Euro On Brink Of Collapse; Obama Nowhere To Be Found

June 4, 2012 Leave a comment

Europe is falling apart. The European Union and the Euro are on the brink of collapse, largely because member nations cannot agree on what to do with defaulting nations. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all on the brink of collapse because of their national debt. Germany is tired of bailing these countries out and arguably cannot afford to do it anymore themselves. The collapse of the Euro would put the entire EU into a recession. Supposedly the “moment of truth” is fast approaching for Europe. George Soros, who may or may not be orchestrating all of this, says the EU has three months to figure things out.

Germany and France will make it out of an Euro collapse in relatively good shape. They’ll have a recession but those two countries will be the first out of the recession. They’ll be soon followed by the lowland countries then the eastern countries. But the big question is what ends up happening to the defaulting nations. Chaos is likely to rule and the question then becomes first will that chaos spill into neighboring countries and second who ends up in control after the chaos subsides.

We’re more interested in the short term though because what happens with the Euro could have a direct impact on our Presidential election. The worldwide economy is slowing. Asia is stalling, Europe is falling apart, the NASDAQ and S&P are already in an official period of correction, the Dow isn’t far behind. In fact the Dow has lost all of its 2012 gains in the past couple weeks. Much of the loss is based on fears that Europe is about to come apart, that the Euro will no longer be the currency of the continent. That fear is quickly leading to a worldwide recession.

If the Euro collapses, in the short run we’ll lose a major trading partner in Europe because they will lose access to credit. That will affect us in the extreme, forcing the US into a recession and likely China as well. If this happens, Obama is toast. The economy is already unstable and Obama’s re-election chances largely hinge on how the economy does over the next few months. A recession based on a Euro collapse wouldn’t last forever because as previously mentioned Germany and France will be able to rebound fairly quickly. But they won’t rebound before the November election.

With so much on the line for Obama and the world economy it’s interesting that Obama has almost nothing to say about the potential Euro collapse. It’s as though he’s become an isolationist on this issue alone. Maybe he doesn’t have enough time for the Euro because he’s to busy picking and choosing which terrorists to kill. It’s quite odd that Obama isn’t trying to get involved, isn’t proposing American led solutions or demanding some sort of resolution. Obama doesn’t have isolationist tendencies, what he does have though is a lack of leadership skills. He’s the President of the United States, if he demands action and offers to lead Europe will listen. Especially now, they’re entering a crisis situation.

Obama however sits on the sidelines doing nothing. So much is riding on Europe for Obama, it makes one wonder if he even realizes it. Obama doesn’t really have an understanding of the economy and seems to have only cursory interest in how it actually works. With Valerie Jarrett being the only advisor Obama actually listens to, and with Jarrett being a serial incompetent, it’s no wonder the big O doesn’t have anything to say on Europe. But he needs to say something, he needs to do something. His Presidency truly hangs in the balance but more important than that, so does our economy.

What exactly Obama can and should do is up for debate of course. But barely commenting on the pending collapse of a major world currency isn’t an option. In the very least, the United States needs to offer to help negotiate some sort of resolution, even if that resolution means the planned and coordinated elimination of the Euro. In that case the end of the Euro would be relatively orderly, a much better outcome than a chaotic collapse. But Obama is nowhere to be found, he hasn’t offered to do anything. If Obama loses because our nation fell into recession after the Euro collapses, historians will look back and wonder why Obama never got involved or waited until it was to late. As voting citizens, we have to ask ourselves now why the President isn’t doing anything and why he has no comment on the matter when it so very much affects our day to day life.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

To Annoy The Media Discuss The Economy

May 12, 2012 2 Comments

The media wants to talk about any issue other than the economy these days. President Obama is thrilled that the media continues to report what his administration and campaign feed it. Make no mistake, the focus on everything but the economy comes directly from the White House. In the current economic climate, Obama stands little chance of re-election. Of course, if Rasmussen is to be believed the President’s flip flop return to his 1996 position on homosexual marriage isn’t helping him either, he’s now down 7 to Romney among likely voters. It’s the economy that matters though, even if the media doesn’t want to discuss it.

Everyone knows the 8.1% unemployment number is a sham. LD Jackson discussed it yesterday. The only way for the government to have the unemployment rate drop when only 115,000 jobs are created is to declare that hundreds of thousands of Americans are no longer in the work force. Some of these people have no doubt given up working, others are simply removed from the pool to make the government look better. The real unemployment rate is 14.5%. This government statistic measures those who are unemployed as well as those who have given up looking for work and those working part time who would like full time employment but cannot find it. This number may be artificially low as Gallup reports the underemployment rate (which measures the same people) is 18.3%.

Gallup reports that one in three young workers (ages 18-29) are underemployed. This fits right in with reports that recent college graduates are having a difficult time finding work. This is a group that Obama not only win but convince to come out to the polls in droves if he wants to win re-election. It begs the question why young people would want to vote for Obama when young underemployment hasn’t been higher in several generations and college graduates cannot find jobs. If you cannot find a job it really doesn’t matter what the government sets the student loan interest rate at because student loan debtors cannot pay either way.

Consumer confidence dropped in March and remained steady in April. In short, consumer confidence in the economy is not getting any better. The jobs market isn’t getting any better. Gas prices are down but they’re still over $3.50 a gallon. Real inflation is above 6%. Inflation is something the media never talks about anymore. The government inflation rate is based on big ticket items and goods that rarely change in price. When you include more volatile goods like food and gas the inflation rate goes up and government looks bad. Anyone who has been to the grocery can tell you when inflation is hitting because the price of meat, dairy and produce increases.

The economy is in a sad state right now. It’s something that needs to be discussed not just by media but by individual Americans sitting around their dinner table or talking to their friends in the front yard. Obama’s policies haven’t made the economy any better. He’s given us $5 trillion in new debt, massive new regulations, a meaningless Wall Street regulation package that couldn’t stop JP Morgan from losing $2 billion in risky investments (I don’t care if JP Morgan loses its money but Obama’s regulations were supposed to prevent this sort of thing thus they’re clearly a failure) and we won’t even discuss Obamacare which has been the single biggest drain on business since it was passed. The economy is a mess, the economy is Obama’s. No wonder he and the media don’t want to talk about it.

Filed under economy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Rove Map Has Obama Winning

April 27, 2012 Leave a comment

Karl Rove has come out with his first electoral map of the 2012 campaign. In it he shows Obama with at least 284 electoral votes, before counting tossup states. Some think Rove is being pessimistic or has some sneaky strategy to freak out Republicans so they get behind the Romney campaign. The fact though is that the Rove map shows us that Romney has a long way to go before the election. If he wants a shot at winning, he needs to shore up his base and he needs to appeal more to independents.

First a word about the polling, there’s no telling what polls Rove is looking at. We know that some of the published polls have had major flaws, some have overweighted Democrats or independents. (media polls never seem to overweight Republicans) When a certain group is overweighted, it completely skews the results. Most of the polls out there are of registered voters rather than likely voters. Around 40% of registered voters won’t ultimately end up voting in an election, thus the findings of those polls may not be an accurate reflection of how an election will turn out. Likely voter polls are much closer to actual elections, they also cost a lot more to produce which is why the media polls tend to either be registered voter or all adult polls.

Of course, we don’t know if Rove is using his own polling data or other GOP internal polling to create his map. What we do see in his map though is that Romney is having a difficult time shoring up his base. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida are all tossups according to Rove. None of those states should be tossups, they should be solidly Republican. That they aren’t yet should trouble Romney supporters because it means he’s going to have to spend some money on states that he shouldn’t have to. Even Missouri shouldn’t be a tossup for a Republican at this point, yet it is.

You have to think that eventually Romney will win all or most of those states. If we follow the Dick Morris principle of incumbents, 80% of the undecided voters will ultimately vote against the incumbent. If Morris’ theory holds true in this election, and it has since 1964, then all of those tossup states will go to Romney. If not now in April, then at least by election day. Still, Romney cannot rest on a Dick Morris theory, he’ll actually have to campaign in those states and spend money. It’s a price the GOP is going to have to pay for picking someone that a significant part of the base doesn’t love.

According to the Rove map, the real battle is going to once again be in Ohio. This state currently leans Democrat. It’s also possible that Romney could contend in Pennsylvania, which also slightly leans Democrat. The question in these two states is two fold. First can Romney appeal to enough disgruntled 2008 Obama voters to overcome his lack of appeal to blue collar workers. Second, can Romney rally his base in suburban Cincinnati and western Pennsylvania more than Obama can rally his base in Cleveland and Philadelphia. To win one of these states and thus the election, Romney is going to have to be able to do both things in one of these states. It’s unclear at this point whether Romney has it in him to pull it off.

There is a long way to go before November, a lot can happen. Right now, it doesn’t look good for Romney in the polls. There are pathway’s to victory for him and it’s always possible, if unlikely, that he’ll be able to inspire people to vote for him as much as vote against Obama. At this point though, at best Romney has a 33% chance of winning this election. It will be even worse if traditionally Republican states remain tossups, thus diverting money and attention away from Ohio, Pennsylvania and any combination of current Obama leaners that can push the President below 270.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Obama’s Odd Super PAC Flip Flop

February 9, 2012 13 Comments

President Obama this week is under fire for his reversal on Super PAC’s. You’ll recall that during the 2010 elections Obama repeatedly criticized Super PAC’s, their super secret donors and their harmless sounding names. He whined that the super rich were trying to steal elections with secret PAC donations. In 2007 Obama declared that you can’t be against outside groups and then for them. Apparently that didn’t actually mean anything when he said it in 2007.

This is another strange political miscalculation by this President. It starts out as a miscalculation in 2007 when boxed himself into a corner in order to make a thinly veiled attack on Hillary Clinton. Obama made matters worse in 2010 when he tried to, unsuccessfully, score political points by criticizing Super PAC’s at campaign events. The Supreme Court had already issued the Citizen’s United decision, it was clear during the 2010 election that Super PAC’s were here to stay. Knowing that Obama attacked them anyway, even though he must have known that he would need their support in 2012.

Fast forward to today, Obama could have continued his opposition to Super PAC’s. He doesn’t need to send his Cabinet out to fundraise for these PAC’s. He could have winked and nodded at the liberal PAC’s while publicly opposing the Citizens United case. There’s nothing forcing the President to send members of his cabinet to fundraise. Did he think the public wouldn’t notice? It makes you wonder what this administration is thinking politically. Obama is going to run a $1 billion campaign. Does he really need to have his cabinet fundraise for outside PAC’s as well?

Obama’s opposition to PAC’s was always a fraud. Obama seemed to have no problem when SEIU spent $80 million on Obama’s election in 2008. Other unions spent millions as well. Apparently union money in politics is acceptable but PAC’s funded by conservatives are evil, shady and misleading. It’s this sort of absurd argument that makes you wonder about the sanity of Washington.

Meanwhile the administration that came into office attacking lobbyists, all before hiring one lobbyist after another, has been caught in another lobbying scandal. Robert Klein is a major Obama campaign bundler, he’s also a lobbyist for Spirit Airlines. Klein claims he was never a lobbyist and never intended to register as a lobbyist. I find myself constantly registering for things I have no intention of registering for, so I’m completely sympathetic. The Obama campaign is distancing itself from Klein but the damage is done. They’ve got a lobbyist bundling campaign donations, no one buys Klein or the campaign’s story.

There shouldn’t be any problem with having Super PAC’s back campaigns or having lobbyists fundraise. The idea that money in politics is evil, especially when spoken by a President running a $1 billion campaign, is absurd. But if you’re going to make the argument that Super PAC’s are terrible and that lobbyists have no place in your campaign or administration then as President you really need to stick to that.

Obama’s reversal on Super PAC’s is a major political miscalculation. It will hurt him in the credibility department. It makes you wonder why in the span of three weeks the President has arrogantly attacked religious faith and flip flopped on Super PAC’s, which he spent a considerably amount of time attacking as unethical. Is this an administration that is politically inept, do they think the election is in the bag or are they just taking a play out of the Alinsky playbook?

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

Obama Out of the Closet as a Socialist

December 8, 2011 Leave a comment

President Obama gave a speech in Kansas the other day wherein he pretended to be like Teddy Roosevelt and instead simply came out of the closet as a socialist. Let’s go through some of Obama’s comments.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

Obama starts by setting up a strawman to beat down. No one is talking about returning to a decade ago where the government forced banks to sell mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them. Make no mistake the financial crisis of 2008 begins with government and was escalated by Fannie and Freddie, which are government creations. Obama begins with a strawman then leaps into a diatribe about how everyone deserves a fair shot and needs to do their fair share. There has never in the history of the world been a guaranteed fair shot to anyone. Some people are born to poor families, others to rich families. Some are born with great intellect, others not so much. God never guaranteed fair.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Obama set Teddy Roosevelt up as the great big government hero who saved us from monopolies. He then paid lip service to rugged individualism, which is clearly something he doesn’t believe. If you watch the speech on You Tube, he basically choked that line out. But he acknowledges it, which is a huge step up from the past where individualism was essentially ignored.

There’s only one problem. After acknowledging rugged individualism and government skepticism, he declares it to be a failure. In this speech, Obama declares that one of the hallmarks of Americanism is a failed concept that doesn’t work. Think about that for a moment. We have a nation whose identity has always been wrapped in individualism and freedom. Obama has declared our identity a failure. It’s almost unimaginable that an American President would do such a thing.

Obama then essentially lies about the 20′s and the postwar years. As though the Great Depression was created by freedom and limited government and the post-war years were a boom because of the lack of individualism and big government. In truth, the Depression was created by the Federal Reserve manipulating the currency and it was extended by the incompetence of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. The post-war years were a boom not because of government but in spite of it. Government didn’t create the suburbs after all.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class — things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Obama continues by attacking the Bush tax cuts. Yet these are the very tax cuts that he pushed an extension for in 2010. In fact, he forced them through a Democrat Congress last December. Not only does he attack the tax cuts, he mischaracterizes them. They weren’t tax cuts for the wealthy, they were tax cuts for everyone. There isn’t a single American who didn’t see a tax reduction because of Bush’s two tax cuts.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts aren’t responsible for the massive deficit we face and if they are responsible why did Obama push for their extension? He doesn’t answer this question, nor is he ever asked by the media. The reason we have a massive deficit is because of the increase in spending under both Bush and Obama. Bush created a prescription drug medicare benefit which cost a fortune and was involved in two fairly expensive wars that Obama continued. Obama wasted $800 billion on a failed Stimulus and billions more on various left-wing pet projects. The problem isn’t taxes, the problem is spending.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

In other words, freedom is out of style and socialism is in. We can’t let people fend for themselves, government has to do everything for us. Make no mistake, this is what Obama is arguing for. Individualism is dead, collectivism is alive.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people — we tell our kids — that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

Obama simply doesn’t understand how a free market economy works. He believes that you can’t make it in American unless the government controls the economy and taxes the rich to death. In fact the opposite is true. In the last 30 years we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the rise of millionaires. Apparently someone is making it if they try. The people who were in the bottom 20% a decade ago are largely in the middle class today. Many are in the upper class. Our classes are fluid, people still make it if they try. Yet Obama declares this as dead as individualism.

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. (Applause.) It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans — Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Obama is completely disingenuous here. The top 1% pay about 40% of all the tax revenue the government takes in. How is that not their fair share? In fact, the bottom 50% pay around 1% of all income taxes collected. Buffett is paying a capital gains tax rate on money he’s already earned and invested. He may be paying a lower rate on his capital gains but at the end of the day his tax bill is in the millions. It’s absolutely absurd to pretend like the rich don’t pay their fair share when they pay the lions share of taxes.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed — what can never change — are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others — is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Obama ends his speech by claiming that what can never change in America are the values that have gotten us to our third century. Yet earlier in the speech the values that have guided this country from the founding until today, rugged individualism and skepticism of government, are failures according to Obama. What Obama is doing here is clear. He’s trying to shift America from a place of freedom and individualism to one of socialism and collectivism. Obama declared the old way a failure. In its place Obama will present a collective socialism and will pretend that it’s always been there.

In other words Obama is officially out of the closet as a socialist. If there was ever a speech that defines what Obama is, it’s this one. He doesn’t tell us where he plans to take the country other than his threat to raise taxes and his unexplained idea to make the playing field even. But what is clear is that individualism, the concept that has defined our nation since its founding, is dead according to Obama. With the death of individualism comes the death of freedom. How can we be free when the individual is irrelevant?

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Herman Cain Victim of Vile Leftist Sexual Harassment Attack

October 31, 2011 8 Comments

As we predicted on this blog earlier this month Herman Cain is now the subject of what he might consider a “high tech lynching.” Politico alleges that Cain sexually harassed two women when he worked at the National Restaurant Association in the 90′s. Politico proudly declared that they wouldn’t release any names for “privacy concerns” and they so much as acknowledge that their buyouts contracts contain no stated reason as to why they left. In other words, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Cain did anything wrong. Which is of course what he’s claiming today.

This is completely predictable. It’s straight out of the leftist playbook for attacking a prominent black conservative. Justice Clarence Thomas was ruthlessly attacked by the left without any proof whatsoever. Anita Hill had limited credibility and she had even less proof. The same is true in the case against Herman Cain. There’s no evidence whatsoever he did anything wrong. All we have is an article with no names named and a pair of contracts with gag clauses, as though such clauses are only used in cases of sexual harassment.

The ends justify the means with the left. It doesn’t matter whether Herman Cain or Justice Thomas did anything wrong. All that matters is that conservatives aren’t allowed to be black because it destroys the leftist narrative on race in America. The left projects their own racism on conservatives because at the end of the day, it’s the left that doesn’t believe that blacks are capable or should think for themselves. Cain took these people on directly when he declared he left the Democratic plantation. For the left this was a declaration of war that justifies any and all attacks on Herman Cain, true or otherwise.

If Herman Cain wins the GOP nomination, this is only going to get worse. The left will play to the classic racist line that black men are sexual predators and they’ll take it well beyond two unnamed women and a gag clause in a contract. The left imagines that whites are all a bunch of racists (whites are even racist for supporting Cain in the minds of the far left) and thus we shouldn’t be surprised when they trot out a white woman who claims Herman Cain raped her. The leftist mind believes this will destroy Cain’s chances of winning because racist whites will flock to a poor little white girl’s defense against the wicked black sexual predator.

There’s only one problem for the left. No one on the right believes them anymore. Contrary to what the left believes, white conservative Republicans couldn’t give two hoots about race. It’s only the left that believes in racial politics. The right figured out the leftist playbook when they ruthlessly attacked Justice Thomas. We don’t buy their lies about black conservatives. The left has always projected their racism onto conservatives, to this day they don’t understand how it could be possible that conservatives don’t care about race because it goes against their basic political ideology.

Herman Cain was absolutely right to prepare for a high tech lynching. A high tech lynching is what he’s going to get at the hands of leftists who see a black conservative as the biggest threat facing the country. We should expect to see more of these nonsense stories come out about him. If this story doesn’t take hold, they’ll come up with another one. If he wins the nomination, expect the white rape victim (and no doubt a Dem donor and/or George Soros associate) to make her appearance sometime next October. These leftists will stop at nothing.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

Obama Gets Behind Grotesque Occupiers

October 17, 2011 4 Comments

President Obama is embracing the Occupy Wall Street protests. He’s started using the term 99%, alleging that the grotesque occupiers represent 99% of the country. There are very clear connections between Obama and the leaders of these protests, from Van Jones and George Soros to Stephen Lerner and other union bosses. The mainstream press, even Fox News, refuse to acknowledge the connections. Now that the President is using the occupiers terms, it’s very clear that Obama is embracing them. He’s also trying to set up the 2012 election debate as Wall Street vs 99%.

Of course for Obama to get away with this he’ll need an ignorant public and a willing press. Let’s not forget that, according to Open Secrets, in 2008 Obama took in $15.8 million from Wall Street. McCain only too in $9.2 million. Wall Street wrote and lobbied for the Dodd-Frank financial reform package. We’ll also have to ignore the fact that Obama has spent the past several months touring the country going from one $30,000 a plate fundraiser to the next. Last I checked the 99% down at the Occupy protests couldn’t afford toilet paper much less a $30,000 rubber chicken dinner with the President.

Obama is desperate to cling to his power, this has become clear over the past few days. He’s in the 2012 election to win. In order to win he’s going to try to divide the country on class lines. He’s going to use Wall Street, from whom he accepted $15.8 million in donations in 2008, as his straw man to create class warfare. This isn’t the uniter he claimed to be in 2008, he’s little more than a community organizing rabble rouser who is hell bent on dividing the nation.

Whether the White House is actively involved in the Occupy protests remains to be seen. The connections are clear. It’s also clear that the people and organizations staging these events are very much supportive of Obama’s socialist agenda. The protesters themselves have little idea why they’re there, as evidenced by the fact that none of them seem to be able to explain what the point of the occupation is. They’re nothing more than useful idiots.

Wall Street is easy to hate when you’re jealous of other’s riches. But if these people were so opposed to Wall Street where were they when the financial meltdown began in 2008? Where were they in 2009 and 2010 when stock market was all over the place? Where were they when Dodd-Frank was being debated? We’re supposed to believe these people got outraged in the middle of September and felt the need to occupy and destroy a park in lower Manhattan without any organization or any connection to the White House? Give me a break.

The occupy protests began a few weeks after Obama’s jobs speech. They were planned for the last year and a half. They were originally planned for last May and were pushed back to September, likely to coordinate with the White House. This whole thing is being organized by a group of socialists and marxists who are using these moronic college students to push an agenda they don’t even understand. In fact, most of the people down there don’t even know why they’re there. And Obama is supporting them, using the term 99%. There is absolutely a connection.

In the end we have a choice in 2012. The choice is between big government and small government. Obama is attempting to set the debate as Wall Street against the 99%. He’s using the Occupy protests to do this and the media is going right along with it. Have you noticed all the positive stories about these protests, nearly one a night on every channel. The Tea Party had 9 stories during the entire year in 2009, all of them negative. So the media is completely on board with Obama and the Occupiers. We conservatives have to get the message out on our own that the choice isn’t between Wall Street and everyone else. The choice is between Obama’s big government socialism and freedom.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama, Politics, socialism Tagged with , , , , , , ,

October 11th Republican Debate Review

October 12, 2011 2 Comments

Last night the GOP had another debate on something called the Bloomberg Network. It was hosted by Charlie Rose, who declared he believes in roundtables. (I believe in refrigerators) As such the candidates were seated at a table and questioned by Rose and a couple of leftist reporterettes from the Washington Post.

Let’s start with the big loser: Rick Perry. Perry needed to have a stellar debate and he did anything but. He didn’t stumble over his words this time around but he did nothing to recover from his September tumble. Perry is at best inconsistent, touting all the jobs venture socialism has created in Texas but slamming Obama for Solyndra. Either you’re for venture socialism or you’re not, let’s not play the state-federal game on this one. On healthcare, Perry spent most of his time talking about obscure Texas provisions when he should have been on the offensive against Romneycare. Outside of energy, Perry has little to say.

Romney is steady eddy. He never makes a mistake and answers all of his questions in the way he wants. Unfortunately this usually means skimming over the actual question. He was unable to explain why he has tax cuts specifically targeted for the middle class at a lower threshold level than Obama, he completely glossed over the question. He was only able to name 7 of his 59 points in his grand save America plan. But he doesn’t answer the question is such a fluid way that it isn’t until after the debate that you realize he never answered anything. Like it or not, that goes a long way in elections.

Herman Cain had a solid night. It was clear he is considered a serious challenger and a front runner by the other candidates because they all talked about him. He’s energetic and enthusiastically explains his 999 plan. He fended off Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann’s argument that adding a new sales tax will only embolden leftists with a new revenue stream by saying his plan included a 2/3 majority to raise any of the rates. In other words if Democrats wanted to raise taxes his law would require a 2/3 majority in Congress. Whether this is Constitutional remains to be seen. Nevertheless, he fended off their attacks with ease. Cain is a serious contender.

Michele Bachmann had a solid night. Dressed in to much white, Mrs. Bachmann explained her positions with ease. She went on the offensive when necessary. Her biggest problem though is that there isn’t much substance to her arguments. She’s making them as though she’s on an evening talk show on Fox or CNN and she’s talking about what’s going on in Congress. She’s running for President though. There never seems to be anything other than her same old criticisms of Obama. Yes, we all know she was a tax lawyer 20 years ago and that she has 5 kids and 23 foster kids. At some point she has to move beyond that and her basic talking points. There’s a reason why she’s down in the polls. Those of us who have watched all the debates see the same, boring arguments from her every time. But at least she presents them well.

Newt went on the offensive against the media early in the debate. He even insisted on being allowed to answer a question twice in the first hour of the debate. Then he faded into the background. Has anyone else noticed this seems to happen at every debate? Is it because the leftist media questioners are punishing him for attacking them or does Newt tire easily? Newt is perhaps the best guy up there to present the conservative position but he didn’t do anything last night to boost his candidacy. He isn’t going to make it through January at this point. I wonder who he’ll endorse.

Rick Santorum might as well not have existed in the first hour of the debate. He was hardly asked anything and he never stood out. In the second hour he had a great attack on Cain’s 999 play only to see Cain shoot back with his 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes. Santorum did have one solid point about families. He’s absolutely right that the bedrock of America is the family. The leftists have for a century tried to tear down the family and replace it with government. It was great to hear someone on stage bring that up. But it isn’t going to win him the nomination.

Jon Huntsman is a bore and belongs in the Democrat Party running as a blue dog. His jokes are lame and his arguments are almost irrelevant. He has as much chance of winning the nomination as Hillary Clinton.

Ron Paul is the same old boring candidate he’s always been. He makes the same arguments and has the same number of supporters he always has. He wins no votes at these debates. His supporters go wild but if he never increases his base he can’t win the nomination much less the White House.

Win: This is a tough one but I’m going with Romney because he’s still the front runner and he didn’t hurt himself.

Place: Herman Cain had a solid night. He’s a serious contender and he showed it with this very solid debate performance.

Show: I’ll begrudgingly go with Bachmann because none of the others stood out. At least she was solid in her presentation.

Big Loser: Rick Perry because he didn’t do anything to stop his fall in the polls. His legion of supporters who think he’s the next Reagan must he wondering what’s happened to their guy.

Filed under 2012 election, Republicans Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Can Herman Cain Mount A Serious Challenge To Romney?

September 26, 2011 Leave a comment

Herman Cain won a very important straw poll in Florida over the weekend. He won 37% of the votes, Rick Perry came in second with 15%. This is a very interesting turn of events because it looked like late last week that Rick Perry was going to run away with a victory. Reports indicate that dozens of Perry supporters switched to Cain at the last second. Perry is a man with dozens of high profile endorsements in Florida, Cain had but one. Yet Cain got more than twice as many votes as Perry and in fact got more votes than Perry and Romney combined.

It’s clear that conservatives are looking for someone other than Rick Perry. Perry lost his conservative base when he alleged that those who opposing paying for instate tuition (tax money) for illegal immigrants was heartless. He sounded like a brainless 20 year old liberal Democrat and he’s being punished for it by the conservatives who ought to be making up his base. Couple that with his pathetically weak performance in all of the three debates he’s been in and it’s no wonder conservatives are fleeing him.

Conservatives want a legitimate alternative to Mitt Romney, who many of us see as a liberal masquerading as a conservative. Romneycare is the millstone around his neck, many conservatives can’t get beyond that.

Wanting an alternative to Romney, Herman Cain has done the most to try to win the conservative side of the GOP Presidential bracket. Cain has been strong in the debates and in fact has gotten stronger over time. He’s proposed actual plans while the other conservatives propose little more than lofty rhetoric. Cain’s 999 plan, while not perfect, is at least something people can understand. His social security proposal make sense, especially next to Romney’s more of the same plan and Perry’s muddled plan.

A couple months ago it looked like Michele Bachmann would be the conservative to beat. But she’s really faded over the last three debates. She’s not as strong as she was during the New Hampshire debate. Worse, she repeats the same lines over and over again. We all know how many kids she has and that she won’t rest until Obamacare is repealed. Never mind that she slept last night. At some point there has to be more to a Presidential candidate than a promise to repeal Obamacare.

Bachmann and Cain are battling for the same Tea Party voters and it appears that Cain is winning right now. He’s certainly on the upswing, aided by Bachmann fading and Perry imploding. The question is whether Cain can get to the point where he can make a serious run at Mitt Romney. If B. Hussein Obama could beat the Clinton machine, certainly Cain can cobble together a defeat of Mitt Romney.

The key for Cain going forward is to speak to as many Republicans as possible. He seems to be able to win people over with his speeches more so than his debate performance. The more Republicans he speaks to the more likely it is that he can raise the money necessary to make a serious run at Romney. The Florida straw poll is evidence of this. His speech is what won over former Perry supporters and other assorted conservatives. Cain needs more speaking engagements and he needs to get on that today.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , ,

Hillary The Democrat Nominee? Obama Will Not Step Aside

September 20, 2011 Leave a comment

Obama’s poll numbers are tanking and not just because independents have soured on the President. His poll numbers are dropping among Democrats. After the Scott Walker victory there were more than a few liberal Democrats who openly talked about Obama stepping out of the way so that Hillary Clinton could be the party’s nominee in 2012. That talk died quickly but it seems to be making a comeback. Hillary has an approval rating in the mid 60′s while Obama’s approval rating is in the low 40′s.

Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, Obama’s hometown paper, has been the first to call for the President to step aside. Chapman opines that there’s just no point in Obama getting elected to a second term because most second terms are a waste of time and never as good as the first term. That alone makes the case to vote against Obama, can you imagine it getting any worse than this? He also opines that the Republicans will have control of the Senate and thus the entire Congress. Chapman suggests that from the Obama standpoint he wouldn’t be able to get anything done and thus the second term serves no purpose.

Chapman makes some decent enough points. Second terms are usually not quite as good as a first term. There can be more gridlock because Congress generally shifts against the President’s party. But this didn’t stop Reagan or Clinton from having fairly successful second term’s. This is perhaps because they were capable of playing political ball with the other party, unlike President Obama who appears to be incapable of doing much of anything unless he has complete dictatorial power.

Chapman wants Hillary to run in Obama’s place. Her approval rating is significantly higher than Obama’s and if she ran there’s a chance she could save Congress and the White House for the Democrats. I don’t know about Congress but Hillary can definitely save the White House for the Democrats. In fact, if she is the Democrat’s nominee next year she will win easily over any Republican candidate. For that reason, Republicans ought to be scared to death that Obama steps aside. Hillary is popular, she’s stayed out of the political fray over the last three years and she’s seen as a competent Democrat compared to Obama’s incompetence (this isn’t far off). No Republican candidate can hold a candle to Hillary in terms of popularity right now.

While the GOP should be scared to death that Hillary becomes the nominee we can at least sleep at night knowing she will not be. It’s getting to late for her to mount a serious primary challenge to Obama. It wouldn’t surprise anyone if she’s eying an Obama defeat and a run for President as the savior of the Democrats in 2016. That sort of campaign is right up the Clinton’s alley.

As much as Steve Chapman and other Hillary supporters (as well as a legion of far left progressives who are never happy) want Obama to step aside he simply won’t do it. Obama has never put the good of the Democrat Party above himself. He’s one of the most narcissistic President’s we’ve had in a generation. We’re talking about a man who had the unmitigated audacity to give a campaign speech in Berlin in 2008 as though he were running for President of the world. He isn’t going to step aside so that ‘likable enough’ Hillary, whom he defeated in a bitter primary, can be the Democrats nominee instead of him. That just isn’t in Obama’s playbook.

If Obama is going down he’s going to take the entire Democrat Party with him and I suspect he doesn’t care. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t see defeat coming around the corner. He didn’t seem to in 2010. It was almost a surprise to Obama when the Republicans took 63 seats in the House. The Democrats only hope at this point (aside from a miraculous economic turnaround) is that a handful of Senate candidates successfully distance themselves from Obama during their campaign. Otherwise, the rout may very well be on next year.

Filed under 2012 election, Obama Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers