Showing posts with label Obama's likeability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama's likeability. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Obama off to a bad start

What’s new Today 

Story #1 looks at the latest Rasmussen generic Republican vs Democrat and finds the difference +10% for the Republicans.  #2 is a demonstration of the desperation in the Obama camp.  #3 has the third straight poll that has Romney ahead of Obama.  #4 is a reminder of how many things have gone wrong for the president.  It seems the hope and change of 2008 looks like a farce from the view of 2012.  #5 talks about Obama’s likeability.  The question is whether it will hold up after a few months of negative campaigning.  I don’t think it will.  #6 is a list of the green job promise that Obama has failed to deliver on. 



Today’s thoughts

Why has Harry Reid not been able to bring a budget to the floor of the Senate for over 1000 days yet he can find time to bring the Buffet Rule to a vote even though no one expects it to pass? 

Dick Cheney hasn’t had a change of heart regarding Barack Obama.  He sees a second term for Obama as a disaster for the United States. 

How has been a greater embarrassment to the United States?  James Hansen acting like a hooker for climate change or the Secret Service Officers who hired the hookers in Colombia?

Geithner’s comments that Obama’s economic policies have been “remarkably successful” reminds me of the old joke, “Other than that, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?”







1.  Generic Congressional Poll

Republicans, as they have for nearly three years now, continue to lead Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot, this time for the week ending Sunday, April 15.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 36% would choose the Democrat instead. This is the largest gap between the two parties since the beginning of 2011. It also doubles the gap found a week ago when the Republican led by five points, 45% to 40%...




This is probably an outlier, but it certainly reinforces the 5-6 percentage point lead by the Republicans as being accurate.  This is not good news for the Democrats.



2.   Lefties try to crash Romney event

Progressive activists stormed the Franklin Institute this evening. They clashed with tea-party organizer Don Adams, who blocked them from entering. It was a wild, tense scene, just minutes before Mitt Romney appeared here. Adams, who is the man at the door in this video of the incident, tells NRO that the “nasty” exchange is an example of what Romney will face this fall.


Lefties always seem extreme, but this seems to indicate a sense desperation. 





3.  And perhaps this is the reason for Desperation

The first Gallup tracking poll shows that Mitt Romney, after having emerged from an at-times brutal primary process, holds a slight lead over President Obama, 47 percent v. 45 percent. That must be disconcerting to those on the left, who believe that Obama is nearly a lock for re-election.

He’s clearly not.

To make matters worse for the president, 2012 will — in the words of former Clinton aide William Galston – be a “referendum, not a choice.” But most ominously for Obama is this paragraph:

Obama is no longer the master of his fate. During the 2008 campaign, Obama could and did seize the initiative in the face of unexpected events. His agile response to the mid-September financial meltdown propelled him into a lead that he never surrendered. In 2012, by contrast, he will be at the mercy of events that he cannot control. The Supreme Court will decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act. A military confrontation between Israel and Iran would put the administration in the no-win situation it has struggled to avoid, with incalculable consequences for our national security as well as our politics. If job creation returns to the strong pace of the late winter and remains there through the fall, he will be reelected with room to spare. But if the middling March employment report is a harbinger of things to come, the electorate’s evaluation of his performance will be harsh, and the road to reelection very steep indeed.




The problem with this statement is that the “strong pace” it refers to isn’t really a strong pace.  People react to the numbers, but the unemployment numbers buoyed up by people leaving the workforce will be dragged down if hiring picks up and people come back into the workforce.  In other words, more jobs could equal more unemployment. 



4.  What’s going wrong for President Obama?  All of the Above

… The Obama campaign problems go beyond the tone-deaf community-organizer politics on the stupid Buffett Rule, the Rosen flap, and the naughty boys at the Secret Service. It's all of the above -- and then some. It's the stupid stimulus, which is turning into a real bust now that all those female schoolteachers are losing their jobs. It's the corrupt green energy swamp, where the latest scandal has green corporate officers loaning themselves the company green. It's the war on Big Oil, just as we are entering a new era of fossil-fuel exploration. It's the death sentence on Big Coal just as coal is getting priced out of the market by fracking natural gas. It's the utter stupidity of ObamaCare when everyone knows it's going to raise health care costs.

How many issues can you get wrong in four years, Mr. President? Are you going for the Guinness Book of Records?

