Since the general election began in earnest in early May, Mr. Obama and team have had a really tough month. He has had very few political gains and lots of chinks in his armor; some of them self-inflicted.

Karl Rove effectively lines out President Obama’s month of May for us in his weekly Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled, “Obama’s Campaign Is Off to a Rocky Start.”

[...]
First, Team Obama politicized the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death on May 2 by releasing a video claiming that Mitt Romney would not have ordered the strike. The video didn’t pay much tribute to the Navy SEALs who actually carried out the perilous mission. The whole thing came across as ungracious and egocentric.

On May 4, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that only 115,000 new jobs were created in April while 342,000 Americans became so discouraged that they dropped out of the workforce. When unemployment creeps down because people are leaving the labor force, it’s evidence of a sick economy, not a robust recovery.

The next day, Mr. Obama formally kicked off his re-election campaign with a rally at Ohio State University. But “there were a lot of empty seats,” according to the Toledo Blade. Vacant chairs and a nearly empty arena floor are not good optics for a political campaign. To add insult to injury, a New York Times reporter described it and a Virginia rally later that day as having at times “the feeling of a concert by an aging rock star.”
[...]

As I thought of this general election cycle, more than a few times I have thought to myself, “I sure hope that Obama does not take Biden off the ticket and replace him with someone more articulate; more eloquent.” Especially after his “Meet the Press” interview that first Sunday in May! Love this quote included by Rove:

…that he was “absolutely comfortable with . . . men marrying men, women marrying women.” The White House had to scramble, immediately reaffirming Mr. Obama’s support for traditional marriage. But three days later, he told ABC’s Robin Roberts, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

Why the shift? Newsweek’s Andrew Sullivan credits the need for campaign dollars from gay donors and votes from now apathetic young men and women under 30. New York Magazine’s John Heilemann quotes unnamed White House aides who say that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signing of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage led Mr. Obama to shift privately early this year. According to Mr. Heilemann’s reporting, Mr. Obama was going to wait a month or two to maximize the political payback from a public conversion, and the need for campaign cash and youthful voters was part of the equation.

Whatever the reasons, the president’s announcement came across as political: 67% in a May 11-13 CBS News/New York Times survey said the president announced his public support for same-sex marriage “for political reasons” while 24% said he did it because “he thinks it’s right.” A USA/Gallup poll of May 10 found only 11% of independents said they would be more likely to vote for him because of his shift, and 23% said they would be less likely.

While this kerfuffle played out, West Virginia and North Carolina Democrats held their presidential primaries on May 8. In West Virginia, 40% chose Keith Judd, a felon in a Texas federal correctional facility, over Mr. Obama. In battleground North Carolina, nearly 21% expressed “no preference” for president.

Then on May 11, Mr. Obama traveled to Nevada to tout the success of his “Hardest Hit Fund,” launched two years ago, in staving off foreclosures. But a government report that morning revealed it had helped only 30,640 homeowners, not the three million to four million the administration originally promised.

On Wednesday, the news was that Mr. Obama’s fundraising dropped to $43.6 million in April from $53 million in March. At this stage, he will be hard pressed to reach his 2008 total of $750 million, let alone the $1 billion goal his campaign set last year.

The president has trailed or been tied with Mr. Romney in 16 of the last 29 Gallup five- and seven-day tracking polls. This during a period when, with significant organizational and money advantages and no primary opponent, he should be pounding his Republican challenger in the polls.

In 2008, Team Obama ran a first-rate campaign. They made relatively few unforced errors and capitalized on openings. Things look very different this time. The re-election effort is off-key and off-balance, making the president’s strategic weaknesses more apparent. His record is uninspiring. He has no explanation for his first term and no rationale for a second.

Mr. Obama may have difficulty leading and governing but has been considered an effective campaigner. Events in May are starting to call that into question.

[emphasis added]

“Our democracy poses problems and these problems must and shall be solved by courageous leadership.” ~ Charles Edison

UPDATE: Watch the latest Crossroads Ad:

***Please note that the following article is solely the opinion of the author and does not speak for or represent Mitt Romney or the Romney campaign.

President Obama’s announcement last week that he “supports gay marriage” helped provide a clear contrast between Obama and Romney and will almost certainly have a major impact on the elections in November.

History has shown that the issue of gay marriage is a powerful vote mover. As Politico reported last week: 

For all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.

As many political observers have noted, Obama’s announcement moves the electoral map more in the favor of Mitt Romney.  In particular, Obama’s move helps tilt “6 or 7 key swing states” toward the Romney camp. These states are namely North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio.

In North Carolina voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state just one week ago. In another crucial swing state, Florida, a similar ban was passed in 2008. Ohio, Michigan and Missouri also passed similar bans in 2004. Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin passed bans in 2006 and Arizona in 2008.

A lot has been said lately about the shifting support for gay marriage over the last decade. Many point to a recent poll saying that a slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage. However, in regard to polls, keep in mind two key facts. #1) During the upcoming election, the swing states matter a lot more than the national average. And the swing states are showing a strong inclination away from same sex marriage. And #2) Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently released this analysis about polls on gay marriage:

Does a majority of the country really support gay marriage?

As is often true in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, but a CBS News/New York Times poll out today shows that only 38 percent support it.

The difference: Gallup gave voters just two options — support or oppose — while the CBS/NYT poll added a third, civil unions.

When given that third choice, polls show that it draws significantly from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage camps, but in the end, overall support for gay marriage drops well below a majority.

Notably, then, the civil unions choice also appears to be drawing some support from gay marriage opponents — a reflection that there is plenty of support (62 percent) for some kind of legal recognition of gay couples.

For Obama, a candidate who has been angling to the political center, his announcement represents a hard turn to the political left. In my humble opinion, I think it is going to be too far left for most people – an overstep where Obama got in “a little over his skis.”

Take for example, the new shirts for sale on Barack Obama’s website. Some of the slogans on the shirts read, ”My two moms support Obama” or “My two dads support Obama.” 

These are not center-of-the-road phrases. I don’t think these kinds of phrases would be seen in virtually any election in the US, even predominantly democratic ones.

Another shirt says “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repealed 12/22/10.” I am not sure that is a slogan you want to publicize very broadly since most in the military were opposed to repealing DADT. 

While there is little doubt that Obama’s newfound support for gay marriage will energize the LGBT community as never before, it will also energize the even larger group of social and religious conservatives. In the swing states and among America’s silent majority, the results of Obama’s announcement will tip the scales of the election more toward Mitt Romney. 

As a side note, I think it is important to remember that even though gay marriage has emerged as a big issue in the upcoming election, Romney still plans to focus primarily on the economy and jobs as his main message to voters. 

10 days ago, Kimberly Strassel wrote about a short list Obama had compiled of people that had donated money to the Romney campaign. Basically, her article states this “enemies list” was the first of its kind since the Nixon years (David Parker also cited it here).

One of those Romney donors was Tom O’Malley of Florida. He wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal that the Journal published today. It is is very brief:

Kimberley Strassel’s April 27 Potomac Watch “The President Has a List” reports some serious allegations. I have not made too many lists in my more than 50 years in business, so I was quite surprised to see my name on President Barack Obama’s “enemies” list.

My most recent business venture, PBF Energy, bought the closed-down Delaware City Refinery, spent $400 million to fix it and reopened it with a United Steel Workers unionized work force. More than a thousand high-paying jobs were created in a state where unemployment had become a real problem.

PBF also bought a refinery in Paulsboro, N.J., one that was scheduled to close. Thus, more high-paying unionized jobs were saved in New Jersey.

If this gets you on the enemies list, it would be good for the country if the list were expanded. It would seem that I got on the list because I gave to the Romney PAC. I have also run a fund-raiser for New York’s own senator, Chuck Schumer, who I believe is still a Democrat. I hope this doesn’t get me on another list, because the amount involved exceeded the Romney contribution.

I can’t believe that the president has authorized such a self-destructive strategy and can only suggest that he and his administration may want to disown the author of the list, whoever that may be.

Tom O’Malley, Executive Chairman, PFB Energy, West Palm Beach, Fla.

Nixon was desperate when he maintained an enemies list. So is Obama.

For about a month, I have been intending to write this piece but didn’t have the courage to write it until today; not until somebody smarter than I wrote what I have been wanting to.

Credit: The Economist

I acknowledge right up front that I will likely anger some people that read this. That is not my intent at all. There is no question that the choice of a vice president by Governor Romney is very important for America as that person could become president in a heartbeat. Absolutely! However, I argue here that there is almost no value whatsoever in publicly speculating and debating who that person will be, many months ahead of when Governor Romney will make the decision. It is a well accepted truth that the selection of a veep has little to no impact in a presidential contest, except in the negative (remember unprepared Palin?).

My assertion is that all public discussion and debate of who Governor Romney’s choice in a running mate will be is a complete and utter waste of time. Especially when considering the many hours a week devoted to this one topic in radio and television talk shows. That said, I believe there are two exceptions to this assertion, both of which I consider to be of minimal value. The two exceptions are:

1. Entertainment Value
2. Potential Candidate Response Value

First — the entertainment value. This is the main reason we see all the public speculation and discussion. We all enjoy speculating about everything. It is fun to think about who might be catapulted from a given strata to number two! I love the speculation myself. Heck, Nate developed our site’s “Veep Madness” awhile back — It is brilliant and fun! I see all the public speculation about the veep choice much like using Instagram (I just got it on my Droid). It is fun, a novelty, and a complete waste of time, except for the entertainment value. It is much like watching Modern Family. There is no value in spending time watching Modern Family except being with those you love and to laugh, right?

Second — the potential candidate response value. Since so many possible veep candidates are asked the question, one of them might say something really stupid like, “Are you kidding me? I would love to be picked as vice president by Mitt…I think I am the best person in all of America for that position!” So, there is a little value in the public discussion on this point — very little and that value is as a negative determinant.

Do you trust Governor Romney’s judgment in this decision? I do. What person alive has better analytic skills than Governor Romney? What about judgment? Exactly. Do you think the person he ultimately chooses will be properly vetted? Okay then. What value is there in all the public debate and speculation? There is none. It is pure entertainment value. That’s it. Am I right? Am I wrong?

Look what Karl Rove wrote in the every first three paragraphs of his latest Wall Street Journal opinion piece:

We’ve entered the silly season when vast numbers of words will be expended on who Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate should be. Since the actual announcement is likely to be made shortly before the Aug. 31 GOP convention, we’ll have to endure three-and-a-half months of pundits handicapping prospects.

This exercise is largely useless. Who thought at this point in 2000 that the vice-presidential nominees would be Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, or in 2008 Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?

The person who matters most in this decision, Mr. Romney, appears to be approaching it with appropriate seriousness, appointing a longtime trusted aide, Beth Myers, to vet possible running mates.

[emphasis added]

I think Rove is wrong on one point. The exercise is not entirely “useless.” There is entertainment value, right? I mean the sitcom Modern Family makes a lot of money and Instagram is worth $1 billion — so there is value — its not entirely useless! I love to disagree with Karl Rove! Here are two of my favorite lines from Rove’s Op-Ed:

Having played a role in this process, I know that if done well this will be a political proctology exam for each individual considered. [...] This is not an activity for the squeamish or reticent.

Entertaining! And to the point of having almost no influence whether a presidential candidate will win or lose the election?

Running mates haven’t decided an election in more than a half-century. For example, research by Bernard Grofman and Reuben Kline, political scientists at the University of California, Irvine, suggests that the net impact of the vice-presidential picks in 2008 was roughly one-half of one point and is generally less than one percentage point. Presidential elections are rarely that close.

So why do we all spend hours and hours speculating on something of no value? His last sentence wraps the piece well: Read more…

Prediction: Mr. Obama or Mr. Axelrod will lose their temper in public before November 6th. Axelrod came this close to blowing a gasket at minute 5:45. And this is Mr. Obama’s best guy! Watch his eyes, body language, stuttering, interrupting Wallace, talking over him, raising his voice (FOX video). Obama’s team is scared (check minute 8:20 — Classic!). Related prediction: Obama will fire Axelrod before November 6th. BTW, Axelrod was interrupting Candy Crowley on her show this morning because he did not like the nature of her questions.

Evidence abounds that Mr. Obama and team are scared. His fear, and that of his surrounding team, was described well a week ago by David Parker in his Op-Ed “Obama’s Rage!” Mr. Obama is getting good marks by voters currently for being a nice guy — “the kind of guy you could see yourself sitting down to have a beer with” as they say. Just what we need — a good ole boy that really understands the average guy!

What about decisive leadership and accomplishment? Are we not yet “over it” when it comes to Mr. Obama’s blaming others and taking credit for the successes of others? I am over it! There are lots of people like Obama in business; they never last. They are the talkers, not the doers. They can talk a good line but can rarely execute.

I strongly believe that David Parker is right; Obama is scared. Since the 2008 election cycle, the Democrat party has lost voters to independents and Republicans. Just yesterday, a U.S. Senator publicly stated he’s not sure he can vote for Mr. Obama for president (many Democrats have shifted their support to Gov. Romney as evidenced in part here). And here.

Numerous sources are reporting “anemic” fundraising by the Obama camp. To be certain, they are in a better position financially than the Romney campaign, primarily due to the fact that Mr. Obama had no primary challengers against whom to defend. However, Obama’s fundraising efforts are far behind projections of both the Democrat and Republican political leaders. The Obama campaign is now asking Pres. Clinton to help out (WSJ):

Mr. Clinton is likely to assist the super PAC, called Priorities USA Action, whose anemic fundraising total thus far has unnerved the Obama campaign and senior Democrats.
[...]
“They’re asking for him to do anything,” the Clinton friend said. “Whatever he’s willing to do—to the extent they can get people in a room with him.”

The New York Times is also reporting that the Obama campaign is scrambling to raise more money.

From Wall Street to Hollywood, from doctors and lawyers, the traditional big sources of campaign cash are not delivering for the Obama campaign as they did four years ago. The falloff has left his fund-raising totals running behind where they were at the same point in 2008 — though well ahead of Mr. Romney’s — and has induced growing concern among aides and supporters as they confront the prospect that Republicans and their “super PAC” allies will hold a substantial advantage this fall.
[...]
“They clearly are feeling the pressure,” said one major Obama fund-raiser, who asked for anonymity to characterize his conversations with campaign officials.

Two days ago, Toby Harden wrote a compelling piece titled, “Barack Obama’s re-election bid is already in deep trouble”

Obama will keep trying to talk about something, anything other than the economy — contraception and dogs being the most recent examples — but Romney has the relatively straightforward task of being disciplined enough to talk relentlessly about jobs and the economy.

Certainly, Romney will never win the “guy you’d like to have a beer with” test, as Bush did in 2000. But 2012 will not be about that — there’s more at stake than in 2000. And as Nate Silver argues, Romney has room to grow and favourability ratings at this stage are unreliable indicators for November.
[...]
Even without factoring in the likely negative political impact of, say, Obamacare being struck down by the Supreme Court in June, Obama’s re-election bid is already in deep trouble.

Only a fool would underestimate Obama’s campaign machine, his ability to raise money and the fact that he remains personally likeable to a majority of Americans despite the state of the country. Anyone who argues at this stage that Obama is doomed to defeat is deluding themselves.

But the reality of this campaign is that it is likely to be brutal, very close — and could well result in Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President of the United States next January 20th.

[emphasis added in several places above]

Obama is looking in all corners for votes. He has decided to pick up the frequency of appearance on comedy shows in the hopes of appealing to young voters. See article in the Daily News here.

One simple method to measure the progress or success of a major political campaign is to simply observe which campaign is on the defensive most often. The candidate and his team that is on defense most is failing, no matter what the polls say at the moment. Governor Romney knows this well and it is one reason he has been all over Obama’s record.

Some pundits have criticized Governor Romney lately for not communicating his plans more specifically and how he would govern as president. There is plenty of time for that. Right now, each side is in the process of defining the contest and defining the other guy. In my opinion, Governor Romney is doing a far better job of defining Mr. Obama. Governor Romney is in the process of backing Mr. Obama into a corner. He is very effective at this.

As Mr. Obama becomes more and more cornered, he becomes more and more dangerous and he will lash out. When he does, we will see the real man.

One big reason we need President Romney to take over in January 2013:

Artwork by Michael Ramirez

As the nomination looks more and more like a lock for Governor Romney and the VP rumor begin to swirl in media, right now is a perfect time to launch our own pick-your-VP-candidate tournament!

The 32-candidate bracket is laid out in the image below. Just like NCAA March Madness this is single elimination. Voting for Round 1 will close Wednesday at midnight.

Please note the following:
-This is not an official Mitt Romney website
-We know Romney hasn’t completely sealed the nomination
-This poll is simply for fun and has no bearing on the real selection
-We don’t seek to influence Governor Romney and his campaign with the outcome of our poll

Have fun!
~Nate Gunderson

CLICK HERE TO CAST YOUR VOTES

The Romance of Delegate Math

If you’re like me you find yourself looking at polling data and calculating delegate counts in your head. If Mitt takes so many delegates in DC, Maryland and Wisconsin, that puts him at a new total of X, extending his lead over Santorum by Y, and making Rick need Z percent of the future delegates to win…. Okay, maybe you’re not like me.

It may sound boring to the uninitiated, but it’s the math behind propelling the most qualified candidate in the race to his party’s nomination, step one in replacing Barack Obama.

What’s at Stake Tuesday: Long View

What Obamacare teaches us. In case you don’t think replacing Barack Obama is a big deal, reflect back on the biggest political story of this week. Okay, not the open mic incident. I’m referring to our hearing our president’s Solicitor General argue to the Supreme Court why Obamacare’s Federal mandate is constitutional. The traditionally conservative justices asked for a rationale that could possibly limit Congress’ power under the commerce clause should they accept his argument. Meanwhile, the traditionally liberal justices tried their best to supply that rationale. Based on the impressions of those reporting, the decision appears headed for a familiar 5-4 vote against the law, with the four traditional conservatives on one side, the four traditional liberals on the other, and middle-of-the-road Justice Kennedy likely voting with the conservatives. But time will tell.

Shape of the Court to come. As someone concerned about finding real limits to Congress’ power (history proving we need limits to preserve our freedom), and knowing the general police power was intended to be reserved to the states (making the difference between Federal Obamacare and state Romneycare night and day), I thank my lucky stars we had presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush to appoint the four conservative justices currently on the court. The liberal justices? Two from Clinton, two from Obama. By way of preview, the next president may have a chance to replace not only the lead conservative on the court in Scalia (currently 76 years old) and a staunch liberal on the court in Ginsburg (79), but iconic swing justice Kennedy, who has made the difference in many 5-4 decisions (currently 75 years old). In other words, who the president is matters, a lot, not just in signing and vetoing laws, but in appointing justices to the court who can protect the Constitution for a generation to come (a combined half-century now for Scalia and Kennedy).

MORE REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT AND AN ESTIMATE OF DELEGATES AWARDED TUESDAY BELOW! Read more…

This week, a number of news outlets have reported a conspicuous drop in Santorum’s typical strident rhetoric against Gov. Romney. I believe this is a less than subtle way to position himself to exit the race. Yesterday’s New York Times reported,

Rick Santorum has eased up on using phrases like “worst Republican in the country” when tearing into Mitt Romney. And he is no longer saying that a vote for Mr. Romney would be basically the same thing as a vote for President Obama.

Meet subdued Santorum.

After several highly publicized remarks that left many in his party questioning whether he had crossed the line in attacking a fellow Republican, Mr. Santorum has struggled to find the balance between being a tenacious underdog and leaving himself open to criticism that he is just an embittered also-ran.
[...]
The sudden restraint has surprised some of his supporters.

[emphasis added]

Senator Santorum is not stupid; think about it. Just a few days ago, he rips Gov. Romney publicly and that very same day publicly states he would consider a veep position under a President Romney. Yes, I did a double-take as well! But why let up now? The NYT article even quotes his supporters saying that his “passionate” language is one of the things most appealing.

Here is the reason I believe. There are eight primaries between now and April 24th. Romney is expected to win six of them and probably by a wide margin. The other two are Wisconsin (4/3) and Pennsylvania (4/24). As of 7:30 p.m. PST tonight, Intrade shows the probability of a Santorum win in Wisconsin at 11.8% and a win in his home state of Pennsylvania at 31.1%. The other six states are below 5% except Connecticut (6.8%). Above, I said Santorum is not stupid. He is looking at these same probabilities and he is thinking now.

Here is where the dew of reality is descending upon Santorum’s thoughts.

Rick Santorum’s private thoughts (my conjecture):

“Wow! I could lose this thing fast in the next few weeks. I have to win. I put too much into this thing with my wife, my children, and Bella — And dang it, I worked harder than the other guys and I deserve to win! I have to win Wisconsin to build the momentum into my home state but Mitt is so much more prepared and his machine is killing me in Wisconsin. I have to win Pennsylvania! If I lose Wisconsin, that will not be good going into Pennsylvania! Mitt is picking up steam in Pennsylvania this week. I have to win Pennsylvania! Having to answer to that dang 18 point loss in my senate race in 2006 has been shear [pain] in this race — embarrassing! There is no way I will lose Pennsylvania — No way!”

Do you see where Rick’s mind is right now? Can he win Wisconsin next Tuesday? Absolutely he can if we let up at all. I strongly believe Governor Romney has Santorum in a strangle hold with Wisconsin, especially if he trounces him Tuesday. Romney will likely smash Santorum in DC and Maryland and if he has a really strong win in Wisconsin, Santorum will be all but dead going into Pennsylvania.

Bloomberg Businessweek reported in February:

Yet six years ago, as he sought a third Senate term in Pennsylvania, Santorum proved he can also lose in such a politically competitive state — and lose big.

Santorum’s last race — an 18-percentage-point defeat in 2006 bid — raises questions about his appeal to independent voters who could help decide the national election in November, as well as to Republicans who will determine who gets the party’s nomination.

Santorum’s loss was “the largest defeat by a Republican United States senator seeking election or re-election in modern Pennsylvania history,” said G. Terry Madonna, a polling expert and public affairs professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.

So think about it. If I am Santorum and I know I now have two choices (after losing Wisconsin): 1) I could do what I have said I would do and stay in the race all the way to the convention (remember: “principle”) and lose Pennsylvania and be thoroughly embarrassed again, or 2) I could exit stage right and declare my loyal support to Romney and hear everybody cheer me to glory.

How does Santorum avoid losing Pennsylvania again?

If Santorum were to lose Wisconsin to Romney, which do you think he will choose? 1? or 2? I predict Wisconsin will be another close race but that Romney will win it. If this happens, Santorum will “evaluate” the race at that point and decide to exit entirely. What seems hard to predict is when he would make that announcement. I think it would likely be the weekend following the Wisconsin primary and not a lot later so that it does not appear to be correlated with a fear of embarrassment — which a loss in his home state certainly would be.

The most compelling argument for Santorum to attempt a graceful exit from the race, upon losing Wisconsin, is this (he is not stupid — Santorum is the epitome of the political animal): He wants a future in politics — and presidential politics at that. If he were to lose Pennsylvania bad (very good possibility), he would be almost for sure pushed out of the race with people laughing, and his political reputation would be all but destroyed.

If he were then to attempt to run for POTUS in future years, it will always be remembered of him that he could not win reelection (2006) to the Senate in his home state (historically huge loss) and that he bad-mouthed Romney for months before being trounced again in his home state of Pennsylvania (2012). And why? Because of a) a huge ego, b) stubbornness, and c) strident social positions. He would be washed up and would forever be overlooked as a serious national candidate. He will not allow that to happen — not when he can control the outcome now.

As we say in business, the risk-reward consideration is making this untenable for Mr. Santorum. I think the probability that Santorum will compete in Pennsylvania is less than five percent.

He will not allow himself to be embarrassed. Not by Governor Romney!

GO MITT! Let’s all work as hard as we can to bring a HUGE win to Mitt in Wisconsin — We do not want the Wisconsin results to even be close! We can finish off Santorum next Tuesday.

“As the world’s finest democracy, we do not do guillotines. But there are other less bloody rituals of humiliation, designed to reassure the populace that order is restored, the Republic cleansed.” ~ William Greider

Exit Question: What is a One Term Obama Presidency Worth to You?

The Orange County Register is a conservative (they say libertarian) newspaper covering southern California. They ran an article yesterday referring to the March 27th event in Irvine:

Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney will be coming to Orange County next Tuesday to bolster his campaign purse, with a fundraising luncheon at a private home in Irvine’s exclusive Shady Canyon.
[...]
I’m tracking down whether Romney will hold any public events, if I can get an interview, and whether I can post the information here on how to contact the fundraiser.

No need to wait for details from The Register reporter. Just contact Amanda and she will get you all dialed in. She informs me she has a few slots left ———> CONTACT AMANDA

CONGRATULATIONS to Governor Romney and team! And THANK YOU to the voters of Illinois and all the volunteers that made such a difference yesterday! Team MRC salutes you!

THANK YOU to my friend Jim for the humor of this night. (“The secret to humor is surprise.” ~ Aristotle)

What is it about the Brits and Monty Python? There is something about this short video that seemed oddly familiar to me and I just could not resist sharing it with you.

“All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.” ~ Sun Tzu

“Build me a son, O Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory.” ~ Douglas MacArthur

“A good athlete always mentally replays a competition over and over, even in victory, to see what might be done to improve the performance the next time.” ~ Frank Shorter

And what about Lloyd? I feel sorry for him:

[THANK YOU to "Dave in Colorado" (a frequent visitor to MRC) for the Dumb and Dumber clip!]