The Politician's Game

A very interesting post ... COMPLETELY NEUTRAL

Be sure to Read the Poem and tax list at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be.




The article below is neither anti-republican or anti-democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

We must always remember ... politicians are the only people alive who have the guts to can call: "postponing a tax increase ... a tax cut."



545 vs. 300,000,000 People

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

What you do with this article now that you have read it... is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44..75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the heck happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!

GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!!

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel...
He has been a journalist for 49 years.
This is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Chicago Politics

If Americans hope to understand President Obama and the system he has in place ...

we must first have a clear understanding of Chicago Politics and how it works to control the people and their money from multiple levels.

We should never underestimate these enemies of American freedom and the systems that they have put into place that intend to rob all of us of our precious freedoms.

The Chicago Political Machine And How It Works



Now We Will See The Real Obama and it Will Get Ugly

There are the machine Dems that understand you need a really vital business economy to support all the union jobs and other enterprises they make money from. The machine Dems can’t wet their beaks without a continuing flow of both private and government money they can skim from. Culturally, these kinds of Democrats would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”.

They are fiscally conservative until you start cutting spending on government programs, or simply cutting out government programs because they mean jobs and pensions to their constituents. Dan Rostenkowski was the textbook example of this machine Democrat. Blagojevich was a machine guy that jumped ship. He got too big for his britches. If he would have followed orders, he would have been just fine. Instead, he is going to jail. Machine Democrats do play by some rules.

Once you negotiate with them and have a deal, you have a deal. At least until the next negotiation where they will try to take a little more from you. But in the ensuing years, you will be great friends.

The next kind of Democrat works the system and plays racial politics all the way. This is where many ethnic politicians play. They make sure they use race to “get their fair share”. They have allies in their mission. In the case of the White House, it’s David Plouffe.

There is a part of Chicago politics that is really well known. However, it’s unspoken because of fear. The fear of being branded a racist when you are merely saying something everyone knows but social constraints make it taboo. The cost of silence is high. Practitioners of racial politics are very tough to negotiate with, and extract a high price for their support. Jesse Jackson is a good example of someone where the issue of race is forefront in the negotiation.

An example of how a person like Jackson was placated was when his family miraculously received the rights to all the distribution of Budweiser at city and county establishments. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune doesn’t call him the King of Beers for nothing.

Advocates of this brand toss around the “racist” brand liberally. Because they are ethnic, there is no way they themselves can be “racist” because they are “standing up for the people”. If the people knew how much money was skimmed off the top they might not be so understanding.

These kinds of Democrats are very tough to negotiate with. There are always special cut outs for them, and they never are satisfied. Every issue comes down to one thing, race. They use that topic as a cudgel to get what they want. And unlike the Machine Dems, a deal is not always a deal with them. Not all ethnic politicians reside in this forest of politics, some are much more comfortable being machine Democrats. You have to feel them out to see where they live.

The last kind of Democrat in Chicago are the true believers. They are idealistic and actually think that systems of organizing people like socialism and communism are the best methods. They idealize China. The fact that huge cities can be built at the twitch of a government finger with no concern for property rights is enticing to them.

The true believers don’t believe in a single class system like they say. There is a small cadre of hand picked ruling class people, and then the rest of the poor stiffs. Bill Ayers is one person at the idealogical center of a system like this. Ayers had many predecessors in Chicago and this sort of “true believer” Democrat culture runs very deep. The tentacles of the true believer culture reach all over Chicago. Recall, the Haymarket riots were here. Upton Sinclair did his best work here. Studs Terkel was a true believer.

There is a DNA that runs very deep in certain parts of the city which exemplifies this sort of system. Barack Obama is a person that came from this part of city politics. There are many others, but for them a large government apparatus that directs all traffic and makes all decisions is the way to run a society. Many of the true believers ally themselves with the practitioners of racial politics because they see that as a means to an endgame.

The other problem with the true believers is they have credentialed themselves and put themselves into positions of respect and authority. Ayers as a university professor was entitled to a platform for his views, and many people allow him to air them in the spirit of public debate. This is exactly what they want, for as soon as they assume a position of respect, their twisted view of society becomes debated. In fact their views should be tossed out with the trash and their title stripped away.

An outsider cannot begin to comprehend the deep level to which machine politics have descended to in Chicago. There is virtually no job in government at any level, city, county and many state positions, where a person owes a person which owes a politician. You just don’t get there from here without paying a lot of dues, both in money and physical labor. By physical labor I mean going out on the streets and knocking on doors, campaigning, cajoling friends to elect certain people. To the untrained eye, one Democrat looks like another when nothing can be further from the truth.

From afar, the machine is a thing of beauty when it springs into action. There is intense coordination. It’s efficient. Opponents are mowed down. Like a band of army ants, it eats everything in its way. Not even the internet and software can stop the political machine. Employees will make sure they don’t adopt software that would cost precious jobs.

City reorganization isn’t cutting budgets, it’s simply designating which private sector business will absorb the city jobs that were cut. Then the private sector gets intimately intertwined with the government and the machine spreads to ho hum businesses like florists and caterers. Chicago runs more like Russia or China with an American twist. The only way out is to escape. Chicago has lost population over the last twenty years.

Then there are the Democrats that are the connectors. David Axelrod is a true believer that is a connector. He is good with the turn of a phrase to mask what they truly want and turn it into something saleable to the American public. The Clinton’s had their own machine which some Chicago folks were a part of. But their idea of political combat was a scorched earth policy. Chicago operators are much more pragmatic than that.

Obama’s mission was to ingrain that sort of crony capitalist machine into the fabric of national politics. One look at all the waivers given to his cronies for Obamacare shows you where he is headed. If Obama and his compatriots get there way, every business, man, woman and child will have to bow their head and kiss a ring to get anything done.

Those true believers are dangerous. People like Ayers want the traditional America destroyed. Sometimes they do make mistakes. They believe so deeply in the idealistic nation state they envision, that they lose sight of what is really happening on the ground. I think Daley leaving the White House is one of those times. Valerie Jarrett and the practitioners of her style of politics are running the show. Let’s work hard to inform Americans so they don’t buy what she is selling. Had Daley held sway, we would have seen a different more palatable direction.

Now We Will See The Real Obama and it Will Get Ugly by Jeff Carter Townhall.com

Supreme Court Slap Down

Recently I was told by an Obama liberal: "Nobody is trying to take away your freedoms"

Since this man claims to be a Christian, I pointed out roeVwade as one example.

This Supreme Court challenge is only one example of the battle that is being fought daily with the enemies of the American way of life as guaranteed by our constitution.



Court Unanimously Slaps Down Obama's Anti-Religion Doctrine

The Obama administration's claim that there is no special protection for clergy in our Constitution, the majority ruled, "is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers."

Professor Douglas Laycock argued the case for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which defended the little Michigan church in court. Laycock is a longtime advisory board member of the organization (becketfund.org), which defends the religious liberty of all religions.

"This is a huge win for religious liberty," he said via a press release. "The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders."

Kevin Seamus Hasson, who recently stepped down as the head of the Becket Fund, noted:

"This case is important on several levels, not the least of which is that unanimous opinion is an utter repudiation of the Obama administration's radical approach to this case. The Justice department actually stood up in the Supreme Court and said the First Amendment is essentially irrelevant to a church's ability to hire and fire its own ministers. They wanted to make it just another freedom of association case, as if whom to employ to teach a churches doctrine is no more remarkable than the decision of a local plumbers union on who should represent it on a weekly bowling tournament."

The Roberts majority opinions affirmed a "ministerial exception" exists, rejected the Obama administration's radical views, but left for a future day the question of how courts should determine who counts as a minister for the purpose of the constitutional protection.

Probably the strongest opinion for religious liberty was offered by Justice Clarence Thomas, whose concurrence said churches have unfettered freedom to decide in good faith who is a minister, and courts may not second-guess that decision.

But it's notable that Obama's former solicitor general, Justice Elena Kagan, joined a separate opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that signaled an even stronger refutation than the majority of the Obama administration's radical rejection of special protections for clergy from employment discrimination laws. Kagan and Alito called for an objective standard, not a subjective one -- not so much on who is labeled a minister, but what functions the employee performs: Do you lead prayers, other religious rituals and teach the faith? If so, the government cannot tell a church who it must hire or cannot fire.

Also notable is the fact that the majority opinion roots its rejection of Obama's view in both the Establishment and Free Exercise language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To pick and choose who can be a minister, the court ruled, is not only to prevent the free exercise of religion, it inevitably involves the government in the establishment of religion.

Thanks to the amazing high-powered and principled lawyering from the Becket Fund, the Obama administration's capacity to restrict religious liberty just took a big hit. Thank God. Maggie Gallagher Townhall.com

Bad News For Obama

According to the latest
Rasmussen Poll,

21% ... more than one in five ...
Democrats have abandoned

the Democratic Party since
Obama’s election as president.


While most have become Independents, identification with the Republican Party has also risen not only since 2008 but also even since the GOP’s 2010 victory.


Rasmussen, who tracks voters’ party identification (self-described) every month, shows that Democratic Party identification, has dropped by eight points (or 21%) since Obama’s election in November, 2008 while Republican Party identification has risen by three points over the same period. Despite speculation in the liberal media that the Republicans in Congress have mishandled their mandate since winning the House in 2010, the Republican edge over the Democratic Party has grown from 1.3% in November of 2010 to 2.7% in December of 2011.

Changes in party identification are the most fundamental – and important – measure of political opinion in the country. They are like tectonic plates that shift beneath the surface of the political earth, sending quakes through the system. A shift of such an order of magnitude will rank high on the political Richter scale in 2012.

So dramatic a shift, totaling eleven points since Obama’s election (Dems down by 8, Republicans up by 3) means that had Obama faced McCain in the current political environment, he would have won by five rather than losing by six.

But even that doesn’t tell the story. Surveys of Independents find that they have long since jumped from the Obama ship. His job approval among Independents consistently ranks in the low 30s. He cannot expect much relief from that corner.

All these stats point to a mammoth upset in the making in the 2012 election, sweeping Republicans into the White House and delivering control of the Senate by a good margin. Already, Republicans are likely to take over Democratic seats in Virginia, Florida, Nebraska, Missouri, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They may lose in Massachusetts and will probably hold on to their seats in Arizona and Nevada despite the retirement of their incumbents there. That means a GOP dominated Senate by the margin 56-44.

If these data cause Republicans (hopefully wealthy ones) in Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Minnesota to consider entering U.S. Senate races against the Democratic incumbents in those states, it could cause the GOP to get sixty votes in the Senate. The party identification data indicates that this goal is distinctly within reach if we get good candidates in a few more states.

Don’t listen to the media induced pessimism. A gigantic upset is in the making!
Dick Morris.com 1/6/2012

Power Grab

These days Congress is a bit of a nuisance for Obama. He has stated before that he’d like to work his way around Congress…but he simply can’t. That pesky Constitution is keeping him from doing what he wants to do. Why should Obama let the Constitution stand in the way of “progress?”



President Obama has an election to worry about. He understands that his poll numbers are not great so he is not going to hold back on anything that will improve his chances in November. If that means defying the Constitution, Congress, and even his own policies then so be it!

After the Senate was in session for a day, although a pro forma session without any business taking place, Obama decided to consider the Senate in “recess.” With the Senate in “recess” he then installed the director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members to the National Labor Relations Board effectively bypassing the Senate approval process. This amounts to an excessive expansion of executive powers and sets up for showdown between Congress and Obama. However, for Obama it’s just something he had to protect middle-class Americans from the evil Republicans:


“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Mr. Obama said in Shaker Heights, drawing applause from his audience. “When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the consumer protection agency and named three others – two Democrats and one Republican – to the labor board. Those nominations had all been stymied by congressional Republicans, who said Mr. Obama was accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

Conservatives are not the only ones concerned about Obama’s unconstitutional power grab. As Hot Air points out, even some liberals are surprised with this move:


So shameless is this power grab, in fact, that even John Yoo, whose name is a curse word on the left when it comes to executive overreach, thinks Obama went too far. Lefty Timothy Noah, who supports Cordray’s appointment, candidly admitted today at TNR that he can’t figure out how this could possibly be constitutional. (If Obama has the power to define when the Senate is and isn’t in recess, writes Noah, then he could theoretically treat every weekend of the year as a recess.) In fact, according to Mark Calabria at Cato, not only does the Cordray appointment flaunt the Constitution, it actually violates the terms of the Dodd-Frank statute pushed through by O’s own party

Hot Air also points out an AP story from 2008 detailing how Democrats blocked President Bush’s recess appointment attempts through pro forma Senate sessions. Power grabs such as this are hardly ever rolled back to the former precedent. Instead the opposing political party will whine about it, but end up using it when they get control. We can hope that this Congress will not only rebuke Obama for this power grab, but also make the legal moves necessary to nullify and punish the President for his actions. Is Harry Reid likely to let the Senate do that? Don’t count on it! Liberty Juice.com 1/6/2012

Ann Coulter

Iowa Shows Republicans are
Determined to Beat Obama

It's been a mixed week
for Mitt Romney's campaign.

On one hand, Romney won Iowa,
but on the other hand ...


he was endorsed by John McCain.



Until the first actual votes were cast Tuesday night,
it appeared as if some elements of the Republican Party were becoming the mirror image of a liberal mob.

The wild swings -- at least in the polls -- from one populist right-winger to another suggested that some Republicans were determined to change the meaning of "conservative" from "normal person who wants to protect what's best in mainstream America" to "perpetually indignant, restless carper against everything, obsessed with symbolic issues, determined to punish the country for its impurities."

Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama's birth certificate -- without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.

And if there's anyplace for a zealot to shine, it's in a caucus state like Iowa.

But Romney won -- in a razor-close finish with another plausible candidate, Rick Santorum.

The reason the Iowa caucuses rarely produce the party's eventual nominee is not because Iowans are wacky white Christians, as some in the media have claimed, but because caucuses are ridiculous ways to choose a presidential candidate. It is a process that empowers the pushy and loud, much like a Manhattan co-op board meeting, but, unfortunately, not like anything envisioned by our founding fathers.

Instead of arguing for hours in public with partisans in order to cast a ballot, voters are supposed to put on their shoes, fight off the Black Panthers on the way to their precincts, vote in private and go home.

So the fact that the Iowa caucuses avoided giving the gold to Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul or some other sure-to-lose candidate shows that Republicans are dead serious about beating Obama this fall. Even in Iowa, the only Republican with a chance of doing that won.

Conservatives are naturally suspicious of any candidate deemed "electable" on the grounds that the mainstream media always anoint the most liberal Republican, preferably pro-choice, as the "electable" one. And then that guy goes on to lose.

But just because liberals misuse the word doesn't mean there is no such thing as "electable."

Michele Bachmann was not electable as president because she is only a congresswoman, which is why she has now dropped out.

Newt Gingrich is not electable for many reasons including that he, too, was only a congressman; he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (his latest excuse is that he got only $35,000 of that money and the rest went to "overhead" -- there's a great fiscal manager); he cut a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; and because he cheated on, not one, but two wives.

Ron Paul is not electable as president for several reasons, including that he is only a congressman, is bad on illegal immigration, favors drug legalization and is off the charts on foreign policy.

(But it would serve the rest of the world right to have Paul running the show for a term or two. Then they'd find out what it's like to be entirely on their own, protecting their own sea and air lanes, digging themselves out of their own earthquakes, getting invaded and nuked by hostile powers, having their computers hacked by terrorists and buying oil from the new Islamic caliphate. After eight years of President Paul, it would be generations before we'd hear a peep of anti-American sentiment again.)

Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush; second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition; and, third, uh, oops ... I can't remember the third reason.

As a two-time senator from a light-blue state, Rick Santorum is not as obviously unelectable as the rest. But don't leap too fast, Republicans. Remember how Rick Perry broke your heart.

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he's good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He'd be Ted Kennedy if he didn't believe in God.

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as "a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate."

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous "bridge to nowhere."

Santorum cites his father's admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor.

You get only one or two big issues in a presidential campaign. But in the middle of the second Great Depression, Santorum is on the campaign trail saying, "The reason I ran is 'cause I think people know there is more than just a little narrow issue called 'jobs.'"
Actually, this year, it's pretty much just jobs.

This is going to be a tough election, and a man with the presence of Rick Lazio is not the strongest candidate to send in against Obama. Santorum is more assistant-manager type than presidential material.

So it was a relief to see that when the first votes in the Republican primary were actually cast -- even in a caucus system ideal for zealots, fanatics and mobs -- reason prevailed. Romney won.

Not a professional politician, Romney has created a lot of jobs and also knows how to fire people, something heretofore untried in the federal workforce, except briefly by Reagan.

Having spent his life turning around companies in the private sector and not sitting on some Senate committee spending money, he'll get to Washington and be as shocked as the rest of us are at how taxpayer money is wasted even by conservative senators like Santorum.

Iowa shows that Republicans are still the party of normal people -- normal people who are determined to defeat Obama.
Townhall.com Copyright by Ann Coulter Jan 04, 2012

Santorum ... Game On

Rick Santorum will be the big story in Iowa. And considering where he came from, he appears to be the winner ...

BUT IS HE?




Well I must admit, I was moved by his speech last night ...

and I am a sucker for the little guy.

By outward appearance this is a big win for Santorum.
In reality, it only gives him a chance to continue to compete.

And the truth is: Romney will be the Republican candidate ...
unless someone figures out how to decisively beat him.


Santorum shares many of my values; and therefore all things being equal, I am naturally drawn to him. His wife has a captivating smile. And his commitment to God, family, and a strong work ethic will resonate with middle America ... but he has a number of huge challenges.

THE QUESTION IS: WHO WILL BEAT OBAMA?

The division of Santorum's potential base with Gingrich is a big advantage for Romney. He is already on the move to raise funds this morning and he should be able to fill the financial void.


But the reality is that tying Romney or coming in second to Romney is not winning. I am convinced that either candidate can beat Obama by relentlessly focusing on Obama's record, Obama's priorities, and Obama's lies.

We must keep the key questions and priorities in mind.

Who stands for our values?
Who best can bring jobs back to America?
Who can beat Obama?

It is a pathetic reality that the entire Republican party cannot provide a clear answer to these questions.

THE POLITICAL REALITY