Trunkline 2012: Monday’s Election News Wrap-Up From the Campaign Trail

Bookmark and Share   Leading the buzz from the campaign trail in today’s Trunkline 2012 news and views wrap-up are stories dealing with Romney’s growing lead among women, Hispanics, and in battleground states and the White House 2012 Electoral College projection, good reasons why gays should be voting for Mitt Romney, how Romney’s $171 million dollar September fundraising haul will shape his final push towards Election Day, unions fining members for not attending a rally for Massachusetts liberal Senate candidate Betsy Warren, a great ad from the T.E.A. movement, and as always… much more;

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Tuesday’s Tidbits from the Campaign Trail – 10/9/12

Bookmark and Share   Today’s tidbits from the trail include news about Romney’s rise in the polls,  Obama’s supporters threaten to riot, the DNC ‘s cash shortage, the President’s obsession with Big Bird, Obama’s initial belief that he won the first presidential debate, his lies about Romney and his own record, the president’s declining support among African-Americans, 10 dates from Obama’s first term to remember, the continued fallout from the Libyan terrorist attack and more:

Bookmark and Share

The Left Admits Romney Wins First Debate

It was a game changer. Romney cleaned Obama’s clock. Romney wins the night. It’s not debatable, Obama stumbles. What is so sweet about these opinions, crusaders, is that they are from the New York Times. And HuffPuff. And Politico. Left, Left and Left.

CNN, running a post-debate poll reported a 67% to 25% Romney win.

At the New York Times, Michael Goodwin wrote, “When it came to defending his record, Obama resorted to filibusters that moderator Jim Lehrer was too willing to tolerate. As though his handlers were whispering in his ear, the president trotted out his favorite campaign clichés: millionaires and billionaires, oil companies corporate jets, fair share, fair shot. It was all stale stuff.”

Bill Maher — i can’t believe i’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter

Michael Goodwin again, “As for specifics, I have no more idea what Obama would do in a second term than I did before the debate.”

“They know they lost tonight,” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

Joy Behar of The View — “Obama blew it. I hate to say it but Romney was lying and Obama didn’t hit him on it.”

Here is Left-lunatic extraordinaire, Chris Matthews, in all his glory.

The best part is the pathetic Obama performance wasn’t missed by the supreme ruler’s subjects either. Have some fun today, crusaders, and read some post comments at Politico, HuffPuff, the NY Times or any Left-leaning publication of your choice. Here’s a few to get your engine started.

Raw6464 — The man is a typical wimpy Democrat. After the debacle of last night I hope his staff will light a fire under his ass because one more debate loss and he’ll be a one term president…The thought of Romney choosing the next 4 Supreme Court Justices scares the shit out of me. If and when that day happens, the Right Wing will rule the world.

Jill — Was so depressing to watch that I turned it off after the first 45 minutes.

Slangwhang — OBAMA FAILED…..THE ECONOMY! THE COUNTRY! AMERICA

Balthasar — Obama looked tired to me; seemed to be having trouble keeping his eyes open as Mitt delivered his closing argument.

MileHiDem — Obama is still blazing in the polls and one debate won’t change it much, perhaps a little.

The Apostate — More debates coming, but Mitt will most likely take a lead in the polls over this debacle.

Donealready1 — This IS Obama without a teleprompter. He has been protected by everyone and this time, he was on his own. We finally got a glimpse of the true Obama……disaster

JaxSax1 — Wake up call to Obama. Yeah you are a nice guy. NOW FREAKING STOP IT. Stand up and punch back because this election was yours to lose.

Enjoy!

Follow I.M. Citizen on Facebook or visit at IMCitizen.net

Democrats Run On Empty As Gas Prices Reach Historic Highs

  Bookmark and Share  Today marks another historic milestone in the presidency of Barack Obama.  After more than three years of prices at the fuel pump steadily rising, this past month saw prices spike a whopping 9% and bring the national average of a gallon of gasoline up to $3.61 a gallon for the year, 10 cents more a gallon than it cost in 2011. All of this adds up to what will be the most expensive year for drivers in history.

Now to be fair, the truth is that Presidents and Congresses have only a certain amount of control over the price.  But they could have a a dramatic effect on stabilizing costs.  Fuel prices are largely established through the price set for crude oil on the world market.  Oil, regardless of what nation it comes from is thrown into one big economic bucket and stamped with one price throughout the world.  That is something which many, including Republicans often ignore when they argue for the need for the United States to increase domestic drilling.

While augmented domestic drilling is certainly a wise policy, it would not necessarily solve all our problems or drastically reduce the price of gas.  However; by tapping into the vast wealth of natural, domestic, energy sources like crude oil, the United States would certainly have a stabilizing effect on the energy market and the price of oil.

The high price that we are seeing at the pump now is, despite a sluggish and troubled economy, a direct result of the fact that worldwide demand is up and supplies are coming from increasingly unstable and even dangerous locations of the world; i.e.: the Middle East.  This means that if the United States which consumes most of the world’s oil supply, happened to increase its  production of domestic oil it would help to stabilize the world oil market by increasing the number of stable, secure, and reliable locations that are contributing to the world market, thereby adding a boost to the supply side of the supply and demand dynamic that is causing the unsettling run-up in fuel costs that we are now experiencing.

But President Obama and the liberal lock that Democrats have on Congress through their majority in the U.S. Senate, refuse to take advantage of our ability to exploit domestic natural resources.  It is a policy that not only continues to put undue pressure on the world oil market, it also denies Americans jobs, something which more rational political leaders would see as a necessary initiative at a time when our nation is experiencing its 40th consecutive month of unemployment in excess of 8%.

In this tough economy, while our federal government should be doing everything that is possible to get the economic engine of our nation moving again, it is clear that President Obama and his fellow liberals will be of no help on this issue.  Since coming to power, the only discernible efforts they have taken in the area of energy have been on the mishandling of the 2009 Gulf oil disaster that saw hundreds of millions of gallons of oil gush into the Gulf of Mexico for several months, and feeble attempts to prop up misguided alternative energy efforts such as the one involving the unfolding Solyndra scandal.

And as the average price of a gallon gas is predicted to reach as high as $3.90 a gallon by year’s end, Democrats, including President Obama happen to be missing in action on the issue.

As Democrats gear up to re-nominate their messiah for President, a deafening silence has fallen over the liberal lala land that the left occupies.

There are no complaints from limousine liberals over the price of gas or even the high unemployment rates which could be reduced by incorporating an all-of-the-above strategy into our national energy policy.   This newfound silence of the left offers a stark contrast to the reaction that liberals had to the high cost of gas in 2006 when it briefly spiked to point in excess of $3.00.

At one point, as Democrats were gearing up for the 2006 midterm elections and gas prices were reaching their highest of the Bush years, Chuck Schumer held a press conference and stated;

“Well, we knew this was going to happen.  Prices are now back up to over $3.00 a gallon again.  If we do nothing, within all too short a time prices they’re going to be at $4.00 a gallon and $5.00 a gallon.  And there’s going to be a giant hole getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, in every consumer’s pocketbook or wallet.

Back then, The New York Times, the now tarnished, Gray Lady of liberal propaganda, proudly extolled;

“Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country.”

Six years later and the soaring price of gas is something the left is now seemingly trying to keep a secret.  But in the words of Harry Reid, “the word is out”.

That genie is out of the bottle and at the moment, Democrats don’t seem to have any way to put her back in the bottle or to explain her escape.  No matter how many distractions the left concoct, no matter how much President Obama and his campaign henchmen try to defame Mitt Romney, and despite all the attempts to divide Americans and then piece together a majority of the vote for the President’s reelection, far too many Americans are uniting together under what are becoming very negative campaign ads for Democrats —- the signs which contain the high price for gas that the Obama energy policy is forcing Americans to pay.

Back in 2006, under the direction of Senator Schumer who was the Chairman of Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and in charge of getting liberals elected to the Senate, made bashing Bush on the high price of gas a mandatory theme for candidates to run on.  Fast forward to 2012 and Democrats are not running on the price of gas, they are trying to run as far away from those prices as many Democrats who are up for reelection are running as far away from the democratic National Convention as they possibly can.

It’s just another sign of the liberal hypocrisy that forms the foundation of liberal logic but in the meantime, our President has once again made history.  In addition to making history as the first President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for simply getting elected, other historic firsts include his success in putting nearly a third of the U.S. economy under government controlling by delivering socialized healthcare to our shores, the accumulation of a total debt that greater than the sum total of all previous presidents, his capping of salaries in the private sector, the first downgrade of the U.S credit rating, and the longest sustained period of unemployment in excess of 8%.  Now he has achieved the historic honor of presiding over the most expensive year for motorists ever.   The problem is, I am not sure how much more of the President’s historic achievements Americans afford?

Bookmark and Share

CPAC and Sarah Palin mark a turn to unity

 

A vintage fiery performance: Palin told delegates we'll keep our guns, God and Constitution, and Obama can keep the change.

The most remarkable event of today’s CPAC was Sarah Palin endorsing unity. Instead of showing her support for any one candidate, she called for unity, saying that whoever the nominee is the GOP must defeat Obama. Whoever the nominee is conservatives must work together, she told an ecstatic audience, and the nation will have a true conservative in the White House.

The unity message, great!

It followed the announcement that Mitt Romney had narrowly won the CPAC Straw Poll, following his mission to the conference to prove his conservative credentials. It seems it may be mission accomplished. Certainly Romney will be feeling a lot better about his appeal to the conservative base after today.

The other remarkable performance came from the ever-popular Daniel Hannan, British Member for the European Parliament. Warning America not to go down the European road, he was amazed that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror and overtaking them!

After his talk, I had a good conversation with him, as we walked through the hotel, including a detour through the kitchens! I asked him if he endorsed any candidates? He, just a little coyly, suggested it was difficult to choose, but stressed it was important for the party to unite behind a candidate and get Obama, who earlier in the day John Bolton called the “first post-American President”, out of the White House.

Daniel Hannan warns America not to follow Europe down a path and off a cliff

Hannan also urged me to write that the GOP must stop having so many debates, as it is only serving to divide the party. He also said Republicans need to focus on the budget, not all the side issues that divide conservatives. With that he headed for the airport, though many didn’t want him to leave and asked if he could be made an honorary American instead.

This has been an important few days for conservatives, and may finally signal the road to unity. Romney should start to pull firmly into the lead, and though Santorum and Gingrich will no doubt continue, they will see their numbers dwindle.

The New York Times carried a report ahead of Sarah Palin’s speech that she didn’t think a brokered RNC would be a problem. This is just a liberal wet dream. The reality is, Sarah Palin has signalled this important moment, and shown that there is less stomach for infighting.

I picked up my media credentials on Thursday at CPAC fearful of a divided party that would succeed only in rolling out the red carpet for President Obama. After three days, I happily left making my way through the handful of sorry-looking OWS protesters feeling that I can see November from here.

Iowa’s King Predicts a Third Place Finish for Gingrich

Bookmark and Share   Iowa Congressman Steve King is a sort of conservative kingmaker in the Hawkeye State, yet he refused to playthat  role in the Iowa presidential caucuses.  Instead he is going down to wire claiming to be one of the 41% of caucus goers who are still undecided about who to support when the Caucuses begin at 7:00 PM.

But according to New York Times national political correspondent Jeff Zelney, King has predicted a third place showing for Newt Gingrich.

The prediction mirrors my own optimistic hopes for a decent showing by Gingrich.  As I have previously contended, a third place finish for Newt will allow him the opportunity to remain realistically viable.

While King is now predicting that Gingrich will fare better than polls currently indicate, he did not explain who he thinks will not live up to the expectations set by the existing polls and underperform.  In my book, the candidate who is most likely to not meet expectations is Ron Paul.  And if King is right, Gingrich’s third place showing would most likely mean a fourth place showing for Ron Paul.  That would be a disastrously poor showing for poll.

In recent days, the bar for poll was quite high as poll numbers indicated that he was at times in first place.  Those expectations will prove to be a humongous let down if Paul is beaten by Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich.

Going in tonight’s caucus, I am standing my own earlier prediction and am giving the edge to Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich simply due to Newt’s lack of any truly effective organization to coordinate his ground game in Iowa.  But I am quite hopeful that Steve King is right.

Bookmark and Share

Newt vs. the CBO

You can tell the left is afraid of someone when they bring out the big guns.  Relying on his credentials as a former conservative, Bruce Bartlett has come out attacking Newt Gingrich for policies from over a decade and a half ago that Bartlett claims are responsible for today’s Congressional malaise.  Apparently, Ginrich’s reforms were not so terrible that Nancy Pelosi would want to change them when she had the chance.

One of Bartlett’s grips is that Gingrich consistently calls for an end to the CBO because of the way the CBO does projections.  Unfortunately for Bartlett, his faith in the CBO does not have a great track record to back it up.  After recalculating Obamacare costs and tax savings of all the various bi-partisan deals that have come out, the CBO has recently had to come out and admit they blew their projection of how much Obama’s stimulus was going to save the economy, and the number of jobs saved.

The problem with the CBO is that they don’t do dynamic budgeting.  They do projections.  In other words, Bartlett points out that the CBO figured the losses from the Bush tax cuts to be $3 trillion, but those losses are calculated based on the growth during Bush’s presidency and assumes that growth would have happened no matter what.  On the other hand, dynamic budgeting would look at this prolonged Obama recession and see that we have lost close to a trillion dollars a year in tax revenues because of stagnant growth and 9% unemployment.  The CBO, and Bartlett, are not smart enough to figure that out.

Bartlett thinks the CBO is smarter than Newt.  Actually, they just use different processes.  CBO processes are the perfect product of government bureaucracy economics that assume all things are equal and that policies will have no effect beyond the typed text of the bill.  On the other hand, Newt attempts to anticipate how ideas will affect other areas of the economy.  It’s more of a successful business approach where the results of the study mean more than giving one party ammo to sell a bill, like Obamacare.  For more info on the CBO’s recent record, there is a less than flattering article over at Biggovernment.com.

So which budgeting approach is better?  Depends on if you actually care about the results, or if you are a jaded former conservative writing for the New York Times.

%d bloggers like this: