Winners and Losers

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character." —Noah Webster

It is always a risky to endeavor attempt to determine the winners and losers in a political debate. Unless you are an absolutely committed independent with no political philosophy whatsoever it is impossible not to allow your personal bias to influence your decisions.

As this was a debate aimed at Republicans and conservatives the potential presidential candidates in last night’s Iowa debate were speaking to the Republicans and conservatives who would support them in their run for the nomination. This is why it makes really no sense to read or listen to the left-wing pundits with their assessments. Their bias will not allow them to honestly evaluate how the candidates will play with the Republicans and conservatives. They have no stake in the game except looking for the weakest candidate, a candidate Barack Obama could defeat next November.

With this in mind I will venture my evaluation of each candidate’s performance in the Fox News televised debate from the campus of Iowa State University at Ames, Iowa last night.

Before I begin I want to say that each candidate said things I agreed with and each candidate said some things that left me wondering or even in total disagreement with. There are no perfect candidates for every voter. We all have biases and personal preferences as to what we want to see in a candidate and how we would like them to perform. We also have two issues confronting us. The first issue is principles and plans as to what they would do if elected. The second issue is could the beat Obama in a general election.

In 2008 many of us conservatives did not believe John McCain could beat Obama in either a head to head debate or win the general election. We thought Romney was a more viable candidate. We were proved right on both counts. This year we need a candidate with principles we believe in and candidate that beat a weakened Barack Obama. So here we go.

The Winners:

I will begin with the candidates I believe were the winners in he debate.

Mitt Romney:

Again, he went unscathed. The closest anyone got to landing a blow was when Pawlenty meekly said that "ObamneyCare" was a "fair" description of Romney's Massachusetts health care plan that ObamaCare was modeled after. As the frontrunner, Romney focused his attacks on Obama and presented his plans on how he would revive the economy. He was on cruise control and came out a winner solely because nobody put a dent in his frontrunner status.

Romney danced eloquently around some of the social issues like gay marriage and abortion, issues that appeal to some of the more evangelical conservatives, but will not ring well with the general electorate. He focused on jobs and the economy, two issues that are foremost in the minds of American voters today, and issues that make Obama very vulnerable.

I thought Romney gave a good response to Chris Wallace’s question regarding mandatory health care when he explained the difference between what is allowed in the Federal Constitution and what is left to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment when he asked Wallace if he ever read the constitution of the State of Massachusetts.

Romney displayed a little more passion than last year, although it was controlled passion. He looked “presidential” and will probably get the nomination even if he loses in Iowa.

Romney is not in the Iowa Straw Poll so we will not know what impact the his debate performance had on he people of Iowa who will be paying $30 dollars to cast a vote in the poll.

Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann came prepared for Pawlenty's attacks on her. She said Pawlenty once said the "era of small government is over" and compared Pawlenty to Obama. She highlighted her opposition to raising the debt ceiling and fighting to preserve the light bulb, an issue deal to conservatives. And while Pawlenty attacked her for her lack of executive experience and her inability to accomplish anything in Congress, Bachmann did nothing to hurt herself going into the Straw Poll, so she has to be declared a winner. She had some few gaffes — like saying Obama got a blank check for $2.4 trillion — but she also answered a question in which she was asked if she would be "submissive" to her husband's wishes if elected President with poise and class. Republican voters this cycle want someone who is pugnacious, and Bachmann showed plenty of pep going into the Straw Poll.

I thought Bachmann’s response to the gay marriage and health care issues were a bit inconsistent when it came to the Tenth Amendment. On one hand she wanted a national marriage amendment yet on the other hand she wanted the national health care (ObamaCare) repealed. I believe both are state issues and should be treated as such.

Newt Gingrich:

Gingrich, in response to the moderator's admonition to not regurgitate talking points, excoriated the questioner for asking "gotcha" questions and focusing on process and campaign minutiae. This was reminiscent of the Reagan moment when he said “I paid for this microphone.”

Gingrich then gave the debate performance of the night. He railed against the Super Committee created to find spending cuts. He said Congress should be called back in to session now. He urged Americans that the presidential election is 15 months away and they should put pressure on lawmakers to repeal legislation like Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, and ObamaCare that he feels are destroying jobs.

He spoke convincingly on issues of Americanism such as making English the official language and reminded everyone why it was conventional wisdom that debates would be Gingrich's strong suit. His campaign appearances in Iowa in recent weeks have generated buzz and excitement and this debate performance went a long way in potentially reviving his campaign. Many Republicans and supporters may want to see Gingrich in the campaign just so he could be in every debate, which will give him many more opportunities to have more moments in which he could potentially convert into actual votes next winter.

Gingrich, probably the best informed of the candidates on history, the Constitution and the legislative process, would mop the floor with Obama if he ever had the chance to debate him. Newt is quick with facts and has a passionate way to take on the lack of knowledge from his opponents. He will probably not get the nomination, but it sure would be fun to watch him square off against old hope and change.

