I did a commentary of the State of The Union Address from 2011. I should do this for 2012 as well. I'll sum it up for you with one quotes from the debate with commentary.

Link to Transcript.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

The United States of America was not founded on "fair play and shared responsibility." If Obama doesn't know that, he doesn't know America. That's why he's doing what he's doing, or is it?

There is little more to say. One of two possibilities exist. Either Obama simply doesn't get it when it comes to this country or its founding, or he does get it and he wants to change it.

Think about that for a minute.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The MSM (Main Stream Media) might be a better judge of the "pulse of the people" as they say. Gingrich has been under attack by the MSM for quite some time now. He was asked about his ex-wife's accusations at a presidential debate. Juan Williams hit him with a racially charged question. He handled those attacks well, and made the attacker look foolish in the process. Gingrich isn't scared to say what he thinks, which lately has been what a majority of Conservatives have been thinking.

When the MSM finds a target there is usually a reason for it. I believe that Gingrich represents a much greater threat to Obama's second term than does Romney. Why you might ask? Because Gingrich is the only current candidate who can fluently articulate Conservatism. Romney is "too nice" and the Obama camp knows it. When the "too nice" guy gets angry it turns off the people who were on board because of his niceness. Calmness isn't always a sign of confidence; sometimes it's a mechanism to deflect stress.

Romney has a problem that I believe he cannot overcome. Romney sounds like he is reading from a teleprompter --even when he is not. Romney has that kind of used-car-salesman fakeness about him. Romney seems the same no matter the circumstance. Angry or happy; there seems to be little discernible difference. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against whoever the candidate might be, I just think that Romney will have a hard time taking on the left when in full power mode. To this day the MSM has given Romney a pass. That's a bad sign for Romney and I think people are starting to catch on to that.

Gingrich, while definitely not anyone's favorite seems to be the best choice for the time being. At least that's what I take from the debates.

What scares me is that Obama might just choose not to debate; regardless of who the Republican nominee is. In that case all bets are off. I don't know how well the Republican candidate is going to get the message across when nearly the entire MSM is backing Obama.

At the very least; maybe he can get Romney to stand up and swing instead of trying to be Ward Cleaver.

If you were wondering why nobody was cheering during the debate, here's why.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This exemplifies what is wrong with the Obama presidency.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

It's amazing that Obama is going to admit; lower taxes result in job creation! I'm not exactly sure how extending unemployment benefits leads to job creation. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it does. If, as Obama claims, extending unemployment benefits -- and approving the Keystone pipeline will both create jobs -- why not do both?

Why must we do one or the other? Obama claims to have been focused on jobs since his first year in office. But Obama also claims that paying people to not work will result in job creation, so I doubt the legitimacy of his claims.

Obama's own Jobs Council has suggested oil be derived from more local sources.

In a new report, Obama's jobs council urges him to expedite the production of fossil fuels close to home, in part by "allowing more access to oil, gas and coal opportunities on federal lands."

I believe the real reason for denying the Keystone pipeline permit is completely political. Obama doesn't want to anger the environmental movement before the 2012 presidential election. If he angers a few thousand union workers in the process it's no big deal. Union workers will most likely to vote Democrat anyway. If reelected Obama is almost certain to approve the pipeline project, by that time he won't need the support of those concerned about the environmental impact.

In the meantime blocking the pipeline will cause another issue. Canada is not going to wait on the US political process to sell their oil.

President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.

Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.

Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.

Obama just can't help himself when it comes to angering our allies. We also loose the opportunity to import more of our oil from a politically stable country -- Canada.

How is this in the best interest of the United States?

This just bleeds journalistic integrity. It's like saying, "John Huntsman exits and endorses Mitt Romney, who said 'I like being able to fire people." Is this supposed to pass as objective?

I know that there are plenty of people out there who don't like Newt Gingrich, but this is just goofy. The editor who put this on the BBC homepage was obviously not asked by Gingrich to join-in on the fun.

Either way I have seen some strange things before from the likes of Newt. I wrote about this before. It's hard to know whether he's really that loose with his beliefs, or if he's trying to attract the Magical Moderate Voter. Newt has been everywhere on every issue it seems, but he has done one thing positive. He has proven that Conservatism is longed for. When Newt speaks as a Conservative he is welcomed by people. People who are looking for someone to say what most of us are thinking.

If Newt realizes that there are more Conservative voters than "Moderates" in the voter base, he might just get the nomination.

Only time will tell. Let's see how Newt does in tonight's debate.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

For all the reasons to vote for Mitt Romney; none seems more notable than the fact that Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. Still there are plenty of reasons to question Romney's credentials when it comes to core beliefs. Take the individual mandate in Massachusetts for example; Romney said that those decisions should be made by states and not the federal government. I take further issue with it. I think that no government entity should ever have the right to mandate that you purchase something, by virtue of your existence. That's a pretty serious conflict with conservative beliefs. That's a pretty troubling position. Does this mean that Romney believes that health care is a right? Romney sounds more like a moderate at best. Quite a while back I did a post on Moderates. I explained in great detail how it's hard to get behind someone who doesn't really stand for anything. If Romney has conservative core beliefs, why didn't he stand up for these beliefs when he was governor of Massachusetts? Why would he stand for them now?

The real problem lies in the fact that the Republican field has no conservative candidate in the race. That's not to say that there aren't any conservatives in the party; it's just that none of them stepped up this time around.

Mitt has a really big hurtle to get over, it's not looking more conservative than Obama, it's being conservative enough to get voters out. If Romney wins the general election it won't be because of his positive stance and message; it will be because of negative sentiment for Obama. Remember the stump speech that Romney gave in New Hampshire. There was little mention of what he would do other than to undo what Obama has done. While that is not a bad position to have, it seems a little narrow to me. We'll have to see if he expands on this.

Conservatives are more likely to vote for someone when they know where that person stands. This knowledge includes actions not just stated positions. Romney has to be able to convince the conservative electorate that he's not just full of hot air. But hey, he's not Obama right? That's got to count for something.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!