Is Obama Arrogant?

First off I need to apologize to you all for not blogging as much these past few days. I've been caught up with work and just generally being lazy at home BUT I do plan on getting back into the swing of things. The elections are only a couple of weeks away after all!

So to get back into it, let me direct you to Jonah Goldberg's piece in the LA Times today about Obama and his "arrogance". I'm putting that in quotes because I think the jury is still out on that. Personally I can see where Goldberg is coming from and he makes several great points. But what is a measure of a president? When faced with adversity? I can agree with Goldberg when he writes that Obama's team is wrong in thinking that a bad recession makes this the toughest time to be president, but with the election coming I think we'll really have an easier time deciding if Obama is truly arrogant.

Up to this point, legislatively, Obama has had it easy. Very rarely in these modern times do presidents get such huge majorities in both chambers of congress and, frankly, passing laws should have been very easy. But if the pundits are correct and the republicans make huge gains in November, Obama will be looking at a huge wall of "No!" to any laws he proposes. If he is willing to moderate himself politically I think we will see a more humble president than we've been getting.

And to me that is a sure sign that he's not as arrogant as Golberg is making him out to be. Any president that is willing to eat crow, admit their defeat, and move on is one that believes more in the office than themselves.

Are the Dems mounting a Comeback?

An article out today on MSNBC posses that question. It cites a few memos by democratic strategist Jennifer Crider and Texas republican Pete Sessions. Crider's memo is very optimistic that recent polls are saying the democrats have halved the republican lead and Pete Session's memo has an outlook of republican's only picking up enough seats to stop the democrats "functional majority".

First off the article is from MSNBC. They're like FOX news only the flip-side, highly partisan, only arguably more so. MSNBC desperately wants the democrats to remain in power and articles like these are meant to get the party faithful, who tend to watch and follow them, a little more jazzed and willing to go to the polls in a few weeks. My attitude is that articles like these are frivolous and nothing more.

Also interestingly enough, the article makes a brief attack at John Beohner, who recently went on the campaign trail to gin up votes and money for various candidates. Yet the author, Charles Babington, refers to it as the "speaker-in-waiting" tour and claims that others have called it that, although this claim is completely unsubstantiated. I call shenanigans. Comments like that are meant to create a narrative that over time can become the perceived "fact". That Beohner is licking his chops and chomping at the bit to get the speaker position. Fortunately I think that this article will go fairly unnoticed since it's pretty much counter to what every other pundit is saying about these elections.

My guess though is that you'll see a lot more aggressive BS writing coming form the democrats and their sympathizers as time presses on and even more so if the republicans do end up taking back control of the house.

Jobs Report

Well it's that time. The last Jobs report was released today. I will fully admit that I was wrong about my prediction. The unemployment rate held steady at 9.6%. If you read the Reuters article you may be a little confused about nonfarm payroll and private payroll. It all boils down to the fact that we did lose jobs this past month but not really a whole bunch to cause the over-all percentage of unemployed to rise.

What does this mean for the dems and Obama? It remains to be seen but if the republicans are adept at campaigning as they ought to be then they can use this info to their advantage. I think we'll probably hear in the next week the phrase, "Summer of Recovery" a whole lot from the right and in the next breath talk about the stagnant job report. It was a poor idea when Obama announce that catch phrase. Now all the republicans have to do is yell. It's a pretty simple tactic and one that could potentially get people riled up if the republicans are eloquent enough in discussing the issue.

The democrats do have a way to fight back though. They could easily argue that because the unemployment percentage hasn't really changed it could mean that we've rounded the corner and are on our way back up. They could make the claim that their steps to recovery are working and that we need to give it more time. It's a good argument and one that may actually be true, but people are still angry and I think that even a good jobs report couldn't shake the current trend that people want to vote incumbents out of office.

Jobs Report Prediction

Sorry I haven't posted much today people, it was a hectic work day and I was preoccupied at home...hey that DVD of Iron Man 2 isn't going to watch itself! But I did want to throw my prediction of the job report that's about to be unleashed on us tomorrow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we are going to see a bit of an uptick in the unemployment percentage. Probably to 9.8% maybe even 9.9%.

Now if you've been reading this blog for a while then you might want to think back aaaaalll the way to my second post. In it I talked about the supposed claim that the recession had ended and that we were truly in a state of recovery. I though it was BS at the time and I still do. But in that post I mentioned that there is a difference in the unemployment numbers we'll get tomorrow, which only factors in people out of work and actually looking for a job versus real unemployment, which includes everyone who has given up looking entirely or is working some crap job well below their previous pay grade. So I do think that we will see an increase tomorrow even with states attempting to pad their employment numbers by adding primary election poll workers, who literally only worked a day but are going to be counted as employed.

What does this mean for the upcoming election and Obama's future? That remains to be seen but if I'm right about tomorrow then it could be very problematic for the democrats and the president.

Is Angle Screwed?

If you haven't heard the news Sharon Angle is looking at a bad day today after tapes were released of her attempting to trade favors with primary rival Scott Ashjian. This is going to be a field day for the Harry Reid camp. That's pretty much all that anyone can say about this. Considering the fact that Angle has been running as the anti-politician and then to be caught trading favors and even using the term "juice"...that's pretty devastating. On top of all that she's going against Harry Reid. The leader of the senate, a good old boy in Nevada politics, and probably the most savvy politician out there today.

The article says she needs to have a good debate. That's not going to make a shred of difference, in my opinion. First off, how many people actually watch these debates? I live in Northern Virginia, in the shadow of the capitol, where half of everyone I meet works for the government in some capacity, and no one ever watches the local debates. And even if they did, it's not like Harry Reid is inexperienced with public speaking. No this is bad news for Angle. I predict that we'll see the slight lead Angle had on Reid (it's towards the bottom) yesterday in the polls evaporate pretty quickly.

Angle needs to get in front of the issue before it gets out of control, which it is almost certainly guaranteed to do. If she does that then she still has a chance. Nevada's unemployment rate is one of the highest in the nation and a lot of people are angry at Reid over that, but most people when it comes to local politics will almost always vote for the devil they know over the one they don't.

Fun Fact: If you've ever seen Casino, in the scene where Robert De Niro, gets his license pulled by the Nevada Gambling Commission, the man De Niro is yelling at for taking bribes from him is supposed to be none other than Harry Reid, who was the head of the Commission during the time period the film portrays.

Did Gloria Allred work for Jerry Brown?

It seems that Meg Whitman's camp is declaring that they have proof that Gloria Allred used to work for Jerry Brown on his first campaign back in 1974. Well if this is true I think it could potentially be an interesting facet in the whole illegal immigrant scandal.. Does this mean that the accusations Whitman made during the last debate hold water? It's probably not possible for Whitman's camp to actually prove that Allred and the illegal immigrant in question colluded with Browns team but it would make this a much more interesting campaign.

Will Blagojevich derail Rahm's chances?

So the Chicago-Tribune has an article out today regarding Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the Rod Balgojevich senate seat scandal. It makes some interesting notes about the fact that Rahm has been shown to have made several phone calls on behalf of Obama giving the president's input as to who Blago should pick to replace the presidents vacated senate seat. Big deal.



Frankly, I don't see this causing much of a stir for Emanuel. First off, the major part of the crime was done by Blago. Emanuel, nor the president, had any involvement in giving money or favors to the ex-governor and there is no real record of Emanuel having a large number of conversations about this. Merely he was acting as a messenger to the president. Was it a unethical for the president to give any input...probably. But that's not something Rahm can truly be blamed for. Also the Blago trial is over (pending appeal) and that the actual election is in February of next year and odd time for an election and most likely a fact that will let Rahm's campaign fly under the radar of media scrutiny. Also I think if the famous Chicago political machine can get behind Emanuel he'll have zero problems getting elected. They are good at doing that. So I would say Blago is a no issue at this point. At the moment only Rahm can beat Rahm.

About the One Nation Rally

The people over at Moonbatery.com have a really informative article on the One Nation Rally that was staged over the weekend. To sum it up, it basically stated that the Democrats did a crappy job at trying to rally people the same way Glenn Beck's rally did.

At this point in the election cycle is it really that big of a surprise? Over-all the democrats have been getting hammered in the opinion polls and they may loose control of congress. Sure there are a couple of bright spots for the dems this year. California is most likely going to have a liberal governor...well a more liberal governor, let's face it Ahnold isn't the most conservative guy on the planet. And also Christine O'Donnell is probably going to flame out in a spectacular way.

But the inability of the dem's to garner any sort support for this rally is bad news. They used the unions to bus people in for goodness sake, and still got didn't get much to show for it. If you go to the link and look at the comparison pictures you can see how small turn out was. Will this translate in November? That remains to be seen but again the trend is pointing more in favor of the republicans.

