The Crowds!!

No. No. No. No. They wouldn't, would they? I can't for the life of me believe the Democrats would stoop to such a level! At Breitbart.com, John Nolte has a picture (see left) of the stage for the Democratic National Convention in North Carolina's Bank of America stadium. Behind the podium are images of adoring crowds in Obama campaign gear. They are excited, enthusiastic and enraptured. Why would these images be on the screens behind the stage?

Nolte speculates that these images may be used to falsely show large emotional crowds for Obama's nomination acceptance speech to hearken back to the heady days of the 2008 campaign. The Obama campaign has had a great deal of trouble filling venues for his events and to show these images of full, happy crowds would be great optics for the campaign and the convention. However, they can't be that desperate (or stupid) to do such an obvious thing. Could they?

I mean, the only time for these images to be displayed would be during Obama's speech, right? No one would care if there was a large, focused crowd during, say, Georgetown Law School graduate Sandra Fluke's speech about the government paying her to have sex, right? So, now that these images are out there, I can only believe (if the Democrats aren't that stupid) that it will be a part of a "Remember When" style of video presentation. I mean, it just has to be right? They can't be THAT desperate. Can they?

Just in Case

We all know politics can be a rough and tumble "sport". Backstabbing, back-room deals and overly ambitious players can all make political activity an unwelcome endeavor for many people. I don't know Rep. Todd Akin's personality at all, but I would warn the Republican Party to not push him too hard.

Some polling has come out after his "legitimate rape" comments and initially showed him getting destroyed by about ten points. Now, more polling has come out that shows the race tightening*. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee has effectively cut Akin off from any funding (as did the National Republican Campaign Committee). Well, what happens if Akin wins (narrowly or overwhelmingly)? If, as some projections have it, the Senate is evenly divided (and assuming there's a Vice President named 'Ryan' as the tie-breaker) next year, the Republican Senate Caucus may have to deal with a vengeful freshman Senator from Missouri.

As mentioned above, I don't know Akin's personality, but no one should take anyone's action (or reaction) for granted in the political world. If a major piece of legislation comes up next year and there are 49 definite Republican votes, 50 definite Democratic votes and one Senator asking them to "Show Me" (get it?) why he should vote a certain way, we will all look back on this moment and say: "why did we cut off our nose to spite our face?"

There are crucial issues that need to be addressed next year: Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, federal judges, the budget, etc. Let's not let a few words, which he apologized for by the way, cloud the judgment of political decision makers. I understand waiting and seeing what will happen as Election Day approaches, but there should be some money held aside for this race, just in case.

(*Granted the polls have been conducted by PPP, a Democrat-affiliated firm, so take ALL polling with a huge grain of salt)

Congratulations

Congratulations Governor Romney, on becoming the official Republican Party nominee. Now don't screw this up!

READ THIS TODAY...Happy 4th!

The Declaration of Independence IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated: Column 1 Georgia:    Button Gwinnett    Lyman Hall    George Walton Column 2 North Carolina:    William Hooper    Joseph Hewes    John Penn South Carolina:    Edward Rutledge    Thomas Heyward, Jr.    Thomas Lynch, Jr.    Arthur Middleton Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Column 4 Pennsylvania:    Robert Morris    Benjamin Rush    Benjamin Franklin    John Morton    George Clymer    James Smith    George Taylor    James Wilson    George Ross Delaware:    Caesar Rodney    George Read    Thomas McKean Column 5 New York:    William Floyd    Philip Livingston    Francis Lewis    Lewis Morris New Jersey:    Richard Stockton    John Witherspoon    Francis Hopkinson    John Hart    Abraham Clark Column 6 New Hampshire:    Josiah Bartlett    William Whipple Massachusetts:    Samuel Adams    John Adams    Robert Treat Paine    Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island:    Stephen Hopkins    William Ellery Connecticut:    Roger Sherman    Samuel Huntington    William Williams    Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire:    Matthew Thornton Source: National Archives

Stop Defending Roberts

I’m not a constitutional scholar. There’s your disclaimer. But, the idea that Chief Justice John Roberts has helped the conservative/libertarian/constitutional cause by limiting Congress’ Commerce Clause power by making the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate constitutional under the taxing power is getting silly. Many conservative pundits have tried to calm the waters among grassroots conservatives and libertarians by saying that, although the ruling was a blow to our expectations, there is a silver lining. To say that the “police” powers of the Commerce Clause were staunched and all we have to do, thankfully and almost easily in their minds, is to fight these taxing powers at the ballot box. This makes me think that “experts” really don’t know, nor understand, what it’s like to be a “non-expert”.

If one is to remark about the broad police powers of the government, what should and often does come to mind? Taxation. The taxing power of the government is one of the most onerous, awesome and frightening powers the government has. Think about it: the massive combined federal, state, and local governments command us to pay a certain amount of money to them to support their operation (I’m not going to argue about the Social Contract or other fundamental things). This is usually based on what you and I do. If you work, you pay an income tax. If you invest, you pay taxes on profits and/or losses. Hell, even when you die, your family pays a tax on your estate (dying is doing something). What is this command to pay backed by? Violence. Guns. Threats. Loss of Freedom. Loss of property. The various levels of government have untold resources to compel its citizens to pay their share. How much more powerful of a policing power can there be?

Just because Roberts did not use the Commerce Clause to uphold the ACA, does not mean we’re any better off. The taxing power seems just as, if not more, scary to me. 

Mandate = Tax

Well. There you have it. The "Affordable" Care Act has been found (for the most part) constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts massaged his opinion to say that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but constitutional under Congress' taxing power. So, the federal government can tax us into oblivion in order to force us to buy something we may not want. Great precedent huh?

Here's a link to the 193-page opinion.

Intrigue in Egypt

Ouch. The Egyptian people have chosen the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, as their new president. But are we actually seeing a "transition to democracy" in Egypt? Well...

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had recently suspended the powers of the presidency to control the military and inserted broad powers for itself. The country's highest court had thrown out legislative election results and the new constitution. The SCAF was the true guiding hand in Egypt for the past year, so why did the Brotherhood candidate win over the man who seemed to be the natural fit for the military, Ahmed Safik?

Safik was a former prime minister for Hosni Mubarak. He was seen as the status quo, "old guard" candidate. The Brotherhood had been banned from political activities under Mubarak. So many questions come out of this: 

Does the Brotherhood have more influence in the military than most think? 

What type of constitution will come out of a Brotherhood-dominated legislature, assuming there is one (though it seems clear that's the path the people are headed down)?

What of relations with Israel and the United States, as well as the broader Middle East region (specifically Turkey, Syria and Iran)?

Will the fundamentalist Brotherhood be able to contain itself from onerous religious laws after the celebrations in Tahrir Square die down? 

Was there a deal cut between the Brotherhood and SCAF (obviously, yes)? How extensive was it (besides the military's suspension of basic democratic controls). Closely connected to this is: 

Was this result a fait accompli as the military and the Brotherhood negotiated "power sharing" roles? (In order to win the presidency, the Brotherhood had to agree to give up power over the military and the military would support Morsi).

Politics is politics wherever you go and politics is about power (getting it, holding it, maintaining it, expanding it, etc.). So all of the great chants about democracy and freedom will often be a mask to cover naked power grabs. If the Egyptian military is/was more concerned about power, than national security, then this result is not surprising. Same goes for the Brotherhood; give up some powers in the hopes of gaining others they may find more important (religious, social control). Heck, if the Brotherhood plays their cards right, they may be able to get the upper hand on the military over time. Come to think of it, both sides are probably thinking the same thing (make the deal, wait out the clock, maneuver incessantly and take total control). 

The thought of a large and powerful military, working along side a known religious fundamentalist group in a (soon-to-be formerly) secular and open society should give our government and many of the freedom and liberty-loving people around the world pause. No need to get hysterical just yet, but watch and wait. I don't see much good coming out of this development...

Extremely Rare Endorsements

This is probably the first time in American political history where all of the living former Presidents of the United States (from opposing parties) have, in one way or another, endorsed the challenger to the incumbent executive.

President George H.W. Bush has formerly endorsed Mitt Romney for President. George W. Bush has done the same (“I’m for Mitt Romney!”). Those two endorsements from Republican former presidents would be expected. The following endorsements? Not so much:

Bill Clinton, on several different occasions, has defended Mitt Romney’s qualifications (as governor) and his “sterling business career”. He has also given us a timeline for when we can expect the economy to improve and who to hold accountable. Two years ago (September 2010), speaking at the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton said that if the Democrats don’t have this mess straightened out, the voters should “vote them out”. Well, it is two years later and there is an election coming up, so…

I’m now standing by to hear what Jimmy Carter has to say about President Obama. Oops, wait a second. In an interview with MSNBC this past April, former President Carter said Romney had been “fairly competent” as governor of Massachusetts and that Carter would be “comfortable” with Romney as president (though he did try to pin the “right-wing extremist” tag on Romney later in the interview). Not a ringing endorsement, but close enough coming from Carter.

Geez, with friends like these…

The last endorsement (though indirect) of Romney (or whoever the Republican nominee would be) comes from none other than: President Barack Obama himself! During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that if he didn’t have the economic situation worked out by the end of his first term, then it would be a “one-term proposition’ for him. Well, we’re coming up on the end of his first term, so…

Prelude to Transformation

At the start of the presidential primaries, I supported Texas Governor Rick Perry. I thought that he had the best record to go up against President Obama. Unfortunately, he was not able to parlay his executive experience into a successful primary win. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has gone on to win the Republican nomination (officially, this past Tuesday in Texas) and has, to my surprise, stormed out of the gates with a solid campaign and fundraising operation.

This, along with the atrocious performance of the Obama campaign, has led me to believe the potential of two things happening come November:

1. The polls (I know, it’s REALLY early) are showing Romney close, tied or in the lead among various demographic groups and individual battleground states. The lack of mistakes (so far) from his campaign should give Republicans confidence as we go into the summer months. This all could lead to the possibility of a not-so-close election, culminating in Romney winning a healthy number of electoral votes (not to mention popular votes). I would not be surprised with a  mid-50% share for Romney, and a mid 40% share for Obama (honestly, if we didn’t live in Bizarro world, it wouldn’t be close at all).

2. The second thing that I see happening is that we could be on the verge of another transformational political election on the order of 1994 and 2010. This won’t just happen at the federal level either. Governorships, state legislatures and local governments will see more conservatives/Republicans/libertarians taking office in 2013 (especially as we see more Democrats switching parties; Arthur Davis the most prominent). This would have the most profound effect on our country and its future. I'm not so naive to think that just because a Republican is in office that everything will be rosy, but at least there will be the chance for a devolution of federal power back to where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

Now, there are a million caveats that could be attached to this, but politics is not just a science, it’s an art. Gut feelings come into play on top of all the hard work that campaign operatives and candidates put into the various races. My gut is telling me that the Romney campaign is exhibiting a level of skill that we didn’t see from the McCain campaign in 2008. So far, it seems to have the same organizational flexibility and tactical awareness of the 2004 Bush campaign (and depending on how things go, that of the 2008 Obama campaign). Would it be possible for the Romney operation to outmaneuver the Obama campaign? Well, they seem to have done it today with the dual press conferences at Solyndra headquarters and the Massachusetts State House! Not to mention the failed Obama attacks on Bain, the ridiculous "War on Women", the fight against the Catholic Church and his own surrogates (Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Cory Booker among them) shooting the campaign in the foot. 

The funny thing about all this is that the 2008 campaign was about the transformational nature of Barack Obama. His voters loaded him up with their dreams and hopes and carried him to the Oval Office. In 2012, is the country looking for the same thing? No. This year, we are looking for steady administration, quiet confidence, success and experience. There won’t be many fainting youngsters at Romney rallies or God-like images of Mitt on posters, but there will be internal relief among many conservatives, independents, and even liberals, that here’s a guy who can get things done.

After eight years of President Bush-a steady, confident leader-who was dogged by constant media and Democratic assaults on his policies and character, the country wanted something diametrically opposed to him. They got that with a vengeance. Now, the country has seen what the lack of gravitas and experience can do to the economy and our national standing in the world. They want steady back. 

The Best Defense...

Follow my logic on this one:

Conservatives generally believe that "progressives"/liberals will do whatever it takes to win an election. They will claw, scratch, bite, lie, cheat and/or steal to gain power. If you listen to any liberal politician or strategist, they will say anything to advance their goals (gaining power) no matter how outrageous or twisted. Ok.

Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, and in previous campaigns for U.S. Senate, described himself and acted in a "progressive"/liberal manner. Many conservatives have a problem with him because of this. Also, many people believe, at heart, he is nothing more than a Massachusetts liberal masquerading as a conservative to win an election. Ok.

So, would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that Romney may do better against Obama (strictly in a tough campaigning sense) than we think? Judging by the way he has attacked every Republican candidate since Iowa (which is fine with me, I don't have a problem with "negative" campaigning), the charge that he will be too nice or milquetoast to go toe-to-toe with Obama may prove to be baseless.

His political DNA is coded to be "progressive"/liberal, so maybe he will pull out all the stops (unlike McCain) and really take it to Obama. It's not like there isn't enough fodder to hit him on (Fast and Furious, the economy, jobs, national security, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, his "son" Trayvon, the "Beer Summit", "fundamentally transforming America", 57 states, ObamaCare, the war on Catholics, Solyndra, foreign donors, Israel, the national debt, spending, golf, lack of leadership on ANYTHING, taxes...whew!).

Being aggressive is an important part in this election. There is no way that Obama will be defeated if the Republican is not aggressive. Even though any sane person can see that BHO is a friggin' train wreck of a President, it will still take hard, aggressive, take-no-prisoners campaigning to beat him. Since it seems that Romney will be the last man standing (ugh), I just hope he isn't afraid to use Obama's middle name.