Want something to read on the airplane? -> Mark Leibovich’s This Town

Conan O’ Brian with First Lady Michelle Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner 2013 | Photo Courtesy of the Daily Caller

Danny Zeng | December 23rd, 2013

Mark Leibovich’s This Town reads like a juicy sensational piece that could become the next Netflix original hit (like really though), until one pause to realize that the characters portrayed in the book are governing this country…The book is like the perfect misplaced airport magazine filled with colorful sketches of the sort of incestuous political-media-consultancy infestation that America hates and politicians campaign against. I cannot possibly scratch even the sheen of such New Age “Iron Triangle” in a blog post, but it’s worth reflecting. Every time I flip the page of this journalistic rendition of high-profile D.C patrons by a conscious elite member of The Club (Leibovich is the chief national correspondent for the New York Times Magazine), I cannot help but feel sorry for thousands of idealistic politicos whose world may well be shattered before they even plant foot in the Swampland. Leibovich unveils his characters with acerbic bluntness, a degree of high sass surely fermented by a copious amount of Club Soda (exquisite-yet-free bottles of vinos). It does not matter if his characters are elected Republicans/Democrats, superlawyer/fixer, socialites, “formers,” or Hill staff; Leibovich dusk off the front row for his readers on this inside-the-Beltway extravaganza (at times I felt the urge to zap some popcorns myself for all captivations).

Warning: This is a rather poisonous piece (for the high minded), not your Mr.Smith-goes-to-Washington-kind-of sweet civic tonic.

“Washington is a ‘real city,’ but This Town is a state of belonging, a status and a commodity.'” The book begins with Tim Russert’s funeral, an occasion that is typically very personal, somber, serves as a closure for the deceased, a revenue booster for Kleenex, and a reunion for family members and friends. Well with Washington, such occasion serves as a great schomoozing venue, self-promotion, photo ops, Twitter posts (possibly with an attached selfie, as President Obama so well attended to at the Mandela memorial…o too soon?), and false feelings.

“Russert would have loved the outpouring from the power mourners. And he also would have understood better than anyone that all of the speeches and tributes and telegenic choke-ups were never about him. They were about people left behind to scrape their way up the pecking order in his absence.”

Leibovich pokes fun of the Obama people, who campaigned on this change-Washington mantra in ’08, only to become “formers” themselves and retire into the comfortable riches of D.C. strategy firms, often founded and run by other “formers.” His depictions of Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican fiscal hawk Tom Coburn are easy bedtime reads. The Bardella episode with Congressman Darrell Issa (and Bardella himself) is wonderfully instructive for those power-hungry, headstrong, I-am-kind-of-important ladder-climbers. His theory on the rise of such insider culture amongst our nation’s elite (two-party comity, revolving door,  increased lobbying interests, rise of political consultants, etc) is not extraordinary in of itself, but his stories and profiles of the elite lend much credence to such theory. Many familiar politicos were described in the book: James Carville and Mary Matalin (“Mataville”), Andrea Mitchell/Alan Greenspan, Haley Barbour, Arianna Huffington, Paul Ryan, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, etc. Discernible recurring foci – motifs if you will – from the book emphasize the likes of Mike Allen and his Playbook from Politico, the lavish centrifugal suck-up force that is the red-carpet-style White House Correspondents Dinner (aka “nerd prom” amped up by – you guessed it – Politico) and the apparently two dozen pre-and-post parties planned around it, and Tammy Haddad (maybe it’s only OK that the insiders called her that…btw the New Republic featured a profile on the ‘Tamster’ from Leibovich that reads as a teaser for the book).

The book’s subtitle reads: “Two Parties and a Funeral – plus plenty of valet parking! – in America’s Gilded Capital.” The stately funeral of Richard Holbrooke, former special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, handpicked Hilary darling, an obviously important-sounding public servant who was sidelined by the Obama people, brought in dozens of foreign dignitaries to the Kennedy Center (secular church of sort for the well-do Club members) for another obsequy for the obsequious. The Generals (McChrystal and Allen) were apparently decorated enough to warrant an honorable mention themselves. The book ends with The Last Party, hosted by Sally Quinn and her husband, the journalist demigod, Ben Bradlee, who oversaw the release of Pentagon Papers and the Post’s coverage of Watergate in the 1970s. Apparently Bradlee’s favorite phrase is that “the caravan moves on,” and so as the book comes to a close, Washington rolls on in high spirit. (D.C. is doing so well that it’s the only city, except four other states, that posted gains in its residents’ earnings in the last decade)

As I was finishing the book, I pulled out my computer, stumbled onto Politico, which featured a story about the political power couple James Carville and Mary Matalin “recall finding ‘love,'” only did I find the article to be a promotional push for their newest book, “Love & War: Twenty Years, Three Presidents, Two Daughters and One Louisiana Home” (now available on Amazon I’m sure). While I was on Politico, I also looked up the paper’s special coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner 2013 on a dedicated page of its own! It’s the kind of place where where Travis McCoy could surely smile with Oprah and the Queen (uh he’ll have to do with just the Obamas this time). Do your plane ride justice: read the book.

The Legacy of George W. Bush: Freedom is Universal

Photos Courtesy of the George W. Bush Center

Danny Zeng | April 29th, 2013

As I was watching the re-run of the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center over the weekend, I was struck by the transcendent nature of the office of the presidency, that so many have dedicated their lives to preserving and promoting in modern times. Laura Bush articulates the democratic nature of the library by pointing out that, “like the White House, the Presidential Library belongs to all American people.” The office of the Presidency is the only office in our country that is nationally elected through the Electoral College with the support of the popular vote. To me, Presidential Libraries represent the collective memories of our nation. They are academic portals to the uncovering of historical truths. They symbolize the spirit and strength of our democracy. I was reminded that so many modern presidents and their families have poured their hearts and minds into leading our nation through prosperous and trying times. I alongside my fellow Americans am indebted to their service to our nation in preservation of our precious liberties.

George W. Bush’s legacy will be left to the judgment of history. Sure, he has made mistakes, like all presidents had. President Bush, however, also made historic decisions during his presidency in a post 9/11 world that are still shaping the course of the nation and indeed of the world today. He is a man of conviction. He admits that one of his deepest convictions is for the United States to promote freedom.

I believe that freedom is a gift from God and the hope of every human heart. Freedom inspired our founders and preserved our union through civil war and secured the promise of civil rights. Freedom sustains dissonance bound by chains. Believers huddled in underground churches. And voters who risked their lives to cast their ballots. Freedom unleashed creativity, rewards innovation and replaces poverty with prosperity. And ultimately freedom lights the path to peace. Freedom brings responsibility

The cornerstone of President Bush’s unique brand of conservatism lies in compassion: “Independence from the State does not mean isolation from each other. A free society thrives when neighbors help neighbors. And the strong protect the weak. And public policies promote private compassion”

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/25/transcript-read-fmr-president-george-w-bushs-address-library-dedication#ixzz2RdW5xhAd

What a remarkable occasion to witness all living Presidents of this greatest nation on earth sharing a stage together in dedication to the legacy of freedom and democracy.

From President Carter’s classic punchy adulation for Bush 43’s effort in procuring a peace agreement for Sudan, to President Clinton’s claim as the “black sheep” of the Bush family, and yet even to President Obama’s acknowledgement of President Bush’s legacy in Africa, the semblance of democratic stability and maturity was striking. One of my favorite moments from the ceremony was after President H.W. Bush briefly thanked everyone for attending the dedication, Bush 43 whispered to his old man, “good job,” H.W. responded, “what? Too long?”

I look forward to the work of the George W. Bush Institute, especially in education reform, human freedom, woman’s initiative, and global health. Love it or hate it, the legacy of the Bush family will endure in the cause of freedom, and we are the next generation to carry on this arduous task. As we like to say and know here at UT, the Eyes of Texas are upon us: we are the future.

I salute President Bush for his sacrifice and service to our country.

“Life is a service to the end” – George W. Bush, the 43^rd President of the United States of America

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Principled Compromise is OK

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.

Where there is error, may we bring truth.

Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.

And where there is despair, we may bring hope.

– Margaret Thatcher, upon winning her premiership in 1979

Recently, I finished reading the book The Iron Lady by John Campbell, who skillfully and objectively detailed the political career of Margaret Thatcher, the longest serving prime minister in the history of Great Britain. There is much to be learned from Lady Thatcher in today’s state of politics. Being the first – and still only – woman British prime minister, leading a major western nation during the downfall of soviet communism and against the global advance of socialism, Lady Thatcher was regarded as a “conviction politician” who fought hard for what she believed was best for her country and the free world. During her time, her challenges were unique: stagflation, inefficient bureaucracy, ballooning public spending, the very real threat from Soviet hegemony, the ideological struggle against collectivism, domestic terrorism, defending British sovereignty, and militant unions. Surrounded by Cabinet full of men (there was only one woman she appointed to her Cabinet during her years in office), she resolutely argued – perhaps too doggedly – against collectivist “wet” ideas within her own Government, which in her view were simply wrong. In doing so, she alienated many of her colleagues. At times though, she had to give in to others. However, she tried to be a principled leader. That is the kind of politicians that we direly need in our nation’s Capital today: pragmatic ideologues.

Politics is an Easy Pill to Swallow But Could Only Do So Much

As the nation continues to grapple with the aftermath of last Friday’s tragic massacre that took twenty seven lives, twenty of which are small children, gun control activists and their dormant political allies spared no time to hog the limelight in an attempt to push their own agendas. Washington Post and The New York Times Editorial Boards surely joined in on this chorus on gun control. There has even been a push to change our constitution! At a time like this, when our nation mourns and prays for those affected by the tragedy, we could use an alternative discourse on violence in order to maintain our own sanity and to honor the dead with a level of cool-headed dignity that was lacking in the killer’s head. We must steer away from the agenda-driven, big-government “solution” to instead focus more on mental health issues, community engagement, strengthening the family, and yes, faith-based values in the public sphere.

Of course, our first thought at times like this is, “What can be done to prevent it from happening next time?” The truth of the matter is that we live amongst people from all walks of life, that any one person’s sanity could be deemed insane by the next person. The point is that we can never eradicate insanity from the society because our fragile mental makeup as human beings is always susceptible to environmental dictates. Evil lives amongst us. Heck, Psychopathic killers have been living and working amongst us for centuries. While the grave tragedy that we all had to endure and absorb as parents, friends, mentors, community leaders, and distant observers deserves serious attention and reflection, we should refrain from crusading for nonsensical laws crafted based on emotions rather than reason. The same kind of nonsensical, erratic behavior exhibited by the shooter should be especially avoided by our nation’s top political leaders. This is not meant as an attack on the good intentions of many politicians and public figures, but it is an indictment on the act of employing the same impulsive response to life’s many turbulent trials with no regard to the underlying cause. No law can stop Adam Lanza from his evil rampage. No law can identify and help those most mentally vulnerable individuals living amongst us. We tend to think and believe that we have the answer to everything in this world. That is not true, as apparent from our many collective failures as a society in recent years (poor education system that lags behind China and India, rising poverty rates among minorities, and still high incarceration rates for young Blacks, etc.). Often time both politicians and those violent perpetrators are two sides of the same coin: victims of their own conceit and ignorance.

The op-ed from Ross Douthat of New York Times apts portrays the kind of challenge that contemporary politics faces: “The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends — all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats”

Douthat’s point speaks directly to the plight of minorities under redistributive policies: more broken families and communities as I have suggested in my previous post. Republicans need to do a better job pointing out the flaws of modern liberalism in order to reclaim credibility in the eyes of the “emerging America.” America has a proud tradition of immigration and inclusion. The tolerance inherent in the American society, as result of our unique history, is something to be proud of and something worthy of preservation. There is a place for civil institutions, such as places for worship, schools, and universities, in our society. They need to play a larger role in stabilizing our communities, yet unfortunately, they themselves are broken and in need of reforms. 

Liberal Ignorance to Societal Disintegration

We Was What We Had

Last week, I was onboard M1, the MetroBus, being bored as usual, sifting through tweets on my iPhone – just like any other day when I normally catch the bus to go to work – when I suddenly heard a particularly intriguing exchange between two African American males sitting next me. It went something like this:

[Man #1]: Man I’m telling ya, it just ain’t like what we had before [disclaimer: I truly have no idea what the entirety of the exchange was all about, but what I did gather was a snippet of reality that simply resonated with me personally]

[Man #2]: mmhmm, that’s true…

[Man #1]: we used to get together with the families, parents would join the kids for kickball on the weekends, and we’d always have plenty of food for everyone…now it just ain’t the same no more

[Man #2]: I feel ya. I know exactly what you are talking about, man. Now we have the younger generation behind bars, with no respect toward the older ones, just ain’t the same no more

[Man #1]: yeah man. I mean back then…ya know…families were tight…I’m telling ya…we was what we had

##

I have to confess that halfway thorough their exchange, I had both my ears perked up (totally disregarding at that point what the Twitter-sphere was buzzing about) and proceeded to absorb everything I heard – or eavesdropped, rather.

For whatever reason, that conversation stuck with me for a good part of this past week as I went on with my life. I meant to jot it down last week to reflect on the meaning of it all but didn’t have the time to do so. However, at the time, I immediately appreciated what the man was trying to get at: families and communities are broken, and we have increasingly started to express ourselves through institutions other than our immediate families and communities, whether be corporations, government, universities, or yes, the prison system, to a degree that the people closets to us are becoming ever so aloof.

As the percentage of children born out of wedlock had gone through the roof over the past several decades, among those are 73% of African Americans and 53% of Latinos, as reported by the New York Times. Astonishingly, blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than Latinos and 6 times more likely than whites. 1 out of 9 young black male (age 20-34) is behind bars according to the latest data from National Institute of Justice. Our nation needs a renewed dialogue about education, criminal justice, higher education, psychological development, and etc. to identify ways to strengthen our communities. Ignoring these issues will lead to more broken families and more unstable communities. The most racist thing we can do as a nation is to turn a blind eye against these tough statistics and pretend like they don’t exist. We need honest dialogue about how to reduce these rates, more so than ever, and I happen to believe that family and community are central to solving these issues. Strengthening these institutions would allow for more opportunities for all Americans. Doing so will not only lead to a more prosperous and stronger country, but indeed, it will be the right thing to do. That requires, first, that we pay more attention to these issues and proactively listen to these lost voices coincidentally heard onboard a metrobus. 

*This post originally appeared in College Republicans at Texas’s blog, the Dissent, on November 5th, 2012 by the same author

Yes, we CAN Believe in America: Vote for Real Change

Governor Romney has been performing well in the polls leading up to the Election Day on Tuesday.  The Gallup poll last week from 10/22-10/28 had Romney leading Obama by five points! Governor Romney is up in Florida by 6 points according to a latest poll in the state. Romney is up slightly in Virginia. Rasmussen reports on 11/1 that Romney is tied in Ohio andWisconsin. Rasmussen also reports a Romney lead in Colorado by 3 percentage points and Iowaby one percentage point. The latest poll in New Hampshire has Romney tied with Obama.

For more than a year and a half, young Republicans like myself have grown accustomed to hearing the inevitability of Obama winning re-election here on the UT campus. Not long ago, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi came out and smugly dismissed the chance of Mitt Romney ever winning the White House.  Well, good thing we know the former speaker doesn’t really have a track record of reading the public mood. This narrowing down in the polls speaks more to the will of the American people who are disillusioned with what they were sold in 2008 and are ready for real change.

Governor Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan bring with them an economic vision to return crucial investment and spending decisions back to the private sector and individuals, to allow for entrepreneurs and small business owners to flourish, and to put trust in the ingenuity of the American people to continually innovate and create under the auspices of a free market economy.

Indeed, our country requires a government that takes pride in entrepreneurs and small business owners and not looks down upon their success. Our country requires a government that respects the principle of federalism, its inherent limits as the federal government, and states’ rights. Our country requires a government that understands that globalization and a 21^stcentury economy invariably call for a skilled workforce and matching skills with those of our graduates. Our country requires a government that understands that spending within its means is a necessary virtue, one that budget strapped families all across the country are trying to practice on a daily basis.

The decision in this election cannot be starker. The choice cannot have a more fundamental impact on our collective trajectory. The next four years will determine whether or not America will continue to be the economic powerhouse and the Land of Opportunity for the first half of this century.  The next President will have important economic and geopolitical decisions to make here and abroad that will affect our long-term influence in the world.

We ask you to go vote this coming Tuesday for the Republican ticket, if you haven’t already done so. Information regarding how and where to vote in Travis Country can be found here. For other polling places in Texas and more information about voting, we refer you to the Secretary of State’s website.

Under four years of Barack Obama, our national debt had increased by $5.4 trillion, with trillion plus deficit under every year this President has been in office. We cannot afford four more years of failed, misguided policies of this administration. Our future depends on principled leadership based on fiscal conservatism, limited government, liberty, and the free market. We ask you to vote for change – change we can believe in.

Obsession Over Fisher Misses the Larger Point

                                                                                            Picture: Eric Gray | AP

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin has been all over the news for the last few days. The University has gone through a coordinated PR campaign to defend its race-conscious admissions practices. I am not going to belabor the facts on the case. Plenty of news articles, editorials, and social media statuses have already done justice to the facts. I want to take a different route, step back, and examine the underlying hypocrisy of this whole ordeal, and that is race-conscious admission, no matter how we sugarcoat it, is inherently racist.

UT admits a vast majority of its students through the Top 10 Percent Rule. The remaining proportion, about one quarter of each freshman class, is admitted using a holistic process that, among many things, includes race as a factor for determining admission. It is found that the Top 10 Percent Rule has been more effective in ensuring diversity on campus. Greater proportion of minority students gain entrance to UT through the Top 10 rule. The race-neutral rule allows for Texas’s most brightest students to come to a top public university from all corners of the state. It already accomplishes the University’s desire for a diverse campus. Why the need for another set of rules that goes out of its way to take race into account? Doesn’t that in turn judges applicants at least partly on the basis of their skin tone? True, Abigail Fisher probably wouldn’t have gotten into UT anyway under either the Top 10 or the holistic review process, but that’s not the point. The point is that the University’s continuance to use race as part of its admissions process unnecessarily hinders the progress made in the last several decades toward greater racial integration and minority access to higher education. I believe high school graduates of all races and backgrounds should have a shot of attending the University of Texas, provided that they compete equally on controllable factors, such as grades, extracurricular activities, community service, work experience, personal essays, etc., out of which race is not and should not be a factor for admission, for it can not be fairly applied. 

Romney’s VP Pick: Here’s My Bet

Obama has been leading in the polls. Recent polls from CNN and Fox News (which was conducted by one of my UT professors’ polling firm Shaw & Research Co.) put Obama on top by 7 and 9 percentage points respectively, which is above the standard margin of error. Gallup poll conducted Friday put both campaigns at a 46-46 tie. Rasmussen tracking provided Romney with a two point advantage. Mr. Obama has also been leading in most of the swing states. Romney needs a good convention, a good vice presidential pick, and good debates to carry him over the top: it is an uphill battle for sure.

As for the VP speculation, the Romney campaign has been trumping up its VP selection by pestering supporters with emails asking them to donate for a chance to find out the identity of Romney’s running mate and rolling out a new Apple app as a tool for supporters to be the first to find out about the pick. In a recent CNN/ORC poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, Marco Rubio came out on top of the list, with Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Chris Christie of New Jersey close behind tied for second. Ok look, as much as I would like for Paul Ryan to be Romney’s running mate, I do not think that is very likely purely out of strategic concerns. Nate Silver, a respected statistician turned pollster, puts Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) at a mere 2.8% as a deciding state to carry Romney over, while he pegs Ohio (18 electoral votes) at 34% decisive to a Romney win. Wisconsin already has Scott Walker, the governor who took on the unions and survived a liberal, special-interests campaign to unseat him. Walker is also speaking at the Republican National Convention to trump up support. In addition, the President has been leading in Wisconsin for weeks now. These realities alone deprive Paul Ryan of a chance at VP, not to mention the Left has successfully painted Ryan as a radical affront on the women and the poor through his budget plans. Ryan himself is not vastly popular in his home state with 30 some percent approval. If Ryan is picked, more negative ads will flood the air to bring down Ryan’s credentials and paint him as killer-of-Medicare-as-we-know-it, which is a liberal way of deflecting from the real issue: entitlement reform. I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan. I think he is one of the few Republicans in Congress who had the balls to offer a bold plan to reign in the country’s fiscal binge. But in a tight election year, Ryan may be too “bold” of a pick. Ryan will be red meat for the “gotcha” mainstream media’s dog-and-pony show, a good pick for the Party’s fiscal hawks, but bad for the electability of a Republican presidential candidate in a tough election year. 

Bobby Jindal, Republican governor from Louisiana, has been a name thrown around as well. From a strategic standpoint, Jindal makes absolutely no sense for Romney’s electoral gains. Jindal has a phenomenal resume that arguably outshines Romney. Why do you want to make a sequel of Batman and focus solely on Robin (McCain/Palin)? The campaign would be stupid to pick Jindal as the VP ticket.  

Other names include Bob McConnell, Rob Portman, and Marco Rubio. According to Nate Silver, Rubio has a net positive impact of 2.8% in his home state, while Portman has 1.1%. Bob McConnell has a 3.5%, but Virginia has only 13 electoral votes, 15 less than Florida. Rubio is predicted to increase Florida’s win chance by 15%. In the same blog, Silver however predicts that Portman and McConnell will have the most likely impact (about two percentage points) on winning the election. That’s how the numbers look today. Here are some qualitative considerations.

McConnell is a popular governor in Virginia, a state that went to a Democratic President in 2008 for the first time since LBJ. Virginia is an important state for Obama. He has campaigned and fundraised in Virginia numerous times this year. The state has a relatively low unemployment rate at about 6%. Even though southern Virginia bordering North Carolina has higher jobless rate, that area of state, being rural, small town America will most likely go to Romney anyways. The key urban center in Northern Virginia, where an economic boom, similar to that of Austin, has brought in diverse, highly-skilled workers to IT and government contract jobs. Places like Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Prince William County, Loundon County are some of the wealthiest counties coupled with lowest jobless rates in the country. Bob McConnell carried all three of these wealthy counties in 2009. With McConnell as surrogate, Romney can tap into these counties and steal a win in Virginia. With a Real Clear Politics polling average between 3-8/10, the country rejects Obamacare, 49.9%-42.2%, a 7.7 percentage point lead in favor of repealing. There is only one candidate who is campaigning to repeal Obamacare in this race. Team Obama has a tough sell to make in these rich counties where people are perfectly fine with their health care. Therefore, it is not overly optimistic for me to think Romney has a good chance with Virginia.

In Florida, Senator Marco Rubio has the political profile and the conservative credentials to not only solidify Romney’s support in Florida, a key swing state, but he is vastly popular among the Tea Party brand of the party and the so-called conservative purists. And let’s face it, a rising star in the new Hispanic right? Jackpot. If Florida’s 29 electoral votes go toward Romney, and if he takes back Wisconsin and Virginia, states that went to Obama in 2008, he doesn’t need Ohio to win the election. However, admittedly, the scenario I proposed is rather rosy because Wisconsin and Virginia have been trending Democratic. In turns of resource allocation, Ohio (18 electoral votes) is still THE strategy for the Romney campaign, and he needs to do anything to shore up support to carry 50%+1 in Ohio, even if that means picking Rob Portman as his VP…or so some strategists would suggest. But a plurality, 42% of voters polled in Ohio, either don’t know or haven’t heard of Portman. Actually a PPP poll concludes 55% Ohioans don’t know Portman in his own state! What use is that? While it is true that 16 out of 22 vice presidential picks since 1968 came from home states already in candidates’ favor, often those are states with little electoral gains such as Connecticut, Delaware, Wyoming, etc., (Bill Turque, Washington Post), Rubio is from a state that hails 29 valuable electoral votes, the same state that had riveted the nation in 2000 with butterfly ballots and Supreme Court drama.

Nate Silver predicts that Rob Portman will boost Romney’s election win potential by 2 points, while Bob McConnell will carry it over by 1 point. To the non-political watchers, in a current world of party polarization and divided America, that can be significant enough to carry Romney to the top on Election Day.  

Of course, the media and the pundits love a good horse-race. To them, this is the NFL draft of politics. Couple weeks back, network television was hyping up Condoleeza Rice as Romney’s potential VP, to all serious Republicans, we knew that was a desperate call from media running out of guesses, which is a good sign for the Romney campaign – keep them guessing. The media has been focusing on Tim Pawlenty (uh no jose), Rob Portman, and Paul Ryan in the last week. 

Republicans need to stop fooling ourselves and put up a show for the mainstream media. Barack Obama is arguably one of the best political communicators, orators, rhetoricians, BSers in the history of the United States. He has some of the brightest political operatives working for his campaign. And despite his recent habitual lament of how the Republicans are beating him in the fundraising game, his campaign is still ahead of the game having raised some $550 million, compared to Romney’s $395 million. To put that in perspective, Obama campaign has a fundraising advantage of $155 million that could easily employ more than 860,000 Kenyans for a year based on the country’s per capita annual income of $1,800. Republicans should not and cannot underestimate the Chicago political machine that is behind the Obama campaign.

On an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC, Romney said that he wants a VP who has “a vision for the country, that, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country.” Rob Portman doesn’t seem to fit the description. Senator Rubio is a young conservative firebrand who will ignite the conservatives, tear down the stereotype of Republican old “white male” club, and provide political hope for fiscally conservative, anti-communist, Catholic, pro-family Latino voters. Going the Florida route in an electoral plan via Rubio seems like the best VP choice for me for Romney and the Republican Party. For an owner of a 200-year-old haunted house in Ohio, Portman is too spooky of a pick for the Republican Party. I understand the rationale for a “boring white guy” as running mate; but come on, I can’t be the only guy who thinks a Romney-Portman might be too boring that people may not even turn out to vote?

CNN just broke the news: Romney campaign will be announcing his VP pick in Norfolk, Virginia tomorrow morning (Quick! All network reporters, get on the first plane to Norfolk #BostonAirport backed up on tarmac) 

Here’s my relatively rosy Electoral Map. We will see where political tides take up in the next three months. Wisconsin was a big call for me, but let’s wait and see.  

Liberals Out There: Speak up for Rachel Elizabeth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gERsTy2GiPM

I had a wonderful birthday celebration over the course of the last few days that some political headliners eluded me. Now I have mainly stayed away from the Chick-fil-A controversy mainly because I think it was blown out of proportion. With a slew of pictures from prominent Republicans with Chick-fil-A bags as backdrop and from kiss-ins organized by anti-groups, the whole shebang was more of a theatrical event than anything of substance. Politics is a nasty business. I get it. We have Senator Reid accusing Romney for not paying taxes for over ten years, Obama coining catchy phrases like “Romney hood” and “You didn’t build that,” and Sandra Fluke, the feminist warrior, speaking sooo passionately for women’s right to government contraceptives; and of course, there is Chick-fil-A, with the latest victim of the episode being an innocent employee named Rachel Elizabeth. This is what happened at one Chick-fil-A drive-thru. 

Some self-righteous duffus went to a chick-fil-a drive thru getting only a cup of water. While at the service window, he broke out in an illogical anti-corporation rant against an innocent server, Rachel, whose cool-headed, superb customer service throughout this whole thoroughfare is laudable and demands the attention of all liberals who supposedly fight for women. How dare does Adam Smith go off and berate and lecture an innocent woman whose sole job is simply there to serve him, the customer?! Who is he to question how other people make a living and publicly abuse them thinking he’s holier-than-thou? Adam Smith is everything repugnant about progressive liberals that conservatives despise: people who are spineless, lack common decency, and ostentatious bandwagoners who don’t think for themselves. Regardless of his opinions about Chick-fil-A, for Smith to make a fuss about the situation in a smug, smirky kind of way and to verbally harass an employee at a drive-thru (while paying absolutely nothing) all while on camera, only undermines whatever motive he had to begin with.

I seriously doubt anti-Chick-fil-A activists will claim Smith as one of their own. I just hope that people on both sides can recognize what he did was incredibly ridiculous. Just to be clear, I am all for free speech; therefore, I stand by Smith’s right to speak up. But if Smith really wanted to make a political statement, he could have written letters to Chick-fil-A, given money to pro-equality organizations, and run for office himself! There are legitimate democratic channels for him to vent his frustrations, yet he has chosen to victimize an hourly-waged employee of a multibillion national corporation that has given money to certain organizations that espouse, among many things, anti-gay sentiments. Think about that causal chain! For Smith to think he is gaining “purpose” by doing this is both irrational and sad. I mean the guy waited in line to go through the drive thru window to grab his…water, creepily without asking for permission taped the whole encounter, and apparently put it up on YouTube, hmmm what kind of recognitions is Smith seeking? A “pro-gay” woman-bashing YouTube star?!

Not only does he attack Chick-fil-A for being “hateful” and “horrible,” he has the chutzpah to question Rachel, “How do you live with yourself and work here?” He even challenges Rachel to “stand up” for herself. PEOPLE! This guy is a gutless bully who turtles up in his car and picks on women. Please by all means denounce his action. And what’s more?? He leaves the drive-thru window feeling somehow compelled to say that he is not gay. ”I’m totally heterosexual and not a gay in me” O really?? I don’t know about you, but my gaydar is ringing off the chart…I feel bad for this guy. He made a fool out of himself, and he stupidly hinders the effort of pro-equality activists in this country.  Congratulations Citizen Smith, you not only managed to offend all the young, hardworking American women working in fast food industry, you have also succeeded in offending the LGBT community, the very community you attempt to stand up for in the first place? The conventional distinction between liberals and conservatives lies in those with hearts and those with brains (this is an oversimplication and a joke for the political nerds out there), unfortunately for Adam Smith, he possess neither quality.