CNN Tries To Cover For Obama

For the last six years, the mainstream media has tried at all times to protect the image of president Obama.  No group has tried harder in this effort than CNN.  The tone at CNN is meant to convey impartiality, but the stories are always slanted towards protecting Obama.  Today brings the latest of these efforts as CNN tries to explain how it is possible that America has no strategy for dealing with ISIS.  The article from CNN is entitled "Why a strategy to fight ISIS in Syria will take time".

According to CNN, any strategy to deal with ISIS will require not only military input, but also inclusion of ideas and data from the intelligence services and the Departments of State and Homeland Security.  CNN tells us plaintively that these things take time.  Then, CNN goes on to say that we want a strategy that works this time, unlike the last time we got involved in the Middle East.  So in one article, CNN takes a swing at George Bush and justifies Obama's inability to have a strategy yet for dealing with ISIS.

Let's stop here.  We need to remember just one point before we go on.  In August 2013 which is over one year ago, president Obama was asked at a press conference about America's strategy for dealing with the various terrorist groups like ISIS that were operating in Syria.  Obama said at the time that his administration was developing a strategy for dealing with these groups in Syria and would work to complete that effort.  Again, THAT WAS MORE THAN A YEAR AGO!!!!!!!  CNN ignores this point completely.  Instead, CNN treats the issue as if Obama and the federal government were starting from scratch to create a strategy for dealing with ISIS, but that is not the case.

Look, I know that this is an administration that was unable to build a working website after spending close to a billion dollars over three years.  They're incompetent, I get that.  But the idea that over a year after announcing that he would bring to completion the federal effort to devise a strategy for dealing with ISIS, Obama is still saying that there is no such strategy is much more than troubling.  This is not just incompetence; it is willful neglect.  Indeed, even if Obama thought that ISIS would just fade away an result in no problems for the USA, that view was shown to be wrong last January when ISIS forces conquered Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq.  The only reasonable conclusion is that Obama actively avoided deciding on a strategy to deal with ISIS.  CNN is wrong; there is no excuse for Obama's failure to act.  It is not a question of lack of time; Obama had over a year to complete the task.  He had his chance to act, and he chose not to do so.  Now the world is paying the consequences for Obama's mistake.

 

Why We Need A Republican Senate

There is no one in Washington of either party who thinks that there are no important matters to be considered by Congress when it returns for a short session prior to the elections.  Dealing with ISIS, Syria, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, military spending, funding the government, immigration, corporate taxes (inversions), economic growth, jobs, environment, and the like come to mind after ten seconds of thought.  In each case, there are bills in Congress that need action.  But the Senate will be back in session for only two weeks and two days.  So what is the focus of the upcoming sessions?

Byron York reports today that the Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, has scheduled as the first order of business a vote on the proposed constitutional amendment giving Congress control of all campaign contribution and spending.  In other words, free speech will no long apply to politics; Congress will have total control.  This amendment has absolutely no chance to pass; zilch, nada, not a hope.  The estimate, however, is that the debate on the amendment will take up almost two weeks our of the two weeks and two days that Congress has in session.  That means that the Democrats will effectively filibuster any action by the Senate prior to the election.

To put it nicely, this is a craven political move by a despicable man, Harry Reid.  He does not care about America's problems when he can try to keep endangered Democrats from having to vote on issues that might affect the outcome of the elections.  He has to go!  That is why we need a Republican Senate.

 

The Campaign "Begins"

Back in the quaint old days when we did not have non-stop campaigning and fund raising across the country, Labor Day used to be the start of the political season.  Sure, there were bits and pieces of politics before Labor Day (like primaries, etc.), but most people paid no attention to the candidates before the last two months.  Some of that remains, but the process has changed.  From my perspective, it seems that some people have ratcheted up the level of attention much higher all the time while others have become so disinterested in the political process that they may not even tune in on election day to see who won.  Nevertheless, let's use the old paradigm to see where the national race stand as the campaign "begins".

First, let's look at the House.  Barring a political earthquake, there will be a Republican house majority in the next Congress.  Based on current polling, the GOP should gain about 5-10 seats on election day.  If there is a Republican wave that appears as we get closer to November, the gain could be as large as 15, but that is about as high as it is likely to go.  What is most salient about the House races is how very few of them are competitive.  Right now, only about 5% of all the races could be considered toss-ups. 

Second, we need to review the Senate races.  Here, it looks more and more like the Republicans are going to take control.  According to the latest polling, the most likely outcome after the election is for there to be 52 GOP senators and 48 Democrats (or independents who vote with the Democrats).  That could swing the other way if president Obama were to recover some measure of approval for his performance, but the best the Democrats could do would likely be just a loss of four seats to the Republicans.  If a wave develops, the GOP could bring its total up to 55 seats in total.  Three states have essentially already flipped from Democrat to GOP:  Montana (where the Democrat just dropped out after a scandal to be replaced by a relative unknown with views much to the left of the average Montanan), West Virginia (which has become a strongly Republican state) and South Dakota.  The Republicans lead in Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Iowa and trail the Democrats in Alaska, Colorado, Michigan and New Hampshire, but all these races are still quite close.  The Republican seats of Kentucky and Georgia are targeted by the Democrats, but seem more and more unlikely to flip.  Finally, there are also Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia, Illinois and New Jersey which could flip to the GOP were there to be a wave, but which are very unlikely to do so.

Third, come the governors' races.  The big news here are the states of Pennsylvania and Illinois.  PA is almost certain to go from a Republican to a Democrat while the opposite is true in Illinois.  The big question in both places is the likelihood that the state legislatures will get carried along by the top of the ticket.  There is no public polling on that issue, but my estimate is that the Democrats will take back the Pennsylvania legislature and will hold on in Illinois.  In other states, the Republicans are likely to take the seat from the Democrats in Connecticut, Arkansas and Hawaii while the Democrats should pick up seats in Kansas and Maine.  The races in Connecticut, Hawaii and Maine are extremely close, however.  Wisconsin, where Scott Walker is seeking re-election is also quite close and could go either way.  Florida, Michigan and Georgia are also close, but the Republican candidate is moving ahead in each of them.

Overall, it seems likely that in November, the GOP will gain in each of the House, Senate and governors' races.  Of course, events could easily move the needle pretty far one way or the other.

Another Pivot to the Economy??????

It is amazing to watch president Obama use the same strategy over and over.  Today, we saw Obama undertake something his aides described as a "pivot to the economy" with a speech in Milwaukee.  I've lost count; this is either the fourteenth or the fifteenth time that Obama has announced a pivot to the economy.  Really!  Of course, each time Obama "pivots" nothing happens.  Obama might just as well have announced in Wisconsin that he has not strategy for dealing with the economy.  In Obama-speak, the lack of a strategy is roughly the same as his pivoting towards the economy.

I am sure that most of you have heard the definition of "insanity" as doing the same thing again and again, but expecting different results.  Obama has pivoted to the economy over and over, but he has never followed through with any programs or strategies that might actually help the economy.  Today's speech in Milwaukee is just proof that Obama has lost it.

 

Did Joe Biden Go On a Racist Rant in Detroit Today?

According to the Drudge Report, Joe Biden told the crowd today in Detroit that "It's time to take back America!"  That's racist according to Attorney General Eric Holder.  Just six weeks ago, Holder told a national TV audience that those who talk about "taking the country back" are actually racists speaking in code. 

It seems that dealing with terrorists is not the only area in which the Obama administration cannot get its people to sing from the same hymnal. 

One last note:  According to the Detroit News, Biden spoke to several hundred people in the Labor Day crowd.  Several HUNDRED people in an election year Labor Day crowd in Detroit?  I remember there being crowds of 30,000 or more at those events.  I mean Biden is a dud, and we all know that, but several HUNDRED?  It certainly doesn't look like there's much enthusiasm among organized labor for the Obamacrats this year.

Ten Days and Counting

There are ten days left until September 11th.  With the current state of terrorist activities in the world and the lack of focus on dealing with the problem in Obamaland, I worry what will happen that day.  If there are no attacks, it won't be because our government acted thoughtfully and wisely to prevent them.  It will be luck and the hand of God protecting us.

If America gets hit again in ten days, how will Obama explain the lack of care?  How will Obama explain that thirteen years after that horrific 9-11, he has no strategy for dealing with crazy murderous thugs like ISIS?  How will Obama tell families of the victims that he chose fund raising and golf over protecting the nation?

I pray nothing happens and that my fears are groundless.  I don't believe that, however.  Let's all contact our Congressmen and Senators and the White House and demand that measures be taken to protect the USA and all Americans.

An Illinois Shocker

Anyone who follows polls for the 2014 election knows by now that Illinois governor Quinn is seriously behind in his run for re-election.  Given the almost non-stop corruption in the Illinois state government and the poor economy in that state, it is not a surprise.  What is truly surprising, however, is that Illinois Democrat senator Dick Durbin is also doing poorly in his race.  Now don't get me wrong; Durbin is still polling ahead of his Republican opponent.  In the latest poll, Durbin is leading by 7%, but that is after some shady moves by the Democrats to try to cement Durbin's re-election.  The Illinois panel that governs elections recently ruled that the Libertarian candidate could be on the state ballot for senate despite the failure of the Libertarians to clearly meet all the requirements for such a position.  The election panel is controlled by the Democrats, so, in effect, they waived some of the rules to allow a Libertarian to run and to take votes from the Republican candidate.  In the latest poll, the Libertarian got 4% of the vote; had that gone instead to the GOP, Durbin would only be up by 3%.  By election day, however, the Libertarian vote will likely sag to 1 or 2%, with the rest of the current 4% going mostly to the Republican.

Through the Spring, there were only sporadic polls of the senate race.  They all showed Durbin with a lead in the area of 15%.  The election gurus all rated this as a sure Democrat win.  The polls this Summer, however, have shown the race narrowing.  Having Durbin with a 7% lead and a total below 50% puts the incumbent into a surprisingly weak position.  The polls may be a fluke, but we will have to wait and see more results before we know for sure.  One thing is certain, however, Durbin has a real race on his hands.

It would be nice to think of the senate without Durbin in it.  About the only good thing one could say of Durbin is that he is smarter than some of the other Democrats, but that is really not saying much.