President Romney

Did Obama lose the first debate or did Romney win it?

Conventional wisdom holds that Barack Obama "lost" in Denver because he lacked intensity. He brought his A-game to Hofstra this week. There's still a problem.
The most significant event in the 2012 presidential election remains the Romney miracle bump after the first debate. If Mr. Romney wins the election, analysts and scholars will spend years picking apart the Denver debate the way they have the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate.
If the pundits do that, they will be wrong.  Obama’s record says he should lose and lose big in November.  History shows us that a bad economy makes for one term presidents.  Obama staked his reelection bid on the strategy that was reported as “kill Romney.”  He spent $220 million on smearing Romney trying to make him unacceptable and drive people who wouldn’t vote for Obama again to not vote at all.  It would then become a base election and Obama spent a lot of money setting up his ground game.  

The first debate destroyed this strategy.  It wasn’t Obama’s lackluster performance (although that didn’t help) but Romney’s excellent performance.  Romney took himself from unacceptable to acceptable and the voters Obama was trying to keep away from the polls saw that.  They will come out and will vote against Obama.  In the meantime, Romney performance in the debates has elevated him among his base from their voting against Obama into voting for Romney.  

It’s over.  The next debate will not move anyone.  This debate doesn’t matter.  The momentum is there and as I’ve said since Romney won the nomination back in April, he will win by at least as much as Obama won in 2008.  It won’t be close.  In fact the real issue is going to be how many seats will the Democrats lose down ticket.  

Another sign it is over

The latest Rasmussen poll has those who strongly approve of Obama performance at 30% and those who strongly disapprove at 44% which gives Obama a -14%.  But that isn’t the issue.  These voters will vote either for Obama (30%) or against Obama (44%).  Here’s Obama’s dilemma.  He must win 20% of the remaining 26% of voters who don’t feel strongly either way.  This amounts to 77% of the likely voters who aren’t strongly in favor or against Mr. Obama. 

Benghazi, Candy and the President

Did Romney make a political mistake in the second debate on the Benghazi question or did Obama?  It appears Obama opened the door for the next debate to be proven to be a liar on national TV.

Mr. President:  Were you lying then or are you lying now?

The President clearly misled the American people with this claim, because if Obama’s Rose Garden speech was indeed the White House position, it did not inform any subsequent statement by the White House press office — and was even directly contradicted by his own spokesman several days later.

On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.”

The Top Ten Lies Obama told on Tuesday Night

Here’s a list of the top ten lies Obama told at the second debate. 

Great new Ad

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

Michelle Obama:  Barack didn’t point fingers

First lady Michelle Obama said Wednesday that President Obama did not look to blame others for the challenges he faced as president, an apparent rebuke of Republican accusations that the White House continues to point the finger at President George W. Bush for the lagging economy.

"See, but your president, he didn't point fingers," Michelle Obama said at a campaign fundraiser in New York. "He didn't place blame. Instead, he got to work, because he was thinking about folks like my dad and like his grandmother.

It appears more than just President Obama can tell untruths with a straight face. 

White Voters support Romney by a lot

Political analysts (including The Fix) spend a good bit of time these days talking about important voter groups — Latino voters and female voters, in particular.

But all of the focus on these groups has obfuscated one fact: Mitt Romney is performing very, very well among white voters. And in fact, most recent polls show him winning the white vote by more than any GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan.

Desperate Obama Campaign invents Bindergate

Women who worked under Mitt Romney when he was Governor of Massachusetts are speaking out against the latest "binders full of women" faux controversy. As Romney said during the presidential debate Tuesday night, he had more women in high power positions during his time as governor than any other governor in the country, yet liberals are desperately trying to continue their pathetic "war on women" meme.

“He totally gets working women, especially working women like myself who had two young kids,” Ellen Roy Herzfelder, a former state secretary of environmental affairs, says in the 30-second ad.

Kerry Healey, Romney’s former lieutenant governor, said 10 of the 20 top positions in the administration were filled by women -- more than any other state in the nation.

October 16:  The Day the Media was completely exposed

The second presidential debate confirmed to the world that the press is completely in bed with President Obama and the Democratic Party and cannot be counted on as a fair arbiter of the truth.

13 Citizen from Cedar Rapids apologize for voting for Barack Obama in 2008

They promise they won’t make that mistake again in a front page ad the put in the Cedar Rapids Gazette.

Actually there are a lot more Americans who owe us an apology.

First time unemployment applications soar by 46,000

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months.

This probably isn’t fair since last week’s applications were obviously understated. 

Brit Hume:  ‘I thought I was seeing the face of God.’

Brit Hume talks about the death of his son in a very uplifting interview.

Obama’s chief complaint against John Roberts

This one will floor you:  

I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.

An Unconstitutional Presidency

What’s new Today

Our #1 story discusses why BHO will lie, cheat and steal to be reelected.  #2 talks about the “recess” appointments Obama has made.  #3 looks at the legality of what Obama’s done.  #4 relates how a group of students in Ohio laughed at “the One.”  #5 is an interesting collection of left wing pundits as they assess what an Obama defeat would do to their dreams.  Finally #6 looks at something new under the sun. 

1.  Why BHO will Lie, Cheat and Steal in the coming election

The future of America depends on electing a new president in 2012, and the best asset for any potential challenger is Barack Obama. His obtuse sense of self-worth will be a shrewd candidate's greatest advantage.

Obama believes that he is a spectacular success, almost godlike in his judgment. All his policies are not only correct, but manifestations of the transcendent, prescient leader he knows himself to be.

He will run, fast and furious, from his record -- but not because it shows him to be less than the greatest leader ever, except for possibly Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln...and even then, only "possibly.”…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obama_americas_greatest_asset.html#ixzz1iaCN33sd

Obama is delusional, but so too are those who think he will be reelected. 

2.  Legality of Cordray Appointment

Leaving aside the constitutional questions, there is a potential statutory problem with the legality of the Cordray appointment under Dodd-Frank. Section 1066 of Dodd-Frank provides that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to perform the functions of the CFPB under the subtitle transferring authority to the CFPB from the other agencies “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Section 1011.” It turns out that section 1011 is a defined term which provides: “The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

This seems to suggest that even if the President might be able to appoint Cordray under the recess power the full grant of statutory authority wouldn’t transfer to the Bureau unless the statutory language was fulfilled as well.

http://volokh.com/2012/01/04/legality-of-cordray-appointment-under-dodd-frank/

The law doesn’t seem to be an impediment to BHO.  He regularly violates it. 

3.  Is the Senate in Recess?

Article One, section Five of the Constitution states:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days...

This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House's permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.

There is an argument that pro-forma sessions are just a sham. Obama is not the first to make it. I don't find it very persuasive, but it's an argument that some very smart people make.

Yet in this particular case, in which the House has not consented to a Senate recess, the pro forma session does not seem to be the issue. The Constitution is the issue. Without the consent of the House to adjourn for more than three days, the Senate is in session, whether it wants to be or not.

The only argument left is one that the Obama administration has itself rejected – that a three day “recess” is sufficient for such an appointment.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/senate-recess-constitution-says-no/292211

Hypocrisy abound in this issue.  Reid has come out in support of Obama’s action after using the same tactics in 2007 to stop Bush from making recess appointments. 

4.  Something New in Obama’s Ohio Speech

…Obama goes to Shaker Heights High School. With Obama, these choreographed crowd events have a rigidity, a predictable faux friendliness. He's been doing them so long, even before Oprah helped four years ago….

… Then, out of the blue Wednesday, came a tiny incident. A minute moment. There had been no signs of trouble, nothing to reveal that the Real Good Talker's real good talking had lost his touch or control of his sitting subjects. The rest of the speech continued normally. Many there probably didn't even notice.

The president of the United States has said the next line so many times over these 1,080 days of his reign. He says it as a kind of democratic gesture, a compliment to a crowd of American citizens, a public obeisance that the most powerful man in the world is profoundly connected to them.

Obama said, "You inspire me."

And you know how the members of that crowd in the most Democratic district of Ohio responded to that campaigning Democratic president's professed sincerity this time?

They laughed at him…

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=596792&p=1

Its little things like this that confirms what the polls are telling us.  His stage managed stump speech drew laughter rather than cheers. 

5.  The Left Worries: “What if Obama Loses?

It’s a common complaint—we’ve certainly made it over the years—that too much political campaign coverage focuses on the horse race. The packed debate schedule in the current GOP nomination battle has put a bit more focus than usual on the substance of what the candidates are saying, which is good. But even so, most of this coverage has wound up being about whether a given policy position might help or hurt a candidate’s chances of winning. What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? …

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/what_if_he_loses034501.php

If you are a liberal you will despair.  If you are a conservative, you’ll break out the bubbly. 

6.   Something New Under the Sun

A new way of collecting solar energy has polarized scientists around the world and ignited fierce debate on the Internet, where the innovator in question has been called everything from an alien to the agent of a global conspiracy.

Maybe a better title would be an intellectual Hannah Montana. That's because the scientist, Aidan Dwyer, is 13 years old.

This past summer, Aidan won a national science competition with what seemed to be a bright idea: His research appeared to show that solar panels arrayed like the leaves on a tree collect sunlight more efficiently than traditional setups.

Many people on the Web called the Long Island teenager a "genius" who had achieved a true "breakthrough" in solar power. Others praised him for proving that nature's own designs are superior to man's.

But there was one little problem: To prove his hypothesis, Aidan had measured the wrong thing.

As readers figured out the mistake, the Internet went supernova. Commenters and bloggers attacked Aidan with vitriol usually saved for political enemies and the Kardashians. Blogs decried his experiment as "bad science" and "impossible nonsense." Someone called him "an alien—a cool one, though." …

… On a recent afternoon, Aidan showed a visitor his newest model, tweaked to respond to his critics: a towering seven-foot tree form adorned with solar panels and painted green. He is now measuring current and power. So far, he said, the tree continues to outperform the traditional panel. "I'm thinking that it could actually change the world."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138511287470508.html?mod=ITP_AHED

Here’s hoping he comes up with something.