It Didn’t Take Long

“There you go again" — Ronald Reagan to Jimmy Carter during 1980 Presidential debate.

During one of the 1980 presidential debates between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan after a lengthy diatribe on government health care and other socialist policies of Carter Reagan turned to Carter, smiled and responded with the simple line; “her you go again.” This not only brought a round of applause, but was used for the remainder of the campaign to beat Carter.

“Here we go again” can be used for the media today. It did not take long for George Stephanopolous and Brian Ross (the chief investigative reporter for ABC News) to attempt to hang the last night’s shooting at the Aurora, Colorado Cineplex on the Tea Party. On Good Morning America Ross in response to Stephanopolous’ question about the background of James Holmes, the alleged shooter stated:

“There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, CO, uh Paige, on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last summer. We don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it is Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

If as Ross stated; “we don’t know”, then what on God’s green earth did he mention it. Is that the state of the MSM today reporting on news they do not know about?

Latter after Ross had to file a correction to his early report, but the damage was done. It’s tantamount to the attorney asking the defendant “when did you stop beating your wife.” The judge will admonish him and tell the jury to disregard the question, but the damage has been none. How can one erase something from their mind?

The coverage of the Aurora shooting is like the shootings in Tucson where the media immediately blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for the January 8, 2011 shooing U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people at a public meeting held in a supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, near Tucson. Even the sheriff of Pima County in a press conference followed suit. After a few days of the MSM and the left blaming the Tea Party and Palin it was discovered the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner was a committed leftist who had read Mein Kampf and was obsessed with Giffords. In essence he was a nut case. This, however, did not stop the left-wing press and blogs from attempting to blame the right and the Tea Party.

So as Reagan stated “here we go again” is now once more in play. It took less than six hours for the MSM to jump on the Tea Party. How did this great investigative reporter get his information? He Googled the name James Holmes—the alleged shooter. I would like to inform Brian Ross that when I Googled his name I found several convicted sex criminals. Of course none of them look like Brian Ross of ABC, but neither did the James Holmes (age 52) look like the alleged shooter (age 24), but that did not matter to Ross. He had something to put out to the public to advance his anti-Tea Party Agenda. As far as I am concerned Brian Ross has lost all credibility as a journalist and switch to writing opinion pieces or resign.

Breitbart is now reporting that the Jim Holmes on the Tea Party site mentioned by ABC News’ Brian Ross, is nowhere near the same age as the shooting suspect:

“The James Holmes who was arrested at the Aurora theater was 24 years old and seems to be from Denver, CO, according to a Facebook profile. There are many people with the name “James Holmes” in the area, and the James Homes on the Tea Party website could match a James Homes from Aurora, CO who is in his fifties and therefore does not fit the description of the suspect.”

In another update to Ross’ report the left-wing Politico has just posted that ABC News made a correction to this story and also issued an apology for the Jim Holmes error:

“An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.”

Another “here we go again” moment is the upcoming demand for gun control by the left.

NYC‘s Mayor Bloomberg and CNN’s Piers Morgan have also chosen to use the deadly shootings in Aurora, CO to push their own political agendas.

Bloomberg, a vociferous anti-gun billionaire whose security guards are allowed to own and carry weapons, has already challenged both President Obama and Mitt Romney to make a stand for tougher gun control.

“But maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

Not long after the incident was reported, CNN’s Piers Morgan decided that he would use the tragedy to make his position on guns known.

To fall back on an old bumper sticker that states: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” This clamor for gun control is nothing but political pandering. How about banning alcohol and cars as drunk drivers kill people? How about banning butter, cheese, and shrimp as they are high in cholesterol and we know cholesterol can cause heart attacks that kill people.

AS to the claim that our Founding Fathers could not envision assault rifles and automatic pistols when they inserted the 2^nd Amendment into the Constitution is pure nonsense. They could not foresee the computer, Internet or bloggers when they wrote the 1^st Amendment either.

As of this writing we know very little of James Holmes just as knew nothing of Jared Lee Loughner. I would believe that in time we will know quite a bit about Holmes and some of the early pundit will have egg on their face.

It’s time for the left-wing, agenda driven media to back off and let the law take its course.

Stand Up and Cheer with Sarah

"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." — Thomas Jefferson

Last week I attended a Fourth of July parade in a city near me. I was pleased to see so many people lining the curbs as the bands, floats, antique automobiles, and mounted patrols marched by. It reminded me of the days of my youth when my dad would take me to the Cleveland Municipal Stadium on the Fourth to watch reenactments of WWII battles and the fireworks. It was a time when it felt good to be an American.

Recently I complete an on-line course from Hillsdale College on the Constitution. I not only learned things about our Founders and their thinking on issuing the Declaration of Independence, writing the Constitution, and something called the American Mind it was a very enjoyable experience.

America’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said, was the product of “the American mind.” Our Constitution was made with the same purpose as the Declaration—to establish a regime where the people are sovereign, and the government protects the rights granted to them by their Creator. (See my blog on the meaning of the Fourth of July by clicking here)

America is a nation of immigrants, people came here for a multitude of reasons as my grandparents and my father and daughter-in-law did. No other country in the world is comprised of as many immigrants as the United States. When these immigrants came to this country they were not Americans by birth and made a purposeful choice to become Americans. In doing so they became citizens by swearing allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the nation. Once the judge announced their citizenship it was a valid as any person born here. The only thing these naturalized citizens could not do was be president or vice president of the United States. No nation in the world has such a system of government. If you were not born in Germany, France, Switzerland or Japan you are not considered German, French, Swiss or Japanese. This is not the case in the United States. Once you willfully take that oath of citizenship you are an American. There is no ethnic American – people are born to be Germans, French or Japanese, they choose to be Americans.

Lately some of this enthusiasm for America has been lost. People don’t feel good about being an American. We are constantly bombarded by politicians and the media on our flaws and blemishes. We are told we are not exceptional—even by our President—and the principles expressed in our Declaration and Constitution are outmoded. Patriotism is scoffed at by the intellectuals and some in the media. Many school children are no longer taught about our Declaration or Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance and Preamble to the Constitution are no longer recited as they are considered to be insensitive to the culture of immigrant children. This political correctness, a product of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, is destroying the American Mind.

Our lase cheerleader for America was Ronald Reagan. He could make you feel good about being an American and by doing so brought the people of this nation together. This drove his critics in the media and academia crazy. His mastermind critics labeled him as uneducated, a flag waver, and a hollow person yet in the 19984 election he won 49 of our 50 states. Only Minnesota, the home state of his opponent Walter Mondale, voted against him.

Lloyd Marcus writes in American Thinker when comparing Reagan to his father, the first black firefighter on the Baltimore fire department:

“Dad once commented to me how it saddened him to see the deterioration of standards in the fire department -- firefighters being slapped on the wrist for not showing up for their shift and for serious lapses of character.

Dad, now 84, is very much like Ronald Reagan. Both men came up the hard way and worked for everything they got. Both epitomized the American Dream. Reagan was an eternal optimist; so is my dad. Reagan loved laughter and jokes. Dad, who lives in Maryland, calls me in Florida to tell me his latest joke. I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am to still laugh at dad's corny jokes.

Dad is a good guy. Am I naïve or old-fashioned, expecting the good guy to win? Has America changed so dramatically that being good -- a person of character -- is considered naïve?

Public schools are teaching our children that patriotism is ignorant and prejudiced -- rude to the rest of the world. These schools force Gay Pride Day down our kids' throats. But wearing a t-shirt to school with the U.S. flag on it is banned, considered offensive. They teach our kids songs praising Obama while banning "God Bless the USA."

So where are the prominent voices who are standing up and celebrating the goodness and greatness of America? Reagan always touted the goodness of America and how God is with us. Michael Reagan said his dad was America's last great cheerleader. Sadly, I must agree.

Sarah Palin has stood up touting the greatness of America, and look what the Obama administration and the mainstream media have attempted to do to her. Disgracefully, millions of ill-informed Americans view Palin as a nutcase far-right extremist.

Think about that, folks. Because Palin boldly stands up for traditional family values, God, and country, the left has tried to crucify not only Palin herself, but also her entire family. Showing more "kahonies" than many Republican males, Palin continues to be a relentless cheerleader for Ronald Reagan's and my dad's America. But Sarah Palin is only one courageous woman. To conquer the shock-and-awe assault on our country by Obama and his media minions, we need an army of cheerleaders.

To pass patriotism on to our children and our children's children, we need many more American cheerleaders -- teaching character, hard work, education, and the goodness and greatness of this extraordinary, unique, successful experiment called America.”

I could not agree with Mr. Marcus more. Every time I see Sarah Palin on TV she has a positive message about America. This was Margaret Thatcher’s way of being the longest serving prime minister in Great Britain—she made people feel good about being British and by doing so pulled her nation out of a deep recession and drift towards radical socialism.

Palin does the same thing in America. She constantly expresses the American Mind and touts our exceptionalism as Reagan did. Her intellectual critics in academia and the media despise her for this. She is considered a flag waving boob who knows nothing of the world. Yet she managed to serve as mayor of a city and governor of Alaska. When the dull and lackluster John McCain was running for president against the hope and change jingoism of Barack Obama he drew crowds in the hundreds. When Palin joined him on the campaign trail the crowds spiraled to the thousands. People wanted to hear Palin, not McCain. This drove his managers crazy to the extent that their jealously was at the root of their reproaches of Palin.

Do I believe Palin could be president? Perhaps, but not now. The media and masterminds have done such a good job at bombarding her and her family with unfair and untrue criticisms. Sarah Palin is smart enough to know that this is not yet her time. On the other hand I believe she has a role to play at the Republican convention and on the campaign trail with Romney. If he does not take advantage of Palin’s popularity he is not the clever businessman he claims to be. What should matter to Romney and his managers is getting elected, not who captures the spotlight at any given moment.

When the masterminds in the media and academia talk about Palin’s lack of intellectual acumen I think back on the “intellectual” perspicacity of our Founders. How intellectual was Patrick Henry when uttered his famous phase; "Give me Liberty, or give me Death” or Thomas Paine when he authored his pamphlet Common Sense, a book that George Washington used to inspire his troops at Valley Forge? How “intellectual” was Abraham Lincoln when he penned the Gettysburg Address or Ronald Reagan when he said; “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall”—a statement his advisors did not want him to make? Please don’t confuse intellectualism with wisdom —they are the same. Woodrow Wilson was considered an “intellectual” and look what he did. Barack Obama is considered by his both his supporters and opponents as the smartest president ever and look what he has done?

I will take wisdom, energy, and enthusiasm over intellectualism every day of the week. We need more cheerleaders for America and perhaps Sarah Palin can show the way.

Will Sarah Palin Run?

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson

We are constantly bombarded with reports in the media about the status of Sarah Palin. With she enter the presidential race or won’t she? Almost on a daily basis there are reports and comments by pundits on both side of the political spectrum as to Palin’s viability as a presidential candidate. It seems that wherever Palin goes she draws a crowd of passionate supporters and reporters.

The latest example of Palin’s popularity was demonstrated last week during the Iowa Straw Poll when Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity If you watch the video you can see the passionate support of the crowd standing behind Palin and Hannity. If nothing else Palin can draw a crowd larger than any other Republican hopeful.

Does this mean she is a going to enter the race? According to Karl Rove it does. In an interview on Fox News Saturday Morning Rove said in commenting about her upcoming schedule; it looks more like that of a 'candidate' than a 'celebrity'.

The Washington Examiner highlights that schedule theory. Palin is set to appear in Iowa on September 3rd, serving as the keynote speaker at the Tea Party of America's "Restoring America" event.

"This is her last chance," Rove said on the broadcast. "She either gets in or gets out after this visit next week. I think she gets in."

Rove's forecast comes one day after Palin released a new video highlighting her Iowa travels. Entitled "Iowa Passion," the ex-Vice Presidential candidate profiles Iowans who explain why she is "a normal person just like every one of us."

Regarding the rally, Politico reports:

“Palin is scheduled to keynote a tea party rally near Des Moines that day. And while she said during her last Iowa visit that she’s nearing a decision on a presidential run and doesn’t want to be “perceived as stringing people along,” she continues to milk her indecision for everything it’s worth. She reiterated to Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren at the close of a lengthy interview Thursday night that she’s still contemplating jumping in.

Another report in the Daily Caller states that according to Mark Levine; “I believe Sarah Palin will run for president.”

“Although conservative talker Mark Levin says he has no insider knowledge of Sarah Palin’s 2012 presidential aspirations, he claimed at the top of his Thursday radio show he believes that the former Alaska Governor will be a candidate.

Palin has appeared as a guest on Levin’s show, which is a favorite of many Palin supporters.

“Look, I could be dead wrong,” Levin said. “I have no inside information. But I want to underscore what I’ve been saying, which is I believe Sarah Palin will run for president. Just want to put my marker down because others are starting to do it and I put it down quite some time ago.”

In still another article in National Review Online Robert Costa cites ample evidence that Palin is set to announce her candidacy:

“Political organizer Peter Singleton tells National Review Online that Sarah Palin will likely launch a presidential campaign by the end of September. “I believe that she will run,” he says. “I can’t see her sitting this election out.”

Palin, a former Alaska governor, is scheduled to address a tea-party rally on September 3 in south-central Iowa. Singleton is one of the forces behind the event, working with grassroots groups. “Labor Day will kick off the Republican campaign for the nomination,” he hints. “She is going to make a major, major speech.”

Since late last year, Singleton has crisscrossed the Hawkeye State, connecting a network of supporters at rubber-chicken dinners and Republican picnics. He has huddled with county GOP chairmen, spoken with a number of conservative state lawmakers, and assembled a close-knit team of pro-Palin activists.

All of Singleton’s efforts have been self-directed, with no official involvement from Palin’s political apparatus. Still, he says, “We have not been on a lark. But we are happy, delighted even, to have people think that.”

GOP presidential contenders, from Rick Perry to Mitt Romney, will be in for a shock when Palin makes her entry, he predicts. “When she gets in the race, I would not want to be the other candidates, who have shamelessly whispered to Iowa Republicans for months that she is not running,” he says. “There will probably be some defections.”

Singleton, a 57-year-old former software salesman, says he has already compiled an extensive e-mail list of Iowans ready to join her ranks. With the help of Michelle McCormick, his fellow Organize4Palin state coordinator, “we have laid the groundwork for her,” he says.

Costa continues:

“Singleton points to Palin’s June visit to Pella, Iowa, as an example of how she is ready to make a splash in the run-up to the first-in-the-nation caucuses. Palin spoke at the premiere of The Undefeated, a documentary about her gubernatorial record, then attended a barbeque with attendees in the sleepy Midwestern town. Singleton and McCormick helped the film’s creators reach out to Palin’s Iowa base, drawing a big and boisterous crowd to the downtown square.

Filmmaker Stephen Brannon, who directed The Undefeated, tells NRO that he is amazed at how popular Palin remains in Iowa. Her reception in Pella, he says, was indicative of how a campaign could be received. “There is something happening under the surface here,” he says. “It’s pretty powerful.” Since the premiere, Singleton and Bannon have organized screenings across the state, hoping to generate interest in the governor’s story and her message.

The unofficial, on-the-ground Palin movement in Iowa has been boosted by the governor’s visits to the state this summer. Palin caused another stir earlier this month when she appeared at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, greeting families and farmers as scores of reporters and television cameras trailed her. Following the visit, her political team released a video chronicling the spectacle. The clip, which Palin posted on her Facebook page, ends with a message to her Iowa supporters. “Thank you, Iowa!” it reads. “See you again September 3rd.”

In yet another piece in the Daily Caller Alec Jacobs writes:

“Palin is schedule to speak at a Tea Party of America-sponsored event in Iowa on September 3. The event was recently moved to a bigger location to host a larger crowd.

“This is her last chance. She either gets in or gets out. I think she gets in,” Rove said.

A late announcement “always raises questions about whether a candidate has the time to raise money, build an organization and meet voters face-to-face,” the Washington Examiner’s Byron York writes.

But Rove addressed that issue on Fox: “[Palin] thinks the normal rules don’t apply. If you’re Sarah Palin, you just show up and the money comes and the organization comes and the people come.”

York writes about a Fox News appearance in May where Rove said much the same thing. Asked if Palin was right that the rules don’t apply to her, Rove replied then: “Look, politics is changing. My sense is her people don’t think she needs to have county chairmen and organizations and go around and line up people. It’s just going to happen.”

As you can see from all of this chatter from the pundits and media Palin seems to be front and center in the media. There is no denying her ability to draw passionate support from her numerous followers and vicious fire from her detractors. Not since 1964 when Barry Goldwater was running against Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination has the passion and vitriol been so pronounced. It appears that one either loves Palin or hates her, and the left certainly hates her.

In a poll on National Review Online 72% of the respondents said Palin should not run for the presidency. Keep in mind that probably most who those who responded to the poll were conservatives. What their reasons for voting no are unclear and no doubt range from disagreement with her ideology to thinking she cannot defeat Obama.

Dick Morris claims Palin cannot defeat Obama in 2012. He states:

“Three new candidates are slowly circling above the GOP presidential race.  Will they land or fly on by?  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former VP candidate Sarah Palin, and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan are in various stages of contemplating possible candidacies.

Start with Palin.  A good Iowa source tells me that she is preparing a massive event in his state on September 3rd, very possibly to announce her presidential candidacy.   It would be a huge mistake...but it would help the Republicans defeat Obama!

A mistake because she'd get slaughtered.  Michele Bachmann - more credentialed, accomplished, and informed - has breathed all the oxygen she'd need for her candidacy.  Before she could compete in the primaries, she would need to defeat Bachmann in the "woman's primary."  But the Congressman is vastly better equipped to discuss budget, deficit, foreign affairs, and virtually any other issue.  She has stirred the same kind of enthusiasm as the former Alaska Governor, but with much more substance behind it.  If she ran, it would end up trivializing her and showing feet of clay.”

During World War II Churchill and Stalin constantly urged Roosevelt to launch a cross-channel invasion to liberate Europe. Our military leaders resisted these pleas on grounds that we lacked the resources (especially landing craft), intelligence, and training. Our first attempt at an invasion was in North Africa where our Army suffered badly at Kasserine Pass. What we did, however, gain from that defeat was knowledge of the German Army and experienced NCOs who would begin training recruits in combat tactics. Our next venture into an invasion was Sicily, where we did much better due to better equipment and trained officers and NCOs.

In the meanwhile we were building an arsenal in England. An arsenal of planes, ships, supplies and trained soldiers. When we finally opened the Second Front with the Normandy Invasion our troops were ready. They had the training and resources to defeat the Nazi war machine.

I view Palin’s possible run for the presidency in the same manner. Palin had her North Africa during the 2008 presidential election. She knew little about the enemy (Obama) and her officer corps, especially the overall commander John McCain who was as inept as Major General Fredendall who Eisenhower replaced with George S. Patton. She has yet to have the success Patton had in Sicily.

So where is Palin’s analogous Sicily? I believe it is in Arizona where she should run for the Senate seat of the retiring John Kyl. As an Arizona resident she can make a run at Kyl’s seat and probably win it. McCain will have to support her and the Tea Party certainly will.

Once elected to the Senate she will have the time and experience in Washington D.C. to sharpen her political tactics, polish her message, and establish a national record. She will also begin building up her resources for the ultimate D-Day in 2016 if Obama wins and 2020 if the Republican wins.

Palin is still young (she is only 47-years old) and attractive. Her supporters will not go away. A senatorial campaign will allow her to modulate her voice, like Margaret Thatcher did, and stay in the national spotlight. No matter what her detractors on the east coast will have to say, it will be the people of Arizona who will make the choice. Once in the Senate she can sit on committees and introduce bills. She can speak with a conservative voice and satisfy the Tea Party.

I am a big fan of Sarah Palin and I do not want her to suffer a Kasserine Pass style defeat at the hands of enemies in the media and the pundits, both right and left. I think Rove is dead wrong when he says this is her last chance. While Rove may be a political expert and campaign strategist he is missing the point with Palin. If she runs and wins the senate seat in Arizona she will not only still have a chance, she will have a very good chance to win the presidency and serve the Republic.

Bush Gone, Blame It On Palin

“It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decent, to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness.” — James Wilson

As it turns out, what Billy Sunday failed to accomplish, some unruly teenagers — with some assistance from the Democratic Party — are close to finishing. That toddlin’ town, Chicago — the home of deep-dish pizza, Al Capone and a sizable number of adolescents in dire need of an extended stay at a juvenile detention center — is facing a new crime wave.

The reports have come fast and furious. Mobs of teenagers have knocked over drug stores. Mobs of teenagers have assaulted passersby. Mobs of teenagers have pillaged retail establishments and plundered the Magnificent Mile as if they were Alaric and his horde of Visigoths and the Windy City was Rome. All this adolescent rage makes me wonder about the efficacy of Bill Clinton’s “midnight basketball.”

According to the Chicago Sun-Times Rahm Emanuel’s Windy City is in the midst of a crime wave. Here are a few examples:

Man wounded while sitting in car in Austin neighborhood; A man was wounded late Monday while sitting in a car in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side. At 9:31 p.m., a 22-year-old man was sitting in a car in the 200 block of North Lockwood Avenue when a person approached on foot and…

Man, 19, fatally shot in Roseland; A man fatally shot early Tuesday in the Far South Side Roseland neighborhood, police said. The man, 19, was shot about 2:40 a.m. while standing with another male on the sidewalk near 107th Street and Michigan Avenue, police News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro said. He …

Englewood man killed, over 20 people hurt in weekend shootings; A 55-year-old Englewood man was killed and more than 20 people were injured in shootings throughout the city late Friday into Sunday. Kent Richardson died after being shot in the face and under the arm in the 6200 block of South Laflin around 10:40 p.m. …

5 police injured, 13 in custody after Little Village alley fight; Five Chicago Police officers were injured early Sunday during a brawl while responding to a complaint of loud music on the Southwest Side, police said. Thirteen people, including two women, were taken into custody after the fight in the 2800 block of West 25th, police …

1 dead, 14 wounded in shootings overnight; A 55-year-old man was killed and at least 14 others were wounded in shootings throughout the city between late Saturday and Sunday morning, including five men wounded in separate shootings during a violent 20-minute period on the South Side. The shooting started at 10:30 p.m. …

7-year-old girl shot in leg, man wounded on South Side; A 7-year-old girl was shot in the leg when gunshots rang out Saturday following an argument in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. Police are questioning a “person of interest” in the shooting, which took place in the 5700 block of South Hoyne Avenue and …

9 hurt, 1 critically, in overnight shootings; At least nine people were injured, one critically, in various shootings across the city late Friday and early Saturday. No one is in custody for any of the shootings. A 21-year-old man is in critical condition after being shot in the stomach just after midnight …

I could go on and on, but by now you no doubt have a picture of what is happening in the town Obama and Oprah think is so great. No wonder the International Olympic Committee ignored their pleas for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

Fret not, Chicago-land citizens. Your top cop, Police Supervisor Garry McCarthy, is on the case. McCarthy, who previously served as Police Chief in that Paris-on-the-Passaic, Newark, N.J., has identified the criminal mastermind behind the growing crime wave enveloping Chicago: Governor Sarah Palin.

Actually, according to McCarthy, Palin is the commander of a conspiracy comprised of:

• Palin: “(Palin) was caribou-hunting and talking about the right to bear arms. Why wasn’t she at the crime scene with me?”
• Firearm makers: “Who’s paying the price for gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities?”
• And government-sponsored racism: “— the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers — that are killing black and brown children.” (Hey, I thought ATF was behind that one)

Among those who didn’t make McCarthy’s list of suspects would be the actual perpetrators. Granted, in the legendary, Democratic machine-controlled political sewer that is Chicago, blaming crime on criminals is about as functional as blaming the Cubs’ World Series drought on the lights at Wrigley Field. McCarthy could blame the parents; but parents who unleash little monsters like those tearing through Chicago are as likely to accept responsibility for their progenies’ misbehavior as they are to vote for a conservative (who would likely remind them of their dereliction of parental duty). And it is possible that their good-for-nothing 15-year-old brats really did find new watches and Air Jordans™ on the side of the road. “Honest, Mom!”

According to Investor’s Business Daily in its editorial; Top Chicago Cop Targets Palin:

“Chicago's new police superintendent blames Alaska's ex-governor for inner-city gun violence and crime, and says gun-rights advocates are racist. Disarming victims doesn't prevent crime, sir.

Speaking to the choir, literally, about gun control, Garry McCarthy, former police chief of Newark, N.J., told an audience at St. Sabina Church in the Windy City about leaving a homicide scene in Newark, returning home and flipping on the TV to find an episode of "Sarah Palin's Alaska."

"She was caribou hunting and talking about the right to bear arms," McCarthy said. "Why wasn't she at the crime scene with me?"

We know. We don't see the connection between hunting and gang violence either, but gun-control advocates do.

Sarah Palin was not at that crime scene because she had nothing to do with the crime. As a defender of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, she is like the vast majority of law-abiding gun-owning Americans who never fire or even point their gun in anger, unless someone's trying to break into their house.

McCarthy rambled on. He equated private gun ownership with what he called "government-sponsored racism" and the right to bear arms with slavery, segregation and Jim Crow laws. "Federal laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers across the country, that are killing our black and brown children," he said.”

I call this sort of Keystone Kops method of avoiding the real culprits in urban societal breakdown “the politics of ease.” It’s easier for a liberal like McCarthy to blame a crime wave on the former Governor of Alaska than it is to force criminals, their accomplices and their enablers to look in the mirror. More important to liberals like McCarthy, it’s easier for the Democrats to gain votes by offering the chance to blame Palin, gun manufacturers and mythological institutional racism than to suddenly develop the introspection which is as common in a place like Chicago (or Newark) as honest politicians and well-behaved teenagers.

Fortunately for the liberal establishment, decades of near-total Democratic domination of Windy City politics has — much like Newark — left Chicagoans either unwilling or unable to discern the true nature of their city’s burdens. However, unlike cesspools like Newark, Chicago boasts some significantly redeeming characteristics, not least of which is the presence of living proof that McCarthy’s charge of racism is void on its face. Surely, McCarthy and his liberal allies don’t expect us to believe that Sarah Palin, firearms manufacturers and fictional bigotry can create chaos-from-afar in the same place that boasts the residency of the most powerful individual in the free world. I find it highly unlikely that Oprah Winfrey would allow it.

Barring intervention from Oprah or some other powerful product of Illinois who may choose to assist Chicago in escaping the grip of increasingly violent crime, the Windy City faces a grim future. If the liberal who has been ill-advisedly placed in charge of local law enforcement is more interested in explaining away antisocial behavior with anti-bill of rights demagoguery, tangential blame-shifting and pointing fingers at a woman who lives more than 3,000 miles away, then Chicago is headed down the highway to either hell or Newark.

McCarthy is a student of neither history nor facts. It was laws that banned gun ownership in major urban centers such as Chicago and the District of Columbia that placed black, brown and, for that matter, white children in danger by forcibly disarming them in the face of an onslaught by thugs. That is, until Supreme Court decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old African-American Army veteran who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thought the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he once protected his country. It is obvious Superintendent McCarthy won’t do the job. But then, of course, he always has Sarah Palin to blame.

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.

Media Shocked To Learn Palin Can Read And Write

“It is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose.” — Dinesh D’Souza

After spending thousands and thousands of man-hours sorting through the much anticipated (only by the media) Sarah Palin e-mails nothing 'juicy' has been found. Not even close. The media fell flat on their face. Now the only thing they can do is apologize. Well, that's what any decent human being would do. What about the media? They've gone the 3rd grade route, expressing shock Palin that knows how to read and write.

"Reading was a special bond between my mother and me. Mom read aloud to me — poetry by Ogden Nash along with snippets of prose. My siblings were better athletes, cuter and more sociable than I, and the only thing they had to envy about me was the special passion for reading that I shared with our mother."

The last person you would expect to have written that is Sarah Palin, yet it's all there in black and white in her book "Going Rogue."

You might not have believed Palin about her "special passion" until this week. But the release of thousands of pages of surprisingly fluent e-mails she wrote while governor of Alaska - which are being pored over for any hint of stupidity or scandal are notable, at least thus far to me, for the quality of their prose.

The media haven‘t yet found the smoking gun they’ve been looking for in Sarah Palin’s e-mails. Overall, the messages have been benign, lacking the excitement and scandal some hoped they would contain. That said, at least one outlet has gone a different route, questioning the former vice-presidential candidate’s intelligence through the expertise of writing analysts. AOL Weird News has more:

AOL Weird News brought samples to two writing analysts who independently evaluated 24,000 pages of the former governor’s emails. They came back in agreement that Palin composed her messages at an eighth-grade level, an excellent score for a chief executive, they said.

“I’m a centrist Democrat, and would have loved to support my hunch that Ms. Palin is illiterate,” said 2tor Chief Executive Officer John Katzman.

However, the e-mails say something else. Ms. Palin writes e-mails on her Blackberry at a grade level of 8.5.

If she were a student and showing me her work, I‘d say ’It’s fine, clear writing,’” he said, admitting that e-mails he wrote scored lower than Palin’s on the widely used Flesch-Kincaid readability test.

While some would initially scoff or laugh at Palin’s grade-level assessment, past speakers and writers of note have scored comparably. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was a 9.1 and Martin Luther King’s famed “I have a Dream” came in at 8.8. Remember, Palin’s results were based on e-mails, not riveting speeches, so the fact that they score remotely close to the aforementioned works is intriguing.

Overall, this is good news for Palin, as her writing was found to be better than some CEOs’. The New York Daily News sheds further light on her abilities:

“It turns out Palin’s writing skills are still better than most educated Americans. Global Language Monitor gave Palin’s emails a score of 8.2, which actually exceeds that of most chief executives.

She’s very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical,” said Paul Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. “She has much more of a disciplined mind than she’s given credit for.”

If she were a student and showing me her work, I'd say 'It's fine, clear writing,'" he said, admitting that emails he wrote scored lower than Palin's on the widely used Flesch-Kincaid readability test.

"She came in as a solid communicator," said Paul J.J. Payack, president of the Global Language Monitor. The emails registered as an 8.2 on his version of the test. "That's typical for a corporate executive."

An example of Palin's strongest writing came on Jul. 17, 2007 in an email to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell about the controversial Gravina Island Bridge, infamously called the "Bridge to Nowhere."

"We cant afford it, the Feds won't pay for it, the general populace isn't placing it as a high priority … can you diplomatically express that?! Of course we want infrastructure -- and this is NOT a "bridge to nowhere" (that is so offensive), but as it stands today with the highest-cost bridge design selected by the Ketchikan community, we need to find a lower-cost alternative [if] a bridge will be built."

"She's very concise. She gives clear orders. Her sentences and punctuations are logical," Payack said. "She has much more of a disciplined mind than she's given credit for."

Although it's like comparing apples to oranges, Payack said that famous speeches like Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was a 9.1 and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" oration rated a 8.8 on the scale.

The Palin e-mails offer a rare opportunity to see the digital internal communication of a public official. One of the few comparable scenarios was the release of the relatively slim 928-page assortment of former FEMA chief Michael Brown's e-mails from the days around the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe.

When will the MSM finally give up their obsession with Sarah Palin? No politician in history has been forensically dissected like Palin. I wish the “brilliant and courageous journalists”, who comprise the MSM would have had so much passion to uncover the e-mails of Barack Obama. Perhaps we would have a different president today. To this day they still refuse to dig into Obama’s past writings on anything.

BTW, according to MS Word this post was written a Flesch-Kincaid scale at level 10 and a reading ease of 54.5

What the Pundits Have to Say About the CNN Debate

"We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections." – John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797

Last night I posted a blog with my take on the CNN sponsored GOP debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. I wanted to be the first out of the chute to do so because I did not want to be influenced by the “experts.” This morning I began reading the articles and blogs of some of the conservative pundits.

Most of the reports and blogs I have read so far gave Bachmann and Romney high marks. Here are a few examples from the pundits who have a want to defeat Obama.

From Erick Erickson of Red States:

“I think Mitt Romney did not just win the New Hampshire debate by holding his own, but legitimately won it with his answers and composure. He was unnecessarily defensive on the Afghan question, but largely showed his experience with Presidential debates.

The surprise last night was Michelle Bachmann. If there was a winner of the anti-Romney coalition, Michelle Bachmann not only one [sic], but won by a wide margin. Suddenly, for many, the flirtation toward Herman Cain and others will go in Bachmann’s direction. Bachmann’s stellar performance also contrasted with Tim Pawlenty who could have sealed the deal, or taken substantial steps toward sealing the deal, of being the anti-Romney candidate. Had his backing off of “Obamneycare” been later in the debate, i think it would have done less damage. But coming so soon into the debate, it clouded the rest of his performance, which had some really good moments. His defense of “right to work” was stellar.

Newt Gingrich needs to be kicking himself. He proved, yet again, he is one of the smartest guys in the GOP. His answer on Islam and loyalty was exactly what Herman Cain needed to do. His immigration answer was solid. But while he came across as the bright, ideas guy we all expect and know, there was no opportunity for him to show his viability — that will be a bigger, non-debate question.

By the way, Newt’s answer on Islam and loyalty will probably be the soundbite of tomorrow. It was a stellar answer that, despite spin from the left, will not hurt the Republicans.

The debate failed to begin the movement toward solidifying the anti-Romney wing. If anything, Bachmann and Pawlenty’s performances throw it into chaos. This leaves a very real opening for Governor Rick Perry or Governor Sarah Palin to come in and begin making the case for an alternative. The odds are growing, I think, that Perry gets in. He has nothing really to lose as he won’t have to leave the Governor’s Mansion to do it.

It is early, but it is less than seven months to Iowa. The clock is ticking. Perry coming in would be a disruptive event for many already in the race and he’d become the odds on favorite for people opposed to Romney to coalesce behind.”

Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax.com believes Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney were the clear winners. Ruddy also believed John King’s hosting was flawless. Kudos to CNN for giving us a good debate with questions on issues the American public are concerned with. Rudy’s take on the debate is as follows:

“The first major presidential debate in New Hampshire has just ended and the big winner is . . .

Well, there are two winners. First, there's Michele Bachmann.

From the start, Bachmann came off as a fresh voice . . . more remarkable perhaps because she was the only woman on the panel.

Bachmann also looked fantastic. She also offered the substance conservative voters are looking for. In fact, she gave it to them in spades.

She has real "street cred," as they say, as a genuine tea party conservative. She heads the Tea Party Caucus in Congress and reminded viewers that she has fought against her own party when principle demands it. For example, she opposes TARP and raising the debt ceiling when the GOP leadership in Congress supported it.

Conservatives loves this stuff. Bachmann tapped into the anger among GOP primary voters, some of whom are angry with her own party. But she did it without being angry herself. Bachmann's performance was Reaganesque.

If Republican primary voters want a candidate that represents them, Bachmann grabbed the night.

If, however, voters were looking for a Republican candidate who can win the general election in a close race against President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney was the winner.

With the economy teetering on the precipice and unemployment growing again, Romney came across as the man with both the political and business gravitas to fix the economy.

The former Massachusetts governor pressed the right buttons on economic issues. His explanation of what happened with GM, and why the Bush administration should never have allowed it to go into bankruptcy, was brilliant.

Romney did exceptionally well because the other candidates did not really challenge his Massachusetts health plan, which mandates every citizen get private health insurance. This is a key tenet of Obamacare.

In recent days, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has referred to the Obama plan as Obamneycare, a reference to its similarity to Romneycare. But in the opening scenes of the debate Pawlenty ducked.

Despite being egged on by CNN’s John King (who's hosting of the debate was flawless), Pawlenty clearly did not want to criticize Romney or expound on his previous criticism of Romney.

Romney's health plan is a serious concern. Fox News analyst Dick Morris has stated repeatedly that Romney can't win the general election because Obama's health plan so closely mirrored Romney's.

Tonight, Pawlenty missed an incredible opportunity to differentiate himself from Romney, the other big state governor in the race.

Pawlenty came across as honest, sincere, decent. But he seemed to lack passion. He also failed to tell us what he did in Minnesota for 8 years that will help us solve the nation's economic crisis.

Pawlenty didn't resonate while Romney and Bachmann did, as other candidates came out as likeable and believable.

Rick Santorum showed exceptional passion. He is a true conservative who wants to shake up Washington.

And Herman Cain is a straight-shooting businessman who seems like the GOP' version of Harry Truman.

Finally, we're left with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. They both appeared to fall into an intellectual chasm where their utterances might have earned applause but won't win votes and hearts.

Both Gingrich and Paul appeared tired and dour, their emotional range limited to permanent frowns.

And both seemed a prisoner of their own intellectual beliefs. Gingrich, trapped by three decades of policy statements and random utterances, rambled on about why he both hates and loves the Ryan plan or why he was for the individual mandate before he was against it.

Unlike Gingrich, Paul has been consistent in his views, but it is a consistency that shows inflexibility to the grave threats the nation faces. God love libertarians like Ron Paul, but their vision is a utopian one not applicable at the moment.

Overall the debate showed energy and excitement among the Republicans, one of whom will likely challenge Obama in 2012 on turning America around. It's early still, and the winner of debates like these may not turn out to be the winner of the upcoming primaries.

I recall that in 2008, Mike Huckabee was the clear winner in the Republican debates. Yet he failed to wrest the nomination from John McCain, though Huckabee would have made a strong presidential candidate in 2008 and a good president had he been elected.

So maybe there is a lesson here, the GOP should pick the winner of these primary debates as their candidate.”

On the other hand Karl Rove had a slightly different take on the debate. President Bush’s former political advisor and Fox News contributor said, “although candidate Mitt Romney is leading the GOP nominee hopeful pack, his advantage is not so substantial that he can truly be considered a front-runner. Rove also told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly the race for the Republican nomination will be “unlike any contest we’ve had for over 60 years.” Rove goes on to say:

“This race is far from over — and he is not way out in front,” Rove said, referring to the latest Gallup poll, which has Romney favored by 24 percent of Americans likely to vote Republican. “By comparison at this point n 1999, George W. Bush was at 52; Elizabeth Dole was at 20; Dan Quayle at nine; and 15 points was shared by nine other candidates.

“So this is — this is not a big lead. It’s the biggest lead he’s — he’s received thus far but it is not the typical front-runner lead,” Rove said. “This contest is going to be unlike any contest we’ve had for over 60 years. And that is . . . it is going to have essentially no front-runner.”

O’Reilly noted that Tim Pawlenty has a solid Republican message but does not have the stage presence to give him any traction in the GOP field. The Fox host said what got President Barack Obama elected was his ability to perform before a crowd, not his message.

Rove disagreed.

“He was a better candidate than our candidate because he articulated a better message than our candidate did,” Rove said. “The message was: I don’t want to be the president of red states or blue states — I want to be the president of the United States and bring us together. And I defy you to put in a short phrase what John McCain’s message was.

“Look, running for president is like running — it’s like being in the emperor’s new clothes,” he said. “At the end of the parade they’re going to see you exactly as you are — and you better understand who you are and try to be the best that you can be on any given day. And you better not be phony.”

Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said Newt Gingrich “exceeded my expectations” during the CNN GOP debate in New Hampshire Monday night, adding that he avoided his tendency to “talk too much.”

Hiram Reisner of Newsmax.com went on to say:

“Former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said Newt Gingrich “exceeded my expectations” during the CNN GOP debate in New Hampshire Monday night, adding that he avoided his tendency to “talk too much.”

“CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Card whether he thought Gingrich “redeemed himself” following recent roadblocks to his fledgling campaign, including last week’s resignation of 16 key staffers.

“First of all, it was a very adult debate — the issues were good — I don’t think any candidate did a lousy job — I think they all did a good job,” said Card, who worked for President George W. Bush. “And Newt Gingrich actually exceeded my expectations. He gave a lot of short and specific answers — and he has a tendency to talk too much.

“He opened right up by saying: 14 million jobs are lost, people are out of jobs, and we need a new president. That was the most succinct opening statement — I thought he did a good job,” Card said. “I thought he was also very clear on his position on immigration and also — I’m going to say — even on the Ryan plan. That doesn’t mean that I think his campaign is being well run, but I do think tonight, I think he did a good job.”

Gingrich has taken considerable flak for saying that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s fiscal plan — which includes a controversial Medicare reform proposal — is “right-wing social engineering.”

Reisner went on to say that “Analyst Says Pawlenty Failed to Land Blow.”:

“Tim Pawlenty missed the opportunity to make Mitt Romney ‘bleed” over Romneycare during CNN’s Monday GOP New Hampshire debate and he “looked punked” and tentative when given the chance to go on the attack, a former pollster for President Barack Obama said.

“The Pawlenty thing was a big deal because [of] this: As much as we say we don’t like negative campaigns, the truth of the matter is: If someone occupies the space that you want to occupy and their ahead of you, I’m sorry, you’ve got to . . . cut that person and make them bleed,” said Cornell Belcher, who worked for Obama in 2008.

“Now, do you take a hatchet to them the first night of a debate — No. But you have to make them bleed, because you are never going to get ahead of a person unless you cut them and you make them bleed,” Belcher said. “Pawlenty was served up the opportunity to sort of start that bleeding tonight — and he looked punked — he could not back up what he had said aside when he was standing on the stage with Romney — he looked tentative, and he looked weak. I think he missed a prime opportunity to make this guy bleed.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked colleague John King, who moderated the debate, why he thought Pawlenty was tentative when given the opportunity to repeat comments he made on “Fox News Sunday” that Obamacare was basically Obamneycare — as it was an offshoot of Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan.

“He refused to repeat it with Governor Romney a little further apart than we are right now,” King told Cooper, who was standing facing him. “It was a clear calculation — they knew [it] coming in. He wants to make that point because he believes it’s critical, he’s the underdog in New Hampshire. But . . . he was trying to introduce himself to New Hampshire voters and national voters.

“But in this state, Governor Romney is pretty popular, so he made a calculation the first night on television, the first night of a debate — not now,” King said.”

A few other analysis of the debate can be found on POLITICO.

Alexander Burns Maggie Haberman write; “The Republican presidential frontrunner came into the debate looking strong and emerged from it stronger, as his opponents repeatedly passed up opportunities to go on the attack – and even inflicted damage on themselves as they tried to avoid confrontation.

“Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty struggled early, tying himself in rhetorical knots in an attempt to avoid repeating his weekend attack on Romney and the national health care law he called “Obamneycare.” Read more at POLITICO.

Roger Simon or Pajamas Media said; “Issues? Who can run the country? The language of democracy? Hey, that’s not what we are about. We are all about who won.”

“Here is who won - - and lost - - the first major Republican debate, which was broadcast by CNN from Manchester, N.H., on Monday night. It is guaranteed accurate to three decimal places.”

Simon gives First Place to Romney and Second to Bachmann with Third Place going to Sarah Palin. Read more at POLITICO.

The intellectual Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard said:

“The seven candidates on stage performed creditably last night, with two pretty clearly helping themselves—Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann. But since the stage at St. Anselm didn't feature all of the eventual candidates, one can also ask, which potential candidates who aren't yet in the race were helped or hurt?

My thumbnail:

Rick Perry: Hurt a bit by Michele Bachmann's strong performance. If, in the next two months, she forcefully opposes in the House whatever deal is reached on the debt ceiling (very likely), and wins the Ames straw poll (quite possible), what's Perry's rationale for big-footing her? On the other hand, he's a successful big state governor who's also Tea Party friendly—in theory, a potent combination”. Read More.

Rich Lowery of National Review Online claims it “was Mitt’s night:”

“Romney was on his game — smooth, relaxed, and unflappable. He did well in the debates in 2008, but benefited tonight from his increased stature in the context of the rest of field. In 2008, he was up against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, strong personalities with real gravity, and Mike Huckabee, a fellow first-time candidate who is a natural performer. He was also helped by the unwillingness of anyone to take him on, most notably Tim Pawlenty on the “Obamneycare” charge. If Pawlenty wasn’t willing to back up that line in person, he shouldn’t have said it on TV Sunday. In general, Pawlenty was fine, but faded into the background and sometimes seemed much too canned. He had to be chagrined watching how well Michelle Bachmann did — the average viewer just tuning in wouldn’t have any idea she’s not considered a “top tier” candidate. At this rate, Pawlenty’s going to have a big problem in Iowa, which is another reason why Team Romney had to be pleased with the night. Herman Cain, meanwhile, was unbelievably vague (tonight, it was hard to believe Pawlenty lost the first debate to him). Newt Gingrich didn’t stand out, especially given how much he’s banking on his performance in the debates. Maybe he needs longer-form answers? A friend also got the impression he was kind of ticked all night; for whatever reason, he was sort of off-putting. Rick Santorum was solid, but has a version of the Pawlenty problem — how is he going to break through? Ron Paul was Ron Paul.”

Just after the debate Fox News posted one of those “you vote” polls as to who would be the best to take on Obama in a debate. The last count, with almost 100,000 people responding the leader was Ron Paul with just over 22% of the vote. Herman Cain came in second with 20% and Sarah Palin with almost 11%. The rest of GOP field were in single digits. You can view the poll and vote by clicking here. See where your favorite candidate ranks with the rest of the voters. Enjoy.