The Brutal NRCC ‘Every Day’ Ad Memorial Open Thread.
This is one of the NRCC ‘s harsher web ads … if you define ‘harsh’ as ‘true.’ Something to remember, folks: if you think that campaigning on behalf of Republicans who may or may have not done enough is hard, imagine what it must be like for the netroots, who are all kind of glumly aware that they have to campaign on behalf of Democrats who have d0ne quite too much already. Text after the fold: open thread. NARRATOR: What’s become of America since President Obama took full control of Washington? A wrecked economy, with debt and waste beyond imagination. Since then, our gas prices have gone up more than 82 percent. Every single day more than one-thousand five hundred of our jobs have been lost. Every day, another two-thousand seven hundred of us have realized it’s been six months since we last had a job. Every day, more than six thousand of us have begun living below poverty, while thirteen thousand more have been put on food stamps and more than eight hundred have become uninsured. Every day, President Obama has bet, and lost, four hundred and eighty eight thousand on Solyndra. Every day, seven hundred and forty nine million of our tax dollars has been wasted on a failed stimulus. And every single day we have been burdened with four point two billion more in debt. This is the legacy President Obama and his democrats have left for us. If we give them more time, what else will they do to America? Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Here is the original post:
The Brutal NRCC ‘Every Day’ Ad Memorial Open Thread.
California High-Speed Rail Derails: CEO Quits In Long-Expected Suprise
Roelof van Ark , we hardly knew ye. The CEO of a California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) that is now described as “embattled” even by the establishment media has announced his resignation less than two years after taking office. From the office of CHSRA spokeswoman Rachell Wall, who didn't have enough to worry about on her last day on the job : At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors, held in Los Angeles today, Chairman of the Board Thomas J. Umberg issued the following statement after CEO Roelof van Ark announced his resignation, effective in two months: “With admiration, I would like to thank Mr. van Ark for his service to California and the high-speed rail project. The announcement of his resignation will resonate throughout the State. His energy, passion and dedication to this critically important project are a testament to his character and his professionalism. We are extremely lucky to have his continued counsel and advice as we move to implement high-speed rail in California. I remain grateful for his professionalism and friendship.” Van Ark's resignation came during a board meeting, and the CHSRA flubbed the announcement. The reaction to his announcement followed by just ten minutes a press release in which van Ark is quoted speaking on a decision to run the line through the Antelope Valley rather than paralleling Interstate 5 over the Grapevine: The Authority recently re-examined the Central Valley to Los Angeles Basin segment, including a route along I-5 in Southern California that extends over the Grapevine. The Grapevine alignment was originally studied in the 2003-2005 Statewide Programmatic Environmental Review and did not advance because preliminary information suggested it could cost more than the Antelope Valley route. “Due to many changes which had occurred over time, we had to look at as many alternatives as possible to ensure the best statewide system possible,” said Roelof van Ark, CEO of the Authority. “We conducted a conceptual study to update the engineering data from 2005 to see if the Grapevine route would save us time, distance and money. This was a prudent time to reevaluate both routes, which have changed since the initial studies. “This re-evaluation makes it clear that running the train through the Antelope Valley will connect people in one of the county’s fastest-growing areas, have fewer environmental impacts, and afford more flexibility in route selection,” van Ark said. Wall explains that van Ark will stick around until March and board chairman Umberg will leave as soon as a replacement can be found. The CHSRA is under tremendous pressure to begin work on the Obama Administration's chosen first leg of the project, a line connecting Merced and Bakersfield. The September deadline for groundbreaking and the odd location were needed to qualify the project for ARRA stimulus funds. Wall says the federal requirement is for the ARRA funds to be spent by 2017, and the September 2012 target was selected by working back from that. Should the project not meet that deadline, she says, the federal funding would not necessarily be jeopardized because the Golden State's contract with the federal government only “memorializes the schedule.” The project remains on schedule, Wall says: “We anticipate groundbreaking by fall of this year. The next stage is to outline the capital-outlay budget.” The rest is here: California High-Speed Rail Derails: CEO Quits In Long-Expected Suprise
Read more:
California High-Speed Rail Derails: CEO Quits In Long-Expected Suprise
[Posted by Karl] I ask because it was the sort of question the establishment media loved to ask the prior president: “Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?” “One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it’s WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?” “Two weeks ago, a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you prepared to give them one?” “You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?” “I guess I’d like to know if you feel, in any way, that you have failed as a communicator on [Iraq].” That was all in one press conference; the interrogators included NBC’s David Gregory, CBS’s John Roberts, and Time’s John Dickenson. The narrative that George W. Bush would not admit mistakes — fomented by a press in “When did you stop beating your wife?” mode — became a theme of the Kerry campaign when Bush stood for re-election. Pres. Obama’s 60 Minutes interview this past Sunday revealed a man who allowed for no failure of his own or of his administration, not on policy, not even on overpromising. Rather than meekly offering, “There’s a general perception that the stimulus was not enough. That it really didn’t work,” Steve Kroft might have noted the net job loss during Obama’s term and referred to Obama’s 2009 statement that the nice thing about his situation was that if he can’t turn the economy around after three years “then there is going to be a one term proposition.” Of course, Kroft would never do that. It’s likely that, left to their own devices, no one in the establishment media would question Obama they way they did Bush, offering the choice between admitting mistakes, looking arrogant, or avoiding accountability. There is an entire field of GOP candidates who could make the point that Obama blames everyone else for his failures, which might goad the press into covering the point. RNC types probably want to shun this approach on the theory that people feel sorry for Obama… but maybe they feel sorry for him because no one dares point out he wanted the job and wanted to be held accountable, but now takes no repsonsibility for his failures. –Karl
View original post here:
Q: President Obama, what was your biggest mistake?
NRCC to Matheson: Don’t Even Try to Run Away from Obama!
The NRCC greets Utah Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson this morning by showcasing his past statement touting his support for President Obama and the stimulus. Gallup puts Obama’s job approval in Utah is 33.8 percent, the fourth-lowest in the country. Keep reading this post . . .
Continue reading here:
NRCC to Matheson: Don’t Even Try to Run Away from Obama!
Why the Stimulus flopped
Stimulus [stim-yuh-luh s] noun, plural: something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc.: “The approval of others is a potent stimulus.” Via Hot Air: Theoretically, for the stimulus to have worked, the government would have had to target idle resources. Instead, the government funneled money into already-existing government contracts. Similarly, for the stimulus to have worked, state leaders would have had to spend stimulus money on top of what they were already spending. All too often, they used stimulus dollars to cover general expenses rather than to increase overall spending. And on and on …
See the article here:
Why the Stimulus flopped
What Fundraising Matters?
[Posted by Karl] If the establishment media is reporting on campaign fundarising, it’s a fair bet they will be misreporting or burying the lede. For example, the WaPo : Even with low approval ratings and an uncertain path to reelection, President Obama is exceeding expectations in one area: His campaign is doing far better at attracting grass-roots financial support this year than his Republican rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data. *** A Washington Post analysis shows that nearly half of his campaign contributions, and a quarter of the money he has raised for the Democratic Party, has come from donors giving less than $200. That’s much higher than it was in 2008 and far beyond what the best-funded Republicans have managed. *** But relying on donors of modest means could limit the fundraising ability of the president, whose campaign is already showing signs that it is struggling to bring in big donations. Fewer than 6,000 contributors had given Obama $2,500 or more through September. Stories like this perpetuate the myth that Obama’s 2008 campaign was fueled by small donors, when his percentage from small donors was about the same as Bush in 2004. Obama’s percentage in 2007 was about the same; non-incumbents generally rely on large donors until later in the cycle, when they are more visible and voters have a better sense of their electability. The WaPo is at least more accurate than the New York Times and other outlets claiming Obama was having problems with small donors by improperly comparing those who have donated to Obama’s 2012 campaign so far with those who donated through the entirety of the 2008 campaign. But the WaPo theme about problems with big donors is a misfire. The Associated Press has similarly claimed Obama has lost early support from major donors, but as Stanford University political scientist Adam Bonica notes, “large contributions signal more about how much time and effort Obama is putting into big-ticket fundraising events.” Conversely, Obama’s showing with small donors reflects his campaign’s intensive efforts to enlist them, as well as its social pressure on those who gave in 2008 to kick in before the Q3 deadline. Was this done simply to advance a campaign narrative of support from the little people? Probably not. First, small donors can be solicited repeatedly and become mid-size or large donors. This is more likely the sooner they start donating. The WaPo quotes Katherine Hahn, a self-described “mom and artist” from Colorado who gives Obama $25 a month. If she continues donating each month, she will end up a mid-size donor. Second, consider this quote from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, buried in the middle of the WaPo piece: “Our experience is that people who give become volunteers, and people who volunteer become donors. We want to build a relationship with them.” The first clause is the key — donors become volunteers. In the key state of Colorado, the 2008 vote may have depended on taking the Starbucks approach to the campaign. In eleven battleground states political scientist Seth Masket examined, Obama established field offices in 43% of the counties; McCain did so in only 18% — with apparent dividends for Obama not only in Colorado, but also Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina, for a total of 53 electoral votes. Obama is investing early and often in his ground operations ; his campaign’s early focus on recruiting small donors — and potential volunteers — feeds that effort. –Karl
Go here to read the rest:
What Fundraising Matters?
American Crossroads Brings Back a Familiar Term: ‘Malaise.’
American Crossroads unveils a new, two-and-a-half minutes web video featuring outgoing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. He stands against a blank white wall as animated graphs and charts illustrate his points beside him – including the infamous Obama administration projection of how the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Barbour points out, “even breakfast cereal and salt are under regulatory attack.” Keep reading this post . . .
Go here to see the original:
American Crossroads Brings Back a Familiar Term: ‘Malaise.’
Is Electric Car Maker Fisker The Next Solyndra?
There are actually many companies out there that may become little Solyndras, companies that were given smaller amounts of Stimulus money and have failed/look to fail. And let’s not forget the billions of taxpayer dollars just given to even more “green” companies at the end of September, companies which, like most of the rest, will
See the article here:
Is Electric Car Maker Fisker The Next Solyndra?
Nothing But a Political Ploy
President Obama’s so-called Jobs Plan has nothing to do with jobs and economics. On that score, it is already a proven failure. Rather, the plan is pure politics: a ploy to make Republicans bear the responsibility for the President’s economic fiasco, with proven to fail policies he knows the Republicans were elected to stop and can’t support. The political calculation is that the public is too stupid to figure out both the economic fallacies in the plan, and the dishonesties in the political attack, which accuses Republicans of the exact political cynicism in which the President is engaged. That is a Saul Alinsky strategy: accuse your opponents of doing what you are doing. Recall that the President previously served as a tutor of Saul Alinsky political tactics. In the present economic crisis, such cynical political manipulation is a disgraceful abdication of the responsibilities of his office. This is why Congress, rather than pass Obama’s phony jobs plan, should be asking him to resign. Answering the President In last Saturday’s weekly radio address, the President reiterated the political ploy of his jobs plan. If Republicans insist on opposing his jobs plan, Obama demanded an explanation to the public as to why. Then he taunted, if they don’t support his plan, where is their plan? This is where the assumption that the public is stupid begins. The obvious fallacies in Obama’s so-called jobs plan have been reiterated over and over, and Republicans have long been advocating far better, more effective job plans. Obama’s jobs plan is about half the size of his nearly one trillion-dollar 2009 so-called stimulus plan, but otherwise contains the same policies. That 2009 stimulus didn’t stimulate anything except runaway government spending, deficits, and debt. Unemployment has soared since then, and remained stubbornly high, as Obamanomics, including the so-called stimulus, has short-circuited the traditional American recovery. That recovery is now long overdue, as has been explained in this column numerous times. Part of the jobs plan is devoted to increased government spending on supposed infrastructure. That recalls the laughable “shovel ready” jobs of Obama’s 2009 stimulus. Another part is increased spending to bailout spendthrift Democrat states, which Obama calls hiring more teachers, firemen, and cops (which is a state and local government function). But economic growth is not based on increased government spending, a fallacy which Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Steve Moore has rightly labeled “tooth fairy” economics. That is because the money for such spending needs to come from somewhere, and so drains the private sector to the extent of such increased government spending, leaving no net effect in any event. What drives economic growth and prosperity is incentives for increased production, as Reaganomics proved. Obama’s assault on such incentives is why trillions are sitting on corporate and bank balance sheets, and America is suffering a capital strike and capital flight. The Occupy Wall Street protestors in threatening property and profits are just further undermining incentives and contributing to that capital strike and capital flight, which only contributes further to extended and increased unemployment. The other half of the jobs plan includes temporary payroll tax cuts, which are a continuation and expansion of supposed temporary payroll tax cuts already in place. But such temporary tax reductions do not stimulate economic growth and jobs either, as permanent cuts and incentives are necessary for permanent jobs. That was just proved by the previous temporary tax cut that Obama already put in place, which failed to promote the long overdue recovery. Moreover, as I have previously explained, continuing and expanding that failed temporary payroll tax cut on Obama’s grounds that expiration of the “temporary” cut would be a tax increase on the middle class is dangerous because long term it would eviscerate the financing for Social Security. This is why Republicans should not support this component of the “jobs plan” either. Notice that the phony AARP is once again in the tank for Obama and the Democrats, not uttering a peep about this growing fundamental assault on Social Security. But even worse than the 2009 stimulus is that this current half stimulus echo is accompanied by Obama’s proposal for $1.5 trillion in permanent tax increases . That now includes Obama’s support for a 5% millionaires’ surtax. Those permanent increases only further reduce incentives for increased production, and only contribute further to economic downturn and stagnation under any economic theory. Those tax increases, moreover, would come on top of all the tax increases Obama has already enacted under current law for 2013, of which major media institutions as well as most of the public are unaware. In that year, again, the Obamacare tax increases go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has refused to renew for the nation’s job creators, investors, and more significant small businesses. Under those tax increases, the top tax rates for almost every major federal tax will soar, as I explain in a new Encounter Books publication coming out next week, Obama and the Crash of 2013 . All except the corporate income tax, which is already virtually the highest in the industrialized world, with no relief in sight under Obama. That plus another $1.5 trillion tax increase, including a 5 percent millionaires surtax, is just what put the “Great” in the “Great Depression” in the phraseology of Amity Shlaes in her book The Forgotten Man . The Republicans are supposed to support this to create jobs? The Foolish Politics of the Jobs Plan Obama said in his weekly radio address on Saturday, But rather than listen to you and put folks back to work, Republicans in the House spent the past couple of days picking partisan ideological fights. They’re seeing if they can roll back clean air and water protections…. They’re not focused on the concrete actions that will put people back to work right now. Well, we’re going to give them another chance to spend more time worrying about your jobs rather than keeping theirs…. And if they vote no on that, they’ll have to tell you why.
Go here to see the original:
Nothing But a Political Ploy
Any Republican Want to Pop Up on Obama’s Bus Tour?
You know, if I were one of the lesser-known Republican candidates, I might try to get to West Wilkes High School in Millers Creek, N.C., by 5 p.m. today, where Obama is holding one of his pass-my-jobs-plan rallies. A GOP candidate could get a lot of attention by showing up and making the argument that the jobs plan — already rejected by vulnerable Democrats like Jon Tester of Montana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — represents a smaller rerun of the stimulus policies that failed to bring down unemployment. Tomorrow night there’s another GOP debate, but presuming a GOP candidate could catch a late flight to Las Vegas, they could try to pop up at one of Obama’s stops in Jamestown, N.C., Emporia, Va., or Hampton, Va.
The rest is here:
Any Republican Want to Pop Up on Obama’s Bus Tour?
