Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘2012 Election House of Pain’ Category

Pity poor Barack Obama, who beat Mitt Romney in 2012 despite Obama’s blatantly socialist rhetoric (or because of it?) and despite Romney’s superiority on every single aspect of being able to fulfill the role and responsibility of being president of the United States…

Pity him because his two presidential election wins just don’t square in his mind with the 2010 and 2014 Republican landslides against him and his party.

Each time he has failed to blame his destructive policies and instead has chosen to blame what he calls a failure of salesmanship on his and Democrats’ parts: if only they had explained it all more clearly, then voters would have rewarded Democrats instead of smashing them like so many unwanted bums.

But as he has in the past, the president defended the merits of his administration’s policies, blaming the election results on a poor communications effort in the White House.

“There are times, there’s no doubt about it, where, you know I think we have not been successful in going out there and letting people know what it is that we’re trying to do and why this is the right direction,” Mr. Obama said. <New York Times, link>

This is nonsense, of course, because he has been selling his policies hard, nearly 24/7, for many years now, and he has proven himself to be very good at it. So good, in fact, that he swindled enough voters in 2012 to return him to office even though he rewarded Wall Street crooks after the 2008 crisis, bankrupted the U.S. Treasury (taking the debt from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in a $14 trillion economy), weakened our power around the world, alienated our allies, and destroyed American health care.

So what went wrong in the mid-terms for Democrats?

I can explain.

Democrats campaigning for the House of Representatives and the Senate do not have the electoral college to tilt the election in their direction the way Democrats running for president do.

When a Democrat runs for the presidency, he can count on California to vote for him no matter how damaging to the country he may be (Obama certainly proved the point).

Electoral votes map

Just add New York and Illinois and a Democrat is far closer to winning the White House than any Republican candidate can ever hope to be.

Each presidential year, the Republican nominee starts out in a deep hole because of this dynamic, and the consequences are very real: the Obama campaign was able to focus its money and effort in just a few key states, for example slamming Romney hard in Ohio while the Romney campaign was spreading itself thin trying to build momentum in many more states in order to close the electoral gap.

However, no such terrible math exists in congressional elections, particularly those contested in the absence of a presidential campaign and its influence.

The verdict on 2014 and 2010 versus 2012?

Barack Hussein Obama’s policies are wholly and completely rejected by the electorate, and the people of California and New York are powerless to stop this reality.

So, Barry, it’s so sad but so true, that your agenda for America is NOT what this country wants, and the Senate and the House are empowered to hold you accountable during these last two years of your anti-American regime.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The latest Obama polling data make a sunny day like today even more awesome.

First, the general consensus:

Wow. A reputable poll shows that the public believes Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II. Worse than Richard M. Nixon, driven from the presidency by Watergate? Much. Worse than Jimmy Carter, for decades the very symbol of the feckless chief executive? Loads. Worse than George W. Bush, still a lightning rod on the left and a symbol of disappointment on the right? Definitely. <Yahoo News, link>

And now, the cherry on top:

Here’s the big one. By a fairly substantial margin (45 percent to 38 percent), the public believes the nation would be better off had former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts been elected two years ago rather than Obama.

It almost makes you wonder if the 2012 election was rigged.

Read Full Post »

This is just so poetic — Mitt Romney’s prophetic words about Russia and the resulting abuse he took from Obama and his pathetic mouth pieces all around him are an amazing thing to revisit now that Vladimir Putin is invading Ukraine and rebuilding the USSR in broad daylight.

Here is a nice piece on it by David Rutz at the Washington Free Beacon [link].  Watch the video at the end — you’ll be amazed, and heartbroken all over again that Mitt Romney did not win the election.

When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe” in 2012, the Obama administration and liberal media members jumped on the remarks as “antiquated,” “dumb,” and proof positive of his “Cold War mind warp.”

With the Russian occupation of Crimea, as well as the granting of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden and antagonism with the U.S. over Syrian dictator and Russian ally Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons, Romney looks more prophetic every day. He said in the final debate he would not wear “rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or [Vladimir] Putin” if president.

But Democrats and the media insisted on making Romney’s platform a punchline.

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama quipped at the same debate.

Vice President Joe Biden slammed Romney’s “Cold War” style thinking, and former, current and future Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry also mocked Romney’s foresight about Russia during the 2012 campaign.

Liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker called Romney’s comment “dumb,” and Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein referring to it as “antiquated.” MSNBC host Chris Matthews pondered aloud what decade Romney was living in and whether he was trying to be Ronald Reagan, and fellow network personality Andrea Mitchell dismissed it as a “throwback to the Cold War.”

Read Full Post »

I could write a complex essay about why Socialists and Liars in the Democrat party are beating Republican candidates in elections lately, but I am not going to, because I don’t need to.

The answer is simple: Republican candidates begin every race having already lost 52% of the American population, otherwise known as women. Not hispanics. Not African Americans. Not gay/lesbian/transgender voters.

Women.

As I have written before, women elected Bill Clinton as president, twice, and women elected Barack Obama as president, twice.  A majority of men, for example, voted for Mitt Romney in the pivotal 2012 presidential election, but there are more women than men in the voting population.

Get it?

And now women have elected a known swindler/liar/fraudster as governor of Virgina, who beat Ken Cuccinelli by an estimated 3 percentage points:

Exit polls showed McAuliffe won women by … 9 points, the same margin Obama won them by in the presidential election last year. The Washington Post poll last week had put McAuliffe ahead among women by an astonishing 24 points. <source>

This is because of the culture wars over reproductive rights, and Republicans tend to be pro-life, which gets spun by Democrats as anti-women’s-rights.

This issue is such a sure-thing for Democrats that made-up ads accusing the Republican candidate of denying women’s rights achieve their desired aim (i.e., the slander actually sticks, even when untrue).

McAuliffe, ever the smart political hack, trumped up the false notion that Cuccinelli would have reduced women’s access to birth control, though this notion is completely false and obviated by law and Supreme Court decisions; it’s absurd on its face.

Even some women knew how absurd it was. Here is an excerpt from Rebecca Downs writing at liveactionnews.org:

Planned Parenthood and Terry McAuliffe seem to be up to cheap tricks when it comes to attacking a pro-life candidate. With any hope, the people of Virginia see such schemes for what they really are. <source>

No, Rebecca, a plurality of Virginians did NOT see such schemes for what they really are.

This issue keeps winning for Democrats, and so I am going to say this again, even though I know it is unpopular among Conservatives:

It is time to throw in the towel on the anti-abortion issue.

The plain fact is that a very tiny percentage of women will ever even seek to abort a fetus, and at the same time Liberal programs like Obamacare will cause the suffering of hundreds of millions of Americans and the actual deaths of millions of Americans as federal bureaucrats create doctor shortages and deny care to those who need it. And at the same time our nation will no longer be able to finance its crushing debts and face the devil’s choice of hyper-inflating our currency (which only brings the end faster — see Germany in the 1920s) or provoking foreign lenders into armed conflict as our default on trillions of dollars of US treasuries sends shock waves around the world.

The Obama tyranny is in full swing, is creating and inviting this apocalypse, and increasingly cannot be stopped. All Americans, including all Liberals and Democrats, are starting to suffer from the hallmarks of Central Power: diminishing choices, higher taxes and penalties, greater dependence on bureaucracies that inevitably fail to deliver value, and a growing system of patronage that will favor the rich among us while leaving the rest of us at the back of the line.

The abortion issue is a loser not just for Republicans, but for our entire nation, because if Republicans cannot win elections, then we cede our future to this soul-crushing outcome.

Many women have become one-issue voters — that one issue being abortion rights — and until we remove this issue from elections, our candidates are going to continue to lose, and our country will continue its plunge into dictatorship and fascism. This seems not to bother women, who apparently place the abortion issue very far above all else, and also seem to ignore the consequences of all these other issues (how are women’s rights doing in China? In Islam? in South America?).

So Let it go, Conservatives, Let It Go.

Read Full Post »

The Obamacare wrecking ball is gearing up for the 2014 destruction of wealth in America — for which we will get a negative return, i.e., worse care — and no doubt the 2014 delayed implementation has put everyone to sleep on the issue (what better way to destroy a nation?). Obama’s blood-lust for raising taxes on the middle class was evident in 2008, 2009, and 2010 when Obamacare “passed”, and continues to be in the latest negotiation to avoid the Bush tax cut expiration.

Here’s a partial list of upcoming Obamacare-related tax increases (i.e., NOT the tax increases Obama wants in the latest round of negotiation) <source>:

— Upper-income households

Starting Jan. 1, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, and couples making more than $250,000 will face a 0.9 percent Medicare tax increase on wages above those threshold amounts.

They’ll also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Together these are the biggest tax increase in the health care law.

— Employer penalties

Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more employees that do not offer coverage will face penalties if at least one of their employees receives government-subsidized coverage. The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but a company’s first 30 workers don’t count toward the total.

— Health care industries

Insurers, drug companies and medical device manufacturers face new fees and taxes.

Companies that make medical equipment sold chiefly through doctors and hospitals, such as pacemakers, artificial hips and coronary stents, will pay a 2.3 percent excise tax on their sales, expected to total $1.7 billion in its first year, 2013. They’re trying to get it repealed.

The insurance industry faces an annual fee that starts at $8 billion in its first year, 2014.

Pharmaceutical companies that make or import brand-name drugs are already paying fees that totaled $2.5 billion in 2011, their first year.

— People who don’t get health insurance

Nearly 6 million people who don’t get health insurance will face tax penalties starting in 2014. The fines will raise $6.9 billion in 2016. Average penalty in that year: about $1,200.

Again, these increases are coming whether or not mr. Obama gets more tax increases in his latest Socialist gambit.

Decline and Fall, with no end in sight.

After I read the above trail of tears, I found an article with more of Obama’s destruction <source>:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It’s a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.

Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a “sleeper issue” with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.

“Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it,” said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary. Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.

And here is my favorite line:

The Obama administration says it is a temporary assessment levied for three years starting in 2014, designed to raise $25 billion. It starts at $63 and then declines.    

He says it is a “temporary” tax on business. Any Liberal who believes this, raise your hand.

And here is another bit of ugliness:

“This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount,” said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.    

Does the phrase “came out of the blue” strike you as odd? This must mean that Obamacare deliberately buried many of its malignant tumors deep in its pages.

Incidentally, if you are a Liberal, do you care about businesses in America? You know, those entities that EMPLOY the nation and pay wages?

But employers already offering coverage to their workers don’t see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.

“It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.

So Obama is targeting the “wealthy” (aka middle class) for tax destruction, and also targeting businesses for tax destruction. And Mao Tse Tung collectivized the farms in order to feed a nation. Instead, 40 million starved to death.

So it will be for us.

Read Full Post »

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton played golf together last weekend and the sasoc has procured a transcript of some of the conversation as they wandered the course.

WARNING: graphic content not for children under 17.

Golfers 1

Golfers 2

Golfers 3

Golfers 4

Golfers 5

Golfers 6

Golfers 7

 

Read Full Post »

I saw this today:

If you haven’t heard enough about the 2012 presidential campaign, you probably would enjoy a program this evening at Harvard University titled “War Stories: Inside Campaign 2012.”  David Axelrod and Jim Messina from the Obama campaign and Eric Fehrnstrom and Stuart Stevens from the Romney campaign will participate.  <source>

In case you are in the neighborhood and have interest in attending this nonsense, let me save you the trouble and summarize the “War Stories” that are likely to be heard:

From David Axelrod and Jim Messina:

‘We began running attack ads in Ohio and other battleground states as soon as Romney won the nomination – six months before the election – in which we demonized this successful and decent man, turning him into a conniving, heartless capitalist pig who would help his rich friends at the expense of the middle class instead of allowing him to showcase his true record of success on behalf of so many people, including the citizens of Massachusetts and the employees of so many companies he saved and restructured and led to prosperity…’

Audience question:

“But Mr. Axelrod, in fact Barack Obama is the politician who has been helping his rich friends, particularly those on Wall Street as Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times has written ad nauseum, at the expense of the middle class, and Mitt Romney would have ended corruption and lifted the whole country up — don’t you know that?”

Axelrod / Messina:

‘Of course we know that — what do you think we are, stupid? What’s your point? We were attacked by our own party for going negative and asked “Where is the positive messianic Obama from 2008?” But we knew that six months of vicious ads would win us the election long before the debates even took place, and of course it worked like a charm’

From Eric Fehrnstrom and Stuart Stevens:

‘As for our strategy in the political war, well, we didn’t want to go negative, it’s not our style.’

Audience question:

“But Mr. Fehrnstrom, Barack Obama has added $6 trillion to the federal debt without any job creation or economic rebound, destroyed American health care while creating a massive new entitlement that immediately adds trillions of unfunded future liabilities to an already bankrupt federal treasury, violated the Constitution by granting amnesty to millions of illegals in a blatant grab for votes, ignored Wall Street crimes, failed to reform Wall Street abuses, hobbled the American energy industry, depleted the U.S. military on wars of his own making and then announced plans to dramatically reduce funding for the military, overseen and in some cases directly supported the Jihadist Muslim takeover of several Middle Eastern countries, fomented class warfare by keeping people jobless and arousing soul-destroying feelings of envy and hatred of thy hard-working neighbors, the list goes on and on (the Justice Department!?) — he is no Democrat, this is a man who exists wholly outside the American political landscape…in fact his actions suggest he is an enemy agent that campaigned his way into the White House and is smashing the Pieta that is America without any signs of slowing down.”

Fehrnstrom / Stuart Stevens:

Yeah, so?’

Audience response:

SO?”

“Just face it: you two were never in a political “war”. You were not even playing with toy soldiers, you were playing with dolls in country club dresses. You had the easiest opponent in American history and you couldn’t bury him with his own malignant record. For shame.”

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »