Mitt Romney Was Right That Obama Would Do Anything To Win In 2012

I haven't been blogging lately since I've been focusing on myself and my career. However, I wish to take time out of my busy life to raise the alarm on the fact that President Obama trampled on the Constitution and the rights of people all across the country in order to win. Mitt Romney was right in saying that Obama will "do anything" to get re-elected in order to hang onto power. 

And we are just now finding out far Obama went to win that second term.

Let us review the list of illegal activies the Obama Administration engaged into to be reelected. 

IRS Scandal 

We know that many tea party groups were targeted by the IRS as early as 2010 and that the targeting continued throughout 2011 and 2012. It now appears that nearly 500 conservative groups were subjected to invasive review and intimidation. The impact this had on the 2012 election is incalculable. In fact, Dean Chambers writing for the Washington Examiner explains how "the president's administration engaged in a systematic and wide-scale suppression of Tea Party and conservative activity and votes, via the IRS targeting of those groups" in crucial states of the 2012 election which lead to the approximate suppression of "at least 7 million Romney votes across the country." 

I personally believe these groups were investigated after Obama saw how successful and powerful these Tea Party groups were in the aftermath of the devastating 2010 elections and decided to target these groups in preparation for his 2012 reelection campaign.We are now learning that the targeting of these groups wasn't done by a few rouge IRS agents but was intentional campaign waged by senior officials in the IRS and the White House. Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, is now being grilled by Congress as to the extent of her knowledge and participation of these activities. I believe Congress will also investigate White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler and Barack Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough who are both close to Obama in his administration. If Congress continues to pursue this matter, I believe all roads will lead to Obama and they must investigate whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target conservative groups in order to win the 2012 election.  I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of targeting of these Tea Party groups.

Mitt Romney Donors Targeted

Not only were conservative Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS but individuals were also targeted by the IRS for simply donating money to the Romney campaign. The IRS harassed these individuals by auditing them and in some cases, conducting more than one audits on the same individual.  For example, Billionaire businessman Frank VanderSloot, a major Mitt Romney super PAC donor who was subjected to three federal agency audits after his name appeared on the Obama's campaign website. He claims that other wealthy Romney donors were harrased by the Obama administration via IRS audits. 

There is a very good reason to be suspicious about Obama and the IRS with regards to the harrassment of Romney donors:

The Obama campaign itself listed 15 large Romney campaign donors and bundlers on their site, which directly lead to the harassment by lefts of those donors. And, by no coincidence, many of them such as business owner Frank Vandersloot, were also harassed and audited by the IRS. This had a chilling effect and caused many possible donors to stop writing the checks. By September and October of last year, Obama fund-raising took off while Romney fund-raising flat-lined. Now we know why, it was suppressed by the Obama campaign, and the Obama administration, efforts to intimidate and suppress Romney donors. It worked quite well and cost the Romney campaign millions in dollars and millions more in votes.

Another Republican and conservative donor was also targeted by the federal government. Two years ago, federal agents descended on the famous guitar company, Gibson Guitar Corporation because they were believed to be in violation of the Lacey Act, which bans the trafficking of flora and fauna as well as the harvesting these plants. The acts are also in violation foreign laws. As a result, the federal government seized important materials, products and computer information from the Government. However, what makes this raid so fishy is that Gibson's competitor,  C.F. Martin & Co, was not subject to federal raids even though they use the same materials that Gibson uses in making the guitars. What's the big difference between these two companies? Read below:

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

Several important questions are justifiably raised here. Does Chris Martin IV have any contacts with officials in the federal government or with Democratic party operatives who might agree to use the government as a means to improperly gain an advantage over their competitor? Why was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted for raids by the federal government for allegedly violating laws but not Martin & Co.? Was Gibson Guitar Corporation targeted merely because the Chief Executive donates to Republican candidates? Was this raid a form of political intimidation or revenge? Who authorized this raid and why? How high does the approval of this raid go? Was the White House aware of the targeting of this raid?

If Congress is willing to investigate how the IRS targeted conservative Tea Party groups, then Congress should also investigate why the IRS engaged in a systematic and wide-scale harassment of Romney donors via IRS audits. I believe that if Congress investigated this matter, they will eventually find themselves asking whether or not the President ordered the IRS to target Romney supporters in order to win the 2012 election. I also believe that Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into the allegation of harassment of Romney supporters and donors. 

