The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials.
Chinese proverb
Status Report
[12/30] Due to technical issues, the full version of this post was unavailable until now.
Caption of the Day
 |
| He's got Romney on his mind.... Image courtesy of Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images |
It seemed like just 2 or 3 weeks ago the Gingrich surge had exploded at what many bloggers or pundits were calling just at the right time; some polls just two weeks ago had Gingrich at 40%, doubling a distant second Romney's percentage. Gingrich was all but claiming the nomination was inevitably his. Today Gallup tracking had Romney breaking to a 4-point lead over Gingrich nationally for the first time since the post-Cain surge; if you look at the past week's daily results, the trailing 4 candidates' numbers (Paul, Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum) have barely budged by a point or two all week, meaning that Gingrich voters are flipping to Romney. (I always felt that a number of former Cain supporters would eventually join the Romney campaign; in fact, Cain was a 2008 Romney supporter.)
Two Iowa caucus polls today had Romney narrowly leading or tied for the lead with Paul and/or Gingrich (I think at best Gingrich is third because Gingrich doesn't have the organization of the other two candidates.) Was it just a few months ago when Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll? Now the favorite native daughter from a neighboring state finds herself unlikely to place and in fact is having to fight a late surge by Santorum and the better financed Perry campaign in the second tier. It seems clear that Michele Bachmann, whose campaign director recently defected to the Ron Paul campaign, is putting most (if not all) of her resources into Iowa; it's very difficult to see how her campaign is able to survive without a first-tier finish here: the subsequent primary polls mirror her single-digit status, she has a very difficult time raising money to sustain a campaign on low poll numbers, and she needs a good finish in Iowa to give her momentum and raise her numbers elsewhere. My take: Bachmann will not finish in the money next week and will effectively withdraw from the race shortly thereafter.
Obama in the Internet betting universe has seen his odds pick up to a multi-week high at about 52%. In part, I think that reflects the volatile nature of poll results and infighting among GOP Presidential hopefuls, but I correctly (again) called a peak to his rating surge after the two-month payroll tax holiday was approved (by "again", I'm referring to the fact I correctly called the peak of Obama's post-UBL operation surge).Both Gallup and Rasmussen issued approval rating polls today, showing a meltdown of the surge. More interestingly, Rasmussen released the first poll showing Romney beating Obama beyond a typical measure of error, with Obama at just under 40% (and roughly 5% undecided).
If I'm Obama, I'm very worried at this point. I can't rule out this poll was an outlier, but with few economists predicting the minimal 3% growth needed to make a real dent in unemployment numbers, barring a meltdown by the GOP nominee, it's difficult to see how he picks up another 10 points in approval from here or so that we normally expect with successful reelection efforts. One can never rule out the unexpected, e.g., a rally-around-the-President surge following a 9/11-style event (which took Bush to near 90% approval ratings), but that could be a double-edged sword: for example, a replication of his inept handling of the BP oil spill or (worse) the people think his Administration was not proactive in heading off the problem in question could result in a 1980 Carter-style wipeout.
The conventional wisdom is that Obama will go negative or run against the GOP House. First, many pundits expect that the House will remain in GOP control after the election (they need 25 or so seats to flip, and at this point that seems unlikely: in fact, some notable House Dems are retiring (e.g., OK and MA), the Republicans left some seats on the table last election, and there are at least 2 New York GOP-leaning districts currently being held by Dems which could easily flip with the right candidates).
Second, I think most voters do recognize that Obama himself is part of the stalemate on Capitol Hill: the fact that neither the Dem-controlled Senate nor the President seems to come up with a decent budget the last 2 or 3 years is NOT the GOP's fault. Furthermore, most voters are going to hold the Dems, not the GOP, responsible for increasing the national debt by 50% in just 4 years. It's hard to argue with the fact that states, counties and cities, including those under Dem control, are having to cut budgets, while the Three Progressive Stooges (Obama, Pelosi and Reid) sing "Don't Worry: Be Happy": pay no attention to those actuaries behind the curtain saying that social security, Medicare, and ObamaCare are Ponzi-like schemes: we're going to tax and spend like there's no tomorrow!
Third, if and when Obama goes negative, he loses the one thing he has going for him: his likability ratings. Although he's very gifted on the campaign trail, I personally think he has been very stupid in his approach of constantly blaming Republicans for his failures to perform. I don't think voters respond well to whining politicians; they want to see somebody whom is willing to put his country above his political self-interest, whom accepts responsibility instead of giving pathetic excuses for a failure to lead on anything. What sold American voters on Obama (beyond his better than 2-to-1 campaign money edge over McCain) was his positive "hope-and-change" thing; as Dr. Phil McGraw might say, "America, how's that working for you?"
It's Time to Fire Attorney General Eric Holder and Impeach Barack Obama...
First of all, I'm very pro-immigrant, and I would be willing to consider something short of citizen status, e.g., permanent residency status for some unauthorized aliens (they can apply for citizenship status from their home countries, just like everyone else, with merit-based preferences in terms of language, post-graduate degrees in certain areas or professional skills (e.g., scientists, engineers, high tech professionals, and medical personnel). I also think that piecemeal state legislation on immigration is a very bad, unconstitutional idea; I prefer the states or cities billing the federal government (suing if necessary) to recover costs associated with services and/or costs associated with unauthorized aliens. I also want to see a comprehensive reform of the quota/lottery system, and I want to see sweeping reform of the temporary foreign worker programs so that employers whom cannot find willing labor to provide affordable goods (e.g., farm products) and services to market do not find their constitutional economic liberties blocked by anti-consumer, protectionist crony union interests.
The difference I have with the Obama Administration deals with their backdoor approach to "immigration reform" favoring crony minority interests, solely on political grounds. This is yet another attempt by Obama to pick and choose winners in the economy. You cannot "pick and choose" whom is breaking the law and enforcing it; that's a fundamentally unconstitutional violation of equal protection. If Eric Holder or ICE is refusing to process unauthorized citizens by saying, a priori, we are going to decide enforcement, not using Congressional criteria but our own (politically-motivated) reasons, that's dereliction of duty, pure and simple.
But another release from ICE indicates that the new hotline is "part of a broader effort to improve our immigration enforcement process and prioritize resources to focus on threats to public safety, repeat immigration law violators, recent border entrants, and immigration fugitives while continuing to strengthen oversight of the nation’s immigration detention system and facilitate legal immigration."
Okay, quite frankly, this is a load of bureaucratic CRAP. Let's summarize what ICE is REALLY saying here: "However you got here in the past, unless you have been deported or are previously wanted, you have nothing to worry from us so long as you do not engage in crimes of violence." That's a de facto backdoor amnesty. Get a speeding ticket after expiration of your visa (or no evidence of authorization)? No worries. Applying for work with fraudulent papers or social security cards? No problem.
You can't do this; a spendthrift President suddenly deciding the one time he's going to CHANGE policy, not simply enforce it, and disingenuously rationalize it using budget reasons? Give me a break: I can see maybe you get to August or September just before the end of the government's fiscal year that you are running low on discretionary funds, but this is a guy whom is saying in advance that he doesn't have the extra funds he says he needed from Congress, so he's going to make up his own rules on how to spend the money Congress allocates, even though that was meant to cover EXISTING legislative intent. I mean, this is like those Wisconsin teachers whom knew in advance they were going to be sick on the day of a union rally. Keep in mind during the 2007 immigration reform debate, this is a former Senator whom wanted to drag out for years in appeals the day of reckoning for identified unauthorized aliens.
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"Jingle Bells"
Bing Crosby & the Andrew Sisters. The Crooner handles this song deftly and makes it sound so effortless. It is incredibly difficult to do effectively what he does vocally.
Duke Ellington Orchestra/Louis Armstrong. Nice jazzy version!
Alvin and the Chipmunks
Jingle Bell Rock
Bobby Helms (original hit version)
