To be clear, candidates are right to question Governor Romney on his healthcare record.  Obamacare is a hallmark of a failed presidency and Republican voters are interested in vetting their candidate on this important issue.  It is true that Governor Romney will continue to struggle with reconciling his record of healthcare reform in Massachusetts that paved the way for Obamacare, causing some to dub him a “co-conspirator” of the legislation that Republicans and conservatives universally loathe. But as the American public has seen time and time again, Mitt sure has his talking points down. And he excels at delivering them.  

As soon as Governor Romney is questioned about his record on healthcare reform, he launches in to a well rehearsed, well vetted, and very well thought out rebuttal that focuses on the importance of states’ rights and his commitment to undoing President Obama’s one-size fits all solution by executive order on day one of his presidency.  And then, like clockwork, Governor Romney pivots to talk about his real priority and his self-perceived strength: Jobs.

But what happens when instead of harping on Romneycare or Romney’s flip flopping on abortion, other candidates question Governor Romney’s until now, untouchable record on jobs?

Last night, we witnessed the first chink in Romney’s shiny armor of job creation as he was questioned by Governor Perry, Governor Huntsman, and even NBC’s Brian Williams.

After Rick Perry opened up the debate by touting his record of job creation, here’s Brian Williams’ question to Mitt about his record at Bain Capital:

“WILLIAMS: Let’s get a little more specific.  Bain Capital, a company you helped to form, among other things, often buys up companies, strips them down, gets them ready, resells them at a net job loss to American workers.

ROMNEY:  You know, that might be how some people would like to characterize what we did, but in fact, we started business at Bain Capital, and when we acquired businesses, in each case we tried to make them bigger, make them more successful and grow.  The idea that somehow you can strip things down and it makes them more valuable is not a real effective investment strategy.  We tried to make these businesses more successful.

By the way, they didn’t all work.  But when it was all said and done, and we looked at the record we had during the years I was there, we added tens of thousands of jobs to he businesses we helped support.

That experience, succeeding, failing, competing around the world, is what gives me the capacity to help get this economy going again.”

This was only the beginning of the hot water for Mitt.

The most candid back and forth of the debate was the sparring that occurred between Governors Romney and Perry:

Perry applauded Romney’s record of job creation in the private sector, but said he failed to accomplish job creation in the private sector stating “Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.”  A talking point, we are very likely to hear again ad nauseum from the Perry camp.

Jon Huntsman continued to press Governor Romney on his record of job creation stating that “47th just isn’t going to cut it, my friend,” a reference to the rank Massachusetts had among the 50 states in creating jobs during Romney’s term.  This echoed this web video released by the Hunstman campaign earlier this week.

While Governor Romney faired well overall during the debate, the seismic shift is that until this point, Romney has effectively run a campaign focused like a laser on job creation and his unique qualifications from his time in the private sector.  And he has successfully owned that space in targeting Obama’s economic record.  Because until now, Republicans have shied away from questioning Governor Romney’s private sector bonafides, instead saving their ammunition for barbs against President Obama’s abysmal economic record.

Both Perry and Huntsman camps were savvy to avoid the trap of hitting Romney on the obvious – Romneycare, and instead hit his cakewalk election strategy where it hurts the most: on jobs.

The 43rd President knows how to make friends – fast. George W. Bush’s Official Facebook page launched yesterday, and in less than 24 hours, Bush became more popular than Al Gore, John Kerry, and Jimmy Carter (who has an official Carter Library page – and a mere 669 fans). In just one day, Bush had gathered more than 55,000 followers, surpassing many politicians with long-standing accounts. Among presidents and presidential hopefuls, Bush looks like he’ll easily catch up to Bill Clinton, who had nearly 328,000 fans at press time. Sizing up the 2008 election, pages from Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (at several hundred thousand each) are also within sight. Not so easy to surpass? Tea-party and Facebook fan favorite Sarah Palin, who updates daily to a cool one million followers, and President Barack Obama, now past eight million followers.

