New Gallup Poll Should Have Chicago Sweating…Profusely

SPOILER ALERT: In this post I’ll tell you why polls are looking very good for Mitt, but will also conclude by saying it only matters if we all dig in, do our part to get out the vote. So click the “ComMITTed” link!

I’ve now seen three commentaries on the latest Gallup poll, and they’re telling a consistent story: Chigago is, or should be, sweating profusely about these latest polling numbers. And the evidence is they are.

The Eye Candy: National Polls.

National polls are great and continue to give encouraging news of a Mitt 2-4% lead. The RealClearPolitics average of polls gives Mitt a solid 1% edge. The latest poll in that group, a Rasmussen poll of 1,500 likely voters from October 25 to October 27 (yesterday), gives Mitt a 3% lead. The underlying data show Mitt is winning more Republicans (90%) than Obama is Democrats (85%), but the big news on the national front is that Mitt is leading among independents by 11%. But national polls are really the eye candy of the presidential politics. Fun to look at, but in the end, not what will make the difference.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: State Polls

What’s really important, as we all know, is what happens in the electoral college. So what about those swing states? Well, there’s good news there, too, even if there’s lots of work to be done. Rasmussen’s electoral college map, based on Rasmussen’s own polling in each state, shows Mitt leading or tied in the critical swing states of Florida (50%/48%), Virginia (50%/47%), Colorado (50%/46%), Iowa (48%/48%), New Hampshire (50%/48%), Wisconsin (49%/49%) and, perhaps most importantly, Ohio (48%/48%). Given Mitt was behind in these states a couple weeks ago, and the press’ coronation of Obama as the narrow winner of the last two debates, the trends here are in the right direction: Mitt is gaining when it counts, and Mitt has an ability to improve, while Obama, who the voters have known for four years, is more likely to drop. Other states are also narrowing: Minnesota and Pennsylvania are closer than expected, if still leaning Obama. And no one thought Wisconsin would be tied a few weeks ago. If you don’t like Rasmussen’s numbers, you can turn to RealClearPolitics’ collection of polls and resulting electoral college map. RCP reports similar numbers for each of those states. It shows Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire in a closer race, with Obama having a slight lead in Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio, with Mitt continuing to make inroads.

So national and state polling shows it’s a very close race, Obama has a miniscule and shrinking lead in states he needs to win, and Mitt is either tied or within easy striking distance in all the same states. Very encouraging for a challenger.

But…there’s more.

The Zinger: the Latest Gallup Poll

The real story is that Gallup poll. Neil Stevens of Red State dissects Gallup’s numbers and says:

We always talk about the independent, swing vote in elections because those tend to be the persuadables. But party ID numbers matter as well, because those partisan voters tend to split better than 90/10 for their party.

It is for that reason that Gallup’s new partisan ID split, one that mimics what Rasmussen has been saying all along, predicts nothing less than doom for the Democrats, and a solid, national win for Mitt Romney this year.

…the numbers are brutal. In 2008, the Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage with leaners. In 2012 though, we’re in the post-TEA party era. Republicans now show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead with leaners. This gives us a range of party ID swings from 2008, from R+11 to R+15.

[Emphasis added.]

What does this mean? In a tight election with key swing states on the edge and voter turnout key, more of those voters self-identifying as Republicans than Democrats this year means things may be better than they look on the surface of the polls. Mr. Stevens then goes further and says what these numbers would mean if plugged into his own electoral college model. It generates an estimate of the electoral college results if more voters self-ID as Republican versus his baseline year. Here’s the picture:


(more…)

Obama’s Credibility is Severely Degraded by Battleships and Benghazi

Mr. Obama’s condescending comments in the debate last Monday evoked embarrassment for him as his stature seemed to diminish right in front of my eyes. As if this much younger man with virtually no leadership experience 44 months ago feels so elevated as to lecture a proven, seasoned leader such as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama’s hubris knows no bounds. The nature of narcissism is such that humility is rarely felt by a man that places high value in the power he thinks he possesses.

The WSJ editorial board published a short column titled, A Game of Battleship? Mr. Obama’s supreme confidence in slamming Governor Romney on the size of the Navy serves to only compound a growing sense among Americans that Obama’s credibility is eroding.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.

That was President Obama at Monday night’s debate, rebuking Mitt Romney for noting that the U.S.Navy is the smallest it’s been in nearly a century and may soon get smaller. It would be nice to think the President has been up late reading Alfred Thayer Mahan. To judge by the rest of his remarks on the subject, he hasn’t.

F/A-18C Hornet on Aircraft Carrer Deck (photo source: www.Navy.com)

We mean Mr. Obama’s well-rehearsed jibe that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets” than we did during World War I. This was followed by the observation that “we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Yes, Mr. President. And we have fewer of all of those things, too.

Many historians believe that President Reagan defeated the mighty Soviet empire economically; that by building a strong national defense, the Soviet Union was constantly keeping up until it effectively went broke.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the Navy counted 529 ships in the fleet, including 15 aircraft carriers and 121 nuclear submarines. In 2001 the Navy was down to 316 ships, with 12 carriers and 73 subs. In 2011 the numbers were 285, 11 and 71, respectively. On current trajectory, Mr. Romney said, “we’re headed down to the low 200s,” a figure Mr. Obama did not dispute.

The USS Wilbur, a guided missile destroyer with Mt. Fuji in background (photo source; www.Navy.com)

The President is right that the ships the U.S. puts to sea today are, for the most part, much more capable than they were 20 or 30 years ago. But that’s true only up to a point. Aegis cruisers and destroyers responsible for defending their immediate battle space are now taking on the additional role of providing ballistic missile defense. The tasks multiply, but the ships aren’t getting any additional missile tubes.
[...]
Concerns about ship numbers may seem passé. They also seemed passé to many in the late 19th century, which is exactly why Mahan wrote “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.” If we’ve again become cavalier about maintaining the freedom of the seas, it’s because a powerful U.S. Navy has accustomed us to indifference. Weaken the Navy further, and that’s a luxury we’ll lose.

Ultimately, it is the credibility of the POTUS that allows him to retain authority through reelection. One definition of credibility is “worthy of trust.” The complete erosion of trust was so complete with Presidents Johnson and Carter they lost a second chance to serve (President George H.W. Bush lost mainly because his vote was bifurcated with Ross Perot). It has become most apparent to me and many other Americans that President Obama is no longer worthy of our trust. Daniel Henninger’s weekly column in the WSJ is excellent on this subject: Suddenly, a Credibility Gap:

There have been only two events that could be said to have caused significant movement by voters in the campaign. One was the Oct. 3 Denver debate in which Mitt Romney disinterred political skills that stunned the incumbent and woke up a sleeping electorate. Race on.

The other is Benghazi. The damage done to the Obama campaign by the Sept. 11 death in Benghazi of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues has been more gradual than the sensation of the Denver debate, but its effect may have been deeper.

The incumbent president has a credibility gap.

The phenomenon of a credibility gap dates to the Vietnam War and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The charge then was that LBJ wasn’t leveling with the American people or Congress about Vietnam. The credibility gap was hardly the only thing that caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 election, but it eroded support for his presidency.

Vehicle inside the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11 (photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

Credibility gaps can be unfair things. They generally involve difficult foreign affairs in which presidents possess information and realities never revealed to the general public, presumably for its own good. That may be what this White House believes about Benghazi. But it is also true that only this White House knows why it allowed the Benghazi disaster to drip though the news from September into October, with no credible account of the attack, even as reporters for newspapers such as this one got the story out.

In time it was no surprise that people began to ask: Was the White House hiding something about an event of enormous gravity to protect the president’s candidacy? For much of the American electorate, that would be cause to start marking down a presidency.
[...]
Even by the standards of our celebrified culture, Barack Obama’s personalization of the American presidency has been outsized. He and his political team sought this aura. Hillary and the rest of the cabinet receded, while he rose. In Monday’s debate, Mr. Obama stumbled into a summation of his status: “This nation, me, my administration.” L’etat, c’est me.

