Governor Christie and Mayor Booker team up in a web video that has tongues wagging.

Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has a new video calling out Karl Rove and Crossroads for spending “$25 million from secret donors to tear down the president.” (“Secret donors,” sounds scary.)

What else is on your political brain this weekend?

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.

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.

Barack Obama, The Road We Really Traveled

Have a fantastic weekend.

Feel free to discuss any of the match-ups, candidates left out, seedings you disagree with, or general complains about the committee in the comments. Voting is now open below the jump and will remain open until May 1 at 11:59 pm EST.

The “rust-belt” states are a group of aging giants, who has felt the effects of the economic troubles worse than most, mainly due to the fact they weren’t doing so hot before the epic meltdown of 2007. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa are five that will play a major role in deciding who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania next year. Barack Obama won all of these states, peeling Iowa and Ohio away from the Republicans.

The “southern-swing” states are three states that have moved from being GOP solid, to being the key to President Obama’s victory in 2008. Florida, North Carolina and Virginia all went for George W. Bush in his two electoral victories, and all three went to Obama in ’08.

The “moderate-western” states are Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Again, Dubbya won these states five out of the six times they votes over his two elections, with New Mexico the lone victory to Al Gore, but only by .06% in 2000. And, again, Barack Obama won all three of these states in 2008.

The “other” battle ground states that don’t fit so squarely in any of the four categories above are New Hampshire and Missouri. New Hampshire went Bush/Kerry/Obama in the last three cycles, with the first two being close and Obama winning the state by nearly 10 points in 2008. Missouri went to Bush twice, and was Obama’s narrowest victory in 2008.

So what does a Republican need to do to win? A lot. If you allocate each candidate electoral votes from the states they are all but certain to win, Obama can likely count on 196 electoral votes and the Republican candidate, which we will assume is Mitt Romney for the sake of this piece, should get 181 electoral votes.

Let’s eliminate a couple of these states based on some reasonable assumptions. Despite the fact that his father was once governor there, Michigan is likely a tough get for Romney. It has been solidly Democrat in the last several elections, and recent poll numbers have Obama up. On the other hand, given the narrow victory and GOP history, we could reasonably say that Romney will reclaim Missouri. Also, after a huge victory there, and the fact he governed its neighbor, I’ll swing New Hampshire into the Romney column.

That makes the map 212 to 195 Obama, with our wild, wooly swing states left to go. Every single state left on our board was won by the President in 2008, which means that Mitt Romney will have to take a little over 57% of those electoral votes away from Obama to win.

To put it in perspective, even if Romney can get Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina back into the win column for the GOP, he’s still five votes short in the electoral college.

There are hundreds of scenarios and a lot of time for them to develop.

Shame on you. Dusty Harry is going to resume senate consideration of the “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012”. Commonly known as the Buffet Rule, it would require Americans who make more than $1 million to pay at least 30% of that income (regardless of how it is earned) to Uncle Sam. I’ll spare you the legislative details and just give you the bottom line answer to the question “is this rule the solution to the $1.6 trillion hole in the current federal operating budget?

Short answer? No. The long term (10 year) budget projections with and without the Buffet Rule are roughly the same.

So the question really is, why is the President of the United States hell bent on adding this legislation to his collection? And the answer to that question has nothing to do with tax policy, spending priorities, or anything remotely related to fiscal discipline. No, Dear Reader, Barry and Company want to tax the rich at a higher rate to make people like you and me feel better about the fact that we don’t have as much as they do. Team Obama wants to do this in the name of “fairness”.

Don’t believe me? Ok. Fine. Here’s Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center:

It’s not solving the problem and it’s not fixing the tax system. It’s just addressing an issue that might viscerally bother people. There’s something about really rich people with great lifestyles paying less than you or me that’s offensive.

I don’t know what the qualifications are to be a “senior fellow” at a place like the Tax Policy Center, but evidently general math isn’t one of them. Guys like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney paid more in taxes last year than I’ll most likely make in my lifetime. I don’t find that offensive. I see that as a goal worth pursuing. I don’t begrudge either of those two guys their wealth. In the immortal words of Tevye, “if riches are a curse, may God smite me with it, and may I never recover!”

What lies at the heart of this debate isn’t fairness. It’s envy. Yeah, bright green envy. Barack Obama is envious of guys like Mitt Romney because they are wealthy regardless of political position and he is not. Take away the big blue airplane, the green helicopter, and all the other accoutrements associated with the White House and Obama goes back to Chicago and the house Tony Rezko bought for him. His presidency cannot be defined by any other term than “Epic Fail” thus he’ll try and make you feel better about his government’s effect on your life (and your wallet) by making a few thousand successful Americans pay dearly for having dared to make a whole lot of money.

Yes, Dear Reader, the target of the Buffet Rule is about 4,000 Americans.

The One would have you believe that if the “rich” just paid their “fair share” all of our fiscal problems would be solved – and we could all feel better about America’s future. There’s only one problem with that logic – its entirely illogical. Facts are very stubborn things, and the fact of the matter is, you could tax all the money from all the “rich” people in this vast nation and barely come up with enough cash to fill the hole in one of Barack Obama’s spending plans. I’d call it a federal budget, but evidently we don’t have those anymore.

To illustrate just how vast the spending problem is, I yield the floor to Bill Whittle and his nine minute lecture as to just how laughable the reality of “eating the rich” really is.

Go ahead, watch the whole thing. I’ll be here when you get back.

The bottom line here is Washington doesn’t have a tax problem. The Federal Government takes in about $2.4 trillion during the course of any given year. Washington has a serious spending problem in the fact that in addition to the $2.4 trillion it takes in, it lays out another $1.6 trillion. That’s the dictionary definition of “unsustainable” and the only solution The One can seem to find is raising taxes, which actually reduces revenue.

Never fear, Dear Reader, it’s all done in the name of fairness by a taxing President who’s only idea of a “fair share” is him getting more of your money. How much more? Well, that’s all up to him. For now, just send more.

Optics refers to how something comes across, how it looks to people, the impression that it leaves.

Narrative is the overriding message one takes away from an occurrence or a politician’s approach to a situation or problem.

There are three politicians who figure prominently in the 2012 campaign whose optics and narratives are major factors.

The first is Paul Ryan, Republican Congressman from Wisconsin. Ryan is the acknowledged Republican elected financial leader. His FY 2013 Budget proposal has caused quite a stir on Capitol Hill. Unlike the tepid debt-reduction steps taken by a bipartisan committee in the summer of 2011 or even the slightly more aggressive measures recommended by the Bowles-Simpson group, Ryan’s proposed budget actually tackles our runaway deficit spending head on, and posits very specific actions to bring it under control within a decade (something the President’s “plan”—he has no actual passed budget to work from—doesn’t even hint at).

Medicare is probably the biggest unfunded liability that we face as a country. The program will collapse upon itself in short order without major attention and financial overhaul. Yet reliance on it is central to the way senior Americans have come to live their lives. Any threat of reducing funding or altering the “social contract” with our seniors is regarded as the proverbial third rail of American politics.

Ryan’s solution for the Medicare conundrum includes having the States administer a customized program that is more efficiently tailored to that state’s particular senior demographics, and having private insurance companies compete for vouchers that seniors would buy from them. The theory is that individual states could administer a local program more cost-effectively than the distant, out-of-touch, one-size-fits-all Federal Government and that by having local private insurance companies actively compete for seniors’ business, costs would go down and the product would improve—as is always the case with open-market competition. Always.

The problem for Ryan (and the Republicans) is this: The Democrats have stolen the narrative and pinned it negatively on Ryan: “He will end Medicare as you know it! What you’ve come to depend on will be gone!” Pundits call the Democrats’ tactics “Mediscare,” but it’s effective, and thus far, neither Ryan nor the Republican Party has been able to counter it effectively. As a long-term consideration, the Democrats’ refusal to address the problem has ensured Medicare’s catastrophic failure, but they’ve won the short-term narrative as it pertains to the 2012 election. So far, anyway.

The second politician in this group is Mitt Romney. The presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Romney is a formidable and attractive political figure on many counts. Well-spoken, handsome, telegenic, and giving off an aura of both competence and confidence, he is no doubt a more formidable challenger to President Obama than either Santorum or Gingrich.

But like tennis, unforced errors are the most damaging of all. Romney is wealthy. He is a successful businessman, and has earned a fortune through shrewd business dealings and savvy investing. He is right on the edge of what the average person considers “too rich.” Yet if he demonstrates a real empathy for the average worker and has a viable plan to revive job growth and the economy, people will disregard his wealth, or even view it as a job qualification.

But if he flaunts his wealth in a way that people regard as callous or unthinking, it will work to his detriment. Romney is building a house in California, and apparently it includes a car elevator. One can only imagine why. But the Democrats have jumped on this to portray Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy who has nothing in common with the average working person. Their implication is clear. If ever there was a definition of bad optics, this is it. Romney should have delayed building the house until after the election and denied the Democrats the easy point off the unforced error.

But while Ryan is losing the narrative and Romney has an optics problem, President Obama is encumbered with both. The oral arguments before the Supreme Court for Obamacare went very badly for the White House. Most judicial observers reported that it’s quite likely that the Patient Mandate aspect of the bill—O’care’s central tenet—will be struck down as unconstitutional. If that happens, then the rest of the bill is also in jeopardy, throwing his signature achievement into the trash heap in a most unceremonious fashion.

Immediately after the negative reports began to surface, the President went into full pre-emptive attack mode. He called the possibility that the Supreme Court would have the unmitigated temerity to overturn his bill “unprecedented” (even though it demonstrably was not), he castigated the court for being “political” and practicing unwarranted activism, “…exactly what Republicans are always accusing the Courts of doing.”

The President came across as whiny and petty, overtly political, and a sore loser, assuming the Court’s decision does eventually go against him. Like Romney and his car elevator, the optics were bad for the President. Very undignified and unbecoming of the supposedly refined highest office-holder.

But the optics aren’t President Obama’s biggest problem. Not by a long shot. His problem with the possibility of Obamacare’s being found unconstitutional by the Court is the narrative that will result: the overriding takeaway by the public will be that the President is incompetent, undisciplined, egotistical to a fault, and has put his own personal desire for acclaim ahead of the country’s well-being.

Obama is supposed to be a Constitutional scholar. He led the Harvard Law Review. He taught Constitutional Law at the university level. One has the realistic expectation that he—more so than almost any president before him—ought to know when a bill is constitutional and when it skates too close to the edge for legal comfort. It’s obvious he either clearly didn’t know or had such a high opinion of his own self-importance that the Court couldn’t possibly find against him, given the magnitude of what he was doing. (Whether he was doing it for the good of the country or to secure his spot in history as “the President who solved the health-care conundrum where no one else could” is open to question. Or not.)

Then there is the mess that will remain if the Mandate (or the entire bill) is struck down. What happens then? What is still in place and what goes back to the previous way of doing things? Who is going to clarify that? The healthcare system will be in shambles, and Obama will get the blame—rightly—for putting forth a bill that he should have known was not likely to pass Court muster in that form.

Above all this is the unmistakable and undeniable notion that President Obama worked on his ego-satisfying healthcare bill even while the country languished in the depths of economic despair. In 2009, unemployment, the finance system, and basic confidence in our country’s ability to function economically were all at post-Depression low points, yet the President’s response in that painful first year was to put forward a wasteful, ineffective, horrendously expensive “stimulus” bill (that accomplished nothing) with only Democratic support. He has barely paid attention to our fundamental economic problems or to energy pricing, choosing instead to burden the business sector with uncertainty, over-regulation, and the threat of ever-increasing taxes, while he worked on Obamacare.

If Obamacare is struck down and the economy continues its tepid, historically worst-ever “recovery,” then the narrative will be that President Obama has completely wasted his term in office chasing a pipedream, that his priorities were all wrong, that he should have had a clear grasp on the Constitutionality of his healthcare attempt (after all, that is supposedly his area of expertise), and that he put his own glory ahead of putting people back to work.

Those are his optics and that is his narrative. Neither looks good.

Check out Sabato’s full crystal ball here.

And their evil money dog bone:

But ultimately, Mr. Santorum’s campaign struggled under a nearly-constant barrage of negative ads paid for by Mr. Romney and the “super PAC” supporting him, Restore our Future, which has spent millions in an effort to ensure that Mr. Romney captures the nomination in his second attempt.

And so, the ABR (anybody but Romney) crowd is finally turned away disappointed and the political couch potatoes must turn their attention to Romney’s VP selection. Is there a VP out there that can turn tea leaves gold?

Reports have South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley on Romney’s short list as VP, which is somewhat counter to conventional wisdom that Romney would go with a “safe” pick.

Rick Santorum met with a group of conservative leaders in Virginia in what was described as “a late attempt to rally the right and block Mitt Romney’s nomination from becoming inevitable.”

Today The One took to the rose garden podium and boldly declared that the Supreme Court should avoid the appearance of judicial activism and vote to uphold the government takeover of all things health related. Declared The One:

We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. The reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.

To quote the old country song, “wishin’ don’t make it so.” Perhaps The One was too busy hobnobbing with the Russians whilst the Supremes were debating whether or not there was constitutional precedence to uphold the 2,700+ page monstrosity. Never mind the fact at least one Supreme declared that being forced to read such a bill would violate the Eighth Amendment. The best anyone could do trying to find precedent for forcing a citizen to buy a product or service was a Revolutionary War statute requiring conscripts to show up with a musket and ammunition.

I’m no legal scholar, but I’m hard pressed to find one who believes the Solicitor General acquitted himself well on the nation’s biggest legal stage last week. Never mind that. The One has declared his signature piece of legislation to meet constitutional muster and laughs in the general direction of the Supreme Court when they question his wisdom.

Ummm…excuse me, Mr. President. There’s just one slight problem with your argument: Determining the constitutionality of any given statue is the express domain of the Supreme Court of the United States. Yeah, those nine people in black robes who show up each January (well most of them do) to your State of the Union Show. Those same nine legal scholars you saw fit to upbraid on national television because they dared to disagree with you on campaign finance law. Oh, and your declaration that tossing it out would be “unprecedented, extraordinary step” based solely on the fact that said statute was passed by a majority of both houses of Congress? I guess you really don’t understand how the constitution is set up. Tossing out badly written, poorly worded and, oh yeah, unconstitutional statutes is what the Supremes do. It’s their job. You keep using that word “unprecedented”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to call the Supremes out on the national stage. It might turn out that The One isn’t the only one keeping score.

Romney has now picked up endorsements from moderates, conservatives and tea party leaders. Will this sway any holdout ABRbots?

This shirt is being sold by the Barack Obama campaign in obvious reference to Joe Biden’s open microphone gaffe.

Rick Santorum has come out with an endorsement of Barack Obama, if the other choice is Mitt Romney. Is this the beginning of the end? Are the campaign pressures getting to Rick or is he right?

The hottest ticket in town these days is for the June title game at Supreme Stadium. That’s when the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) is taken up by the nation’s highest court. Word has it that seats in the Court’s gallery are going fast.

To most people, Obamacare has been a puzzle on many levels for the entirety of its existence. It has been vaguely described as “Universal health Care,” with the implication that the US Government is henceforth going to provide “free” healthcare to everyone, for their entire lives.

Really? But isn’t the most controversial aspect of the Act the clause that mandates individuals buy health insurance? Isn’t the “mandate” the part of the law that is being challenged on Constitutional grounds, the thought being that it violates some commerce-related law stating that Government cannot compel individuals to take part in a purchase transaction (“commerce”) against their will?

And what will be employers’ part in all this? Will they still continue to offer health care coverage to their employees as part of their benefits package? Will certain smaller-sized employers be exempt from that from now on? Will the Government fine those employers who don’t offer coverage or otherwise don’t comply with the admittedly Byzantine rules of the new 2700-page! act?

All of which begs the larger question: Exactly what does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act entail? Who’s covered? And by whom—the Government or private insurers? For how much? What are the levels and duration of the coverage? What happens if an individual elects not to buy health insurance?

When asked by someone during the Act’s debate phase what was contained in the new bill, Nancy Pelosi (then Speaker of the House) famously answered, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” It’s since passed; no one seems to know what it means, and so much of it is open-ended and unspecified that there appears to be ample room for its implementation to be of the “make it up as you go along” variety.

The inexact, imprecise, totally amorphous nature of Obamacare has led to a feeling of public discomfort with the bill. In spite of the inability of most people to define with certitude the explicit details of the law with which they’re uncomfortable, there seems to be a general undercurrent that Government involvement on so large a scale, in such a critically-important and personal area, can’t lead to a betterment in the quality of peoples’ day-to-day lives. Only inefficiency, exasperation and frustration can result from this, say the 67% of people opposed to Obamacare in a recent poll.

From a political standpoint, what is the preferred outcome of the Court’s decision? Those adamantly opposed to O’Care want it repealed under any circumstances, regardless of the political implications. A Court ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional guts Obamacare and renders its main thrust—compelling everyone to buy insurance— meaningless. For this faction, that’s all that matters: strike it down.

For the President, a case can be made that either way is good. Uphold the Act, and his efforts to introduce such sweeping legislation are vindicated. His 2008 campaign promise to “fundamentally transform America’ is largely fulfilled. Strike down the mandate, and the Act’s re-introduction and complete passage become a strong, central rallying cry to his supporters: “You must come out in huge numbers and support us, so we can finish what we’ve started and get everyone the coverage I promised and that you deserve. It’s your birthright; it’s not a privilege for the wealthy few.”

For the Republican nominee, a similar double-sided case is there: Strike down the Act now, and Obamacare is effectively over. That means the time-bomb national debt disaster is defused so the country can meet its obligations to our seniors and retirees, both of whose Government entitlement programs would have been defunded and scuttled with the diversion of revenues to an out-of-control Government health care program. It also means that income and capital gains taxes don’t have to rise to pay for a program that could never be paid for. In short, without Obamacare, we have a shot at not becoming Greece and a shot at a solid future for your children. With Obamacare, we’re doomed. If O’Care is upheld, then its existence becomes the Republicans’ rallying cry: Elect us and we’ll repeal it, so the country can survive.

The Court’s decision—coming just before the election—will indeed be a highly-watched affair, and will surely put spinmeisters on both sides to perhaps their sternest test ever, with stakes never higher.

May be factual, may not be.

One thing is certain: No amount of personal doubt and “dirt” thrown on Obama will have even the slightest negative effect on Obama in this election. If anything, attacks and questions about his personal background will redound strongly to the president’s favor. Very strongly.

The liberal media and Obama’s operatives will quickly cast any questions about his background as a personal—even racial—attack on Obama and the questioner will be diminished to the point of irrelevance (or worse).

The casually-inattentive voters—that swing middle 15-20% who always decide elections—will be led to feel “sorry” for Obama by the liberal MSM. This is a losing strategy, a losing approach for the Republicans, regardless of its degree of verity.

The time to vet Obama was in ’07-’08. The time has passed. He was and will forever remain unvetted.

There is more than enough substance of a more conventional, persuadable nature on which to base an anti-incumbent Presidential campaign. Energy, taxes, jobs, regulations, the deficit, wasteful spending, and on and on give the eventual Republican nominee a treasure trove of opportunities that would resonate strongly–if presented properly!–with that aforementioned swing group.

To gin up the sympathy vote in Obama’s favor is a sure loser, whether the upcoming movie is true or not.

Oh BTW, the most interesting point, to me, of this video occurs from 13:00-13:25. If you don’t watch anything else, watch those 25 seconds.

That’s not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he’s not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul’s supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.

Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would’ve lasted a decade. Give the President’s advisors an “A” in spin, but the idea of Paul’s supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.

Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He’d like to repeal the 16^th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he’d prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama’s reelection? Fat chance, Barry!

It’s true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush’s “unpatriotic” deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes “W” appear cautious. Three years into Obama’s presidency we’ve increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has risen, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.

Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama’s foreign policies will appeal to Paul’s base is even more far-fetched.

Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul’s ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn’t commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.

Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we’ve withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek permission from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.

In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama’s campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President’s ideological polar opposite.

The double standard on what constitutes a win is becoming tough to ignore. Whether Santorum wins or loses by a slim margin, it’s somehow a win for him. But for Romney, narrow wins are all losses.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about the media fighting Romney and not wanting him to be the nominee. The theory being that the media fears he’d be a more formidable horse against Obama, so they’d rather bang him around and hope someone else emerges. If nothing else, he’d be damaged goods in the fall.

I just don’t see it. The media wants the longest race possible, and why wouldn’t they? Ratings are profits and this has been a very profitable race so far. Debates have generally scored big ratings and the result nights have been must-see-TV. What political junkie wasn’t tuned into the results in Ohio Tuesday night?

Have you ever looked at the ratings of a baseball playoff game that’s tied in the ninth, or better yet, goes into extra innings? The ratings go off the charts. When a team sweeps an NBA Finals or World Series, networks bemoan the lost revenue of missed games and missed eyeballs.

That’s what we’re seeing right now. The media wants a long race, they want a Super Bowl to hit overtime, they want a contested primary that runs into Tampa. They crave Game 7.

The media narrative has incredible control over shaping the election. How can they extend the race? By telling us how unpalatable Romney is to republicans, despite the fact that he’s won 14 of 23 states and has a commanding delegate lead.

Yes, I know these numbers are subject to state conventions, but not enough to overcome these gaps. The Associated Press’ estimate puts Romney at 415 delegates, to Santorum’s 176, with Gingrich and Paul at 105 and 47, respectively.

Because so many of the remaining states are proportional allocation, Romney can finish second and keep Santorum and Gingrich from the closing the gap.

ABR commenters on this site and others point to Romney’s difficulty “closing the deal.” Can’t the same be said for Santorum and Gingrich? Santorum led by healthy double digits in Michigan and Ohio and failed to close the deal, losing both.

These same ABRbots will tell you Romney only won because he had more money. Yes, more money to shine a brighter light on the differences between his candidacy and theirs. You know who else has a lot of dough? Obama and the DNC.

If anything, Romney’s money-propelled wins should be Exhibit A for why republicans need a well-financed candidate to battle Obama in the fall. All that red, white and blue talk of how money doesn’t win elections belongs in Disney movies, not 2012 America.

Is money everything? No, just ask the formerly cash-flush Rick Perry. But does money move the needle? You tell me, Mr. Ohiofloridamichigan.

And what of Newt? He’s won 2 states. Two. Somehow he sees a path to the nomination? The only path left for the former speaker should be straight to Anytime Fitness.

If Romney is confident he can win man-to-man against Santorum, why not call for Newt to drop-out? And why is Santorum being so squishy about it? The two men should issue a joint statement calling for Newt to withdraw on the basis that the party deserves a showdown between the two leading horses.

It will never happen because Romney enjoys seeing the two men siphon votes from one another. But it would be a game changer, a tremendous show of confidence. “You want me one-on-one, Rick? Let’s do it.”

Finally, I genuinely feel sorry for Ron Paul supporters. This was their year. They weren’t going to win the nomination, of course, but they were going to win some states, amass a sizable delegate haul, and make noise at the convention.

There’s been noise, all right, but only at their rallies. He’s the man with the most energetic supporters. He’s the guy who could organize a hands-across-North Dakota rally with no awkward gaps.

But he’s also the horse with zero wins. Nada. And please don’t point to Maine or Iowa, states where you think he could eventually come out with more delegates. You need a win. A real win. And if you can’t win in the states you so heavily targeted already, then where?

There has been an on-again-off-again argument on PD about what the word “viable” means. Some argued that Romney wasn’t “viable” because he wasn’t conservative enough, implemented Romneycare, etc. etc. etc.

But at this point it’s pretty clear: “viable” means you have a very heathy delegate lead, you’ve won more states than the others combined and you’re still outraising the competition.

Cain was viable? Really? Bachmann? For real? Paul? Fo’ shizzle!

I understand the ABRbot position. You want a pure conservative, you want someone who came from the womb with the Constitution memorized and a Tea Party tattoo. But here’s the rub: there is no such thing. With the exception, perhaps, of Paul, every ABR candidate has serious flaws on their “true conservative” resume.

I’ve been saying for years that Romney would be the 2012 nominee and my position is unchanged. You might say Romney wouldn’t be your first choice, maybe not even your second, but you can only vote for the names on the ballot, and Romney remains the best hope for republicans to beat Obama.

In their desperate, almost hysterical attempt to denigrate Mitt Romney (the likely GOP nominee and thought to be the toughest Obama opponent in November), NBC has resorted to spinning tales of being in a tough preliminary fight with Gingrich and Santorum as evidence of Romney’s weakness.

When objective political observers point out that the ’08 Dem prelim season was a bruising affair that came down to Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, then just Hillary and Obama, the reporters at NBC say this to legitimize the Dem ’08 contest as being positive for the Democrats, while using the ’12 GOP prelims to cast all the GOP-ers in a negative light:

It was one thing for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to duke it out in ’08, trading victories and splitting up the delegates; it was a clash of political titans. But it’s another thing for Romney — the always-assumed GOP front-runner — to be unable to pull away from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

A “clash of political titans.”

Let that one sit for a while. Let it sink in. Yes, Chuck Todd actually said that.

Just how “titantic” a political figure was Barack Obama in 2008? How long had he been in the Senate? Was it his first term? Did he in fact spend a huge portion of his first term just running for President? Hillary was criticized for allowing the low-standing junior senator to battle her on even terms, and then her defeat was regarded as something akin to the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team (Obama) beating the heavily-favored “inevitable” Russians (Clinton).

What landmark, Republic-changing legislation did the distinguished Senator Obama introduce and shepherd into law during his long and storied Senate career of, oh, those many months?

In fact, Barack Obama was pretty much the Paris Hilton of politicians–he was reasonably famous for merely being Barack Obama, and nothing more. No accomplishments. No signature legislation. No years-long, well-publicized fights for heart-felt causes. He was modestly-known to some at the time of his announcement for being an attractive, eloquent black politician. Nothing more. (Please do not imbue that statement with negative or nefarious racial implications. It’s intended simply as a political observation.)

That’s a “political titan”?

But NBC uses his standing now to retro-cast his reputation then and attempt to legitimize why a tough Dem prelim race was good for the Dems in ’08 but a similarly tough GOP prelim race in ’12 just proves how weak all the GOP candidates are.

And they do it so smoothly, so seamlessly. You have to really pay attention to catch it.

Satan has his sights set on the United States of America!!

Well, isn’t that just special?!?

—–

In all seriousness, I have a great respect for Senator Santorum, but the opposition research has just begun and it seems to me he just doesn’t have a good internal censor to keep him from spouting off stuff that gives ammunition to his opponents.

Which candidates could you absolutely not vote for? We’re not talking about holding your nose and voting for the lessor of two evils, we’re talking about the candidates who inspire you to stay home.

Newt? Romney? Santorum?

What if a latecomer shocked the world and jumped in? Are there any other dark horses who could never, under any circumstances, earn your vote in November?

However, conservatives haven’t warmed to Romney, as last week’s caucuses confirm. So Rick Santorum becomes the latest, and perhaps strongest, “conservative alternative” the “anyone but Romney” camp has long sought.

Santorum is solidly conservative on many issues. He’s pro-life and dedicated to the time-tested family unit. Santorum opposed TARP, Obama’s “stimulus” slush fund, and both the auto and Freddie/Fannie bailouts. He’s a proven proponent of entitlement reform, recognizing the entitlement system as a budgetary and economic albatross around the nation’s neck. He also voted to end direct farm subsidies, and still he won the Iowa Caucuses. 

Yet Santorum’s silver lining contains a dark cloud. In fact, his résumé includes glaring inconsistencies. His 2005 vote to subsidize milk production contradicts his efforts to end farm subsidies. While Santorum was fiscally disciplined during the 90s, he fell in line with the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush era, supporting Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a highway bill rich in earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Santorum opposed ethanol subsidies prior to 9/11, changed his mind due to security concerns afterwards, and then voted to end them altogether just a few years later.

Santorum didn’t contest Maine, so those results are irrelevant to his momentum. However, before elevating him to savior status we might also consider that he lost his Senate reelection bid by a wide margin. He seems equally comfortable on either side of an issue, depending on whether he’s supporting his party or preaching against the opposition. Let’s also consider that he received no delegates for his Missouri victory and awarded delegates in Colorado aren’t necessarily bound to him. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich — the other “anti-Romney” — bypassed those caucuses. Where might Santorum have finished had the anti-Romney voters been split between he and Newt, especially in Colorado? 

Also, Romney’s money and political organization remain formidable. The Mitt Machine was quite thorough in highlighting Gingrich’s flaws and we witnessed an associated tumble in Newt’s standing. Romney’s guns weren’t then trained on Santorum. But, with last week’s results, Rick becomes an intrusion that warrants a full salvo from Romney’s battlewagon. Santorum should expect to take fire from here forward, and not only from Romney. Gingrich isn’t the type to fade gracefully into the background, either.

Maybe Rick Santorum is the conservative’s best option. He does present solid credentials. However, no candidate is perfect, including Santorum. He bears the dead weight of personal and policy contradictions and inconsistencies. The question is: Can Santorum survive the Romney camp’s predictable assault long enough to become the legitimate “anti-Mitt?”

Mitt Romney won The Washington Times/CPAC Presidential Straw Poll on Saturday, and also nipped Rick Santorum as the top choice of conservatives nationwide, according to a new version of the poll conducted for the first time this year that suggests Mr. Romney retains strong support among self-identified conservatives.

Romney: 38%, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%

There is, of course, times and places where religion and public service meet and indeed intermingle. One of these occasions is the National Prayer Breakfast held annually in Washington DC. This venue is an opportunity for the nation’s political leaders to get together and take time to publicly acknowledge the power of prayer and the hand of the Divine in their lives. Very seldom, if ever, is the venue used as a platform from which to flog domestic political agendas and paint them as divinely inspired.

Unless, of course, your name happens to be Barack H. Obama. Then, of course, you have license to declare your political ideology as the answer to the bumper sticker question “What Would Jesus Do?” Obviously He would raise taxes on the rich to confiscatory levels. So saith The One:

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

I, for one, was unaware Jesus had endorsed Obama’s tax plan. Maybe I missed the memo. The only scriptural reference I’ve ever heard regarding money and government is found in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus is asked about rendering tribute unto Caesar. Said Jesus:

Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? The answered and said, Caesar’s.

And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s. – Luke 20:24-25

In my not-so-humble opinion, God is very uninterested in mine or anyone else’s money. That is made by and belongs to the Caesars of the world. What is required of God’s children is to render unto Him that which is His. Every human spirit, no matter how tarnished and battered by the world’s tribulation, bears the image and superscription of the Divine. The Almighty wants what is His, and it can only be given freely.

I’m no theologian but I humbly submit there is no divine inspiration or guidance in the US tax code. The Almighty cares little about how high the top marginal rate is or how much the top one percent pay to today’s incarnation of Caesar. In fact, the only “rate” contained in scripture is that of tithing. Being no respecter of persons or earthly stature, the Almighty seems content with ten percent regardless of whether or not you’re among the one percent or the ninety-nine. For the life of me I can’t figure out why God can get by with ten percent, but Government can’t seem to make do with 35 percent without wanting more.

President Obama has made many headlines lately as he runs afoul of religious liberty at every given opportunity. Whether it be with the wrongheaded claims of a divinely inspired tax increase or demanding religious institutions bend the knee and genuflect before Obamacare abortion and contraception regulations, there is an obvious effort underway to deemphasize religion in this country in favor of a more powerful state.

Thankfully, for the time being, this nation is still one where political leaders can be brought to heel by the express will of the people spoken through a national election. Between now and November much will be said and proclaimed about those men seeking to sit in the Oval Office. Whoever that candidate may be (and yes I do have my own preference) all I can tell you right now, Dear Reader, is that I have rendered all I care to render unto this Caesar.