Views on the News

November 3, 2012

Views on the News*  

Barack Obama is toast and two things stand out: 1) Mitt Romney has a consistent, significant lead among independent voters, which increasingly looks like a double-digit lead; and 2) Barack Obama has been underwater with independents almost continuously since the middle of 2009.  To overcome losing independents by more than a few points, Obama needs to have a decisive advantage in Democrat turnout, but nearly every indicator we have of turnout suggests that, relative to Republicans, the Democrats are behind where they were in 2008 and polls show Republicans will have a turnout advantage.  Those two facts alone indicate that Obama will lose, perhaps lose a very close race, but lose just the same.  He will lose the national popular vote, and the fact that he has remained competitive to the end in the two key swing states he needs to win (Ohio and Wisconsin) will not save him.  Three types of people vote: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Traditionally, Republican candidates get in the vicinity of 90% of the votes of Republicans, and Democrats get a similar but perhaps slightly smaller percent of the votes of Democrats.  This is more or less true over time and in national and state races.  There are two paths to winning an election: win the remaining, Independent voters; or turn out more of your own.  The problem for Obama is that whatever the high level polls say, Obama is losing independents and losing them by a significant amount. Analysis of the polls at the time showed Obama down, on average, 8.3 points with independents nationally and 8.7 points with independents in Ohio. If that holds, and unless Obama can sustain the kind of significant edge in loyal partisan votes he had in 2008, he’ll end up behind.  This is not a new problem, and if anything it was even worse in the mid-term elections.  There is no question that the big swing of independent voters to the GOP had a huge impact on the 2010 elections, just as the huge swing to Democrats had in 2006 and 2008.  Everything in the latest polls suggests doom for Obama with independents. The Washington Post poll has him down 20 with independents, 58-38. The Rasmussen national tracker has him down 17 today. The IBD/TIPP poll has him down 10, 48-38.  SurveyUSA/Monmouth has him trailing by 19, 52-33.  Rasmussen shows Romney leading  bama by 11 with independents.  Obama has lost independents. He will lose them nationally by easily 5-8 points, and quite possibly well into double digits. And he will lose them in Ohio by at least 5 as well. With no sign that he’s winning the crossover battle, partisan turnout is his only hope.  It’s hard to make sense of why so many pollsters are showing this as a tight race under these circumstances, with independents consistently breaking heavily to Romney and all the indicators of turnout suggesting at least a much smaller Democratic advantage than 2008 and, if you believe Gallup’s and Rasmussen’s surveys, a Republican wave unlike any we’ve seen in a presidential election in our lifetimes.  The signs of Obama’s defeat are too clear now to ignore. Given all the indicators:  Romney’s lead among independents, the outlier nature of the 2008 turnout model, the elections held since 2008, the party ID surveys, the voter registration, early voting and absentee ballot data – the only conclusion is that there is no remaining path at this late date for him to win the national popular vote, so Obama is toast and Mitt Romney will be the 45th President of the United States.

(“Why I Think Obama is Toast” by Dan McLaughlin dated October 26, 2012 published by Red State at http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/26/why-i-think-obama-is-toast/ )

Barack Obama’s pending landslide loss is inevitable because his statist agenda could not possibly succeed.  Electing Obama was liberal America's dash off a cliff and the 2012 election is merely the day they officially make contact with the ground.  Everything Obama and his cohorts in the media, academia, union halls, Congress, and the crony capitalist world believe in is fraudulent.  There was never going to be any economic recovery on their watch because they haven't the foggiest how an economy works.  There was never going to be any newfound love of America overseas because they have no clue what it is about America that has made us the shining city on a hill in the first place.  There was never going to be any job-creation because no one in Obama's bubble has ever created one.  There was never going to be any racial reconciliation because Obama was a post-racial fabrication of perverted white guilt and black rage.  There was never going to be a pristine future powered by windmills and solar panels because neither the business nor the scientific model for such technologies shows any possibility of success.  There was no way Obama would do a good job, because he's never had a real job.  This was all true on November 5 of 2008, and not a thing has changed about the reality of it in the past four years.  It is what it is.  Obama was preordained to install radical feminists, hardcore communists, environmental wackos, and anti-business activists into positions of power.  Meanwhile, the Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid was equally destined to pass legislation that destroys freedom and rewards cronies and armies of bureaucrats.  We were certain as a nation to suffer the cataclysmic effects of misguided liberalism as a result.  The ironic thing is, as the inevitability of Obama's defeat seeps in a little deeper each day, certain recent events are pointed to as the reasons.  These recent events are important, but they are not causal.  To buy into this analysis is to confuse the symptom with the disease.  Obama did not lose the election in the Denver debate.  He did not lose the election in Roanoke with the "build that" speech.  He did not lose the election with the disaster in Libya.  Denver, Roanoke, and Libya all happened because of who Obama is.  They are not events that happened "to him."  If it hadn't been these specific events, it would have been others.  He is who he is, and after four years in office, there was never going to be any escaping that.  The real Obama, exposed, would never be accepted by a majority of Americans.  There were signs of buyers' remorse immediately.  In 2009, Obama lost surrogate elections in New Jersey and Virginia.  In early 2010, he lost a big one in Massachusetts, and late in 2010 he lost almost a thousand total elections nationwide.  In 2011 he lost in Wisconsin, again.  Obama and the liberal statists have been hurdling towards a giant thud almost since the day they won in 2008.  Yet they have refused to recognize it even as they have hit all kinds of bumps on the way down.  To many of us, this has been obvious for years.  Maybe the only viable alternative -- the end of America -- was just too painful to contemplate.  Or perhaps, living in reality and not inside the isolated world of Washington, we just get it.  Obama has been a dead candidate walking since he won election, and Tuesday is merely the unavoidable conclusion.

(“Obama’s Loss: Inevitable for Years” by C. Edmund Wright dated November 1, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/obamas_loss_inevitable_for_years.html )


Since the 2010 election, the dynamic in America hasn't changed to favor the policies emanating from Washington, D.C., and if anything, antipathy toward the White House and Capitol Hill has intensified and the media types are blind to this problem or just choosing to ignore the giant elephant in the room.  The TEA Party was a game changer over the past three years. They put the President on the defensive over health care, culminating with Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts taking Ted Kennedy's seat in the mid-term elections.  The reason why the press doesn't see it, the reason why Democratic candidates don't see it, is there's a huge cultural blind spot.  The media continues to overlook the greatest story never told in recent American history: a vast, unbridgeable chasm exists between Washington's Political Aristocracy and Main Street America.  A 2010 Rasmussen Poll revealed an inescapable truth:  Main Street and the Political Class view things in polar opposite ways.  While 83% of mainstream voters were angry at the government's current policies, 76% of those in the Political Class were not. 70% of those in the mainstream thought the leaders of both political parties lack a good understanding of what is needed now, but 68% of Political Class voters disagreed.  In surveys since September 2009, those angry at the government have ranged from 66% to 75%.  Those who are very angry have run from 33% to 46%.  Stated differently: the Political Class is incapable of comprehending and agreeing with Main Street USA values.  The Political Class is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections.  The massive Washington bureaucracy, and those at the top at the helm, have lost the trust of the American people and are unlikely to regain it any time soon.  The Political Class continues to tell itself a false narrative about the TEA Party Movement.  The typical TEA Party participant is anything but a crotchety old racist white male.  A Quinnipiac University poll published in March 2010 found that 55% of TEA Partiers were women.  According to another USA Today/Gallup Poll, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Hispanics combined to make up nearly 25% of the movement's members, roughly reflecting the ethnic makeup of the general population.  The AP/GFK poll shows that 31% of likely voters consider themselves TEA Party supporters.  Something big is going to happen in November which involves tens of millions of TEA Partiers and their sympathizers.  It also involves 17 million Christian Evangelicals who chose not to vote in the 2008 election.  Don’t forget the 24% of Americans who are Catholic (approximately 68 million members) who have seen their religious liberties trampled, who feel threatened by our government's overreach.  The press, along with the rest of the Political Class, doesn't see what is coming because of their "huge cultural blind spot."  Those of us who live outside the Beltway, and inland from the coasts, have savored that aroma of real change for a long time and can't wait to dig in after the administration is sent packing in November.

(“Who’s in the Kitchen?” by Doug Mainwaring dated October 27, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/whos_in_the_kitchen.html )


The socialist wing of the national Democrat Party is larger and probably more powerful than it has ever been, but its numbers depend on how you define the term socialist and how you measure influence.  Labels can by misleading. Since the 1960s and the ascent of the so-called George McGovern/Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale wing of the Democrat Party, being a socialist, or fairly close to a socialist, has become the norm in the party.  Nowadays it is generally safe to presume that a Democrat lawmaker is a socialist unless evidence suggests otherwise.  But the word socialist still carries with it a certain stigma in U.S. culture, even in the age of Barack Hussein Obama, easily the most radical President the United States has ever seen.  Even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resists calling herself a socialist even though she clearly supports that ideology’s planks. And even though Pelosi is not a member of the CPC, like its members she occupies a parallel universe in which the United States is evil, racist, imperialistic, and all the other unpleasant adjectives that Marxists apply to this country.  Only the bolder members of Congress, often those in safe Democrat districts, tend to openly associate themselves with socialism.  Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are undoubtedly socialists, though most shy away from the label. The CPC has long had ties to the far-left Institute for Policy Studies, Democratic Socialists of America, and the Communist Party USA.  The CPC has 75 members in the U.S. House of Representatives, including two nonvoting delegates. This means that of the 190 Democratic House members with voting privileges, 73, or nearly two-fifths of all House Democrats, are members of the radical caucus.  CPC members support President Obama’s goal of fundamentally transforming America, turning it into a socialist nation like France or Greece, regardless of the limitations on governmental reach specified in the U.S. Constitution.  The CPC told supporters in 2009 that the primary purpose of enacting a government-run health-insurance plan was to put private insurers out of business. ObamaCare would lead to a complete government takeover of health care, in other words a single-payer system, over time.  There is considerable overlap between the relatively low-profile CPC and the much more high-profile, better-funded, 42-member Congressional Black Caucus. Unlike the CPC, the less ideological, less strident CBC holds glittering public conferences with generous corporate backing.  There are 25 House members who are members of both the CPC and the CBC.  The face of the modern Democrat Party has changed dramatically over the last 50 years, becoming more leftist and radical, and it’s not likely to change anytime soon.

(“The Socialist Democrats: An Election Primer” by Matthew Vadum dated October 30, 2012 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2012/matthew-vadum/the-socialist-democrats-an-election-primer/ )


America’s economy is about to bust its chains, because America wants to recover, just like when the hostages jetted home from Iran the day Ronald Reagan became President.  In all our history, recoveries follow crashes. Usually, the deeper the dip, the steeper the climb back out, except this recovery that Obama has presided over as his policies attempted to collectively transform the nation.  Untold trillions of dollars, investment capital that dwarfs what Obama borrowed from China for his un-stimulating infusion to the public sector, is sitting safely, unproductively on the sidelines until the people who invest it feel safe that Washington wants them to produce and succeed, not salute and comply.  Mitt Romney doesn’t have to be a genius to unleash this brilliant expansion.  Supply and demand send the signals that greedy, attentive capitalists and entrepreneurs turn into personal fortunes, with the happy byproduct of rising markets, lots of jobs, and lots of associated commerce: more people working; more people buying; more homeowners; and more youth with a chance to become productive adults.  Ronald Reagan understood this. He spoke almost mystically of the power of free Americans vanquishing both Soviet totalitarianism and the vaunted planned economies of the Asian tiger states.  A miracle happened. America won the Cold War without firing a shot, produced more jobs from 1980 to 1990 than Europe and Asia combined, and ended the 90’s as the globe’s unquestioned super power.  He created a free environment that welcomed enterprise. Then we watched things boom.  Romney is a genius, and intends to find the waste and inefficiency in the executive branch.  If Reagan’s mission and contribution was to remind Americans theirs was the best Constitution and system in the world, and that freedom could succeed, Romney’s is to tackle the excess bloat and inertia of an entitled society and ballooning public sector, spending and spinning out of control.  Reagan had to inspire and persuade the people. Romney has to tame and refo m their institutions and parasitic governing bodies. It’s probably the harder task. It’s also one he’s equipped for.  If you had to pick a skill set for someone who might have the tools to reform a sprawling, out-of-control-federal bureaucracy, you couldn’t do better than a private equity turn-around artist. The same eye that can absorb budgets, spreadsheets, market opportunities, and operations reports can focus sharp scrutiny on federal offices and expenditures.  The same rigor that values results over promises in the marketplace can elevate results over intentions in public programs.  As the economy grows and national and domestic budgets pull out of their nosedive, relief will give way to complacency. As they did with Reagan, the media left will magnify every ill or injustice they can conjure.  It won’t matter that donations to charities and other nonprofits are surging. Nor will it give pause that state and local governments that recently faced steep layoffs will now be flush and deciding how to allocate surpluses.  Walking in conservative/libertarian circles for two decades, I’ve come to realize there are two valid variables at work. One is more abstract and emotional: state control vs. liberty. The other is more bottom line and empirical: what works vs. what fails.  The approaches aren’t necessarily in conflict; they just operate from different foundations and visions.  The existential threats we face are insolvency, bureaucratic and leadership incompetence, and political priorities that ignore practical needs. Consider Romney’s experience, skills, and achievements of record in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, and there may never have been a candidate in history better positioned to do to what the nation desperately needs now.

(“The Mitt Boom Liberals Will Hate and Libertarians Will Pretend To” by Shawn Mitchell dated October 29, 2012 published by Town Hall at http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/shawnmitchell/2012/10/29/the_mitt_boom_liberals_will_hate_and_libertarians_will_pretend_to )

The Obama administration has been covering up their malfeasance in Libya since September 11th and now using distraction and obstruction to delay any revelations until after the November 6th election.  The first statements from the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi seemed plausible. There were, after all, protests throughout the Muslim world on the anniversary of 9/11, some incited by Islamists using an obscure video to arouse anti-American fervor in the mobs, and some just pelting U.S. embassies on general principles. When the administration explained that one of those protests had spun out of control and led to the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya, there seemed no reason to doubt it.  Within hours, the administration account deflated like a punctured balloon. There had been no protest outside the consulate in Benghazi. Members of Congress who were briefed said the attack was a military-style assault. We learned that an al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility for the attack. It was reported that Ambassador Stevens had noticed increased al-Qaeda activity, had feared for his safety, and had requested additional security, only to be turned down. For ten days the administration continued to distort reality by referring to the Internet video.  Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was part of a small team at the CIA safe house about a mile from the consulate, heard shots fired at 9:40 p.m. He urgently requested backup from the CIA and asked permission to head to the consulate to help. The request was denied three times. He and his team were told to "stand down."  Woods and others disobeyed orders and headed over to the consulate where they rescued several people and carried away the body of Sean Smith. They did not find the ambassador. Upon returning to the safe house, they again requested military back up and were again denied. They were soon under fire. The fighting there went on for four more hours. Washington was in constant touch with personnel in Benghazi through email. In addition, Griffin reports, a special operations force was stationed only 480 miles away at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. They could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. A military drone aircraft was over Benghazi at the time of the attacks, relaying real time information back to Washington.  The question is who in the military chain of command issued the or to “stand down,” after multiple urgent pleas for military support.  Obviously it was not General Carter Ham, the commander of the U.S. African Command, since he was going to send help when he was summarily relieved of command.  General David Petraeus says that the CIA never denied a request for help.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta avoided answering the question by explaining,"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, General. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."  If the Department of Defense did not explicitly issue the “stand down” order, then only someone in the White House like Barack Obama, or his low-risk political advisor Valerie Jarrett, decided to abandon support for troops on the ground.

(“Benghazi: Symbol of Obama’s Leadership” by Mona Charen dated October 30, 2012 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/2012/10/30/benghazi_symbol_of_obamas_leadership )


* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  No updates this week to the issue sections.


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY