Can Rick Perry Get A Second Chance With GOP Voters In 2016?

Author’s Note: On March 29, 2014  this piece was posted on  The Daily Beast
After a disastrous presidential campaign in 2012, can Texas Governor Rick Perry mount a credible bid for the White House in 2016?
Perry 2
Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently on a media tour touting the theme that America is a great place for second chances, specifically second chances for Texas governors with national ambitions.

Perry is trying to erase the memory of his disastrous 2012 GOP presidential campaign which included “brain-farts” and “oops” debate moments with his folksy, charming, and uniquely American manner.

Curious about Perry’s comeback strategy, I asked Texan and GOP presidential media guru, Mark McKinnon and he said, “His second act is looking really good. He just needed a little humbling.”

Let’s explore this concept a little further.

Up until his ill-fated Republican presidential primary run, Perry had never lost an election in his entire life.

Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush as the Lone Star State’s governor in 2000 after Bush’s election to the presidency, has won three gubernatorial elections in a row and a grand total of six statewide races in Texas.

In fact, Perry, who is not seeking re-election this year, will be the longest serving governor in Texas history when he leaves office in 2015.

He is poised for 2016 as a politically battle-hardened governor of a powerful state who, on paper is eminently qualified to be President of the United States.

Of all the governors with presidential ambitions, Perry is among the most active and vocal proponents of the Republican philosophy of smaller government and less regulation.

Perry claims his governing philosophy has resulted in Texas leading the way in economic growth and job creation. The Lone Star State is currently the fastest-growing large state in the United States and Austin, Dallas and Houston are three of the nation’s top five fastest-growing cities.

Texas is booming and Perry takes much personal credit for that, but he still has two major problems. First, the Texas governor will have to explain away the manifold gaffes and failures from his last presidential campaign.

Perry’s explanation is a good one. It has been well-documented that Perry was recovering from experimental back surgery involving his own adult stem cells only six-weeks before making his official presidential announcement at the conservative RedState Gathering on August 14, 2011. Then, throughout his campaign, he was taking painkillers, not sleeping and having trouble standing due to chronic pain.

Second, Perry has to cope with the lingering shadow of his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush. The comparison to the still unpopular 43rd president reinforces Perry’s poor 2011 primary performance. As a result, it is almost too easy for Democrats and some unfriendly media outlets to brand Perry as another dumb Texas good-ole-boy and for Americans to believe it. All that is needed is a re-play of Perry’s most painful debate moments and “mission accomplished.”

But if there is any way American voters could disregard these factors, here is why Perry deserves a second chance as illustrated in this often asked Gallup poll question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” Among the top three answers were unemployment/jobs and the economy in general, both areas where Perry has built a strong record in Texas and makes very compelling arguments about his ability to nationalize them in his stump speech.

If Perry does decide to run again, are Americans willing to give Rick Perry his second chance after he was so thoroughly humbled in 2011? Don’t forget, being knocked down and then forging ahead are strong personality traits that most Americans admire. But on the flip side, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”


Posted in 2016 Presidential race, Politics, Republican Politics, Rick Perry | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016…or Ever?

Reposted from The Daily Beast  by Aug 18, 2013

As a conservative here is what I know: The GOP’s 2016 presidential nominee will be more conservative than ever, and have a heck of a time winning the Electoral College.

Recently, I attended a political event where about 400 conservative Republicans gathered to hear an impressive parade of conservative congressman, governors, and senators.

As I was chatting with a man in his mid-30s, the conversation turned to the 2016 presidential race. When I asked him who he was supporting as the Republican nominee, his answer was Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Then I was prompted to ask the question I ask every Republican after they tell me their preferred candidate: “Do you think Rand Paul can win 270 electoral votes?” The man immediately replied, “I never thought about that.”

For the record, I anonymously submitted that same question to Rand Paul himself at a Washington luncheon this past May. It was selected as the last question by the moderator, and Paul largely deflected it, instead speaking vaguely about the need to attract Democratic voter groups.

There is no doubt that Senator Paul is gaining traction among the conservative Republican base—for whenever two or more conservatives are gathered together in His name (Ronald Reagan, that is) Paul is always mentioned as someone who could lead the charge to take back the White House.

Also, let me state that the concept of nominating someone more conservative than ever in 2016 is a foregone conclusion among the Republican base. That is to say, I would be totally shocked if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie won the nomination, because he is perceived as a moderate in the losing mold of Dole ’96, McCain ’08, and Romney ’12.

Furthermore, as a direct result of those past losses, the primary voting base has a “been there, done that” attitude, so there will be no compromising in the selection of the 2016 nominee, or you can expect a conservative third party to emerge with disastrous electoral consequences.

As I continue to ask the question “What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?” there are no good answers, because the following three obstacles serve as cement barriers blocking the GOP from the White House driveway.

1. Awareness of the problem

The Rand Paul supporter who had not even thought about the answer to the 270 question is typical of many, if not most, conservative activists and primary voters. Therefore, raising the 270 question early and often should be an integral part of the 2016 GOP presidential-primary dynamic. How can a problem find a solution when only a few Republicans are even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem?

