It just occurred to me that one reason the news media is obsessed with twisting a typical Republican message of personal responsibility into some sort of tape scandal is to keep our attention away from the disaster brewing in the Middle East.

Try this thought experiment.

Instead of a democratic President, imagine just about any Republican was the incumbent in this election year.

Now consider that American citizens were killed and an embassy destroyed as a result of a terrorist attack on the anniversary of a previous terrorist attack.

That President doesn’t cancel entertainment rounds. He or she goes ahead with fundraisers and is slow to respond and characterize the attack.

Do you think the general news media would be painting over this juicy coverage to make a relatively routine fundraising speech from months ago something that we should be waving our arms over?

I don’t think so either.

The big news story last week was Romney’s response to the terrorist attacks.

I think that backfired as more people found his response to be a bit more ‘presidential’ than the functionary response given by the president. It seemed to have erased the DNC “bump” in the polls.

Also, talking about it reminded people of the trouble brewing in the Middle East.

Enter the red herring of a ‘heavily edited’ fundraising speech from six months ago. That allows the trumped up criticism of Romney to continue without having to remind folks of the Middle East mess.

My prediction: Romney’s fundraising remarks will play as well as his terrorist attack response.

Not so seismic

ABC News described today as a “seismic shifting” day, for Romney, exposing what he really thinks, with the release of his recorded comments at a fundraiser.

Is it scandalous to suggest that someone who has a financial interest in government may have a conflict of interest when it comes to casting their vote? I thought that was common sense.

Isn’t this very fact exploited over and over by Democrats in their campaigns when they try to scare these people into voting for them to keep getting their goodies?

Today is a seismic shift…to a new dumb.

I have a simple solution. You have a choice. If you are eligible to receive benefits from the “social safety net” you can choose to receive the benefit or choose to vote. It’s your choice. Choose wisely.

Ronald Reagan’s Hair for VP


If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you may recall that I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan’s hair. It’s very Reagan-esque.

And, while this isn’t a Reagan fan blog and I realize Reagan was a politician, the type of person I’ve programmed myself to distrust even when I think I like them, as politicians go, you could do much worse than Reagan.

Check this out:

As hair goes, Romney made an excellent choice.

I also think Ryan is one of the best politicians out there in being able to articulate a more liberty-minded version of conservative politics, which is another trait he shares with Ronald Reagan. I agree with much of what Charles Rowley writes here.