2012 Is Massachusetts in Play for the GOP? Just for Giggles – Why Is MA being Polled for Obama? Why is the Warren Campaign Push Polling?

Elizabeth Warren and Barrack Obama - image ljworld

This is something to think about, in the 1980 and 1984 General Elections, Massachusetts, noted the most reliably blue state in the union - went deep red for Ronald Reagan. At that time (September 18, 1980) national polls had Carter and Reagan in a dead heat, in spite of a tanked economy and Carter’s major foreign policy fiasco with Iran (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) and by mid-October Carter had placed Massachusetts in the safe column(Boston Globe).

In 1984, once again the Mondale Campaign consider Massachusetts a “maybe” or “leaning toward Mondale” along with 39 other states based on polling! (Waycross Journal Herald, 10/13/84)

Therefore, it is not without some shock that polling firms are measuring President Obama’s favorability in the Bay State – and neighbors are talking - those programmed calls are reported to go no further if one suggests an unfavorable opinion of the President’s job performance, one is then asked demographic (male-female, age) and summarily thanked and disconnected. Reportedly, if one selects approval (see operation chaos), one is allegedly given the option to enter voters preference. It is odd, is it not, that Massachusetts would be polled at all –

Then again, may be no.

Speaking of polling: reports of the Warren Campaign going negative has hit the bricks -(See Boston Globe – Warren Releases Negative Ad) - and that includes reports of push-polling. Push-polling are phone calls made to voters homes (mostly partisan, Democrats, Independents) and basically lie like crazy about the opposition. Warren is said to be push polling Massachusetts. Apparently not all Democrats and Independent minded folk (the majority) are enamored of Warren and prefer Senator Brown.

The Hill has reported that the Dems are being cautious on Mass Race despite Warren’s Lead”

Of course she has a lead; Martha Coakley had a lead too! Of course, those leads are easy to manufacture if the pollster is selective and samples disproportionate geographic and voter trends.

Of course, there’s always trolling for votes in nursing homes (Personal experience, whereby Democrat operative was aiding my mother, who was in the end stages of Alzheimer, to vote for Al Gore – my mother, an independent, generally voted against my devoutly Democrat father, as a Republican – Needless to say, there were words, and the operative left.) The dead, the dying, and the non-existent are reported to vote in Massachusetts, and yet, Brown won by 5 points in 2009. One has to ask to what lengths the Warren Campaign will go. If they are push-polling, perhaps there aren’t enough dead and missing voters in MA to cover the deficit she actually faces. Perhaps she has internal polls. On the national polling stage, perhaps the Commonwealth that elected him Governor, will side with history and economics and foreign policy and hand the Massachusetts electoral votes to Romney –that’s a big perhaps, considering that Massachusetts never votes for a Republican, and has always been reliability Democrat and all seats, regardless of import, are shown year after year after year as – “safe Democrat”.

On Romney’s 47% remarks on a local scale: Although the media (including the morning and evening local affiliate news) are hammering Romney for the 47% of Obama supporters being dependent on the government, (Romney was speaking of campaign strategy and whom he would focus on during his campaign, which, is not lost on “the masses” – neither is the sentiment that is being portrayed) Apparently, those watching the newscasts are somewhat disgusted with the fact that Romney’s right and their local CBS, NBC affiliates are to use a phrase (So blind they cannot see the forest through the trees). Of course, this is relying on word of mouth, neighbor to neighbor - retirees, the unemployed, the employed but noticing their dollar goes nowhere, regular working class folks in the Bluest corner of the bluest state. The point being the mood has not shifted since 2009, in fact the mood is one that is more urgent in its animosity towards all things that appear to be pushing an “agenda”. Granted this may be a pocket of conservative and conservative leaning Democrats and Independents, but then again, do the 33 to 36% of the Massachusetts electorate that are registered Democrats (the balance are 11-12% Republican, 51% Unenrolleds (i.e. Independent) really win elections 100% of the time in Massachusetts when there is a better choice on the ballot?

Ron Paul Chasing Romney in NH – The Big What If Game Changer for Romney and the GOP Establishment - Gingrich and Paul as the Last Men Standing

Paul and Gingrich in the debate format - image abcnewsradioonline.com

From the Boston Globe’s: “Paul sparks passion in Granite State”comes an article that speaks to the depth of “passion” supporters of the Texas Congressman who would be President, elicits from supporters. These supporters have, in the past, been younger – college students and those in their mid-to late 20’s – times are a-changing. Paul is now garnering support not only from his traditional base of the youth vote, but from those who might otherwise be considered more conservative and not shocking at all, more liberal. Paul, who is a Libertarian and runs as a Republican, has a philosophy of limited government, individual freedom, and, perhaps most appealing to a great range of age demographics, a non-interventionist policy towards use of the military.

In random “kitchen table” conversations over the holidays, one found that those that are traditional Democrats are looking at Ron Paul as an alternative to the standard GOP as well as the incumbent, President Barack Obama. Generally, those in Massachusetts that are considered “solid Democrat” are also anti-war, on a scale that is perhaps larger than the balance of the nation. To find those individuals seriously considering, or committed to the Ron Paul campaign is at first startling, as it crosses party lines that are rarely crossed (see Massachusetts General Election voting history, where in only two cases in recent memory did the Bay State vote Republican: twice for Ronald Reagan.)

Paul appeals to those who are “sick of government” or “tired of all these wars” and alternately, those who want “government out of our schools, and our lives” – from hard-line Constitutionalists (i.e. Tea Party) to those who are still banging bongo drums in protest of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the youth who see no recourse and no hope for the future as long as the government remains in the status quo.

It may explain why Paul is doing so well in Iowa; he has the ability to attract the grassroots support necessary to push a win in a Caucus state, one that allows independents to participate in the nominating process. Iowa is not the only state to prescribe to the “open primary or caucus” – in fact Paul’s supporters are well aware of the 17 states that allow open primaries, and of those states, most take place on or before Super Tuesday. That said, the GOP has released the 2012 delegate playbook (PDF download here form the Weekly Standard,) which suggest that some states adopt a “Winner Take ALL “ delegate allocation, however, it is anticipated that certain states will continue to offer “proportional delegate allocation”. In this process, states that are designated as winner take all release all delegates to the candidate that amasses 50% or more of the total primary/caucus vote. In states where the rules are proportional allocation, delegates are allocated based on the percentage of the vote candidates receive (see “participation trophy”). Those states are few and far between after Super Tuesday.

In general, the candidate that amasses the most delegates by mid-March is seen as the eventual nominee, not only in terms of the ability to raise money based on their standing, but also in the makeup of the balance of the primary states.

The Polls: From Real Clear Politics one finds a variety of GOP polls , from national to the primary states, using a method of a “combined” score used for all candidates (averages all polls taken to rank a candidate). At this stage, Ron Paul ranks third nationally, behind Romney and Gingrich; all three have double digit leads, with Gingrich and Romney showing double Paul’s percentage. However, at this early stage in polling, these numbers are extremely fluid, and are subject to change on a weekly basis. In Iowa, Paul leads within the margin of error, with Romney and Gingrich following, In New Hampshire Romney leads, with Paul and Gingrich following. In South Carolina, Gingrich has a commanding lead of 37%, but again, Romney and Paul follow and the same scenario exists in Florida. These are the first four states that hold either a caucus or primary.

As attack ads from the Romney and Paul campaigns have weakened Gingrich’s lead in New Hampshire and Iowa, the consequence has been a rise in the polls for Paul. In addition, in Virginia, the Republican Committee disqualified over 1,000 signatures for both the Gingrich and the Perry campaign (Gingrich was leading Romney in the polls in Virginia and Romney is considered the “GOP establishment choice for nominee”). The only two that qualified for the ballot were Romney and Paul. In 2008, Paul bested Romney by a large margin in Virginia – the state GOP in attempting to block Romney’s competitors, set up a probable win for Paul in that Super Tuesday State.

