<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Al Gore</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/al-gore/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Coming Soon: FrackNation</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>clarenbachvanderkam718</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[josh fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Phelim McAleer and his wife Ann McElhinney are journalists and documentary filmmakers. You may remember Not Evil Just Wrong (2009), their takedown of Al Gore and Global Warming hysteria. Now they want to tell the truth about natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in a full-length documentary titled FrackNation . McAleer says: FrackNation will skeptically examine some of the scarier claims made by anti-fracking activists and look at how shale gas is helping some of the poorest communities in the US and potentially across the planet. It will feature small farmers, the working class and others who are benefiting from this economic boom. We will look at the backgrounds and motives of those opposing fracking. [Click here to see the producers' Kickstarter pitch for the project. (2:53)] FrackNation will go head-to-head with GasLand II , Josh Fox&#8217;s planned sequel to GasLand (2010), the highly effective anti-gas propaganda piece. With scant concern for earth science and demonstrable fact, GasLand earned an Academy Award nomination and stirred up anti-fracking hysteria nationwide with its memorable footage of flaming faucets. PBS and HBO will jointly bankroll Gasland II to the tune of $750,000. It is set to air on HBO this fall. Here&#8217;s how you can fight back: To tell their grassroots tale, McAleer, McElhinney and co-producer Magda Segieda will rely on grassroots financing. The website kickstarter.com provides a fundraising platform for creative projects. FrackNation &#8216;s goal is a modest $150,000. For as little as $1.00 , you can support a professional, fact-based counterargument to GasLand II . $20 donors will receive a copy of the DVD upon release. All donors will be named executive producer of the project. But why fracking? In 2011, McAleer called out Josh Fox, quite publicly , for conveniently neglecting to tell GasLand &#8216;s audience that flammable methane in groundwater is unrelated to gas development, and in fact predates gas development in Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission looked into the claims in their state and concluded that the gas was &#8220;biogenic&#8221; in origin (i.e., naturally-occurring shallow gas, and not deep gas-well gas). Fox dismissed those reports as &#8220;not relevant&#8221;: Fox and his attorneys had the video above shut down for a time on both youtube and vimeo. The attempt at suppression inspired Phelim and Ann in their current project. Josh Fox is an intelligent man must be quite aware that he is  pandering to the fears of the people. Radical environmentalists see cheap natural gas as the #1 threat to the development of wind, solar and other alternative forms of energy. By playing fast and loose with the facts, they can mobilize public sentiment against gas development. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s important and timely to counter those arguments with facts and reason. “Normally, Kickstarter projects are pro-radical environmentalism,” said McAleer.  &#8220; FrackNation will be the first documentary funded through Kickstarter to challenge the environmental establishment.  It will appeal to the workers and small farmers who know the truth, but never see it represented in modern documentaries.&#8221; Fundraising began quietly on Monday, with a full press campaign due on Tuesday. As of this writing [Tuesday morning], a total of nearly $7,500 $14,600, 5% ~10% of the goal, had already been achieved. [Updated 5:00 pm ET, 2/7. - Ed.] Cross=posted at stevemaley.com . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coming Soon: FrackNation</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academy-award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[called-out-josh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dvd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracknation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas-development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kickstarter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magda-segieda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phelim mcaleer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Phelim McAleer and his wife Ann McElhinney are journalists and documentary filmmakers. You may remember Not Evil Just Wrong (2009), their takedown of Al Gore and Global Warming hysteria. Now they want to tell the truth about natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in a full-length documentary titled FrackNation . McAleer says: FrackNation will skeptically examine some of the scarier claims made by anti-fracking activists and look at how shale gas is helping some of the poorest communities in the US and potentially across the planet. It will feature small farmers, the working class and others who are benefiting from this economic boom. We will look at the backgrounds and motives of those opposing fracking. [Click here to see the producers' Kickstarter pitch for the project. (2:53)] FrackNation will go head-to-head with GasLand II , Josh Fox&#8217;s planned sequel to GasLand (2010), the highly effective anti-gas propaganda piece. With scant concern for earth science and demonstrable fact, GasLand earned an Academy Award nomination and stirred up anti-fracking hysteria nationwide with its memorable footage of flaming faucets. PBS and HBO will jointly bankroll Gasland II to the tune of $750,000. It is set to air