Change? Obama Worse than Bush

The verdict is in, and Barack Obama did not produce the change he promised.  In fact, as he blames all his ills on the last 8 years, it is interesting to compare the Bush years to the Obama years.  Consider the following:

Average Annual Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush: $543,818        Obama: $1,497,601

Total Increase in Public Debt (in millions):

Bush (8 years): $4,217,261   Obama (4 years): $5,990,407

Average Annual Unemployment (Also see here):

Bush: 5.26%                    Obama: 9.2%

Median Household Incomes:

January, 2009: $55,198       August, 2012: $50,678

The Average Annual Price of Gas (not even including 2012):

Bush: $2.14                     Obama: $2.89

Cost of Higher Education (adj. for inflation, not even including 2012):

Bush 2008: $16,661     Obama 2011: $18,497

But isn’t health insurance cheaper now with Obamacare?  No.  In 2012 the amount a family with employer provided coverage pays in annual premiums has increased to about $16,000.  For families with private individual plans, the amount is up to $5,615.  And before you ask why families don’t all just switch to private individual plans, remember that Obamacare taxes medium-large businesses up to $3,000 per employee that they don’t cover.

But we know Obama has handled the economy terribly.  The other thing people elected Obama for was to end the wars.  Obama promised to close Gitmo, which didn’t happen, and to end the war in Iraq.  He ended the war in Iraq by sticking to Bush’s timeline, but that wasn’t the whole story.  Obama intended to continue the war and leave troops in Iraq, but Biden could not negotiate simple immunity for our troops.  Don’t look now, but the Afghanistan war isn’t ending in 2014.  The administration is already negotiating to keep up to 25,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014.

Let’s look at war by the numbers.

Involvement in Major Foreign Conflicts:

Bush: 2 countries           Obama: 3 countries

Military Spending as % of GDP:

Bush, 2008: 4.4%          Obama, 2011: 4.7%

Average Annual War Spending:

Bush: $99.3 Billion       Obama: $155.1 Billion

Obama boasts of ending the war in Iraq, but how is the peace President doing in Afghanistan?

Average Annual Troop Deaths:

Bush: 606                        Obama: 445

Iraq:  528                         66

Afghanistan: 78              379

But what about Bush’s handling of Katrina?  Surely Obama has done better than that, right?  Former NYC Mayor Guiliani says no.

What about taxes?  Obama boasts about cutting people’s taxes, but most of the tax hikes he passed don’t go into effect until next year.  Obamacare has 20 different tax hikes in it, and many of those affect the poor and the sick.

But Obama saved the auto industry, right?  Actually, the only Detroit major that survived was Ford.  Ford didn’t take Obama’s bailout.  Chrysler did, and is now owned by an Italian company called Fiat.  GM took Obama’s bailout and is now owned by the taxpayers.  This was after Obama spent billions to bailout the unions before letting the two companies go through bankruptcy.  If that’s Obama saving the auto industry, I hope he doesn’t do me any favors.

Add these factors to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Black Panther polling case, Solyndra, and the other various scandals and overreaches of the Obama administration, and there is no reason to re-elect Obama.  Except of course if you got an Obama phone and are afraid of losing it.

How Obama Could Still Win:

Several states in play are ties or tossups in the latest polls.  In some, Obama is leading by 3-5%, but 3-5% are either undecided or going third party.  Obama can still win, even with his horrible statistics, if people vote third party or stay home.

I know many out there are voting third party or not voting to protest Romney.  I, like you, am a very libertarian leaning constitutionalist.  I’d love to see us out of the Middle East.  I’d love to see government spending cut in half.  I’d love to see us hold to our 10th amendment.  But Mitt Romney is NOT Barack Obama.

If anything, Mitt Romney is far closer to Reagan.  Despite being hailed as a conservative hero, Reagan is not as conservative as I would have preferred.  In fact, many Ron Paul and Gary Johnson voters would probably not vote for Reagan either.  But Mitt Romney is not the candidate you should be protesting.  You should be protesting Barack Obama.

Consider your goals and which candidate will get us there:

Less involvement in the Middle East: Mitt Romney has a comprehensive energy plan that gets America using its own resources to lower our dependence on OPEC.  Obama spent billions of your tax dollars on green energy companies that went bankrupt, and we are no closer to independence from foreign oil.

Simpler, fairer tax system: Romney’s plan reduces rates in order to remove loopholes and deductions based on the government’s definition of what a good citizen looks like without raising taxes.  Obama’s plan is higher taxes, more redistribution and a more complex tax system designed to pick winners and losers.

Foreign wars: Obama has proven himself to be an interventionalist.  He is not the peace President people hoped for.  He hasn’t closed Gitmo.  He only left Iraq because he was too incompetent to negotiate a way to stay there.  But he is already negotiating to keep 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Romney’s approach is to show the kind of strength Reagan did.  What major war did we fight when Reagan was President?  The Cold War, where we sat across the ocean from each other and didn’t pull the trigger for eight years.  Finally, the Soviet Union collapsed under their economic system.

More personal freedom and responsibility: Nothing took us backwards further as a nation than Obamacare.  Obamacare mandates that every American buy private health insurance or pay a tax.  Obamacare takes deciding power away from doctors and patients and gives it to the government.  If you protest Romney, Obamacare is here to stay.  If you vote to protest Obama, we have a shot at repealing this monstrous tax on the sick and the poor.

Does My Vote Count?

If you are thinking of voting third party or not voting because Romney is not as conservative as you’d like, you could be part of the margin that gives Obama four more years to take us down the path towards socialism at hyperspeed.  So where does Romney need your vote the most:

Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico, Arizona.

But believe it or not, he also needs you in Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine. If nothing else, vote to tell the liberals in your state that they do not have a mandate.  The country is changing and is leaning to the right.  You will never get the conservative, limited government you want if you let the country fall off the socialist cliff because the most conservative candidate who can win is not conservative enough for you.

When you walk into the voting booth, consider what you want America to look like in 2016.  Do you want to move forward the way Obama does?  Do you really want four more years of this?

Ronald Reagan vs George W. Bush

Obama screwed up.  Instead of portraying Romney as George W. Bush, which has been a major campaign goal of the left, he instead tied Romney to Ronald Reagan.  Oh, Obama was so clever.  “The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back”.  The modified version of the old high school punchline is backfiring.

The problem with tying Romney to 1980s foreign policy is that we didn’t fight any major wars during Reagan’s Presidency.  Instead, our greatest enemy sat across the ocean with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at us, not daring to attack out of fear of mutual destruction, until eventually they just collapsed under the weight of their own oppressive economic system.  That’s a foreign policy I could live with.

Biden Smiling

The real reason we are out of Iraq

Contrast that with Obama, who defended the Bush doctrine with his surge in Afghanistan and his own foreign policy which came across as a comedy of errors.  Obama praised himself for getting us out of Iraq.  The truth is, he barely managed to keep to Bush’s timeline.  Then Obama tried to negotiate to keep some of our intelligence troops in Iraq, but he sent “Chuckles” Biden to secure the terms and we ended up getting kicked out of the country.  After all the work, and blood, we have little influence over the direction of Iraq and we share their friendship with Iran.  Great job, Mr. President.

Romney was no cowboy in the debate.  He was calm, collected, and unfortunately even pulled his punches.  But I would feel much more comfortable with Romney sitting across the table from our foreign leaders than Obama.  Obama’s cowboyish attacks and disrespect showed the greatest evidence for why his foreign policy is a trail of failure and disaster.  We can only pray that his meetings with foreign leaders didn’t follow the same tone.

And of course we saw arrogant Obama in the debate last night too.  When he talked about killingsmiling obama Bin Laden and having Bin Laden in his sites, I had to laugh.  I’m picturing Obama with a sniper rifle.  I wonder if it was just a Freudian slip when Bob Scheiffer accidentally said “Obama’s Bin Laden”.

Commentators can say what they want about Obama’s new found aggressiveness and ability to attack Romney with zingers, truth be damned.  But I think most American families watched last night and saw a clear choice between which candidate they would like to see sitting down with Assad’s replacement to discuss the future relationship between our country and Syria, or which candidate they would like to see negotiating how we end our involvement in Afghanistan.  Or perhaps which candidate they would like to see negotiating trade with China.  I think we would prefer Reagan-esque Romney to arrogant Obama and “Chuckles” Biden.  The 21st century called, and we could use a little 80s foreign policy.

Ryan Wins Debate as Biden’s Bizarre Laughing Grabbed the Spotlight

  Bookmark and Share    The first and only vice presidential debate consisted of substantive questions that were occasionally met with equally substantive answers, at least in the case of a well prepared Paul Ryan.  Unfortunately the content in the answers were overshadowed by the awkward, bizarre, and often discomforting laughing fits that Vice President Biden consistently launched in to for the first three quarters of the forum. (See video of the full debate here)

Each time Paul Ryan offered an answer to a question, ol’ Joe reacted with a disturbing, uncontrolled, obnoxious, laugh that often made him look like the crazy guy on the bus that mother’s shield their children from.  At one point, Biden’s grimaces and forced cackles made him a perfect candidate for Jack Nicholson’s role in a remake of Stanley Kubric’s “The Shining”‘.   All that was missing was a wild eyed Biden writing “Redrum” across the desk that he sat behind on the stage of debate.

In between Biden’s exaggerated and disrespectful, chortling and snickering, the two men did ignite fireworks as they hammered each other on such issues as Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, taxes, and Medicare.

The sparks flew immediately after moderator Martha Raddatz asked the first question on the hot button issue of the terrorist attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of 9/11.  Raddatz essentially asked if there was a failure of intelligence leading up to the attack.  For his part Biden, never directly answered that question but he tried to claim that the Administration knew everything it needed to know and acted responsibly and appropriately to the circumstances leading up to the attack, and in the response to the attacks in the days following them.

Congressman Ryan took the opportunity to hammer the Obam-Biden ticket on the issue as he launched in to a familiar but well stated criticism of the way Benghazi was handled.

“It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack,”

 Ryan said;

“This Benghazi attack would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a larger problem,” adding that Obama’s policy toward the Middle East is “making the world more chaotic and us less safe.”

Ryan also charged;

“What we are watching on our tv screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,”

Laughing Joe responded “Not true,” and added;

“With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey,”

The Vice President continued his attack on Ryan’s remarks by also falsely suggesting that proposed Republican cuts in embassy security of $300 million were the reason for the lack of security that made the attacks possible.  Biden further lied by claiming that the Administration knew of no requests for additional security in Benghazi.

Paul Ryan came back by making it clear that we now know there were requests for additional security but the  requests were denied by the Administration.

One of the best lines of the night came from Ryan who reminded voters of just how often Biden puts his foot in his mouth.  After the Vice President tried to distort Mitt Romney’s past controversial remark at a fundraising about 47% of voters, Ryan fired back;

“With respect to that quote,  I think the Vice President very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way”

To which a still laughing Joe responded”

“But I always say what I mean”.

For his part, throughout the debate, Paul Ryan was articulate, knowledgable, convincing, respectful, confident, and firm.  As for the Vice President, he was quick but disingenuous, as he performed in a way that was childish, disrespectful, arrogant, smarmy and at times goofy .  While Biden often made remarks that contained a perfect working class pitch to his base, between his demeanor and attempts to interrupt Ryan a total of 82 times, any possibly strong statements made by the Vice President were overshadowed by his disrespectful, cocky and often flippant attitude.  All of which was compounded by his disconcerting, wacky fits of laughter.

It was clear to me that after President Obama’s disasterous debate performance last week, several strategic decisions forced the Obama-Biden campaign to approach this debate in a way that was intended to make Ryan seem like he did not know what he was talking about and that his ticket was detached from reality.  So they decided to have Biden go on the attack.  Then they also decided to try to take advantage of Biden’s lengthy political career and advanced age as compared to the younger Ryan who was only four years old when Biden was first elected to the Senate.  They had hoped that by laughing at Ryan, Biden would look like the experienced elder statesman who was facing off against the clueless, young punk.  The strategy could have work were it not for two things.  The first being that Ryan knew what he was talking about and lacked the type of arrogance that could have allowed him to fall into that trap.  The second problem with the Biden strategy was that Biden’s laughing was taken to a level so exaggerated and flamboyant, that it came off as unnatural , dismissive, and inappropriate.   In the end, the strategy backfired on Joe and his ticket.

In the final analysis this debate did not reveal anything new to us about the candidates or their positions.  But it did go a long way in  leaving voters with  another negative impression of the Obama-Biden ticket and another positive impression of the Romney-Ryan ticket.  And while  Joe’s shots at Paul Ryan did whip up liberals who were already voting for Obama, he failed to make the case for why another four years of Obama-Biden will be any better the last four.  As for Paul Ryan, his steady demeanor and performance combined with his command of the issues, went a long way in convincing the all important independent and undecided voters that the Obama-Biden ticket is failing us.Bookmark and Share

Suffolk Stops Polling Presidential Race in Fl, NC and VA. Says Romney Is Certain to Win All 3

 Bookmark and Share   Since 2002, the Suffolk University Political Research Center has conducted polls and survey analyses with a 96% record of accuracy in predicting outcomes in Massachusetts, key battleground states, and nationally.  As such, Suffolk is considered far more reliable than not. So it should come as a surprise to those who believe that Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney handily when a reliable polling outfit like Suffolk announces that it is so clear to them that Romney has locked up wins in three key battleground states so securely that they are discontinuing any future polling of the presidential election in those states.

Pollster David Paleologos, the Director of the Suffolk University Research Center recently declared to Bill O’Reilly on his Fox News show “The Factor”, that his organization will not be taking anymore polls of the presidential election in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.  According to Paleologos, a look at the existing polling data in those states indicates overwhelming evidence of the depth of Romney’s support in those states as compared to the president.  Paleologos adds, “we’ve colored those states red.” (See the video below)

This is an extraordinarily significant development in the race for President. Polling is a lucrative business and a decision such as the one Suffolk has made here would not have been made unless they were absolutely certain with of the results they now predict.  It signals the beginning of what White House 2012 has predicted to be Romney’s winning of the presidential election in the Electoral College by a much larger than margin than many believe possible.  Currently White House 2012 has Governor Romney defeating President Obama by 281 electoral votes to 257, but with with a stated expectation of soon putting New Hampshire and Nevada in Romney’s column, White House 2012 is sure that that Romney’s electoral vote count is on the rise.

If it is indeed true that Mitt Romney has a lock on Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, President Obama finds himself facing an election that is totally different from the one he was running prior to last week’s presidential debate.  If those three states are solid for Romney, the number of paths that are available for the President to piece together the 270 electoral votes he needs in order to win reelection, are greatly reduced and it makes his need to deny Romney a win in Ohio almost essential to his reelection effort.  Meanwhile multiple polls from a range of independent survey outfits are now showing Mitt Romney to either be ahead of the President in Ohio or nearly tied with him.  These polls also show Romney pulling ahead in other battleground states and nationally.

But the decision by Suffolk to stop polling the presidential race in Fl, NC and Va, is a surefire sign that the race is over for President Obama in those states.  Pretty soon his own internal polls will probably make that inconvenient truth evident to his own campaign.  We will come to realize when they have reached that same conclusion as we soon begin to notice a lack of visits by the President to Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia and a noticeably larger amount of his time spent in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and a few states that up to now, the President was so far ahead in that he did not to waste his time visiting.  Those states include Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, three states which the Romney-Ryan ticket is cutting in to the Obama-Biden tickets once double digit leads.

As early as two weeks ago, an analysis of polls and other factors by White House 2012 had reached almost the same conclusion that Suffolk did about Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.   In fact, in White House 2012’s Electoral College Projection we stated that we no longer consider North Carolina a battleground state.  As for Florida and Virginia, White House 2012 has projected them to be red for Romney but we have not yet been confident enough to suggest that President Obama will at some point become more competitive in those two states again.  So far though, Suffolk’s polls and decision are o confirm that White House 2012 is doing a good job at analyzing the electorate.  In fact it just so happens that White House 2012 and Suffolk are independently in agreement with one another.

Bookmark and Share

Barack Obama’s Biggest Issue… Big Bird

Bookmark and Share Since last week’s presidential debate, President Obama has used thirteen occasions on the campaign trail to focus on of all things… Big Bird.  With mocking tones and dimwitted characterizations, Barack Obama has been spending most of his time trying to get  to reelected by joking about Mitt Romney’s one time mention to cut money for things like Big Bird from the federal budget.  The remark was initially made during the first presidential debate and the the reference to Big Bird was a symbolic one in reference to funding of public broadcasting.  Meanwhile the President has so far made more than thirteen references to Sesame Street characters on the campaign trail but he has mentioned real issues like the terrorist attacks that killed 4 Americans in Libya zero times.

Now his campaign has dedicated its time, energy, and money to a 30 second commercial that centers around of all things… Big Bird. (See the ad below this post)

The ad is so utterly over the top that viewers initially mistake it for a parody from late night programming like Leno, or maybe the Cobert Report.

While the 30 second spot tries to follow a line of humor that mocks Romney for his intended cut of federal funding of PBS, the ad actually ends up seeming to go too far in trying to focus voters an issue that is too ridiculous for the President to be wasting our time with.  It is is so much ado about nothing that commercial’s silliness ends up backfiring and casting a shadow of silliness on his campaign and a shadow of doubt over the President and his priorities.

Dana Perino, George W. Bush’s former White House Press Secretary suggested that this new Obama ad probably came about after someone on the Obama campaign became over excited by the prospects of using the line that Romney is more worried about Sesame Street than Wall Street and so they turned it in to this ad.   But Perino also suggests that the ad is so absurd and over the top that it undermined whatever potential the Sesame Street versus Wall Street soundbite may have once had.    Perino is right.

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Tuesday’s Tidbits from the Campaign Trail – 10/9/12

Bookmark and Share   Today’s tidbits from the trail include news about Romney’s rise in the polls,  Obama’s supporters threaten to riot, the DNC ‘s cash shortage, the President’s obsession with Big Bird, Obama’s initial belief that he won the first presidential debate, his lies about Romney and his own record, the president’s declining support among African-Americans, 10 dates from Obama’s first term to remember, the continued fallout from the Libyan terrorist attack and more:

Bookmark and Share

The Liar-In-Chief Hits New Height in Hypocrisy

  Bookmark and Share  When it comes attempts to define President Obama’s debate related claim that Mitt Romney is a liar, my first reaction is tell you that the claim is the best case of the pot calling the kettle black that one could ever imagine.  But that would be characterized by the left as blatantly racists.  So here’s how I would explain President Obama’s charge.

Ever since President Obama lost last week’s debate, the left became apoplectic and tried to work through a series of emotions that ranged from fear over losing the election and anger over the President’s ineptness, to disappointment with his performance and embarrassment over his inability to defend his record. Once their shock wore off and they were able to collect themselves they quickly offered up an endless array of excuses for the President’s truly disastrous debate performance.  Some suggested that he was preoccupied by an unfolding international crisis that was yet unknown to the general public or possibly even a personal crisis.  Others like Al Gore suggested altitude poisoning was to blame. But by the time morning came, the President’s campaign released their own excuse for his embarrassing performance in a talking points memo that went out to the leading liberal spinmeisters and the left immediately fell in line to spread the word.

According to the President and the left-wing propaganda machine, President Obama failed to beat Romney in the debate because he was thrown off by the lies Romney was telling throughout the debate.  According to the President and his people, Mitt Romney lied about his own record and plans for America as well as the President’s record and plans for the nation.

The problems with that excuse is that President Obama was the one who was clearly trying to lie his own way through the debate.  With a clear inability to defend his own horrific record against Mitt Romney, President Obama tried his best to continue waging the class warfare reelection strategy that has successfully energized his base.  Part of that strategy was to try and describe Mitt Romney’s economic proposals as a $5 trillion tax cut, mainly for the rich.

But as attested to in the latest Romney ad seen below this post, the only liar on stage in Denver last week was President Obama.

When it comes to Mitt Romney’s tax plan, what President Obama neglected to mention was that when he made the charge that Romney’s tax plan cut taxes by $5 trillion, he was actually lying by taking skewed numbers from a scoring by the Tax Policy Center.  That analysis claimed  the Romney plan shifted $86 billion in taxes from the well-off to the middle class. But the problem with that particular assumption is that it relies on a false narrative which contends the reduce rates would not spur economic growth and generate new tax revenue.   Dynamic scoring of the same Romney plan  concludes the economic growth generated by those reduced tax rates would fill $53 billion of that $86 billion hole.  As for the remaining gap, Romney’s plan  to eliminate exemptions on state and local bonds and life insurance policies, would would raise an additional $45 billion.   That means that by eliminating exemptions and prompting new growth, Romney’s plan is likely to actually lower top rates and still raise more revenue.

Making President Obama’s claims even more unreliable is that the author of the initial study that Obama was misinterpreting is  now admitting, that “under those conditions and policies, Romney’s plan “would be revenue neutral.”

But with all these numbers being discussed and explained you are probably still confused with where President Obama’s $5 trillion figure came from.  Well the truth is that it is a figure which he practically pulled straight out of his ass.

Obama took the Tax Policy Center study  which neglected to  figure in the ensuing economic growth that would make Romney’s plan revenue neutral and erroneously concluded that the plan would lead to $480 billion in lost revenues by 2015.  The Obama campaign then took that incorrect figure and multiplied it by a decade.  That left them with $4.8 trillion, which they then rounded up to $5 trillion.

So that explains the lie behind the man who was really trying to deceive voters… Barack Obama.

But that wasn’t the only lie President Obama tried to muddle through the first debate with.

President Obama claimed that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families yet this flies in the face of what The Associated Press and other studies concluded which is that Romney’s  plans would not raise taxes on anyone.

Our President also used the debate to claim that  Obamacare would make health care premiums more affordable.  According to him,  “when Obamacare is fully implemented, we are going to be in a position to show that costs are going down. Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it is true — but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. We are already seeing progress.

But Factcheck.org found;

“Obama wrongly said that over the last two years, health care premiums have ‘gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.’”

Meanwhile, The Associated Press noted ;

“In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent” and “this year’s 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.”

On the issue of Social Security the President stated during the debate that;

“Social Security is structurally sound. It’s going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill. But the basic structure is sound.”

Yet contrary to his claim, the Congressional Budget Office concludes that Social Security will run into financial deficits. Clearly that is not a structurally sound program.

So it would seem that President Obama dedicated his first debate in the 2012 election to doing exactly what he is trying to claim Mitt Romney did… lie.  Now where I come from, that is called hypocrisy.  It’s something that even liberals would normally shun in their leaders.  But something tells me that the left will handle this the same way they have with everything else Barack Obama has ever said and done.   They will refuse to hold him accountable.

Meanwhile, congressional investigations are now taking place as we try to uncover exactly what was behind the Obama lies surrounding the terrorist attack that killed our Libyan Ambassador and three other Americans.  But if all of that still isn’t enough to convince you that Barack Obama is our Liar-In-Chief, I suggest you see watch the video below.  It’s an original,  un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama and his first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy, and the national debt through his own words

Bookmark and Share

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech at VMI – Full Video and Transcript

  Bookmark and Share  In what was an extraordinary statement of American leadership and strength, Mitt Romney offered the nation a major foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute which echoed a forceful call for peace through strength and clarity of purpose.  Romney’s speech presented a national security and foreign policy vision that starkly contrasted with President Obama’s failing and muddled, lead-from-behind policy direction by outlining a definitive role for America in the community of nations. (See video and transcript of the speech below)

Romney’s well delivered and eloquent outline of his foreign policy vision focused on the turmoil brewing in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, where he said Obama has “failed” to lead but he also outlined his intention to restore and maintain America’s strength, especially in the case of America’s naval force which Romney pointed out is currently  at a level  not seen since 1916.

While the speech may not get the attention that it deserves, those who do take the time to listen to it will find themselves walking away with a sense of Mitt Romney that leaves them feeling confident in Mitt Romney and what is his unambiguous foreign policy direction for the nation.  Romney’s speech presented him with an opportunity to be presidential and he took full advantage of that opportunity by proving to be a clearheaded leader with the ability and plan to put the nation on a foreign policy path that will put America in  control of circumstances rather than place America at the mercy of circumstances.

Complete Transcript of Romney’s Speech

For more than 170 years, VMI has done more than educate students. It has guided their transformation into citizens, and warriors, and leaders. VMI graduates have served with honor in our nation’s defense, just as many are doing today in Afghanistan and other lands. Since the September 11th attacks, many of VMI’s sons and daughters have defended America, and I mourn with you the 15 brave souls who have been lost. I join you in praying for the many VMI graduates and all Americans who are now serving in harm’s way. May God bless all who serve, and all who have served.

Of all the VMI graduates, none is more distinguished than George Marshall—the Chief of Staff of the Army who became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, who helped to vanquish fascism and then planned Europe’s rescue from despair. His commitment to peace was born of his direct knowledge of the awful costs and consequences of war.

General Marshall once said, “The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.” Those words were true in his time—and they still echo in ours.

Last month, our nation was attacked again. A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya. Among the dead were three veterans. All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both. President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America. And he is right. We all mourn their loss.

The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

We saw all of this in Benghazi last month—but we also saw something else, something hopeful. After the attack on our Consulate, tens of thousands of Libyans, most of them young people, held a massive protest in Benghazi against the very extremists who murdered our people. They waved signs that read, “The Ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya is sorry.” They chanted “No to militias.” They marched, unarmed, to the terrorist compound. Then they burned it to the ground. As one Libyan woman said, “We are not going to go from darkness to darkness.”

This is the struggle that is now shaking the entire Middle East to its foundation. It is the struggle of millions and millions of people—men and women, young and old, Muslims, Christians and non-believers—all of whom have had enough of the darkness. It is a struggle for the dignity that comes with freedom, and opportunity, and the right to live under laws of our own making. It is a struggle that has unfolded under green banners in the streets of Iran, in the public squares of Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen, and in the fights for liberty in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and now Syria. In short, it is a struggle between liberty and tyranny, justice and oppression, hope and despair.

We have seen this struggle before. It would be familiar to George Marshall. In his time, in the ashes of world war, another critical part of the world was torn between democracy and despotism. Fortunately, we had leaders of courage and vision, both Republicans and Democrats, who knew that America had to support friends who shared our values, and prevent today’s crises from becoming tomorrow’s conflicts.

Statesmen like Marshall rallied our nation to rise to its responsibilities as the leader of the free world. We helped our friends to build and sustain free societies and free markets. We defended our friends, and ourselves, from our common enemies. We led. And though the path was long and uncertain, the thought of war in Europe is as inconceivable today as it seemed inevitable in the last century.

This is what makes America exceptional: It is not just the character of our country—it is the record of our accomplishments. America has a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership—a history that has been written by patriots of both parties. That is America at its best. And it is the standard by which we measure every President, as well as anyone who wishes to be President. Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East.

I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we find ourselves in the Middle East under President Obama.

The relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the region, has suffered great strains. The President explicitly stated that his goal was to put “daylight” between the United States and Israel. And he has succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East and emboldened our mutual adversaries, especially Iran.

Iran today has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability. It has never posed a greater danger to our friends, our allies, and to us. And it has never acted less deterred by America, as was made clear last year when Iranian agents plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in our nation’s capital. And yet, when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009, when they demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world, when they cried out, “Are you with us, or are you with them?”—the American President was silent.

Across the greater Middle East, as the joy born from the downfall of dictators has given way to the painstaking work of building capable security forces, and growing economies, and developing democratic institutions, the President has failed to offer the tangible support that our partners want and need.

In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried—and failed—to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.

The President has failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women, and children have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.

America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. These are real achievements won at a high cost. But Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region. Drones and the modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East.

The President is fond of saying that “The tide of war is receding.” And I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today—with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threating to destabilize the region, with violent extremists on the march, and with an American Ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates— it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

The greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East—friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. Unfortunately, so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our President is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, “We will not forget that you forgot about us.”

It is time to change course in the Middle East. That course should be organized around these bedrock principles: America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might. No friend of America will question our commitment to support them… no enemy that attacks America will question our resolve to defeat them… and no one anywhere, friend or foe, will doubt America’s capability to back up our words.

I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region—and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions—not just words—that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated.

I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.

I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf.

And I will roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military. I will make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure. The decisions we make today will determine our ability to protect America tomorrow. The first purpose of a strong military is to prevent war.

The size of our Navy is at levels not seen since 1916. I will restore our Navy to the size needed to fulfill our missions by building 15 ships per year, including three submarines. I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with Vladimir Putin. And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

I will make further reforms to our foreign assistance to create incentives for good governance, free enterprise, and greater trade, in the Middle East and beyond. I will organize all assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with responsibility and accountability to prioritize efforts and produce results. I will rally our friends and allies to match our generosity with theirs. And I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary… and to abide by their international commitments to protect our diplomats and our property.

I will champion free trade and restore it as a critical element of our strategy, both in the Middle East and across the world. The President has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years. I will reverse that failure. I will work with nations around the world that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, expanding existing relationships and establishing new ones.

I will support friends across the Middle East who share our values, but need help defending them and their sovereignty against our common enemies.

In Libya, I will support the Libyan people’s efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them, and I will vigorously pursue the terrorists who attacked our consulate in Benghazi and killed Americans.

In Egypt, I will use our influence—including clear conditions on our aid—to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel. And we must persuade our friends and allies to place similar stipulations on their aid.

In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran—rather than sitting on the sidelines. It is essential that we develop influence with those forces in Syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the Middle East.

And in Afghanistan, I will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. President Obama would have you believe that anyone who disagrees with his decisions in Afghanistan is arguing for endless war. But the route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11. I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation.

Finally, I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew.

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”

I know many Americans are asking a different question: “Why us?” I know many Americans are asking whether our country today—with our ailing economy, and our massive debt, and after 11 years at war—is still capable of leading.

I believe that if America does not lead, others will—others who do not share our interests and our values—and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us. America’s security and the cause of freedom cannot afford four more years like the last four years. I am running for President because I believe the leader of the free world has a duty, to our citizens, and to our friends everywhere, to use America’s great influence—wisely, with solemnity and without false pride, but also firmly and actively—to shape events in ways that secure our interests, further our values, prevent conflict, and make the world better—not perfect, but better.

Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more—more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies. So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind. So many people still have faith in America. We must show them that we still have faith in ourselves—that we have the will and the wisdom to revive our stagnant economy, to roll back our unsustainable debt, to reform our government, to reverse the catastrophic cuts now threatening our national defense, to renew the sources of our great power, and to lead the course of human events.

Sir Winston Churchill once said of George Marshall: “He … always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement, and disillusion.” That is the role our friends want America to play again. And it is the role we must play.

The 21st century can and must be an American century. It began with terror, war, and economic calamity. It is our duty to steer it onto the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity.

The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Bookmark and Share

New White House 2012 Projection Has Romney Winning By 24 Electoral Votes

  Bookmark and Share With 29 days remaining in the race for President, White House 2012’s latest analysis of polls, circumstances, and conditions, concludes that there is a swing towards Mitt Romney in the Electoral College that is so pronounced that the Romney-Ryan ticket has increased its lead over the Obama-Biden ticket by at least 24 electoral votes.  The last White House 2012 projection had Mitt Romney winning 273 electoral votes to the presidents 265 electoral votes.  Today Romney stands at 281 electoral votes to 257 for the President.

For the first time, the latest projection gives Romney the all important state of Ohio, which up to now has been written off by White House 2012 as an almost certain win for President Obama. However, small shifts which have revealed themselves in most of the polls figured in to the Real Clear Politics average of polls since Romney’ stellar debate performance last Wednesday, now indicate that if the numbers hold up, Romney will win Ohio, a change that significantly increases the number of ways that Romney can reach the magic number of 270 that is needed to win the presidential race in the electoral college.

While Romney seems to be gaining momentum, it is too early to call it a steady trend, especially given the fact that while Romney has picked up Ohio in the newest projection, New Hampshire and Nevada which Romney did have in column last week, have flipped back to President Obama today.  The good news is that combined, New Hampshire and Nevada have a total of only 10 electoral votes while by itself Ohio has a total of 18 electoral votes.  So even if Romney did lose Nevada and New Hampshire, he stands on better ground after picking up the Buckeye State.  However; it is important to note that White House 2012 is being very conservative by flipping New Hampshire and Nevada to the Obama-Biden ticket.  While the RCP average has pushed the President’s lead in those two states to be in excess of the 3.7% margin of error which we give to Mitt Romney to compensate for each polls poor judgment in the use the 2008 turnout models, other factors prove to be working in Mitt Romney’s favor and allow us to give the President those states by only the slimmest of margins. So both New Hampshire and Nevada are now only barely light blue for the President and they could easily turn pink for Romney at a moment’s notice.

While most states are clearly leaning towards one candidate or the other, White House 2012 is currently only considering there to be seven battleground states.  They are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.  Of those states, White House 2012 currently projects the following outcomes;

White House 2012 does see the potential for Romney to become much more competitive in Wisconsin, New Mexico, and possibly Michigan but for now, we do not consider them to be battleground states.

Other Favorable Indicators for Romney

As the race continues to evolve, this projection will change, however; at the moment the race is shaping up to be one that is moving in Mitt Romney’s direction.

For instance, it is with good reason that we continue to forecast Romney victories in the critical states of Florida and Virginia.

While some polls show small Romney leads in those states, most all other polls show Romney to have at least closed the small previous gap that existed between him and the President by as much as half or more.  For example, the latest number from PPP, a Democrat leaning polling outfit, shows that in Virginia, Obama’s lead has shrunk from +5  to +3.  While that Obama lead might not seem like good news for Romney, it is actually very good news when you consider the fact that by using the same turnout model from 2008, the PPP sampling finds this smaller Obama lead even after still giving Democrats a +6 advantage over Republicans.

Furthermore; it is that same Democrat advantage that polls are giving to the President which we see in other states such as Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and all the other critical swing states.  Yet despite this Democrat advantage, Romney is gaining on the President.  So much so that WH12 sees evidence that indicates the Romney-Ryan ticket will probably not only win the election, they will probably win it by an even wider margin than anyone thinks possible.

Adding to this positive direction for Romney are indications that his own internal polling in at least two states. Currently, those internal polls are said to show Virginia and Ohio show him beating Obama by as much as 3.0% and 4.5%, respectively.

Conclusion;

The recent questionable jobs report has provided a slight spike in consumer confidence but it has not yet translated in to a bounce for the President.  At the same time, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to remain at or below 50%, a position not conducive for reelection of an incumbent President. 

Meanwhile, after his initial debate performance Mitt Romney has established himself as a real threat to the reelection of President Obama.  For the first time since their conventions, Romney is seeing evidence of his base becoming excited with his candidacy and there are signs that undecided voters are moving in his direction.  But Republicans must be careful to not consider this a trend until and unless future polls over the course of the next week show these recent numbers to still be moving in the right direction.  However; at the moment the Romney-Ryan ticket seems to have blocked President Obama’s own forward momentum in the polls and at the same time has finally gotten his campaign moving at pace that could turn the tables on the Obama-Biden and make them the ones with fewer paths to victory.  But to do that, Romney must be sure to keep the momentum moving in the right direction and at the right pace.  To do that, Romney must avoid any stumbles on the campaign trail and he must make sure that an endless repetitive stream of his well crafted 30 second ads are driving home his message and allowing it to sink in among the voters who have a new found respect for Romney after his first debate and are now more receptive to his message than they have been at any other point in this election.

The Projection Formula

The White House 2012 projection takes the Real Clear Politics average of polls and compensates for the outdated 2008 turnout models being used in each in poll by compensating for the under-counting of Republican turnout by adding to Romney’s total, the 3.7% average margin of error in the seven key swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia.  Then along with a dose of personal political instinct, our projection incorporates other factors in to the equation such as the unemployment rates of individual states and the organizational strength of each state’s Party. 

Bookmark and Share

The Dumbest and “Dirtiest” Liberal Attack Ad You’ve Ever Seen

  Bookmark and Share   This is one of those things that you have to see to believe but even after seeing it you will undoubtedly be finding yourself still wondering if the people who made this this commercial were serious.  The sad thing is that they are being quite serious. (See the video of this ad below this post)

The advertisement is a one minute attack ad brought to you by the dues paid to AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union that does represent many hard working men and women but exploits its members for a liberal agenda that often holds entire cities hostage to the whims of the wealthy limousine liberal labor bosses who head up the union.  In  the ad, a gentleman by the name of Richard Hayes claims to be the man who picks up Mitt Romney’s garbage.

Hayes is a San Diego garbage man who apparently has a route that includes the area in San Diego where Mitt Romney has a house.   In this 1 minute long commercial Hayes is upset over the fact that Mitt Romney has never given him a bottle of Gatorade or water and that he has never hugged him for the good job he has done picking up all of the garbage that Mitt Romney put’s out in front of his house in San Diego.  According to Mr. Hayes, many people greet him this way as he picks up their garbage.

Hayes goes on to claim that because of the tons of garbage that he picks up, his body will break down by the time he is 55 or 60 years old and then he states “but Mitt Romney doesn’t care about that”.    The ad then quickly goes to the now infamous Mother Jones clip of Mitt Romney addressing financial donors where he discusses the 47% of voters who he knows his campaign will probably not persuade to vote for him.  The edited clip they use takes Romney out of context as you here him say “and so my job is not to worry about those people”.

Of course Romney’s words were meant in a strategic political context  that made the point that his campaign had to focus on those voters who could be persuaded to vote him.  Those words were not meant in the sense that the AFSCME ad suggests which is that Romney doesn’t have any regard for people like Richard Hayes.   However, according to the script read by Hayes, Romney doesn’t care because he hasn’t made the effort to hug him.

Tracy Morgan as Richard Hayes… the Garbage Man desperately seeking a hug from Mitt Romney

The mind-numbingly dumb perspective offered in this advertisement is so shockingly disturbing that you can’t help but have to rethink whether or not it was a serious attempt at political commentary or a Saturday Night Live-like parody intended to mock political ads with an overly dramatic and emotional character who takes viewers on an intended but surprising journey from the sublime to the ridiculous.  Unfortunately this is no parody but I almost wish I could give Tracy Morgan a call and ask him to do one for me.

This ad is so outrageously stupid that one can’t help but think less of AFSCME than one may have already thought of them.  It would be one thing if this big union had a reasonable argument to present based on some Romney inspired policy initiative that they believe would hurt their members but this ad doesn’t even attempt to pretend to deal with any real issues.  Instead it actually assumes that all voters are stupid bastards who will believe that because Mitt Romney hasn’t hugged his garbage man, he is unqualified to be President.

The ad is so silly that it is truly offensive.  It is so utterly ludicrous that members of AFSCME should be embarrassed beyond belief.  They should be mortified to know that their leadership is made up of a bunch of people who are so unintelligent and dim-witted that it is quite clear to the rest of us that their shoes sizes apparently reach a higher number than their IQ’s.   Not exactly the type of people who I would want to be in charge of any negotiations involving my line of work.

To make matters worse, the spastic brains behind this ad obviously failed to even attempt to do any research before they consulted a dictionary to come up with the words they try to use in it.  As was noted in Mitt Romney’s book “No Apology,”  Romney writes about how during his gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts, he took on the jobs of various constituents and one of those jobs was collecting trash.   In his book, Romney writes;

“One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector. I stood on that little platform at the back of the truck, holding on as the driver navigated his way through the narrow streets of Boston. As we pulled up to traffic lights, I noticed that the shoppers and businesspeople who were standing only a few feet from me didn’t even see me. It was as if I was invisible.”

He then writes

“Perhaps it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect.”

The bottom-line here is that anyone who is persuaded to vote against Mitt Romney by this commercial, should seek serious psychiatric help.  As for the people who made and approved this ad, it’s too late.  Their minds are obviously so rotted, that they are beyond help.  All the money behind Obamacare would not able to save the minds of those fools.

Bookmark and Share

Internal Polls Have Romney Ahead in at Least 2 Pivotal Swing States

  Bookmark and Share   According to Breitbat editor Mike Flynn, the Romney campaign has internal polls that now show the Romney-Ryan ticket ahead of President Obama in two important battleground states… Ohio and New Hampshire.  According to two tweets posted by Flynn  on his Twitter feed, Romney’s internal polls have him beating the President in New Hampshire by 3.0%, and an almost unimaginably wider margin of 4.5% in Ohio.

If these numbers are true, this would suggest that my own estimation of a Romney victory that will be much bigger than most people think possible, could be shaping up.   Especially if Mitt Romney is ahead in Ohio.

While I have sensed that this race is not quite as close as most polls indicate, my inability to totally discount the preponderance of public polling numbers that are out there has been leading me to conclude that in 2012, the G.O.P. may win the White House without Ohio for the first time in history. Part of the reason for that opinion has been due to the available polling data.  The other part is my knowing that President Obama is going to do everything possible to win the Buckeye State for himself.  Doing so would leave Romney with significantly fewer paths to victory.  But aggressive campaigning by Romney in several other key states, specifically Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada and of course Virginia and Florida, has led me to conclude that while Team Romney has by no means written off Ohio, they are actively working on Plan B…. the plan to win the election without Ohio if necessary.

But if these leaked internal polls are accurate, Mitt Romney is currently on his way to being able to carry out his preferred plan of winning the election with Ohio and the way I see it, if he can do that, Americans will be stunned to find out on November 7th that Romney beat President Obama by far more than anyone predicted.

If the Romney-Ryan ticket can win Ohio, that bodes quite well for additional victories in swing states like Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire.  Given the make-up of Ohio, it is very good bellwether of the sentiments that exist in those aforementioned states.  Furthermore, a lead in Ohio would also indicates that Nevada is quite winnable.  Even more stunning is that it could be a sign that Romney is in contention for wins in other states like Wisconsin, which according to most polls is currently slipping away from the G.O.P. presidential ticket.  No matter what though, a lead in Ohio would significantly turn the tables on the Obama-Biden ticket by suddenly making them the ticket with fewer paths available to them to reach the magic number of 270 in the Electoral College.

Unfortunately for Romney backers, the reliability of this second and now third-hand information is not enough for us to hang our hats on yet.

While all campaigns conduct internal polls, they do not spend much time publicly talking about them or releasing the data and information contained in them.  By law, if a campaign releases any numbers from their internal polls, they must release the entire poll.  However, as is always the case with politics, campaigns can and do find ways to see that certain tib-bits somehow leak out for public consumption without being caught.  In this case,  no one can be sure of where or how Mike Flynn got hold of these numbers.  But if he did somehow get a look at the Romney campaign’s actual internal poll numbers for Ohio and New Hampshire, the news contained in his two tweets changes the narrative of this election by turning President in to the underdog in the race.

If the numbers Flynn released are actually from the Romney campaign’s internal polls, you can rest assured that they are accurate.  Mainly because of Neil Newhouse, the man who put those numbers together.

Neil Newhouse is Romney’s chief pollster and globally, one of the best pollsters around.   He is a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a national political and public affairs survey research firm that has been described as “the leading Republican polling company” in the country and in 2011 he was named “Pollster of the Year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for his work on Scott Brown’s winning Senate campaign in Massachusetts.

At Public Opinion Strategies, Newhouse developed a culture and approach to winning that is practically unsurpassed as he successfully helped political candidates win tough campaigns and scored hard-fought successes in the public affairs arena for some of America’s leading corporations and associations.  Through his polling efforts Newhouse has been a master at taking accurate polls and using the information derived from them to successfully tailor the type of winning messages that have allowed his candidates to get elected.  So if Neil Newhouse’s polling does actually have Romney up by as much as 3.0% in New Hampshire and 4.5% in Ohio, chances are that the vast majority of public polls which are basing their models on outdated 2008 turnout models, are offering us a very misleading perception of just how tight the election will actually be.

Bookmark and Share

New Romney Ad Outlines the Cost of the Recent Jobs Numbers

 Bookmark and Share  In the wake of the latest report on jobs numbers to come out of the Obama Administration,  Mitt Romney’s campaign has issued a new campaign ad (see ad in video below this post) called “The Facts Are Clear”.  That report recently indicated that the unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since the President took office.  However, for reasons explained exceptionally well here, many find those numbers to say the least, misleading, but this ad does not directly challenge those numbers.  Instead, it questions the high cost which supposedly produced those improving but still dismal numbers.

The ad is another simple but succinct 30 second spot which drives home the point that facts still prove President Obama’s policies are not working.

With an interesting twist, the ad focusses on President Obama’s spending policies, specifically his deficit busting stimulus programs which the President often claims has led to the creation and saving of jobs.  The ad suggests that even if the most recent jobs report is accurate, the President’s spending policies that he would have you believe are the reason for the drop in unemployment has added almost as much debt as all forty-three previous Presidents combined.

The ad states;

“President Obama says he’s creating jobs. But he’s really creating debt. The facts are clear. Obama’s four deficits are the four largest in U.S. history.

He’s adding almost as much debt as all forty-three previous presidents combined. And over thirty cents of every dollar Obama spends is borrowed. Much of it from countries like China.

He’s not just wasting money.

He’s borrowing it, and then wasting it.

We can’t afford four more years.”

While this commerical is not directly connected to the controversial new jobs report, it does help to put those numbers in the right perspective for voters and it does so by raising 2 key points;

  • After 4 long years is an arguable but undeniably miniscule 0.3% drop in unemployment actually worth all the deficit spending behind the President’s  job creation policies that went into achieving that deceptively good number?  The ad argues that even if the unemployment numbers are accurate, all the money spent and debt accumulated simply makes those results too little, too late.

Point two;

  • To make matters worse than most American know them to be, not only has President Obama’s tax, spend, and strangle the economy with regulation policies not been creating, if any jobs,  they have ultimately sold future generations of Americans to China by borrowing money from the Chinese that keeps us in debt to them.

The ad is perfect.  Like many of Romney’s other more recent ads, it is not an example of a stunning, creative marketing scheme.  it is not an ingenious masterful Ronald Reagan “Morning In America” ad.  However; the ad will be extremely with targeted airings and the money to repeat it enough times to sink in to the mind of the independent voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia… the swing voters in the battleground states that Romney needs to win the election.

Most Americans won’t see this ad.  Most Americans live in states which are predictably going to give their electoral votes to either Romney or President Obama.  But you can rest assured that the Americans who will be seeing this and similar Romney ads are the ones that Romney needs to see it.  And if they are repeated enough times in the same households, the narrative behind the points in this ad, which is that we can’t afford four more years of Barack Obama, will settle in to the subconscious of the critical undecided, swing voters in those households… even if they do not consciously realize that is settling in.


Bookmark and Share

First Reliable Post Debate Polls Shows the Momentum Behind Romney

  Bookmark and Share   Rasmussen Reports has released the first major polls for the critical swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia since Romney’s masterful debate performance on Wednesday night.  The surveys seem to indicate that the first presidential debate has provided Romney with some of the forward momentum that previous polling indicated he needed in those states as Romney closes the gap in each of the three states to within either a percentage point behind or ahead of President Obama.

While all of this is good news for Mitt, the best news of all is in the Ohio numbers.

  • FLORIDA:    Romney 49% – Obama 47%
  • OHIO:            Obama 50%   – Romney 49
  • VIRGINIA:  Romney 49% – Obama 48%

Up to now, White House 2012 has largely concluded that Mitt Romney was likely to become the first Republican to win the White House without winning Ohio.  Barack Obama knows that without Ohio, Romney has significantly fewer paths leading to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election.  For that reason, the Obama-Biden ticket has targeted Ohio and made it the key to their own reelection effort.  So far they have done so with success by exploiting the President’s bailout of the auto industry which in one way or another, employs a significant number of Ohioans.  But these new numbers may now show that the Obama strategy to deny Romney Ohio is going to be tougher than heretofore believed.  Apparently, Romney’s debate performance swung at least some minds in his direction.  But the apparent turnaround in Ohio and Obama’s struggle to deny Romney the state is a problem for the President that is only compounded by the fact that the latest Rasmussen poll now also shows Romney ahead in Virginia and Florida.

If this trend continues, the tables can quickly turn and President Obama can find himself the one losing the number of paths available to reelection.

On Monday, when these and other polls are figured in to the  RCP average of polls, White House 2012 will be updating its own Electoral College projection which currently gives Romney an 8 vote lead over President Obama.  (See the current WH12 Electoral College Projection here.)

The White House 2012 Electoral College projection is based upon a formula which uses the average margin of error in all the polls that Real Clear Politics uses to reach its average of polls.  This formula compensates for what we believe is the undercounting of the Republican voter that most polling outfits are using by basing this election on the 2010 turnout models.  Under this formula, White House 2012 currently adds 3.7% to Romney’s RCP average in each of the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia….  the six  states we believe are still undecided.  North Carolina which is considered a swing state by the mainstream media, is not considered such by White House 2012.  We believe that Romney will win North Carolina and have put that state and its 15 electoral votes in Romney’s column.

As indicated in the map below with blue states being for Obama and red states being for Romney, most other states are clearly in the column of one candidate or the other.   A few exceptions could present themselves though in the coming weeks.  White House 2012 suspects that Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico could open up and become much more competitive for Romney than it currently is.  If that happens, WH12 will consider them toss-ups and apply the 3.7% formula to their RCP average.

 

Bookmark and Share

October Surprise? Obama Camp Trying to Coverup a Major Campaign Donor Scandal

  Bookmark and Share   According to sources at the Washington Examiner, President Obama’s reelection campaign has been trying to block reports that a national magazine and a national web site are preparing to release a story regarding what the Examiner describes as a “blockbuster donor scandal story.”

The Examiner’s sources claim that after a nine-month long investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising, an unnamed taxpayer watchdog group has discovered thousands of violation of federal election laws that were broken by the campaign’s solicitations of and acceptance of donations from unsecure, overseas accounts.

The pending story comes on the heels of the Obama camps recent announcement of a near record breaking collection of  $150 million in donations just for the month of September.  If the still developing story behind the potential allegations are true, this record haul of donations could be in large part due to the Obama campaign’s illegal participation in collecting donations via untraceable prepaid credit cards that would allow the campaign to hide the identity of donors and evade limits on how much those unidentified individual donors are legally allowed to give to the campaign.

In 2008, after then Senator Obama raised a similar amount of money also in the month of September, The Washington Post reported a story entitled “Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations”.  In it they described an online donation process that was nearly impossible to make foolproof.  In 2012 the donation collection process for Obama as well as Romney is still not foolproof and as in 2008 both campaigns conducted a comprehensive analysis of online contributions on the back end of the transaction to determine whether a contribution is legitimate or not.  When and if a contribution is found to be in some way improper or in excess of the allowable FEC donation limits, each campaign refunds the money.  But the real problem is the Obama campaign’s willingness to accept online donations through prepaid cards, something the Romney campaign does not do.  Payments through such prepaid credit cards makes it impossible to trace exactly where and who the donations are coming from.

The problem here is that unless the players behind this story can confirm that the Obama campaign or individuals in the campaigns were involved in a conspiracy to coordinate payments via prepaid credit cards, this story could wind up being more a story about the problems with the campaign finance process than a story about some Obama related scandal.  Until the two publications and the taxpayer watchdog group that the Washington Examiner credits with this story come forward, no one can tell with certainty if it is truly a scandal or not.  But the Washington Examiner seems eager to point out that when the full story goes public on Sunday or Monday, the Obama camp will be forced to confront an embarrassing and potentially damaging ethics and financial scandal.  And in typical fashion, to make matters worse, Team Obama is trying to cover it up.

If true, Bob Woodward may prove to be the most insightful political talking around.  On Thursday, Woodward stated that he believes the emergence of some sort of major political or personal event involving Obama may have been the reason for Obama’s disaterous debate performance on Wednesday night.

Bookmark and Share

The Left Admits Romney Wins First Debate

It was a game changer. Romney cleaned Obama’s clock. Romney wins the night. It’s not debatable, Obama stumbles. What is so sweet about these opinions, crusaders, is that they are from the New York Times. And HuffPuff. And Politico. Left, Left and Left.

CNN, running a post-debate poll reported a 67% to 25% Romney win.

At the New York Times, Michael Goodwin wrote, “When it came to defending his record, Obama resorted to filibusters that moderator Jim Lehrer was too willing to tolerate. As though his handlers were whispering in his ear, the president trotted out his favorite campaign clichés: millionaires and billionaires, oil companies corporate jets, fair share, fair shot. It was all stale stuff.”

Bill Maher — i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

Michael Goodwin again, “As for specifics, I have no more idea what Obama would do in a second term than I did before the debate.”

“They know they lost tonight,” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

Joy Behar of The View — “Obama blew it. I hate to say it but Romney was lying and Obama didn’t hit him on it.”

Here is Left-lunatic extraordinaire, Chris Matthews, in all his glory.

The best part is the pathetic Obama performance wasn’t missed by the supreme ruler’s subjects either. Have some fun today, crusaders, and read some post comments at Politico, HuffPuff, the NY Times or any Left-leaning publication of your choice. Here’s a few to get your engine started.

Raw6464 — The man is a typical wimpy Democrat. After the debacle of last night I hope his staff will light a fire under his ass because one more debate loss and he’ll be a one term president…The thought of Romney choosing the next 4 Supreme Court Justices scares the shit out of me. If and when that day happens, the Right Wing will rule the world.

Jill — Was so depressing to watch that I turned it off after the first 45 minutes.

Slangwhang — OBAMA FAILED…..THE ECONOMY! THE COUNTRY! AMERICA

Balthasar — Obama looked tired to me; seemed to be having trouble keeping his eyes open as Mitt delivered his closing argument.

MileHiDem — Obama is still blazing in the polls and one debate won’t change it much, perhaps a little.

The Apostate — More debates coming, but Mitt will most likely take a lead in the polls over this debacle.

Donealready1 — This IS Obama without a teleprompter. He has been protected by everyone and this time, he was on his own. We finally got a glimpse of the true Obama……disaster

JaxSax1 — Wake up call to Obama. Yeah you are a nice guy. NOW FREAKING STOP IT. Stand up and punch back because this election was yours to lose.

Enjoy!

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Last Night WAS a Game-Changer…you’re hearing it here first!

Just google “presidential debate not a game-changer” and you’ll find there lurking the liberal media’s true response to the debate. But, as James Carville said on CNN, “Obama just debated with a chainsaw” and lost. Chris Matthews went on yet another crazed rant, while Bill Maher tweeted his disgust, no doubt wondered what he had wasted a million dollars on. President Obama and the liberal media were severely beaten up last night.

A significant victory for Romney in first debate

Had Romney lost the debate, the liberal media would have been quick to place an RIP tombstone on their coverage of his presidential campaign. This is the headline they’ve been building up to in recent weeks. Romney is unknown, lackluster they said. Last night, they learned some unknowns about the President and if they didn’t know it before they realized that teleprompter-less he is the lackluster one.

Mr Obama’s arrogance was that he assumed the RIP sign was already set in stone. Perhaps he thought he only had to do a Clint Eastwood and debate with an empty chair. Or, was he just trying to give a performance to make Jeo Biden look good next week? All sorts of excuses were offered on Twitter under the hashtag #ObamaDebateExcuses, and if this doesn’t give the comedians great material to take the plank out of the eye of their election humor, then I don’t know what will.

Joking aside, Obama found Romney on the top of his game and ready to show the electorate his strengths. What was surprising was not the fact Romney won, but the scale of his victory. CNN released a poll that gave the Governor a 67% win vote on the night.

Of course, Romney had to win, but what will put the wind into the sails of his campaign is the scale of victory. Charles Krauthammer, who I so often agree with, said this was no game-changer, but I have to qualify his statement. True, there is no immediate real game-changer, but if Romney wins on November 6 the suddenly wise media will look back on last night and say “yep, that was a game-changer.”

 

 

Obama’s Race Based Hate Speech Isn’t Really News

  Bookmark and Share  As the sun set on our nation last night, an exclusive video unearthed by Daily Caller Editor-In-Chief Tucker Carlson was aired on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity”.  It was a video of a speech being delivered by then Senator Barack Obama back in 2007.  In it, Senator Obama who was campaigning in a tough race against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, addresses a predominantly African-American audience which he tries to fire up by essentially telling them that the federal government hates black people.  Of course the President didn’t use those exact words.  Instead he painted a picture of a federal government that doesn’t care as much about minorities as it does for other people.

The President made his charge in this speech by trying to claim that that the federal government is unwilling to help minorities who are victims of disasters such as those in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina back in 2005 (see video of the remarks below).

And while he did not exactly say that the federal government is  a bigoted extension of the white man, he tried to explain that survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid while residents of majority-black New  Orleans did not because according to him, the federal government considers those victims in Florida and New York to be “part of the American  family” but it does not considers the minorities of New Orleans to be “family”.

He reached that conclusion by falsely stating that the federal government refused to issue the same fund-matching waiver to the mostly minority communities torn apart by Katrina Katrina that were offered to more affluent and caucasian communities such as the one in Manhattan which was destroyed during the attacks of 9/11 on the Twin Towers.  In addition to being irresponsibly inflammatory, the charge was also false.  As it turns out, the federal government did issue the same fund-matching waiver to Katrina-torn regions that it offered to the victims of other disasters throughout the nation.

As seen in the clip below, Tucker Carlson sums the video up probably better than anyone else.  According to him, Obama’s words were “shocking”, “divisive”, “demagogic”, and “untrue”.

Since the initial reporting of the story, conservative activists have been a buzz. For some, like Tucker Carlson, the story has the makings of that oft mentioned “October surprise” that every campaign hopes to avoid but prays to see their rival’s campaign have to figure out how to recover from.  The problem is that this conservative activist doesn’t see it that way.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe this speech will have any impact on the election.

While the video most certainly shows the soon to be President lying and while it also reveals him to be speaking in what is described as a highly “urbanized African-American accent” which is undeniably uncharacteristic of Barack Obama, what the video does not do is present anything new to us.

We have already seen President Obama launch into his chameleon-like ethnic accents that are designed to endear him to the audiences he addresses.  It is practically a standard operating procedure for the Obama-Biden campaign.  It was perhaps best displayed back in August when Vice President Biden stood before another predominantly black audience in Danville, Va. and shouted with an exaggerated Southern drawl… “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”

This latest Obama video also does not make news by revealing to us that President Obama is a liar.  Many of us already know that President Obama lies. We know that he lies straight to our faces.  Recent events in Benghazi have made that more than obvious.

Furthermore; we  also know by now that President Obama is anything but a uniter.  We have long understood that this President has built his entire political career on a divide and conquer strategy.  And it has long been understood that this President’s entire reelection effort is based on  a class warfare strategy designed to pit some against others.

If there is anything worth reporting here it is that Mitt Romney raised this very issue back in August while speaking at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio.  It was there that Romney first told us the following;

“Over the last four years, this president has pushed Republicans and Democrats about as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others,” Romney said. “His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then try to cobble together 51% of the pieces.”

He then added;

“Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago, and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.”

So I repeat… President Obama’s hate filled, lies in this speech are nothing new and as such, nothing new will come from this latest example of his deceitful, race baiting tactics and divisive political tendencies.  The truth is that the 47% of the electorate that opposes Barack Obama knew this about him long ago.  So this video will not change their votes.   The other 47% knows Obama is a divisive liar but they refuse to admit it.  So those Obama supporters will also not be changing their vote because of this video.

As for the remaining 6% who describe themselves as undecided, they will be seeing this video through the filter of a  primarily pro-Obama, biased media that will excuse the President’s comments away.  As they get fed the liberal spin on the President remarks, these six percent who claim to be undecided but whom I see as simply slow, dazed, and confused , will accept the liberal narrative given to them.  As such, most of these “indecisive” voters will never realize how much the President’s past words undermine his attempts to portray himself as a unifying force in American politics.  Because of the media’s biases, this swayable six percent of the electorate will probably never allow themselves to accept the fact that President Obama is playing us all for fools.  They should, but they probably won’t.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: