Thursday, 24 November 2011


A large number of folks say to me "this is a weak GOP field. The proof is in the pudding and the fact that certain people aren’t running is proof that Obama is unbeatable ".

Well let’s analyse that for a second.
Who could’ve run but hasn’t and why?

Governor Chris Christie

Christie was never going run. He has and always said that his job for now is Governor of New Jersey. Yes, he would be a phenomenal candidate and future President, but when you say that you’re not ready, you have to trust your instinct. I know a lot of people who were upset that someone applied tremendous pressure on Christie to run, primarily because they though he would be the best for the job, however in my eyes, he has a lot to learn and to prove in New Jersey. You also have to assess the terrain before running for President. He is a straight talking, no nonsense, hard nosed, fiscal conservative and wildly popular amongst Reagan Republicans. To run for President you have to be certain that you are ready for everything that comes your way. Just ask Teddy Kennedy when he was asked in 1979 why he wanted to be President His voice staggered and stammered. Words failed him and it was clear he had no plausible reason to be running for the office. In a sense Christie is an old fashioned kind of guy; he wanted to make sure of his ground rather than jumping into the race unprepared alas Rick Perry.

Governor Sarah Palin

She’s a smart women and she would’ve know that her ‘unfavourable’ ratings are rather large at the moment. Since, 2008, she has increased her popularity within the Tea Party and the Conservative voters by endorsing candidates throughout the country and shaping the debate.
However, she is wildly unpopular with the moderates and Independents.
What she needs to do is show the American people that she can carry out an effective job. When she quit as Governor of Alaska, she basically created a rod for her own back. Ideally, she should look at Hillary Clinton. She has raised her standing through being a Senator and then Secretary of State, now she is looked at as the alternative to Obama. If Palin can show the American people that she can hold onto a job and is effective at it, then she will improve her image amongst moderates and independents and be a formidable force in 2016 and beyond. If she stays out of a job, she will only look more isolated and become a fringe candidate.

Governor Mike Huckabee

He is the one who I was surprised that didn’t run. Like Romney, he suffered with name recognition in 2008. What he did was stay in the race and statistically came 2nd in the nomination process. Romney dropped out much earlier and looked the better for saying he would stand with, the then, presumptive nominee, John McCain.
He did win 8 primaries in 2008 but people never took him seriously as I don't recall people saying at the end of the primary or in the lead up to 2012: “ah shucks, I am sorry that Huckabee isn’t involved”. He’s a likeable guy and a man of morals as a former Baptist minister, but he lacked the gravitas and authoritative rhetoric to excite the voters.
I think he is very happy doing his Fox News Show and other speaking engagements. Increasing his name recognition and wallet in the process.

Donald Trump

What do you say about this man? I agree with a lot that he says but the man is in showbiz. His pursuit of the Obama Birth Certificate was commendable and also was a massive publicity event, probably for his own TV show ‘The Apprentice’. He is also majorly egotistical and if would’ve lost the Primary or in fact the General Election it would’ve done irrevocable damage to the ‘Trump’ brand. People like that are only in it for themselves and his calling in political life surely would be the inner council on economic policy or something like that. To be Treasury Secretary would be too restrictive for him and he would have to forgo a lot of his day to day work.

Gov. Mitch Daniels

A sitting governor for the state of Indiana, he is a fiscal Conservative. He would ensure that the deficit and cutting spending would be a cornerstone of the 2012 election. A former Bush White House budget chief, had one obstacle against running for the nomination; His Wife. He cited (against his reasons for not running) that "The interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. I understand that running for high office throws you and your family into lion’s den but you have to really want to be President to go through all of that. If Mitch wanted that much to be the nominee he would have convinced his wife. now he is in the same camp as Colin Powell.

I don't believe for one second that this is a weak GOP field. It is a stronger field than in 2008 when we really had no preference on who the candidate would be. Essentially we have more options to choose from:

Romney and Herman Cain are angling from the business sector experience.

Gingrich, Bachman & Paul are espousing their experience in the Congress.

Santorum is touting his Social Conservative record.

Huntsman and Perry are using their gubernatorial record.

So I am far from concerned, I am excited with the field (except Ron Paul) and am looking forward to seeing how this race ends up.

Monday, 21 November 2011


He‘s a Republican, libertarian, congressman for Texas and he’s been polling between 3-9% on average this 2012 GOP primary cycle...

His name: Ron Paul

The flagship policy of the ‘Paul for 2012’ Campaign has been the calling for auditing the Federal Reserve (The Fed). He has been relentless in his attacks against the current chairman, Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan. Due to his persistence, we now have an open consensus from the current GOP 2012 field for the auditing of the (The Fed) and the firing of Bernanke.

That a great result indeed for the gynaecologist.


I slightly disagree with this quote from Newt Gingrich:

“Every one of these candidates (GOP 2012) will be a massive improvement from Obama, who scares us each and every single day”.

I don't think that Ron Paul should be included in that list, in part due to the fact that he is a classic isolationist and irrational.
I have major issues with people like Paul and his followers. ‘Screw the rest of the world; we need to focus on our own storefront’. That is all well and good, but in today's day and age, you need to keep your finger on the pulse and always mind your surroundings.

China and India are working everyday to improve their competitiveness, Iran is looking to destroy Israel and the West and the Muslim Brotherhood are spreading Sharia Law and ethnic cleansing fast; not to mention a bullish Russia looking to impose themselves on the world once again and the pending collapse of the European Union. With all of that going on, you would want to have someone that knows a thing or two about dealing with these issues, as it is for sure going to impact the USA. Yet, Ron Paul would stop foreign aid, stay out of conflicts throughout the world and end any foreign operations or assistance. All under the guise, that if we stay out of their business, they aren’t gonna hate us that much.
That is akin to the foreign policy in 1990’s under Bill Clinton, which was a precursor to 9/11.
Additionally, Ron Paul would have you believe that America, not Radical Islam is the reason why 9/11 happened. Paul would have you sit through a lecture on the constitution rather than fight for our existence against Al-Qaeda. Maybe I should give a lecture to Paul Ron Paul and his cult about Islam and the Caliphate.

For sure, he is not the best candidate around, nor does he have a good chance of being the nominee; so why are people sticking with him? Answer, people like the idea of living in a utopia.

The 'Paul' gang would love to be in a place where there is no terrorism, foreign aggression or nuclear weapons, where there are no existential threats to humanity and that everyone just needs to be left to their own devices and harmony will spread throughout our world. The problem with that is, there is a ‘real and constant’ threat that needs to be met, come what may. President Paul would lead America to the edge of the precipice, with his narrow-minded, impractical, out of touch rhetoric to foreign affairs.

My biggest concern is that he may well be the reason for ushering in Obama for a second term. Though he may deny it, his followers are desperate for a 3rd party run and are doing everything they can to create an opening for that to be the case.

I asked one Paul supporter whether they would support Romney over Obama and he said: “there is no lesser evil, both will kill this country.”

Surely Ron Paul knows that spending,entitlements,regulation,taxes,cutting government waste & a balanced budget will not happen unless Obama is defeated.
A normal movement that cares about the country would look at the bigger picture here and support the nominee to defeat Obama. I can say for certain that the nominee will NOT be Ron Paul.

Monday, 14 November 2011

It's the Economy, Stupid!!!!

The campaign of Rick Perry has startlingly flat-lined, Michelle Bachman has shrunk into obscurity after her straw poll win in Iowa, Jon Huntsman and his “world-shattering” campaign has never kicked off and Rick Santorum hasn’t imposed himself at all.

There are however three people that are currently hot in pursuit for the GOP nomination:

Mitt Romney; Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.

For Romney, it’s a case of ‘easy does it’. He hasn’t made mistakes, nor seemed out his depth and has stayed between 20- 25% since the beginning of this race. He isn’t, nor will ever be the flavour of the month with the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. He is safe with the Independent and Moderate voters but the Conservatives absolutely don’t trust him at all. His health care law in Massachusetts has taken a lot of heat and his flaky stance on Abortion and Global Warming.
Conversely, he has remained steady and wouldn’t be the worst candidate to take on Obama.

For Cain, it’s been some story.
In May 2011, he was polling at 4%, now he is at around 20%. A truly remarkable rise to the top.

How has he done it?
Through not being a politician and straight talk.
What could be his downfall?
Not being a politician and talking straight.

Before the sexual harassment claims came out, he was flying in the polls with his direct message regarding the tax system (the 999 plan), ObamaCare, the economy but since the scandal he has acted rather feebly. Yes, these rumours are just hearsay, but what he did, was go to every News Agency and issue mix messages and belittle the situation. Only after the accuser went public, did Cain get serious and issue a press conference.
Ideally from day one he should wholeheartedly admit that there was a settlement or arrangement when he was the President of the National Restaurant Association and explained the claims which would have stopped it cold, regardless of who ‘planted’ the story.
As a result, he is now beholden to any accusers who can come up with incriminating evidence. That is a horrible noose to have around your neck and it has already shown to be a negative in the polls. “Values Voters”, will be thinking twice about whether to vote for Cain.
(A point to ponder, in 2000, George W Bush, apparently lost 2 million voters after his was found to be Driving under the Influence (DUI). We all know who close that election was).

Then you have Newt Gingrich, he collapsed at the beginning of his campaign with horrendous comments regarding Paul Ryan, a revelation that he had a massive credit line with Tiffany’s and his wife being a huge drag on the campaign. As a result there was a mass exodus of staff and he was being pressured to drop out.
In July 2011, he was polling nationally at 6%, now he’s at 18% and rising.

He’s raised his standing through using his vast knowledge and experience as Speaker of the House and setting up businesses around the country, to run an ‘issues based’ campaign. It is fair to say that he has sounded smarter than most during each debate and his message is slowing resonating with the voters. He is also gaining votes for taking on the media during this election cycle.

So the stage is set. On paper it is Romney all day, however, Evangelicals and Conservatives are key for turnout. In 2000 & 2004 Bush was helped over the line by his base (Evangelicals and Conservatives). McCain didn’t have that luxury in 2008; only until Palin came onto the scene, did his poll numbers increase a great deal.
What people need to know is....Elections are won and lost on the Economy.

In 1980 – Reagan beat Carter, when the latter held office with double digit inflation and interest rates.

In 1992 Bill Clinton beat George W. Bush with the Clinton mantra of “it’s the Economy, Stupid”

In 2000 George W. Bush beat Al Gore with his talk about less government and lower taxes.

In 2008 Barack Obama beat John McCain after the economic meltdown in October. (Before that happened, McCain was up by 4points!)

I haven’t endorsed anyone at this time, nor will I do so for the immediate period but in my opinion, the GOP the slogan for 2012 is ironically:

“it’s the Economy, Stupid”.

Wednesday, 2 November 2011


People have been asking me when the Republican nominee will be decided. See below the GOP 2012 Primary Schedule.

January 3, 2012

Iowa (caucus)

January 10, 2012

New Hampshire (primary)

January 21, 2012

South Carolina (primary)

January 31, 2012

Florida (primary)

February 4, 2012

Nevada (caucus)

February 4–11, 2012

Maine (caucus)

February 7, 2012

Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)

February 28, 2012

Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)

March 3, 2012

Washington (caucus)

March 6, 2012(Super Tuesday)

Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Texas (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)

March 6-10, 2012

Wyoming (caucus)

March 10, 2012

Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)

March 13, 2012

Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)

March 17, 2012

Missouri (caucus)

March 20, 2012

Illinois (primary)

March 24, 2012

Louisiana (primary)

April 3, 2012

Maryland (primary)
Washington, D.C. (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)

April 24, 2012

Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)

May 8, 2012

Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)

May 15, 2012

Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)
May 22, 2012

Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)

June 5, 2012

California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)

June 12, 2012

Ohio (primary)

June 26, 2012

Utah (primary)

Tuesday, 1 November 2011


We all know that there is a visible Anti-Semitic slant taking place at the Occupy Wall Street protests. (I am sure the Tea Party sympathisers would be swamped like the Titanic, if similar pictures came out from their rallies).

President Obama, thus far, has failed to condemn the Anti-Semitism on display at the Occupy Wall demonstrations.

He's on the record as saying:

"Obviously I’ve heard of it. I’ve seen it on television. I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel". So, yes, I think people are frustrated, and the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works".

Can the President be serious? Is he really saying that he empathises with this lot? Do you know what their grief is? I think that Obama and the Occupy lot have a lot in common. They both have no idea as to what they stand for!

Wouldn't it be nice to hear the following type of rhetoric from our President:

"I don't think those people demonstrating on Wall Street had the kind of parents that I had and that you had. I was asked by a reporter, well what do you think of the O[ccupy] Wall Street protesters? I said well, first of all, Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars, and it didn't work.
Wall Street isn't the cause of $450 billion more to put in the caboose of our economic train.
Wall Street didn't shove ObamaCare down our throats.
The problem with those protesters is that they ought to be over at the White House, not on Wall Street—that's not where the problem is.
Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks -- if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself,"

"It is not a person's fault because they succeeded; it is a person's fault if they failed".

Said by Herman Cain (GOP Candidate for President of United States)


Real Clear Politics poll of polls shows Obama with a 44% approval rating, a far cry from June 2009, when he was polling in the mid to high 60’s.

Yet there’s a real possibility that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012. Yes, his poll numbers are poor, yes the unemployment rate will stay around 8-9%, yes the deficit has increased under his watch (more than the previous 43 Presidents COMBINED!) and yes his HealthCare bill is unconstitutional and wildly ostracized. However, he has one thing in his favour; he has the office of the President of United States at his disposal. He can decide when to look Presidential; he can decide to issue an executive order, or, instruct someone to kill some terrorist in Afghanistan. In doing so, he can then divert the electorate’s attention from whatever the current ‘buzz’ is. It doesn’t accomplish much in the long run, but it does change news cycles during a campaign.

However Let’s Compare and Contrast:

“With the magnitude of the challenges we face right now, what we need in Washington are not more political tactics -- we need more good ideas. We don't need more point-scoring -- we need more problem-solving”.

Barack Obama

“There is no limit to what a man can do, or where he can go, if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit”.

Ronald Reagan

I know one thing, if Obama adopted the Reagan quote / philosophy; we wouldn’t be in the mess that we find ourselves in today. If he did what Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s he would be a shoo-in for re-election.

After the mid-terms in 1994, the GOP took over the House of Representatives and proposed to enact fundamental reforms to the country. (President) Clinton originally vehemently detested the idea as it meant shrinking the size of government, promoting a lower tax rate, which is everything he was against. However, the GOP fought tooth and nail (including a shutdown of the government) to get these reforms in place. Eventually Clinton realised that if he didn’t move to the ‘right’, then he would be clobbered in the 1996 general elections. So, Clinton worked with the GOP to partially enact some of these reforms and largely took credit for them. Consequently he won re-election in 1996 by a huge margin, the GOP maintained their hold in Congress, but more importantly, the country was moving forward (until Lewinsky).

The same should have happened after the 2010 midterm elections. Obama had two years of his liberal agenda to do whatever he wanted, he focused on HealthCare, increased deficit spending, overregulation and income redistribution aka Socilasm. His doctrine was proving to be terrible; the unemployment rate skyrocketed, the deficit was increasing, markets collapsing throughout the world, banks failing and more and more people were distrusting him on the Economy. That apathy from the voters resulted in a huge midterm election defeat for the President. His party lost control of the House of Representatives and their majority in the Senate shrunk alarmingly.
After such a repudiation, you would expect the President to accept the will of the people and start working with the GOP leadership to get this Economy moving again. Alas that never happened, he hasn’t compromised on one thing. He is stubborn, played partisan politics and is largely the reason why there is continued gridlock in Washington DC. This makes his remarks all in the State of the Union (27th Jan 2010) all the more astounding:

"What the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life".

Yet In spite of all of his failings, he still has a reasonable shot of wining in 2012. Trying to dislodge an incumbent from office takes a lot of doing.
The focus of the electorate may change from now to Election day.
At the moment its all about the Economy but it could change instantly. Remember, (President) Bush 43 was struggling in the polls until Osama Bin Laden addressed the world, people then remembered about 9/11 and the dangers we faced and moved back into the Bush column.
McCain and Palin were up by 3 points against Obama until the financial meltdown in 2008.

We now have almost a year until the 2012 General Election. Obama and I will agree on this: 'it ain't over until it's over'.