While Bush’s joining the A-list on Facebook may surprise some, his popularity on the networking site and online has been growing steadily. Last February, a website called bushfans.com launched the “Miss Me Yet?” fan page, celebrating the highlights of the Bush presidency and criticizing the Obama Administration. It now has more than 160,000 fans. Even Bush team members have fared well in the high-school halls of Facebook popularity. “The Architect” Karl Rove, with more than 22,000 fans, is no one to sniff at. Laura Bush has been similarly successful; her relatively new page has a following of nearly 19,000.

So a lot of people want to be friends with Bush – but who is he friending? So far, the Decider is being selective, following fives sites, among them his wife’s page, his mother’s foundations, and the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. His staff is equally choosey at the GWB Presidential Center Twitter account, which follows only Mrs. Bush and Southern Methodist University. However, that isn’t remotely discouraging the former President’s fans, as Facebook members continue to “like” him in droves; by this afternoon he was closing in on 100,000 fans. Bush seems to be getting the popular vote for 2010.

******

Skyla Freeman (skylafreeman.com) is a former writer for President George W. Bush.  She blogs about style and culture at Sanity Fair online (sfair.blogspot.com).

For opponents of the healthcare bill, using Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence as justification for government takeover of the healthcare industry is just as sad as it is ironic. It is sad because on Sunday night, Pelosi and 218 of her colleagues in the House acted on their gross misinterpretation of that great founding document. But the question that all should be asking is whether or not the Founding Fathers would approve of the healthcare bill.

Simply put, the answer is a resounding “No.” For any student of the political thought of the American founding, the exercise of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama is enough to warrant another revolution. Where classrooms once taught that the British parliament circa 1763 is the foremost example of misuse of power and the dangers of disregarding the constitution, one now need look no further than the 111th Congress.

Yes, the process was bad. Deals were struck and bribes were made. Congressional leaders arm twisted and moderate Democrats caved. But if the Founding Fathers were alive today, those would only be minor issues. For in the grand scheme of things, what the Democrats accomplished was not a mere piece of legislation or the overhaul of a huge sector in the economy. It was getting away with a tyranny of the majority with the complete disregard to the American voter.

It was the tyranny of the majority that passed legislation that expands the powers of government more than any other since the 1960s, and all in an openly corrupt, dishonest, yet unapologetic manner. Worse still, the process exemplified the fact that to Democrats, government is an entity entirely separate from the will of the people and can in fact, be opposed to it.

The philosopher John Locke- who was a source of inspiration for many of the Founders- wrote in his Second Treatise on Government that government is derived from men in the state of nature voluntarily agreeing to form an authority to execute the laws of nature. And that is essentially, where the idea comes from that government gets its powers from the “consent of the governed.”

James Wilson- a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence and was one of the original six members of the U.S. Supreme Court – wrote in 1791 that it was the business of the federal government to protect rights, and that under a properly functioning government, people would be more free than they would be in the state of nature. Of course, that concept is hard to grasp because the argument could be made that a perfect government has never existed. Nevertheless, it is still a valid point that deserves consideration in today’s political climate. Does this healthcare reform bill leave Americans more free?

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that voluntary associations and relations among people were a major cornerstone of any Republican society. The healthcare bill however, does not allow for voluntary relationships. It demands, among other things, that individuals pay for health care for fellow citizens.

Thus it is fair to say that the healthcare bill itself, and the way in which it was passed would not sit well with Jefferson, Wilson, or any other of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and American revolutionaries. Government, in its correct form, should exist to protect individual rights. But by interfering in the economy and forcing individuals to buy health insurance, the government is doing nothing but violating rights.

Moreover, the Founders created a Democratic Republic for many reasons; one of them being that they wanted above all, to ensure that the rights and will of the minority were not trampled.

With the battle over healthcare reform however, Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, managed to pass legislation despite the very serious, genuine, and legitimate objections raised by their Republican colleagues and the unfavorable opinion of the bill from the American public. The Democrats have been clear- public opinion and the rights of the minority do not matter. Is there now no recourse for the tyranny of the majority?

Some say that the late Sunday-night vote in the House was a historic moment. They are right. It was a defining moment in U.S. history that will forever impact the freedom and liberties of future generations. The country came to a fork in the road, and Congress went left. So where does the country go from here?

Megan McArdle, econo-blogger at The Atlantic, explains it best: “The check that we have is that politicians care what the voters think. If that slips away, America’s already quite toxic politics will become poisonous.” In other words, if politicians can get away with misleading the American people and then ignoring them, America will no longer be the country the Founding Fathers created.

It might be time for another speech from Patrick Henry; or maybe a pamphlet or two by Thomas Paine.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

NCLB, an initiative that was put forth by President George W. Bush and signed into law in January 2002, was based on the theory that setting measureable goals and standards for each grade would improve among other things, testing scores in public schools.

Eight years later, NCLB has largely proven to be one massive failure. The act only resulted in increased federal government spending in education by billions of dollars, the illusion of school choice, no real punishment for failing schools, and the introduction of standardized testing as the ultimate litmus test for success or failure.

So President Obama is right when he says NCLB has got to go. However, that promise would be a lot more comforting if the president didn’t already have an abysmal track record when it comes to education.

Consider the DC voucher program, for example. The program, which was authorized by Congress in 2004, gave qualified students up to $7,500 to attend private or charter schools in the district, allowing them the chance to escape some of the worst public schools in the nation. The program almost immediately became a success among students, educators, and parents alike.

For perhaps the first time, low-income students in the District of Columbia were given the opportunity to attend better schools. Yet last April, President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and the Democrats in Congress changed all that.

When the program first began, Congress made funding past the 2009-2010 school year dependent on re-authorization by Congress and the D.C. Council. So, Duncan decided to inform families that since there was no guarantee that the program would exist a year from now, it would be better to not allow any new participants.

Thus, letters were sent out to 200 families who had just gotten into the program, notifying them their scholarship was being rescinded. Of course, in doing so, he also effectively killed the program before it could get any kind of a fair hearing. This was all done of course, with the president’s approval.

Next came Obama’s community college initiative- a plan that was proposed last summer. In it, Obama called for $12 billion of taxpayer money to be invested in community colleges, and an increase in Pell grants for low-income students. To pay for this, a bill was passed on September 17, 2009, that effectively cancels all government subsidies to private lenders making college loans. Instead, the federal government has taken over as lender.

There are many reasons why that bill and the community college initiative are disturbing to free marketers. Not only do they increase government spending and intervention in education, it also tries to make college more accessible by making it easier for prospective students to obtain loans. That same tactic was tried once before with prospective homebuyers.

Reforming NCLB is the next item President Obama has set his eyes on in his overhaul of the education system. His plan involves dividing schools into three categories that are something along the line of “Excellent,” “Good,” and “Poor.” The better a school is, the more it is allowed to be completely autonomous and innovative. Poor schools are punished with strict government control and oversight until improvements are made.

The task now is for Obama to convince Congress that his plan is better than NCLB- which shouldn’t be hard to do. Almost anything would be an improvement over Bush’s initiative. But while the change in education law is likely to occur, given Obama’s record with education reform it remains doubtful whether any actual improvements will take place.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Today International Women’s Day has a different tone around the world. In some countries it is celebrated like Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day as an opportunity to honor the women in one’s life by giving flowers or gifts. But in the U.S., this often-overlooked holiday can have a much deeper significance – an opportunity to raise awareness of the many battles women around the world are still fighting.

One such important battle is the global fight against breast cancer. Every 68 seconds, a woman dies from breast cancer. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. While the incidence rate is highest in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, most deaths from breast cancer over the next 25 years will occur in the developing world.

This morning I attended an event organized by Susan G. Komen for the Cure that highlighted the plight of women in the developing world who are afflicted with breast cancer. These women have to fight not only the disease, but also cultural taboos that serve as significant barriers to diagnosis and treatment. Especially in the Middle East and Africa but also in parts of South America and Asia, many women suffer grotesque health effects as a result of advanced stage breast cancer that goes unnoticed or is intentionally ignored. Some particularly tragic cases are detailed in this article.

Women in the U.S. have done a remarkable job of fighting this disease. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer (when caught early before it spreads) is 98 percent. As recently as 1982, it was 74 percent. The rest of the world is not so fortunate. We as American women should take full advantage of the cultural openness and medical opportunities we have to help us detect this treatable disease early by being vigilant about self-exams, clinical screenings, and mammograms. The most significant risk factors of breast cancer are simple: being female and getting older – so none of us is immune.

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. My mother is one of those women. Her sister is another one. Their mother is another one. I am proud to say they are all survivors and living examples of the strength of so many women, in the U.S. and around the world, who have fought this disease and won.

******

Rachel Hoff is a young Republican activist based in Washington, DC.

We haul hay bales and feed to the livestock. We pull trailers and implements. We haul fuel to the fields. We haul buckets and bags of seed and fencing supplies and tires and produce to the farmer’s market. Besides, how else would the high school football team get down Main Street for the Homecoming parade? And where would our dogs ride?

Our farmers drive them, of course. But so do our lawyers, teachers, politicians and bankers. Again, not for fashion, but function.

Out here, you see, we are part of a growing minority. We are – or are very closely connected to – the remaining 3% of our country’s population who are the food producers. We grow the wheat, corn and soybeans, and we raise the cattle, pigs and chickens that help to feed our nation.

But for the remaining 97% of our country, truck driving and wheat farming are becoming quite foreign. In fact, it has gone so far that it seems food producers and food consumers no longer speak the same language.

Even I fall into that guilty “consumer” column. My husband and I were just debating in the kitchen the other day about the difference in brown sugar and white sugar. I didn’t know where brown sugar came from. What I did know was that brown sugar is more popular among the “eat-healthy” advocates. But, even I didn’t know if brown sugar came from beets or cane, or how the sugar was refined and processed. (I have since done my homework.)

So it begs the question: If I, Kansas farm-girl, don’t know about the sources of food I use every day, how can those in more urban places, and those generations-removed from the farm, be expected to know and understand where their food comes from?

The gap is widening. The disconnect between producer and consumer, rural and urban is growing. And if we continue on the present course, our voice may be lost for good. Lost to an urban consumer whose food choices are en vogue, yet who lack a full understanding of how that food made the trek from farm to table and who may be unaware of how weather, world markets and politics played into the choices available to them at the grocery store.

What to do?

We can start by simply telling our story. The tools at our fingertips, literally at our fingertips, can put us in touch with that other 97% in nanoseconds. To a fault, we have been slower to adapt to the latest in Internet and social media technology. And beyond that, we’re still waiting for broadband service to reach every corner of my state. That’s not an excuse, just an admission of fact. But for those with access, the tools exist to make our story heard instantly.

But even telling the story can be a big leap for our truck-driving culture. People simply tend to be a bit more quiet in this middle section of the country, and furthermore, all those tied to the agricultural industry.

The best farmers and ranchers I know are humble, quiet, and devoted to the land and animals they serve. They tend to their soil while honoring the generations who have gone before them and preserving the land for future generations. Ranchers, livestock producers, dairymen and women, all care for their animals and see to their well being before taking care of themselves.

Yet, there is energy growing behind an anti-animal agriculture movement. And livestock producers have found themselves on the defensive, and a bit unprepared for the far-slinging tactics of a bigger, louder, angrier agenda. Energy continues to grow in the conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture debate. On the surface, organic production seems the gentle victor. But do consumers fully understand the production practices behind organic foods enough to justify paying premium prices?

So you should expect the volume to be turned up on the stories coming from the production sector. And you should expect to hear stories about men and women passionate about producing food; and stories of communities and families working so hard to preserve a rural culture; and of people who honor the land and respect the animals because it’s the right thing to do and because it also happens to make good business-sense. And you should listen. As the mother and chief-grocery-getter in my household, I intend to listen. I would prefer to hear about my food from its source; not from an exaggerated story spun in an urban office building.

Beyond growing soybeans and raising pigs, we also grow a lot of common sense in the Midwest. And be prepared, because just as soon as we figure out how to package it and sell it, we’re going to start hauling it to the cities in our pick-up trucks.

******

Sarah Goss is a native Kansan, full-time mommy of three, community volunteer and blog author. Her children are her top client, but her devotion to agriculture and rural community development run a close second.

Day one of the conference began with speeches by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and hopeful Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R). Both men received resounding applause by the thousands of attendees in the audience. Rubio in particular, who many view as the future of the GOP, delivered a passionate address extolling his beliefs in the American dream, limited government, and the necessity of a free society.

CPAC’s opening day also saw two major surprise visits: one by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who was introduced by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and later former Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney. Other headliners throughout the three-day conference included Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The conference this year also had its fair share of confrontations and interesting appearances. One of the most noteworthy was the hotel-lobby showdown between new media mogul Andrew Breitbart and liberal investigative journalist Max Blumenthal. The whole thing was, of course, caught on camera and went viral in a matter of minutes.

Also interesting was a speech in which Students for Liberty Executive Director Alex McCobin was tepidly booed for commending CPAC organizers for allowing GOProud, a gay Republican group to co-sponsor the event. McCobin summarized that “freedom is a single concept that we must defend at all times,” and that most students are socially tolerant while fiscally responsible. The majority of the crowd applauded and cheered in support.

However, later that same day, Conservative activist Ryan Sorba was roundly booed and forced to leave the stage after he denounced homosexuality as immoral. He even went so far as to respond to protests in the audience by saying “The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do. Bring it.” Let’s just say McCobin was left with far more respectability than Sorba.

But while CPAC 2010 stood out for its underlying feel of Conservative resurgence and optimism (and of course, hope and change!), there was a definite inner struggle on display between the Libertarian presence and the traditional GOP. Although the divide has almost always been present within the Republican Party, the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul enthusiasm have only exacerbated it. And this year, it showed.

This year, Libertarian groups like Students for Liberty, Campaign for Liberty, and Ladies of Liberty Alliance and other Ron Paul supporters made their presence known. In fact, it would be fair to say that CPAC attendees could be divided into two distinct groups: the group that stood in line for hours to get an autographed copy of Anne Coulter’s latest book, and the group that stood in line for hours to see Glenn Beck.

Anne Coulter’s group also cheered and chanted “Cheney ’12!” when the former VP made his surprise appearance, while the Beck group shouted the same thing for Ron Paul. But the division was not necessarily a friendly one.

After Ron Paul won the straw poll by a landslide, many accused Paul supporters of stuffing or manipulating the ballot box. The D.C.-based Politico even reported that a conference worker “rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.”

Nor were many Conservatives pleased with Glenn Beck’s concluding address, in which he compared the current state of Washington to a morning hangover. And according to Beck, the Republicans contributed to the mess just as much as the Democrats.

Beck even went so far as to liken the Republican Party to an addict that has yet to begin the road to recovery: “The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem,” said Beck. “I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit they have a problem and when I did hear them say they have a problem, I don’t know if I believed them.”

Ironic as it is however, Beck was extremely well-received. Rumors of protests proved to be unfounded and the boos were minimal at best- a far cry from the heckles Ron Paul was met with.

Yet the ideological division at CPAC should have been expected. In the wake of the Tea Party movement and strong losses in 2006 and 2008, the GOP has been undergoing some major soul searching; CPAC only shows that the searching continues.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

His argument is as follows: President Obama has really been a more moderate president; therefore the Tea Partiers can’t really be angry at his “socialist” policies. So, the movement is motivated by racism and radical anti-statism that blindly holds onto principle rather than facts.

While it is true that Obama hasn’t gone far enough to satisfy his far-left supporters, he has still supported and enacted policies that anger a lot of Americans. He supported the bailouts and the stimulus, took over General Motors, tried to push through what began as a very radical government takeover of the healthcare industry, and wants to raise taxes on wealthy. Not to mention the increase in federal spending and the out-of-control debt.

The passionate tea partiers however, do recognize that these policies began during the Bush administration. But they have also been carried on by Obama. That’s not the kind of change a lot of Americans were hoping for.

In light of that, a movement or uprising like the one seen today was inevitable, regardless of who is commander-in-chief. The Tea Party Movement is not a direct result of the man who currently holds the presidency, but of years and years of harmful and anti free-market policies. Obama’s election did not cause the movement; it just ensured its beginning. Thus, the liberal argument that the tea parties can be dismissed because they are only fueled by racial hatred is wrongfully dismissive and a sign of evasion.

Dionne’s second answer- that the movement is motivated by anti-statism that is a “profound mistrust of power in Washington”- is more accurate. But his reasoning is still misguided.

Dionne writes that “This suspicion of government is not amenable to “facts” — not because it is irrational, but because the facts are beside the point. For the anti-statists, opposing government power is a matter of principle.” Yes, standing up for limited government is a matter of principle, but it is not a position devoid of any facts.

On the contrary, people believe in limited government precisely because the facts of history say a limited government leads to a more prosperous nation. Furthermore, it is a fact that the Founding Fathers- federalists and anti-federalists alike- were all advocates of limited government.

The Tea Partiers are not blind to the facts; they understand better than most that ideas have consequences. Lack of economic freedom will weaken the economy, bailouts reward irresponsible behavior that will inevitably persist, and increased spending will eventually mean higher taxes.

However, amidst all the accusations and denunciations from the left, there is unfortunately, a glimmer of truth. Most recently, the Tea Party invited criticism by giving WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah a podium at their convention in Nashville, TN, to demagogue about Obama’s alleged lack of citizenship.  Then, they responded with resounding applause when former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said that Obama voters could not even spell the word “vote,” much less say it in English.

The Tea Party needs to stop making it so easy for the left and the media to criticize and denounce a movement that had very legitimate beginnings. To do that, tea partiers will need to do some serious soul-searching and determine whether they are a voice for Americans concerned about the deficit, or for Americans concerned about whether Obama was born in the U.S. The latter position will only confirm the characterizations of writers like Dionne, who say the movement is made up of racist, radical ideologues.

There’s still time to course-correct for the Tea Party movement. But for now, it looks as though it may be ill-fated to become what Reason Magazine’s Brian Doherty calls “personality cult anti-Democratic party populism.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

A Coakley ad released earlier this week charged that Scott Brown “favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.” Yesterday, the Brown campaign started running a radio ad featuring Ayla and Arianna Brown, who call the claims that their father supports policies that hurt women “out of line.”  In their ad, Brown’s daughters say, “Martha Coakley and her supporters are saying hurtful and dishonest things about our dad.”

In an interview with the Boston Herald earlier this week, Ayla came out strong against her father’s opponent: “Martha Coakley’s new negative ad represents everything that discourages young women from getting involved in politics, and as a young woman, I’m completely offended by that.”

We’ve seen this strategy before. Just last fall in Virginia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell faced charges that a graduate thesis he wrote twenty years ago suggested that working women undermined the family. Democrats tried to paint McDonnell as sexist and anti-woman. In response, McDonnell’s daughter Jeanine took to the airwaves with a TV ad defending her dad.

In the ad, Jeanine, a former Army platoon leader in Iraq, praised her father for encouraging his three daughters to be independent and achieve their goals. “He has worked to protect women and children from sexual predators and fight domestic violence,” she stated.

It worked. In November, 54 percent of women voted for Bob McDonnell. The Republican Governor-elect even won self-described working women. Of the 28 percent of women who indicated in the exit poll that they worked full time for pay, McDonnell won with 51 percent.

Is this trend of using campaign daughters a new GOP strategy for attracting women voters? It may be – especially if Brown is successful in garnering a significant percentage of the female vote in Tuesday’s special election. Unlike Virginia, in Massachusetts a male candidate is using the strategy against a female candidate, and it remains to be seen what impact Coakley’s gender and the Brown daughters’ ads will have in the polls that matter on Election Day.

In the meantime, Facebook offers a glimpse into grassroots excitement and momentum behind the opposing campaigns’ women’s outreach efforts. The Facebook group “Women for Brown” has 1,807 members; the “Women for Coakley” fan page, on the other hand, only has 110 members.
******

Rachel Hoff is a young Republican activist based in Washington, DC.

It has been eight years since planes crashed into one of our nation’s busiest cities. And while civilian’s day-to-day fears may have subsided, the actual threat of terrorism on our homeland remains elevated. This latest threat demonstrates not only the ever present danger of terrorist attacks, but also America’s failed counter-terrorism system.

According to recent reports, Abdulmutallab’s father actually met with CIA officials and warned of his son’s threat. Not only did he blatantly specify his son’s capability of becoming a suicide bomber, he revealed his son’s radicalization. Is this not enough of a red flag? Apparently not. What more do you need than a father verbally indicting his son? CIA officials failed to communicate such significant information to other agencies, furthering the claim that the CIA lacks important inter-agency communication. Not only did they fall short in forwarding information to additional federal officials, they proceeded to issue Abdulmutallab a visa.

In addition to the CIA’s meeting with the father of the suicide bomber, the CIA, NSA and State Department acquired separate, additional information pertaining to Abdulmutallab. One government source reportedly obtained voice-to-voice communication between Abdulmutallab and Yemeni extremist, Anwar al-Aulaqi. And, in as early as August, 2009, the CIA picked up information on “the Nigerian,” concerning meetings with potential terrorist sects in Yemen. While such information was noted, it once again failed to be communicated between governmental agencies.

Two strikes for our nation’s so-called ‘premier’ intelligence agency.

This incident not only illustrates chronic malfunctions in intelligence, it also demonstrates a serious let down of our current administration. On Sunday Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano proclaimed that “the system worked,” despite the fact that airport security measures neglected to detect Abdulmutallab’s explosive device. The bomb still managed to make it on the plane, undetected. She later retracted her statement and placed it in its proper context. According to Napolitano her claim of a “successful system,” referred to the manner in which officials reacted to the event.

Yet even her back-peddling is digging her deeper into a seemingly inevitable resignation. At what point did security officials exhibit successful post-terrorism tactics? Does forcing passengers to remain seated during the first hour and the final hour of their air commute equal success? I may be going out on a limb, but my guess is that an individual committed to blowing up a plane will not just forgo his charge simply because of a new, “stay seated” regulation. If an individual has dedicated time and resources towards developing an upcoming act of terrorism, he would simply go to the bathroom and prepare the device for detonation during a different point in the flight.

What we need is not a keep-your-seatbelt-fastened sign, but rather greater accountability in our nation’s intelligence community. As with the Fort Hood shooting, where officials failed to act on warning signs from the ultimate shooter, federal officials failed to pass on information alerting of Abdulmutallab’s precarious, red-flag behavior. Once a terrorist reaches the airport, the likelihood that one will be apprehended prior to implementing a terrorist attack, is limited. More actions must be taken at an earlier point in the potential terrorist’s trail.

According to Francis Townsend, since 9/11 the CIA workforce has been reduced. There must not be a diminution of intelligence personnel, but instead an increase in intelligence gathering human resources. In addition we must stress the necessity of interoperability among government agencies. I fear that if our government fails to implement such seemingly commonsensical measures, the Christmas day bombing attempt will be repeated…successfully.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She was recently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.  She currently resides in California.