Obama Speech Interrupted by Protestors! – E Tu Manhattan? Gets Facts Wrong on AIDS Funding. Analysis.

George W. Bush, Miss me Yet Image: Centrist Blog

FromPolitico: Obama has been heckled in Manhattan by protesters angry over AIDS Funding and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. His response to criticism has become rather pat: The Republican’s, if elected, will go back to Bush policy. If that were true, than those protesting might be better off. George W. Bush, the president the left loves to hate, along with a Republican Congress did more for AIDS relief than Mr. Obama.

From the Clarion Ledger:

"Begun in 2003 by former Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or PEPFAR was hailed as the largest effort by any nation to combat a single disease.

As a candidate in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to add $1 billion annually to the PEPFAR fund that Bush and Congress created to fight AIDS in Africa and other developing nations.
But as president, world health advocates point out that Obama proposed only a $366 million increase for the coming fiscal year - which comes on top of another broken promise from last year. In 2009, Obama proposed spending only $165 million for PEPFAR."

What Obama fails to realize, for whatever reason, is that people’s memories are not that short. The left may have demonized George W. Bush, who many on the right had described as more than moderate, and the Congress in concert with Mr. Bush in his first term, lost the base due to an increase in entitlement programs and “pork”.
When George W. Bush wanted to work on Social Security – he was met with a hailstorm of criticism for suggesting that he had a way to strengthen the program – basically giving those participating in the program (anyone who works) the option, and merely an option, of using the same retirement program that the Congress and federal employees enjoy. That notion sent the press and the Democrats who were in Congress round the proverbial bend – yet, today the Republican’s are dubbed the “party of no”, where the Democrats, only a few short years ago, were, in effect, guilty of hampering improvements to social security. The premise of the “just say no” by Democrats to privatizing social security benefits was simple: The masses could not handle it, and would bankrupt themselves. Seriously, the largest employer today (the Federal Government), uses that program, which has safeguards in place for retirees – meanwhile, Social Security is going broke as it is being used for entitlement programs left and right that have zip to do with retirement.

How bad is it, when the man the press and the left loved to hate, and insisted would go down as the “worst President in History”, is the beneficiary of being “missed” by the populace. From Billboards, to tee-shirts to polls, Bush and his band of maligned Republicans did more for the economy (recovery after September 11th attacks on New York and Washington DC), in actual jobs created, did more in necessary entitlement programs for U.S. And global citizens (Prescription drug benefits for senior citizens and AIDS funding), and incidentally, kept the nation safe from terrorist attacks.

When did Bush become stalled, so to speak, and unable to move any improvements forward? When, in 2006, the Congress changed political party hands and ended up being controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is not that Bush’s policy decisions were a hit with Conservatives (recall the Mexican Dollar with George Bush’s photo neatly photo shopped onto the currency); on the contrary, many viewed the former President as too liberal. Which is somewhat true, Bush was a moderate, who put country and humanity first.
Whereas, Obama appears to put Party and Ideology before the needs of the American’ people and is unable and unwilling to compromise, and most importantly, he is unable to take direct criticism without going into campaign mode and pointing the finger elsewhere – of course, at the Republicans. So much for bringing unity to the Government – one has to own one’s mistakes, at least once in a blue moon.

2010 Primary Update – Voter Turnout Key – GOP up 50% in Florida Primary – Exceeds expectations in Major Swing State – Primary analysis and commentary.

Press Readies for 2010 Mid-terms - image fox baltimore

My Fox Tampais reporting that voter turnout far exceeded predicted levels in yesterdays Florida primary’s. The Florida Division of Elections noted voter turnout was 50% higher than that of 2006 mid-terms. This type of interest and drive to vote in a mid-term election signals an increasingly engaged electorate, one which is making choices that are more in-line with polls showing an anti-incumbent mood shift in the nation, regardless of political party.

In Florida, Marc Rubio easily won Republican Senate primary – he will go on to face former Govenor (now Independent) Charlie Christ and Democrat Kendrick Meeks: The Republican candidates received 1,252,494 votes to the Democrat’s 909,307 a statistic that speaks to voter enthusiasm by Party.

As economic conditions continue to worsen, incumbents are feeling the heat on both sides of the aisle. In Alaska, Republican incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski stands in danger of joining Arlan Specter in early retirement. With 84% of precincts reporting as of this morning,Murkowski has a deficit of 3 points. A 3 point deficit can be overcome, but due to the nature of Alaska geography, it may take more than a day to finalize results - the Alaska Press, at this point, is not calling the race.

Primary contests held yesterday in Arizona, Vermont, Florida and Oklahoma, The New York Times reports that Washington Veteran's take Senate Primaries” and include incumbents John McCain (R-AZ) and Lisa Murkoswki (R-AL). The article author apparently neglected to check the Alaska media prior to publishing results. This is apparent denial over the dreaded “Tea Party” and the notion that money rules elections.

In Alaska, Senator Lisa Murkowski also faced an insurgent candidate, the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller, but after outspending him significantly she appeared to have a comfortable lead heading into the primary.

Again, as of this morning, Alaska Media still shows Murkowski with a 3 point deficit.

The high voter turnout and obvious media angst and denial over both the high turnout on the GOP side and the anti-incumbent angst voters in both parties are displaying makes for a wild and wooly ride into November.

The bellwether state(s), will be the blue New England States, with the Massachusetts primary on September 14th being pivotal, specifically with the sheer number of Republicans running in all but one of the ten Congressional Districts. Should voter turnout exceed expectation in Massachusetts – then one will have an indicator of how big of a shift has taken hold of the nation’s political think.

With incumbents in Massachusetts showing signs of weakness (See article in the Washington Examiner: ”Fear and the Politics of Panic” which describes the battle incumbents face nationwide, specifically, the 4th Districts Barney Frank.) Incumbent Richard Neal, the Hampden Second, is calling in the Big Guns – former President Bill Clinton is coming to Western Massachusetts to stump for Neal. That spells trouble, specifically using the “Scott Brown model” where the Hampden Second, voted in record numbers for Brown, and the “throw the bums out” sentiment is stronger in late August than it was in January.

It is, as of this writing, probable that up to 5 of the 10 Massachusetts districts are in play to the point where Brown’s election, although notable, will be less touted as an anomaly by the press, after, of course, they recover from weeks of therapy.
In other words, in every State, in every district, the outcomes are not predictable this year, and the electorate is engaged, energetic and angry and they intend to take it out at the ballot box. With so many districts to cover nationwide, it is not conceivable for either party to devote resources necessary to protect incumbents at risk, not that throwing millions at a race in today’s political climate means a hill of beans (See Alaska and NY Times comments).