2012: Analysis

Anatomies of Electoral Madness

by Victor Davis Hanson

Gonna be some hard times coming down.



2012-11-08-alexander-3(UPDATE (3): As of Noon on Friday, with nearly all votes now in, Obama assuredly will win the popular vote, leading Romney by a count of 61,857,999 or 50.5% to 58,591,534 or 47.9%. At this point, a few final votes are being counted and then all that’s left is for the results to be officially certified.) [See below: Obama 61,857,999 vs Against Obama 59,901,028, and so Obama hangs on by less than 2 million votes out of 122 million!]

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, at time of publishing Johnson’s uncertified popular vote total was 1,139,562.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein garnered less than half a million

In total, about 122  million people voted in this year’s election, and where there may remain a clear divide, there is certainly no mandate, for reasons described below in addition to the fact that the American people left the Republicans solidly in control of the US House, while in the US Senate the Democrats may have picked up a couple seats, but did not return the Supermajority of the past.

In 2012 Obama re-elected with 50.5% popular (and 332 E.C.) and where the Republican ticket received slightly less vote than in 08, the Democrat ticket received far less, almost 10 million less!

In 2008, Obama/Biden topped McCain/Palin in the popular vote 69.5 million to 60 million.

Keeping things in perspective:

G W Bush won his 2nd term in 04 with 50.7% of the popular vote (o.2% moreso than Obama just did),

Clinton won his 1st term with only 43% and his 2nd with only 49.2% of the popular vote,

(Note that it has not been since Bush Sr and Reagan before him that the electoral college vote has been in the 400 or 500’s. They were the last Presidents that could be considered to have had a mandate, and especially so in the case of Reagan.)

Bush Sr won with 53.3% popular vote,

EC Total 426 111

Reagan 50.8% and in his 2nd term 58.8% popular vote

1980 EC Total 489 49


1984 EC Total 525 13

2012 Presidential General Election Results

Popular vote: Unofficial, Electoral Vote: Projected

Presidential Candidate Vice Presidential Candidate Political Party Popular Vote Electoral Vote
Barack H. Obama Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Democratic 61,857,999 50.52% 332 61.7%
Willard Mitt Romney Paul Ryan Republican 58,591,534 47.86% 206 38.3%
Gary Johnson James P. Gray Libertarian 1,193,310 0.97% 0 0.0%
            More… Virgil H. Goode, Jr. James N. Clymer Constitution 116,184     0.09% 0 0.0%

Obama 61,857,999 vs Against Obama 59,901,028, is hardly a mandate!

(Note that the total popular vote Not voting for Obama was 60,598,821 or 49.5%, as votes for G Johnson and V Goode may not have been for Romney, but are unquestionable votes against Obama and his agenda) [As for the Electoral vote, 3 key states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia were won by Obama only by 10’s of thousands of votes, very slim margins and so those total 60 electoral votes only barely resulted in a 332 vs 206 total instead of a 272 vs 266 total. Really, even at 332 no mandate here folks, see more below on when the last time we actually had one.)

(note2 that of the 60+ million against as shown above, there were 17,980 socialist line votes who clearly do or would support Obama, how sad!)

2012 Presidential General Election Data – National by State National Map

State EV EV Total Vote O R Margin %Margin Obama Romney Other Obama Romney Other
Alabama 0 9 2,064,699 2 1 458,833 22.22% 38.44% 60.66% 0.90% 793,620 1,252,453 18,626
Alaska 0 3 222,721 2 1 29,538 13.26% 41.17% 54.43% 4.40% 91,696 121,234 9,791
Arizona 0 11 1,912,395 2 1 195,043 10.20% 43.92% 54.12% 1.96% 839,929 1,034,972 37,494
Arkansas 0 6 1,061,613 2 1 251,523 23.69% 36.88% 60.57% 2.55% 391,500 643,023 27,090
California 55 0 10,065,357 1 2 2,087,604 20.74% 59.19% 38.45% 2.35% 5,958,059 3,870,455 236,843
Colorado 9 0 2,445,012 1 2 117,276 4.80% 51.23% 46.44% 2.33% 1,252,679 1,135,403 56,930
Connecticut 7 0 1,546,734 1 2 267,459 17.29% 58.05% 40.76% 1.19% 897,909 630,450 18,375
Delaware 3 0 413,844 1 2 77,071 18.62% 58.61% 39.99% 1.41% 242,547 165,476 5,821
D. C. 3 0 243,995 1 2 204,995 84.02% 91.12% 7.11% 1.77% 222,332 17,337 4,326
Florida 29 0 8,471,088 1 2 73,858 0.87% 50.01% 49.13% 0.86% 4,236,032 4,162,174 72,882
Georgia 0 16 3,894,340 2 1 305,950 7.86% 45.49% 53.35% 1.16% 1,771,563 2,077,513 45,264
Hawaii 4 0 434,539 1 2 185,570 42.71% 70.54% 27.84% 1.62% 306,545 120,975 7,019
Idaho 0 4 651,661 2 1 207,691 31.87% 32.64% 64.51% 2.85% 212,699 420,390 18,572
Illinois 20 0 5,153,629 1 2 860,504 16.70% 57.52% 40.83% 1.65% 2,964,608 2,104,104 84,917
Indiana 0 11 2,600,163 2 1 275,376 10.59% 43.74% 54.33% 1.93% 1,137,322 1,412,698 50,143
Iowa 6 0 1,555,570 1 2 86,823 5.58% 51.89% 46.31% 1.81% 807,146 720,323 28,101
Kansas 0 6 1,126,507 2 1 250,801 22.26% 37.99% 60.25% 1.76% 427,918 678,719 19,870
Kentucky 0 8 1,796,764 2 1 407,780 22.70% 37.81% 60.51% 1.68% 679,356 1,087,136 30,272
Louisiana 0 8 1,993,199 2 1 343,681 17.24% 40.56% 57.80% 1.64% 808,441 1,152,122 32,636
Maine 4 0 710,738 1 2 107,317 15.10% 55.96% 40.86% 3.17% 397,754 290,437 22,547
Maryland 10 0 2,524,695 1 2 623,675 24.70% 61.29% 36.59% 2.13% 1,547,359 923,684 53,652
Massachusetts 11 0 3,128,134 1 2 723,205 23.12% 60.76% 37.64% 1.60% 1,900,575 1,177,370 50,189
Michigan 16 0 4,714,239 1 2 448,875 9.52% 54.30% 44.78% 0.91% 2,560,016 2,111,141 43,082
Minnesota 10 0 2,936,228 1 2 225,972 7.70% 52.65% 44.96% 2.39% 1,546,026 1,320,054 70,148
Mississippi 0 6 1,213,035 2 1 146,042 12.04% 43.55% 55.59% 0.86% 528,260 674,302 10,473
Missouri 0 10 2,744,935 2 1 263,930 9.62% 44.26% 53.88% 1.86% 1,215,031 1,478,961 50,943
Montana 0 3 478,981 2 1 66,987 13.99% 41.55% 55.53% 2.92% 199,008 265,995 13,978
Nebraska 0 5 768,450 2 1 173,938 22.63% 37.84% 60.47% 1.69% 290,758 464,696 12,996
Nevada 6 0 1,011,507 1 2 66,398 6.56% 52.30% 45.73% 1.97% 529,005 462,607 19,895
New Hampshire 4 0 710,928 1 2 39,587 5.57% 51.97% 46.41% 1.62% 369,497 329,910 11,521
New Jersey 14 0 3,304,265 1 2 558,479 16.90% 57.95% 41.05% 1.01% 1,914,756 1,356,277 33,232
New Mexico 5 0 772,923 1 2 76,049 9.84% 52.84% 43.00% 4.16% 408,423 332,374 32,126
New York 29 0 6,188,982 1 2 1,649,189 26.65% 62.62% 35.98% 1.40% 3,875,826 2,226,637 86,519
North Carolina 0 15 4,464,220 2 1 96,568 2.16% 48.29% 50.46% 1.25% 2,155,950 2,252,518 55,752
North Dakota 0 3 321,890 2 1 63,153 19.62% 38.70% 58.32% 2.99% 124,564 187,717 9,609
Ohio 18 0 5,350,140 1 2 107,259 2.00% 50.29% 48.29% 1.42% 2,690,841 2,583,582 75,717
Oklahoma 0 7 1,334,872 2 1 447,778 33.54% 33.23% 66.77% 0.00% 443,547 891,325 0
Oregon 7 0 1,682,175 1 2 193,177 11.48% 54.13% 42.65% 3.22% 910,586 717,409 54,180
Pennsylvania 20 0 5,551,310 1 2 292,047 5.26% 52.01% 46.75% 1.24% 2,887,221 2,595,174 68,915
Rhode Island 4 0 444,720 1 2 121,879 27.41% 62.68% 35.27% 2.05% 278,737 156,858 9,125
South Carolina 0 9 1,949,969 2 1 208,399 10.69% 43.98% 54.67% 1.36% 857,553 1,065,952 26,464
South Dakota 0 3 363,723 2 1 65,563 18.03% 39.86% 57.89% 2.25% 144,997 210,560 8,166
Tennessee 0 11 2,454,470 2 1 500,911 20.41% 39.07% 59.48% 1.44% 959,054 1,459,965 35,451
Texas 0 38 7,964,178 2 1 1,261,359 15.84% 41.37% 57.20% 1.43% 3,294,440 4,555,799 113,939
Utah 0 6 923,301 2 1 442,284 47.90% 24.85% 72.75% 2.39% 229,463 671,747 22,091
Vermont 3 0 298,513 1 2 106,559 35.70% 66.75% 31.05% 2.20% 199,259 92,700 6,554
Virginia 13 0 3,739,576 1 2 113,886 3.05% 50.73% 47.68% 1.58% 1,897,096 1,783,210 59,270
Washington 12 0 2,766,780 1 2 387,488 14.01% 55.81% 41.81% 2.38% 1,544,192 1,156,704 65,884
West Virginia 0 5 658,719 2 1 176,922 26.86% 35.49% 62.35% 2.16% 233,770 410,692 14,257
Wisconsin 10 0 3,056,802 1 2 205,205 6.71% 52.80% 46.09% 1.12% 1,613,950 1,408,745 34,107
Wyoming 0 3 246,745 2 1 100,891 40.89% 27.80% 68.68% 3.52% 68,584 169,475 8,686
Total 332 206 122,433,973 1 2 3,266,465 2.67% 50.52% 47.86% 1.62% 61,857,999 58,591,534 1,984,440

[Breaking down the states and looking at the great divide we have in our Country, even still, you find that Romney won 1 more than 1/2 the states, and as described above, almost won 4 more than 1/2, failing to do so by the slimmest of margins. Of the states that were large margins of victory, Obama only had 7 with over 60% of the vote, while Romney had 10 with over 60%. {One final notable is the D.C. vote and the only one seriously lopsided at 91% Obama. This was a vote for the ruling class, for the status quo, and for the government largesse that has become such a problem today, how pathetic!}]

[Even as lopsided as it may be in a the Liberal State of NY: Extras (Capitol Tonight/YNN -Ny) November 9, 2012 Mitt Romney actually did (marginally) better in New York than John McCain in 2008.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

States vs Federal and very different results:

GOP to Hold Most Governor Offices Since 2000 With 4 Wins

Republicans won the North Carolina governor’s office from Democrats to take control of 30 U.S. statehouses, the most in more than a decade.

The party also held off re-election challenges in Utah and North Dakota, and retained the corner office in Indiana, where Republican Mitch Daniels stepped down because of term limits. Democrats previously controlled the governor’s offices in eight of the 11 states voting for their chief executives today.

The Republican victories build on gains made two years ago, when the party’s candidates rode a wave of economic discontent to capture 11 governor’s offices from Democrats and reclaim a majority it lost in 2006. Its winners this year pledged to cut taxes and spur economic growth. There were 29 Republicans in governors’ seats heading into yesterday’s election, compared with 20 held by Democrats and one filled by an independent.

“The story is Republicans did well elsewhere, so it wasn’t a wholesale repudiation of the party,” even with a loss by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the Cook Political Report in Washington. “It provides them with plenty of bragging rights.”

30 Seats

The four Republican victories mean the party will hold at least 30 governor’s seats next year, the most since 2000. In two states, Montana and Washington, no winner had been called. Republicans won open races, where no incumbent was running, in Indiana and North Carolina, while Democrats kept New Hampshire.

The Granite State elected Democrat Maggie Hassan to replace Governor John Lynch, a Democrat who chose to step down at the end of his latest two-year term.

Hassan defeated Ovide Lamontagne, who called himself the “Tea Party favorite” and touted his opposition to a state income-tax on wages. Hassan’s win makes her just the second woman ever elected to lead New Hampshire. By next year, she’ll be the nation’s only Democratic woman governor.

Republicans won in North Carolina for the first time since 1988 as Pat McCrory defeated Democrat Walter Dalton. McCrory, a seven-term mayor of Charlotte, the state’s largest city, will become just the third Republican to hold the office in the past 100 years.

Buyer’s Remorse

“I call this the buyer’s remorse race, because McCrory ran in 2008, and he narrowly lost to Beverly Perdue, who was so unpopular she couldn’t even run for re-election,” Duffy said. North Carolina voters may be thinking, “‘We should have voted for that guy in the first place,’” she said.

Governors haven’t been blamed for perceived faults with the nation’s government, Brad Coker, a Washington-based managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., said before the polls opened.

“There’s a lot of frustration with Washington, but you drill down to the state races and you just don’t see it,” Coker said. “People really aren’t blaming their governors for anything that’s going on in terms of the economy or the issues that matter to them.”

In the Midwest, Republican U.S. Representative Mike Pence was elected to succeed Daniels as Indiana governor. Pence, who won six terms in Congress, defeated Democratic challenger John Gregg, a former speaker of the state House. Daniels plans to become president of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

Incumbents Prevail

It was a good day for incumbents from both parties. Utah Republican Governor Gary Herbert held off Democrat Peter Cooke, a retired major general in the U.S. Army Reserve and small- business owner. North Dakota’s Governor Jack Dalrymple, also a Republican, successfully defended his seat against a challenge from Democrat Ryan Taylor, his party’s leader in the state Senate, where they are in the minority.

Incumbent Democrats Jay Nixon in Missouri, Jack Markell in Delaware and Governor Peter Shumlin in Vermont defeated challengers. Nixon fended off Republican Dave Spence. Markell beat Republican Jeff Cragg, a mail-receiving business owner. Shumlin won a second term by besting Republican Randy Brock, a former executive vice president for risk oversight at Fidelity Investments.

The new governors will enter statehouses after their peers and predecessors cut spending to close almost $600 billion in cumulative budget gaps since fiscal 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Washington-based nonprofit organization focuses on issues affecting lower-income Americans.

Reduced Employment

About 5.08 million people worked for U.S. states in October, down 2.3 percent from an August 2008 peak of almost 5.21 million, according to U.S. Labor Department figures. Governors nationwide cut jobs to cope with revenue declines from a recession from December 2007 to June 2009, the longest since the 1930s.

“Most states have to balance their budgets, so you’re not dealing with deficits in a lot of cases,” Mason-Dixon’s Coker said. “People understand it’s the economy and that problem comes out of Washington much more than it comes out of the state capital.”


Rising number of states seeing one-party rule

    By Keely  Brazil  The Washington  Times Saturday, November 10, 2012

Divided government still rules in  the nation’s capital after last week’s Tuesday’s vote, but unity is increasingly  the name of the game in cities such as Annapolis, Topeka, Concord and Little  Rock.

In a little-noticed footnote to last week’s election, state legislature  elections this year have produced the highest number of states with one-party  rule in 60 years. Democrats or Republicans now have sole control of the  governorship and both legislative chambers in 37 state capitals around the  country.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),  which tracks party representation in the country’s 50 state governments,  Democrats now control all three bases of power – the governorship and both  houses of the state legislature – in 14  states and Republicans in 23, with only 12 states sharing power. (Nebraska’s  unicameral legislature is considered nonpartisan.)

Regional power bases are also emerging, with Democrats increasingly  dominating state governments across New England.

Conversely, after last week’s vote, the GOP for the first time since 1872 now  controls the Arkansas  House and Senate. Just 20 years ago,  Republicans didn’t have a majority in a single legislative house in the states  of the old Confederacy – now they control all 11.

The number of states with divided government is down from 31 just 16 years  ago to 12 today, prompting speculation on the country’s evolving partisan  geography.

“I think it is a reflection of a growing ‘sorting-out’ of our population – where people live – and our politics,” said Karl  Kurtz, a political scientist at the NCSL. “They  tend to go all the same way for governor, for legislator and – for that matter – for president.”

Bill Bishop, author of the book “The Big  Sort” on the growing polarization of American politics, said, “There are mores  states that have tipped either increasingly Republican or Democratic over time.  Even in close elections you have a majority of voters who live in counties where  the election wasn’t close at all. The world they see at their doorstep is  different than the rest of the country.”

With state legislatures often seen as by the parties as the “farm team” for  recruiting national candidates, both Republican and Democratic  party officials were trying to spin the results of last week’s voting in  their favor. Two years ago, Republicans scored  stunning state-level gains in the 2010 wave election that also brought them  control of the U.S. House of  Representatives, but this year the results were far more mixed.

Democrats reclaimed majorities they had lost in 2010 in the New Hampshire  House of Representatives and the Minnesota House and Senate. They also took control of the Colorado House,  the Oregon House, the Maine House and Senate and  the New York Senate, for a total of eight pick-ups.

In addition to the Arkansas sweep,  Republicans could point to only one other pick-up, but it was a satisfying  one: the Wisconsin state Senate, where Democrats  enjoyed a brief majority as a result of a number of recall elections this  summer. GOP officials said the final  tally was not as bad as it could have been, considering the defeat of GOP  presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the party’s weak showing in U.S. Senate  races.

“Clearly, [Election Day] was not what Republicans were hoping for, but we  remain encouraged by the successes seen at the state level across the country,” Republican State Leadership Committee President Chris Jankowski said in a  statement as the final returns were rolling in.

“One thing remains clear – Republicans are the dominant  party in the states holding a majority of state legislatures, governorships,  lieutenant governorships, secretaries of state and half of the nation’s  attorneys general.”

In one bright note for Republicans, the party added one net governorship its total,  with 30 GOP governors nationwide to 20  Democrats.

But Michael Sargeant, Mr. Jankowski’s counterpart at the Democratic  Legislative Campaign Committee, noted that in addition to flipping eight state  legislative bodies, Democrats gained seats in 40 chambers overall and obtained  veto-proof “supermajorities” in both California and Illinois.

Story Continues →  / View Entire Story

[It appears we have returned to one party -democrat- rule in NY again, though by a slim margin, and we would remind you that the last time this occurred only a couple of cycles ago, was disasterous. Some of the players may have changed, some lessons may have been learned, but we fear not nearly enough so!] Senate Democrats, Lessons Learned (Capitol Tonight/YNN -Ny) November 9, 2012 – As State Senate Democrats appear poised to gain a slim numerical majority in the chamber, everyone with something to gain or lose from the power shift is wondering if they’ve learned from their past mistakes. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who perhaps as the most to lose from a newly dysfunctional Senate, certainly hopes so. “No one is going back,”…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now for the exit polling analysis: The first thing that jumps out is where whites may have votes for Romney by 59%, blacks voted for Obama 93%, and if broken down by gender is was black women that had the highest % for Obama. (Wherein lies the real racist vote if there is one, we must ask?) Not forgetting to mention Latinos that we are hearing so much about, they went for Obama 71%, and make no mistake it is as much about dependency/entitlements as it is about immigration.

As for gender gaps and family. Both married men and married women went for Romney, where the unmarried in both cases, and especially among women, went for Obama.

By age, it was younger vs older. Every age group under 40 years old went to Obama and every age group 40 and over went to Romney.

On political affiliation, 38% were democrats (7% of which voted Romney), 32% were Republicans (of which 6% voted Obama), and 29% were Independents (that Romney won 50-45%).

On idealogy Liberals 25 % (went for Obama by 86%), Moderates 41% (went for Obama 56%), 35% Conservatives (went for Romney 82%).

The Tea Party movement (which those on the left are so quick to say is now dead like the Republicans are supposedly as well), 21% support (87% vote for Romney), 42% nuetral (57% vote Romney), 30% opposed (89% vote Obama).

Broken down by education, it seems overall fairly split and inconsequential until you look at the largest group of college graduates who went to Romney by 51% and those with no high school diploma who went for Obama by 64%.

On social issues: Religion. Those that consider themselves most religious went for Romney, where those less so or not at all went for Obama, especially so in the case of athiests. (Though Romney picked up a bit more of the Catholic vote, they remain hypocritically split, with a slight edge to Obama. Yes folks with the Catholics we are sorry to say, but their votes contradict their stated beliefs! The Prostestants and Evangelicals on the other hand vote more overwhelmingly their beliefs. Romney also picked up more than usual of the Jewish vote, though they continue to vote overwhelmingly liberal.) [As for those religious who are not white, a number largely skewed by Obama’s high % of black votes as well as hispanic, they voted overwhelmingly Obama and herein lies another hypocrisy. Most of their stated social beliefs also contradicts Obama’s stated social policies most notably on gay marriage and abortion.]

On abortion, those that want it legal in “all” cases went for Obama, and those that want it illegal in most cases or all cases went Romney.

On homosexuals, only 5% are gay of which 76% voted Obama, 95% are not gay and the vote was split 49-49%!

On income levels, those making under $50,000 went for Obama by 57%, and those making under $30,000 to Obama by 63%. Evey income group $50,000 and over all went for Romney, hardly the rich vote.

On Unemployment Obama got the vote, on Tax policy Romney got more of the vote. (note that 35% said there should be no tax increases for anyone, of which 75% voted Romney) (they were also asked if taxes should be raised to cut the deficit and 63% said NO, meaning cut spending!)

Do you work full-time, 60% said yes and the vote was split 49-49%. Of those that said no, the voting edge went to Obama.

On the lopsided power of Labor Unions (which is especially so with government {public} unions), only 18% says someone in the household is a member, of which 40% voted for Romney. Remember about 95% of overall spending of unions dues politically, much of which is forced, goes to Democrats and in the case of Obama went to him exclusively. One prime example is the National teacheers union who endorsed Obama before there was even a Republican candidate to choose from!

Interestingly on four issues most important; Economy 59% (51% vote Romney), Budget deficit(debt) 15% (66% vote Romney), Health care 18% (75% vote Obama), and Foreign policy 5% (56% vote Obama).

Also interestingly, on four qualities most important; Vision for the future 29% (54% vote Romney), Shares muy values 27% (55% vote Romney, Is a strong leader 18% (61% vote Romney), Cares about people like me?! 21% (81% vote Obama) – [who are these people, see above].

On Obamacare, voters remain against it 49-44% and without question voters want at least some of it repealed. (Of the 26% that want to see it expanded, they of course voted mostly for Obama).

On “illegal” immigration; Where 28% said all “illegals” should be deported and voted 73% Romney, of the 65% that say illegals should be offered a chance to become legal, first of all 37% voted for Romney, secondly and more importantly, we are talking about giving them a chance, not blanket amnesty!

Here’s 2 results we find rather laughable: The first one could be called stuck on stupid (and although we don’t actually think all these people are stupid, when you have the stupid media pounding a narrative into your head 100 times a day, it will have an affect). 53% still blame Bush for the “current” condition of the economy, 12 % of whom voted Romney. Of those that blame Obama, he received only 5% of their vote. The other, astounding as it may be, is whether you think things in this country “today” are seriously off on the wrong track, of which 52% said yes and of those 84% voted Romney. [On the either or question, who is better on the economy? 49-48% said Romney and 94% of the 49 voted for him.)

Do you think the condition of the nation’s economy is: Execellent or good, only 23% and voted Obama, Not so good or poor 77% and voted Romney

Is the Economy getting better, (staying the same, or getting worse, total 59%), (Romney wins both) and in the latter case, overwhelmingly.

Here’s another fickle one: 15% actually said the most important factor in considering their vote was Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy (just before the election) and over 70% of those voted for him. (how sad as in retrospect the response wasn’t very good at all and this another example of a bias media narrative).

And another in 2 ways: 21% said they just made up their mind who to vote for today or in the last few days of October, and they broke Obama. There were 69% however that said they made up their mind before September and they too went Obama (so did they ever even give Romney a chance?). (Only 65% said they strongly favored their candiate and of those 54-45 voted Obama). (Yet the questions of positive or negative feelings about the Obama administration comes out split 49-49).

And another media narrative that definatelty played out; Who favors the poor, Obama wins and who favors the rich, Romney wins.

This next one is very telling; Compared to four years ago, is your family’s financial situation: Better 25% (84% Obama), About same 41% (58% Obama), Worse 33% (80% Romney). Well that really begs the question, who the heck is better off today? and that answer can be most significantly found in the major expansion of entitlements under Obama.