Taking all of the preceding into account, the opportunity for Paul’s campaign to take the lead in several states, with Gingers continuing to poll high in South Carolina and Florida, sets up a 2008 déjà vu for Romney, and the possibility to Paul to seriously compete, especially in states where there are more liberal/moderate primary and caucus voters, and large delegate shares. This brings up the question as to who the Democrats would rather have as an opposition candidate – Romney is their first choice due to the media and GOP focus on Romney, the Obama campaign amassed vast amounts of political intelligence on the former Massachusetts Governor, all but ignoring the rest of the candidates. At this stage it the game, it would be difficult but not impossible to attempt to garner the same intelligence against Paul and Gingrich, who both have long and open records, which are more difficult to distort. In addition, both Gingrich and Paul can claim Washington “outsider” status – Gingrich on the length of team out of Congress and Paul simply because of his Libertarian ideology. In Paul’s case, especially, an ideology that appeals to the Democrat anti-war base.

All bets are currently off the table as to which way this primary will go, however, the eventual nominee, should the current Presidential Approval rankings hold, will face an incumbent that has an average approval well under 50%, with a majority of American’s dissatisfied with the direction of the country, in numbers not seen since 1979 (the last year of the Carter administration, where President Carter, not unlike President Obama, saw a job approval spike in the later end of that year – to no avail.) Therefore, either Gingrich, Romney or Paul would be in a position to win the general, however, it is more likely, given the historical makeup of the 2008 general GOP primaries, that both Gingrich and Paul will be the last men standing, unless Romney can, on a national and state by state level, move past is 20 – 25% support, with New Hampshire currently, the only state where he is above 20% in pre-primary polling.

Dallas Fed – Inflation up for February, as Gasoline Careens Towards $5.00 per Gallon, Shades of the 1970’s – It’s Carter Time!

The latest Dallas Fed Reports notes that food prices rose substantially the past year, with an 8.2% annualized rate among all categories. All categories include processed and preprocessed foods:

“It’s notable, then, that while prices for more-processed items increased by a smaller amount than prices for less-processed items, gains for both were robust—annualized 14 percent for less-processed items and 6 percent for more-processed items. Data at the more-processed end will bear watching in the coming months for signs of further impact from price increases at cruder stages of processing.”

What this boils down to in plain speak, is that consumers are finding higher prices at the retail grocery level, and may see steeper increases over the coming months due to the rising costs of fuel.

As the Middle East Implodes, and the ban on offshore drilling continues, the price per gallon of gasoline, climbing above $4.00 in some states, will, most likely go to $5.00 per gallon. That said, even at $4.00 per gallon, it affects not only those who commute to work and school, cutting back expendable income, but affects, again, the price of food. Delivery is factored into the price of groceries reaching the market. The end results are that families will be making some tough choices in the coming months, like so many were forced to in the 1970’s.

While the President weighs options, among them anything but opening up the U.S. offshore oil fields at a fast clip, should the price of a gas of gallon reach $5.00, he may opt to cut the Federal Gas Tax and/or Open Strategic Oil Reserves (which would be a national security issue).

During the 1970’s, when fuel prices rose dramatically, demand and supply fell dramatically, one might park in line for hours only to reach a pump and find the gasoline “sold out” – cars were routinely abandoned in favor of public transport, and car pooling (if one could find the fuel) became the norm. The crisis then, the return of the Ayatollah with the help of one Jimmy Carter to Iran, and the solution: new leadership.

The cycle that the United States is experiencing now, has happened before, and recently at that (The Carter Administration late 1970’s), the fact of the matter is that it will correct, but the process is painful. Those most at risk are individuals living on fixed incomes, such as the nation’s retirees. Things to do: Keep your gas tank full at all times, find, in advance, bus schedules or public transportation modes to get one back and forth to work, and then hunker down until the economy rights itself.

CNN-Opinion Research Polling Obama Believed Unlikely to Win Second Term – Compares Obama to Clinton in Polling Data Release - Analysis

Trouble in River City – No matter how one slices it, 51% of American’s polled in a CNN-Opinion Research Poll believe that Obama will be replaced in 2012. The poll (PDF here) taken the last week of January 2011, compares 1995 Gallup Trends polling on Bill Clinton’s presidency to the results of their poll on Obama in order to draw the conclusion that Clinton was polling in similar numbers to Obama now, and went on to win re-election.

In looking at potential two-term Presidents and polling, in January of 2003, George W. Bush was polling at approximately the same numbers as both Clinton and Obama, however, he was expected to win, not lose the Presidency. What one has to consider when viewing polls on individual Presidents, is the key word “individual”. Each President had an individual approach to leadership, which either appealed or, in some cases did not appeal to American voters a year before the general election campaigns began. In comparing the results of Bill Clintons poll numbers to Obama’s poll numbers is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Clinton was viewed as a moderate, the polling was taken in January of 1993, following the news of personal scandals involving President Clinton – it was, in a word, an approval or disapproval of a personal nature, not based on the man’s ability to govern. The Republican’s nomination of Bob Dole in 1995, a weak candidate, gave Clinton the help needed to gain a second term. In addition, Clinton transitioned as a moderate, and with apparent sincerity. Consider Welfare Reform, for instance, and a solid economy, an appearance of working closely with both sides of the aisle, since he took the office in his first term lent to his reelection in 1996.

There are several reasons that Barak Obama may not realize a second term, regardless of an apparent move to the center, and his recent epiphany regarding Ronald Reagan’s policies, the chief among them, his polarizing effect on the electorate, his administrations performance on the Health Care Reform and the Economy will also continue to play a factor. At this stage in the game, regardless of the fact that there are, according to CNN, no clear frontrunners in the GOP field (as no one has clearly announced an intent to run), Obama’s job approval continues to remain stagnant, and sinking on his handling of the economy (latest Gallup).

Although not one of us has a crystal ball to predict a future, it is, based on historical trends and reactions in comparing Obama to a similarly ideological U.S. President, Jimmy Carter, where one finds a basis to realistically anticipate the probability is high that Obama will not gain a second term. Carter not only faced dismal poll numbers, and a challenger from within his own party, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Carter did go on to win the nomination, but lost the Presidency to Ronald Reagan in what can only be termed as a total repudiation of Carters’ policies.

When one reviews, the economies under both presidencies (Carter/Obama), their handling of the respective situations in a similar manner, and subsequent failure, the advancement of the government roll and entitlement programs under both administrations, and finally, foreign policy as regards the Middle East, would appear to data worth reviewing. Perhaps CNN should have compared a similar president, ideologically speaking, in their polling on Obama, say Carter, rather than Clinton to draw an accurate conclusion. However, as badly as the media (CNN) wants Obama in a second term, the use of Clinton as an example, does nothing to support the theory that Obama, like Clinton will overcome this deficit.

On the Republican potential nominees, Mike Huckabee receives the highest approval and favorability, with Mitt Romney and Palin both at his heels in the same poll. What was of interest in this particular portion of the poll, the question on the import of a candidates’ views matching one’s own, or the ability of a candidate to best Obama – Republicans and Republican Leaning Independents overwhelming chose the latter. Therefore, one might overlook Romney’s involvement in Massachusetts Care, or Huckabee’s “liberal” ability to govern across the aisle (not to mention his Christian Credentials), or even Sarah Palin’s “polarizing personality” if it was though that individual would beat the current President.


Note: Although by now, readers of this blog understand that Public Policy Polling is a favorite pollster, (based on two facts: 1) accuracy of their polling data) and 2) They are a Democrat Leaning firm which, if one finds Republican’s with gains in a firm that skews Democrat, then one cannot question their integrity, or the integrity of the polling data. This firm has been polling both the GOP field (as it is seen now), along with matchups between those GOP potentials and the President since 2010 – the results are telling: To follow the trends visit http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/surveys.

Obama plans Two Vacations – First Family to Visit Gulf and Martha’s Vineyard – Media – He Attempts to Move to the Right?

Obama on the Cover of Time - media depiction as FDR, a call to moderates - who prefer Clinton

According to the the AFP President Barak Obama and his familyare planning two more vacations before summers end – one to the Gulf and one to Martha’s Vineyard. The Gulf vacation is family only, according the this Euro news service, and while in Louisiana the President also plans on mixing in a bit of “business” – visiting small businesses who may have been affected by the oil spill. The last summer vacation will be in Martha’s Vineyard.

This, despite, the fact that the nations unemployment rate remains steady at 9.5% with no change anticipated for August”, and appearances, as “they” say, are everything. Apparently, advisers must have suggested a get-away or two – not realizing that this move may not be the best way to endear the suffering populace. On the other hand, with Congress on recess, and embattled Democrats fighting to maintain their seats, it may have been a directive from the DNC to “get out of Dodge” and find something to do away from Washington and any Democrat that is up for reelection – as he is less effective, say than President Bill Clinton, who is the preferred “party star” to aid endangered Democrats (NPR). That said, at every opportunity, the President and Democrats in general, are still blaming President George Bush for every problem that occurs (including the Gulf Oil Spill), a man who was eviscerated by the media for taking vacations at a working ranch (owned by Bush), while a natural disaster was occurring (Katrina).

With a political party in hot water, it is, in all likelihood, a good idea for Obama to maintain a low profile, after all, 2012 campaigning also begins on November 3, 2010 – time for Obama to begin to “move to the middle” in order to maintain his current residence. This strategy is in place, according to Keith Koffer, in an op-ed found in Politico. Mr. Koffer cites the fact that White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “picking fights “with the left – on purpose. This purpose would be to apparently distant the President from those who are left of center – or the majority of the Democrat Congressional members. Seriously, the author goes so far as to compare Obama’s “strategy” to that of President Clinton’s in 1994. It is, without a doubt, disingenuous to think that a comparison can be made between the two men in the first place, and in the second, conditions in the country (unemployment, etc.) are simply not comparable.

If one were to compare President Obama to a past Democrat office holder, it would have to be Carter – not Clinton. This is not the first article (or salvo) fired off by the press, op-ed or no, that is claiming a “move to the center” by Obama, and quoting one comment found under the Politico article one can sense the hostility towards the press and the President and that fact that it is a “no-sale” theory:

“Oh please, he already pulled this crap once to get elected and as soon as he was elected he took a HARD left and hasn't been back!
I don't think Oblunder will be fooling anyone this time and he still is and always will be as radical as ever!”

Shades of the Who ”Won’t Get Fooled Again” .

It is not the vacations, necessarily; it is more the constant bailouts, the appearance that the President and his Congress in concert are oblivious to needs and wants of the general electorate, which will make it extremely difficult to imagine a second term. Of course, according to every article remotely critiquing the administration, there lurks a line or two about the “GOP” calling out the same for acting irresponsibly. In other words, still stumping for Obama, even though it is apparent this president’s chances of re-election are growing slimmer by the day.

What of Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? It serves two purposes, neither of which are tied to the current President. One, it puts a popular President out front with Democrats (Senate and Congress) who are most likely to face a loss, but will remember and support the Clintons, and does get the old base enthused. (Referring of course, to the old democrat, as opposed to the “progressives”). In addition, with Hillary Clinton perhaps the party’s only hope of maintaining Pennsylvania Avenue for the Democrats, its political capital in the bank- this despite the appearance of “helping” Obama.

All’s fair in love, war and politics, given that old adage, one cannot see a new majority (in both the Congress and the Senate) working against the opportunity to see a Republican in the White House – or a true moderate Democrat (i.e. Hillary Clinton). In addition, it is difficult to see this particular man, go against his personal progressive convictions, those that have been in place in the earliest moments of his political career(see below) – and may make any move, even remotely to the center, either transparently false, or impossible. ( From the New Party (Socialist Party):

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for
Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

)

Therefore, being the “brilliant” man he is, he must be aware of the mood of the populace, and the great lengths he must go through in order to attempt a political “makeover” in time and in concert with a sympathetic media, in a rally for a second term, which, pinning ones political hopes on the short memory of the average “American Idol” voter, may not be the best strategy this time around. The times have changed since Carter’s first and only term.

State of the Union – Obama Touts Partisanship, Tax Cuts and Eliminating Pork Believes Stimulus I Worked – Moves Sharply to the Middle - Analysis

Obama Delivers His First State of the Union - image Telegraph UK

In a total about face, Barack Obama has suddenly become interested in partisanship and tax cuts and according to his State of the Union, the recession is over. Suddenly he is a deficit hawk, promising to cut pork and make sure that there is transparency in government. Over the past months, the administrations focus on Health Care Reform belies the claim of renewed partisanship, as one party locked the other out of negotiations, preferring to ignore the millions of constituents who were against the bills in their current form, and throwing all criticism into the “partisanship” pot. Each stimulus, each version of the Health Care Reform Bill, each budget, was laden with pork from the Party in power. Talk is cheap, sometimes - Obama spoke about selective tax cuts and the need to cut spending and then announced a job creation bill that will cost a measly $80 billion dollars, similar in design to the stimulus, and one which former President Jimmy Carter implemented in the late 1970’s.

In several rousing moments of the speech, he spoke about the will of the American people and our ability to rise from adversity. America, according to Obama, needs high speed railways in order to best our global competitors. He’d also like to see tax cuts go to businesses that stay in the U.S., and to those who prefer to build overseas, no tax cuts at all. Protectionism is a fine idea; however, many states in these United States have such high corporate tax rates, that even a federal tax cut will not make a federal tax cut attractive. Massachusetts, for example, has the 4th highest corporate tax, globally. He blamed the banks who were part and parcel of the TARP program, setting fees on the largest banks in order to pay for it all. However, there are still more programs pending than three large banks can afford, and with the Bush Tax Cuts set to expire, a tax increase will set in across the board, (another source of revenue, one in which he failed to mention. – see marriage penalty and child tax credits and the federal income tax cut that will overshadow the $13 and $8.00 gain in Obama’s tax cuts. (Note: those who are working two jobs may actually end up paying back their tax cut, if they did not wisely claim 0 on one of their two W-2 forms.) What he did not mention was terrorism, a problem the U.S. faces from within its borders.

Overall, his reception was tepid, at first, however, the room warmed to him for the most part. His language was casual, less formal than most Presidents of the past, including George W. Bush, an effort to reach out those millions of Americans who are now looking at him with a less than favorable opinion. The task before the President now is to carry through on the promises he made the American people, and produce some results. Perhaps Obama truly believes that he has moved to the middle, perhaps these have been his intentions all along, perhaps he needed a crisis within his own party to be able to step up and get out from the shadows. Only time will tell if this new Obama will “make good” - he has precious little time to do a total about face before the mid-term elections in 2010.

That said should this be the real Obama, a total reversal of fortunes for his party, with a new party majority in Congress in 2010, will be exactly what he needs in order to be able to govern and get off the campaign trail. If it is merely rhetoric, then time and history will liken Obama to Jimmy Carter. Should he be sincere, then he will emerge as a Bill Clinton. All American’s should be mindful that it is easy to Monday morning quarterback, (or Thursday morning in this case), and time should be allowed for Obama to “make good”. As the President is used to getting bills delivered to his desk immediately, this should not present a problem.

For future reference: full text of the State of the Union Huffington Post

154 Billion Dollar “Job Creation” Packages Narrowly Passes House – Pelosi Pins Democrats 2010 Hopes on Jimmy Carter Strategy.

Nancy Pelosi hopes 150 Billion Dollar Job Stimulus will Save Congressional Jobs - including her own - image opinoneditorial.com

From Bloomberg: The House narrowly passed a bill authorizing 154 billion dollars in additional debt for a job creation package yesterday. The vote, (roll call here) was 218 for, 214 against, on a Bill that is designed to extend unemployment benefits, maintain jobs in the public sector and “create” jobs through construction projects that are hoped to be ready for 2010.

Flashback to the 1977 Job Creation “Stimulus” Package that Jimmy Carter and his comrades in Congress pushed through in roughly the same fashion. Carter’s plan called for spending 30 Billion (1977), and included a scheme to create 800,000 jobs over a two year period. Yes, jobs were created, however, so was an unsustainable rate of inflation that broke the back of the middle class – it was deemed “the misery index” and included of all things, tax cuts, to those earning the least (or those who would be entitled to full refunds regardless).

30 years later, Democrats are praying that this new plan works. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, needs a boost as falling poll numbers indicate that she may be either demoted or retired in 2010, along with a good percentage of her “flock”. An article in Politico indicates that several of Nancy Pelosi’s troops are announcing retirements (Brian Baird (D-WA), at a time when she is convinced that if the White House and Congress can boost the economy in any way it would affect “job creation” (or saved jobs) in Congress. Nancy calls this “full campaign mode”. In other words, if the people believe that jobs are will be created, and hopefully ignore the increased debt ceiling (which will have to be paid back by – the taxpayers at some point over several generations – unless tax cuts, generous tax cuts, are put into place and there is complete halt to more government programs) and happily vote the incumbents back into office.

Nancy is taking a risk in that the public is ready to party like its 1979 – with or without a Ronald Reagan. Should this bill sustain those public sector jobs, and extend unemployment benefits, while putting a road construction plan into place, it may indeed save and create jobs, but the risk of increasing inflation as the dollar is weak at present is palpable. (Increasing the debt ceiling will only shove it further down the proverbial latrine.) While the rank and file begin to pay $10.99 for a pound of hamburger, and wonder how they will make ends meet, (inflation!), the blame is going to be planted squarely on the shoulders of those who voted “yea”. Those who did not, including 40 some odd “blue dog” democrats (those who know their jobs are on the line), are hoping that the Democrat Brand is not so tainted that they lose their seats by virtue of association.

To Recap, in order to try and save their political hides, the Democrats in Congress (and assuming the White House) put the country’s already diminished fiscal health at great risk by creating a job creation/stimulus package, ramming it through the House (which, incidentally happened exactly that way under Carter, and historically failed) – just in time to “look good” for the 2010 elections. Words fail those who cannot comprehend the lack of common sense, and lack of understanding in general of the basic of our economy, that have been displayed by this Congress, who, since 2006, has done nothing but drag our nation further downward – not for love of country or some misguided ideology, rather for self-interest.

Recommended Interesting website: Teabombs Worth a visit. The premise: individuals create accounts which allow them to vote for incumbents with less than savory records (Nancy Pelosi is currently leading the pack), they can then vote for their challengers as well. The end result, those who “win” – will be targeted – by funds given to the challenger in order to bolster their campaign. Currently, Pelosi is in first place, followed by Boxer and the infamous Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Arlin Specter and Sheila Jackson Lee round out the top ten. The top three challengers: Liz Carter (vs. Hank Johnson, GA), John Dennis (vs. Nancy Pelosi) and Earl Sholley (vs. Barney Frank). If one thinks that this is a partisan website, think again, Republican’s who have exhibited less than stellar fiscal records can be found amongst the incumbents listed. That said this may be predictive of those in the top 10, as far as job preservation and creation are concerned.

Obama – Afghanistan Troop Build-Up Reported by CBS – Denied by White House – A Disconnect and Disservice to the Public.

"Obama's War in Afganistan - Image: whitewraithe wordpress

A CBS News report issued yesterday indicated “informed sources” suggested that the President would increase troop deployment to Afghanistan by up to 40,000 members. There are 68,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan; General Stanley McChrystal, who was chosen by the administration to head the Afghan theater has requested up to 44,000 additional troops to deal with the increase in Taliban and Al Queda actions against U.S. forces. John Kerry, (D-MA), immediately opposed the Generals request, replaying his general opposition to deployment of military personnel. Kerry has been a prominent anti-war activist since his brief stint in Viet Nam and has been critical of any U.S. troop deployments, most recently the mission in Iraq. Kerry, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in a recent speech that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's plan, which calls for 44,000 troops to carry out a counterinsurgency campaign, "reaches too far, too fast." (Washington Post).

Immediately following the CBS report, the White House issued a denial that Obama had made any decisions yet as to the level of troops he is willing to commit to Afghanistan. A national security advisor noted that reports of a decision by Obama regarding troop deployments were false. One interesting facet of that particular AP report is contained in a brief paragraph in the middle:

“After attending Tuesday's memorial service for the 13 killed in a shooting spree at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, Obama is due to meet his senior commanders on Wednesday again in the situation room to discuss Afghanistan. Analysis: More Fort Hoods possible.”

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, specifically Obama’s initial campaign promises to remove troops from Iraq and go into Afghanistan to take on Al Queda, including use of additional U.S. forces in that theater has been compared to Viet Nam on more than one occasion. The fact that the U.S. Military believes that there are “more Fort Hoods possible” is also troubling and should, perhaps, have been a separate headline. The overall impression is one of chaos, as far as the management and direction of what has become known as “Obama’s War”. It is questionable as to how the administration will handle both domestic terrorism (Al Queda linked) and the troop buildup in a country that no nation has ever successfully controlled.
As to the CBS News organization, which has issued reports in the past without fully investigating the subject matter (see Dan Rather, former CBS anchor and reports on President Bush in 2005 which included falsified documents, that were not vetted by the news organizations.) either decided to issue a credible report, again “based on informed” sources, or they jumped the gun, and ran a story that had little credence or backing. That said, the White House issues denials of reports on a regular basis, so it is difficult for anyone that is sitting on the sidelines to determine what is taking place. White House communication director, Anita Dunn, has stated that the Obama campaign and the administration “control the press” which, leaves little room for error on the part of journalists walking the fine line between White House approval (access) or banishment (see Fox News boycott story on Huffington Post) should the administration be questioned. This leaves the general public in the dark regarding the War in Afghanistan, should news organizations decide to shut down and kowtow to the administration.

Regardless, the fact that large numbers of troops are being considered for deployment, in a theater that is historically unmanageable, with the concept of phasing in troops over a period of time (see Viet Nam, War of Attrition) could lead to an eventual draft, once volunteer forces become exhausted. In this instance, Senator Kerry’s hesitant stance may be justified. The current administrations inattention to historical boondoggles of the past, (see Carter), have led to economic woes, and the addition of a “Viet Nam” is not out of the question. The “excuse” that both the economic problems facing the county and the War in Afghanistan are merely leftovers (so to speak) from the Bush Administration, is beginning to wear thin. It is growing more obvious by the day, that throwing money (stimulus after stimulus) and adding taxes to corporations, does little to improve the economy – in fact, as the unemployment rates tops 10%, those tax cuts to “the evil corporations”, may induce them to actually hire and build in the United States. Additionally, Bush’s strategy to engage terrorists organizations in Iraq, build the Iraqi security forces, and eventually hand security over to the Iraqi government, appeared to be working. It is now apparent that withdrawal from that theater, only increased violence in Iraq, and Al Queda and the Taliban grew stronger in Afghanistan. Additionally, we are now faced with domestic terrorism in the United States, from Fort Hood to the latest plans to attack shopping malls in Boston. The problem seems to be, at the present time, a disconnect between the White House, History and the Press.

Party Like It's 1979 - Oil Rises, Dollar Weakens - Can Gas Lines Be Far Behind?

Gas Rationing Under Carter Produced Long Lines at the Pumps - image Todays Campus

2009 - The Stage is Set
The price of oilhas increased this week, up to $80 per barrel, causing an added burden to the millions of economically stressed Americans. Historically, when the dollar is in decline, and fuel costs rise, there is a spike in inflation.

1978 to 1979 – The Road to Ruin

In 1978 the rising cost of oil against a constantly weakened U.S. Dollar lent to a deepening recession and eventually, gas lines. Although there were several factors that contributed to the situation, a trade imbalance, Carter’s “Windfall Profit Tax” on Oil companies, which did not take into account the fact that oil companies would reduce production, added to the falling dollar, inflation rose above 9% in 1978, after the oil prices rose against a weakened dollar. Within six months these factors contributed to a gasoline shortage which led to long lines at gas stations and in the face of falling oil reserves, the Democrat controlled Congress gave President Carter, the green light to ration gas. In addition, the rise in the unemployment rate and the rate of inflation in 1979 was linked at the time to to the weakening dollar and subsequent fuel shortage.

Stimulus programs implemented under Carter in the beginning of his administration, failed to produce any significant results, and contributed to the increase in both corporate and individual tax liabilities, which, in the end, resulted in the loss of manufacturing jobs, a loss of corporate tax revenue, as companies fled or folded, an increase dependence on foreign goods, which resulted in a trade deficit and devalued dollar, high unemployment, and eventually, with the rise of oil, nightmarish inflation, and rationing of fuel.

To fully understand how this took place; the fact that President Jimmy Carter, with little to no governing experience (one term Governor of Georgia), in concert with a party majority in both the House and the Senate, entering the White House with an existing financial crisis, may have made decisions that were naive at best; Carter prescribed to a global and progressive point of view, and governed in like manner. Higher taxes on the “rich”, and an increase in entitlement programs, eventually pounded the U.S. economy into the ground. What is mind boggling, is that this historical road map, instead of being rejected, is being embraced by the current administration, tenfold.

Edward M. “Teddy” Kennedy – Deceased - The End of An American Political Dynasty

Ted Kennedy with Barack Obama - image NY Magazine

Edward M. Kennedythe senior Senator from Massachusetts, died yesterday evening at the family estate in Hyannis at the age of 77 after a battle with brain cancer. Known as the “Lion of the Senate”, Kennedy was a staunch liberal and standard bearer for the Democrat Party. Kennedy’s passing heralds the end of an era for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as the country. He will be remembered for his soaring rhetoric and defense of his Democrat Party. He was pivotal in the nomination of Barack Obama in 2008, being one of the first to endorse Obama, and using his political clout within the Party to ensure enough Super Delegates would choose the Illinois Senator. Even in the last weeks of his life, Kennedy put his Political Party first – just last week he attempted to use his influence with the Massachusetts legislature to reverse the process of selection of a U.S. Senator should a seat become vacant. Currently, under Massachusetts law, should a seat become vacant, a general election is held, previously, the law stated that the Governor would appoint a Senator. The original law was changed at Kennedy’s behest, due to the anticipated vacancy of John Kerry’s seat in the 2004 presidential election. At the time, Mitt Romney, a Republican, was Governor of the Commonwealth, and Kennedy feared he would appoint a Republican to the U.S. Senate. Kennedy, mindful that the rules would might not favor (or allow Deval Patrick to appoint a successor), the Democrat Party, wanted to reverse the Commonwealth laws.

The Kennedy family ruled Massachusetts and the nation, not always under the rule of the law – the family fortune was amassed by Joe Kennedy, a “bootlegger” (producer and distributor of illegal alcohol during the U.S. Prohibition), and womanizer, who fathered 9 children. His sons, John F. Kennedy, President of the U.S. and Robert Kennedy, U.S. Attorney General, were assassinated in the 1960’s, leaving Ted Kennedy as the eldest to carry on the political torch. He ran for President in 1980, and lost to Jimmy Carter, due to his checkered past, specifically, an incident at Chappaquiddick where Kennedy drove his car over a bridge, left the scene of the accident and his passenger, a young woman, Mary Jo Kopechne, to drown. His actions, for good or for ill, made Ted Kennedy one of the most interesting political figures of our time. There simply are no other Democrat Party Statesmen of his stature and ability left in the Party he loved to the very end of his life.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s Approval at 36%, Obama Approval Drops below 50% - Tales of Dukakis and Carter.

News of "Stimulus" Signs - Massachusetts residents Not Impressed - photo: Springfield Republican

A new poll conducted by the Boston Globe last week showed Deval Patrick’s approval among state residents has remained low at 36%. In a match-up with both Republican gubernatorial candidates, Christy Mihos and Charles Baker, Patrick is at a “dead heat” – he does no better should Democrat turned Independent Timothy Cahill, enter the race. Regardless of who the Governor faces, 16 months prior to the election, he is faced with poll numbers similar to Dukakis in 1983 (35%), which made headlines suggesting that then Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale, was afraid of Massachusetts voters.

Deval Patrick’s “political cousin”, Barak Obama (both under the mentoring of David Axelrod), is now under 50% for job approval, with just 6 months into his administration. The Rasmussen Daily tracking poll for Sunday, July 26th, showed the strongly disapproves now at 40% with the strongly approves falling to 29 %.

Of particular interest is the fact that both men used the same “slogan’s” and made the same campaign promises (hope, change, tax cuts for the middle-class), pre-election, with the results, upon election, quickly showing little change, and tax cuts (in Massachusetts) to be non-existent. It would appear, at this point, that Patrick is clearly not electable, regardless of who runs against him. Although, Patrick has made the case that it is not “his fault” that the economy is in its present state, it is a stretch, to say the least – bad management is simply bad management – Massachusetts voters were told in 2008 that to repeal the state income tax (which would have been a tax cut) would result in loss of jobs statewide, are now experiencing loss of jobs statewide, even with the Federal Stimulus funds apportioned to Massachusetts.

Evidence of the Stimulus at work, came in the form of signs touting the Stimulus at work, placed along Massachusetts Roadways - comments on the article are decidedly negative. It is a known fact, in Massachusetts, that Barack Obama and Deval Patrick have a better relationship (given their similar backgrounds as well as ties to Axelrod), which led some to believe that Massachusetts would fare better in any bailout (or Stimulus) program. As Massachusetts residents (and retailers), rush to stock shelves prior to the 25% sales tax increase effective August 1st, the comments under the article (here) are pointing to the “liberal” tax and spend legislature and Governor (Patrick).

The “liberal” label has been firmly attached to Obama who is now viewed with that “tag” by 76% of registered voters.(Note: Rasmussen polling uses registered voters, rather than "adults" (most survey's taken use "adults" - allowing non-voters to be factored into the results)

Although, given the timing, Obama will, in all likelihood, not have to worry about Patrick’s popularity, in 2012 when it comes to the state of Massachusetts - he will have to worry about his own. Patrick is to Dukakis (Mondale) as Obama is to Carter.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Fundraising Email Regarding Republicans: “History is on their Side”

In a recent fundraising email from the Republican National Senatorial Committee, an excerpt from an email to potential donors to the opposition team was noted in the body of the text as follows:

“The DSCC email went on to say that Republicans "not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election. That would spell disaster for President Obama's agenda."

Although the intent of the RNSC email was fundraising, it also served the purpose of letting its base know that not everything is as bad as the media (constant drumbeat of Republican’s in dissarry) would have it - and with good reason - Apparently, this type of fundraising does not sit well with all Democrats. From the blog Persuasian, Perseverence and Patience: text from the DSCC is demeaned as a “cry-wolf” tactic and additional text is provided by the blogger:

Don't believe what you've heard about a GOP in disarray. They're mad, they're organized, and they're determined to return to what they see as their rightful place: ruling the halls of Congress.

How do I know? $14.4 million.

That's how much Newt Gingrich raised during a fundraising dinner last week for Republican House and Senate committees. One speech. $14.4 million.

They not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election. That would spell disaster for President Obama's agenda.

What is perhaps, the most interesting aspect of this exchange, is that one the one hand, one can find the blogger who favors the Democrat Party in general, dismissing the emails contents:

“I wonder how many people who contribute would be so out of touch to actually buy the argument that the Republicans are organized."

It is interesting because conservatives decry mainstream media bias towards the left, dismissing the strengths of the more conservative party, and touting the invincible Democrat Machine, led by the “American Idol, Rock Star, President Obama. Therefore, the media, seen as a friend to the DNC, may ultimately end up aiding their downfall – by convincing the millions who are so in “lock-step” with a particular party, that they avoid alternative media outlets such as FOX (which is consistently dismissed by the President in speeches given to rally the “troops”.) Unfortunately, the end result is that those who believe that the Democrat Party is invincible are receiving their information from a single-minded source. (Granted, the same could be said of those conservatives who never tune into MSNBC, even for the entertainment factor.)

How far has the “star power” of the Head of the DNC fallen? A Fundraiser slated for today with Obama as the “headliner”, is expected to net 3 million dollars, a pittance for high profile speakers at such events (see Newt Gingrich reference in the DSCC email; which is not verified). Additionally, the campaign promise to ban lobbyist has gone by the wayside, as Democrats are “dodging the ban on cash” from that quarter, as reported upon by Politico.

What is missing in this entire: have and have not, crying for financial help, raffling off personalized photo’s with the President, is the current dismal state of the economy, one which, can no longer be assigned to the Bush Administration or the “Republicans”. Here again, the media came to the rescue. When Obama was pushing his Stimulus Package through the legislature at the speed of light, it was noted in press, local, regional and national, that the Republican’s were simply not cooperating; in fact, they were maligned for not voting for the stimulus. As a student of history, at that point, one had to sit back and admit: tactical error! Specifically if the student has the understanding that the stimulus would go astray, that spending more would end up meaning higher taxes, and that the “Ghost of Jimmy Carter” was in the House.

As the nation takes a sharp swing to the right, the media is still touting the strength of the DNC – which will further affect their fundraising capabilities. One must also take into consideration that the perceived ownership of certain groups, specifically those who are dependent upon the government for financial aid and college students, may have resulted in votes (at the time) but the base is not capable of financial support in the long run – leaving the bulk of the support to come from industry, unions and Hollywood – all of whom are feeling the financial crunch.
On the flip side, the return of Carter, has moved the nation right – those who have had to cut back, will still find $10 to send to the various fundraising arms of the Republican Party – in order to help the nation, both fiscally and in issues of national security. This will, of course, be either proven or disproved with the coming elections: 2009 governorships, 2010 congressional and senatorial races – should the Republican’s gain seats, and it appears that both History, the Media and the DNCC itself are on their side, then there will be a solid return to conservative governance and a reversal of the tax and spend mentality currently found in DC. That said, if this does occur, the Republican members sent by the nation to rescue the country, had best stick to those fiscally conservative principals – and finally, speak up against any bias perceived by those who would seek to usurp the government.

(See: the press as viewed by the Founding Fathers: the Federalist Papers. Reference: The Federalist Papers #84 “From the Federalist Papers: #8, Hamilton

"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than we granted. Fro why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shallot be retrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power, but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.")

Way to Go Joe – Biden Acknowledges Stimulus Guessing Game

Vice President, Joe Biden - image: Time.com

From Time Magazine: Vice President Joe Biden, in a recent appearance on “Meet the Press”, put forth the notion that everyone involved in the stimulus “guessed wrong” (key quotes from Time follow):

"No one realized how bad the economy was. The projections, in fact, turned out to be worse. But we took the mainstream model as to what we thought -- and everyone else thought -- the unemployment rate would be."
"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed."
"The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before."
"Can I claim credit that all of that's due to the recovery package? No. But it clearly has had an impact."

Therefore, based upon the Vice-Presidents take on the out-of-control government spending, it was a “guessing game”, based on a model of assumptions. Moreover, those who feel that Barack Obama and company are studiously moving the country to the left, may be in error, because, based on what Biden has to say, they are instead, floundering about, taking stabs at what they “think” might work. Herein lays the problem, although it is apparent that the President is to the left of center, with a Vice-President that is somewhat of a “loose cannon”, most view the man as competent, brilliant in fact – surrounded by brilliant people who will make good sound decisions in order to further American interests – so say the media, and those pundits that pontificate on certain cable networks. That said, what appears to be the case, and may more likely be a fact, blinded by a Progressive education that gave former President Jimmy Carter, sainthood status, no one in the administration bothered to research historical data, and therefore, the results of overspending, bailouts and stimulus – and the outcome are predictable.

Had anyone with an ounce of sense, gone back over what had happened in the past 40 years, with clarity of mind and lack of political rhetorical think – the situation America is now facing would have been a shade different – the nation needed deeper tax cuts, allowing banks, and auto-makers to fail, so that in the long-run, the healthier businesses (note: political ties to each and every one of those institutions that were given aid), would have risen – the others would have become “history”, and the nation would have recovered rapidly – specifically the private sector. It is a proven economic model, while the current model is proven as well, to be somewhat disastrous, economically.

Rushing forth in panic, driven by political ideology with no sane historical references, is what has happened to our country – according to Joe Biden. Ironic is it not? Historically, those that rush blindly into situations of an economical nature (See Carter, “inheriting” a fiscal disaster from his predecessor and the response which caused the coinage of a new term “Misery Index”), serve one –term in office. Therefore, those who are caught in the middle of this – the unemployed, those who are sick at heart at what has happened to our nation in such a short period of time – should take heart – in a mere three years the polls will once again be open, and someone, man or woman, will step forth, offering advice of an historical nature, that will of course, sound very good to those masses who are beaten down by high inflation, out of control taxation from federal and state administrations, and the result will be – predictable. Although one cannot look for another “Reagan”, as that would be counter-productive, one can bet the house that a new conservative (notice no mention of Party Politic) one who is fiscally grounded, will lead the nation forward in 2012. For those who feel they should have looked harder at Clinton instead of blindly following the “American Idol” of presidential candidates, keep in mind, packaging is what it is, packaging - the more attractive the package, the harder one must dig to find out what that “package’ actually has accomplished – and then, take a look at the other package – the one that may have some “baggage”, but has a clear record. Simple lock step, slogans, should not shape a campaign, unless of course, there is more than rhetoric to substantiate the slogan. Therefore, the privilege of going to the polls to vote and hire a new administrator for the country (which is what the President’s function is – a CEO so to speak), requires some dedicated research on the part of those who actually wield a vote.

In retrospect, therefore, the blame should not be placed on the shoulders of Barack Obama, as President, he is doing what he can, in order to move the nation forward – the blame should rest with those who put forth a candidate of limited experience, undermined a candidate who had the right experience (Clinton), and packaged this candidate so well, that the nation surely would “purchase the goods” so to speak, and then, the blame also lies with those who voted blindly, on rhetoric or on endorsements. Case in point: a family member who, one would think, given gender and age as a factor, would have naturally supported Hillary Clinton (while this blog clearly supported Mike Huckabee, another moderate – but conservative with a proven governing record), however, true shock and awe were in store, when this dear person said when queried who she would support: “Obama (breathlessly) – Caroline Kennedy endorsed him!”. Now, a short six months later, buyer’s remorse, and the inability to look the family conservative in the eye, has set in. Therefore, a lesson of sorts to conservatives everywhere, regardless of Party (yes there are conservative democrats), be kind to those who were blinded by packaging and endorsements and offer to help make more educated choices in future elections. Additionally, send a note of thanks to Vice President Biden; he is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

2010 - Follow the Money – Democrat Fundraising Down Despite Obama “Star Power”.

A Politicoarticle released this morning noted that some Democrats are concerned over the less than stellar recent fundraising returns. Apparently, even Barack Obama’s appearance at a Hollywood fundraiser was not enough to sell higher priced “tickets” which were ultimately discounted, allowing the event to be a “sell out”. The three fundraising arms of the DNC (DNC, Democrat Senatorial Committee and Congressional Committee) have raised a total of 56 million this year, compared to the RNC, which has come in at $54.9 million. This may be somewhat disheartening for Democrats, who rely heavily on donations from Hollywood and Organized Labor, with individual donations having been heaviest during this past general election cycle. Apparently concerns that the base is feeling “safe” due to the outcome of the election (i.e. George Bush is no longer in office), the individual donations have slowed. The author did not take into account that the solid DNC base makes up only 30% of the electorate, while the balance came from those moderate Democrats and Independents who may not be overly enamored of the Democrat Party given the current state of the economy. The gambit to blame George Bush and the Republican Party is losing luster as time passes, and, with the state of the economy, those Union contributions (which make up a large part of the DNC funds) will be harder to come by – the inability to collect dues, due to worsening conditions and future inevitable layoffs (GM may have gone to the UAW, but the success of GM will be in the hands of the American People who already prefer American Owned Fords to the Government Owns GM models.) Further, as the rest of the nation suffers from increased prices (food and essentials), and job losses, the image of the President taking a weekend jaunt to New York allegedly on the taxpayers dime does nothing to open the individual pocketbooks of those who may be “less fortunate”.

The Politico article further notes that the DNC is barely ahead in fundraising, “despite the current toothless state of the Republican Party, its dispirited base and its dim prospects of taking back control of any branch of government in 2010." That author’s statement is a bit premature, although the media “party line” is a constant reminder that the Republican Party is less than, it fails to take into account the raw fundraising numbers which would indicate resurgence rather than demise. The fact that the RNC has raised, according to Politico, 1.1 million less than the Democrats is telling - as it is, in reality, a slim divide. Further, with the RNC reinstituting its phone banks, individual donations will play a larger factor. Additionally, with a large percentage of the populace not certain about the Democrats move to socialize everything from the banks, to automakers to health care (which is turning into a harder sell – despite Obama’s attempts to tie it to the economy) they are bound to take a second look at the oppostion. Also of note: when the Daily Kos, a left leaning political website, is not on board with the current administrations policies, there are problems in “river city” as that is "the base of Obama".

What of the dim prospects the RNC has of taking back any part of the Congress? It would be too early to make any bold statements regarding who will control the legislature come 2010 – as the economy worsens, and recovery will not begin soon enough, those who did not partake of the non-existant “hope and change, middle-class resurgence” that was “promised by the current party in power, will most likely turn (as has happened repeatedly in the past) to the other party, specifically if that party has the fiscal responsibility edge. As hard as the DNC and pundits (Conservatives alike) point to the excesses of the Republican controlled legislature, the numbers pale in comparison to today’s Democrat Congress. It will be based on the economy – it will be the candidate that has the ability to lay out a plan to create private sector jobs, and one that instills confidence in their state and/or district that will get the nod from the people in 2010. As not one of the pundits has a crystal ball, the outcome is yet to be determined; the only reliable predicator is historical trends and the probability of a resurgence like that seen in the 1980’s-1990’s is more than reasonable given the Carteresque qualities of the current administration and the eerily similar congress and senate that drove the initial Republican Resurgence. The true indicator will be in the fundraising reports at the end of the 2009, should the Republicans find their coffers filled with both corporate (what is left of corporate) and more importantly individual donations, hope and change will have been rejected for tried and true.

Update: Comparison Obama-Carter – Misery Index - Fed Warns of Rising Inflation

In an analysis of historical data comparing economic policies and like situations between the Carter and Obama Administration (See below) a pattern had developed that suggested a return to the Carter Misery Index (a combination of high unemployment and inflation). At the time, (April 3, 2009) the missing factor appeared to be inflation, which was relatively stable, however, this week the fed has suggested that general rate of inflation will indeed rise and suggested caution. The statement, made by Charles Plosser, President of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve branch follows:

“The economy may be at greater risk of inflation than the conventional wisdom indicates,” Plosser said in a speech yesterday in New York. “While inflation expectations appear to remain anchored, we should not become sanguine about our credibility. It can be easily lost.”

As the price of gasoline has risen up to 23% in the past year in some urban areas, and staples such as food are predicted to rise by a substantial 9% by year end, a general inflation trend, added to an 25 year high unemployment rate sets the stage for an historically high misery index.

Article from this blog: April 4, 2009

The jobless rate in the country has increasesd to 8.5 percent with 633,000 additional jobs lost in March. This rate is just .5 percent below the Carter unemployment rate of 9% in 1979.

Add inflation and the Misery Index (combination of unemployment and inflation) may rise above Carter's 20% sooner than anticipated.

Inflation rose dramatically after Carter approved a 4 billion dollar job creation (stimulus) package (email for full article). (Adjusted for inflation, that job stimulus package would cost approximately$14,448,797,250.86.) Interest rates on new home loans rose to an average of 14% by 1979, causing a "housing slump". Bloated budgets, stimulus, auto bailouts (yes it has happenned before), and bank bailouts, all contributed to the "misery".

Should the current administration fail to reign in government spending, and roll-back the stimulus (as suggested by certain Republican's), one thing is certain: History will repeat itself.

Obamanomics - What happens when Inflation Meets Deflation? Carter revisited.

According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, $100 in 2007, had the buying power of $103.84, however, when updated to reflect the first three quarters of 2009, $100 in 2008 has the same buying power as $98.80 – indicating a rise in the price of consumer goods combined with a drop in the worth of the dollar – or a slight rise in inflation.

Inflastion, in simple terms happens when the price of goods and services raises - the cause- an increase in government spending.
Deflation, is the opposite, (this is where recession and depression occur) – this is caused by an increase in taxes and a rise in the unemployment rate.

According to these two definitions, the U.S. is currently or about to experience both. We have a rise in the rate of inflation due to increased government spending, and a rise in taxes, and a rise in unemployment. In other words, Jimmy Carter’s Misery Index (the combined unemployment and inflation rate) run amok.

The St. Louis Federal Reserve’s latest publication on National Economic Trends is interesting in that, as of May, the Consumer Price Index has fallen, Read GDP growth has taken a dive (to minus 6.14), industrial production is down , non-farm payrolls are down, unemployment rate shows a steep increase, interest rates have fallen (rock bottom), the duration of unemployment has risen, and government expenditures have substantially increased. The only component missing that would send the current economy reeling is an increase in taxes – so far.

The Federal Government (IRS) has recently decided that the “Make America Work” tax credit ($13 per week) already in paychecks nationwide, must be repaid due to an error on the part of the IRS, and next April, penalties are in the wind for many currently receiving the credit in other words, the first tax increase (or backhanded tax cut). Those most at risk of having to pay taxes are individuals who hold more than one job, retirees who have federal income tax withheld from pension checks and Social Security recipients who must work to make ends meet. The IRS has generously provided a Calculator (here)to help individuals avoid paying in April, 09.

Congress is doing its part in ensuring that the economy continues to spiral downward - proposals include: a raise in the capital gains tax from 15 to 20%. The general consensus is that Capital Gains occur only in the Stock Market, or for those who can “afford” to pay a bit more, however, that is not entirely the case. Capital Gains occur anytime a taxpayer makes a profit without incurring a loss. Items on this list include real estate sales, lottery winnings, any monies or assets one receives from an estate. (For example: A $2,000 check that Aunt Ethel left in her will is a Capital Gain.) In other words, an Increase in the Capital Gains Tax affects every rung on the economic ladder. Additionally, an increase in the Federal Gas Tax is on the table.

How to stop the madness? Cut back government spending, revise the current budget system for all government departments (the government penalizes agencies that do not spend every dime they receive by cutting funds) issue across the board tax cuts (industry reacts by hiring and consumers react by spending) and really make work pay – a program similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, by creating a Federal Work program for able bodied American’s currently receiving State and Federal assistance, subject of course, to every tax enjoyed by those working in the private sector.

Obama’s “Strongly Approve” Steady at 36%, Democrat Party Affiliation lowest since 2007

Pelosi, Reid and Obama - photo: newt.org

Rasmussen Reports trends on Party Affiliation show a drop of party identity for Democrats of 2 percentage points, while Republican’s lost a half-point in party identity. Democrats continue to have an advantage of 5 points, however, with the President’s “strongly approves” remaining in the 30’s, one can expect that percentage to decline. Add to this a Pew Research report indicating that Obama is enjoying the most politically polarized division in job performance approval since 1969, eclipsing George W. Bush by 10 points overall.

Obama with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd photo: zimbio

Where are all the Democrats and Republican’s going? There has been an increase of 28% in unenrolled affiliation since the last election, during the previous year, the number of unenrolleds was at 30%, some of those shifting over to Democrat affiliation during the last election. (Rasmussen).
This is rise in unenrolleds can be correlated to the rise in partisanship in Congress and the Senate since the Democrats gained the majority in 2006. In the period leading up to the 2008 general election, the blame could be placed on the Bush administration, however, now it is apparent that, as the trend has continued unabated through such high-profile Democrats as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and, most notably, Barney Frank (”Republican’s suffer from psychological disorder”), the disenfranchised of both parties is growing, lending to the increase in unenrolleds. That aside, the consistent gaffes by the current administration, is a contributing factor.

Unless and until this 8th grade mentality that appears to have stricken the Democrat Party leaders in the Congress and Senate abates, and should the President take a hard look at the numbers from the Carter administration, expect this trend to continue.

Where is The Confidence in Positive Change under Obama Administration?

Nestled into the rolling hills of Western Massachusetts, a local Springfield television station has an online poll asking if there is confidence in the idea of positive change under an Obama administration. These non-scientific polls are just for “fun”, not necessarily used for much more – the question that was poised is not frivolous and what is of interest are the responses (considering the location). 51% feel that yes, there will be a positive change, 49% feel otherwise – which, considering the spread in Massachusetts, 36% for McCain, 65% for Obama – why the discrepancy?




It is a bit too early for buyer’s remorse to set in, or is it? What is telling is the content and reaction to President-Elect Obama’s speech. In his speech he talked about a unified country, a bi-partisan effort, hope and change (“yes we can”), and the kicker, “sacrifice and hard work”. He did not evoke John F. Kennedy or any other great Democrat leader, rather chose Abraham Lincoln, the first leader of the Republican Party, a Party that has stood for inclusion from its inception, of fiscal responsibility, of less government and individual freedoms. Some individuals actually believed that once Obama was elected, the taxes would be cut, and giveaways were going to increase. One young woman at a rally in Florida, was overjoyed because she would no longer have to pay for gas, or pay her mortgage, (video below), others questioned who on earth was going to do all this hard work and sacrifice? They failed to get the memo. Obama, in this speech, sent a clear message that he was going to govern his way; and not one of us has any idea of what that will mean until he actually gets to work. His intentions however, his policies, have been in place on his website since inception (granted changes occur time to time, but heck, this is politics!), leaving one to question why supporters were not better informed. This is especially true of the youth group, and those single women who voted in droves – they are anticipating a great deal, the problem is that the President-Elect is going to face challenges unlike any other president has to date: a financial crisis that will only worsen (Wall Street already gave its opinion of a Democrat at the helm, by posting the biggest post-election drop in history. This should come as no surprise, free enterprise despises over-regulation, higher taxes, (sacrifice) will stymie production, one should understand that those on Wall Street did read the memo.), there will be wars, as well as a general disregard for the United States from countries who lean Marxist or might be a tad revolutionary, there may even be an attack on our own soil; the President-Elect will have to deal with all of these situations, not like Carter - but like a Reagan in order to keep the country solvent and safe. This will leave little in the till and the result will be; social programs will wait – taxes will increase, across the board and the social services.


This scenario would have been no different had McCain won the election, all of these challenges would have been in place; the difference is, of course, the expectation of McCain supporters were not quite as high as those supporting Obama. They understand that the world view can change quickly and those whose friendship we desire, will so deride us, that there is a need to watch the war on terror, and that Wall Street reacts more favorably to Republicans (Warren Buffett aside). What each citizen must do now is exactly what the President Elect suggested; get ready for sacrifice, there will be hard times, we must work together in a bi-partisan manner, because, my friends, this is going to be one rough ride. For those still unsure of where Obama stands on the issues, BarackObama.com/issues, if you want to compare where John McCain actually stood on these issues (apparently George Bush was somehow involved according to Obama’s Campaign website), go over to the dark side and do an actual comparison. What one will find is that, there are some minor differences between the two, (McCain being more like Reagan than Bush), and that it would be of no surprise should President-Elect Obama, in an effort to move swiftly to the middle, borrow one or two ideas from the Senator from Arizona; as they work together to better the nation. That is one thing of which one can be fairly certain: McCain and Obama will work together. The promise of bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle will have to take place; the stakes are too high to continue the level of partisanship this nation has been exposed to for far too long.

Gallop Traditional Obama Lead Shrinks to 2, Margin of Error +/-3 – and CNN's Brown Finally Discovers Obama Breaks a Promise!

So much for Polls – the Gallop Poll’s Traditional Voter Model (those most likely to vote), is now within 2 points, and the IBD/TIPP has been fluctuating between +2 and +6 for the past week (now at Obama +4), further, pollsters are becoming increasingly leery of calling the race. Why is that? Without the internal campaign polls, it’s all a big guessing game – except, McCain is grinning from ear to ear – while Obama is clearly telling his people not to relax. It’s a horserace – modeled on elections from the past 2 generals. The only way this could be a landslide, at this point, would be if this were a repeat of 1980 (judging from the current polling trends, and outcomes, given the same Common man (Reagan) versus Elite Socialist (Carter) schematic), and then, that too is gross speculation.

This sudden realization that the media push for Obama may have personal ramifications (loss of jobs, for example, due to layoffs), has given some who may be more astute at seeing which way the wind might be blowing, a reason to suddenly become a bit less partisan. Campbell Brown of CNN had decided it was time to point out that Obama broke a promise on Campaign Finance. Although McCain pointed this broken promise (goes to character), in debates and campaign speeches, the media has ignored any criticism of Obama, heaping it back on McCain. In Browns commentary, she points to the huge amounts of cash Obama has on hand –enough to bore the country for 30 minutes on almost every prime time network tonight. What Campbell may also be aware of is, historically, large sums of cash do not necessarily translate into winning an office. One only has to look back to February and March of 2008 to understand that point. The Republican Primary had one candidate who was rolling in cash (Mitt Romney), while others McCain and Huckabee, were desperately trying to get their message across on a shoe string. The result - by Super Tuesday, the man with the most robo-calls and television commercials was out of the race and those that were cash strapped – were still in the game. Other big-money primary and general election losers of the past were Kerry and Forbes, who went on to defeat despite being well-funded.

Speaking of Obama Cash, The Obama Infomercial will be seen on almost every network with some glaring exceptions: ABC, FOX News and CNN. ABC will be enjoying an increase in viewership as well as FOX and CNN (the later two will run segments of the infomercial as “news”).
Will the Obama Infomercial convince anyone at this point in time, to change their vote? Not unless someone is so incensed that the World Series was delayed in order to accommodate Barak that they switch to McCain.

It bears repeating, no-one has a crystal ball when it comes to November 4th, polls are merely “best guesstimates”, pundits get paid to pontificate, party lines are drawn, and independents, for what its worth, generally vote the same way they always have when it comes down to the crunch, unless of course, you have a Jimmy Carter in office, or his twin trying to get into office.