Sometimes the events in the political realm  causes this throbbing to occur in my head. Usually it is fine, since these events are fleeting and all I have to do is turn the television off, listen to music, eat a ding-dong and think happy thoughts.  The events of the last 10 days have managed to create a constant throbbing that even music by the Marconi Union cannot soothe.

Let us start with the two South Carolina debates. While watching, I was put off by the cheering. It is a debate not a hockey game. It wasn’t just the cheering, it was what the people were cheering about. They whooped and hollered at comments that made absolutely no sense. On display for the country to see was behavior by those in my party, best explained by Anne Coulter, when describing liberals, as mob mentality.

The more caustic or snide the remark, the louder the audience cheered. There is a lot of anger in the country and candidates would be remiss if they did not try to tap into this to garnish support, but they must do so responsibly, something lacking in those debates.  In the second debate the crowd was whipped up into such a frenzy all rational conduct went out the window.

During the first debate in Florida, the crowd remained subdued. In that atmosphere Newt Gingrich’s comments fell flat. Why? People actually had time to comprehend what he said. Even more important, they listened to the replies. Whether it was from Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, it became clear that Newt’s rhetoric did not match the facts. It was proven he did lobby for Freddie Mac, he does behave erratically and he was thrown out of his position as Speaker of the House.

What happened the next day?

The disgraced former Speaker went on the talk circuit complaining that the audience was not allowed to cheer for him. He threatened to pull out of the next debate if the people were not allowed to behave like a raucous mob.  He has put the media “on notice” he will not tolerate the suppression of free speech. As an “historian” he knows darn well it is not suppression of free speech to request a private audience to behave respectfully. The facts do not matter to him, he is playing to the mob mentality. He claims  if he is the nominee, he will tell the Commission on Presidential Debates to change their rule requiring the audience to remain silent.

Can you see him threatening to pull out of those debates?

President Obama will be really bothered by that threat, won’t he?

It will be interesting to see what tomorrow’s debate brings.

Now for the second source of my pounding head.

No, it is not Jack Daniels.

It was President Obama’s State of the Union Speech.

Yes, it was the typical SOTU speech; long, boring and a laundry list of desires. Unlike most SOTU speeches, however, it was also candidate Obama’s campaign kick off speech:

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

It is clear, as the President tries to distance himself from the occupy movement, he is clearly pandering to them.

I did get some relief  last night, it came in the form of the response to the SOTU by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, this was my favorite part:

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy.  It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates.  A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody.  It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years.

There is a second item on our national must-do list: we must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue.  But after half and three quarters of a century respectively, it’s not surprising that they need some repairs.   We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.

Just as my headache started to subside, I remembered it was Rush Limbaugh who chased this man out of the primaries before they even began. Time for another ding-dong.

Yes, Mitt Romney has made history. He has become the first non-incumbent Republican to win both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Next up, South Carolina, the one state with a perfect record of electing the eventual nominee. No candidate, however, has won South Carolina without first winning either Iowa or New Hampshire.

There is no denying Mitt Romney’s performance in the first two battles of this long nominating process has been impressive. Although some conservative pundits, such as Stephen Hayes and William Krystol are joining in the chorus consisting of other pundits such as James Carville claiming Romney did not have a great evening last night. It has been a very interesting nomination cycle. Not only have conservative candidates decided to attack free enterprise, but conservative pundits are parroting liberal talking points.

First, the pundits claimed Romney’s night was only adequate because he was not going to clear the threshold of 75,000 votes, about the number he received four years ago. With 95.3% of the vote tallied, Romney is currently at over 95,000 votes with 39.4%. Here is one thing to remember, a silly argument from “true conservatives” is to subtract what ever percentage Romney wins from 100 and state ” 60% of Republicans still voted against Romney.” In New Hampshire independents are allowed to vote, how many votes did Romney get from those identified as Republican? 49% in a six person field.

Pundits are trying to claim turn out has been low in both events, yet turnout exceeded the record numbers of 4 years ago. In the first two events Romney outperformed.

BUT..

South Carolina will dictate what happens. Mitt Romney will be hit with everything from his opponents. Newt Gingrich is leading the pack with the attacks, followed by Rick Perry and his new catch phrase “vulture capitalism. ” Whether the attacks stick is yet to be determined. The initial reaction from most is a certain level of disdain for these two candidates who have chosen to use the same attack path as President Obama and the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

I have always maintained Mitt Romney is the best candidate and in the next 10 days he will either prove it or suffer an immense reversal of fortune. While countering the vast number of negative ads, Mitt Romney will have to endure TWO more debates, one on January 16th and the other on January 19th.

South Carolina is known for its hardcore politics. Ask McCain about what happened to him in 2000, and I am sure Mitt Romney remembers for years ago well.

There is no opponent more dangerous than the opponent making a last stand. Hang on people, the Romney voyage is going to hit some turbulence.

A whole day has passed since the Iowa caucus and watching the fall out of the results has been interesting, to say the least. First, there was the ungracious “concession” speech by Newt Gingrich, a temper tantrum lasting through the following day. Then, Rush Limbaugh, in his monologue, accused the Iowa GOP of delaying the counting of the final ballots so they could steal the caucus for Mitt Romney. Also, a group consisting of top conservative leaders are organizing an emergency meeting this week-end to form a consensus for one Republican candidate. An invitation was sent reading:

 You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support

The list of invitees includes many from the “religious right.” They include:

• James Dobson, founder of Faith in Family
• Richard Land,  president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
• Kelly Shackleford,  president and CEO of Liberty Institute
• John Hagee, Worldwide Ministry Pastor
• Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association

While Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, claims the meeting is not part of a ”Stop Mitt” movement and states he will withdraw his participation if the meeting turns into such a thing. a source for the Dallas Morning News states; ‘”One thing unites all in this group – Romney is not their guy.”

It is going to be interesting to see what developes from this meeting. One thing is for sure, Mitt Romney has a long, tough slog if he wants to be the Republican nominee. While Republicans are united in their desire to make President Obama a one term President, the infighting may damage the party beyond repair.  Whoever the nominee is, they will not only have to mend the country but also the party they represent.

I hear you out there.

You are wondering where this is coming from. Everything I’ve been writing has been about the Republican primary and with today being the Iowa caucus you were expecting  me to push for a candidate or at the very least continue attacking one of them.

Not today.

Today I am thinking about one of  President Obama’s foreign policy”successes,” the Arab spring.

Yes to hear some speak President Obama deserves credit for bringing democracy to Egypt. Of course, there are some who say he deserves the blame for destabilising the Middle East.

When he had a chance to put pressure on Iran he sat on the sidelines, doing practically nothing in response to the Iranian government’s crackdown on it s citizens.

He led from behind during the removal of Gadhafi in Libya.  As a Post Gadhafi Libya evolves, it is clear that it will develop into an Islamic state.

If Libya continues down this path it will be following the same course as Egypt. Where the Muslim Brotherhood won 36.3 percent of the vote and the ultra-conservative Salafi al-Nour Party received 28.8% creating a government, according to the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Rashad Bayoumi,  unwilling to recognize Israel and will to dissolve the existing peace treaty, from the Jerusalem Post:

When asked whether it is a requirement for the government in Egypt to recognize Israel, Bayoumi responded by saying: “This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all. It’s an occupying criminal enemy.”

The deputy leader stressed during the interview that no Muslim Brotherhood members would ever meet with Israelis for negotiations.“I will not allow myself to sit down with criminals.”

Bayoumi went on to say that the Muslim Brotherhood would take legal procedures towards canceling the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that was signed in 1979.

“The Brotherhood respects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity,” he told the paper.

These events only serve to highlight the importance of this next Presidential election. As I said in my last post. If you do not know about these things WAKE UP! IT’S 2012. There are important things happening.

Yes it’s the New Year - 2012

As this year begins, there is a tight battle going on for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is barely on top of the list of contenders and the first caucus will be in two days. Then, on January 7 in Manchester, New Hampshire ABC will air another debate.

Oh, JOY!

This will give the other candidates a chance to attack Mitt Romney mercilessly.

You know Newt Gingrich will take advantage of this moment. Of course, he won’t call it attacking or being negative it will be ”contrasting their positions.” I just hope he does not continue complaining about the ”negative ads” running against him.

You know Rick Santorum will be on the attack. Right now, he is surging in Iowa and he could possibly win. Personally, I think he will. He is a strong social conservative and Iowa loves social conservatives.

Rick Perry. Well, Rick Perry will just continue doing whatever it is Rick Perry is doing. It is never a good sign when a campaign is pointing fingers for their poor performance.

Ron Paul will have an opprtunity to explain his newsletters.

Michele Bachman may not be there if she performs in the Iowa caucus as the polls suggest. If she is present it will be interesting to see which of the candidates will have to fend her off. In just about every debate, she has manged to take a bite out of someone with either facts or conjured information.

Here is the best part- On January 8, NBC will be airing another debate!

Yippee!

This second debate is for all those people who were unable to watch the first debate(or the other 13) because it was a Saturday night or they actually have lives to live.

Finally, The New Hampshire primary will occur on January 10 and while Mitt Romney is favored to win, it will be his margin of victory that is important. Of course,  all of you who follow politics knows this, but like the title suggest this is just an obligatory first post of the year.

If any of this is new information for you I say: WAKE UP! IT’S THE NEW YEAR!

There are a lot of important things happening this year.

A memo has come out dated April 2006 that Newt Gingrich wrote for the Center of Health Transformation. In this memo he sang the praises for the Massachusetts health plan from “Newt’s Note:”

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

Newt has some explaining to do!

Despite the attack on Christmas, it is good to know according to a poll conducted by Marist and the Knights of Columbus two-thirds of Americans prefer to say “Merry Christmas” over “Happy Holidays”. Now Some Christmas Humor:

As you can tell I have not been posting much this month.   I just have not had much extra time to write about all the aggravating garbage that has been going on politically. The two main topics this month have been the Republican primary and the payroll tax holiday.

It’s Christmas time so I’m going to be quick and charitable in what I have to say.

As for the Republican primary, the debates are over, at least for a little while.

Thank God.

I do not know which became more intolerable the debates themselves or people telling me who won the debate. Usually people who have a hatred for one candidate or another and could not possibly watch a debate objectively if their lives depended upon it. This applies equally to the so-called professional pundits and all of us who take to keyboard to voice our opinion. Most particularly disturbing, are the pundits who refuse to endorse any candidate but have no problem denigrating the candidates they do not like. There are a few of them out there and in the spirit of Christmas charity I will drop the issue.

I won’t go on about one particular radio personality who, single-handedly, eliminated a candidate before he even got into the race..

Okay, I said I would drop it.

As for this payroll holiday fiasco, I will not point any fingers at anyone for what has transpired. This is my true act of Christmas charity. Instead I will let this video express my feelings:

Now for a little Christmas spirit. My whole life I have loved the Peanuts. I have never been a religious fellow but I have always been moved by Linus’s monologue in “A Charlie Brown  Christmas.” So here it is:

Merry Christmas to all. Most of all to our service men and women who sacrifice so much to defend our right to say crazy things!

Latest Iowa poll has Gingrich at 22% and Paul at 21% perhaps ads like this have something to do with it:

While the Republican campaign marches on and the candidates and their surrogates slice each other up, it is important to remember the final goal of this campaign is to remove the current occupant. With that objective, I present to you two new ads. The first from the RNC:

This second one is from the Romney Campaign: