Posts Tagged ‘sequestration’

Who Won Last Night’s Debate? My View.

October 23, 2012

It’s rather interesting: in all four debates, no matter who was debating (Romney or Ryan versus Obama or Biden) or who the moderator was, somehow the Democrat was given more time four times out of four.

Now, I remember that Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that many people thought was very, VERY deliberate.  But here’s the thing: that was a one-off moment.  If Janet Jackson had done four Super Bowl halftime shows and had a “wardrobe malfunction” every single time, I don’t think most people would conclude anything OTHER than that it was very, VERY deliberate.  And for that very reason I can assure you that Obama-Biden getting more time in every single debate four times out of four was a very deliberate and intentional nod by the media to the Obama campaign.

I suppose there is ONE other possibility; and that is that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden are rude, nasty rat bastards and they simply interrupted their opponents and then kept talking and talking.  But that doesn’t explain why Obama got more time when everybody agrees the man was ANYTHING but aggressive.

And then you add Candy Crowley feeling that urgent need to take Obama’s side in that second debate and, well, when it comes to bias you ought to get the picture in crystal clear, high definition format.

As we enter tonight’s debate, we find that Bob Schieffer literally wrote the book on Ronald Reagan.  The title – Ronald Reagan and the Supporting Players Who Helped Him Create the Illusion That Held America Spellbound ought to convey the arrogant liberal tone of the hit piece.  And Schieffer is also on the record for obsessing over what he demagogues as the GOP obsession.  So it’s not like he’s fair or objective anything.

So Romney starts out with that disadvantage of being a Republican right from the starting gate.  But nothing the media did stopped Romney from using the first debate to mop the floor with Obama’s face.  I mean, when you win a debate by fifty freaking points, you ought to be able to samurai-slice your opponent’s head off his shoulders at the end of the evening.

In the second debate, CNN’s post-debate poll said that Obama won the debate.  But if you actually looked at that poll, Romney won OVERWHELMINGLY on who would better handle the economy, who would better handle health care, who would better handle taxes, who would better handle the deficit and the debt, the answer was Romney across the board.  So unless you don’t care about the economy, or jobs, or debt, or health care, and all you want is a debator-in-chief, Romney won that second debate, hands-down.  And the clearly biased moderator couldn’t help Obama then, either.

I didn’t see  such a post-debate breakdown on issues in this third Obama-Romney debate.  But I do know that, like the second debate, a hardly overwhelming majority believed Obama won according to the CNN poll.

Frankly, I can see that.  Obama was considerably more aggressive, and “somehow” managed to get more time to talk, too.

Romney also could have been better, and after that pathetic first debate we all know that Obama could have been a whole hell of a lot worse.

I’ve got a theory on the debates that seems to fit the facts: namely, the guy in the biggest trouble is the one who comes out the most aggressively.  When Obama came out in debate #1, he had an overwhelming lead in both the national and the swing-state polling.  And Obama apparently decided he didn’t need to show up.  That debate changed the political universe such that in the second debate, it was Obama who was behind and damn he needed to come out and perform or the Romney landslide from debate #1 was going to roll right over his presidency.  The polls didn’t budge, and if anything Romney’s momentum had increased to the point where he went into debate #3 with a six-point lead according to Gallup.  For the record, that Gallup Romney lead is THE most dominent since 1968.  And so sure as shooting, a desperate Obama came out aggressively and ready to be nasty.

I submit that Romney could have won the debate and lost the election if he had focused on being “more aggressive.”

Why would I say that?  Well, there’s a movie I remember called “Poltergeist 2.”  The evil ghost is the Reverend Henry Kane.  He had convinced his followers that the world was going to end, buried them in a cave, and then wouldn’t let them leave to see if his prediction had turned out right such that they all died in their little hell-hole.  That’s basically how Obama wanted to present Mitt Romney: in the guise of, “If you elect my opponent, he will push the nuclear button and start World War 3 and kill you all.”

Romney did not fall for that trap.  He stayed away from being the warmongering ogre that Obama falsely tried to depict him as being.

What Romney DID need to do he accomplished: he presented himself as a man whom the majority of Americans could see as commander-in-chief.  He had to show that he knew enough to be commander-in-chief; he had to show that he wasn’t a warmonger; and he had to appear presidential.  I would argue that he succeeded on all three fronts.

What did Obama have to do?  He had to shatter Romney’s momentum.  And while the next five days will decide rather than me, I submit that Obama failed to do that.

And so the winner is Mitt Romney.

There were other things: Obama’s nastiest and I would say most petty line of the entire evening was when Obama lectured Romney:

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s  changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on  them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Well, the Marines still train with and use the bayonet (as I did as a soldier in the Army):

It’s too damn bad that Obama was too damned ignorant and self-absorbed to send some bayonet-equipped Marines to Libya so they could have saved the lives of our ambassador and the three other Americans who were murdered.

Aand you know what?  Our soldiers still do plenty of horseback riding too, it turns out (and see also here).  Well, and here:

Which is another way of saying pretty stupid fricking analogy, Obama.  And given that Obama himself was so completely IGNORANT of the military as president that he once repeatedly used the term “corpse man” to refer to a Navy medic, I don’t think his asanine arrogant tone has much virtue.

Obama claimed that he didn’t have anything to do with sequestration, that it was all Congress’ idea.  But Bob Woodward – you remember the award-winning journalist who brought down the Nixon administration? – says wrong, Barry Hussein:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Jack Lew and Rob Nabors both work for the Obama White House.  And sequestration was all their – and therefore all Obama’s – idea.  It’s just so fitting that the lying weasel-in-chief would try to disavow that.

In another highly contentious moment, Obama was the liar and Romney was the truth teller.  Romney was correct about his statement that he did in fact argue that the government should have a role in helping the auto companies in bankruptcy.

Truly Amazing Fascism Alert: Obama Promises To Pay Defense Contractors’ Legal Fees If They Will Violate Federal Law So He Can Get Re-elected

October 1, 2012

You first need to understand that there is something called the WARN Act that requires contractors to notify employees 60 days in advance if they will be laid off.

Obama is literally telling contractors, “I want you to violate federal law for me and basically screw your workers by telling them, “Surprise!  You’re laid off!” with absollutely no warning so Obama can get reelected.  Because if 2 million layoff notices go out he’s toast.  And Obama is quite literally saying to the contractors, “If you break the law for me so that I can get reelected before the American people realize what I did to their country, I’ll redistribute taxpayer money to pay for your legal costs when you get sued for breaking the law for me.”

White House to contractors: Hold off on layoff warnings
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoneySeptember 28, 2012: 6:51 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs.

The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

“Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable,” the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

Top CEOs: Fiscal cliff is hurting jobs

Defense contractors in particular have warned for months that the upcoming sequester would cost jobs in their industry. And Lockheed Martin’s CEO has said publicly he may be forced to issue notice this fall of possible layoffs in 2013.

If other contractors follow suit, there could be a rash of layoff notices spooking employees right before Election Day.

Both parties in Congress created the sequester — a series of thoughtless, automatic, across-the-board cuts — as a way to force their hand to agree on a more gradual bipartisan debt-reduction plan.

Well, that hasn’t happened yet. And if lawmakers can’t agree on how to replace the sequester soon, the cuts become effective on Jan. 2.

Gee, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not qualified to offer legal advice blah blah blah, but isn’t it kind of blatently illegal for the government to proactively offer to cover legal costs to encourage company to violate federal law for partisan political motivations?  Not that such trivialities matter in Nazi Germany or anything…

I think Obama should come out and blame these layoffs on that anti-Muhammad Youtube video.

What is the purpose of the WARN Act?  It is to give workers who are facing layoffs time to look for another job so they can have a chance to pay their mortgages and feed their families.  Obama is saying, “I don’t care about the workers and their rights; I am the messiah and my campaign is far more important.”

So these companies are legally required to send out these notices 60 days before January 1, 2013, so that the 2.14 million workers who are about to be laid off can at least send out some resumes.  But not now; thanks to Obama and his endless campaigning, the layoff will be a big surprise.  And Obama is saying, “If you will violated the law and screw your workers for me, I’ll make sure the taxpayers cover your legal expenses when these enraged workers sue you because you broke the law as I told you to do.”  Which amounts to a massive campaign donation to Obama from the taxpayers to help Obama get reelected.