Will the Democrats keep the House?

I don't really have much time today to blog, its sunday after all and theres lots of football to watch. But I did read this interesting article form the New York Times today. First off I always take any article from the NYT with a large grain of sand. These people do proudly display the Duranty Pulitzer in their office, afterall. In case you didn't know Walter Duranty wrote glowing pieces on the Soviet Union back in the 30's where he just so happened to gloss over the progroms and famines that were killing millions over there.

But occasionally they do put out a though provoking article every so often. You can read it here.

Everyone is leaving the party!

Rasmussen has a new poll out showing that people are leaving both the democrat and republican party at a pretty steady rate. Some would argue that this is because of voter frustration with both parties and a desire for a change of course in the way we do politics.

I'm not so sure. I think that while both parties have had a decrease in numbers, the republicans have a better footing over-all. For example, if you ask most tea-party members where they stand politically, you are more likely to here them call themselves "conservative" rather than republican. While they may not identify with Republicans out-right they are still fired up and ready to go to the polls and vote that way. Democrats on the other hand are becoming despondent about their chances in November. Plus many on that side are feeling betrayed by the party leadership and how they haven't delivered on the nebulous "change" promise.

Also there's the deflation of the cult of personality that Obama created during the '08 campaign. It's difficult to translate the energy he generated into sustainable interest over the long term, especially when you have to act more "presidential".

I've been a little back and forth as to how the election will turn out but I feel (a little more now after that poll) that things are still pointing to a big year for Republicans...even if these that vote for them don't actually call themselves that.

Whats wrong with Democrats?

George F. Will has a fantastic commentary today regarding the Democrats shrinking stature in all the opinion polls that have been coming out for the past few months and how they are reacting to this. He does a great job focusing on the two major blunders that the democrats are going to be held accountable for this election cycle, namely the massive stimulus bill and the healthcare bill. He then goes on to say that because the democrats really don't have anything to run on that people are willing to get behind, that they will be forced to "pound the table" and make personal attacks against Republican opponents.

He couldn't be more right.

If you've been paying attention to the news in the past few days then you may have seen this attack ad by candidate Alan Grayson, implying that his opponent, republican Daniel Webster is a cooky religious nut. It's back-firing pretty bad for Grayson since Webster is up 7 points in this recent poll and will probably continue to rise higher.

In his article George Will uses the example of Barry Goldwater and the democrats successful undermining of his mental and personal credibility by using various psychiatrists to declare him unfit to hold office. This is a tactic that works well with the collusion of the media. What's the old saying? A lie can go around the world faster than the truth can tie it's shoes. Christine O'Donnell is currently getting a similar treatment. After winning the nomination, it was widely reported that her primary opponent, Mike Castle, didn't think she was fit for the position and would never win. That comment was quickly picked up by the media and started a narrative that O'Donnell will probably never be able to get out of. This in turn has caused a lot of background digging, going so far as the media to breathlessly announce the fact that she "dabbled" in witchcraft in high school. Seriously. That's stupid news. But it builds up that narrative that gives people a negative view of her and kills her standing in the polls.

Now, admittedly there have been other gaffes on her part. The anti-masturbation stance and the fact that she claimed to have studied at Oxford to name a couple but these are things that have come out afterwards and caused this snowball effect of negativity. Which in turn has allowed her opponent to claim that she is too far right from the average Delaware voter (which may be true) and hurt her ability to connect with the people, thereby giving the Democrats the advantage.

Sure there are examples like O'Donnell that liberal pundits point to in order to claim that they still have a chance at keeping the house and senate but when tactics of desperation like the ones being used this cycle are in play, it really does indicate how scared the democrats are. The Tea Party movement has been scoffed at from the very beginning. Yet in spite of all the punditry mocking it, it continues to grow. The people at the top simply aren't getting it. This is a grassroots movement, that while at times can be misguided and a little extreme, is an honest out-pouring of voter frustration. This is what is wrong with the democrats. They just don't get that these people are passionate about what they believe in and are willing to make big personal sacrifices of time and money to fight for it. I have several family members involved with the Tea Party movement (much to my dismay) and they are very ardent in their beliefs about the state of the country, Obama and the democrats policies. This has caused them to devote huge swaths of time and money to the cause and this is something that they are not unique in. I've been dragged to a few rallies and have seen the "rabble". They are, for the most part, everyday people who simply love this country but you can sense the anger they have towards the leadership on both sides of the aisle. The democrats used to be this way. When Bush was in power they were passionate about the war and various social causes. But now that they finally have control they seem to have lost a lot of that fire, perhaps power breeds complacency but it is a mistake they make at their own peril. No matter party you subscribe to people can be just as equally angry and passionate. Its what got the Dem's back in control in the first place. It's what brought them together.

What's wrong with the Dems? They forgot what the people were like. They have forgotten that when you have enough angry people they can quickly coalesce into a powerful group. They have forgotten that their policies and actions while in office will have an affect of the people and manifest come election cycle. it's why I think they are still in big trouble come November.

Dem touts that he voted with Bush?

If you've never gone to Hot Air and seen resident blogger Allahpundit insightful posts, I highly recommend it. I've been reading his stuff for years now (why I remember when he used to have his own blog!) and he just gets better with age. Today he posted a great article and video about North Dakota democrat Earl Pomeroy airing an ad explicitly linking himself and his voting habits to George Bush. I defy any democrat to argue about this. And don't say that it's because he's in North Dakota, OK? To liberals this is tantamount to declaring your love of kicking puppies in order to gain votes. No this is a guy who has taken stock of the political wind and is desperately trying to save his own ass. Sadly behavior like this only points to a more likely rout by the republicans in November.

Why is Hugo Chavez still presidente?

Oh that's right, he's a dictator.

First off lets throw some disappointment to the celebrities that have gone to see this guy and support him. Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, Naomi Campbell, Oliver Stone, and various others have gone to visit this guy and prop up his socialist agenda without a bit of attention paid to the people that have been trampled on. Oh wait how could I forget Sean Penn! There seems to be some sort of bromance between those two. He's gone on multiple media outlets defending Chavez and in spite of all the news stories that point out Chavez's actions being extremely in line with any other dictator to ever exist, he's gone on to assert that it's the media that is spinning the story. Chavez has gone on to nationalize the farming industry, the oil industry and most importantly the telecommunications industry. Now you can make some arguments that the first to aren't so bad, but when you start cracking down on the public's means of communication..that's a dictator.

Frankly, the guys freaking insane on top of all this.

Have you ever tried to sit down and watch his talk show? Pure crazy. Charles Manson parole interviews are more put together. And on top of it the guy rants for like four hours at a time. While I can appreciate the stamina it takes to do that, no man should ever talk that much in a single shot. Not ever. This may sound misogynistic but women can't even do that. And it's been scientifically shown that women on average speak more words than men on a daily basis. (While that may still be up for debate I do remember studying this way back in psych classes in college so I'll assume it's fairly accurate).

And the sad part is that man's naked grabs for power have been almost gladly handed to him by the public, who on the whole are very uneducated and serve up a lot of promises, that as of right now have yet to come to fruition. It's why I'm very happy to read about the recent elections that took place and how they have the potential of shutting down his desire to be president for life. And while I'm on the subject, when has it ever been a good idea to hear a political leader talk about wanting to be in power for life? That should have been a HUGE red flag that this guy was a bad idea.

Anyway, the problem isn't just that Chavez is a loony dictator, its also the system that was in place to allow Chavez to exist and thrive. South American socialism is a different breed of socialism than we see in the European model. The Europeans have formed their version after thousands of years of oligarchies, various types of monarchies, failed democracies, and dictators of their own. They learned the hard way how to create a working socialist state. Now I will say that it is up for debate that the Europeans version of socialism is working but it is still pretty clear that it's a superior version compared to Chavez socialism. This guy has been dancing the line between tyranny and socialism and he's pretty much at the point of pop-in-lockin' over to full blown tyrant.

Honestly, why is this guy still in power and why haven't we really done anything to fix that?

File Under Scary

Fox News (yes cringe if you must) has an interesting article regarding voter fraud in Houston today. Typically I am not one to completely trust either Fox News or the tea party, even though I do tend to vote republican. But when it comes to voter fraud I think it is critical that we investigate any sort of allegation that may arise. This is the most critical part of democracy. It all starts with your vote and if it's being cheated in anyway, all parts of the democratic machinery are corrupt. I will probably post a lot more of these type of articles as time goes on, because frankly as someone who makes it a point to vote every chance I get, the last thing I want is my say in government to be cheated.