Tag: Romney

Romney Says Screw It

With Romney Out, Jeb Bush Gets A Boost – Big Government

.

.
With 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s announcement that he will not pursue the 2016 presidential nomination, the conservative grassroots may be celebrating. They thought of Romney as a political squish, a flip-flopper, the creator of Romneycare, and the blunderer of “the 47 percent.”

They shouldn’t celebrate too soon. The person happiest to see Romney go is a political squish, a key supporter of Common Core, a fan of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a basher of the base. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush must be grinning ear-to-ear this morning.

The latest poll from Fox News shows Romney clocking in at 21 percent, with Mike Huckabee and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tied at 11 percent; Jeb Bush runs fourth at 10 percent. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who wowed crowds in Iowa over the weekend, draws 8 percent, while Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), an establishment favorite with Tea Party ties, draws just 5 percent. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and former Texas Governor Rick Perry both draw 4 percent, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal clocking in at a negligible 2 percent.

Without Romney, Jeb Bush jumps to 15 percent, with Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee trailing at 13 percent. Jeb’s also got all the money. Bush likely jumped into the race earlier than expected – he announced in December 2014 – in order to preclude Romney from running. By sucking up all the coastal donors, Bush prevented Romney from gaining momentum among those who matter most: the establishment types who backed him to the hilt in 2012. Just eight days ago, Romney met with Bush in Utah to discuss the presidential race. Just over a week later, Romney is out, and coastal donors’ choice has now come down to Jeb Bush and the largely-discredited Chris Christie, who now trails badly in polls.

The conservative base, meanwhile, splits a thousand ways. Walker has momentum for the moment, but Cruz has a significant ground operation in Iowa. Paul has his father’s base and a strong libertarian appeal in New Hampshire. Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and could pose a threat in South Carolina as well.

And Jeb? All he has to do is run competitive in New Hampshire – where Bush currently leads slightly – hope that Iowa and South Carolina go to a largely underfunded candidate like Mike Huckabee (or better yet, split), and then win Florida in a walk. This is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s firewall strategy from 2008, except that Jeb won’t abandon New Hampshire.

Mitt Romney did the right thing by stepping out of the race; he’s an old face, and he had his shot in 2012. By getting out, he opens the door to other candidates. Unfortunately, the candidate he may have most boosted is the man who most resembles him politically, to the consternation of conservatives across the country.

.

.

IRS Admits Leaking Confidential Information Used Against Romney In 2012 Election To Gay Rights Group

IRS Admits Leaking Confidential Information Used Against Mitt Romney In 2012 Elections – Gateway Pundit

The IRS admitted this week to leaking the National Organization for Marriage‘s confidential information to far left groups.

The IRS will pay the National Organization for Marriage $50,000.

.

.
The conservative group National Organization of Marriage accused the IRS of leaking documents to the Obama Campaign in 2012. A top Obama campaign official Joe Solomese used the information to attack Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. The Huffington Post used the leaked documents in a story questioning former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s support for traditional marriage. The document showed Romney donated $10,000 to NOM.

The IRS agreed this week to pay only $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage after leaking confidential information to a leading gay marriage group.

The Daily Signal reported, via Free Republic:

Two years after activists for same-sex marriage obtained the confidential tax return and donor list of a national group opposed to redefining marriage, the Internal Revenue Service has admitted wrongdoing and agreed to settle the resulting lawsuit.

The Daily Signal has learned that, under a consent judgment today, the IRS agreed to pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage as a result of the unlawful release of the confidential information to a gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, that is NOM’s chief political rival.

“Congress made the disclosure of confidential tax return information a serious matter for a reason,” NOM Chairman John D. Eastman told The Daily Signal. “We’re delighted that the IRS has now been held accountable for the illegal disclosure of our list of major donors from our tax return.”

The Daily Signal is seeking comment on the settlement from the IRS and Justice Department.

In his order entered this morning, District Judge James C. Cacheris granted the settlement of NOM’s suit against the IRS, which was represented by the Department of Justice.

In February 2012, the Human Rights Campaign posted on its web site NOM’s 2008 tax return and the names and contact information of the marriage group’s major donors, including soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. That information then was published by the Huffington Post and other liberal-leaning news sites.

HRC’s president at the time, Joe Solmonese, was tapped that same month as a national co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

NOM released this statement today.

“It has been a long and arduous process to hold the IRS accountable for their illegal release of our confidential tax return and donor list, which was ultimately given to our chief political rival by the recipient,” said John Eastman, NOM’s chairman and a member of the ActRight legal Foundation team that brought the lawsuit against the IRS on NOM’s behalf in October, 2013. “In the beginning, the government claimed that the IRS had done nothing wrong and that NOM itself must have released our confidential information. Thanks to a lot of hard work, we’ve forced the IRS to admit that they in fact were the ones to break the law and wrongfully released this confidential information.”

NOM said that an investigation revealed that its 2008 tax return and list of major donors was released to Matthew Meisel, a gay activist in Boston, MA. Email correspondence from Meisel revealed that he told a colleague that he had “a conduit” to obtain NOM’s confidential information. While testifying under oath in a deposition in the litigation, Meisel invoked the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination and refused to disclose the identity of his conduit. Documents obtained during the litigation prove that Meisel then provided NOM’s tax data to the Human Rights Campaign (whose president was a national Co-Chair of the Obama Reelection Campaign). The information was also published by the Huffington Post.

.

.

Your Daley Gator IRS Scandal Roundup For Monday

IRS Targeted Conservative Groups That Taught U.S. Constitution – Gateway Pundit

The IRS not only targeted conservative Tea Party groups and Jews… They also targeted conservative groups that taught the US Constitution.

.

The Washington Post reported:

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that criticized the government and sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution, according to documents in an audit conducted by the agency’s inspector general.

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that on June 29, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency official Lois G. Lerner in which they described giving special attention to instances where “statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.” Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the agency, raised objections and the agency revised its criteria a week later.

But six months later, the IRS applied a new political test to groups that applied for tax-exempt status as “social welfare” groups, the document says. On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report, which was requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has yet to be released.

The new revelations are likely to intensify criticism of the IRS, which has been under fire since agency officials acknowledged they had deliberately targeted groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name for heightened scrutiny.

Read the rest here.

More… (From previous post) The IRS has some explaining to do.

Beyond Political posted this earlier:

This cannot possibly be. As someone who has gone through IRS certification (due to the off chance we may encounter taxpayer data during investigations), I can attest for the extensive rigor and controls that prevent such low level activities. For instance, the mere act of someone pulling up a neighbor’s tax data would set off numerous alarms; investigation and prosecution would be inevitable. Cases are distributed in a manner that a low-level worker would not have access to all “tea party” and “patriot” filings.

