White House press secretary Jay Carney verbally attacked Ryan’s budget, saying it would punish middle-class Americans, cut taxes on the wealthy, and “the burden is doubled or even tripled on everyone else.”

Carney claimed Ryan’s “voucherization” reform of federal programs, including Obamacare and Medicare, “does nothing to deal with the fundamental problem, which is rising health care costs, but actually exacerbates that problem.”

These statements are in direct conflict with Obama’s heavily publicized attempt to convince the public he is trying to work with GOP legislators, which includes dinner with a group of GOP Senators, lunch with Ryan and two visits to Capitol Hill.

The real hope is that Obama’s efforts will boost his poll ratings, which have fallen noticeably since Obama tried to stop sequester cuts to the 2013 federal budget through demonization of their effect and by impugning the GOP’s motives.

Ryan’s plan is actually a reduction in spending, and does not cut federal spending at all.  “On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years [but] under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion,” Ryan wrote in a Wall Street Journal article. “On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/12/obama-delays-budget-until-april-slams-ryans-plan/

The GOP would be well advised to proceed at their own risk with every one of their senses on full caution mode.

The current Oval Office occupant has displayed disingenuous intent on more than one occasion and there is no real evidence to assume that his “charm offensive” is anything other than a change in tactics.  The destruction of his political opposition remains the underlying strategy.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-phony-white-house-charm-offensive/

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said that the $1.2 Trillion in automatic spending cuts is likely to happen because Democrats have opposed every replacement spending plan the Republicans put forward while offering no alternatives of their own.

The President and Congressional Democrats have signaled that they expect more tax increases and are not planning to cut federal spending in any appreciable way. GOP leadership has taken a strong stance against additional revenues.

Having failed to secure any actual spending cuts in the recent “fiscal cliff” deal, Ryan says that “the president got his additional revenues. So that’s behind us” indicating that more tax increases or other revenue generation proposals will be rejected and that only spending cuts will be considered going forward.

Sequestration was a device put forward by the White House that focused on $1.2 trillion in forced spending cuts over ten years to defense and domestic spending beginning with $110 billion in cuts in 2013.

Social Security, Medicaid, supplemental security income, refundable tax credits, the children’s health insurance program, the food stamp program and veterans’ benefits will all be spared from cuts – everything else is going to get hit.

It is being argued that we have lost the culture war to the left, and that is mostly true. Matt K. Lewis makes a very valid point, that Americans have generally shifted away from “traditional values.” Turn the clock back to the late 1950′s, and the current laissez-faire attitude toward traditional family values was just beginning in the form of youth rebellion. They owned their narrative, defined their generation, and started us on the path to where we are now. But, most importantly, instead of attempting to force their lifestyle choices on those that disagreed with them – primarily their elders – they simply demanded to live as they chose.

And there lies the problem with the current right-wing. We are being marginalized on important policy and fiscal issues because any opposition we have immediately – and rightfully – assume that there will always be secondary agenda of forcing legislation on social conservative ideals. And we keep allowing our mouthpieces to preach about these issues, in spite of failing miserably for years, even with legislative majorities, to pass laws on them. And there is a hypocrisy inherent in this behavior, since on one hand we cry against nanny state initiatives, like denying consumers Big Gulps, but insist that traditional family values be made the law of the land. But, what would the political landscape look like if instead of trying to force these social issues onto the legislative dockets, we simply fought against secularization on the basis of the First Amendment assurances of the freedom to observe whatever religion we choose? What if we used the same tactics that the youth of 50′s and 60′s did? Thanks to Obamacare, various religious organizations have already started doing this, and they have been at least somewhat successful.

As for the loss of the culture war, perhaps that isn’t over yet either. Ironically enough, Hollywood is offering up at least a couple opportunities for conservatives to take at least one of their favorite issues into the spotlight with the help of pop culture. The remake of the film “Red Dawn” and an upcoming television show about cold war era spies offer a golden opportunity to discuss gun rights from a geo-political and national security perspective. And it remains relevant, because the fact is that China is quite interested in seeing our citizens disarmed. They also aren’t really happy about that remake of “Red Dawn” either.

Finally, our politicians really do need to stop displaying a stunning level of naïveté. It really does no one any good to act stupid, or suggest that anything that this administration would come up with is surprising.

“He has an insatiable appetite for this thing,” Ryan said. “He’s been extraordinarily partisan since his election, even to my surprise. But now there’s no excuse. There’s no getting around the fact that spending is the problem.”

That was Paul Ryan, of course. And if he was honestly surprised about Obama’s desire to bleed the rich dry, maybe it’s a very good thing that he isn’t a heartbeat away from the Presidency himself.

We can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. And we can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we’re going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.

If Ryan didn’t already know Obama held that belief, regardless of whether or not he’d heard the President make that statement, then he sincerely does not have a grasp on reality. And Ryan’s Pollyanna contention that now that Congress has passed that abominable excuse for a budgetary intervention, they can concentrate on spending cuts is bluntly delusional. Either he has an extremely misguided faith in the honor and decency of his fellows on the House floor, or he honestly believes that the pack of thieving wolves on the other side of the aisle actually give a damn about anything other than maintaining their status quo of spending us into oblivion. It is a sad situation, because once upon a time, it appeared that Ryan actually was smart enough to figure out a way out of the financial mess this nation is in, and might have had the nerve to stand up against the crowd to promote his theories. While he still might have the mental chops to figure out the numbers, he certainly doesn’t appear to have the ability to fight to do anything with them.

Phrases like “we must own the narrative” are bandied about, but until we actually start doing that, we’re finished. We are the new rebels. Whether it’s a desire to build businesses without severe hindrances from government, or wanting to live a piously religious life without having to fight secularists at every turn, we’re all battling a common enemy – the left. Now, we can continue to let the left divide and marginalize us, or we can put our differences aside, so we can focus on taking down the left. Which will it be?

More FL good news: Pinellas Co. R areas close to 60% turnout. Precincts in core D areas there range from 20-40%. It’s early tho

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) November 6, 2012

All morning, reports of much heavier than expected turnout in Florida was overwhelming polling places. Now, Bay County Supervisor of Elections Mark Anderson is adding staff to two precincts to help with the long lines.

In Ohio, similar reports are surfacing. Executive Editor of The Hotline Josh Kraushaar tweeted that things are promising for the challengers among early voters.

Overall, early vote turnout OH up 2.44% in state. Down -4.1% in Obama/Kerry counties; up 14.39% in Bush/McCain counties.

— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) November 6, 2012

And Jack Healy of the New York Times tweeted that Republicans turned out better in early voting than Democrats.

#Colorado Sec of State reports that Republicans have edge over Dems in early voting.bit.ly/Ql20RP

— jack healy (@jackhealyNYT) November 6, 2012

Deputy Communications Dir. at Republican National Committee Tim Miller tweeted that Dem turnout in Colorado looks muted

Arapahoe and JeffCo (swing CO counties that went Obama) have GOP outvoting D by substantial margin. #RomneyRyan2012 #tcot

— Tim Miller (@Timodc) November 6, 2012

And CDN’s Richard Mitchell tweeted about turnout in Lyon County, Iowa.

Lyon County, Iowa experiencing heavier than expected turnout. Went to McCain 72%-27% over Obama in 2008 election. #romneyryan2012 #tcot #gop

— Editor of CDN (@CDNnow) November 6, 2012

It’s early and the statistics being quoted may or may not be indicative of the result, but they are certainly more promising that news reports in past days had led Republicans to believe.

To give you some scope, here’s a panoramic shot of the crowd (click on the image to pan 360 degrees). Notice how far back the crowd went (actually you can’t tell because they go further than the camera could capture.)

If Obama has done nothing else, he has galvanized Americans against him.

Biden’s new debate coach is not an improvement over John Kerry.

What does it say about a campaign when its hope for putting a stop to a precipitous decline in the polls is Joe Biden? Last night fireman Joe was at his pompous, bloviating best in the Vice President Debate with Cong. Paul Ryan. The most memorable line in his paper thin, fact–free rebuttals came when Biden looked directly at the camera and asked viewers, “Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

Earlier in the week Obama staffers were trying to pin the blame for the current President’s poor showing on John Kerry’s debate preparation, but I don’t think replacing Kerry with the Cheshire Cat was much of an improvement. In the split–screen shots Biden looked like a dirty old man staring at an elementary school swing set as he leered and grinned during Ryan’s answers.

When he wasn’t interrupting and talking over Ryan, Biden was muttering and chuckling to himself like Gollum in the underground lake. I suggest that whoever posts these clips on YouTube use Aqualung as the background music.

The only time I had any sympathy for “Good Old Joe” was when the camera showed a view of the back of his head and you could see where even his hair implants were thinning.

Believe it or not Biden took a full six days off the campaign trail just to prepare for the debate. To put this in perspective, Jesus didn’t require six days to prepare for the crucifixion.

Presumably the first three days of preparation were devoted to words Joe wasn’t supposed to say including but not limited to: gay, marriage, chains, crushed, taxes, jobs, 7/11, Slurpee, f–ing, deal, articulate, bright and clean. And the last three days to words he should say. In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Joe was programmed with hand–me–down one–liners that Obama refused to use on Romney.

Fortunately, since the debate was held before a mixed audience, Biden did not have to adopt with the black dialect Obama affects when he’s speaking exclusively to minorities. Biden got to keep all his ‘g’s and was not be required to use “folks.”

The process wasn’t brainwashing per se, but it required at least a light rinse.

And somewhere during all this preparation Joe found time to rent a floor polisher so he could buff his teeth.

This focus on Biden brings back memories doesn’t it? Joe was added to the team for his “extensive foreign policy experience” and his “long term Washington expertise.” Yes, 69–year–old Joe was cashing a government paycheck and sticking his foot in his mouth at time when the 42–year­–old Ryan had to be content with his thumb.

This is why conservative columnists hav alwayse been grateful Biden is the white guy.

Last night while showing off his expertise, Biden claimed the US is Israel’s best friend and that Obama and Netanyahu have personally met 12 times. Both are lies: Obama pledged to create some distance from Israel and the two have met nine times.

“Foreign Policy” Joe stated emphatically that the consulate in Libya had not asked for additional security, intelligence experts did not warn of an attack and that he knows from security briefings that Iran is a long way from getting an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately Ryan failed to point out that Thursday’s Washington Post had printed the emails asking for additional security at the consulate and he failed to ask Biden if the “intelligence experts” who assured him Iran is a long way from the bomb are the same ones who promised him the Libyan consulate was in no danger.

After Romney won the first debate so decisively, one would have thought MSM coverage of the VP event would be reality–based. But that’s not so, the media remains an Obama co–conspirator. CNN reported its own poll of debate watchers “a draw.”

Yet the graph clearly shows Ryan won 48 percent to 44 percent. What’s more, 28 percent of viewers said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney compared to the 21 percent who said they were more likely to vote for Obama. And Ryan was judged more likeable than both “Public Trough” Joe & Big Bird by 53 percent to 43 percent, both of the latter being outside the margin of error.

And a pathetic AP reporter by the name of Jocelyn Noveck claimed, “the vice president also came up with the two catchiest phrases of the night – “bunch of malarkey” and “bunch of stuff.” Both of which are trite and ancient.

Fortunately, participants in a Luntz debate focus group that — was not on the MSM or Obama campaign payroll — felt Biden was “arrogant.” Personally, I thought that if Joe had a few feathers he could play Foghorn Leghorn.

The best part about the debate was viewers now realize to their horror that a lying boastful buffoon is a heartbeat away from a President that is helpless without a teleprompter.

Or as Barbara Schribner wrote: Now we can put a set of teeth on the empty chair.

Vice President Biden spent the debate pushing the liberal talking points by painting his opponent as killing medicare, gutting social security, being a warmonger and more – all while smiling like the Cheshire Cat, laughing while Ryan was speaking and even snorting during Ryan’s honest answer about his personal views on his religion and abortion. Biden also chose to interrupt the Congressman more than 80 times.

The Washington Times’s Emily Miller tweeted this:

Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) October 12, 2012

Many more tweets were to be found criticizing the Vice President for his disrespectful handling of a U.S. Representative and V.P. candidate. Ultimately the debate came down to style vs. substance.

Perhaps Gary Young in his post at Guardian.co.uk said what some were thinking after the debate as he wrote that  ”They fought to a bloodied draw in which Biden won on substance and Ryan won on style.”

Polls at MarketWatch.com and CNN show Ryan came away the winner while CNBC.COM’s unscientific poll gave Biden the nod.  In the end, it appears a draw, but there is more to consider.

(add your responses to the CDN debate questions at the bottom of this post)

Biden’s antics and rhetoric will only appeal to the liberal base that would have gone his way no matter what. Biden presented no plan for getting America’s economy going, fixing the massive debt crisis or dealing with the growing Middle-East mess – other than that he and Obama would do more of the same.

A key message from the debate was that Biden approves of how Obama has worked with Congress while Ryan says that the President needs to come to the table with a more open mind. Biden, and an obviously biased moderator, said that Ryan’s “framework” approach lacked details. Ryan pointed out that coming to the table with an all-or-nothing approach is why the government is so dysfunctional and that the President should present a framework within which Congress can feel free to negotiate, compromise and reach agreement.

There were no obvious gaffe’s or “there you go again” moments in this debate. The debate was likely lightly watched due to competing sporting events and the fact that VP debates have little impact on voters – people just don’t vote for the Vice President. Afterall, less than 8% of likely voters are undecided and they weren’t watching the debate.

The Vice Presidential Debate in Danville, Kentucky featured a calm, cool Paul Ryan facing off against a visibly irritated, impatient and unruly Vice President Joe Biden. CNN conducted a poll after the debate asking who readers thought won the debate and Ryan edged out the feisty VP by four points – the left became unhinged in the comments.

The poll had a 5% margin of error which means the results actually indicate that the candidates matched evenly within the margin.Only 381 people responded to the poll, which is a small sample by polling standards.

What’s more interesting is the reaction of CNN readers – off the hinges ..

Seriously? There was a sample of 381 people.. why go off on it? Never mind.

Why is the sample so small and was the poll taken as a phone survey, exit survey, web poll? No indication

Another important note is CNN admitting it’s normal polling bias. In special note #2 on the poll, CNN says that their poll shows a slight GOP lean which they argue is not indicative of the general public:

SPECIAL NOTE OF CAUTION #2: The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 31% Democratic and 33% Republican. That indicates that the sample of debate watchers is about eight points more Republican than an average CNN poll of all Americans, so the respondents were more Republican than the general public.

Interesting that CNN feels that that a 25% Republican sample would have been better? Exactly how “Republican” is the general public? Then again, why does it matter? Many Conservatives are unaffiliated independents, so not seeing a full set of cross-tables could mean that independents were more the reason for the Ryan weighting. The special note is meant to make it seem as though a heavy GOP sample is to blame.

Like Polls? Answer our VP debate questions at the bottom of this page.

CDN’s Michelle Ray will be covering tonight’s Vice Presidential debate

Tonight Vice President Joe Biden will face-off against Republican V.P. candidate Rep. Paul Ryan. The debate will be broadcast live on ABC, CBS, C-SPAN, FOX and NBC, as well as all cable news channels including CNBC, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC and a livestream will be hosted on CDN.

Take a look at our user-driven interactive poll at the bottom of this page. You can submit questions before, during and after the debate and see other reader’s feedback immediately.

The contrasts between the V.P. candidates is even larger than between Romney and Obama. Biden is 27 years older than Ryan which puts an entire generation between the two candidates. Biden is a true liberal, populist Democrat while Ryan is a young, fiscally-Conservative Republican. Biden has been featured in 18 debates in his political career which gives him a serious experience edge over Ryan. Both have significant political experience with Ryan being a seven-term Representative as Joe Biden was a seven term Senator before running for President and eventually becoming Obama’s running mate.

Joe Biden has an incredible ability to relate to the ordinary voter. His use of populist rhetoric and colloquialisms echo with both the democratic party base and progressive extreme left. His use of colorful language in public speaking has often been featured in news highlights showing Biden throwing another gaffe at another event. It has become so regular that most dismiss it as “that’s just Joe”.

The Vice President has been scarce on television of late. Since May, he has not done a single television interview while Rep. Ryan has done over 200 since August. This is largely thought to be a move by the campaign to keep Joe off camera as much as possible to avoid any issues that might affect the election.

Tonight’s format will be a sit-down, table conversation. A format heavily favored by the Commission on Presidential Elections, but not so by the campaigns.

This debate is the first chance the Obama-Biden ticket has to rectify itself after a devastatingly poor showing by the President last week. Chris Van Hollen was chosen to play Paul Ryan in Biden’s debate prep while David Axelrod sat over the proceedings. Obviously, the campaign is throwing the big guns at this debate to hopefully stop the bleeding from Obama’s failure to shine.

Whether there will be another “you’re no Jack Kennedy” moment in tonight’s debate or not remains to be seen, but the expectations are fairly close. A Pew poll showed that 34% of respondents expect Biden to win while 40% expect Ryan to do better – a much closer set of results than last week’s debate where most Americans expect the President to bury Mitt Romney.

Full Recorded Video of Debate

“This week’s impreMedia-Latino Decisions tracking poll found slight gains for presidential candidate Mitt Romney in battleground states with 33% certain to or thinking about voting for him,” Latino Decisions reports.

(AP)

Even though 33 percent is a weaker showing compared to Obama’s per Hispanics, it is a much better number than in previous weeks and months.”Just before the beginning of the Republican National Convention in Tampa presidential candidate Mitt Romney continues to overwhelmingly lose the Latino vote and has low levels of favorability among the majority of the Latino electorate. The first weekly tracking poll of Latino registered voters by Latino Decisions and impreMedia reveals that 65% would vote to re-elect President Barack Obama and 26% would prefer the Republican alternative offered by Romney,” Latino Decisions reported on August 27.

However, even as the polls show that Romney is gaining among Hispanics, he still falls well short of Obama.

“Fifty-one percent of Latino voters in ten battleground states said they trust Obama and the Democrats more to make the right decisions and improve economic conditions, compared to 27% for Romney and Republicans. When combined with voters in non-battleground states, the numbers jumped to 72% and 20% respectively, a significant increase from 4 weeks ago when overall 59% said they trusted Obama and Democrats more versus 30% for Romney and Republicans to fix the economy,” Latino Decisions reports on the new poll.

Follow Chris on Twitter

1. His economic plan will benefit the private sector economy by reducing big government spending and eliminating unnecessary regulations. If only he would slow job growth, cripple the economy and inflict further damage on the private sector by hiking taxes and continuing trillion dollars a year deficit spending.  Finally there would be a plan with which “progressives” could “compromise”.

2. He has a plan to reform and save Medicare. He will secure the future of Medicare with volunteer vouchers for future retirees, thus preserving the Medicare guarantee for current seniors by preventing the bankruptcy of the Medicare system. If only he would put the entire Medicare system at risk by sticking his head in the sand and pretending that maintaining the insolvent status quo is perfectly fine. Then maybe the White House, the DNC and the mainstream media would celebrate him as a hero of the common man.

3. The Ryan jobs plan will invite investments by lowering of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  His plan to cut those tax rates will stimulate the creation of middle class jobs, enhance and preserve private wealth and reduce deficits by increasing revenues to the IRS.  If only he would raise taxes on rich.  Then America would be more like Europe, causing insulated “progressive” “elites” in academia and the media to rejoice.  Heck, maybe even Sean Penn would join him on the campaign trail.

4. He’s a pro-life candidate who believes that “in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope.”  If Ryan would just come to his senses and support government funding the systematic slaughter of millions of innocent, unborn babies the largely post-menopausal National Organization of Women would celebrate his “choice”.

5. He will reform Social Security and put it on firmer fiscal ground by ending the current bankrupt Ponzi scheme system and providing future generations the option of controlling their own retirement money.  If only he would agree to big government bureaucrats and me-first career politicians remaining in charge of the money, then they could continue to spend it wildly and stuff more IOUs into the Social Security “lock-box”.  After all, the money really belongs to the big government sophisticates.  Americans are lucky they deem to allow taxpayers to keep any of it.  You did not earn it, they did.

6. He will reduce Pell Grants that have been greatly expanded under the current administration.  His proposal calls for reducing Pell Grant spending to pre-stimulus levels.  His plan will help curb tuition inflation and ensure the aid reaches the truly needy.  If he was only willing to continue the government’s sole proprietorship over college loans, then college students would remain beholding to Big Brother and the Nanny State.

7. His budget retains $40 billion in tax deductions for energy producers, thereby ensuring that they remain capable of researching, developing and delivering affordable energy to all Americans.  If only he would continue using taxpayer dollars to investment in impractical, inefficient “alternative” fuels and “green” energy technologies.  Then the government could continue to redistribute billions to the pockets of big “progressive” campaign bundlers and America could continue to burn corn in internal combustion engines instead of feeding its people.

8. He supports the private sector economy. Not surprisingly, the Koch brothers support Ryan with political contributions.  Too bad he refuses to side with “progressives” in pushing for the growth of big government, the destruction of free enterprise and the elimination of national sovereignty.  Then he could reap huge financial rewards from ner do well George Soros and his ill-gotten billions.  Even if Ryan lost his government job, Uncle George would be sure to find a place in one of the hundreds of anti-American foundations he supports for someone dedicated to the “progressive” overthrow of America.  Just ask Van Jones.

9. He supports traditional marriage. If Ryan would just support adoption by gay couples, same-sex marriage, and repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Then his positions would align with the demands of a tiny fringe minority.  Movie and television scripts would be written singing his praises.  Perhaps even Alec Baldwin would play the starring role.

10. He believes in private property rights and that entrepreneurs built their own businesses.  Ryan ascribes to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individual success.  If only he would get on board with collectivist thought and support “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.  Then his election campaign would garner huge support from “progressive” activists and Communists backed labor unions.  Perhaps they would resurrect ACORN to ensure enough dead people, family pets or felons voted to clinch his election.  Then he and Al Franken could have a laugh swapping stories about the naïveté of the voting proletariat.

Paul Ryan’s background, experience and trustworthiness demonstrate that he is a proven leader and a fine citizen who is ideally qualified to become Vice President of the United States.  America knows where he was born, that he will support small businesses and private enterprise, understands the threat posed to America’s unreformed “entitlement” programs, and will not redistribute taxpayer’s money to fringe radical self-separating hyphenated identity victim groups.

America will not like taking some of the steps necessary to recover from a mountain of debt, but someone with Ryan’s extensive knowledge of the issues, experience in how Congress works and exceptional, American bred humility knows how to accomplish the task.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/the-top-ten-reasons-paul-ryan-is-so-despicable/

Rewind to fall of 1996, and I was working on a state level campaign. The problem facing the candidate was two-fold. First, he was running for a soon-to-be-vacant seat, without the endorsement of the incumbent. Second, there was bad blood in the party. One of the candidates he defeated in the primary was running a small grassroots smear campaign against him in a few precincts he was not very strong in to begin with, but needed to win. Thankfully, one of his supporters in that area called in to the office, and reported it. The other good thing was that I answered that call. When I told the candidate and the campaign manager, they both acted like it was nothing. I ignored their assessment, and put a few extra bodies on the streets in those neighborhoods. At the victory party, someone started talking about how great it was that the candidate squeaked by in those precincts – that it clinched the race. I just laughed, and walked outside with my scotch and cigar in hand.

And here we are in 2012, facing the same sort of issue. This is convention week, and the GOP should be building enthusiasm and consolidating behind Romney. Even better, the Libertarians should be mending fences with the GOP, and Ron Paul should be calling for his followers to support Romney as well. After all, the bottom line is that no matter how much anyone on the right disagrees with Romney, they should be agreeing with him a hell of a lot more than they agree with Obama. And every vote that isn’t cast at all, or isn’t cast for Romney, is as good as a vote for Obama. (It’s all in the math, folks. Don’t forget how Ralph Nader and the Green Party were perennially a thorn in the side of the Dems.)

Yes, we may not like Romney, but he’s the man on the ballot. That will be made official tonight. The time for playing games is over. If you think for a second that the Dems wouldn’t be in lockstep behind their candidate if they weren’t seeking a second term in the White House, you’re bluntly insane. And that is how you win elections. But this is supposed to be about how to lose this one for Romney, isn’t it?

Romney is a socialist? Really? For the record here, I did a Twitter search for RINO, since that’s the favorite term being bandied about by rabble-rousers out there. This breaks one of the biggest rules when it comes to campaigns – there is no reason for anyone that is against Obama having a second term to be out there criticizing Romney, period. Yeah, I can just hear the screams of foul on that one, and self-righteous claims to First Amendment rights. I’m not talking censorship here folks. I am talking political survival. It’s real simple. If you don’t want four more years of Obama, then shut up about Romney until after November. Rip him to shreds if you like, the day after he ousts Obama. But until then, nada!

Now, I like Condi, so she got the attention here. Well, that and the fact that it seemed the majority of the Twitter venom was being aimed at her. Another big rule being broken here, when it comes to winning political campaigns – never beat on the mouthpieces! She’s a Romney surrogate, so she’s off-limits for criticism during the campaign. Again, this isn’t about censorship. Ask yourselves, before you start saying nasty things about GOP folks right now: “Do I really want to help the Obama Camp discredit Romney and win the election?” Put it on a post-it note on your computer monitors if you have to, but seriously think about it before you run loose ripping on GOP surrogates on the campaign trail. There are still fence-pole sitters out there, and you’re not going to do anything to convince them to agree with you if you can’t even manage to respect the people out there campaigning for “anyone but Obama.” Yeah, that’s for the benefit of the folks that have trouble stomaching Romney in the first place. Remember, we can’t afford four more years!

So, no picking on the right-wing. Save your venom for the real enemy. Have at it against Obama and his zombies. It’s not like there’s any shortage of targets. Ridicule the vagina women and Sandra Fluke. Get your jollies over the fact that the DNC had to downsize their convention from lack of interest in the events, while the RNC went on in spite of Isaac! Think about like those food guru books “eat this, not that” if you have to. Call out leftists on low blows against conservatives. Don’t run around attacking conservatives. And by “conservative” I mean anyone dedicated to even a small part of the conservative principles. Take it further, and include anyone dedicated to removing Obama from office – that is the goal. The infighting will win the election for Obama. That is a fact. We all know that the Dem playbook starts and ends with “divide and conquer.” Stop doing half the job for the Dems! Suck it up, support Romney, and get Obama the hell off of Pennsylvania Avenue! Send him back to Chicago, Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or wherever else the bastard wants to go!

There’s your mantra folks – let’s roll!

Video courtesy of Breitbart.