Obama Engaged In Illegal Campaign Fundraiser Activities 

While the Obama Administration was busy targeting conservative groups and auditing Romney campaign supporters in order to reduce their financial influence in the 2012 elections, it was also busy in engaging maximizing the amount of campaign donations to his campaign by engaging in illegal campaign donations by accepting online campaign donations from anyone in the world. Obama got campaign donations from Osama Bin Laden from Pakistan even though he was already dead. Twice. Other known terrorists such as Saddam Hussein, Bill Ayers and “Nidal Hasan”were able to make campaign contributions in the 2012 election. These illegal donations were not done by the real terrorists but were conducted as part of a test after multiple media reports of Obama accepting campaign donations from foreigners around the world.

Not only were fictional terrorist donations accepted, but real foreign individuals, like British citizen Chis Walker, were able to make donations to the Obama Campaign during the 2012 elections: 

Chris Walker, a British citizen who lives outside London, told The Post he was able to make two $5 donations to President Obama’s campaign this month through its Web site while a similar attempt to give Mitt Romney cash was rejected. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept money from foreign citizens.

Walker said he used his actual street address in England but entered Arkansas as his state with the Schenectady, NY, ZIP code of 12345.

“When I did Romney’s, the payment got rejected on the grounds that the address on the card did not match the address that I entered,” he said. “Romney’s Web site wanted the code from the back of card. Barack Obama’s didn’t.”

In September, Obama’s campaign took in more than $2 million from donors who provided no ZIP code or incomplete ZIP codes, according to data posted on the Federal Election Commission Web site.
...
Walker said it should have been clear to the Obama campaign’s computers that his donations came from a computer with a foreign IP address.

The Obama campaign says it “screens all credit-card contributions that originate from a foreign IP address” and requests proof of citizenship if questions arise.

But not only did Walker’s Obama donations go through, but he said he began receiving two to three e-mail solicitations a day to give more. The e-mails asked for $188 or more.

If Walker gave $188, his total contribution to Obama would be $198 — less than the $200 threshold at which campaigns have to identify the donor to the FEC.

The Obama 2012 campaign could have easily put in electronic safeguards and verifications systems to prevent illegal foreign campaign donations. Bit they didn't. Here's why:

The prospect of illegal foreign donations is an especially thorny problem for the Obama campaign. Here’s why: The Internet site Obama.com isn’t owned by the Obama campaign. It’s owned by China-based American businessman Robert Roche, CEO of Acorn International, a large media company. As Mr. Schweizer and Mr. Boyer note, 68 percent of the some 2,000 visitors each day on Obama.com are foreign in origin.

It is clear that the Obama administration had no interest in verify whether or not the online donations were from U.S. citizens or from foreign non-U.S. citizens. In contrast, Mitt Romney’s campaign website  placed safeguards against such efforts. The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

What's even more fascinating is that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found that the 2008 Obama election team were violating federal disclosure laws and issued the largest fines ever ever handed down by the FEC. The Obama administation was fined for the  failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run. 

The FEC must investigate these allegations that Obama intentionally engaged in illegal campaign fundraising during the 2012 campaign. If the Obama 2008 campaign was accepting foreign donations in 2008 and was found guilty by the FEC for failing to disclose campaign donations in that election, there is also strong evidence that Obama engaged in these same illegal activities in the 2012 election. Not only does the FEC need to investigate this matter, but so does Congress. Additionally, Congress needs to appoint an independent special investigator/prosecutor to look into these allegations.  

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression

Dean Chambers, who is a controversial figure for contesting the 2008 Presidential election and the 2012 election, believes that Obama engaged in voter fraud and voter suppression that resulted in "at least 2-3 million more votes gained in the Obama column via voters fraud in several key swing states." He believes that "the Obama Regime definitely won the election by suppressing Romney votes and supplementing the votes they won with massive voter fraud in the key swing states."

However, Dean Chambers isn't the only individual who believes that Obama engaged in illegal voter fraud and suppression. Many conservatives as well as Romney supporters who have created websites focusing on voter turnout in relation to that area's history of voter turnout, multiple voting by a single Obama voter, and the inconsistencies in polling and actual voter turnout.  There is plenty evidence of suspicious activity that rises to the level of having a Congressional investigation as well as a independent special prosecutor to look into this. 

The IRS targeting of conservative groups is also tied to the issue of voter fraud and voter suppression. As the Republican National Lawyer's Association points out, "the Tea Party has a strong interest in stopping vote fraud and there can be little doubt that was part of the reason for the IRS targeting. By handcuffing the smaller state based Tea Party groups interested in honest elections in their states, the IRS made studying voting let alone stopping vote fraud more difficult."

