Thursday, April 29, 2010
Curt posts a new story describing how illegal aliens are leaving Arizona in droves for fear that the new immigration law means they will soon be rounded up and deported.
The fear these immigrants feel is understandable when you consider how the left has been screaming about a "police state," "racism" and Obama describes how families just going out for ice cream might be rounded up.
Of course none of these agitators have bothered to actually READ the bill that was passed. Their absurd charges are so blatantly false that it exposes how little intellectual integrity these people on the left have. They scream "racism" on just about every issue. But like the boy who cried "WOLF" the left has done it once too often.
What is driving many of these illegals to leave Arizona isn't the law just passed, but the phony fear campaign the left is using to gin up anger among their base.
If we can only find a way to replicate the left's phony fear campaign in other states, we might solve the immigration problem once and for all!
(P.S. I sent this as a letter to the editor of my local paper. I urge readers to write their paper as well! Like comments on blogs, keep it short, sweet and to the point!)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
First it was the racebaiting in the wake of health care vote where Democrats falsely accused Tea Partiers of shouting racial slurs. Next, it was the clear disinformation over the Arizona law meant to restore law and order by enforcing immigration law.
Where's all this racebaiting coming from? The White House.
Now, Obama makes it clear. In a video released by BarackObama.com Obama made a direct appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."
Whites not welcome!
Can you imagine the furor if George Bush had made a statement appealing to white males to get out and vote excluding all others?
But like the boy who cried wolf once too often, the attempts to divide on race may be starting to backfire.
It's no wonder that poll show the Obama Administration as one of the most partisan and polarizing in history and that voters do not trust government more now than ever before.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Readers may recall the controversy generated by proposed immigration legislation in 2007 that failed the "border security first" test. Well, it looks like Obama and the Dems are ready to try again.
No details yet on the bill they intend to advance in the Senate, but early signs from the Obama Administration show a rejection of the "border security first" call that was so important in defeating past efforts.
Border security has come to the forefront again in the wake of the growing problem in Arizona and the legislation that state enacted to deal with the violations of civil rights caused by violence and crime generated by illegals.
Fence. No Fence. Fence?
Remember too the controversy over building the border fence along the 2,000 mile border. Dems and some Republicans insisted that a smart fence, or "virtual fence" of sensors and cameras made more sense and was more environmentally friendly than an actual fence. So, we only built 643 miles of actual fence and planned to place sensors along other sensitive areas. Only one problem, the virtual fence was so ineffective, that the building housing it's headquarters along the border had to be surrounded with a real fence to stop vandalism.
The Obama Administration cut the real fence in 2009. Now they are eliminating the virtual fence after spending $billions which could have built REAL fences. While Senator Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee agrees that the virtual fence is a failure, who believes his suggestion for a REAL fence will be followed by Obama?
After all, Obama not only cut the real fence and virtual fence, he also cut back on border agents . Overall, Obama cut the border security budget by more than half for 2010.
Obama’s Border Insecurity BudgetWhat is SO Difficult about "Border Security FIRST?"
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
...The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, critiqued the budget submission this way: “The administration . . . didn’t find funds for any of the following critical homeland security programs: there is no funding for a single new detention bed, no increase in funds to find and deport immigration fugitives or criminal aliens, no additional special agents to investigate workplace immigration violations, no funding to expand the visa security program, and no funding to build any more of the border fence.”
Obama’s budget would actually reduce the size of the Border Patrol. The budget calls for cutting 180 officers of this agency. That’s the absolute wrong direction when the Southwest border continues to be breached hundreds of thousands of times every year. And many of the people illegally crossing the border, including people who’ve paid a professional human smuggler, are packing guns, drugs and other things you don’t want entering uncontrolled.
The administration apparently thinks the mere 643 miles of concrete and steel barrier wall along the 2,000-mile border is plenty. So, there’s no money requested for border fence construction.
As Dems prepare for another immigration fight, those on the GOP side of the aisle seem to have gotten the message that the American people won't support ANY immigration reform which fails to tackle the issue of border security FIRST!
It's gratifying to see that Senator John McCain, who backed previous immigration reform understands this. Along with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) he released a ten point border security plan on April 19. Sadly, Democrat Senators will likely ignore the McCain/Kyl plan or adopt one or two points and say "job done" before moving to some form of amnesty for the millions of illegals who remain.
But until Democrats show they are serious about border security and the removal of criminal aliens there is no way many on the GOP side of the aisle can or should consider any "reforms" which would merely serve to grant amnesty to those here illegally and exacerbate an already growing problem within our borders.
The bottom line is that the civil rights of Americans must come first. That means a secure border!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
This ain't no Tea Party!
Really, where is Bill Clinton? Wasn't he lecturing us just a week ago that protests could lead to violence? Where are all the media talking heads who echoed Clinton's absurd attempt to link the Tea Partiers to violence? Yet, here's a riot started by protesters against the new law in Arizona to toughen up enforcement on illegal immigration in Phoenix on April 23. Bottles were hurled at police and threats of violence that make even the rowdiest Tea Party look like a church picnic.
You'll see the bottles thrown here, striking police officers who try to usher a lone anti-illegal immigration protester from the scene for his own safety:
The scene from overhead clearly shows a fusillade of bottles being thrown at the Police:
Once again, violent agitators of the left take to the streets breaking our laws and the silence from Democrats who condemn peaceful protests by Tea Partiers is stunning!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
It's been more than a month since Democrats launched the grand distraction to take attention away from their power grab in ramming the health care bill down our throats. First, the Tea Partiers were racists, claimed black congressmen, even though no proof was ever found.
Now, Dems claim that opposition to Obama's radical agenda may cause violence and terrorism on the scale of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Monday, Mata mused on how left wing media seemed to be marching in lockstep trying to make a connection between America's second worst terrorist attack and the Tea Parties. Mata noticed how one reporter after another expressed concern that continuing protests against Obama and the Dems would inspire violence.
As usual, it's no accident that these reporters voiced these nearly identical concerns. They got their marching orders from the top.
Not Obama himself. He's too smart for that. But Bill Clinton was available to do the job. In interviews, a speech and an op-ed in the New York Times, the former President attempted repeatedly to link the current opposition to Obama to the extremism which drove Timothy McVeigh to avenge the government slaughter of Branch Davidians at Waco during his Administration.
Clinton warned against using angry words to attack the legitimacy of elected Democrats. Clinton told ABC's Jake Tapper: "We shouldn't demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials...I just think we all have to be careful. We ought to remember after Oklahoma City. We learned something about the difference in disagreement and demonization."
That's a funny thing coming from a man whose own political career began by protesting against his country during Vietnam while overseas as a student. And of course in more recent times, Democrats did everything they could to question the legitimacy of the Bush Administration (remember "selected, not elected") and Democrat leaders personally attacked President Bushusing the most nasty, personal language imaginable ("liar","loser"). Hate speech has been a staple of Democrat rhetoric FOR YEARS!
I'm Sick and Tired!
Even the mild rebukes for Democrat's heated rhetoric during the Bush years brought shrieking, literally SHRIEKING, outrage from Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Surely Bill Clinton remembers this? We can imagine he's heard that shriek at the end on quite a few occasions (Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers....).
If Tea Parties Never Existed
Compared to most left wing protests, the average Tea Party looks like a church picnic. But even if the Tea Parties never existed the distrust the American people have for their government would still be an all time high as reported by the Pew Center. The Tea Parties are simply the visible face and voice of a groundswell of a majority of the American people who are rightly alarmed at the reckless, radical and dishonest thugocracy which Obama and the Democrats are imposing on U.S. citizens.
Will this enormous grass roots groundswell topple Democrat control in 2010? In Jake Tapper's interview with Bill Clinton, the former President predicted that "the outcome of the election is likely to be far less dramatic than it was in '94." Clinton went on to say that he thought the Dems would hold the U.S. House of Representatives.
Bill Clinton's a smart guy. Smarter than Obama. But if Clinton can't see the writing on the wall, what chance is there Obama will? You would almost think Clinton wants Obama and the Dems to fail in 2010? Nah!
Perhaps Clinton's goal in bringing up violence is to give a wink and a nod to Obama's union thugs who have convinced themselves it's o.k. for them to behave violently since they have been told the other side is doing worse?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Full size and more photos at the Boston Globe web site.
The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee got in hot water last year by making an early endorsement of Charlie Crist for the Florida senate seat up for a vote in 2010. Many folks, including myself, advised conservatives to contribute directly to candidates and avoid contributing to the party committee until they saw the light.
They saw the light:
GOP pressures Charlie Crist to halt U.S. Senate run
Some prominent Republicans in Washington and Florida are urging Gov. Charlie Crist to consider dropping his flagging bid for the U.S. Senate.
BY BETH REINHARD AND ADAM C. SMITH
April 20, 2010
With Gov. Charlie Crist facing a brutal Republican U.S. Senate primary or a full-blown party mutiny if he runs as an independent, prominent supporters are urging him to consider a third option: quitting altogether.
The toughest assessment came from the arm of the national Republican Party that had clamored to endorse Crist and shove aside rival Republican Marco Rubio nearly one year ago, when their positions in the polls were reversed.
``We believe there is zero chance Gov. Crist continues running in the Republican primary,'' said Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senate Committee, in a memo. ``It is our view that if Gov. Crist believes he cannot win a primary, then the proper course of action is he drop out of the race and wait for another day.''
The memo added that Texas Sen. John Cornyn, NRSC chairman, would have delivered the advice personally -- if Crist had returned his phone call.
The governor confirmed his party's fears when he acknowledged for the first time Monday -- after weeks of denying it -- that he's considering an independent bid. Down roughly 20 points in the polls despite weeks of anti-Rubio television ads, Crist quietly yanked the spots in Orlando and Tampa Bay over the weekend.
``I'm getting all kinds of advice,'' Crist said in a telephone interview Monday, dismissing the pressure from national Republicans. ``I take my cues from people in Florida. That's what I care about.''
Crist added: ``I want to be very thoughtful in this. This is a decision that has to be made by [April] 30th, and I want to do what's right for the people of our state.''
If Crist were to run as an Independent, it's unlikely he would win, but such a candidacy would undermine Rubio's chances at winning the seat.
The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee heard your voice. Isn't it time to say "thank you" and make a contribution to their ongoing efforts to win in 2010? Funding individual candidates is essential, but we also need to fund the organization with responsibility for coordinating the entire effort to win back the senate. Funding only candidates would be like supporting a football team by only buying shoes for certain players and never hiring a coach!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Last Thursday, as Americans rushed to get their income taxes filed on time, Obama was at a Florida fundraiser where he said this:
"In all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year. And one thing we haven't done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year -- another promise that we kept," he told supporters at the Arsht Center for the Performing Arts. "So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you."And yet, during the campaign how many times did Obama promise this:
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Barack Obama Dover, NH September 12, 2008Note the emphasis Obama placed on the word "any" in the Sept. 2008 "firm pledge" and how his latest statement just refers to "income taxes." Is this "another promise" kept? You decide. In multiple campaign statements Obama declared absolutely that if you make less than $250,000 you will "not pay one dime in new taxes."
House Ways and Means Republicans, the committee which writes tax law in congress put out this detailed breakdown of the new taxes Obama has signed into law during his first year+ in office. Asterisks mark the taxes paid by those earning less than $250,000:
For all that and more to come we should "thank" Obama?
I say NO THANK YOU! Why would I thank a liar?
Sunday, April 18, 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the Tea Partiers and Town Hall protesters "un-American." Former President Bill Clinton says the Tea Parties could lead to another Oklahoma City bombing.
Really guys? Are you so terrified by the uprising of common sense coming from the growing throngs of decent law abiding Americans that you have to resort to such extreme nonsense?
Here's the Tea Party Contract FROM America. Someone tell me which part incites violence:
Visit the Contract's web page to view the groups affiliated with this effort and to sign the contract yourself (warning, you will be forever on their email list).
The Contract from America
We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.
The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.
The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.
1. Protect the Constitution
Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)
6. End Runaway Government Spending
Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)
9. Stop the Pork
Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)
Instead of attacking the Tea Party, Democrats should be embracing their ideas. The fact that they are not tells us whose side they are on and it's clearly not on the side of common sense American ideals. If anyone is "un-American" it's the Democrats who attack their fellow countrymen for daring to disagree with their plans for a socialist makeover of America!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Full story in the Las Vegas Review Journal. Harry Reid, the nastiest man to be Senate Majority Leader in decades, is about to be dethroned. Look at how weak his support is even among Democrats in Nevada. I guess this poll explains why he couldn't get more than a hundred union thugs to show up at his campaign kickoff yet Sarah Palin drew thousands to the rally to defeat him!
And if there's a Reid lover out there clinging to the hope that one poll won't spell Harry's doom, give it up. EVERY POLL in Nevada shows the same result: Bye bye Harry!
One of the sweetest victories in the coming conservative landslide will be the defeat of Harry Reid!
Did you see these headlines last week?
UPI: Calif. unemployment hits record high
AP: Florida unemployment hits record high
California's unemployment hit 12.6% and Florida's is 12.3%.
And where was Obama when this dire news was about to hit? He was in Florida telling spaceworkers he was canceling much of the manned space program which means a loss of thousands more of the most highly skilled jobs in both Florida and California's aerospace industries, not to mention Texas.
The past nine months Obama has talked about little else other than health care. Meanwhile, millions of Americans remain out of work. If a Republican President were in the White House we'd read daily stories about the toll of human suffering wrought by the President's economic policy. But with Obama in the White House the "news" media hardly notices unemployment or discusses the lack of any effective jobs policy coming from Democrats.
From House Ways and Means Republicans:
48 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs Since Democrats’ Stimulus
Friday, April 16, 2010
While the President recently said the economy had “turned a corner,” it’s hard to tell that from looking at the job situation across the U.S. According to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Labor, and the chart below, through March 2010 a total of 48 out of 50 States had seen net job losses since the President signed the Democrats’ stimulus plan into law in February 2009. The data show that only Alaska, North Dakota and the District of Columbia have seen net job creation since then. And (other than the perhaps predictable exception of D.C.) those states that have seen some increases in jobs are still well short of the growth the White House originally forecast. Additionally, over 3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrats’ stimulus, unemployment remains stuck at 9.7 percent instead of 7.4 percent and falling as Democrats predicted, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.
To see how the Democrats’ stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.
Administration Claims of Change in Jobs Through December 2010
Actual Change in Jobs Through March 2010
District of Columbia
Friday, April 16, 2010
Reporter: “There aren't a lot of African-American men at these events, have you ever felt uncomfortable?”
"These are my people. Americans"
What a shame Democrats continue to try and divide the country by race and class. This man understands what is truly important. We are one nation, UNDER GOD! Too bad the reporter, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell doesn't understand that. I should be thankful that at least NBC put this man on the air.
America's Astronaut Heroes speak out!
In the clearest sign yet that Obama's plan is to accelerate the decline of America's superpower status, Obama went to the Florida Spacecoast on Thursday to tell NASA employees that he is canceling much of the manned space program including plans to return to the moon. Instead, Obama will shoot for landing on an asteroid. We can only hope he plans to personally undertake the mission.
Obama's action means the U.S. will no longer have the capability to launch men into orbit after the last Space Shuttle launch on September 16, 2010. Instead we will have to depend on the Russians for access to the International Space Station.
The technological advantage that NASA had in the 20th Century and which fueled decades of American economic and technological development will be lost along with 7,000 key jobs in advanced space related fields.
NASA Heroes Speak Out
If you were alive in the 60's and early 70's you likely followed the dazzling heroics of our astronauts who landed on the moon. As a young boy, I went to the homecoming for Neil Armstrong in Wapokoneta, Ohio after he returned from the moon in the Apollo 11 mission where man first walked on the moon. Armstrong,who uttered the now famous line "That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind," joined with other Apollo Commanders to condemn Obama's decision:
Open Letter from Apollo Astronauts"Destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature." Hasn't that been Obama's plan all along?
...the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.
"America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.
"It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.
For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.
Commander, Apollo 11
Commander, Apollo 13
Commander, Apollo 17
How long before this flag is replaced by a Russian or Chinese flag?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
With so many polls showing Americans are eager to dump Obama (Oct 2009, Jan 2010, Feb 2010) this shouldn't come as a surprise:
Poll: Public Split On Whether They Would Prefer Obama Or George W. BushWhy is this no surprise?
By Eric Kleefeld
Talking Points Memo
April 14, 2010
In yet another sign of political polarization, a new national survey from Public Policy Polling (D) finds that Americans are almost evenly divided on whether they would want to stick with President Obama -- or go back to George W. Bush.
The poll asked: "Would you rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush as President right now?" The answer was Obama 48%, Bush 46%, within the ±3.9% margin of error. Consider what a close result this is, compared to Bush's amazingly low ratings at the end of his administration.
"George W. Bush's approval ratings were horrid his final few years in office because even a decent number of Republicans and conservative leaning independents were unhappy with him," writes PPP president Dean Debnam. "Now those folks wish they could have him back over Obama."
Just compare the two men:
A national hero and leader:
More great Bush moments in the Bush Thankathon archives.
An embarrassing disgrace:
Obama: "Whether we like it or not, we (United States) remain a dominant military superpower."
Is it any wonder people are putting up billboards with President Bush's picture and the question: "Miss me yet?"
In every poll but one, the GOP is winning what is called the generic congressional vote. That is where a pollster asks the respondent if the election were held today, would you vote for a Republican or Democrat for congress. In every election cycle it's been an important marker to determine how the overall balance of the House of Representatives will be decided.
Other important markers include the approval/disapproval gap for the sitting President and the energy or enthusiasm level of those likely to vote. In every one of these categories the GOP holds a strong advantage. Political Scientists use this data and come up with remarkably accurate predictions on election outcomes.
Sean Trende (don't you love the name?)has recently concluded a new analysis that factors in the number crunching along with commentary about how Obama is weakening the Democrat brand that successfully won back the House in 2006. It's important to note that Mr. Trende was one of those who saw early on the potential for a Scott Brown win in Massachusetts. He sees the same dynamic continuing to work nationwide that we saw first in Virginia, New Jersey and then Massachusetts. Independents and moderates are abandoning the Democrat party and voting GOP. Mostly on the basis of failed Democrat promises to be fiscally responsible.
How Bad Could 2010 Really Get For Democrats?
By Sean Trende
Real Clear Politics
April 14, 2010
...I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.
It isn't just the generic balloting that has been horrendous. Every Democratic Senate candidate except five from very blue states (Pat Leahy (VT), Chuck Schumer (NY), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Dan Inouye (HI) and Richard Blumenthal (CT)) has had at least one poll test placing him or her below 50% this cycle. Similarly, the individual House polling has been uniformly dismal for Democrats. Democrats in light blue districts , like Ben Ray Lujan and Jerry Costello, have been significantly below 50% in polls. Democrats in red districts who normally receive around 60% of the vote are below 50% as well. If these Democrats are truly below 50% in their polling, a ninety-seat pickup is not out of the question.
And this is the present situation. If unemployment doesn't abate and incomes don't rise much, President Obama could easily be hovering around 40% approval in November. What does the generic ballot, which is partially keyed off of the President's approval rating, look like then?President Obama's policy choices to date are wreaking havoc on the brand that Democrats cultivated carefully over the past twenty years. Bill Clinton worked long and hard to make it so that voters could say "fiscal conservative" and "Democrat" in the same sentence, but voters are finding it difficult to say that again.
The map above illustrates an averaging of recent state polling for Obama's popularity. If this were translated to an electoral college map in 2012, Obama would be defeated in a landslide. What it says about Dem hopes for 2010 is also troubling. Their strength is limited to concentrated liberal strongholds whereas GOP strength is widespread and growing.
If brand damage is truly seeping over into Congressional races - and the polling suggests it is - then the Democrats are in very, very deep trouble this election. There is a very real risk that they could be left with nothing more than Obama's base among young, liberal, and minority voters, which is packed into relatively few Congressional districts. It would be the Dukakis map transformed onto the Congressional level, minus the support in Appalachia. That would surely result in the Democratic caucus suffering huge losses, and in turn produce historic gains for the GOP this November.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What is wrong with this guy?
Look at the body language here:
Obama pokes his finger at Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, disses British P.M. Gordon Brown and basically treats our allies like dirt. Remember that promise to restore America's alliances around the world?
What an ASS!
Monday, April 12, 2010
When you are behind in one poll it's easy to say "that's just one poll, it doesn't mean anything." When you are behind in THREE, it's serious.
So much for any bounce Obama and the Democrats expected from passing health care (a bill which 58% say should be repealed).
It was bad enough when the mainstream Gallup poll had Obama at an all time low of 45% approve, 48% disapprove. The aggregate of that poll with other recent polls gives us this stunning result:
If this keeps up Obama will be neutered in November and out in two years!
With leaders of over 40 countries attending, Obama's two day pow wow on nukes and terrorism will be the largest gathering of world leaders in the U.S. since Franklin Roosevelt invited world leaders to form the United Nations in 1945. The big show, starting Monday, will be a lead news item.
But more interesting than an empty summit with little to no practical value is the list of friends and allies who will not be attending. Chief on the list are leaders from Israel, Australia, Great Britain and Saudi Arabia.
What's worse, treating key allies like Germany as if they are no more important than minor states like Nigeria, Malaysia, Ukraine and Armenia. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was not even guaranteed a meeting with Obama until late Sunday and only after Obama saw the states listed above first. Is it any wonder German newspapers report the "difficult friendship with Obama?"
What's Obama's problem? Is it something in his DNA where he can't help but treat our friends like dirt while kissing the ass of our enemies? Just look at the body language he displayed recently towards Israeli Prime Minster Benajamin Netanyahu. Then, recall the photo showing how he had the Dalai Lama tossed out the back door of the White House along with the garbage.
Remember how Obama promised he would improve our image around the world and restore our alliances? Well, he hasn't kept his other promises, so none of us should be surprised about this. But in the end, we may need our friends one day when the folly of appeasing our enemies becomes clear. Let's hope we still have some friends left by then.
Absence of key U.S. allies at summit amplifies doubts about Obama’s foreign policy
By Jon Ward
The Daily Caller
President Obama is holding one of the biggest global summits ever on U.S. soil starting Monday, but for all the hoopla, the event will be missing America’s strongest allies.
As remarkable as it is, the fact that neither British Prime Minister Gordon Brown nor Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are attending President Obama’s nuclear security summit in Washington Monday and Tuesday is not altogether surprising.
Relations with both countries — Israel in particular — have grown strained under Obama. Combined with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent defiance of the administration, questions are growing about the president’s ability to maintain important relationships.
“It is a curious state of affairs when relations with our major democratic allies are all wobbly at once,” said Michael Green, a former foreign policy adviser to President George W. Bush, who also listed Japan and South Korea as traditional allies whose relationships with the U.S. have frayed under Obama.
“And one has to ask why righting these key alliances has not received more attention,” he said.
The president’s critics, many of them from the Bush administration, say the summit absences — heads of state from Australia and Saudia Arabia also are not attending — are the most glaring examples of a floundering foreign policy that treats rivals and enemies better than friends.
“He seems to want to engage rivals, even enemies, more than spend time with friends and allies,” said David Kramer, a top State Department official in the Bush administration.
“His lack of contact, relatively speaking, with close allies suggests an assumption that they’ll be with him in the end anyway. And yet he found time to go to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics.”
Kramer implied in a recent column for Foreign Policy magazine that the Obama White House has a backbone problem, showing toughness to allies in part only because it backs down when challenged by rivals such as Russia.
Elliot Abrams, another former top Bush administration foreign policy adviser, said the current White House was guilty of “diplomatic malpractice.”
“In his treatment of Karzai and Netanyahu, the president has shown an odd understanding of what it means to be a U.S. ally. Surely it should mean that inevitable disagreements are handled privately whenever possible. Surely it should mean avoiding steps that seek to weaken or humiliate a foreign leader,” Abrams said.
Though relations with Karzai grew strained at the end of the Bush administration, the Obama administration’s relationship with the Afghan president — the leader of the country that is currently home to the biggest concentration of U.S. military forces on the planet — has been a soap opera.
Several top administration officials, including Vice President Joe Biden, have had acrimonious meetings with Karzai that have then been leaked to the press. During Obama’s trip to Kabul just two weeks ago, he did not praise Karzai and his top officials made clear he was there to put pressure on the Afghan president to do a better job of governance and rooting out corruption.
Karzai responded by denouncing Western interference in last summer’s elections and by talking of joining the Taliban himself.
As for Netanyahu, the Obama administration took umbrage at the Israeli government’s announcement of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem the day Biden arrived there for a visit last month. Clinton upbraided Netanyahu in a phone call and a Clinton spokesperson publicly called Israel’s actions a “deeply negative signal.”
Abrams said that by comparison, the leaders of countries that are hostile to the U.S. or are wary competitors have received nothing but polite diplomacy.
“Surely we should be treating [Karzai and Netanyahu] better than we treat enemies like [Syrian President] Bashar al-Asad or [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez, or the Russian and Chinese leaders, who if not enemies are certainly not friends,” Abrams said.