderate and independent than the general Republican electorate. This is exactly the type of voters Romney should appeal to if he has any chance to become Presidnet of the United States. Romney is a Rockafeller Republican and not a Reagan Conservative. yet even in New Hampshire Romney is having problems being the clear cut choice for the nominee.

The problem is that Romney gained momentum out of Iowa. So did Santorum, but by the looks of the environment that was a short lived bounce and as Santorum is more closely scrutinized seems to be falling in the polls again. Yet Santorum's loss of momentum is not necessarily going to Romney. It is clear Republicnas want someone other than Romney.

Another problem with Romney that Republicans should take note of is that the pathetic pawns in the media prefer Mitt over any other candidate. The media has been pushing Mitt since 2008, always calling him the presumptive front runner. Now we have MSNBC saying Mitt is the one candidate that scares Obama. The pathetic pawns and especially MSNBC are not going to lay out a path to victory for the Republican party. Let's be honest, does anyone really believe MSNBC would come out honestly and tell us what the juvenile Obama adminstration fears? I have to agree with Sarah Palin, Romney is the clear choice of the pathetic pawns of media. The pathetic pawns want Romney to win as they believe he is the easiset to attack. Romney is the establishment candidate. Romney and his $10,000 wager show how out of touch he is with mainstream America. Romney plays right into the class warfare rhetoric that Obama plans to use in the election. Let there be no doubt that Romney will be a wounded candidate if he should win the nomination outright. Bain capital with the layoffs will be fodder for Obama. The $10,000 bet will be fodder for Obama. Romney's Wall Street connections will be fodder for Obama. Romney's life of privilege will be fodder for Obama. Romney may be able to overcome these circumstances but should he be the nominee, Republicans will be playing right into Obama's hand. We will play right into the Oama campaign theme and motto. The life of privilege, the out of touch mentality, and the cruelty of layoffs will be the class warfare Democrats have been waiting for.

By the looks of things the overwhelming majority of Republicnas have yet to decide for Mitt. Mitt hasn't solidified his front runner status. The "not Romney" has not solidified around a single candidate. There may not be enough time for the conservative base to solidify around a single "not Romney" unless that happens by the end of the month when Florida votes. I don't believe Romney is a good choice right now and we need an alternative. If the alternative can't win enough delegates to be the clear cut nominee going into the convention, I think we need to ensure Mitt does not have that either. Perhaps having a dark horse candidate, maybe one that is not currently in the race is what is needed. Obama will start spending his mney this spring and he wants an identifiable candidate to begin attacking.

Obama wants to be able to attack all spring leaving the Republican candidate for dead long before the convention starts. Obama has huge sums of dollars to spend and if we have a wounded candidate short on cash, Obama will be able to bury his opponent before we even begin. Having a brokered convention for the first time since 1952 or having the first winner of the presidential election after a brokered convention may be the best thing that could happen for the Republican party.

In the unlikely event there is a brokered convention, I would hope that none of the above (meaning current cnadidates) wins the brokered convention. A dark horse that isn't even running yet. Why not a fresh face like Mike Pence. How about Chris Christie that many donors have clamored for? There are candidates that are out there. It may be difficult to set up the ground game to win such an election. Yet the last time our country had just this sort of financial and economic crisis that is exactly what happened. FDR won a brokered convention in 1932 and beat a wounded incumbent. I believe again this is one such historic moment that requires something out of the ordinary. America needs a change of direction. I don't believe Romney will change the direction and we already know Obama is incapable of changing an has no new ideas. I don't know but something tells me a brokered convention maybe the best thing that could happen for the GOP this year.

The Juvenile Administration

The Obama administration issues more excuses than any I have ever seen. Exactly like adolescent children, this administration never accepts responsibility and always passes the blame onto someone else. See it is never their fault when things go wrong and again like the juvenile adolescent they will always take credit for when things go right.

Take for example the DNC chair saying the bankruptcy of Solyndra is not Obama's fault. After all he is not the CEO and it is the CEO responsibity for making the decisions that either lead to viability or bankruptcy. Yet when Obama heralded Solyndra as a shining example of his green energy policies we only heard how awesome it was for Obama to be considering alternative energy sources and investing our monbey inbto them. Yet when it fails Obama is the first to blame someone else. It is kind of like when Obama said "the Republicnas didn't do anything and won't work with him on the economy back in early 2010. When it looked like maybe the economy was going to turn around (job creation through temporary census jobs) Obama was more than willing to take credit for the economic turn around and blame the previous administration for the mess. When the economy didn't turn around, Obama, rather than take responsibility for his failed stimulus package, Obama was back to blaming the Republicans.

This administration is very juvenile. Obama is planning on running the most negative presidential campaign for an incumbent in years. See Obama has no successes in his repretoire. His record is one of dismal failure. he is left to surrogates like the DNC chair to find the strawmen and blame lines for his failures. Obama has never and will never take any responsibility. His is a juvenile attitude that if only everyone else understood how smart he was then all would be right in the world. Obama can't run on his record, he can only run on the politics of fear and destruction. Obama will be the first one to claim racism. Obama will be the first to play class warfare, Obama will be the first to divide a Nation, and Obama will be the first to blame everyone else. If the partisans on the left would just take a step back and look for Obama's accomplishments instead of believing in his words they would see a juvenile, that believes nothing is his fault, that takes credit for the work of others, and believes that he alone is the smartest in any room. Obama is not a healer, Obama is not transparent, Obama is not the messiah the pathetic pawns in the media would have all of us believe. Just take a look at his actions rather than his words. Obama through his actions has shown that his words are as empty as his suit. Let there be no doubt Obama has a juvenile administration.

Standard Bearer

There has been much talk concerning who should be the Republican standard bearer for this Presidential election. Many comparisons are being made towards the John McCain and Bob Dole style of Senatorial candidates. Both were and are seen as compromising Senator's that had a history of sacrificing Republican ideals to get laws passed in Congress. Both are seen as moderates and the Conservative base is more about ideology than they are the politics of compromise (commonly called governing). Every losing Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater has been called a moderate. In other words the losing candidate wasn't a victim of circumstances but rahter was too moderate and not ideological enough.

Nothing could be further from reality. The Republican standard bearers that have lost since Goldwater lost in 1964 were not to moderate to win. The issues were deeper than simply not being conservative enough to energize the base. In 1976, Gerald Ford didn't lose because he was a moderate. He lost because the country was in a sour mood after Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. The Republicans were going to be punished for Watergate and the Nixon resignation no matter who the nominee was on the Republican side. In fact, even if the great conservative icon, Ronald Reagan was the nominee in 1976, he would have lost to Jimmy Carter. In 1992, the economy was in the tank. The country was in the doldrums and Bush lost, not because he went to moderate, not because he went against his no new taxes pledge, but because the economy was in the tank. The country was tired of 12 years of Republican Presidents and felt a change was in order. I believe if the election was held 3 months later Bush may have had a chance as the economy was beginning to turn around just before the election but not enough to turn the election. Also let's not forget that Ross Perot garnered enough independents and moderates that the 1992 election was skewed anyway. In 1996 Bob Dole didn't lose because he was too moderate. Bob Dole lost because the economy was booming. Additionally, Republicans overstepped their mandate of 1994. Impeaching Clinton was a mistake. Shutting down the Government was a mistake. The American voter saw the Republicans as taking revenge for Nixon and uncompromising for shutting the Government down. The Republicans blamed Dole for not being conservative enough or for not running an inspired campaign, but the reality was the economy was booming and Republicans seemed mean and vengeful. Finally, McCain was the only choice for 2008. Republicans were going to lose in 2008 no matter who the Democrats placed forward. I thin my dog could have been on the Democratic ticket and beat the second coming of Ronald Reagan in 2008. The economy was in the tank. Bush endured 8 years of left leaning hate and a media that destroyed anything and everything associated with Bush. The Republican brand as the media likes to call it was tarnished. The implosion of the financial markets and skyrocketing gasoline prices sealed our fate long before either party had their conventions.

The point being that, everytime a candidate loses we blame the candidate as not being conservative enough or not running an inspired campaign. However, in the end circumstances dictate who wins and who loses more than charismatic and inspired campaigns. When the economy is in the dumps or the country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis the party in power doesn't stand much of a chance. What this means to me is that no matter who the Republicna nominee is, they will be electable. Mitt Romney is electable and so is Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. I don't think Ron Paul will win the nomination so I haven't included him, although he is electable. Bottom line is if the election were held today, the Republican, no matter who it is, would beat Obama. Never mind polls that show Romney is the only candidate that can beat Obama. Polls will solidify around the standard bearer once our nominee is selected and the gneral begins. If the economy remains in the doldrums into this summer, Obama loses, unless something major breaks. We need to vote our principles in the primary and vote our conscience in the General. We need to rid the country of the cancer that inflicts us. Democrats need to be on the outside. Unlike the Republican party, the Democrats will fold under adversity. The pundits have all said the Republican party is on the verge of splitting, nothing could be further from the truth. It is the democrats that are on the verge of collapse and splintering. Our standard bearer no matter who it is needs to focus on the economy and take some heat off the Republican House. There is a reason House members don't win a Pary nomination, they are not in the best position to lead the country. They are elected to represent a district. Just remember, we need to solidify around the stnadard bearer, and allow the standard bearer to run a campaign of prosperity against Obama. We need moderates and independents to win. Never mind what the media does, thwt are in the tank for Obama and will set out to destroy our candidate no matter who it is. "Its the economy stupid", the standard bearer won't make a difference.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Reevaluating the Field

As I owa went to the caucuses on Tuesday, I believed that the fifth and sixth place participants should drop out and endorse the fourth place finisher. I have since reevaluated my own position especially after McCain endorsed Romney and implored everyone to get out of the race. For quite awhile now, I believed the Republicans needed to quickly select their candidate so the nominee could move on to the general election challenge. I have change my position slightly and now believe that maybe prolonging the process into April or May would be better for the party.

In no way to I want to give Obama and his pathetic pawns in the media getting an extra long period in which to tear apart the Republican nominee. Romney won the other night by 8 votes and 25% of the electorate. Yet the next day every pathetic pawn somehow framed the night as good for Santorum but Romney now was going to be the clear choice for the Republican nomination. McCain came out and about said the same thing. I think this may now be the wrong tack to take. Obama is going to have plenty of money in which to crucify our nominee. Obama has already been busy bashing the Republicans at taxpayer expense. I want Obama to have to begin spending money without really knowing who the nominee is going to be. There is no need for Republicans to make this any easier on Obama.

The media wants the fight over. They want a candidate chosen and if anything the results of the other night disheartened them. The media understands that there is no clear singular choice. The Republican party essentially knows the establishment insider Republicans want romney. We also know the grassroot Republicans want someone else, they are just not decided on who that singular outside the establishment they want it to be. That will come. I make no bones about it, my choice is Gingrich, although, I could Perry is also a good choice that is more than acceptable. When MD has its primary, I will vote for one or the other if they are still in the race. If neither ids left standing by April, than I will sit the primary out. That will be my protest vote. I will vote for whoever the nominee is in the General election, yes even Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, or Perry or Gingrich.

SO back to why I like the fact Perry is staying in the race. First I think he may be the better candidate to take Mitt out rather than Gingrich (that's not to say I think Perry is better than Newt as a general election candidate.) At any rate, Gingrich, Perry, or Santorum needs to win SC and the same candidate needs to win Florida. After Florida, I think either Newt or Perry needs to bow out and maybe both if Santorum wins both. I think we need to get this down to a two person race and let the chips then fall. Right now I think the "not Romney camp" is still undecided between Newt, Perry and Santorum. One of the three will catch momentum as long as they can win SC and Florida. Money will come to the winner of SC and the winner in SC will be able to compete in Florida.

I have never seen Romney with anything more than 1/3 of the likely Republicans. That leaves 2/3 of Republicans that want someone else. There is still plenty of time as I believe Florida took a reduction in delegates but will be a winner take all vote. SC is proportional allocation so in the delegate count if one of the "Not Romney" can win both SC and Florida than we have us a race that will keep going on for a very long time. This will keep Obama and his media lapdogs guessing and keep Obama from coalescing a campaign against a particular candidate. This is going to be a negative campaign waged by Obama. Obama has no other choice as his record is abysmal. Republicans need to ensure that Obama has to play against the Republican Congress and his base until closer to the Conventions.

Republicans can afford to vote their conscience in SC and Florida. Hopefully then there will be a clear "not Romney" choice and the race becomes a two person race. Republicans have just begun this race towards delegates, let's not allow Iowa and New Hampshire make that choice for us. I don't think the Republicans can afford to have Obama sharpshooting a named candidate in March. We need to make him wait and guess until at least April or May. That will keep the party in the news to contrast Obama who will always be in front of the camera's for his pathetic pawns.

The Case Against Obama

The President yesterday violated the constitution by parsing words and making a recess appointment even though technically the Senate is still in session. My advice to Republicans is to not play into Obama's hand. The Republicans should cry foul and during every interview and every speaking engagement make sure it is pointed out that Obama violated the constitution and illegally made a recess appointment. In the end, however, don't play too much into Obama's hands and let the Republican nominee's point out how Obama is more interested in playing politics, getting re-elected, and establishing a socialist state than he is in governing.

The Republicans should remember that in 10 short months we will be having an election. The prospects are good for keeping the house and winning the Senate. At a minimum, I believe America will keep government divided. To me it seems likely that Americans will turn the keys over to the Republican's in full but even if Obama retains his office, Obama will be a lame duck with a hostile Congress. In a year from know Republicnas's can play the same games the Democrats have over the last 4 years.

Republicans will have the opportunity to change the filibuster rules just like the democrats and liberals begged for in 2010. Republican's can defund Obama's Czar's and ensure people like Corday do not have enough money to receive a salary let alone fund their bureau's. Republicnas will be in position to jam everything down Obam's throat just like the democrats did to the republicans. Republicna's can filibuster all of Obama's court appointments. Republicans will be in position to shut down the most marxist president we have ever been unfortunate enough to elect.

The Republican nominees have their talking points. Build the case that Obama doesn't care about the voters but rahter just his own political hide and his political party. The case to make is easy. Obama just violated the constitution. Obama is for individual mandates to purchase a product for no other reason than we are born. Obama is making regualtions to bypass the rule of law. Obama is using the EPA to overrule common sense. Remember it was Obama that bypassed Congress and fought a war in Libya that has left a secular Nation in peril. Sure Libya was liberated from a dictator, but is it going to any better off with Muslim fundamentalists ruling it. Obama wants a fight against Congress, don't give him the fight. Take Obama's actions in stride.

Republicans in Congress need to just allow Obama to parade around like a dictator. Obama is not above the law but don't chase the carrot, look out for the big picture, let the nominees contrast their policies with Obama's. Congress should not take the fight on. Obama can not run on his record, he needs a fight with Congress to have any prayer of winning in November. All the Republican's should do is point out that Obama is running amok and bypassing Congress with everything. Point out he violates the rule of law. Point out that Obama believes he doesn't have to abide by the voters intent. Point out that it is Obama that is uncompromising. Point out that it is Obama that is out of ideas. Just don't fall into the trap of allowing Obama to make this a election against Congress. This election has to be about the Presidency and the direction of the country.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Perry Out?

Is Rick Perry going to suspend his campaign? Certainly after listening to his speech tonight it would appear so. Perry just stated that through prayer and reflection, he will be searching for a path forward. Perry is returning to Texas tonight to sleep on what he may do. I don't think that bodes well for the Texas Governor. Perry is a true champion of conservative ideals. Certainly he would be a better candidate than Romney. Hopefully, if Perry ultimately decides to suspend, my hope is he endorses Gingrich. Gingrich is a better candidate to take on Romney than is Santorum. Gingrich could really use the support from the Texas Governor. I really think in the next day or two it will be a 4 person field. Huntsman has to win New Hampshire (which without a miracle isn't happening) to be viable past next Tuesday. Bachmann probably drops out in a day or two, so that leaves the field Santorum, Romney, Paul, and Gingrich. Paul's support is what it is and that won't be changing. SO in the end the Republicans need to get this down to two viable candidates. With Perry finishing 5th, I pray that Perry endorses Gingrich.

The Story In Iowa?

What will be the story coming out of Iowa tonight? Will it be Rick Santorum? Will it be the divided Republican vote? I think the story in Iowa maybe the low turnout amongst Republicans. From Fox news accounts there will be approximately 120,000 votes cast tonight. In 2008 there were approximately 119,000 votes cast. An increase but not by much, more importantly it appears that less Republicans actually voted this year. The increase appears to have come from independents and Democrats the registered tonight or recently as Republicans so they could caucus. This should be scaring the heck out of the Republican party. As big of a disaster the Obama administration has been for the Republican ideals, if Republicans are not energized to select the Republican nominee, how in the world to they intend on getting voters energized enough to beat Obama in November?

If the Republican turnout in Iowa is less than 2008, when there was very little to be joyous about, the Republicans are doomed in November. Republicans are going to have to attack each other much less and go full on frontal assault on the Obama administration. There are ways of differentiating candidacies than negative attacks on fellow Republican candidates. The Republicans need to heed this warning from Iowa and start listening to what the voting public is telling them.

Republican voters are telling their candidates that they are not feeling good about their fortunes. Republicans are saying they want specifics and they want to know how the economy is going to be fixed. The electorate as whole is feeling left out of the process. The electorate is being left behind with no hope of any change. I think Iowa is telling both parties that Americans are very turned off on their political institutions and on election day in November many incumbents may need to search for new employment. The electorate is restless and isn't really supporting anyone. So while the Democrats may seem lethargic with their choice in Obama, if the Republicans are not energized to alleviate the Democrats of their albatross than America will be stuck with 4 more years of a lame duck, do-nothing, President. The story of the night may just be the lack of participation amongst Republicans.