on HBO this fall. Here&#8217;s how you can fight back: To tell their grassroots tale, McAleer, McElhinney and co-producer Magda Segieda will rely on grassroots financing. The website kickstarter.com provides a fundraising platform for creative projects. FrackNation &#8216;s goal is a modest $150,000. For as little as $1.00 , you can support a professional, fact-based counterargument to GasLand II . $20 donors will receive a copy of the DVD upon release. All donors will be named executive producer of the project. But why fracking? In 2011, McAleer called out Josh Fox, quite publicly , for conveniently neglecting to tell GasLand &#8216;s audience that flammable methane in groundwater is unrelated to gas development, and in fact predates gas development in Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission looked into the claims in their state and concluded that the gas was &#8220;biogenic&#8221; in origin (i.e., naturally-occurring shallow gas, and not deep gas-well gas). Fox dismissed those reports as &#8220;not relevant&#8221;: Fox and his attorneys had the video above shut down for a time on both youtube and vimeo. The attempt at suppression inspired Phelim and Ann in their current project. Josh Fox is an intelligent man must be quite aware that he is  pandering to the fears of the people. Radical environmentalists see cheap natural gas as the #1 threat to the development of wind, solar and other alternative forms of energy. By playing fast and loose with the facts, they can mobilize public sentiment against gas development. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s important and timely to counter those arguments with facts and reason. “Normally, Kickstarter projects are pro-radical environmentalism,” said McAleer.  &#8220; FrackNation will be the first documentary funded through Kickstarter to challenge the environmental establishment.  It will appeal to the workers and small farmers who know the truth, but never see it represented in modern documentaries.&#8221; Fundraising began quietly on Monday, with a full press campaign due on Tuesday. As of this writing [Tuesday morning], a total of nearly $7,500 $14,600, 5% ~10% of the goal, had already been achieved. [Updated 5:00 pm ET, 2/7. - Ed.] Cross=posted at stevemaley.com . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coming Soon: FrackNation</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>FlodinCeglinski711</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[backgrounds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dvd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hydraulic fracturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[josh fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magda-segieda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Phelim McAleer and his wife Ann McElhinney are journalists and documentary filmmakers. You may remember Not Evil Just Wrong (2009), their takedown of Al Gore and Global Warming hysteria. Now they want to tell the truth about natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing in a full-length documentary titled FrackNation . McAleer says: FrackNation will skeptically examine some of the scarier claims made by anti-fracking activists and look at how shale gas is helping some of the poorest communities in the US and potentially across the planet. It will feature small farmers, the working class and others who are benefiting from this economic boom. We will look at the backgrounds and motives of those opposing fracking. [Click here to see the producers' Kickstarter pitch for the project. (2:53)] FrackNation will go head-to-head with GasLand II , Josh Fox&#8217;s planned sequel to GasLand (2010), the highly effective anti-gas propaganda piece. With scant concern for earth science and demonstrable fact, GasLand earned an Academy Award nomination and stirred up anti-fracking hysteria nationwide with its memorable footage of flaming faucets. PBS and HBO will jointly bankroll Gasland II to the tune of $750,000. It is set to air on HBO this fall. Here&#8217;s how you can fight back: To tell their grassroots tale, McAleer, McElhinney and co-producer Magda Segieda will rely on grassroots financing. The website kickstarter.com provides a fundraising platform for creative projects. FrackNation &#8216;s goal is a modest $150,000. For as little as $1.00 , you can support a professional, fact-based counterargument to GasLand II . $20 donors will receive a copy of the DVD upon release. All donors will be named executive producer of the project. But why fracking? In 2011, McAleer called out Josh Fox, quite publicly , for conveniently neglecting to tell GasLand &#8216;s audience that flammable methane in groundwater is unrelated to gas development, and in fact predates gas development in Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission looked into the claims in their state and concluded that the gas was &#8220;biogenic&#8221; in origin (i.e., naturally-occurring shallow gas, and not deep gas-well gas). Fox dismissed those reports as &#8220;not relevant&#8221;: Fox and his attorneys had the video above shut down for a time on both youtube and vimeo. The attempt at suppression inspired Phelim and Ann in their current project. Josh Fox is an intelligent man must be quite aware that he is  pandering to the fears of the people. Radical environmentalists see cheap natural gas as the #1 threat to the development of wind, solar and other alternative forms of energy. By playing fast and loose with the facts, they can mobilize public sentiment against gas development. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s important and timely to counter those arguments with facts and reason. “Normally, Kickstarter projects are pro-radical environmentalism,” said McAleer.  &#8220; FrackNation will be the first documentary funded through Kickstarter to challenge the environmental establishment.  It will appeal to the workers and small farmers who know the truth, but never see it represented in modern documentaries.&#8221; Fundraising began quietly on Monday, with a full press campaign due on Tuesday. As of this writing [Tuesday morning], a total of nearly $7,500 $14,600, 5% ~10% of the goal, had already been achieved. [Updated 5:00 pm ET, 2/7. - Ed.] Cross=posted at stevemaley.com . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/coming-soon-fracknation-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exit Newt</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clintons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[running]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[student]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ WASHINGTON -- Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination! Newt quoted Soros as saying, "We think either Obama or Romney's fine, but Gingrich, he would change things." Citing Goldman Sachs' profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: "Those ads," he averred, "are your money recycled to attack me." On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs' or of Soros's aiding Romney. Newt lost support in his last week in Florida because conservatives gave him a closer look. Sure we loved his one-liners singeing the tail feathers of the Liberal media and politicians. Yet, we have to put someone up against President Barack Obama who can win. Moreover, we have to put someone in the White House who can govern. With Newt we would be explaining his gyrations every few days during the campaign. And in the unlikely event that he should win we would be spending the next four years apologizing for his extravagance. I did it once before in the 1990s, and I can tell you it was a thankless task. As I wrote last week, Newt is a 1960s generation kid. Allow me to elaborate. That generation -- my generation -- was the most ballyhooed generation raised in the 20th century, and it was -- at least in politics -- a failed generation. Gingrich, the Clintons, Al Gore, and the rest of the 1960s hustlers began their political careers in college when they were the first generation to actually believe that student government was on campus to govern. The weak Liberal administrators went along with them and gave them a say in the running of their universities. The universities have yet to recover. Yet, beyond the damage they did to the universities was the damage they did to themselves. They became the most self-absorbed generation of narcissists ever heard of. From their student government days to their days in national politics they all lived out a fantasy. Now it is over. It would be eminently fitting if Romney won the presidency and set the country on course in 2012. He is from the normal half of that generation, a man who was a student in the 1960s and afterwards a businessman, until he had secured his fortune and entered public life in middle age. By then the Clintons and Newt had been supping at the public trough for years. The unreported aspect of last week's story of the conservative writers and politicos turning on Gingrich was the role played by the Episodic Apologists. They are the media types who have been covering for the Clintons for years. They have high hopes for the Clintons' talents. Then they are crestfallen by one of the Clintons' scandals: the pilfering of the White House, the last-minute pardons, Monica Lewinsky. Then their high hopes rekindle anew. They were loath to report my attack on Newt as being the Republican's Bill Clinton, but they jumped at the "conservative Establishment's" attacks on his veracity and his other wayward traits. Yet, Newt's failure is part of a larger failure, the infantilism of the 1960s generation. In his narcissism, impulsiveness, and deviancy he is at one with the Clintons. Mitt, and for that matter Santorum, are just the opposite. They are straight arrows and duty-bound. They would not be a riot of scandals in the White House, but is it not about time that we leave the scandals to Hollywood? This country is facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama offers us what Romney calls Crony Capitalism. Romney is right and Crony Capitalism means more Solyndras. Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has served up a budget to cure the nation's ills and head us on a course that will not end like Greece has ended. Romney is not far from the Ryan budget and he can move even closer. Newt can be forgotten. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exit Newt</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[running]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ WASHINGTON -- Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich did in the last days of the Florida primary precisely what I predicted he would do. He hurled wild charges at Mitt Romney that suggested Newt was losing his grip. He charged Romney with lying and falling into the hands of George Soros and Goldman Sachs, and he did this while seeking the Republican presidential nomination! Newt quoted Soros as saying, "We think either Obama or Romney's fine, but Gingrich, he would change things." Citing Goldman Sachs' profiting from the bailout, he linked the Wall Street firm to anti-Gingrich ads, filling in the dots: "Those ads," he averred, "are your money recycled to attack me." On Sunday, he suggested that Rick Santorum drop out of the race and support him. Santorum had left the campaign trail to be with his desperately ill daughter. That is the kind of grace we have come to expect from Gingrich, who, by the way, supplied no evidence of Goldman Sachs' or of Soros's aiding Romney. Newt lost support in his last week in Florida because conservatives gave him a closer look. Sure we loved his one-liners singeing the tail feathers of the Liberal media and politicians. Yet, we have to put someone up against President Barack Obama who can win. Moreover, we have to put someone in the White House who can govern. With Newt we would be explaining his gyrations every few days during the campaign. And in the unlikely event that he should win we would be spending the next four years apologizing for his extravagance. I did it once before in the 1990s, and I can tell you it was a thankless task. As I wrote last week, Newt is a 1960s generation kid. Allow me to elaborate. That generation -- my generation -- was the most ballyhooed generation raised in the 20th century, and it was -- at least in politics -- a failed generation. Gingrich, the Clintons, Al Gore, and the rest of the 1960s hustlers began their political careers in college when they were the first generation to actually believe that student government was on campus to govern. The weak Liberal administrators went along with them and gave them a say in the running of their universities. The universities have yet to recover. Yet, beyond the damage they did to the universities was the damage they did to themselves. They became the most self-absorbed generation of narcissists ever heard of. From their student government days to their days in national politics they all lived out a fantasy. Now it is over. It would be eminently fitting if Romney won the presidency and set the country on course in 2012. He is from the normal half of that generation, a man who was a student in the 1960s and afterwards a businessman, until he had secured his fortune and entered public life in middle age. By then the Clintons and Newt had been supping at the public trough for years. The unreported aspect of last week's story of the conservative writers and politicos turning on Gingrich was the role played by the Episodic Apologists. They are the media types who have been covering for the Clintons for years. They have high hopes for the Clintons' talents. Then they are crestfallen by one of the Clintons' scandals: the pilfering of the White House, the last-minute pardons, Monica Lewinsky. Then their high hopes rekindle anew. They were loath to report my attack on Newt as being the Republican's Bill Clinton, but they jumped at the "conservative Establishment's" attacks on his veracity and his other wayward traits. Yet, Newt's failure is part of a larger failure, the infantilism of the 1960s generation. In his narcissism, impulsiveness, and deviancy he is at one with the Clintons. Mitt, and for that matter Santorum, are just the opposite. They are straight arrows and duty-bound. They would not be a riot of scandals in the White House, but is it not about time that we leave the scandals to Hollywood? This country is facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama offers us what Romney calls Crony Capitalism. Romney is right and Crony Capitalism means more Solyndras. Congressman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has served up a budget to cure the nation's ills and head us on a course that will not end like Greece has ended. Romney is not far from the Ryan budget and he can move even closer. Newt can be forgotten. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/02/exit-newt-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[follow-the-pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frontrunners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin's Santorum endorsement is a good primer. [Santorum] didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn't written any "Contracts with the Earth." Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement. Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values - not just in word, but in deed. Personally, I think Santorum's big government votes under Bush ought to be given more weight. Republicans tend to be much less fiscally conservative when they hold power or act on behalf of parochial concerns, so candidates who resist that temptation have more credibility than those who don't. Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years. That said, it is a respectable case, especially when compared to the contortions others must go through to justify supporting their preferred candidate. It's also a reminder of why Santorum is going to continue to collect a lot of votes from conservatives uncomfortable with the frontrunners' records. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Romney is Weak vs. Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/why-romney-is-weak-vs-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/why-romney-is-weak-vs-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vacation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/why-romney-is-weak-vs-obama/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Since I wrote this little blog post the other day, picked up at Real Clear Politics, all of a sudden (by coincidence; I'm not claiming I had anything to do with it, but just am remarking on how rapidly the 'meme' has taken off) all sorts of people are suddenly realizing that Mitt Romney is hardly the candidate with the best chance to beat Barack Obama. It certainly isn't all at the Center for Individual Freedom, but we did have a written colloquy on the subject the other day, with Troy Senik and Ashton Ellis insightfully joining me in weighing in . Actually, Jonathan Last made the case earlier, here . Tina Korbe, a rising star, argues the same thing at Hot Air. Phil Klein at the Washington Examiner makes the case that Romney's flip-flopping is a big liability in a general election (as it was for Al Gore and to a certain extent John Kerry). Back in late December, John Hawkins at Right Wing News also argued the situation quite well. Of course, Peter Ferrara made the case right here at the Spectator , although he also segued into (strong) arguments against Romney's ability to do a good job if he were elected anyway. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection also has questions . The scholarly take on it , again doubting Romney's electability, was by Larry Lindsey at the Weekly Standard . From the center-left , the very smart former U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) thinks his (former) party doesn't have much to worry about from Romney: "The fact, however, is that Democrats have not had to strain to plan the race they would run against Romney. For four days in the week, they will paint him as a flip-flopper who has occupied both sides of a lot of ground; for three days, as an entitled tool of corporate interests who made millions doling out pink slips on behalf of a shadowy management firm." Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy doubts whether we can know who is more electable. At the New York Post , John Podhoretz writes a piece about Romney headlined "Never Has a Winner Looked so Beaten." The column is brutal. It calls Romney "one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen." Also: "[N]obody loves him. No one is inspired by him.… Claiming he should be president because he knows how to run a business may be the least stirring message any candidate has seized upon since Michael Dukakis foundered in 1988 by claiming he could bring 'competence' to the White House. And his liabilities are undeniable. Even though Gingrich's assault on Romney's record of laying off workers when he was running Bain Capital is breathtaking in its disingenuousness, that record does happen to be one of a dozen glaring weaknesses in Romney's biography, political history and approach that President Obama and his team will be able to use to their advantage." And Jonah Goldberg writes that Romney's "authentic inauthenticity problem isn't going away." Plenty other similar pieces are out there, all in a rush. And they are all correct. I try to look at these things from three perspectives based in my own experience. [MUCH MORE] I've been a political activist/political professional/presidential campaign state executive director/presidential caucus organizer/leadership Hill staffer, so I have a participant's perspective. I've been a PR executive, so I then try to look at it from a marketing perspective. And I've been a journalist/columnist for 15 years, so there's the close observer/outsider perspective. (This is not to boast about my background, but only to explain HOW I arrive at looking at things, from different angles, as a way to check my assumptions -- althought I do have a long record of getting it right.) Anyway, here's what I see. I see, first, a candidate who " fails to inspire ." This is hugely important. It's the old Dole/McCain/Bush 41 thing again: Without energizing one's base, it doesn't matter if you can get a few extra percentage points from "swing" voters (even assuming it's true that those extra few points are achievable -- which is probably not true anyway, because if you aren't inspirational, you aren't inspirational, period, meaning you don't inspire the middle either). It's also true that millions of voters really can decide to stay home; remember that Karl Rove estimated that up to 4 million expected Evangelical Bush backers stayed home in 2000 after being disgusted by last-weekend news that Bush had had a drunk driving arrest way back when. The result, of course, was a race that took six extra weeks to decide. Next is a candidate's history, which was the basis of my original post on this front. Aside from winning the governorship against extremely weak opposition in a three-way race where he failed to get an actual majority of the vote, in a state that despite its liberalism had become accustomed to electing Republican governors ( for 12 straight years ), Romney still has never won an electorally significant victory that wasn't in his native state (Michigan) or in a state that is his backyard and site of his vacation home (New Hampshire). Even in Iowa, his mere eight-vote win after five years of work there amounted to six (yes, count them, exactly six) fewer votes than he earned four years earlier in the same caucus system. Then there's the attacks on his tenure at Bain Capital. The attacks are over-the-top and unfair. But coming from the left in a general election campaign, they will work. That's how a weakened Ted Kennedy in a Republican year blew open a tight race against Romney and won by a landslide -- by attacking Bain (and by some subtle but effective exploitation of anti-Mormon bigotry, which unfortunately and unfairly and sickeningly will probably cost Romney a point and a half from otherwise GOP voters this year as well). What's particularly devastating here is when a candidate's big vulnerability is in the very area he tried to, and expected to, make his biggest political strength. Romney's main selling point has been that he is a good businessman who proved himself in the private sector; if that gets taken away, he's toast, because his record as governor was nothing to write home about, with his only significant "achievement" being the execrable one of Romneycare. This is very much akin to what happened to John Kerry, who tried to make his major selling point his supposed military "heroism," when the highly on-target Swift Boat attacks made that same military service into a slight net liability. You can't win when your biggest selling point is actually a vulnerability. Romney, indeed, is the perfect foil for the Obama campaign, first because he is the very epitome of a Republican born rich who got richer by moving money around -- a millionaire plutocrat who just can't relate to "ordinary" Americans, and second because he is yet another Republican political/dynastic legatee. Think about it: We've gone from one Bush trying to outdo his Senate father by becoming president, to another Bush trying to outdo his president father by winning two terms as president, to a McCain trying to outdo his admiral father and admiral grandfather by becoming president... and now to a Romney trying to outdo his Michigan governor father and failed presidential front-runner by this time succeeding as a presidential front-runner. In the hands of the $800 million Obama campaign, this can easily by portrayed as a rather creepy and anti-American reliance on dynasticism. Combine that with what appears to be a plastic insincerity (again, the "flip-flopping" charge was devastating against Al Gore and can be so again), with a "how dare you question me" attitude that increasingly has shown itself in debates, and with an utter failure to "connect" emotionally with what once were known as "Reagan Democrats" (old-ethnic. i.e. Italian-American/Polish-American, etc., blue collar workers, culturally conservative and on economics distrustful of Wall Street), and you have a recipe for an extraordinarily weak general election candidate. Against all of that, all Romney can offer is a supposed greater acceptability to the educated, less culturally conservative, right-leaning economically, urban and suburbanites who are being targeted by Obama in places like Virginia and North Carolina. But the key thing here is that while these folks may be more socially liberal, they tend to vote more on the basis of their slightly upper-middle-income economic expectations rather than on social issues, and they'll vote either for or against Obama based on those analyses regardless of who the Republican nominee is. But it is the blue-collar worker, or small-business retailer, who (polls show) votes more often on cultural cues (not necessarily social issues per se, although that is sometimes the case, but more on stylistic cultural cues and concerns) than on other factors. Again, this is obviously a gross over-generalization (as is most 30,000-foot-level political socio-analysis), but these are indeed, as Rick Santorum keeps saying, the people who swing elections in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The are far more likely to swing behind Santorum (or Gingrich, or Perry) than behind the stiff rich guy with a "weird" religion and no middle-cultural social affinities ("shooting... small varmints" and flipping on homosexual "marriage"). While general-election polls ten months out are not at all predictive of final results, they can indicate basic information about viability. Candidates with higher name ID (especially with low current "hard negatives" like Romney) can be expected to do far better than ones with low ID, low familiarity, etc. Thus, it is highly instructive that in recent polls in both Florida and North Carolina , Rick Santorum did almost exactly as well (margin of error) against Obama as Romney did, despite Romney's far greater familiarity to voters. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Romney just can't campaign against Obama's single biggest vulnerability, Obamacare . There are just too many similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare, too many bad results from Romneycare (busting the budget, etc.), and too many video clips of Romney from six years ago saying that he hoped that even the individual insurance mandate would become a "national model." This will absolutely hobble Romney's campaign. In fact, it might be an insurmountable problem. All of which is to say that Willard Mitt Romney has very low growth potential in a general-election campaign against Obama. His downside might be not as low as John McCain's was, four years ago, but his upside is negligible. As Larry Lindsey's analysis (mentioned above) explains, this can be an easy recipe for what I call a "respectable loss." But a loss is a loss is a loss. Romney is a weak general-election candidate who isn't likely to get any better. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/why-romney-is-weak-vs-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newt, Perry: Time to Get Out?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/newt-perry-time-to-get-out/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/newt-perry-time-to-get-out/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservative Talk Radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative talk radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/newt-perry-time-to-get-out/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ POW! In his typical understated New York fashion, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went on Fox and Friends yesterday and smacked Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for their sudden yearning for class warfare. "What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky. This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you're saying is part of the reason we're in so much trouble right now," said a furious and frustrated America's mayor. Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal reports there are now second thoughts in the Gingrich camp about identifying a man who repeatedly identifies himself as a "Reagan conservative" with a 28-minute documentary attacking Mitt Romney as a big bad capitalist. Good thinking. One has to wonder: What in the world is Gingrich SuperPAC honcho Rick Tyler smoking? In a clip of an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, played on air by Rush Limbaugh, Tyler responds to Mitchell's question of whether or not the anti-Romney approach taken by the Gingrich campaign is not causing Gingrich himself problems -- with Republican voters. To which Tyler answers by saying that Obama's David Axelrod knows infinitely more about Romney's Bain Capital than the Gingrich camp and will let fly if Romney is the nominee. So therefore, was the implication, the attacks on Romney over Bain by the Gingrich campaign are as nothing… and necessary to boot. To say the least, we've been critical of Governor Romney in this space. He is a nice guy but not a conservative. In fact, the one thing Newt is doing right is identifying Romney as a "Massachusetts moderate." True. Absolutely. Romney is a 21st century Rockefeller Republican, just another card-carrying GOP moderate of the type that has routinely lost presidential elections or turned in historically disappointing presidencies that are nothing if not just more status quo. We've taken flack from the anti-Newt side of the corral and others for thinking of Speaker Gingrich from our experience with him in his days as a young Reaganite leader of the Conservative Opportunity Society in the House. Newt, it has been insisted to us, is not a conservative at all but a liberal… an opportunist… a man unable to stop shooting himself in the foot etc., etc. Suffice to say, this was certainly not the impression he gave in repeated dealings with him as an energetic Reaganite House leader carrying the war straight to the liberal likes of Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright. But what Mr. Tyler is saying… plus the disgraceful Romney-attack ads coming from the Gingrich SuperPAC now being played on conservative talk radio… can not only deepen that impression of the anti-Newts, it can have the end result of self-sabotaging the Gingrich campaign and his reputation beyond as a Reagan conservative. Lending the distinct and to some alarming impression that in a fit of fury at Romney (justified) the ex-Speaker is switching from being a leader of the Conservative Opportunity Society to what might be called the Gingrich/Perry Conservative Resentment Society. There are 1,000 and one ways to go after Romney's record as a "Massachusetts moderate." Flip-flopping, abortion, planned parenthood, the anti-Reagan streak when convenient, the "I was an independent and I'm not a partisan" shtick used to run for office in Massachusetts. Even under attack on Bain, Governor Romney seems too timid to make a full throated defense of economic freedom and capitalism. Indeed, Romney's very timidity in defending both himself and the core principle of conservatism that is economic freedom should serve as yet another fire bell in the night as to the lack of boldness inherent in a potential Romney administration. One of the other points Mayor Giuliani made is perhaps key to the entire campaign -- the emotional desire of both Rudy Giuliani and millions of grassroots Republicans/conservatives to raise the Reagan conservative banner. Newt was making progress on this path. But in an apparent -- and understandable -- desire to even the score with Romney over all those Iowa commercials, Gingrich himself or his advisers (that means you, Rick Tyler) are using an influx of cash to the end result of effectively trashing the Reagan legacy, not to mention the ex-Speaker's credibility as a Reagan conservative. This baloney -- and that is what it is -- should stop. The offensive Gingrich radio ads being run on conservative talk radio effectively attacking free markets and economic liberty under the guise of Bain-did-bad should be halted on the spot. Designed this way or not, they are perceived as a vivid and direct Alinsky/Obama style attack on capitalism and economic freedom. In particular, to run them on the shows of the most prominent conservative talkers in the land -- whose audiences are large precisely because the hosts are Reagan conservatives -- is akin to running ads on evangelical radio stations attacking religion. This isn't serious strategy. This is self-sabotage. The fact of the matter is that Newt Gingrich has made an excellent case for himself -- and against Romney. Rick Perry, once filled with promise, is stumbling around out there not simply because of bad debate performances but because he gave the impression with his in-state tuition answer for the children of illegals that he was at heart a closet liberal. A perception he has doubled-down on with this "vulture capital" routine, the latter doing nothing if not reminding that Mr. Perry began his career as a Democrat supporting Al Gore. It is often said that Social Security is the "third rail" of politics. Touch it, so goes the tale, and your career will die. In the wake of the Gingrich/Perry attacks on Romney it can perhaps be added that economic freedom is the third rail of conservative politics. If one touches it -- "touches" defined as being perceived as attacking economic freedom -- a conservative will find their career if not dead at least impossibly scorched. Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry are in the process of scorching themselves and killing both their campaigns and larger Reagan conservative reputations. If this continues, perhaps the best thing all around would be if someone quietly said two words to each. Get out. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/newt-perry-time-to-get-out/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&quot;Climate&quot; and the Campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/climate-and-the-campaign/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/climate-and-the-campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arrangement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bound-ourselves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/climate-and-the-campaign/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ So it seems that Al Gore is lamenting that "the climate crisis" is not an issue in the nascent 2012 campaign for the White House. Meanwhile, ClimateWire (subscription required) reaffirms the popular reportage and claim by UN aficionados and Eurocrats alike, that in December the U.S. agreed in Durban to a "pact, which mandates the creation of a legally binding climate treaty by 2015." That is, the world believes that we legally bound ourselves to legally binding ourselves to a Kyoto II treaty by 2015. I do recall such pipe-dream political commitments by a Democratic president causing problems for a Republican successor, and the country, in the past. While on its face such UN-speak is absurd -- so, we bound ourselves to be bound, which means we bound ourselves to the new treaty? May we please immediately commence Art. II Sec. 2 "advice and consent" on this? -- it does beg a political debate about what in the world is going on and, while we're at the process of discerning President Obama's intentions, what distinctions exist between him and the Republican candidates. If any. And speaking of the latter, I have received an email under Texas's Public Information Act, written by Newt Gingrich's co-author Terry Maple to Texas Tech University Professor Katharine Hayhoe. It reveals that as of December 7, 2011, Newt's co-author reaffirmed his labors cobbling together the final version of the sequel to their 2007 book, A Contract with The Earth , tentatively titled Environmental Entrepreneurs set for post-election release. More to the point, Maple was writing to reaffirm Hayhoe's contribution of a "climate" chapter. That's the chapter about which Newt told an Iowa voter, "That's not going to be in the book. We didn't know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it." That assertion came when Rush Limbaugh called Newt out on this apparent indicator that he is not fully cured of his couch-trip with Nancy Pelosi and dreaming of gentle bureaucratic ministrations to the earth's temperature. An earlier email provided to the Los Angeles Times indicates had made this arrangement on Gingrich's behalf some time ago, and we now know it was still planned for the book days before Gingrich's claim of ignorance, implying he is of course no longer interested in such folly. Incidentally, Texas Tech curiously withheld some language about scrambling they were doing about "ethanol [REDACTED]." Hmm. Anyway, Gore is right. This should be an issue in the campaign. And just as in 2008, it likely will not be, thanks to Republican aspirants with track records on the issue making them want to avoid it at all costs. (Remember, Mitt Romney previously brought in as advisors Obama's chief science adviser, John Holdren, and Assistant Administrator of EPA in charge of the looming Clean Air Act "train wreck" orchestrated after the failure of cap-n-trade, Gina McCarthy.) To call this dynamic a "free-ride" for the candidates would not be entirely accurate. After all, when whoever it is settles in, we are the ones who will pay for this. Which demands that someone insist these candidates clearly stake out their respective positions on the global warming policies and commitments. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/climate-and-the-campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gingrich and Perry Seeking the Oliver Stone Vote?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/11/gingrich-and-perry-seeking-the-oliver-stone-vote/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/11/gingrich-and-perry-seeking-the-oliver-stone-vote/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich-super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon-gekko]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oliver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oliver-stone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people-thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pose-the-reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/11/gingrich-and-perry-seeking-the-oliver-stone-vote/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ One can only be speechless. Are Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry auditioning for roles as the new Oliver Stone? Newt Gingrich attacking "the rich"???? Rick Perry going after Mitt Romney as a "vulture capitalist"? What are these people thinking? Not Reagan conservatism, that's for sure. A Newt Gingrich Super PAC running a 27-minute ad painting Mitt Romney as a "corporate raider" -- some sort of Gordon Gekko on steroids? Gordon Gekko, let us remind, was a creation of uber-left wing Hollywood director Oliver Stone. Newt Gingrich as Oliver Stone? What are these Gingrich supporters thinking? This is the dumbest thing Newt has done since sitting on that bench with Nancy Pelosi. As if that wasn't bad enough, Rick Perry appeared on Sean Hannity's TV show after the New Hampshire results were in, trying out his own Oliver Stone routine with his "vulture capitalist" line. Hannity was visibly astonished, perhaps thinking he was interviewing Al Gore. Then again, Perry was once an Al Gore Democrat and quite apparently has not changed based on lines like that. As Mark Steyn quite succinctly noted on Hannity , if one married Ron Paul's foreign policy to Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich's latest on how to take away the freedom of Americans to make a living, one would have the complete liberal candidate. Again. What are Gingrich and Perry thinking? Answer? Not how to pose the Reagan conservative answer to Obama -- or Romney. My. Oh. My. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/11/gingrich-and-perry-seeking-the-oliver-stone-vote/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

