Obama Takes 41 Point Lead In Latest Poll

Well, it is a BBC poll, and the people polled were citizens of foreign countries. But from Paris to London to Berlin and parts beyond, the citizens of the world have had their say. They would prefer, by a huge 41 point margin, that the United States stay under the control of the the One. Apparently, they are still snorting the pixie dust left over from Candidate Obama's European tour.

Obama's biggest support - 72% - came from France.  Actually, that wasn't a surprise. You will recall that France, the birthplace of socialism, recently elected a flaming socialist to power in their own country.

And to my sorrow but not surprise, the citizens of the UK are also solidly behind the One, with 65% supporting his reelection. The truth is that the Tory Party is about as far left as our own Democratic Party. That said, considering Obama's shabby treatment of the UK, one would think that our cousins across the pond would be a bit more discriminating.

The country showing the highest support for a Romney presidency? Kenya. Heh. Evidently, they know something.

Notably absent from the poll - Israel.  I wounder why?

All of that said, these people polled are as insane as those who are going to pull the lever for Obama over here. They are either extreme low information 'voters' or they have no understanding of economics or history. The U.S. economy turning around is the key to the world economy returning to health. If they think that Obama can do that, they really are living in a fantasy world.

Finally, with that kind of foreign support, is there any wonder that the Obama campaign is not filtering out foreign donations from their campaign?

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Desperation

We are two weeks out from the election - and finally, we are getting Obama's second term agenda.



It's not new. But it is repackaged. Over the past eight months, Romney offered a vision of the future while the whole of Obama's playbook has been destroy Romney. Apparently, Obama's internal polls are showing a flaw in that strategy.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Romney's Very Good Night

Tonight was the Town Hall style Presidential debate. Romney had another very strong performance, though with a big stumble on Libya. Obama was far more engaged, making it an interesting night. But if the issue in this next election is the economy, than I think that tonight put Romney next to the finish line with a two-step lead over Obama.

Update: Via Hot Air, a CBS News snap poll has Romney winning on the economy, 65% to 34%.

First to Candy Crowley's performance as a moderator - it was horrid. One, her selection of questions was ridiculous - there were several questions that read like they had been written by MSNBC in coordination with Kos - questions on the Lilly Ledbetter act, contraception and assault weapons bans? Spare me. Two, when she jumped in to support Obama's assertion that he had labeled the Benghazi attack as an act of terrorism on Sept. 13, that was horse manure. Yes, Obama mentioned the word terrorism in that speech, but he wasn't specifically referencing Benghazi, and he spent the next two weeks blaming the youtube video.

Obama was far more Bidenesque tonight, trying to interrupt, showing visible disdain for Romney, and repeatedly accusing Romney of lying. But the bottom line is that Obama spent far more time trying to attack Romney than explaining either his vision for the future or effectively defending his record.

But all of that said, Romney was just eloquent in speaking about the state of the economy, and nearly as good in outlining his plan for the future. A black gentleman told Obama that he had voted for him in 2008 but was not excited about pulling the lever this time around - what could Obama do to make him excited to pull the lever. When Romney addressed the question, it was his high point of the evening, and a damning indictment of the past four years. Video to follow. Here is the transcript:

I think you know that these last four years haven't been so good as the president just described and that you don't feel like you're confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years.

He said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn't the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president's plan — didn't get there.

He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He'd get that done. He hasn't even made a proposal on either one.

He said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges — didn't even file it.

This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he'd do. He said that he'd cut in half the deficit. He hasn't done that either. In fact, he doubled it.

He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It's gone up by 2,500 (dollars) a year. And if "Obamacare" is passed — or implemented — it's already been passed. If it's implemented fully, it'll be another 2,500 (dollars) on top.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, look, I've created 5 million jobs.

That's after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty — one out of six people in poverty. How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps; today 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It's growing more slowly this year than last year and more slowly last year than the year before.

The — the president wants to do well; I understand. But the policies he's put in place, from "Obamacare" to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies — these policies combined have not led this economy take off and grow like it could have. You might say, well, you got an example of when it worked better? Yeah, in the Reagan recession, where unemployment hit 10.8 percent. Between that period — the end of that recession and equivalent period of time to today, Ronald Reagan's recovery created twice as many jobs as this president's recovery. Five million jobs doesn't even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.

The president has tried, but his policies haven't worked. He's great as a — as a — a — a — as a speaker and — and describing his plans and his vision. That's wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn't been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we — median incomes are down $4,300 a family, and 23 million Americans out of work. That's what this election is about. It's about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve.

Romney had some weak moments - Libya in particular, where Romney stumbled and stuttered (as I screamed at the television screen). Obama was asked about security in Libya and why more security was denied. Obama did not answer the question. Romney managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of pointing out the obvious - that Obama had failed to answer, followed with an explanation of why, Romney got blindsided by the President's claim that he had told Americans this was a terrorist act on 13 September, with the odious Candy Crowley intervening in support of Obama. Video to follow.

But at any rate, Romney will have a second bite at the apple on Benghazi at the last debate on Monday. But as Allahpundit sagely notes at Hot Air, as regards the economy and Benghazi, "only one of those is an issue that people will vote on."

The biggest laugh line of the night - Obama's answer to the last question asking Obama to explain away the biggest misconceptions America might have about him:

I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That's not what I believe. I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world's ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk-takers being rewarded. . .

One could well ask then why Obama made subsidized green jobs a centerpiece of his plans for economic recovery and why every one of his "jobs plans" were largely plans to subsidize government union employees. Or one could well ask why such a miniscule part of his Stimulus - a few percent - went to supporting small business.

My impression was that Romney won this debate convincingly on the only issue that counts, the economy, and that while Obama was aggressive, he just could not defend his record. If Frank Luntz's focus group is any indication, the majority of people share my view. In Luntz''s group, most had voted for Obama in '08, yet the majority swung strongly towards Romney at the conclusion of this debate.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Fails To Clear The Hurdle

Obama, in his speech accepting the Democrat nomination for President last night, had to make his case for reelection to the independent voters. I think that he clearly failed to clear that hurdle.

His opening was a call for voters to cast their ballots based on a choice between "two fundamentally different visions for the future." Left unsaid was a plea not to judge him on his dismal performance of the past three and half years. And related thereto, left unsaid was any direct mention of his two signature achievements, the Stimulus and the Affordable Care Act.

Obama claimed that it will take years to "solve the challenges" of our nation, adding that he has never promised that the path he is offering is "quick or easy." Funny, I seem to recall the opposite, that he promised the stimulus would heal the job market and keep unemployment below 8% and, further, that millions of green jobs were just around the corner. I am sure that most people know by now that what Obama gave us was a stimulus that didn't stimulate and a few green jobs that cost us millions.

Then there was the well worn Obama ritual of demagoging his opponents while lighting up fields of strawmen. For example, Obama said “we have been told by our opponents . . . that since government can't do everything, it should do nothing." Did anybody ever hear that spoken by any Republican? Then there was this repugnant strawman - "if the company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well that's just the price of progress.“ As always, it would seem that if you don't agree with Obama, it can only be because you are evil and uncaring. I can't see that kind of base demagoguery working with independents who, by very definition, have not yet been swayed by such repeated attacks over the past four years.

When it came to ideas, I was amazed that Obama proposed absolutely nothing new. There was a call for 100,000 new math and science teachers, to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs, to cut oil imports in half by 2020, to raise taxes on the rich, and to make more investments in renewable energy. He just pulled out his old State of the Union speeches then cut and paste.

Obama made no mention of the massive $16 trillion deficit; however, he did claim that he has put forth a plan to save our nation $4 trillion over the next decade. It is a pure smoke and mirrors plan - even the Washington Post choked on that one.

Some of the things for which Obama took credit were just appalling for their hypocrisy and will leave Obama wide open for Romney attacks at the debates, assuming Obama raises the same claims there. For instance, Obama took credit for cutting oil imports by "1 million barrels of oil a day." To the extent that decline was because of increasing US production, that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Indeed, U.S. oil production increased on private lands in spite of the the lessened production on federal lands. To the extent that decline was due to reduced demand, that has everything to do with Obama – it's because our economy is in such a sad state.

Likewise is the claim from Obama that "we've doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries." As to our use of renewable energy, that has only increased because consumers are being forced to purchase it at premium prices while, at the same time, Obama is heavily subsidizing its production. There is no better example of that than the US Navy being forced to purchase biofuels in order to replace exponentially cheaper jp-4 jet fuel, and that at a a time when funding for the Navy is being drastically cut. As to Obama's proud claim that thousands are working to build turbines and batteries, that is just utterly shameless. Obama promised 5 million new green jobs in 2008, but today he is bragging about a few thousand jobs that are heavily subsidized. No mention is made of the hundreds of millions that Obama has wasted in trying to create this new, government directed market. Powerline has much more on Obama's energy claims.

In sum, I do not think that Obama will win any independent voters with this speech. If these are Obama's best arguments for reelection, Romney will feast on him during debates.

Below are two related items of interest. One is a video of Charles Krauthammer's take on the Obama speech. Suffice it to say, he was as unimpressed as I. Below that is a chart from the Tax Foundation giving a side-by-side comparison of the tax plans put forth by Obama, Romney, and Simpson – Bowles respectively. As the TaxProf notes, the Obama plan not merely raises taxes, but also adds complexity, while the Romney plan is much closer to that put forth by Simpson-Bowles.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Warren's Dishonest Class Warrior Speech At The DNC

Elizabeth Warren addressed the DNC tonight. It was horrendous.

She begins by noting that, "for many years now our middle class has been chipped, squeezed and hammered." That was her only honest remark of the night. Under the Obama economy, median incomes have dropped by over 10%, the number of people in the workforce is at record low numbers, long-term unemployment is at record high numbers, and of those 4.5 million jobs Obama is claiming to have created, 57% of them are low-wage jobs.

Warren goes on to enumerate some of the hardluck stories that she has seen. She mentions the construction worker out of work for nine months – but fails to note that the steep falloff in construction was because of the massive housing bubble created by progressives just like her. Warren mentions the head of a manufacturing company trying to "protect jobs but worried about costs" – but fails to note that the new costs are largely associated with Obamacare. Warren mentions a student "drowning in debt" – but fails to mention that the higher education bubble was created by the structure of government loans for higher education, nor does she mention that it was Joe Biden who ensured that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy as a payoff to the banking industry.

But perhaps Ms. Warren's most outrageous statements were a primal scream that some people in America are getting wealthy. Indeed, she seemed downright angry that the government is allowing any of these evil people or corporations to keep some of their wealth. To Ms. Warren, all of this means “that the system is rigged." It is clear Ms. Warren does not see any connection between wealth creation and job creation. That is idiocy unbound. Additionally, her claim that the system is rigged implies that those who are creating wealth are doing so nefariously.

I do agree with Ms. Warren, at least in part, that the system is rigged. I think it very unfair that she was able to gain the position of employment based not solely on her accomplishments, but by falsely claiming to be part Cherokee Indian. Likewise, I feel it very unfair that Democratic cronies are receiving sweetheart government deals, such as with Solyandra or GE. In addition, I feel it very unfair that we still live in a nation where, as a condition of working in one's chosen profession, one could be forced to pay union dues. And I feel it very unfair that the people who caused our economic melt-down are not being prosecuted by the current administration. It is very clear, however, that Ms. Warrens definition of “rigged” differs substantially from mine.

According to Ms. Warren, the system is rigged because, one, “oil companies guzzle down billions in subsidies." That, of course, is a flat-out lie. Oil companies receive no subsidies. They have available to them the same tax breaks that do all businesses.

Two, Ms. Warren claims the system is rigged because "billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries." That too is a lie. To the extent that there is a disparity, it is because we treat capital gains – i.e., money risked on investment – at 15%. Billionaires simply make a larger portion of their income from capital gains. We already have plenty of data showing that increasing the tax rate on capital gains lowers GDP and tax receipts – so in terms of making any economic sense, Ms. Warren's argument is groundless. Good lord, even uber-socialist Sweden, the darling of many our own lefties, recently dropped its capital gains tax rate - to 0%. At least the radical left there has some economic sense. At any rate, Warren's point is the most cynical of appeals to populism.

Three, Ms. Warren claims the system is rigged because “Wall Street CEOs – the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs – still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors and acting like we should thank them.” This is the big lie of Democrats.

The but for cause of our economic meltdown was Democratic social engineering of the housing market, and ultimately our credit standards, through the CRA, Fanny and Freddy. Not that I am defending Wall Street. I think that there are a whole host of people who should be put in jail over the economic meltdown. However, to do so, would be for Democrats to shine a spotlight on their role in the economic melt down. Thus, there has not been a single prosecution., to my knowledge, against the people who rated subprime mortgages as AAA investments. And indeed, a few weeks ago, the Justice Department announced that it would not prosecute Goldman Sachs for fraud in its marketing of securities backed by subprime mortgages.

This seems par for the course for this administration – a protector of the same Wall St. they regularly denounce. And do remember that former Sen. John Corzine, Democrat, presided over the theft of $1.2 billion in customer assets at MF global, yet is still walking free, still raising money for the president, and likely to escape justice under this Democratic administration. It is all a travesty made into a farce as the Democrats attempt to paint themselves as the champions of middle America against Wall Street.

There were many other low lights – such as Warren's using Romney's factually accurate remark that corporations are “people” to launch an utterly ridiculous primer in how individuals and corporations differ. Romney was referring to how the law treats corporations – and how they have done so since 1819. Warren, a law professor, saw his true statement as a chance to launch another scurrilous attack. And there was her glowing mention of Ted Kennedy. In truth, I was waiting for her to announce to the crowd that her great great grandmother had married a Kennedy, making her 1/32nd entitled to the Kennedy Ancestral Senate Seat.

I could go on and on about every line of this woman's vile screed. The bottom line, Elizabeth Warren is about as intellectually dishonest person as you'll find. Here's yet another Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It is impossible to find common ground and to hold rational discussion with such people. God help us if she is actually voted into the Senate.

Udpate: Heh. Rush is on the Warren speech today. To paraphrase, Warren presented the strongest case yet for not reelecting Obama, she just doesn't realize it.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Michelle Speaks

Michelle Obama just spoke at the DNC convention.  It was a well delivered speech. That said, the content, at least beyond the personal, was ridiculous. The penultimate laugh line was Michelle describing our Class Warrior in Chief, her hyperpartisan husband, in the following terms:

. . . for Barack, there is no such thing as “us” and “them” – he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above…he knows that we all love our country…and he’s always ready to listen to good ideas…he’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.

My takeaways as to her message:

-  Life is hard.  Shut up, find a job if you can, and be prepared to sacrifice four more years for the glory of Baraky.

- The government is the source of all that is good in America and indispensable for individual achievement.

- The Obama's now fully embrace gay marriage

-  Supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Act is one of the litmus tests for support of equal rights for women.  The fact that our Civil Rights Act has, since 1964, allowed women to sue for discrimination in.pay is of no matter, as is the fact that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was really all about creating a bonanza for leftie trial lawyers - precisely the prescription for our already suffering economy.

-  The second half of the litmus test for being a supporter of women is support for abortion on demand.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...