We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Thursday, March 15, 2012

The "Magic Bullet" for Gas Prices

President Obama has said over the past few days:

"Do not tell me we're not drilling. We're drilling all over this country."

"I'm going to do everything I can to help you save money on gas."

"Just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up?"

"Well, look, as long as gas prices are going up, people feel like I'm not doing enough and I understand that. Ultimately, though, there is no silver bullet... Anybody who says that they've got some magic bullet to get oil, gas prices down to 2 bucks a gallon aren't telling the truth."

On July 15, 2008, President George W. Bush announced that he would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling in the United States. The price of gas on July 15th was $4.11/gallon.

Can you find July 15th, 2008 on this chart?

(Source: GasBuddy.com)

On July 12, 2010, President Obama took advantage of the BP oil spill to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling. Can you find July 12th, 2010 on the chart? (It's also interesting to note January 20, 2008 in the chart... The day President Obama was sworn into office.)

To claim that there is no magic bullet is not telling the truth, President Obama.

OPEC restricts oil supply to control gas prices. Speculators play a part, but ultimately it comes down to supply and demand. When gas gets "too cheap", OPEC restricts supply to raise the price. When their biggest client threatens to produce their own oil, they panic and increase supply to lower the price.

What the U.S. has done with all of the crazy restrictions on drilling we have imposed on ourselves is like a family saying they will only buy their food at concerts and sporting events. Then complaining about a $6 hot dog.

President Obama was doing a better job of telling the truth when he made these statements:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

"(To Automakers:) You can't just make money on SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

"I notice some folks clapped, but I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. You’re one of them? Well, now, here’s my point. If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — (laughter) — you may have a big family, but it’s probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? (Laughter.) Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then."

President Obama loves the high gas prices. It is the democratic strategy. Create a situation where you can increase your power and influence in order to control the people. One elite group of intelligent people in charge, controlling the masses in order to save them from their own stupidity. Telling them what to drive, what to eat, and what to do.

Barack and Michelle can take two separate airliners to Martha's Vineyard a few hours apart, but the rest of us need to drive hybrids.

Unfortunately for President Obama and his re-election campaign, the "rest of us" can to read a chart.

Monday, March 12, 2012

There's No Place Like Home...

Just read this article:


There is no state that knows Rick Santorum better than Pennsylvania. He was raised in Butler, Pennsylvania. He earned his Bachelor's degree from Penn State, his MBA from the University of Pennsylvania, and Juris Doctorate from Penn State. He served as a U.S Representative on behalf of Pennsylvania for 4 years, and then followed that by serving as a U.S. Senator on behalf of Pennsylvania for 12 years. Pennsylvania is home for the Santorum family.

What a home state thinks about their candidate should be telling for us. Here is how Newt Gingrich fared in his home state of Georgia:

Gingrich: 47%
Romney: 26%
Santorum: 20%
Paul: 7%

Here is how Mitt Romney fared in his home state of Massachusetts:

Romney: 72%
Santorum: 12%
Paul: 10%
Gingrich: 5%

And here is how Rick Santorum is doing in his home state of Pennsylvania (according to the most recent poll I could find):

Santorum: 38%
Romney: 23%
Gingrich: 11%
Paul: 8%
(Undecided: 20%)

A lot has happened since this poll was compiled on Feb 20th. It would be interesting to see what it would be today, and it will be really interesting to see how the people who know Santorum best will vote on April 24th.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Can't Buy Me Competency

Santorum and Gingrich are constantly talking about not being able to compete with Romney's money. There are talks about being outspent 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 or 7-to-1 or whatever the number is in any particular state. That is always the excuse.

Whenever I hear that, I have to laugh a little, because that is not a ringing endorsement for whichever candidate is saying it. "I was not able to raise as much money as my opponent."

To me, it is an admission of incompetency. It is an admission that the opponent does a better job of organizing and rallying volunteers and delivering a more compelling message that makes people feel compelled to donate.


Santorum and Gingrich would have you believe that they are at a disadvantage because of Romney's rich buddies. But as I understand it, by law, the most any individual can contribute to a particular candidate is $2,500.

Each candidate is backed by a Super PAC, who operate independently and have different rules for donations. But by law, the candidate cannot organize or have anything to do with those Super PACs. They have an impact obviously, but they are nothing a candidate can control.

Anything that says, "I'm [such-and-such candidate], and I approve this message" is paid for by the individual campaign, and that is what the candidate can control.

I heard a representative on the Santorum campaign yesterday morning talking about how much money they had raised in February, and that they were sure they had raised more money than the Romney campaign in February. He was using it as evidence to prove that their campaign currently had more support than the Romney campaign. The Santorum campaign raised $9 million in February.

A few hours later, the Romney campaign announced that they had raised $11.5 million in February. (Boy, the Santorum campaign's faces must be red.) By law, that has to happen at a max of $2,500 at a time. Which means there were at least 4,600 individuals that donated (and probably many, many more than that.) I don't know how many rich buddies Romney has, but it's not 4,600.


There is a deeper underlying problem. Virginia was one of the states that had their primary on Super Tuesday. Here were the results:

Romney: 60%
Ron Paul: 40%

Gingrich and Santorum failed to receive a single delegate, because they failed to meet the requirements to get on the ballot. I've mentioned this before, but I read this article this morning, and I was shocked to learn that:

- Santorum didn't get the paperwork submitted needed to get delegates in several districts in Ohio
- Santorum didn't get on the ballot in Washington D.C.
- Santorum failed to file the paperwork to be eligible for 10 of the 69 delegates in Illinois

This is on top of failing to file full delegate slates in Tennessee and New Hampshire, and not even getting on the ballot in Virginia.

There is a pattern here. Here were the tough requirements to get on the ballot on Washington D.C.:

A) Pay $5,000 and collect 259 signatures, OR
B) Pay $10,000

All Santorum had to do was write a check and put it in the mail! From ABC News:

"Santorum’s campaign did not pay the fee, nor did it request a petition for signatures, according to a board official. In fact, the Santorum camp made no contact with the D.C. Board of Elections, the official said.

"Mitt Romney, by contrast, sent his son Josh to drop off 700 signatures at the D.C. elections board, in person, three weeks before the deadline."

How do you fail to even get on the ballot??? This baffles me. It demonstrates a lack of organization and competency. Both Gingrich and Santorum just gave away delegates in Virginia.

By contrast, "Mr. Moneybags" Mitt Romney opted to get the signatures in D.C. in order to save $5,000 for the campaign. I believe that is a perfect example of what makes Romney successful.


Romney's opponents often refer to the "Romney attack machine" when excusing their poor showings. The "machine" part at least may be a perfect description. Romney's campaign runs like a well-oiled machine. Smooth as smooth can be. Which is what it will take to beat President Obama.

Whatever Mitt Romney touches turns into a well-organized, well-informed, well-executed, well-supported, well-funded organization. Just what the doctor ordered for our United States of America.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

I stand... correct

As a follow up from the last post, we had the vote in Massachusetts last night, and we see how Romney did on his true home turf in the state where he lives and was Governor:

Romney: 72%
Santorum: 12%
Paul: 10%
Gingrich: 5%

How did Reagan do in his true home state of California in the 1980 primary?

Reagan: 80%

The media tried to spin a narrow win in Michigan as a huge blow to the Romney campaign, just as they are now spinning the 6 wins out of the 10 states last night (including the largest prize in Ohio), winning half the delegates available, as somehow being a huge blow to the Romney campaign.

"Front-runner wins 6 states, but diehards unconvinced" -- CNN
"Super Tuesday leaves Romney with a new batch of bruises" -- MSNBC
"'Super' breakthrough eludes Romney" -- CBS News
"Romney wins the night, but not the momentum" -- ABC News
"Romney Wins a Few Rounds, but a Bruising Bout Goes On" -- NY TIMES

They will continue to push this message, as if in all the primaries in the past, there had never been a split in the vote. They will continue to paint the picture that somehow in previous primaries there had never been any contention for the nomination -- That there has always been a clear front-runner in the past. They definitely won't talk about how that after Super Tuesday in the 2008 Democratic Primary, Hillary Clinton had won 10 states to Barack Obama's 13 states. I'm guessing they ran story after story in 2008 about how Obama had been bruised and just didn't have the party's support.

This is how elections go! Some people support one candidate, others support another. There has never been, in my memory, an election where somebody started out getting the majority of the vote. It is always a contested election. We'll probably see Ron Paul drop out of the race soon, and the numbers will shift. We will likely start to see some majorities. Then Newt will likely have to drop, and the picture will become a lot clearer. Eventually the party will nominate their candidate. This is the same process that happens election cycle after election cycle.

They continue to talk about how Romney just can't get the support of the party. HE WON 6 STATES! If Romney can't get the support, then Santorum has twice the problem, because he only got 3 states. It is even clearer that the majority of the party really does not support Santorum, because he lost 7 states!

The liberal news media's dream of a contested primary in Tampa will not happen, because this is the same thing that has happens in every primary. It's all part of the process.