I Preferred Marco, the superior politician, the superior speaker and persuader.

BUT I DO LIKE PAUL RYAN VERY MUCH.   AND THERE  COULD HAVE BEEN THE DRAWBACK  REGARDING SENATOR RUBIO’S CITIZENSHIP.

The following article is from PowerLine.

by John Hinderaker in 2012 Presidential Election

Romney Doubles Down On Competence

I admit to some surprise. Presumably Mitt Romney doesn’t think that the Milwaukee suburbs are the key to the White House, or the Eagle Scout demographic will swing the election. So the only explanation is that Romney wants the most competent ticket possible. When was the last time we had a national ticket with this much mathematical skill, or knowledge of finance? Probably never.

So Romney wants to contrast the serious guys who are out to save the country with the buffoonish and dishonest political hacks, Obama and Biden. Well, the contrast is real. But whether the voters will see it that way is another matter. One thing we can be sure of is that Ryan will perform brilliantly on the issues; especially, of course, the budget. Which could be important: Obama’s budgetary fecklessness should be his greatest liability, yet it seems often to be forgotten in more general discussion of the economy. If Ryan helps focus more attention on the budget and the nation’s crushing debt, it will be a plus.

The Left Press: Romney Fell into Obama’s Trap with Ryan Choice

At the Daily Beast:

Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney

Has the Plutocrat Ticket

by Paul Begala

 

By choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

at MSNBC:

As a rule, when your opponents seem really happy about your choice in running mates, it’s fair to say you’ve made a provocative choice.

And this morning, Democrats are practically giddy, unable to believe their good fortune.

at the New York Times with Charles Blow……..Veep message hadn’t arrived yet…..

WRONG-TRACK ROMNEY

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Putting too much stock in presidential polls before the party conventions can be tricky. They are meaningful because they offer a snapshot of the state of play at the moment, but they are hardly predictive because many voters don’t truly engage until the election draws nearer.

That said, a series of recent polls paints a worrisome picture for Mitt Romney in the run-up to his party’s national convention. Three polls — from CNN/ORC, Fox News and Reuters/Ipsos — were released this week. President Obama’s lead over Romney ranged from 7 points to 9 points.

The Fox News poll showed Obama with his highest level of support this year.

So what gives? Is this real? Is it a fluke?

It’s hard to say, but there are some theories.

Romney spends so much time hiding, dodging and trying to say nothing specific that when he does show up — and speak up — he bungles it. Dealing with the details is a skill that must be practiced on the campaign trail. Romney seemed to think that he could run out the clock, coast on electoral contempt for Obama, and sneak into the White House. Wrong! So the more his campaign speaks and is pressed, the more it slips up. To wit, he recently had a disastrous overseas trip, starting fires of controversy wherever the wheels of his plane touched the tarmac.

The Obama campaign and its supporters have been incredibly aggressive, vicious even, in going after Romney and trying to define him as out of touch and elitist. Many attacks have been fair — others not so — but they may be beginning to stick. According to a recent report in The New York Times, “President Obama has spent more campaign cash more quickly than any incumbent in recent history.”

The Obama campaign seems to be gambling that if it defines Romney early in the minds of voters, no amount of late spending by Romney and the massive “super PACs” that support him will be able to undo it……

at Mother Jones  by David Corn:

With Paul Ryan, Romney Makes

the VP Pick Obama Wanted

What is a “real” parent?

Dear Reader Zeggman:

Thank you for your  following comment:

“As an independent thinker, I actually agree with this up until the last two paragraphs. You write “real father and real mother” as though biology and blood are the most important elements two parents can bring to shaping the character of the next generation. As an adoptive parent himself, I doubt Dennis Prager would agree.

Of course, Dennis has the notion that men and women provide unique contributions, though “clarity” seems to slip quietly away when he attempts to delineate just what it is that every woman provides that no man can, or every man provides that no woman can.

I do believe a two-parent household provides a more stable and thus more advantageous environment for children. If you truly want to encourage people to marry, it seems counterproductive to say to a whole class of people who want to marry, “This is something you don’t really need.”

As an addendum to an article regarding the extraordinary value of traditional marriage….at least in the ideal,  in a blog article I commented:  

 It is because of “KIDS” a culture’s gay community must not be provided  marriage, for the purpose of the institution is to produce the next generation of life by a real father and real mother….hopefully to produce  better people than in the past….an old American dream.  Society should provide a second tier, a legal tier providing legal protections, for those  who are partners.   Clever people can work out the nitty gritty, but the purpose, if the culture is interested in NOT committing suicide, is to restore child-raising to the highest purpose of civilized life.

“Big Business” is primarily a follower and “Big Government a  primary instigator  of cultural change:  but  both are run by bureaucrats whose purpose has nothing to do with the moral content of what they are selling.  Big Religion, Big Education  and Big Politics aren’t  interest either.   Security almost always triumphs over Virtue…..and it should never be forgotten that the human female is not at all interested in “Liberty”, by nature.

When I used the word ‘real’ regarding such a mother and such a father leading a family, I  mentally included an adopting mother and father within this group.   I did not think of the word ‘real’ in the real sense to which you correctly refer,  that is,  the biological sense.   

I would add this from my own experience raising children, but equally from my experience as a public school teacher for thirteen years and the occasions when I came to know parents and siblings of  my students.    

Parents raising their own biological children face  certain problems which probably rarely occur in families of adopted children.    I refer to the ‘real’ parent who discovers or believes in the discovery of a behavioral trait in his or her  child or two, which the parent has always hated in her or him self and becomes obsessed with the task of ‘straightening out’ this behavior of  the  child   at all cost.

Thank you for the observation.

Communications from Our Left regarding the Thuggish Obama

We  are receiving more frequent opponent viws now that the campaign for America’s future is beginning to steam.     They run like the following:

“Anyone who calls Barack Obama a SCAOMF or a fraud, is in fact, a racist, bigot, brain-dead, black-hating scumabg!

These comments on prove one thing and one thing only. the Racist right-wing of America hate having black people in the White House! That is a fact!
President Obama is not behaving any more secretive in this regard than his predecessor G.W. Bush with this, G.W. Bush, a man who refused answer any question he did not feel like answering.
Who cares. If I were president I wouldn’t take a single question from the press during my tenure.

They sound scary to uneducated people so they just call everyone who disagrees with them that.
 
They also like to call him a Socialist, Marxist, Communist, and a Fascist.

They have no idea what these terms actually mean, they just sound scary and call people that.
 
Anybody with a half brain knows that a left wing fascist is an oxymoron just a like a Muslim/Atheist. Not only that, but how could a Socialist support corporate interests such as bail outs? It doesn’t even make sense.

Can Obama be impeached? No. Impeachment requires a crime. He has committed no crime. Expect being black! What crime has he committed? None so no, he cannot be impeached.

 It seems like he just wants to call Obama the biggest liar among Presidents and expects us to just take his word for it.”

Note:   Bill Clinton was impeached.    However  he was not removed from office  for his lying under oath regarding his sexual activity in the White House with student aide, Monica Lewinsky.    The crime  was  not  deemed  a  high enough crime  to  remove him from office.

Mr. Obama is as white a person in the White House as he is black…….Why do our Lefty opponents insist it is the black portion of the president that is so deficient in honesty, forthrightness,   integrity,  tolerance,  knowledge,  and ability to get along with people?

Mr. Obama  apparently decided he would benefit  in America much greater  as a black rather than a white person.    History has proven his case.

Fascism  was a major socialist movement in Europe during the earlier part of the twentieth century.   Hitler’s political party, one of several in the movement, was named the   National Socialist German Workers‘ Party.   He rejected the Soviet version of Marxism because its power  emanated from Moscow and not Berlin.