This means one of two things. Either ALL low-level employees in the IRS are operating in collusion, conspiring to attack all citizens of a particular political orientation (which would be necessary to cause low level employees randomly assigned and supervised with such extensive controls to consistently flag and punish people of that political interest), or senior level IRS employees who are able to pull up files of a particular interest (“patriot” “tea party”) were involved. Furthermore, if it was low-level employees, they would be investigated and disciplined as a matter of routine process. Only senior level IRS executives are able to bypass those controls.

And that IRS spokespersons are lying suggests how far up the conspiracy goes. I’m rather confident that a competent investigation would show White House political appointees had directed these actions, in collusion with senior level IRS officials. Nobody down below would be able to have such a broad reach and get by without being terminated and criminally prosecuted.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
National Organization For Marriage Renews Demand That IRS Come Clean On Stolen And Leaked Tax Return; Seeks Investigation Into Possible White House Or Obama Campaign Role – Before It’s News

There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law.” – Brian Brown, NOM president –

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today renewed its demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the employee or employees responsible for stealing the organization’s confidential Form 990 tax return and leaking it to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). At the time of the theft, the HRC had long-sought to know the identity of NOM’s major donors and its chief executive was a co-chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. The Form 990 that was leaked to the HRC contained the identity of numerous major donors to the organization.

“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”

In March 2012 the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post published NOM’s Form 990 Schedule B from 2008 containing the identity of dozens of donors. The HRC claimed the tax return was provided by a ‘whistleblower.’ For months previous to the publication, the HRC had been demanding that NOM publicly release this confidential information even though federal law protects the identity of contributors to nonprofit groups. The publication of NOM’s tax return occurred just a few months after Joseph Solmonese, then president of the HRC, was appointed a national co-chair of the Obama reelection campaign. An analysis of the published documents shows that they could only have originated with the IRS.

“We’ve seen in recent days an admission that the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups for harassment and scrutiny,” Brown said, “but what NOM has experienced suggests that problems at the IRS are potentially far more serious than even these latest revelations reveal.”

Following publication of NOM’s confidential tax return and a complaint to the IRS, investigators with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) interviewed NOM officials about the theft. Nothing has come of the investigation if there is indeed one, and the agency has refused to answer any questions about the status of its examination.

Brown concluded, “No group should ever be subjected to the IRS leaking its confidential tax return to its political enemies. But when the recipient of the stolen information is a group headed by a co-chair of the President’s reelection campaign, serious concerns arise. We have no way of knowing if people within the White House, the Obama reelection campaign or the HRC had any role in the crime, but we call on the Congress to investigate. So far, we’ve heard nothing from the federal government even though they’ve had all the facts for over a year.”

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jennifer Campbell jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Background: On March 30, 2012, the Huffington Post published NOM’s confidential 2008 tax return filed with the IRS, which it said came from the Human Rights Campaign. The HRC has said on its own site the documents came from a “whistleblower.” However, NOM has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

The document above is as it appeared when published by the Huffington Post. However, that document was modified in a failed attempt to obscure its source. There is a label visibly obscuring a portion of each page, and it was determined that information on the top of each page was also obscured in the version posted on the Huffington Post.

After software removed the layers obscuring the document, it is shown that the document came from the Internal Revenue Service. The top of each page says, “”THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” On each page of the return is stamped a document ID of “100560209.” Only the IRS would have the Form 990 with “Official Use” information.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Flashback: Romney Donor Vilified By Obama Campaign, Then Subjected To 2 Audits – Daily Caller

Just months after being slimed by President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, Mitt Romney supporter and businessman Frank VanderSloot was informed that he was going to be audited not only by the Internal Revenue Service, but by the Labor Department as well.

VanderSloot’s saga was told by columnist Kimberley Strassel in the Wall Street Journal last July.

In April 2012, VanderSloot, who served as the national co-chair of Mitt Romney’s presidential finance committee, was one of eight Romney backers to be defamed as ”wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” in a post on the Obama campaign’s website. The post, entitled “Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney’s donors,” singled out VanderSloot for being a ”litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

Two months later, the IRS informed VanderSloot he and his wife were going to be audited, Strassel reported. Two weeks after that, VanderSloot was notified by the Labor Department that it was going to “audit workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers,” reported Strassel.

“The H-2A program allows tens of thousands of temporary workers in the U.S.; Mr. VanderSloot employs precisely three,” Strassel wrote. “All are from Mexico and have worked on the VanderSloot ranch—which employs about 20 people—for five years. Two are brothers. Mr. VanderSloot has never been audited for this, though two years ago his workers’ ranch homes were inspected. (The ranch was fined $8,400, mainly for too many ‘flies’ and for ‘grease build-up’ on the stove. God forbid a cattle ranch home has flies.)”

“This letter requests an array of documents to ascertain whether Mr. VanderSloot’s ‘foreign workers are provided the full scope of protections’ under the visa program: information on the hours they’ve worked each day and their rate of pay, an explanation of their deductions, copies of contracts,” she continued.

In her column, Strassel raised the specter that the IRS targeted VanderSloot for his political activism.

“Did Mr. Obama pick up the phone and order the screws put to Mr. VanderSloot?” she asked. “Or—more likely—did a pro-Obama appointee or political hire or career staffer see that the boss had an issue with this donor, and decide to do the president an unasked-for election favor? Or did he or she simply think this was a duty, given that the president had declared Mr. VanderSloot and fellow donors ‘less than reputable’?”

VanderSloot’s tale is more relevant in light of the admission Friday by IRS official Lois Lerner that the agency gave extra scrutiny to non-profit tea party groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name that applied for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. While Lerner said the agency’s actions were inappropriate, she claimed it was not the result of political bias.

However, a forthcoming report by the IRS inspector general will say that the agency went beyond what Lerner admitted to on Friday by targeting groups which criticized “how the country is being run,” the Washington Post, which got an advanced copy of part of the internal audit, reported Sunday.

Though that practice was soon halted, just months later, in January 2012, groups that applied for tax exempt status which described themselves as “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement” were again subjected to special scrutiny.

On Friday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was among the congressional leaders who called for an investigation into what went on at the IRS.

“The IRS cannot target or intimidate any individual or organization based on their political beliefs,” he said in a statement. “The House will investigate this matter.”

The White House also voiced support for an investigation.

“The president would expect that it would be investigated,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said at the Friday’s press briefing.

While non-profit groups were targeted by the IRS, no hard evidence has yet emerged to show that individuals like VanderSloot were targeted for their political leanings.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Report: Obama’s IRS Targets Jewish Organizations – Big Government

New evidence has now arisen that the IRS under President Obama, which admitted, then half-denied this week that it was targeting conservative non-profit groups, has been targeting Jewish organizations in a virulent manner. An IRS agent admitted that some Israel-related organizations’ applications have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

What does that mean? It means that the Obama administration is going after organizations that support the existence of the state of Israel; one Jewish organization that was not even focused on Israel was required to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also to “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”

Z STREET, a staunch defender of Israel, had filed a lawsuit against the IRS, saying that an IRS agent told them that their attempt to secure tax-exempt status would be looked over more than usual because it was “connected to Israel.”

Lois Lerner, of the IRS, has already admitted that the IRS had improperly targeted groups with “Tea Party” and “patriot” in their names but said it wasn’t politically motivated, because “That is not how we do things.”

The Obama Administration apparently hates Israel enough to harass and intimidate those who support the Jewish state. So much for the contention of liberal Jews that the Obama administration is a friend to the State of Israel.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Ways And Means Committee: When Did WH Know IRS Targeted Groups Based On Political Philosophy? – CNS

The House Ways and Means Committee wants to know when the White House first knew that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting groups for heightened scrutiny for their political views, including groups that used the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax exempt status, or that sought to educate people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has provided a timeline to congressional staff that indicates that in the 2010 election year the Internal Revenue Service instructed officials in its “Determinations Unit” to “be on the lookout for” organizations applying for tax exempt status that used the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications.

By January 2012, at the beginning of a presidential election year, according to the timeline, the IRS broadened its “be on the lookout order” to target groups that were involved in educating people on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now the Ways and Means Committee, which is investigating the matter, has publicly posed what it calls ‘The Top 10 Questions for the IRS.” These include: When did the White House know?

“The IRS absolutely must be non-partisan in its enforcement of our tax laws. The admission by the agency that it targeted American taxpayers based on politics is both shocking and disappointing,” said Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R.-Mich.). “The Committee on Ways and Means will thoroughly investigate this matter and will soon hold a hearing to get to the bottom of this situation. We will hold the IRS accountable for its actions.”

Here are the committee’s questions:

What did the IRS know and when? The Top 10 questions for the IRS

1. Beginning with an inquiry in June 2011, the House Ways and Means Committee has repeatedly asked the IRS for verification about whether or not it was targeting groups based on their political philosophies. On repeated occasions, including at a March 2012 Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing, the IRS explicitly denied such activities had occurred. Now, widespread media reports confirm that the agency learned of these practices just three weeks after the Committee made its initial inquiry related to these groups – nearly 2 years ago. How many times did the IRS lie to Congress about this issue?

2. What words were used in the targeting campaign? We know “tea party,” “patriots” and “conservative” were used.

3. We know words targeting conservative-leaning organizations were used. What about words like “progressive” or “green”? What proof, if any, has IRS provided to demonstrate this was not a politically motivated act? Were any personnel ever directed to delay processing of certain 501(c )(4) applications until after the election?

4. When was the IRS Commissioner informed? When were the White House and Treasury made aware that groups were being targeted based on their political philosophies? How did the White House and Treasury respond when they were made aware that conservative groups were being targeted?

5. When the IRS Commissioner was made aware of these unlawful practices, what steps were taken, if any, to halt the harassment of conservative organizations? Who was disciplined regarding these practices, if anyone?

6. Who were the employees that made these decisions, and what guidance were they provided with from Washington, if any, to pursue their work in this manner? Who are these employees? Were these political appointees? Were they hired through the process established by the Ramspeck Act (where some, including staff whose Members have lost or retired, receive placement assistance in an agency setting)?

7. It is clear from the TIGTA timeline that IRS was targeting those with conservative political philosophies as early as 2010. It is well documented that active Congressional investigations were going on pertaining to this subject – why wasn’t Congress immediately notified when IRS became aware that groups were, in fact, actively being targeted?

8. How widespread was the campaign to target conservative groups? We’ve heard about Ohio, a longtime bellwether state in political elections. What has IRS done, if anything, to identify whether this practice of targeting specific groups was occurring in IRS offices in other states?

9. Why is IRS apologizing now? IRS waited until well after the 2012 election cycle to issue a public apology for targeting these groups, but never informed Congress of its intent to do so, despite ongoing investigations. Why didn’t they inform Congress of their intent to do so?

10. What steps, if any, has IRS taken to ensure that the targeting of individuals and organizations does not occur in the future?

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Election 2012 live blogging the end of our Constitutional Republic

Is that a cocky headline? Yes! Am I that confident? YES! Keep checking back for updates, I will be back when polls start closing.

Until that magic hour when we all start obsessing over exit polls, flipping channels and focusing the scrolls on the TV screen with vote count updates, here are some great blogs to visit

The Other McCain has election day updates

Gateway Pundit has news that in Ohio, Republican turnout is way up, Democrat turnout? Not so much

Chris has his voter guide at Wyblog

Milton Wolf has advice for the dead among us, Do NOT vote Democrat

Gary Jackson has a thug alert in Philly

American Power, Obama has nuthin!

Breitbart: Two election judges in Ohio booted for allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots

Bob belevedere to Blue State Conservatives, YES your vote matters

Conservative Black Chick: Why Mitt can’t wait

Conservative Hideout: BENGHAZI!

Victory Girls are also live blogging election night and has this story, I hope the part about the SEALs is true

Apparently, the New Black Panthers are also on the scene in Ohio.

Fortunately though, there are allegedly former Navy SEALs, supposedly from True the Vote, on the way to both Pennsylvania and Ohio to guard against voter intimidation. Can I get a “hell yeah” for our SEALs?!

Meanwhile, Politico’s final poll shows that the race is a dead heat, but Romney is up by 15 with independents.

BC notes that Dan Rather is saying Romney is in for a win

Michelle: It’s Time

Moonbattery offers some humor

Jill is feeling good about tonight, but not about this despicable ad

William Teach has an election day special post

Nice Deb has a great election day post as well

OK, here we go, no swing states have been called yet, no surprise there, and Romney holds an 82-78 lead in the EC. Florida is going back and forth, driving me crazy. Virginia and North Carolina looking good, but it is early so, no chicken counting yet on those. Pennsylvania is way too early to even consider, looks like a loooong night. So, what is everyone drinking? Coffee, Beer (yes I am) An Alaskan IPA right now, excellent beer. Watching the results on the PC because frankly, the talking heads drive me batty frankly.

RS McCain is live blogging too, from Ohio. And yes, I think we should give him the credit if Romney wins in Ohio, and the blame if….nope not going there. The Lonely Conservative, also live blogging updates that Arkansas is Romney country so 88-78 Romney currently.

Gateway Pundit says things are looking good in Wisconsin, likewise in Virginia, we hope that turns out to be the case, stay tuned……….

Linked by The Lonely Conservative! Thanks!

UPDATE! Chuck Todd reports that both sides expect Romney to win a close one in Florida

New EC count, 154-123 for Romney

Obama takes Pennsylvania, EC count 154-143 for Mitt

Wisconsin called for Obama? Good grief! 154-153

Looks like Florida is coming down to the panhandle, good sign for Romney?

Florida still damned close, Romney gaining in Ohio, holding on in Carolina and Virginia, I think Wisconsin was called way too early. And I think my eyes are going crossed from looking at all these numbers.

Just noticed that CNN has not called Wisconsin yet, Romney still leading there, current EC count, 163-157 Romney

Looking tough in Florida, but, National Review notes that there is still hope Santa Rosa County is HEAVY for Republicans, it has not reported yet

Florida is getting very close, so is Ohio, this ain’t over people!

UPDATE! Romney takes North Carolina, hope still lives

UPDATE! The Other McCain has given up, I am leaning towards that end right now, but not yet. I am amazed that there are so many in the nation that just have no grasp of what liberty is. If Romney loses, I will be posting lots of thoughts, there is plenty of blame to go around, no doubt. Out of all the swing states we got North Carolina, maybe Virginia, maybe Florida, and Ohio. Sorry, this should never have been this close. I cannot grasp how America votes for a bad economy, staggering debt, and no leadership at all. The Senate could have, and should have been taken. Right now, I am wondering if too many Americans  are simply hooked on big government.

UPDATE! Ohio called for Obama, good Lord we have reelected this Neo-Marxist? This is the price we pay for being ignorant of our history, our founding principles, I would say God help us, but I am not sure we deserve it anymore.

So, what do I think happens tomorrow?

Well here is a link to Real Clear Politics, where you can pick the winner too, just change the states as you think they will go, and save the result, the electoral map you see is mine, Romney winning 309-229

Not sure what Ed has got planned for election night, but I will be on Twitter quite a bit, so look for me there, I will also be live blogging as well.

*VIDEO* Romney Verbally Bitch-Slaps Obama During Rousing Wisconsin Speech



.

Obama: We leave nobody behind

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Good grief, does he not get the irony of that statement? Does he not see that many Americans will at the very least, raise an eyebrow over this? Smitty has more

Words are meaningless to this man. Empathy? Not a chance. It is amazing to watch this transformation. From Hope and Change to this, and obviously empty suit uttering empty rhetoric, and rather than bringing us together, dividing us as never before. The Obama Train looks to be derailing, and, as  RS McCain notes, the truth is very tough on the Obamabots

 

This will be seen in retrospect as the day liberals began to realize that Obama was going to lose the election, the day The Great Wall of Denial (erected by Nate Silver and the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir) proved itself too weak to withstand an encounter with reality.

Yesterday, Jim Messina called the Romney super-PAC’s ad buy in Pennsylvania “desperate.”

Today? Yeah, Obama’s buying ads in Pennsylvania.

Does this mean Romney is going to win Pennsylvania? No, but it does mean that it’s close enough that Team Obama couldn’t afford to let Romney air ads unopposed in Pennsylvania. And this news, coming just four days after it was reported that Team Obama is buying ads in Minnesota, is the best indication that Democrat insiders know that the president’s re-election is seriously endangered.

Liberals may be stupid, but they’re not so stupid they can’t understand what John Nolte’s headline means:

GALLUP: Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters

Dude. If Romney’s leading by SEVEN FREAKING POINTS in the early vote — and also leading by six points among voters who tell Gallup they plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6 — there is no way that Nate Silver can continue gazing at his Magic Forecasting Model™ and seeing a 72.9% chance of Obama being re-elected. He may continue telling that to his readers, but Nate cannot actually believe that.

 

Hurricane Sandy set to pound Northeast, Nate Silver’s grip, on reality hardest hit

Team Obama is desperate, the sycophants are also desperate, and they are willing to cling to any port in a storm, even if that port IS an actual storm. Enter Nate Silver, who, again, seems to fellating Obama artificially inflating Obama’s chances of winning next Tuesday. Stacy McCain, who is in Ohio, has a lengthy report on the Romney campaign’s ground game there in the Buckeye State. Read that for sure, but note the very end of that post

UPDATE V: Thanks to Finrod in the comments for the news that Rasmussen’s latest Ohio poll has Romney 50, Obama 48.

Of course, Nate Silver has raised Obama’s re-election chances to 74.6%, because . . . Objectivity!

Nate, Nate , Nate.

Leadership: Romney Uses Campaign Bus To Deliver Hurricane Relief

Leadership: Romney Uses Campaign Bus To Deliver Hurricane Relief – Breitbart

The Romney campaign has canceled campaign events, commercials, and fundraising appeals in states that will be impacted by Hurricane Sandy, and is instead using a campaign bus to help deliver supplies to those who will be impacted by what forecasters are predicting may be a “storm of the century.”

The Obama campaign has canceled events, but has yet to announce it have pulled commercials or fundraising appeals from states in Sandy’s path. Romney was also first on the scene when Hurricane Irene struck the Gulf Coast in August, with President Obama arriving three days later after adjusting his schedule.

Twitchy, which keeps track of everything that happens on Twitter in real time, posted photos of relief supplies next to Romney’s campaign bus in Virginia, where Romney was supposed to have campaigned on Sunday before canceling his events.

And, according to CBS News:

The campaign is taking similar precautions in New Hampshire, where Ann Romney was supposed to be on Monday. They have cancelled that visit and are instead using another campaign bus to help with relief there.

The Obama campaign has also cancelled events as Sandy approaches. President Obama was briefed by FEMA in Washington, D.C., today and labeled it a “serious and big storm.”

A Romney adviser told ABC News that the Romney campaign felt comfortable that Romney has gotten his message across to voters and the campaign did not even “want to even trivialize matters by talking about the state of the race when you have so many people right now that are going to be adversely impacted by the storm.”

Paul Ryan also opened up his campaign event in Ohio on Sunday, according to ABC News, by telling a crowd: “First let me start on a slightly different note, let’s today when we get home, put in our prayers the people who are in the East Coast in the wake of this big storm that’s coming, let’s not forget those fellow Americans of ours.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

What does a blogger have to do to get called a Nate Silver Truther anyway?

The Other McCain has just been called that, by some douche at Alternet, which I never read because no one should have to

We are looking at a very tight race right now, with a virtual tie in national polling. But we don’t elect presidents by popular vote, and Obama has enjoyed a lead in the race to get 270 votes in the Electoral College every single day of this campaign – Romney has never led in any of the Electoral College projections.

But in recent days, the Romney-Ryan campaign has claimed that it’s moving ahead. As Jonathan Chait noted, “This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.” Despite zero evidence that Romney has made any gains since receiving a healthy bounce from the first debate, reporters appear to be buying it, with a raft of lazy stories about Mitt Romney’s supposed “momentum.”

Well, the thing is, Joshua, Romney has been gaining in the swing states, he does have the momentum, that is pretty clear. The question is why are you so distressed? Maybe tour status as an Obama pom-pom Girl is being threatened? Whatever the case, Joshua decides to write this about Stacy, with no “E” Joshua, McCain

Robert Stacey McCain, a notably dense right-wing blogger who nonetheless holds some influence in conservative circles, framed it like this: “Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir, raising Obama to a 70.3% likelihood of victory based on . . . what? I dunno. I’m not an expert with a New York Times column or anything, much less a Magical Forecasting Model™ that can divine future events with the precise scientific exactitude of 1/10 of one percent.”

Now Joshua, Mr. McCain is more than capable of defending himself from you and your pom-poms. My problem is not even that you are a pompous ass, who, like most pompous asses, is about half as smart as you think you are. My issue is not that you are a Left-Wing nutcase who has partaken heavily on the Obama flavored Kool-Aid. My issue, rather, is that you could at least have bothered to note that I, too, took Nate Silver to the woodshed for his unrealistic “predictions”. See, Joshua, I have an ego, and it is greatly pleased when a Leftist like you, attacks me. It reaffirms my belief that I am right on the issues. It is a badge of honor to be labelled by an Obambot like you.

And, by the way, I do not have a model for predicting, but, when I look at poll after poll showing Romney winning independents, and erasing gender gaps, and increased excitement among Republican voters and gaining, or leading in several key states, states that DO count in the Electoral College, well……let’s just say I put more stock in those than in a guy who uses outdated polls, as a commenter at The Other McCain noted

Back to the question, then: What the f–k is Nate Silver talking about? A commenter on yesterday’s post suggested it’s non-random ”weighting”:

I found out everything I needed to know about Silver’s “analysis” when I learned that he was overweighting a week-old PPP poll that showed Obama well ahead and underweighting a fresh poll *by the same pollster* that had Obama’s lead almost gone in his “model.” The adjustments were not small. So he was purposefully and consciously giving a large amount of additional weight to old data compared to new data despite the source of both being the same.
This statistical legerdemain is justified by an ipse dixit assertion that PPP’s Dem lean has diminished over the cycle (a change he would have us believe has significant, observable effects over a 7-day period). Then there’s the grotesquely Obama-positive Marist poll to which he gave a huge statistical bump compared to a slew of more recent data for almost two weeks. That poll had a D+11 sample–over twice Obama’s 2008 ID edge and therefore something no rational poll observer could possibly argue with a straight face was likely to be valid. Nate loved it, though, giving it massively outsized influence over his overall results long after it was stale data.

See what you could know Joshua, if you not so much “smarter” than those “ignorant” right wing bloggers!

Romney still has momentum, Nate Silver hardest hit

The first part of that headline is clearly the most pertinent, Romney is doing better and better, and you can feel the desperation in Team Obama’s tactics. 

If you are wondering just who Nate Silver is, don’t worry, not many folks know who he is. Sure, I know, but I know people like Silver so you do not have to, and The Other McCain certainly knows Silver, and his whistling in the graveyard act

Excuse me for my continued attention to Nate’s graveyard-whistling, but no matter how clear the evidence of a pro-Romney trend, the Grand Swami at the New York Times won’t stop. He’s now raised the likelihood of Obama’s re-election to 71.0%. (The one-tenth of a percentage point being necessary to the pretense of scientific exactitude.)

There is greater than a 71% chance that Nate Silver has an Obama poster above his bed

Is Nate Silver hustling an insider-trading scam with InTrade? Or is he merely acting as an Obama pompom girl? Either way, the poll-watcher at the nation’s most influential newspaper cannot be unaware of how his coverage functions to shape elite opinion, which is in turn reflected in other media coverage that then influences mass opinion, and believing that Nate Silver is acting as an honest neutral broker in this transaction requires a faith in human goodness that I lack.

Your post-post debate wrap up! UPDATED! Obama camp worried about Ohio?

Here is my take, Obama was rude, condescending, looked petty, and rude with his consistent interruptions. Romney looked, and certainly acted far more presidential than Obama did. The best line Obama had, apparently was attacking Romney, and playing that tired class warfare card. To me, it is simple, Romney won, on both style and substance. The president glared at Romney, trying his angry face out I suppose. The most troubling aspect of the night was how brazenly Obama lied, flat out lied about Romney, it is truly pathetic, but this is the state of your modern Democratic Party. Others, of course weighed in, and here is a round up of what others are saying…….

Nice Deb, has a great round up herself, and a video of Krauthammer calling the debate decisively for Romney

The Lonely Conservative agrees with me that Obama got a whoopin she also saw the anger in Obama

I think Mitt Romney won tonight’s foreign policy debate. President Obama looked peeved and angry when he wasn’t laughing. He interrupted Romney numerous times. Romney seemed calm, cool and unflappable. He certainly didn’t come off as some sort of warmonger the Democrats want you to believe he is.

I was tweeting during the entire debate. You can read the tweets here, at least for a while. I also did a few posts on Sulia.

The Split Screen Was Not Obama’s Friend Tonight

Is Obama This Condescending To Foreign Leaders?

Obama Keeps Interrupting

Romney: Attacking Me Is Not Foreign Policy

Romney has momentum at this point, and I doubt tonight’s debate did anything to change that. I don’t care what theWashington Post says about Obama putting Romney on his heels. All anyone had to do was look at the split screen to see who was on his heels. It certainly wasn’t Romney, if it was he might have been the one doing all of the interrupting.

Weasel Zippers has a great line from Romney that made my ears perk up. Dennis Prager also mentioned this on his show today, although, I am not sure how many Americans will get the context

Despite what they say, Leftists think Romney won too, Twitchy has some of the death threats the tolerant Leftists Tweeted last night. And yes, some of the miscreants are still talking riots!

If those threatened riots happen, maybe we should blame Ohio, which Ace says is a state that Team Obama is fretting over

Via Instapundit, Obama’s firewall may be on fire.

[E]ven if Obama loses Ohio, his campaign sees another pathway to the presidency by nailing New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.

The first rule of Losing Ohio Club is you don’t talk about Losing Ohio Club.

By the way, it will be very hard for Obama to win three of those states (NH, IA, and CO). Colorado, especially, leans to Romney now.

The others are tossups… for now.

Why would Obama be talking about alternate routes to victory not including Ohio?

Obviously, I think, they don’t think Ohio is safe. And to talk about losing it… I think they think they’re behind.

And then there is North Carolina, which Team Obama might have given up on already

No debate coverage would be complete without checking in with The Other McCain who sums up how we all feel

Thank God, tonight’s debate is the last of this presidential campaign. Republicans endured 20 debates during the primary campaign, and we’re ready to stop debating and start stabbing out Chris Matthews’ eyeballs with sharp sticks voting.

Any way you slice it, Team Obama is deeply worried, and it is showing. Donald Douglas makes an important point about that here

That’s why Mitt Romney killed this debate. He’s optimistic and looking toward the future. He affirms America’s greatness, with no apologies. He’s hopeful and not stuck on bemoaning the “policies that got us into to this mess in the first place,” like a bleedin’ crybaby, unable to lead. Romney’s championing the policies that will get us out of it. The election can’t come to soon. The American people are going to send O on a long golfing retirement.

I have made the point in the past that Conservatives are far more optimistic than Liberals. And it shows on Obama’s face and rings out in his rhetoric, oh, yes, it shows in polls too and face it, when Obama loses Rob Schneider….. And Obama makes gaffes about bayonets… You see Mr. President, there these soldiers called Marines, and they use these things called bayonets

Last night Barack Obama mocked the use of horses and bayonets in the military.

Today Bayonet Inc. told Obama to “get educated.”
TMZ reported:

TMZ spoke with multiple people in the bayonet industry who tell us they were shocked and even offended when Obama brought up the weapon during last night’s debate.

According to the official U.S. Marine Corps website, every Marine is STILL required to complete a bayonet training program … because “the weapon becomes just as effective [as a rifle] in close combat situations.

We spoke with Dan Riker from Bayonet Inc. — a leading military surplus outlet that specializes in bayonets — who tells us he believes Obama’s comment was “ignorant … because our soldiers still use bayonets.”

He adds, “[Bayonets] are still distributed to the military all the time — he should get educated on it.”

OUCH! The biggest problem for Obama? He lies I will give Chris at Wyblog the last word

 

Halfway through last night’s debate I thought to myself, “I’m missing Monday Night Football for this?

 

Here comes Gloria Allred Oozing out of the drain

Good Grief it MUST be late October, with a Democrat in electoral peril, because here is one of the most despicable people in America Gloria Allred again!

Allred has a reputation of dragging perceived female victims in front of the camera as props to bash Republican candidates. In October 2010 Allred dragged out illegal alien Nicki Diaz to attack heartless Meg Whitman. Minaj was upset Whitman didn’t buy her child a present and claimed Meg took advantage of her despite the fact she made a good wage. In November 2011 she dragged out Sharon Bialek who accused Herman Cain of sexual abuse.

So it is likely this year’s October surprise is Carrel Hilton Sheldon, a former Mormon.

The book Horror Stories: Mitt Romney’s Shameful Record with Mormon Women details Mitt Romney’s “psychological intimidation and bullying” during his role as a Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The report describes how Romney “tried to bully” Carrel Hilton Sheldon when she was suffering through a difficult pregnancy into not having an abortion.

AlterNet reported:

A far more ominous tale in the Romney canon also took place that summer, one that has been largely swept under the rug as the former governor of Massachusetts challenges incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency. There have been no songs written about it, no cartoons, no gags on late-night television, no magazine covers.

It was in August of that year, shortly after the Romney family returned from their vacation to Lake Huron, that a pregnant woman in her late 30s—Carrel Hilton Sheldon—was informed by her doctor that she had a life-threatening blood clot lodged in her pelvic region.

In treating the clot, Sheldon was administered an overdose of the blood thinner Heparin, an overdose that not only resulted in significant internal bleeding, but also extensive damage to her kidneys, to the point where she was on the verge of needing a transplant. Her life was clearly in peril.

Sheldon’s doctor advised her that the overdose of Heparin might have also harmed her 8-week-old fetus and, given the possible fatal repercussions to her, he recommended that she abort her pregnancy.

Sheldon, a mother of four at the time (a fifth child had died as an infant), was then a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), outside of Boston. The LDS leader in Massachusetts at that time, called the “stake president,” was a Harvard-trained physician, Dr. Gordon Williams, and he counseled Sheldon to follow her doctor’s advice to terminate the pregnancy and protect her own life, so that she could continue caring for her four living children.

“Of course, you should have the abortion,” she recalled him saying.

According to an account later written anonymously by Sheldon for the LDS women’s journal,Exponent II, it was after receiving this counsel from her Williams supporting the potentially life-saving procedure that she experienced an uninvited visit in her hospital from her Mormon bishop at the time, 36-year-old Mitt Romney, who adamantly opposed the abortion.

“He regaled me with stories of his sister and her retarded child and what a blessing the child had been to the family,” Sheldon wrote of the incident. “He told me that ‘as your bishop, my concern is with the child.’”

If this account is true, a huge IF I might add, then how does Romney’s advice equal bullying? And understand also that Alternet is sort of like the MSNBS of websites.

 

Romney Leads Obama in New Gallup Poll 52-45, Crazed Homosexual Hardest Hit

I guess that headline might get me in hot water with the PC types, but, they are not too keen on me, or Ed so screw them. Stacy McCain points out that the newest polling is causing the Great 2012 Liberal Freak-Out! And, chief amongst those freaking out is none other than Trig-Truther Andrew Sullivan, who always sounds like he is freaking out to me.

They convinced themselves that Obama “won” Tuesday’s debate, butRomney actually gains in the first Gallup national tracking poll with post-debate reaction? Oh, boy.

UPDATE: Ace explains what happened:

 The debate was not a victory for Obama. It was a confirmation of Romney’s acceptability, plausibility, and fitness for office.

Yesterday, Sully admitted he had been “on the ledge”:

I will now crawl back into my blog-cave and cower. But seriously, thanks to all readers who helped me off the ledge:thebea.st/R4HyCW

Oh good grief! This is classic Sullivan, hyper-emoting and making an ass of himself in general. But at least he has stopped being obsessed with Sarah Palin’s uterus for a while.

By the way, I really do not care that Andrew Sullivan is Gay NTTIAWWT, that is his business, but I thought the headline was funny

Good news and bad news for the president

The good news? Well all the pundits say he won the last debate. The bad news? Romney’s lead in the polls is growing

IBD/TIPP Daily Tracking Poll: This newspaper’s historically accurate daily tracking poll of likely voters down the campaign stretch shows Mitt Romney has whittled Barack Obama’s lead down to a narrow 1.5 point margin, 46.8% to 45.3%. With all appearances of a new tie developing.

The Republican has accomplished this by holding his five-point lead among independents, 45% to 40%, while constructing an enlarged five-point lead among seniors, up from a three-point margin.

Romney’s strongest support comes from a middle-aged, conservative, white suburban Protestant male in the South with some college education who earns more than $75,000 a year. Obama’s strong suit would be a liberal black, urban single woman with a high school education in the Northeast with an annual income under $30,000 and no particular religion.

Romney wins among married women, 55% to 41%, while Obama takes single women, 63% to 26%.

RASMUSSEN: Today’s latest tracking poll of likely voters from Rasmussen Reports, which includes one night’s results after this week’s Romney-Obama debate, shows Romney now expanding his one-point lead to two points with Thursday’s results, 49% to 47%.

Impost this not because I am a big follower of polls, I am not. I post this because I believe all those “experts” who say Obama won the second debate are wrong. Sure, those who watched saw a president who was more engaged and lively, but they also saw a president who has nothing but the same tired class warfare  rhetoric, and who seems incapable of taking any responsibility for his awful record. Sure, his base loved hearing his Leftist ideology, but how did it play with the folks who do not have a Kool-Aid IV? They heard a president either promise to keep doing what he has been doing the last four years, and we can all see how that is working out, or they saw a president promise to do all the things he promised in 2008, but has yet to even attempt to do. You know, like cut the deficit, or, here is a good one, remember your promises to bring unemployment down? One word Mr. President, FAIL!!

 

knew last week’s dip in the unemployment rate was all smoke and mirrors. Now there’s proof. Initial jobless claims spiked back up to 388,000 this week. Right where they’ve been for months.

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week’s sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

The four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, rose slightly to 365,500, the Labor Department said Thursday. That is a level consistent with modest hiring.

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.

“Technical factors” == California Democrats distorting their reports to make Dear Leader look good ahead of his anticipated “rebound” in the second presidential debate. Look! A Recovery! My “plan” is working!

No, it’s not.

Obama has no plan. Obama has no clue. More of the same won’t cut it. Alas, he’s out of ideas.

 

If a gaffe can cost an election…..

…… then I think Obama just lost

Last night, President Barack Obama dropped the biggest campaign gaffe of the season – only the media wasn’t watching. It happened during his testy exchange with Mitt Romney over gas prices. First, Obama denied that he’d done anything about denying licenses on oil and gas; he backed off of that shortly. Then he denied that production on federal land was down; he was lying. Finally, Romney hit him with this devastating line:

The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it’s $4.00 a gallon.

Obama’s response was horrendous: 

Barack Obama
Obamanomics 101 high gas prices good, low gas prices bad

Well, think about what the governor — think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney’s now promoting. So, it’s conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

In other words, bringing down gas prices by drilling creates economic recession. That was Obama’s argument.

Does anyone think this president understands basic economics?

To me this is the worst type of gaffe, because it involves substance, not some brain fart or slip of the tongue. Also recall that in 2008, Democrats, including, I believe, then candidate Obama hammered President Bush over high gas prices. Of course the media completely missed this gargantuan gaffe.

Candy Crowley, who moderated the debate like she has a poster of Obama over her bed, should have given this response

Chris at Wyblog pours even more scorn on President Clueless

There is so much sand-pounding stupidity in that statement, I don’t know where to start. FortunatelyElizabeth Price Foley guest-blogging at Instapundit schools The Smartest Guy In The Room using words even an Obamabot can understand.

Gas prices, like anything else, are a function of supply and demand. A recession or depression reduces demand. If supply stays constant, gas prices will fall. But if the supply side of the equation is also negatively affected/reduced — as, for example, the reduction of leases and drilling on federal land, as pointed out by Romney — gas prices should rise (as they have). The bottom line? Gas prices should have — probably would have — fallen in our current recession, due to decreased demand. But since the Obama Administration’s anti-carbon, anti-fossil fuel policies have taken hold, the negative impact on supply has outpaced the reduction in demand, leading to significantly higher prices.

So, who has more military endorsments? Mitt, or Barack?

Yes, most of the voters are focused on the economy, jobs, and energy prices, but, we do need to remember that the president IS the Commander-in-Chief. So, I thought it might be interesting to see which candidate has more endorsements from our military leaders. Well, as luck would have it, Smitty did some digging and finds that Obama does have some military endorsements, six to be exact. As for Romney, well, let’s just say he has a number a tad, or  a few hundred tads higher, 359 to be exact! I suppose Romney’s pledge to increase military funds is getting a better reaction than Obama’s draconian cuts, you know, the ones his own Secretary of Defense said would weaken our military. What a RAAAAACIST that Panetta must be.

 

 

So, my Liberal co-worker asks me what I thought of the debate

You have to give it to Liberals, and my co-worker is no exception, they really do think they are so much brighter than Conservatives. When “John” asked me if I watched the debate, I detected a sense of arrogance in his voice. He said he was thrilled with Obama’s performance, and energy, and so on. He even hinted that Obama might have swayed lots of voters. I think I surprised “John” when I said I agreed with him. And that is true, I think Obama’s lies, yes they are and will remain lies no matter how many times he tells them, and his pathetic job performance will get Obama’s clock cleaned in November. “John”, of course, was miffed that anyone would support Romney over Obama. “John” then went on and on about Obama’s green jobs, and health care reform, and tax cuts for “working Americans”, and on and on.

See no matter how many times the truth is presented to “John” or any other Liberal they will delude themselves into believing what they want to think is true. “John” cared not one thing about massive increases in gas prices, because he still buys the green energy lies Obama spews. Never mind that billions and billions of tax dollars were thrown away at green energy companies that went under. Never mind that those jobs are gone. Never mind how high fuel prices, and food prices are crushing “working Americans”. Never mind that everything Obama is promising now he promised four years ago.  “John” and Liberals like him do not care about reality. They care about hearing what they want to hear. See “John” still thinks that Obamacare equals free health care for him, he still believes that everyone will be able to attend college for free too. Obama said so and that is enough for my deluded co-worker.

So, what did I think? Well I think Obama has worn out the class warfare rhetoric. Yes, we know Mr. President, we know, all you are saying is that the millionaires and billionaires should pay just a little more, good freaking grief! And please, if I hear that we need a balanced approach to reducing the deficit my head will explode. Even if I thought Obama truly believed that line, I would still only have to look at what Obama has done the last four years. He has driven our deficit to astronomical proportions. As I asked my co-worker earlier, if he hired someone to fix his roof, and if, after four years, his roof leaked far worse than ever, would he give those roofer another chance? He called that a simplistic analogy, and blamed Obama’s poor job performance on George W. Bush. Talk about simplistic.

“John” may never get it, but, I think many Americans are getting it. Barack Obama has been a miserable failure as president. He has no plans, well except to double down on the failed ideas he has already tried. He can blame Bush, blame Republicans, blame the rich, his supporters can blame racism, but in the end, Obama has one problem he cannot talk his way out of, his record.

Fact Check: Top Ten Worst Lies Of The Second Presidential Debate

Fact Check: Top Ten Worst Lies Of The Second Presidential Debate – Big Government

The Second Presidential Debate featured repeated claims by each candidate that the other was not telling the truth – as well as at least one claim of fact by the moderator that turned out to be false. There were even questionable claims by the audience itself. Here are the top ten worst lies told during the Second Debate:

10. “I told you I would cut taxes for middle-class families, and I did. I told you I’d cut taxes for small businesses, and I have.” President Barack Obama has made this claim repeatedly during the campaign, but it is not true, as even the liberal Huffington Post acknowledges. The few tax cuts that Obama did enact – such as the temporary payroll tax holiday – were short-term, or conditional. Furthermore, as the Romney campaign has often pointed out, Obama has raised many taxes on the middle class, including the infamous Obamacare “penalty,” and his taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” would hit small businesess.

9. “…[H]e was asked, is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver… And he said, yes, I think that’s fair.” Obama was referring to Romney’s recent 60 Minutes interview. But the transcript reveals Obama was not telling the truth. Romney was not saying it was fair that higher income should be taxed at a lower rate. He was referring specifically to the principle that capital gains should be taxed lower than other income because it has been taxed once already – a principle, incidentally, that Obama agrees with in his own tax policy.

8. “He called the Arizona law a model for the nation.” Obama tried to knock Romney’s immigration policy while at the same time accusing him of flip-flopping on the issue. But as Romney pointed out, he was referring specifically to the e-Verify part of the law – the requirement of instant verification of workers’ legal status. That provision is even favored by unions. Obama made it seem Romney praised the law as a whole – which he had not. He went on to say that he himself objected to the provision that allowed police to check suspected illegal immigrants’ documentation – but that provision survived a challenge at the Supreme Court.

7. “I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here.” For the third debate in a row, the Democratic candidate complained that he was not receiving as much time to speak as the Republican. And for the third debate in a row, the Obama/Biden ticket actually spoke for longer – much longer – than the Romney/Ryan ticket, a testament to the ability of the incumbents to pressure the moderators, and the susceptibility of the left-leaning moderators to such pressure. Obama received a full three minutes more time in last night’s debate – and the percentage difference was even higher at one point in the proceedings.

6. “They rely on it for mammograms.” Obama attacked Romney’s proposal to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood by claiming that the organization provides mammograms to women to help prevent breast cancer. It’s been a repeated claim made by the left for months. The problem is that it’s just untrue – and even left-leaning mainstream media fact-checkers have acknowledged that. What is perhaps worse than Obama’s misleading claim about mammograms is the unsupported implication that Romney wants to deny life-saving health care to women – a cheap shot to which Romney was given no chance to respond.

5. “You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it.” We have heard the same lie for eight years from Obama. In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate from Illinois on a promise to end such tax breaks. He did it again when he ran for President of the United States in 2008. And yet he has never done anything about it – because there are no such tax breaks. There is merely a deduction that companies can take for moving, even within the U.S. – and which helps offset the double taxation of U.S. businesses abroad, which would make American companies less competitive. Repealing it would ship jobs overseas, actually.

4. “And the production is up… What you’re saying is just not true.” Obama contested a claim by Romney that production of oil and gas is down on federal lands. He even accused Romney of not telling the truth. But Romney was right – exactly right, down to the percentage decline. Furthermore, Obama’s claim that he has been increasing oil and gas production on federal lands flies in the face of recent policy decisions, such as closing off a large part of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to further development. Obama has tried to take credit for expansion on private lands, while opposing expansion wherever possible.

3. “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” The false premise from a member of the audience was especially egregious because her question had been selected in advance by the moderator. The supposed wage gap between men and women for the same work is largely a myth. As Diana Furchtgott-Roth pointed out: “Women make about 95 percent of what their male counterparts earn, if the male counterparts are in the same job with the same experience.”

2. “He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open.” After Obama accused Romney of wanting American auto manufacturers to go bankrupt, Romney pointed out that Obama had, in fact, taken the auto companies through bankruptcy. Obama’s retort was to accuse Romney of wanting to take the companies bankrupt in order to put them out of business – a blatant lie. Romney actually suggested in his famous 2008 op-ed: “In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.”

1. “He did call it an act of terror.” The worst untruth told by a moderator in presidential history. Candy Crowley’s intervention in favor of Obama caused the president’s cheering section to burst into applause, in violation of the rules, and there was little that Romney could say in response. But she was wrong – Obama’s reference to “acts of terror” in his Sep. 12 statement was in a general, abstract sense, and came long after he had described the 9/11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions as demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. Even Crowley seemed to realize what she had done: it wasn’t long before she walked back her own comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Oh no, Obama tanks in debate, Andrew Sullivan hardest hit

 

Poor bastard! Stacy McCain looks at Andrew “Trig Truther” Sullivan’s latest meltdown, he has a lot of them, and sees real tears of unfathomable sadness

Andrew Sullivan emotionally implodes over the latest poll:

The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. . . .
Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. . . .
Look: I’m trying to rally some morale, but I’ve never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week – throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. . . .