Hanky, all hat, no cowboy.

Just to take the C&P heat off'a Hank I'll throw this up...



Why Romney Will Win
By Dick Morris - September 14, 2012

Now that both conventions are over, the dimensions of the likely Romney triumph are becoming clear. Both through an analysis of the polling and an examination of the rhetoric, the parameters of the victory are emerging.

Start with the polling. It appears that the bulk of the Obama post-convention bounce has been in blue states where his left-oriented convention stirred up the enthusiasm of an already committed group of voters. Among likely voters identified in The Washington Post poll -- taken after the conventions -- Obama holds a slim one-point edge. And an analysis of Rasmussen's state-by-state likely voter data indicates a tie in the the battleground states.

But it's not really a tie at all. All pollsters are using 2008 models of voter turnout. Some are combining '04 and '08 but skewing their samples to '08 numbers. African Americans cast 11 percent of the national vote in '04, but their participation swelled to 13 percent in '08. These 2 million new black voters backed Obama overwhelmingly. Will they come out in such numbers again? Will college and under 30 voters do so as well? Will Latino turnout be at historic highs? All these questions have to be answered "yes" for the polling samples so widely published to be accurate.

For example, when a poll shows an Obama lead among likely voters of, say 47-45, it is based on an assumption that blacks will cast 13 percent of the vote. But the lack of enthusiasm among Obama's base for his candidacy and their doubts about the economy make an 11 percent black turnout more likely. In this event, Romney would actually win in this sample by 46-45.

And then there is the enthusiasm gap. All recent polling suggests that Republican- and GOP-leaning Independents are 13 points more enthusiastic and following the race more closely than their Democratic counterparts. If the grassroots do their job, this will yield a stronger Romney vote.

Finally, when every poll among every sample has Obama below 50 percent of the vote, it is most likely that the undecided have, in fact, decided not to back his re-election.

But to crawl out of the statistical weeds, let's examine the state of the partisan dialogue. Former President Bill Clinton made a huge blunder when he accepted the Republican challenge and flatly -- and loudly -- asserted that we are, in fact, better off than we were four years ago. Polls show that only about 33 percent of voters agree, while close to half do not see the world that way.

Finally, both parties seemed happily to embrace the same formulation of the difference between them. Both agreed that the Republican Party is based on a philosophy of individual responsibility. Obama articulated it as, "You're on your own." Republicans put it differently: "We'll get government off your back." Democrats said theirs was a party that would lend you a hand.

Gallup measured these two options, and voters chose "leave me alone" over "lend me a hand" by 54-35.

Over the long haul, these are the questions that will dominate voting intentions. The function of the conventions is to formulate and articulate each party's view of the world. The fact that they were so similar and that each was willing to trust its fate to the question of, "Are you better off?" means that the Romney message will have a very strong advantage. The decision of the Democrats to embrace this choice and not to move to the center will make it impossible for them either to re-elect their president or to command a majority in the new Senate.

I 'spose an Ann Coulter would be too much?

Probably exacerbate their hemorrhoids which could cause a cerebral bleed.

Aw you guys can't have all the fun, Hw

September Surprise
The storming of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the brutal murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, produced chaos this week in the so-called mainstream media. Instead of asking about how the heck this happen in the aftermath of the Obama administration's Arab Spring euphoria, "reporters" started looking for scapegoats.

The potentates of the press first focused their ire on something few of them even had seen -- a puerile Internet video titled "Innocence of Muslims" -- and then they turned their guns on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. As usual, the O-Team's media cheerleaders got it all wrong.

As Americans in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania participated in solemn ceremonies honoring our nearly 3,000 countrymen killed in the terror attacks 11 years ago, angry crowds were gathering around our embassy in Cairo. The U.S. Embassy responded by issuing an apologetic statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." Instead of defusing the situation, the crowd swelled and stormed the embassy, tore down the U.S. flag and replaced it with a radical Islamic banner.

Meanwhile, 700 miles west of Cairo, a well-armed Islamist paramilitary force was laying siege to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. By 8:30 p.m. EDT, U.S. and international news services were reporting that Americans had been killed and wounded in Benghazi – without specifying numbers or names. Many reports speculated that the Libyan onslaught was part of a growing "spontaneous" protest against the "Innocence" video.

At 10 p.m. EDT, the State Department finally issued a written statement from America's most-ever-traveled secretary of state in which Hillary Clinton condemned "in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today" and confirmed "that one of our State Department officers was killed." But in a reference to the offensive Internet video, the press release also noted that "the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." There was no mention of the attack on our embassy in Cairo.

Less than a half-hour later, the Romney campaign lifted an embargo on a previously prepared statement: "I am outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." It was the first "official" reference to the events in Cairo.

Shortly after midnight, the Obama campaign – not the White House – sent an email to reporters: "We're shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack." But once again, no mention of the attack on the embassy.

By dawn on September 12, it was known that Stevens and three other consulate personnel were among the dead in Benghazi. Since then, the media feeding frenzy has been nonstop. So, too, have anti-American "protests" -- in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.

