I didn’t see the entirety of the debate, but in the parts I did see, Romney firmly trounced Obama. Romney looked sharp, engaged, lively and presidential. Obama looked like he was looking at his Blackberry when he wasn’t speaking.
Nor am I alone in my judgment, as even the Obama-friendly press and liberal pundits said Romney won (some in NSFW language):
John Hindraker: “It’s over. I’ve been watching presidential debates for quite a few years, but I have never seen one like this. It wasn’t a TKO, it was a knockout. Mitt Romney was in control from the beginning. He was the alpha male, while Barack Obama was weak, hesitant, stuttering, often apologetic. The visuals were great for Romney and awful for Obama. Obama looked small, tired, defeated after four years of failure, out of ammo.”
Jonah Goldberg: “I had a pretty good feeling about tonight’s debate. But I had no expectation that Romney would simply control the night the way he did. I don’t think Obama did terribly on the merits, even though he clearly lost by a wide margin on points. But you don’t really score a debate like this on points. Romney simply dominated and deflated Obama.”
Rich Lowry: “It was overwhelmingly Romney’s night. He was more confident, more energetic, and better informed than President Obama. He exposed the president’s shallowness and got under his skin.”
On Twitter, gay righty turned lefty Andrew Sullivan bluntly declared “this was a disaster for Obama.” Also: “How is Obama’s closing so fucking sad, confused, lame? He choked. He lost. He may even have lost election tonight.”
Hell, even CNN’s non-rightwing audience thought that Romney won the debate by a landslide of 67% to 25%.
Ted Cruz pretty much wiped the floor with him, if the reports of our Demophilic media are to believed.
Visibly angry, [Sadler] repeatedly accused Cruz of lying. The Republican largely kept his cool and cast his little-known Democratic rival as “unapologetically liberal” and a big supporter of gay marriage and President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Even Paul Burka wasn’t impressed with Sadler. “Sadler was unrestrained. He called Cruz a liar, repeatedly.”
Here’s the full debate if you want to judge for yourself:
Time for another Texas vs. California roundup. First up: The man who moved from one to the other:
Chuck DeVore examines the differences between California and Texas. Scariest takeaway? “With one-eighth of the nation’s population, California has one-third of America’s welfare recipients.”
A review of the book Crazifornia. Pay special attention to the California bridge tester who couldn’t test bridges because he was up on child sex crime charges.
“City College of San Francisco is perilously close to bankruptcy, in part because it employs nearly twice as many faculty as similar colleges and pays them better – yet educates no more students on average, says a new financial analysis of the state’s largest public school. The college got into trouble because, unlike other colleges, it failed to make the budget cuts necessary to keep up with reductions in state funding, never set aside money for its growing retirement obligations, and ‘has provided salary increases and generous benefits with no discernible means to pay for them.'” So it’s like the State of California in miniature. Bonus: Its current budge assumes the passage of Proposition 30.
And speaking of propositions, Prop 37, requiring the labeling of genetically modified food, will be a windfall for trial lawyers.
The city manager of Stockton explains why the city had to declare bankruptcy. It’s filled with special pleading for vested union interests: “Nor can we leave the CalPERS state pension system. CalPERS should be reformed, but if Stockton didn’t offer an industry-standard pension plan, we simply would not be able to staff an already challenged police department. It is unrealistic for creditors to posit that Stockton reject existing pension obligations.” Attention anyone thinking of buying California bonds: When it comes to paying you or paying union cronies, you’re going to get the short end of the stick, no matter what the law says.
The video is both funny (the woman is an idiot with a comical voice) and politically useful (displaying, as it does, a sense of entitlement to government handouts).
Reeve has certified the ObamaPhone video as 100% racist:
The racism comes in when Drudge, Rush, the people who giddily retweeted the link, do a mental calculation that if enough people would just see this video they would support Romney, because it plays on the same racist stereotypes that are usually trotted out this time of the election cycle. The video posted on Drudge and played on Limbaugh was a black lady who has all the standard visual cues of being poor — messed-up teeth and skin, her waistline, her yelling. Oh, and if cues aren’t enough, she talks in racial terms: “Everybody in Cleveland, all the minorities got a phone. Keep Obama president, you know, he gave us a phone, he’ll give us more.”
Let’s dissect that a little. When Reeve says “do a mental calculation…because it plays on the same racist stereotypes ” what she’s saying is that she can read people’s minds, and she knows their intent is racist. And then she admits that the subject of the video talks in racial terms. So instead of putting the onus for bringing race into the discussion on the subject of the video herself who brings it up, she puts it on conservatives she can tell are committing thoughtcrimes because of her amazing telepathic powers.
Unfortunately, those of us without Elspeth Reeve’s extra-sensory perception are left at a loss to figure which amusing videos, at least those whose subjects happen to be black, are in fact racist. Given that I happen to be a white conservative living in Texas (and therefore someone already with a -5 on saving throws against liberal accusations of racism), obviously I need help in determining such things.
So where else can I go except the source itself? Help me, Elspeth Reeve, your psychic powers are the only hope I have for determining whether an amusing video that involves black people is racist or not!
Help me out here, Elspeth: Is Afro-Ninja racist?
How about this black woman saying Obama is going to pay her mortgage? Is that racist?
How about Obama stumbling around while answering a question? Is that racist?
How about Obama talking about visiting all 57 states? Is that racist?
How about black comedians dealing with racial issues. Is that racist? (NSFW warning applies to the language in the next few videos.) Is Dave Chappelle playing black white supremacist Clayton Bigsby racist?
How about Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase’s word association test?
How about Clevon Little in the famous sheriff-welcoming scene from Blazing Saddles?
Help me out here, Elspeth. Put your psychic powers to work. Which of these are racist, and which are merely funny?
I’ve got another Texas vs. California piece coming around on the guitar, but I thought there was enough here to warrant a separate post.
Hold on to your hats, but it seems that California voters might, just might, be catching on that the Democrats who run California’s state government are wasting their money.
I will now wait for the indignant shouts of incredulous outrage to die down.
Support for Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for billions of dollars in tax hikes on the November ballot is slipping amid public anxiety about how politicians spend money, but voters still favor the proposal, according to a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.
Well, I did say “might.”
The findings suggest that voters are leery of sending more cash to Sacramento in the wake of a financial scandal at the parks department, spiraling costs for a multibillion-dollar high-speed rail project to connect Northern and Southern California and ill-timed legislative pay raises.
If voters aren’t willing to stop spending for a $100 billion train to nowhere that everyone know will never be completed, and which would lose even more money every year if it was, when will they?
Brown’s measure would temporarily raise income tax rates on high earners for seven years and boost the state sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years in a bid to avoid steep cuts in funds for schools and other programs.
Note that word: “temporary.”
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the way politics actually works knows that there’s no such thing as a “temporary” tax hike. The only thing that prevents Democrats (and establishment Republicans) from spending every cent of every tax collected and more is booting them out of office. Raising taxes simply ensures that they’ll spend all the new revenue and additional money they don’t have on top of that. And with the fiscal tsunami California is facing from bloated government, spiraling debt, and gold-plated public employee union pensions that will bankrupt the state, those “temporary” taxes will never be repealed. Ever.
And two or four years down the line, the next Democratic governor will be asking the voters to approve another “temporary” tax hike…
As previously reported, the Texas 23rd Congressional District is one of the most closely watched races in the country. As such, it’s no surprise that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is rolling out attack ads against incumbent Republican Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco on behalf of Democratic challenger Pete Gallego.
And, much like the national Democratic attack ads, it’s filled with lies.
But don’t take my word for it. WOAI in San Antonio has done the heavy lifting in debunking team Gallego’s claims:
British atheist commentator and comedian Pat Condell let’s Islam have it with both barrels:
I doubt any of these sentiments will be new to anyone following attempts to contain Jihadism, but are seldom expressed with such pithy concision and free of even the slightest nods to PC sensibilities.
There was a time when Islam was given the benefit the doubt by many people in the west. Now we think it’s poison and we wish we’d never heard of it, because 20 years of baseless grievance mongering and knee-jerk offense have shown us this religion for what it really is. Now we don’t like it, we don’t trust it, and we are never going to respect it. And we don’t care how Muslims feel about that.
Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36% Democrat, 27% Republican, 33% Independent.
Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.
One again, the New York Times thinks Republicans are too stupid to figure out the con. If they’re going to be that absurdly biased, why not just cut out the middleman and poll Obama for America staffers directly?
Remember: The business model of The New York Times is to envelop liberals in a soft, warm, comforting cocoon of reassurance that their ideas and leaders are popular. You saw this in 2010, when it dangerously blinded them to the coming Republican wave until too late. The same patterns is repeating itself this year.
Remember how how incredibly tight the 1980 election was? How Ronald Reagan managed to edge Jimmy Carter at the last minute despite losing Texas and New York?
Probably not, mainly because that didn’t happen. But as Jeffrey Lord’s story makes clear, that was the narrative the New York Times was pushing most of the fall, and they had “polls” to back it up.
In the pantheon of lies, damn lies, and statistics, polls aren’t even as valid as statistics. At this point, polls by the usual MSM suspects (NYT, PPP, CBS, MS/NBC, Time, Newsweek, NPR, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, just to name a few) aren’t designed to gauge the race, they’re designed to encourage Democrats and discourage Republicans. They are, as Lord notes and Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee admitted to Ed Rollins, offering up “in kind contributions” to the Democrats.
So let’s take a brief look at the many ways in which the MSM is distorting polls for the benefit of Obama and the Democrats.
Dick Morris (who knows a thing or two about polling) thinks the idea that an Obama victory is in the offing is bunk. “All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.” He also notes that even the skewed polls show Obama at less than 50%, and “the undecided vote always goes against the incumbent.”
By one analysis, pollsters are oversampling Democrats by an average of 6.1%.
Jay Cost notes that “polls that do a poor job of differentiating enthusiastic non-voters from enthusiastic voters are going to overestimate Obama’s margin.”
Every week you see the media going to bat for Obama, and every week we see more evidence of lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democrats compared to 2008. 2010 did happen, no matter how much the media would like to pretend it didn’t. The Tea Party hasn’t gone away, nor suddenly decided that they like Obama’s free-spending ways after all. The fundamentals of our ailing economy and staggering unemployment haven’t gone away either. And remember: Republicans now outnumber Democrats in party identification.
There’s a lot better chance that this election’s results will look like 1980 than that they will look like 2008.
FreedomWorks, which helped insurgent Ted Cruz snatch the GOP nod for U.S. Senate from Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, said Monday it will put its muscle behind toppling Texas House Speaker Joe Straus of San Antonio from his leadership post.
Armey’s one sharp cookie, and he plays hardball. Conservatives came up short when they challenged the moderate Straus before last session, but the incoming Texas House looks to be more conservative, and a lot of Straus’s committee chairs lost in the primary. But Straus is no pushover, and I imagine he still sits on a big pile of legislative IOUs, as well as lobbyist juice and gambling money. Will a disgruntled David Dewhurst throw his still-considerably clout behind his counterpart in the House?
