2012 Election Reflections Part 1: what went wrong

The title of my speech last night to the Fallen Timbers Republican Club was "What went wrong, what went right and where do we go from here." It was a look at national and local elections, as well as a to-do list for the future.

I was asked to post it here, but it's very long, so I'm splitting it into three individual posts.

Here is the first: What went wrong.

Nationally:

The candidate:

Mitt Romney is a very good man and I believe he would have made a good president - certainly better than our current one. I voted for him, but, like many others, he was not my first choice. As a result, I wasn't as enthusiastic in my support and that lack of enthusiasm FOR the candidate was clearly evident throughout our area. Most people were voting AGAINST Pres. Obama. But that's not enough to win.

John Ransom wrote: “When running an election campaign it is often valuable to select a nominee who represents the rank and file of the Party. This is how other Parties do it. Perhaps you might get on board.”

Look at our candidates: George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney. As much as we might have *liked* these men, they do not reflect the conservative principles of our party. Need I say more?

Polls continue to show that roughly 60% of Americans oppose Obamacare. We nominated a person who had no standing to oppose that issue. Certainly, I understand the difference between a governor and state legislature creating such a mandate and program and I believe that Romney was sincere in saying that the federal government had no such authority. But that's a complicated issue (at least to some people) and is not easy to explain to an electorate who doesn't understand the difference in authority between the states and the federal government. Therefore, it was a losing position - and a major issue that might have brought people into the R column was sacrificed for a candidate too many insiders claimed was the 'most electable.'

In fact, for just about every bad Obama policy, there was a similar Romney policy out of Massachusetts. That's a huge obstacle to try to overcome.

Do you remember how much Romney was preferred by the press? Some thought that if the press liked him in the primary competition, they would be kinder to him in the general. WRONG! In fact, this is so wrong I'd like to shake whoever even remotely thinks this might possibly apply.

Romney - just like other Republicans was excoriated by same press that supposedly thought he was the best in the Republican field. They ALWAYS do this and we should ignore their praise and expect their contempt for whomever we choose. Additionally, since we know that whomever we nominate will be crucified by the press, we should nominate the candidate who best reflects our values, rather than try to cater to their professed preferences.

Romney was demonized as an evil person long before winning the primary and then didn’t hit back hard enough after the primary. He was behind when he was nominated and never caught up in this regard.

The complicity of the press:

Rich Noyes wrote a great column that gives the details about how the press basically elected Obama. Here are some excerpts with my comments intermixed:

1) Media hammered Romney with their Gaffe Patrol - but ignored similar gaffes by Obama and, must we even mention, Biden:

The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.”

“…when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”

None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."

And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.

2) Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate. Check out Ohio Watchdog’s Politifact or Fiction series and MediaTrackers work on exposing Politifact – and note that most newspapers in Ohio use them as the truth meter when reporting.

3) The Benghazi Blackout:

Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.

Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?

4) Burying the Bad Economy:

Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.

According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.

In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.

When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.

Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.

The Ground Game:

Obama had a terrific ground game, not as good as in 2008, but still better than what we had. I gathered these numbers Wednesday morning…here is Obama’s margin in key states:

107,339 votes in Virginia
100,763 votes in Ohio
47,493 votes in Florida
111,094 votes in Colorado
66,379 votes in Nevada

Total: 433,068

So for less than 500,000 votes where it counted, Romney could have had 281 electoral votes Wednesday morning.

In Ohio, if Republicans had turned out like they did in 2008, Romney would have ended up with 2,786,327. Obama earned 2,725,165 votes this year. That would have resulted in 50.55% for Romney vs. 49.45% for Obama.

Many are claiming that it's our positions that resulted in our loss. I reject that completely. John Ransom also wrote:

The Democrats aren’t beating Republicans by virtue of ideology so much as by mechanics and logistics. Simply put, the models that the GOP relies upon, including those relied upon by myself, have failed to adequately account for this. Again, it makes no difference in a wave election, but we pay dearly for it in close contests.

The grassroots on the other side has spent ten years in community organizing, going door-to-door, creating coalitions of issues-driven, ideologically-funded third party groups that can do a lot of heavily lifting for GOTV. The GOP on the other hand has eschewed groups like the tea parties, seeing the grass roots as a hindrance to our chances at being the cool kids at school.

You saw it in the results on Tuesday.

The progressive activists worked for it, while GOP worked their top-down magic and expected to ride the wave.

Obama had a machine. Like Democrats have practiced and the GOP has failed to learn: this is a never-ending war and an election is only one battle. This it applies to everyone, including minorities.

John Fund wrote:

The fact is that the Machine played for keeps, while Mitt Romney — the quintessential corporate Manager — didn't.

The turnout operation it ran in the swing states and elsewhere spilled over into Senate races. Republicans won only eight of the 33 Senate races up for grabs on Tuesday, the fewest number of Senate races won by a major party since the Lyndon Johnson landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964. If had not been for skillful redistricting, Republicans could have come close to losing the House.

The battle for Hispanic voters saw Romney and Republicans routed. John McCain won only 31 percent of Hispanics in 2008 — down from George W. Bush’s high-water mark of 43 percent in 2004. Mitt Romney won only 27 percent this election, and Hispanics were a tenth of the electorate.

Romney did just as badly with Asian voters, who were 3 percent of all voters. As recently as 1996, Bob Dole won a majority of Asian voters, John McCain still won 35 percent in 2008. But this year, Mitt Romney picked up only 26 percent of Asian-Americans.

Class warfare works:

Kevin Williamson had a great comment that I loved: "It may not be possible to be too thin, but it is, apparently, possible to be too rich, at least for an electorate that can be swayed by envy." 


Rush Limbaugh said on his show that 'you can’t run against Santa Claus.' He was right - it's hard to run against someone who will promise you everything on your wish list, especially when your message is ‘you just have to work for it.’

But even that shouldn't be a winning message because as much as people may believe in the spirit of Santa Claus, we all know that they're isn't an army of elves at the North Pole magically creating all the items on our wish list.

Women:

This election was a huge loss for women and it revealed the hypocrisy of the Democrats. For all the talk coming from the left about empowering women and the feminist movement, in this election the Democrats and the media reduced women to nothing more than sex objects. Sadly, too many women believed that they are nothing but their ‘lady parts’ choosing ‘free’ contraception and abortion over the true women’s issues of jobs, high gas prices, high food prices and their children’s futures.

There have been numerous instances of so-called feminists ignoring true issues of discrimination and degradation in favor of a political position (think Bill Clinton as the most recognizable). I believe history will look back on this election and note that this was when the feminist movement died.

This wasn't just a loss for our party in that we couldn't expose this mockery for what it was. This was a huge setback for women today and our daughters tomorrow because the left embraced it - and we allowed it.

What went wrong on a local level:

* We had no local spokesman for the Romney campaign – or for any other state-wide candidate or issue. As a result, there was no one in Lucas County offering a rebuttal to charges made against our candidates or speaking in favor of their positions and strengths. They say that all politics is local and this was a detriment to our community and made it appear to supporters that our area had been 'written off.'

The problem is that, in close elections, no area can be ignored, because a thousand more votes each of the 'ignored' areas could have made a difference overall.

* Jon Stainbrook – absent from everything except comments to The Blade. Did the Lucas County Republican Party even take a position on the seven tax levies on the ballot? If they did, I didn't hear about it and I'm a news junkie.

(Interestingly, when I asked this question of the members of a REPUBLICAN CLUB, even THEY didn't know.)

* Our candidates - most were just place holders who didn't bother to put together positions or plans for the offices they were seeking - or even campaign for votes.

The few candidates with potential didn’t get the help they needed in funds, support, advice, strategy or publicity.

One of our candidates was in a race he shouldn’t have been in and, because of his previous votes and positions, failed to get the support of conservatives. Other voters thought he was just looking for another public position due to being term limited. Even with his name recognition and likability, he suffered from a lack of support that a robust county political party would have provided.

* Lack of experience – there were no individuals with a proven record of winning elections who were helping or guiding the strategy on a local level. Stainbrook has pushed away - and even banned - former elected officials who have valuable insight and perspectives that would have helped our candidates.

This is a failure of our party chairman who should be able to put aside his personal dislikes of individuals in order to advance the election of our candidates.

* Lack of information – too few realized what the levies would do to their pocketbooks or the economy in the county. Opposition, valiant though it was, was too late to be effective. If we had a strong party advancing the conservative principles of limited government and lower taxation, the information about the fiscal impact of more than $45 million in new taxes might have received more publicity.

Because of these things that went wrong, taxes in Lucas County are going up:

1) MetroParks levy – a 300% increase over what they had before passed by just under 19,000 votes.

2) Children Services board levy – an 85% increase over their previous levy passed by just over 18,000 votes – despite having 2 levies for funding and over $13 million in their reserve.

3) Mental Health & Recovery Services levy – a new, 10-year levy giving them a 67% increase over the funding in their existing levy, passed by 3,650 votes.

4) The Library levy – a 45% increase in funding passed by just under 60,000 votes. Primarily due to deceptive advertising: by making it a renewal and an additional tax at the same time, they could claim 50% of their funding was at stake. Most people didn’t realize it was an increase on top of their existing levy. Voters were given a lose-lose choice: give the library more or nothing at all - and people love their library.

While there are other items you might be able to point to as things that went wrong, these are a good start in evaluating the 2012 election.

But as important as it is to evaluate the mistakes, it is equally important to note the successes. My next post will be 'what went right.' Post 3 will be 'where do we go from here?'

4 in union truck charged with receiving stolen property

Early this morning, officers from the Perrysburg Police Department charged four men with receiving stolen property following several reports of missing political yard signs.

Perrysburg is a small town in Wood County just outside of Toledo, Ohio.

The stolen property was a truck bed full of Romney/Ryan yard signs, some measuring as large as 4 ft x 8 ft.

Also in the truck were tools such as drills, which might have been used to take down the large mini-billboard signs. The signs were allegedly removed from several private property and business locations across Lucas and Wood County.

Charged and summoned to appear in court were:

* John Russell, 39, of Eleanor Street, Toledo, Ohio
* Sean A. Bresler, 33, of Capistrano Drive, Toledo, Ohio
* Corey J. Beaubien, 37, of Kelsey, Toledo, Ohio
* Christopher Monaghan, 41, of Oak Street, Rossford, Ohio

The 2010 Ford pickup they were in was registered to the Sheet Metal Workers Local #33 on Corporate Drive in Parma, Ohio.

Interestingly, four individuals in the Toledo area with the exact same names are listed as officers of the Sheet Metal Workers Union, or sheet metal workers.

The website for Local #33 lists a John Russell and Christopher Monaghan as business agents for the Toledo District.

A John Russell is also listed as the Vice President of the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council, representing Local #33.

A Facebook page for a Corey Beaubien who lives in Toledo identifies himself as a Sheet Metal journeyman since 1999.

A Toledo Blade Log page from 2005 lists a Sean Bresler as a marriage license applicant. That Sean Bresler was listed as being 26 years old at the time - the same age as the one charged - and having an occupation of sheet metal worker.

Now, it is possible that the four men charged are not the same ones identified as union members and officers, but that would have to be a very large coincidence and would not explain how they got access to a truck registered to the Sheet Metal Union Local #33.

Below are screen shots of the references and the police reports.

Confusing reporting or backtracking on outsourcing Jeeps?

Fiat, the majority owner of bailed-out Chrysler, told Bloomberg that they were going to re-start production of Jeeps in China and perhaps move all Jeep production to that nation.

Here is the actual quote from Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia (emphasis added):

“The volume opportunity for us is very significant,” Manley, who is also president of the Jeep brand, said in an interview at Chrysler’s Auburn Hills, Michigan, headquarters. “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”

I read the Bloomberg article and thought they were saying they were considering moving "the entire Jeep portfolio" to China, and reported that here on this blog.

To be clear, I didn't think that meant they would idle all the assembly lines and the U.S. work force; my point wasn't about the loss of jobs, but the loss of the Jeep brand being 'made in America' and the campaign implications if the iconic Jeep was outsourced to China.

Apparently, that's not at all what they intended and they're now 'clarifying' after Mitt Romney mentioned the article in a speech in Defiance last night. The Detroit News reports:

The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

"Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."

The Bloomberg story, however, sparked the confusion in the first paragraph of the story, saying Chrysler planned to return Jeep output to China "and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

This may be a simple case of confusing reporting, but my distrust in this administration is so great that I couldn't help but wonder if someone didn't make a phone call to Chrysler to say 'hey - that's gonna hurt; make it go away.'

Jeep moving to China?

"Jeep, an Obama favorite, looks to shift production to China"

That's the Washington Examiner headline on a story that details the possibility that taxpayer bailed-out Chrysler might shift production of all Jeeps to China.

Yes, the iconic Jeep, symbol of Toledo, saying "Made in China" ...

So much for saving the auto industry in Ohio.

What possible comment could President Obama have if his campaign poster child outsources production to China???

Is this the push that moves Ohio out of 'toss-up' and into the Romney column?

The article says:

In another potential blow for the president's Ohio reelection campaign, Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.

Such a move would crash the economy in towns like Toledo, Ohio, where Jeeps are made and supplied, and rob the community of the economic security they thought Obama's auto bailout assured them.

Obama is such a fan of Jeep that he included a picture of himself speaking at the Toledo plant in his newly released second term agenda binder. In his address to the plant in 2011, Obama said, "I just took a short tour of the plant and watched some of you putting the finishing touches on the Wrangler. Now, as somebody reminded, I need to call it the 'iconic' Wrangler. And that's appropriate because when you think about what Wrangler has always symbolized. It symbolized freedom, adventure, hitting the open road, never looking back."

Well it appears that the taxpayer bailed-out Chrysler is looking back and now considering cutting costs by shifting production of all Jeeps to China, which has a strong desire for Jeeps.

Read more...

Coal miners fight back against Obama lies

President Barack Obama has earned the wrath of Ohio coal miners who don't like it when his campaign lies about them.

I count at least 100 miners in this video, but the spokesman said more would have been present if not for the fact that they were still (for the time being) working.

Watch the entire thing...it's worth it!

WSPD show recap - Sept. 26, 2012

Here are the links to the subjects we discussed Wednesday on 1370 WSPD:

* Bacon shortage?!? I'm stockpiling.

link to story

* Lucas County jobless rate lowest since '08 is headline in the local paper...but the actual numbers show something different:

Link to Ohio statistics website

Link to Ohio Labor Force Estimates

Employment numbers - not the unemployment rate - is the statistic we should watch.

205,900 was the Lucas County employment in May 2008.
192,900 was the Lucas County employment in Aug 2012.

Even though unemployment rate is low, there were 13,000 more people working in Lucas County back in 2008.

131,200 was the Toledo employment rate in May 2008.
119,800 was the Toledo employment rate in Aug 2012.

Even though there was only a difference of 200 in the number unemployed in Toledo when you compare May 2008 to August 2012, there are 11,400 people NOT working in August than were working in May.

The picture might be slightly better, but the headline is based on distorted numbers and the real truth of the job situation is revealed when you look at the number employed.

* Mayor Mike Bell doesn't like the presidential candidates bashing China in Toledo when he's holding an economic forum for dozens of Chinese investors on the same day.

Link to story

Note Councilman Joe McNamara's comment at the end of the story and then check out page 7 of this report from Ohio which shows that employment, compared to last year, in the categories of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Parts is down 1,400 and 1,000 jobs, respectively.

* With President Barack Obama touting his tariffs on Chinese tires, it's important t know it didn't really do anything to help the American tire market. The article has the details

Link to story

* Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies revealed the inside story about the latest New York Times/CBS/Quinnipiac poll which shows Obama leading Romney by 10 points.

Podcast of interview is available here.

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac Polls, who said that "it is probably unlikely" that Democrats will turn out to the polls in the margins at which they are reflected in the polls. Here is the link to the blog post.

* Jason Hart of Media Trackers Ohio talking about his investigations into the personal biases behind the so-call objective fact-checking that PolitiFact supposedly does.

Podcast is available here.

Additionally, I referenced a series being done by Ohio Watchdog that checks the fact-checkers at PolitiFact and finds much of it is fiction.

Here is the lastest post in the series, "OH: PolitiFact claim in Brown ad refuted by PolitiFact" with the earlier entries linked at the bottom of the story.

Thursday Show:

We'll talk about the letter Mike Rowe, Dirty Jobs, sent to Mitt Romney and what it means in terms of future jobs. Also, Andrew Marcus, the writer and director of the soon-to-be released movie, "Hating Breitbart."

WSPD show recap - Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2012

Here are the discussion items from my stint as guest host on 1370 WSPD Tuesday:

* Hilary Clinton's comments about "preaching" to the world about the "elite" not paying enough in taxes and not contributing to schools, hospitals and growth.

Link to story

* In New York City, no soda but 'morning after' and birth control pills for high school students. A school nurse called in to say there was no way she would want to be responsible for dispensing this drug. Another caller asked how this could be allowed when they can't even hand out aspirin.

link to story

* A ban on father-daughter dances? Yes, because of the ACLU.

link to story

* More from the ACLU - are bans on same-sex classes and schools next?

link to story

* Nick Mascari of Third Base Politics on Democrat Bellfontaine mayor who is proud to be part of the dependent nation.

This link to the story contains links to previous posts, including this one which shows the mayor's new kitchen and outdoor furniture, and this one from Ohio Watchdog on the potential impact to a MSM reporter over the story.

Podcast is available here.

* This quote from Erick Erickson at RedState.com:

“…if a Republican candidate loses, the media blames it on the candidate being too conservative. If a Republican candidate wins, the media credits the candidate drifting toward the center. The only sure fire loser in American politics is the conservative movement, which is remarkable given the amazing success the conservative movement has had in spite of this.”

Wednesday Show:

* Jason Hart of Media Trackers Ohio will join us at 5 p.m. to talk about PolitiFact Ohio - the bias of its reporters and the opinions it produces disguised as fact-checking.

* Bacon shortage? Say it ain't so!

* Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both in town - and Mayor Mike Bell's take on their criticism of China

I agree with Romney on health care - sort of

Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he wants to repeal Obamacare - the Affordable Care Act - but that there are portions of it he likes, including covering pre-existing conditions and children.

Actually, I believe that insurance companies should offer coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. I don't believe they should be forced to, but it would be to their advantage to do so.

But (yes, the infamous 'but') - they should not be forced to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same rate as other customers without such conditions.

Life insurance for a healthy person is cheaper than for someone who has heart disease and a history of heart attacks. Why shouldn't health insurance work the same way?

Why shouldn't individuals with pre-existing conditions pay more for their health insurance, especially if they wait until after they are sick to obtain it?

If the government doesn't insist that individuals are absolved from the potential negative consequences of their actions, they might just be inclined to take the appropriate action ahead of time.

If you know you can get away with being irresponsible, you're more likely to be irresponsible. That's human nature. Just like children as they are growing up, you tell them repeatedly that touching a hot stove will hurt, but they keep trying until they succeed and learn, because it hurts, that it was the wrong thing to do.

So I agree with Romney that individuals with pre-existing conditions should have access to health care, but I believe that such 'access' should come at a higher cost.

And should 'children' be able to be covered? Sure. But then, I define 'chidren' as descendants (legal or biological) under the age of 18 or over 18 and still attending school.

I would even go so far as to say that insurance companies would find an abundance of clients if they allowed relatives living in the same household to be covered under an insurance plan. They do this with car insurance - why not with health insurance?

Of course, this would work best if health insurance were purchased like car insurance and not just through your employer - with individuals receiving the same tax advantages as employers currently do.

Car insurance rates are affordable and there are plenty of policy options and coverage levels to fit every need. If health insurance were reformed to mirror the structure of car insurance, wouldn't that be a huge improvement?

These are good ideas, but the devil is in the details. Will government mandate such things, or open up the market so such structures can develop?

There's the rub...

Random thoughts - Strickland, Steel, Bell, Irish, Stainbrook

* Ted Strickland is traveling around Ohio doing a sort of 'counter convention' to the Republican gathering in Florida. He's on a very large bus and is garnering huge crowds of ... 30 or so.

Just wondering: anyone else see the irony of Strickland going city to city in a bus that says "wrong for the middle class"?

* The Washington Examiner had an interesting article on the latest government push for government dependency. Apparently, too many of you depend first on yourselves and then on your family for help in hard times.

Clearly that cannot be allowed to happen, so the government has created a website so you can stop that nasty habit of taking care of yourselves and rely upon the government instead.

* Check it out: Public Notice released a new video, “Where Washington is Taking Us,” highlighting the results of Washington’s reckless economic and fiscal policies and the true impact on American families, students and small businesses. The video presents today’s hard economic realities with the underlying message that the American people cannot afford to let Washington continue to take us down a path towards high unemployment, massive debt and a reduced quality of life.

* Note to Steve Steel: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Calling Mike Bell's proposal - which is your idea applied equally to everyone - a "red herring" just makes you look ridiculous. You are, however, correct in that it was 'one-upmanship' ... you're just upset about being the one 'upped'.

Just remember, you started it, so don't be surprised when Bell finishes it.

Saving the best for last:

* Keila Cosme is going to leave the Lucas County Board of Elections to take a job with the county. John Irish is going to be nominated to take her place.

I've worked with John as a commissioner - and against him in campaigns. I respect him even when I disagree with him. He's got a keen political mind and is an excellent strategist.

He also doesn't suffer fools, so his inclusion on the BOE will be nothing but a thorn in the side of the childish antics of Jon Stainbrook.

Either Irish will end up 'pummeling' Stainbrook or the BOE may actually get some work done. Only time will tell ... but, in the meantime, it will be fun to watch.

Paul Ryan and the Perseids

I'm doing the happy dance over the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate. He's a fiscal hawk, a Constitutionalist, a good communicator, not afraid to take on the opposition, and personable.

And some think he's sexy - which never hurts.

And what, you might be wondering, does this have to do with the Perseid Meteor Showers?

Well, as SpaceWeather.com reports:

Earth is entering a stream of debris from Comet Swift-Tuttle, source of the annual Perseid meteor shower. Worldwide observers are now reporting more than 30 Perseids per hour, a number that could triple during the weekend when Earth reaches the heart of the debris zone. Forecasters recommend looking during the dark hours before dawn, especially Sunday morning, August 12th, when activity is expected to be highest. Visit http://spaceweather.com for sky maps, observing tips, and links to a live meteor radar.

Even the heavens are celebrating at his selection.



Not really, but it was a good excuse to put the two events together. :)

'Celebrate America' Rally to counter Pres. Obama visit

This event is also being called the Maumee Conservative Rally and I'm hearing rumors that the Mitt Romney bus is planning to stop by...

Press Release:

Ohio Conservatives to Provide Counterpoint to Obama Visit

Ohio conservative groups will host the 'Celebrate America' Rally on Thursday, July 5, as a counterpoint to President Obama's scheduled visit to the Maumee area. The rally will showcase conservative groups from across the state, as well as notable speakers. Attendees will also have the opportunity to meet regional and state candidates and representatives, speak with their campaigns and be informed on the issues.

The event will be held in Downtown Maumee, Ohio at the corner of Conant and E. Broadway, and will begin at 10 a.m. Attendees are advised to come early, as crowds are expected.

Also this message relating to the event:

Join your friends and neighbors as we celebrate our great nation. Come and visit with conservative groups from around Northwest Ohio, hear great speakers and brush up on the history of America. You'll come away inspired with the principles of Liberty and Freedom! Bring lawn chairs and ice cold water.

Robber baron or financial wizard?

The Washington Free Beacon has taken a look at how candidates for office are judged on their business background and success. Not surprisingly, they find that whether the candidate is portrayed as a robber baron or a financial wizard depends upon ... wait for it ... political party!

In Good Business, Bad Business they write:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s business record has been classified as a liability according to prominent talking heads and leading newspapers, while Democrats with similar backgrounds of financial success have been praised for their business acumen.

They looked at stories about presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Sen. Mark Warner. Most know of Romney's success, but in case you don't remember, Sen. Warner was a venture capitalist in the telecommunications industry where he managed to earn a personal fortune of $200 million.

As the Free Beacon explains, the Washington Post questioned Romney's impact the "costs of a modern capitalism that embraces creative destruction" but failed to question "the impacts of Warner’s investments on pay-phone sales or the employment prospects of employees who put up telephone wires, another example of creative destruction."

All this contributes to the perception (fact?) of media bias:

The press’s treatment of Romney gives further credence to allegations of bias, conservative media critics say.

“There’s an inherent ignorance of business and economics in newsrooms, so reporters rely on a Rolodex consisting of liberal contacts that reinforce what reporters already believe,” said Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center. “The default position is that businessman are evil, but if they find out the guy’s on their side, then he’ll get a pass.”

What a surprise!

In last 100 years, only 1 Republican defeated incumbent Democrat president

I heard this quote from Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on the radio this morning and I found it in a Newsmax article on Santorum's discussion with CNN’s John King (emphasis is mine):

Santorum noted that the Republican establishment in Washington and New York typically pushes for a moderate like Romney to lead the party, and they typically lose.

“ … if we don’t have a conservative, we will end up with the same situation we have had over the past 100 years. There’s been over 100 years now. There’s only one Republican that’s ever defeated a sitting Democratic incumbent president, one.

“And it’s the one time we ran a strong conviction conservative, in the face of the party saying no, no, no, we need a moderate. We need to win. We need to win. They always say that. And we always lose. And the one time we didn’t listen to the establishment, the Washington insiders, we had Ronald Reagan. And not only did we win. We changed the country.”

Before Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was 1888 when such an upset occured.  Grover Cleveland was defeated by Benjamin Harrison.

There's a very powerful lesson to be learned here - but I don't know if anyone is paying attention.

Forget logic, you're supposed to love Obamacare

Yesterday, Ohio Democratic State Rep. Teresa Fedor held a press conference to criticize Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's announcement that he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected. She strategically held the conference on the first day of U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the law.

Of course, no Democratic press conference is complete with an appeal to emotion, so she trotted out the typical tug-at-the-heart-strings examples of what would happen if that evil Romney had his way.

The first was Jack Viren, 67, who said:

"The fact that Mitt Romney would overturn the [Affordable Care Act], which allows my wife to have health insurance, saving us close to $15,000 a year, it's unconscionable and unthinkable. We were just totally grateful to President Obama and the Congress when the Affordable Care Act was passed," Mr. Viren said.

But this isn't true. Earlier in the linked article, Viren admits that his wife had insurance:

Mr. Viren said his wife, Carol, who is 12 years younger than he, was forced by an illness to give up her practice as a lawyer and started running an online business. He said the cost of her coverage, which she obtained through a group, went from $800 a month in 2007 to $1,200 the next year. The couple said the cost would have gone to $1,600 with a $2,500 deductible in 2009, but Mrs. Viren dropped the coverage because they couldn't afford it while also paying about $1,000 a month for prescriptions.

"If she had had to go into the hospital for any period of time it could have forced us into bankruptcy," Mr. Viren said.

So what he's saying is that the costs of being without insurance were going to be less than being with insurance?!?

He then contradicts himself when saying that they chose to risk bankruptcy rather than pay for insurance.

That's liberal logic for you.

They probably supported the Ohio law that allows unmarried 'children' up to the age of 28 to stay on their parents' insurance. The minute Ohio passed this law, our own insurance jumped $1,200 per year!

The problem is that Obamacare doesn't "allow" his wife to have health insurance. She had "access" to health care and willingly chose to reject it.

Instead, they decided to live off others who are paying for Ohio's high risk insurance pool, which subsidizes a limited number of individuals with tax dollars from the rest of us.

So much for personal responsibility.

You may be wondering - what is the Ohio High Risk Pool?

The Ohio High Risk Pool is designed to give uninsured Ohioans with pre-existing conditions access to quality health insurance.

Viren's wife had insurance so the pre-existing condition issue wasn't applicable.

What Viren should have said was that he and his wife made a conscious decision to stop paying for the health insurance they had and now they're glad they can get the rest of us to subsidize the insurance they're currently getting.

We're supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

And we're supposed to want to support an unconstitutional Obamacare as a result?!?

Of course we are.

But that's not all. We're also supposed to hate the millionaires and billionaires who aren't paying their "fair share" - at least according to Sen. Fedor:

"...if more people have to pay more money, especially the millionaires and billionaires, that's part of what is necessary to have a quality nation, and it's part of their fair share of ensuring we have a viable economic future," Ms. Fedor said.

What's fair about 'rich' people paying more while nearly half the nation pays nothing at all? Talk about unfair.

But again, that's liberal logic for you.

Then we have Fran Dymarkowski, 69, who clearly doesn't think things through. Her 'tug-at-the-heart-strings' story was about Medicare:

Mrs. Dymarkowski said her husband, Paul, had a drug-resistant staph infection and that their spending on prescription drugs reached the so-called doughnut hole, a situation in which Medicare stops paying for the coverage.

She said her and her husband's cost was about $3,000 or $4,000 over a two-year period in 2009 and 2010. She said Mr. Dymarkowski's health improved and he has less need of the costly prescriptions.

"For seniors like Paul and me living on limited income through Social Security these costs were not a joke," Ms. Dymarkowski said. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing." The Affordable Care Act provided a rebate of $250 in the first year and will continue providing the rebate until the doughnut hole is closed in 2020.

Let's put that into perspective: taking the higher estimated (since Dymarkoski clearly didn't know exactly) amount of $4,000 over a two-year period of time, that works out to $200/month. That's not an insignificant amount when you're relying upon Social Security for your income, but it's not more or less than what others have to pay.

As I previously stated, when Ohio passed the insure-children-to-age-28 law, our insurance went up $100/month. When my husband turned 45, it went up another $100/month, strictly due to actuarial tables having nothing whatsoever to with his excellent state of health. That's $200/month in a two-year period of time - just like Dymarkowkis.

Our income is as 'fixed' as theirs - but we're paying for her rebate with our taxes, and she thinks that's okay.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act, no senior will ever have to go through what Paul and I spent that year doing."

Really? Does actually think that a $250 per year rebate will help people who see a $200 per month increase in their prescription costs? Granted, it's better than nothing, but not much - and it comes at the cost of sacrificing our Constitution.

Did she actually think about the math before she got up in front of the media?

Apparently not.

Again - we're supposed to feel sorry for her and her husband, ignoring such facts and figures, and embrace Obamacare as a result.

Dymarkowski is happy that Obamacare closed the Medicare doughnut hole, but what about the fact that Obamacare is partially funded by a $500 billion cut in Medicare?!? How does she feel about that?

The Romney campaign responded:

"President Obama is the only president to have slashed $500 billion from Medicare, and he did it to fund Obamacare. Unlike the President, Governor Romney is committed to preserving Medicare for those at or near retirement, and unlike the President he has put forward a plan that will strengthen it for future generations," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams.

Lest you think this is just political rhetoric, the Washington Post Fact Checker agrees:

In the health care bill, the anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans. In reality, the money is all fungible, but Romney is on relatively solid ground when he says “Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.”

Does Dymarkowski think that settling for a doughnut hole rebate is sufficient payback for the $500 billion Medicare cut that it cost? Does she even know about the cuts that are helping to pay for her $250 rebate?

No one asked her.

I'm sick of being told by elitist politicians what I must do and how I must "feel." They can tug at the heart strings all they want, but I will not stand by while my liberty, my rights, and my personal property are sacrificed so they can appear to help 'stuck-on-stupid' individuals who can't do their own math or who want to live off others.

And I will NOT forget logic and just love Obamacare.

Mitt Romney in Toledo

This just in:

Mitt Romney wil be in Toledo Wednesday, Feb. 29th at American Posts, 805 Chicago Street, Toledo at 9:30 am.

Any questions, contact Molly Donlin mdonlin@mittromney.com.

This is all the information I have and since I don't know what time doors open, I suggest arriving early.

Quick thoughts on Ann Coulter's 'appeal to moderates' advice

Ann Coulter, a Mitt Romney supporter, said several things during her comments to CPAC that we've heard before, but don't necessarily ring true to me.

She said we need a candidate who can appeal to the moderates and independents.

I don't disagree that any candidate should appeal to the middle - that's the only way to earn their vote and win an election.

I disagree, however, that earning the support of the middle means we need to elect someone who does not represent conservative principles.

This 'appeal to independents' approach has historically been used by many to imply we cannot win when we support 'right-leaning' principles and policies so we must moderate ourselves in order to win.

This is what I find so repulsive - as well as incorrect. Conservatism and electibility go hand in hand.

Ronald Reagan did not shy away from his conservative principles. In fact, he relished in them. He believed them in his heart and soul. His fundamental faith that those principles are part of what makes this nation great - and, in fact, are the only way to advance the freedom and liberty our founders fought for - shone through in his words and deeds - and in his eyes when he talked about them.

His message of liberty and American exceptionalism moved independents, moderates and even many democrats to vote for him. Not because he tried to appeal to them, but because he spoke to their hearts.

Rick Santorum hit on this during his comments, when he said conservatives abandoned their principles in the name of 'cooperation' and 'getting things done' and, increasing, in whom to choose as our party's nominee.

I reject the idea that a person who not only speaks, but exhibits in their record, a conservative philosophy cannot appeal to the middle.

Conservatism is the clear opposite to the socialistic path our current President has placed us on.

I have faith that the American public, when given such a clear choice, will choose freedom, liberty, a limited government (rather than one that controls every aspect of your life) - and yes, the conservative candidate.

But only if that candidate is credible - not someone who is saying something opposite of their record just to get elected.