Hilary Rosen's Comments on Ann Romney: The Real Battle

Much has been written elsewhere about Hilary Rosen's comments on Ann Romney's suitability to be a voice for women in this country. The episode continues to be a gift to the GOP as it has not only backfired on the Democrat campaign ploy of painting the GOP as hostile to women, it has brought many former GOP factions together in astonishing fashion.

Contrary to popular sentiment, Hilary Rosen is not an example of the worst of what faces the country from the liberal side. She committed a gaffe of epic proportions. When one commits a gaffe, it is often something that came out in an unintended way. I believe this is the case here and why, on its own, the fallout would otherwise fizzle. However, the statements are not isolated. They are not a one-time slip-up. She did not misspeak.

Instead, her perspective is a symptom of the much larger underlying challenge we are facing as a country in the battle for hearts and minds and, therefore, the political mindset that will shape our society now and in the future. Her comments are a symptom of an underlying intolerance for values that exist outside pockets of liberal majority.

Let's examine the comment. "Ann Romney has not worked a day in her life." On its face it has caused a firestorm of push-back from conservatives and liberals alike. Hilary Rosen certainly did not intend to imply that stay-at-home mothers do not have challenges. She herself took some time off from her career to stay at home with adopted twins. Yet this is one of the beauties of the political world--what you say and what you mean don't always come across the same. She's paying the price for what she said.

Much Ado About a Money Market Fund

In the latest "gotcha" round, Romney detractors are attempting to push the theory that while Romney is attacking Newt for his Freddie Mac activities, Romney is profiting from investments in the same. Here's a quote from the Boston Globe:

Romney made the investment in a mutual fund called the Government Obligation Fund, managed by Federated Investors Inc. The fund invests in a wide variety of sources, including government agencies and US Treasury notes. But out of a $28.5 billion portfolio, nearly half of the fund was in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Bank notes, according to an SEC filing made in April.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/romney-pummels-profits-from-fannie-freddie/a2YN7UoFKXQHW1RzAiaW4J/index.html

People and pundits are trying make something out of Romney's investments in Federated's Government Obligation Fund? He "profited"? Here is the big secret that they are conveniently leaving out: the fund is actually a money market fund. Yes, as in $1 per share. As in always $1 per share, plus a bit of dividend income, kind of like interest. That's closer to an interest-bearing savings account than it is some high-flying high risk/return investment. There's your scandal.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday Season Everyone!

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

The Real Fools

The following quote is attributed to an article in a German-language paper in the Czech Republic knows as the Prager Zeitung. I was unable to find the article on their website--it does not appear to be all that thorough--however further research/commentary indicates it may have simply been a comment from a reader of one of their articles.

Nonetheless, the comment, translated from German into English, provides an interesting perspective into the American voting base. Could the comment be accurate with respect to the masses who supported and voted for Obama? Could we be about to repeat the offense in similar fashion on the GOP side? I'll let you be the judge.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president."

"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Huckabee: Tea party may 'need to get behind' Romney

From a Politico piece quoting some of Huck's comments to WABC's Aaron Klein comes further evidence of whom Huck may be settling on as someone he could become very comfortable with supporting.

The impact of this statement could be that former Huck supporters who were not inclined to support Romney under any circumstances, may now at least begin to consider it. Some will, some will not. It has the potential to change some of the dynamics in Iowa, now that Mitt is ramping up efforts there. The timing of Huck's comment could not be better for the Romney campaign.

Read more here.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Multi-Definitional Mitt

It's a liberal! It's a moderate! It's a RINO! It's a conservative!

It's Mitt Romney! Rarely, if ever, in the history of U.S. presidential politics has a candidate been defined in such a variety of ways. His detractors often define him as anything but conservative, while many of his supporters believe he will accomplish more of the conservative agenda than any other candidate. Who is correct? Is there validity to each argument?

For and Against

Those pushing the view that he is anything but conservative make a compelling argument. RomneyCare, protecting a woman's right to choose, support of gay rights, suggestions that man-made global warming may be real--these, and more, are evidence of a candidate who is anything but conservative.

Supporters, on the other hand, make the case that RomneyCare is better than what liberals would have implemented, that Romney is now committed to life, that same-sex marriage was not the focus it is now and he's against it, that he believes government has no business supporting green initiatives--and the arguments go on.

Yet another school of thought suggests that Romney has held differing opinions on many issues of national importance. The premise is that changes in stances indicate a lack of core values, that he will alter positions on the basis of prevailing political sentiment. Given the diverse stances listed above, it would not be unreasonable to come to such a conclusion and to question the extent to which he could be trusted to pursue conservative policies in office.

Yes, these are the ways in which Mitt Romney, the candidate for president, is defined. No wonder supporters and detractors argue on and on. With so much evidence out there, it's not difficult to make one's case for either side. Perhaps his biggest political blunder has been to allow multiple definitions of himself to be made. The question now is whether these differing definitions are reconcilable. Affirmative, but not by pushing any of the above definitions. Instead, we must venture deep into his thought process and what the realities were at different points in time.

Mitt Romney and Global Warming

For those who will not read Mitt's book out fear they may no longer be able to state the ongoing convenient insult that they don't know what he stands for, I just looked up what he wrote. Contrary to Romnots' hopes, believing that global warming may be possible, does not automatically translate into liberal support for cap and trade along with government programs and spending to make us compliant with leftist scientists' visions. Again, just to be clear: belief in global warming does not necessarily equal support for government intervention. I know some will be disappointed with this revelation, but they'll get over it.

He mentions what everyone knows, that people are split on whether global warming exists and whether mankind has any impact. He lists a number of solutions that people have proposed over the years so as to analyze them, which he clearly enjoys doing. He himself thinks that there is climate change, but that cycles have been going on naturally for thousands of years. He thinks humans could be contributing, but doesn't profess to know how much. He is against any steps that harm economic growth--what good is taking draconian steps that will have little or no impact?

Given that developing countries, especially China, are unwilling to go along, even if man-made global warming were real, why cripple one's own economy in the process? "Even extreme mitigation measure taken by the US and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Massive spending--or even worse, borrowing for emission reduction--would only make us less able to remediate the effects of warming later."

He wraps up his thoughts with his "no-regrets" stance and defines this as "taking action only when doing so is also consistent with our objective of reducing our dependence on foreign so

urces of oil. Internationally, we should work to limit the increase in emissions in global greenhouse gases, but in doing so, we shouldn't put ourselves in a disadvantageous economic position that penalizes American jobs and economic growth."

To put it another way, if we're doing things that stimulate our economy and job creation, and we see some opportunities to help make the world a cleaner place while we're at it, then why not. I think many of us have forgotten why we are against the liberals' view points on global warming and have become averse to any associated vocabulary, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, a cleaner world, etc. We aren't against cleaner air, people! We are against the government getting involved and regulating business away from job growth and economic strength in pursuit of some fantasy that we can change the direction of the global climate.

Soñador Sarah

You know the genre of movie. A horse who has lived a challenging and difficult life thus far meets her human parallel, an individual who is also experiencing the trials life can throw at us with no visible way forward. Perhaps the horse was injured and will never again be the same, nor will she be able to race at the same level as before. Maybe the owner is experiencing a devastating financial crisis which has the potential to be crippling on a number of levels. Or possibly, the horse simply does not have the temperament to be trained in the art of racing--she is too undisciplined. Perhaps her trainer is dealing with the demons of anti-authority behavior or has been too hard-headed to hold onto a job.

Their lives cross. There's an understanding that develops--they grow to respect each other in a way that results in a touching bond between them. They are both energized as they work toward a common goal, focused, gaining confidence every day. The big day of the race is upon them. They are significant underdogs--the odds, the betting, all show little or no trust on the part of the experts in their ability to place.

The race begins--suddenly, a slip, a fall, a mistake that puts her behind the rest. What chance can there possibly be? Is now the time to give up? No! The character that has been developed day by day, trial by trial will not let it happen. With a steely focus and bold courage, she recovers her footing and is off. At first it seems to the onlookers like nothing more than a noble attempt. And then, she catches up to one, then another, and another. Soon, it's the homestretch and she is neck and neck with the leader--who will have the final burst of energy to make the final push across the finish line? Yes! The triumph of the downtrodden, of the despised. Victory is sweeter than can be imagined.

Will Sarah enter the race? No one knows, perhaps not even her. If she does, it will likely be at a low point in the polls. She will have been written off by the pundits, the experts. They will say she has no chance to make up the difference--the others are too far ahead. But, among her strengths is one that people do not realize she has and that is a sense of the pulse of regular people. If she jumps in, she will play to her strengths, meeting the throngs, giving speeches, shaking hands, smiling, joking, building relationships.

We've not heard as much from Sarah in the past few weeks as before. Perhaps no one is less concerned about her showing in the polls than she is. Why? Because she knows that Americans love a come-from-behind story, they want to be part of history. And if she has done the right behind-the-scenes preparation, she can begin to surpass expectations from the outset. If she plays the script correctly, the big news daily and weekly will be how she is making up ground in the polls bit by bit, whether she can catch the next candidate, and the next.

Will the race turn out to be reality? Time will tell.

Are all movies fiction? Not "Dreamer".

Let Us March

When Cicero speaks, they say, "How well he speaks".
When Demosthenes speaks, they say, "Let us march".
--Adlai Stevenson, David Ogilvy, et al.

Which prospective candidates would you liken more to Cicero and which would you liken more to Demosthenes?

What factors in a candidate would cause you to "march"?

What fires up one supporter may be entirely different from what motivates another and will depend on factors and diverse as a person's desire to be led and their views on what the country's needs are.

Some are moved by a candidate's background and ability to connect with them. Others consider intellect and competence to be key. Yet others may be more influenced by specific policy stances.

Once campaign season is here, the answers may become clearer as candidates declare, as they engage in debates, make speeches, work the crowds and otherwise put themselves out there for all to see and compare.

Who will influence the undecideds? Who will pull supporters from other camps? Whose supporters will be the most effective in convincing others?

The dynamics of this election cycle will be fascinating to observe.

How We Got To Where We Are

We each arrive at our political views and choice of a candidate for President by way of experiences, people who have influenced us in life, and other factors and insights--each has had a unique journey thus far. Do supporters of a particular candidate have certain characteristics in common? Why do millions rally around just a few front-runners--is it more about the candidate or more about the supporters?

How did you arrive at supporting your candidate?

I grew up in a conservative family. My father experienced gaining advanced degrees at one of the nation's elite universities prior to programs that pushed admitting minorities. His education qualified him to teach at the university level anywhere. Initial interviews made it clear that due to his political views, he was not wanted, even by other academic Hispanics. "We like you, but don't feel you'll fit in here." This was in the mid 70s--a time when the radicalization of America's universities was in full swing.

My own career took me to Europe from 1993 to 2004, where I experienced cultures, languages, and, of course, true socialized medicine. As a user of the system, it was great. I had to wonder, though, who is paying for this? Clearly, it was the tax payers--as my pay stub proved. During this time period, I was less involved with what was happening politically across the pond here in the States.

It was also during this time, the mid 90s, that my younger brother was in college. He roomed with a few guys there and continued to room together during their first jobs after graduation--they remain close friends to this day and try to visit and catch up whenever the opportunity presents itself. I vaguely remember hearing back then that two of them were from back east--Massachusetts. I thought I had heard their father was a businessman who was getting into politics.

The Presidential election of 2004 was interesting, but not all that riveting for me as I was still getting used to life back in the States. As the race for 2008 was heating up, I began looking at candidates and settled on Romney. What attracted me was a) his education--I also had a business education, b) his executive experience in the investment banking and consulting world--two areas for which I had a lot of respect and some insight, and c) his experience with the Olympics and as governor--I had always wished that someone with the unique insight derived from that sort of combination of private sector and public sector work would run.

Leaders who motivate me have core values and principles as well as those who have intellect, knowledge, a desire to understand the issues on which they are making decisions, and who have the smarts not to be duped. The ability to implement conservative principles was important as well and I felt Romney's experience had prepared him to undertake the daunting task of overhauling all things Federal government-related to make it more efficient.

One of my own personal characteristics is to try to look at situations from a variety of angles before making decisions. I'm quite analytical and I appreciate the same on the part of others. I avoid absolutes and this includes politics and candidates. A person who can build up the opposing argument and then make an even more compelling case for their own has the utmost credibility--hence my tendency to look for the positives in other candidates.

A few months ago, I was chatting with my mother. It had occurred to me that my brother's roommates and friends may have been two of Mitt Romney's sons--he just never volunteered or was vocal about it, probably because he just saw them as his buddies. She confirmed that's who they are and a few other tidbits, such as the fact he's been to their New Hampshire home a few times.

Believe it or not, I have not pumped him for information. Maybe I'll see if he'd be agreeable to be interviewed. Strangely, his relationship with their family hasn't had any impact either way on my assessment of Mitt. If anything, I'm more cautious about my support of him due to not wanting to be influenced in any way other than by my own independent analysis.

That's a bit of my story. What's yours with respect to your candidate?

Sarah Palin--A Better President Than Campaigner?

Whether we think they will run or not, many candidates appear to be perpetually in campaign mode. Many are taking steps, such as hiring staff, making speeches, writing op-eds and otherwise ramping up the machine to get in the race for the GOP nomination should they so decide when they feel the time is right.

Sarah is no exception. She benefits from her experience--the good, the bad, and the ugly--on the ticket with John McCain. She has developed an understanding of the power of publicity to create and destroy personalities. So why, then, with all this experience in the campaign world, including her success in Alaska, might she be better suited for the actual job of President than that of a campaigner?

The answer lies in her political stances. The world of campaigning is all about getting your message across--who you are, what you believe in, what you will do as President that will benefit voters and the country in general. Campaigning involves marketing, debating, interviews, shaking hands, stump speeches, and much more--all areas in which Sarah has definite strengths, but also perceived weaknesses. In a Palin Presidency, very little of this world will apply.

Sarah is conservative. Not only that, she has a solid set of political and governing principles that require dismantling a significant amount of what government does, even in a Republican world. Her thought process has a slight libertarian streak in that less is more when it comes to government. She would draw more from her approaches while governor in Alaska--where what she accomplished in a short amount of time was enough to convince many that she was right for the 2008 ticket--than from what currently occupies her time and the attention of the public.

Sarah the President would resemble Sarah the Governor, rather than Sarah the Campaigner and celebrity. Accomplishing her objectives wouldn't require intellectual banter among elites. It could well be enough to surround herself with expert advisers committed to the same simple principles of limited government and limited international engagement and let these principles dictate the answers to challenges her administration would face.

Other Presidents and candidates have complex solutions for the country's problems and thus require the intellect to be able to delve in, explain, and defend. Even then, they rarely succeed in convincing those who need convincing, let alone implementing. Yet, they continue in campaign mode. Only the beard-scratchers are satisfied in their never-ending analysis.

As President, Sarah would retire from campaigning. Her policies don't lend themselves to complex discussion--they are simple, hence the meme she is not knowledgeable. Eliminating programs and getting government out of our lives just isn't all that interesting of a topic in the mainstream media and for the people who watch.

A Palin Presidency would not be drama-free as detractors will continually look for evidence to support their views of her. Fortunately, Sarah would be too occupied with weightier matters to be concerned.