The Losers:

These are the candidates, that although they made a few good points did not advance their candidacy and, in my opinion, set themselves back a few steps.

Tim Pawlenty:

Pawlenty's campaign is riding on the Ames Straw Poll for its revival. And though he attacked Bachmann in this debate by attacking her opposition to ObamaCare and TARP, noting, "if that's your view of effective leadership with results, please stop, you're killing us," Pawlenty seemed like a candidate with prepared sound bites who was just trying too hard.

He spent too much time attacking his fellow Minnesotaian on the parochial issue of the cigarette fee and the pro-life bill. Most people are not familiar with this Minnesota issue and probably don’t care. If there were a group of people watch the debate with those Frank Luntz clickers in their hands I am sure the lines on the graph would have taken a nose dive during this tittle soap opera. He got lost in the minutiae of a local issue that seemed petty and childish.

Later in the debate, when asked again to challenge Romney on "ObamneyCare," all Pawlenty could say was he felt that criticism was "fair." Voters want someone assertive. And Pawlenty came off as unsure of what type of candidate he is or where his campaign is going. Nice guys and their consultants who care what Washington, D.C. elites think of them often do not finish first. Team Pawlenty may be proof positive of that. Pawlenty just does not generate much passion in the voters. My fear is that he is another John McCain.

Ron Paul:

Tony Lee of Human Events claims Paul as one of the winners. He says:

“During the first two debates, Paul seemed to be a man trying to moderate some of his image. Not this time. Paul was the old Paul. He spoke convincingly and forcefully on the debt and on fiscal issues. He was professorial at times. On foreign policy, he railed against America's overseas adventures, was wobbly on Iran (Santorum had to remind him that Iran was a bit different from Iceland). Was there a method to his madness? Perhaps. Paul is in contention to win the Straw Poll on Saturday, which then cannot be dismissed. It could shake up the race, and Paul may have been banking on the old Paul galvanizing the supporters that can push him over the top on Saturday. Would foreign policy moderates and hawks go to the Straw Poll for him? Probably not. If Paul ends up winning the Straw Poll, in large part due to his strategy at the debate of going back to the old, unfiltered (some would say more unhinged) Paul, then the move will have turned out to be even more brilliant, at least in the short term.

Paul does have another thing going for him. It is true the Republican Party has moved toward him on both domestic and foreign policy. His campaign is much more organized than it was in 2008. Young voters, especially those with a more libertarian bent, are as attracted as ever to his ideas. If Paul wins the Straw Poll, he will have to be talked about as a legitimate contender for the nomination.”

I totally disagree with Mr. Lee. To me Ron Paul sounds like an angry Libertarian. He looked old and at times rambled in his response. His response that states could impose slavery if they wanted was 100% off base. Evidently he ignored the 13^th Amendment. His total laissez-faire Ayn Rand brand of Libertarianism will not resound with many Republicans or conservatives, especially his position on drugs and national defense.

He made sound points on the economy and the Federal Reserve. He had a strong cadré of passionate supporters in the audience and his presence at the Straw Poll is well financed and loaded with passionate volunteers. To me Paul looks like an old, angry Libertarian. Perhaps his best role, if a Republican is elected, is Secretary of the Treasury.

Jon Huntsman:

Huntsman seemed uncomfortable and unsure. Perhaps it was symbolic he was in Iowa, for he is not going to compete in the Caucus and his supporters had a debate watching party in New Hampshire, the state which will determine the fate of his campaign. He pieced together material from his stump speeches but did not give viewers a clear reason why he was running. His voice rotated between sounding forceful when repeating rhetoric and trembling when he was substantive. It was weird.

On questions ranging from his support of civil unions and immigration, he came away looking like a politician who didn't directly answer the questions. He cited his conservative record in Utah and described the dour state America is in, which can be core elements of a campaign theme. During one exchange, Huntsman said that he would soon have substantive policy proposals up on his website. The candidate, like his campaign, seems to be a work in progress. It's early in the game, there's still time for Huntsman to gain traction, particularly in New Hampshire, but Huntsman needs a thesis statement fast.

He would be vulnerable to Republicans on two issues. One is that he served in the Obama administration as ambassador to China and the second is the jobs his company exported to India and China. Being ambassador to China probably can be turned to a positive in that he can claim extensive knowledge of the Chinese and their economic and military goals. The exporting of jobs will not bode well. At times I think he is more a moderate Democrat than a conservative Republican.

Draw:

These two candidates had some good points to make But, I believe they did not advance nor damage their chances.

Herman Cain:

Cain highlighted his business background, admitted he has learned a lot about the Palestinian "right of return" and Afghanistan since the last debate. He said Americans "need to learn how to take a joke" in reference to comments he made about how an electric barbed-wire fence was needed in response to when President Obama mocked Republicans on immigration. Cain didn't hurt himself but he did nothing to vault him back into the conversation.

I like Cain’s philosophy on economics and like Romney is the only candidate in the mix with a sound business background. But, unlike Romney, who was a governor, Cain has little experience in politics. While his board room expertise is desirable government does not work like a corporate board room where profit and growth are the driving factors. No matter what the outcome there should be place for him in a Republican administration.

Rick Santorum:

Santorum was convincing on why the 10th Amendment does not allow states to redefine marriage, among other things and even attacked Rick Perry by name. But to our detriment he wasn't asked questions most of the night. When addressed, Santorum delivered convincingly so his performance certainly did not hurt him, but he did nothing to make him stand out enough to generate momentum.

On Deck:

These are the Republicans much discussed but not in the race. They are 800 pound gorillas in the room.

Rick Perry:

As first reported by CNN's Peter Hamby, Perry will formally announce his candidacy Saturday at the RedState Gathering in Charleston, South Carolina. He will be at the front of the pack when he enters the fray, and it was evidenced by Cain calling him a "politician" and Paul referring to him as "status quo."

As governor of Texas he has overseen a lot of growth in his state and espouses solid conservative principles. His recent prayer event created a lot of controversy, but the evangelical conservatives loved it. We have not heard how he would deal with many of the issues so he will have some catching up to do.

Sarah Palin:

The same can be said for Sarah Palin except she is the 8,000 pound mama grizzly, whose bus was rumbling toward the Iowa State Fair, which she will attend today. While other candidates took jabs at Perry, none of the candidates even said anything that could be interpreted as a jab at Palin, again reinforcing the strength of her supporters and the formidable candidate she would be if/when she enters the presidential race. And many signs point to her doing exactly that.

She has been coy and has taken about every sling and arrow he left can deliver. In some ways she seems to be indestructible and her supporters are vast and passionate. She has run in a national race as the vice presidential candidate with John McCain and should know the game by now.

I do not believe either Bachmann or Palin cold win a national election against Obama. I believe they could better serve the Republic by running for the Senate in their respective states. Palin could run for the retiring seat of Arizona’s John Kyl in 2012 and Bachmann could easily defeat the moronic and incompetent Al Franken in 2014 or Amy Klobuchar in 2012. The 2012 date may be too soon if she continues her presidential run and the changes to defeat Franken are much better.

Political analyst Michael Barone sarcastically observed, "some 15,000 to 25,000 Iowans in a state of 3 million will travel to Ames and pay a $30 fee that may determine who will be president of a nation of 311 million." Actually, the poll is by no means the final determinant in the race, and the caucus isn't until Feb. 6, 2012, but a poor showing in the poll might eliminate a candidate or two.

The Political Battlefield of 2012

"The people of long ago are not remembered, nor will there be any remembrance of people yet to come by those who come after them." — Ecclesiastes 1:11

One of the decisive and pivotal battles of World War II was the Battle or Al Alamein, 150 miles west of Cairo, Egypt. By the summer of 1942, the Allies were in trouble throughout Europe. The attack on Russia — Operation Barbarossa — had pushed the Russians back; U-boats were having a major effect on Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and western Europe seemed to be fully in the control of the Germans.

Hence the war in the desert of North Africa was pivotal. If the Afrika Korps got to the Suez Canal, the ability of the Allies to supply themselves would be severely dented. The only alternate supply route would be via South Africa — which was not only longer but a lot more dangerous due to the vagaries of the weather. The psychological blow of losing the Suez and losing in North Africa would have been incalculable — especially as this would have given Germany near enough free access to the oil in the Middle East.

In August 1942, Winston Churchill was desperate for a victory as he believed that morale was being sapped in Britain. Churchill, despite his status, faced the prospect of a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons if there was no forthcoming victory anywhere. Churchill grasped the bull by the horns and he dismissed Auchinleck and replaced him with Bernard Montgomery. The men in the Allied forces respected ‘Monty’. He was described as "as quick as a ferret and about as likeable." Montgomery put a great deal of emphasis on organization and morale. He spoke to his troops and attempted to restore confidence in them. But above all else, he knew that he needed to hold El Alamein anyway possible.

Rommel planned to hit the Allies in the south. Montgomery guessed that this would be the move of Rommel as Rommel had done it before. However, he was also helped by the people who worked at Bletchley Park who had obtained Rommel’s battle plan and had deciphered it. Therefore ‘Monty’ knew not only Rommel’s plan but also the route of his supply lines. By August 1942, only 33% of what Rommel needed was getting through to him. Rommel was also acutely aware that while he was being starved of supplies, the Allies were getting vast amounts through as they still controlled the Suez and were predominant in the Mediterranean. To resolve what could only become a more difficult situation, Rommel decided to attack quickly even if he was not well-equipped.

To throw Rommel off the scent, Montgomery launched ‘Operation Bertram’. This plan was to convince Rommel that the full-might of the Eighth Army would be used in the south. Dummy tanks were erected in the region. A dummy pipeline was also built - slowly, so as to convince Rommel that the Allies were in no hurry to attack the Afrika Korps. ‘Monty’s army in the north also had to ‘disappear’. Tanks were covered so as to appear as non-threatening lorries. Bertram worked as Rommel became convinced that the attack would be in the south. In essence Monty was following the tenants of Sun Tzu that “all war is based on deception.”

I offer this introduction to frame my following comments on what happened over the weekend in an interview with Michelle Bachmann by ABC’s George Stephanopolous. Bachmann was challenged by Stephanopolous that our founding fathers made no effort to abolish slavery when they drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bachmann, with only milliseconds to form her answer to a very complex issue, responded that John Quincy Adams was a fierce abolitionist against the institution of slavery. Of course Stephanopolous, being the “brilliant expert” on the history of the Constitution was quick retort that John Quincy Adams, the son of John Adams, was only 9-years old at the time of the signing of the Deceleration of Independence, in 1776, and 20-years old during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This gaff by Bachmann soon became headline news and Stephanopolous looked smug and pleased in his ability to do the bidding of his Democrat Party masters.

Jeffrey Lord writes in The American Spectator that Stephanopolous was foolish for lecturing Bachmann:

“George Stephanopoulos made the mistake of going after Michele Bachmann on history -- and promptly proceeded to get his history foolishly wrong. Said George:

“For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true.”

“Actually, George, it is true.”

“And before we get to Levin's views, allow me.”

“In 1785, James Madison (as noted by his biographer, Ralph Ketcham in James Madison) took to the floor of the Virginia Assembly, where he was a delegate, and”

“Spoke favoring a bill Jefferson had proposed for the gradual abolition of slavery (it was rejected), and helped defeat a bill designed to outlaw the manumission of individual slaves. Of this effort a French observer wrote that Madison, "a young man (who).astonishes by his eloquence, his wisdom, and his genius, has had the humanity and courage (for such a proposition requires no small share of courage) to propose a general emancipation of the slaves."

“Madison was not alone in taking action on the subject. There was another Founding Father, along with Madison a co-author of The Federalist Papers. That would be Alexander Hamilton.”

“In Alexander Hamilton: A Life, biographer Willard Sterne Randall notes that this Founding Father helped "to found…the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves in New York." Randall on goes to say that:”

“…never forgetting the slave markets of his St. Croix childhood, Hamilton became a prime mover in the early abolitionist group. He pressured the (New York) state legislature and helped to raise money to buy and free slaves. The society's founders…elected Hamilton chairman to draw up recommendations for "a line of conduct" for any "members who still possessed slaves." He also established a registry for manumitted slaves, listing their names and ages, "to detect attempts to deprive such manumitted persons of their liberty."

There's more with Hamilton, who also demanded (writing and signing a 1786 petition on the subject) the legislature ban the importation of slaves, calling slavery "a commerce so repugnant to humanity."

There is a difference between opposing something and being unable to change the practice in the day -- and doing nothing. But it is just flatly false to say, as Stephanopoulos says, that the Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery. The historical record, if one looks, is crystal clear. Madison did. Hamilton did. Jefferson did. They did not succeed, they were personally flawed, some owning slaves themselves. (Wasn't it George who wrote a book on a flawed president he knew called All Too Human?) But these Founding Fathers started the United States of America down the right historical path, personally "working" to end slavery.”

Lord concludes his article by saying:

“There was a reason for the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution. That reason: there were delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and they would be called Founding Fathers ) who supported abolition -- as well as those who opposed it. Hence -- the compromise. Which was not about declaring a black man three-fifths of a person as, for example, Al Gore and many liberals erroneously say. (Where was George then?) It was about reducing the power of slavery as an institution in the new United States Congress. If, as slave owners insisted, slaves were property -- then the obvious: they should not be counted as whole persons, which would increase the proportional power of the slave states in the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population size. The slave owners wanted it both ways -- to treat slaves as property but count them as persons, effectively increasing the slave owning power in Congress. The abolitionist delegates said no -- hence the compromise.

So Levin is quite correct here -- adding another Founding Father to this list: George Mason of Virginia.

Mark Levin caught you out, George, and his details are here.

But Michele Bachmann was right. There were Founding Fathers who worked to end slavery.

Is challenging Michele Bachmann on fundamental history and getting it wrong embarrassing for somebody in the liberal media who criticizes others on the subject? Yes. Will George be concerned enough to retract and correct the record?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Which is short hand for just why millions of Americans roll their eyes at liberals. And watch Fox.

And listen to Levin.”

You can read Mark Levin’s response to Stephanopolous by clicking here. I guarantee that Levin, an attorney and constitutional scholar, knows a hell of a lot more about or founding fathers and the Constitution than a two-bit liberal hack like George Stephanopolous. As Mark Levin concludes his Facebook post:

“There is much more, but point is that Bachmann is right and Stephanopolous is foolish. These flaky journalists really should get their facts and history right before playing the gotcha game, or it might come back to bite them thanks to a fact-checker like me.”

Another writer for American Spectator, Aaron Goldstein, writes a similar article on the Michelle Bachmann- George Stephanopoulos dust up:

“Jeff Lord is right (as is Mark Levin) to take George Stephanopoulos to task for saying the Founding Fathers played no role in the abolition movement.

However, what Jeff omits is that during the Stephanopoulos interview, Michele Bachmann identified John Quincy Adams as a Founding Father. The Declaration of Independence was adopted a week shy of his ninth birthday. Now Bachmann is correct in saying that John Quincy Adams was actively involved during the Revolutionary War Era. In fact, he was given his first diplomatic posting in Europe at the tender age of ten. It would have been more accurate for Bachmann to describe John Quincy Adams as a Son of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, this episode will contribute (unfairly) to the perception that Bachmann doesn't have a firm grasp of early American history. Last March, while speaking in New Hampshire, Bachmann declared the first shots of the American Revolution were fired in the Granite State rather than in Massachusetts.

Yes, I am mindful of the fact that President Obama declared he had visited 57 states "with one left to go. "And yes, I am also mindful that President Obama could tell the good folks of Beaverton, Oregon that he enjoyed his visit to the planet Zorkon and the liberal media wouldn't bat an eyelash. But as I have argued previously, it isn't going to do Bachmann much good in complaining about it. The deck is stacked against any Republican who faces off against President Obama. Bachmann surely knew that when she first contemplated making a White House bid. Thus she must take special care in avoiding these kinds of mistakes. Of course, I realize that this is an all but impossible task. Every candidate on the campaign trail makes mistakes but not all mistakes are treated equally. Unfortunately for Bachmann, her mistakes are going to get greater scrutiny than Obama. But life is not fair. This leaves Bachmann with two choices - get over it or get out.”

It is Goldstein’s last sentence that bothers me and brings me back to the Battle of Al Alamein.

We are in a battle to take our nation back from the progressive statist plunders of the left. Our front line troops in this battle are those with the courage to risk the reputations and political capital to run for office, especially the presidency of the United States. It is troopers like Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin who are out in front taking the fight to the progressive left.

We may like some of these candidates more than others and argue over their individual tactics, but we need to realize that without the support of the conservative media the left will win the battle and we, the American people, will lose the war to the tyranny of the left.

Conservative pundits like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Pat Buchanan and Karl Rove need to focus on the failed policies and gaffs of the left, not on the miss-statements of our fighters made in the heat of the battle. These statements will occur from time to time due to the devotion and passion our fighters have to win the country back. It is their plans and ability to take the fight to the enemy we should be concerned with. This is why Churchill replaced Claude Auchinleck with Bernard Montgomery. It was “Monty” who was willing to risk all to take the fight to Rommel.

Montgomery did not rush headlong into the teeth of Rommel’s panzers. To defeat the Desert Fox and turn the tide of the war he used technology (300 Sherman tanks), intelligence (the code breakers of Bletchley Park) and the deception of Sun Tzu.

Our conservative brothers and sisters must do the same. We need to use the technology of the Internet, the intelligence and dumpster-diving that the left uses and the deception of picking the sites where they will give their interviews.

Like the Allies in WWII our immediate battlefield is not the national stage. Just as in WWII the first European battlefield was not the invasion of Normandy. We worked our way up through North Africa, Sicily and Italy while planning, building up and training for the invasion of the France. Our Republican troops need to do the same by focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. While they are doing this they can be planning, building up (collecting the money and volunteers for the big show) and training for November 2012.

At his stage of the war our fighters do not need the national exposure they expect to get from the main stream media. The MSM is nothing but a fifth column for the progressive left. They have their spies and saboteurs everywhere, just look what they have done to Sarah Palin in the past there years. This is not the time to throw inexperienced fighters into battles where the enemy strength is greater than theirs. Or put in another way — they need to pick and choose the media outlets where they will give interviews — fights they can win. Consultants and campaign managers putting their candidate in front of a hostile, left-wing interviewers, like the McCain people did to Sarah Palin by matching her with Katie Curic and Charles Gibson before she was ready, is tantamount to the British and Canadian Dieppe Raid.

Consider what Andrea Tantaros wrote in her opinion piece for Fox News:

“There is a saying that a fool learns from his own mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. When it comes to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, there is no truer statement.

For the record, Palin is no fool. She has turned a mismanaged 2008 campaign into political gold and brought her brand to stardom with a meteoric, well-choreographed rise. But she had to blaze a trail, one that is largely being utilized by Michele Bachmann.

Palin was the first female Republican candidate to be nominated to the GOP presidential ticket, and with that came much scrutiny. Palin, along with every political observer, quickly learned that she would be held to a different standard by the mainstream media, not just because she was a woman, but also because she was a conservative one.

With Palin, the left-leaning press asked “gotcha” questions, unlikely to be asked of a man. The then-Alaska governor was asked everything from obscure foreign policy questions to simple, almost insulting ones like “what papers do you read?” And they were all crafted, by design to confuse her.

She was lambasted for her hairstyle (beehive), sexualized for her figure (when she posed for Runner’s World magazine), ridiculed for her diction and down home style (Newsweek: “She’s one of the folks – and that’s the problem”).

Her marriage was dissected with reporters asking if Todd was too involved in her career, despite other marriages in politics like the Clintons union being viewed as acceptable.

While Democrats could ask the media to lay off their kids, the press viciously analyzed and editorialized hers. Whether she was being judged for her choices (to run for president and not stay home to raise her handicapped infant, Trigg instead) or being even accused of lying about the paternity of her son Trigg, Palin was steadily paving the way for Bachmann, or any female Republican candidate poised to hit the presidential trail.”

So, now is the time to prepare for the first battleground in Iowa and use intelligence, technology and deception so our fighters can get their message out to the people. And to our conservative pundits and commentators please remember he mottos of the U.S. Rangers — No man left behind.

Can a Woman Be Elected President?

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." — Frederic Bastiat — the Law

The Republicans are drawing all of the focus from the MSM and pundits regarding the upcoming presidential election in 2012. This is natural as the Democrats have their candidate — Barack Obama. There will be no challenge to him from any serious Democrat candidate and it will be Obama for better or worse. This leaves the out party — the Republicans — as the main player on the political stage. Obama will run on his record and the Republicans will run on their credibility, personalities and the candidate with the best shot at defeating Obama.

The MinnPost.com reports on a June 23, 2011 Florida poll conducted by Public Policy Polling that while Romney leads with 27%, but Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (who is not an announced candidate) each get 17%:

“A PPP poll in Florida released today shows Mitt Romney still reigns in the Republican presidential race, but Michele Bachmann is on the rise, tied with Sarah Palin for second.

The poll of Republican primary voters in Florida show:

• Romney, 27%
• Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, 17%
• Herman Cain, 10%
• Newt Gingrich, 8%
• Ron Paul, 7%
• Tim Pawlenty, 4%
• Jon Huntsman, 2%

The good news for Pawlenty: he's not last. The bad news: Huntsman hadn't entered the race yet when the poll was taken.

The pollsters note that Bachmann's rise is big news:

Beyond Romney's continued strength the big stories here are the rise of Michele Bachmann and the collapse of Newt Gingrich. Bachmann's 17% standing represents a 10 point gain from PPP's last Florida poll in late March, when she stood at only 7%. Her strength comes from leading the field with 'very conservative' voters at 21%, followed by Palin at 20%, and Romney at 18%.

The poll says that if you take Palin out of the race in the Florida poll, Bachmann looks good:

…..”the overall standings in a Palin less field [are] 29% for Romney, 22% for Bachmann, 14% for Cain, and 10% for Gingrich.””

The analysis given in PPP poll states:

“If you take Palin out of the mix, Bachmann picks up 37% of her supporters to 20% for Romney, 14% for Cain, and 13% for Gingrich. That leaves the overall standings in a Palin less field at 29% for Romney, 22% for Bachmann, 14% for Cain, and 10% for Gingrich. GOP polls PPP will release in Montana and Oregon over the course of the next few days will also provide evidence that Bachmann has stepped into the role as top alternative to Romney for GOP voters.”

While we are a long way from the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and an even longer way from November 2012 there seems to be a developing trend that a conservative woman could be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.

The Des Moines Register reports that Romney and Bachmann lead the pack in the latest Iowa poll:

“Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and business executive, claims 23 percent, and Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman and evangelical conservative, garners 22 percent. Neither has done heavy lifting in Iowa.

The rest of the Republican field is at least 12 points behind them.

Cain, a retired Georgia business executive, is the top choice for 10 percent of potential caucus-goers.”

When Barack Obama was elected the first black (actually black and white) President it was considered a milestone for a nation that has a long history of virulent racism. Whether you agreed with his politics or not, you could surely see the sense of pride that most voters were colorblind when they made their selection for Chief Executive in 2008. Yes, I know that about 98% of blacks voted for Obama, but, considering the history of subservience to whites, I don't think any fair-minded person could have expected less.

Now that we have shown how open-minded we are about race relations, maybe it's time to do the same with gender relations. Hillary Clinton came close in 2008, but no woman has yet to be nominated for president by a major political party. Two women have had a chance to be vice president, but it wasn't enough to push the head of the ticket across the finish line. It wouldn't be accurate to say that women have been subservient in this country, but I'm certain it can be said that they don't have the same image as men when it comes to leadership. Perhaps that's why, with more than half the population made up of the "fairer sex," women have not been able to reach that pinnacle of political power on Pennsylvania Avenue.

There's an interesting dynamic at play here. Before Obama's election, few blacks had been taken seriously as presidential timber. However, once that hurdle had been achieved, several others are being considered for the top job. It reminds me of the story about trained fleas. An experiment was conducted in which fleas were caught and placed in an open jar. Now, fleas are quite capable of jumping great distances for their size, hence, as long as the jar was open they were having no trouble jumping out. Then a lid was place on the jar. For a period of time one could hear the sound of fleas trying to jump out, but hitting the lid and retreating. Soon, the sound stopped and the fleas were jumping just below the level of the lid, so as not to hit against it. When the lid was removed the "trained" fleas no longer tried to jump high enough to get out. Fleas, like dogs and humans are subject to Pavlov’s theory.

People are often like fleas in that they don't try to succeed past a point where they have been trained to stop. Feminists have coined the phrase "glass ceiling" indicating an unreachable barrier that keeps women and minorities from reaching the upper rungs of the corporate ladder.

It's my contention that women will continue to face perceptual roadblocks in the presidential area of politics until one of them becomes the role model for others to follow. Currently, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann (neither wear pants suits ala Hillary) have popular support for 2012. My choice is Palin because she has demonstrated her executive ability as Governor of Alaska and was the most exciting candidate in the election of 2008.

Although she hasn't decided if she'll run next year, we constantly hear that she has too much baggage. What baggage? Anyone who knows anything about her record in Alaska would have to admit that she exhibited all the traits that make up the building blocks of leadership. Her rise to prominence is well-known and doesn't need to be restated in its entirety here. Suffice to say that she took on a corrupt system within her own political party and rose to the governorship after throwing the bums out of office. Certainly, a résumé like that should be viewed as the perfect recipe for a country in need of a moral renaissance. Aha, therein is the problem! How many in this country want to return to the days when politicians weren't sending their nude photos on the Internet, fathering children with their housemaids, or having sex with interns in the Oval Office?

Robert Eugene Simmons Jr. writes in American Thinker “Why Palin Can Win:

“One of the most talked about subjects in politics is whether or not Sarah Palin will run for the presidency. It's frankly anyone's guess which direction she will go with her decision and when she will make the decision. However, if Palin doesn't run it will be a disaster for the Republican Party and quite possibly the country.

Aside from the fact that there isn't another libertarian-conservative in the race, at least not another one who isn't an international isolationist, if Palin doesn't run, it will represent an enormous victory for the Republican beltway establishment and the big players in the left-wing-dominated media. Furthermore, the leftist media will learn a fool-proof means to destroy any political opponent in a manner that will likely result in another four years of Obama.

In watching the coverage of the announced candidates, the alarm bells should be clanging violently. The fact that the leftist media hasn't really gone after the other Republican politicians in the race should be a violent warning to all conservatives and libertarians out there. It's totally out of character for the leftist media to not bring up Newt Gingrich's infidelity every ten minutes, or to have squads of reporters interviewing every foster child of Michele Bachmann that can be found to try to dig up some dirt. The rigorous inspection that has been visited upon Sarah Palin hasn't even started on the remainder of the Republican field. However, that doesn't mean the media has tacked suddenly to the center; far from it.”

I suspect that all decent people want to go back to a time when their children had better role models than Weiner, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton. The culture shift in the last few decades is more than mildly alarming; it is downright frightening! Every aspect of our lives has eroded. From education to entertainment to politics; we have seen a value system that was once the envy of the world, slowly, insidiously corrupted by a philosophical framework that is inimical to any concept of a great nation. Today, we have a country whose people have almost given up on the idea that morality has value.

What has all this to do with Sarah Palin? She's a threat to those who have become addicted to the titillation of a callous and uninhibited lifestyle, free from compunction or responsibility. She represents the wholesome values and patriotic spirit that have been all but lost in the violent maelstrom of social and political engineering that has distorted our sense of right and wrong. No flea is she; Sarah's the iconoclast that breaks glass ceilings and shatters the lids on jars.

Simmons continues:

“Throughout the last two years the media has embarked on a vitriolic, obsessed campaign to destroy Sarah Palin, not just as a politician but also as a person. They manipulated the legal system to try to bankrupt her while in office; they hacked her personal email and forced the release of her official email. When all of that produced nothing consequential, they simply made up the stories they wished and put them out to be in every headline for two weeks until they have the majority believing their deceits. As an example, ask any ten people you know who said, "I can see Russia from my house," and probably most of them will incorrectly name Sarah Palin rather than the comedian Tina Fey who actually said it. To the media, facts are unimportant so long as the story forwards the agenda.

If Sarah Palin doesn't run for president, the operatives in the media and Beltway establishment will have learned a fool-proof method of destroying any political opponent. If they are allowed to successfully paint a politician as stupid without any facts, merely because they disagree with the "aristocracy," America will be left with a choice of RINOs or progressive socialists. If that happens then the transformation of America from a libertarian culture to one of socialism and government dependence may very well be irreparable.

Assuming that Sarah Palin doesn't run the campaign will go sort of like this: the media will talk up the largest RINO they can find in an attempt to split the Republican Party from within. However, the real dirt will be kept securely under wraps. As the Republican primary nears its close, the research effort will go into full force. They will send squads of lawyers to go into every tiny detail of the candidate's personal and professional life. They will examine every detail of the life of the nominee from the day of their birth. The researchers will talk to every ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, every business partner, and any employees they can find.

After the primary is over, they will start to dump the juiciest tidbits in carefully edited and scripted special stories. National interviews will be granted to jilted lovers and business acquaintances that felt wronged by the candidate, or perhaps could be persuaded to feel wronged with a little interview stipend. The candidate will be mocked for their lack of intelligence and any microscopic mispronunciation or slip of the tongue will result in a weeklong national news cycle about why that candidate is too stupid to be president. The candidate will not have time to counter the perception and, combined with the media adoration of Obama, likely Obama would get another four years.”

Simmons concludes his case for Palin by stating:

“By contrast, if Sarah Palin runs, the media has already shot all of their ammo. They have done everything they can possibly do to destroy her but she has learned how to counter them via Facebook, Twitter, and streaming video. The accusations against Palin and her children have been flying in for two years and have failed to destroy her. All they have left is to repeat the old tired line of "Palin is an idiot." Of course it wouldn't take more than a debate or two, nationally televised with live video, to dispel that myth with everyone that can possibly be persuaded. The problem with the media is that all they have left to shoot are lies which can't stand in the light of day, and even all the plausible lies have been spent by Palin's opponents. If Palin wins the primary, the leftist media will be left to incoherent rage watched by fewer and fewer Americans.

With a properly run campaign, Palin will be able to easily counter the media perpetuated perception of stupidity with all except those that are so ideologically or emotionally committed as to be unpersuadable. Furthermore, on the issues Palin will be able to bring all guns blazing against Obama rather than being handicapped by prior records of endorsing government-mandated healthcare or global warming hysteria. On the issues, Palin's conservatism combined with her small-government libertarianism will make a stark contrast to Obama who will now be forced to defend his policies rather than run on emotion ad-hominem attacks and catchy phrases.

When the political calculus is done, it is clear that Palin is the only real conservative with libertarian leanings that can possibly be elected in the country. Although there are other conservatives with promise such as Bachmann, Cain, and West, they have not been subjected to the vetting that Sarah Palin has and there should be no doubt that the media will do everything they possibly can to destroy them should they win the nomination.”

Simmons is obviously a fan of Sarah Palin, as I am, but I also favor Michelle Bachmann. I see the major, if only differences, between Bachmann and Palin are their speech patterns, accents, name recognition and the way they have been attacked by the MSM and Left. As Simmons points out Palin has had about everything but he kitchen sink thrown at her and is still popular among men and women. Bachmann has yet to get this treatment, although she certainly will as she becomes more of a threat to the Left. Here is a sample from ThinkProgress, the George Soros funded left-wing attack dog:

“November 2004 EdWatch National Education Conference, Bachmann said the “normalization” of homosexuality would lead to “desensitization”: “Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of ‘The Lion King’ for instance, and a teacher might say, ‘Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?’ The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.”

And there are plenty more, just Google her name.

Both are constitutional and social conservatives who are supported by the Tea Party. Palin was a governor and VP Candidate with broad name recognition and over 3 million Facebook fans. On the other hand Bachmann is a three term Congresswoman from a deep blue state, Minnesota, and a former tax litigator. Bachmann was selected by House Speaker John Boehner for a position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, giving her a new role as overseer of the CIA, the National Security Agency and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community. Bachmann, Her name recognition, if you take the number of Facebook fans as a bench mark, is one tenth of Palins with just over 300,000 fans.

Of course all of this will change in the next year as the primary season approaches and the abusive and obscene rhetoric from the left heats up. The more she becomes a real threat to the left, the more they will the mud at her.

I would support either Palin or Bachmann for president for several reasons. First; I believe a conservative woman can be a good leader. Remember Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir? Second; I agree with most, if not all of their positions on national and international issues— they have both proved themselves to be constitutional, fiscal, and social conservatives. Third; I think they are both tough enough to lead this nation and take on those who want to do us ill. Fourth; they both believe in the exceptionalism of the United States and our founding principles. And, fifth; they are good looking and don’t wear pants suits. It will be far better for our nation to be led by a strong conservative woman like Palin or Bachmann than a wimpy, indecisive male like Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.