Finally, we will leave you with this final result. President Obama, you clearly have no mandate, and you along with your party controlled Senate better heed the following –

Which is closer to your view: Total Obama Romney
Government should do more to solve problems 43% 81% 17%
Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals 51% 24% 74%
2012 Fox News Exit Polls National Poll PresidentSample: 26565 respondents[2008 Exit Polls] Barack Obama Mitt Romney
Are you: Total Obama Romney


47% 45% 52%


53% 55% 44%

Sample: 26517 respondents

In which age group are you? Total Obama Romney


19% 60% 37%


27% 52% 45%


38% 47% 51%

65 or over

16% 44% 56%

Sample: 26413 respondents

In which age group are you? Total Obama Romney


11% 60% 36%


8% 60% 38%


17% 55% 42%


20% 48% 50%


28% 47% 52%

65 or over

16% 44% 56%

Sample: 26413 respondents

Are you: Total Obama Romney


72% 39% 59%


13% 93% 6%


10% 71% 27%


3% 73% 26%


2% 58% 38%

Sample: 26200 respondents

Age by race Total Obama Romney

White 18-29

11% 44% 51%

White 30-44

18% 38% 59%

White 45-64

29% 38% 61%

White 65+

14% 39% 61%

Black 18-29

3% 91% 8%

Black 30-44

4% 94% 5%

Black 45-64

4% 93% 7%

Black 65+

1% 93% 6%

Latino 18-29

4% 74% 23%

Latino 30-44

3% 71% 28%

Latino 45-64

3% 68% 31%

Latino 65+

1% 65% 35%

All other

5% 67% 31%

Sample: 26091 respondents

Sex by race Total Obama Romney

White men

34% 35% 62%

White women

38% 42% 56%

Black men

5% 87% 11%

Black women

8% 96% 3%

Latino men

5% 65% 33%

Latino women

6% 76% 23%

All other races

5% 66% 31%

Sample: 26160 respondents

On most political matters, do you consider yourself: Total Obama Romney


25% 86% 11%


41% 56% 41%


35% 17% 82%

Sample: 24910 respondents

No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a: Total Obama Romney


38% 92% 7%


32% 6% 93%

Independent or something else

29% 45% 50%

Sample: 25518 respondents

What was the last grade of school you completed? Total Obama Romney

No high school diploma

3% 64% 35%

High school graduate

21% 51% 48%

Some college/assoc. degree

29% 49% 48%

College graduate

29% 47% 51%

Postgraduate study

18% 55% 42%

Sample: 25466 respondents

What was the last grade of school you completed? Total Obama Romney

College graduate

47% 50% 48%

No college degree

53% 51% 47%

Sample: 25466 respondents

What was the last grade of school you completed? Total Obama Romney

More than high school graduate

76% 50% 48%

High school graduate or less

24% 52% 46%

Sample: 25466 respondents

2011 total family income: Total Obama Romney

Under $30,000

20% 63% 35%

$30,000 – $49,999

21% 57% 42%

$50,000 – $99,999

31% 46% 52%

$100,000 – $199,999

21% 44% 54%

$200,000 – $249,999

3% 47% 52%

$250,000 or more

4% 42% 55%

Sample: 24157 respondents

2011 total family income: Total Obama Romney

Under $50,000

41% 60% 38%


31% 46% 52%

$100,000 or more

28% 44% 54%

Sample: 24157 respondents

2011 total family income: Total Obama Romney

Under $50,000

41% 60% 38%

$50,000 or more

59% 45% 53%

Sample: 24157 respondents

2011 total family income: Total Obama Romney

Under $100,000

72% 54% 44%

$100,000 or more

28% 44% 54%

Sample: 24157 respondents

How often do you attend religious services? Total Obama Romney

More than once a week

14% 36% 63%

Once a week

28% 41% 58%

A few times a month

13% 55% 44%

A few times a year

27% 56% 42%


17% 62% 34%

Sample: 5131 respondents

How often do you attend religious services? Total Obama Romney


42% 39% 59%


40% 55% 43%


17% 62% 34%

Sample: 5131 respondents

Are you: Total Obama Romney


29% 37% 62%


25% 50% 48%


2% 21% 78%

Other Christian

23% 50% 49%


2% 69% 30%




7% 73% 24%


12% 70% 26%

Sample: 9753 respondents

Religion, combined Protestant and other Christian Total Obama Romney

Protestant or other Christian

53% 42% 57%


25% 50% 48%


2% 69% 30%

Something else

7% 74% 23%


12% 70% 26%

Sample: 9753 respondents

Religion among whites Total Obama Romney

White Protestant/Other Christian

39% 30% 69%

White Catholic

18% 40% 59%

White Jewish

2% 71% 29%

White something else

4% 61% 35%

White none

9% 63% 31%


28% 80% 18%

Sample: 9731 respondents

Church attendance by Religion Total Obama Romney

Protestant/Attend weekly

15% 29% 70%

Protestant/Do not attend weekly

14% 44% 55%

Catholic/Attend weekly

11% 42% 57%

Catholic/Do not attend weekly

13% 56% 42%

All Others

46% 58% 39%

Sample: 5131 respondents

White evangelical or white born-again Christians Total Obama Romney

White evangelical or white born-again Christian

26% 21% 78%

All others

74% 60% 37%

Sample: 5114 respondents

Which comes closest to your position? Abortion should be: Total Obama Romney

Legal in all cases

29% 76% 22%

Legal in most cases

30% 58% 40%

Illegal in most cases

23% 22% 76%

Illegal in all cases

13% 19% 79%

Sample: 5131 respondents

Which comes closest to your position? Abortion should be: Total Obama Romney


59% 67% 31%


36% 21% 77%

Sample: 5131 respondents

How do you feel about the Tea Party movement? Total Obama Romney


21% 11% 87%


42% 42% 57%


30% 89% 9%

Sample: 5131 respondents

Which ONE of these four issues is the most important facing the country? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney

Foreign policy

5% 56% 33%

Federal budget deficit

15% 32% 66%

The economy

59% 47% 51%

Health care

18% 75% 24%

Sample: 10798 respondents

Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney

Shares my values

27% 42% 55%

Is a strong leader

18% 38% 61%

Cares about people like me

21% 81% 18%

Has a vision for the future

29% 45% 54%

Sample: 10798 respondents

Which ONE of these four is the biggest economic problem facing people like you? (CHECK ONLY ONE) Total Obama Romney

The housing market

8% 63% 32%


38% 54% 44%


14% 32% 66%

Rising prices

37% 49% 49%

Sample: 5359 respondents

What should happen to the 2010 health care law? Total Obama Romney

Expand it

26% 92% 5%

Leave it as is

18% 80% 19%

Repeal some of it

24% 27% 72%

Repeal all of it

25% 3% 93%

Sample: 5043 respondents

What should happen to the 2010 health care law? Total Obama Romney

Expand it or leave it as is

44% 87% 11%

Repeal some of it or repeal all of it

49% 15% 83%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Should income tax rates: Total Obama Romney

Increase for all

13% 52% 44%

Increase only on income over $250,000

47% 70% 29%

Not increase for anyone

35% 23% 75%

Sample: 5179 respondents

Should most illegal immigrants working in the United States be: Total Obama Romney

Offered a chance to apply for legal status

65% 61% 37%

Deported to the country they came from

28% 24% 73%

Sample: 5131 respondents

Who is more in touch with people like you? Total Obama Romney

Barack Obama

53% 91% 7%

Mitt Romney

43% 1% 98%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Who would better handle the economy? Total Obama Romney

Barack Obama

48% 98% 1%

Mitt Romney

49% 4% 94%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Who would better handle Medicare? Total Obama Romney

Barack Obama

52% 92% 6%

Mitt Romney

44% 2% 96%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Who would better handle the federal budget deficit? Total Obama Romney

Barack Obama

47% 98% 1%

Mitt Romney

49% 3% 95%

Sample: 5179 respondents

Which is closer to your view: Total Obama Romney

Government should do more to solve problems

43% 81% 17%

Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals

51% 24% 74%

Sample: 5439 respondents

Do you think the condition of the nation’s economy is: Total Obama Romney




21% 90% 9%

Not so good

45% 55% 42%


31% 12% 85%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Do you think the condition of the nation’s economy is: Total Obama Romney

Excellent or good

23% 90% 9%

Not so good or poor

77% 38% 60%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Is the U.S. economy: Total Obama Romney

Getting better

39% 88% 9%

Getting worse

30% 9% 90%

Staying about the same

29% 40% 57%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Economic Conditions Are… Total Obama Romney

Getting better

39% 88% 9%

Good and staying the same

4% 71% 27%

Poor and staying the same

25% 35% 62%

Getting worse

30% 9% 90%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Compared to four years ago, is your family’s financial situation: Total Obama Romney

Better today

25% 84% 15%

Worse today

33% 18% 80%

About the same

41% 58% 40%

Sample: 5439 respondents

Do you think things in this country today are: Total Obama Romney

Generally going in the right direction

46% 93% 6%

Seriously off on the wrong track

52% 13% 84%

Sample: 4869 respondents

Who is more to blame for current economic problems? Total Obama Romney

Barack Obama

38% 5% 94%

George W. Bush

53% 85% 12%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Do you think the U.S. economic system generally: Total Obama Romney

Favors the wealthy

55% 71% 26%

Is fair to most Americans

39% 22% 77%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Should taxes be raised to help cut the budget deficit? Total Obama Romney


33% 73% 24%


63% 37% 61%

Sample: 5359 respondents

Which comes closest to your feelings about the Obama administration: Total Obama Romney


25% 98% 2%

Satisfied, but not enthusiastic

24% 87% 11%

Dissatisfied, but not angry

30% 9% 86%


19% 1% 97%

Sample: 5510 respondents

Which comes closest to your feelings about the Obama administration: Total Obama Romney


49% 93% 6%


49% 6% 91%

Sample: 5510 respondents

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Total Obama Romney

Strongly approve

29% 97% 2%

Somewhat approve

24% 80% 18%

Somewhat disapprove

13% 9% 88%

Strongly disapprove

33% 1% 96%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president? Total Obama Romney


54% 89% 9%


45% 3% 94%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Is your opinion of Barack Obama: Total Obama Romney


53% 93% 6%


46% 3% 94%

Sample: 4869 respondents

Is your opinion of Mitt Romney: Total Obama Romney


47% 6% 93%


50% 92% 5%

Sample: 4869 respondents

Do Barack Obama’s policies generally favor: Total Obama Romney

The rich

10% 9% 89%

The middle class

44% 86% 12%

The poor

31% 25% 74%

Sample: 4869 respondents

Would Mitt Romney’s policies generally favor: Total Obama Romney

The rich

53% 87% 10%

The middle class

34% 6% 93%

The poor


Sample: 4869 respondents

Do you trust Barack Obama to handle an international crisis? Total Obama Romney


57% 85% 13%


42% 2% 96%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Do you trust Mitt Romney to handle an international crisis? Total Obama Romney


50% 13% 86%


46% 90% 7%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Do you trust _____ to handle an international crisis? Total Obama Romney

Only Barack Obama

42% 97% 1%

Only Mitt Romney

36% 1% 98%

Both of them

13% 46% 51%

Neither of them

4% 13% 72%

Sample: 5043 respondents

Which best describes your vote for president today? Total Obama Romney

I strongly favor my candidate

65% 54% 45%

I like my candidate but with reservations

23% 42% 57%

I dislike the other candidates

10% 41% 51%

Sample: 5273 respondents

When did you finally decide for whom to vote in the presidential election? Total Obama Romney

Just today

3% 51% 44%

In the last few days

6% 50% 45%

In October

11% 49% 48%

In September

9% 45% 53%

Before that

69% 53% 46%

Sample: 5439 respondents

When did you finally decide for whom to vote in the presidential election? Total Obama Romney

Just today or in the last few days

9% 50% 44%

In October or in September or before that

89% 51% 47%

Sample: 5439 respondents

When did you finally decide for whom to vote in the presidential election? Total Obama Romney

Just today or in the last few days or in October

21% 50% 46%

Before that

78% 52% 47%

Sample: 5439 respondents

Are you currently married? Total Obama Romney


60% 42% 56%


40% 62% 35%

Sample: 20714 respondents

Gender by marital status Total Obama Romney

Married men

29% 38% 60%

Married women

31% 46% 53%

Non-married men

18% 56% 40%

Non-married women

23% 67% 31%

Sample: 20681 respondents

Do you have any children under 18 living in your home? Total Obama Romney


36% 51% 47%


64% 50% 47%

Sample: 15079 respondents

Married with children: Total Obama Romney

Married with children

27% 45% 54%

All others

73% 53% 45%

Sample: 15106 respondents

Parents Total Obama Romney

Men with children

16% 45% 53%

Women with children

20% 56% 43%

Men without children

30% 47% 50%

Women without children

34% 54% 45%

Sample: 15053 respondents

Does anyone in your household belong to a labor union? Total Obama Romney


18% 58% 40%


82% 49% 48%

Sample: 4798 respondents

Do you work full-time for pay? Total Obama Romney


60% 49% 49%


40% 53% 45%

Sample: 4923 respondents

Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage? Total Obama Romney


49% 73% 25%


46% 25% 74%

Sample: 5273 respondents

Are you gay, lesbian or bisexual? Total Obama Romney


5% 76% 22%


95% 49% 49%

Sample: 9319 respondents

In your vote for president, how would you rate the importance of Obama’s hurricane response? Total Obama Romney

The most important factor

15% 73% 26%

An important factor

27% 65% 33%

A minor factor

22% 51% 46%

Not a factor at all

31% 28% 70%

Sample: 4745 respondents

In your vote for president, how would you rate the importance of Obama’s hurricane response? Total Obama Romney


42% 68% 31%

Not important

54% 37% 60%

Sample: 4745 respondents

Townhall.comCountdown to the
2012 Townhall.com
National GOP Primary

December 13-15, 2011

*Register to Vote*

Rules & Eligibility *Registration will be closed 12/11/2011


NewsMax: Who’s your GOP pick for 2012?

Vote in This Urgent Poll

Click Banner Above To Start


Newt Gingrich (congress.org) Newt Gingrich(votesmart)


Rick Perry (congress.org) Rick Perry (votesmart)


Mitt Romney (congress.org) Mitt Romney (votesmart)


Michele Bachmann (congress.org) Michele Bachmann (votesmart)


Rick Santorum (congress.org) Rick Santorum (votesmart)


Jon Huntsman Jr. (congress.org) Jon Huntsman, Jr. (votesmart)

For the record: OBAMA 27%

Is This a Joke? Obama Off to Hawaii for Seventeen Day Vacation

‘Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington’

Get Rick Perry’s Best-Seller
Rick Perry

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s recent book is shooting to the top of the best-seller lists, as the new presidential contender skyrockets to the top of GOP 2012 presidential field.

Perry may well become the Republican presidential nominee and the man who defeats Obama to become our next president.

But do you really know Rick Perry — the real Rick Perry?

You need to get Rick Perry’s “Fed Up!” and find out what he really believes:

  • Why he believes Obama’s “progressive” agenda is wrecking America
  • How he would dismantle Obamacare and put healthcare back in the hands of states and citizens
  • Why he believes many federal programs are simply unconstitutional
  • How the Dodd-Frank finance law signed by Obama is strangling the economy
  • The dangers of educational policy being set by Washington and not parents and communities
  • Al Gore’s global warming is not only nutty, it’s a fraud!
  • His take on gun rights, abortion, gay marriage, and so much more!

Get informed about the Texan taking America by storm — the man who angers the liberal media and will soon be the focus of the Obama White House’s attacks!

“It’s a book about Rick Perry’s ideas. And his big idea is that most everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. . . . [Perry’s book] is big, bold, and, to borrow a word that was once associated with our current commander-in-chief, audacious.”

The Washington Post

 Rick Perry Gets It on Global Warming

Marc Morano

Manmade global warming? Scientific theory that has not been conclusively proven, and no less is riddled with fraud and greed.

Perry: Fed Must Show Nothing Is ‘Improper’

Meanwhile, Ron Paul bragged about his status as a critic of the Federal Reserve — and poked fun at his home-state governor, Rick Perry, for his heated comments about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

“Now they have this other governor, I can’t remember his name,” Paul joked. “He realizes that talking about the Fed is good, too. But I’ll tell you what, he makes me sound like a moderate. I have never once said Bernanke has committed treason. But I have suggested very strongly that the Federal Reserve system and all the members have been counterfeiters for a long time.”

Well Mr Paul, you seem to contradict yourself. You call them counterfeiters, are you being serious, wouldn’t that be criminal, federal crime, crime against the U.S., possibly treason? Perry is going after the Feds secret and unaccountable actions that are riddled with questions of fiat, collusion, conflicts, and just what level of harm they are inflicting upon our economy, in such a way that quite frankly may be more effective than your simple call to audit them.


Perry: The GOP Front-Runner

August 15, 2011 | 1:49 p.m.
Brandon Thibodeaux/Getty Images

Gov. Rick Perry talks like George W. Bush but might win like Ronald Reagan.

Last weekend’s Ames straw poll made for great political theater, but the important action was taking place in South Carolina and New Hampshire, where Texas Gov. Rick Perry kicked off his presidential campaign.

Perry, the straight-talking three-term governor, is bringing to the race a message and biography that couldn’t contrast any more starkly with President Obama’s.

He grew up in rural Paint Creek, Texas, farming cotton in his early years, and attending the state’s land-grant university, Texas A&M. Obama went to Harvard Law School, earned his political chops in Chicago, spending much of his early career in academia. Perry has governed a low-tax, low-regulation state at a time when the president has sought to expand government’s role in the economy. The Texas governor’s blunt advocacy of conservatism and faith-tinged rhetoric couldn’t be any different from Obama’s nuanced rhetoric and cautious governing style.

And he’s going to be bragging about his record of job creation in Texas, compared to the economic stagnation that’s been prevalent nationwide.

The money line from his kickoff speech: “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can.” Those 18 words will define Perry’s candidacy, and is a pitch-perfect appeal to a Republican primary and caucus electorate angry at Obama’s policies and a November electorate disenchanted about the lack of jobs and economic growth. If he becomes the nominee, it would also set up an epic general election with two divergent visions of the appropriate role for government in American life.

The contest for the GOP nomination, meanwhile, is shaping up to be a compelling affair between Perry and Mitt Romney, the two heavyweights in the GOP field. Romney has run a cautious campaign, focusing more on preparing for a general election than catering to the conservative interests that predominate in Republican primaries.

Polls show Romney as the front-runner, but one vulnerable to a serious challenge. He achieved front-runner status after other serious contenders decided not to run or flamed out. His campaign has been premised as much on electability as it is around a narrative about his record. It’s a strategy that’s worked very well so far, but with Perry now in the race, he’ll need to present a compelling case for his own candidacy.

Going after Perry as a career politician — which was the Romney campaign’s opening gambit — doesn’t sound like the most effective line of attack, given that Romney has essentially been running for president since 2007. This campaign has changed markedly in the last two weeks, and Romney will need to quickly show he can connect with conservatives and speak their language.

With the Ames victory, Michele Bachmann has proven her political chops, but it will be difficult for the Minnesota congresswoman to sustain her momentum throughout the nomination process — with the media spotlight on high and a Republican establishment looking to rally for the rival most likely to beat her if she gains traction. She has to prove she can put together a coalition beyond the most ardent tea partiers and cultural conservatives. She’ll face her toughest test holding onto support against a candidate with a more accomplished résumé and his own healthy dose of charisma, to boot.

Make no mistake: Perry is no flash-in-the-pan candidate, akin to Fred Thompson in 2008 or Wesley Clark in 2004. Just before he entered the race, national polls showed him at the top of the Republican field, narrowly behind Mitt Romney. He wasn’t even on the Ames ballot, yet managed to tally 718 write-in votes, ahead of Romney’s total. Despite being caricatured as a candidate whose appeal is limited to hard-right conservatives and Southerners, he’s spent much of his early focus in New Hampshire, a state where social conservatism is shunned, but which has a proud libertarian tradition in line with Perry’s message.

Perry has his own obvious vulnerabilities. Close your eyes and listen to him speak, and you could mix him up with George W. Bush. Even though they come from very different backgrounds (Bush, an establishment blue-blood, versus Perry, who grew up poor on the Texas plains) and their political teams in Texas are famously distant, voters may not be ready for another straight-talking Texas governor as president.

That said, the political environment has changed markedly in the last several months. With Obama’s job-approval rating now below 40 percent in Gallup’s latest survey, nominating a candidate based on electability is becoming a nonissue for Republicans. If the economy fails to grow — and the current economic forecasts are grim — it’s hard to see Perry’s style being a serious impediment to becoming president. The notion that a three-term governor of the second most-populous state in the country is somehow unelectable simply because of his Texas twang strikes me as fanciful.

If Obama is in trouble, Perry should be able to hold the states Bush carried in 2004. He could be stronger in some of the Southern battlegrounds, like North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia. But he’d probably face a higher hurdle winning suddenly-competitive Democratic-leaning, Rust-Belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, where his style could wear thin and Romney would be a better match for the electorate.

No two elections are alike, but in style and substance, this year’s Republican primary and general election are shaping up to be replays of the 1980 presidential race: President runs as an outsider looking to clean up Washington, but deals with the harsh reality of an economy out of control; a Republican primary pitting an outspoken conservative governor of a large state, considered unelectable by Democrats and the establishment, against a moderate blue-blood preparing for a candidacy for some time.

Reagan, the famous cowboy, dispatched George H.W. Bush and went on to win 489 electoral votes in 44 states. We’re about to see if another cowboy will repeat the trick.

President Perry?

By on 8.15.11 @ 6:11AM

So, to the surprise of exactly no one, he’s in. A single question remains, concerning Rick Perry, governor of Texas. If he wins the Republican presidential nomination, as well he may, can he be counted on to send Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner to the unemployment lines (pending their recruitment by the lobby or the universities)? Will America accord him that chance?

Er. Maybe. Quite possibly. I don’t know, and I don’t speak abstractly concerning the finite nature of human knowledge.

My governor — I am a Texan — is operating at a level at which none of his fans — I am one — has seen him operate. We are moving about in the dusk here. Some deliberation is in order.

My governor, as a presidential candidate, brings various strengths to the table:

First, a good gubernatorial record for keeping a relatively tight lid on spending while encouraging enterprise and economic growth. Rick Perry loves business and the spirit of enterprise even more than Barack Obama seems to look down his nose at same. He’d probably love for every start-up concern or corporation in the country to move here , taking advantage of Texas’s low-tax, light-regulation climate. From 1999 to 2010, the number of Texas jobs rose 12.6 percent; the country’s overall number fell 0.2 percent. How do we like them apples? A whole lot, I bet.

Were Perry to become president, the Environmental Protection Agency could forget about lashing coal producers and automobile manufacturers to lofty standards for “pollution reduction.” We would see a different kind of Energy Department — a more forward-looking one, focused not just on so-called green energy but likewise on traditional sources, including oil, natural gas, and, yes, coal. To the extent legally and politically feasible, the dismantling of Obamacare would commence under a Perry administration, followed by the substitution of something more logical, efficient, and market-oriented.

As a campaigner, Perry would bring considerable vitality to the race. He’s a good speaker who commands a public platform. Nobody zings our guv and receives a meek smile in response. The fun of a run against Obama, at the presidential debate level, would consist — I predict — in Perry’s delight at calling Obama’s hand whenever necessary: exposing the generally huge gap between rhetoric and performance.

Texas liberals have had great sport with Perry’s mediocre college transcript, leaked recently to the media by some enemy or the other. I have news for Ivy League hecklers everywhere. The governor of Texas is in fact one sharp cookie. Go on and misjudge him if you care to. That’ll be your problem and yours only. Further, go on and misjudge the American electorate’s commitment to government by Harvard graduates who, for all their book-larnin’, can’t seem to identify the forces that drive and undergird great, prosperous economies.

Very well, then. Can’t we go ahead and measure my governor for his inauguration suit? We might want to wait on that, due to factors such as the unknowableness of human destinies. Another factor to which I have alluded is also worth consideration — that of Perry’s newness to the national, as distinguished from the state or regional, political scene.

A lot of calibration in terms of presentation will be necessary as Perry reveals himself to 300 million-plus Americans, some of whom are backward enough — ahem — to suppose Texans unfitted for any place but the back of a horse. Anti-Texas prejudice becomes Texasphobia under certain political and cultural conditions: as when the Eastern media perceive Eastern political and cultural ways to be threatened by us boobs and barbarians. As aNew York Times subscriber of many years’ standing, I can tell you Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, and the squinty fanatics of Andrew Rosenthal’s editorial page will come unglued at the idea of Rick Perry approaching unto the seat of Barack Obama. Likewise the Eastern bloggers — the Jacob Weisbergs, the Andrew Sullivans, and so on. Why do the nations so furiously rage together when a Texan comes in view? They just do.

That’s a related point: Quote the Good Book, or speak a word in behalf of its narrative, and the nations rage louder than ever. That’s to say, Rick Perry makes no bones about his Christian faith: as witness the Houston rally at which he bade Americans pray for America. Will a commitment to prayer, and to God, be held against him in fast-secularizing America, where gay marriage has joined wealth-redistribution on the marble tablets where liberals’ ideals are inscribed? Or will mainstream voters instead cut slack for a candidate unwilling, in a time of stress and strife, to assert the priority of human ideals over all others? A lot, I think, will depend on Rick Perry’s rhetorical skills. These, as I say, are large, so we mustn’t yet draw negative conclusions regarding his prospects.

It’s frequently said that America isn’t ready for another Texas governor, given lack of love for the last one, whatever his name was. The point worth noticing perhaps is that the last one preceded possibly the most oversold president ever: a chief executive unable, we subsequently found out, to get his act together. The perceived offenses of What’s His Name have been blotted out already in considerable degree by the bungling and obfuscations of the pig-in-a-poke the public bought in 2008. I wouldn’t ‘t count, were I a Democratic strategist, on names like “Rove,” “Rumsfeld,” and “Guantanamo” to work like talismans in a country with 9 percent unemployment.

President Perry? Maybe. Again, maybe not. What fun, though, the finding out will be. The guy is going to shake up this race, big time: with Stetson on, or without.

Get ready.

Eight things you ought to know before you start writing stories about Rick Perry. You’re welcome.


August 2011

Here we go again. As you know, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, is contemplating a presidential run, which means that any day now, your boss will be sending you down here to take the measure of the man. Though he managed to avoid the 2012 spotlight longer than any other candidate, Perry, the nation’s longest-serving governor, has lately become, in the words of a recent NPR report, “the eight-hundred-pound gorilla on the sidelines of this race.” The trickle of stories about him has become a stream, and the minute Perry declares his candidacy, that stream will become a flood, a flood that will carry you straight to Austin. I am writing you this note in the hope that it will help you avoid the political and sociological clichés that Texas is subjected to every time one of our politicians seeks the national stage.

It’s an experience we’re all too familiar with. A Texan has occupied the White House in 17 of the past 48 years—just over a third of the time. Texas has become an incubator for presidents, as Virginia and Ohio were in America’s distant past. I’ll grant you that the presidents we have sent to Washington, from LBJ to 
George W. Bush, have not always served as the best advertisements for Texas. Nevertheless, we have endured a disproportionate amount of bad writing about our state from journalists who don’t know very much about the place, and I for one can’t bear to suffer through another campaign of it.

So please, heed this advice. Rick Perry, as you have no doubt already discovered, is not the easiest man to write about. He is secretive and leery of the media (sometimes to the point of hostility), and he has a strategically valuable knack for being underestimated by his critics. I have been writing about him since the eighties, when he began his career in the Texas Legislature. Along the way I have learned a few things, which I have arranged in this handy list of Eight Points to Keep in Mind When Writing About Rick Perry.

1. Perry is not George Bush. Don’t assume that because Bush and Perry served together in the Capitol, or because they’re both Republican Texans who wear boots, the two men have a lot in common. They don’t. As governor, Bush positioned himself as “a uniter, not a divider,” championing education as one of his main priorities. Perry has been the opposite kind of chief executive: dismissive of Democrats and fond of political maneuvers that put the heat on moderates within his own party. And in the legislative session that just wrapped up, he presided over a budget that cut $4 billion from public schools. The cultural differences are striking too. Perry, the son of a Big Country cotton farmer, is at ease with a populist tea party message; W., the scion of a political dynasty, always seemed more comfortable with the country club set. They have followed starkly different paths. When W. began his political career, he had a famous name, access to his father’s huge national fund-raising base, and the backing of the establishment wing of the Republican party. As a late arrival in the Republican ranks, Perry had no fund-raising base and little name identification. He had no choice but to gravitate to the conservative wing of the GOP, where he could prove up his conservative bona fides. Nor is there any love lost between the two men. When Perry ran for lieutenant governor, in 1998, Bush’s camp wanted everyone on the ticket to run positive races; the Perry team defied the order, and ever since, relations have been frosty. There is one other critical difference. Bush lost his first race, for Congress. Perry has won every race he’s ever run.

2. It’s not a big deal that Perry was once a Democrat. To suggest otherwise will make you look foolish. When Perry was elected to the statehouse, in 1985, conservative Democrats ran the Legislature. In 1989, realizing that a conservative had little future in the party, Perry switched to the GOP. He has been a rock-solid Republican ever since and has driven the state party further to the right. Only twice has he made strategic errors that brought him into conflict with his hard-right base. One was an edict that twelve-year-old girls be inoculated against cervical cancer (it was quickly overturned); another was his promotion of a giant system of toll roads called the Trans-Texas Corridor, which stirred up significant opposition from landowners. These two bobbles aside, Perry has a genius for sensing where his base is on any given issue.

3. Perry is cannier than you think he is. Perry revels in political plays that are initially misunderstood by the press and his critics. Take his secession “gaffe” on tax day 2009, when he responded to a TV reporter’s question with an acknowledgment that if the federal government continued to interfere with Texas, the state might have to leave the union someday. His response may have repelled Democrats and independents, but it hit a nerve among conservatives and led to his shellacking of Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary for governor.

4. Texas is not a “weak governor” state. A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his historic governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. This may be his greatest accomplishment. Yes, our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). We had two-year terms (the Legislature changed it to four-year terms beginning with the 1974 election) and a fragmented executive department with power divided among the governor, the lieutenant governor, the comptroller, the land and agriculture commissioners, the attorney general, and the railroad commission. But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who, Robert Caro reports, once told an assistant, “I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.” Rick Perry, to a tee.

5. Perry is not a male hair model. The late Molly Ivins coined the nickname Governor Goodhair, and it has stuck, especially with ­liberals and journalists from up north. It is true that Perry has a much-remarked-upon coif, but don’t let this lead you to assume that he’s soft, or feckless, like that other recent walking shampoo ad, John Edwards. Perry is a hard man. He is the kind of politician who would rather be feared than loved—or respected. And he has gotten his wish. Perry does not have many friends in the ­Legislature.

6. Perry is from the middle of nowhere. The first place you need to go to understand Perry is Paint Creek, where he grew up. Paint Creek is not a town. It’s a watercourse that runs through the cotton fields of southern Haskell County. Perry’s parents were tenant farmers, and not just tenant farmers but dryland farmers, which is as hard as farming gets. In a June 2010 interview with TEXAS MONTHLY editor Jake Silverstein, Perry described an incident involving a new couch that his parents, who “rarely ever bought anything,” had just purchased. “There were places in our house that you could see outside through the cracks by the windows,” the governor recalled, “and this dust storm came in and there was a layer of dust all over that new couch. And it just, you know, kind of—it was a hard life for them.” In the interview, Perry also described taking baths in the number two washtub and using an outhouse until his father built indoor plumbing in his early years. “We were rich,” Perry said, “but not in material things. I had miles and miles of pasture, a Shetland pony, and a dog. . . . I spent a lot of time just alone with my dog. A lot.”

7. Perry is an Aggie. Like many Texans with rural roots and sympathies, Perry attended Texas A&M University. This is the other place you need to go to understand him. Of course, it has changed dramatically, so you’ll have to envision it as it was when Perry was there, around 1970. A&M was uncompromising in those days. There was a saying, regarding the road to College Station, that was directed at students who resisted the A&M military culture: “Highway 6 runs both ways.” You either bought into the school’s traditions or you didn’t. Perry bought all the way in, becoming a yell leader. To this day, Perry’s style on the stump is that of the Aggie yell leader (“Are you fired up?”).

8. Don’t discount the luck factor. It is uncanny how often good fortune has been in ­Perry’s corner throughout his political career. His opponents self-destruct, as Jim High­­tower did in 1990, when Perry, a big underdog, won his first statewide race, for agriculture commissioner, and as Kay Bailey Hutchison did in 2010. In 2006, when he was at his most vulnerable, Hutchison opted not to challenge him. Perry got only 39 percent of the vote, but because there were four major candidates in the race, he won with a plurality. This spring, he lost two top aides to the Gingrich-for-president campaign, only to see Gingrich self-destruct and the aides return with national campaign experience. The list goes on and on. If you look at Perry’s career, it seems that fate is always arranging the universe so that its favorite son will be in the right place at the right time.

So there you have it. In closing, I would like to request that you please do your best to avoid tin-ear clichés about barbecue, cattle, oil, football, and the Alamo. Remember, this is an urban state of 25 million people. We don’t go to sleep at night dreaming of William Barret Travis drawing a line in the sand. We do admire our rural history, as this month’s cover attests, but our vitality is in the cities. Enjoy your visit, best of luck, and please get it right this time.

Yours truly,
Paul Burka

Welcome to Rick’s Cabaret

The Weekly Standard COLD OPEN

AUGUST 17, 2011 * By Matthew Continetti

Well, I goofed. I lost my bet that Tim Pawlenty would be the Republican presidential nominee. The former Minnesota governor wasted no time exiting the race after coming in third in the Ames straw poll. Goes to show you that resume, positions, and electability aren’t everything. A winning candidate needs to have a gut connection with his constituents. Pawlenty didn’t have it.

A gut sense of politics is what Texas governor Rick Perry has in spades. I confess to being skeptical of Perry before he entered the race. But it now seems to me that Perry has had the most successful launch of any of the candidates currently in the field. To watch him interact with crowds, and with the political press, is to watch a political natural. The way in which Perry’s team handled the opening stages of his campaign—building buzz and grassroots support while reaching out to donors, then stepping on Bachmann’s straw poll victory—was professionalism at its finest. The governor’s message is crystal clear: Texas is a success, and I want to apply my approach to Washington, D.C.

Watching all this, I was reminded that you can’t be governor of the second largest state in the country for 11 years without having some major skills. Yet question marks hang over Perry: Will the act grow tired after months of campaigning? Can he build a rapport with independent voters? And where does he stand on entitlements and foreign policy? The Tenth Amendment won’t be able to stop Iran and China.

The fact that these questions have so quickly become central to campaign 2012 only reaffirms that Perry is a dynamo. For the next few months, we’ll be in Rick’s cabaret. Might as well sit back and enjoy the show.

Video: Gov. Rick Perry’s Announcement Speech

by Bryan Preston – “Reaganesque”

My Heart Stirred: A Review of Rick Perry’s Speech

by Andrew Klavan – His ideas are right and the left’s are wrong — his ideas work and theirs don’t — his ideas tend toward freedom, theirs toward stagnation and collapse.

Gov. Rick Perry: America Needs New Leadership (Full Text of Announcement Speech)

by Gov. Rick Perry “It’s time to get America working again.” The governor of Texas lays out his vision as he announces his run for president.

Rick Perry
Saturday, August 13, 2011, 02:50 PM
Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced today that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2012. He made the announcement in Charleston, S.C., at the RedState Gathering, a convention of conservative bloggers

By Jonathan Martin, Politico

Rick Perry, on his first day of extended Iowa campaigning, foreshadowed his coming assault Monday against Mitt Romney and swiped back at the former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist’s suggestion that others in the GOP race don’t understand the economy.

In back-to-back answers, Perry nodded at the difference between his economic record as Texas governor and Romney’s in Massachusetts and then drew a cultural contrast between his background as an Air Force pilot and family farmer and his opponent’s high finance pedigree.

“It’s being able to work with your legislature to get the right tax and regulatory and legal system in place — and we done that in Texas,” Perry said of how he created jobs in his decade-long tenure as governor.

Asked if Romney had done the same, Perry responded: “You just have to look at the record.”

Perry 2012Obama and the Perry MiracleAugust 14, 2011 By Jeffrey Folks – Liberals have let it be known that they intend to “kill” Romney — or any other GOP candidate who poses a threat to Obama in the 2012 election. The attack on Romney at the Iowa state fair by hecklers pretending to be ordinary retirees is prelude to what we can expect. Obama’s own team are hard at work as well. Recently, they’ve been trying to head off the challenge posed by Gov. Rick Perry, the most successful American governor in living memory. The knives came out even before Perry announced and David Axelrod arguedthat Perry’s record of job creation in Texas was not what it seemed. Axelrod is an a fools errand, and is a hypocrite no less for suggesting that oil & gas companies (who he has regularly demonized) should get credit not Perry! More telling however is the (liberal policies) California vs (conservative policies) Texas comparison, as well as the D.C. vs Texas comparison, read on…

Campaign Trail: Fear of Perry

by Roger Simon “With Rick Perry already leading Romney for the GOP nomination on Intrade before the Tex gov has formally declared, it’s no suprise the Obmanoids are already dusting out the anti-Rick talking points on the chat shows. Today the terminally-loyal David Axelrod appeared on Democratic Party poodle George Stephanopoulos’ The Bottom Line to downplay Perry’s success as a job creator. Credit for those jobs should go to the oil companies, said Axelrod (that being the same oil companies the Obama Admin wants to tax and curtail.)

Needless to say this should all be a compliment to Perry who appears to be generating so much fear from our vacationing president that he’s giving his subaltern a busy August. But here’s an interesting question for Axelrod’s laser-like mind. How come California has such an abysmal employment record when Apple is now a bigger and faster growing company than Exxon? Hard to fathom, huh? Maybe it does have something to do with how the states operate. Of course, what Axel-bubbe is presenting is just so much early campaign drivel. If he spent even a tenth of the time on improving the horrifying economic conditions of our country as he does on maintaining the power of a failed presidency, he might be doing something useful with his life.”

Rick Perry Presidential Push Quietly Gains Steam

By Erin McPike and Scott Conroy

As many grass-roots Republicans remain in search of a conservative candidate with the pizazz to go toe-to-toe against President Obama, a man from deep in the heart of Texas who was tea party before the tea party was cool appears to be giving the presidential race some thought…

Another Texas Governor for President?

rick_perry(You bet, and just because there may be similarities, doesn’t mean this one’s the same as the other)

August 11, 2011 by V2A – There’s a debate in Texas over whether or not Governor Rick Perry’s prayer rally before 30,000 worshippers in a football stadium last Saturday was conceived to help launch his presidential candidacy. But there’s little dispute about his prospects should he decide to enter the Republican field, as expected.

Most people here think he’ll win.

Perry’s appeal to Republicans is not hard to fathom. It has three distinct parts. The first, as the prayer rally demonstrates, is an overt religiosity that is sure to excite the social conservatives in the Republican base who feel neglected by the unrelenting focus on the economy. Perry casts the issue as a crisis of faith. “Lord,’’ he told the crowd, “we see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government and, as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us.’’ That message should resonate across the South and in states like Iowa, where religious conservatives dominate the party – Post Continues on www.boston.com

Rick Perry’s Christianity Is Good for America
By Ben Shapiro – It is profoundly right to request that God look kindly and benevolently on the United States of America.

Agnostics for Perry

by Roger L Simon

Personally, I’m an agnostic, but I respect Perry for his faith: America was founded on religious tolerance, which some modern liberals tend to forget includes people who actually believe in God.

An Historic Event

Perry: ‘Global Warming a Phony Mess’

Rick Perry: Obama shutting down our legacy in space

Texas Governor Rick Perry sharply criticized the end of the space shuttle program yesterday, issuing the following statement: Read More

Rick Perry Has a “Huge” Opening

Iowa Straw Poll Bachmann 2012

Bachmann Wins Iowa Straw Poll

Saturday, August 13, 2011, 06:54 PM

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) won the presidential straw poll that the Iowa Republican Party hosted today at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. She took 4,823 votes out of a total of 16,892 votes that were cast

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced Sunday he is ending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. (AP)Out: Tim Pawlenty Quits GOP Presidential Race

One door closes, another opens. We agree this could be the better result of his efforts:  Pawlenty for Senate
August 15, 2011 – An excellent opportunity for the Republican Party: nominate Tim Pawlenty to run in the 2012 Senate race against Amy Klobuchar More

Palin out in 2012?Watch: Is Palin Definitely Out of the 2012 Race?

Palin’s pick: ‘Anybody but Obama,’ … maybe even me
The Undefeated Sarah Palin: The Politics of Palin’s Personality

“They’re dead right in that clip,why aren’t they, about the root cause of the whole Palin maddness being the failure of the establishment– Republicans and Democrats?” — James Poulos

The Undefeated: Does the New Palin Documentary Mean She’s Running for President?

“I don’t make films that are like PBS documentaries.” –

– Stephen K. Bannon, Director of ‘The Undefeated’

Allen West: Ron Paul ‘Not the Kind of Guy You Need to Be Sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave’

Aug 11, 2011

Gingrich Blasts Debt Super Committee

Aug 11, 2011

Republican Rivals Make Closing Arguments in Iowa 

The Growing Republican 10th Amendment Debate
August 13, 2011 – The federalism issue may seem like a sideshow, but in fact it is the key to solving the sickness of our national government More

Iowa governor: Romney campaign in ‘real trouble’ if he loses big in caucuses

Poll: Romney narrowly leads Obama in a head-to-head race – TheDC

Romney’s ascendance comes alongside disappointing job approval numbers for the president
Spoiler alert: They’re not pleased with Obama’s progress (your not alone, no one is!)



2012 Dream Ticket Survey: America’s Next President Is…

July 16, 2011 –

Who will be America’s next President and Vice President? According to our new poll found at www.2012dreamticket.com, America wants Texas Governor, Rick Perry, for President and Michele Bachmann, Congress woman from Minnesota for VP.

As of today, the Perry/Bachmann ticket has a commanding lead over the second place pair.

Who is in second place you ask? Romney/Bachmann. Romney/Bachmann? That’s right! Our survey shows that America has Romney and Bachmann pairing up. This is course is due in part to the fact that Perry is not actually a candidate yet.

The most interesting point throughout the survey, is how many times Bachmann and Perry were picked in either the President or VP spot.

2012 dream ticket is unique in that it allows you to choose from over 30 potential candidates (even those who have made no mention or intent in wanting to run for office).

If you aren’t happy with the results, then we encourage you to come and vote. Help move your favorite to the top of the list. Our simple drag and drop poll is one of the easiest polls ever developed!

This poll has the potential to affect the outcome of the next election.

Vote now and then share your results on Facebook and Twitter! We want to know what you think and what all of America thinks!

Philip Klein – Perry on prez run, says he’s starting to feel “this is what I’ve been called to do”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is sounding more and more like a man who intends to run for president. “I’m not ready to tell you that I’m ready to announce that I’m in,” Perry said, according to the Des Moines Register. “But I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.” Read More

Rick Perry/Nikki Haley ’12?

Ben Shapiro: Rick Perry’s Christianity Is Good for America

He Thinks He is God: Left Attacks Perry (Note to the fools on the left, you think Obama “is” a God, Perry thinks himself is a “man of God”. Understand?)

Texas Executes Mexican Citizen Despite Liberal U.S. and Foreign Pleas
HOUSTON (Reuters) – Texas refused to capitulate to U.N. demands and executed a Mexican national Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to act on concerns raised by the Obama administration regarding international treaty violations. Humberto Leal Garcia, 38, a murderer of our fellow Americans, was executed by means of lethal injection. As to the question of Gov Perry’s Christianity, is there a contradiction? Absolutely not, evil has been confronted and erradicated, and we appreciate his strength and resolve. 

Latest Michele Bachmann Ad: “Courage”

Tim Pawlenty TV Ad: The American Comeback

Gov Pawlenty announces campaiging in Iowa and the Democrats come out swinging with an ad!

An Interesting Review of “The Undefeated”

Ben Howe of RedState wrote a piece simply entitled “Palin” that I recommend everyone take a few minutes to read. In this piece he discussed the media bias against Palin, his views on her, and then discusses how he felt after watching the documentary, “The Undefeated.” Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“I didn’t think she’d really done much in Alaska, or if she had, that it was enough to act like she was the second coming of Reagan. …I was entirely incorrect.”
Read the entire piece and I recommend checking out “The Undefeated” as it hits theaters today.

 Sarah Palin’s Grace Under Pressure – James Lewis

A Republican Ticket That Probably Can’t Lose In 2012

“Blank? – Senator Marco Rubio”

Brand Huntsman (In our view a VP maybe, not a front runner, not a “solid” conservative, in ways Romneylike, and like Romney – there are better choices)

Tea Partiers: Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman don’t “have courage”

A few comparative notes: Politician/ Issue – Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Herman Cain


He has made banning “sanctuary cities” a top priority for the Texas state legislature, and takes a strong stand on securing the border.

Bachmann is a  supporter of Arizona’s immigration policy, and takes a tough overall stand on the issue of “illegal” immigration.

Paul opposes amnesty and wants to end birthright citizenship, which allows people born in the U.S. automatic citizenship. He has said he has “some reservations” about the Arizona law, but supports its intent.

Cain has said the U.S. must secure the borders, enforce existing laws  and promote the current path to citizenship. He has said, “I don’t believe Arizona went to far.”

Foreign Policy

Perry opposed plans by pro-Palestinian groups to protest and potentially disrupt Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and he earlier criticized President Obama’s speech advocating a deal between the warring sides based on pre-1967 maps.

Bachmann has said she supports Israel. She posted Web ad accusing that President Obama “betrayed Israel” with his statement on the 1967 boundaries.

Paul wants to see rapid troop withdrawl from the Middle East and isolationism. He has called for American neutrality in regard to Israel’s conflicts. He supports a dangerous non-interventionist policy.

Cain believes the U.S. should intervene on behalf of its allies. “You mess with Israel, you’re messing with the U.S.A, ” he said to to Neil Cavuto on Fox News in May.


In Fed Up! Perry suggests major cuts to federal spending and a decreased role of the national government in state affairs.  He is a longtime proponent of low taxes and spoke in favor of extending Bush-era tax cuts in 2010.

Bachmann’s Congressional website calls for a simplified tax code, tax cuts, and suggests making tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent.

Paul’s website calls for abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard. His Congressional website says he is for “low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.”

Cain has called for a simplified tax code, has said he would allow  for a one year payroll tax holiday to spur the economy and wants to make the Bush-era tax rates permanent.

Same-sex marriage

Perry has said he would support an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but in Fed Up! says civil union decisions should be left to the states.

Bachmann supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage and says the states should decide. He voted against an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Cain opposes same-sex marriage, but doesn’t rule out civil unions and he opposes an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.


Perry  is pro-life and opposes government funding for abortions. He signed into law a 2011 Texas bill  requiring women to have a sonogram before having an abortion, but excepting cases of rape and incest.

Bachmann is Pro-life in all cases, including rape and incest.

Paul is strongly pro-life, despite his libertarian ideals. He has said, “If you can’t protect life, how can you protect liberty?”

Cain thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases affecting the mother’s health, and has said he is “pro-life from conception.”

Obama Boasts Raising $86M for 2012 Campaign? Far ahead of challengers. Uh not quite!

July 13, 2011
President Obama’s re-election team is touting having raised more than $86 million and therefore the significant incumbent fundraising lead over Republicans ahead of the 2012 race.

However the real story is that the Obama 2012 campaign has brought in just over $47 million and that is actually lagging behind their previously stated goal of $60 million combined for the quarter.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) collected more than $38 million for the campaign in the quarter ending June, but that’s the DNC. Where there is no doubt that some of those funds will be used for the Presidential race, by no means is this Obama’s money, and a substantial portion will be use for Congressional races.

As of July 13th a Des Moines Register poll shows Bachmann and Romney in a virtual dead heat in the Hawkeye State with 23% and 22% respectively. Bachmann’s solid committment to defend traditional marriage, pledge fidelity to her spouse, oppose abortion, appoint faithful constitutionalists as judges, and flatly reject Sharia law, among other things, gives her a clear edge.

Generic Republican Beats Obama By 8 Points

Poll Analysis: PPP has released their national vs. Obama for the month of July. It doesn’t look good for Obama.

First the top line:

(vs. Obama) Obama Candidate UnDec Diff
Romney 45 45 10 0
Bachmann 48 41 11 -7
Pawlenty 48 39 13 -9
Cain 48 36 16 -12
Palin 53 37 9 -16

Romney is tied with Obama. Bachmann, the flavor of the month, is still seven points back near Pawlenty’s -9. Cain continues to struggle, and Palin assumes her usual place in the rear.

Here are the trends for their national vs. Obama poll for this year

(7/20) (6/13) (5/11) (4/13) (3/15) (2/16) (1/20)
Romney 0 2 5 6 5 5 5
Bachmann -7
Pawlenty -9 -11
Cain -12 -10
Palin -16 -14 -17 -18 -15 -18 -17

Over the past year Romney has improved to the point of tying with the President. Palin is practically unchanged from January. She is still nearly 20 points behind the President.

Finally, here is an interesting crosstab that PPP provides on their blog post announcing this poll. It shows the percentage of the Undecided in the first table that approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing. It is most enlightening:

(Undecided vs. Obama) Approve Obama Disapprove Obama Diff
Romney 21 61 40
Bachmann 10 67 57
Pawlenty 9 75 66
Cain 8 76 68
Palin 5 84 79

This drives home the point that the vast majority of those who haven’t made up their minds on whom to vote for do not like Obama’s job performance. If you add those undecideds who approve of him to his vote number and add those who disapprove to his opponent’s number, you get the following version of the first table:

(Undecided added) Obama Candidate Diff
Romney 48 52 4
Pawlenty 50 50 0
Bachmann 51 49 -2
Cain 51 49 -2
Palin 54 46 -8

Suddenly, Romney leads by four. Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Cain are all looking good, and even Palin is well within striking distance.

Things do not look good for the President; that is for sure. Even PPP headlines this poll as “Obama in perilous shape “. If he cannot get this economy turned around, he is headed for a one-and-out.

Poll Watch: PPP (D) 2012 Presidential Survey

  • Barack Obama 45%
  • Mitt Romney 45%
  • Barack Obama 48%
  • Michele Bachmann 41%
  • Barack Obama 48%
  • Tim Pawlenty 39%
  • Barack Obama 48%
  • Herman Cain 36%
  • Barack Obama 53%
  • Sarah Palin 37%

Poll Watch: Rasmussen 2012 Presidential Survey

  • Mitt Romney 43% {40%}[44%] (44%)
  • Barack Obama 42% {45%} [42%] (44%)

Poll Watch: Civitas (R) 2012 North Carolina Presidential Survey

  • Rick Perry (R) 45%
  • Barack Obama (D) 42%
  • Undecided 12%

Poll Watch: EPIC-MRA Michigan 2012 Presidential Survey

  • Mitt Romney (R) 46% (46%)
  • Barack Obama (D) 41% (41%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

  • Mitt Romney (43%) / (28%) {+15%}
  • Barack Obama 47% (50%) / 47% (43%) {0%}

Poll Watch: ARG South Carolina 2012 Republican Primary Survey

  • Mitt Romney 25% (18%)
  • Sarah Palin 16% (10%)
  • Michele Bachmann 13% (5%)
  • Herman Cain 10% (1%)
  • Rudy Giuliani 6% (4%)
  • Rick Perry 6%
  • Newt Gingrich 3% (9%)
  • Ron Paul 2% (1%)
  • Rick Santorum 2% (1%)
  • Buddy Roemer 2% (0%)
  • Gary Johnson 0% (0%)
  • Jon Huntsman 0% (0%)
  • Tim Pawlenty 0% (2%)
  • Undecided 15% (11%)

Race42012 Polling Averages and Line Chart – July 17, 2011

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Poll Average Quinnipiac FOX News McClatchy-Marist Morris Rasmussen
Date 6/14 – 7/11 7/5 – 7/11 6/26 – 6/28 6/15 – 6/23 6/18 – 6/19 6/14 – 6/14
Romney 23.60 25 18 19 23 33
Bachmann 12.80 14 11 8 12 19
Giuliani 11.50 10 13
Palin 10.33 12 8 11
Perry 10.25 10 13 13 5
Paul 7.20 5 7 5 12 7
Cain 6.20 6 5 5 5 10
Gingrich 4.80 5 3 2 5 9
Pawlenty 4.00 3 3 5 3 6
Santorum 2.40 1 2 1 2 6
Huntsman 1.80 1 3 2 1 2
Johnson 0.75 1 0.5
McCotter 0.50 0.5 0.5
Roemer 0.50 0.5

Intrade State of the Race:

Movement is from the last update one week ago:

Name Value Change
Romney 34.9 +0.8
Perry 16.1 +3.1
Bachmann 14.5 -2.5
Huntsman 9.4 +0.8
Pawlenty 7.3 -1.0
Palin 5.8 +0.6
Paul 2.2 +0.1
Gingrich 2.0 +0.1
Cain 1.5 +0.1
Santorum 0.7 +0.1
Johnson 0.3 -0.2
McCotter 0.3 E

Poll Watch: American Research Group 2012 New Hampshire Republican Primary Survey

  • Mitt Romney 29% (32%)
  • Michele Bachmann 12% (1%)
  • Rudy Giuliani 9% (8%)
  • Sarah Palin 8% (2%)
  • Newt Gingrich 7% (8%)
  • Tim Pawlenty 5% (2%)
  • Ron Paul 4% (8%)
  • Herman Cain 4% (2%)
  • Rick Perry 2%
  • Rick Santorum 2% (0%)
  • Gary Johnson *% (1%)
  • Jon Huntsman 0% (0%)
  • Buddy Roemer 0% (0%)
  • Other/Undecided 18% (8%)

Townhall.com Presidential Straw Poll

As GOP presidential hopefuls begin to test the waters in preparation for the 2012 election, Townhall and HotAir are conducting a poll to gauge whom conservatives are currently leaning towards. The results will be tabulated monthly, featured in an upcoming issue of Townhall Magazine, and released via email and on the Townhall.com Presidential Straw Poll Facebook page.


(Jeb Bush has said No, maybe 2016, but we’ll bring you some news from time to time anyhow)

In Miami, Obama praises Jeb Bush

Politico’s 2012 Candidate Hub





  • Bobby JindalBobby Jindal »
  • Rudy GiulianiRudy Giuliani »
  • George PatakiGeorge Pataki »
  • Buddy Roemer »
  • On Buddy Roemer
  • I want a President who is free to lead


Michael Bloomberg »

Joe Scarborough – Like the Egyptians, conservatives have no idea who will lead them through the next election. Hey Joe get a clue, we’ll help ya. 1) First and foremost, we know it won’t be you. 2) Conservatives do have a clue, it’s you who does not, because your not one of them. You can be called MSNBC’s resident conservative but it means nothing.

“It’s about time”: Joe Scarborough finally praises Republicans for showing some courage in tackling America’s debt crisis.

In Iowa, five possible 2012 candidates say social issues are a top priority

Screen shot 2011-01-15 at 12.54.13 “Five potential presidential candidates vied to please a socially conservative crowd at a packed event here Monday night that marked the unofficial start to the Iowa caucus campaign and the first time a crush of GOP hopefuls shared a major stage. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Buddy Roemer and Herman Cain each took a turn at the microphone, riffing on a range of social-issue touchstones — denouncing gay marriage, lambasting activist judges and praising the push to defund Planned Parenthood. But all five essentially share the same positions, and in the end, it was Cain and Roemer — the least known and probably longest-shot of the hopefuls — who got the most praise from a group of influential Hawkeye State conservatives.” – Politico

Jonah Goldberg: “Republicans voters are ravenous for a one-term Obama presidency. Some potential hopefuls are flawed, but the party faithful will surely stomach whichever candidate captures the nomination.” – LA Times

The Cook Report: It’s Nobody’s Turn – It’s Anybody’s Turn


Who will be the Republican presidential nominee? Even political professionals don’t have a clue.

Thursday, March 3, 2011 | 3:54 p.m.

Consider yourself clairvoyant if you can correctly predict who is going to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The race is that wide open.

In most years, Republicans tap the person whose “turn” it is to be the party’s standard-bearer, and that individual’s identity is often known long before the start of the primary and caucus season. This time, the race looks different. One could argue that it is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s turn because she was the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2008. Or former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s turn because he won the Iowa caucus last time around. Or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s turn because he was eventual nominee John McCain’s toughest rival in 2008. But none of those arguments is particularly convincing.

In most years, current and former U.S. senators are grossly overrepresented in presidential fields. But with the announcement by Sen. John Thune of South Dakota that he isn’t going to run, it appears no sitting GOP senator will enter the race. Pennsylvania’s Rick Santorum may be the only former member of the chamber to make a bid. Current and former House members have a dismal record in winning nominations, but that hasn’t stopped them before. This time, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas looks to be the only House member running, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich may be the only former member in the contest.

With Washington so out of favor, this could be a campaign that features lots of current and former governors. Three sitting governors are possible candidates—Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, and Rick Perry of Texas—along with five former governors: Jon Huntsman of Utah, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Huckabee, Palin, and Romney.

via NationalJournal.com – The Cook Report: It’s Nobody’s Turn – Friday, March 4, 2011.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

March 01, 2011

The 2012 Nomination Lead is There for the Taking

By C. Edmund Wright

It’s right there for all to see: a hanging curve ball moving so slowly that even a “Republican strategist” should see the stitches.  Well ok, maybe it’s not moving that slowly. 
Nonetheless, the early lead for the 2012 GOP nomination is there for the taking — waiting only for one of the candidates to boldly pounce on this obvious opportunity.  I submit that the first hopeful who boldly runs on a platform of simply ending public sector collective bargaining will bust from the pack into the early lead.
And all along we thought the 2012 elections — like the 2010 elections — would be about government spending.  Well, actually, the seamless way that the public sector union issue ties into government spending — not to mention the tea party notion of producers and takers — is what makes this such a dynamic once in a lifetime opportunity.  The fact that the opposition here is totally unlovable is icing on the cake.
Consider:  Chris Christie became a national sensation for one reason and one reason only:  he was bold and unapologetic about staring down the teachers unions in New Jersey.  He broke every rule in the strategy book and predictably, it has worked. 
(Memo to GOP hacks: throw out the book). 
Frankly, Christie is probably not conservative enough to really win a GOP nomination — and he has not even called for an end to public sector unions — yet merely the willingness to engage them in battle has made him a superstar. It has some folks so excited they are willing to overlook some ominous Jersey liberal tendencies.
Then there’s successful governor Mitch Daniels, a tiny man so bereft of excitement that we can only conclude his charisma bypass operation was a success.  And yet, due to his ability to balance the books in Indiana six years after quietly sweeping away collective bargaining power from Indiana government, he is considered by some a serious national player.  Serious is what they call you if you have substance but are too boring to have a TV show.
And we now have Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, whose name has suddenly started appearing on various pundits’ Presidential wish lists all over the place.  Why?  It’s not his oratory or his stance on taxes or on terror or on abortion.  Nope. It’s his stance on public sector unions.  His proposed legislation does not wipe out public sector unions per se, but it goes a long way toward neutering them.  This he knows is the key to long-term financial stability for state governments.  He sees it playing out in Indiana.
So let’s take stock of the situation today: We have a seminal moment coming up in a couple of days involving the budget, a potential government shut-down and Congress.  By the way, this is the same Congress swept into power with an anti-spending fervor just some 120 days ago.  This is supposedly the tea party issue.  But what are people talking about?  
The Middle East is on fire, and while folks tend to yawn at that nowadays, they don’t tend to yawn at four dollar gas tanking an economy.  All of that is happening in front of our eyes, but what are people talking about?  
Names like Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Romney, Thune, Cain, Huckabee, Bolton, etc have been floated around and talked about for months.  But who are people talking about now?  Christie, Daniels and Walker — which is to say, unions.
Are we seeing a trend here?  The government union story has captivated most all of us in the country who are not immune to anything important.  And it should, because this one issue touches and even embodies most of the big national discussions we are having today.  As Christie put it a couple of days ago on the fights around the nation and in Madison,  “if we don’t win this fight, there’s no other fight left.”  And he’s right.  This is not only a huge financial issue, this is a “heart and soul of the nation” issue.
Nobody is to be taken seriously on reducing government spending, be they in Washington or Madison or California or Illinois or anywhere else, unless they address  unsustainable and gold plated government employee compensation.  This is most serious in unionized states and is a serious issue for the Federal budget as well.  Unions are responsible for most of these outsized compensation packages and bloated bureaucracies. This makes the public sector union issue tailor made for the tea party mentality.
And of course, government spending and intrusiveness is a key headwind preventing any meaningful economic recovery.  Moreover, the more fundamental notion of producers versus takers runs to the heart of this issue.  The idea that government workers are, or should be, some sort of protected class immune to the winds of economic reality is one that Americans are beginning to reject as they see the raw entitlement mentality on display. 
As these displays go on, this momentum will surely increase.  People making 50K a year in a risky environment with no retirement are not thrilled about continuing to pony up for folks making twice that in a risk free bubble of government life.  And daily, more people realize that this is the equation in play here.
Another thing the public sector union issue does is really crystallize the biggest topics on our minds into one clean simple narrative.  We simply have too much government that spends too much money and has too many bureaucrats that terrorize businesses far too often.  This speaks to jobs, the deficit, freedom, and most of the issues that are front and center in our minds now. 
Rolling back public sector unions will reduce government spending and will also increase liberty and also unleash the economic engine of entrepreneurs at the same time.  It would also, not coincidentally, curtail the channeling of taxpayer funds to the Democratic Party, via union dues taken from paychecks and funneled to Democrat campaigns.
It is almost not an overstatement to say that the public sector union issue is a magic bullet for the nation and for the GOP.  For an electorate that is suddenly interested in learning the issues, this will resonate so clearly and address so much in one fell swoop. 
For anyone deep down in the pack of presidential hopefuls, it could be a quick elevator ride to the top in these early days. If you doubt that, please tell me why everywhere we turn we now see Christie, Daniels and Walker.  None of these three have talked about ending public sector unions nationally — and only Daniels among them has even feigned interest in the White House.
And yet, because they’ve taken a stand against public sector unions in their respective states, they are becoming national heroes.  The electorate is ready for this.  Hopeful candidates should take note. Your local GOP strategist won’t get it for you.

Presidential Bright Side

By on 2.25.11 @ 6:08AM

Several weeks ago I listed the most important, surface-level arguments why just about every seriously mentioned, potential Republican presidential candidate has drawbacks that should make conservatives severely nervous. The point was less to trash the candidates than to encourage them and their supporters to figure out the weaknesses against which they need to inoculate themselves — in order that they be better candidates in terms of winnability and ability to serve if elected.

The flip side of that column is that conservatives should also concentrate on each candidate’s most important strengths, so as to figure out how best to weed out the field. In that spirit, it is worth considering the following major points of interest. (Any failure to mention a particular candidate is entirely intentional. Some, like last cycle’s two runners-up, don’t merit mention. Others, such as Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jim DeMint, and several others, seem truly disinclined to run.)

Rick Santorum merits forgiveness for his one sin of once supporting Arlen Specter, because his record otherwise is one of the finest of any senator in the past two decades. He was a major player in welfare reform, a major rallying force for conservative judicial nominees, a stalwart for the sanctity of life, and a real leader — extremely knowledgeable — against threats from abroad. Yes, he lost Pennsylvania in a horribly Democratic year, but no other candidate has such an overall record of using political savvy and energy to beat the odds. He was given no chance for the House in 1990, but he won. He was given no chance for the Senate in 1994, but he won. He was given little chance for re-election in 2000, but he won while G.W. Bush lost the state. He also is a man of genuine and fundamental decency.

Mitch Daniels is becoming way, way, way too much of a Johnny-one-note on the budget, but he is so superb on that issue that he merits serious consideration. Meanwhile, his record if not his rhetoric on “social” issues also is terrific. Conservatives have developed a habit of looking too much at verbiage and not enough at proven conduct. Daniels’ conduct, at least until his abdication on right to work, has been A-1.

Tim Pawlenty’s record is solid (if unexciting) almost across the board, except for his formerly promiscuous dalliance with cap-and-trade globaloney. When asked a question he doesn’t want to answer (try asking him about ethanol), he is a truly inartful dodger. But his record on spending, on taxes, and on life is excellent.

Herman Cain is an inspirational American success story. The man is a proven commodity when it comes to turning around businesses, and he is a wonderful speaker. Philosophically, he seems as sound as can be. He’s a serious man, and also seriously likable.

John Bolton is smart as a whip, tougher than five layers of rawhide, and deeply conservative, as far as can be determined, across the board. He’s also one of the most articulate men on the scene today. He effectively gets his points across, and makes their good sense clear.

Sarah Palin has a genius for finding just the right turn of phrase to capture attention and get her message across. Her principles seem to spring from deep within, rather than being mere appendages of convenience. And her instincts are anti-establishmentarian, in an age where the establishment’s ramparts do need to be assaulted. (And yes, we can still use the word “assault” in a political context. And we know Palin won’t hesitate to do so, nor to “target” the word-police for justifiable ridicule.)

Newt Gingrich is a great ideas man. He also is a visionary, usually in the best sense of the word. He’s also tough as nails.

Haley Barbour knows how to build an unparalleled political operation. He’s a fairly reliable conservative, and is as good as they come at beating back the jackpot-justice trial lawyers.

Dark horse  Bob Riley of Alabama is the best governor that almost nobody has ever heard of. He looks a little like Reagan, has an infectious optimism, and successfully improved Alabama’s education, economy, and ethics. His ACU rating in six years in Congress was 97 percent. He’s tireless. And he’s a genuinely nice human being.

There. For now, that’s it. Ronald Reagan Reincarnate isn’t running. Maybe Jon Kyl of Arizona should run, although he will be 70 on election day. Former Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma is an impressive man who in the past has been mentioned, and maybe should be drafted. But for now, those above are our choices, and they really aren’t bad. It behooves us to find some enthusiasm for at least one of them; our nation can’t afford another Obama term, so we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nuff said.

Letter to the Editor

Quin Hillyer is a senior editorial writer at the Washington Times and senior editor of The American Spectator.


“Ron Paul: The GOP’s Henry Wallace”

Submitted by Trevor on August 15, 2011 – 11:37 pm EST
I’ve always admired Texas congressman Ron Paul as an American patriot and the best mind in the House of Representatives when it comes to financial and constitutional issues.However, the first responsibility of any government is to protect the security of its citizenry and it is here that I have issues with Rep. Paul.

That is why I decided to run this article b y Spyridon Mitsotakis from Big Peace.

I don’t agree with all of it, including the gratuitous attack on the John Birch Society, but it makes some important points that Mr. Paul’s highly honorable supporters should stop to consider.

The conspiracy-minded John Birch Society, long ago expelled from the conservative movement by Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr., is abuzz over Congressman Ron Paul’s “Blame America First” performance at Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate.

Oddly, it was Paul’s bizarre assessment of a nuclear Iran that impressed Birchers—and his many devoted supporters. “Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran,” said Paul. “The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries … Why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off?”

After arguing for Iran—the world’s leading terror state for 30 years and counting—to have nukes, Paul next implored America to negotiate with these terrorists, citing examples from the Cold War, invoking Eisenhower in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s: “In the fifties, we at least talked to them [the Soviets]. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What’s so terribly bad about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars and just bring our troops home.”

This distain for strong action against America’s enemies is nothing new for Ron Paul. A few months ago, he was asked his reaction to the elimination of Osama Bin Laden. His response? He stated that the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan “was absolutely not necessary.” Why? Because of the violation (alleged) of Pakistani sovereignty. Paul asked rhetorically ”What if he [Osama] had been in a hotel in London?”

Of course, Thursday was hardly the first time the libertarian congressman went out of his way to make excuses for America’s enemies, or blame America first. In 2007, when asked by Tim Russert, “How have we, the United States, provoked al-Qaeda?” Paul responded: “Well, read what the lead—the ringleader says. Read what Osama bin Laden said. We had, we had a base, you know, in Saudi Arabia that was an affront to their religion, that was blasphemy as far as they were concerned.”

Funny that Congressman Paul fancies himself a new Ronald Reagan, because it was Reagan’s pro-military investments which made the Bin Laden raid possible, plus much more. In fact, when Russert asked Dr. Paul about a 1988 statement made by Paul against Reagan, when Paul had proclaimed, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan administration,” the congressman didn’t back off. Paul declared Reagan had been “a failure.”

It is distressing to see such silliness having an appeal, especially among many college students, but, alas, it does.

And yet, in an ironic twist of fate, what we as Republicans are experiencing has happened before, but it happened to Democrats. The Democrats of the post-war 1940s had to deal with their own version of Ron Paul: Henry Wallace.

Like Dr. Paul, Wallace was a man of many great ideas. He was, in the words of Cold War historian Ronald Radosh, “an agricultural genius—a man who believed in the concept of scientific agriculture, and in the diligent agronomic use of statistical research; and in the diligent agronomic use of statistical research; and a scientist whose own research led him to develop and spread the process of hybrid corn—a process that revolutionized the yield of corn and led to an agricultural revolution.” In short, agriculture was to Wallace what monetary policy is to Paul.

Wallace served as secretary of agriculture and later vice president in the Roosevelt administration; that is, he did so until his weirdness and remarkable reverence for Stalin’s Soviet Union prompted FDR to switch him with Harry Truman in the 1944 election, making Wallace his secretary of commerce.

After FDR died, the new president, Truman, kept Wallace as secretary of commerce. With the war over, however, Wallace found himself in a tough spot. Troubled by the onset of the Cold War, he was driven to speak out on September 1946, and denounce the new threat to world peace: that is, the threat posed by America and Truman to that amiable peacenik Joe Stalin. Shortly thereafter, Wallace was removed from his position.

Importantly, Wallace was far from finished. Like Ron Paul, Wallace steadily denounced American foreign policy, as pursued by both Democrats and Republicans—and he pursued the presidency. Like Ron Paul, Wallace would not let those World War III seeking “Imperialists” working in the interests of “British Colonialism” get off easy. (For Paul today, replace the words “Imperialists” with “Neo-cons” and “British Colonialism” with “Israel.”) And when Stalin would do something unpleasant, such as take over Czechoslovakia in February of 1948, Wallace would explain that it was Truman’s fault. Wallace blamed America first, in spite of the blatantly aggressive actions of an obvious external enemy.

Thus, Wallace and some of his old friends from the Department of Agriculture started their own version of Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty.” They called themselves “Progressive Citizens of America.” Wallace’s supporters believed that the U.S. government was behind a conspiracy to create worldwide crises in order to subvert and dominate other nations for American imperial purposes. They insisted that “innocent” people, like Alger Hiss, were being unjustly persecuted. This group later morphed into the Progressive Party, from which Wallace would challange Truman for the presidency in 1948.

In 1948, presidential candidate Wallace proclaimed: “There is no real fight between a Truman and a Republican. Both stand for a policy which opens the door to war in our lifetime and makes war certain for our children. … The American people read of the fantastic appropriations that are being made for military adventures in Greece, Turkey, China—and billions for armaments here at home. … Two years ago I denounced those who were talking up World War III as criminals. Of course, the bulk of our people are not criminals, but it is possible for a little handful of warmongers to stampede them.”

And with his comrades, men like Harry Magdoff, Victor Perlo, and Charles Kramer, Wallace set out to win the presidency in 1948. His comrades failed to disclose to Wallace their other names, to wit: KANT (Magdoff), RAIDER (Perlo), and PLUMB (Kramer)—their code names as Soviet agents.

If it isn’t obvious by now, what had happened was that Wallace had been duped, and much to most of his party was controlled or influenced by the Communist Party. It took Wallace two more years after suffering a humiliating defeat in that election, and watching as the so-called Progressive Party backed the communists against American troops in Korea, for him to realize what was going on, whereby he denounced his own party and resigned.

But the impact of that campaign went far beyond its time. In a review on the back cover of a first edition copy of Curtis Macdougall’s ”Gideon’s Army,” a KGB-published book (1965) about the Progressive Party, radical left-wing academic Staughton Lynd wrote: “There might have been no Bay of Pigs, no Vietnam, no Santo Domingo if the ideas of the third party of 1948 had prevailed … those ideas of 1948 are alive today.” Just as Ron Paul, when asked by Tim Russert, “Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?” Paul promised he would not have. “Why should we unless the Congress declared war?” responded Paul. “I mean, why are we there? South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess.”

Needless to say, Ron Paul’s commendable embrace of free-market principles in no way makes him sympathetic to Soviet communism, as was the case for Henry Wallace. Ron Paul is obviously not pro-Soviet or pro-communist—quite the contrary. The commonality is each man’s breathtakingly bad positions on foreign policy and America’s enemies. And unfortunately for Ron Paul, it will be that twisted view of foreign policy that forever keeps him from his party’s nomination and the White House—just as it did Henry Wallace.

What good is sound money and an honored constitution, if your country is a smoking rubble?

To survive and prosper America needs sound money, a return to Constitutional disciplines and the best defense systems and military the country can afford.

Two out of three just ain’t enough.

Danger: Ron Paul’s Naive Views on Iran and Cuba

Submitted by Trevor on August 16, 2011 – 12:55 am EST
Ron Paul at the Iowa Republican debates.Rep. Paul, who is excellent on many other issues,  reveals both a shocking naivety regarding  Cuba and Iran, and a deep misunderstanding of the principles of free trade, when applied  to belligerent nations.

Florida Rep. Allen West has a much better grasp of these issues.

Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury. Allen West for Secretary of Defense or Commander-in-Chief.

“Why is Russian TV Backing Ron Paul?”

Submitted by Trevor on August 16, 2011 – 8:42 pm EST
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media During a time when Ron Paul supporters are complaining, with some justification, about the major media not giving their candidate’s success in Iowa enough attention, the Texas congressman is getting enormously favorable coverage from a foreign propaganda outlet—Russia Today television.One of Paul’s leading supporters in the media, if the term “media” is broadly defined, is Adam Kokesh, host of a show, “Adam Vs. The Man,” on Moscow’s English-language channel. On Monday, Kokesh used his show, which reaches many U.S. cities, to complain about the American media not giving Paul more favorable coverage, attacking the newspaper Politico for ignoring Paul’s second-place finish in a headline over a story about the results.

Kokesh uses disparaging language when referring to other Republicans, such as calling Rick Santorum “a homophobic theocrat” and Rick Perry a “Ken doll.” He regularly attacks the “corporate media” in the U.S. without criticizing the Moscow regime that pays his salary.

Commentators have typically described Paul’s second place finish in the Iowa straw poll as the result of “college kids” supporting him. AIM has noted the major media’s reluctance to credit Paul for his success in presidential primaries.

But the advent of Russia Today (RT) television, which has been accused of serving as a vehicle for Russia’s intelligence services, puts the question of media coverage of the campaign in a new context—one of foreign interference in U.S. politics. The channel is carried in the Washington, D.C. media market by MHz Networks, a subsidiary of Commonwealth Public Broadcasting, which receives $3 million a year from federal and state governments.

Several websites feature a series of videos from RT, not limited to the Kokesh program, that are extremely favorable to Paul’s campaign. The channel features attractive female anchors who speak flawless English and claim to have America’s best interests at heart. Many observers agree the channel is far more effective than the heavy-handed Soviet propaganda of the Cold War years.

But RT has been such an enthusiastic supporter of the Paul campaign that some observers think the channel, which is registered as a foreign corporation in the U.S., has violated U.S. election law. Foreign corporations are prohibited from “contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly,” according to the Federal Election Commission.

On June 6, 2011, Kokesh ended his show with remarks that go beyond merely reporting the news to endorsing Paul and highlighting a “money bomb” and fundraising for him. The transcript reads as follows:

“Kokesh: I’d like to end tonight on a note of some good news. We have some good news from the front lines of the Ron Paul “LOVEalution” with our money bomb on June 5. I was happy to donate to that. Yesterday we raised over one million dollars for the Ron Paul campaign. And I’m starting to figure out what electable means, because electable or non-electable is really a code word for ‘if this person wins, I’m not gonna be able to get as much money from the government.’ But if you want electable, please support the reelection campaign of President Barack Obama. If you want a President who’s going to honor his oath to the Constitution and your freedom; I urge you to support none other than Congressman Ron Paul.”

Kokesh publicly endorsed Paul, saying, “I urge you to support none other than Congressman Ron Paul,” and mentioned that he was “happy to donate to that [Ron Paul money bomb].”

A disgruntled U.S. Marine veteran who openly acknowledges his current role as a paid agent of Moscow, Kokesh says his program is an example of “libertarian television.” He has been backing Paul—and Paul’s organization has supported him—since Kokesh unsuccessfully ran for the Congress in New Mexico in 2010.

But Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America said Kokesh is masquerading as a conservative-libertarian in order to lure viewers into accepting a far-left agenda. Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin called Kokesh a “smear merchant” who wears “GOP clothing.”

Nevertheless, Kokesh continues to advertise himself as a Republican supporter of Ron Paul. “Ron Paul trampled the competition with logic and reason at the Ames debate,” Kokesh insists. During the debate, Paul said he would not object to Iran getting nuclear weapons and called for trade relations with Communist Cuba. Paul also complained about “war propaganda” designed to lay the groundwork for military action against Iran.

“Rep. Paul, who is excellent on many other issues, reveals both a shocking naïveté regarding Cuba and Iran, and a deep misunderstanding of the principles of free trade, when applied  to belligerent nations,” countered anti-communist blogger Trevor Loudon, a prominent critic of Russia Today.

On the Big Peace website, writer and researcher Spyridon Mitsotakis called Paul the Republican Party’s Henry Wallace, a reference to the Democrat considered so naïve about the communist threat that he ran for president on the ticket of the Progressive Party, which was dominated and manipulated by the Communist Party.

Some political observers think Paul’s campaign has the potential to undermine the Republican Party as it goes into the 2012 campaign and help guarantee Obama’s re-election. Conservative columnist Douglas MacKinnon says, “I spoke recently with a senior Democrat strategist who offered up a quite logical and incredibly frightening scenario for those who are desperate to vote Barack Obama out of office in 2012. His theory goes like this: That the Obama White House and the Obama re-election team are going to work overtime behind the scenes to push enough of Texas Republican Ron Paul’s ‘libertarian’ buttons to eventually have him declare as a third-party candidate.”

This theory holds that Paul could attract enough votes away from potential Republican voters to throw the election to Obama.

Russia Today Complains About Ron Paul Media Treatment

Submitted by Trevor on August 16, 2011 – 9:22 pm EST

There is no doubt that Moscow backed propaganda station Russia Today, is correct in their allegation that Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul does not get fair treatment from the US “mainstream media.”

But then, what GOP candidate does?

The interesting question is, why does Russia Today champion Ron Paul, but not more sound national security candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum?