That was my feelings about last night.
I read F. Ryan's prediction, and I spoke with Jambo about his thoughts on a "forty-State sweep", and I tried to be positive, but I really didn't have a good feeling yesterday at all.
I got to the polls yesterday at just about 9 AM, and there must have been a line of 80 people spilling out of the station doors and across the parking lot. The temp was only 30 degrees... pretty cold, really, but the turn out was a strong as I had seen since living in NEPA. My initial surprise was tempered while standing in that line for 40 minutes, listening to everyone around me talk about how excited they were to vote for Obama.
If memory serves, most were blue-haired women, stoop-shouldered old men, and a couple of "couples" (two of them with very young babies in their arms). Were these retirees supporting Obama because of the Medicare scare propagated by the Left? Did they actually think Romney would leave them homeless and shivering with no access to food, water or doctor's care? I can imagine that the two couples with the babies were (understandably) immersed in such programs as WIC and (statistically speaking) probably some form of welfare assistance... so their enthusiasm for "four more years" was almost understandable, if not entirely admirable. Did these several dozen people actually think the were better off today then they were in 2006? Or even later?
Saddest of all... and I almost hesitate to bring this up because of the volatile nature of topic... was the 65-year-old woman standing behind me in line. She never asked me who I was voting for, and she never told me that she was voting for Obama. What she did tell me was that she couldn't stand the thought that "women's rights" might be taken away if the election went one way rather than the other. "My body, my choice" was a term she used twice... even in the brief time we spoke. I did consider telling her that, since 1972 (when Roe v Wade became defacto law), there had been 24 years of Republican Presidential leadership in this country, and abortion was still available as a "choice" in all 50 States. I did think that perhaps I could explain to her that the GOP contention is NOT to end abortion as a choice in America, but to ensure that Federal funds do not pay for them... individuals do. In the end, I did nothing but smile and wish her a good day. Her choice was made, she had decided her course of action.
In the end, short on sleep and deeply frustrated, I guess I'd have to venture the opinion that Romney-Ryan failed to get the "message" of their platform out as clearly and plainly as Obama and the Dems did. If an otherwise bright and communicative retiree failed so completely to grasp the actual fundamentals of a topic like Federally funded abortions and the GOP's position on them, then I can't blame her, can I? It must have been a failure in getting that point across on a national level.
Watching the frustration and anger surface during the FOX News coverage was painful, but was nothing compared to the gloating and self-congratulation that was going on at the MSNBC coverage rooms. I'll give both their time to take in the event... neither is unbiased and both had a lot at stake and even more invested in the election... so both are allowed their "moment". The same can be said for both Parties. The GOP got spanked (speaking in relative terms, of course... it was a close race everywhere)... the Dems won two more seats in the Senate and four more years in the White House. I have to give the President credit... I listened to his "victory" speech last night at about 1:30 AM, and (without giving too much attention to what was undoubtedly pat, rhetorical phrasing) his words rang terribly, terribly true. The GOP will have to find a way to pick up the pieces and continue to effort, or nothing will change. The Dems will need to avoid the "end-zone celebrations" that will do nothing but further the rift between the two sides and work to accomplish something meaningful in the next two years (midterms) or face another Congressional upset.
Conservatives can't afford to be petulant and liberals can't afford to be "sore winners", or both sides lose in the long run. Time to pony-up and soldier on.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
how?
Here`s my trilevel gut response to the reelection of Barack H. Obama:
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
1.) I am floored at how badly I, personally, misjudged my fellow Americans. I truly didn't grasp that my ideology is in the minority until tonight.
2.) It's possible we've witnessed the American Idol-ization of the office of president. Obama is a celebrity. He's cooler. Who needs low unemployment when you've got Jay-Z and Springsteen?
3.) And this is most dangerous of all. It's possible that we`ve changed as a people. More than half of the states in this Union currently believe that healthcare and housing are a Right. In other words, from medicine to retirement a majority of Americans now believe that government, not the individual, has a moral imperative to provide life`s basic needs, wants, and desires. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are no longer sufficient. Collectivism is caring, individualism is greed.
If that's true, we've lost more than an election.
Monday, November 5, 2012
286-252
Romney wins. That's my prediction out of the 538 Electoral College votes available. No need to hold the election, I have come out from on high and dispersed my wisdom... hehe.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
As we all know, the first to 270 wins. Michael Barone, the Right-leaning gold standard of county by county election cycle science, went on record yesterday to say he's predicting Romney at 315 due to party identity, independents breaking, and enthusiasm. He's no political hack. He looks and talks like a scientist, a pure researcher. The only reason I gauged it closer (clearly he knows more than I) is my natural pessimism kicking in. In my opinion the bottom line is Ohio. If Romney wins its' 18 Electoral votes he's a lock. If Obama wins Ohio Romney still has a path to victory, but not an easy one (including Iowa and New Hampshire). I think the dark horse GOP state to win is Titus' stomping ground, PA. It's just possible the social issues combined with Obama's energy policy (coal etc) could tip this state to Mitt.
Now for something borderline delusional. I'm talking Mad Hatter, butterfly net territory. President Obama was in Madison, WI today (by the way, his need to defend Wisconsin should give us all hope - that Scott Walker recall was a major boon for the GOP), and when speaking to the gathered crowd he said the following (this is a direct quote): "This shouldn't be that complicated. We tried our ideas. They worked. We grew the economy, created jobs, and the deficit went down. We tried their ideas. The economy didn't grow. Not as many jobs were created, and the deficit went up."
Holy delusions of grandeur Batman!
Do you think he really believes this? Is the teleprompter guy just messing with him? I mean not even Democrats dispute the deficit nearly doubled, they just don't care. I assume he means George W. Bush when he says "their way." However, Bush's overall average numbers on unemployment; GDP growth; GDP to debt ratio; food stamp participants; gas prices; deficit spending - even including the second half of 2008 when the economic collapse occurred - were provably better than the last four years. It's not even close. What is he talking about then? George H. Bush? Reagan? Their numbers (in particular Reagan's) dwarf him in every category. President Obama is the first CIC in American history to have annual Trillion dollar deficits. He hasn't even passed a budget during his entire term, and that's with controlling both houses of congress during half of it. On the day he took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Tomorrow, on election day, it will be 7.9%. Again, I ask, is he delusional?
By the way, have you ever heard of the "Redskins Rule" of politics (I mean the NFL team, obviously)? I heard today that for the last 19 elections, whenever the Skins win on the Sunday before election day, the incumbent president wins. When they lose, the incumbent loses. The Skins lost yesterday.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Coast Bound....
Obviously with this being a public forum Im not inclined to be much more specific than that, but suffice it to say I put a deposit down today and as of 12/1 we will be residents of the MS Gulf Coast. I may end up sitting box 2 days a week to augment my income while I attend scool (starting in February), but with family all within driving distance (including a Bund brother), acceptance to a local university, my casino time diminished if not completely done away with, and the assurance that my sons wont spend their teenage years in Sin City, Im loads better off than I was in the desert oasis of Las Vegas. Now, if I can just avoid any Cat 5's in the near future I might just have a good shot at success in Act II.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Jobs...
The new jobs report came out today. We all know that when it comes to unemployment data the White House has the power to manipulate more zeros than a playmate at a scifi convention. But last month's (actually September's) drop from 8.2 to 7.8 was as shameless as it gets. For example they added, for the first time, part time employees, the "under employed" to the primary number of employed workers. There are something on the order of 8 different final unemployment numbers to represent formulas that include under employed, workers whom left the workforce, etc, all coded U6, U7, and so on, some of which have the total unemployment rate as high as 14.7%. And even the normally apolitical renowned former GE CEO, Jack Welch, was prompted to write an oped last month condemning the formula used as the primary unemployment number. He noted that if we used the formula of just the Clinton era the unemployment rate would be over 10%. If you use the formulas employed under JFK the real number is over 13%. They have simply changed the way the unemployed are counted.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
But here's the bottom line of today's (October's) unemployment number. It's 7.9%. That's a tenth of a percent higher than September, and it has come out 3 days before the election. It's also a tenth higher than January 2009. What does this mean? That his "last" unemployment number as president is higher than his his first... if history tells us anything its that you don't get reelected when the unemployment rate is higher on election day than on your first day in office. Or lets count Obama's jobs record this way - since January of 09, for every 1 job created, 75 people were added to the food stamp roles.
By the way - with food and fuel shortages abound in NYC the question is being raised, where is the National Guard? They could do air lifts if nothing else. I vividly remembered the Guard everywhere after Katrina when we were finally allowed to return. Here's your answer: Bloomberg said the NYPD is the only one he wants with guns on the streets of his city. Apparently governor Cuomo is honoring that sentiment. Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment, anti gun policy apparently knows no sane boundary.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The liberal "disconnect"...
The famous (and now rather old) Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) wrote an article yesterday, and I read it. I wanted to share my thoughts on Mr. Bernstein's story...
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
What a load of crap.
Common, Carl... seriously? Romney is the latest "puppet" of the great and evil GOP machine? Enslaved by the "radical" Tea Party faction of the conservative movement? A true moderate that cannot but dance to the tugging of the Party strings?
I'll give you this much, Carl... Romney is a moderate at heart, no question. So was Bush Jr. and John McCain was damn near a card-carrying Democrat.
So, even if the entire scope of your story is true (and I'm not suggesting it is, by any stretch), can you honestly tell me Obama hasn't made promises he'd rather not have made, to get where he is now? He isn't in bed with the far-Left on such issues as ending the war in Iraq on a time table even he didn't like? Or with the unions in Detroit, were the government bail-outs have entrenched union dependency even further than it already was (which contributed to the need for the bail-outs in the first place)? Why were his opinion ratings so low (less than 45% in some areas) prior to elections in May?
Why is the simple, undeniable FACT that Kennedy's inaugural address is hand-in-glove with the entire conservative agenda today so utterly ignored by the likes of you and your friends? Your claim that everything "conservative" strikes at the heart of all that has been accomplished since 1906 is simply not true... as untrue as Nixon claiming he's "not a crook".
exquisite irony
"He looks presidential." That's all I'm hearing in the mainstream press regarding the President's handling of Sandy. First off, he is the President. Secondly, if he now looks presidential how did he look Monday, waste deep in the Libya scandal? And third, the entire reason friendly news outlets are claiming this is due to his assertion of Executive Branch power/authority. How did he flex Executive muscle? He promised to cut red tape and bureaucracy to get emergency funds rapidly released and instructed that federal formula regulations on fuel standards be waived to get any and all types of gasoline into the North East. Bare in mind the New York Times editorial is claiming, "see, see, big storms require big government." And we already know the President,s position on "big" government. Yet the whole reason he "looks presidential" is he essentially stood up and declared he'd get government out of the way in order to effectively deal with an emergency. Which is EXACTLY Mitt Romney's plan to deal with the economy!
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
My experience with hurricanes tells me that (politically) the handling or mishandling of natural disasters can make or break local officials. Bush's Katrina critics have successfully painted his post storm efforts as a failure, but by and large presidents are reelected (or not) based on the perception of their economic record with everything else coming in a distant second. However, I would argue mayors and governors, police chiefs and even preachers, this is when their effectiveness is judged and remembered. And there was no clearer demonstration of this then the difference between post Katrina Mississippi vs Louisiana politics. Blanco and the NO mayor (I forget his name) were crucified while Barbour solidified his state legacy. Which again underscores the irony of big government advocates during natural disasters - each state dealt with the same FEMA, yet it was the local ground game, private sector, city and state that made the difference.
The bottom line is no matter how good the PoTUS looks over the next 4 days it can not eclipse how bad he has done over the last 4 years.
By the way, did you hear Leno? "Don't ask don't tell is back. It's the president's new policy on Libya."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