As I just got through pointing out, the sequestration and the gutting of the defense industry that will create these layoffs was Obama’s idea.  Further, as I pointed out, Obama has already gone on the record stating that he would VETO any manuever to prevent the defense industry from being gutted that will require these 2.14 million layoffs.

So this is nothing more than yet another example of Obama refusing to be held accountable for his failed policies by the American people whom he is hurting.

Barack Obama Is About To Cost America ANOTHER 2 Million Jobs – In Addition To The 4 Million He’s Already Destroyed – And Throw The Nation Into A Depression

October 1, 2012

Who’s to blame for sequestration?

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

Obama has also categorically stated that he will veto any attempt to avoid sequestration.

Just to document that sequestration was the Obama White House’s idea to force Republicans into an impossible position.  And the consequences of it will be entirely Obama’s fault.

Now the impact of Obama’s sequestration:

Sequestration will cost 2.14 million jobs, study says
By Charles S. Clark
July 17, 2012

Shutterstock.com

Severe, across-the-board budget cuts slated to kick in January 2013 would cause a sharp uptick in both federal and private sector unemployment, according to an academic report commissioned by the Aerospace Industries Association and released Tuesday.

According to the study of the economic impact of the 2011 Budget Control Act on the Defense Department and other federal agencies, the budget-cutting tool known as sequestration would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product by $215 billion, decrease personal earnings of the workforce by $109.4 billion and cost the economy 2.14 million jobs—with the most severe impact coming in 2013 in what is shaping up to be a continually weak economy. Sequestration will trigger automatic cuts on Jan. 2, unless Congress can agree on an alternative savings plan.

The projections, compiled by George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller, were unveiled at a Capitol Hill news conference attended by two senators and two big-city mayors, with the lawmakers’ expressing opposing views on the key question of whether new tax revenues are needed in crafting a long-term and bipartisan deficit reduction plan.

Spending cuts of $56.7 billion for defense “would result in the loss of 325,693 direct jobs, including 48,147 civilian DoD employees,” the report said. A loss of $59 billion for non-Defense agencies could cost 420,529 jobs with an estimated 229,116 jobs or 54.5 percent of these direct job losses consisting of federal workers.

“Non-DoD cutbacks would have a much greater direct impact on federal employment than DoD budget reductions,” it said, because the bulk of the Pentagon’s budget goes to procurement while the lion’s share of spending at other agencies goes toward payroll.

“As a consequence of sequestration, GDP growth in 2013 will be reduced by two-thirds and unemployment will increase by as much as 1.5 percentage points, raising the current national rate above 9 percent,” the report warned.

The hardest hit would be California, Virginia and Texas, with most states taking five-digit job losses.

These job loss projections show a “dependence of state economies on federal spending,” Fuller said. “It certainly undercuts the strength of the economy and translates into a whole lot of losses for businesses that drive the economy.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., ranking member of the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, said she hoped the prospects of such job losses would be a “clarifying event” and an “eye-opener,” especially if legally required layoff notices are sent out this fall to contractor employees just before the national elections. “But we can come up with alternative ways to reduce spending, and it can be bipartisan,” she said.

Though Republicans already have agreed to “some revenues, raising taxes on the high-income taxpayers would harm the economy,” Ayotte added. “It’s important that we not play chicken with national security or our economy.”

Her state counterpart, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., took a different tack. “No one thinks sequestration is the way we should reduce the deficit, but it should press us to take action,” she said, praising the study for focusing not only on defense but also on the entire economy. “Backing off from tough choices is not the way.”

Instead of pitting defense against domestic spending, Shaheen argued for keeping reforms to mandatory spending, as well as new tax revenues on the table. “The answer is a long-term solution—otherwise, we will be back in a year and again after that,” she said. “It’s not that we don’t know what to do, it’s that we need the political will.”

Shaheen described the rejected Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan as a “roadmap in front of us,” and she cited comments by former New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg suggesting that revenues could be tapped by reforming tax expenditures.

The impact of the projected budget cuts on states and localities was stressed at the press conference by Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

Stanton said sequestration “would likely put Arizona in a recession,” and implored Congress “not to wait for a lame duck session, which is not relevant to the American people.”

Sanders, noting that San Diego boasts the country’s largest military population with one of four jobs defense-related, said rather than pursuing “arbitrary, politically motivated cuts to national defense,” Congress should “target spending cuts where they have the least impact on the public.”

Marion C. Blakey, president and chief executive officer of the Aerospace Industries Association, which has coordinated a campaign against sequestration called Second to None, said, “unless our leaders in Washington take action, massive cuts have the potential to impact everyone from the defense worker to teachers, health care professionals, government employees and beyond.”

For the record, I said “Obama is about to cost America ANOTHER 2 million jobs” because he has already cost America 4 million jobs with his failed policies Reuters states it categorically:

Economists, analyzing government data, estimate about 4 million fewer people are in the labor force than in December 2007, primarily due to a lack of jobs rather than the normal aging of America’s population. The size of the shift underscores the severity of the jobs crisis.

The labor participation rate – which measures the people who actually have jobs – has shrunk year by year and literally even month by month throughout Obama’s failed presidency.  It is now at its lowest level in over 31 years and shrinking fast.

Household incomes have plunged 8.2 percent since Obama took office.  Home sales which the media claimed were going up are plunging back down.  The word “plunged’ is literally being used to durable goods orders, which just took a MASSIVE plunge.  Fully 69 percent of small business owners are stating that Obama’s policies have hurt them.  And 55 percent of them say they would NOT start a business today and blame Obama as the reason.  Which is why small business start-ups has catastrophically plunged to a thirty year low.

I think of the haunting words of Stephen Laurent:

I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

On November 6, you will vote to save or destroy 2 million jobs.  You will vote to save or destroy not only the United States military, but the United States economy.  We are about to find out if bad people now truly outnumber decent people in America; because only bad people would vote for a president who has been this despicable.  If you vote for Barack Obama, you and your family deserve to suffer.  And mark my words suffer they will.

WHEN Is This Evil Clown Going To Be Done Destroying America? With An Ambassador Murdered, Obama Plans To Cut $131 Million From Embassy Security

September 17, 2012

This is just so far beyond nuts I have nothing to say aside from letting the story speak for itself:

Obama to Cut 131 Million Dollars from Embassy Security
Posted by Daniel Greenfield on Sep 16th, 2012

You have to give Obama credit, this is a man who knows how to deal with a crisis. Some nut like Mitt Romney would run around shooting Muslims from the hip, but Obama meets with his advisers and dutifully studies ways to make each and every crisis that much worse. Because that’s what good government is.

Obama’s Sequestration Plan Would Cut $1.084 Billion From The State Department’s Diplomatic And Consular Program, Including $2 Million For The Protection Of Foreign Missions And Officials, And $129 Million For Embassy Security, Construction, And Maintenance. (“OMB Report Pursuant To The Sequestration Transparency Act Of 2012,” Office Of Management And Budget, pp. 135-136, 9/14/12)

Err what do embassies need security for anyway? What are the real odds of a bunch of Muslim Jihadists deciding to carry out a series of embassy attacks timed with September 11? Also who needs 20,000 Marines, let’s cut that money and put it into Solyandra and free condoms for Catholic schools.

But that’s okay. Stop looking at the negative and focus on the positive.

I know the images on our televisions are disturbing. But let us never forget that for every angry mob, there are millions who yearn for the freedom, and dignity, and hope that our flag represents. That is the cause of America – the ideals that took root in our founding; the opportunity that drew so many to our shores; and the awesome progress that we have promoted all across the globe.

There’s a silver lining for every cloud. For every Muslim who is burning an American embassy, there’s a Muslim yearning to move to America and bomb our bars, planes and Christmas tree lighting events.

Who needs security anyway?

Do you know who DOES get a full security detail?  Obama’s political adviser.  For the first time in history.  Because unlike Chris Stevens, Valerie Jarrett is trying to get Obama reelected.  And that makes her important.

I’m guessing that Ambassador Christopher Stevens would vote differently, if he could vote:

Fortuntely for Obama, Christopher Stevens can’t vote any more.  Because he’s too dead to vote.

He’s the first US ambassador to be murdered since … get ready for this: since the damn CARTER ADMINISTRATION:

Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian’s office.

Because the lesson of history is that abject pathetic weakness invariably repeats itself.

An American ambassador who had been forced to flee American territory because there was no protection was raped before he was murdered.  Then his body was dragged through the streets in shame.  Not his shame – mine.  Yours.  America’s.

All of the above happened because Obama’s State Department rules banned the Marines from being in Libya.  Which was why all Ambassador Stevens had to protect him was magic unicorn fairy Obama messiah powder.  Like his country, he needed hope and change in the worst way and Obama failed to deliver.

But don’t worry.  Obama had his State Department working overtime to scrub their website of evidence of what a pathetic fool he is.  And the mainstream media worked even harder to demonize Mitt Romney for speaking out about what a gutless piece of filth Obama was instead of bothering to report any of the damn story.

New York Times Woefully Examines The Likelihood Of Another Republican Asskicking House Election In 2012. Then Consider The Implications For Obama.

July 30, 2012

This caught my eye, given all the various predictions and hand-wringing over all the many polls:

For House Democrats 2012 will be at least as bad as 2010, but chances are it will be worse
By Kevin “Coach” Collins, on July 28th, 2012

“If this were just our candidates versus their candidates, I would sign an affidavit that we would pick up 35 seats” so says Congressman Steve Israel the Democrat in charge of getting the House back. This false bravado sums up a big part of the Democrats’ problem: not being able to acknowledge there is a problem.

A hand wringing New York Times analysis lays out the grim situation for its Party:

“The overall dynamic favors Republicans, who look poised to maintain their hold on the House. More Democrats than Republicans have retired in districts where they were endangered, and more Republicans benefited from the decennial redistricting, leaving the Democrats with too small a cushion of Teflon incumbents as they try to regain a majority in the House. Of the 80 races viewed as most competitive by The New York Times, based on polls and interviews with independent analysts, 32 are leaning Republican, 23 are leaning Democratic and 25 are tossups.”

The reality is that these numbers indicate the GOP is poised to win over 50 of these race and maybe more. Because of the cumulative effect of both elections this would be worse than 2010 for the Democrats who could see their numbers fall to the fewest since 1931.

Why this will happen

With less than four months to go compared to 2008 conservative Republican enthusiasm is 16 points higher and liberal Democrat enthusiasm is 22 points lower.

Democrats from local candidates to Barack Obama have no coherent plausible message.

Together they have made America sick so what can they say?

They can’t even keep their “We hate” list straight. They’ve tried to get their base to hate Bain Capital, but couldn’t make their charges stick because they are lies. They’re still trying to get their base to hate the TEA party but every charge they make is a lie so it falls flat. Now they are telling their Christian base to hate Christian doctrine and love Democrats which is also doomed to failure.

There is no group Obama lost in 2008 that he is winning now and no group (not even African Americans) he won in 2008 that he is doing better with today. Now that voters have a clearer idea of what he is all about, Barack Obama will be an even bigger drag on his Party this year than he was in 2010 when the GOP took 63 seats in a landslide not seen since 1938.

Americans are NOT going to the polls to vote against Barack Obama then vote for a Democrat in their Congressional district as Mister Israel fantasizes. Come November Democrat policies will sink them in large numbers.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

To reach your Congressional representative, use this link:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/politics/republicans-and-democrats-fight-for-control-of-the-house.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

To read about how hypocritical the Democrats have been over the past 200 years. Get you copy of Coach’s new book Crooks Thugs and bigots: the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party available at:http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

Here is the map the New York Times created.  It is interactive if you go to the article available (again) here:

I admit, it might be my eyes are messed up or something.  But I don’t see the blue tidal wave of adoration for Obama.  I see the red of a bunch or Republicans rising up in righteous outrage.

We’re seeing a lot of polls coming out that apparently favor Obama.  They have two major weaknesses:

1) Flawed polling methodology.  Recently we had a poll that had Obama up by six points over Romney.  What you have to dig a little more into is the fact that the poll had a sampling distribution that favored Democrats by 11 points over Republicans.  That’s a 2008 model.  Well, please understand: 2008 went bye-bye for Obama.  He’s simply not going to have the sort of overwhelming Democrat tide that he had in 2008 – and any polling methodology that assumes he will is deeply flawed and in fact biased.

When we can routinely point to polls that skew toward Democrats by seventeen points, we can point to an invalid poll.

2) Voter turnout.  I’m not hearing predictions that Democrats will vote for Romney in substantial numbers the way we had “Reagan Democrats.”  The question is, how energized are Democrats to show up and vote?  The fact of the matter is that voter enthusiasm was ALL in Democrats’ favor in 2008 – and the fact of the matter is that it is now a mirror image with the same levels of enthusiasm now favoring Republicans.  The most heavily Democrat voter groups such as blacks and youth are already showing a substantial enthusiasm gap which predict that they will NOT turn out the way they did in 2008.

Fittingly, Democrats have been dropping out in such droves rather than be seen with Obama that Nancy Pelosi has suggested that Democrats should just skip the whole damn thing altogether:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi says Democratic members should stay home and campaign in their districts rather than go to the party’s national convention in North Carolina.

“I’m not encouraging anyone to go to the convention, having nothing to do with anything except I think they should stay home, campaign in their districts, use their financial and political resources to help them win their election,” Pelosi said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO Live’s “On Congress,” a new weekly show to be streamed live on POLITICO’s website and broadcast on NewsChannel 8 on Wednesdays.

Someone might be able to correct me, but I find this historic. I don’t believe any party leader has ever called for that party to abandon their own national convention.

To add insult to injury for Democrats, the labor unions that form the backbone of the Democrat Party machine are literally planning on holding their own convention and tuning out the DNC Convention in North Carolina:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three weeks before the Democratic National Convention this summer, union leaders plan to hold their own “shadow convention” to promote labor issues they believe too many elected officials are ignoring.

The union gathering in Philadelphia on Aug. 11 was inspired by the anger many labor officials felt after Democrats decided to stage their nominating convention in North Carolina, a right-to-work state that is the least unionized in the country.

Most unions are still planning to attend the Charlotte, N.C., convention, but more than a dozen are boycotting it. Other unions are not spending big money on the convention as they have in the past.

Does this sound positive for Democrats?  And compare these developments to when Obama was parading around as “the messiah” at the enormous 2008 Democratic National Convention with an ostentatatious Grecian Temple platform to magnify his wonderful wonderfulness.

Numerous polls are assuming it’s Obama messiah magic all over again with their assumptions, but reality seems to be screaming a very different message.

Here’s another example: Democrats are refusing to pay their dues to the Democrat Party to the tune of a full third of the entire caucus not paying ANYTHING to go with an even larger group who have only paid a portion:

Prying open members’ fists is an election year ritual for leaders of both parties, but Democrats contend this time around has been particularly frustrating. Facing a team of deep-pocketed Republican outside groups poised to swamp them in TV ad spending — and with the party not benefiting from the kind of wave conditions that lifted Republicans two years ago — Democrats say the stinginess of their lawmakers has left them severely weakened as the fall campaign season approaches.

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

The push hasn’t had much success. As of June 30, 64 Democrats — around one-third of the entire caucus — hadn’t paid anything to the DCCC, according to a party document provided to POLITICO. Another 109 members had paid only a portion of what they owe in dues, which are calculated based on seniority and committee assignments.

In June, GOP members flooded the National Republican Congressional Committee with nearly $6.4 million. The DCCC secured just $1.8 million from Democratic lawmakers.

THAT is a Democrat enthusiasm gap.  This isn’t a happy, enthused, energized party saying let’s work together to win with and for our messiah.  This is a bunch of professional politicians who see a lot of numbers that the rest of us don’t get to see who are saying in several important ways, “It’s every DemocRAT for himself.”

To other factors promise to make what Democrats are already seeing as really, really bad even WORSE:

1) Money.  Obama raised more money in 2008 than any politician in the entire history of the world.  Guess what’s happened since?  Obama has alienated and frankly enraged many of the deep pockets that he won in 2008 with his lies and empty promises and meaningless rhetoric.  The advantage is now on Romney’s side.  Obama is going deep into the hole now to spend money while Romney is unable to open the floodgates until he is the official GOP nominee, but come August Romney will be able to release the hounds on Obama.  Obama has been attempting – apparently without much success – to demonize Romney and “frame” him before he is able to spend money to answer all the lies in all the bogus Obama ads.  If Romney is able to weather this storm, the worm will begin to turn come August after the GOP Convention.

2) The economy.  Job growth is slowing to so far below the threshold needed just to keep up with population growth it isn’t funny.  We just saw that GDP growth is so meager that we are very close to stall speed and a dreaded double-dip recession.  Consumer confidence is plunging.  Record numbers of Americans are on food stamps compared to any other time in US history and we’ve got more Americans filing for disability than we’ve got Americans getting jobs.  This is by far and away the WEAKEST and most miserable “recovery” in US history because Obama’s policies are so wrong and he simply will not LET the economy recover.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the economy will get any better between now and election day and damn GOOD reason to believe it will be getting WORSE.  Nouriel Roubini, an economist who is famous for having predicted the 2008 economic implosion, believes that the economy will get WORSE.  Economist Peter Morici is writing about a soon-coming economic collapse.

That’s the real record Obama is running on: from bad to worse.

Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, there is absolutely no way the CIA and the SEALs could have got Obama.  Why?  Because getting bin Laden was a miracle, and only messiah Obama could possibly have ever performed this miracle.  Obama is running on the assertion that if George W. Bush were still president, the US economy would still be losing 700,000 jobs a month, and only messiah Obama had the superhuman wisdom to lead America to the worst “recovery” in the history of the nation.  The only way “pathetic” can be viewed as “glorious” is if we ignore the reality that 1) no recession has EVER lasted forever and it wouldn’t have lasted forever if George Bush were president, either, and that 2) that most US recessions last less than 18 months with 3) recoveries generally being the strongest when the recessions have been deepest.  Which is to say that if Obama wasn’t an abject failure we’d have GDP growth of 10 percent the way we did when Ronald Reagan was running en route to a landslide re-election.

Obama has to ignore all of that.  He has to say, “This economic holocaust that you see all around you is really a Utopia.  And the Promised Land is right around the corner, ye herd of mindless animals.”

All that said, I’m not going to predict that Mitt Romney wins in a landslide.  Or even that he wins at all.

Why?  Because this is God damn America, just like I told you it would be back in November 4 of 2008.  God damn America is not a land of wise and good people; no, it is a land of fools and wicked people.  And fools and wicked people pursue their own destruction until God gives it to them the way they deserve.

If we re-elect Obama – and 2008 proved there are more than enough fools and wicked people to pull it off – we will get the fools’ end that we demand God give us.

It’s going to come fast, too.  Because Taxmageddon is coming.  And given that the Republicans are going to retake the House, if Obama wins, every American will find himself or herself paying taxes right out of their ass.  And given that pretty much every economist agrees that “taxmageddon” will amount to a double-dip recession, the re-election of Obama will amount to a double-dip recession.  And America will deserve it in spades.

The sequestration that is also looming over America because Barack Obama is a fool and a failure who cannot and will not lead are another nuclear trigger for this double-dip recession: as many as 1.53 million defense sector workers will get their pink slips right before and right after the election unless Obama pulls his skull out of his ass.  And given that Obama has had his skull up his ass his entire life, that isn’t very likely.  Instead, Obama has actually promised to veto any attempt to keep these 1.53 million workers employed.  Which makes the 100,000 jobs that Obama has already pissed away with his idiotic radical environmentalist lobby-owned killing of the Keystone Pipeline look like chump change.

Democrats are already firmly on record vowing to take America off the fiscal cliff unless Republicans abandon all sanity and join them in their Marxist class warfare against job creators and investors:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery, Published: July 15, Washington Post
Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Either everybody should get a tax cut or everybody should get taxed up the wazoo.  If you think that somebody else ought to have their taxes raised, YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR TAXES RAISED.  By the measure that ye judged, YE shall be judged.  You want someone else to pay so you can skate?  You should be taxed until you can’t feed your kids; you should be taxed until you can’t make your house payments; you should be taxed until your car is repossessed.  All of you wicked fools should get both barrels of what you want to inflict on other people.

The only great thing about Mitt Romney is that he is not Barack Hussein Obama.

I’m not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney in any other respect.  His entire career is of being a liberal-leaning moderate – contrary to the demonic Obama ads that depict him as some kind of fire-breathing rightwing conservative fanatic.  But I am TOTALLY enthusiastic about ridding this nation of the scourge of the worst president in our entire history.  And I will crawl out of my death bed through broken glass to vote for Romney for that very reason.