Category: Democrats

#ObamaGoogleHistory What Is My Current Abuse Level At http://theothermccain.com

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

This hash tag game had its origins in this:

Slightly strange, this game. I’ve had a lot of love for this tweet:

Yet not so much for this one:

And who doesn’t dig a Harry Reid riff?

GALLUP: ROMNEY 52, OBAMA 45 — Let the Great 2012 Liberal Freak-Out Begin!

Posted on Comments

They convinced themselves that Obama “won” Tuesday’s debate, but Romney actually gains in the first Gallup national tracking poll with post-debate reaction? Oh, boy.

UPDATE: Ace explains what happened:

 The debate was not a victory for Obama. It was a confirmation of Romney’s acceptability, plausibility, and fitness for office.

Yesterday, Sully admitted he had been “on the ledge”:

Guess what?

UPDATE II: Ed Morrissey points out that these latest numbers indicate that neither of the past two debates helped Obama among likely voters.

 




 

RECENTLY:

Virginia Town’s Airport Is Collateral Damage in Obama’s ‘War on Coal’

Posted on Comments

“The front page of Thursday’s Washington Times features a story about how the Obama administration’s ‘war on coal’ has thwarted plans by the tiny Appalachian town of Grundy to expand its airport. The hostile regulatory climate imposed by the president’s environmental agenda has been a steady theme of Romney’s stump speeches. The coal issue also resonates in Ohio, as well as Pennsylvania, which RCP likewise counts as a battleground state. Coal-industry advocates in Grundy are planning a rally Sunday, and their story could help dramatize the economic costs of the administration’s anti-coal policies.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “Obama’s Hope Fades in Virginia,” The American Spectator, Oct. 18, 2012

The population of Grundy, Virginia, is 1,105. It is the county seat of Buchanan County, population 23,581, where the median household income is $29,183, far below the U.S. median average of $51,914. This community, about 10 miles from the Kentucky border and 15 miles from the West Virginia state line, is quite obviously in need of economic growth — so why is the Obama administration standing in the way?

Officials from two Southwestern Virginia counties say a project vital to the area’s economic development has been held up for years because of a dispute with federal regulators over what is an airport and what is a coal mine.
Local leaders say the three-year battle with the U.S. Office of Surface Mining over plans to extend the runway at Grundy Municipal Airport has cost taxpayers in this poverty-stricken corner of Appalachia millions of dollars in lost opportunities, and a list of regulatory hurdles remains before construction can even begin.
“We were attempting to permit this project as an airport project, not a coal-mining project,” said state Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, a Democrat from Lebanon who has been involved for three years with the effort to lengthen the runway from 2,200 feet to more than 5,000 feet — the length needed to comply with insurance standards for corporate jets. The holdup: Federal regulators have refused to allow the runway project to go forward without a mining permit because of the coal deposits below the land that will be dug up during construction.
“That’s where the permitting process got caught up — in determining whether it was an airport project or a mining project, by the Office of Surface Mining in Washington,” Mr. Puckett said. “We’ve tried to resolve that with them for the last couple of years. We’ve had very little success.”
Regulators contend that a mining permit is needed because local authorities plan to sell the coal dug up in extending the runway to help finance the overall project. . . .

Read the whole thing at the Washington Times. People everywhere should be outraged by this: A poor Appalachian town’s best prospect for promoting economic development held up for three years because the radical environmentalists appointed by President Obama are determined to destroy the coal industry. (See my Oct. 8 column, “Counting on Coal Country,” for more background on Obama’s “war on coal.”)

The federal Office of Surface Mining might as well be re-named the Office of Abolishing Surface Mining under Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar who, as Michelle Malkin has detailed at length, is a top enforcer of Obama’s environmental agenda.

