Daily National 2/17 Breifing

        AmericanLP covers all the top headlines in politics on both sides of the aisle in this morning’s news brief. Major headlines yesterday once again pointed to a rebounding economy. New applications for unemployment hit a 4-year low. Also, the DNC released a new ad, which you can view at the 1:15 mark, highlighting the diverging ideologies between the Obama administration’s decision to save the auto industry and Mitt Romney’s 2008 Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. The bailout was unequivocally a successful administrative decision for President Obama, and coupling this with the rate for unemployment applications falling, and last week’s news that the overall unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, we have public opinion of the President quickly on the rise. 44% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll believe economic conditions will be better in 2013 than this year. This coincides with a CNN poll yesterday showing the President’s approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in 8 months. The administration, and the Obama re-election campaign, have really begun hammering home the jobs numbers, focusing not on the unemployment rate so much, as that number is still unfortunately high, but rightly talking about how bad things were when Obama came into office (750,000 jobs hemorrhaging from the economy per month) to how his policies have vastly turned this country around (250,000 jobs added in January; a 1 million point swing) and have created the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990’s.

Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.

                A new segment on AmericanLP, “News From The 14th Century,” highlights the ridiculous spectacle yesterday from Congress where Darrell Issa barred a woman from testifying on a birth control hearing in response to the contraception controversy. Republicans, for all their talk of individual freedom, want to deny women access to birth control, even though 98% of Catholic women say they have used some form of contraceptive in their life. Issa, instead of allowing one woman to testify, decided to fill the panel with men and priests. Clearly, they’ll have a deeper understanding of contraception than any woman might…

These are just a few of the highlights from this morning’s briefing. Watch the whole video for more news in politics from around the country. ~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker



The Ultimate Anti Newt Ad

In case Newt Gingrich does get the GOP nomination, my group, AmericanLP, wants to be ready. So we are in planning stages for casting and shooting a commercial like the one below. Please contact me if you know anyone who would be interested in starring in the ad.

Open Casting call for White Woman age30-45 who fits this personal description willing to appear in national broadcast TV ad

:60 TV Ad

(Emotional instrumental background music)

Middle-aged woman speaking right into camera

“Newt Gingrich is absolutely right when he says nobody but Christ is perfect and that everyone deserves forgiveness.  Still…

 My own father cheated on my mother and left us for a younger woman…those were hard times.

A few years ago, my own husband left me for a younger woman…we’ve had some really hard times.

So what am I supposed to tell my son now about how to treat women? Newt Gingrich has twice as many ex-wives as all previous Presidents of the United States combined. It’s been well-documented that Newt has repeatedly and flagrantly cheated on numerous wives. It seems like Newt has used women and tossed them aside his whole life.

What kind of message does it send to my son that you can screw and screw over as many women as you can get your hands on your entire life, and then, at age 70, which is how old Gingrich would be in his first year, claim that you’ve “matured” and be given the highest honor in the world by serving as President? I want a president I can look up to as the best of what we’re all about, not the worst.

I’m not saying we have to go back to the 1950s, but can’t we have some standards? Committing adultery is one of the 10 commandments. Is it really enough to say, ‘sorry, I’ve matured?’ Where do we draw the line? Are we going to elect convicted murders or rapists, just because they say, ‘I realize that I was less than perfect and now that I’m 70 I promise not to murder anymore?’

I want a President I can look up to, not someone who reminds me of the worst betrayals in my life.”

More info at www.americanlp.org  and www.dailynational.com

Mitt Romney Going on First Sunday Morning Talk Show in a Year and a Half

Mitt Romney has been running a great media campaign—if you are an incumbent sitting on top of a strong economy and high approval ratings. Unfortunately for Mitt, his strategy of avoiding the media has allowed his opponents to define him, and the news establishment to mock him.

Here are the problems with Mitt’s ‘Avoid-the-Press’ strategy.

  1. Romney gives off the air that he doesn’t want to have to answer questions about his beliefs and policies because he doesn’t sincerely believe in what he claims are his current beliefs and policies.
  2. He underscores the sense that he is simply afraid of all media interviews because they will inevitably lead to questions about his flip-flopping and he can’t handle that.
  3. He doesn’t want to get into a war of words competition with his fellow candidates to see who can call Obama the most dangerous Socialist. And yet he doesn’t want to be seen as NOT calling Obama a dangerous socialist.
  4. Scarcity with reporters means that they had better make their mark when they do get to interview him, because they might not ever get another opportunity. That means they must be 1000xs more aggressive than usual.
  5. Team Romney goes into every interview with a defensive mentality. If you go into an interview with that kind of an attitude, it means you can never win or make gains.
  6. Interview skills get rusty. Romney doesn’t do many interviews so he simply isn’t as good at them as are candidates who do any and every interview.

Romney’s press strategy has had sort of a quaint, pre-social media, pre-2000 feel to it. The Romney people honestly seem to believe that if they just keep a low profile, they can coast with their (now disappeared) lead in the polls. You can make the case that this made sense (say, in 1976) but it does not work any longer. Mitt Romney not going on TV doesn’t mean there is no media coverage about him on any given day. It just means that every blogger and every political reporter now has more time and space to write or say that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper and a coward to boot.

A case can easily be made that Newt Gingrich has flip-flopped to a much greater degree than Romney has on important issues of the day (and no, I’m not just talking about positions on adultery or marriage). But since Gingrich is going on any and every TV and radio news/talk show, he’s constantly putting new ideas into the mix (even if half of them are bad). And Newt is constantly putting other candidates and the news media on the defensive. Newt's open media strategy is allowing him to define himself more carefully than Mitt’s ostensibly cautions, conservative press strategy is.

The problem for Mitt is that he appears not to want scrutiny into his life, his beliefs and his policy history. He exudes the sense that he knows he’s flip-flopping and that he thinks you are quite ill-mannered for pointing out the fact that he is self-servingly abandoning all previously held beliefs in favor of more popular positions that can help him with an important constituency.

Newt, on the other hand, seems to enjoy time with journalists. He doesn’t mind any and all questions from journalists as long as he can preface every answer by pointing out that he thinks the journalist is a complete dolt and left-wing hack for daring to ask him any question other than “Speaker Newt, can you please enlighten us with your amazing historical insights into the issues of the day?”

With Romney, the news coverage of his interviews is consistently pre-written “Romney, appearing annoyed and frustrated, gave another lackluster interview performance defending against the allegation that he has no core convictions or principles.”

The news coverage surrounding a Gingrich media opportunity is never pre-written. You never know what might come out of Newt’s mouth. True, every so often he says something that blows up in his face, but at least Newt is never boring. And as the GOP nominating process increasingly takes on all the trappings of a reality show (thanks again Donald Trump), the biggest sin of all in the viewers’, uh, voters’, minds seems to be if a contestant, err candidate, is boring.





Herman Cain Target of FEC Investigation Demand

December 5, 2011

Cynthia l. Bauerly
Chair, Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463

Dear Madame Bauerly:

I respectfully request that you begin an immediate fraud investigation in the Friends of Herman Cain, Inc political action committee on the grounds that it is a fraudulent operation that has not operated within the parameters of its articles of incorporation with your office.

I contend that this committee was set up for the sole purposes of defrauding the United States taxpayers through the use of seeking matching funds. I request that you do two things:

  1. Investigate the activities of Friends of Herman Cain, Inc to determine possible violations of its stated goal, i.e. advancing the Presidential candidacy of Herman Cain.
  2. Cease any and all processes that could result in Friends of Herman Cain, Inc, receiving any U.S. taxpayer matching funds in 2012 until it can be established that the Committee was in fact, an actual presidential committee and not a fraudulent ruse established for the sole reason of promoting Herman Cain’s books and personal business ventures.

Please consider the following as prima facie evidence that the Friends of Herman Cain, Inc was never honest in its stated intentions of advancing the candidacy of Mr. Cain and was, instead, a thinly cloaked vehicle for advancing the economic interests of one person: Herman Cain.

  1. “Candidate” Cain made no effort to build traditional campaign organizations in early key states, like Iowa or New Hampshire.
  2. “Candidate” Cain displayed no interest in demonstrating knowledge, expertise or even interest in 50% of the U.S. President’s job responsibility, i.e. foreign policy.
  3. “Candidate” Cain had lengthy stretches of his campaign where he in fact did no actual campaigning. Instead, he used the “hook” of his candidacy to go on television to sell his books.
  4. “Candidate” Cain has insisted on mocking the entire process of a presidential campaign by proclaiming he is “anti-abortion” and “pro-life” because the decision to abort a child should be solely “between a woman and her doctor.”


Madame Bauerly, I humbly request that you investigate this matter thoroughly and quickly. If con games such as the one perpetrated by Mr. Cain are allowed to continue unpunished, we can expect to see hundreds if not thousands of con artists, aspiring motivational speakers, Ann Coulter wannabes, authors and other charlatans exploiting the US taxpayers in future campaign cycles, corrupting the U.S. election process as they do so.


Thank you for your serious attention to this matter.




TJ Walker


The Daily National







Advertise Blogads