Publicado: 06-01-2012 01:23 PM
DA EL TIRO DE GRACIA BILL CLINTON A LA REELECION DE OBAMA
ENSALZA BILL CLINTON EL "STERLING" RECORD EMPRESARIAL DE ROMNEY
Video: Romney's Qualifications, Business Experience Lauded by...Bill Clinton
By Guy Benson 6/1/2012
Just when you thought yesterday couldn't have gotten any worse for the Obama campaign, a certain former president appeared on CNN and asserted that Mitt Romney is qualified to be president, thanks to his leadership as governor and "sterling" career in the private sector:
This could deliver something of a coup de grace to the Obama campaign's all-Bain-all-the-time attack strategy. President Obama stated that this campaign will "be about" Romney's "vampire capitalism." Bill Clinton, Deval Patrick, and at least a dozen other Democrats have dissented from that view. Publicly. And we're still awaiting an explanation for why a handful of companies failing after Romney left Bain = greedy and evil, whereas Solyndra and other taxpayer-financed benefactors of cronyism shutting down = honest mistakes. Enlighten us, liberals. Oh, and by the way, Romney has jumped ahead in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina.
Publicado: 08-24-2012 01:39 PM
A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.
The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.
“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.
According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.
“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry. “The economy has seen some improvement since President Obama took office. What remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or **noallow** terms. If it’s the former, the president may receive credit for the economy’s trajectory and win a second term. In the latter case, Romney should pick up a number of states Obama won in 2008.”
Their model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992. It also correctly predicted the outcome in 2000, when Al Gore received the most popular vote but George W. Bush won the election.
The study will be published this month in PS: Political Science & Politics, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Political Science Association. It will be among about a dozen election prediction models, but one of only two to focus on the Electoral College.
While many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the Electoral College model developed by Bickers and Berry is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions.
In addition to state and national unemployment rates, the authors looked at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income. Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently: Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.
Accordingly -- and depending largely on which party is in the White House at the time -- each factor can either help or hurt the major parties disproportionately.
Their results show that “the apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent,” Berry said. The results indicate, according to Bickers, “that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states.”
In 2012, “What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.
In Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will receive 51.9 percent of the vote to Obama’s 48.1 percent, again with only the two major parties considered.
Election prediction models “suggest that presidential elections are about big things and the stewardship of the national economy,” Bickers said. “It’s not about gaffes, political commercials or day-to-day campaign tactics. I find that heartening for our democracy.”
Publicado: 08-26-2012 04:47 PM
Anti-Obama Film Director At National Press Club
Today, even the most socialist Dems will still deny that their
policies and the policies of Barack Obama are socialist.
Thomas was right. We Americans will never “knowingly”
Are you ready to wake up yet?
Publicado: 08-30-2012 05:22 PM
Prohibido olvidar cuando el congresista Barack Obama no voto por la reforma migratoria McCain -Kennedy en el 2007.
Lo mas terrible, es que Obama con todo el Congreso a su favor en el 2009, tampoco quiso pasar la reforma migratoria. Que joyita para los ilusos es Obama. :chicle:
floridianprincess ha escrito:
La unica reforma migratoria realmente bipartidista fue hecha por los senadores John McCain y Ted Kennedy. A esa, no solo no le hicieron caso en aquel tiempo sino que Obama, Hillary Clinton y sus complices se encargaron de hacer campana en contra de esta reforma y la mataron en sus etapas tempranas. Ademas, acuerdense de que Obama es negro y que para el los negros valen mas que los hispanos y los blancos y realmente no quiere la igualdad para los hispanos.
Publicado: 09-03-2012 01:12 PM
Go Ahead, Make Romney’s Day
By Ben Shapiro Sept 3, 2012 FrontPage
The Republican National Convention was a well-run, brilliant spectacle: beautifully staged, wonderfully timed, and with fantastic speakers. But no one decision showed that the Romney campaign gets it more than their decision to invite Clint Eastwood to speak just before Marco Rubio on the night of Mitt Romney’s nomination.
Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying that politics lies downstream from culture. In other words, culture changes how people think and feel; politics is a reflection of that change. And Hollywood is the central component of American culture.
Eastwood represents the last gasp of classic Hollywood: old-fashioned heroes and anti-heroes who stand strong for American values of justice and freedom. Eastwood is the same Eastwood in Dirty Harry as he is in Gran Torino (2008). In the former, he won’t stand for Americans’ safety and property rights being violated by criminals, no matter what the liberal niceties require. In the latter, he stands up for private property against the forces of thuggery. That’s the Clint Eastwood who strode onto the stage.
And then he did something no leftist Hollywood figure would do: a comedy routine. Eastwood stood up there and ad libbed a routine … with an empty chair. The chair, of course, represented President Obama in all of his indecisive glory. “I remember three and a half years ago, when Mr. Obama; won the election,” said Dirty Harry:
“And though I was not a big supporter, I was;watching that night when he was having that thing and they were; talking about hope and change and they were talking about, yes; we can, and it was dark outdoors, and it was nice, and people; were lighting candles. They were saying, I just thought, this was great. Everybody is crying, Oprah was crying. I was even crying. And then finally — and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million; unemployed people in this country.” Ouch.
The left went insane over Eastwood’s routine, calling it unfunny, wandering, and bizarre. There was some of all of that – not every moment was blockbuster. But overall, it was genius. The meme took hold: Obama was an empty chair. And this week, conservatives across the country celebrated National Empty Chair Day over Labor Day, placing empty chairs on their lawns to signify an empty presidency.
That’s the power of imagery and narrative. Perhaps the two most powerful takeaway moments from the RNC were Eastwood’s empty chair routine, and Paul Ryan’s tremendously powerful line: “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.” Ryan’s line spawned an entire ad showing a college student removing his faded Obama poster after recognizing that Obama hasn’t lived up to any of his promises.
Eastwood did what he was supposed to do: he shifted the debate. Actually, he did more than that: he bravely lifted the entertainment industry taboo against knocking an incompetent president of the United States. And he took fire for it.
Eastwood had been Betty White doing that same routine at the Democratic National Convention, the left would have feted him as a comic genius. Nonetheless, Eastwood’s appearance highlighted the fact that President Obama is now worthy of becoming the butt of jokes. Most important, it’s clear that the Republican Party is beginning to recognize the necessity of Hollywood. If they are willing to reach out to Hollywood, to use its talents and let them help craft the conservative narrative, conservatives will reap the benefits in the same way the left has.
Publicado: 09-03-2012 06:33 PM
The Fantastic Romney Video You Probably Didn't See
By Guy Benson
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Hot Air’s Allahpundit are in rare agreement: A video produced for the Republican National Convention that played on the evening of Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech should have been featured more prominently in prime time. Why? It was touching, humanizing and uplifting – and it also highlighted Romney’s professional accomplishments in a very compelling way. Because the ‘likeability’ factor is such a major component of this campaign, why wouldn’t RNC organizers have moved heaven and earth to ensure that tens of millions of voters would be exposed to such a brilliant piece of biographical art? Before we tackle that question, let’s watch it. I realize that 10:30 is a decent chunk of time to invest in a YouTube clip, but c’mon – it’s Labor Day, and the video is well worth your time:
High marks for production values and content. My personal favorite moment is the light bulb snippet; I laughed out loud at Mitt's aluminum foil "fix." Given how compelling and effective this video is, a strong argument can be made that airing it during the heart of prime time should have been a no-brainer. Sure, everyone in the packed convention hall (hardly undecideds) saw it, as did the CSPAN crowd, but most home viewers did not. Here's the dilemma Team Romney encountered: The major broadcast networks decided they'd only cover the 10-11pm ET hour each night. Peggy Noonan writes that this choice is a national scandal, and I agree, but that's another subject for another day. So the Romney folks had to make a choice. The final hour could feature Clint Eastwood or the video, but not both. They opted for the former. I think the Hollywood star's presentation turned out to be a net positive for Romney -- I may revisit this point later -- but was he really better than this bio spot, at the end of the day? Donning my Monday morning quarterback helmet, I'd say Eastwood should have gone at 9:45 or so (every single cable news outlet would have run it in full, plus the video ended up going mega viral anyway), followed by Marco Rubio at the top of the hour. The video above would then have served as a moving and inspirational introduction for the candidate's entrance, guaranteeing that it would air with peak viewership.
In any case, hindsight is 20/20 and this whole discussion is moot. What's done is done. That being said, I still think the Romney campaign should consider promoting this video aggressively online. A final thought: In 2008, the Obama campaign was flush with cash. As election day approached, with coffers overflowing, they secured a 30 minute prime time slot on two national broadcast networks to air a documentary-sstyle mega ad. Mitt Romney currently enjoys a large fundraising/cash-on-hand advantage over his rival, and I imagine the money will continue to flow in. I won't pretend to have any special knowledge of the Romney camp's spending priorities, but I wonder if they'd at least consider shelling out substantial bucks to air some version of this clip in the final weeks of the campaign -- if the resources are there, of course.
Publicado: 09-09-2012 01:36 PM
Publicado: 09-10-2012 08:37 PM
The Terrifying Line in Obama's Speech That Everyone Missed
His Agenda: President Obama's convention speech got rough reviews, and rightly so. He offered little but tired bromides and recycled promises. But critics overlooked one promise that will guarantee an even bleaker future.
There was plenty to dislike in Obama's speech. The language was flat, his delivery languid. The speech was stuffed with standard Obama chestnuts about the smallness of politics, the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how cynicism is our worst enemy.
Instead of stirring rhetoric filled with hope and promise, Obama pledged that under his leadership, "our path is harder" and "our road is longer."
Seriously? After four years of the worst economic recovery since the Depression, falling incomes, lower-paying jobs, increased hopelessness and exploding debt, all Obama has to offer is that he'll make this nightmare last even longer?
He also told the public that they "elected me to tell you the truth" not to "tell you what you wanted to hear," but then proceeded to hide inconvenient truths while filling the public's ears with sweet nothings.
For example, he pledged government help for everyone who could possibly want or need it, but managed to avoid any mention of the hard truth that the national debt just topped $16 trillion and entitlements are unsustainable.
He said he'd spend money saved from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on roads, bridges and schools. Even the liberal press wasn't buying this one. As the AP pointed out, Obama "laid claim to a peace dividend that doesn't exist."
Obama promised to "take responsible steps" that would "keep the promise of Social Security." But he failed to mention that the only options he's left on the table are raising taxes or cutting benefits. That may not be what people want to hear, but it's the **noallow** truth.
He trotted out his supposed plan to cut deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. But his actual plan — the budget he presented in February — would add $3.5 trillion in deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Then Obama said he'd create a million new manufacturing jobs, recruit another 100,000 math and science teachers, cut tuition growth in half, and reform the tax code. All by magic, apparently, since he's provided no detailed plans on any of this.
But while everyone was picking apart these and other flaws in Obama's speech, they overlooked the most frightening line of all. That was when Obama promised that he'd pursue "the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one."
That promise might have made liberal hearts swoon. But as Amity Shlaes explained in her outstanding history of the era — "The Forgotten Man" — it was precisely FDR's "bold, persistent experimentation" that was largely to blame for the length, depth and severity of the Great Depression.
Convinced that the government had to do something, FDR tinkered and experimented, she said, figuring that if he didn't "get it right the first time ... maybe he'd get it right the second time." But the very arbitrariness of FDR's actions, she found, made it impossible for businesses to make plans. And so, as FDR's bold experiments increased, business activity decreased and markets froze.
"From the point of view of a business," Shlaes said in a 2009 interview, "it is annihilating to hear Washington uncertain, and that itself retards recovery because you really don't know what to expect."
If Obama wants to conduct experiments, he should get a job as a high school science teacher, and not use the entire nation as guinea pigs, particularly when we already know how his tests will turn out.
Publicado: 09-19-2012 11:18 AM
By Daniel Greenfield On September 18, 2012 @ 12:38 pm In The Point
THIS WAS WHEN OBAMA TOOK POWER
OBAMA TAKING THE OATH TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION
Ask YouTube to take down a video that Muslims find offensive? Sure. Jail a filmmaker who made a movie that offends Muslims? Holder’s on it. And all of it just in time for Constitution Day on September 17th, or as Obama calls it, “Let’s have a barbeque and use that old piece of paper made by some dead white men that I found lying around the place to feed the flames.”
Robert Knight at the Washington Times has assembled a list of ways that Obama has enriched our understanding of the Constitution by ignoring it, violating it or setting it on fire during his favorite concerts.
Now for some examples of Mr. Obama’s violations:
Launching an illegal war in Libya. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Under the congressionally enacted War Powers Act, Mr. Obama had 60 days to get congressional approval after U.S. bombs started dropping in Tripoli, but he didn’t bother. Putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of yet another Arab nation appeared to be a higher priority than following the law.
Undermining the nation’s armed forces. Article II, Section 2, names the president commander in chief. Instead of asserting American power, Mr. Obama projects weakness, emboldening our enemies. The murder of our ambassador and three other staff members in Benghazi, Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Yemen are bitter fruit of that reality.
Violating religious freedom. Mr. Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services ignored the First Amendment by issuing a Soviet-sstyle order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations.
And there is that whole thing about criminalizing blasphemy against Islam. I hear we have something in the Bill of Rights about that.
THIS IS OBAMA AFTER TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION
ASSUMING DICTATORIAL POWERS
Obama wants to increase the poverty class making more, and more Americans dependents of the government filling the lines of those voting for the “misery party.” ... 47 million Americans are now in extreme poverty receiving food under the “food stamp” president… 47% pay no taxes… in desperation, many unable to find fobs decided to take on disability in order to survive… the number of Americans in disability increased to almost 9 million!!!
Romney, in the other hand, wants to diminish the amount of people on poverty creating millions of new jobs and raising to form part of the middle class those who are now suffering under the “food stamp” president.