New Poltical Ads

What’s New Today

Story #1 tells looks at the Zimmerman file and finds it lacking anything to support murder.  #2 and #3 are political ads.  #2 is an interesting one from the Catholic faith with great music and visuals.  #3 is one for young people.  It doesn’t tell anyone to do anything by to join the conversation.  #4 explains why you can’t compromise with a liberal  Since what they want is more, you have to give them more our you are an extremist.  #5 is an interesting look inside a classroom in North Carolina.  The teacher is a bully with her students but her students fight back. 

Today’s Thoughts

Heard a great comment today about the green movement and the many who see the USA as the worst combination in the world, Progress and Freedom.  Here’s the comment, today’s green movement is Himmler in a green shirt.  

Robert Reich told a graduating class the truth, “You’re F#*%ed.”  Time for some new hope and a change in November. 

Is President Obama patriotic?  Is it patriotic to promise to fundamentally change America?  If you find a bit of an enigma in that, it probably because it is confusing since patriotism is love of your country.  If you love it, why do you want to fundamentally change it? 

It seems 64% of the voters would prefer fewer government service and lower taxes than prefer more government services and higher taxes.  This will come as a shock to President Obama. 

1. The Zimmerman File

The most damning part of the 183-page document dump released by the prosecution yesterday in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin is the eyewitness the media would rather you never hear from.

The eyewitness did not see the beginning of the fight, but had a clear view of it when he heard George Zimmerman crying for help and went to his door. He saw George Zimmerman on his back on the ground. Trayvon Martin, according to the eyewitness, was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest, raining down blows from a mount position, “MMA style.” From the investigator’s description of a witness statement on page 38 of the discovery documentation…

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-crucial-trayvon-martin-evidence-the-media-wont-repeat/

This doesn’t reinforce the narrative put forward by many in the news and the agitators like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  What it appears we have is a tragedy, but not murder.  

2. Test of Fire--A Catholic Ad for 2012

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-crucial-trayvon-martin-evidence-the-media-wont-repeat/

Great visuals and music. 

3. Crossroad Generation—A nonpartisan partisan ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GI4lkOaRs

This is an interesting ad.  It only calls for the younger generation to join the discussion, but the problems it lays out aren’t good for Obama and the Democrats. 

4. Compromising with Liberals

I forced myself to watch Bill Maher this Friday as I was trying to chart out this column. Thankfully I hadn’t just eaten. 

It was sickening to listen as cerebral dwarves Maher and some not-so-bright jackass from the fascist rag The Nation talked about how Republicans and the Tea Party are evil and the cause of all our economic problems while Rhodes Scholar and former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J. sat there smirking like a broken Muppet. The world in which progressives live makes the world J.K. Rowling created for Harry Potter seem normal. 

And it wasn’t just the economy conservatives had wrecked. This august panel also blamed conservatives and the Tea Party for what they determined was the rebirth of racism in this country. More than that, they believe racism is worse now that at any time in recent history. The evidence of this, as is often the case with progressives, is their say-so. There’s nothing like being lectured by three wealthy white progressives about the plight of minorities in the world….

…. Progressives’ goal is to raise taxes, spend more, grow government and make an ever-growing number of people dependent on government services, so those people will vote continually to keep them in power. Conservatives, though not necessarily Republicans, seek to bind the government to the Constitution, that pesky document that progressives all too often treat as a small speed bump on their way to their tyrannical Utopia.

Conservatives want less government involvement in people’s lives, smaller, constitutionally limited government and lower taxes for everyone. When two sides are pitted against one another, one side wanting higher taxes and more spending while the other wants lower taxes, or at least no increase, and less spending (or even just a decrease in the rate of increase) how do they compromise? Where is the middle ground? 

It’s always the side that wants a bigger, more intrusive, ever-expanding government who wins in that compromise, no matter how much “compromise” there is, because they get more. And the goal is always “more.”….

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/05/20/negotiating_with_sterrorists_junkiess_progressives/page/full/

It’s no wonder the left see the right as unwilling to compromise.  It doesn’t register to them that compromise could actually involve moving toward the Conservatives position.  If the democrats want to increase spending by $500 billion and the Republicans want  decrease it by $500 billion to the Democrats increasing spending by $100 billion is a huge move on their part even though it requires Republicans to move by $600 billion and violate their principles.  

5.  Social Studies Teacher jumps all over students not buying her anti-Romney line

 …The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s  “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:

“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”

The teacher started to get angry and said:

“Not to my knowledge.”

A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.

“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.”

Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:

“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.

“I’ll say what I want.”

The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

“Not about him, you won’t!”

The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

To which the teacher responded:

“Because he was sh-tty.”

The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.

Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush….

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/n-c-teacher-tells-student-he-could-be-arrested-for-talking-badly-about-obama/

They got all of this on tape and the students sounds a lot more mature than the teacher.  I recommend you listen to it.  Technology today is bilging a lot of people in positions of authority. 

Change? Obama is still blaming Bush

What’s New Today

Story #1 tells of a leftist’s view of why Obama will lose in the fall.  #2 looks at the continual screed by the left on everything being Bush’s fault.  #3 is a new Republican ad about Obama and how he grades himself as a president (hint, I think he’s grading on the curve).  #4 compares the press to the fawning people in the fable of the emperor’s new clothes.  #5 looks at the Democrats and the Wisconsin recall.  Finally #6 is a call to drop the murder charges against George Zimmerman.

Today’s Thoughts

How many jobs did Obama promise he would bring to America?  Give up?  Seven and he did that on seven different occasions.  

It appears Obama’s press agent declared BHO was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  Where would a press agent get these ideas?  It appears Obama was a birther before anyone else was.  

Hope and Change?  The number of people under the age of 25 without a job now has more college attendees than high school only job seekers.  I don’t think that is the change college kids were counting on in 2008.

1. Why I Think Obama Is Losing

As always Bill Galston and John Cassidy are well worth reading. In interesting new commentaries on the election, both think Obama has the edge, while emphasizing that it might be a close thing and warning Democrats against complacency. I hesitate to put my instincts up against their careful analyses, but if the election were tomorrow and I was forced to put money on one of the candidates, I'd say Romney. I also feel that unless something new and dramatic happens--as it usually does, admittedly--Romney's advantage is more likely to grow than diminish.

Why do I say this?

It's not because the country is sick of Obama. He's still pretty well-liked personally (more so than his policies). Among those who aren't committed to support or oppose him regardless, my feeling is, the country still wants him to succeed. If voters do reject him in November, for many people it will be with regret. It's striking to me that while Obama has approval ratings in the upper 40s, not bad under the circumstances, Congress is viewed by the electorate with naked contempt….

…So what's the answer? Obama's big problem, I think, is that he is no longer the president he said he would be. Above all, he's stopped trying to be that president.

The astonishing enthusiasm for Obama in 2008 rested heavily on his promise to change Washington and unify the country. You can argue about whose fault it is that Washington is even more paralyzed by tribal fighting than before--in my view, it's mostly (though not entirely) the GOP's fault. For whatever reason, Obama failed to bring the change he promised. That would be forgivable, so long as he was determined to keep trying. But he isn't determined to keep trying. His campaign message so far boils down to this: You just can't work with these people. I tried, they're not interested, so it's war. If they want bitter partisan politics, they can have it. 

My instinct tells me this is a losing strategy….

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/why-i-think-obama-is-losing/257285/#comment-531623412

I don’t agree with everything he says, but I do believe Obama will lose some votes for this reason.  But overall his loss will come from the economy and the deficit and his absolute failure to every address these issues. 

2. Who’s to blame for the economy?

In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.

But how much time? Certainly a year was reasonable. And so, as Obama's one-year mark approached in 2010, many political analysts assumed he would stop blaming Bush for the nation's woes. The conversation would change from the problems Obama inherited to the effectiveness of his efforts to fix them.

But a year passed, and Obama and his supporters continued to point the finger at Bush. At that point, nearly everyone assumed that when Obama's two-year mark came, he would certainly have to stop blaming his predecessor.

But no -- Obama kept at it, all the way through the three-year mark. And now, in the president's fourth year in office, with his-re-election campaign under way, some of the president's defenders have come up with something new entirely. They're not only still blaming Bush for the problems of the Obama administration -- they're blaming Bush for anticipated problems in Obama's second term, should he win one.

Specifically, a number of commentators on the Left have come up with a scenario in which they blame Bush for nearly all future federal budget deficits until at least 2019…

…"The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years," writes the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in a report released last week. The major drivers of deficits through 2019, the Center says, are "not of President Obama's making."…

Is that really the case? Is the war in Iraq, which ran from 2003 to 2011, really going to drive the deficit in 2019? And what about Afghanistan, with American forces on schedule to leave? "It's ludicrous," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "We are out of Iraq and nearly out of Afghanistan. And under current law we are scheduled to take another $500 billion out of defense."

Holtz-Eakin also notes that the Center blames the 2009 deficit on Bush even though that year includes the $821 billion stimulus bill. "There was a LOT of activity in the final nine months [of fiscal 2009] that had nothing to do with Bush," he says. In addition, the 2009 deficit included two massive one-time-only expenditures: the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But spending did not plunge after that. "The fact that spending remains as high as [2009's] means that Obama has replaced temporary spending with persistent spending," says Holtz-Eakin….

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/dems-bush-blame-forever-and-ever/550196

The last paragraph certainly is something I find compelling.  There were a lot of onetime expenses, yet the spending didn’t come down after those expenses.  Obama goosed up social spending and now when we talk about cuttings to that spending the Democrats cry Republicans are trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.  What if we go back to 2007 spending rates and then increase those rates for inflation?  That would take cut spending by $506 billion and reduce the deficit to $395 billion

3. New Ad:  Obama grading himself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vDYkE3eD4M&feature=player_embedded

A fun look at the ONE and the delusional world he lives in.  Do you remember where he graded himself compared to the other presidents?  Watch and remember. 

4. Obama’s New Clothes

Each week, the Obama administration (which has become indistinguishable from the Obama campaign) becomes more reminiscent of the old children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes," with the national media elites playing the members of the king's fawning court, pretending that the president is not naked, that he is, in fact, resplendent in the best finery, and that his ever more absurd pronouncements are somehow credible. The latest issue is same-sex marriage…

…As a committed leftist, Barack Obama should be proud of his record. He has done some very profound things in his three-and-a-half years as president. He should be proud of his multi-billion dollar government bailout of the United Auto Workers, his trillion dollar "stimulus package" (which seems to have stimulated nothing other than his friends and campaign bundlers in the nation's public sector unions and the industry known laughingly as "solar energy"), and, of course, his crowning achievement, Obamacare.  But after all this radical tinkering, Obama cannot and will not run on his record. His promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," which caused mindless, starry-eyed crowds to cheer him on five days before the 2008 election, has now become a haunting threat to the freedoms of many voters who will not be fooled in 2012. 

So let's not kid ourselves, as so many of the nation's media elites have been doing, that Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage for any reasons other than political ones. There are two reasons he made this calculated decision now (and neither of them have to do with Joe Biden, whom I believe was sent out to do exactly what he did on Meet the Press). First, despite his incessant fundraising, he is insatiably desperate for more campaign money. When a president has no discernible governing leadership skills, and nothing to which he can point as an example of the positive things he has done for his nation's economy, he must spend all his time campaigning and fundraising. He needs lots of cash with which smear his opponents, and boatloads of it are now sailing into Port Obama from wealthy leftwing Hollywood loons and other radical advocates of homosexual marriage….

http://www2.hernandotoday.com/news/hernando-news/2012/may/17/weapons-of-mass-distraction-barack-obama-has-no-cl-ar-404729/ 

Desperate is a word you are going to hear in this election cycle when talking about the Democrats. 

5. Wisconsin Update

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is investing in Wisconsin’s June 5 gubernatorial recall election. The DCCC confirmed to Roll Call today that the committee has shifted its Badger State operation, in place to aid Democratic Congressional candidates in the fall elections, to boost the party’s effort to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R) and replace him with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Today, the DCCC today sent an email fundraising appeal asking its supporters to help underwrite its participation in the recall campaign.”

http://atr.rollcall.com/wisconsin-dccc-involved-in-gubernatorial-recall/

This is the equivalent of taking money out of the kid’s college fund to try your luck at the track.  If you are a Democrat congressional candidate, you probably should be upset.

6. Drop the murder charge on George Zimmerman

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey , will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin….

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161#ixzz1vEKbh1yq

I believe you have the equivalent of a legal lynching going on by this special prosecutor.  What was it that George Roy Bean used to say?  First we give him a fair trial and then we hang him. 

A good week for the Republicans

What’s new Today 

Story #1 relates how weak the arrest warrant for Geo. Zimmerman is.  #2 is a prediction that Romney will win in November.  #3 is all about Ann Romney and why the left fears her.  #4 is a vindication of fracking. 

Today’s thoughts

Obama wants a Buffet Rule for taxes.  How about an Obama Rule for taxes?  Every member of the Congress and the top members of the President’s cabinet including the President and Vice President will pay a minimum of 30% of their income in income taxes.

We now have two recent polls where Obama is stuck at 44% and trailing Mitt Romney. 

There’s an 1800 word article on John Edward’s trial that fails to mention he is a democrat, but mentions the word Republicans five times.  That America is what you call an unbiased MSM.

1.   Zimmerman arrest document lacking

I spent twenty years working Colorado law enforcement, followed by nearly two years as an investigator for the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. Ten of my twenty-two years in the criminal justice arena were in the area of criminal investigations, complex and simple.

I just read the arrest affidavit in the Florida v. George Zimmerman case. I'm pretty certain that I would have been laughed out of any judge's chambers in Colorado had I brought in a piece of evidentiary matter so poorly written. The Zimmerman affidavit is so deficient in properly sourced factual information and full of unsubstantiated, unsourced conclusions that I am appalled that a state's attorney would even give it a second look. I don't know what's going on in the Florida Courts. But where I worked as a cop, all summaries of statements from eye- and earwitnesses, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, had to be both sourced and included in a properly assembled arrest affidavit.

Every piece of information in the affidavit must be provable to a jury. This case is terribly lacking, both in supporting evidence and in veracity. To wit, from the document (with pertinent material emphasis highlighted by me):…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html#ixzz1s10lPBe9

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the reaction that the special prosecutor was looking for. 

2.  Its Romney’s to Lose

Call me crazy, but I think Mitt Romney has more than an even chance of winning this election against Barack Obama. If he plays things right -- and I'm pretty sure he will -- I think there's a very good possibility a surge of voter sentiment will put him into office.

Start with an analogy. In 1989, New York voters elected Manhattan Borough President David Dinkins as the city's first African-American mayor. Church bells rang, the newspapers sang hosannas, and everyone congratulated themselves on the wonderful act of tolerance that had put the journeyman Democratic politician into office.

Once things settled down, however, Dinkins’ administration proved to be less than inspirational. Like all Democrats everywhere, he had no sense of the value of money. He went on spending as if there were no tomorrow. As it happened, the country was falling into a recession and revenue was drying up. So he and Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo both responded by raisingtaxes, with the result that one of five jobs lost in the country were in the Empire State. By the end of his term, Dinkins was starting to tinker with one of New York's most sacred covenants --the informal agreement that keeps property taxes very low for homeowners. With the city overwhelmed with crime, even successful middle class people were headed for the exits….

….In short, after four years New Yorkers were wondering if electing Dinkins had been such a great idea. And so in a city where only 10 percent of the electorate is registered Republican, the people of New York closed their eyes and pulled the lever for a former Republican prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani as mayor. The rest is history. To this day there are die-hard liberals in New York who are reluctant to admit they voted for Giuliani in 1993, but that's why we have a secret ballot. Right up until the election Giuliani trailed in the polls and there was never any broad expectation that he might win. But he did.

And that, I suspect, it pretty much the way things could happen in this election. I wouldn't expect to see Romney piling up any lead in the polls. It's almost better that way. If people start expecting Romney to win they may have second thoughts or start feeling guilty about abandoning Obama…

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/13/its-romneys-to-lose

I think it will be a replay of 1980.  Reagan and Carter were close all the way til the weekend before the election when Reagan started to surge as the undecided voters stopped pretending they might vote for Carter.  Expect the same in this election. 

3.  Why the Left Fears Ann Romney

While Rosen made a “fulsome” (i.e., offensive, disgusting, and insincere) apology, others doubled down on her behalf. NOW President Terry O’Neill carefully explained that, if you don’t get paid for your work, it doesn’t count — which is precisely what my liberal Facebook friends have been saying, in an eerie echo of 1960s’ male chauvinist pigs.

The doubling down continued when Judith Warner, who writes for TIME Magazine, agrees that Ann Romney is “out of touch” with most women. You see, Ann Romney comes from an intact family where the man is the primary breadwinner. What could be more appallingly regressive than that...

… I am the counterweight to the state. Therefore, I am dangerous. I am subversive simply by existing. My love for my children is a dominant force that works its way into their psyches and that trumps the state-run schools and the state complicit media world. Some mothers, of course, are entirely in sync with schools and media. They happily reinforce the statist message. But those of us who don’t are a powerful anti-statist force and we must be challenged.

The Left’s problem with Ann Romney transcends her husband’s wealth, her (and his) Republican identification, and her decision to work for her children, rather than for a paying employer. The Left’s problem with Ann Romney is that she represents the triumph of the individual. No wonder they hate her so much.

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/04/13/the-real-threat-that-the-ann-romneys-of-the-world-represent/

An excellent description of the bankruptcy that the left is trying to sell to the the rest of us.  Rather than being open minded and accepting, the left’s version of all of the above socially is like Obama’s regarding energy or the slogan in the book Animal House.  “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.” 

4.  The Vindication of Fracking

The environmental left views the incredible rebirth of the American fossil fuel industry, wrought by unconventional methods (fracking and horizontal drilling), with alarm and disgust. The idea that the United States could easily fulfill all of its energy needs by utilizing its great domestic reserves of fossil fuels arouses their collective anger, and they have been battling this technology via every means at their disposal…

…But the forces of Enlightenment are fighting back against the environmentalist nature-worshipers, and the former are beginning to win some major victories.

Start with the happy news that the EPA has been forced to back off on its aggressive war on fracking. It has withdrawn its lawsuit against Range Resources Corporation wherein, it had alleged that the company was polluting water wells near Fort Worth, Texas.

Moreover, the EPA will now retest water in Wyoming about which it had earlier raised questions.

Add to this the fact that the Agency has tested well water in Pennsylvania, once found to be polluted, and now (like the state's own similar agency) declares the water to be safe, and you begin to sense that the EPA is being forced to retreat from its reflexive hysterical opposition to the new technology.

It will be interesting to see if the EPA's overall report on the safety of fracking, due out later this year, will reflect this new-found moderation.

One good sign is that the extremist environmentalist groups are beginning to come down hard on the EPA, long considered an agency the belonged to them….

…Two recent reports confirm the efficacy and safety of fracking. The first is a report in ScienceNOW that a team of 16 scientists at the University of Texas, headed by Charles Groat, conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific and regulatory in Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The researchers -- not funded by any energy company, by the way -- concluded that there is no evidence that fracking chemicals are contaminating water supplies or anything else, nor did they see any need for additional regulations. They called instead for tighter monitoring of existing regulations -- including strengthening well casing and putting concrete around it, to make sure gas doesn't escape.

Then there is the recent study in Environmental Science and Technology Journal. The report shows that fracking has had a dramatic impact on the level of atmospheric CO₂ (a "greenhouse gas" often tied to global warming) production: it turns out to lower it!

Why? Well, fracking (and horizontal drilling) have led to a massive increase in the production of domestic natural gas, driving the prices  dramatically down.  In fact, from 2008 to the present, the price of natural gas has plummeted over 80% from $12 to $2.30 per million Btus (MMBtu). This has led to natural gas being used to generate power formerly generated by coal fired plants. And burning natural gas emits less CO₂ than does burning coal.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/fracking_vindicated.html#ixzz1s0yDH84x

Fracking is safe, productive and will help renew the country.

A terrible week for Obama

What’s new Today 

Story #1 relates another bad week for Obama and the Democrats.  #2 tells of the enormous misstep by the Democrats attacking Ann Romney.  What they failed to remember is she’s a women and there are a lot of women who stay at home.  #3 looks at the youth vote and how important it is to Obama.  #4 Jack Welch doesn’t have much good to say about POTUS.  In #5 Alan Dershowitz looks at the Zimmerman case and sees a lot of holes in the prosecutors charges.  #6 asks where our cheap oil has gone.  #7 looks at what the Democrats call a moderate at least in Maine.  #8 shows the stupidity of the environment movement. 

Today’s thoughts

The Hilary Rosen/Ann Romney kerfuffle appears to have been bad for the Democrats.  After making inroads claiming the Republicans were anti-woman, they stuck their foot in their mouths attacking stay at home moms.

Being the Press Secretary has got to be one of the most difficult jobs in the world.  You have to pretend to be a knowledgeable idiot. 

Obama’s campaign to have any chance at all must be perfect and not make any missteps.  It’s not off to a very good start.

 

Liberalism having captured the press seems to have lost its edge.  Liberalism seems to be trapped with the positions and arguments from the 1960s. 

1.   Obama has another bad week

I was not surprised that left-leaning pundits, who gleefully tried to tar Mitt Romney with Rush Limbaugh’s comments, would be scornful of the notion that President Obama should be responsible for the remarks of Hilary Rosen, a former strategist and frequent White House visitor. (Limbaugh doesn’t even like Romney all that much.) Certainly, Michelle Obama, David Axelrod and Jim Messina — who weighed in to defend Ann Romney — all were concerned that the public wouldn’t buy such a transparent double standard. Even the President got into the act.

Aside from the rank hypocrisy by liberal spinners, the issue is not whether Hilary Rosen is a campaign operative (she isn’t). It is whether the comments touched a nerve with stay-at-home mothers, including conservative women and social conservatives, who had been lukewarm to Romney heretofore. From the immediate reaction yesterday it seems to have done that.

Liberals might not fully “get” it, but social conservatives and stay-at-home mothers (think of Sarah Palin’s core fan base) feel elites denigrate and even mock them. They resent a feminist being defined as “a pro-choice career woman.” This is a sore point with these voters. Give Axelrod and company their due: They understand this phenomenon.

But the damage may go beyond that. This was a week in which the once pliable national media pretty much called out a key campaign plank — the Buffett rule — as nothing more than a gimmick. So two gimmicks — soak the rich and paint Romney as anti-women — blew up in the White House’s face. And then my colleague Glenn Kessler pretty much shredded Obama’s invocation of Ronald Reagan to push his tax scheme. Kessler wrote: …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-this-week-was-ominous-for-obama/2012/04/12/gIQAkZapDT_blog.html

As I mentioned in the thoughts for today, Obama has to run a perfect campaign.  He isn’t. 

  2.   Obama and Women

Until Thursday, it had been a pretty good week for the Obama campaign.

In the newly-declared battle to frame the general election, the president seemed to be winning. His "Buffett Rule" proposal - designed in part to define presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney as seeking to protect low tax rates for the one percent - was dominating the political news cycle. Meanwhile, the Romney camp was scrambling to find some way to win over women amid polls that showed Romney trailing the president by double-digits among female voters.

Then, on Wednesday, a gift from Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen: A criticism of Anny Romney, a stay-at-home mom, as someone who "has actually never worked a day in her life" and thus isn't qualified to advise her husband on women's issues.

It was the perfect opening for the Romney campaign - a chance not only to appeal to women but to shift the focus from the Buffett Rule. And the campaign pounced. Ann Romney joined Twitter to state that raising five sons was "hard work." Romney senior adviser quickly Eric Fehrnstrom pushed the issue on his Twitter account.

The Obama campaign tried to contain the damage, with Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod deeming Rosen's comments "inappropriate and offensive" and campaign manager Jim Messina calling them "wrong." By the following day, the president and first lady, along with the vice president, were all criticizing the comments. But it was too late: The story was dominating the headlines by Thursday -- helped by the Romney campaign, which sought to tie Rosen's comments to "Obama's Women Problem" -- and prompting an embattled Rosen to apologize in order to try to keep the controversy from dominating another 24-hour news cycle.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57413355-503544/hilary-rosen-flap-a-win-in-every-regard-for-gop-says-nicolle-wallace/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57412674-503544/romney-camp-focuses-on-winning-over-women/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Here’s the dirty little secret the MSM doesn’t want to tell you.   Obama is doing everything he can to create issues aside from his record.  But he is so weak that he must do it perfectly, or it falls apart.  This was a good example.  When everyone was talking about contraception (a nonissue), Obama was getting support from women.  This destroyed everything he gained with the previous political trick.

3.  Obama and the Youth Vote

…Four years later, Obama's in trouble, which is why he's visiting college campuses more often than a Red Bull delivery truck. He's talking louder and getting more shrill, because his campaign knows how desperately it needs to replicate -- or even come close to replicating -- his success with the youth vote in 2008. Polls and countless news stories indicate that young voters are either bored, unimpressed or disappointed with Obama, and with the state of the country.

All of the exciting reasons to vote for Obama are gone. Even his accomplishments don't excite people, never mind his failures. His "Yes, we can" rhetoric is gone because it sounds stupid after four years of "No, we didn't." Now we get cynicism and fear-mongering. His attacks on the Republicans are tawdry and desperate. He even admits the "Buffett Rule" is a gimmick. Other issues like green energy are passé now, even though gas prices continue to soar. (A troubling sign for Obama: Only a third of hybrid car owners are interested in ever getting another after they get rid of the one they have.)…

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2012/04/13/in_battle_for_young_voters_romney_should_play_it_uncool

Obama’s problem is “fool me once, shame on me.  Fool me twice, shame on you.”  I predict a good dose of apathy for the under 30 vote.

4.  Jack Welch on Obama

President Obama’s “divide-and-conquer” approach isn’t what great leaders do, Jack Welch said Thursday. . . .

“It was the insurance executives in health care. It was the bankers in the collapse. It was the oil companies as oil prices go up. It was Congress if things didn’t go the way he wanted. And recently it’s been the Supreme Court,” he said.

“He’s got an enemies list that would make Richard Nixon proud.”

Welch, who helmed GE for 21 years and founded the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University, penned an op-ed article for Reuters with wife Suzy Welch this week in which he tackled the idea of Obama’s enemies list.

“Surely his supporters must think this particular tactic is effective, but there can be no denying that the country is more polarized than when Obama took office,” Welch wrote.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47035575

Obama was supposed to bring us together.  It appears that’s another campaign promise he has done just the opposite of what he promised (like reducing the deficit, keeping unemployment under 8%, creating 5 million new green jobs, etc.). 

5.  Dershowitz finds the charges against Zimmerman should be thrown out

Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Corey as being politically motivated.(snip)“You’ve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it,” Smerconish asked. “It won’t suffice,” Dershowitz replied without hesitation….

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974

It appears more and more that the special prosecutor is playing to the mob.  Dershowitz has special praise for the parents of Treyvon Martin. 

6.  What happened to Our Cheap Oil?

When I was in high school I learned that the price of oil in England was as high as $5.00 a gallon. That meant nothing to me because I lived in Manhattan and cars were totally unnecessary because of our superb public transportation system. Years later, living in Florida in 1972 gasoline was about $.24 a gallon. Today US gas prices are close to what European prices were decades ago and the question arises-What happened to our cheap oil? It didn't disappear. It's still here. We just can't get to it so why are we being held hostage to the whims of oil rich hostile nations? I'm no expert but the villains in this situation are the "Greenies" and our own stupidity for falling for their claptrap.

There hasn't been an oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, ironically the same year that Jimmy Carter was elected. He was responsible for the creation of the Department of Energy and the enabling legislation was passed and signed into law on August 4, 1977. Hundreds of billion dollars later with a budget of $24.2 billion a year, 16,000 federal employees and approximately 10,000 contract employees, we are no closer to being independent of foreign oil. That's how a bureaucracy operates - it produces nothing except a mechanism to drain money from taxpayers. Rick Perry was right; this is one of the agencies that should be scrapped.

http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2012/04/10/what_happened_to_our_cheap_oil.html

As John Stossel says in his new book, “No the Government can’t,” but free people can. 

7.  Is this what moderate means in Maine?

Rep. Chuck Kruger (D-Thomaston), the Democrat chair of the Maine legislature’s Moderate Caucus, used his Twitter account to express his view that former Vice President Dick Cheney should be executed. This comment has led some to question the validity of Kruger’s moderate credentials.

Kruger made the statement through his Twitter account this past summer, saying, “Cheney deserves same final end he gave Saddam. Hope there are cell cams,” a reference to technology that would allow Kruger to watch the proposed execution of the former Vice President of the United States….

http://www.themainewire.com/2012/04/%E2%80%9Cmoderate-caucus%E2%80%9D-chair-urges-cheney%E2%80%99s-execution/

I’m not sure what language would allow you to call for another person’s death and call yourself a moderate.

8.  Wonder why liberals can’t control spending?

The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to “translocate” a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045 billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.

“In October 2009, an ecologist identified a plant growing in a concrete-bound median strip along Doyle Drive in the Presidio as Arctostaphylos franciscana,” the U.S. Department of Interior reported in the Aug. 10, 2010 edition of the Federal Register. “The plant’s location was directly in the footprint of a roadway improvement project designed to upgrade the seismic and structural integrity of the south access to the Golden Gate Bridge.

“The translocation of the Arctostaphylos franciscana plant to an active native plant management area of the Presidio was accomplished, apparently successfully and according to plan, on January 23, 2010,” the Interior Department reported.

The bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the “wild.”

Prior to the discovery of this “wild” Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years--extinct, that is, outside of people’s yards and botanical gardens…

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/shovel-ready-san-fran-205075-translocate-one-shrub-path-stimulus-project

These people really should be put into homes where they can be protected from hurting themselves or America.  What utter stupidity.