It’s dangerous for the reasons Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have indicated  by predicting that Obama can’t wait to face Romney because Romney WILL NOT be able to go after Obamacare with any moral integrity. As soon as he brings it up Obama will just say: “All I know is that while you were Gov. in Massachusetts, you implemented the plan we followed in designing our Health Care reforms.” And that will end the debate on Obamacare.

Santorum proved this during the debate in Florida on Thursday night, by explaining that just as Obamacare requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the government, so too Romneycare requires Massachusetts citizens to do the same or pay a fine to the state. In other words, both plans carry a personal mandate which forces citizens to buy healthcare (or pay a fine) whether they want to or not.  And when Romney responded to Santorum by saying he was proud of what they’d done in Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts seemed happy with it too, Santorum offered a foretaste of the way Obama is going to take Romney apart on this issue. Said Santorum:

“What Gov. Romney just said is that government-run, top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts and he supports it. Now, think about what that means.”

Romney’s position here is simply indefensible, and although Santorum is the only one to call him out so clearly to this point, Santorum will certainly not be the last. And this is why Santorum kept saying, “We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election.” Dan Riehl made this point clear in his post on Big Government January 27, when he quoted Paul Begala as saying that on the issue of Romneycare v. Obamacare, “Mitt still doesn’t have a straight answer. Rick Santorum skillfully dissected Romney on the topic. If Romney is the GOP nominee, you can be sure Barack Obama will do the same.”

Which brings me to my central point: Namely, that for all the good Santorum did with his line of questions and his relentless regurgitation of the facts against Romney, he still passed on his chance to throw the knock-out punch.

(I’m not intimating that he passed on purpose, only that he did miss the chance to finish his impressive flurry with a knee-buckling uppercut.)

When he had Romney up against the ropes and Romney said, “It’s not worth getting angry about,” Santorum should have countered with: “Are you seriously saying that a freedom killing individual mandate and government-run, top-down medicine aren’t worth getting angry over?” Had he done this, I honestly believe we would have witnessed something similar to what we used to witness when Mike Tyson, in his prime, refused to pass up the chance to deal the knockout blow. But instead, Romney’s one counterpunch—and the statement about anger was a desperate counterpunch—worked, and Santorum didn’t throw his uppercut.

I’m not criticizing Santorum. Far from it, I’m encouraging him not to hold back on the knockout blow if he gets Romney the ropes again during this primary season. Because you can bet the farm that Obama won’t pass up on the chance to hit Romney where it hurts and that point, the match will be over, and Obama will be choosing White House draperies for four more years.

We first saw this when Obama was starting to run for president and he put reporters “on notice” regarding comments about the size of his ears. Since then we’ve seen it in the way he locks out reporters who ask hard questions and, most recently, in the way he appears to have lodged a complaint with Gov. Jan Brewer regarding her criticism of the way he has gone to war with Arizona to keep that state from defending its southern border.

If you’ll recall, in December 2006, after New York Times’ reporter Maureen Dowd had written about how Obama’s “ears stick out,” Obama tracked her down at a speaking engagement and said: “I just want to put you on notice. I’m very sensitive,” adding, “I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.” (Rush Limbaugh was then criticized for seizing on that comment and warning people that it demonstrated Obama’s skin was too thin for the rigors of the presidency. And in retrospect, Limbaugh was right.)

Perhaps you remember the April 2011 exchange that took place between Obama and Dallas news reporter Brad Watson, during an interview wherein Watson asked the president pointed, probing questions instead of the kind of light and fluffy stuff a CNN reporter asks when he or she gets the chance. For example, as the two sat face to face, Watson looked right at Obama and asked: “Why do you think you’re so unpopular in Texas?” And when Obama tried to make it look like he wasn’t that unpopular in Texas, saying he’d only lost in 2008 by a “few percentage points,” Watson countered: “Well, you lost by about 10%. 55 to 44.” And because Obama can’t handle criticism, he became noticeably bothered as the questions continued. When the short interview was over, an angry Obama whispered to Watson: “Let me finish my answers next time we do an interview.”

Of course Watson won’t get another interview, because Obama locks reporters out if they dare take him to task. As Keith Koffler wrote of Obama’s reaction to Watson back in April, “Look how thin-skinned he can be.”

Speaking of thin-skinned, that’s the exact phrase Gov. Brewer used to describe Obama after he walked across the tarmac in Phoenix on Wednesday and greeted Brewer not with “hello” or “good to see you,” but with a complaint about how she’d described his efforts to deep-end Arizona’s S.B. 1070. He said he’d read the complaint in a passage from her book, “Scorpions for Breakfast.”

There Brewer wrote:

[Obama] has repeatedly made fun of those of us who want to see the law enforced, saying we want a ‘moat’ with ‘alligators’ in it around our country. The reason he has resorted to these failed attempts at humor, I think, is that he supports a policy that is fundamentally undemocratic, and he knows it.

Said Brewer of the exchange: “He brought up my book and he was a little tense. He said he read the excerpt and didn’t think I was very cordial. I said we’d have to agree to disagree. He was a little thin-skinned and tense, to say the least.”

The bottom line: Obama can’t handle criticism. Obama can’t handle the truth. Dowd proved it in 2006, Watson proved in 2011, and Gov. Brewer proved it again two days ago.

When that failed to stop him, the attacks were stepped up so as to include comments from less-than-savory characters who claimed to have actually seen Cain sexually harass that woman but who would not, or could not, provide details.  So the pile on game began, and rumors of Cain’s harassment of other women began to be floated. Some of those women were even paraded out before TV cameras in hopes of finally getting the American voter to turn on Cain. Who can forget watching Romney’s supporter-and-chief, Karl Rove, declaring Cain “finished” in late October then watching Gloria Allred parade out “a fourth accuser” for a press conference in early November?

Long story short, Cain eventually had to pull out of the race. And my point here isn’t to try and defend Cain, as much as it is to remind everyone of the tactics of the Republican establishment and their willing cohorts in the media who all want to see Romney get the nomination. (The establishment wants him to get the nomination because he’s an establishment guy and the media wants him to get it because they plan to watch Obama beat him in just the way Gov. Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have predicted.)

Enter Newt Gingrich: He’s gaining on Romney not only in South Carolina but also in polls nationally. His Reagan-like statements at the GOP debate are being replayed again and again and praised for their conservative substance. So ABCNews is now debating whether or not to air an interview with his ex-wife, wherein she unloads on him.

For the record, that there is infidelity in Newt’s past and that his divorce was ugly isn’t breaking news: It’s nearly 20 years old, it’s widely known, and it’s recently been discussed on FOX NEWS Sunday and other outlets. What is breaking news is the fact that ABCNews is apparently trying to rejuvenate the story by adding the emotional touch of Newt’s former wife giving every tantalizing detail on camera, and probably some tears to boot.

While this is no more a defense of Newt than my earlier paragraphs were a defense of Cain, the bottom line is that we have to look past the emotion—past ABCNews’ new ethical low in reporting—and understand that Newt’s real crime is in daring to beat Mitt Romney in South Carolina.

Here’s how Limbaugh put it:

The majority of people that voted for [Ron Paul] were not Republican….And what I’ve been told is that [of these] supporters, 40% say they would vote for the Republican nominee, 23% said they’d vote for Obama, and 31% of Ron Paul voters said they would vote third party. So the Ron Paul voters cannot be counted on [as most of them] were Democrats who walked into the New Hampshire primary, picked up a Republican ballot, [and voted for Paul].

The key figure in this is that only 40% of Paul voters said they would go on to support the eventual Republican nominee. It’s important because it’s exactly half number given by Tea Party voters, 80% of which said they will support the nominee whoever he is. And this is what prompted Limbaugh to say “Ron Paul is a conservative killer.” It’s also why Limbaugh contends that Mitt Romney “wants Ron Paul to stay in” the race.

Said Limbaugh:

Everybody [i.e., the establishment, the mainstream media, the Romney campaign] is urging everybody else to get out of this except for Ron Paul. They want Ron Paul to keep pounding away at Santorum and Newt. They want Ron Paul to continue to get big numbers and take away any high second- or third-place finishes from Santorum or Gingrich or Perry or anybody else.

The bottom line, according to Limbaugh, “Ron Paul kills the conservative vote.” He’s drawing voters who cannot be counted on to push the Republicans to victory in 2012. In fact, the only thing Paul’s voters are going to accomplish is to kill Santorum and Gingrich’s chances, and thereby guarantee Romney the nomination.

Thus, while the Republican candidates were having their debate in New Hampshire on Saturday night, Palin was on FOX NEWS’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine” contending that President Obama wants “to face Mitt Romney in the general election.”In the process, she made it clear that this is why she believes the mainstream media is taking such a kid glove approach to Romney: they too see him as Obama’s best chance for victory.

On his radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh concurred with Palin 100%:

There is a story on the Drudge Report today from Sarah Palin in which Sarah Palin says that the White House wants Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee. Now, not only did I tell you that the Broncos were gonna beat the Steelers, for months I have been telling you that the Democrats want Romney — and you all know it. You’ve been listening here and you’ve heard people call me and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, that I’m full of it, that they’re scared of Romney. “Romney is the only guy who can win.” And I have said, “No,” and I’ve stood tough, and I’ve said, “They can’t wait for him. What’s Occupy Wall Street all about but running against Romney? He’s the Wall Street guy on our roster — and then Romneycare,” and I’ve laid it all out. So here comes Palin, she says it, and makes news.

Moreover, Rush  insightfully added the fact Democrats, who are rightly characterized by trying to destroy everybody they fear, have not tried to destroy Romney: ”You can start with Sarah Palin, you can move on to Santorum. Any — any conservative who showed any interest — the Democrats set out to destroy. [And that’s how we know] who they’re genuinely afraid of.” Note, however: “They are not hammering Mitt Romney at all.”

Photo source: waznmentobe.com

The reliably left-wing Mother Jones recently ran a story asking if Iowa progressives were Ron Paul’s wildcard in the race.  The story pointed to supporters like Francis Thicke, an organic farmer from Fairfield, Iowa, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for secretary of agriculture in 2010.

On Tuesday, Thicke announced his support for Paul ”to keep his voice for peace and his voice to reduce the military in the debate, because he will challenge the other Republican candidates.” Thicke promised his Democratic Party county chairman that he would vote for Obama over Paul without a doubt, because he doesn’t support dismantling the government. “This is a tactical thing” to expand voters’ awareness, Thicke told Mother Jones.

These tactical shenanigans might seem to echo “Operation Chaos,” the Rush Limbaugh operation that saw Republicans crossing over to vote for Hilary in the 2008 Democratic primary–except that Operation Chaos was largely applied to primaries, not to caucuses.

I’ve already written about Occupy the Caucuses’s Ed Fallon, a former Democratic candidate for governor-turned-progressive gadfly and arrested protestor. Fallon has listed his endorsements for the 2012 caucuses–and they include Ron Paul, among other “less extreme” Republicans (by which he means those more palatable to the left).

The Nation writes today that Fallon has been plotting to upend the caucuses by having progressives send an “anti-war, pro-civil liberties” message in the 2012 caucuses:

In an opinion piece that ran in the Des Moines Register, a pair of nationally prominent anti-war activists—Colleen[sic] Rowley, an Iowa native and former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and Democratic Congressional candidate, and Dr. John V. Walsh, a professor of microbiology and physiological systems at the University of Massachusetts Medical School who has been active with Physicians for a National Health Care Plan—wrote: “There is today only one anti-war, anti-corruption, pro-Constitution, pro–civil liberties candidate for president in either party who stands squarely against expanding military empire and for democracy. That candidate is Ron Paul. Like prairie anti-interventionists Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Harold Hughes in an earlier era, Paul is a maverick in his own party. He believes in an adequate force to defend America but not 1 cent for wars of aggression. Tactically it makes sense for anti-war activists to vote in the Republican caucuses/primaries for Paul. If he wins or does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, then the questions of war and peace will appear on the national scene. If Paul goes on to win his party’s nomination, these questions will finally make their appearance in the general election.”

John V. Walsh encouraged his fellow progressives to support Ron Paul as early as July 2011, which would give them more than enough time to reregister as Republicans for the Iowa caucus. He’s such a radical that he has encouraged his fellow progressives to impeach Obama–an argument that Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul supporter and probable author of Paul’s racist newsletters, featured on his website. Walsh wrote in February 2011 that Jimmy Carter was to be commended for his use of the phrase “apartheid” to describe Israel.

Coleen Rowley, for her part, has spent time with Cindy Sheehan camping out at Bush’s home in Crawford, TX. She was arrested in 2010 for protesting the Iraq war. She has even flirted with 9-11 trutherism and and has called for a new 9/11 investigation.

It remains to be seen how much damage progressives posing as Republicans in the Iowa caucuses could do. Unlike the New Hampshire open primary, where Independents can vote for the Republican candidate, only Republicans may participate in the Iowa caucus.

Ron Paul’s left-wing supporters have borrowed another tactic from the 1968 campaign of the last great anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, writes W. James Antle III over at the American Spectator, describing a meeting with Paul’s young supporters:

The young Paulistas gathered to receive their marching orders. Get a haircut. Wear a tie. Be polite. Don’t gratuitously annoy mainline Republicans. Leave the discussion of political philosophy to the candidate. Your job, they were instructed, is to win votes for Ron Paul.

…

“No tats,” one young Paul volunteer told the New York Times he was advised. No “fraternizing in the dorms, nothing like that.” No scruffy beards, boozing or even impolitic tweets either. Don’t do anything that will hurt the cause. Instead ask yourself, “What would Ron Paul do?”

In 1968, door-knocking hippies cut their hair and dressed in the wardrobe of the establishment in order to support Eugene McCarthy’s antiwar candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Their slogan was “Get clean for Gene.”

And here we are. It’s late 2011, and the Organizer-in-Chief has proven that his only strength lies in his ability to organize those who hate America—hating both the economic system embedded in her and the ideals on which she stands.

To put it bluntly, “Occupy Wall Street” is Obama’s America. He has organized it, perhaps indirectly, but has done so nonetheless via his relentless venom for “the rich” coupled with his ongoing calls for more people to sacrifice and to “pay their fair share.” Of course, he doesn’t mean the hippies and freaks in the protests should pay their share. Rather, he is fostering a feeling of betrayal in them so they will continue to “rage against the machine.”

Look at it, folks–Obama’s America. Ain’t it great? It’s a place where law is disparaged (you can defecate on police cars), capitalism is hated (“eat the rich”), and people are entitled to take money from others even if the takers played no role in earning the money they crave (especially if they played no role in earning it).

Hippies, freaks and union goons, all together in Obama’s community, have organized to oppose everything great about America. All the little ideologues are trying their best to imitate the masters:  Obama, Marx, and that Jimmy Hoffa dude who loves to tell Obama “this is your army”, “we are ready to march” and a bunch of other nonsense.

Since this is Obama’s army–the community he has organized–I suppose he gets the credit for their great accomplishments. You know, the vandalism in Oakland, the sexual assault at Occupy Dallas, the policemen attacked at Occupy Denver, the drug overdose at Occupy Vancouver, the kidnapping at Occupy Cleveland, and sexual predator/Seattle Occupier who was busted for exposing himself to kids at Seattle’s classy occupation. This is what “hope and change” looks like when you flesh it out, when you take it out of the leftist playbook and apply it to the real world.

Our Organizer-in-Chief has really outdone himself this time. Welcome to Obama’s America.