2. No compromising on core principles

Conservative Republicans uphold their conservative principles as a shiny badge of honor never to be tarnished. I, too, am a conservative Republican. However, I think like Ronald Reagan, who when trying to get legislation passed in 1983 said the following:

“I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.”

Sadly, I also agree with former senator and 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, who appeared this past May on Fox News Sunday to discuss the growing conservative tilt among Republican primary and base voters when he stated that “Reagan wouldn’t have made it” in today’s Republican Party.

That might actually be true, for at my conservative event, as I listened to speeches from a host of elected leaders, only one mentioned the “C word”: compromise. Instead of “compromise,” all I heard was “we must battle and fight to uphold the principles of conservatism.”

Now, I also believe in fighting for conservative principles, but realizing that conservatives are an ever shrinking minority within the electorate, it is imperative that Republicans nominate a presidential candidate (and other leaders) who can attract moderate voters by stating that he or she, like Reagan, are willing to accept a “half loaf instead of a whole” in order to solve the difficult issues facing our nation.

Otherwise, the GOP will remain locked out of the White House and leave our nation stuck in neutral with a gridlocked government. There is danger ahead for conservatives when core conservative principles are used as roadblocks to any progress.

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.

If you want to explore this new reality, check out There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.

Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:

CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

With this in mind, David Plouffe, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, predicted in June 2011 that Obama would win over 300 electoral votes. Plouffe stated his early prediction to Dan Balz of The Washington Post and it appears in Balz’s new book, Collision, about the 2012 campaign.

No wonder President Obama was so confident of victory in 2012, for he knew the game was practically over before it began. In case you need reminding, the final Electoral College score was a lopsided 332–206.

The Republican Party leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.

It is obvious that discarding the current “winner take all” system would vastly improve the prospects of electing a Republican president. But first, this initiative must pass state legislatures before reaching a governor’s desk, where it may or may not be signed into law.

There is some precedent here—the states of Nebraska and Maine are already using this method. However, it is unlikely that more states will follow Nebraska and Maine because this drastic change is politically “too hot to handle” for most governors, even Republican ones.

My suggestion would be to dump the entire Electoral College system and elect the president through direct “popular” vote. That, by the way, is the method favored by 63 percent of Americans.

To change from the Electoral College to direct voting would require a constitutional amendment. But it is highly doubtful that such an amendment would gain any traction in Congress since Democrat leaders have grown fond of the severely slanted Electoral College and have no incentive to make such a change. (Yes, Democrats also remember Al Gore in 2000, but that was ancient electoral math.)

Therefore, no change to the Electoral College means that I will continue asking my question, “What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?”

And if you are a Republican, please be ready with a candidate you can defend using “real” electoral math. “I have not given that question any thought” is not an acceptable answer and could result in a potential landslide for the Democrats in 2016.

Posted in Economic Crisis | 1 Comment

16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win In 2016

Re-posted from The Daily Beast August 3, 2013  by 

As a lifelong Republican, I am not pleased with my own prediction—nothing would thrill me more than if a conservative were to win back the presidency. But my political reality instincts lead me to believe the following. (And I’ve been right before: in January 2011, I cowrote “12 Reasons Obama Wins in 2012.”)

Unless there is a radical change of circumstances within the Republican Party and its crop of presidential wannabes, or some unforeseen cataclysmic national event that dramatically alters the current economic and political landscape, or a serious deterioration in her health, Hillary has it locked up.

Here are 16 reasons why Hillary Clinton is poised to be elected the next president of the United States, in order of importance.

1. Madame President: A Great Social Movement in the Making

A great social movement to elect the first Madame President is gathering wind and will reach sustained hurricane strength on November 5, 2014—the day after the midterm elections and the “official start” of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Akin to the movement that elected the first African-American president in 2008, the “Madame President movement” will be propelled by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and social media. Together they will build momentum and coalitions across all platforms, while reveling in their awesome social and cultural significance. You will hear the “triumph of the ’60s feminist movement.” You will hear that you will be “voting to make history.” And you will hear that your vote will be used as a “hammer to break through the glass ceiling of the Oval Office.” Warning: Prepare for the onslaught, because it is coming your way.

2. The Media Is Ready to Crown a Queen

Hillary, the first female presidential nominee of a major party, will be anointed by the media, Hollywood, and pop culture—just as they anointed the junior senator from Illinois in 2008. The only difference between then and now is Obama was hailed as the messiah, and Hillary will be the queen ready to ascend to her royal throne. Already NBC has announced a Hillary miniseries set for air before the network has to steer clear of FCC equal-time regulations. (In other words, right before Clinton officially announces her candidacy for maximum ratings.)

3. Groupthink: It’s Her Time, and She Deserves It

Between now and 2016, listen as political pundits exclaim, “It’s her time,” or “She deserves it.”

Long-suffering Hillary, who was publicly humiliated by her cheating husband and then triumphed over adversity by being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000. Long-suffering Hillary, who was defeated by her own party for the presidential nomination in 2008, and then further rejected by Obama to be his running mate.

Triumph came later when “Hillary the team player” became the globe-trotting secretary of State and despite a lack of any real accomplishment, eventually earned international respect and higher approval ratings than the team leader himself.

Therefore, because of her highs and lows, the “unholy alliance” of cultural and media forces truly believes that it’s her time, that she deserves it. This groupthink will make for a toxic punch of media bias that the Republican presidential candidate will be forced to drink on a daily basis.

4. Organization the Obama Way

Hillary’s campaign-in-waiting, the Ready for Hillary PAC, is readying itself to turn into her official campaign as soon as Madame General signs the battle order.

Some top-notch Obama campaign talent, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, have already been hired to build an organization similar to President Obama’s two nearly flawless, state-of-the-art campaigns. It would be nearly impossible for the Republican presidential candidate to quickly build and match what will then be a huge national campaign organization with a three-year head start. For even the Republican challenger, it would appear as if Hillary were the incumbent.

5.  Barrels of Money

For the 2012 presidential campaign, both candidates eventually raised a billion dollars. But Obama had the advantage of early money and put it to great use, negatively defining and attacking Romney throughout the spring of 2012.

Between now and 2016 Hillary could easily raise more than a billion dollars and much of it early. In fact, just this week it was announced that Ready for Hillary had raised over a million dollars in June 2013, without its candidate of course.

This early money will give Hillary the same advantage Obama had to smear whoever emerges as her likely opponent while the GOP primary season chugs along to its conclusion.

6. The Electoral College is Slanted Toward Hillary and the Democrats

Just how much of an advantage will the Electoral College offer Hillary in 2016?

Here are some startling facts:

In 2012 the final Electoral College results were 332 for Obama and 206 for Romney. If Romney had won the battleground states of Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18 votes), and Virginia (13 votes), Obama would still have been reelected but by a closer margin of 272 to 266.

Now, just because Obama won well over 300 electoral votes does not mean Hillary will repeat that achievement. However, the path to 270 is much easier for any Democrat candidate given current and future demographic growth and established voting patterns.

7. Hillary Will Have Either Symbolic or No Primary Opposition

The only reason why ambitious power players like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley might challenge Hillary to a primary is to increase their own national name recognition with the goal of landing on Hillary’s VP shortlist. (The battle to top that shortlist will be the real Democratic primary of 2016.) Not having a real primary will be a tremendous advantage for Hillary, thus freeing her up to concentrate on the general-election battle while the Republicans are still battling each other.

Meanwhile, Vice President Biden will fall in line and become an avid campaigner and fundraiser for Hillary because he will obey his bosses’ orders—both of them.

8. The Hispanic Voting Bloc Is Hillary’s to Lose

In 2012 the Republican Party was shaken to the core after Romney lost Hispanic voters to Obama by a lopsided margin of 71 percent to 27 percent.

Now remember, the Ready for Hillary PAC has already hired some key Obama managers and field organizers who helped produce those outstanding results. Certainly part of their new job will be to ensure that the fast-growing Hispanic population continues to be a loyal Democratic voting block.

Additionally, Ready for Hillary will be “ready to register” all of those 50,000 Hispanic teenagers who will be turning 18 every month for the next two decades.

9. The African-American and Asian Vote Is Also Hillary’s to Lose

The Republican Party was hardly surprised when Obama won the African-American vote by 93 percent to 6 percent in 2012. But they were surprised that he won the Asian American vote by a wide margin of 73 percent to 26 percent. Will Hillary resonate as well with both these two groups?

I can only take a wild guess about Asian-Americans’ attitude toward Hillary, but I do remember Bill Clinton being called America’s first black president well before we had one.

10. Bill Clinton Will Be a Tremendous Asset to Hillary

“Vote for the First Dude” is a bumper sticker waiting to happen.

During last summer’s Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton convinced America to vote for President Obama in what was heralded as such an eloquent speech that it made Obama seem small by comparison.

At that moment, Democrats and their media allies experienced a tsunami of feel-good Clinton nostalgia that continues to this day, and “Hillary 2016” is the supreme beneficiary. Furthermore, from a pop culture/media perspective, her leaner, non-meat eating, more highly evolved, totally rebranded, well-respected charitable husband (of Clinton Global Initiative fame) will be one of Hillary’s greatest assets on the campaign trail.

The once deadly “Clinton fatigue” that plagued Hillary in 2008 now only lives in the minds of Republicans. And unless Elvis is reincarnated as a Republican, the GOP has no celebrity stars that even come close to “Bubba the Big Dog.” (Don’t even think about Clint Eastwood or his empty chair.)

11. Hillary Will Run for Either Obama’s Third Term or Bill Clinton’s

If Obama’s presidency tanks in its final years, than Team Clinton (with the help of the complicit media) could easily repackage herself to run for Bill Clinton’s “third term.” (Remember that his third term was won by Al Gore in 2000 and then stolen by that evil George W. Bush, or so goes the Democrat folklore.)

However, the trick for Hillary is to still utilize Obama’s ever-likable persona just enough to fire up his loyal base to serve her own purposes. This tactic will achieve success no matter how low Obama’s approval ratings go, because there are always Republicans to blame.

12. The Republicans Have a Weak Bench With Little Star Power

If the Democrats did not have Hillary, or she declines to run, then both parties would have weak benches.

In this hypothetical case, the campaign playing field would be roughly equal (except for that growing slant in the Electoral College). But the Democrats do have Hillary, and all signs point to her running, so that leaves only a weak GOP bench and the question, “How can any of the potential GOP candidates possibly win 270 electoral votes?”

13. The Long GOP Primary System Plays to Hillary’s Advantage

On May 30, 2012, Romney finally won enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. And during that month, Obama pummeled and defined Romney as a rich mean man of privilege who fired people like you so he could become even richer. Romney didn’t know what hit him and hardly responded. Some Republican political consultants believe May was the month when Romney lost the general election because he was too busy wrapping up the nomination and building a national campaign organization.

This is only one example of how the Republican primary traveling circus went on far too long, hurting the eventual winner, and was extremely debilitating to the image of the party in the eyes of the general electorate.

Now in 2016 (unless order suddenly comes from chaos), it looks like we are in for another long, heated, Republican primary season while Hillary assumes the Obama-like incumbent position, ready to pounce on whoever starts to emerge victorious.

14. Hillary Will Make the Case That She Is the Only Leader Who Can Bring Us Together

As the potential first woman president and commander in chief, Hillary must prove that she has the capacity for strong leadership and is not afraid to compromise with Republicans in order to solve the problems confronting this nation. And with friends throughout the media singing her praises, this task should be a no-brainer—even with the Benghazi clip of “What difference does it make?” being played nonstop by Republicans.

But the irony here is that by offering herself up as the strong leader that America desperately needs (like she did so well in 2008), she draws an obvious negative comparison with our current leader, who is sadly lacking in this skill set and whose blessings she wants out on the campaign trail.

My guess is the media will gloss over Obama’s lack of leadership while bolstering Hillary’s and they will both get what they want: Obama, a historic legacy and Hillary his office. Because with the media on your side, everything is possible!

15. Calling Hillary ‘Old’ Insults the Old Republican Base

Hillary was born in 1947, making her 66 years young. If elected president, she will turn 70 during her first year in office. But as we all know, 70 is the new 55, so this is not a problem. But the next time you hear a Republican say that Hillary is too old to run (as I do all the time) please have these facts handy:

In the 2012 election, voters over the age of 65 composed 16 percent of the electorate and voted for Romney over Obama by 56 percent to 44 percent—making this age group Romney’s most loyal voting block. Next most faithful were the 45- to 64-year-olds, who constituted 38 percent of the voters and supported Romney 51 percent to Obama’s 47 percent.

So how do these stats help Hillary?

The answer is today’s “old people” do not think of themselves as old but rather smarter, more disciplined, better educated, and more competent than the generations that followed. Romney won older voters because he appeared more competent and accomplished than Obama. Now it is Hillary who will wear the competent and accomplished label more often than black pantsuits.

In addition to the competence factor, older voters (especially aging baby-boom women), relate well to someone like Hillary identifying with her life journey and numerous family struggles. Therefore, old people will carefully listen to her message and give her the benefit of the doubt—since the concept of “it is her time and she deserves it” will have been drilled into old people’s brains by the mainstream media.

16. The GOP Has Weak Arguments Against Hillary

Recently, someone sent me a link with a video from the Stop PAC. The video portrayed her 2017 “inauguration.” The voice-over was Hillary taking the presidential oath of office while the following words were flashed on the screen: Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Rose Law Firm, and Benghazi. Then as Hillary finishes the oath saying, “So help me God,” the words “So help us” flash on the screen.

Along with the video, here is the mission statement of the Stop Hillary PAC:

Make sure Hillary Clinton never becomes president! America can’t survive another team back in the White House. In 2016, it will be too late to stop Hillary. we’ve got to hold her accountable right now. Stop Hillary PAC was created for one reason only—to save America from the destructive far-left, liberal cancer created by Bill and Hillary Clinton that’s trying to corrupt America. Stand with Stop Hillary PAC today to take a stand for America’s future and STOP Hillary dead in her tracks.

Now, does any thinking Republican actually believe that dredging up ’90s-era scandals is going to stop Hillary? (Benghazi is different, but unfortunately the mainstream media and general public have lost interest, and by 2016 it will have as much negative impact on her as Travelgate.)

If these arguments are the best the “Stop Hillary movement” can muster, then it is time for some new arguments.

And Finally…

Because of reasons No. 1 through 16, and in spite of the fact that Hillary is extremely polarizing and travels with a lot of baggage, she is still poised to win in 2016 because frankly, there is no one who can stop her. Unless, as stated at the beginning, there are unforeseen cataclysmic national events that dramatically alter the current economic and political landscape or Hillary has major health issues and drops out even before she gets in.

For the record, I am not in favor of any of the above options. The best I can hope for is that the presidential election campaign in 2016 will be fair, clean, and without the blatant media bias that tipped the scales for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

But since we are talking about Hillary as the first woman president, and a rekindled Clinton media love affair, good luck with all that!

Posted in Economic Crisis | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Strong Social Movement to Elect the First Female President Spells Trouble for the GOP in 2016

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton's new web site.

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton’s new web site.

There were two great national social movements of the 20th century, Civil Rights and the Women’s Movement. (Also known as the Feminist Movement, Women’s Liberation and Women’s Lib.) As these movements gained momentum they contributed to the social upheaval that helped define the decade of the 1960s.

Now, in the 21st century both movements are still evolving and their cultural and societal effects are part of our daily life, but the success of the Civil Rights movement shines slightly brighter, as witnessed by the second inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States

Through Barack Obama, one of these two great social movements has reached the pinnacle of power twice. But in next few years, will the Women’s Movement, led by its representative-in-chief Hillary Clinton, make an all out attempt to achieve that same goal?  And will the “dominant media” be 1000% behind Clinton as the leader of the movement to help elect the first female President of the United States?

The answer to both questions is “yes” and “yes, definitely.”

For the record I am not, nor have I never been, a Hillary supporter, but as a baby-boomer Republican woman having come of age during the peak of “woman’s liberation,” I can not ignore what I foresee as an extremely ripe political movement on the horizon, even though its leader will not receive my vote.

All my political sensibilities point to a majority of American women of all ages, races, education levels and from all parts of this nation banding together to fuel a “Hillary in 2016” super-sized rocket on a trajectory straight to the White House.

However, the rocket ship stays on the launch pad if Hillary decides not to run in 2016 due to declining health or other unknown factors. But if launch is a go, than woe to any Republican male whether he is white, Hispanic, plus-sized or lean, who dares to be her opponent in 2016.

Having this opinion puts me in direct disagreement with writer Matt Lewis, who concludes in a piece which appeared in The Week  entitled, In Four Years We’ll Be Inaugurating Marco Rubio; “Watch out, Hillary. Come January 2017, America won’t be inaugurating its first female president. We’ll be inaugurating our first Latino commander-in-chief. “

But my contrary belief is that the movement to elect the first female president of the United States already has tons of industrial strength momentum and its own sense of historic urgency now seen almost daily on display throughout the mainstream media. Whereas, the movement to elect a Latino commander-in-chief will not be nearly as strong in 2016 as it will be say a decade or two from now.

For the remainder of 2013 and probably well into 2014, the major theme of all the Hillary coverage will be focused on the question, “Will she run?” But once that is answered in the affirmative, and deals are made to eliminate any Democratic primary opposition, you can expect blatant mainstream media bias on par with what occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign fueling the historic movement that elected the first African-American president.

Let us not forget how much the dominant media loves the triumph of a social movement whose members were formerly discriminated against. Certainly electing the first woman president in 2016 totally fits that bill. (And now, unlike in 2008, they really like her Bill again too!)

Another advantage Hillary will have in 2016, that first played out in the 2008 presidential election (and only to a slightly lesser extent in 2012), was the notion that if you dared not to support Obama, first as a candidate and then as an incumbent, you risked being labeled a “racist.”

This means heading towards 2016, do not be surprised when an eerily familiar mantra starts to unfold, labeling anyone not supporting Hillary for President a chauvinist, sexist or “anti-woman.”

Just watch how Hillary’s candidacy will ignite a whole new “War on Women”… but with a unique twist. For once the movement is totally underway a battle of name calling will be waged against any man (especially) or woman (most likely) who is not a foot soldier in Hillary’s army, marching in lock step towards conquering the Oval Office in the name of “Girl Power.”

As one prominent Republican campaign strategist told me during the 2008 McCain campaign, it is nearly impossible for any presidential candidate to be victorious if he or she is running against a social movement and Hillary in 2016 will most definitely be a social movement.

Ironically in 2008, Hillary was burned when she ran up against an even stronger social movement (at the time) with its goal to nominate the first African-American Democrat candidate.

But in 2016 all the stars will be aligned in her favor. This is because for great movements to be successful they must be perfectly timed and fueled by a desire to achieve something once almost unachievable or to compensate for past treatment now considered to be unjust. And the movement of Hillary in 2016 has all of the above.

Additionally, successful movements like Obama’s quest for the presidency in 2008 must first have the full faith and backing of the dominant media and once that is achieved, all the “plain folks” usually just fall in line.

(See gay marriage and gay rights as the most recent example of such a movement).

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in 2016 will have even more of an advantage than did Senator Obama at the beginning of his movement.

Her favorability is already extremely high at 67% and she does not have to be introduced to the American people, as was the case in 2008 with a little known newly minted Senator from Illinois.

Even if Hillary’s popularity somewhat diminishes (which it will), Republicans with an eye for 2016 must not be in denial that they will be up against a historic movement with the largest, most powerful voting block that abandoned them by a margin of more than 10% in 2012.  (Exit polls indicate 55% of women voted for Obama and 44% for Romney, with women comprising 53% of the entire electorate.)

However, the dominant media, in concert with the growing power of American women will form a tour de force that, in my opinion, no male Republican presidential candidates currently on the 2016 horizon can expect to overcome.

It is my sincere hope that the 2016 GOP candidate will find a way to win the White House anyway. But if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will be more than a presidential candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton will represent a “triumph” of the women’s movement similar to the “triumph” of the Civil Rights movement which twice helped elect Barack Obama.

And, as we have just seen in 2008 and 2012, running against a social movement is made even more difficult when the dominant media is totally supportive of the movement and will do everything in its power to forge a “happy ending.”

Re-posted from





Posted in 2016 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton 2016 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Media Malpractice” The “Like-A-Lot- Affair” Between Obama and the Media – 2012 Sequel

 Re-posted from PJ Media

Recently Politico ran a piece entitled, “To GOP, Blatant Bias in Vetting“, written by two of its top writers, Jim VanderHei and Mike Allen.

The article began with an example of how The New York Times on Sunday, May 27, dedicated prime front page space to a hit piece on Mitt Romney’s wife Ann.

The piece zeroed in on Mrs. Romney’s love of dressage horse- riding that elitist sport only reserved for rich people like Ann Romney.

Politico then compared the high profile placement of the Ann Romney piece with the New York Times’ third-rate coverage – buried on A- 15, of the young Barack Obama’s penchant for dope-smoking revealed by David Maraniss in his new book, Barack Obama: The Story.

From Politico:

No wonder Republicans are livid with the early coverage of the 2012 general election campaign. To them, reporters are scaring up stories to undermine the introduction of Mitt Romney to the general election audience – and once again downplaying ones that could hurt the president.

Now that Politico has raised serious questions about biased presidential campaign coverage against Governor Mitt Romney and his family, one wonders if this entire campaign will be a repeat of the well-documented 2008 love affair between the media and then candidate, Senator Obama.

The totally “in the tank” coverage, even spoofed on Saturday Night Live was credited with elevating a candidate with the thinnest resume in our nation’s history to the highest office in the land. That was the mainstream media’s agenda then and it looks like those same “powers that be” are going for a redux in 2012.

The Politico piece quotes Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary to President Bush,…”The love affair of 2008 may no longer be a love affair, but it’s a like-a-lot affair. There’s no equivalency for the right.”

Except to document what happened…

Back in 2009, filmmaker John Ziegler produced a two-hour documentary entitled

  Media Malpractice – How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.

The film, now available on Netflix and Hulu, is recommended viewing, but I warn you, it is difficult to watch if you happen to be a freedom loving American.

Ziegler’s documentary storyline told through news footage and headlines resembles Soviet-era style Russian propaganda. It shows step by step, how voters were systematically brainwashed by the media so voters would feel good about electing a leader who had barely served two years as a United States Senator and for most of those two years spent his time running for president.

So I asked John Ziegler to comment on the Politico piece and this was his email reply:

“Only in the bizarro world of mainstream media could an obviously biased news source do a story on vetting bias and not even really mention the abject lack of vetting by the press of Barack Obama, which forms the sound basis of GOP anger over the way Romney is being treated by comparison. If it all wasn’t so serious it really would be hilarious. Even when they seem to “get it,” they really don’t.”

The good news for John Ziegler is if the current mainstream media’s “like-a-lot-affair” with President Obama continues, and he is reelected, Ziegler will have more than enough material for another two hour documentary.

In that case may I suggest the title: Media Malpractice — The Sequel of Doom.

Because if President Obama is reelected, many Americans, myself included, believe he would continue our totally unsustainable collision course with increasing government debt that will accelerate our decline as a superpower.

Can you imagine if the New York Times were to explore that premise on their Sunday front page a week before the November election?

No, instead watch for a derogatory front page feature on Mormons.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Decline of America, Economic Crisis, John Ziegler, Media Malpractice, Mitt Romney, Politics | Leave a comment

Senator Rob Portman Will Be Romney’s VP According to GOP Insiders

Obviously since my last post in November much has changed!                                              (Yes, I know I need to re-post my pieces here more often.)                                             Governor Bob McDonnell ran into some problems with “women issues” legislation and his VP star has dramatically faded as a result. So now in late May here we are….

Breaking News May 30, 2012:                                                                                                  Senator Portman in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Is this a strong signal that Portman has been tapped to be Romney’s VP?

Re-posted from PJ Media

These days one of the favorite games among political junkies is prognosticating about who will be Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate. An important criterion for selection, the “incredibly boring white guy”  factor previously has been examined by this writer and others.

Now, there seems to be a consensus among inside GOP political operatives as to who will share the bumper sticker with Romney within that group of potential VP nominees who exemplify that distinguishing “boring” characteristic.

That person is Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

Sensing an opinion wave for Portman within the last month, I asked a prominent GOP Super Pac insider (name withheld by request) why Portman is the “chosen one” and this was the email response I received:

He could bring Ohio!!! And he is very experienced and he won’t spend $100,000 on clothes in two months!  The goal this cycle is “safe, not sorry. But win Ohio!”

Packed within that email are several discussion points alluding to the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, (which are sure to be elaborated upon in the comment section of this post).

Notwithstanding a negative or positive opinion of the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, Sarah Palin has significantly impacted the decision-making selection process of the GOP’s 2012 VP candidate and it now looks like Senator Rob Portman will be the ultimate beneficiary.

Another veteran insider of past GOP presidential campaigns responded to my email which posed the question “Why Portman?” with this list of reasons:

He’s fabulous.

Would actually be a great VP.  

Not an ideologue.


Understands jobs and global economy as U.S. Trade Representative not OMB.

“Not OMB” is worth discussing for this is a touchy Portman resume item that Team Obama is sure to exploit as a negative talking point after Portman is officially nominated.

From May, 2006 until June, 2007 Rob Portman served as President George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (OMB)

When asked about the potential for President Obama and the Democrats to “denigrate” his OMB service, Portman was ready with an answer, as recently reported in a comprehensive piece in Real Clear Politics (RCP) entitled, “Does Portman Have the Edge in VP Sweepstakes?

He told the Cincinnati Enquirer last month: “I was there for just over a year and I put out one budget … [which] was actually a balanced budget. And not even over 10 years but over five years and I’m proud of that.” He conceded, “Frankly it was a battle within the White House to get the White House and everybody on board with that . . . but imagine that, a balanced budget.”

So Rob Portman’s defense of his one year as OMB Director includes a small salvo aimed at the Bush White House for rejecting his “pathway to balancing the budget in five years”. Now, by comparison, President Obama’s budget deficits are projected to be $977 billion in 2013 making President Bush’s $161 billion deficit in 2007 look like chump change.

This means Portman has plenty of cover when the Obama campaign unleashes their wild attack dogs in the last two months of the general election and there is no doubt that Portman will successfully defend himself and his record at OMB.

Portman’s first post in President Bush’s second term was as the United States Trade Representative. He worked in that position for one year before President Bush promoted him to OMB Director in mid- 2006.

To further understand the depth of experience that Senator Portman brings to the Romney ticket, it is important to note that before serving two years in the Bush Administration, Portman had a distinguished congressional career which spanned 12 years from May, 1993 until May, 2005.

Representing Ohio’s 2nd congressional district, Portman built a reputation for bi-partisanship, writing numerous pieces of legislation that were signed into law by President Clinton; but you can count on this part of his career to be completely ignored by Team Obama.

Instead, get ready to read how Portman was “Bush’s guy” who helped drive the economy into a ditch and you can almost hear Obama asking voters the question, “and this is the guy you want to let back into the White House?”

Well, the voters of Ohio had no problem sending Portman back to Washington after serving in Bush’s White House. In fact, when Portman ran for his current senate seat in 2010 he defeated his Democrat opponent, garnering 57% of the vote to Lee Fisher’s 39%.

Now in the midst of the 2012 election cycle when Romney is in search of a “boring white guy” how could any guy who won an important state’s senate race by 18% points possibly be that boring?

In response to the boring accusation which supposedly helps Portman’s chances, here is an entertaining piece to the contrary which appeared recently on Buzz Feed entitled  “15 Genuinely Interesting Things About Rob Portman.”

He’s hunts! He canoes! He bikes! He fishes! He speaks Spanish!  (The latter could be a big benefit to Romney with a voting block that he needs to attract.)

So, maybe he’s not that boring after all.

Consider Portman’s resume of 12 years as a Congressman with stints as International Trade Representative, OMB Director, a US Senator since January 2011 an Ohio political power player who is credited with helping Romney win the Ohio primary over Rick Santorum — and you have someone who is extremely well qualified to be the GOP vice-presidential candidate.

Now many signs are pointing in Portman’s direction except this one.

Currently Intrade has Senator Portman’s chances of being selected as Romney’s VP rated at only 22%. (But Portman’s chances are increasing by the minute.)

Portman’s closest Intrade competitor is Florida Senator Marco Rubio. At the moment Rubio’s chances that he will be Romney’s VP are rated at 24%.

This tight VP race raging at Intrade suggests that the general betting public is not yet up to speed on what many Washington GOP insiders and members of the media are saying about Portman’s real chances.

All politics aside, the primary job of the Vice-President is to step in and take over as President of the United States if called upon — and for that role Senator Portman is well suited.

In fact, Mark McKinnon, now a political media personality, who served as media strategist for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, wrote in an email responding to my question “Why Portman”, “The guy was truly made for the job.”

Compare that description to the now deceased Osama bin Laden’s stinging critique of Vice-President Joe Biden, calling him “utterly unprepared” to be President of the United States.

This description came to light on captured documents while bin Laden planned/dreamed of targeting planes carrying President Obama and General Petraeus so our nation would be plunged into crisis under Biden’s leadership.

In the end the contest between “the guy truly made for the job” vs. the one called “utterly unprepared” will not be the determining factor in whether Obama or Romney is victorious in November.

However, according to my sources Senator Rob Portman is the one most likely to be standing on stage at the Vice-Presidential debate this fall.

So reserve your seat now because a Biden vs. Portman match-up will be anything but boring.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Bob McDonnell, Mitt Romney, Politics, Presidential Election 2012, Republican Politics, Senator Rob Portman | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Romney/McDonnell 2012 Presidential Ticket Is (Practically) a Done Deal

Re-posted from PJMedia November 11, 2011

It’s a done deal! It’s a slam dunk! You can just about start printing the bumper stickers for the 2012 Republican presidential ticket. For as a result of this week’s GOP debate and a Virginia legislative election, the Romney/McDonnell ticket has been solidified.

Mitt Romney, the inevitable Republican presidential nominee, has become even more so as a result of Rick Perry’s debate implosion (Otherwise known as the “56 second brain freeze” that rocked the world.)

Romney looks and sounds presidential and is by default going to be the last man standing after Cain-mania settles down. This is not exactly pleasing to the conservative base, but there is “hope and change” coming for conservatives on the 2012 ticket and his name is Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia.

Governor McDonnell took a well-deserved victory lap this past week after helping the Republican Party of Virginia win control of both the Virginia General Assembly and Virginia Senate. This huge legislative victory, won with tea party support, catapults McDonnell right into Romney’s number two slot.

But for McDonnell, these favorable Virginia election results are only the cherry on top of the sundae. There are five other important reasons why McDonnell will be Romney’s running mate, served up for coronation at the 2012 Republican nominating convention in Tampa.

1. Governor Bob McDonnell is a conservative who conservatives trust.

McDonnell can make a Romney-topped ticket more palatable to the tea party/conservative base. The base currently does not trust Romney but with McDonnell as his VP, McDonnell can help “sell” Romney and soften the blow for conservatives nationally, while not scaring away moderate voters.

2. Virginia is a must-win-back state for the GOP.

Obama won Virginia in 2008 by 7 percentage points, but with Governor McDonnell’s high approval rating of  62% Romney can count on him to return Virginia into the red column where it had been for forty years since 1968.

Obama will throw everything he has at Virginia but McDonnell will triumph. Already, Tuesday’s Virginia election results are considered a bad omen for Obama nationally.

3. Obama/Kaine vs. McDonnell/Allen

The race for the open U.S. Senate seat created by Democrat Jim Webb stepping down will be one of the most watched, vicious, and expensive Senate races in 2012.  But not only will it be a political fight to the finish but very personal as well.

The dynamic revolves around former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine who, as governor in 2008, was one of Senator Obama’s earliest supporters and was widely credited with helping Obama turn Virginia from red to blue.

Now, Virginia governors can only serve one 4 year term, and Kaine’s term was ending in January of 2010. So after Obama was elected president, Obama thanked Kaine for his early support by appointing him to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in early 2009 while Kaine was still governor of Virginia.

Then, in the Virginia gubernatorial election in November of 2009, Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell won a resounding 59% of the vote  a 17.5% point margin of victory against Democrat Creigh Deeds to whom both Obama and Kaine (as DNC head and incumbent VA governor) threw much campaign funding and personal support.  McDonnell’s victory was a total embarrassment to Obama and Kaine.

Moving ahead to the 2012 election cycle, Kaine has left the DNC to run for the US Senate in Virginia against former US Senator and former Virginia Governor George Allen, who was defeated in 2006 by Jim Webb.

On Friday, November 11th a few days after his state legislative victories, Governor McDonnell endorsed George Allen, who has primary tea party opposition.

There are high hopes that George Allen will win that highly contested Virginia Senate seat, especially if the VP candidate is Governor Bob McDonnell.

President Obama, of course, will be supporting Kaine one thousand percent for two reasons. First, Obama is counting on Kaine to keep the Virginia Senate seat in the Democrat column. Second, Obama is expecting Kaine to have coat-tails going up the ballot, helping him to win Virginia again.

This all sets up an Obama/Kaine vs. McDonnell/Allen WWF style “death match.”

For not only is Virginia and its 13 electoral votes a grand prize in the race for the White House, but Republican control of the US Senate also hangs in the balance.

This Virginia Senate race is the third practical political reason why a Romney/ McDonnell ticket will be appearing on your ballot in 2012.

4. McDonnell is chairman of the Republican Governors Association (RGA).

The Bob McDonnell for VP stars aligned even more perfectly when Texas Governor Rick Perry resigned as chairman of the RGA to run for president, and Governor McDonnell was then tapped as chairman.

McDonnell chairing the RGA is highly significant for individual state and national media exposure as well as fundraising.

There is no better post for McDonnell to hold to help Romney more than RGA chairman and this is even before Romney chooses McDonnell as his running mate.

5. Romney thinks very highly of McDonnell.

That is an understatement in that Romney has called Governor McDonnell one of the ¨great leaders of the Republican Party.”  Romney has also said, “I say nice things about Governor McDonnell every time I have a chance.”

McDonnell, meanwhile, has said that he would like to see a former governor in the White House. (Wink, wink, I don’t think he is talking about Perry.)

Additionally, McDonnell has not been shy when asked about being considered for the number two position.

Furthermore, McDonnell would personally and politically complement Romney and not overshadow him in some ways like Palin did to McCain in 2008.

Romney/McDonnell could be a marriage made in political heaven — a win-win for the “establishment wing” of the Republican Party with the “conservative wing” placing a respectable second.

The next step would be for McDonnell to officially announce his support for a presidential candidate, something McDonnell said he would do after the Virginia legislative election this past Tuesday. Gee, I wonder whom McDonnell will endorse?

And when McDonnell does utter the name “Mitt Romney,” it’s time to start up the presses for the yard signs and bumper stickers. For on that day, the 2012 GOP presidential ticket will be non-officially inked but officially ready to do battle.

Posted in 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Bob McDonnell, Decline of America, Economic Crisis, Mitt Romney, Politics, Presidential Election 2012, Republican Politics | Leave a comment