Can Romney connect? Mormon Mid-Westerners are not ebullient they tend to be reserved. Will voters look below his exterior countenance and see the depths of this man? Politically speaking, he is shallower than one would wish (Etch-a-Sketch) but character-wise Romney is solid with a good heart and that is more than I can say for who presently 'rules' over us.
If America wants Chicago slick, they have the perfect candidate in Obama. If America wants stolid but accomplished and dependable they will select Romney.
Who voters choose as president reflects, in some measure, our nation's collective values because the president can be seen as a reflective mirror. We lost our way, in the past, when heart and emotion ruled over head and logic. We certainly did the last time. Though, I understand McCain was a terrible quirky choice, made huge campaign gaffs and had the misfortune of following GW whom the press and media pilloried on a cross of 'chad' with nails made of Iraq.
Well we are paying the price for our largely misplaced emotions which few can admit because it is hard being wrong.(See 1 below.)
Poignant. (See 2 below.)
My friend and fellow memo reader in incensed: "There is no place to cut the spending---- Right!
After driving the U.S. more deeply into debt than any other President,
Want to know where Obama's 13 year-old daughter is right now with 12 friends?
On spring break in Oaxaca Mexico, on your dime.
She took two jets and 25 secret service men.
A thirteen year-old?
Why haven't you heard about it?
The Obama Administration has had the Secret Service scouring the web ordering that any website mentioning this be taken down because letting the travel plans out could endanger the president's daughter's security.
Nonsense, the royal couple just want to hide the way they are ripping off the U. S. taxpayer."
It is nine versus 300,000,000 time! (See 3 below.)
This was sent to me from one who most assuredly knows! (See 4 below.)
This from a wonderful friend and memo reader who knows about tyrannical leaders. See below.
By Elaine Sandler
Can Mitt Romney viscerally connect with the electorate's upset over Obama? That is what it will take to begin to succeed against a deceptive yet charmingly adept adversary who still, despite Obama's dismal performance, has kept many by his side. How does Romney change this dynamic?
It seems obvious that the public will relate to a candidate who can identify how they feel and tell them with credible assurance how things can improve. We need a candidate who can stridently describe our rooted Obama fears and infuse that kind of confidence.
So why doesn't Romney start to speak up about ObamaCare usurping our freedom? He makes clear his willingness to abolish it but doesn't seem to emotionally connect with our upset. He seems too homogenized and removed with regard to the many issues that concern Americans.
ObamaCare scares many of us to death, as does the deficit, Obama's treatment of Israel, his failed foreign policy, and his energy reliance on OPEC, among other things. Romney should not ignore the obvious advantages that could finally obfuscate the "anyone but Romney" theme that has dogged and demeaned his candidacy from the beginning. You would think he would want to bury it, put it to bed, and run with it.
Romney is smart and likeable, but he doesn't impart passion or the kind of rosy promise that engenders excitement. He lacks the dynamic that gives hope and creates a synergy that suggests that things can change. Perhaps our battered view of congress and this president has hurt our sensibility about what may be possible. Obama, despite his poor performance, which he charmingly denies, still levitates many on the left who are either ideologically driven or not enamored of anything the GOP is showing them.
So what can Romney do? For one, he can choose a very dynamic VP candidate, who can help close the popularity gap and who might inspire what Sarah Palin could not. We need a VP whose second-to-the-presidency closeness boosts the ticket for all the right reasons. A candidate who can make up for what Romney lacks and can attract more of the demographics that the GOP has effectively turned off. Romney needs a charismatic running mate -- it's a crucial make-or-break dynamic.
And what of the powerful adage "change we can believe in"? Those five words captured the people. They promised not just change, but a new dawn, a time of renewed hope and concern for the people. It was a brilliant slogan that impressed most of the voting public. That it was based wholly on a candidate who had nothing substantive to offer hardly mattered. Obama seemingly had it all after his resounding election. He was an articulate black American who won both houses of Congress, the White House, and America's hope for a new beginning.
Another similar opportunity can now be adopted for the opposing GOP team. It is a natural approach for a win, but it will take a very creative and innovative campaign strategy to carry it out in reverse. It bears repeating that Obama assumed U.S. leadership with no experience and some very dubious associations with radical individuals I wouldn't cross a room to engage. Still, with the right combination of words and messages, a man can win the presidency solely with the ability to beguile, charm, and deceive.
Imagine what can be accomplished by a candidate who actually has what it takes to lead our country out of this botched chaos. Romney is such a man. His personal accomplishments, love of country, and understanding of how to make our economy run inspire a belief that things can improve.
For now, the chaos we see is caused by inexperience and an out-of-step far-left ideology. This result developed out of what appeared to be an unbeatable platform that thrilled the American electorate, those who got suckered into its implausibility. That it failed to produce a modicum of beneficial change is an American tragedy, but one that should be utilized powerfully to replace a president who has proven he is not up to the job.
An effective Romney campaign can transform this mess into something truly illuminating. We know that the Obama campaign did exactly that with G.W. Bush's foibles, which grew beyond all reason with the liberal media's full approbation. It's our turn now to do the same, but this time with a candidate who can deliver and move our country to a far better place. It's also largely dependent on Romney's campaign and the Republican Party to find those who have the clarity and practiced skills to effectively run a seamless campaign that can convince the American electorate that we need change, for real. These are grave times. No second-best will do.
Romney can be an effective leader. He has the experience and intelligence to get America percolating. He understands the Islamic threat, our profound need to support Israel and fight anti-Semitism that grows exponentially, our growing deficit that now seems incalculable but will force our next generations into indenture to foreign creditors if unaddressed, the tools with which to grow our economy, and the awareness that continued energy dependence on Middle Eastern countries that feed and foster terrorism is a fool's game that must be terminated now. His strengths lie in his accomplishments, but he can succeed only with the right formula that can resonate with a battered electorate who have been deceived and abused. We know that victims of abuse often continue their association with those who continue to deceive them. It is essential to offer them a viable alternative -- one they can recognize and embrace.
We are at a crucial crossroads. A place of confusion and a seeming inability by the GOP, thus far, to identify this depression with powerful messages of their own that might begin to give more of the disillusioned the passion to rally behind the GOP ticket. Those empowered to capture this pressing imperative, Romney's campaign machine, must do it or pass the torch to those who can.
I am hopeful that one day we will look back on this time with relief, considering that it finally passed. I suspect once Obama's leadership is objectively measured, books will emerge on this topic along with Obama truths that may have remained buried far too long. They will spring up and flow when Obama is a cautionary presidential figure from the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) Catherine Ashton
European Union Foreign Affairs Chief
speaks about Palestinian children:
“We have recognized the potential of
the youth of Palestine. Against all
the odds, [These Palestinian
children] continue to learn, to work,
to dream and aspire to a better
future … and it is to them that we
should look and to them we should
listen and it is to them that I pay
What kind of a society consciously
and purposely sacrifices its own youth
for political gain and tactical advantage? Today the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs nurture a
blind hatred of Israel. They created a
cultural milieu of vengeance, violence
and death - preparing their children
to be sacrifices in a death cult. Proud
parents dress up their toddlers not in
clown costumes, but with suicide
belts, and countless others celebrate
their children’s deaths with traditional sweet holiday cakes and
Indeed, Palestinian children continue
to learn, work, dream and aspire for a
better future - but that future is void
of the state of Israel and the Jewish
people. Only when their textbooks
cease to preach hate and stop using
gruesome examples of killing Jews
can we even begin to think of a promising future for these children, and for
the region as a whole.
Brussels, March 19, 2012
3)The Constitution vs. Obamacare
By The Editors
The Supreme Court this week is hearing arguments about some specific, grave constitutional concerns about Obamacare: most prominently, whether the federal government has the power to order all Americans to purchase health insurance that meets the federal government’s standards. But it is worth taking a few steps back to remind ourselves that while this requirement is an unprecedented infringement on Americans’ liberty, the legislation as a whole — in its conception, not just its details — is an offense against constitutional government. As is much of modern government, and conservatives should not shrink from saying so.
The Constitution provides few and defined powers to the federal government, as James Madison put it. The precise scope of those powers has always been subject to debate, but that the description does not apply to today’s federal government cannot seriously be denied. The Constitution divides power among the branches of the federal government: But today’s government features countless agencies that combine executive, legislative, and judicial functions. The Constitution’s structure and logic militate against commingling state and federal powers. Today’s government includes vast state-federal spending programs in which the division of responsibility is blurred by design. These are not merely formal deviations from the constitutional template. They subvert its goals of liberty for citizens, accountability for governments, and security for property. What is needed today, then, is not so much the protection of constitutional government as its reclamation. The courts have an indispensable role to play in that project, but it will also necessarily involve shrewd and patient political action.
It is in the context of an already hypertrophied government that the discrete-yet-momentous legal controversies over Obamacare should be judged. As the plaintiffs contend, a federal mandate would expand federal powers still further, and in a way that does not admit of any principled limit. It would mean that the federal government would have the kind of general police power that has heretofore been considered a monopoly of the states. Thus even someone who believes today’s administrative state to be broadly in accordance with the Constitution should balk at the mandate.
The federal government has the power to regulate commerce among the states, but that power neither includes nor implies the authority to force individuals to purchase particular products. If it is read to include or imply that authority, then it must surely follow that the federal government may institute a compulsory calisthenic program for all Americans. The administration argues that an individual’s decision not to purchase health insurance has an effect, however minute, on health markets nationally, and that such decisions when aggregated have a large effect. But of course the same is true of individuals’ decisions to remain sedentary or eat too many sweets.
The mandate cannot be justified, either, under the Constitution’s grant of authority to Congress to make all laws “necessary and proper for carrying” its legitimate powers “into execution.” The mandate is not necessary to execute Obamacare’s insurance regulations. It is necessary only to stop some of their unwanted effects. Obamacare requires insurers to offer the same policies at the same prices to the sick and the healthy alike. Absent a mandate, that regulation will cause insurance premiums to rocket skyward. But regulatory folly cannot itself be a source of additional constitutional authority. Nor can a blunt command to citizens be a “proper” method of executing a regulation.
That should close the constitutional case. But we need not worry that the Constitution has barred us from adopting a policy indispensable to solving the problems of American health care. The mandate is supposedly a measure to reduce cost-shifting by the uninsured, and the insurance regulations to help those with pre-existing conditions get insurance. But there are less intrusive, and indisputably constitutional, ways to address these concerns. A deregulatory program would reduce cost-shifting by making it easier for the uninsured to purchase coverage, and enable people to keep their insurance while sick by making them rather than their employers the owners of their policies.
Democrats chose to include the mandate in the bill because, notwithstanding its unpopularity, it was more politically expedient than other ways to reach their goals. That calculation does not make it constitutional. It does, however, suggest that the legislation would never have passed without the mandate. The provisions interlock, and they must either stay or go together. A proper understanding of the Constitution compels them to go — and that should remain conservatives’ goal whatever the Court does.
4)Obama asks Russia for 'space' through election
By JENNIFER EPSTEIN |
SEOUL – President Barack Obama offered a private request Monday to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for some “space” on missile defense ahead of November’s elections.
“On all these issues, particularly on missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said, referring to incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to a TV pool reporter who heard audio recorded by a Russian reporter who was in the room moments before the two leaders spoke to reporters after their 90-minute meeting.
“Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” Medvedev responded.
A U.S. pool video camera in the room caught part of the audio, but not the piece about missile defense.
“This is my last election,” Obama said in audio that could be heard on the TV pool’s recording and that POLITICO listened to. “After my election I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev told Obama he understood and “will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in a statement that “the United States is committed to implementing our missile defense system, which we’ve repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia."
"However, given the longstanding difference between the US and Russia on this issue, it will take time and technical work before we can try to reach an agreement. Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," Rhodes said. "Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward.”