democrats Use Federal Employees to Campaign for Obama


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Since rules do not apply to democrats, and only you, it should not be a surprise that democrats use the federal bueacracy to promote the re-election of president Obama.  The Right Scoop has more…

WASHINGTON TIMES – In another case, a worker at the tax agency’s customer help line urged taxpayers “to re-elect President Obama in 2012 by repeatedly reciting a chant based on the spelling of his last name,” the Office of Special Counsel said in a statement.

OSC said it is seeking “significant disciplinary action” against that employee.

Another IRS employee in Kentucky has agreed to serve a 14-day suspension for blasting Republicans in a conversation with a taxpayer.

“They’re going to take women back 40 years,” the IRS employee said in a conversation that was recorded. The employee also said that “if you vote for a Republican, the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer.”

That employee went on to tell the taxpayer she knew she wasn’t supposed to be voicing her political opinions, and asked the taxpayer not to say anything.

The federal Hatch Act prohibits most government employees from conducting politics on government time. OSC is charged with looking into those violations.

Of course, the MSM isn’t likely to cover this, not are there are likely to be any real punishment.


Enthusiasm Gap? Obama Campaign Ends How it Started, In a Half-Empty Ohio Arena


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

When we say that Obama has an enthusiasm problem, we mean it.  In May, President Obama kicked off his campaign in a half-empty arena.  Breitbart has the pic…

Barack Obama launched his campaign in unspectacular fashion today at Ohio State University, the largest college in the crucial swing state.  A photoposted to twitter by Mitt Romney’s campaign spokesman Ryan Williams reveals sparse attendance.  The above image, according to Williams, was taken during the President’s first official campaign speech.  

According to the Toledo Blade, the venue for Obama’s rally seats 20,000 but “there were a lot of empty seats.” Comparatively, Obama drew a crowd of 35,000 at Ohio State when he campaigned for former Governor Ted Strickland in 2010.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The official Barack Obama Tumblr boasts a figure from ThinkProgress that 14,000 attended the event–70% of the stadium’s seating capacity.

Yesterday, Obama ended his campaign in Ohio-in another half-empty arena.  Breitbart has the coverage of that event as well…

President Obama’s big rally tonight turned out to be just like his first, opening salvo of the 2012 campaign: a half-empty arena in Ohio. According to RealClearPolitics’ Scott Conroy, there were “empty seats scattered around the upper-level of Nationwide Arena … Four years ago, after all, Obama was easily filling venues larger than that …” The event even featured Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z, and Obama still couldn’t fill it out.

Um, if that doesn’t spell “enthusiasm problem,” I don’t know what does. The campaign is a sham, dead before it started.  Only the MSM, with increasing levels of oversampling, can even make it look close.

And just remember, you DIDN’T see this on the MSM.


Obama Ally Jarret Promises Vengeance Against All Opposition


Apparently, Obama ally Valerie Jarrett has declared vengeance against anyone that opposed them in the first term or election.  Doug Ross (no relation) has the details…

• Valerie Jarrett: ‘After We Win This Election, It’s Our Turn Payback Time’ « :
Openly declared as “Obama’s Brain”, and the figure whose second story West Wing office has been described by political insiders as the true Oval Office of the Obama White House, Valerie Jarrett is letting it be known that if Barack Obama secures election victory next week, there may be, quite literally, hell to pay for those who opposed him… 
…The part that really stuck out to me was when I overheard the rep say that Jarrett told them, “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” She was talking directly to about three of them. Sr. staff. And she wasn’t trying to be quiet about it at all. And they were all listening and shaking their heads and smiling while she said it.

Is it just me, or are the words of a dictatorship?  Frankly, It shows a great deal about the liberal mind set.  They are correct.  They MUST rule.  It is justifiable to cheat in order to win.  And, it is a must to punish any and all dissent.  To gain and maintain the power they desire, they must crush all opposition.  Ms. Jarrett just displayed that.

H/T:  Reaganite Republican


Is The Obama Campaign Accepting Foreign Donations?


In a potential political bombshell, a non-partisan  watchdog group released a report pointing out irregularities in the Obama Campaign’s online donation system.  These irregularities seem to point to the possibility that the campaign is accepting foreign donations.  Instapundit has the details…

SCANDAL: Bombshell: Owned by Bundler in Shanghai with Business Ties to Chinese Government.

In an explosive report set to send shockwaves through official Washington, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released a 108-page GAI investigation into the threat of foreign and fraudulent Internet campaign donations in U.S. federal elections (visit to download the full report).

Breitbart News obtained an advance copy of the bombshell report which reveals that the website is not owned by the president’s campaign but rather by Obama bundler Robert Roche, a U.S. citizen living in Shanghai, China. Roche is the chairman of a Chinese infomercial company, Acorn International, with ties to state-controlled banks that allow it to “gain revenue through credit card transactions with Chinese banks.”

There’s more.

The unusual website redirects traffic directly to a donation page on the Obama campaign’s official website,, which does not require donors tob enter their credit card security code (known as the CVV code), thereby increasing the likelihood of foreign or fraudulent donations. The website is managed by a small web development firm, Wicked Global, in Maine. One of Wicked Global’s employees, Greg Dorr, lists on his LinkedIn page his additional employment with Peace Action Maine and Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights. According to the GAI report, 68 percent of all Internet traffic to comes from foreign visitors.

And still more.

In 2011, Mr. Roche obtained one of the most sought-after pieces of real estate in Washington, DC: a seat at the head table for President Obama’s State Dinner for Chinese President Hu Jintao. How Roche—a man whose infomercial company hawks fitness equipment, cell phones, and breast enhancement products—landed a seat alongside Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, former President Jimmy Carter, and Chinese President Hu Jintao remains unclear.

Since 2009, White House Visitor Logs list the name Robert Roche at least 19 times, despite the fact Mr. Roche’s primary residence is in China.

This seems to stink to high heaven, but out MSM is out doing the bidding of the POTUS, so we’re not going to hear about this on the news anytime soon.

Ironically, this is the very thing that the POTUS himself lamented during his 2010 State of the Union Address.  Here is a clip.

So, we see, once again, typical regressive hypocrisy.  They cry about something happening  and then, it appears that they are doing it themselves.

Categorize this under the following:  You will always know what the Democrats are up to based on what their accusing their opposition of doing.



Obama’s Mud March


In January of 1863, General Ambrose Burnside commanded the Army of the Potomac. Regrouping following a crushing defeat by Confederate forces at the Battle of Fredericksburg, the 38 year old Burnside devised a maneuver designed to cross the Rappahannock River and flank Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing about a sudden end to the War Between The States, and redeeming a reputation severely eroded due to the thousands of boys in blue whose corpses he had left mounded on the slopes of Marye’s Hill the month before — they were beyond anyone’s restoration. No one was particularly enamored with the general’s plan but as no one had any better ideas, the army began its advance. Then it began to rain. The roads to the river turned into unnavigable bogs. Undeterred, the reliably incompetent Burnside brought up his heavy artillery to further pulp the sodden turnpikes, consequently gluing his guns and most of his columns of cursing infantry in an impassible muck.  The campaign, such as it was, was over, and a few days later, so was Burnside’s disastrous tenure as army commander.

“Such mud, you nor I never saw before.” — Surgeon Daniel M. Holt, 121st N.Y.

Had Barack Obama, our current ‘commander-in-chief’, endowed with a strategic vision as limited and fundamentally flawed as anything poor Burnside ever dreamed up, known anything about American history, he might have recalled the enervating effects of saturated dirt and called off the truculent modern Mud March that passes for his re-election campaign.  Instead his attack Jackasses are up to their greasy haunches in political ooze, frantically flinging the slop  at  Mitt Romney and company. Desperate, dumb, just plain mulishly mean, or some combination of the three?  Well, you use what you’ve got, and in Obama’s case, that’s not much. If ideas are ammunition, this administration has been out of it for years.  And now that it’s clear that even the troops he purports to command desire his defeat, he’s turned his dyspeptic donkeys loose on them:

Obama Attacks Special Operators For Fronting Him Out | via Blackfive

Obama has used the military for political purposes his entire regrettable tenure as Commander Campaigner in Chief … His pitiful end zone dancing over bin Laden’s death has made him even more of a mockery among the men who actually did kill bin Laden. And probably tied for most disgraceful with the faux surge has been the plethora of politically-motivated leaks from the O inner circle that have done tremendous damage to our national security, our ability to conduct the missions that keep us all safe, and the lives of those who conduct them and their families.

Now he is being called out for those shameful attempts to possum a ride on the backs of our special operators while waving a Obama 2012 flag. A group called the Special Operations OPSEC Team put out a 22 minute filmpointing out just how much damage has been done with this. Is is surprising that the response is STFU Barry? The active duty military is forbidden from talking smack about the civilian “leader” who sits in the situation room with political tools in both ears telling him when and where the war dogs should be loosed for maximum advantage to his re-election.

Barry’s team never had any real respect for the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who he sent out to attempt to give him some tough guy cred and get him some campaign fodder by acting as cannon fodder. The reaction to this legitimate concern about our security shows the disdain they have.

Taking a direct shot at the leaders of OPSEC, an Obama campaign official lambasted the group’s accusations about national security leaks this morning. “No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have,” said the official, speaking on background, “and it’s clear they’ve resorted to making things up for purely political reasons.”

Making stuff up for purely political reasons, Really? Seriously that is your response, to call them liars? And to do so anonymously? Well that part makes sense, the odds of a gutless, spineless political tool standing up and calling those guys, us guys and other folks who are in a position to make those claims, liars is pretty slim. The Swift Boat reference is actually pretty legitimate, though. The ads that former comrades of John Kerry put out accurately portrayed Kerry as a glory hound punk who spent four months in Vietnam, picked up three extremely sketchy Purple Hearts, shot a bunch of reenactments of his exploits for home movies, and then headed out long before his tour was up to try to become the reincarnation of JFK. So Swift Drone away on the mighty Osama Slayer’s wafer-thin resume and phone book thick record of using it for his own aggrandizement.

Hanoi John himself has seen fit to suddenly report for damage control duty:

“Seeing the new outrageous attacks made against President Obama from a shadowy Republican-allied veterans group called OPSEC, which take issue with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, remind me all too well of the notorious ‘Swift Boat’ attacks I faced in the 2004 campaign.”

Unfortunately for Kerry and the Obamunists, the group making the ‘attacks’ on the Big Red One is neither shadowy — it’s composed of former Navy SEALS, SPECOPS, and CIA personnel — or allied with the Pachyderms. And the only thing outrageous is Hanoi John’s devious and false inference that OPSEC opposed the bin Laden mission. What they’re fighting against is four more years of Barack Obama’s national insecurity administration.  And they’re not afraid of mud.

Related articles

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then go Ahead


Republican Teachers Feel Harassed and Pressured at NEA Annual Convention


As a conservative teacher, I long ago figured out that the Republican Party best represents my interests. A rising tide floats all boats, and in a profession where income is determined by the ability of the public to pay taxes, it is vital to both my long-term and short-term financial success that our nation’s economy be vibrant and healthy, and that the last several years have proved that Democratic control does not lead to that (or at least the new progressive-version of the Democratic Party that Obama represents). In addition, I care about family values and the importance of strong and stable social structures, and the Republican Party also believes in those more so than the Democratic Party, so my choice of being a Republican teacher is natural.

But just because I am a Republican teacher does not mean that I look down on my Democratic teacher friends who have not yet realized that they are supporting the wrong people for office. I don’t wear a shirt that displays my support for Republican candidates because I’m don’t want to be a walking sheep advertisement for any party. I don’t make Democrats feel uncomfortable or unwanted by talking badly to them about their personal political choices or giving speeches about how horrible their personal decisions are working out for them and the nation. My eyes don’t glaze over and I don’t preach at them to spread the good word of Romney and pressure their friends to vote for Romney so that Romney can keep more power. And I would be very angry (and am very angry) when if any Republicans booed any Democrat who stated their own personal views at any sort of non-partisan or professional gathering of teachers.

Thus I am angry and upset to hear that the National Education Association’s week long annual convention, paid for by my union dues, turned into an (undocumented) campaign event for President Obama and that Republican teachers elected to this event were made to feel unwanted, unwelcome, and harassed.

Via Fox News story Republican teachers uneasy at Obama-themed union convention:

It had all the trappings of a re-election rally: thousands packing a convention center, Barack Obama T-shirts, videos celebrating the health care law, and a wall-size banner with encouraging messages to the incumbent president. “You are our knight in shining armor — Sarah C., Norman, Okla.,” read one inscription.

But this Obama love fest in Washington was not a campaign event. The nearly 9,000 gathered were teachers in town for the National Education Association’s weeklong annual convention.

For the Republican teachers in attendance, the digs at their political views were impossible to overlook. “What I don’t like is the harassment going on for people to be an `EFO’ — an educator for Obama,” said Maureen van Wagner, a special education teacher from Anchorage, Alaska.

In interviews with The Associated Press, roughly a dozen teachers who identified themselves as Republicans said they felt pressure from union leaders and the rank-and-file to support Obama’s re-election — and felt marginalized when they wouldn’t. Some interviewed said they were so worried about retribution from their colleagues that they wouldn’t provide their names for publication….

…72 percent of delegates at last year’s NEA convention voted to endorse Obama for re-election — the earliest the group has ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle. (This was long before the GOP nominee elections even started).

But what did take Republican teachers off guard was the criticism they received for expressing support for Mitt Romney. A Republican teacher speaking at the convention was booed for doing just that. The incident prompted NEA President Dennis Van Roekel to intervene, saying that everyone had the right to speak. And when the union invited delegates to the Democratic National Convention in September to a special meeting, no such invitations went out to delegates to the GOP convention until a Republican teacher complained to Van Roekel — an error the union said resulted from a missed newsletter deadline….

…Despite the complaints, the NEA has no plans to shy away from a full embrace of what Mary Kusler, the union’s director of government relations, called “the incredible legacy and vision of (the Obama) administration.”…

This report is entirely consistent with my own experiences with the National Education Association (NEA)- every single aspect of what was written here is entirely correct- if anything, the story downplays the hostility and harassment that Democratic teachers exhibit towards Republican teachers and this story is much more balanced and fair to the NEA than it should be.

The NEA must do more to make Republican teachers welcome and supported in the organization- after all, almost 30% of NEA members are Republicans. The NEA must continue and expand funding for its Republican Educator Caucus, must continue and expand support for its Republican Leadership Conference, and the leadership of the NEA must make more and better steps to reign in the hate and vileness that is thrown at Republican teachers at NEA-hosted events. As an organization it must be held accountable for its actions and the fact that duly elected members of a teachers organization are made to feel the way that they are at a professional event purely because of their personal political views is wrong. This culture of hate at the NEA must be changed, and that change can only occur from within- NEA members must demand it and NEA leadership must lead.

I’m a member of the NEA and I’m an active Republican- and at no point should the NEA make me feel anything but proud to be so.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher


Get Your Free Obama Phone


“Call me; I need campaign money.”

He never delivered on the Obamamaniac’s desires for him to pay for their mortgage and gas, but Barack Obama  can give you a free phone. (Question: Since when does a government program have a .net address?)

Predictably, if you’re already sucking on the government teat, you automatically qualify for a phone:

If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)

  • Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
  • Medicaid
  • Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
  • Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
  • The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
  • Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
  • Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
  • If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
  • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – TANF

Last year, the federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. Naturally an audit showed that many people getting you to pay for their phones were taking more than their “fair share.”

269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers.

You can imagine the number of participants is only going to climb. I mean, it’s not like that money could be used to create jobs jobs jobs, or something.

But jobs have never been Obama’s top priority; getting re-elected has. Does he really think giving someone a free phone will buy their vote?

Oh. Wait.

H/T: Weasel Zippers

Original Post:  Feed Your ADHD


Paid Protesters Heckle Romney?


It’s more likely than you think.  According to at least some of the anti-Romney protesters out there, the phrase rent-a-mob is a bit more spot on than the President’s campaign is willing to admit.  Buzzfeed has more…

DeWitt, Mich. — The protesters popping up at Mitt Romney’s rallies throughout Michigan Tuesday look like run-of-the-mill grassroots liberals — they wave signs about “the 99 percent,” they chant about the Republican’s greed, and they describe themselves as a loosely organized coalition of “concerned citizens.”

They’re also getting paid, two of the protesters and an Obama campaign official told BuzzFeed.


At the candidate’s afternoon stop outside a bakery in DeWitt, a group of about 15 protesters stood behind a police barricade, a few of them chanting in support of Obama. Asked why he was protesting, a man dressed in a grim reaper costume pointed a reporter to a pair of “designated representatives” standing in the shade.


“I can’t talk, you gotta get one of those people over there to talk to y’all,” he said. “They’re the ones who can talk to reporters.”


Neither of the representatives agreed to give their names, but two protesters said they were getting paid to stand outside of the rally, though their wage is unclear: one said she was getting $7.25 per hour, while another man said they were being paid $17 per hour.

The story does go on to note that the nearby official Democrat protest claimed that the paid protesters were with an organized labor group, “Good Jobs Now.”

Come to think of it, I wonder is $7.25 represents a “living wage?”

And, after Wisconsin, can the union bosses only afford a paltry 15 protesters.  Times must be tough, I guess.


Union Bosses Abandoning Team Obama? AFL-CIO Directing Funds From Obama


It seems that the Union bosses are pulling the plug on team Obama for 2012.  Is it due to the fact that the DNC and Obama threw the unions under the bus in Wisconsin?   The Lid has more…

The AFL-CIO has told USA News and World Report  that it’s moving money from political candidates even though its right in the middle of election season. This represents another blow to the Obama campaign which is already way behind its fundraising goals. The labor union says this shift was planned for a long time and has nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama was too busy to visit Wisconsin during the recall battle.

“We wanted to start investing our funds in our own infrastructure and advocacy,” AFL-CIO spokesman Josh Goldstein told Whispers. “There will be less contributions to candidates,” including President Obama.

While there were “a lot of different opinions” about whether Obama should have gone to Wisconsin, according to Goldstein, “this is not a slight at the president.”

The AFL-CIO has been at odds with the president before Wisconsin on issues such as the public health insurance option and renewing the Bush tax cuts.

The shift in funding is significant due to the federation’s role in past presidential campaigns, where the AFL-CIO built up a massive political structure in the months leading up the election, including extensive “Get Out The Vote” efforts, as well as financial contributions.

This time around, Goldstein says, the federation wants to build a more long-lasting structure, giving “different kinds of support to different candidates.”

Goldstein clarifies that in the new deployment of funds, “Some candidates will get more, some less, some the same — but overall we’ll be focused more on spending resources to build our own structure [that] works for working people instead of others’ own structures.”

Does this mean that the Unions are going to throw their money at “different” candidates-read Communist?  We have covered that Union members and Communist entities seem to pal around quite nicely, often mixing with each other, and even with union members carrying communist flags…

So then, there are a number of thoughts as to what the unions might do with different “structures.”

1.  More goons to intimidate businesses, politicians, and the like, as well as to attack anyone with a camera.

2.  More rent-a-mob to make them look far more influential than they really are.

3.  More pre-printed signs, shirts, and banners.  Because nothing say “grassroots” like spending a ton of money on signs, shirts and hats!

If have noticed a whiff of sarcasm, your olfactory senses are spot on.  These bosses, while well funded, are Alinkyites, and pretty uninspired ones at that.  In other words, they aren’t going to do much that is new, but a lot that is old-just more of it.  They’re going lie more, intimidate more, and beat up more people.  And, when they do more of it, they is going to be more and more examples of their thuggery to show the world.  Basically, they are going to turn the fail up to “11.”


Another Luke Warm Obama Reception: Holds Speech in Family Garage-They’re not Sure They’ll Vote for Him


Imagine, if you will, that the POTUS-the Great and Mighty Obama, shows up at a family home, and gives a speech.  Then, also imagine that very few people show up, and one of they home-owners later states that she might not even vote for him!  Well friends, that very thing happened just recently.  Ace has the details…

Hmmm. Probably not. I’ll call it “more Saturday Stupid.”

As leader of the free world President Obama will be used to making speeches to millions of people around the globe.So he might have felt the occasion was a little beneath him yesterday when he stopped off in Reno, Nevada, to deliver an address outside a couple’s garage.

In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President’s campaign, Mr Obama spoke to a handful of people in the crucial swing state.

The president’s 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters – though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.

So, let’s take this situation in light of what we know about Obama’s 2008 campaign.  We know that the entire was tightly controlled, and heavily scripted.  Crowds were ensured, even if they had to be bused in.  Questions were carefully crafted, and answers were rehearsed.  Nothing was left to chance.  So then, are we to now believe that the most tightly run campaign machine since Stalin is now intentionally leaving things to chance, or was it that troops were requested, and none showed up?  Was this family carefully vetted, or did someone in the campaign seriously drop the ball.  Either way, this doesn’t bode well for the Obama Campaign.  Because, either they are inept, or they they have a serious enthusiasm problem.

When we look at this sad event, as well as the recent failure to fill a college arena, can we say that the Obama campaign is in trouble?  Is this a question of the blogoshpere  believing the propaganda put out by the MSM and the campaign (or do I repeat myself)?  Or, is this a sign of a moribund campaign pretending to be successful and unstoppable?

Time will tell.


Obama Opens Official Campaign: Can’t Fill Arena


Much is made about Obama’s campaign, and whether or not Romney has he “oomph” to defeat the sitting POTUS.  In fact, I’ve been receiving emails from bloggers questioning that very point.  While Romney is not the most scintillating candidate, I think he might have more of a chance than some are giving him.  Yes, Obama has the smear machine; consisting of the unions, the community organizations, and even the occupods promise to disrupt anything good and wholesome.  However, it seems that the Obama “get out the useful idiot efforts” have been a tad bit, shall we say, flat.

First, let me say that the idea that Obama’s “kick off” to the campaign is completely ridiculous, as he’s been in perpetual campaign mode since he was inaugurated.  That being said, since he “officially” kicked off the 2012 campaign, we’ll treat it as such.  We remember the 2008 campaign for it being completely controlled and artificial, with no real interaction and a complaint and controlled media.  Awed crowds filled events venues, and the media trumpeted the arrival of “hope and change.”

But, the start of the 2012 effort, while still fawned over by the stooges in the MSM, seemed to be lacking in one important department…people.  Breitbart has more.

Barack Obama launched his campaign in unspectacular fashion today at Ohio State University, the largest college in the crucial swing state.  A photo posted to twitter by Mitt Romney’s campaign spokesman Ryan Williams reveals sparse attendance.  The above image, according to Williams, was taken during the President’s first official campaign speech.  

During the speech, Obama ripped into the presumptive GOP nominee anddiscussed nation building at home, but the most newsworthy item of the day was not the talking points Obama delivered: it was the crowd… or lack thereof.  According to ABC News, the Obama campaign had expected an “overflow” of people.  Instead, the arena looked half-empty.  TheColumbus Dispatch reports that Obama organizers even had people move from the seats to the floor of the gym in order to project a larger crowd on television. 

According to the Toledo Blade, the venue for Obama’s rally seats 20,000 but “there were a lot of empty seats.” Comparatively, Obama drew a crowd of 35,000 at Ohio State when he campaigned for former Governor Ted Strickland in 2010.

OK then, let’s look at is this way.  Obama is in an important swing state.  It’s typically a big labor, democratic bastion.  The event took place in an university arena, so the campus Marxists had to be involved, and he still couldn’t fill the place?

While we’re at it, let’s consider some other factors…

1.  Obama’s big money donors finally figured out that he is a closet Marxist, and have cut the support.

2.  The unions are spending big time cash on defeating Scott Walker, and anyone else that dares free workers from forced union membership.  There has to be a limit on what they can spend, which means potentially less money for Obama.

3.  The hard left is less than enthusiastic with Obama, because he hasn’t torn down capitalism and killed a few million people.  Yes, they’ll vote for him, but I don’t think they’ll be as many goons to beat people up, commit voter fraud, or otherwise muck things up this year.

4.  There is even a possibility that the few Voter ID laws out there will cut down on voter fraud.

So, back to Romney, he isn’t the thrilling alternative that we all wanted.  Then again, none of the GOP candidates were.  But, even though team Obama will have an impressive arsenal of useful idiots, dead voters, and the like, it probably won’t be close to what he had in 2008.  Also, the moderates don’t like being out of work, nor do they like paying until they bleed at the pump.  Both of those factors will work against Obama.

Please also remember to not trust polls unless you can look at the internals.  We know that polls are being used to shape opinions, not reflect them.   As Da Tech Guy points out, they’re not polls, they psyops! He also has a post on the empty seats.


Will Gingrich Respond to National Review’s Call to Drop out and Endorse Santorum?


After surging in South Carolina,  Newt Gingrich crashed and burned in Florida, and shows no signs or recovering.  After several poor showings in a row, the vultures are circling over the dying campaign.  One influential source, The National Review, has called on him to drop out of the race, and lend his support to Rick Santorum.  Teresa, at Teresamerica, has more…

Today the National Review has taken a bold move and requested that Gingrich drop out of the race and endorse Rick Santorum.  With Santorum’s rise in popularity and continued surge, and Gingrich’s implosion I think this is a good idea.  

It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way. We hope so. Gingrich’s verbal and intellectual talents should make him a resource for any future Republican president. But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader. When he led Santorum in the polls, he urged the Pennsylvanian to leave the race. On his own arguments the proper course for him now is to endorse Santorum and exit.

Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.

This should be seen as the sentinel event that it is.  Some major sources on the right are turning on Gingrich.  The real question is, will Gingrich step aside for the good of the Party and Movement, or will he hang on for the sake of hubris?

The fall of Gingrich can be blamed on the same source that brought about  his surge.  He is well known for debating off the cuff, with little preparation.  Given his incredible fund of information, and his ability to communicate, he could hit them out of the park.  However, swinging for the fences is a double edged sword.  Sluggers like Gingrich do hit a lot of tape-measure shots, but, they also strike out a great deal.  And, in the end, that was his failing.  Playing off the cuff works brilliantly sometimes, and causes embarrassment at others.  That is not a way to run a Presidential campaign, no matter one’s level of intelligence, or grasp of the issues.

Santorum, on the other hand, has engaged in a wise strategy of sticking to issues, and communicating Conservative principals.  For a case in point, kindly take the time to look at his CPAC speech, courtesy of  Catholibertarian…

Slowly but surely, Santorum is uniting Conservatives.  While it might simply be that he is the most consistent Conservative in the field, or that he “isn’t Romney,” he is galvanizing support for the right wing of the GOP.  The real question now is if he can fend off the well funded, and unethical Romney smear machine.  If he does take Michigan, Romney’s home state, it’s a race.

And frankly, that’s where Gingrich comes in.  With Santorum running close to, and sometimes ahead of, Romney in the polls, he needs an additional bump to get over the top.  This is especially vital when Romney’s money advantage comes into play.  While Gingrich is getting 10 percent or so in races, most of his supporters would gravitate towards Santorum.  With an endorsement, almost all would go.  And, since there is little bad blood between the two, Santorum would likely take most Gingrich voters.  That would go far to help Santorum take on Romney and his deep pockets.

Any way it goes, it should get exciting.


Herman Cain “Suspends” Campaign: It Looks Like the End for the Hermanator Updated!


In a speech today, Herman Cain announce that he was “suspending” his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.  R.S. McCain has a correct interpretation…

2:10 p.m. ET: My 12-year-old son Jefferson asked, ‘What does ‘suspending’ mean?” It means “quit.” Cain will still be on the ballot in several states. He could, if he chose, resume the campaign at some future point, but in general, “suspend = quit.”

The good news? J.D. Gordon is now unemployed.

More good news? My “sources close to the campaign” can now speak on the record about who was responsible for screwing up.

And finally, for those of my friends worried about my future diplomatic career, it’s still morning in Vanuatu. IYKWIMAITYD.

Get over to the Other McCain for all the coverage.

Update:  Here is Cain’s speech, via The Right Scoop…