Benghazi 

The Obama administration had prior knowledge that there might be a potential terrorist attack on the Benghazi consular compound. Repeated requests for additional security personnel and security improvements to the building  was made prior to the attack but repeatedly denied. There were reports of suspicious individuals surveying and scouting the compound prior to the attacks from the CIA and from the Benghazi consulate. 

When the attacks occurred, we now know that repeated requests for security teams to be flown into assist in the defense of the compound was repeatedly denied. We also know that the CIA, the State Department and other government officials immediately classified the assault on the Benghazi compound as a terrorist attack. Yet, the Obama administation did nothing to help and actually told people to stand down and not help. 

Finally, we now know that there was no spontaneous riots at the compound but that it was a preplanned and coordinated attack by terrorists. We also know that an Internet video was not responsible for what happened in Benghazi. We know that the Obama administration made numerous edits to the official talking points that removed key details and facts that showed that this was a terrorist attacks. We also know that Barack Obama, Hilliary Clinton and other officials in the Obama administration repeatedly lied to the American people about what happened. 

The Sacking Of General Petraus 

There is some questions surrounding the timing of the investigation into General David Petraeus’ affair with his Biographer Paula Broadwell and the withholding of the news of this investigation and the timing of when the General resigned. The reason why this is suspicious in light of the 2012 election is explained below: 

Reports indicate the FBI initiated an investigation over the summer regarding General Petraeus’ extramarital affair and the potential related threats to national security. However, the agency never alerted Congress of the potential compromise of confidential information.

The Obama administration has also insisted it was never notified by the FBI of the pending investigation prior to the election. However, many critics now conclude the White House intentionally delayed the announcement of Petraeus’ resignation to avoid any impact on Obama’s reelection bid.

Obama and The Media 

We also know that the Obama administration was not without help from the media. The media assisted Obama whenever it could including during the 2012 Presidential Debates when moderators stepped out of their role to "correct" the facts about Benghazi. The media also didn't aggressively investigate into the Benghazi attacks despite the glaring evidence that this was a terrorist attack and that Obama as well as his administration wasn't being truthful about what happened that night. It is unfortunate that the media is just now taking an interest int his story when there's a congressional investigation and strong evidence of a cover up and allegations of hiding, suppressing and threatening witnesses. In some cases, witnesses were either demoted at their jobs or fired. Had the media done their job, Obama most definitely would have lost the election because no candidate could not have survived that kind of bad press unless the press was willing to ignore or downplay the attack. 

But most importantly, the Obama administration engaged in illegal and unconstitutional investigations into several reporters who were receiving leaks about Benghazi. Obama had the media in the tank for him but he needed to suppress those members of the press who were actually doing their jobs in order to win. He had to violate the several key provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to get federal officials to snoop on these reporters.

Conclusion 

Mitt Romney was right all along. Obama would do anything to win. He went to great lengths to do whatever it took to win the election and maintain his hold on power. Obama "won" the 2012 election mostly, if not entirely, through illegitimate and illegal election activities. Many of these activities are also criminal. 

Each of these events alone are troubling and require Congressional investigation as well as an independent special investigator. However, the real problem is that you have to look at the big picture and how all of these illegal activities tie together. All of them were conducted with one purpose in mind: win the election at all cost even if it means violating local, state, federal law or the Constitution. In looking at the totality of these illegal activities, it is clear that Obama was successful in doing whatever it took to win.  It was all a coordinated effort to help Obama win.

Obama's illegal campaign activities has forever changed this country. It has certainly changed the way we view elections in the future and the way both parties will conduct them in 2016 and beyond. The lengths Obama went through to win the election is similar to the way dictators and tyrants "win" their staged elections.

But the most disturbing aspect of the 2012 election is that Obama was willing to do anything necessary to win and that meant disregarding the Constitution to get that second Presidential term. Obama's acts of investigation and suppression of his enemies is similar to how tyrants deal with their opponents. The Constitution was trampled upon and seriously weakened and we don't know how effective this document will be in protecting the rights of individuals in the future. 

America is no longer America any more.  

How Badly Will Newt Lose To Obama And Why Republicans Should Not Vote For Newt In 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen, the time grows closer and closer to the beginning of the 2012 Republican primaries.

Before I talk about the 2012 Republicans, I want to remind people about the 2008 Republican primaries because I fear that we haven't learned from that last election.

During the 2008 election, John McCain's campaign was almost dead during months prior to the first Republican primaries. Mitt Romney was set to win the Republican nomination until Senator McCain won the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries. He made an agreement with Mike Huckabee, who was also running for President, to give his delegates to McCain's team in order to prevent Mitt Romney from winning that state.

With Super Tuesday coming closer, virtually almost all of the top conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher and other conservative talk show hosts were strongly telling people on their radio show to stop McCain in his tracks and vote for Mitt Romney because McCain was not a conservative and would most likely lose to Obama in the 2008 election. Sure enough, despite heeding the warnings of talk show conservatives, conservative authors like Ann Coulter and religious authorities, Republican voters chose to give the nomination to John McCain on Super Tuesday.

Just as so many conservatives predicted and warned, Barak Obama defeated John McCain by a wide margin. Obama got 365 of the electoral college votes while McCain only got a meager 173 votes. Moreover, Obama won the popular vote by 53% to McCain's 46%.

Once again, many conservatives, such as myself, are sounding the warning bell to conservative voters to NOT vote for Newt Gingrich. Even libertarians are urging people not to vote for Newt.

Like John McCain, Newt Gingrich will lose the 2012 election against Barak Obama. I'm predicting that Newt Gingrich will lose by a bigger margin than McCain did in 2008. I'm predicting that Gingrich will be comparable to Jimmy Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Walter Mondale's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Michael Dukasis' loss to George H.W. Bush in 1988. It will be that bad.

Lets review what would happen in the 2012 general election and beyond if Newt Gingrich wins the Republican nomination. 

1.  Newt Gingrich will definitely lose the female vote. He will push female voters into voting for Obama and will cause women vote against the GOP for years to come in the future.

2. He will also most definitely lose the crucial independent voter. The more independents learn about him or are reminded of who this man is, the less they will like him. Independent voters will not like the choices of choosing between Obama and Newt but they will select Obama over Gingrich at the end of the day. 

 3. Newt Gingrich will reverse all our gains in the 2010 midterm elections. He will hurt the local, state and national Republican candidates who are seeking to ride a second wave the against the Democrats in public offices across this nation.

However, This wouldn't be the first time Newt would cause major losses in these elections. Lets not forget how the House Republicans kicked him out as Speaker after he single-handedly alienated both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, along with much of the American public, resulting in the biggest loss of Republicans seats in the House in 64 years. How bad was Newt Gingrich for the Republican party? Very bad: 

And yet, his approval numbers while he was in charge of the House were dreadful. Gallup found his net favorable rating in negative territory by the early spring of 1995 (33 percent approve to 47 percent disapprove, or a 14 point net negative), and at the end of 1995 his net negatives would exceed 25 points, where they would remain for the rest of his tenure.

By the time of the 1996 election, Gingrich had become a drag on the nationwide Republican brand. Consider the following chart, which tracks Gingrich’s favorable rating in the 1996 exit poll, by two metrics. First, it looks at his approval rating among all voters, and among only Bob Dole voters. Second, it looks at his approval rating nationwide and in Georgia.

These are very weak numbers indeed. Obviously, his 32 percent national favorable rating shows that only the core GOP base was behind him, but even then Gingrich was viewed favorably by just 61 percent of Dole voters nationwide. And in Georgia – his home state where people knew him best – he could not even pull in three quarters from Dole voters.

If Newt Gingrich is nominated in the 2012 primaries, he will cause conservative candidates running in these elections to lose. He will push the Republican wave back.

3.  Voting for Newt Gingrich will discredit and destroy social conservative which will harm them for many years to come. Social Conservatives will not be able to 

4. Newt Gingrich would perform poorly in debates against Obama. Why conservatives think a Teddy Roosevelt progressive intellectual like Newt would be a good match with the FDR progressive intellectual like Obama at the debates is beyond me. Having a debate between two intellectuals is a bad match for Conservatives. Newt might be able to handle Obama in a debate, but his personality and his past will offset whatever strengths Newt has in the debating room. 

5. Newt Gingrich doesn't have the organizational stamina or financial resources to go head to head with Obama. As a result, Newt Gingrich will gas out early in the campaign because he doesn't have the resources to last long against Obama.

Newt Gingrich is the most repulsive, toxic, controversial, and dangerous candidate for Republican party. I'm surprised that people have even given him a first or a second look in this election. Electing Newt would be the kiss of death for the Republican party. Yet, there are many who irrationally insist that conservatives vote for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries. They use convoluted logic to justify their reasons for why we should vote for him despite the fact that he has so much baggage and issues that he will be a major liability for Republicans in 2012. Moreover, Newt Gingrich will erase all the progress the Republicans have made and damage the Republican brand for a long time.

That is why its no surprise that talk radio show host Micheal Savage has offered $1 million dollars to Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race. If Newt wants to do something good for America, he would be wise to take that money.

If Gingrich wins the Republican nomination and loses to Barak Obama in 2012, I will repost this article on the day to remind conservatives and Republicans that many of us sounded the warning bell against Newt but you refused to listen to our warnings just as you did in 2008. Those of you who have supported and will vote for Newt Gingrich will have no one but to blame but yourselves.

However, it is not too late to stop Newt Gingrich. The best way to do that is that everyone should ignore whatever Newt says in debates and interviews.  Moreover, not a single penny should be donated to his campaign, not a single person in any state should show up at his any of his campaign stops, no one should ever buy his books and most importantly, do not vote for him in any of the Republican primaries. You, the Republican voter in New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Florida have the power to stop Newt in his tracks by voting for Mitt Romney. 

As I said before, the goal of 2012 is to defeat Obama in 2012. The best way to do that is to unite around Mitt Romney who can not only beat Obama, but lead the country after he's elected in 2012.

11 Interesting Facts About The 2010 Midterm Elections

The Republican Party made the 2010 midterms elections one of the most memorable elections in history.  I'd like to share 11 interesting facts about the 2010 elections with you: 

1. The Republican tidal wave that washed over the entire United States was huge. The British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, reports how big that wave was: 

"The Republicans increased their seats in the House of Representatives by the biggest margin since 1948, with a significantly bigger win than 1994, gaining 61 seats. They surely would have taken the Senate as well, had all of the seats been up for re-election, instead of just 37. At the gubernatorial level the GOP now controls 29 governorships compared to just 19 for the Democrats. Republicans also picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, the highest figure in the modern era according to figures provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures." 

The Republican wave in the House isn't over as some races have yet to be decided. 

2. The 2010 election has severely diluted the Democrat's power in Congress. The Washington Times explains how much power the Democrats have loss in Washington D.C.: 

"Republicans defeat three major committee chairmen and at least seven lawmakers who claimed 20 years' seniority or more in Congress.Democrats have already shed 376 years of congressional experience, and that could go as high as 430 years if five other Democrats lose races in which returns show they are trailing."

3. The loss of power for the Democrats didn't just occur in Washington D.C but in state legislatures across the country. Here's the facts from ABC News:

"Republicans haven't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928."

"Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures Tuesday and gained more than 650 seats, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The last time Republicans saw such victories was in 1994, when they captured control of 20 state legislatures." 

4. The Republicans also made history in several state legislatures as detailed from the same article linked above:

"In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction." 

5. This will be the first time that a father and son will serve in Congress at the same time. Rand Paul, the newly elected senator of Kentucky is the son of Ron Paul, who a congressman from Texas.

6. Republicans not only made history in national and state legislatures but in several governor's races. For example, Nikki Haley whose parents immigrated from Punjab, India has became only the second Indian-American to be a Governor of a US State after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; and also the first Indian-origin woman governor.

7.  Three states elected their first female governors: Mary Fallin in Oklahoma, Susana Martinez in New Mexico and Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Susana Martinez is the first Hispanic female governor.

8. Speaking of women, House Republicans won the most female voters in this election with women splitting their votes 49-49 for Democratic vs Republican House candidates which is the record for House Republicans since 1982. 

9. Republicans also made history with gay voters. In 2008, only 19% of gay voters supported Republican candidates in 2008. In 2010, it jumped up to 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House.  

10. Evangelicals turned out in big numbers for this election. According to one survey, the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections were self-identified evangelicals, who compromised 29 percent of the vote and cast an astonishing 78 percent of their ballots for Republican candidates.

11. The 2010 midterms elections was the most expensive election campaign in modern history. Take a look at the numbers:  

• Meg Whitman ran the most expensive campaign in the country in which she spent more than $160 million of her own money only to lose to Jerry Brown.
• GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota both spent and raised the most cash of any House candidate in the country. It is projected that she raised $11 million and spent more than $8 million.
• The total amount of money spent during the 2010 election is projected to be $4 billion.  

Update (11.8.10): 12. The Senior voters turned out in droves for the Republican party:

"Seniors voted last week by an almost 60-40 split for Republican House candidates, after splitting evenly between Democrats and Republicans in the 2006 midterms."

Meg Whitman Not Stepping Down Due To The California Secretary of State's Computers Crashing

Although many news networks have declared that Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina lost the election, they're not conceding. I've picked up on a rumor that former Governor Pete Wilson stated at the Whitman campaign event in Los Angeles that the California Secretary Of State’s computer reportedly crashed and as a result, the media are getting all their numbers from each other. Therefore, the two female Republican candidates are not stepping down.

I've tried to contact my sources in the Whitman campaign and haven't recieved any word back. However, it does appear that the computers at the California Secretary's Office did crash:

The normal tension of election night was ratcheted up Tuesday when the Secretary of State’s website showing election returns was overloaded with traffic, so that many people were having trouble calling up election results even after 10 p.m.

The state agency, which has notoriously had problems with its computers, put up an alternative posting of all election results while it tried to work out the problems, according to spokeswoman Nicole Winger.

The state was using a "cloud computing" system in which at least 50 servers outside the Secretary of State’s office were being used to manage the heavy traffic.

"The traffic to the website has been exponentially higher than what was even projected" by the state’s IT experts, she said. "The traffic basically blew up the cloud." She said web traffic at the Secretary of State’s site was higher than experienced during the last presidential election.

Former Rep. Gov. Pete Wilson cited the "crash" of the Secretary of State’s computer site as one reason results were slow in coming in the governor’s race.

Having the computers crash in a very close race is a big deal. It makes sense for these women not to concede. While the media can declare the news of who won the race, it is the Secretary of State who certifies the actual winner of the race. Obviously, election lawyers for Meg and Carly will be busy now. 

Jerry Brown has stated that the results of the election is "good enough for government work." We'll have to see how good the government computers are. But it wouldn't surprise me if the California government has crappy computers. That's the government for you. Which is good enough for Jerry Brown, obviously. 

I will keep you posted on any developments if I can.

Mitt Romney: The Biggest Player In The 2010 Races

Mitt Romney is very busy these days. 

During this 2010 election, he has been on a whirlwind endorsement tour endorsing conservative candidates all over the country. Politico has an article detailing how active the former 2008 Presidential candidate has been in getting conservative candidates elected at the local, state and federal level. across the country. Politico has just released an

In fact, what Mitt Romney is doing this election is been engaging in an aggressive and ambitious campaign schedule that no other current big name conservative are even keeping:

"Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has parachuted into a handful of major events, including big-venue rallies for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has made several early-state and regional campaign swings, balancing his responsibilities as a sitting governor with his surrogate work as vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

Other possible candidates — like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — have picked their targets even more selectively, helping out contenders they have personal relationships with or diving into especially hot races like the gubernatorial primaries in Florida and Georgia."

As one Republican insider has explained:

“He’s doing all the things, at a much higher level than anybody out there at this point.”

Not only is Romney aggressive in his traveling schedule but he's also generous in his donations to political campaigns across the country: 

"As of Sept. 30, he’d given $940,000 through his Free and Strong America PAC to 188 congressional candidates, two dozen Senate candidates and 20 Republicans running for governor, according to financial information obtained by POLITICO." 

How has Mitt Romney become one of the strongest forces pushing the Republican wave in November? Armed with his business experience, he keeps his Free And Strong America PAC simple yet efficient:  

“They understand the goal of fundraisers is to maximize contributions and minimize costs, so they don’t demand private planes and other costly things that legally must be paid for by the campaigns,” said Bob Honold, who handles incumbent retention for the National Republican Congressional Committee.“

Its clear that Romney is laying down the foundation for another Presidential run, if that is his plan for 2012.

"But by establishing himself as a force in states beyond the early-primary circuit of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, Romney’s cementing his role as a party leader and laying the groundwork for a potential nomination fight that lasts well past the first round of small-state elections. 

It’s a strategy that recalls former President Richard Nixon’s slow climb back to power after he lost the presidency in 1960 and the California governor’s race two years later: Gearing up to run for president in 1968, Nixon simply outcampaigned his competitors with a frenzy of activity in the 1966 midterms."

This isn't a new idea to me. I knew what Mitt Romney was up to back when the 2010 elections were just starting. Its was obvious to me that Mitt Romney was planting the seeds for political endorsements in 2012 by going all out in his endorsements for political candidates in 2010. 

We'll just have to see in 2012 if Mitt's strategy works.