So, exactly when has Mitt Romney been the front-runner? Comments please

I've been following the 2012 election campaign about as close as any other American in the general public. I'm struck by something. Although former Governor Mitt Romney has only won 4 (maybe 5 depending on perspective) out of the 33 straw polls held thus far, the media references him as the “front-runner.” This is odd to me.

On the other hand, I'm seeing two other candidates who seem to be somewhat mopping the floor with Mitt Romney's well-styled hairdo. The first is a guy who seems to come from out of nowhere and claims to espouse a “business-minded” style of managing government. His name is Herman Cain. With 12 straw poll wins under his belt, Cain still faces the challenge of his 9-9-9 plan. Even if you buy his 9.99 special, there are many misgivings among the ever-increasingly Libertarian party-influenced non-Democrats in the “right wing” voting segment of society.

Cain's recent pandering to the religious segment of society is sounding quite a lot like bigotry. (Gay people aren't seeking “gay rights.” They're interested in their “individual rights,” just like anyone else would be – regardless of religious beliefs.) Also, with an ever-increasing segment of society coming out into the light and declaring themselves as atheist or agnostic, the idea of another candidate who wants to inflict their god on the rest of America just seems so...Dominionist. We do not need an American Taliban.

Then there's the Congressman from Texas, Dr. Ron Paul. This is his third shot at the presidency. In spite of a State-influenced media working so hard at “ignoring” someone who they try to claim is irrelevant, he sure does seem to have a knack for garnering contributions, volunteers and passion in his supporters. Ron Paul is promoting a platform which consists of/includes elimination of the I.R.S. As well as the Federal Reserve, a return to basic Constitutional principles and a non-interventionist foreign policy. With 11 solid straw poll wins, one in debate from Arizona (supporters say the online votes should be counted too, giving the doctor a sweeping win), and another in dispute since CNN doesn't seem to want to include him as one of the options, Dr Ron Paul is showing quite well too.

I'd even go so far as to say these three men are running neck and neck. But in now way is Mitt Romney showing as the clear “front-runner” as is so often touted by the main stream press. I just don't see it, and that's not personal bias. It's just the numbers. His supporters may come along to this post and start in with their “but,” and “well I” and I still just can't see where Mitt Romney is the clear front-runner.

Besides, Paul's latest straw poll victory was in Ohio at an incredible 53% of the votes. How many times has it been said the presidency often comes down to who wins Ohio? Paul has an appealing quality of being a sincere, down-to-Earth, non-psychopath – unlike most other candidates. He's business-friendly (something which really upsets American Communists). And, he's no lawyer. For all of the talking heads who try to claim his being irrelevant, he sure was re-elected a lot of times from his district. So, he's also very experienced with how the U.S. Federal Government works.

Okay. That's enough of my horn-tooting for the good doctor. Back to the point, right? Can any of my readers please try to show me where Mitt Romney is actually the front-runner in anything? I'm willing to hear you out with an open mind. I promise to publish comments, even if you show me wrong. I'm not afraid to be wrong, when I am. Mitt Romney isn't the front-runner of Jack Squat.

Come visit me on DonPennington.info.

If Ron Paul is winning so many Straw Polls - as in California - WHY is the American media trying so hard to ignore him?

Once again, the American people have spoken in favor of our candidate, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And for once, a mainstrem media news outlet had to cover it. "It" being only the California Straw Poll.

Yes friends, you read that right. According to msnbc.com themselves, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has won the California Straw Poll for the Republican nomination, to run against Incumbent President Barack Obama in 2012 presidential election.

So, what was the reason the mainstream media decided to discuss any and every other candidate for the Republican nod, other than the good doctor? Why is the experienced, qualified, non-pandering, honest, non-psychopath, who has held a real job, and is not an attorney, not a reasonable candidate? Why on Earth would anyone claiming any sort of ties to conservatism in America, not want President Ron Paul elected as our Commander-in-Chief? Why not try the path of peace, just one time, and see how things go for us.

Let's pull out of these foreign shores, and so many other foreign interests, and close the Fed. We need to remember what keeps us Uniquely American, is one specific document which purposefully limits the power and scope of government in the United States. Dr Paul remembers it. We call it the Constitution, and it is the law of the land.

Ron Paul scares the establishment media. His quest, his promise to remember our individual liberties, and to remember the Constitution, make Congressman Ron Paul the people's candidate. He certainly is mine. He has my vote. Heck. Congressman Ron Paul is the only candidate I've ever bet money on. (And I'm paid up, :D just in case.)

Actually, Ron Paul could win. That's what scares the establishment

At just over 76 years old, and after both a long career as a congressman from Texas and as a medical doctor, Ron Paul is making the news a bit more than the establishment wants him to. Scratch that. Congressman Ron Paul is making a lot more news than the establishment wants him to. What is it about him, that the main-stream media is so afraid to point out his popularity among voters?

I have a few theories. But first, I want to point out a few things out about the guy. In a Yahoo News piece I published on Ron Paul, readers can follow a link to a survey published by Fox News which shows the tremendous popularity of the man after the Republican debates just prior to the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. Although the results of the survey indicate a clear majority of respondents chose Ron Paul as the winner, Fox News pulled the link to the results from their homepage.

At the subsequent Ames Straw Poll, the nuttier-than thou Michelle Bachmann won, but only by a very tiny margin over the Congressman from Texas, and she had to give out more tickets to the event than he did, to win it. With all of her efforts to get the target of 6,000 votes, she still only managed to win it by 152 votes. (Kudos to the LA Times for telling it like it happened, too. That's more than can be said by “Conservative” Fox News.) Power-mad Barbie paid more per vote than the good doctor.

On August 20th, 2011, The Hampton-NorthHampton Patch reported Ron Paul the winner of the New Hampshire Straw Poll, and barely a peep came out of the main stream media about it. He didn't just win it by some slight margin either. He took a commanding 45% of the votes, in front of all eleven other candidates!

His popularity is growing, and not just in the number of disruptions of public events by irrelevant Paulbots, as claimed by some guy named Eric on The Washington times last February. Why are members of the media working so desperately to ignore the man, if he's as irrelevant as a few of them claim?

Ron Paul threatens the power-base of the current system and the media itself. The popular, national news agencies and our federal government have worked long and hard over the years to establish their little daisy-chain arrangement. The press corps says what our bureaucrats want them to, and in return the bureaucrats let the press say what the bureaucrats want them to. What a sweet arrangement, huh.

With a president like Ron Paul, and his simple plan of a return to Constitutional principles, limited government, and a rejection of the cradle-to-grave provision for the parasite class by the government, he just wouldn't make enough news to justify reading/watching/listening to talking heads. Bad news, crisis and drama sells newspapers, not common sense. With as little of an agenda as possible, we might even have a rather boring presidency.

Ron Paul plans to eliminate the I.R.S. And to end the drug war. My goodness. With as much money as bureaucrats make off of those two institutions, there's now way the media can avoid being pressured into trying to ignore Ron Paul. Every crooked cop, every lawyer and every single political fat-bag in the country who derives their unearned income and undeserved power from the average American's propensity to be scared silly sees the man as a threat. We can only expect every shady interest in the country will do everything they can to blackout Ron Paul and his third run for the presidency of the Unites States in 2012.

And they will succeed too. They'll rig the game. They'll make sure to tell the major media (as sponsors, of course) exactly who we the people should be focusing on, as our best candidate for President. The press will paint a bad image of a good man. We'll see more stories of “Muslim threats,” the drug war, and the obvious need for more and more and more social welfare systems. They'll succeed in keeping the dumb-as-hell average American fooled. That is, unless his supporters make all the noise in his favor that we can. The powers-that-be in America today might own every last “journalist” in the nation. But they don't own us. Ron Paul 2012.

Patriot Depot

Why are we still paying politicians?

Have you ever asked yourself, if we have enough laws? Why do we endure politics, in the first place? Do we Americans, really have any further need of their jobs? I'm not talking about law enforcement. We need those folks. I'm talking only about law makers. Haven't they made enough laws by now?

Why are we spending such incredulous amounts of money, paying for, supporting – and further – donating to, these folks to help them just get re-elected? It's no longer a question of which party we might belong to anymore, as why haven't we retired all government lawmakers?

Being the job of a law maker is to...well...make laws, and those laws stimey a free market, aren't we doing nothing other than crippling our own free markets, and therefore our own lifestyles, by furthering the activities and existence of any sort of over-funded bureaucracy?

Why the hell do we even need putzes like this guy around, anymore? Come on!
Credit: Public Domain Wikimedia Commons


Why do we still need law-makers? At the very least, ask yourself, as an American, why do they need to be full-time, and paid so well? Why, on Earth, would we keep our professional busy-bodies in DC, on make-work, special-interest-funded, agenda-minded, vote-buying, “public works?” Do we really need to keep them all on, regardless of party, at full time? Can we even afford them, anymore? They've done their job, with some...what...10,000 existing laws?

And no! Before you even ask...I'm not talking about any form of “overthrow.” I merely hope to see both Congress, and the Senate, vote themselves as obsolete, and all-too-costly, given our current, economic crisis. Secretaries can pass the annual budget, as staff is dramatically reduced, and the president is furthermore, only “on-call,” in the event of military action. (Why are we paying them, either?)

I really doubt to hear from anyone who can argue the law-making side of government has filled it's role, and may very well therefore be obsolete. Politics, like war, might be totally unnecessary, behind it all. Our legislative body, may be an inefficient use of our own tax dollars, and should be done away with, as soon as humanly possible. If you agree, share, stumble, or Tweet the link. Share this everywhere you can, and bookmark it. Pass it along to everyone you can.

I'm not asking anyone for a penny. I'm only spreading an idea whose time has come. Government should be a tool of the people, not a bunch of tools, over the people. Stop the parasitism, upon our uniquely free, American society. Spread the word. There is no “divine right” to rule. Bring visitors here, too, please.

Patriot Depot

Election 2012: Why I Really Am Afraid President Barack Hussein Obama is Going to Be Re-elected

President Barack Obama Will Find Himself Working Another Four, as a Lame Duck President, Sadly President Barack Obama has low approval numbers in slanted polls, but folks are carrying more wealth around on them, than they were during the Bush administration. Even those who have endured majorly catastrophic job loss are finding themselves employed again. Although the money isn't what it used to be, it is what it is. We make due with what we have around here, but money's not the reason he'll be re-elected.

President Barack Obama still has the majority of the "minority" vote. I get it. I'm also perfectly fine with it. I'm glad to see the chance for a non-European, person to have the chance to introduce African-American lineage to the American presidency, and vice-versa. But even with all of the intense emotions a racially-directed discussion will no doubt ensue, skin color still is not the reason he'll be re-elected.

Although the job has aged him, like it does all, he still carries televisable charisma, and will use the tv pulpit. He still, in the words of S. Colbert " 'looks presidential.' " But were Barack H Obama's looks to remain near "Howdy-Doody" state of perpetual existence, his looks would not be the answer as to why He's going to find himself re-elected, as America's latest lame duck presidential retard.

The main reason President Barack Hussein Obama is going to be re-elected as President of the United States of America in 2012, to serve out four final years of the greatest enemy American industry and business has ever known, because Republicans will not advance a credible opposition candidate. We're stuck, working with our Catfish-in-Chief.

While the country is in need of a business-minded leader on the executive end of government, who also considers our uniquely American, exceptional, individual rights, what we all too often get from both Republican and "independent" candidates, is someone whose beliefs get in the way of their political functionality. It's not some small group of men in Western Germany, Switzerland, or Austria who decide our chosen leader for each of the next four years. We'll be picking President Obama again, because Republicans won't leave the abortion and gay rights issues alone, and get back down to business.

Rather than get a money-focused candidate like Dr Ron Paul, or Donald Trump (Trump/Paul? Paul/Trump anyone?) the Republican leadership will advance a candidate who "speaks the right magic words" to the religious extremists in the country, thereby having the effect of getting support from other quasi-idealistic type public figures' support.

It would be nice to see the Republican leadership to rubber-stamp a presidential candidate for 2012 who speaks to the not-as-silent-anymore-majority of Americans. But sadly, no. The only opposition up against President Barack Obama will be an idiot, with several consuming distractions. Even if one of the "big 10" were to win, we'd only be worse off. And I am sad for it, sort of. Still, I have no doubt we'll negotiate our way around Obama, as the lame duck he will be, like we've had to, with so many others before.

Source:
Personal opinion

Originally published on the “Yahoo!®” Contributor Network.
Additional resources
Twitter.com/#!/BarackObama

Election 2012 Already Has Me Pissed Off! April A to Z Blog Challenge April 6, 2011 “E”

I wouldn't be so upset about the very real possibility our current President Barack Obama were probably going to be re-elected because he had managed some improvements in the overall health of America, but he hasn't. It wouldn't yank my chain that Obama will likely sit out his next four as a lame duck president, spewing his socialist agenda as far and as wide as possible, were it due to any sort of positive achievement on his end.

No, what has me wrankled about President Barack Obama possibly winning the presidential election of 2012 is it will be due to no viable political opponent coming from the GOP. They're just not going to introduce an electable enough candidate, who is going to have the good sense to let the gay rights, abortion rights, or other religiously-transfixed topics go, and get down to business.

Just as soon as a presidential candidate from the Republican camp steps forward, the third word out of his mouth is something about pleasing the Lord®, or “defending this great nation” from the “perils of Satan®,” or some crap like that. How about an opponent against the business-hating Barack H Obama, who understands principles like individual liberty, the free market, and who doesn't play with imaginary friends, as a grown up?

What if we, as a people, began demanding the political parties of the US advance a candidate to out-campaign Obama, and not try to pander to delusional extremists of any special interest? What a thought, huh.

I've already griped about this once.