Quote of the day, “Obama’s ‘real world’ edition”
President Barack Obama, who has spent almost all of his career and adult life in academia, law firms, and government, begins his criticism of Mitt Romney by declaring, “those of us who have spent time in the real world . . .”
It would probably be rude of me to think about Michelle Obama’s work, where her salary jumped from $121,910 to $316,962 per year after her husband became a U.S. senator, a job that was strangely left unfilled after she stepped down to focus on her husband’s campaign.
Such positions are quite challenging to find in the . . . real world.
UPDATE: Of course, Obama uses the phrase while speaking to donors at a $40,000-per-couple fundraiser.
Another “price of arugula at Whole Foods” moment from a man who’s been detached from the “real world” his entire life.
Obama can only muster no more than 60% of the primary vote in two states
Hmm. Looks like that WV thing in early May wasn’t an anomaly. Details:
President Barack Obama continued to have trouble on Tuesday performing in Democratic primaries in traditionally conservative states, barely eking out wins in Kentucky and Arkansas.
The president didn’t even have an opponent in Kentucky, but with 99 percent of the vote counted, Obama took just 57.9 percent of the vote, with the remaining more than 42 percent of ballots cast for “uncommitted.”
In Arkansas, with 70 percent of the vote tallied, Obama nabbed just 59 percent of the vote. His opponent there, John Wolfe, was able to take 41 percent of the vote at that point, according to The Associated Press.
Wolfe, an attorney from Tennessee whose platform includes repealing “Obamacare,” was able to win several counties.
I’m gonna go out way on a limb and predict that the kneejerk defense from the left or the MSM (pardon the redundancy) will be to attack the electorate in these states as racist.
Headline of the day, “AP’s media bias” edition
Yes, this is the actual AP headline:
Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?
Read the intro:
By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press – Sat, May 19, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth.
ObaMao’s big government borrow-and-spend policies have been crap, with no positive results and a plethora of negative results. So Americans elect the GOP to control the House, as their way of expressing displeasure with (among other things) B.O.’s and the Dems’ way of dealing with the economy. So when the Republican House - again, elected by the people to stop Obamanomics - decides to stop the runaway borrow-and-spend Greece-like policies…they’re trying to sabotage the economy?
Um, yeah. They’re trying to sabotage something that hasn’t friggin’ worked in nearly four years, and the AP treats it as though it’s a given that Obamanomics works and those mean ol’ Republicans are trying to “sabotage the economy” just to hurt Obama. Because Obama’s economic policies couldn’t possibly harm Obama…nope, it’s those economy-sabotaging Republicans!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Government school teacher to her student: not being respectful of Obama is a criminal offense, or something
In related news, the number of kids in this school district who are going to be homeschooled after this academic year skyrockets. Details:
A YouTube video uploaded on Monday afternoon apparently shows a schoolteacher from the Rowan-Salisbury school district in North Carolina informing a student that failing to be respectful of President Obama is a criminal offense. Breitbart News has uncovered that the student is a high school junior, and that the teacher is apparently one Tanya Dixon-Neely.
The video shows a classroom discussion about the Washington Post hit piece about Mitt Romney bullying a kid some five decades ago. One student says, “Didn’t Obama bully someone though?” The teacher says: “Not to my knowledge.” The student then cites the fact that Obama, in Dreams from My Father, admits to shoving a little girl. “Stop, no, because there is no comparison,” screams the teacher. Romney is “running for president. Obama is the president.”
Uh…what?
Scary: people like this lady are molding impressionable young minds.
Quote of the day, “Obama thinks soldiers are dying for him” edition
This is so sickening on so many levels. Dude, they’re fighting on behalf all Americans, regardless of from which of the 57 states they hail. They are not risking life and limb for you or your campaign specifically, you pompous narcissistic jackwagon!
Obama loses at least one delegate in WV Democrat primary, doesn’t crack 60% of the vote…against a federal inmate?
An obscure federal prison inmate gave President Obama an unexpected run for his money in the West Virginia Democratic Primary Tuesday, highlighting the deep dislike for the president in the Appalachian heartland.
With 96% of the precincts reporting Tuesday night, Keith Judd was holding steady at 41% of the vote and had won ten counties.
Judd is also known as federal prison inmate Number 11593-051 at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Beaumont, Texas, where Judd is serving a 210-month sentence for extortion and making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999.
According to both state and national Democratic Party rules, Keith Russell Judd is entitled to receive at least one delegate from West Virginia for the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. because he received 15% of the vote.
Dude couldn’t get 60% of West Virginia Democrats on board in a primary with a joke of an opponent. A convict. How friggin’ awesome is that? 
Time magazine helpfully edits Obama campaign ad to remove unflattering quote that was uttered, add flattering quote that wasn’t uttered
Obama is running a commercial with B.J. Clinton (Billy Jeff…William Jefferson…you perverts!) talking about B.O. ordering the hit on Bin Laden. Details at Boortz’ site. Here is the original, unedited transcript of BJ’s comment in the ad:
“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they’d been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible for him. But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the best result.”
So Bubba opines that had the raid gone awry, the fallout would have been disastrous…for Obama! Yeah, screw the SEALs and the country, the real issue would have been Obama’s re-election chances! Way to keep your eyes on the prize (and off of the interns), BJ!
Well, Time magazine had an article, by former Newsweak hack Jon Meacham, with a slightly different (but highly significant) quote from Bubba:
“That’s one thing George Bush said that was right: the President is the Decider-in-Chief. Nobody can make that decision for you. Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they’d been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible (???? – CL). But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder and more honorable path, and one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”
Notice how the quote was totally altered to remove the pesky and problematic “for him” part, and how “honorable” was added a second time, despite the fact that Bubba never used it the second time. Isn’t the purpose of the quote to, oh I dunno, quote something that someone actually said?
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama’s big government nanny state: We’ll ban kids from doing farm chores
Yeah, let’s get four more years of crap like this, right?
A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.
The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.
Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”
“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”
The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course. …
There’s more there, and you really should read it. Good grief, will this statist nincompoop please be booted in November?
NYT clears NYT of allegations of bias
This is a joke…right?
The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.
Nope, we’ve been right down the middle, no favoritism on our part. How do we know? Because we just checked ourselves. And as luck would have it, we’re clean. So there.
So nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama White House clears Obama White House in Secret Service sex scandal
One sentence tells you all you need to know.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that White House legal counsel has concluded no White House staff engaged in any “misconduct” in Cartagena.
Oh. Well, h3ll, issue resolved.
“If I wanted America to fail…”
…then I’d vote for Chairman Zero and other members of the Jackass Party.
Quote of the day, “McCain tweaks Obama on dogs” edition
Hey, libs…you started this, remember?
From Sen. McCain:
Obama ate dogs
By now, many of you know that the Romneys are catching hell over the way they transported the family Irish setter nearly 30 years ago on family vacations, namely on the roof of the car. Ann Romney says the dog enjoyed it, and considering my dog darned near steps all over my passengers to stick his head out the window, I can see that. Would I put my dog on the roof? No, probably not. But if the dog didn’t die, didn’t suffer, and it happened three decades ago, then I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday how they transported their dog.
But the MSM cares. They do not want any talk about the sky high unemployment, the exploding deficit, our crippling debt, hemorrhaging of jobs, skyrocketed fuel prices, unconstitutional power grabs…but instead, Mitt Romney’s dog from the 1980′s.
OK, you hacks. You wanna go there? You really wanna go on the “who loves dogs?” track. Fine. Let’s go there. I’ll stipulate that Obama loves dogs more…especially with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp! From the Daily Caller:
Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago.
Can you name the author of this quote?
“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”
Yep, that’s Barack Obama, writing about his childhood with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, from Chapter Two of his bestseller Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
“So what? It was a long time ago,” you say. “He was a lot younger. Customs are different there. He was just doing what his stepfather told him. And hey, you can’t even prove that the dogs were ever left on top of a car, you racist.”
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, libs. Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth. And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other.
It’s no fun when we push back, is it? That’s why it’s so much fun.
You must read the updates and the comments, which are friggin’ hilarious! One to whet the appetite:
Q: What does Obama do when his dog gets stuck?
A: Grabs a toothpick.
Game on, beyotch.
CNN poll a product of “utter fantasy”
This is a great takedown of that CNN poll from yesterday that is wildly different from other recent polls. In the CNN poll, Obama leads Romney 52%-43%. In polls from two and three days before, Romney leads Obama in both, albeit within the margin of error.
Why am I talking about polls at this stage of the game? Simple: media malpractice. Excerpt of the takedown:
…That might not be the biggest problem with the poll, though. Its biggest problem is … math. Reader Raymond O did some math and asked a rather interesting set of questions in an e-mail last night about how CNN did theirs. First, let’s start with the topline results, as reported by CNN: Obama 52%, Romney 43% among registered voters, 53/41 among all respondents. If that’s the case, then the number of respondents in the latter case voting for Obama should be 538, and the number supporting Romney 416.
However, when reading the questions on page 3 of the poll report, that’s not at all what we see:
BASED ON 484 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
3. (Asked of Obama voters) Is that more a vote FOR Barack Obama or more a vote AGAINST Mitt
Romney? …BASED ON 476 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
4. (Asked of Romney voters) Is that more a vote FOR Mitt Romney or more a vote AGAINST Barack
Obama?Since the combined total of the two exceeds their count of registered voters in the survey (910), we have to assume this refers to the general-population response. That’s wildly different than the 53/41 split that CNN reports from the poll. In fact, it’s only a 48/47 split for Obama. And given that the poll shows a slightly better result for Romney among registered voters, it’s not difficult to conclude that Romney probably led in that category before CNN’s pollster shifted the results around to this extent.
Read the whole thing…it is fascinating to what lengths CNN is going in order to get their boy re-elected. They refuse to offer the breakdown of respondents the way every other poll does, with number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents polled. The comPost and other fishwraps almost always oversample Democrats by double digits over Republicans for their polls, but at least they show their weighted unrealistic numbers. CNN isn’t going to bother with that. Plus…they’re even ignoring basic rules of math now!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Axelrod makes the case for voting AGAINST Obama and FOR Romney
Romney’s team is already all over this. Check out this 0:29 video clip:
Wait…what? OMGosh!
Tweeted Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul: “@davidaxelrod’s right: choice IS btwn growing economy vs continuing down down [sic] road we’re on.”
Dude…I agree with Axelrod on something. I need a shower.
Oh my! Did Obama pay a lower tax rate than his secretary?
President Obama paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, a rate that may come in below that of his secretary.
Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.
According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or deductions.
On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.
That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent, well above Obama’s rate of 20.5 percent, even though Obama’s 2011 salary was nearly nine times the 2010 salary of his secretary.
That blasted 1%-er! LOL!
Obama’s war on women
So this is the talking point the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) wanna go with? Republicans’ “war on women”? Well, alrighty then. Game on, beyotch:
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act. …
Washington comPost challenges CBS on “Fake but accurate”
Oh, it’s not what you think. You probably thought “challenges” as in “calling CBS out”, didn’t you? Nope. Instead, they’re challenging CBS on trying to bastardize the English language in such a way as to advance their leftist agenda. Details:
“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”
— Statement by Sharon Day, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, April 6, 2012
In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.
So, are the numbers correct? The comPost concludes that the numbers are indeed correct:
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.” (Hey, when was the last time a liberal fishwrap like the comPost chalked up bad numbers under a Republican administration to “coincidence of timing”? – CL)
And the comPost concludes…
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
Um…whiskey tango foxtrot? “TRUE BUT FALSE”? Are you bleeping kidding me?
The numbers are true…but the numbers are damaging to Chairman Zero, so the comPost has to polish this turd in the best way they know how. Which is to sodomize English.
Webster just called and asked to be lubricated next time.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Obama administration: The lavish shindig we threw in 2010 is Bush’s fault
You have got to be effing kidding me! Nope, guess not.
The Obama administration is responding to the recent report that shows a federal agency spent more that $800,000 on a lavish conference near Las Vegas by putting some of the blame on the Bush administration.
“At least we have taken, bold, swift forceful action to hold those responsible accountable and put in place protections to make sure this never happened again,” a White House official told Fox News.
Just when I thought they couldn’t blame something else on Bush, they prove me wrong.
Obama repeating Politifact’s “Lie of the Year of 2011″, nearly verbatim
I dunno. Maybe he’s trying to become the first back-to-back winner? Anywho, you’d think his speechwriter would have picked a slightly different variation of the words to display on his tele-binky. I guess not.
Michelle Obama to schoolkids: Tell your “wrong” grandparents to vote for my hubby!
Well, good to see Shelly O is focusing on the three R’s: re-electing reviling racists. Maybe if her old man gets re-elected, she’ll be proud of her country for only the second time in her life. Details:
Michelle Obama, who has quickly become the Obama campaign’s tip of the spear when it comes to fundraising and vote-getting, is now stumping for children to convince their “great-grandparents” to vote for her husband. At an event at San Francisco’s (where the h3ll else would it be, if not San Fransicko? – CL) Golden Gate Park – for which tickets cost at least $500 – Michelle said:
I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country.
You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.
Old farts, listen to your grandkids. Because they know a whole helluva lot more than you do, despite your years of experience with life. Of course, with the Dems’ proud history of vote fraud, she was probably just campaigning for the highly coveted underage voting bloc.
Sickening wench.
Obama: “Government investments” are what “made this country great”
This will undoubtedly come as a shock to the Founding Fathers, who happened to believe that limited government and individual liberty made this country great. Details:
Obama said that Republicans have “one message and that is, we’re going to make sure that we cut people’s taxes even more — so that by every objective measure our deficit is worse and we will slash government investments that have made this country great,” he argued, “not because it’s going to balance the budget, but because it’s driven by our ideological vision about how government should be. That’s their agenda, pure and simple.”
Agreed, sir. There are two distinctly competing visions here: the American vision…and your vision. And judging by the direction of the country on the road to insolvency, I’d say that a bunch of politician that “invested” (code for “plundered the fruits of labor of the producers to give to the non-producers”) our money have made this once-great country far less great than it’s ever been.
Please, America…get rid of this economic illiterate and unaccomplished leftist hack before he mucks up the country any more than he already has.
ObamaCare attorneys shredded before the Supreme Court, liberals stunned to think that ObamaCare might ACTUALLY be unconstitutional
Everyone on both sides of the aisle agree that the ObamaCare lawyers were taken to the woodshed this week while presenting their arguments in favor of ObamaCare, specifically the individual mandate. However, John Podhoretz sums up the shock nicely while illustrating the basis of said shock:
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.
…
There’s no telling which of 10 possible ways the high court will finally rule. But one thing is for certain: There will again come a time when liberals and conservatives disagree on a fundamental intellectual matter. Conservatives will take liberals and their arguments seriously and try to find the best way to argue the other side.
And the liberals will put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la.”
Ace sums Podhoretz’ argument with a hilarious zinger:
They were surprised by these arguments. Podhoretz says They should not have been surprised.
No one was hiding these arguments. They have been readily-available in court records for two years.
Nor was anyone hiding the two courts’ decisions agreeing with these arguments.
Liberals just chose to ignore relevant information about the world they live in, and then call themselves sophisticated for having chosen to be stupider than God made them.
Exactly. Podhoretz goes on to give a list of examples of liberals who were previously convinced beyond words that the law would stand up in court, but now aren’t so sure.
But it’s like I’ve always, always said about liberals: They don’t think…they feel. And feelings rule the day with them. We can’t govern this nation on feelings, people.
Exit question: Does anyone believe the SCOTUS will do anything other than rule against ObamaCare 5-4? You know the four liberals will support it, the four conservatives will support the Constitution, and then it all depends on if Kennedy wakes up on the left side of the bed or the constitutional side of the bed that morning.
Obama and the UK want to release oil from their strategic oil reserves
What, the algae isn’t coming along as swimmingly as The One thought it would? Anywho, details:
President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the possibility of releasing emergency oil reserves during a meeting on Wednesday, two sources familiar with the talks said, the first sign that Obama is starting to test global support for an effort to knock back near-record fuel prices. Obama raised the issue during a broad bilateral meeting at the White House, according to a UK official with knowledge of the discussion.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to buffer against supply problems in the case of a national emergency. In this case, we’ve identified what the “national emergency” really is, via NRO:
The “emergency” would seem to be Obama’s poll numbers. Then again, this seems to be a Democratic candidate tradition; Al Gore called for the same move while running for president in 2000.
Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been sold five times in its history: Most recently in 2011 during the conflict in Libya; in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina; a sale of $227 million worth of oil during fiscal year 1996 to reduce the federal budget deficit; in 1990-1991 during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and a small “test sale” in 1985.
I’m confused, though. Chairman Zero has been telling us that there’s nothing a president can do to affect oil prices. Then why bother doing this, if that’s true? Unless, of course, it’s not policy-based, but #ss-saving-based.
Exit question: If drilling is, as B.O. and his minions absurdly insist, a “faulty short-term solution”, then just what the h3ll is releasing drops from the oil reserve?
Another “don’t despair or listen to the MSM about November” column
Excellent column, an excerpt of which is here:
We do know a few things. Obama won in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote during a perfect Democratic storm — an inspiring, blank-slate candidate, against a relatively weak Republican opponent, in a discontented, war-weary nation. Conditions for Obama in 2012 are likely to be less favorable.
As I count it, Obama’s job approval rating, as measured by Gallup, is 45 percent or lower in 12 battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. These are the political conditions at the worst moments of intra-Republican bloodletting. If this is the bottom of GOP political fortunes, it is not very low.
The strategy of a Republican presidential candidate is straightforward. While keeping the states carried by the GOP in 2008, he must win back Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina — none a particularly heavy lift. He must take Ohio and Florida. Then he needs only to win one more state.
Another column refers to Romney as the new Bob Dole. That’s not entirely accurate or fair. For one thing, the economy was doing well in 1996. For another, Bill Clinton had regained his popularity, thanks to Newt and the government shutdown. Despite his personal approval ratings, Americans believe that Chairman Zero’s first term has been a failure of Carterlike proportions, and the economy is NOT doing well by any measure (real or manufactured).
I think back to the Senate race here in FL in 2010. When it was clear that Charlie Crist was going to get smoked by Marco Rubio in the Senate GOP primary, Crist bolted and ran as an independent. He led in all polls, sometimes by double digits, well into the late summer. Pundits wondered if he could do it, though a number of them said “The numbers are bad for Crist, so his lead in the polls will not hold.” Crist got crushed in the general election.
In other words…just wait and see. This isn’t 1996. This isn’t 2010. Despite what the Cheerleader Media is telling you, B.O. is in massive trouble. And he knows it.
Newt spanks David Gregory over MSM’s obsession with Rush – contraception thingy
Dang it, why does this guy have to have so much baggage?
Conventional wisdom that Obama can’t lose to fractured GOP has been proven wrong before
A very reassuring column by William McGurn at WSJ. You MUST read it if you have anxiety that the GOP is going to blow a sure thing this November.
Excerpt:
Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven’t figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.
That’s the conventional wisdom in a nutshell, isn’t it?
It will come as no surprise that these words appeared in a Feb. 29 column in the New York Times. They are reproduced here exactly as written, save for one small adjustment.
The president whose failings they describe is Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. The lines were written in 1980, not 2012. The author was the then-dean of conventional wisdom, James “Scotty” Reston. The headline was “Jimmy Carter’s Luck,” a reference to Reagan’s victory in the New Hampshire primary three days earlier.
It appears the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed much. Today’s narrative holds that however weak President Obama’s hand, Republicans find themselves in no position to capitalize on it. A glance back to where we were at this exact point in the 1980 primaries suggests otherwise.
It then goes on to recount the history of the 1980 primary. Seriously, you NEED to read it!
Granted, it goes without saying that Mit Romney and Rick Santorum are NO Ronald Reagan. But as McGurn points out, at this stage of the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan was no Ronald Reagan. While the parallels can only be examined so much, the point is that conventional wisdom was WAY off at a time that the country was hungry to get rid of an inept, harmful, in-over-his-head president…you know, like today?
In other words, fear not. At least, not yet! 
I’m not gonna go all Chip Diller on you, but I am going to say that I don’t think we’re in bad shape yet. We have to wait for the missteps from Romney (or Santorum) when people are paying attention, not right now.
Obama’s Energy secretary: Nope, I have no desire to lower gas prices
I don’t want to ever hear a liberal lament gas prices. When Uhhhhh-bama was running in 2008, he said he’d be totally cool with higher gas prices. So when a liberal complains about the cost of fuel, I’d simply remind them that B.O. is only sad that gas is at $4 and not higher.
Anywho, his environut Energy Secretary said he didn’t care about high gas prices. Of course, considering this is the same tool who said he wanted Europe’s ludicrous gas prices here, this should come as no surprise:
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
There you go. Just keep them tires inflated and get tune-ups, people.
Newt blasted Chu and had some career advice:
“President Obama must announce today in his Nashua address that he is firing Secretary Chu and replacing him with a pro-American-energy appointment,” said a statement from Gingrich, who cited a POLITICO story about Chu’s appearance before a House Appropriations subcommittee.
“If he doesn’t, then the American people will know the president is still committed to his radical ideology, which wants to artificially raise the cost of energy,” Gingrich added.
“Yesterday [Obama’s] secretary of anti-energy Dr. Chu literally testified in Congress that he did not favor lowering the price of gasoline, that they had no alternative policy to lower the price of gasoline and that his goal was to get us on to other things,” Gingrich said.
“Dr. Chu is apparently a brilliant scientist,” the Republican presidential hopeful said. “I’m for allowing him to go back to science as rapidly as possible. In fact I suspect the American people would chip in to buy the airplane ticket later on today.”
Oh, here’s a kneeslapper: Chu said he’s been a pretty awesome steward of our money, giving himself a good solid A-. Yeah…an A-minus:
CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.
Throw in the Keystone Pipeline decision, and it’s clear that this administration is lethally hostile to American energy production.
Here’s the thing: These morons think that if gas gets too expensive, people will demand alternative energy. But here’s the thing: we HAVE been demanding alternative energy, since the Carter years (which seem to have apparently returned). But until alternative energy is mass available, fills our energy needs in the same or better ways as fossil fuels, and doesn’t cost us an arm and a leg, it is NOT going to happen! Driving up the cost of energy by refusing to increase domestic oil production is like refusing to get a job (boy, liberals can relate to that, huh?) because you’re waiting to win the lottery: stop wasting your time, because it isn’t going to friggin’ happen!
Please. For the love of God and all that is holy. Get his economic illiterate Marxist ideologue the hell out of our House come November.
Obama to troops: We’re cutting your health care benefits, but leaving unionized defense workers’ health care benefits alone
But hey, the left “supports the troops”, right? Shameful details:
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.
Then why do it? Well…
Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
“When they talked to us, they did mention the option of healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. So it’s in their mind,” said a congressional aide involved in the issue.
You mean the same ObamaCare that FOB’s (Friends of Obama) are getting waivers for? Not good enough for unions and pet donors, but force it upon our soldiers and retired soldiers?
Come on, America…PLEASE get this b#stard out of our House!
President’s proposal to deal with the high gas prices he wanted in the first place? Algae.
Yeah…algae.
Can the Republicans really screw this up in a year when gas will possibly hit $5? You better believe it.
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
