Politico has an interesting piece on Romney’s Bill Clinton Strategy. Smart politics or risky shift?

Finally, Salon writes that for Ron, it’s now all about Rand. The piece, obviously, takes a liberal flight plan, but it also raises a few legitimate concerns before closing with this nugget: “I wonder if the Paul family’s plan is to promote “liberty” or to promote the Paul family.”

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama’s 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Wowzer! Is this all hype? Or the formation of a trend? Is this blowback aimed at America’s first gay president? And this is the state the National Democratic party picked for their convention – at least for now.

Also today, Politico asks is Romney is ready for the Bain battle. Team Obama is out with their first big hit and Romney has responded with an ad of their own.

Politico also reports on Ron Paul’s tacit message to the GOP that he won’t cause trouble in Tampa. (Paul might want to send that message to his troops. In Idaho, they’re threatening to go “scorched earth.”)

Like to dive into data? Go beyond the headlines in the new NYT/CBS poll.

Most important political nugget trending? Probably rap mogul J-Jay reaffirming that he’s got Obama’s back. Whew! How could Obama have won reelection with the support of the man who wrote and performed this eloquent hit?

A federal judge recently issued an injunction against a Texas law that barred public funding of clinics that perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a chief plaintiff in the case, which only makes sense. According to Planned Parenthood’s figures, the federation performed 329,445 abortions in 2010, an increase of 25,135 over 2007 and an average of 902 per day. In all, 56-percent of the unintended pregnancies the organization claims to have prevented in 2010 ended on the abortion table. Planned Parenthood clinics, it would certainly seem, run afoul of the Texas law’s funding restrictions.

However, abortion isn’t the issue for this column. The eight clinics involved in the lawsuit do not perform abortions, at least not on site. The issue is Planned Parenthood’s legal argument against the Texas law. The organization alleges that its free speech has been abridged, and there can be no more perfect example of modern liberalism. Isn’t it the left that decries corporate free speech and personhood?

You might recall the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. When the Court ruled that corporations are legally protected under the First Amendment’s free speech provision the left cut flips. It represented a gross violation of justice to define corporations as “people” capable of exercising free political speech, or free speech in general. Where is that anger now? The left isn’t criticizing Planned Parenthood for asserting its corporate citizenship and free speech rights.

What is Planned Parenthood if not a corporation? Search Planned Parenthood’s websites; you’ll find the federation repeatedly identified as “incorporated.” Articles of incorporation for Planned Parenthood regional affiliates are available online. There’s no questioning Planned Parenthood’s incorporated status, just as there’s no questioning its liberal political alignment. Yet we’re to believe liberals can’t abide the thought of corporations exercising free speech. As is common to liberalism, we have a contradiction.

If this were an isolated incident we might let it slide. But Planned Parenthood isn’t alone. Colleges and universities, among the most liberal of all institutions, incorporate for various purposes. Stanford University formed a corporation to manage its on-campus faculty housing. Harvard University operates a financial investment corporation that manages funds to satisfy research and educational necessities. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros are all party to numerous corporations. Not one of those people or institutions can be called conservative.

Apparently, liberals don’t view all corporations as created equal. Some corporations are capable of exercising free speech, determining their own expenditures, and behaving in an approved way. But acceptable corporate personhood is based not on equal protection but ideological alignment. Now we’re left with one lingering question: do liberals suffer from “corporaphobia,” or are they just being two-faced?

Rand Paul speaks at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition and makes a dumb joke that will certainly follow him all the way to his own campaign for president.

Americans have spoken to Gallup and the verdict is “a whopping 40 percent of Americans say President Obama’s newly public support of gay marriage will affect their votes.”

What else is on your mind this weekend?

You can download your updated bracket here.










If you’re looking for coverage on President Obama and gay marriage, go to Jason’s piece. I’ll also have something up later today. The semifinals of VP Madness are now live!

In other news, Politico says: “A Ron Paul revolution is brewing” and Dick Morris is projecting a Romney Landslide victory.

This might not be a popular position on PD, but I’m going to praise the president for this one. Bear with me a minute…

I don’t support gay marriage and I think the president’s position is wrong. However, he’s making a courageous stand with huge political risks. It would have been much easier and politically expedient to dance around this another six months and then come out guns blazing on the issue if he won reelection. This is exactly what many of us thought he was up to.

You might not agree with the president, but this took some political pancakes. He’ll obviously endear himself to the base and win back some wanderers, but he’ll lose many independents.

Make no mistake, I don’t support the position, but I do support politicians taking tough stands on principle, even if I disagree with the specific issue.

If he supports higher taxes, he should say so. And he has.

If he supports abortion rights, he should say so. And he has.

If he supports gay marriage, he should say so. And now he finally has.

In the Governor bracket, one seed Bob McDonnell cruised past Indiana Governor 70 to 30. Chris Christie scored a bombastic upset of two seed Nikki Haley, beating the southern governor 53 to 47.

In the Senator bracket, top seed Rob Portman struggled mightily against conservative Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, but managed to hold on to a closer than expected 53-47 match. Florida’s Marco Rubio faced a dangerous internet juggernaut in Rand Paul, but his mystical web powers are apparently not as strong as his fathers, as Rubio steamrolled Paul by a 60 to 40 margin.

In the Former Candidate bracket, the closest match of the second round saw Tim Pawlenty barely escaping a late charge by his fellow Minnesotan Michele Bachmann. In the tightest score of the entire tourny, T-Paw gets by with a 51-49 win. The polar opposite was seen in the bracket’s other match, as three seed Mike Huckabee obliterated Rick Santorum in a 78-22 pounding. That’s going to leave a mark.

And finally in the Game Changer bracket, Paul Ryan exploded to an early lead and never looked back, sending former Secretary of State Condi Rice packing by a 73-27 margin. And then General David Petraeus survived a late match charge from Mike Pence led by Pence-a-holic Alania, to squeak by with a 52-48.

This sets the PD Veep Madness Elite Eight matches, with all four one seeds facing two number two seeds and two number three seeds. No Cinderella (or Sarah Palin?) in this tournament!

The cunning creativity of the Obama fundraising machine is on full display with the “Mothers Day Shout Out” program:

Whether or not your mom’s on Twitter, here’s something guaranteed to make her smile on Sunday: getting a personal shout-out from President Obama.

From now until Thursday at midnight, you have a chance to win that for your mom or a special mother in your life — just get five or more donations to your grassroots fundraising page to automatically put yourself in the running.

That’s right: If your name is drawn, the President will send your mom a special Mother’s Day tweet from @BarackObama. With more than 15 million people following him on Twitter, she’ll be honored in front of a pretty wide audience.

Soon there will be donation contests for Fathers Day, where you and dad can hit the golf links with the President, and Fourth of July, where you help Obama pick what fireworks get shot off over the Potomac.

The best is saved for Arbor Day, where if you win, you get to plant a tree in the President’s honor in the Rose Garden.

One of the most interesting races is in Wisconsin, where Big Labor may have to settle on their second choice to run against the governor they want to recall.

Also today, barring a colossal turn of the numbers, Senator Lugar of Indiana will see his long senate career end with a whimper. It’s a big win for the Tea Party, but could Lugar have avoided this day?

You might also catch this RCP piece. The writer says Romney’s path to 270 might not be as narrow as you think.

Finally, the man they call Axe (David Axelrod) is spinning Biden’s recent trip down the slippery slope of gay marriage. What’s your take? Will issues like this play any significant role in November?

What effects on the local and world economies and politics do you expect from these outcomes? What are your thoughts on competition between governments? Harvard economist Greg Mankiw recently wrote about in the New York Times.

Finally, don’t forget to vote today for the Vice President!

With Gingrich out this week, Ron Paul remains the only candidate actively campaigning (sort of) against Mitt Romney. Here’s a piece I thought was interesting on why Ron Paul continues his run and what some of the lasting effects of his movement may be.

And don’t forget to vote for your candidates in round two of Veep Madness.

However, Obama’s campaign strategy is understandable, even logical given his circumstance. Under normal conditions, an incumbent President runs on his record of accomplishment. To wit: The economy has tangibly improved under this hypothetical President’s watch. Some important foreign affairs matters, critical to the actual national security and trade interests of the Unites States (not mere window dressing), have been resolved successfully. The national mood has improved and the public’s confidence in Government—perhaps because a series of central domestic concerns regarding education or health care or the Judiciary or entitlement reform/solvency have been favorably concluded — is on the rise. The all-important “right track/wrong track” measure is pointing solidly in the correct direction.

These are the marks of most presidents with solid reelection prospects. As President Reagan said in 1980, running against the hapless, inept Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

With gasoline at a then all-time high, the country in recession, interest rates in the 17-21% range for consumer loans and mortgages, the Iran hostage situation, and our military suffering from under-funding, inadequate training, outdated equipment, and poor morale, the answer was a resounding, “No.” Reagan wrested the presidency away from Carter in the most crushing rebuke of a sitting president in modern times.

Unfortunately for President Obama, there are none of the usual accomplishment benchmarks in place for a successful second-term campaign:

The economy has rendered its unarguable verdict on his socialism/community organizer/Government-as-answer approach to economic recovery. The verdict—more than three years in—is, ”Sorry. Not working.” Remember, the economy that Reagan “inherited” from Carter was worse by every relevant measure than what Obama took over from President Bush. By this point in Reagan’s first term, the economy was absolutely booming and job creation was extremely strong. You are free, of course, to look at historical facts with whatever revisionist eyes you so choose. Regardless, it’s pointless to argue whether a 10-0 shutout loss in baseball is better or worse than a 3rd-round knockout in boxing.

Similarly, the nation has a decidedly negative take on many central, defining aspects of Obama’s presidency:
- Public opinion runs very strongly against his over-reaching universal, Government-run healthcare initiative.
- The majority of the electorate rejects Obama’s wasteful pandering to his Green lobby at the expense of the pursuit of US energy production.
- The country recoiled as Obama went on his international “apology tour,” where he bowed to foreign leaders and seemed only too eager to trumpet America’s past mistakes and errors while seeming almost ashamed at the leading role for good and peace we’ve taken over the last hundred years or so.
- Further, the public doesn’t appreciate key Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder’s arbitrary, politically correct, responsibility-avoiding involvement in numerous issues such as illegal immigration and Fast and Furious. Holder’s behavior reinforces the feeling of favoritism the Obama administration shows towards its supporters and retribution against its political enemies. The public feels this is not an impartial Federal Government looking out for us all, but rather a taskmaster randomly dolling out the rewards and punishments as it sees fit.

There are dozens of other examples. So with all this as a backdrop, President Obama is shorn of the usual attributes on which to base his reelection campaign. He therefore has cast aside the normal strategy and approach of touting his record and instead sought to identify those who are most dependent on his Government largess and mobilize that voting bloc by highlighting how they would “suffer” if the taxpayer-funded Government handout procession were to diminish even a little from the historically-unprecedented levels he has established.

He shrouds this tack with virtuous, principled-sounding phrases like “Pay their fair share,” “Everyone should play by the same rules,” and introduces a bill called the Buffet Rule—a minimum 30% tax on anyone earning over a million dollars, so “Warren Buffet’s secretary doesn’t pay a higher percentage in taxes than a billionaire.”

As any first-year, peach-fuzz accounting freshman can tell you, the capital gains taxes levied on corporations and individuals like Buffet are taxes on investment profits—investment profits that come from corporations or individuals after they’ve already paid their income tax on either their salary or the ‘regular’ company operating profits. In other words, capital gains taxes are double taxes—taxes on profits made by investments from money that has already been taxed.

I think it’s safe to assume that President Obama knows this. It’s also safe to say that the 1%/Occupy crowd does not know this and that group is a key Obama voting constituency. The 1%/Occupiers include every major Democratic/minority/Green/anti-war voting bloc there is, and the ever-sympathetic liberal MSM is only too happy to oblige and not set the record straight.

But what of the strategy to simply tax the rich? Why won’t that work, as policy? Aside from the inescapable factual/mathematical conclusion that no amount of taxation will eliminate—or even meaningfully close—our budget deficit crisis, what the President does not seem to understand is the concept of elasticity. He seems to regard the “rich” and the “corporations” as static, immoveable, ever-constant objects, whose income is permanent and there to be taxed to whatever degree the Government wishes. He and his advisors apparently think the “rich’s” income is inelastic—i.e., not subject to change in changing circumstances.

It’s not.

It’s very elastic. That income will shift and move and disappear the more the Government tries to go after it. Corporations will shift more and more of their profit-producing operations to locales beyond the reach of U.S. income tax laws. Wealthy individuals will find more and more tax havens and loopholes to avoid payment. Many individuals and/or companies will simply retire or close up shop, weary of the chase, and then that fat, juicy taxable income—so tantalizingly close—evaporates into nothingness.

This is the folly of punitive taxation, when done primarily for vote-glomming reasons of appearing to be “fair.” It reduces the net tax take and hurts the economy. Because what is the economy that everyone purports to be so concerned about actually comprised of? What’s it made of?

It’s made of one thing and one thing only: The economy is made up of businesses. Businesses. As in places where people work and get paid for producing something—goods, services, whatever— of value. It makes no sense to try to grow an economy by being anti-business. It just can’t be done.

And we’re living through the proof.

Finally, don’t forget to vote today in Veep Madness. Vote here.

In general, things went as expected in the first round, as all of the one and two seeds advanced with relative ease. There were five first round “upsets,” but four of them happened the be in the match up between the four and five seeds, which makes me wonder if the selection committee had a selective case of dyslexia.

Here is a bracket-by-bracket recap of the first round:

In the Governor’s bracket, one seed Bob McDonnell had his hands full with a very game Bobby Jindal, who made some noise early, but folded after a poorly received half time speech. McDonnell pulled away to earn a closer than expected 64-36 win.

Two seed Nikki Haley spun the poor Bush brand into a comfortable 68-32 win over Jeb Bush. Jeb obviously has the resume, but the Bush name has not completely recovered its luster.

Bombastic New Jersey Gov Chris Christie just overwhelmed the not-ready-for-prime-time Brian Sandoval, cruising to a 73-27 win over the Governor of Nevada.

Finally, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels channeled Gene Hackman from Hoosiers by telling relative newcomer Susana Martinez of New Mexico “welcome to Indiana politics,” and pulled an upset with the closest contest in the first round. Daniels won 56 to 44.

In the “Former Candidate” bracket, Tim Pawlenty used his 2008 Veep vetting experience to beat Herman Cain, who appeared to be distracted by the cheerleaders. Pawlenty posted a 28 point win.

Rick Santorum used the momentum left from his recently ended Presidential campaign, along with the $1.28 left in his campaign war chest, to topple the last real winner of GOP Veep Madness, Sarah Palin by a reasonably close 61-39 margin.

In the second biggest blowout of the first round, Mike Huckabee utterly annihilated Jon Huntsman, who once again proved that its tough to win support from Republican voters who simply don’t believe you are a Republican. The final was 82 to 18.

And finally, Newt Gingrich has filled out a miserable spring by getting upset by Michele Bachman, a former candidate who went from Ames Straw poll winner and Iowa favorite to dead last among candidates who actually campaigned in the caucus. Bachmann sailed to a 73 to 27 victory.

In the “Senator bracket,” heavily favored Buckeye Rob Portman gave the strongest performance of any one seed, besting John Thune 67 to 33.

Marco Rubio, feeling the sting of a first seed snub, took it out on a hapless Jim DeMint, and crushed the Palmetto State Tea Partier with the largest margin of victory in the tournament, 88 to 12.

In the biggest upset of round one, Rand Paul once again proved the internet voting acumen of the Paulites, trouncing Jon Kyl 78-22. Paul faces the powerhouse Marco Rubio in the second round, but has already sent his people to convince the PD editors to declare him the winner, even if he loses the popular vote.

Finally, in what I believe is the biggest of the four/five match upsets, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey toppled the strongly regarded Kelly Ayotte, 59 to 41.

And lastly in the “Game Changer” bracket, one seed Paul Ryan easily overcame the Sarah Palin-supported Allan West, a potentially tough first round opponent, by a 65-35 score.

Popular military man and CIA head David Petraeus “surged” to a victory over California business exec and former Cali gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

In the three/six match-up, a “fired” up Donald Trump saw his strategy of asking for opponent Mike Pence’s birth certificate blow up in his comb over, and was crushed by the Indiana Congressman, 80 to 20.

And in our last first round contest, former Secretary of State Condi Rice sent the last “great facial hair hope” home, besting the mustachioed former U.N. ambassador John Bolton home with a 59-41 defeat. Somewhere the Charles Curtis Fan Club is conducting a champagne toast to the fact that he will remain the last Veep to have facial hair while in office.

The Veep Madness only gets zanier from here, with the second round contest due to be posted at 4 pm EST. Some intriguing match-ups include the “holy war” between Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, the Minnesota Mano-a-mano between Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann, internet upstart Rand Paul against the formidable Marco Rubio, and finally, Chris “The Immovable Object” Christie against Nikki “The Irresistible Force” Haley.

Tune in at 4 p.m. east coast time for round two of Veep Madness!

There is also a lot of chatter that the trip, which coincided with the one year anniversary of the death of Osama Bin Laden, was a chance for the Obama White House to “spike the ball.”

It very well may have, but honestly, we should be used to politicians doing this sort of thing. But politicians should beware of how “spiking the ball” can blow up in your face. Just ask George W. Bush about the infamous “Mission Accomplished” incident.

Is it unsavory for politicians to do this, or is this just part of the game?

Generally, conspiracy theories represent easy explanations for otherwise unexplainable events, or they promote a political agenda. Thus we have “Truthers,” “Birthers,” and tyrannical secret societies propagated by the Illuminati. However, just because most conspiracies are built on fluff rather than substance doesn’t entirely discount the reality of conspiracies. We’re witnessing one in Sanford, Florida.

Trayvon Martin’s life was unquestionably squandered, whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. That’s the singular point upon which all sides should agree; after that the facts are muddled. So let’s focus on the conspiracy rather than on rehashing divergent and unsubstantiated opinions. Doesn’t it seem odd for a prosecutor to file a second-degree murder charge after the initial investigation produced no such evidence? Why would an experienced prosecutor take such a stance?

Bear in mind that I’m not raising this question; it’s the question respected legal experts have asked since photographic evidence was revealed that supports Zimmerman’s story. What did the prosecution know concerning those photos prior to filing the murder charge?

According to Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman is “so thin it won’t make it past a judge . . . everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.” Dershowitz also said the prosecution committed a “grave ethical violation” if the photos were known prior to filing the affidavit.

Mr. Dershowitz continued, “The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?”

I won’t pretend to instruct Mr. Dershowitz on the finer points of law. However, I will argue politics to a certain degree. And politics has forged public opinion about George Zimmerman from the outset. Therefore the State benefits greatly from filing a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman . . . if the evidence confirms he acted in self-defense.

Consider what a powder keg this case has been since day one. Zimmerman and his family have been threatened. Race hustlers accused the Sanford Police Department of a quasi-lynching and subsequent cover-up. Protesters demanded not only Zimmerman’s arrest but his conviction. The New Black Panthers placed a bounty on Zimmerman and the pros and cons of self-defense and gun control laws have been argued. The product of these variables is division and potential civil unrest, which truly benefits no one.

The prosecution found itself in a tight spot. There was a need to placate the mob mentality and avoid potential riots while also protecting the rights of the accused and of self-defense. What could be a better solution than filing a tough-on-crime charge that can’t produce a conviction? The mob’s call for justice is answered without taking a chance on imprisoning an innocent defendant or compromising the right of self-defense.

It’s a tidy conspiracy. Any takers?

Barack Obama, The Road We Really Traveled

Have a fantastic weekend.

Meanwhile, the Secret Service “incident” in Colombia appears to not be an isolated event as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had previously stated. Investigations now find related pursuits within the Secret Service (giving its name an entirely new meaning) going back to early in the Clinton administration (maybe he wasn’t so bad, by comparison).

John Stossel pointed out in a Wall Street Journal article the TSA’s higher cost and significantly lower performance rate when compared to the private screeners at San Francisco International Airport. TSA Administrator John Pistole responded in the WSJ with a “revised” version of the study Stossel had cited, which led to Stossel firing back, pointing to further issues with the “study” used by the TSA.

Finally, don’t forget to help Mitt Romney select a running mate by voting in the Vice Presidential Championship today.

Meanwhile, President Obama and Mitt Romney are neck and neck in the PD Composite. The two daily tracking polls, Rasmussen (Romney +5) and Gallup (Obama +6), are current conflicting and the most recent other poll has the two candidates tied. Finally, if you haven’t voted the the VEEPstakes today, don’t forget to support your candidates.

Can this story have an impact on the fall election? Do Columbian apples fall far from the tree?