Chuck Todd didn't mention the Trayvon Martin case and the unjust overcharging of accused murderer George Zimmerman. I don't know whose brilliant idea this was, whether the Justice Brothers' or the Obama campaign's, but it contains nothing but land mines for the president. What does it say to the white working class if they can't defend their neighborhoods against teenage hoodies without permission from Reverend Al Sharpton? What does it say to Latinos when it seems that the Democrats will always side with blacks against "white Hispanics"? The president and his people are sending a message to independent voters that they'd better not put a foot wrong on race, or their lives will be ruined like George Zimmerman's….


For six months Romney was getting hammered by his rivals for the Republican nomination.  The fact that Obama has dropped so quickly against Romney once Santorum dropped out of the race is the bottom line here.  Obama has so many problems that the chance for him to be reelected is almost zero. 





5.   How likable is Barack Obama?

Very likable, it seems, at least in contrast to his GOP rival. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released a few days ago, Americans by a more than 2-to-1 ratio say the president is more "friendly and likable" than Mitt Romney.

Many Republicans, and especially conservatives, can find these numbers hard to credit. Some note that the poll sampling favors Democrats and thus artificially inflates the president's numbers. Still others have come to dislike President Obama so much that it makes them suspicious when they read numbers indicating they are in the minority.

The focus on likability is a mistake. It's a mistake, first, for Democrats if they believe likability will be enough for Mr. Obama to win re-election come November. It's even more of a mistake for those Republicans who believe that the only way to defeat the president is to get fellow Americans to dislike him as much as they do.

At its core, the confusion over likability has to do with an inability to see the world as the other side sees it. Hilary Rosen gave us a perfect example of this phenomenon recently when she suggested that Ann Romney "never worked a day in her life." The folks at the White House immediately threw Ms. Rosen under the bus: They feared the administration would be tarred with the same unwitting arrogance Ms. Rosen exhibited when she failed to see how her remarks might be viewed by millions of American women who have made the same choice as Mrs. Romney.

Republicans ought not make this mistake with Mr. Obama…

…Now, the president's likability doesn't mean Mr. Romney shouldn't go on the offensive. It does mean he ought to attack hardest where Mr. Obama is at his weakest: his failed policies. For all the carping about Mr. Romney, this part he gets. We can see it reflected in both his embrace of the opportunity-oriented Republicanism of Wisconsin's Paul Ryan—and his repeated refrain that Mr. Obama is simply "in over his head."…


The Republicans need to attack the President with his own words (something they appear to be doing very well so far).  A video of a promise or a stance he took in 2008 and then talking about his current position.  Obama cannot win voters if he has to keep explaining why it could be worse or why after almost four years he hasn’t solved the problem.  It’s a losing position for even a likeable guy.  



 


6.   Green Jobs: More broken promises


A recent lengthy report by Reuters confirms what many conservatives have long known: President Obama's promise to create millions of so-called "green jobs" has been a colossal and expensive failure.


A few highlights from the report:



·         Since 2009, the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs, even as the energy capacity of wind farms has almost doubled. By contrast, the oil and gas industry have created 75,000 jobs since Mr. Obama took office.

·         "A $500 million job-training program has so far helped fewer than 20,000 people find work, far short of its goal." The program was so bad that "the Labor Department's inspector general recommended last fall that the agency should return the $327 million that remained unspent." They didn't. And now, the department "remains far short of its goal of placing 80,000 workers into green jobs by 2013."

·         According to the Labor Department's own figures, the push for so-called "green jobs" has been an abysmal failure. "By the end of 2011, some 16,092 participants had found new work in a "green" field, according to the Labor Department - roughly one-fifth of its target."

The article also highlights the degree to which Obama's big jobs promises have fallen flat. For example, in 2008, Obama promised that "investing" $150 billion taxpayer dollars would create 5 million jobs over 10 years….


This is the reason Obama doesn’t want to talk about his record or his promises from 2008.  And it is the reason Romney doesn’t need to go negative, he only has to go truthful.




Friday, April 22, 2011

What's your fair share?

What is your fair share?

As you can see, the top 1 percent of earners shoulder 38 percent of the personal federal income taxes and make only 20 percent of income. The top 5 percent of income earners pay almost 60 percent of income taxes and make almost 35 percent of all personal income.

Here are some other data points that I find interesting:

Of the top 1 percent of income earners, only 23 percent are millionaires.

A household income above $380,000 puts you in the top 1 percent of income earners.

Of the top 10 percent of income earners, only 2 percent are millionaires.

A household income above $114,000 puts you in the top 10 percent of income earners. That means that a cop making $60K married to a teacher making $60K make it into the top 10 percent.

Please send other suggestions for charts and data. I appreciate your input....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265367/more-tax-redistribution-veronique-de-rugy

Obama and the Democrats keep talking about paying your fair share. Now I don’t know anyone who would say if you earn a bigger percent of the income than the percentage of taxes you pay that you are paying your fair share. But the rich (top 1%) earn 20 percent of income and pay 38% of the income taxes. What sounds fair to you?



Obama's Likability Gap

If it is true, as Michelle Obama said in February, that her husband isn't smoking anymore, maybe HE'D BETTER START MELLOWING OUT WITH THE CIGS AGAIN BEFORE IT COSTS HIM THE PRESIDENCY.

The Barack Obama we've been seeing lately is a different personality than the one that made a miracle run to the White House in 2008.

Obama.2008 was engaging, patient, open, optimistic and a self-identified conciliator.

OBAMA.2011 HAS BEEN SOMETHING ELSE—TESTY, PETULANT, IMPATIENT, ARROGANT AND INCREASINGLY A DIVIDER.

Never forget: That historic 2008 victory came with 52.9% of the total vote and 52% of independent voters. David Axelrod recently noted "how small the margin for error is."

Presidential personality is well inside the margin of error for 2012, but THE ONE ON DISPLAY RECENTLY HAS NOT BEEN ATTRACTIVE. AND IT'S HAPPENING A LOT….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658704576275061542909404.html

I saw him on the news being sincere and talking with potential supporters. He sounded almost churlish as he seemed to be saying “woe is me.”



Democrats Join Threat to Hold Up Debt Ceiling Vote Without Spending Cuts

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS STARTING TO FEEL PRESSURE FROM HIS OWN PARTY TO TIE SPENDING CUTS TO A VOTE TO RAISE THE DEBT LIMIT, even as the administration expresses confidence that Congress will ultimately raise the cap.

The latest moderate Democrat to draw a line in the sand is Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who told members of a local political group Wednesday THAT HE'LL NEED TO SEE A COMMITMENT TO CUT SPENDING AND OVERHAUL THE TAX CODE IN ORDER TO VOTE TO RAISE THE $14.3 TRILLION CAP. The government is expected to reach that ceiling by mid-May.

"What I've told anyone who will listen to me in Washington, including my leadership, is that I'm not going to vote for that unless there is a real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction," Pryor told the Political Animals Club at its monthly meeting at the governor's mansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/21/democratic-sen-pryor-debt-ceiling-hike-spending-tax-code-fixes/

It appears the much maligned TEA Party has not only changed the makeup of the Congress, but has realigned the discussion. Written off by the MSM and many political pundits as “astro-turf” and nuts, they are now calling the tune.



Blame Game

….Instead, the climate push was … a total flop. By late 2010, the main cap-and-trade bill had fizzled out in the Senate; not a single Republican would agree to vote for it. GREENS ENDED UP WINNING ZILCH FROM CONGRESS, NOT EVEN MINOR LEGISLATION TO BOOST RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. Worse, after the 2010 midterms, the House GOP became overrun with climate deniers, while voters turned apathetic about global warming. All those flashy eco-ads and all that tireless eco-lobbying only got us even further from solving climate change than we were in 2008.

So now greens are in the post-mortem stage, and, not shockingly, it’s a sensitive subject. On Tuesday, Matthew Nisbet, a communications professor at American University, released a hefty 84-page report trying to figure out why climate activism flopped so miserably in the past few years. Nisbet’s report is already causing controversy: Among other things, he argues that, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, GREENS WEREN’T BADLY OUTSPENT BY INDUSTRY GROUPS AND THAT MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE WASN’T REALLY A PROBLEM. And he raises questions about whether greens have been backing the wrong policy measures all along. Is he right? Have environmentalists been fundamentally misguided all this while? Or were they just unlucky?...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/87140/environmental-green-movement-al-gore-nesbit?page=0,1

This is an interesting article. It shows you the thinking of the green left. Looking over what went wrong, the one thing you don’t see is any question that they were correct in their basic assessment or that those who oppose them might just possibly be right. The AGW theory does have one actual hallmark, the hot spot. So far there is no sign of it, but that doesn’t seem to bother true believers.


Troubles to left and troubles to the right

At first glance, President Obama's partisan speech last week attacking GOP budget proposals WAS PRECISELY WHAT AN INCUMBENT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION SHOULDN'T DO. It was not a speech designed to appeal to independent voters, a group Mr. Obama has suffered serious erosion with.

But MR. OBAMA'S TONE MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN ONE REALIZES THAT HIS SINKING POLL NUMBERS ALSO INDICATE AN EROSION IN SUPPORT WITH HIS LIBERAL BASE. Only about three-quarters of self-identified liberals approve of his job performance, a number that has drifted downward since Mr. Obama compromised on tax cuts and decided to keep Guantanamo open. His latest budget deal with House Republicans only further confused his base. "I have been very disappointed in the administration to the point where I'M EMBARRASSED THAT I ENDORSED HIM," ONE SENIOR DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKER told the Daily Beast last week….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570704576275022988451268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

Obama is in a dilemma. The liberal base feels he hasn’t gone far enough and this is disappointment enough to hold down their numbers at the polls in 2012. In the meantime the rest of the country thinks he has gone much too far and isn’t focusing on what’s important. In fact, the main issue in the coming election will most likely be the deficit and this issue belongs to Obama and the Democrats (they can’t credibly blame Bush).



Obama’s mistakes: At least from his point of view

Seven years ago, in April 2004, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH HELD A FORMAL NEWS CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE WAS ASKED, "WHAT WOULD YOUR BIGGEST MISTAKE BE…and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush's hemming and hawing answer -- in several minutes of flailing about, HE NEVER MANAGED TO COME UP WITH A SINGLE MISTAKE TO CITE -- WAS WIDELY CRITICIZED IN THE DAYS THAT FOLLOWED.

On Wednesday, President Obama held a town hall at the headquarters of Facebook in Palo Alto, California, during which he was asked, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" OBAMA, IT TURNS OUT, IS NO BETTER AT ANALYZING HIS OWN MISSTEPS THAN BUSH.

The president began his response haltingly, pointing out that he has actually been in office just two and a half years, and "I'm sure I'll make more mistakes in the next year and a half." But what mistakes has he already made? "There are all sorts of day-to-day issues where I say to myself, oh, I didn't say that right, or I didn't explain this clearly enough," Obama said, "or maybe if I had sequenced this plan first as opposed to that one, maybe it would have gotten done quicker."

BUT THE PRESIDENT MENTIONED NO ACTUAL MISTAKES.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/obama-mistakes-cant-think-any#ixzz1KAt24epY

I actually have a bit of sympathy for Obama on this question. It’s one of those that you can’t win on. It’s like asking someone if they stopped beating their wife. It wasn’t fair to Bush and it isn’t fair to Obama. More revealing would be to ask what he’s most proud of and why.



Stripped of Dignity

A young computer programmer on his way to a pheasant-hunting trip last November offered a cri de coeur about government groping.

“IF YOU TOUCH MY JUNK,” HE TOLD THE T.S.A. AGENT AT THE SAN DIEGO AIRPORT JUST BEFORE HE ABANDONED HIS TRIP, “I’LL HAVE YOU ARRESTED…..”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20dowd.html?_r=1

The noise about this has died down since the Thanksgiving holidays, but the issue remains. How do we provide security and still conform to the Constitution. I believe we need to be profiling at the airports. Rather than look at everyone as if we are all potential terrorists, we should be profiling behavior as they do in Israel.


The tolerant left: an oxymoron?

One thing you have to say about the Left: THEY NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LET THE MASK OF HATRED SLIP. IT’S PRACTICALLY PAVLOVIAN; they are so invested in the myth of their own righteousness that their “tolerance” fetish goes right out the window whenever they suffer the slightest affront to their delusional notion of how the world works.

Truly, these folks have the self-esteem of an abused pit bull. From the Iowa Republican:

A University of Iowa professor felt the need to reply to a blast email by the College Republicans on Monday morning. ELLEN LEWIN, A PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND GENDER, WOMEN’S & SEXUALITY STUDIES in the Department of Gender, Women’s & Sexuality Studies, sent a vulgar response to a College Republican email about the group’s, “Conservative Coming Out Week.”

The College Republican email, which was sent to the entire University of Iowa Community, had been approved by a number of university officials before being sent out.

LEWIN RESPONDED TO EMAIL BY WRITING, “#*@% [F-WORD] YOU, REPUBLICANS” FROM HER OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY EMAIL ACCOUNT.

This is why pushing back against them is so important: Like President Obama, they’re not used to real opposition. THEY’RE UNUSED TO BEING QUESTIONED. THEY CONSIDER ANY CHALLENGE TO THEIR BOGUS “MORAL AUTHORITY” (BASED ON WHAT, ONE MIGHT ASK?) TO BE TANTAMOUNT TO TREASON….

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265303/tolerant-left-michael-walsh
Lefties don’t do well to opposition and seem to go crazy when they are caught in a lie. They are the epitome of bigots (the definition is “One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”) yet they love to use the word to describe conservatives.


Obama the Hun

Pres. Obama wanted a campaign finance bill that would take the teeth out of the Citizens United ruling before the 2010 election. Congressional Democrats wrote such a bill, and then watched it slip into a coma. But that wasn’t the end of it. According to a leaked White House memo, Obama plans to create new campaign finance rules via fiat by signing an executive order.

As the Washington Examiner reported yesterday, the EO “would require all companies that sign contracts with the federal government to report on the personal political activities of their officers and directors.”

And by “political activities,” Obama means: “all contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates within its control; and any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”

All of that information must be disclosed, according to the leaked executive order, so that the government can “ensure that its contracting decisions are merit-based in order to deliver the best value for the taxpayer.” While that may sound like the order is intended to expose sweetheart deals, it’ll also make it that much easier for federal agencies to deny contracts to firms that donated big bucks to Republican candidates.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/obama-crafts-an-executive-order-to-get-around-the-citizens-united-ruling/#ixzz1K9oJZH29


This is clearly unconstitutional. It is an unwarranted limitation of freedom of speech and even the Democrats should realize it. They don’t like Citizen United because it gave the power to contribute to corporations. But this order goes beyond corporate donations to directors or officers of a company. Bad move by Obama but nothing surprising.



Wisconsin: The Unions paid the Democrats to flee the state

The Indiana Democratic Party’s first quarter campaign finance report was filed last Friday and CONFIRMS WHAT EVERYONE ALREADY SUSPECTED BUT DEMOCRATS DENIED: THEIR “WE ARE INDIANA” WALKOUT WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR NATIONAL UNIONS. Read the report here:
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/32622
During the period of the walkout that began on February 22 and ended on March 28, DEMOCRAT-BACKED UNIONS CONTRIBUTED NEARLY $140,000 TO THE INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Their goal: stop the legislative session in its tracks, kill anti-union bills, and pay whatever it took to keep Democrats holed up in an Illinois hotel. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S LARGEST BENEFACTOR WAS THE COMFORT INN URBANA, WHICH RECEIVED $84,953.70 BY APRIL 6 TO PAY FOR HOTEL ROOMS OCCUPIED BY DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS. Because the Indiana Democratic Party began the year with a measly $40,000 in the bank, they needed help from the deep pockets of national unions to pay the hefty hotel bill. And that’s exactly what they got


http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/32622


Wisconsin has turned into a disaster for the Unions and in return a disaster for the Democrats. It not only has been bad publicity for the Democrats, but it also has weakened the unions a major supporter of the Dems.



Charlie Sheen or Charlie Manson: You make the call

This calls to mind the parlor game back in the 1990s, when folks noted the similarities between Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance and the Unabomber’s manifesto (the late Tony Snow first came up with this comparison), and THE OBVIOUS UPDATE TODAY WOULD BE CHARLIE MANSON AS A WARM-UP ACT FOR CHARLIE SHEEN’S NIGHTCLUB ACT, currently bombing at a city near you. SO HERE’S THE QUIZ: WHICH CHARLIE SAID WHAT? (Answers at the bottom.)

1. “I probably took more drugs than anyone could survive. I was banging seven-gram rocks, because that’s how I roll. I have one speed, I have one gear: Go.”

2. “I live in the underworld. I don’t tell people what to do. They know what to do.”

3. “I’m in the bullring. I run in the bullring with the heart of the world.”

4. “That’s how I roll. And if it’s too gnarly for people, then buh-bye.”

5. “If you’re a part of my family, I will love you violently.”

6. “We are all martyrs. Love is a martyr… I am a martyr. But I am also a victim. And I’m a performer. And a dam. I’m both. I am everything.”

7. “You have the right to kill me, but you do not have the right to judge me.”

8. “I think Obama is an idiot for doing what he’s doing. They’re playing with him.”


http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/265132/charlie-sheen-or-charlie-manson-you-make-call-steven-f-hayward


I didn’t do too well either. Here are the answers (Answers: Manson, 2, 3, 6, and 8. Sheen: 1, 4, 5, and 7)