Until now, it worked. Despite an awful economy, the president’s likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president’s credibility…
[...]
It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

Contrast Mr. Obama’s loss of trust or credibility with the following statement made by Governor Romney in Colorado this week when he walked out to speak at a much larger audience than he had expected; as reported in The Ulsterman Report:

“Lord, if this is your will, please help to make me worthy. Please give me the strength Lord.”


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

War on Women? Guest Post: Barbara Hiller Johnson

Barbara Johnson and her husband Mark Chapin Johnson are dear friends in California. Barbara is quite the satirist, but her Barbs are quite reflective, insightful and strike a chord that resonates with many Americans. She has a unique perspective on the ‘War on Women’! Enjoy.

Barb’s Barb

Warning! All who are offended easily please be warned the contents of this material are written by a satirist.

What ‘War On Women’?

Yesterday I was feeling nostalgic so I started perusing old black and white family pictures from years gone by. I came across a photo of my mother in her late teens lined up with a group of her girlfriends all wearing miniskirts, shorts or pants in the style of the old Annette Funicello movies at a camp ground. You might say, ‘so what?’ Well, this picture was taken in the late 1950′s in Iran. This is the same country where today a woman at the very least would be arrested for such indecent clothing. You see, I hear every day from our President, while hopping from university to university, preaching about this ‘War on Women’, and I keep looking to see where this war is being waged. I could certainly understand if the opposition candidate was a Rick Santorum type, but it’s Mitt Romney! You know, the moderate from Massachusetts! I guess if you say it often enough it becomes fact and there are plenty of young and impressionable women who believe this guy when he says if he’s not re-elected they would forfeit 50 years of progress. Hmmm! I bet there are a few women in Iran who would jump at the opportunity of by passing Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy and go back to those easy days and I have no doubt there are plenty of women in Egypt that are now considering the option of what it might be like if Barry Obama had stopped supporting the Islamists in their country. It is so very difficult to listen to 20 year old college girls trying to scare someone like me about the perils of a Romney Presidency. The poor girls are so brain washed that most of their cells have turned dormant and refuse to process thought on their own. Somehow, their college professors, the media and all the so called women’s groups reached into this immature casing of hormones and emotion and filled it up with the ultimate Halloween boogie man.

I must say I am not the most tolerant person I know, especially when it comes to low forms of IQ in human form. So, you can just imagine how hard it must be to smile and try to put some sense into a mind of a young girl who has not yet had the opportunity to lift a finger to support herself. She has been fed, clothed and educated throughout the years without a moment of doubt that all will be provided for her. She has a cell phone with internet connection, an assortment of computers, all the cute and cuddly accessories of a college life, most likely in pink, and of course the tiniest little skirts assuring the attention of the opposite sex. She speaks passionately about the terrible possibilities of how we might all end up barefoot and pregnant with men in charge of every aspect of our lives. I listen and listen while she spews the Chicago mob machine’s talking points on how to get women’s votes. I’ve heard it all before. I heard it when a 30 year old female law student testified in front of Congress about how she needed her Catholic University to pay for her contraception. I heard it when all the overpaid starlets of Hollywood spoke at the Democratic National Convention. How does one even approach such an empty vessel? My grandfather used to say the worse curse on the planet is be stuck with dumb person, and here I am. Funny, no one paid for my birth control and somehow I managed, and funny how thirty years ago no one I knew complained about paying for services such as a college education and most of us worked, sometimes, at more than two jobs! It’s funny how we all took pride in our achievements and never expected handouts. In my day it was shameful to be on any form of welfare and that included your parents. Our motto was ‘Hear Me Roar!’ and sadly yours is ‘Give Me More!’

I’m not sure what you think you’re achieving for women these days. If it’s equal pay you should look at the White House for paying its women staff 18% less according to government data. If you’re looking for sexual equality, well, you win, I guess. My only conclusion from your level of whining and expectation is that you truly believe that you are not now, or ever will be; competent enough to take care of yourself and that you would need either your parents or the government to provide for your every whim. My generation fought for the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, to achieve as far as we could or wanted to achieve, to be in charge our destiny. I’m saddened to see your generation is about expectations to have others do for you. Who is enslaved with shackles now, you or me? It is interesting that when it came to voting for a woman to reach the White House more women voted for the good looking younger man. Even Oprah, the queen of women’s issues put aside her life’s work to choose color over gender.

So little girl, I feel sorry for you. Not because there might be a chance any real progress in opportunity for women will be thwarted in the future, but for the lack of pride and individual accomplishment I see in you today. We have had a right leaning Supreme Court for decades and there has been no reversal in any legal choices for women. If you survived the farthest to the right President, such as Bush, I have no doubt you can survive Mitt Romney who has only proven in deeds to be a fair and considerate human being. Frankly, I am horribly offended by your lack of respect for the true achievement my generation and ones before mine allowing you to be an independent individual with the right to choose your own destiny. To see all that hard work and sacrifice be squandered by the agenda of one incompetent political figure and his ability to brainwash you is very sad indeed. My dear, you are selling your soul to be at the mercy of a man after all!

DNC Truth Translated Into Humor — Peter Schiff Style

Peter Schiff tops Watters’ World this week for simple humor! This glimpse into the minds of so many DNC delegates and attendees is priceless!

Hat Tip to Scott Lindahl for this find!



American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Lie of the Year – Democrats Omit Key Components of Ryan and Romney’s Medicare Plan

Last year, an unbiased fact-checking organization named Politifact awarded Democrats the honor of telling the “Lie of the Year” about Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. Democrats were given the award for saying that Paul Ryan wanted to “end Medicare as we know it.” 

For the first time in Politifact’s history, it seems that Democrats are eager to repeat the award for the same lie again this year. 

Now that Paul Ryan has been nominated as Romney’s V.P., the Democrats are hoping to scare senior citizens away from Ryan and Romney by endlessly repeating that Ryan and Romney want to “end Medicare as we know it.” Even president Obama has been repeating this falsehood.

So why is this a lie? First, Romney and Ryan both have said that they will not eliminate traditional Medicare at all. There will be no changes for seniors who are currently on Medicare. In fact, everyone age 55 and over will not have the option of choosing anything else besides traditional Medicare. 

For those Americans who are younger than 55, they will have the choice between traditional Medicare or obtaining private insurance where the government pays for the cost of purchasing private insurance as long as private insurance covers the same benefits and features as traditional Medicare. 

That’s it. No one is proposing “ending Medicare as we know it.” No one is proposing eliminating traditional Medicare for anyone. 

So during the next few months, you will hear a lot of Democrats saying that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney want to end Medicare. It is simply not true no matter how many times they say it. 

From the sound of the presidential campaign these days, we can anticipate the Democrats earning back-to-back trophies for ”The Lie of the Year.”


In conclusion, Gingrich did a great job discussing this very issue last Sunday during his interview on Face the Nation. I encourage you to watch the whole interview, but he starts talking about health care at 1:26 of the clip below.

If you are interesting in finding out greater detail about the Romney/Ryan plan for health care, click here.

BoJo finds London Isn’t as Prepared as He Thought

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who took offense last week at Mitt Romney’s comments that the previously-acknowledged security issues at the London Olympic games were “disconcerting,” found out yesterday just how hard it is to get all the details right.

Mitt’s statement would hardly seem controversial in the context made:

It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out…. There are a few things that were disconcerting: the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials. That obviously is not something which is encouraging.

These problems would have been troubling to someone like Mitt, who is used to having the buck stop with him, and who of course knows a thing or two about Olympic security, having run the 2002 Winter Games without incident just months after 9/11. The head of G4S, the security contractor for the London games, had already told the Home Affairs Select Committee of Parliament the security situation at the games was a “humiliating shambles” for his company and the country. G4S’ failure to recruit and train adequate security forces required impromptu use of the UK military to fill in the gaps. One UK report indicates that up to half the security forces on the ground at Olympic park are now service personnel. Disconcerting? Of course.

Notwithstanding, BoJo and the UK media took Mitt’s sentiments and did what some of our own media and politicians do so well: distorted, diverted and blamed someone else:

There are some people who are coming from around the world who don’t yet know about all the preparations we’ve done to get London ready in the last seven years…. I heard there’s a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we’re ready. Are we ready? Yes we are!”

Why did this reaction seem so natural to the US media and Democrats? Any-who, apparently Boris hadn’t checked the zip lines. The humor starts about the 0:30 mark.

Boris’ plight inspired an internet meme yesterday. (more…)

Obama Gives Pinocchio A Bad Name: Open Book? Transparency? Felon?

Obama gives Pinocchio a bad name…

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez


Get a load of this guy…

Obama says a candidate for the White House must be an open book… What a hypocrite!

July 10, 2012:

Notice O’Storyteller didn’t answer the question? How about how easily Obama lies?

His operatives are parroting the lie that Governor Romney is the most secretive guy since Nixon. We know what’s going on here… Tack a label on the opposition describing what YOUR guy is/has been in order to deflect and deceive. In psychological terms it’s called projection; it’s when one projects their problems onto other people:

It is “the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable – too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous – by attributing them to another”.

Obama has been anything but an open book and he’s the real outsourcer. He and his Scheme Team are hell-bent to project those negatives onto Governor Romney. When he ran for President, the main stream media conveniently lost their collective vetting magnifying glass. (Oh, but Romney’s days as a teenager? Pull out the microscope and publish page after page!)

Figuring out the real Obama is a puzzle which has occupied many *heroic modern-day Sherlocks.

More projection? Bill-Ayers-Tony-Rezko-Frank-Marshall-Davis-Obama implies Romney could be a felon? *Take a look at this clip regarding Obama and Davis from the new movie 2016: Obama’s America which will be shown in theaters beginning July 27th (begins @:15):

Regarding the continuing “felon” falsehoods blurting out of Obama talking heads, CNN’s John King spoke last week with four Bain Capital employees; three are Democrats, two are active Obama supporters. They confirm Romney’s truth – that he left Bain in February 1999 and had nothing to do with the company:

CNN Report Debunks Latest False Attack From Obama Campaign

Last week, CNN’s Anderson cooper, John King, and David Gergen reported on Team Obama’s despicable and desperate behavior on Romney/Bain and possibly being a felon. Even Obama-cheerleader David Gergen frustratingly concluded: “The Obama campaign is now playing a very rough form of politics and is that really what we were promised?” Rarely does one see such concern on Gergen’s face for Obama…

July 12, 2012 (begins @2:30, ends @8:44):

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey sums it up:

“Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.”


**Suggested reading for truth on ‘open book’ Obama:

ON THE BRINK – by MRC’s David Parker
The Amateur – by Ed Klein
THE GREAT DESTROYER – by David Limbaugh

Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Romney: Attracting the Undecided & Inspiring the Base

Three days ago, The New York Times posted Romney’s Potential Running Mates. The list provides a quick reference to those the media considers on the “short list.”

From time to time, MittRomneyCentral.com publishes the opinions of guests — these views are theirs alone. Following is an opinion of guest Troy Tate of Orange County, California.

—————————————————————————–

Troy Tate

This is the most important election in my lifetime. We have a community activist/agitator (Obama) in the Oval Office, whose overall objectives are to amass power and to spread the wealth so he can create a permanent underclass dependent on government. Four more years will likely tip the balance and forge an era of progressive/liberal rule. Obama has led America down the road to mediocrity and despair at home and to weakness and ambivalence abroad. But Obama’s got the media, Hollywood and an increasingly dependent group of Americans pulling for him. On the other hand, we have a challenger who can and will turn it around and keep us from falling off a cliff—Romney.

What does Romney do to win? Romney needs to fire up his base, including tea party conservatives, to give their all to his campaign at the grassroots level. Romney also needs to win over the hearts of the undecided voters who either voted for Obama in 2008 or didn’t vote at all. This undecided group of voters either might reluctantly vote for Obama or not vote at all in November. Yes, these voters may be dissatisfied with what’s happening with the government deficits, the economy, immigration and America’s loss of power and influence in the world but they don’t want to take a chance on another candidate who may make things worse. They’re not sure they can trust the challenger any more than they trust the incumbent.

How does Romney persuade these “swing voters” to go his direction? How does he earn their trust? Telling them what policies he will implement when he becomes President will not move the needle. Romney moves the needle when he connects with their hearts and helps them to see what’s at stake with our country, our freedoms, our children’s futures and our security as a sovereign nation. Romney wins them over when he shares from his core what he believes and why he believes it and passionately articulates his overall vision for America. He must focus on his “why”—why he is running and why his winning will matter a lot in their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Conservative principles articulately and passionately shared (especially on fiscal and economic issues) will win over the hearts of those teetering on the fence.

When Romney connects passionately with these voters and they feel his commitment, his beliefs and his vision, they will listen to him share what he will do and how he will do it. If Romney focuses on the policies he will implement without first connecting with their hearts, it will be much more difficult to sway these “on the fence” voters.

So this is what I would tell Governor Romney if we could talk over the phone or face to face about how to win this election:

Governor Romney, people are moved to trust you as a leader when you share those core beliefs, values and principles that are diametrically opposed to those of Obama. People are moved when the importance of what you are saying is not just in the words you select but in your voice, in your eyes and face, and in your gestures. People are moved when you speak from the heart and articulate conservative positions that survive any attacks because they are tied to timeless truths and core principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence. When these undecided voters truly start to sense what is at stake as they hear you describe it and start to feel that you are an advocate of values they hold dear, they will be motivated to support you. That’s what Reagan did so well to beat an incumbent. You can too.

Here’s my second and final suggestion to you, Governor Romney. Pick a running mate who not only is brilliant but also can clearly, effectively and passionately articulate your core beliefs, values and principles about American exceptionalism, limited government, religious freedom and free enterprise. I’ve considered those people who purportedly are on your short list and one stands strongly above the rest. Frankly, this potential running mate is inspiring regardless of the issue he addresses and regardless of whether he speaks contemporaneously at a rally, gives prepared remarks on the Senate floor, or responds to tough questions from the media. That individual is Marco Rubio.

If you haven’t done so already, listen on YouTube to Rubio recently being interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. Consider how clearly, boldly and persuasively Rubio articulates conservative principles and positions without making personal attacks or relying on meaningless platitudes. Jon Stewart was left almost speechless because he couldn’t catch Rubio in any of the snares he set up, including the statistics to support his claim that Rubio and his Senate Republican colleagues were the worst obstructionists ever. When Rubio explained why they did what they did, all the air came out of Stewart’s obstructionist charge. Jon couldn’t knock down any of Rubio’s arguments with logic, facts or even emotion. You will probably conclude as I have how Rubio as a running mate can be a critical asset to your winning the Presidency.

Choose Rubio, Governor Romney. Portman and Pawlenty certainly can fill important positions in your administration. Christie and McDonnell can continue to lead out at the state level as Governors of New Jersey and Virginia. Ryan can help us tremendously in the House of Representatives, but Rubio is the one who will fire up your base and who will motivate all those independent swing voters, including Hispanics and other minorities, to vote for your ticket. With America’s future and our prosperity and freedoms literally hanging in the balance, don’t choose a “competent” running mate that doesn’t know how to connect with and inspire the base and the undecided voters. Rubio will do that for you and with you. Besides, he’d make a great Vice President.

Troy L Tate, President of Torque Solutions LLC, is the author of The DNA of Successful Leaders: Tapping Your Natural Power to Win Friends and Influence Others and the creator of the audio program: The Missing Step: Complete Directions When Your Career Has Reached a Critical Crossroad. Troy is the father of four daughters and resides in Laguna Niguel, California with his wife and youngest daughter.

Lanny Davis Down on Obama’s Trashing: “Vicious People Work for the President”


Lanny Davis

Another well-known Democrat has joined the ranks of others who say the mechanics of Obama’s campaign aren’t working.

Lanny Davis, former Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton and liberal commentator for FOX News, has a big gripe with the Obama campaign. Not happy with the way Mayor Cory Booker (D- Newark, NJ) has been treated by the Obama campaign, Davis is disgusted with their method of operation. He says “vicious people are working for the President.”

The following statement about Booker elicited Davis’ ire:

“He’s dead to us,” one ranking administration official said of the prevailing feelings at the White House and Obama headquarters in Chicago. – New York Post


Video recording June 8, 2012

Davis @ :48: ”We’re both concerned [referring to himself and Clinton] about the tactics that his campaign is employing and we’re both urging him [Obama] to do what Tom Friedman has urged him to do [seize the high ground, not attack Bain Capital], what Cory Booker has urged him to do, which is to talk about his record rather than blaming the previous administration or going negative on Mitt Romney.”

Davis @ 1:50: “And you have vicious people who are working for the President – it’s not the President – who are saying that Cory Booker – one of the great supporters of President Obama’s policies is quote “dead” because he’s giving the President good advice – disagreeing with the Kool-Aid drinking people in the campaign who think the way to win the presidency is to trash the other guy, rather than to defend your own guy’s record.”

Interviewer @ 2:35: “Lanny, you’ve been in a lot of campaigns, as I have. This looks to me like meltdown to me.

Davis: Well, there is a very serious problem within the Obama campaign and you’ve just described it. It may be meltdown unless they come to their senses.”

Davis @3:08: “Can you imagine anyone in Chicago, on background, whispering in reporters’ ears – and I know the the reporters ‘cuz they’re telling me – describing anyone who disagrees with their tactics of trashing Mitt Romney – when you had John Heilemann in New York Magazine actually dropping ‘F’ bombs by people in the Obama campaign about Mitt Romney. The ten percent of the people in this country that are undecided don’t want to hear ‘F’ bombs. They want to know where does Barack Obama stand.


Lanny Davis’ verbal tongue-lashing on Team Obama is further evidence of the klutzy, clunky gear-grinding going on in the President’s campaign. I agree.

Davis implies that Obama isn’t responsible for the contemptible clatter – that he is simply rattling along in obedience to anonymous advice-givers. I disagree.

Obama cut his teeth on radical clap-trap. In my opinion, he not only consents to the blame game, but helps conjure up the the next move. He thinks America just misunderstands his bumbling.

But, hey. Keep it up.

Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Donate $5 to be automatically entered for the chance to be Mitt’s special guest on the road.

Democrats Believe Obama Can Lose, Worry Warts Growing

What are those little bumps growing on Democrats?

Check out the first paragraph of Mark Halperin’s article today on Time.com:

Between the Lines

With five months until Election Day, Barack Obama faces a grim new reality: Republicans now believe Mitt Romney can win, and Democrats believe Obama can lose … Last week’s anemic job-creation and economic-growth data was sandwiched between two Bill Clinton specials: in one television interview, the 42nd President lauded Romney’s business record as “sterling”; in another, he veered from the Obama line on the extension of Bush-era tax cuts … The failure to unseat Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker in a recall election was another bad sign for Democrats since it will rev up conservatives nationwide, including the kind of millionaires who gave big bucks to Walker’s effort … Veteran Democratic strategists from previous presidential bids and on Capitol Hill now wonder if the Obama re-election crew is working with the right message … The White House remains on a rough political trajectory, with a potentially adverse Supreme Court decision on the Obama health care law looming, additional bad economic news from Europe coming and more worrisome polling pending … Another danger for the President: the media freak show. Stalking that circus’ center ring is Matt Drudge, whose caustic website continues to help drive the news cycle with an emphasis on negative, mocking items about Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and their wives. The latest sign of Drudge’s potency: Ed Klein, the author of the virulently anti-Obama book The Amateur, was barred from major TV appearances and mostly ignored by the mainstream media, but the book’s prominence on Drudge’s website propelled it to the No. 1 slot on the New York Times nonfiction list.

(emphasis added)

Besides former President Bill Clinton, other Democrats are ringing the warning bell: Gov Ed Rendell (D-PA), retiring Rep Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Chris Coons, (D-DE), ex-Rep Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN), Mayor Cory Booker (D- Newark, NJ), former Rep Artur Davis (D-AL), Sen Mark Warner (D-VA), former Obama Economic Adviser Steve Rattner, and Obama bundler Don Peebles.

Yes, it’s early. Yes, a lot can and will happen in five months. And, Americans worried about the direction America is going must work harder than ever to elect Governor Mitt Romney. But…

The next time you see Obama or Axelrod, look closely.

Worry warts are growing.

Caused by growing woes... Worryoma Warticus.



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer