One of the things about this debate that was unique was their near-universal agreement with each other, on issues from the economy, to foreign wars, to the Federal Reserve. Roseanne, especially, applauded many of the speaking points made by Dr. Stein (pictured), and the feeling was reciprocated, though in a cooler fashion, by the Massachusetts-born physician. Like many of these sorts of events, the evening included a question and answer session for the candidates. One question posed was whether the two women disagreed on anything. Roseanne answered first, expressing her respect and admiration for Stein. Neither candidate was able to find any point on which they radically disagreed.

Dr. Jill Stein appears to be cruising toward an easy victory in her race against Barr for the Green Party nomination for president. During the final weekend of April, Stein cruised to easy victories in the Connecticut and South Carolina conventions. Dr. Stein picked up 15 additional delegates, to raise her total to 77, compared to 12 for Roseanne, according to figures available on the Green Party website.

Stein previously ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010, and graduated from Harvard Medical school.

Roseanne Barr, best known for her role as the “Domestic Goddess” Roseanne, announced her intention to run on the Jay Leno Show last August 5th. Less than a week later, on the 11th of that month, she announced that she was working on a new show called Downwardly Mobile, a show set in a mobile home park. Two months after that, NBC picked up the series. The television series Roseanne was on the air from 1988 to 1997.

Dr. Stein appeared to be more collected and articulate during her opening remarks and the Q&A period than the 59-year-old comedienne. This seemed unnatural, considering how much time Barr has spent in front of television cameras and performing for live audiences. Near the end of the debate, Barr took back remarks she made last Fall calling for the beheading by guillotine of “guilty Wall Street bankers” who won’t submit to forced re-education camps. She cited the Green Party’s opposition to capital punishment as the reason for her change of heart.

Kent Mesplay, another Green party candidate for president, was also invited to the debate but did not participate. He was represented throughout the debate by an empty chair. Rose Aguilar of KALW-FM moderated the forum. The debate is archived for public viewing on the Green Party’s LiveStream channel here.

The Green Party convention, where the delegates nationwide will make their selection for the person to head their ticket will be held from July 12th to the 15th in Baltimore, Maryland.

(Photo: jillstein.org)

But the truth is that it really changes very little and has the potential to backfire. It is still a State issue so his announcement really affects only campaign funds. There is no legislation on the books by either the House or the Senate to challenge the definition of marriage. Obama also isn’t due to appoint another Supreme Court judge unless he gets reelected. By then his position could change, as it has done several times on this particular issue, because it no longer politically matters.

In truth, it doesn’t put an extra dollar in people’s pockets. It doesn’t give anyone a job. It doesn’t make the job market any easier. It isn’t stopping businesses from going bankrupt. It doesn’t fix the banks. It doesn’t fix the deficit. It doesn’t wipe out the debt. It is really just more hot air and empty promises from a President whose accomplishment list consists of exactly one item.

The real question is what is the next item of distraction on the list? I can guarantee that it won’t be the economy.

But if there is one thing that the President is good at, it is the art of distraction. Well, that and telling people exactly what they want to hear. That’s always been a mark of his Presidency. Unfortunately, there is so little follow up on his promises that 99% of them turn out to be completely false.

Oh and there are plenty of excuses, most coming down to “the Republicans aren’t working with him”. Please. He is being to sound like a whiny child who is full of excuses on why they didn’t do their chores. One of his job requirements is to get both sides to work together.

You can’t do that if you keep blaming one side for all of your problems –  even though you had the majority for the first two years in office and all you managed to get done was a 200- page bill on health care that very well could get struck down by the Supreme Court. Because someone (again not his fault) forgot to read the U.S. Constitution before writing it. For a supposed Constitutional lawyer, the knowledge he is showing about the Constitution would get him an F in any class. Personal responsibility clearly isn’t one of his messages.

Speaking of which, the health care law promises to be a big distraction in June when the Supreme Court issues its decision on the matter. As important as this decision is, the President will likely milk it as long as he can if he gets a favorable outcome. If it doesn’t, he will once again come up with a myriad of excuses on why it failed. Either way, it is likely to dominate  the conversation for at least a month.

This next few months, the President will be campaigning on distraction. That is his forte. He will avoid talking about the economy at all costs because it really isn’t improving at all. The way for Republicans to win in November is to keep from getting sucked into whatever the news item of the week is and to continue focusing on President Obama’s major weakness, the economy.

(White  House photo)

You know, I get such a kick out of all the pundits — and fellow college students! — who swear with a straight face that Joe Biden is actually “very smart.”  See … unlike Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, his embarrassing flub-ups are not due to some alleged “mental problem” — no … it’s due to arrogance!  Yeah … sure ….

Anyway, Biden blabs out that the Obama Administration is really in favor of gay marriage — all the president’s talk about marriage being between a man and a woman isn’t true anymore.  The president himself follows it up by declaring that, well … Joe’s right.  It’s then revealed that he was planning to reveal his “evolution” at the national convention.

Typical Leftist doublespeak:  When Mitt Romney changes his stance on abortion, it’s called “flip-flopping”.  When Obama changes his stance on gay marriage, it’s “evolving”.  Never mind that we now know that our dear evolver-in-chief has previously changed his mind on this very issue — he was pro-gay marriage back in the ’90s, he changed for the 2000s … and now, he’s back.  Back and forth — and Mitt Romney, who’s only changed his position on abortion once … is supposed to be the flip-flopper.  Amazing.

But wait — wait!  Now, the Washington Post comes out with a piece claiming that, back in high school, he was involved in a hazing incident in which a bunch of guys grabbed an effeminate-looking guy and shaved his head.  Stop the presses!  Stop the presses!  Mitt Romney was an anti-gay bully!

Okay.  Remember the big Politico hit piece that trashed Herman Cain — claiming he sexually harassed some female workers — the piece that failed to name any of the alleged sources?  Remember how the planned TV get-together of all the women fell flat — as they all turned up missing?  Me too … which is why I smell a similar rat now.  Once again, the media has failed to name the classmates whose guilty consciences have allegedly come back to haunt them.  Meanwhile, the family of the alleged victim has come out and said they don’t remember his mentioning anything like this.

For what it’s worth, Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to remember the incident, either.  I got such a kick out of Bob Beckel and all the other libs smugly saying, “Isn’t it disturbing how he doesn’t remember the incident?”  Ah … not if it didn’t happen!

Of course, Romney’s campaign is not one to take without giving.  So … we get a passage from Obama’s very own autobiography, Dreams From My Father.  Looks like Obama shoved around a girl to prove to surrounding boys that she wasn’t his girlfriend.  Oh … and the same book has Obama describing how in his high-school years, he was a habitual no-show for class … a heavy drinker … a pothead … and let’s not forget the “blow” (cocaine).

You’ve got to give Romney’s boys credit.  “Oh, really, Mr. President?  You’re really gonna go there?  Okay…let’s see you take a dose of your own medicine!”  At long last, we see our guy being willing to get down and dirty, and take on the Left where it counts.  Like it or not, folks, politics is trench warfare.  Just ask John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  You give as good as you get — and if you feel guilty, toss a c-note to your favorite charity.

Not that you lie — that’s self-defeating.  Tell the truth — and do it with zeal and gusto.  Mitt Romney seems to get this … thank heaven we don’t have any John McCain “nice, civil campaign” nonsense.  Obama didn’t extend to him that kind of courtesy — it’s foolish to think he’d do it, now.  This time, his job’s at stake — and he’ll be darned if he tries to run on his record.

You want to know who the real bullies are?  They’re the ones who hide behind the strength of numbers — who use clichés and emotional tirades to smear and harass — who distort with implications, half-truths and bald-faced lies.  They’re the armies of political correctness.

Romney should be applauded for standing up to them.  The real bullies are going down.

Gary Johnson,

The two-term governor, who made a name for himself during his second term by leading the successful charge for marijuana decriminalization in his state, will be running with Judge Jim Gray, a former drug prosecutor who has also spent the last several years campaigning for an end to cannabis prohibition. Gray won 59% of the vote in his selection as Johnson’s running mate.

With many polls finding a slim majority of voters now in favor of cannabis law reform, this may be a major focus of the campaign in the 2012 general election. In addition, Johnson has focused his rhetoric so far on ending the war in Afghanistan, and reducing the federal budget by 43%. How much of his platform he can get through Congress would remain to be seen in any potential Johnson administration. Having vetoed over 750 bills during his eight years in office earned him the nickname of “Governor Veto” and a similar response on a Federal level could lead to gridlock.
The former governor originally ran in the Republican primary, but was unable to garner any real traction in terms of poll support or significant financial donations. He was invited to only two of the primary debates, but saw a brief splash of notoriety with his remark about his neighbors’ dogs having “created more shovel-ready jobs” than President Obama’s stimulus program.

The third party also named software architect Geoff Neale to the position of chairman, and recently deposed Johnson challenger Lee Wrights as vice-chair of the party. The two other challengers to Neale in the race for chairman came in third and fourth, behind both the winner and “none of the above.”

The Libertarian Party has only once received more than 1% in a presidential race, in 1980 with Ed Clark at the head of the ticket. Clark’s running mate that year was David Koch (of Koch Industries), who self-financed a small amount of national TV advertising.

The Johnson/Gray ticket is expected to be on the ballot in all fifty states, according to the campaign, and they are likely to qualify soon for federal matching funds. If the candidate receives 5% of the vote in the general election, the Libertarian Party would then be eligible to receive up to $90 million  in federal funding for the 2016 campaign.

(Photo: garyjohnson2012.com)

But having spent the last ten years traveling extensively, the one conclusion I have drawn is that neither political party in the US is particularly family-friendly. Let’s take a look around the globe at how families are treated.

1) Maternity leave – The U.S. remains one of a very short list of western countries with no standardized maternity leave. Scandinavia leads the way with 1-1.5 years of paid parental leave for both parents. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, offer about a year of leave with some salary. What could be more family-friendly than allowing parents time to bond with a newborn? Even Fox cohort Megyn Kelly spoke out on the importance of maternity leave for mothers, and I couldn’t agree with her more. But it is also important for fathers. It is important for families.

2) Pre-natal care – With all of these cuts in funding for Planned Parenthood, one thing is guaranteed for 2012, a lot fewer women are going to have access to pre-natal care. Good pre-natal care is something that goes a long way in helping a family start off healthy and stay healthy. Having access to contraception and support after birth is also important to families’ well-being.

3) Health care guarantee for children – Having access to quality health-care, both well visits and sick visits, is important for any young family. Living in fear of high medical bills, rejection from insurance companies and high costs of insurance can be things that keep parents from taking their children to the doctor when they need to. This is not the key to a healthy start for a family, yet it is a common occurrence in the USA. It is time to make sure that every child has access to quality health care without putting their parents at risk for bankruptcy.

4) Education – Everyone seems to tout the idea that education is key to future success for everyone. But that doesn’t stop states from cutting back spending in underfunded schools, reducing teachers’ benefits, and diminishing the quality of that education they claim is so fundamental. We should be looking to invest more in our schools, our teachers and our children. Instead we are fighting to keep taxes low, and shrink government, because we need a few extra dollars in our pockets. Other countries see it as an investment in their future, an investment in families.

At the end of the day, I think it is clear that neither Republicans nor Democrats are pro-family. I think it is sad that most American’s aren’t particularly pro-family either. I understand that socialism is a dirty word, but in exchange for a functioning democracy with competent government programs, is the ability of every family to thrive and feel safe. It is the ability to enjoy both a good job and success, and know your family will be protected as well. And don’t say it cannot be done. Every year, economists praise countries like Norway, Finland and others that provide all of the services listed here. They are not struggling, like Greece and Spain. They are thriving. Their families are thriving.

President Obama’s

Yes, it is great that Osama Bin Laden is dead. Yes, it was a big military victory. But the reviews are mixed on whether he should really be celebrating such a victory.

We are still in Afghanistan. So killing Bin Laden changed absolutely nothing on that particular front. There is no visible exit date or announcement of troop pullouts. We are still in there despite the Presidential promises that he would move troops out. Americans are still dying for an ambiguous war with no visible purpose and no defined goals.

The terrorists still hate us. Nothing has really changed on that score either. It is kind of confusing. President Obama won’t release the pictures of a dead man, yet his campaign makes a big deal over the fact. What happened to keeping Americans safe overseas? Isn’t that the whole purpose of not releasing the pictures? And exactly how will reminding the terrorists of Bin Laden’s death prevent future acts of  retaliation?

On the other side, President Obama kind of needs some good publicity. So praising his greatest accomplishment is certainly within his purview. He really can’t run on anything else at this juncture.

Both the Arizona immigration bill and the health care bill are in front of the Supreme Court. Depending on the rulings, either case could bring a huge black eye to the President. Starting this reminder early is probably a good thing for his image. However, it might be a little earlier to start this type of  “good guy defeating the bad guy” image.

He can’t run on the economy. Growth is slow at best. Rising food prices and higher gas prices are plaguing his Presidency. As long as gas prices stay up, his message on the economy falls flat despite any job number reports or unemployment rate numbers. The much simpler message of “I am spending less on my family because I have to spend more on gas,” is louder and clearer than any Presidential speech.

He can’t run on jobs because all of his job stimulus packages have basically failed to create any. At best, he can claim a delay in a few layoffs, but that is pretty much it. Everything else on job creation is pure speculation because no one really kept track of where the money went.

Energy is a failure. If it had just been Solyndra, then it could have been chalked up to anomaly. But there are others and the failure rate is becoming a pattern. It is almost as if, if  the government gave you some funds in the green energy department, you have permission to go bankrupt.

There isn’t much left really for him to run on.

Personally, I think this ad is far sadder than it is triumphant. The death of a single man can’t possibly eclipse all of the problems Americans are currently facing in their lives. But since this is all Obama has to campaign on, he might as well play it up since it’s his single greatest accomplishment the entire three years he has been in office.

Will 2012 be a year where third-party candidates play a large role in the election?

Three parties may be fielding strong candidates this year. The Libertarian Party will likely be represented by a former Governor for the first time – New Mexico’s Gary Johnson. The Greens may be fielding a celebrity, Rosanne Barr, and the new Americans Elect Party is determined to put their as-yet-unnamed ticket on the ballot in most states.

Let us look at the candidates one-by-one and assess what sort of impact that they may have this year.

Gary Johnson (pictured) joined the Libertarian Party after leaving the Republicans. Public Policy Polling currently has him polling at 6%, with Romney and Obama coming in at 42 and 47% respectively. Johnson’s low name recognition could either be a boost or boon to him here. If he can get his name known to most people, he could become a serious player. But that takes a lot of cash, which Johnson currently lacks. What is especially interesting about the PPP poll is that Johnson does well among the “very liberal.” This may ruin the “spoiler effect” which dogs most third-party candidates for office.

Rosanne seemed to be running a joke campaign (announcing on Leno that she was running for president as well as Prime Minster of Israel). It now appears that she is now more serious. If the Green Party nominates the 59-year-old actress, she will get significant media coverage. With a net worth estimated at $80 million dollars, she could make an impact if she is willing to spend a significant amount of her own money on her campaign. But she may have to be careful to temper her views and speech if she wants to be taken seriously as a candidate.

Americans Elect, a new player on the presidential election scene has yet to name their candidate, which will be selected by a vote of online delegates. They have both declared and “draft” candidates. Buddy Roemer is leading in the number of of his supporters among declared candidates, and Ron Paul leads among draft candidates. Roemer would tend to face many of the same problems as Johnson – little name recognition and a lack of funds, and Paul may not accept a third-party nomination for whatever reason.

So, as we look at what may be the most exciting presidential election of our lifetimes, Johnson appears to have experience and appeal but lacks funds, Rosanne has funds, but lacks experience and may lack appeal to the political masses, and what happens with Americans Elect is going to depend entirely who they pick as their nominee.

Anyway you write it, this is going to be an interesting election.

(Photo: garyjohnson2012.com)

Mitt Romney – Winner
Mitt Romney had been under siege for his “War on Women”, as President Obama put it. Rosen’s comments short-circuited the carefully crafted strategy of the very guy she was trying to help. It was already a good week for Romney with the departure of Rick Santorum, but this controversy has been a real gift for his campaign as it transitions from primary to general.

Ann Romney – Winner
Ann Romney is getting talked about a lot this week, and with the obvious exception of Ms. Rosen, almost all of it is good. She’s been referred to as Mitt’s secret weapon, the member of the Romney family with all the charm. She’s got more or less a free pass to wade into the campaign without backlash – for a limited time.

Michelle Obama – Winner
Michelle Obama comes out well in this deal because her husband stood firm on his “families are off limits” stance, even though it wasn’t in his favor this time around. In the long run, that will provide some much-needed cover for the First Lady during the campaign.

Barack Obama – Push
President Obama did the right thing by distancing himself as fast and far as possible from Rosen. That earns him some points in the credibility department. However, Rosen cut the legs off his “War on Women” rhetoric, so he comes out neutral on this whole deal.

Hillary Rosen – Loser
You could argue, I guess, that any publicity is good publicity and that Rosen was a nobody before she blew up this controversy. But really, she’s a Loser this week. First, she said something ugly. Second, her own party has (correctly) abandoned her. Third, she’s issued a series of semi-apologies (“I’m sorry, BUT… she’s no expert on working moms”, “I’m sorry IF… you were offended.”) which were just as insulting as the initial comment.

Hillary Clinton- Winner
Every time someone starts to say “Hilary Rosen”, I hear “Hillary Rodham”. The other Hillary is getting her name into the collective consciousness without doing anything and without any negative implications.

Women Voters – Winners
Rosen has brought to the forefront the fact that both parties desperately want the female vote. It’s pretty much been a foregone conclusion that women were voting overwhelmingly for Obama, but now their vote is in play, at least in theory. That means a whole lot of extra love for the ladies from both parties, at least until the next poll.

Sarah Palin – Winner
Sarah Palin had been solidly in the Newt Gingrich camp from day 1. Now that Romney is the man, she needed a face-saving way to switch horses in mid-stream. Rosen provided her exactly what she needed. Now that “Momma Grizzly” has been aroused, she has no choice but to rush to the aid of poor, defenseless Ann Romney.

The Right-Wing Talking Heads – Winners
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al. suddenly look acceptable to the Soccer Moms who were offended by Rosen. The Right-Wing Talking Heads were handed a gift of a new demographic that had previously been closed to them. What they do with this opportunity is up to them.

NASCAR Dads – Losers
All this extra emphasis on women in general and moms in particular means that there is that much less attention available for the candidates to pay to the already-neglected NASCAR Dads. Sorry, guys, there’s only so much love to go around, and the ladies are the political hot ticket of the week.

President Obama

The Buffett rule is one of the tax increases that he is trying to garner support for. There are a few millionaires in favor of this tax. Now, their support is a little puzzling on this issue. Either this is blind support for President Obama or they can see that this particular bill is doomed for failure anyway. Whatever the reason, it is clearly so that they can enjoy some good publicity which increases their profits.

The good news is that bill will probably never see the light of day. Not only is it doomed by the actual amount it collects (less than five days of running the government), but it actually has very little support. There is actually more support among both Congress and the American people for the millionaires just to write checks directly to the IRS to cover some of the National debt.

By the way, the IRS is still waiting for Warren Buffet’s check that matches Virginia’s Representative Scott Rigel’s contributions to paying down the debt.

Of course, the Buffett rule isn’t the only tax increase on the table. The next one is actually sitting before the Supreme Court. Yes, I am talking about Obamacare. Regardless of your political position regarding the mandate clause, the fact remains that people are going to have pay for health care regardless of if they want it or not. The collection stage of the fine falls directly on the shoulders of the IRS who get to evaluate if you are paying what you should be paying for health care. Even if they don’t exactly call it a tax, it is still more money out of your pocket at the end of the day.

The problem here is that Obamacare does nothing to control the actual costs. As has already been seen, the price tag on health care just keeps shooting up. Unlike other countries that do have standardized health care, the President has no actual power to set the prices of procedures or the prices doctors can charge for a visit. Instead, Congressional authority exists only to the extent of how much they reimburse services in the public plans of Medicare and Medicaid. Thus, they have very little influence on keeping costs down. Doctors are still free to choose to treat whoever they want and accept whatever insurance company they want to bargain with. So what is really happening is that doctors are moving away from the public plans because they simply aren’t covering their costs.

Even if you add in the fact that more people are going to be paying into the system, you still run into the same basic problems regarding price. There is the potential for more demand on health care services which drives up costs by the simple economic principle of supply and demand. The other basic problem is the possibility of shortages which also has a substantial effect on price.

The last important potential tax increase is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013. Now there has been a lot of debate surrounding their necessity. But regardless of whether you see this as a good or bad thing for the government, the bottom line is still the same, more taxes.

President Obama may come up with some catchy slogans or some kind of political rallying cry. But his political platform is clear. He is campaigning on the promise to raise taxes in his next four years. Which is something that no other President in American history has ever done.

(White House photo)

To be honest … I can’t say I feel that bad.  I wish he’d  done a lot better.  Heck — I wish all that lynching of Herman Cain hadn’t happened, and that he’d ridden high, clinched the nomination, beaten the heck out of President Obama on his own turf — racial minorities — and brought some good old 9-9-9 to our nation’s economy.  Alas … you can’t always get what you want.

Besides … all things considered, this was probably the best decision Rick could’ve made.  I agree with Charles Krauthammer: it would’ve been too risky to stay in for the Pennsylvania primary.  Had he lost in his own state — and there was that chance –  it would’ve seriously damaged him in the eyes of voters, GOP or otherwise … for who knows how long.  But now … with his strong showing this year — after all the pundits had written him off — he will not soon be forgotten as a fighter for the Conservative cause.

All right … now what?  Well, I’ll tell you “what”.  As the Beatles would sing, we come together … right now — over Mitt.

I’ve said this a lot, “My guy is Rick (or Herman)…but I won’t lose any sleep if it’s Mitt Romney.”  After all — and this isn’t just toeing the party line, it’s just how I feel — if anyone can beat Barack Obama, it’s Mitt.  He’s got the money and  connections … and now, thanks in no small part to a very testing primary season … knows how to play tough.  We need “tough”.  Newt’s tough, but he’s  lost any chance to get his following back.  As for —

“You neo-con propagandist!  You’re discounting Ron Paul!  RON PAUL will prevail, if only you shills for the military-industrial complex would let him!  RON PAUL 2012!!!” 

— well … suffice it to say, those folks are just about the only ones who think that way.  Ron himself has admitted he harbors no illusions of winning — he’s running to see if he can influence the party platform.  And he won’t run third party — not if he cares about the political future of his son (whom I would support in a heartbeat).

Now, we have to focus on beating the Left — in the White House and the Senate.  That shouldn’t be too hard — not if their strategists keep giving us gems  us like that pathetic feminist rant Hillary Rosen dished out against Ann Romney.  (So…stay-at-home mothers don’t work a day in their lives?  I think my mother would have a beef with that … and she never even had to deal with the medical problems Mrs. Romney did!)

There’s also the rising price of gas.  Give it enough time … and we’ll start seeing the lines of the ‘70s.  Obama, of course, is lecturing us on how America’s supposed to have 2% of the world’s oil, but uses 20% (which, as anyone who bothers to calculate all the untapped supply knows, is simply not true).

Add to that the highest corporate tax rate in the world — and as James Carville would say, “It’s the economy, stupid!”  (And all that’s without the potential political embarrassment of the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare….)

Now to business.  Whom should Mitt choose as his VP?

Marco Rubio is the favorite — for good reason.  He’s likeable, idealistic, inspiring, and articulate — and the son of immigrants, which should help the GOP with Hispanics.

Except he’s not going to do it.  And neither is His Awesomeness, Chris Christie.  Paul Ryan’s also out … which means all the easy choices are off the table.  As I said in “The Dream Team,” I recommend Rick Santorum.  Why?  For the same reason Ronald Reagan picked George H. W. Bush: to heal the wounds of a long, brutal primary season.  Also, Rick’s the “workingman’s” candidate — union folks love him — which should help balance out the accusations of Mitt being “out of touch” with the ordinary folks.  (A hilarious accusation, by the way — considering Obama’s own lack of empathy….)

Whoever it’s going to be, we all must, as conservatives, unite as one.  Become the fighting force we were two years ago — and give a blow far greater than before.

As Governor Scott would say, “Let’s get to work!”