Grundy is 53 miles from I-81, but it’s a winding two-lane mountain road so it takes an hour and a half to drive it, which tends to discourage potential business investors from visiting the town. If the town could extend its airport runway, executives could fly in and out, and light commercial aviation might even help promote tourism. (“Ski Grundy,” perhaps?) But no — the project would involve coal mining, and the Fanatic-in-Chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is beholden to tree-hugging freaks, so he cheerfuly pisses away millions of taxpayer dollars on bankrupt “green energy” boondoggles, while his bureaucrats crush hope for the people of Grundy.

In the War on Coal – It’s Grundy vs. Obama
— Matt Vespa, Hot Air Greenroom

Why Does Obama Hate Coal Miners And Appalachia?
— The Lonely Conservative

Grundy will have a rally Sunday to show “support for American coal jobs and the people who work in our industry.”

If the Romney campaign would grab hold of this issue, they could make America understand how Obama’s “war on coal” is hurting real people and hindering economic recovery.

 


Military Endorsements Aren’t Decisive. That Said: WOW!

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

In deference to #OccupyResoluteDesk, he has half a dozen military endorsements:

Name Note
Wesley Clark, four star General (Ret), former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, 2004 presidential candidate Tool.
Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy Not a proper veteran, but we can’t get to ‘half a dozen’ without some sort of shenanigans. Also, really competent, would make a good SECDEF while the country sinks, should BHO achieve re-election.
Paul Eaton, Major General (Ret) Got nothin’.
Donald J. Gutter, retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, current Dean, Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh JAGs: whattayagonnado?
Michael D. Lumpkin Wikipedia page says: Commander, Captain (O-6) select. As he was a SEAL, we’ll omit the standard mockery for hedging the yes/no question: Did you get paid?
John B. Nathman, retired U.S. Navy Admiral, co-chair of the campaign THAT Nathman.

Just to avoid looking too, let us say, Crowley-esque in my bias, I drop Mitt’s endorsements below the fold:

Continue reading Military Endorsements Aren’t Decisive. That Said: WOW! →

Romney Debates Crowley And Obama On Benghazi, Wins

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Benghazi was the pivotal moment in the town hall debate, in my opinion, and that of some others:

 

Via BlueGrass pundit:

What a sad, pathetic joke that Obama has to have a woman attempt to stand up for him. Romney’s five sons were no doubt writhing at the raised eyebrows at 0:20 in the clip, recalling their own sad attempts at sliding one by dad, and getting thoroughly crushed by the Brows Of Doom.

The Administration’s pathetic attempt to walk back the 12 September Rose Garden speech is thoroughly debunked here. If Obama’s claim is true, that he properly labeled Benghazi terrorism initially, then shifted ‘narratives’ to call it a spontaneous riot due to Nakoula’s handiwork, then Obama’s sordid performance would be an example of postvarication, where the truth shifts to a lie upon the retelling, instead of the truth remaining in the forefront.

However, what we have here is a creep show Administration that owes Americans straight answers, but can’t even tell itself a straight story. Maybe Petraeus could offer such. Where is that guy? Stuffed under the bus behind Clapper?

Kudos to Mitt. You could see that hours of preparation that went into this debate on display. That the topic would come up was fairly obvious. But the delivery was polished, and Obama’s body language and shout to Crowley for a lifeline were sweet, sweet tells. Romney should have ended his exchange with Crowley by saying “Thank you, Madame President.” As graphically put:
And Crowley then walked back her shilling. Fortunately, these Lefty creeps no longer retain an iron grip on matters. While viewers at the time called it a draw or gave the edge to #OccupyResoluteDesk, further analysis is going to show that, as in the previous debates this season, the Republicans are holding their own despite having two opponents.

Say whatever else you want about the debate: seeing Romney have the sack to call out Obama for lying, to his face, was pure chewing satisfaction. As with the previous debate, I may have to trundle over to the Romney campaign site for a wee donation, I’m so pleased by this. And as for Candid Candy, I hope she doesn’t spend all 30 pieces of silver in one place.

Further linkage at Instapundit, but don’t miss Michelle, violating the rules, clapping in support of falsehood. I’m not ashamed of my country, in general, but the 2008 election sure was a hiccup. And, for those wondering what the debate would have looked like if you dropped some acid before viewing:

In the second presidential debate, President Obama stood up proudly for his record, offered a positive vision, called out Romney’s lies in a calm and cool way, and, most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.

Update: Memeorandum thread, also linked at Protein Wisdom, Daily Pundit, WyBlog, and Obi’s Sister.

‘STAKE THROUGH HIS HEART’: Your Official Town Hall Debate Thread

Posted on Comments

UPDATE 10:50 p.m. ET: Watching MSNBC so you don’t have to:

UPDATE 10:22 p.m. ET: WHAM! Mitt just hit Obama with “Fast and Furious.”

UPDATE 10:16 p.m. ET: That was a very long back-and-forth about Libya.

UPDATE 10:11 p.m. ET: Obama gets specific question about failure in Libya, and doesn’t even begin to answer, but instead lectures about how AWESOME his policy is.

UPDATE 10:07 p.m. ET: Obama LOVES him some illegal immigrants.

UPDATE 10:03 p.m. ET: Obama loves him some illegal immigrants.

UPDATE 9:58 p.m. ET: Now for Romney, immigration question from El Votera Del Undecidia.

UPDATE 9:54 p.m. ET: Obama is now ahead 5:34 on the time-split.

UPDATE 9:51 p.m. ET: As Obama ends this answer, he is ahead 2:55 on the time-split.

UPDATE 9:46 p.m. ET: A Bush-hating woman asks Romney how he’s not like Bush. She’s an “uncommitted voter” (nudge nudge).

UPDATE 9:40 p.m. ET: Some chick asks a question about the alleged “pay gap” between men and women — straight out of the bogus statistics they teach in Women’s Studies classes — and we’re supposed to believe she’s an “uncommitted voter.”

UPDATE 9:35 p.m. ET: Candy Crowley always gives Obama a chance to talk back to Mitt, but keeps cutting off Mitt — or trying to cut him off — when Mitt tries to answer.

UPDATE 9:30 p.m. ET: Obama slams “top-down economics.”

UPDATE 9:25 p.m. ET: Now Mitt gets to talk numbers. He loves him some numbers.

UPDATE 9:21 p.m. ET: There was all kinds of fireworks now. My wife and kids thought they were getting ready to fight.

UPDATE 9:16 p.m. ET: Romney “I was in coal country and people grabbed my arm and said, ‘Please, save my job.’ ”

UPDATE 9:15 p.m. ET: Romney: “Let’s look at the president’s policies, instead of his rhetoric.”

UPDATE 9:11 p.m. ET: Obama just said Romney “doesn’t have a five-point plant, he’s got a one-point plan.” And Obama’s got 57 states! When Mitt wants to argue back, Candy cuts him off.

UPDATE 9:04 p.m. ET: “First-time voter” is college student named Jeremy who asks about jobs — straight into Mitt’s wheelhouse. This is encouraging.

UPDATE 9:02 p.m. ET: And we’re live! Candy Crowley introduces her close personal friend The President of the United States, and also, that Republican guy over there.

* * PREVIOUSLY (8:30 p.m. ET) * *

Let’s start with this: The very notion of undecided voters in New York three weeks before Election Day is implausibly absurd. So we’re probably going to see a steady barrage of lefty “gotcha” questions aimed at Mitt Romney, while Barack Obama gets questions like, “Mister President, why do these hateful racist homophobic Republicans want to steal Social Security checks from Grandma?”

Can Mitt possibly win this debate? Can Obama possibly stink it up worse than he did in the Oct. 3 debate? This seems too much to ask, so you need to pray very hard right up until the debate at Hofstra University starts at 9 p.m. Eastern, and don’t stop praying until it’s over.

Miracles sometimes happen, and this is what Ace is describing:

So there was, I think, a preference cascade potential. But that potential only became real during the debate.
If Romney had not given what could well be the most dominating debate performance in the entire modern age of politics (since TV, in 1960), it seems very possible — possibly likely — that none of this would have happened.

Read the whole thing. Events can’t be predicted, but contingencies — the “if/then” consequences of events — are predictable.

Going into the Oct. 3 debate, nobody expected such a one-sided win for Romney, but we could have predicted that if Mitt did exceed all expectations (and if Obama disastrously underperformed) then the polls would shift dramatically toward Romney.

The interesting thing? The polls were already starting to shift toward Romney before the first debate. Check the RCP national average, and you see that Obama’s lead maxed out at 4.3 points on Sept. 29, and by Oct. 3, had shrunk to 3.1 points. Why?

It’s got to be Libya: By early October, it was becoming obvious that the Obama administration’s “blame the YouTube video” excuse was false, and that the administration was trying to hide its failures in the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi counsulate. So Obama’s lead was already fading and his disastrous performance in the first debate exacerbated growing perceptions of his incompetence.

Romney moved ahead in the RCP average Oct. 9. Beginning with the first full three-day track by Gallup after the first debate, five polls have shown Romney ahead, three have shown Obama ahead and two have shown a tie. So while there has been a shift toward Romney, the bottom hasn’t fallen out for Obama . . . yet.

A few headlines from Memeorandum:

Romney Holds Advantage Tonight,
Regardless of Format
— Real Clear Politics

Obama feels ‘fabulous’ in advance of second debate
— Politico

Tuesday’s debate moderator confirms
plan to ask follow up questions
— The Hill

And finally, from Toby Harnden at the London Daily Mail:

The Romney campaign goes into tonight’s second presidential debate confident that the race has shifted decisively in their direction and that a below par performance by Barack Obama could doom him to defeat on November 6.
A senior adviser to Mitt Romney told MailOnline: ‘The President could drive a stake through the heart of his own campaign tonight if he’s not careful.
‘If he doesn’t give a vigorous enough defence of his last four years in office, if he tries to place blame everywhere else, if he doesn’t articulate what the next four years will look like beyond just giving away free stuff – if he fumbles all that, he drives a stake through his own heart.’

The debate starts at 9 p.m. Eastern, but Duane Lester and the Campaign Trail Report have begun their debate hangout already, so check it out, and I’ll be back to do some live-blogging, as well as the usual Twitter snarkfest.

 


BHO: “We Got Back Every Dime”

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

This blog must leap to the defense of #OccupyResoluteDesk for his claim: “We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system. . .”

Actual number of $0.10 pieces used in the rescue: 0.

So, the taxpayers got back every actual coin used in the rescue. This blog salutes BHO, and hopes he can continue his winning streak of strictly, literally factual claims.

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.

Why does the CBO have to be staffed with humorless buzz-kills?

Is It Ironic That Elizabeth Warren, Slated To Head The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Has A Potential Credit Card Fraud Problem?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Breitbart notes the Boston Globe’s report of a $36 million dollar for Pseudajawea–good on her–and then this worrisome bit:

Yet more than 40% of these funds–an estimated $16 million–have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations.
Today’s report, which will be available for full public scrutiny by Tuesday morning, includes $8.7 million raised between August 18 and September 30 after her most recent Federal Election Commission filing–an August 17, 2012 pre-primary report that showed she had raised $3.7 million between July 1 and August 17, and $28 million from the start of her campaign.
Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.

That recalls a story from last December, admittedly ancient history by internet standards:

President Barack Obama’s “Consumer Czar” Elizabeth Warren was appointed by Obama to help set up and, many fear, to eventually run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In March 2011, Warren testified to Congress about the CFPB’s role in a 50-state settlement underway with the nation’s largest mortgage lenders related to alleged improper foreclosure procedures.
Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the open records laws of the states, Judicial Watch obtained documents that show that Warren’s and the CFPB’s involvement in the mortgage settlement negotiations is much greater than she told Congress.

Warren is such a corrupt little joke that the only question is why she has any numbers in Mass. polls at all.

Well, at least Elizabeth has her Iron Maiden tribute band to fall back on. And, after the first Tuesday of next month, #OccupyResoluteDesk should be available for some session work.