The midwest is supposed to be this years battle ground. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa. How is Mitt Romney going to win in these states when 26% of the midwest says they will never vote for a Mormon according to Gallup? Why isn’t anybody talking about this number? Its disastrous!

Nationally, here is what Gallup says people are unwilling to vote for…..

Black–5%
Woman–6%
Jewish–9%
Mormon–22%

If you added up all the other things, they still beat the Mormon candidate. Samantha Davis Jr. would have a better shot then Mitt Romney.

Throw in Romney being terrible in a tough interview. His lack of charisma. Finally the game plan the media and Dems have hatched the last 6 months to do the 99-1, wall street-main street, super rich vs middle class strategy and Romney will become Mr. Unelectable when the media begins to focus negatively on him.

When they say Mitt is a phony flip flopper, will you be able to deny that? Who will fight for Mitt Romney when the shots begin?

Look at how difficult it is for Mitt to actually get votes in a primary when EVERYTHING is pushing him on the voters. The mainstream media hasn’t touched him the last few years. Fox News couldn’t have been more manipulative for Mitt the last few months. Drudge the last few weeks. Almost every national columnist is attacking any challenger. Almost every elected official is either endorsing him or defending him. Tons of money and organization. Yet he still might lose to Newt freakin Gingrich! Gallup has it Newt 31-25 as we speak nationally.

The establishment hooked their train to the Mitt express and convinced everybody worth a crap not to run. Then had 4 divisive conservatives to split the conservative vote in case somebody like Palin or Perry ran. Nobody will ever convince me the establishment didn’t push Michelle Bachmann to run to cat fight with Palin if she had entered. Why hasn’t Bachmann or especially Cain endorsed Newt? Where is fellow Georgian Herman Cain’s endorsement!

If Mitt loses, I can only hope this destroys the establishment and their “electability” games they have been using against conservatives the last 30 years.

Down goes Dole
Down goes McCain
Down goes Romney

Three strikes and your are knocked out establishment.

The big lie going on during the last couple of days is the idea that Newt Gingrich is just as progressive as Mitt Romney. From Glenn Beck to Ace of Spades to commenters here. Pure garbage.

First let me admit that I am leaning Newt mainly because I am a anybody but Romney guy. If Rick Perry or Rick Santorum could somehow become relevant by the time my Florida primary comes around I will probably switch to them. However, if it becomes a Newt vs Mitt vote my decision will be easy. I will vote for the conservative, Newt Gingrich.

Let me admit Newt has many flaws. From his personal life baggage, to his ego, to his unpopularity from the past, to even some of the issues he has pushed. There are some things people can and should bring up to complain about Newt. This is all fair game and true.

However, when people even remotely insinuate that there is no difference between Newt and Mitt on the conservative-progressive spectrum, they are either lying or are stupid.

During the 90′s, Mitt would have been rated at or near the bottom of conservatism in the Republican party. And Newt would have been at or near the extreme right of that scale. Newt was the face of the conservative movement in elected office along with probably Jessie Helms. Newt had a 90+ ACU rating in his 20 year career. He helped come up with the conservative Contract with America. At the other end was Mitt Romney who was against the Contract with America and who stated “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” even though 60% of America voted for Reagan-Bush.

Then when push came to shove and it was time to actually govern, Newt had Welfare Reform, budgets balanced, and governments shut down. And Mitt had Romneycare. You say that was the past. I would simply ask who has sounded more conservative between the two  during the debates? For me it has been Newt Gingrich.

Finally we get to my main point. People are bringing up about a dozen issues to point at Newt being a progressive. This is largely cherry picking certain votes, comments, and issues. He has probably pushed 1000 issues, voted on 5,000, and commented on 10,000. Who wouldn’t have some bad moves? When you have been a Speaker of the House of course you have compromised on occasion. You are bound to have a liberal-progressive vote or two in 20 years in congress. When you have written 23 books, worked with numerous groups to push ideas and been a talking head on Fox News for nearly a decade, of course you will go too far to the left once or twice or even ten times.

In comparison, other then be a Governor for 4 years and done a few interviews and the debates, Mitt Romney hides. There isn’t anywhere near the record to nit pick Mitt.

My simple question that I have yet to hear an answer for is what has Mitt ever accomplished that was truly conservative in his entire life? I have asked this at numerous sites. Have not seen a good answer yet.  What has he even spent a dime of political capital on to try and accomplish that was conservative? When did he EVER fight for conservatism? Is he even truly doing that today? Give me even one example? When has the media ever gone after Mitt for doing something conservative?

Newt is a very conservative Republican who has lately on rare occasion dabbled in the dark side. I think in some cases to make money. In some cases to get in a little better with the establishment. However, Mitt is in bed with the establishment and has consummated that relationship with a child to show for it[Romneycare].

The media has never gone after Mitt Romney because Mitt is a liberal-progressive saying what people want to hear right now. Mitt will NEVER fight for conservatism. Newt has many times, including in the last debate even[Palestine]. I am still waiting for Mitt to do it once in his life.

I am leaning Newt, but am deep down more of an anybody but Romney guy. Since I would be fine with Rick Perry and believe in honesty, I give the following advice to the Rick Perry fans with a humane open heart. Don’t give up on Rick Perry…….yet.

Some are saying Perry just isn’t catching on and therefore its hopeless. My advice is look at the 2008 Republican primary before you throw in the towel. Below are the averages taken from the 4 polls[CNN, Survey USA, CBS and Rasmussen] in South Carolina in MID DECEMBER, 2007….

South Carolina 4 poll averages between December 9-17

Huckabee—26.3
Romney—–19.5
Thompson—14.3
Giuliani—13
McCain—–11.5

Also the 4 polls from Florida in MID DECEMBER[Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Survey USA, and Strategic Vision]….

Florida 4 poll averages between December 13-18

Giuliani—25.3
Huckabee—23.3
Romney—–19
McCain—–11

McCain not only won each state just 4 and 6 weeks later, he won comfortably by 3 and 5 points and the race was effectively over. That’s right, just 6 weeks after these pathetic polls in which he was a distant 4th and 5th, he was coasting to the nomination. How soon we forget how long a month is in politics.

All I ask in return for this generous information is that you please never support Mitt Romney and maybe tone down the anti-Newt rhetoric here. Dude deserves a little more respect for his actual conservative accomplishments which are historic.

Palin running will help the Conservatives and Perry. First, anybody think the debates will be more watched with her in them. This will give Perry an opportunity to impress these new eyes that he otherwise would not have had. Also, she will help draw fire from the media away from Perry. Similar to what she did in the 2010 election. It wasn’t until a few weeks before that election the Dems realised maybe they should be going after Boehner instead of Palin. But by then, it was too late.

Secondly, she will be another voice going after Obama. The more doing this, the merrier. She will also make Perry more electable. That can’t effectively say Palin…… and Bachmann…… and Paul…….. and Perry are ALL unelectable. Or Palin…… and Bachmann……. and Paul……. and Perry are all extremists. Her running dilutes these arguments against Perry. And trust me, they will eventually start saying Perry is unelectable. They are already saying he is an extremist.

Thirdly, if Perry and Romney end up as the front runners, anybody think she would endorse Romney? Finger in the wind Romney? After South Carolina or Florida, if she is behind she can finish off Romney with her endorsement if that is the scenario.

Fourthly, from what I have seen so far, Perry needs to be sharpened up a bit. A good primary campaign with tough competition will be good for Perry and help prepare him for Obama.

Fifthly, wouldn’t a Palin grass roots organization be hugely beneficial to Perry or whoever the Republican nominee is in the general election? If she doesn’t run, it won’t be there.

Finally, Romney has been gradually fading in the polls for months, now down in the teens. Romney has already lost 5-7 points in the last 3 months. He won’t be the nominee if Palin and Perry both run. Once Romneycare goes full tilt in the national discussion, Romney will fade further.

The more conservatives in the primary the better. What do we do if Perry combusts? What if a scandal happens? Or he is a much worse campaigner then you think? Or he gets sick? What is your conservative option then? Why not let Palin potentially rehab her image by running and be a conservative option?

What about trying a new D-Day?

 
Republicans all believe the media is bias. They simply are afraid the media will use their Alinsky tactics on them and try to destroy them if they talk about it. Politicians are about survival. They are afraid to be the first one. So I have a plan. Call it B-Day. First, have the conservative movement and blogosphere convince the Republican establishment that this needs to end for the betterment of the Republican party and the country. Its in the best interest of even the Republican establishment. Convince the party to gather all the evidence on the subject of media propaganda. I personally could write a 100 page diatribe on the subject. Brent Bozell could write a 1000 page book. There could end up being 10,000 plus facts on the topic. Polls, studies, anecdotal evidence, etc.

 
Then the Republican establishment leaders[Rove-Gillespie-Boehner, whoever the secret powers that be are] go to ALL the Republican presidential canidates  and convince them all to grow some cojones. And during one of the debates, when the first person gets asked  a bias question, to have them hijack the question and go nuclear on the media. Not a “the media is a touch biased” comment. No, but instead “the media are a propagandist machine” rant. Then let loose with the facts that he has been given. Then when the next candidate is asked a separate question, have him revert back to the last topic, media bias. And have him give more facts and have him talk about it in even more extreme terms. And again and again and again and again. Each candidate talking about different facts on the topic. There is strength and courage in numbers. Storm the beaches. Then after the debate have the Republicans and conservatives who will be on TV to talk about the debate ready to talk about what just happened with even more facts. These are the paratroopers. Then have lots of effective Republicans to come in to talk on TV in the days after. The reinforcements.

 
Prepare it all in the days leading up to the debate. Even if the media hears rumors about this it doesn’t matter, it will still work. It will be a cluster bomb of facts and truth. The truth shall set the Republicans free. Lets Alinsky the media.  What can they say? Oh, that whiny Republican party? Even the Democrats will be put into a corner. Our ammunition on this topic is too great.

 
Would all Republicans say that the media is bias? My prediction is that if we can convince the leaders like Boehner and the Bushies and the Rombots that its good for them, I predict even the Maine Twins will be peer pressured into admitting the truth. Because its the truth for gods sake. And trust me establishment Republicans, you are next in line to be attacked by the media.

 
If done properly there would only be one casualty, the main stream media’s agenda. The press won’t be harmed by this, it may actually be an effective treatment for dying journalism.

And if not taken up by the Republican establishment, then have the conservative movement do it on their own. Every conservative blog devote a day to it. Every conservative columnist. Have talk radio talk about it on the same day. Have every talking head conservative[what few there are] hijack TV conversations and talk about it. And hopefully have EVERY conservative politician make a speech about it. Write an oped about it. ALL on the same day. It still might be enough to create a conversation by the media and stem the madness.
However, try to get the establishment on board first.

For me, the media is a bigger long term concern then the Democrats are. The Democrats can be voted out as we saw recently. But the media can’t. And its the media that give the Democrats their power. They elected Obama. The last 3 years the media has stopped even trying to be fair and they are only going to get worse. How much farther will they go?

How many presidential primary debates should the Republicans hold? Before you answer with a number in the single digits, lets review the 2008 Presidential primary debates. In 2008, the Democrats participated in 26 primary debates. Yes, I said 26! Hillary Clinton participated in all 26 debates. Barack Obama participated in 25. That doesn’t seem possible does it? Its true. Republicans participated in only 21. However, part of the reason for that paltry sum is that the race was largely over after Super Tuesday on the Republican side. There were no debates held after Feb. 2nd. The Dems held 4 debates after that date. So both sides were on schedule for 25+ debates each if the races had been close at the end.

So how many Republican debates should there be? Some may say that there were too many debates last election. Also that there was debate fatigue. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with either statement. However, my belief is that there should be 22-24 debates. Here are my reasons….

First, yes there was some debate fatigue last election. However, both sides were debating and there was a total of 47 debates overall. Since the Democrats won’t have any debates, this will automatically cut overall debates in half. Also, since we have had a season with 47 debates, we are more used to the concept of lots and lots of debates. So having quite a few debates won’t be so shocking and won’t be so fatiguing.

The Republicans will be the only game in town and should take advantage of that stage. The issues are largely on the Republican and conservative side this election. Use the free air time without interviewer interruptions to pound home the message. Other then Fox, you never get that opportunity of a clear minute and a half of continuous runway to land your punches. All the candidates can pound away.

Also, I expect almost all of the Republican candidates to be effective debaters on the issues. Why not have Romney-Pawlenty-Palin-Cain-Huckabee-Barbour-etc present our case. These people are good communicators of the Republican message.

Debates tend to be the fairest ground in the main stream media for Republicans. Still unfair mind you, but much better then say a standard interview. In some ways the media feels compelled to be fairer then usual. I think partly because there is strength in numbers and partly because they know everyone is watching so they can only be subtly bias. I recall very few pathetically unfair moments in any of the debates including the general election debates. So why not take advantage of the media being “somewhat” fair?

Use the debates for practice for the inexperienced debaters. Which would be a majority of the candidates. The Dems wanted all of those debates to get Obama experience in debating. He largely lost the first 5 debates he participated in. He gradually improved. Barack Obama appeared in 25 Democratic primary debates and won the general election by 7 points. It didn’t seem to hurt him. And if the Republicans hold 24, that would still be less then Obama and the Dems.

When should the debates begin? Last year the Republicans held their first debate on May 3rd. And the Dems on April 26th. However, debates should not begin that early this time around. First, the caucus’s in Iowa occurred January 3rd and 4th 2008. In 2012, its scheduled for February 6th, 5 weeks later. So the first debates should occur around 5 weeks later should they not?

Two other points, the Dems second debate did not occur until June 3rd, so although they held one debate very early, it was just one debate. Finally, in 2008, candidates announced much earlier then they are this campaign. Mitt Romney announced on February 13th 2007. Its more then 2 months later then that time frame and he hasn’t announced yet. Obama February 10th and Hillary in January. What major Republican has even announced yet? None. By the time of both parties first debate last election, all 8 major Democratic candidates had announced and appeared at the first debate. And only Fred Thompson had yet to announce and failed to appear out of the top 11 Republican candidates. So we kind of have to wait for people to announce don’t we? The first debate should be sometime in June. Late June.

Now to the question of who should hold the debates. In 2008, the Democrats let Fox News do a total of ZERO. That’s right, none of the 26 Dem debates. And only 1 debate was Fox News cameras even allowed to attend. The first debate should be in late June and not on MSNBC. None of the 22-24 debates should be hosted on MSNBC.

When lightning strikes twice, its an amazing coincidence. When it strikes six times in less then a month, it may be a conspiracy. Since March 23rd when the first sleeping situation occurred by an air traffic controller at an airport in Washington DC and got tons of national coverage, a total of 6 sleeping incidents have plagued American airports including in Miami and Reno. According to this story about the first occurrence in DC, “Aviation experts emphasized the unusual nature of the incident”.  Yet now it occurs six times in less then a month?  Notice also where the first sleeping incident occurred, Reagan International Airport. Coincidence? Well, considering there are over 14,000 airports in the U.S., it makes one wonder if that airport was a symbolic first case since Reagan took on the controllers union 30 years ago. This all sure seems suspicious.

Would unions do such a thing as fail to do their job and risk American lives to gain a negotiating advantage? Well, remember this story about the New York snow plow drivers? And how a baby may have died because of it? Besides, all air traffic controllers would have to do is pretend to be asleep, while still being able to listen to the pilots in case they were really needed.

What would the liberals gain in this endeavor? First, today the FAA passed new rules in negotiations with the NATCA union. Although they didn’t get paid nap time on the job which they asked for[nor juice bottles or binkies], they did get a dozen concessions, including an extra hour of rest. That’s a win for the NATCA union. It also has begun a national dialogue in this area of nap time on the job in other work places. This story by CNN was done just 1 day after the first controller fell asleep. The media has been pushing how tired poor workers are all over the place. Its also a good test case for this kind of manipulation by the unions in the future. And so far it seems to be a success, if indeed the unions are behind this.

The big question I have is where are others questioning how this seemed to almost never occur and then for it to occur 6 times in a month with the first example at Reagan? I understand why the media would not question what really is going on since they may be partly in on it. However, the conservative media should be more suspicious and be asking more questions about the actual sleepers. I would love to know how many of the sleepers are near retirement age. How many have connections with the Democratic party. Etc.

President Obama hasn’t done a tough interview in over a year. I believe Brett Baer was the last to ask anything difficult and that was a long, long time ago. Bill O’reilly is going to interview President Obama on Superbowl Sunday. We know O’reilly will be rude and probably not ask any truly effective questions. It will probably help Obama more then hurt him.

So what would be the most important and revealing question Obama could be asked? We all know Obama is at heart a socialist. With the real possibility he is a true blue Marxist. Yet we also know he would be prepared for this direct question and would scoff it off and deny any such nonsense. I believe that was his response the other time he was asked the question. So the question “are you a socialist” is a waste of time and actually helpful for Obama. Instead, I would ask President Obama since you have denied you are a socialist, what specifically are the negative aspects to socialism? 

Why would this be a great question? First, because we know deep down Obama is like Maxine Waters and he is just pretending not to be a socialist. And if you are a socialist you are one to the core. It is part of your being. It is the equivalent of asking a Christian what are the specific negatives of Christianity. So answer that question right now. Quick. Do it. Its tough to do.

Or explain the many problems of conservatism and why specifically you are not a conservative? Quick. Convince me. I’m waiting. My guess is your first response to my question was confusion. Unless you are prepared to answer this question specifically, you will have a tough time doing it without hemming and hawing. And we know Obama has a tendency to hem and haw already. The deer in the head lights look alone could be priceless.

My guess is he would try his standard scoffing off the question. Laugh, then deny he is a socialist and ridicule those who say he is. I would then say you didn’t answer my question and I would then repeat the question what are the negatives of socialism and ask for specifics since its such a far fetched concept it should be easy to answer. What does he do then? I actually have no idea. He may refuse. I would then ask it a third time explaining the reasonableness and importance of the question. Since it is reasonable and important. Fifty five percent of the country thinks you are a socialist so convince them you are not by telling them why socialism is so bad.

This is THE topic that must be delved into. If done properly it could really hurt Obama. What could he possibly say? Anything that we would say that is negative about socialism would drive his base crazy. Its like telling all your christian friends why Christianity is bad and doing so on TV before the Superbowl.

He would be lying as well. Its always good to see your opponent forced to lie. And many of the things he might say can be followed up with more tough questions. Also, if he actually answered the question specifically and gives reasons socialism is bad, O’reilly could actually play devils advocate and defend socialism. That would be fun to watch. It might force Obama to reverse course and reveal his true beliefs.

No matter what his response is, their would be good counter questions. It will be a mine field impossible to answer without body parts flying. It should also get Obama off his game for the rest of the interview.

So what is your question you would ask Obama if you had the chance?

I have a question. Name me the last candidate in a general election who won the Presidency who had less charisma then their opponent? Think about it. My guess is Truman over Dewey. But I don’t really know much about Dewey. If not, you might have to go back to the 1920′s since Roosevelt was very charismatic.

What is charisma? To me, its magnetism. You know it when you see it. A bigger then life persona. Looks, originality, humor, coolness, charm, and likability are all factors. Not being a dorky, stiff, bore are important too. Who do you pay attention to when they enter a room. Who do ya want to have a beer with, etc.

Here are my ratings from one to ten……

 
Obama7-McCain4
Bush Jr7-Kerry3
Bush Jr7-Gore3
Clinton8-Dole3
Clinton8-Bush Sr4
Bush Sr4-Dukakis2
Reagan9-Mondale4
Reagan9-Carter5
Carter5-Ford4
Nixon5-McGovern3
Nixon5-Humphry4
Johnson6-Goldwater4
Kennedy9-Nixon5
Eisenhower8-Stevenson4
Eisenhower8-Stevenson4

Don’t think charisma is a major factor? Tell that to the kids who voted for Obama. Do tanks and surf boards ring a bell? I like Ike? Have a beer with GW. Al Bore. And nobody can deny the star appeal of Kennedy and Reagan. We live in the TV age and we want to win. So how would the list of potential Republican candidates rate in charisma? Which candidates can approach or beat Obama’s 7?

Barack Obama’s 3 stated major issue goals when he ran in 2008 were education reform, health care reform, and energy reform[cap and trade]. The Dems went hard after the last two in Obama’s first two years. They were the difficult ones. They knew they would be controversial and make indies mad. They knew Obama would need his “welfare reform” moment before his re-election campaign like President Clinton had. Education reform will be it. In other words, this compromise has already been decided by the Dems years ago. The teachers unions will be the sacrificial lamb. The welfare mommas if you will.

Why do I say this? Lets start with the documentary, Waiting For Superman. I have not seen it, but everyone says its actually a conservative movie on this issue and goes after the teachers union. Who made the documentary? Davis Guggenheim, who also made the 2006 Al Gore global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth. When the Dems have an issue to push, hire Davis Guggenheim. But why push a un-liberal issue like this? Because like I said, Obama would need one and this was the sacrifice they decided on long ago. And they need to convince Dems not to go crazy when they compromise. They are actually trying to brainwash their own people.

Oprah Winfrey is on board. She had Davis Guggenheim and Chris Christie[hmmmm] on her show to talk about Waiting For Superman. Michelle Rhee is the 3rd face of this issue by the media and she also has been on Oprah. Rhee is a Democrat and voted for Obama. Although the head of the Washington DC school system “almost” voted for McCain according to Time magazine. So the head of education in the most liberal city in America almost voted against Obama? …LOL sure she did. Even Time magazine is pushing this.

Then there is Chris Christie. He does a number of videos such as here, here, here, here, and here going after the school unions. Conservatives drool with glee like its the greatest thing they have ever seen. Calls for Christie to run for President are everywhere. Yet, where is the coordinated democratic and media backlash against Chris Christie for doing this? Where? He gets soft ball media coverage. He gets praise from the media. And there is no attack from the administration. None. And even the blogosphere is pretty quiet. If what Christie is doing is so tough and so brave and so amazing and so conservative, why are they not attacking him in a barrage? Where is the “We must stop Chris Christie” campaign that we all know they could launch in coordination?

Its all a done deal folks. The Dems have already conceded this issue. Not clearly yet, but like I said they are doing documentaries propagandizing for Chris Christies position for gods sake. This is to prepare the way for Superman to do the right thing and be a centrist. Superman. Get it. Obama is the one they have been waiting for.

Many conservatives are being used and had and don’t even see it. They are playing chess and we are playing checkers. And Chris Christie is just a pawn in this game. And if he becomes popular and some day “queened” because of this, that’s OK by the media too. Because Chris Christie may be one of the most liberal Republicans in the country. And they know on occasion, even Republicans have to become President. If any Republican has to be president, they wouldn’t mind Chris Christie at all. And by that time, this issue will have already been solved by Obama. Other then budgets, what is Christie conservative on anyway? Chris Christie is the Democrats and media’s kind of Republican.

I know many are huge Chris Christie fans. And I have no problem with him being Governor of New Jersey. Nor do I have a problem with him tightening his belt and doing it at the expense of unions. But I sure hope people examine whats going on a little more closely and realize that what Christie is doing isn’t that big of a deal. Even Jerry Brown is tightening the budget in California. Do we want Jerry Brown to ever be the Republican nominee? Obama isn’t Superman and neither is Chris Christie.

When Christie starts fighting for something conservative other then his one trick, I might start ponying up to him. Until then, he is just a pawn rushing up the board in a losing game of chess.