2012 Presidential

[Cranewings]

Question to whoever:

Do you feel like the Republican party is too divided to beat Obama? According to Brian Williams the other night, Obama would lose to a generic Republican candidate, but is still leading either Romney or Perry.

Is the idea of a generic Republican dead right now? I feel like the Tea Party has divided the GOP enough that "generic Republican" means very different things to the different people.

Is there any hope of a new candidate that will appeal to moderate Republicans and the Tea Party?

I still think the GOP plans on losing this election and are just sacrificing all their crappy people to Obama.

[G M]

As Obama continues to fail, anyone on the ballot will beat him.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Question to whoever:"

If I am not mistaken, that should be "whomever"  

"Do you feel like the Republican party is too divided to beat Obama?"

I see the risk as a matter of incompetence more than division.

"According to Brian Williams the other night, Obama would lose to a generic Republican candidate, but is still leading either Romney or Perry."

The polls I am seeing showing R or P winning by a point or two, but the larger point is valid: Baraq is shockingly strong when he goes head to head with a Rep candidate.

"Is the idea of a generic Republican dead right now? I feel like the Tea Party has divided the GOP enough that "generic Republican" means very different things to the different people."

IMHO the Tea Party is has energized the Rep Party.  You think a party of Poener and wuzzhisface in the Senate, Mitch O'Connel inspires anyone?

"Is there any hope of a new candidate that will appeal to moderate Republicans and the Tea Party?"

 A good question.. Perry;s "Fred Flintstone theory of evolution is going to cost him plenty of votes.

"I still think the GOP plans on losing this election and are just sacrificing all their crappy people to Obama."

Well, the Reps certainly have an amazing cpacity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory , , ,

[G M]

 "A good question.. Perry;s "Fred flintstone theory of evolution is going to cost him plenty of votes."

Really? I think Obama's marxist theory of economics is more destructive.

[G M]

WASHINGTON | Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:03am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama faces deep skepticism from swing voters who see the Republican party as more in tune with their concerns about government spending, according to a poll released on Tuesday.

These undecided voters, who could determine whether Obama wins re-election next year, believe Republicans are more serious about reducing budget deficits and more aligned with them ideologically, according to the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

The poll focused on voters who had backed Obama in the 2008 presidential election but voted for Republican candidates in the 2010 congressional elections. They make up about 20 percent of the electorate in the handful of hotly contested states that will likely dictate the outcome of the 2012 election.

[DougMacG]

They were baited into attacking each other instead of taking turns showing the country how they would conduct a general election campaign against President Obama and how they galvanize the people around an agenda and mandate for recovery and prosperity.

Pawlenty and Bachmann had a similar snippy exchange against each other and now both are irrelevant.

Romney believed he needed to take Perry down a notch, but others across the spectrum were already doing that.  Only problem with attacking him on SS comments is that Romney has used the exact same words.  Romney makes the distinction that congress raiding the funds is what he was calling the criminal enterprise, but congress raiding the funds IS the status quo that Perry was attacking.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/12/romney_and_perry_argue_over_social_security_at_tea_party_debate.html

Perry drew attention to the problem magnificently, as if he were about to announce the solution, and then didn't.

Romney drew attention to his 59 point economic plan ahead of the President's speech and left the key points vague and uncommitted.

My advice to all of them at the beginning of all this was to pursue clarity.  Still waiting.

[DougMacG]

GM 9/12/11:  "It's worse than a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scammer can't use the force of law to compel you to participate in it."

Chcago Tribune Editorial 9/13/11: "The Texas governor owes a big apology to Charles Ponzi. Sure, Ponzi fleeced investors, but they at least had a choice about participating. Social Security operates on a compulsory basis."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-socialsecurity-20110913,0,6514632.story

That's the President's home town paper admitting the so-called right wing extremist in the race didn't go far enough.  Who says we aren't making a difference.   

[G M]

Heh. Crafty should check his logs to see if the Chicago Trib's IP has been hitting this forum.   

[Crafty_Dog]

 

I read that Perry defended subsidizing college tuition for illegals.

Several people have really ticked me off on Perry's SS comments.  Despite similar words to similar effect of his own, Romney (aided and abetted by supporter Tim Pawlenty) is now doing his best to establish a scurrilous meme to the effect that Perry's words means he wants to welch on SS.  I understand politics is hardball, but not only is this a lie, but it also serves the Dems.  Not that I liked Romney before, but this lowers my opinion of him as a man.  I heard, but have not seen for myself, that Bachman has played this game a bit too.

[Cranewings]

I heard, but have not seen for myself, that Bachman has played this game a bit too.

I think they were talking about this on Neil Bortz yesterday. I heard the same thing somewhere there I believe.

[G M]

Poll: 81% say Obama economic policies not working


by Byron York Chief Political Correspondent

 


Follow on Twitter:@byronyork






There's a lot of terrible news for President Obama in new polls by the Washington Post-ABC News and the Wall Street Journal-NBC News.  The number of Americans who say the country is on the wrong track has risen to its highest level since just before Obama took office -- into what one commentator calls the "incumbent death zone." His job approval rating is down.  The number of people who disapprove of his handling of the economy is rocketing upward.  And then there is this question, asked by the Post-ABC:
 

Do you think Obama's economic program is making the economy better, making it worse, or having no real effect?
 
Just 17 percent say the president's program is making the economy better, while 34 percent say Obama's program is making the economy worse and 47 percent say it is having no real effect.  Combine those last two numbers, and 81 percent say the Obama economic program is not working -- a devastating number in a country in which economic concerns top all other issues in voters' minds.
 
As far as the traditional right-track/wrong-track question is concerned, 77 percent of those surveyed by the Post-ABC say the country is on the wrong track, while just 20 percent say it is on the right track.  The last time that number was so high in the Post-ABC poll was January 16, 2009, on the eve of Obama's inauguration, when 78 percent of those surveyed said the country was on the wrong track.  If Obama does not reverse the trend in the wrong-track number, it could approach the levels it reached in the last months of the George W. Bush administration, when it topped 80 percent.
 
As for opinion on how Obama is handling the economy, 62 percent disapprove of his job performance on economic issues in the new Post-ABC poll, while just 36 percent approve.  In the Journal-NBC poll, those numbers are 59 percent disapproval versus 37 percent approval.  Finally, on the question of general job approval, Obama is down to 43 percent approval in the Post-ABC poll and 44 percent in the Journal-NBC poll.  His disapproval ratings are 53 percent and 51 percent, respectively.
 
All that adds up to a president in major trouble as he faces re-election next year.

Yeah, I think whatever ACORN is called now better start working on Operation Vote Fraud very soon.....

[G M]

10. Many Mexican Drug Cartels still woefully underarmed.

9. Hundreds of luxury resorts Michelle hasn't had a change to visit yet.

8. Bo loves airplane rides.

7. Obama merchendise plummeting in price.

6. Obama hasn't had the chance to bow before the new generation of Chinese leaders.

5. Dollar still hasn't been totally destroyed.

4. Union thugs threatened with having to get real jobs.

3. Hundreds of democrat donors that still haven't gotten their beaks into taxpayer money yet.

2. He's starting to get the hang of it.

1. Michelle doesn't want him spending ALL of his time golfing.

[G M]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Patriot!

[Crafty_Dog]

Thread Nazi here.  This thread is not for any and all nonsense pertaining to Baraq.  This would have been better in Cognitive Dissonance.

[G M]

Thread Nazi here.  This thread is not for any and all nonsense pertaining to Baraq.  This would have been better in Cognitive Dissonance.

Just poking holes in the "Obama is unbeatable" meme.

The dems are sweating losing Anthony "Littlefinger" Weiner's seat to a republican tonight. What does that say?

[Cranewings]

When Gov. Rick Perry obstructed an investigation into the execution of a man experts say was innocent, he committed a crime against all Texans. State executions are carried out in our names, collectively and individually. Subverting the truth in such a matter is a betrayal of the public trust that is difficult to describe or comprehend.

But Perry may have also committed a crime against the U.S., and I’m not talking about his secession threats. He may have violated federal law,  U.S.C. 18.1001. This is no trivial matter. An innocent man was executed. Federal laws and guidelines are in place to keep that from happening. Perry may well have violated those laws and guidelines, for which there are criminal penalties.

Last night, CNN commentator, Texas hero and political strategist Paul Begala wrote us at DogCanyon with the following observation about our post earlier yesterday...

The rest is here : http://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/10/02/perrys-crime/

As soon as Rick Perry threw his hat into the 2012 electoral ring, anti–death penalty critics brought up his staggering execution record as governor of Texas: 234 prisoners have been put to death under Perry’s watch, a number of whom had serious innocence claims. Most famous among them is Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 and whose case opened up an investigation that Perry has taken aggressive—and largely successful—measures to squash.
But a lesser-known case could also haunt the governor if it reaches his desk: that of Larry Swearingen, convicted and sent to death row for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 19-year-old college freshman named Melissa Trotter in 1998. Like Willingham, Swearingen was convicted largely on circumstantial evidence and a history of run-ins with the law. But Willingham was convicted based on the inexact science of arson investigations, whose flawed assumptions have been slow to evolve. The scientific evidence in Swearingen’s case, medical experts say, is beyond dispute—and it proves his innocence.

More at : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/02/opinion/main20100776.shtml

[G M]

How exactly is Perry supposed to have obstructed an investigation?

[G M]

Guess who said this:

 "Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)."

Same douchebag that said this:

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

 

It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.

 

And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.

 

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

 

And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paul-krugman-social-security-ponzi-scheme-and-will-soon-be-over

[G M]

Oh Hilllary.....

I wonder if Evan Bayh or other, more mainstream dems are getting some phone calls from frightened DNC bigwigs today.

[DougMacG]

Evan Bayh, yes.  Kucinich from the left.  What does he have to lose?  Jim Webb's name  (D-VA)  came up on the board - he's not afraid of offending anyone.  We were arguing about whether Gov. Huntsman uses chopsticks properly; Sen. Webb was Secretary of the Navy.

[G M]

Oh Hilllary.....

I wonder if Evan Bayh or other, more mainstream dems are getting some phone calls from frightened DNC bigwigs today.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63466.html

HOWARD BEACH, N.Y.—The Democratic Party’s rare loss of a congressional seat in its urban heartland Tuesday, accompanied by a blowout defeat in a Nevada special election, marked the latest in a string of demoralizing setbacks that threatened to deepen the party’s crisis of confidence and raise concerns about President Barack Obama’s political fortunes.
 
In New York, Republican Bob Turner soundly defeated Democrat David Weprin in a House contest that — in the view of party leaders, at least — featured an anemic urban machine, distracted labor unions and disloyal voters. In Nevada, a consequential state for the president’s reelection strategy, Democrats suffered a runaway loss rooted in a weak showing in Reno’s Washoe County, a key bellwether.

Even before the polls closed, the recriminations — something short of panic, and considerably more than mere grumbling — had begun. On a high-level campaign conference call Tuesday afternoon, Democratic donors and strategists commiserated over their disappointment in Obama. A source on the call described the mood as “awful.”
 
“People feel betrayed, disappointed, furious, disgusted, hopeless,” said the source.
 
Less expansive but equally telling were the remarks of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, who in a conversation with reporters Tuesday morning said bluntly that Obama would take some blame for the two special election losses.
 
“I think every election reflects on the person in charge, but do I think it is an overall statement on the president alone? No,” said Hoyer. “Do I think it will be interpreted as being a statement on Obama? That’s probably correct.”
 
A senior Hill Democratic aide was more direct in attempting to explain the New York loss: “The approval ratings for the guy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue cratered.”
 
A Turner consultant, Steve Goldberg, validated that assessment: “It was all Obama — not even a thought of anything else.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63466.html

[ccp]

 

I look forward to reading more analysis about this and am totally astounded.  This IS a big deal (big "f" deal to quote the quotable VP Biden ).   Apparantly many of my fellow Jewish Americans are waking up to the realization they are being used:

***NO DEMOCRAT IS SAFE
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann09.14.2011
The smashing victory of Republican Bob Turner in the special election for the Congressional seat held for decades by Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner sends a pointed warning to House Democrats who were formerly comfortable in their “safe” Democratic districts: No Democrat is safe!

Behind the incredible upset — this was the first time the district went Republican since it was created — lies the massive and growing animosity toward Obama by Jewish Democrats. This Administration’s deliberate insults against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its sympathy with the radical Islamists, and its support for a return to 1967 borders for the Jewish State have cost it the support of its once second most loyal voting group (after African-Americans).

According to John McLaughlin, the star political strategist who helped pilot Turner to victor, the Republican candidate spent about $60,000 on media in the final week compared to over a million for the defeated Democrat Weprin. The Democrats flooded the district with workers and money but were not able to stem the avalanche.

Turnout among Latino and African-American voters was very low and the outpouring of Jewish and white Catholic voters against Obama’s candidate was truly impressive.

This victory for Republicans is, in its own way, as inspiring for conservatives and as deflating for liberals as the 2010 victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race. The message it sends is that Obama’s policies have made all liberals and all Democrats vulnerable even in the bastions of Democratic liberalism.

Thank you to the people who donated key funding to the Turner campaign through DickMorris.com in the pivotal last few days of the race. You made a big difference and can feel justifiably proud in the result!

Copyright © 2011 DickMorris.com | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Log in***

[G M]

**Can you imagine the screams if Bush had done anything like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html

Posted at 12:56 PM ET, 09/14/2011
Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of conservatives

By Elizabeth Flock


GALLERY: Click to view images of Obama's jobs promises.
 
As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up, President Obama’s campaign team has set up a new Web site, AttackWatch.com, to challenge negative statements about the president made by Republican presidential candidates and conservatives.
 
Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird told ABC News that the site’s goal is to offer “resources to fight back” against attacks. Mostly, that means fact checking statements from the likes of GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and conservative commentator Glenn Beck and offering evidence to the contrary. The site is designed in bold red and black colors, and uses statements like “support the truth” and “fight the smears.”
 
The response to the site has been less than stellar.
 

(Image via Twitter) On Twitter, where the Web site has an account to help Obama supporters submit evidence of “attacks” on the president using the hashtag #attackwatch, nearly every tweet about the site — mostly from conservatives — has ridiculed it.
 
“There's a new Twitter account making President Obama look like a creepy, authoritarian nutjob,” an Arizonan tweeted. “In less than 24 hours, Attack Watch has become the biggest campaign joke in modern history,” a contributor to conservative blog The Right Sphere wrote. The contributor linked to the following parody commercial for Attack Watch:
 
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite noted sarcastically of the site, “Great. Sounds like a terrific content-generating resource for right-wing bloggers, too. Everybody wins!”
 
While the initiative is reminiscent of a similar online effort launched during the 2008 campaign, called Fight the Smears, the intimidating design and language of the new site seems to be what’s causing a bigger ruckus.
 
Fight the Smears looked and felt far less scary, quoting Obama at the top of its page in a classic hope-change statement: “What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon — that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge but enemies to demonize.”
 
Attack Watch, on the other hand, uses the shorter tag­line, “Get the Truth. Fight the Smears.”
 
It’s safe to say that in its 24 hours of existence, Attack Watch has already backfired, becoming a tool for conservatives to use against Obama 2012. A tweet by conservative author Brad Thor summed up the critics’s argument: “Wow, not only are Obama & Co. incredibly thin-skinned, they're paranoid.”
 

Update, Wednesday, 5:11 p.m.

Obama 2012’s press office just returned an earlier request for comment. According to deputy press secretary Katie Hogan, 100,000 people signed up for the site in the first 24 hours.

“This site is a tool providing our supporters with the facts they need to fight back against lies and distortions about the President’s record,” Hogan said.

[G M]

[G M]

[Crafty_Dog]

Just a little red X in a little box showing in the last two entries.

[G M]

Just a little red X in a little box showing in the last two entries.

They loaded for me.   

You can view them at the link below.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/14/attaaaaack-waaaaaaatch/

[DougMacG]

Krugman: (GM posted this previously in the thread) "Social Security...in practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics..."
----
How about Chris Matthews and ... Tim Russert:

 Mr. Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."

Mr. Matthews: "It's a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point."

Mr. Russert: "Yes."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576570670305899208.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_RIGHTBelowPepperandSalt
----
The list of who compared Social Security to Ponzi might be limitless.  But if SS is a Ponzi scheme and everyone knows it, why is it off-limits for a serious candidate to say aloud what a Nobel Naureate and Meet the Press star host also have said.

What article in the constitution gives congress that power anyway?

[ccp]

Ponzis are illegal unless it is through the US government.

Republicans are not allowed to call it what it is.  Only liberals.

[Crafty_Dog]

Obviously this could go on the Israel thread, but because of its implications for the election, I place it here.  Comments in this thread should focus on its US political implications please.  Comments on the substance should go in the Israel thread.

By RICK PERRY
The historic friendship between the United States and Israel stretches from the founding of the Jewish state in 1948 to the present day. Our nations have developed vital economic and security relationships in an alliance based on shared democratic principles, deep cultural ties, and common strategic interests. Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of "civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies."

Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and terror organizations that aim to destroy her, the Jewish state has never had an easy life. Today, the challenges are mounting. Israel faces growing hostility from Turkey. Its three-decades-old peace with Egypt hangs by a thread. Iran pursues nuclear weapons its leaders vow to use to annihilate Israel. Terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas continue. And now, the Palestinian leadership is intent on destroying the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the conflict with Israel in favor of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images
 
A young boy in east Jerusalem
.The Palestinian plan to win that one-sided endorsement from the U.N. this month in New York threatens Israel and insults the United States. The U.S. and the U.N. have long supported the idea that Israel and its neighbors should make peace through direct negotiations. The Palestinian leadership has dealt directly with Israel since 1993 but has refused to do so since March 2010. They seem to prefer theatrics in New York to the hard work of negotiation and compromise that peace will require.

Errors by the Obama administration have encouraged the Palestinians to take backward steps away from peace. It was a mistake to call for an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership had been negotiating with Israel for years, notwithstanding settlement activity. When the Obama administration demanded a settlement freeze, it led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations. It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians' demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the U.S., and it was an even greater mistake for President Obama to distance himself from Israel and seek engagement with the hostile regimes in Syria and Iran.

Palestinian leaders have perceived this as a weakening of relations between Israel and the U.S, and they are trying to exploit it. In taking this destabilizing action in the U.N., the Palestinians are signaling that they have no interest in a two-state solution. The Palestinian leadership's insistence on the so-called "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian refugees to Israel's sovereign territory, thereby making Jews an ethnic minority in their own state, is a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian "solution" remains the destruction of the Jewish state.

The U.S.—and the U.N—should do everything possible to discourage the Palestinian leadership from pursuing its current course.

Related Video
 Deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens on whether any of the GOP candidates are fit to be commander-in-chief.
..The U.S. should oppose the statehood measure by using our veto in the Security Council, as President Obama has pledged to do, and by doing everything we can to weaken support for the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the General Assembly. The U.S. must affirm that the precondition for any properly negotiated future settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the formal recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state behind secure borders.

Since the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, the U.S. has provided more than $4 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority. This year alone, the Obama administration is seeking to secure $550 million in funding for Palestinians. The U.S. has an interest in the development of Palestinian civil society and institutions. We should encourage Palestinians who are more interested in building a prosperous future than in fueling the grievances of the past.

Our aid is, and must remain, predicated on the commitment of the Palestinian leadership to engage honestly and directly with the Israelis in negotiating a peace settlement. Their threatened unilateral action in the U.N. signals a failure to abide by this commitment.

We must not condone and legitimize through our assistance a regime whose actions are in direct opposition to a peace agreement and to our vital interests. The Palestinian people should understand that their leaders are now putting this much-needed support in jeopardy and act in their own best interests—which are also the interests of peace.

Mr. Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, is running for president of the United States.

[Crafty_Dog]

I don't normally watch Jay Leno, but last night I saw Michelle Bachman was on so I watched.

Jay can often be an easy going interviewer, but he was very aggressive with her.  He opened gently teasing her about her way of waving her hand in greeting to a crowd.

He questioned her quite hard on her opposition to the HPV vaccinations (the thing about which she clashed with Perry) - why she was against vaccinating against cancer? why had she quoted that unknown woman who said the vaccination had caused her daughter to go retarded?  Why had she not gotten the woman's name?  Did she not know that there was no science to support the claim?

I thought her responses quite weak.

Then he went after her very strongly on the gay marriage issue with a "What skin is it off your nose if two gays marry?" line of questioning. 

I thought her responses quite weak.

I like Michelle, but her lack of presidentiality is growing more and more evident.  Frankly I think of her more as a MILF 

[ccp]

At this time she needs to stay in Congress.  I hate to say it but she has this look that reminds of Pelosi. 

As for Leno I don't recall he moonlights as a journolist.  Why is he even grilling her with questions?  I don't watch him or his ilk but could anyone imagine him grilling Brock or Pelosi like that?

Just more Hollywood crap as far as I am concerned.

[G M]

I don't normally watch Jay Leno, but last night I saw Michelle Bachman was on so I watched.

Jay can often be an easy going interviewer, but he was very aggressive with her.  He opened gently teasing her about her way of waving her hand in greeting to a crowd.

He questioned her quite hard on her opposition to the HPV vaccinations (the thing about which she clashed with Perry) - why she was against vaccinating against cancer? why had she quoted that unknown woman who said the vaccination had caused her daughter to go retarded?  Why had she not gotten the woman's name?  Did she not know that there was no science to support the claim?

I thought her responses quite weak.

Then he went after her very strongly on the gay marriage issue with a "What skin is it off your nose if two gays marry?" line of questioning. 

I thought her responses quite weak.

I like Michelle, but her lack of presidentiality is growing more and more evident.  Frankly I think of her more as a MILF 

I think her HPV "retardation" claim was a fatal mistake for her run.

[G M]

Home foreclosures may haunt Obama in battleground states


By Nancy Benac
Associated Press

Article Last Updated: Friday, September 16, 2011 5:58pm


Associated Press

Many of the states with the highest underwater mortgage rates also are political battleground states: In Nevada, 60 percent of homeowners are upside down; Arizona, 49 percent; Florida, 45 percent; and Michigan, 36 percent.

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s road to re-election is lined with lots of boarded-up homes.
 

Though the high unemployment rate dominates talk in Washington, for many 2012 voters the housing crisis may well be a more powerful manifestation of a sick economy. And, in an unfortunate twist for Obama, the problem is at its worst in many of the battleground states that will be decisive in determining whether he gets another term.

Swing states Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio and Michigan – they all pulse red-hot on a foreclosure rate “heat map.” And by themselves those five add up to 80 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Mortgage default notices surged nationally last month. One in every 118 homes in Nevada received a foreclosure filing in August, according to the foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac. One in 248 in Arizona. One in 349 in Michigan. One in 376 in Florida. And so on.

A foreclosure’s impact is visceral and outsized, rippling far beyond one household.

“Entire neighborhoods see what’s going on,” says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton administration official. “The visibility contributes to the psychology of continued economic troubles.”

There’s the in-your-face eyesore sometimes created by a vacant house next door sprouting weeds on the front lawn.

There’s the downward pressure on housing values that can follow for everyone else in the neighborhood.

There’s the welling frustration felt by neighboring homeowners who may owe more on their own mortgages than their homes are worth.

Nearly a quarter of all U.S. homeowners with mortgages are now underwater, representing nearly 11 million homes, according to CoreLogic, a real estate research firm.

Again, many of the states with the highest underwater mortgage rates also are political battleground states: In Nevada, 60 percent of homeowners are upside down, according to CoreLogic. Arizona is at 49 percent; Florida, 45 percent; Michigan, 36 percent.

Obama will need swing-state voters more than ever in 2012 because of the tougher political climate for Democrats this election season.

Politically, it all adds up to “the thousand-pound gorilla in the room,” says Roy Oppenheim, a Florida foreclosure defense attorney who speaks of “suburban blight” in his home state, of gutted homes, of entire neighborhoods where banks are bulldozing foreclosures.

Obama set high expectations for turning things around, Oppenheim says, and hasn’t been able to deliver, leaving people disillusioned.

“At some point, you don’t judge people by how well they speak, you judge them by their actions,” says the attorney, who backed Obama in the 2008 presidential race. “I continue, I guess, to support him, but I do it very reluctantly.”

[Crafty_Dog]

Leno may not be a journalist, but he regularly invites major candidates on his show.  The nature of the format (less gotcha, more human) is such that many people form important impressions of candidates from what they see on the show.  Michelle let Jay define the conversation and handled poorly questions she should expect anywhere she goes.   The retarded retard comment was but a final nail in the coffin.  Perry has already sucked up most of her oxygen.

[Crafty_Dog]

I've always liked Cain, but frankly have wondered his mental heft more than once.

That said, I was genuinely impressed by him in his interview yesterday with Chris Wallace.   His 9-9-9 Plan is very intriguing and IMHO with a bit of luck could catch public attention.  ON THIS SUBJECT I felt him to be of presidential timber, including in his ability to present his thoughts in potentially politically successful themes.

 At the time of the interview, when pressed by Wallace Cain said felt he could not name his advisors without their permission, but hoped to have their permission quite soon.  Perhaps this could provide the spark to get things going?

[DougMacG]

As written, the Cain 9-9-9 plan it is far better than today's tax system.  Problem is that bill on the drawing table isn't identical to the law that gets passed or the law as it evolves 30 years and 50 years later.  Social security was to be a 1% tax rate only up to a cap of $1400 income.

From a letter today in the WSJ: "Mr. Cain's plan has all the potential to make his 9-9-9 Plan a 29-29-29 Plan following the European welfare state."  In other words, don't open that door!

The idea behind the 'Fair Tax' that made it unworkable was that it required the repeal of the amendment authorizing the income tax.  Otherwise you just end up with more of all the taxes once the political pendulum swings back the other way.

In defense of Cain, 9% on business and 9% on individuals is all we collect now so it is not outrageous to consider making that the rate on each and get rid of the deductions.

But in this era of divided government where half the voters want tax rates raised on the rich, we aren't about to from 40% income tax to 9.

Herman Cain, like some others, is not going to be the nominee or the President, but at this point in the race it is good thing to put out the idea that we could be taxed at far lower rates, take in more revenues and prosper again. 

[ccp]

"Mr. Cain's plan has all the potential to make his 9-9-9 Plan a 29-29-29 Plan following the European welfare state."  In other words, don't open that door!"

Mr Cain himself already opened that door when he said the plan could always be adjusted and gave as an example to 8-8-8 for certain groups or situations!

Don't forget it was reported he also has stage 4 colon cancer.  I am saddened to say by definition that is not curable.

[G M]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-palestinian-statehood-bid-culmination-obamas-israel-policy_593955.html

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has just released a statement on the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations, blasting President Obama's policies toward Israel for the situation. “What we are watching unfold at the United Nations is an unmitigated diplomatic disaster," Romney said in a statement. "It is the culmination of President Obama’s repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position. That policy must stop now."




Romney, it seems, has not lost all hope--he makes several recommendations for President Obama to deal with the situation he's helped create. "In his speech to the U.N. this week, President Obama must unequivocally reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the security of Israel and its continued existence as a Jewish state," Romney said. "And he must make clear that if the Palestinian Authority succeeds in gaining any type of U.N. recognition, the United States will cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians, as well as re-evaluate its funding of U.N. programs and its relationship with any nation voting in favor of recognition. Actions that compromise the interests of the United States, our allies, and all those who desire a lasting peace must have consequences.”

[Crafty_Dog]

WOOF!

[G M]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0[/youtube]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EL5Atp_vF0

[Crafty_Dog]

Emotionally he seems to be in the right place, but I'm still looking for more substance from Perry.  Cain has put forth his very interesting 9-9-9 plan, Romney has his 59 point plan, etc.  I was glad to see Perry speak strongly and clearly for Israel the other day, but I'm not sensing yet any depth on foreign affairs e.g. his comments on Afpakia in the most recent debate.  I continue to doubt that most of the Reps have yet thought out the implications of the passing of the American uni-polar moment and to have a vision to communicate to the American people.  Indeed, I think a lot of Americans are burnt out on the Bush-Republican vision.

[G M]

I think most Americans are focused on jobs/economy. Unfortunately, geopolitical concerns are way down the list until we get hit with another hard dose of reality.

[Crafty_Dog]

That doesn't mean that we of the American Creed don't need to be getting our thinking current.  Indeed, while the issues are somewhat out of the spotlight is a better time to do the work.

[G M]

I trust Perry, and most any Texan to do the right thing on Nat'l Security without being a wonk on the topic.

[Crafty_Dog]

Bush made Pakistan the North Star of our Afpakia strategy.  How's that working out for us?

[G M]

Bush made Pakistan the North Star of our Afpakia strategy.  How's that working out for us?

Initially well, when we told them we'd nuke them if they fcuk'ed with us. Once they felt comfortable, not so much.

[Crafty_Dog]

Any comments on the debates last night?

[ccp]

I watched part of it.  Perry was not articulate or polished.  Newt and Cain sounded good.  Huntsman and Santorum not too bad.  Bachman pretty good.  Paul is Paul.  At this point I would have to go with Romney.  I hope Perry can polish up.  I still like Newt but it seems he has no chance.  I agree with Crafty he also does not seem to be really involved - goes to Hawaii when he should be out campaigning?  I generally like Santorum's views but for some reason, I am not clear why, he turns a lot of people off - at least the beltway elite.   I thought it interesting Meghan Kelly wore a dress that was even brighter red than Bachman.  What is she running for?

***(ORLANDO, Fla.) -- This was not a good debate for Rick Perry.  But it also wasn’t a slam-dunk win for Mitt Romney either.
 
The two frontrunners have been on the same debate stage three times now. And here’s what we’ve learned.
 
Mitt Romney is very good at debating. He’s comfortable. He’s pithy. He’s confident.
 
Rick Perry is not a good debater.
 
Or maybe he’s just not practiced enough (remember, before these three debates, he’d only participated in five debates in Texas). Whatever it is, he has yet to find his footing. Even after three debates, Perry has yet to find a coherent response to the attacks he knows are coming: most obviously his past statements on Social Security. And, he stumbled badly on a question he wasn’t expecting -- but probably should have: what to do when that 3 a.m. call comes with an international crisis.

At the spin room after the debate, Romney campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstom called the Texas governor’s response to a question about what to do if he was told that Pakistan had lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban “completely unintelligible.” Perry’s answer to the question started with “obviously before you get to that point you have to build a relationship in that area” -- a big no-no for someone looking to be commander-in-chief -- and ended with talk about selling India “upgraded F-16s.”
 
He even whiffed on what should have been a home run -- calling out Romney as a flip-flopper. He rambled and stumbled and ultimately lost any chance he had to get in a clean swipe. As with his previous debates, Perry seems to run out of steam about 45 minutes into the night.
 
Even so, the Perry team can console themselves with this: there’s no correlation between being a strong debater and winning the nomination. That and the fact that very few voters are actually tuning into these early back and forth between these candidates.
 
Moreover, Romney looked stronger because Perry tripped over his own feet, not because Romney pushed him.   
 
This goes back to Romney’s fundamental problem: Can he only win if Perry loses it?
 
As a relatively unknown candidate, Perry does have to worry  that these debates are going to start to define him in the exact opposite way than he is trying to portray himself.
 
In real life, Perry projects a swagger and a confidence. On stage, he looks unsure and small. 
 
These debates take on a huge level of importance now, in part because there’s nothing else really going on. As the year goes forward, outside groups are going to start spending money on ads, candidates will be sending out mailers, and world events will affect the debate in ways that we can’t predict.

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio****

[Crafty_Dog]

My sense of things is that Perry is weakening and that in the second tier Cain, Santorum, Newt, Paul, did well.  Romney may have "won" last night, but loyalty to him is very shallow.  Generally, the candidates seemed looser and more human.  Good to see several of them saying that any of them would be better than Baraq.