Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Will Wisconsin Turn Red With Bart Starr Endorsement?

greenbaypackers

The Twittersphere was busy with rumors of a big Romney endorsement in Wisconsin this morning and the packed hall erupted into great cheers when they realized beloved Packer Great Bart Starr was taking the stage. The former MVP of Super Bowls I and II, spoke at a campaign event on Friday in Milwaukee.

Starr has long been known as a Republican supporter so this support of Mitt Romney is not a real surprise. Yet, the hero quarterback of this state’s cherished team may change a few hearts during these last few days before the election.

From the JSOnline: He [Starr] said Romney embodies the same qualities he has seen in stars on the football field and in the field of business. Quoting from Vince Lombardi, Starr said “integrity and excellence” are key virtues that apply to Romney.

“I just think when you look at how successful he has been everywhere he has been and what he has done, I’m very confident when elected president he will confirm and make those remarkable levels of success every-day achievements for us.”

He said America will be “electing a truly, special gentleman.”

Take a look at a few of the Tweets as Bart Starr warms up the crowd and Packer fans across the country.

Will this enthusiasm be enough to turn this state red? In four days we’ll know.

Obama’s War on Energy is about Control

Screen Shot 2012-11-01 at 4.09.39 AM

When one thinks of energy, the thoughts about economic growth rarely come into play.  In fact, most take it for granted.  It charges our iPhones, laptops, and Kindles, but it also is the lifeblood that keeps our economy growing.  It’s also the critical element that keeps our health services running.  It allows us to channel our resources elsewhere – to be more productive during the day.  However, we’re starting to see a shift occur through the policies of the Obama administration.  This radical reconfiguration of our energy infrastructure will be disastrous in the long run, and some in the media don’t seem to care.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Thomas Pyle, President of American Energy Alliance, Robin Millican, Policy Director for Institute for Energy Research (IER), and Dan Kish, Senior Vice President for Policy at IER on October 26 to discuss this issue further – and how it’s currently shaping the outcome of the 2012 election.  I mentioned the study Professor Gabriel Calzada conducted on Spain’s green energy investments and how he predicted a bubble, which seems to be bursting on the Iberian Peninsula.  Most disconcerting was the fact that for every green job created – 2.2 jobs were lost as a result.  In fact, Professor Gabriel Calzada found himself targeted by liberals and the Center for American Progress, John Podesta’s bastion of progressivism, as a consequence of his study concerning Spain’s green energy economy.  Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome in Spain, President Obama plans to use it as a model and apply it here, which would enter a more aggressive phase if he were reelected on November 6.

Furthermore, IER conducted a study on the impact of green energy initiatives in Germany.  Here are the key points:

  • Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.
  • In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.
  • Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

 

  • Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.
  • Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

However, one area that is salient to American voters is coal.  Obama’s War on Coal has been brutal for thousands of families who live in states along the Appalachian Trail.  With new greenhouse gas regulations the EPA is doling out, it’ll prevent the creation of new plants and is scheduled to shut down 10% of existing coal plats that are operational today.

Pyle warned that there will come a time when the economy will begin to grow again and the energy infrastructure that President Obama and the environmental left envision for America will not be adequate to meet the demands of commercial expansion. There’s no special switch we can turn to get our power back to appropriate levels for economic development. Furthermore, it doesn’t help our long-term energy development when government shuts down coal mining, offshore drilling, or puts the kibosh on the Keystone Pipeline.  As a result, the Gulf States, Alaska, Colorado, and Wyoming are suffering under Obama’s war on energy.

While the Environmental Protection Agency has the reputation of being a ‘protector,’ they have recently become the heaviest portion of the boot that is on the throat of American enterprise.  One thing the United States can never compete in again is the labor market.  However, with the derivatives from oil/gas/and coal such as petrochemicals, smart phones, computers, Kevlar, shaving cream, toothpaste, and gum – we can still retain our economic vigor.   However, EPA regulations are making it harder to produce such products for American and international markets.

Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of Policy for IER, noted how the air is cleaner and the water is better. In fact:

Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for:

  • 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent
  • annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent
  • PM10 , by 31 percent
  • Lead, by 78 percent
  • NO2 , by 35 percent
  • 8-hour CO, by 68 percent
  • annual SO2 , by 59 percent

Additionally, the EPA has affirmed this claim.

 As a result, life expectancy has increased dramatically – which is an effective metric at gauging the socioeconomic health of a nation.  Yet, the EPA feels that more needs to be done, despite that fact that states have their own safety and health provisions, which are tailored to accommodate the environments of each respective state.  However, given the dependency mentality of the Obama administration, the EPA insists on a one-size fits all model.  I guess the principles of federalism have taken a back seat.

Concerning coal, we have 497 billion short tons, which is enough to power the country for over 500 years – at our current levels of energy use.  When you incorporate Alaska into the picture, it dwarfs the lower forty-eight, with 10.38 trillion short tons for our use.  As a result, the United States is the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.  And not all coal is used to generate electricity.  Thirty-eight percent of coal can be used to make jet fuel.  Fifty percent of all freight loads carried in the country are comprised of coal.  In fact, 25% of all rail revenue is derived from coal transportation.  What happens if that were to disappear, which is what the Obama administration wants as the end game in this power play.

We current use 1 billion tons of coal a year.  China uses 4 billion tons a year.  As a result, even if coal were to cease of an arm of the American economy, the effects on global CO2 emissions would be de minimis at best.  Kish noted how coal consumption has increased in Europe.  The reason is simple.  It’s cheap.  It works great, and is good for electricity.

Pyle touched upon the moral aspect of energy, which is seldom reported on in the press.  He reiterated the fact how 40% of India’s population don’t have access to affordable energy.  Kish noted how villages in Africa keep their kids to school, although they would like to send them there, because every available hand is needed to collect biomass to keep the home warm, to cook, and possibly fend themselves from predators at night.  If those kids were able to go to school because they had affordable energy, and access to it, increased economic activity from their education would have a ripple effect upon their community. Energy allows people to savor and spend their time more efficiently and purposefully. Until the Industrial Revolution, life expectancy had flat lined around age thirty for years, which saw a dramatic increase when people were able to utilize their time more efficiently due to proliferation of energy resources.

An example of the economic benefits in expanding our energy development can be seen in North Dakota.  Dan Kish recently visited the state, of which 97% isn’t owned by the government, and noticed the economic boom that has occurred from extracting the shale oil from the Bakken formation.  Williston, North Dakota has the busiest McDonald’s in the country.  A entry-level worker could earn up to $90,000 in his first year alone working the rigs.  In fact, five to ten years ago North Dakota wasn’t even a player in oil production.  Now, it’s ranked #2 – behind Texas – producing 18 million barrels of oil in March of 2012.  In all, between 2008-09, it’s proved reserves have increased from 543 million barrels to 1046 million barrels.  Some farmers, who’ve sold their land rights, are earning as much as $150,000 a month from the royalties.  Although, the monetary values is based on volume, but it’s possible.

As a result, North Dakota’s unemployment rate remains at 3%, the GDP per capita is well above the national average at $50,096, it’s spurred a budget surplus of $ 1 billion dollars, and increased the workforce from 5,000 in 2005 to 30,000 in 2012.  Here’s to prosperity.

We have the resources to be energy independent.  Pyle mentioned that in 1944 it was estimated that America’s proven oil reserves amounted to about 20 billion barrels.  However, from 1945-2010, the United States production exceeded 176 billion barrels of oil.  That’s because proven reserves tend to increase in volume as we continue to explore for more energy resources.  Case in point, the Bakken Shale.  However, the boot of the EPA and government regulation seems to be aimed at halting this process.  It’s because government, especially the one we have now, is set on breaking the independent arms that are harvesting these resources to the will of the state.  It’s about centralization of energy distribution. It’s trickle down government incarnate.

Last May, IER Policy Director Robin Millican spoke at an Americans for Prosperity rally in McLean, Va. There she said that the military has become victim to these government policies.  In her speech, she noted how the Department of Defense signed a $12 million dollar contract with two biofuel companies to produce 450,000 gallons of the advanced liquid.  In short, it’s incredibly expensive.  This ludicrous expenditure is grounded in the words of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus who said “We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters…our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”  I’m sure the environmental left enjoys this change in course, but as Millican pointed out, the federal government has a portion of land in Alaska called the Naval Petroleum Reserve which is specifically set aside to meet the energy demands of the military.  Yet, we are going to pay companies to make fuel for our armed forces that is four times more expensive than standard fuel.

Additionally, Millican also delivered some remarks about the $500 million dollar loan allocated to Solyndra.  A company principally financed by George Kaiser, who was also a huge bundler for the Obama campaign in 2008.  In all, big government breed corruption, crony capitalism, and dependency. She aptly pointed out that these subsidies are not meant to better society, but are goodie bags to the politically connected.  She says, “look no further than a government funded program that relies on a stamp of approval from a group of unelected bureaucrats who have no technical experience.” The process in determining which system maximizes efficiency is not rigorous and comes down to nothing more than corporate welfare.  Continuing with the narrative of waste this administration has incurred due to its quest for clean energy initiatives, Millican detailed the Section 1603 program that has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties.  Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.

Relating to AFP’s media campaign, Millican discussed the $529 million dollar loan to Fisker, which produced the $100,000 dollar Karma automobile that is principally made in Finland.  Is this investing in America? Ms. Millican astutely pointed out that renewables only constitute 1.5% of our entire energy consumption, but get the majority share of the funds allocated from Congress.

If Mitt Romney is elected President of the United States on November 6, it’ll be partially due to Americans’ disgust towards Obama’s war on energy – specifically coal.  The war on coal has affected thousands of families who live along the Appalachian Trail.  An aspect the Obama campaign should’ve taken more seriously since Virginia and Pennsylvania are both battleground and coal-producing states.  Currently, the small town of Grundy, Va is under siege by federal regulators who are preventing them from expanding their runway at the local airport because of coal.  It’s a three-year battle, which is really an assault on the American Dream.  The expansion of the airport would allow corporate jets to land, which could possibly spur economic development in Grundy and the surrounding counties.

Debra McCown reported on Grundy’s war with federal regulators back on October 17. I wrote, in a previous post, that since “the original airport was built on a piece of land made flat by surface mining by United Coal Co., which gave the land to Grundy,” the government won’t allow them to expand the runway.  It’s big government run amok.

McCown also reported in The American Spectator on October 22 “more than 5,500 people turned out Sunday afternoon at a mountaintop park in remote Buchanan County to show their support for coal.” She noted how the mood of the crowd exuded a certain dubiousness since most of these workers have an uncertain future, especially if Obama is reelected.   McCown quoted Jerry Shortt, who said, “the only promise Obama kept was to kill coal.”  “Jerry Shortt [is] a coal miner from Richlands who was laid off temporarily right after Labor Day — and learned Friday that for him, along with 189 other employees at the mine where he worked, the layoff would be permanent,” according to McCown.

She also noted that the EPA regulations that will be the harbingers of death for the industry.

First, new air emissions standards prompted utilities to announce the closure of dozens of coal-fired power plants, cutting the demand for coal and costing jobs. In some cases, utilities chose to convert those units to natural gas, which because of new technology for extraction has become relatively cheap and plentiful. Rules for coal-fired boilers have also affected factories and other facilities that use industrial boilers.

Second, a new proposed EPA rule would require any new coal-fired power plants to be constructed with technology to control carbon dioxide emissions — technology that’s not been fully developed. With this proposal, even state-of-the-art coal burning technology, like that being used at the new power plant that just opened in nearby Wise County, couldn’t be permitted, utility officials have said.

On the water pollution side, coalmines are now subject to new restrictions in obtaining the permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Targeted specifically at mountaintop mines in Appalachia, according to industry supporters, the change effectively prohibits modern surface mining and has also created significant problems for deep mining.

With the state in a statistical dead heat, the policies from the Obama administration to gut this business, and leave the families of those involved with coal mining in destitution – might be a deciding factor in how Virginia might vote on November 6.

The Washington Times’ Ben Wolfgang reported on October 23 that Obama’s crusade to destroy coal has put Pennsylvania in play.  More than anything, if Romney wins PA on November 6, it’ll be a very short election night.  While West Virginia was never going Democratic, Democrats there have eviscerated the Obama administration over recent coal miner layoffs.

Energy giant Consol announced Tuesday that it will idle its surface mining operations in Mingo County after failing to secure necessary Clean Water Act permits from the EPA.

The Miller Creek surface mine facility has been in operation for decades, and the company had planned to construct the new “King Coal Highway” as part of a reclamation project after mining is complete. Coal mine employees, Consol said, would eventually have been assigned to the highway project, once the coal supplies had been exhausted.

Democrats in the state, already angry with the administration’s “war on coal,” unloaded on the EPA on Tuesday afternoon.

“I am incensed and infuriated that the EPA would intentionally delay the needed permit for a public-private project that would bring so many good jobs and valuable infrastructure to communities that so desperately need them,” West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said in a statement.

For those affected, it’s called a “regional genocide.”  For government, it’s a shift towards a cleaner future, despite the data suggesting otherwise.  At the end of the day, it’s about government controlling more of the means of production through our energy consumption.

“He Said, She Said” with Demetrius & Stacy. *ELECTION SPECIAL*

hsss featured image

  When: Wed, Oct 31, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: Listen live: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cdnews/2012/11/01/he-said-she-said

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guests: Christy Setzer (Twitter: @christyNHC), President of New Heights Communications and Democratic strategist, and Loren Heal (Twitter: @lheal), RNC delegate for Illinois 15th Congressional District and blogger for FreedomWorks.

 

Romney Will Kill Medicaid – Really!

When you can’t run on a record, what is one to do? Scare the masses, of course. It’s a bonus if you can demonize the opposition at the same time. The latest, non-disaster related scare tactic falls under healthcare. Paul Krugman is leading the charge on this one, giving the public an inaccurate lesson on the inner-workings of the Medicaid system. Of course, he’s doing this because evil Mitt Romney will gut the program if elected. Obviously, that’s not the important part of what Krugman said.

DoNotLick (CC)


So, what was so blatantly wrong with Krugman’s little lesson for the masses? Well, we can start with his numbers, since offering any at all is a fallacy. Here is the one plus to not offering many details whilst on the campaign trail. When your opposition attempts to figure out exactly what the impact of your “plans” will be, they honestly can’t. They are forced to lie, because they simply don’t know. (And, in a Presidential race, it really doesn’t matter what either candidate wants to do, since everything needs to get through Congress anyway.) So, for the sake of brevity, we’ll just dispense with the numbers entirely, since there’s no way to prove or disprove them anyway, shall we?

Let’s move on to the meat and bones of this little lesson, to what Medicaid really is, and how it works. Krugman’s so cute when he tries to explain things to the masses. It would be ever so much nicer if he would at least attempt to get the facts, though. It’s really not good when even Wikipedia gets it right, and you don’t. Well, maybe it was the fact-checker’s day off at the Times. Yes, Medicaid is relatively good at keeping medical costs down, but no it is not because of the government. You see, for quite some time now, Uncle Sam has contracted out this part of the government healthcare system to the private sector. Medicaid recipients have private insurance policies with premiums that are subsidized by the government. That also blows a big gaping hold in Krugman’s other claim about governmental largesse – the real reason why the government doesn’t have as much “bureaucracy” in this whole equation is because the government doesn’t actually “do” anything but pay the bills. But, I think that most conservatives already know that. Knowing that Krugman is running about telling liberals this nonsense is useful, though. At least we can point out the errors in their sources.

Now, over at the Independent Women’s Forum, there is something of interest on this issue. They have pointed out that this really shouldn’t be a nationwide ballot issue, but a state one. Now that’s getting back into real Romney territory. That is practically straight out of a Paul Ryan stump speech on healthcare reform – or a Romney one pointing out that healthcare shouldn’t be on the Fed plate in the first place. So, when the whining liberals start claiming that Romney wants to take away their Medicaid, if you’re not just going to smack them (verbally since we don’t want folks going to jail), point out that he wants to let the states handle that program, because they know better what their residents need. It’s simple math and geography here. It’s better to have someone closer to you managing these things, than it is to have some pencil pushers far away, right? Who knows? Maybe you’ll actually get a few fence pole sitters with that logic in the next few days!

Los Angeles Daily News Endorses Mitt Romney

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Daily News, the second largest newspaper in the L.A area, endorsed Republican candidate Mitt Romney for President. Note that the Daily News endorsed Barack Obama in 2008.

FOUR years ago, as America faced serious trouble at home and abroad, this news organization embraced the need for bold change to a different brand of leadership and endorsed Barack Obama for president.

That assessment of the depth of the nation’s problems and the most promising solution was correct in 2008. Regrettably, it applies no less in 2012, after nearly a full term of Obama’s administration. This is why the editorial board urges voters to choose Mitt Romney for president in the Nov. 6 election. He is the leader this country needs for the future. . .

Sad to say, the reservations our editorial board expressed about Obama in 2008 have been borne out. His inexperience in an executive position has been exposed. His naivete about his chances of getting much of his program through a deeply partisan Congress has been cured the hard way.

Instead of taking charge in Washington, Obama has shown unwillingness to take even the most basic step in presidential leadership: picking up the Oval Office phone to bring his influence to bear on reluctant representatives and senators.

Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is symbolic of his term for another reason: It passed entirely because of Democratic support.

The economy is making an all-too-slow recovery. The nation’s budget problems remain unsolved, portending a new financial crisis ahead. In the ending of the Iraq War and the killing of Osama bin Laden, there is a sense that we’ve already seen the high points of an Obama administration.

And Americans hoping for better from a prospective second term are frustrated by Obama’s failure to explain how four more years would be different. . .

Instead of following through on his hope-and-change message, Obama keeps telling us the limits of hope and change.
We are all for hope and we champion change. Many of this organization’s editorial positions are guided by the belief that change in government is to be sought, not feared. We embrace new leaders, independent thinking, and shaking up the status quo; this philosophy is evident in several other endorsements this fall.

Four years ago, the editorial board’s willingness to change horses in the middle of a churning river led us to call for voters to break the Republican hold on the White House and try a Democrat with a fresh spark.

Today, it leads the editorial board to urge voters to say “enough” to a Democratic administration whose sincere best has turned out disappointing, and install a seasoned leader with a record of fixing problems.

Mitt Romney is that seasoned leader.

This endorsement comes on the heels of a recent poll which showed that the most solid blue state in the union isn’t as supportive of the President this go around.

Quad City Times and Des Moines Register Endorse Mitt Romney

All across the country, newspapers are sending out their endorsements to the candidates of their choice. Last election cycle, then Senator Barack Obama recieved an overwhelming amount of endorsements compared to Senator McCain, but this time around the tides are turning. Two of the most influencial newspapers in the countries have both sided with Republican Candidate Mitt Romney. The Quad CityTimes serves two cities in eastern Iowa (Davenport and Bettendorf) and two in western Illinois (Moline and Rock Island), and they have decided to go with Mitt Romney:

We invested heavily in hope back in 2008.

Our 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney comes with an imperative for change.

The change that we’d hoped would elevate our economy wound up woefully short. The presidential gambit to place health-care reform ahead of economic recovery jeopardized both. President Barack Obama expended all of the presidential leadership on muscling through health care reform, leaving little for implementation and none for significant economic recovery. . .

The president’s green energy initiatives were intended to launch a U.S. alternative energy boom. Earlier this month, A123 Systems joined the succession of green energy firms that failed after being selected by the Obama administration for preferential grants. Beacon Power. Abound Solar. EnerDel. Solyndra. All stumbled despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants.

The president laments congressional gridlock that fomented under the inflammatory leadership of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. The president’s deference to their reckless rhetoric further deepened congressional divide. Obama doesn’t deserve all of the blame. But he merits little credit for any meaningful attempt to bridge the gap. . .

Our hopeful 2008 endorsement went to a promising up ’n comer over a lackluster challenger who botched his first big presidential decision by picking an unqualified running mate. Sen. John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin struck us, and apparently millions of undecided voters, as a calculated political ploy, not a credible presidential successor.

This year, the Republican ticket is led by a candidate with a proven record of moderate governance, legislative leadership and compromise. Mitt Romney arrives at the presidency with global leadership experience and a track record of turnarounds. . .

Today, we endorse a successful leader focused on economic recovery and growth and deficit reduction. We endorse a proven manager who won’t need on-the-job training. We endorse a compromiser who offers the best hope of breaking congressional gridlock.

Most of all, we endorse change.

We endorse Mitt Romney for president.

This combined with the endorsment from the most influencial newspaper in the country, The Des Moines Register, has some wondering if the swing state will swing red this go time around. You can find the entire article concerning The Des Moines Register switch on their site.

Follow Chris On Twitter

Campaigns Resume after Sandy

Romney and Obama debate

For the first time since monster storm Sandy threatened the northeast, the Presidential campaigns are back in full-swing. All the major players are in battleground states with the exception of President Obama who continues to visit the areas affected by storm damage from Sandy.

Mitt Romney is campaigning in Florida with Governor Jeb Bush while Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan is campaigning in Wisconsin. Romney and Ryan are hoping to capitalize on their accelerating momentum evident in recent battleground and independent voter polls.

Former President Bill Clinton is stumping for Obama in Iowa and Joe Biden is holding events in Florida hoping to stem the tide of likely voters moving towards Romney in the final days of the campaign.

The Obama campaign has spent tremendous amounts of time and money to get the Democratic base to the polls early while the Romney camp has focused on getting not-so-committed voters to vote in early polls. The effect these two different techniques has on the election may be critical.

By pulling in his most-committed voters for the early vote, Obama is front-loading his base to pad his early vote numbers. While this will pad early voter totals, it leaves the campaign hoping that less-motivated voters turn out for long lines on election day. The tactic is likely an attempt to create a false wave for bandwagon voters to jump into. Obama hasn’t seen any positive momentum in months and may be working to create the appearance of a turn-around in the week before the election.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been working to get under-motivated voters to the polls for early voting. Shorter lines and the choice of several days to avoid inclimate weather give those voters fewer reasons to avoid the polls. Romney’s approach seems to be hinging on the idea that his base will turn out on election day no matter what, but others may not.

So far, Obama’s strategy is scoring him some numbers in Iowa – but, that’s it. Nationwide, Romney has a 51% to 46% likely voter advantage vs. Obama according to Gallup. In Ohio, the early voting numbers are about even between Republicans and Democrats and recent polls show Romney taking a slight lead in the Buckeye state by a 50% to 48% margin.

According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, voter registration totals as of October 22nd were 626,508 Republican, 621,401 Democrat and 686,649 unaffiliated. The largest voting block in the Hawkeye state is independents among whom Romney leads Obama by 16-20 points in recent polls. The Iowa Secretary of State’s office is also reporting that 531,996 people had voted through October 30th with Democrats casting 43.7% of the ballots vs. 32.2% by Republicans and 24% Independents.  The totals show that  232,462 Democrats, 171,272 and 127,620 Independents have voted so far. That leaves a much larger contingent of likely Romney voters yet to vote in the 2012 election. With up to 20% of independents leaning to Romney, the race in Iowa is still quite close and tipping towards Romney as election day approaches.

Romney’s momentum is carrying into early voting and voter enthusiasm is clearly in his favor, but the election will only go his way if all of the likely voters show up to vote.

Andrea Mitchell Attacks Mitt Romney for Making Collections for Sandy Victims

MSNBC host, Andrea Mitchell, attacked Mitt Romney for making collections to help the victims effected by Hurricane Sandy.

“And then you have the image of Mitt Romney, doing what they say is not a campaign event, in the same space they were going to hold a campaign event,” says Mitchell. “They say they are making collections for hurricane and storm relief. Chris Cillizza, first to you: We checked with the Red Cross, the Red Cross said, well, they are always grateful for donations, but this is not what they need or want. That they always tell people, please donate money, because we have our own packagers, wholesalers. They have their own distribution system. And to now get these canned goods from the Romney event in Ohio, and have to first package it–used clothes, they have to clean, they can’t go directly to victims. So, what they need are donations of blood and donations of money. It does seem like a thinly veiled–why Ohio? Why choose Ohio?”

“Right,” responds Cillizza, “because the storm is kind of there” in Ohio, while Mitchell interjects simultaneously, “not in Ohio.”

Per the Toledo Blaze, “High winds spinning off the edge of superstorm Sandy took a vicious swipe at northeast Ohio early Tuesday, uprooting trees, cutting power to hundreds of thousands, closing schools and flooding parts of major commuter arteries that run along Lake Erie.

“At least 250,000 homes and businesses in Ohio — the majority in the Cleveland area — were still without power by early afternoon. Scattered outages reached down into central and eastern Ohio, with some in the southern part of the state. Utilities said it could be days before it’s fully restored.”

On military spending: Having your cake and eating it too

Earlier this week, one of our contributors wrote an article stating that he thought Romney’s position on defense spending cuts is incorrect. This afternoon, the editorial staff received a letter-to-the-editor from “Rockwall Science Guy” in response to the original post.

This is written in response to Eye Desert’s column regarding the impending defense cuts.
“There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out… (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).”
Do you know why that toilet seat costs $640? The simplistic answer is that there is too much bureaucracy. It costs that much because it takes several people to approve a purchase. Every time a purchase has to be bumped up the ladder, not only does that person have to look at it (and add to the amount of man-hours it takes to get a toilet approved), but that next guy up costs more (not to mention it took some man-hours to fill out the form in the first place). Why does it take this many levels of approval? Because we don’t want just anyone to be able to buy things because we do not want waste. But isn’t a $640 toilet seat wasteful? Of course! Then give the lower people the ability to buy stuff. Ok, but once that happens, you buy the leather seat covers to go with it. Or you buy things you might not need because you might need them. See what I’m getting at here? This is not unique to government. At a company I used to work for, if I need to buy $5 for 100 cheap parts (which includes shipping), the sum total that the $5 part costs was much higher, on the order of $100. Why? Because I cannot buy things directly. I have to search for the part, specify which parts I need (including alternates if available), and send it to purchasing. Purchasing then codes the purchase (to make sure that the receive inspection is able to properly accept or reject it if it does not meet our standards), issues the paper version of the purchase order in the system, and places the order. This is just of a catalogue based purchase such as Digikey or Mouser. When the order finally arrives, the parts come in a daily UPS or FedEx drop off (no one uses the US mail). The receiver has to take in that day’s packages and sort through them. For each package, he has to go through and look at each purchase order to see what was supposed to come with each and whether or not someone needs to inspect it. If no one needs to inspect it and the order is received in full, he places the parts to the side and records it as received. If it needs inspection, it goes into a cart that will be inspected by a quality control person. Once it is inspected per the codes, it is either accepted and delivered to me or rejected and sent back. At some point typically no later than 30 days, someone else in the purchasing department will issue a check for $5.
Now, considering a single toilet costs $150 and up from Home Depot, start doing the same process as I suggested except now the toilet has to make sure to meet ADA, MILSPEC, and possibly other applicable federal standards on toilets. We would not want a disabled veteran to not be able to use the toilet your tax dollars paid for. Am I suggesting that we possibly have too many federal standards (including the military)? Quite possibly. Regarding the military specifically, it would be nice to reduce the number of these standards, but there is one problem: even changing a small standard in one place can ripple through the entire body and have unintended consequences. You need to audit and study the effects. This is why standards take so long to change or produce in the first place.
Do you know why so many military programs cost so much? It is because, for the most part, the proposals and bidding have to be open to so many people. It’s also because the standards for the military parts is so very much higher than normal products. Imagine an iPhone having to work in Saudi Arabia with gloves and sand and also that it has to work off the coast of Norway with sea salt spray and freezing temperatures. Also imagine someone stepping on it with their boot. As you can imagine, the costs tend to go up. Then tack on the requirement that for every item you say you can do, you have to document and prove that you actually did it (so that tax dollars are not wasted). When you sum these things up, it costs so much more than a commercial endeavor ever would (and remain profitable). Not only that, but our stuff has to not just work, but be good. If the welder misses grinding down a seam on the F-22, it goes from appearing the equivalent size of a metal BB to the size of a bus. That’s one seam! You have to make sure you don’t have these issues for any, or radar will spot you like Elton John in concert garb at the First Baptist Church on Easter Sunday.
Does the military waste money? Absolutely. The biggest question is this: can we be a world power protecting our interests abroad with less military? The euphemistically crude “sequestration” that Obama is all to happy to have happen is akin to using a sledge hammer to remove the cancer when a scalpel should be used. Even the biggest tumors still get cut away using precise instruments.
Incidentally, ever notice how sequestration and castration rhyme? In this context, they’re not far off from each other.
One thing I wish would get more taking time is how amazingly two faced our president is. Did you know that by law, numerous recipients of military contracts (including Lockheed Martin) are supposed to warn their employees of a pending layoff? Sequestration effectively terminates large numbers of these employees of private companies through the loss of their contracts. Obama has issued guidance that if Lockheed Martin failed to notify their staff, Lockheed Martin would not be affected by disregarding this law. The justification before was that Obama knew that the 20% budget cut would not happen because he and law makers would keep it from happening. Now it seems that he either has changed his mind, or was lying about his intentions. Regardless of whether or not the 20% cut goes through, any other story besides this is burying the lede. The lede should be that the president encourages lawlessness when politically expedient. They only had to keep silent to refrain from encouraging lawlessness. They did the opposite. This is having your cake (encouraging something that directly leads to layoffs) and eating it too (issuing guidance for Lockheed Martin to break the law so you avoid the consequences of your policy decisions).
-Rockwall Science Guy

The letter was posted as-is with no editorial changes.

Obama Will Lose Because Americans Are Racist

At least that’s what the Obama campaign folks will undoubtedly cry when all is said and done. Now, it’s true the British already think we’ve become more prejudiced during this administration, but perhaps we can choose to take that with a grain of salt, given that the Brits are arguably left of Obama himself.

DonkeyHotey (CC)

But, back to our shores. You know it’s bad when even CNN is pointing out that Obama is having trouble with a particular group of voters. In this case, his trouble is with white males. Obama is carrying 40 percent of the white voting bloc right now. That is an important number, when you consider the following:

Obama made history when he won the 2008 presidential election — a feat he accomplished in part with 43% of the white vote. It was the same percentage former President Bill Clinton netted in 1996…

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry lost his presidential run after getting only 41% of that group. In the 2000 election, Vice President Al Gore lost with 42% of the white vote, 90% of the black vote and 35% of the Latino vote.

Yes, you read that right – less than that “magic” number, 43% of white voters, and there haven’t been any Dems getting into the White House. And Obama’s sitting on 40% support. Sure, this doesn’t mean “game over” for the Obama campaign, however it also isn’t good news by any stretch of the imagination. As for why this is happening, it’s not news to conservatives at all. We’ve been saying for months that there are plenty of former Obama supporters that are jumping ship, and we’ve been sharing piles of video and audio interviews with these disillusioned voters. And yes, many of them have been white.

If nothing else, it has left NPR looking for a race to the bottom – of the barrel, that is. Their path to a win for Obama in the face of these numbers includes counting on relatively uneducated votes of all races to come to their guy’s rescue. Now, if that isn’t a sad statement in itself…

But, time will tell. Now we just have to sit back, and hope that Sandy doesn’t totally screw up the election by leaving the East Coast in the dark on November 6th.

Reviewing the news: Benghazi, Bad polls, bad ads, Mitt-mentum and more

The last week has brought some incredible news to light about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, showed us that many of the battleground polls being cited are weighted wrong, saw Mitt Romney’s momentum accelerate and taught us that voting for the President is like sex.. or something.

Benghazi and the Obama Administration

The murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya has taken a startling turn ever since the Obama administration made the incorrect claim that their deaths were at the hands of protesters angry about a YouTube video.

It has since been shown that there was no protest and that terrorists tied to Al-Qaeda executed a well-planned attack, one that may have been intended to take the ambassador prisoner to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the White House.

Shortly after the attack, it was reported that former President Bill Clinton told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that she should resign. As Secretary Clinton has already stated that she won’t be staying long into President Obama’s second term if he wins re-election, perhaps she’s just riding it out. Of course, we also learned that she’s doing so with the help of a new legal defense team – just in case any of the Benghazi fall-out drops on her.

And then yesterday, Lt. Col Schaffer told Fox News that he had sources telling him that the President was watching the Benghazi attack as it happened. So exactly where did the idea of a protest and YouTube video come from? Why didn’t the President authorize back-up for the team trying to defend the consulate staff and ambassador when they asked three times?

Polls have too many Democrats in them

Gallup released a poll this week that demonstrated most election polling is using incorrect weightings. In the 2008 election, voters went with democrats 12% more than republicans, or D+12.  In the new Gallup poll, it suggests that likely voters are going Republican by a 4% margin (R+4), but pollsters are using weightings of D+3 to D+7 in many states. These mis-weighted polls show mis-leading figures in key states. As HotAir.com’s Ed Morrisey put it, the models being used in states like Virginia (D+4) are “rather laughable.”

Mitt Romney’s surge accelerating

Ever since the first Presidential debate showed that Mitt Romney is not the monster Obama has portrayed him to be, Romney started surging in key polls and fund raising.

That momentum has accelerated with Romney raising $21 million more than Obama in the first half of October leaving the Obama campaign so desperate to raise cash they went to Bank of America for a $15 million loan.

Spinning Jeeps and Cliffs

In the Presidential debates and on the campaign trail, Obama and company mentioned several times that sequestration (aka “the fiscal cliff”) came from congress, not his administration. In fact, the White House pushed sequestration on Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. John Boehner even though neither wanted it.

Left-leaning news outlets, the Obama campaign and liberal blogs have been attempting to paint Mitt Romney’s citing of a Bloomberg.com article as an attempt to scare Ohio voters. Although the article clearly shows that company officials had been considering moving some or all Jeep production to China, the liberal slant is that Romney lied.

Voting for the President is like sex for virgins .. or something

The Obama campaign elicited the help of actress, writer, director Lena Dunham to be featured in an advertisement for the President’s re-election bid. In poor taste, Dunham compares voting for Obama for the first time to having sex for the first time.

 

Obama Campaign Desperate for Cash

Forget about “Frankenstorm”. You want to know who is really panicking now? Jim Messina and Julianna Smoot are shaking in their boots. Why? Because Mitt Romney’s campaign managed to collect $21 million more than Obama’s campaign so far this month!

aresauburn™ (CC)

First, from Jim Messina at around 6pm EDT today:

I’m asking you to dig deep, because I have some bad news:

We just found out that Mitt Romney and the Republicans outraised us in the first half of this month, putting us $45 million behind during these crucial final days.

The math here is pretty simple: With that cash advantage, they can outspend us by $4 million per day, every day, for the final 11 days.

Then Julianna Smoot chiming in after 11pm EDT:

Friend —

We just found out how much more money Mitt Romney and the Republicans have in the bank: $45 million.

I hope that sounds like a lot to you, because it is. And it doesn’t even include outside groups.

That is a massive advantage to have with such a short time left. We have the power to decide whether that will be the determining factor in this election — but only if everyone gets on board and does their part.

It’s no secret that the Obama campaign has been begging for cash several times daily, but now their pleas are getting downright desperate. So what does that mean to conservatives? This is no time to coast. If you haven’t given to the Romney campaign yet, now’s a great time. Getting Messina and Smoot desperate is one thing. Beating them on election day is the real goal, though.

Electoral College Analysis: Forecasting a Romney Victory

Romney and Obama debate

Up until the first presidential debate, polling for Romney looked pretty bleak. Recently, there’s been a recent Romney surge in polling on the popular vote. But this close in the election, is it enough for Romney to win?

Let’s take a look at the state of the polls.

The following map from Real Clear Politics shows the breakdown of states that are either solid or leaning Republican or Democrat, as well as swing states.

According to this morning’s Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, Wisconsin has Obama and Romney tied at 49%. Last week, Obama had a 2 point margin over Romney. Given that Wisconsin is quite literally, the home of the progressive movement, this is an impressive swing.

(There are many who would dismiss Rasmussen’s polls as ‘right leaning’ or ‘suspicious’ because they don’t release their methodology. However, during the past two election cycles, Rasmussen has been the most accurate polling outfit, which gives some legitimacy to their poll numbers.)

If Mitt Romney can win Wisconsin, he scores a major victory over Obama.

Two other important swing states are Virginia and Florida.

Depending on the poll, Romney has anywhere from a 1 point to a 5 point margin over Obama in Florida. The Real Clear Politics Average has Romney up by 1.8 points.

Romney is also currently up by 2 points in Virginia according to Rasmussen.

To clench the electoral college, Romney must win both Florida and Virginia. Florida has 29 electoral votes, and Virginia has 13.

Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes. If Romney wins Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin, along with the solidly Republican states in the South, he has 243 of the 270 electoral votes he needs to win.

In swing state North Carolina,  Romney has been ahead consistently in the polls for the past month. Colorado also has had Romney up, albeit by a slim margin. If Romney takes both of these states, he adds another 24 electoral college votes, giving him 267 of the 270 needed to win.

Of the remaining swing states, Obama is ahead in Nevada by about a 2 point spread. He holds Michigan by between 3 and 7 points, depending on the poll.

In New Hampshire, Obama is currently up by 1.1 points, according to the RCP average. However, Rasmussen has Romney up by 2.

If Romney wins all of the swing states mentioned above, then he only needs New Hampshire’s 4 electoral votes to put him at 271 electoral votes- 1 vote over the 270 needed to win.

Even if Obama wins Pennsylvania, where he’s up by 5, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada, along with the solidly Democratic state, he only has 267 electoral votes.

The map below depicts this outcome.

The result of this scenario is a Romney presidency. It would be historical in that, for the first time since 1972, the presidency could be won without Ohio.

Obviously, this is only one of many scenarios that could unfold on election night, and it is a bit of a stretch for Romney- his triumph depends on a series of wins in tough battleground states, including some where he’s currently behind in the polls. But it is possible. And much more likely than polling from a month ago shows. And with just under two weeks until the election, it may become more likely.

Mitt Romney Is Wrong On Defense Department Cuts

Pentagon

Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestration plan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.

There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.

For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.

The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.

There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).

Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?

The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.

Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.

But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.

This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.

**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.

Romney out-raises Obama in October

Obama sees no bounce after 2nd debate

In the first half of October, Mitt Romney raised $21 million more than the President according to Federal Election Commission filings covering the period from October 1st to the 17th.

For the first 17 days of October, Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee said they pulled in just over $90 million while Romney and the RNC brought in almost $112 million during that same time period. Obama’s campaign has outspent the former governor by almost $117 million over the course of the campaign leaving the president with $125 million while Romney has almost $170 million to spend between now and election day.

This campaign marks the first where both candidates have raised almost a billion dollars each and both may well best Obama’s record from the 2008 campaign. Romney has raised $975 million and Obama has brought in $981 since the beginning of their fund raising efforts. Voter’s in battleground states will be on the receiving end of the deluge of advertising likely to be purchased in the final week and a half of the campaign.

The candidates were allowed to pull in these massive totals as this is the first election where both candidates waived public matching funds in order to remove fund raising limits. The sharply-divided electorate has also energized donors on both sides to open their wallets in the hopes of giving their candidate a better chance.

Super PACs and unions have also played a major roll in election financing. Both bundle money from donors, but because of recent campaign finance changes, Republicans can use Super PACs to raise money on an even footing with democrat-friendly unions – something the left has fought vehemently to prevent.

Obama’s fund raising efforts have been called into question lately as, according to web researchers, the majority of his web traffic appears to have originated overseas. The President’s fund raising website does not verify address information as strongly as Romney’s and allows foreign addressed credit cards to be used to donate to the campaign. Considering the strong support Obama gets from Russia, China and Iran, there is some concern of foreign influence on the election.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »