Friday's Thoughts: Debates Round-up, Christmas Songs, and Star Wars

By Kit

My last post before Christmas. What a year its been, trying to consistently write a weekly post for this site. It's been difficult, especially with schoolwork but I'm glad for the positive responses I've gotten from you folks.

Now, let's get on with the show.

Tuesday's Debate We had a debate this week. The expected (and possibly hoped for) Trump/Cruz clash did not occur. Cruz deflected from attacking Trump and Trump, interestingly, did likewise. Instead the big clashes were Bush/Trump and, the highlights for me, Cruz/Rubio.

So let's score the Top 8 Candidates.

Trump: Trump was Trump. Though slightly less than usual but still Trump with outlandish calls to kill the families of terrorists (WTF?!) and issuing proposals that, as Jon Gabriel of Ricochet once pointed out, nearly always seem to involve bigger government. He is a populist strongman with a nationalist streak in the vein of Huey Long.

He is also a clueless clown, flubbing a question on the nuclear triad. True, I didn’t know what it was but… I am not running for President of the United States.

However, he did gain a few points with me by promising not to run as an independent. For now, at least. He made He was at zero before (if not in the negatives) so it was not a huge bump. He is still at the bottom for me.

Cruz: Did ok but he made a flap, possibly fatal one (but fatal missteps are declared far more often than they occur) when he said he never supported legalization of illegals when in fact in 2013 he proposed a bill to do just that. He claims it was a poison pill but he advocated on several networks, including for some time after it failed. National Review is giving him hell on this, and, to a certain extent, Fox News as well, while his supporters are trying to craft him as some kind of Machiavellian genius —who lies to stop bills he doesn’t like.

Carson: Still not ready for primetime. Should be running for Congress. Next!

Rubio: My pick as “winner”, even though there really was not a standout winner. But I found myself leaning back to him. He took on an attack on immigration and handled it well. And, no, he did not “dodge” the immigration question, unless dodging means giving a clear and well-crafted answer that clearly outlines a position you don't like in a possibly appealing way. You can say you don't trust him, you can say you don't like his answer, but it was not evasive.

I have some problems with him, true, but he never seems off his game. He has handled himself incredibly well in the debates. He always knows his stuff. That requires some homework. In this primary system, that is sadly a huge plus. He also looked a bit older than in previous debates, where he unfortunately had a Chairman of the College Republicans look to him.

Christie: Rubbed me the wrong way. His butting in during the Rubio/Cruz debate on NSA and attacking them for “just discussing” instead of making decisions shad, to me at least, a stench of pro-executive, anti-legislature strongman Mussoliniism to it. Though it appears to have played well with most people.

Carly: Ok. Her campaign for VP continues apace. Her failed attempt to pull a Christie during one of the Rubio/Cruz clashes was rather sad.

Jeb: Had his best night but that is not saying much considering how poor his nights have been so far.

Kasich: Who? Oh, right, him. He was… there.

He kind of seemed like the Larry Gillmore of the night. He was there.

Any thoughts?


Bad Christmas Songs

First, my least favorite: “Last Christmas”, “Christmas Shoes”, “Grandma Got Run over by a Reinder”, and “Do They Know It’s Christmas” are at the top of my hate list. “Christmas Shoes” is probably my least loathed of them because I rarely heard it but, yeah, its awful. “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is annoying and “Do They Know Its Christmas” is “LOOK AT HOW CARING WE ARE” twaddle. At least “Last Christmas” has a cheesy, 80s so-bad-its-good vibe to it, even if it is annoying.

Good songs? Pretty much any of the classics and the hymns. There are some mediocrities such as “Rock a-Round the Clock” and “All I Want For Christmas” but for the most part this season is full of good songs; “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”, “We Wish You a Merry Christmas”, “Jingle Bells”, “Silver Bells”, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”,

Your favorites? Least favorites?

Star Wars

Well Star Wars premieres tonight, I plan to see it tomorrow. Anyone who dares spoil it for me will be force-choked. But not to death. No, for death they will be tossed bound and gagged into a Sarlacc pit to be digested over the course of a thousand years.

Merry Christmas.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Some Interesting Polls

So there were a couple of interesting polls while you were gone. I don’t put a lot of faith in polls because they are non-committal -- polls force answers to issues people may not care about without being prompted and they don’t require any sort of action. So polls should always be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, these two polls are enlightening.


● Poll One: Racism. The first poll comes from Rasmussen, and it’s about racism. Check out these numbers:

● 37% of Americans think “most blacks are racist.”
● 18% of Americans think most Hispanics are racist.
● 15% of Americans think most whites are racist.

Further, conservatives are more likely to see blacks as racist (49%) and more likely to see whites as racist (18%). Liberals are more likely to see whites as racist (27%) and less likely to see blacks as racist (21%). Surprisingly 31% of blacks also think that most blacks are racist, while only 24% consider most whites racist. These are fascinating numbers.

First, it’s interesting that so few people see “most” people as racist. If you listen to the liberals in the MSM or in Hollywood or in the Democratic Party, you hear a constant drumbeat that all whites are racist and that everything is about race. Based on the numbers above, only two in ten Americans buy that garbage. Even among liberals only three in ten buy this stuff. That’s a strong indication that we’re headed toward a colorblind society. Why? Because it shows that very few people see the various racial groups as monoliths who are or should be motivated by race, and it shows that few people see the issue of race being wrapped into everything. Without that, the institutions of racism and race baiting die.

Secondly, it’s fascinating that blacks not only see blacks as racist, but actually see them as more likely to be racist than whites. This again flies in the face of race-baiter rhetoric which holds that blacks cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority. It is even more fascinating that they see more racism in the black community than the white community. This is another good sign because it suggests that the public is holding the black community accountable for the open racism many within the community have displayed and it suggests an understanding that whites are not the problem black leaders have tried to sell them as. That is a necessary step to fixing race relations in this country, when everyone is held equally responsible for their attitudes toward everyone else and no one is excluded from acting properly.

● Poll Two: Rubio-ism. The second poll involves Latino support and the immigration bill. According to a poll from Latino Decisions, 54% of Latinos would back Rubio in 2016 because of his efforts to pass immigration reform. That would include half of the Latinos who voted for Obama. That goes away, however, if the immigration reform bill doesn’t pass. In that event, Rubio gets only 30% support -- 3% more than Romney and 1% less than McCain. It is also worth nothing that Romney and McCain both lost each of the following increasingly-blue, increasingly-Hispanic “swing-states”: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Virginia. Bush, on the hand, won 40% of Latino voters in 2004 and he carried each of those states. Unlike McCain and Romney, Bush tried to fix the immigration system... like Rubio.

And lest you think we can make up the difference with white turnout, as talk radio continues to claim, several groups have studied the last election and they have found that it would have been impossible for Romney to win merely through white turnout because he would have needed 90% of the “missing” whites. Want proof? Ok, think of it this way. There were an estimated 4-6 million “missing” white voters. Romney lost by 5 million votes. IF there are the full six million and IF they all showed up AND IF they were ALL conservatives, he might have won. But they aren’t all conservatives. In fact, there’s no reason to think they don’t mirror the population at large. In that case, consider that Romney won whites by 59% to 40%. To make up the 5 million vote difference at the rate that Romney won whites would require that 26 million more whites vote -- four times the maximum pool of “missing” whites. The idea of winning with a white party is a delusion.

● Poll Three: More Debunking. While we’re at it, let’s debunk a myth Sarah Palin and talk radio are pushing hard all of a sudden. They are telling their followers that “the overwhelming majority” of Americans oppose the path to citizenship. Palin even claimed that Hispanics oppose the path to citizenship and that it was somehow insulting to suggest they didn’t. Oh, you betcha! Only, as is so often the case these days with conservative talkers, this is total bullship.

Exit polling data from November 2012 (reported by Fox News) found that 65% of Americans (and 77% of Hispanics) believe illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship. Only 29% opposed that. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal poll from April 2013 found that 64% of Americans (and 82% of Hispanics) favor a path to citizenship. Three in ten is not an overwhelming majority... unless you’re dealing with the new math. So don’t believe this when you hear it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Immigration Bill Update -- 25% Reduction?

By now you’ve probably heard about the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Rubio bill. Let’s discuss that because it clears up the cost issue and it simultaneously raises a concern... this 25% estimate, though that’s not nearly as bad as you have heard.

● Cost Estimate: When Heritage put out their $6 trillion report, I took it apart and showed you why not one single bit of it was legitimate – others have since performed the identical analysis and reached the same conclusions. At the time, I mentioned that CBO would be scoring the bill and that number would come in significantly lower. It has... a lot. CBO found that rather than increasing the deficit by $6 trillion, the Rubio bill will reduce the deficit by $197 billion between 2014 and 2023, and then reduce the deficit by another $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. In other words, rather than costing $6 trillion over 50 years, the Rubio bill will save $897 billion over 20 years, with something similar happening each decade thereafter.

This is no surprise. Texas has 1.4 million illegal immigrants and, in 2006, the Texas State Comptroller examined this issue and found that illegal immigrants paid $427 million more in taxes than they used in services (including things like education). The Comptroller also found that these people contributed an additional $18 billion to the state’s economy.

So is the $897 billion figure accurate? Probably not. But it does provide an order of magnitude which tells us the bill is unlikely to add to the deficit.

● Only Stops 25%? The big new issue is buried in the middle of the report. In an odd conclusion, CBO says that the bill is only likely to reduce the rate of illegal immigration by 25% compared to what would happen without the bill.

Opponents jumped on this as proof that the bill does nothing about border security and they are demanding a longer wall with Mexico. Only that doesn’t address what CBO says it found. The CBO says that the bill will restrict the flow of illegal immigrants by making it harder to enter the country illegally and harder to find work once they are here. In other words, the border and employment provisions work. BUT the CBO concludes that a large number of the people in the guest worker program, which will be doubled in size, will overstay their visas and become the new illegal alien population. Hence, improving the fence is meaningless because that’s not how they’re coming here.

This raises a couple issues.

First, this section of the report is only four sentences long and it has no footnotes. None of those four sentences says at all how the CBO reached its conclusion. Where did the 25% figure come from? We don’t know. Are they taking into account that these people can be spotted and deported? Again, we don’t know. Chuck Schumer says they didn’t. He notes that the bill includes provisions to find these people and to send them home and to keep them from working once they are illegal:

“But the bill creates a system to track people who overstay their visas and prevents employers from hiring them, so the number is likely to be much lower than CBO projects.”

Could be. But here’s the thing on this point. IF this is true, then we have discovered a weakness in the bill. In that case, we should fix it. How should we fix it? How about this: add a provision that says that for each guest worker who overstays, one slot will be deleted from future admissions until that person is deported. Simple enough.

Unfortunately, no one is talking about this because the opponents can’t stop talking about building a fence. This has focused the public on that aspect and is making the fence the only political play people will accept. Hence, there’s a new deal to spend $30 billion to hire 21,000 more border patrol agents, expand the fence a few miles more, and add more high tech surveillance like drones... none of which will help this problem at all, yet everyone will act like it will. This is the problem with behaving irrationally: it locks you into fantasies and keeps you from being able to address genuine problems with genuine solutions - it also tends to keep your voice from being heard at the negotiating table because people already count you out.

In any event, this doesn’t actually appear to be that large of a problem. Indeed, while 25% sounds like a lot when you think of 11 million people, that’s not what CBO meant. What CBO has said is that the rate of new arrivals will slow only by 25% and the CBO specifically says this will result in 1.6 million more illegals over ten years than would be here if the bill was perfect (if we do nothing, CBO says another 2.5 million will be here). That means that to get back to the same level of 11 million illegals will take approximately 70 years, assuming none of them get deported. And in that regard, it’s worth noting that we currently deport three times the number each year that CBO says would overstay. So ultimately, Schumer may be right on this.

In the end, this 25% isn’t at all what the opponents are characterizing it as. It’s not an issue we should be ignoring, but it will be because opponents are obsessively focused on building a wall that won’t stop a single one of these people. Personally, I would like to see the provision above added to the bill about reducing future years by the number of over-stays, but no one seems to be suggesting that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Gallup, Rubio and the Talk Radio Base

Bev will probably kill me for talking about 2016, so don’t tell her I said this. ;-) I said last week that despite the howling on talk radio that Rubio was finished, Rubio will be the man to beat in 2016. Now there’s some proof to back that up in the form of a Gallup poll. This poll also tells us something interesting about the party’s base.

Gallup quizzed the public about five Republican contenders. What they found suggests that the Republican base is very much in tune with its leaders and not with talk radio. Consider these numbers on how Republicans responded:

Notice that despite the near universal hatred poured out at Rubio from talk radio and conservative blogs, Rubio has a 58% approval and only an 11% disapproval.... and that’s among Republicans, not the public at large. That’s significant. That means that despite months of an intense anti-Rubio campaign by the supposed leaders of the base, the Republican base approves of Rubio in overwhelming numbers – by a 6 to 1 margin. Even more significantly, only one in ten disapproves of Rubio. That’s an amazing repudiation of the talk radio message, and that suggests several things.

First, that suggests broad acceptance (if not endorsement) of immigration reform by the Republican base, otherwise Rubio’s disapprovals would be higher. This is consistent with the large and growing number of conservatives who support the initiative and the polls which show surprisingly high support for the measure. This further suggests that Rubio won’t be hurt by pursuing immigration reform, or else his disapprovals already would be higher.

Secondly, it suggests that the talk radio base is not the supermajority within the Republican base they like to think they are... not even close. Consider this: Rubio has been blasted for months with near 100% vehement opposition from the talk radio base. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some high proportion of the talk radio base disapproves of Rubio. Yet, he only polls 11% disapproval. That means that only 11% of the Republican base is following the talk radio line. Similarly, look at Christie. Christie is viewed favorably (52% - 25%) by the Republican base despite being attacked daily for several years now as a RINO traitor by talk radio. Thus, only 25% of the Republican base toes the talk radio line on Christie.

Think about what this says about the size of the base. Talk radio has blasted Christie so long, so harshly and so universally that it is likely that everyone in the talk radio base disapproves of him as well as a good number of conservatives who don’t align with the talk radio base. That means not only that it’s logical to see his 25% disapproval as the upper cap on the potential size of the talk radio base, but it also means that 25% likely overstates the size of the talk radio base. Looking at these numbers suggests to me that the talk radio base is somewhere between 11% and 25% and I would place them at around 16% (Rubio disapproval times 1.5 or Christie disapproval times 2/3). Again, that is not consistent with the picture painted by talk radio of a silent conservative majority oppressed by a small RINO leadership. Why does this matter? Well, I think it explains why the Republican leadership seems to be willing to decouple themselves from the talk radio base. I see hints of this everywhere, everything from a change in the agenda to a change in the rhetoric to the pushing aside of bomb throwers like Michelle Bachmann. And I don’t think the Republicans would be doing this if these numbers were reversed.

Other thoughts on this data:

● This data suggests that Paul Ryan (69% - 12%) would be the leader if he chooses to run, but I actually doubt he will. I like Ryan a lot, but he just never looked comfortable in 2012. I think he will happily stay in the House and run the budgets.

● This data suggests that Christie is stronger than I would have guessed last year, though I wonder how far his appeal really runs? I suspect a lot of his support is at the level of “Oh, I like him in New Jersey, but not nationally.” In either event though, he must be considered a serious contender. Ultimately, I interpret his approval rating as a sign that the base is being much more practical than they been have in the past. This seems to be a statement that they will accept people who aren’t ideologues if they can win in places Republicans don’t win and they can bring some conservatism to the table in those areas.

● Rand Paul’s support (56% - 13%) is interesting too. Paul embraces issues that sit uneasily with the Republican base. His foreign policy and defense policy make the neocons angry, the religious right is suspicious of his claims to social conservatism, and his attempts to appeal to minorities and youths through civil liberties issues are upsetting to many conservatives. Yet, six in ten approve and only one in ten disapprove. That suggests that the Republican base is much more open to new ideas than you hear.

● Finally, the data suggest that Ted Cruz may have a problem. He has hooked his star to the talk radio base and they have rewarded him with an intense amount of coverage and praise. He is the anti-Rubio. Yet, all of this has resulted in only 40% approval and 52% indifference. Those aren’t great numbers when the guy you’ve cited as your mortal enemy is 20% higher than you. Even worse, if the “not Rubio” agenda hasn’t worked so far, there is little reason to think it will work any better in the coming two years, and Cruz doesn’t really offer more than that. If he wants to win, he’ll need an agenda, not just opposition to the new Republican agenda.

I guess we’ll see.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Rubio's Victory

I thought it was time for an immigration update. More specifically, I think it’s time to talk about Marco Rubio. Rubio has impressed the heck out of me in this process. He has achieved the unachievable and he’s done it with seeming ease. He has proven to be a master politician, who can control both the process, the media and the public.

Let’s start with the obvious: the immigration issue is the third rail of modern politics. No one has managed to get any traction on this and those who have tried have been destroyed. Yet, Rubio is succeeding. And not only that, he’s succeeding beyond anything anyone could have expected.

For one thing, Rubio has managed to create a bill that has broad support on the left and the right. I know some people don’t want to believe that, but it’s true. Conservative support for this is both deep and wide. The latest “RINO” to jump on board is Tea Party darling Sen. Kelly Ayotte. She joins other RINOs like Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Sean Hannity, the American Conservative Union, CATO, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Susan B. Anthony List, the Manhattan Institute, the Hudson Institute, Paul Wolfowitz, Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and on and on and on. The RINO Southern Baptists are apparently lobbying for the bill.

Others like Rand Paul are posturing, but clearly intend to support the bill after claiming to make it better. RINOs Tom Coburn and Rob Portman appear ready to support the bill as well with some minor tweaks. RINO John Cornyn might too if the border security provision are tightened up. RINO Pat Toomey also is considered a likely supporter as he has expressed support for reform generally but has yet to say if he supports this bill.

Ultimately, this bill will pass. Rubio has set a target of getting 70 votes in the Senate and there is a fair chance he will get that. The House will be closer, but I expect it will pass by at least 25 votes, though the number could be much higher.

This is an impressive achievement.

Even more impressively, Rubio has kept the publicity positive and focused on the GOP’s support. This is a real trick. For one thing, this is the kind of bill the Democrats need to take the credit for if they want to keep getting Hispanic votes, and the MSM knows this. Obama in particular needs some better legacy than “he ruined healthcare and spied on us,” so one would assume he would take credit for this. Yet, Rubio has entirely shut Obama out of the process by creating the Gang of 8. They have actually rebuffed White House efforts to get involved and have refused to meet with Obama for photo-ops on this. Consequently, his name never comes up in relation to this.

Moreover, Rubio has made himself the salesman of this bill to such a degree that few even know who the other seven are or that there are others. He is selling this thing everywhere and the MSM even calls it “Rubio’s bill” or refers to him as “the architect.” Unless something truly unusual happens, it appears almost certain that the credit for this will fall in Rubio’s lap. That is really good news for fixing some of the GOP’s tolerance problem because it means this will be seen as a Republican initiative.

More impressively yet, Rubio has kept the publicity on this positive despite the best efforts of talk radio. Throughout this process, Rubio has faced a series of lies, more lies, smears and childish taunts from his conservative flank (naive, nuts -- arrest Rubio as an enemy combatant -- liar, clueless -- Rubio’s folly, etc.). Rubio’s handling of these people has been a tour de force of public relations. He has engaged them by going on talk radio, writing articles and meeting with prominent conservative opponents. He has done so with a smile and by sticking to the facts. Then he has reported on the meetings as positive and constructive even as the various hosts went right back to their tantrums. Did this win them over? No, but that was never the point because they’re unwinnable. The real point was public perception and, in that regard, the end result has been that the MSM has focused on Rubio’s positive assessments rather than the nasty things being said by the talkers, with the result of that being that Rubio has managed to shield conservatism from what is not its finest hour. In fact, outside of the conservative echo chamber, you just don’t hear the things these people are saying.

The bill has now entered the next phase of the process and, again, Rubio has shined. As with any legislation, the initial bill wasn’t perfect. It actually addressed all the things conservatives have always claimed to want from immigration reform, but the border security issue was viewed as insufficient. Rubio has now said that he believes the border security provision needs to be amended and he has proposed that Congress, not the President, vote to certify that the border is secure. I doubt that will pass, but his criticism will likely result in a stronger enforcement mechanism, which should win over the last few rational holdouts.

There are several aspect of this that are interesting. First, Rubio has managed to kill off all the attempts to add poison pills to the bill – everything from impossible requirements to pro-gay amendments. Being able to stop those things is unusual, but the process set up with the Gang of 8 has given them the power to do that. That is what made this possible. It also resulted in an amazingly pork-free bill. Secondly, Rubio has made himself so important to the process that his suggestion that he couldn’t support the bill without stronger border security was enough to shake everyone up -- and he’s the only with that level of power. That’s pretty impressive and it shows a level of control that one would never expect from a junior Senator.

All in all, I am honestly amazed. Rubio tackled what is probably the hardest issue in the Congress and he has produced a bill that objectively addresses all the concerns conservatives have always cited and he has managed to find broad-based support for that bill across the political spectrum. That is an achievement that should not be underestimated. At the same time, he has kept the publicity extremely positive, despite a vehement, irrational opposition from his own flank and an MSM that knee-jerk seeks to help the Democrats. Again, that is truly an impressive achievement.

Right now, it looks like this thing will pass with overwhelming support and with his name on it. If that happens, I genuinely suspect that he will be our next president.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Demonization of Marco Rubio

For the past week, the conservative establishment has been trying to destroy Marco Rubio. It’s time to debunk the lies, the distortions and the smears.

● Lamar Smith I: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) attacked the Rubio bill the moment it came out. Lamar said, “This bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.” Except, as Lamar knows, the law provides that they need to have arrived prior to December 31, 2011, so any rush to come here now would be pointless – those people will be deported.

● Lamar Smith II: Smith also attacked the bill as “offer[ing] to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home.” In other words, he wants you to believe that people who were deported can come right back as can the families of those already here illegally. That’s a lie to.

Under the bill, family members of those here and those already deported need to go through the same immigration process everyone else does. What Lamar is really saying is that these people would not be permanently banned from the US, but he’s phrasing it in a way to mislead you by falsely implying that they would instantly be made residents. He’s lying to you.

● The Regulatory Canard: Bunches of conservatives have whined that this bill would result in new regulations. This is misleading. ALL LAWS RESULT IN NEW REGULATIONS. Regulations are how laws get implemented and the government acts on regulations, not laws. So screaming that a law will result in regulations is beyond disingenuous as the same criticism could be made of ANY law.

● It’s Big Government!! I: The Daily Caller attacked the bill because it would impose “big government” upon us. How you ask? Well, all those poor conservative farmers and small businesses would be FORCED to use the “intrusive” E-Verify system. The horror... the horror. Keep in mind that every conservative advocates using the e-verify system, so attacking the bill for using that is sheer hypocrisy.

● It’s Big Government!! II: The Cato Institute argues that improving border security means big government because it means we would need a stronger “biometric” system to monitor who comes and goes. In other words, conservatives argue that the bill must be stopped because it doesn’t fix the borders, yet the bill also must be stopped because fixing the borders would mean big government.

● The $3,000 Canard: There is real deception going around about the idea that the “bill gives the newly legalized a $3,000 hiring edge over US Citizens.” That’s Drudge’s headline and it’s been repeated ad nauseum by conservatives everywhere. Sounds like the law was meant to favor THEM over US, doesn’t it?

Well, the basis for this claim is that these people won’t be allowed on Obamacare, so they will cost employers $3,000 less. Only, that estimate is false. It will be closer to $500 and it will only be true for companies who choose to pay the Obamacare fine rather than providing healthcare to their employees. Secondly, it ignores the fact these people have a massive advantage over Americans already because they don’t get minimum wage or withholdings. These same conservatives simultaneously whine that the problem with the bill is that these illegals will actually get our precious Obamacare.

● They’re Going To Ruin Welfare!: Jim DeMint and basically every other conservative is whining that these illegals will now get welfare and other federal benefits like Obamacare. They ignore the fact that the law expressly precludes that. That makes their argument a lie.

Many, like Ann Coulter, get around this fatal flaw in their attacks by further whining that there’s no way to enforce that part of the law. That’s a lie too. And even if it wasn’t, it’s a disingenuous argument because you could make the same attack on all laws. Why ban abortion if it might not be enforced right?

Heritage did a “study” in which they laughably claim that expanding welfare to include these people will cost $2.5 trillion. That number is bogus. As mentioned above, these people can’t get welfare, so the actual cost is $0. Moreover, there are 50 million people on welfare today and the system costs $1 trillion. Adding all 11 million illegals (a nonsensical assumption) should at most cost another $200 billion.... less than a tenth of what Heritage is pimping. If only 10% apply (which is still far too high) then Heritage’s number is 100 times greater than reality. It is safe to say that Heritage is lying.

● 400 waivers... and a mule: The Daily Caller ran a headline warning that Rubio’s bill includes 400 waivers, exceptions and exemptions. This was meant to scare you into thinking that Rubio’s real intent was to hand Obama the power to not enforce the law and then to grant a secret amnesty. Of course, this is nonsense. For one thing, that’s not a valid way to find waivers, exception or exemptions in a law. Further, anyone who has ever read laws knows that most exceptions are procedural only and therefore meaningless. Most importantly, the fact that only one “exception” has become subject to conservative whining tells us this was false analysis.

That exception is the border security commission. The bill provides that Homeland Security will have five years to secure the border with biometric identification measures. If DHS fails, then that role gets stripped from DHS and goes to a commission to handle. Rubio described this commission as consisting of representatives of border states.

Conservatives pounced on this. First, they accused Rubio of “failing to stay awake in his civil procedure class” in law school because they claim that an error in the way it is written means that the commission could be wiped out if someone challenges the validity of the commission and the Supreme Court takes more than ten years to decide the matter. But there are problems with that. First, the Supreme Court won’t take ten years to decide the issue. Secondly, the fence (the conservative placebo) can’t be challenged. Third, it’s not clear the commission could be defeated in this way in any event. Fourth, even if the critics are right, then the fix is to add a sentence to the bill making sure that doesn’t happen... not to whine like children that the whole bill must be defeated.

These conservatives also squealed that Rubio “lied” when he said the commission would consist of border state representatives because the President, the Senate and the House also would appoint members in addition to the border state governors.

● Ann Coulter: Finally, we come to Ann. Ann smeared Rubio in an article titled, “If Rubio’s amnesty is so great, why is he lying.” I was going to dissect her article and show you the kind of crap she’s using to call Rubio a liar, but it’s just too depressing. Essentially, she invents a quote for Rubio, then she disagrees with a subjective adjective she included in her invented quote, and on the basis of her disagreement with her own invented adjective, she says that “Rubio was the Mount Vesuvius of lies about his immigration bill.”

It is, therefore, rather ironic that Coulter led off her article with this quote: “When Republicans start lying like Democrats, you can guess they are pushing an idea that’s bad for America.” Yes, Ann, that’s true... but Rubio isn’t the one lying.

If conservatives want to object to Rubio’s bill, that’s fine. But it’s not fine to lie, to distort, to scaremonger and to attempt to destroy Rubio in the process. This is a credibility killer, especially as I see this on issue after issue now from the narcissists who run the “genuine conservative” movement. At this point, I simply no longer believe anything they say until I can find the proof independently. . . they have become MSNBC to me.

I’ll tell you what I like about Rubio though, and why I am thinking it is increasingly likely that he will be our next president. Rubio has an unflinching positive attitude. He doesn’t grouse or whine or hide in a bunker telling himself that he’s the purest of them all. He seems genuinely interested in finding conservative solutions to problems and with making the world better. He is everything the above “genuine conservatives” are not. He’s also not afraid of the “genuine conservatives,” which is the kind of person it’s going to take to not only fix the Republican Party but to save conservatism from narcissists who speak for it now.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sen. Rubio's Immigration Bill

With the immigration reform bill being presented this week, and several talk radio hosts calling it the end of the world. . . if those sneaky gays don’t get us first. . . I thought it would be a good time to discuss a couple issues related to the bill. We don’t know much yet, as no one has seen the bill, but here is what we do know:

● The Need For Reform: Let’s start by repeating why this needs to be done. There is a 0% chance of sending these people home again, but leaving these people in this illegal status is bad for average Americans – (1) they pay no taxes, but they use government services, (2) they are a menance because they drive without insurance and cannot report crimes to the police, and (3) letting them get hired illegally lowers wages for everyone else in America. Politically speaking, the Republicans also need to repair the damage done by conservatives on this issue before it becomes impossible to win elections.

● Path to Citizenship: So is this an amnesty bill or not? Yes and no. Obama campaigned on the idea of an immediate “path to citizenship.” Basically, if you were here, you would become a de facto American immediately and then would get legal citizen status automatically thereafter. That idea was DOA in the Senate. Instead, the Rubio bill creates a process that must be completed and, according to Rubio, it’s actually a rather complex process which is harder and more expensive than just going home and coming back legally. Said Rubio:

“It will actually be cheaper if they went back home, waited 10 years, and applied for a green card. . . . we've not awarding anything. All we're giving people the opportunity to eventually do is gain access to the same legal immigration system, the same legal immigration process that will be available to everybody else.”

Apparently, what happens is this:

(1) The people already here will need to apply through the normal legal immigration system. If they qualify, they will receive a temporary status and will be allowed to apply for a green card. I haven’t seen how long they must stay in this legal status before they can apply for the green card, but I’ve seen suggestions that it will be ten years.

(2) Each applicant must submit to a “rigorous background check.” They must pay all outstanding fines and back taxes. People who’ve committed “serious” crimes won’t qualify for the legal status and will be deported. Moreover, to be eligible, these people must have been in the country before December 31, 2011. Everyone arriving illegally after that date will be deported.

(3) To keep this legal status, they need to be gainfully employed and must be paying taxes.

(4) To get the green card, they need to prove that they’ve been gainfully employed and that they can support themselves.

(5) It will take at least thirteen years before these people can start to become citizens.

● No Welfare: Rubio also said the new bill will prevent these people from getting federal benefits. According to Rubio, under the new plan, these people cannot get any federal benefits while they are in the legal status nor can they get federal benefits for the first five years after getting green cards.

● Border Security: The bill will include border security. Specifically, it will include an entry/exit tracking system, something which is a real problem at the moment. About 40% of current illegal immigrants are here because they’ve overstayed a Visa. And the reason that works is that it turns out that the US is quite good at tracking who gets into the country, but we’re very bad at tracking who leaves again. Congress has tried to fix this several times since the 1990s, but the systems they use don’t really work. The reasons given, however, strike me as excuses for bureaucratic stupidity: (1) they claim lack of resources – as every airport, border crossing and harbor would need to be manned, (2) the system causes unacceptable delays (attempts to test a system in Detroit led to massive delays), and (3) privacy concerns because they claim they would need to track Americans as well, though I don’t see why this would be true. Personally, I doubt any of those are valid, but we’ll see what the bill proposes. Rubio says they will fix this.

Rubio also says the bill requires universal e-verify for employment, which should make it impossible for illegal aliens to find work.

● Guest Workers: The guest worker program will be expanded. Thanks to labor union lobbyists, the number of low-skilled workers allowed in will be capped at 200,000 people annually. The Chamber of Commerce wanted a lot more, and now opposes the bill because they think this number is too small, but I haven’t been able to find out how many more they wanted.

All in all, this will be an interesting bill. It actually sounds rather rational and it’s stronger than I was expecting. Ultimately, it’s a much better solution than I was expecting.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Strange Stance On Immigration

I’ve been scratching my head about this whole “path to citizenship” debate on illegal immigration. Everything seems to be inside-out in terms of how this issue is being presented and I’ve been trying to figure out why. Consider this.

● Point One: The Republicans have a serious problem with illegal immigration. Our side has been so openly angry and offensive on the issue that we’ve basically lost all but the most hard-core right-wing Hispanics in the country. We even lost the Cubans.

● Point Two: One of the oldest rules of tactics is that when the other side is self-destructing, you let them. . . or you help them along. Obama has followed this perfectly until now. Indeed, he has largely stayed out of the immigration debate during his entire time in office except to poke conservatives with a stick. Conservatives have responded like Pavlov’s dogs and foamed at the mouth on command.

So far so good.

● Point Three: Then came Rubio. Marco Rubio figured out the problem with this and he proposed a way to fix this problem. He’s proposing a GOP-created path to citizenship which would undermine the idea that the Republicans are a bunch of racists and would, in a single stroke, end the issue so that conservatives stop reopening the wound day after day. This could actually go a long way to repairing the damage done by conservatives.

Ok, now it gets tricky.

● Point Four: The proper response by Obama should have been to claim Rubio’s bill and shove him aside so the Democrats could continue to claim the issue. Angry conservatives would then do the rest to reinforce the idea that Hispanics should always vote for the Democrats by tearing Rubio apart.

BUT that’s not how this is playing out. To the contrary, Obama has walked away from Rubio’s bill. He’s taken a few shots behind the scenes and offered vague imaginary counter-proposals, but by and large he’s abandoned the issue to Rubio. The MSM too has focused on Rubio’s bill as “the bill.” They have even run articles about how this is Rubio’s bill (and a Republican idea) and they criticized the bill for not being “tough enough.” This is very strange. Hispanic groups too have actually spoken about GOP “gains.” Because of these choices, this bill belongs to Rubio and the Republicans in the mind of the public. They are seen as the creators of the bill. They are seen as the people who need to make this happen. They are seen pushing this bill voluntarily and without Democratic support. That means they get the credit/blame, an opinion confirmed by the Hispanic groups talking about “gains.”

This is all very interesting.

Indeed, until now, the two ways the immigration debate seemed destined to play out was either (1) an amnesty gets passed over the GOP’s angry objections and Hispanics get permanently alienated (just like blacks were permanently alienated after GOP opposition to the Civil Rights Act) with no chance for the GOP to ever mend fences, or (2) the GOP continues to stand in the way of amnesty, alienating Hispanics until the issue finally gets resolved one way or another. But the Rubio effort, and the response by the left, has actually created an entirely new scenario, one in which the GOP gets full credit with Hispanics and essentially redeems itself. That could be a massive victory for the GOP and it’s not something I would have seen as possible until now.

But I’m left scratching my head as to why this is happening. Why would the Democrats play it this way? They are normally smarter than this. Then it hit me.

As I’ve said before, the Democrats are a collection of single issue groups held together by their common desire to get their stuff. But this type of structure is unstable because once a group gets what they want, they have no reason to stick around because they have no inherent loyalty to the rest of the party and there is no ideology for them to latch onto. Thus, the party cannot grant the groups what they want or the collective will collapse as a party.

This puts the Democrats in a bind. They love the immigration issue because it gives them a chance to frame the Republicans as racist and because it lets them use the promise of amnesty to win Hispanics by a 70% margin. But if they actually grant amnesty, then Hispanics have no reason to stick around anymore and they could fall back to the 20% margin they had in the 1980s and 1990s. That would mean a loss of about twice as many Hispanic votes as the Democrats would gain even if every single illegal alien started voting Democratic out of gratitude. That’s not good for the Democrats.

What this means is that the Democrats don’t actually want this thing to pass. BUT, they also can’t be seen to be opposing it or sabotaging it, because that would alienate Hispanic groups who would happily switch sides if the GOP embraced them. This creates a real dilemma for the Democrats: how do you stop something you can’t actively oppose?

I think the answer can be found in Obama’s behavior. By not embracing the bill and by promising an alternate bill which will never arrive, he keeps the Democrats from needing to support this bill for the moment. That gives them time to let conservatives destroy Rubio and his bill. To encourage them, Obama and the MSM have begun this campaign of attacking the Rubio bill for not being tough enough. The hope is that conservatives rise up and destroy Rubio. Then Obama can claim that if the Republicans won’t even pass Rubio’s bill, then there’s no hope for his bill either... “too bad, so sad, keep voting for us and maybe someday you’ll get what you want, senor.” This explains the articles about the bill being too free with citizenship, why Obama seems to be bidding to the right of Rubio on the issue, and why the Democrats seem to be dragging their feet suddenly: they’re baiting conservatives to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, I suspect that right now, the White House is thinking: “Crap! They might get this done and then we’ll lose our issue! Where the hell are those whiny conservatives when you need them!”

These are interesting times indeed.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Can Win The Senate? Uh, No

Fair warning: I’m going to crap on an article that’s all unicorns and happy dust about the Republicans winning the Senate in 2014. So if you want to believe that all is well, then ignore this article. But if you’re interested in getting a real sense of what is going wrong for our side right now, then read on. The article in question comes from Breitbart, but I’m seeing similar analysis all over the place. And this article highlights how blind the conservative pundit establishment really is at the moment.

The article starts by suggesting that the Republicans have an advantage in terms of taking the Senate in 2014 because 20 of the 32 Senators up for re-election are Democrats. Sounds great, right? Moreover, we only need to win 6 seats and 12 of those 20 Democrats are in “a state that is red or swing.” Gee, that sounds really great! What are those red/swing state? Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, West Virginia and Virginia.

Uh. . . no.

Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota and West Virgina are reliable blue states. So scratch them off the list. Moreover, states like Virginia and North Carolina are trending blue. And don't forget, we lost red states North Dakota and Montana in the last Senate election cycle, and we lost Alaska before that. In fact, reaching back, we lost both Montana seats, both Virginia seats, both West Virginia seats, both Colorado seats, and both Minnesota seats in the past few years. Not to mention the Democrats in Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and South Dakota are long-time incumbents, and the Democrats are very good at picking people who play well in those states. So what we're really looking at is maybe two vulnerable seats. Hence, forget winning.

But wait! This article also assures us the issues are on our side. Which issues? Well, Obama’s gun control push will force Democrats either to “back the President’s gun control agenda or risk handing their GOP opponents an effective talking point.” Really? What if the Democrats just do what they always do. . . they go home and talk about the need to save us from guns while simultaneously swearing they will protect the Second Amendment. Then they watch the House kill Obama’s proposal and the issue dies without them ever taking a stand. Huh, didn't see that one coming.

Wait, there's more!

“If the Republicans play their cards right,” the debt-ceiling debate is another “edge” the Republicans hold. Ha ha ha ha! Ok, first, the Republicans never play their cards right. Secondly, there is no right play here.

(1) You can’t play chicken with someone who wants you to hit their car, which is what the Democrats are. They want the Republicans to appear to wreck the government and the economy. . . it gives them cover.

(2) Do you really think anyone cares if the debt ceiling is $14 or $15 trillion? No. This is not an issue that you die for. And die it will be because the Republicans will be tarred with claims that (i) Social security will stop making payments, (ii) Medicare will stop paying doctors, (iii) soldiers won’t get paid, (iv) unemployment benefits will stop coming. . . all because the Republicans are trying to score political points to extract some worthless, meaningless promise of cuts that will never happen.

But more fundamentally, do you notice anything missing here? Yeah, the actual goal. This is Underwear Gnome Theory again: STEP ONE, hold country hostage... STEP TWO, _____... STEP THREE, profit. Seriously, this person is telling you the fiscal cliff holdup will win the day for us and they don't even realize there's no actual demand, there's just the holdup and the assumption of victory.

And they aren't done. Apparently, the evil Democrats in the Senate have “refused to pass a budget for the last four years. (Why aren’t we hearing more about this !?1?!)”. Good grief. We aren’t hearing more about this because it's technocratic bullship. Taxes get collected. Agencies get their share. Money gets spent. Programs continue. There is no substance to this argument, it's all procedure.

So look at what you're being sold here. You're being told there is the promise of a takeover of the Senate because 12 of 20 Democratic seats are vulnerable. The reality is we're talking about two. You're being told the Democrats will be forced to admit they want to round up guns, which won't happen. You're being told the public will magically fall in love with us if we disrupt the government for some goal to be named later. And you're being told the public will suddenly love us if we make the Democrats fill out Form A instead of Form B. This is delusional. Please do not believe this crap.

But even putting this aside, do you see the real problem? Ask yourself, what is our agenda? What are we offering the public? The answer which this pundit thinks is so wonderful is: (1) Stop Obama from doing something about guns. (2) Stop Obama from spending more money. Translation: vote for us so nothing changes!

If the Republicans ever want to win again, they need some actual ideas. They need to tell people how they will make the job market grow. How they will fix the housing market. How they will fix the student loan problem. How they will make the country safer. How they will make kids smarter and less ugly. “Vote for me and I’ll make sure nothing changes,” simply doesn’t work, and we need to stop accepting it.

Here are three names that are at least making moves in the right direction. Bobby Jindal is trying to eliminate the income tax in Louisiana. The same thing needs to be brought to the national level. Marco Rubio is talking about immigration reform. Again, we need to stop the bleeding on this issue and admit the inevitable. Rand Paul is talking about a foreign policy that involves a strong military, but dropping the idea that we should bomb everyone on the planet.

These ideas are a good start. They barely scratch the surface of what we need, but they at least are something more than “Vote for me and I’ll make sure nothing changes.” The truth is, we need an agenda that will create jobs, that will make people more secure financially and protect them from ill-health and old age, an agenda that helps people get out from under their debts, send their kids to college, and provides genuine protection from bad guys. And we need an agenda that promises personal freedom. I'm hoping to start unveiling such an agenda in a couple weeks, but in the meantime, start thinking about conservative solutions to problems people actually care about. Until we do that, more and more states will turn blue.

In the meantime, don't believe this garbage that everything is going great.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Elective Thoughts

Lots of little things in the news again, but nothing huge. Romney’s VP choice is being discussed extensively, as is Obama’s latest gaffe. A few “conservatives” are still trying to bring down Romney, and there’s more evidence Obama is doomed. Let’s roundup a few campaign thoughts, shall we?

● Thought No. 1. Village Grade Idiocy. Obama really is a fool. Check out this quote: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t built that. Somebody else made that happen.” W.T.F.?? This is the kind of ignorance only a man who never created a single thing could possess.

When you start a business, you take your own risk. Unless you’ve got a crooked financier behind you (like a certain “first black President” and his worthless wife), then you take your own money and your own time and your own labor and you bring them all together to create something that you hope to sell. If you do it right, and there is a market for what you are offering, then your business grows. Soon you hire other people to help expand. But you need to manage them, and everything is still your risk, your money, and your time. Only a man who thinks there are 57 states could suggest otherwise.

This actually gives us insight into why he’s failed as president, because this is how he understands leadership. He thinks you sit your skinny ass in a big leather chair or hide on a golf course as other people make things happen. That’s why ObamaCare became a cluster fudge, why he didn’t get card check or cap and trade, why financial regulation became such a mess, and why he can’t get any budget deals. Pathetic.

● Thought No. 2. Just Shut Up Already. I’m really sick of “conservatives” attacking Romney and offering retarded advice. Charles Krauthammer wants Obama to issue an apology for RomneyCare so Obama finally has something to attack. HotAir does too. Bill Kristol is demanding that Romney release his tax returns because that's what Obama wants. This needs to stop. How about these people go after Obama instead of Romney?

Interestingly, of all the clowns in the circus, Donald Trump had the best take on the tax issue. He said that Romney should agree to release his taxes only when Obama agrees to release his college applications and records. Yes! He then said, “I'll tell you what — the Republicans have to get a lot tougher. They have to get down and dirty also, because that's what's happening to them.” I never thought I’d agree with Trump, but this is absolutely right. It’s time that guys like Kristol learn that you can't win by crawling on your stomach to meet the politicized demands of your opponents.

● Thought No. 3. VP-arama. Romney is supposedly getting close to naming his choice for VP. I don’t think he can hurt himself with any of the names mentioned so far, but he can waste an opportunity if he picks the wrong person. I’ve said it before that I think he need a minority to send a clear message that the Republican Party has changed. In that regard, the short list includes Rubio, Jindal and Rice. I would prefer Rubio or Jindal to Rice, but I’d take Rice too. Also on the list apparently are Ryan and Pawlenty. I respect both men greatly, but picking either would probably make the ticket easy to lampoon as Dull and Duller. Both would be excellent once in office, however.

I would prefer Rubio (Allen West actually), but my money is now on Kelly Ayotte. She represents New Hampshire in the Senate and was previously the state’s Attorney General. She’s strongly conservative across the board. I’ll profile her if she’s chosen.

Whoever he chooses, it’s worth pointing out just how great Romney’s search has been. Rather than do the usual thing of trying to get a couple weeks of national exposure by dropping names, Romney has spent months now going from state to state, being seen each week with a possible candidate from that state. In the process, he’s generated buzz at the state level in key states (for himself and the local Republicans), and he’s used this as a way to deflect all of Obama’s attacks by each time suggesting he was getting close to making his choice. It’s been brilliantly done. Let’s hope his choice is as brilliant.

● Thought No. 4. The Bain of Obama’s Existence. I was a little confused this week when Romney strategist Ed Gillespie suggested that Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital were working. This clearly is not the case. For one thing, there’s nothing to attack. Bain bought and sold businesses, big deal. That hasn’t been controversial since the 1980s. For another, once you say the word “finance” people’s eyes glaze over. For yet another, Obama’s attacks have been esoteric, “lost in the weeds” attacks. Indeed, does it matter to any voter exactly what level of control Romney had as Chairman? Hardly. And if you want proof, look at the number of MSM types who have NOT dug into Bain. They know no one cares.

So why suggest these attacks are working, especially as there’s no evidence Romney is working to counter them? The answer is simple: Team Obama doesn’t seem to realize they’re beating a dead horse, and this was an attempt to make them think they were on to something so they would continue with this useless attack. Nice.

● Thought No. 5. Money Troubles. Obama made news last week by whining that Big Bad Romney has so much more money than poor little Red Obama. Interestingly, that’s not actually true. Since this election cycle began, Romney and the RNC have taken in about $425 million all told. Obama and the DNC have taken in $550 million.

So why the whining? Because in the past few months, Romney has blown Obama away. In June, Romney took in about $106 million compared to Obama’s $71 million. In May, Romney raised $77 million compared to $60 million for Obama. And apparently, Romney is now getting increasingly bigger checks as GOP whales are starting to give. Obama, meanwhile, isn’t. Obama is worried by the trend and acted desperately.

● Thought No. 6. DOOMED!! Finally, we have more evidence that Obama is doomed. One of the key demographics Obama need is young people. They are the one group he carries overwhelmingly and he needs them to make up for all the oldsters who will be turning out to toss him out. But the news isn’t good for Obama on the youth front. Gallup tracks enthusiasm by age group. In 2004, young people (age 18-29) turned out at 6% below the national average. In 2008, contrary to popular belief, they turned out 7% below the national average. If what they told Gallup is to be believed, they will turn out 20% below the national average in 2012!!! At the same time, old people who turned out 1% below average and 2% below average in 2004 and 2008, intend to turn out 7% above average in 2012. That’s the group that hates Obama the most. All of this will crush Obama and suggests that we are looking at a blow out.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Early-On-Set Romney Derangement Syndrome

It’s fascinating watching how this election is shaping up. Romney’s on fire. Obama is flailing. The left is demoralized. And the only people helping Obama are right-wing talk radio and one Barbarian RINO. These are interesting times.

Watching the Republicans attack has been refreshing. For decades, the Republicans played the game of trying to be the nice guy. . . the Charlie Brown of politics. It never worked. This time is different. Indeed, Romney has been savaging Obama every single day on every issue that comes up. He’s pounded away on the economy, on the lack of jobs, on Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden, etc.

He called Obama’s mishandling of the protection of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng “a dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame.” He blasted Obama’s attempt to find good news in April’s disastrous employment report (which shows both 8.1% unemployment and a record number of workers giving up trying to find jobs) and said “President Obama is out of ideas, he's out of excuses.”

He’s been verbally clever too, like when he flipped Obama’s claim Romney would not have killed bin Laden by both blasting the claim as politicizing military action and by implying that Obama doesn’t seem to realize he’s bragging about something truly anyone would have done: “Of course [I would have given that order]. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” This makes Obama sound like quite a fool.

Moreover, he’s attacked the little things through surrogates, like how his people accused Obama of eating dog and how they’ve blasted his laughable new campaign slogan “Forward” because of its socialist roots. These attacks have dominated the new cycle sometimes for days and can’t be linked back to Romney by the general public.

At the same time, a bevy of Republicans in battleground states (and more) are blasting Obama on behalf of Romney: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal, Bob McConnell and more are all constantly attacking Obama. Rubio called Obama “divisive” and “cynical” and said he pits Americans against each other. “All the things that made him different and special four years ago are gone. And now all he does is run, dividing Americans against each other, obviously because he can't run on his record.” Then he added about Obama’s foreign policy, “there’s this propensity that this administration seems to have of an unwillingness to forcefully assert America's values.”

Kelly Ayotte blasted Obama’s Iran policy and accused him of remaining silent as the people of Iran sought free elections. She even suggested he could have solved the nuclear problem if he’d acted then. And she said she is more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2008.

Obama’s Julia ad brought dismissive attacks across the board from the right (a new tactic for conservatives). National Review called it “creepy” and “the perfect example of [Obama’s] cradle-to-grave welfare mentality.” Others called it sexist and pointed out the irony or portraying Julia as “a strong, independent woman” and then showing her life depending on Obama’s paternalism. Human Events called it “offensively patronizing.” Paul Ryan called the Julia website “creepy and demeaning.” He added this: “It suggests that this woman can’t go anywhere in life without Barack Obama’s government-centered society. It’s kind of demeaning to her. She must have him and his big government to depend on to go anywhere in life. It doesn’t say much about his faith in Julia.”

And many of these attacks have gotten under Obama’s skin. A good example was Romney parking his campaign bus across from where Obama planned to start his campaign. The news cycle spent more time mentioning this sleight than it did what Obama said. Fox has even noticed that Obama is suffering from early-on-set Romney Derangement Syndrome, which is causing him to take inappropriate personal shots at Romney and sink to defending things Presidents normally ignore.

Obama, by the way, can’t find a message. Nor has he found a way to counterattack. He tried the “out-of-touch rich, white guy” bit and that didn’t work. “Dangerous extremist” didn’t work either. The war on women imploded, so did the Trayvon Martin race war. Now he’s reduced (I kid you not) to “don’t take a chance on Romney.” That’s what Sarkozy tried. . . and Gordon Brown. . . and George Bush Sr.

Meanwhile, places like Politico are adrift. Obama has given them nothing, and all they can do is try to explain away the bad news. Obama kicked off his campaign to empty stadiums, so they ran Axelrod’s claim that it was the intensity which matters. Sure. They had Axelrod explain why Obama wasn’t really spiking the ball (again and again) by trying to claim credit for the killing of bin Laden. They whined that the Keystone Pipeline guys are overselling how many jobs Obama killed, and the attacks on the Julia website aren’t entirely fair. Robert DeNiro likes Obama again, did you know that? Oh, and Hispanics might be critical in the election. . . maybe. Hey, Romney had a gay staffer? That should bother you religious nuts, right? Ann Romney spends a lot on clothes! Come on people! //sigh

In fact, right now the best friends Obama has are uberRINOs like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who fears people with principles and spent the weekend attacking the GOP as “too narrow and too rigid,” and people like talk radio. Indeed, talk radio and websites like HotAir are spending their time cherry-picking words out of the quotes of unnamed Romney staffers so they can prove his move to the center. . . he’s the real Alinsky Trojan Horse people!!! Fortunately, their idiotic bleating will only make Romney more acceptable to independents. . . assuming anyone is listening.

In any event, I shall leave you with this. I said the other day that this race really comes down to Ohio and Florida, and that still seems to be true. But the way things are going, I’m starting to wonder if that might not be too pessimistic? And before you say, “but the polls,” consider this. . . when the polls are normed to reflect the population, they use turn-out figures from the 2008 election, which was disproportionately Democratic. Think that will happen again?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Election: Predicting The Future

The primaries are over, even if Santorum and his media buddies don’t want you to believe that. Let me explain why. . . again. Then I’ll tell you why I know Obama will lose and why I’m ready to call the VP race! Read on!

● The Race Is Over: For Santorum to win the nomination, he must win more than 65% of the remaining delegates throughout the race. But even if you combine all of Newt’s and Rick’s votes, Santoronewt has only hit this magic number in two states: Georgia (66%) and uncontested Kansas (66%). In most states they get 51%.

Further, the math is about to get uglier for Santoronewt because they have just about run out of southern states and small farming states where Santoronewt does well. Consider California. In California, Santoronewt gets only 38%. That means, Santoronewt needs to make up 55 additional delegates in the other states just because of California. That means the 65% average mentioned above goes to 69%, something Santoronewt has never hit. Illinois, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, D.C., Puerto Rico and New Mexico all show similar polling numbers. Hence, it is impossible for Santoronewt to win.

And it gets worse yet because not all of Newt’s supporters will go to Santorum. If 10% of Newt’s supporters stay home, Santorum then needs to average 68% instead of 65%. If they vote for Romney, Santorum needs 71%. If 30% of these people jump to Romney, suddenly Santorum needs 83%. Any analyst who tells you this race can still be won is lying.

Santorum knows he’s finished too, as demonstrated by his new wishful thinking strategy. Indeed, his team said this weekend that they intend to stay in the race despite this math because they are hoping the convention delegates might decide to go against their own voters and choose him at the convention. Yeah, and Satan might fly out of his ass. In the meantime, Santorum continues thrashing about. Now he’s accusing Fox News of “shilling” for Romney (after slandering Drudge as a “cheerleader” for Romney), and he keeps whining about Romney’s money. When you start offering explanations for why you can’t win, then you know you’ve lost. Put a fork in him. . . a pitchfork.

● Why Obama Will Lose: I know Obama will lose. No, I do not have access to a newspaper from the future. If I did, I would be out messing with the timeline! But I do know what motivates voters and I can tell you that Obama has lost. Here’s proof.

(1) I’ve said for some time now that voters have given up on Obama and no longer listen to him. This means he can’t win them back anymore. Here’s proof of that: Obama’s approval ratings are not keeping up with growing consumer confidence (LINK). This means the public is not giving him credit for economic growth. Translation: he’s doomed. Also, 80% of people polled say they are NOT better off than they were four years ago. Translation: he’s really doomed.

(2) According to Rasmussen, 59% of the public view Obama as more liberal than they are. You can be seen as more conservative and still win in this country, but you can’t be seen as more liberal and still win.

(3) Only 37% of voters say their views are more like Obama’s than the GOP contenders (who get a combined 53%). That’s the real approval gap right there, and the Republicans are ahead by 16%. And this is despite all the nastiness of the primary.

(4) In the Oklahoma primary, Obama only got 57% of the vote and he lost 15 counties. This suggests that the left remains upset and disillusioned with Obama. I wouldn’t draw too much from this, except polls also show that the Democrats are suffering an 8% voter enthusiasm gap (53%-46% compared to GOP enthusiasm). Even 2% can cost an election.

● What’s This I Hear About A VP?: Any day now, the race will suddenly end and everyone will start talking about who Romney will pick as VP. I’m confident it will be Marco Rubio. For starters, Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and any candidate who picks him would instantly drive Tea Party enthusiasm through the roof. Romney needs that. He’s also smart, savvy, telegenic, and (most importantly) Hispanic. Romney needs that too.

But there’s more. Romney has shown no interest in many of the other possible VP candidates: Palin, Cain, West, etc. Indeed, he never mentions them and they’ve all attacked him. Rubio hasn’t. It’s also highly unlikely that Romney would pick one of the other jokers in the race. When the question came up about a picking a "conservative" VP, Romney said, “Well, that would preclude, of course, Rick Santorum.” Yes. . . yes it would.

So he could be looking at a Christie, a Nikki Haley or a Rubio. But Christie is a northeasterner and Romney won’t do that. Haley is not especially popular even at home. He might pull a surprise and pick Rick Snyder, the Tea Party governor of Michigan, or Rick Scott, the Tea Party governor of Florida, but they’re both white dudes and also not very popular. He might pick New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, who is also Hispanic, except she’s very raw and she doesn’t bring much cache. So Rubio is the best choice.

But that’s just guess work. If you really want to know what’s going on, follow the money. Rubio has assembled a team to prepare his image for the national stage. This team includes people who handled re-election campaigns for George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s also racing to publish his memoirs this fall, and his publisher has been leaking details to boost his image. He’s even spent $40,000 to hire investigators to investigate his own background so he knows everything that will end up in the Democrat’s opposition research file. These aren’t things someone does unless they expect to be thrust onto the national stage immediately (as compared to 2016). I would bet Rubio is spending this money and rushing his book because he and Romney have already cut a deal and Rubio is vetting himself for a quick announcement once the primary race winds down.

● Finally and unrelated: I don't normally pass on links, but I know many of you are history buffs and these are some incredible Civil War pictures -- high quality, amazing images, well worth the time. (The Atlantic)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...