The Impact of Osama Bin Laden’s Death – Election of 2012 & Obama Approval Rating

Bin Laden's death may in the end have few political implications for Barack Obama. Possibly because at the heart of it, many of Obama's supporters don't really care about prosecuting the War on Terror.

The Mississippi River is flooding in Tennessee and other river bearing states this week, and the results have been catastrophic. Thankfully, the river’s flooding in Memphis has recently crested. So too, it seems has the bounce President Obama received from the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. The one negative that many feared might result from the killing of Bin Laden on Obama’s watch was that it might have ensured Obama’s re-election in 2012, and the continuation of the policies that will destroy the America that the porn-aholic Bin Laden fought so very hard against (possibly aiming to conquer America to plunder its many porn-stars).

In any case, an Obama re-election would be more catastrophic to America than any flood ever could be. There is hope, however. According to the most accurate pollster in the business (Rasmussen–can’t argue with the results), Obama’s approval rating in the wake of OBL’s kill shots went from 46% to 51%. However, that 51% has within the last week deflated to 47%, well within the margin of error for a 0% bump.

Notably, Obama’s attempts to milk the Osama execution for a public relations bonanza had meager effects upon those who strongly support the president, a rating which still stands at 25%, up only 5% from its all-time low last month. The bigger difference has proved to be in those who strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance as president. That number stands now at 37%, which is a significant drop from the 46% who strongly disapproved not long ago.

Ultimately, the Bin Laden bounce may be fleeting and if anything, it has not increased the support of his base. For now, it seems that it has succeeded in blunting the growing discord among independents. For how long remains to be seen, but those numbers of people who strongly disapprove is again rising, and opposition to Obama on issues like healthcare and the economy remain strong enough catalysts once the campaign rhetoric elevates again to November 2010 levels to reignite those calling for Obama’s ouster. After all, Bin Laden’s blood will not fill anyone’s gas tank.

But, about that ouster… Though Obama’s poll numbers still reflect intense vulnerability in 2012, there does not appear to be any strong Republican candidate to exploit Obama’s foundering. Obama polls barely above a generic Republican challenger in polling taken even after the Bin Laden success, and well below the hallowed 50% mark. However, when any of the major announced Republican challengers’ names are attached to those same polls, Obama’s numbers jump over 50% and it is not even close. Not good. That may be a remnant of the short lived Bin Laden bounce, but it still doesn’t look very good when your real candidate lags far behind the hypothetical generic candidate. It means the brand is good but the personalities are not.

The greatest obstacle to defeating Obama is the Republican baggage that we are currently stuck with in the primary race. The great thing for Democrats about Obama in 2008 was that he was a blank slate. The people who voted for him could make him into whoever they wanted him to be, because he had no paper trail. That is what we need now. We don’t need resurgent politicians from 20 years ago, we need Herman Cains, Marco Rubios, Allen Wests, Chris Christies and Bobby Jindals. No baggage. No B.S.

They have all refused to run thus far, rightly estimating that they are probably not ready to be president. The thing that they may refuse to see is that Barack Obama was not ready to be president either, and is still not ready. A Marco Rubio candidacy is a winning one, and it wouldn’t even be close. The candidates running right now are good guys, sure, but I don’t see anyone yet that has the energy to run the race that needs to be run. Surprise me, Republicans.

-David

Thoughts on the Winners and Losers of the South Carolina GOP Primary Debate

1. Herman Cain – Winner. The most interesting and well spoken candidate, and an outsider among insiders. A strong defense of the Fair Tax and excellent answers all around.

2. Sen. Rick Santorum – Winner.  A Close second. Very good answers. Great defense of the position that fiscal and social conservatism, as well as liberty are intricately linked. He was pressed on his social conservatism and made a spirited defense.

3. Gov. Tim Pawlenty – Loser.  Too polished. Has Mitt Romney-itis, in that he does not come off as genuine, but has less resources. An animatronic candidate may have been a suitable replacement. Had some answers that he was a little too prepared for. Dodged questions where answering honestly might hurt him. His record as a moderate precedes him.

4. Rep. Ron Paul – Winner.  Paul has many good points and it is unfortunate that he isn’t taken more seriously. However, his supporters are often nuts which leads to his marginalization as a joke candidate. Additionally, the things that Rep. Paul is wrong on are critical to national security.

5. Gov. Gary Johnson – Loser.  Poor. Not viable, using his own words (referencing his support of abortion). His candidacy should be terminated immediately to prevent further embarrassment.

Knee-Jerks

Knee Jerks, clockwise: Michael Bloomberg, Clarence Dupnik and Mike NiFong. These guys have a tendency not to think before they accuse--usually for political motives.

The unfortunate, evil and tragic recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona that killed six, including a nine year old girl and a federal judge and wounded fourteen, including Rep. Gabby Giffords shocked the nation. Americans of all sorts mourned a senseless tragedy that by all objective accounts had nothing to do with politics. Within hours of the incident however, reports and stories began streaming from the mainstream media outlets and uniformed politicians and pundits that some political rhetoric, mostly from conservatives like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and probably yours truly was what inspired Jared Loughner, who by all objective accounts was, if anything, politically left of center (atheist, drug abuser, 9/11 Truther, devotee of the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf), to attack moderate Democrat Giffords. It became clear at that time that there was a small contingent of shady political operatives who weren’t shocked by the shooting. They were ready.

Truth – The Most Dangerous Deception

It is said that one of the most powerful tools the devil has is that of using truth to tear down.  Perhaps this is true.  Of all the untruths president Obama has foisted upon the American people in the dismal two years since he was inaugurated, it is perhaps the truths that he utters that are the most deceptive and dangerous. Like, when on the campaign trail, Obama told Americans that 95% of Americans would see a net tax decrease during his Administration, he didn’t tell you that he’d simply change the names of his tax increases to something else entirely, like credits, fees, fines and caps. No one in America would pay less, unless that is, you were one of the 49% of tax-payers who, uh, didn’t actually pay any taxes to begin with!

When Obama reassured America that “”If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.” Obama was technically being truthful, though artfully so. In the two years since Obama assumed office (and his dubious distinction of being the first socialist president in American history), my health-insurance premiums, like those of many of my colleagues, have tripled. My deductibles have tripled, and my co-pays have increased five-fold. In fact, as my wife and I were examining our Open Enrollment options, it became readily clear that this year for the first time it would probably make more financial sense for us to go without health insurance at all.

But of course, this was the Obama plan all along: “Yes, you can technically keep your health care, *snicker, snicker*, if you like it. Obamacare will not force you into a public option, *suckers*. By no means will you have to leave your insurer, if you like them. *Instead, we will just make it incredibly stupid to carry private health-insurance by raising the operating costs on your insurance company to unsustainable levels*”

Thank you so much, President Barry.  Isn’t this what we’ve been warning of all along?

NPR, Senate Races & Thought of the Day

Karl Rove (pictured), Charles Krauthammer and other conservatives' relationship with the conservative wing in the Republican Party is damaged because the conservative wing does not root for the Republican Party, win lose or draw, regardless of what it stands for.

NPR – GARBAGE NEWS

• So, I am scanning through my FM stations while driving through downtown Knoxville yesterday, and I happened to be unfortunate enough to stumble upon the local National Public Radio station.  All Things Considered, a poor excuse for a radio program, was in the midst of a piece about Democrat Representative Betty Sutton of Ohio’s 13th Congressional District.  The whiny rag by Robert Siegel lamented that she is in a unexpectedly tight race against Republican Tom Ganley, due to the tsunami of discontent with pseudo-socialist policies being rammed down Americans’ throats–ehh, that last part was paraphrased.  In any case, the district is supposed to be safe for Democrats, according to political scientist Dave Cohen: “This is a seat that should not be in play. This is a seat that should be on nobody’s radar… [and the reason] is that a few years ago, a very popular Democratic Congressman here was making noises about running for Governor, against then-Republican Governor Bob Taft.  The Republicans were in the process of re-districting…and so, the Republicans decided to make this district more safe for him as an encouragement for him to stay right there in the U.S. Congress and not challenge Taft for the governorship.” (NPR)

• This tale by the ever-so-objective NPR reminded me of a minute fact that I’d run across regarding gerrymandering of Congressional Districts.  Not only do Democrats gerrymander to make Democrat seats safer, Republicans do the same for their Democrat colleagues!  So much so, in fact, that a Slate article last year documented the most gerrymandered districts in America.  Finding?  Well, by golly, apparently 16 of the 20 most gerrymandered districts in America belong to those ethically inebriated Democrats!  Including none other than everyone’s favorite Banking Committee Chairman, Barney ‘F’ Frank…  Not surprising at all, actually, now that I think of it.

ON DELAWARE AND THE REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION

• Mike Castle is exactly the type of Republican that the establishment Republicans told us in 2008 that the Party needed to become.  This, after the ‘transformative’ election of Barack Obama.  I remember it all over the punditry; gleeful accounts of conservatism’s hull, creaking and bowing, the last gasp before breaking up completely and sinking to the bottom of the proverbial ocean.  Now, they said, the Colin Powells, Lindsey Grahams and Al DaMatos and the rest of the Rockefeller Republicans could paddle out in their dinghies, to take back the Party–or the junk heap that would be left–preferably as a permanent minority–y’know, all the golfing and celebrity benefits but none of the responsibility.  The old Republicans that “got stuff done”, but never did anything?  Those ones.  We work best as a permanent majority, right?

• Think back.  Which types of candidates are the first to be ousted from office in liberal leaning states like Delaware when Republican electoral momentum wanes?  Is it the right-wing Christine O’Donnell types, or the moderate Mike Castle ones?  The conservative fire-brands or the squishy liberals?  Of course, everyone remembers how in 2006 and 2008 all of those right wing Republicans were thrown out on their kiesters in places like Rhode Island and Ohio…  Err, wait, I think it was the other way around…  It was the liberal Republicans, like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Mike DeWine in Ohio, Ted Stevens in Alaska, Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and a long list of other moderate to liberal Republicans who lost their jobs.  Not those crazy conservatives.

• In any case, we are now to believe that conservatives are best served by nominating John McCains, Lisa Murkowskis, Charlie Crists, Mike Castles and other liberal establishment Republicans.  We’re told this by…  establishment…  Republicans…  Hmm.  In any case, these guys lose elections, they don’t win them–and if they do win, they don’t do a darned bit of good from a policy perspective, a la six years from 2000-2006 under Republican control when we got nothing done of note.  Karl Rove is the most ardent of the numbers guys to espouse this notion, that nominating moderates who presumably stand a better chance of getting elected gives Republicans just barely enough seats for majority power.  True?  Maybe, yeah.  But what kind of power?  Will those moderates go along with policy initiatives to enact real, tangible conservative changes?  The kind that work?  No.  They won’t.  But Republicans will get Chairmanships and Speakerships back, short term, and long term we will lose elections, because moderate policies suck.  And, if you follow political parties like you do your favorite football team–that is, rooting for them to win, sans ideological investment–then that is great (hello D.C. establishment, talkin’ ’bout you!).  And that is what Karl Rove is.  He is a good guy, don’t get me wrong, and it was a pleasure working under him.  But he is a math guy.  His job is to get Republicans power–not to enact transformative changes.  To right America’s current wrongs, we need transformative people.  Not Mike Castles.  Isn’t it about time to let the unelectable likes of Sharon Angle, Scott Brown, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Joe Miller, Bob McDonnell, Marco Rubio and Christine O’Donnell have a shot at this thing?  I think so.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY

• Representation without taxation is more nefarious than taxation without representation.  The latter depends merely on the good intentions of the few, wherein a benevolent oligarchy may in fact benefit the people, for a time.  The former empowers the tyranny of the mob, and falls victim to the Law of Averages in regard to human nature, ensuring misery for all.

-David

Supreme Court Observations:

Separated at birth? Forget whether Elana Kagan is gay or not--the real question is whether she is a stealth candidate... That is, Kevin James in disguise!

Judge Judy for Supreme Court. She has everything Obama is searching for in a Justice: minority status, humble beginnings, no qualifications and celebrity. Let the affirmative action checklist begin!

Arizona is Fine—What’s the Matter With the Rest of You?

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed the now infamous immigration law S.B. 1070, liberals and race baiters sprang to their feet in feigned outrage. SNL, Jon Stewart, CNN and every liberal politician to the man, decried the “Nazi-like” aspects of the new law, which they claimed would lead to racial profiling and Third Reich-style requirements for ethnic minorities to carry their papers and produce them on demand. News outlets and dilettantes on the left all began to ask the tongue in cheek question: What’s the matter with Arizona?

When the Phoenix Suns changed their uniforms this week they did so to pander to Phoenix's largely Latino population. The MLB's threat to boycott Arizona over their immigration law is all about the bottom line--many Major League Stars are from Central America or are Latino--what is the excuse for the American Left?

Ivory tower leftists across the country immediately joined in unison to decry the bigoted law, celebrities sciolistically spoke out in opposition against the knuckle-draggers in the Copper State, San Francisco and other moonbattish municipalities threatened to boycott Arizona, the Phoenix Suns issued solidarity uniforms in support of illegal Latinos and Major League Baseball’s Bud Selig began considering canceling the 2010 All-Star game, which is to be held in Phoenix. But the real reason for the political reaction to the new law? The sagging poll numbers of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats, of course. Cue pragmatic scheming and populist demagoguery from the usual characters–Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Keith Olbermann, and CNN/MSNBC, ABC, etc.

Who Are the True Radicals?

Here we can see the peaceful dissent exercised by moonbat protesters at the G-20 in Pittsburgh.

Fringe. Racist. Monochromatic. Astro-turf. Timothy McVeigh Wannabes. Teabaggers. Circus act. Cult. These are the epithets used by liberals in the last year to describe the grassroots movement that was ignited after Obama was elected as a moderate and immediately began governing as a leftist in 2009. Liberals who inexplicably, after eight years under Bush revering dissent as the highest form of patriotism, have suddenly become offended by the unpatriotic assembly of citizens to protest taxes.  This has all been part of a narrative that the left has tried to sow in the media and in the minds of the silent majority. The problem is that the silent majority is actually the Tea Party that the aim to denigrate so.

Last month, as the health care bill was being forced down America’s throat, Congressional Democrats locked arms in some type of faux-civil rights march and traipsed across the Mall and through throngs of Tea Party protesters to vote. Of course, the objective was to incite the Tea Partiers into violence or aggression of some kind in order to sway public opinion back toward the tyrants. Unfortunately for Democrats, Tea Partiers, unlike their liberal counterparts, were quite docile. So much so, in fact, that John Lewis, Barney Frank and other Democrats had to make up claims of insulting words and spitting incidents that video evidence later proved were never hurled from the Tea Partiers to the Looney Toons.

A.C.O.R.N. – A Really Bad Sci-Fi Flick

The ACORN doesn't fall far from the tree. Fellow former community organizer Barack Obama has worked closely with ACORN during his campaign but has since distanced himself from the extra-legal organization.

In June 2009, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN (every evil brotherhood deserves a menacing acronym), stood as an imposing, shadowy edifice in ‘communities’ across the nation.  For years, and especially in the 2008 elections, the non-profit and federally funded ACORN  (up to $2 billion!) mobilized up to 400,000 liberal activists in varied liberal lobbying projects and had been involved in myriad thinly veiled voter fraud disguised as ‘get-out-the-vote’ efforts. Now, don’t get all hot and bothered, I am not nutty enough to insinuate that Obama’s 2008 election was rigged.  No doubt, Barry’s margin of victory was padded by the Dallas Cowboys’ roster, Mickey Mouse, illegal immigrants, college students and homeless people voting multiple times in multiple swing states, but Obama’s electoral victory, as unfathomable and mind numbing as it is, was the result of real Americans, going to real ballot boxes and somehow managing to poke and prod and, possibly even read and reason their way into voting for Barack Obama.

Passing Gas

Sprinkles believe that with the wave of a magic wand and some of their magic health care dust, the world will instantly become a better place. They are wrong.

With the passing by the House Sunday and signing by the president Tuesday of the Democrats’ long suffering health care bill, liberal Democrats have enacted a far reaching power grab which represents one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history, and will likely cause a whole lot more suffering.  I have, in turn, taken to calling liberal Democrats who supported the bill by what they are:  ‘sprinkles.’  Sprinkles, like fairy tale, uh, fairies, run around sprinkling their magic pixie dust on everything and everyone they can get their hands on, promising unicorns to all and pots of gold to the middle class.  Like the sprites in fairy tales, Sprinkles’ magic dust doesn’t actually exist; and therein lies the problem.

In actuality, Sprinkles’ health care bill, passed surreptitiously in the night during March Madness while many Americans were distracted or asleep, will not have a fairy tale ending, but will lead America down a dangerous, nightmarish path toward the horror genre.   To call this new law socialist operationally is probably not appropriate.  Socialism is the goal, to be sure, as Obama and other Sprinkles have openly stated, and this bill is intended to lead us to single payer health care.  However, with the bill’s mandate for all Americans to purchase private insurance, the insurance companies become utilities of the state; not owned by the government, but run by the government.  As defined in the dictionary, fascism in part is any movement or governing ideology “that favors dictatorial government” or “centralized control of private enterprise.”  That sounds a little like what we saw signed into law on Tuesday.  As I stated months ago, this bill represents fascist health care, not socialized medicine.