Recently in Elections Category

It appears my decision to stop watching the Vice Presidential debate after the first 15 minutes was correct one.

Sampling the posts of those multitude of bloggers, both liberal and conservative leaning, it looks like my initial impression of how it was going to play out was right on.

Biden was condescending, rude, loud, and willing to make accusations he knew were false or "inaccurate".

Ryan was calm and collected, even when chastising Biden for constantly interrupting him.

Biden blew his cool. Ryan did not.

Biden was playing to the Democrats who would have voted for Obama in any case. Ryan was trying to sway everyone else.

That's pretty much what I expected, meaning I really didn't miss anything by not watching the rest of the debate.

Vice Presidential Debate

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Basically I stopped listening when Biden said "What a bunch of malarkey!" after Ryan's response to Biden's contention that the White House hadn't tried to spin the murder of Ambassador Stephens and three other Americans in Libya. Biden then tried to blame the deaths on Ryan for "cutting $300 million of funding for embassy security." That's a bunch of malarkey!

'Truth' Is Too Flexible

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have to admit to being totally burned out in regards to the political ads running on TV. The truth contained in these ads, or in this case, partial facts masquerading as truth, has been far too 'flexible'.

Here in New Hampshire I have seen claims made about opposing candidates, citing publications, studies, or records of votes on certain legislation in small print at the bottom of the screen as if they lend a certain legitimacy to the claims made.

However, on more than one occasion I have actually searched for those articles, studies, and records, only to find that the cites referenced did not accurately reflect the claims made. In too many cases only partial quotes were used, the excerpts being edited in such a way to make them seem to say one thing when if the cite were read in its entirety the true meaning is revealed and the edited versions is proven to be false.

One of the favorite devices used by both sides is to claim candidate X voted for/against some piece of legislation that would have provided Y for the needy or given Z to the greedy. But when you look closer at the legislation cited you find that Y or Z were part of a larger bill that was seriously flawed or the portion of the legislation that supposedly was going to provide Y or Z had deficiencies that would not have provided Y or Z, at least not to the people for whom it was intended, or would have caused harm in ways not foreseen by the sponsors, or would have wasted millions on something that wouldn't work.

In New Hampshire and neighboring Massachusetts, I have to give the edge in misleading or creatively edited 'facts' to the Democrats. Over the past couple of weeks I have dug into the claims made by Democrat and Republican ads for state and federal offices and the ads run by Democrats have been far more deceptive and misleading than those run by Republicans.

Keep in mind that my study is by no means scientific. I cannot claim that bias has not crept in (though I tried very hard to keep my biases in check). I haven't looked at every campaign ad and researched their veracity. If I did that I would have to quit my job and stop sleeping. I have better things to do with my life. But during this campaign cycle I've found the Democrats to be much looser with the truth than the Republicans, by a factor of almost three-to-one.

How is it anyone can trust any of these folks when the willingness to use bits of the truth to create falsehoods is widespread? Once they gain office how will we know they won't use the same mechanism to lie to their constituents about bills they're proposing and causes they're supporting?

We don't, and that's the problem.

By way of Glenn Reynolds comes this article from Investor's Business Daily showing how the Obama campaign is based upon 5 phony economic claims, all easily debunked.

Obama's claims:

The Bush tax cuts and deregulation caused the recession.

I stopped a second Great Depression.

My policies are working.

A slow recover was inevitable.

Nobody could have done any better.

Let's take a look at two of my favorites, being the first and last claims on the list. First, the first claim:

The Bush tax cuts and deregulation caused the recession.

It's a standard Obama talking point. But it's not true. Bush's tax cuts did not cause the last recession.

In fact, once they were fully in effect in 2003, they sparked stronger growth -- generating more than 8 million new jobs over the next four years, and GDP growth averaging close to 3%.

Those tax cuts didn't explode the deficit, either, as Obama frequently claims. Deficits steadily declined after 2003, until the recession hit.

Most of the deregulation that Obama blames on Bush took place during Clinton administration. If anything, regulation grew during Bush's time in office. Obama needs to retire this phony claim as it's too easy to prove it's false.

In regards to the last claim - Nobody could have done any better - I have only this to say:

I could have done better than you! I have a modicum of understand about how an economy works, how improper and overreaching regulations can hurt businesses large and small, and that punishing success and rewarding sloth and failure get you less of the first and more of the second, neither of which helps the economy. My wife and I have actually run a business, dealt with the headaches such a thing entails, worried about paying the bills and taxes, meeting a payroll, and dealing with an ever increasing litany of more intrusive (and expensive) regulations that affected our business. While you, on the other hand, haven't run so much as a lemonade stand. (But you did manage to piss away $110 million in Annenberg Foundation funds with nothing to show for it.)

And if you need even more ammunition to debunk the claims made by The One, there's this graphic that does a pretty good job of explaining why none of his claims are anywhere near the truth.

'Nuff said.

Post Debate Impressions

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My two biggest impressions from the first Presidential Debate?

Obama constantly shaking his head 'no' as Romney spoke; and the one-way eye contact (Romney looked Obama in the eye as he spoke, but Obama looked at everyone but Romney as he spoke).

In regards to what was said, Obama constantly slammed Romney for not providing enough detail for his proposals even though Obama offered even less in the way of details when he first ran for President in 2008.

In Obama's Pocket

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I happened to catch a snippet of ABC's World News and I could not believe what I was hearing.

To all intents and purposes, ABC has already declared Obama the winner in tonight's debate, a full 2-and-a-half hours before the debate has even started. George Stefanopoulos and Diane Sawyer gushed about Obama's commanding presence, how he is so good in a debate environment and that Romney appears weak in comparison.

Yet another bit of proof that the major media networks are firmly in the pocket of the Obama campaign.

I think that even should Romney crush Obama in the debate, ABC, CBS, and NBC will declare Obama the winner.

I have been corresponding with friends in the UK, a couple of guys I met earlier this year who work for my company's European affiliate. We've become fast friends.

One of the latest rounds of e-mail turned away from some of the goings on with our families and at work and turned towards politics, specifically the race for the White House here in the US. This exchange inspired me to post portions of our e-mails. If nothing else it gives us an outsider's view of what they see happening here. It also gave me a chance to post a warning about what they see and hear coming from the US.

I won't bore you with things that are only of import to my friends and I.

Here's what "S" sent in response to an e-mail I sent over the weekend.

I have been reading quite a bit about your election campaigns. I am really surprised by the bias on FOX towards one party and other places towards the other. Do you have any public unbiased news reporters like we have in the UK (BBC)? It seems very important to me to be able to see larger perspective when it comes to this stuff to make your educated decisions. Is NH Republican or Democratic? International polls (outside US) suggest over 80% want Obama to win again, including me actually from what I have read. But internally it is always so close!

First and foremost his belief that the BBC is unbiased amused me. I didn't disabuse him of that belief. I also find it interesting that international polls seem to say that 'we', meaning Americans, want Obama to win again. Not even close.

My reply:

As far as the presidential campaigns are concerned, most of us ignore the media as none of them are trustworthy when it comes to politics. As much as some folks may bash Fox News for being too conservative, the other media outlets are just as far on the other end of the political spectrum. We don't expect the truth from any of them. They've all replaced reporting with editorializing masquerading as reporting, something that started back in the 1970's and has only gotten worse since then.

As much as the media has been playing up Obama's likely re-election, he isn't well liked here. I'll admit I didn't vote for him during the last election in 2008, but once he won I was more than willing to give him a chance. He's been a big disappointment.

With two exceptions he hasn't kept a single promise he made and the only ones he kept were the ones to make energy prices 'necessarily' skyrocket, which has seriously crippled an already rocky economy, and has managed to destroy the health care system by bringing it under even heavier government control. (Health care costs have increased by 50% but the availability and quality of care has decreased and is expected to decline even more than it already has.)

A lot of Americans don't like that he's insulted our allies (including the UK), run an "Apologize for America for being America" tour around the world, has been unwilling to deal with crucial foreign policy issues (he'd rather play golf), has shown he has no regard for the rule of law, ignores Congress and the Supreme Court, and worst of all, has not one bit of understanding of how the economy works.

Sorry, I've gone off on a political rant, and that's just plain rude of me. All I can say is don't believe half of what you read about what's going on here, and less than half of what you see on the telly in regards to the political silliness we're forced to suffer through until November 6th (Election Day). The truth is no one really knows what the outcome is going to be, the pollsters notwithstanding. As the saying goes, the only poll that counts is the one the voters will deal with on Election Day.

One of the biggest issues that most folks across the political spectrum agree upon is that Obama brought Mob-style Chicago politics to Washington, a place that was already a pit of vipers, and made it even worse, something no one wanted or needed.

It's going to be interesting around here over the next 5 weeks.

And "S's" response:

Wow, it's good to hear an insider's perspective! It will certainly be interesting, I hope you get the outcome you want!

I have noticed the extensive slagging match between the two. Rather than talking about the good they can do, they often talk more about the bad the others would do! That is completely justifiable, to a point. That's how some of the websites portray it anyway, as you said, they try to make a total meal of any slight quote that could be in ones favour. I was also surprised when I was in the US at some of the election campaigns during the TV ad-breaks. Really harsh! But as long as it is the truth, the truth never hurts.

I sent in return:

There are times when I wish the candidates would square off in the boxing ring and slug it out. It would be far more entertaining!

One of the big problems with many of the TV ads is that they're very good at distorting the truth, using sound bites or excerpts taken out of context to change the meaning of the words. Both sides use that tactic, unfortunately.

One of the biggest brouhahas over that kind of ad made the rounds here recently when a private meeting was recorded and then the recording used in an attack ad. That's bad enough. It's how it was massaged that caused a backlash. If you closed your eyes and listened to what was said you hear something quite different from the text displayed on the screen. It took something truthful and twisted it to seem like an insult to many Americans. The words spoken didn't match the words displayed on the screen. But people will pay more attention to what's on the screen rather than what they hear.

Of course some folks can never be convinced that "their" guy may be a bum. It doesn't matter what party they support, they seem incapable of changing their views no matter what.

And so it goes.

My friend is amazed at the vitriol seen in the TV ads. It has become all too common and is more the focus of every ad out there. The so-called positive campaign barely exists any more and just about everyone running for office at the state and federal level from both parties seem to revel in it. Facts go out the window, ads use references that, when checked out, don't say what the ads imply. (I think that the 'references' are included just to make it seem as if the accusation is legitimate.) When fact checkers for the Washington Post, a bastion of liberal think for decades, is slamming one Obama claim after another made against Romney for being untrue, you know it's gotten bad.

I can't wait for this to be over.

Another Example Of Arrogance

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)
I have to think that this incident is another case of an arrogant Democrat believing the "Do as I say, not as I do" nonsense.

In this case, New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District candidate, Democrat Annie Kuster, didn't like that someone was recording her as she was making her campaign rounds. In fact, she disliked the idea so much that she attacked the cameraman, took his camera from him, and walked off with it with a parting "F*** him."

Later she claimed that the cameraman had been harassing her, but as the post from the NH Journal claims, "campaign trackers, bloggers, regular voters and even reporters frequently use handheld cameras to record politicians." If she wants to be a politician she had better get used to being followed around by people with cameras while in public.

Kuster seems to be following the lead of her fellow New Hampshire Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, former member of the House from New Hampshire's First Congressional District and once again a candidate for her old seat.

Shea-Porter often harassed previous First District Congressmen at their public forums, being arrested more than once for her outbursts. But once she took office she made sure all of her 'public' appearances were devoid of anyone who might pull the same thing she had, meaning non-Democrats were decidedly unwelcome. In forums where she could not control the content of those attending, she made sure there was little if any time for anyone to ask her questions she didn't want to answer. She also had undisguised disdain and contempt for those who were not her constituents, meaning anyone in her district that wasn't a Democrat or independent. Republicans in her district were persona non grata. (This I know both directly and indirectly having experienced this discrimination and having heard from others who were treated to the same "You're not a constituent" blow off.) It's no wonder she was defeated by a landslide in 2010, replaced by Republican Frank Guinta, someone who seems to have no problems with helping his constituents regardless of their party affiliations. (Shea-Porter blamed the Chinese for her defeat, an accusation she has never explained.)

So once again we see the how arrogant Democrat politicians have one set of rules for themselves and different rules for everyone else.
The Wall Street Journal posited the question "Should voters have to show identification?"

The poll included with this group discussion showed over 89% of those taking the poll agreed that voters should be required to show ID.

The comments posted to that question showed the typical dichotomy between Republican and Democrat respondents, with Republicans favoring voter ID and Democrats opposed.

One of the most used arguments against the idea was the claim that requiring ID would disfranchise the poor and minorities, but it's been shown more than once that the argument is specious. (BTW, the term "disenfranchise" is meaningless. The correct word is "disfranchise".)

While the need to obtain proper ID may be a burden to some, that number is very small. Most of the poor and minorities cited as examples of why voter ID would be discriminatory already have the required ID. They have to have it in order to receive government benefits, cash checks, pick up certain prescriptions or over-the-counter medicines, use EBT/credit/debit cards, and a perform a host of other activities. Many of those same "poor and minorities" have drivers licenses, one of the acceptable forms of ID. Why would it be any more of a problem to present ID to vote? It would certainly reduce the ability to commit voter fraud.

My home state had a trial run for voter ID earlier this month during the September 11th state primaries. The election was used to inform voters that proper ID will be required in order to vote in the nationwide elections on November 6th.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Don't Vote If You're Dum!

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
There's nothing I can add to this.

(H/T Maggie's Farm)

Two Views Of The Campaign

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Courtesy of GG.

It Didn't Take Long

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
It certainly didn't take long.

Yesterday I mentioned in my weekly Thoughts On A Sunday post that it wouldn't be long before the Dems tried to set up an October surprise. Here it is, one day later, and it's already started.

First, there's a number of Twitter streams claiming all kinds of nasty things about Romney, including a fake Romney quote about slaves, that he wants to abolish the Martin Luther King holiday, and that his campaign slogan came from an old KKK campaign.

Then there's this roundabout way that Obama might be seen as a 'savior'. It came from a reader e-mail commenting on the Chicago teacher's strike.

"It MAY be ALL coincidental, but within the last couple of weeks, my cousin told me about a truly diabolical plan for election 'optics.' He is a Longshoreman in Texas. His union was considering going on strike for the sole purpose of allowing BHO to intervene and settle the labor dispute and look like either a uniter or maybe even tough on unions. So, when I saw that Rahm's teachers went on strike in spite of a 16% pay raise offer, my mind went places that logic would never take it, but modern day politics do. Worth watching anyway. Also, to protect my cousin from retribution from union thugs, I suppose it would be best to avoid attribution here."

Would I put it past the Obama campaign, and particularly David Axelrod, to pull off such a scheme? Nope. It is, after all, politics, Chicago-style. (Think Jack Ryan during the 2004 Senate campaign.)

Two Candidates

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Now that the half-hearted media 'frenzy' over the DNC has finally faded away (that took all of five, maybe ten minutes after the closing gavel), I can finally get down to taking a close look at the top two candidates running for President. (Yes, there are a bunch more folks out there running, but let's face it, they aren't even spoilers in comparison, unlike Ross Perot back in 1992 and 1996.)

Note: As always, I am not unbiased. I don't pretend to be, though on some issues I do try to take a look at both pro and con positions. This isn't one of those times.



Between consistently dismal jobs reports, hitting the $16 trillion mark for the national debt (of which $5 trillion belongs to him), lackadaisical control over government agencies that have gone rogue, economy killing regulations and 'programs', pandering and payoffs to labor unions and rent-seekers, destruction of the health care system (ObamaCare), and total disregard for the rule of law (executive order after executive order because Congress didn't give him what he wanted and interference in the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, just to name a few), I think it's time we show this incompetent inexperienced narcissistic blowhard the door.

Unlike most other presidents, this presidency has been about him and him alone, not the nation. (There have been others like him, but they're all dead and they didn't do nearly the damage BHO has done.)

His 'vision' of America has nothing to do with American ideals and traditions and more to do with the socialist ideals drummed into him by his mother, grandparents, and professors at college. It seems most of the people with whom he has associated were anything but mainstream Americans. Instead they were radical bomb-throwing socialists, America-hating racist theologians, and Big Government cronies. He takes no responsibility for his failures, always laying the blame on others ("It's all Bush's fault."). He takes credit for the accomplishment of others, the "I got Bin Laden" or "I saved GM" effect. And while he did have something to with both of those events, they were minor at best. Others were carrying the heavy load.

These are not the marks of a leader.


Romney's not perfect, but he's far more competent than Obama. While he's made a few mistakes, probably the biggest being so-called RomneyCare (the Massachusetts precursor to ObamaCare), he's also done a lot of the right things.

Between his time in both the private sector and government, he's created more jobs than Obama could ever hope to do. He's also had to work with a hostile Democrat majority legislature while he was governor of Massachusetts. And while he wasn't able to make a huge dent in the long institutionalized tax-and-spend mentality so prevalent in the Bay State, he did manage to rein in spending to the point where there were balanced budgets during at least three of the four years he served, and did it without raising taxes.


OK, that's enough for now. I suppose I could go on and on about both Obama and Romney, leaning heavily to excoriating Obama for his dismal performance in office, but I've got better things to do.

It's Not Just Labor Day...

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)
It's National Empty Chair Day!

Check it out.
Apparently some anti-Obama signs down in Hanson, Massachusetts have created something of a controversy. The two signs, put on private property by the property owner, have generated both ire and applause.

A few homemade billboard signs in Hanson, Mass., have generated considerable controversy for their inflammatory anti-Obama messages.

Sitting on the property of motorcycle accessories distributor Sullivans Inc., one large sign shows President Barack Obama with a caption that reads: "Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot."

"Obama One Big Ass Mistake America, Vote Mitt Romney for 2012!" it reads below the main headline. The communist symbolic images of the hammer and sickle are on the president's shirt collar.

Several feet away, another sign shows a pouting young girl giving the middle-finger to the president. "Thanks, Obama," begins the caption in bold red letters, and then continues in child-like penmanship: "You've spent my lunch money, my allowance, my inheritance, 35 years of future paychecks and my retirement. You jerk."

While the first sign displays the displeasure felt by the property owner towards out Socialist In Chief, the second is closer to the truth than most people realize. The President has mortgaged our children's futures, leaving them to pay the bills run up by him, Pelosi, and Reid. (I'm not saying the GOP has no skin in this game, but you have to admit that Obama has increased the debt greatly - about 50% - in a very short period of time with help from the Democrats in Congress.)

I have a feeling we'll see more signs like this showing up the closer we get to November, particularly the second one.
I've been reading the commentary on Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC convention and it is not surprising to me that the Democrats went absolutely apes**t about his put down of President Obama.

I could go into detail about my thoughts about it, but I won't other than to say he was masterful with his humor, his pointed jibes at the President, and his homage to Jimmy Stewart as done by Bob Newhart.

I will however link to a piece by Stuart Schneiderman, giving his analysis of both Eastwood's speech and the reaction by the ever humorless Left.

A small portion of his post:

Representing President Obama by an empty chair is salient, high concept, and very much to the point.

It offers an image that conceptualizes the Republican critique of the Obama administration. It says that President Obama has failed to lead and has failed to discharge the duties of his office because he is more interested in being out and around campaigning than sitting at his desk in the oval office being the president.

Obama and his campaign staff were sufficiently torqued by the trope to have felt a need to tweet back a picture of the president at a cabinet meeting.

When you have to point out that the chair is occupied, that means that it isn't.

'Nuff said.
I find that more often words of wisdom come not necessarily from those writing the op-ed pieces in the various publications - both hardcopy and online - but from those commenting upon them. In a recent WSJ piece by Kimberly Strassel about how it is the various state governors who are leading the way in reform, showing the federal government how to put the country's fiscal house back into order, two particularly astute observations were made by her readers - one stating the choice we have before us this coming November and the other quoting Thomas Sowell in relation to the first.

Stated the first, Steve Korn:

We have a choice between government that works and government that doesn't.

To which Gregg Sanderson replied:

Thomas Sowell had the best answer I've seen:

"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."

And so it has been in our nation and others of the West. It has become less about logic and using the lessons from the past, showing us what works and what doesn't, and more about already dis-proven means of doing things that are implemented anyways because of how it makes someone (or a group of someones) feel.

As history has shown again and again, and particularly over the past few decades, making choices based upon or heavily influenced by feelings is almost always the wrong thing to do. The unintended consequences almost always outweigh any perceived benefits and end up doing more harm than doing nothing while providing little good.
Oh. My. Gawd!
The echoes of Ann Romney's words had barely stopped reverberating at the GOP Convention before the Left's long knives were drawn, working to draw blood by doing to Ann what they'd done to Sarah Palin - dehumanizing her.

Jennifer Rubin covered Ann's speech, stating:

She showed a determination and soberness that was appropriate to a still doubting public. No one speech is going to turn an election. But Ann Romney delivered as promised. Romney and his team should consider themselves lucky to have a candidate's wife who can look her fellow Americans in the eye and sound both sincere and ebullient. She is indeed his greatest asset.

But to read the comments to Jennifer's post, you'd think Ann was something that crawled out of a sewer, becoming someone even more reviled than Palin. But what do you expect from readers of the Washington Post who are "true believers" in the cause of Progressive Socialism, (thought they don't call it that...assuming they even know what it is.)

All kinds of accusation were leveled at her, all kinds of claims about her background made, and attacks made against her sons. But every single one of those supposedly enlightened bits of information were so easily debunked with just a little bit of search time on Google or Bing. But the facts don't fit with the narrative and therefore must be discarded.

What it comes down to is the folks posting those kinds of comments ceased thinking for themselves years ago and are capable only of regurgitating what they've been told by their leaders/friends of a friend/etc. If what they hear backs up their 'beliefs', then it must be true, right? After all, the Democrats and the Left never lie about anything, do they?

I expect that the closer we get to the election the worst the attacks against Mitt, and particularly Ann will become, harking us back to the days of the character assassination of Sarah Palin and her family. And like the last election, I expect the Obama campaign to go after the Romney kids and grandkids. But I also expect to hear a hew and cry if anyone were to make cracks about Michelle or the Obama girls. After all, the rules only apply to the GOP and not the Democrats, right?

And considering some of the other activities seen by the Left and their lapdog media, I expect the racist looting hypocrites to pull every dirty trick in their book to keep the Narcissist-in-Chief in office, including making sure all of the dead, the non-citizens, and other ineligible people 'vote' for their guy as many times as they can. After all, aren't the Democrats, and particularly the Chicago machine, the party of voter fraud? (See, I can make accusations, too. But at least I can prove mine.)

For the most part I have been trying to avoid many of the campaign ads running on TV. But they are so pervasive that it is almost impossible to do so unless I'm watching something recorded on the DVR so I can skip right past them.

But I have noticed the tone and I have to say I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

It isn't that many of the ads are negative. That's pretty much par for the course. It is the focus of the ads and some of the outright falsehoods and very creative editing being put forward as the "Truth".

Before I go any farther let me give you this warning - I am not non-partisan. I am not going to pretend I'm non-partisan and I'm going to admit right up front that I am biased.

The upcoming elections in November are driving a great big wedge between those who believe the big issue for this election is the economy and those who think it's about anything but the economy. The first group is right and the second is wrong.

As I have said time and time again to many of the anti-Tea party folks (most who seem to believe the Tea party wants to impose some kind of Christian theocracy), the social issues don't matter worth a damn if the nation is bankrupt. If the economy collapses things like abortion rights, same-sex marriage, drug laws, ObamaCare, Social Security, and a whole host of other social issues will become marginalized because everyone will be too busy just trying to survive. None of that crap will matter to anyone. As Democrat consultant James Carville famously said, "It's the economy, stupid!"

The GOP ticket is focusing on the right issues, specifically the economy, jobs, and overreaching government regulations that have only hurt the economy. The Democrats want to focus on anything but the economy, and that's understandable. It's a losing issue for them. So they'll focus on all kinds of social issues that most Americans could care less about. They'll put forth ads and whispering campaigns about how Romney wants to take us back to the Middle Ages, ban all contraception, put women back in the kitchen, and steal lollipops from the mouths of children. (The last is more likely to happen, but it will be Mike Bloomberg doing that, not the Romney.)

Accusations of tax fraud, FEC and SEC violations, and wrongful death have been flung at Romney, yet every one of them has been found to be without merit. But that doesn't mean the Dems won't keep throwing those kind of accusations his way.

Romney's life is pretty much an open book, unlike our present President who is one of the most secretive persons to ever sit in the Oval Office. We know nothing about him other than what he wants us to know, and that's not much. But to hear it you'd think Romney was hiding all kinds of secrets. It's the standard Democrat tactic of accusing others of doing what they themselves are doing.

I've seen my share of presidential campaigns, but I have to say that this one is probably one of the most divisive and nasty ones I've ever seen. I also expect it to get worse, particularly if the Dems and their 'supporters' (the unions) decide to use their proxies (anarchists, OWS, etc) to up the ante and start with physical threats, voter intimidation, and outright acts of violence. Of course I also expect that if such a thing happens they'll get a pass from AG Jeffrey Holder, much as they did during the 2010 elections.

New Finds

Expatriate New Englanders

Other Blogs We Like That Don't Fit Into Any One Category


Monthly Archives


Powered by Movable Type 4.1