Now we are hearing from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina that they're worried about Mitt Romney's "Smear Machine"? Hmm... I somehow doubt this. As I pointed out in the last post; the MSM and the Democrats are going to attack those who they fear. One thing you will never hear is who they are really fearful of politically.

This is the Main Stream Media's way of telling Florida voters, "Good job, you're voting the way we want you to. Here's a little bone to make you feel good about Romney".

I wonder when the MSM media attacks will start for Rick Santorum?

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

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

After reading quite a bit on both candidates and paying attention to who the MSM (Main Stream Media) is attacking. I think there are a few things at play here.

I think that most of the political analysts are hit with something they were never taught about in school. There is a huge swing in polling between Florida and South Carolina. Newt won SC but it looks like he might loose FL. Why? I don't know for sure. All of the same attack ads used now in FL were there in SC, but the outcome was different.

This I do know. There has never been (in modern history) a situation where people were truthfully scared for the country; not like now. I think that Republican voters know that Obama must go. Not because of partisan differences or whatever the media likes to call it. But because Republican voters sense that there is something wrong and that the nation might not recover from four more years of Obama.

Gingrich has the most attacks so far amongst any of the candidates. Romney is still left alone and that worries me. I want a candidate who is despised by the Obama camp. The left and the MSM will only act if they think that a candidate is a threat to their agenda, it only makes sense. Look what happened to Herman Cain.

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by former Reagan administration officials seems a little fishy to me also. Do these former officials keep such close ties with each other that they can all come out at the same time with damaging stories? What jogged their collective memory? It seems that they where incorrect in their portrayal of Gingrich.

“It does no one -- least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney -- any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day -- was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue,” writes Lord in today’s American Spectator.

Abrams, Lord writes, was surely hoping no one would bother to “get into the weeds” and uncover the full record of what Gingrich said in 1986. But someone, a former Gingrich foreign policy staffer who now works in private industry, did, tracking down the Congressional Record for that year.

The record shows that Gingrich said of Reagan in a floor speech on March 21, 1986:

"Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism."

Gingrich, writes Lord, went on to praise Reagan for his understanding of Vladimir Lenin and applaud Reagan for understanding the threat posed by the Soviet empire and by Nicaragua, where $1 billion in assistance from Moscow fueled a Marxist revolution.

“The Newt Gingrich who spoke on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, was thoroughly pro-Reagan, honestly engaging in a serious intellectual effort to assess the strengths and weaknesses of American foreign policy in the day from a hierarchy of vision, strategy, operations or projects and then, last but not least, tactics,” wrote Lord.

Lord calls Abrams’ criticism of Gingrich, published in a National Review Online article on Thursday, “shameful.”

In the end the vote is up to you and me. Just remember, things aren't always what they seem. These people are trying to convince others that Gingrich was anti-Reagan when he obviously was not. This is much worse than any corny attack add.

This proves that Gingrich is not the establishment candidate, and that establishment republicans are worried that Gingrich might call them out if elected. In my opinion establishment Republicans should be called out and voted out of office. Getting rid of the moderate Republicans is just as important as defeating the Democrats.

Now is not the time for moderates! Now is the time for Conservatives.

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

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

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?