On September 12, in a Telemundo interview that was supposed to focus on his outreach to Hispanic voters, the president was asked about the U.S.-Egypt relationship. In his response, Obama said, "I don't think that we would consider them to be an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy. They're a new government." That statement prompted another round of diplomatic doublespeak from White House and State Department officials – and demands from some on Capitol Hill to cut economic and military aid to Egypt totaling more than $1.5 billion this year. Those calls finally prompted Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood's hand-picked president of Egypt, to promise better protection for U.S. diplomats and missions in Cairo.

Here's what the media elites aren't telling us about these developments:

Focus on the "Innocence" Internet video as a pretext for all this is simply wrong. Ayman al-Zawahiri -- Osama bin Laden's successor -- issued a far more relevant video, urging Libyans to "strike back" at Americans for killing his operations chief, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in a "targeted attack" from a UAV. So much for the O-Team's claim that al- Qaeda is "all but finished."

The myth of the "Arab Spring" has been exposed. We are seeing not the rise of democracy but the imposition of neo-Nazi regimes devoted to imposing Sharia throughout the region.

Gutting our defense budget, Obama's "apologetic diplomacy," kowtowing to foreign potentates, abandoning our ally Israel, delaying the installation of ballistic missile defenses and "leading from behind" have not worked. Nor have "harsh sanctions against Iran" deterred the ayatollahs in Tehran from the race to acquire nuclear weapons.

It's now up to the Romney campaign to explain how he would do better. He has six weeks to do it. That's no surprise.
Oliver North | September 14,

I would think a person with an IQ of 148 could convey their thoughts in writing, yet you seem content to just cut and paste crap from the wingnut echo chamber.
Why is that?
Any original thoughts?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/17/lambasted-chinese-solar-panels-placed-on-governmen/


Government officials blame unfair competition from China for the collapse of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, but such concerns didn’t stop the federal government from breaking stimulus program rules to use Chinese solar panels atop a federal building housing the offices of a senator, congressman and several agencies.

Even the contractor questioned whether Chinese-made panels could be used under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus program that mandated use of U.S.-made products. His query in early 2010 was dismissed and the General Services Administration moved forward with using the Chinese panels on the Sen. Paul Simon Federal Building in Carbondale, Ill., records show.

History shows Democrats create more jobs in America


The following is a history of private sector job creation by Republican and Democratic presidents during the last 50 years.


The five most recent Republican presidents (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, G.H. Bush, G.W. Bush) created 24 million jobs in their 28 years in the Oval Office.


The five most recent Democratic presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama) created 42 million jobs in their 24 years.

http://www.pennlive.com/letters/index.ssf/2012/09/history_shows_democrats_create.html

Fishy

Why include Obama? He's contributed mathematically nothing.......you givin' him credit for that?

Hank, repeat this word----Centrist-----

I do not have blinders on and know that all are fallible, something that seems to have escaped you.


Fishy

Then you also know, the only jobs they actually created are government jobs. Beyond that, computers, internet, GPS etc are on their own.

Far more wasted money in govt than in the private sector. That is except for the regulations, that create more govt jobs and raise the cost of doing business.

I love to cut and paste a pertinent article, especially when it will
probably give a wedgie to those stuffed shirts that like to play
the 'original' game. Tell me something original.
It also gets a carbuncle on the butt for those that think their
libtarded poopoo don't stink.
Kinda like Romney saying the Palestinians (who are they) don't want
peace and taking a MSNBC rap on the knuckles for it. Keerist, Jimmys Carter's grandson is a source for the surrepticious video.
If the shoe was on the other foot the DNC would be yelling Watergate.
Tell it like it is and if you happen to be a Republican or a conservative you will be attacked by the talking heads and the media and the dimmies here. The shoutdown methodoligists.

btw, I don't claim an IQ of 148. It is probably higher seeing as
I am not deranged enough to be a Libtard. lol
Actually I attended an elementary and high school adjacent to EWCE
as it was known in those days. The college had essentially ran
the elementary and it was called the Lab. School. It was. All the
education majors did much of their class room work in the various
grades at the Lab. School. I was, along with the rest of the kids,
given a couple of IQ tests, thus the scores. They are written in
the grade sheets from those times in my personal records. The 148
came from secondary school. Again, I have paper. However,
cerebral decay seems pretty common here and elsewhere in this
country so I probably am no smarter than some of the buttholes
hereabouts.
Original enough for you?
Carry on.

And the hole gets deeper..............

Glad you like it.

"Then you also know, the only jobs they actually created are government jobs. Beyond that, computers, internet, GPS etc are on their own.

Nice try. I never said one was better than the other and I never said I was happy with the growth of govt under any republican or any democrat. Your little article is worthless. Anyone can draw lines on a computer and lable them. Lets see, who was counted and who was left out. No doubt, the guy gave Bush credit for more soldiers and credit to Obama, when they were discharged. Obama just signed a bill the other day eliminating a lot of appointments from Senate approval, due to the backlog, congress went along with it.

Its been reported that Obama counted Census takers as jobs created. That is what he is running on.
If Obummer wins, dont count on getting a new liver. Take a pill.