Friday, November 26, 2010

The Democrats and Cronyism

Five Reasons Obama Will Likely Win in 2012, and Five Reasons He Might Not

Everyone is talking about how badly President Obama is doing in the polls. Remember Harry Reid? Remember how badly he was doing in the polls? Yeah. He got re-elected.

Why will Obama win?






And one for good measure:.......
The five reasons he will lose are also very interesting.

Obama's poll numbers point to his defeat in 2012

Just look at the exit polls from 2008, which reveal the demographic contours of Obama's support. Compare those with Gallup's weekly analysis of the president's approval rating, drawn from multiple polls broken down by age, gender, political philosophy, and the like. Throw in some insights from the midterm elections, and the mix shows a dramatic deterioration in Obama's 2008 support. "HIS MAJORITY COALITION IS NOT THERE," says Republican pollster David Winston. "What he put together, at least in the way he put it together, just isn't there."

Start with voters who call themselves independents. Obama won 52 percent of them in 2008; now, according to Gallup, he is at 42 percent. Obama's party as a whole fared even worse among independents in the midterms, losing them to Republicans by 19 points. IF OBAMA DOES ANYWHERE NEAR THAT BADLY IN 2012, HE'LL LOSE.

Next, women……
An interesting look at the numbers.  It shows why it is an uphill battle for Obama in 2012.

Bush vs Obama in the Press

For those who don’t think the press is in the pocket of the Democrats, try reading this.

For years, the media insisted that the terrorist holding pen at Guantanamo was a horrific stain on our global reputation. IT WAS A “CANCER” (CBS’s Bob Schieffer) and the networks uncritically aired Amnesty International quacks denouncing it as “the gulag of our times.” Any denunciation had THE WORDS “BUSH” AND “CHENEY” INEXORABLY ATTACHED.

But now the outrage has died, and the story is being downplayed, since the Evil Bush is no longer the target. Take the case of Gitmo prisoner Ahmed Ghailani, who participated in the U.S. embassy massacre in Tanzania in 1998. When the federal judge crippled his trial in mid-October by omitting a witness, ABC and NBC skipped over it. “CBS Evening News” offered an anchor brief, with Couric calling it A "BIG SETBACK FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTORS." Nothing was attributed to the Obama administration.

Read more:

The Rule of Law?

When it comes to cronyism and special treatment, the left likes to accuse the right of it.  But as government gets bigger, so does the cronyism and special treatments.  We are seeing it daily with the Obama Administration. 

Since the politicos miscalculated the regulatory burdens, they have to brace for the real possibility that some health care plans will collapse under the strain. Starting in late September, reality hit home when McDonald’s announced that it would have cut out its “mini-med” program for about 30,000 of its low-paid workers. It insisted that it could not meet the statutory requirements for the simple reason that high employee turnover raises administrative costs.

RATHER THAN FACE THIS PUBLIC RELATIONS DISASTER, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, granted a one-year waiver from the requirements of the program. That particular result does not stand alone. Since that time FRESH WAIVERS HAVE BEEN ROUTINELY DISPENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES to many other organizations, including many powerful unions. AT LEAST ONE MILLION WORKERS ARE NOW OUT FROM UNDER OBAMACARE, WITH MORE TO COME.

The process vividly shows how unrealistic expectations can UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW. Waivers are by definition an exercise of administrative discretion that benefits the party who receives its special dispensation. Yet nothing in ObamaCare explains who should receive these waivers or why.

Just another example of the rule of unintended consequences. That’s the problem with passing laws because your intentions are good and not looking to see if you actually help or hurt things.

The Liberal view of the Republicans

Thanksgiving may be a time to give thanks for our blessings, but in Washington, the resurgent Republican conservatives want needy Americans to have fewer of them. The new Republicans have the same old leaders - and their passion hasn't changed. It isn't about offering a hand up to the afflicted - it's about HANDOUTS TO THE CONNECTED.

In the lame-duck session now convened until the end of the year, Republicans have continued their strategy of obstruction - opposing the New START treaty, opposing repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," opposing consideration of immigration reform, opposing even passage of appropriations for the current year. Their passion is focused on getting one thing done. They will run through the wall to extend the extra tax cuts enjoyed by those, largely millionaires, earning more than $250,000 a year.

FORGET ABOUT DEFICIT REDUCTION. According to Republicans, THESE TAX CUTS - COSTING AN ESTIMATED $700 BILLION OVER THE NEXT DECADE - need not be balanced by spending cuts, or "paid for" in the Washington parlance.

I’m always amazed by how liberals see the extension of the Bush Tax cuts. First they ignore the major part of the tax cuts that is the $3 trillion over the next 10 years that go to people making less than $250,000 per year. If they were serious about deficit reduction they would take the hit with the voters and call for doing away with all the tax cuts. Secondly, since these rate are in effect this year, a repeal of them is a tax increase, not a tax cut. Finally, it’s been shown that higher taxes lead to higher spending ($1 of addition revenue causes the congress to appropriate $1.17 in spending). The deficit problem is a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

Britain out of the EU?

THE Daily Express today becomes the first national newspaper to call for Britain to leave the European Union.

From this day forth our energies will be directed to furthering the cause of those who believe Britain is Better Off Out.

The famous and symbolic Crusader who adorns our masthead will become the figurehead of the struggle to repatriate British sovereignty from a political project that has comprehensively failed.

It appears with the major cuts in domestic spending, some in Britain are wondering why they are spending billions of pounds to save a currency system they aren’t even part of.

The Big Bang—An new theory

The current widely-held theory of life, the universe, and everything holds that at some point roughly 13.7 billion years ago everything that now is was packed into a tight little package from which sprung the Big Bang, which violently hurled everything into existence. But 13.7 billion years to get to where we are isn’t enough for renowned physicist Sir Roger Penrose, and now he thinks he can prove that things aren’t/weren’t quite so simple. Drawing on evidence he found in the cosmic microwave background, Penrose says the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning, but ONE IN A SERIES OF CYCLICAL BIG BANGS, each of which spawned its own universe.

By Penrose’s estimation, OUR UNIVERSE IS NOT THE FIRST – NOR WILL IT BE THE LAST – to spawn from a dense mass of highly-ordered everything into the complex universe we see around us. In fact, it’s that high degree of order that was apparently present at the universe’s birth that set him on this line of thought. The current Big Bang model doesn’t supply a reason as to why a low entropy, highly ordered state existed at the birth of our universe unless things were set in order before the Big Bang occurred.

Interesting idea. 

No comments:

Post a Comment