Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Perry Tops Obama 44% to 41% in Latest Poll

Thursday, September 1st, 2011

According to Rasmussen, “for the first time this year, Texas Governor Rick Perry leads President Obama in a national Election 2012 survey. Other Republican candidates trail the president by single digits.” That’s within the margin of error, but it’s still a striking result. Go back to November 4th of 2008 and tell victorious liberals that Obama would be tied in the polls with a conservative Texas governor and they would have looked at you like you had a rabid duck on your head.

Plenty of liberals had been hoping to see Rick Perry get the GOP nomination because they regarded him as (next to Bachmann and Palin) too conservative to win. Much like liberals thinking the same of Ronald Reagan in 1979, they may rue getting their wish…

Rick Perry to Announce Presidential Campaign Saturday in South Carolina

Monday, August 8th, 2011

So says Politico.

I think Perry will jump in, will win the primary, and will beat Obama, primarily because I think he’s sharp enough and mean enough to win. Perry looks as good as Romney, has as much Tea Party support as Bachmann, and has record as Governor that puts both in the shade. He dismantled Kay Baily Hutchison in the 2010 Governor’s race, and then mopped the floor with Bill White. Also, I think there’s a better than 50% chance that Sarah Palin with endorse his candidacy.

And of course, Perry’s record on jobs and budgets blows Obama’s away. It’s like the difference between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf.

Hopefully more on Perry later in the week.

More on the Greek Euro U.S. World Debt Crises

Monday, August 8th, 2011

The Moody’s downgrade of Portuguese debt link was a quick blipvert for a current event, but I wanted to do a somewhat longer roundup of pieces on the Euro debt crises and the potential for more shocks down the line. Unfortunately for both me and pretty much everyone in the world, things have been moving too fast to get a good handle on before the next crisis erupts. And after the Obama downgrade, things are moving faster than ever.

Which is pretty fast indeed. The Eurocrats, in best shoot-the-messenger style, have decided to start ignoring bond rating services in the wake of Moody’s downgrade of Portugal. If that weren’t enough, Italian police raided the offices of Standard & Poors following their downgrade of Italian credit ratings.

How did Greece get in the position of being the first domino to fall in the Euro crisis? The election of Andreas Papandreou as Prime Minister helped start the ball rolling:

On October 18, 1981, a charismatic academic with rather limited government experience and with a one-word slogan, “Change,” was elected prime minister of Greece. His name was Andreas Papandreou. Greeks may now wish that 30 years ago they had had a Tea Party movement. Things could have turned out differently.

Thirty years ago, Greece was in an enviable position on the matter of national debt, with its debt just 28.6 percent of GDP. Few advanced countries can manage that kind of debt-to-GDP ratio. By the end of Papandreou’s first term in office, that ratio had nearly doubled, with debt at 54.7 percent of GDP. By the end of his second term, the figure was in the mid 80s.

But that was just the first step. The second was letting Greece join the Eurozone in 1999 despite their patent unwillingness to get their financial house in order. “Repeatedly, and for 30 years, the Greeks have played Europe like a harp.”

June’s European Union summit illustrated the chaos perfectly: a last-minute deal with Athens to raise the Greek income-tax threshold and increase levies on heating oil was hailed as a breakthrough even though everyone involved knows that this will buy, at best, a few months’ respite from Greece’s creditors. Thus are deck chairs rearranged, as the Greek pleasure yacht (classified, of course, as a fishing boat to escape taxes) sinks below the waves. The markets duly marked up the five-year probability of a Greek default to 80 percent.

The advice to Margaret Thatcher decades ago from the Foreign Office mandarin charged with European policy was clear: Greece was unfit to join what was then known as the European Community. The backward, chaotic archipelago would be an enduring drain on European coffers. Not only that: once through the door, Athens would bring nothing but trouble.

That foolish decision to allow Greece to join lies at the root of the crisis engulfing the euro zone and lapping America’s shores. Consciously, among its pampered political elite — and subliminally in society at large — Greeks got the idea that being Europe’s backward, indulged delinquent was a highly profitable game.

A piece quoting and summarizing two different Financial Times pieces (behind their paywall, alas), both of which predict a bad end to the Greek debt crises, albeit partially from differing reasons.

Andrew Butter makes parallels with Weimar Germany. Don’t agree with everything the author says, although you I do admire this sentence: “It’s getting harder to do the austerity thing these days, now that it’s considered politically incorrect to shoot at rioters with live ammunition, which wasn’t an issue in 1923.”

So if pretty much everyone agrees that Greek default is inevitable, why keep shuffling the deck chairs? Simple: So they can stick taxpayers with the bill. “Foreign financial institutions currently own 42 per cent of Greek debts, and foreign governments 26 per cent, the rest being owed domestically. By 2014, those figures will be 12 per cent and 64 per cent respectively. European banks, in other words, will have shuffled off their losses onto European taxpayers.”

So an effort to shield Euroelites from the worst effects of the debt crisis may end up destroying the Euro entirely.

Given the already considerable length of this post, I doubt I have time to address some of the ramifications of the Obama Downgrade, so that will have to wait for another post…

Karl Rove: Why Obama Will Lose in 2012

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

While hardly a disinterested observer, Karl Rove is far from an untutored one, and he offers up some compelling reasons why Obama will lose in 2012. Four, to be precise:

  • The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day.
  • Key voter groups have soured on him.
  • He’s defending unpopular policies.
  • And he’s made bad strategic decisions.
  • The second point is the one he offers the most meat in terms of polling analysis. And the fourth is Obama’s decision to abandon Presidential distance and starting campaiging for reelection early.

    Read the whole thing.

    Two Cheers for Tim Pawlenty

    Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

    Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota Governor and 2012 GOP Presidential contender, came out in favor of ending ethanol subsidies. In Iowa, no less.

    Good for him. This is good governance and good politics.

    Ethanol subsidies are among the most egregious examples of federal agribusiness pork, stealing money from taxpayers to give to Fortune 500 companies, not to mention driving up the price of food for poor people. Given the huge size of the Obama deficits, this fiscally and morally irresponsible subsidy is a great place to start trimming.

    However, like all agribusiness subsidies, ethanol is extraordinarily popular among agriculture state politicians of both parties. Given how early the Iowa Caucuses fall in the Presidential election cycle, it’s long been thought that opposing ethanol (or any other agribusiness subsidies) was political suicide for a Presidential aspirant, which is why which is why normally free market Republicans like Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich have fallen all over themselves to pimp for subsidies to the likes of ADM.

    But that was before Obama transformed the annual federal budget deficit from hundred of billions to trillions of dollars, and before the Tea Party flexed their muscles in the 2010 election. At long last reality may be intruding on this particular sacred subsidy cow. Simply put: If we can’t cut agribusiness subsidies, then there’s almost nothing we can cut, we’re heading toward a debt crises of horrifying proportions, and the future of the United States of America will look an awful lot like Greece’s present.

    The political and structural barriers to real budget reform are daunting, so it’s going to require serious political courage (and Republicans in charge of the House, Senate and White House) to actually address. So far serious courage (or even courageous seriousness) have been in short supply in the 2012 Presidential race. Certainly Obama has none when it comes to the deficit; he either thinks he can come right up to the edge of the falls before jumping off the boat, or refuses to believe that the falls even exist. The Republican field has been somewhat better, but (as Gingirch’s Iowa pander exemplifies) not nearly enough.

    Before his announcement, I must admit that I was only vaguely familiar with Pawlenty. His name showed up in National Review from time to time, but I wasn’t nearly as familiar with his work as governor as I was with, say, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels or Sarah Palin (yes, many of us were familiar with her before McCain tapped her as his running mate). As a 2012 GOP hopefully, Pawlenty was someone I considered way back in the pack, ahead of people like Herman Cain (the Presidency of the United States of America should not be an entry-level job) and Buddy Roemer (not switching to the Republican Party until 1991 indicates that he’s something of a slow learner), but behind almost everyone else.

    Denouncing ethanol subsidies in Iowa displays precisely the sort of political courage the next President is going to need. For me, that moves Pawlenty out of the back of the pack and into the front ranks. He’s now in the conversation as a serious possibility, which he wasn’t really before. So two cheers for Tim Pawlenty.

    Why not three cheers? Because he didn’t call for the complete elimination of all agribusiness subsidies…

    LinkSwarm for May 19, 2011

    Thursday, May 19th, 2011

    My main computer is still in the shop, so here’s another roundup of brief updates…

  • Erick Erickson at RedState tears into David Dewhurst six ways to Sunday, actually comparing him to Florida’s turncoat governor Charlie Crist. That’s got to sting…
  • Man living his life as 350 pound bed-wetting adult baby by choice is doing it on your tax dollar. Bonus: Threatens to kill himself if the government takes away his checky-wecky. I think we have a new poster boy for the welfare state…
  • Obama proves once again that, when it comes to the Middle East, he has no idea what the hell he’s doing.
  • 2012 Election Tidbits for May 11, 2011

    Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

    A few 2012 election tidbits, on the Senate race and others.

  • Since I dinged them over inaccuracies in their reporting on the Texas Senate race, it seems only fair to praise Ryan Murphy and Matt Stiles for this nifty interactive map of Q1 fundraising by incumbent Texas congressmen.
  • 2011 hasn’t been kind to Elizabeth Ames Jones thus far, but today she’ll be talking to the U.S. congress about fracking. And not the Battlestar Galactica kind.
  • Roger Williams sets up a separate website to slam Obama’s job on the economy and boost his own chances. This strikes me as a good move, but I think the site is a little lite on content right now; a splash page and a video are a nice start, but he should have links to more information for each of his four subheads. There’s plenty of ammunition for the charge that Obama has screwed up the economy, and the more he can put up there, the more likely voters are to consider Roger Williams’ campaign.
  • Speaking of Obama, he was in Texas yesterday to raise money and pander to the amnesty crowd, but was too busy to look at the areas of the state ravaged by wildfire.
  • Newt Gingrich will run for President. Gingrich would make an excellent Presidential contender…in 1996. Today, with Gingrich already pulling sellout moves like pandering to the ethanol lobby, I see no reason to believe he would be the best choice for President.
  • Obama to Texas: Die In a Fire

    Thursday, May 5th, 2011

    “On Tuesday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) rejected Perry’s request to declare Texas a federal disaster area.”

    In other news, Obama will be in Austin and El Paso next Tuesday. Perhaps those affected by the wildfires might make their feelings on the subject known to President Obama…

    Give Our Regards to Hitler and Stalin

    Monday, May 2nd, 2011

    So. Osama Bin Laden is dead. Good. If there’s an afterlife, he’s moved on to a place where his ideas about Jihad will be warmly received.

    A few points:

  • This was an important victory, but the war against terror continues. Al Qaeda has a decentralized command structure, so cutting off the head won’t kill the beast.
  • The fact that it took us just under a decade to track Bin Laden down does not reflect well on the CIA. Human intelligence takes a while to develop, but ten years is ridiculous. We’re lucky he hadn’t died from natural causes already.
  • It proves, once again, that Pakistan is not our friend. I suspect, fairly strongly, that members of the Pakistani ISI (and possibly higher levels of Pakistan’s government) have been sheltering Bin Laden ever since we routed the Taliban.
  • Unlike Dwight, I do not believe that Bin Laden’s death ensures Obama’s reelection. It certainly doesn’t hurt, but it’s over a year and a half before the election in a horrible economy upon which stagflation is now taking a firm grip. If the Misery Index is at Jimmy Carter levels come November 2012, Osama’s capture will be a very distant memory indeed.
  • Why has the picture of Bin Laden’s corpse not been released? Nobody cares how gruesome it is, we want to see it to silence doubters and those who will rave about “Zionist plots” to claim he’s still alive.
  • Why on earth did we afford Osama bin laden a “proper” Islamic burial at sea? He’s Osama Bin Freaken Laden. We should have stuck it on a spike with a dead pig carcass and let it rot a few days. Those who would get upset at such treatment for the murderer of over 3,000 people aren’t the sort we can win over anyway.
  • Obama Doesn’t Know Jack. Or Texas.

    Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

    An interview that Brad Watson of WFAA-TV in Dallas conducted with Obama has been getting a lot of attention. A lot of it has centered on Obama’s visible testiness at the questions, but I’d like to point out his baffling ignorance of Texas history:

  • He stated that he lost Texas by “a few percentage points” in 2008 when it was actually closer to 12%.
  • He stated that Texas has “always” been a Republican state, which displays an amazing ignorance not just of Texas history, but of the entire post-Civil War era, in which Democrats overwhelmingly dominated the Jim Crow-era states of the old Confederacy, Texas included. In fact, Texas was considered a one-party Democratic state up until John Tower won the special election to fill Lyndon Baines Johnson’s unexpired Senate term in 1961.
  • The overall thrust of the interview is why Obama isn’t more popular in Texas. “Too big a spender, too liberal, too incompetent, too prickly, and too out-of-touch” all cover it rather nicely, but you can add “appallingly ignorant of basic historical facts” to that list…