Posts

A Long Line of Nice Losers

photo credit: donkeyhoteyMitt Romney now joins the long list of the kinds of presidential candidates favored by the Republican establishment– nice, moderate losers, people with no coherently articulated vision, despite how many ad hoc talking points they may have.

The list of Republican presidential candidates like this goes back at least as far as 1948, when Thomas E. Dewey ran against President Harry Truman. Dewey spoke in lofty generalities while Truman spoke in hard-hitting specifics. Since then, there have been many re-runs of this same scenario, featuring losing Republican presidential candidates John McCain, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and, when he ran for reelection, George H.W. Bush.

Bush 41 first succeeded when he ran for election as if he were another Ronald Reagan (“Read my lips, no new taxes”), but then lost when he ran for reelection as himself– “kinder and gentler,” disdainful of “the vision thing” and looking at his watch during a debate, when he should have been counter-attacking against the foolish things being said.

This year, Barack Obama had the hard-hitting specifics– such as ending “tax cuts for the rich” who should pay “their fair share,” government “investing” in “the industries of the future” and the like. He had a coherent vision, however warped.

Most of Obama’s arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don’t handle it roughly.

Read more from this story HERE.

2012 Turnout Dramatically Lower than 2008

photo credit: KAZVorpalDespite all the talk about voter intensity surrounding the presidential election, 13 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008.

131 million voters cast their ballots in the 2008 election in which Barack Obama defeated John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin. Obama received 69.4 million votes, while McCain received 59.9 million.

In 2012, Obama defeated Romney by a 50% to 48% margin. Obama received 59.8 million votes, and Romney received 57.1 million votes — 2.7 million fewer than Obama in 2012, but also 2.8 million fewer than McCain in 2008.

Surprisingly, President Obama’s 2012 vote total — 59.8 million — was 100,000 less than the 59.9 million John McCain received in 2008.

Even though President Obama received 10 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, the Democrats were able to win where it mattered. Once again, they mounted a better ground game to turn out the vote on election day than Republicans managed to, especially in a dozen key swing states. A look at the final 2012 electoral college map shows that very little changed between 2008 and 2012. Only two states “switched” from one candidate to another: traditionally Republican Indiana, which Obama won in 2008, went for Romney in 2012, and North Carolina, a surprise win for Obama in 2008, also went to Romney in 2012. All the other key swing states — Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Florida, Colorado, Nevada — went to Obama by narrow margins in 2012.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Hannity throws Cheney a lifeline to extract himself from Palin mess, but Cheney misses the rope

Hannity colludes with Cheney in an attempt to repair the damage from his assertion last week that Palin was unqualified, not vetted, and a mistake for McCain’s VP. Instead of apologizing, Cheney instead offers (repeatedly) the lame excuse that he was criticizing “process” not Palin.

Palin responds to Cheney’s slam that she was bad VP pick

In an interview that aired on last weekend’s “This Week” on ABC, former Vice President Dick Cheney revealed his disappointment that Sarah Palin was the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. That revelation is still being discussed three days later and it has even drawn criticism from conservatives.

But on Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, Palin herself responded to the former vice president, calling it a “misfire,” and saying that he had bought into the media’s story that has been generated over the last four years.

“Well, seeing as how Dick — excuse me, Vice President Cheney never misfires, then evidently, he’s quite convinced that what he had evidently read about me by the lamestream media having been written what I believe is a false narrative over the last four years, evidently, Dick Cheney believed that stuff, and that’s a shame,” Palin said. “So he characterized me as being a mistake.”

But Palin argued that the mistake wasn’t her selection. It would have been if she declined the nomination and pointed to her high numbers at the time of the 2008 presidential race that made her an attractive candidate.

“Here’s where the mistake would have been, Greta, I believe. It’s had I not answered the call — I was honored to get to run for vice president of the United States alongside Senator John McCain. I was honored to accept the nomination from the GOP. And I think that the mistake would have been me just deciding that, ‘Hey, I love my 86-87 percent approval rating up there in Alaska as the governor, moving and shaking and watching corrupt politicians and businessmen go to prison for crony capitalism, working on 16 to 20 percent of domestic energy supplies being able to be increased via Alaska’s resource development, ethics reform legislation that I was working on — that led to that 86 percent approval rating.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Liz Cheney: Dad’s wrong, Palin more qualified than Obama & Biden combined

This past week, former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that Sarah Palin was not qualified for the vice presidency and that John McCain had not properly vetted her.  His daughter, Liz Cheney, disagreed publicly by issuing this tweet:

Here’s more on what Dick Cheney said and his daughter’s reaction here:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told ABC‘s Jonathan Karl Sunday that Senator John McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 was a “mistake,” and one that Mitt Romney can’t repeat.

“I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She – attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years. I don’t think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake,” Cheney explained.

But now, Liz Cheney– who many respect as a conservative mind independent of her father’s former position– has amicably announced that she disagrees with her father’s position.

“Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she’s done 4 GOP,” Liz Cheney wrote.

And this isn‘t the first time Liz Cheney has come to Palin’s defense:

 

Read more from this story HERE.

Photo credit: david_shankbone

The Establishment Wars Against Another Tea Party Leader

With growing dismay, I’ve read a number of recent press reports on the increasingly vicious bipartisan attack on Representative Michele Bachmann.  What on earth did she do?  Rep. Bachmann (and a few of her colleagues, including my friend, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas) had the audacity to request a federal investigation into “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.”

What prompted Rep. Bachmann to ask for this?  Nothing less than evidence from a myriad of FBI reports and federal court cases identifying a number of Muslim Brotherhood front groups, some of which are currently advising departments and agencies of the federal government.

In her investigation request, Rep. Bachmann also noted that Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had close family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.  This spawned a sharp reaction from Senator John McCain, calling the linkage “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman.”  The State Department also joined in, stating that Ms. Bachmann’s allegations were “absolutely preposterous.”

But the worst was leveled by her former campaign chief, Ed Rollins, yesterday:

I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades. There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.

Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.

And then this below-the-belt hit:

Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy  level.

So what exactly did Rep. Bachmann say that was so injurious?  Here it is in her own words:

The Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and /or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy making.

Although she never accused Abedin of being a Muslim Brotherhood loyalist herself, Ms. Bachmann stated later that the

concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position.

For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin.  In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Given the reasonable assumption that Ms. Abedin has a high-level security clearance, as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence I am particularly interested in exactly how, given what we know from the international media about Ms. Abedin’s documented family connections with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, she was able to avoid being disqualified for a security clearance. If these known and documented family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood would not disqualify someone for a security clearance, what specifically is the standard to be disqualified on foreign influence grounds?

Nothing factually inaccurate there.  Of course, none of her detractors bother with that; they deal in hyperbole, hoping to shoot the messenger with the now-politically routine ad hominem attack.  Fortunately, their over-the-top efforts seem to have backfired, giving Congresswoman Bachmann a new platform to address the increasing risk of Islamic fanaticism in the U.S.

Please join her in this effort.  And if you have the resources, send a donation her way.  After all, I suspect that what this “outrage” is really about is this:  the Establishment wants to remove a troublesome Tea Party leader from the U.S. House of Representatives.  As recent elections have shown, they’d much rather seat a liberal Democrat (or RINO) who loves big government than a committed constitutionalist who stands by the principles of our Founders.

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore