===
I just watched a great movie with James Earl Jones entitled "The Reading Room." Heartily recommend it. Wonderful acting and story.
A liberal friend of mine sent me an article about Sen. Rand's effort to connect with the black community and how The Republican Brand has not connected. I have been preaching this for years and recently repeated these views in a memo. True Conservatives have the correct message - self reliance, self respect, education and independence but they have been unwilling to sell it and go where it needs to be heard..
Liberals, for all their good assumed intentions, have the wrong message - dependence,distant government, soft challenges and self-pity etc.
There is a connection between the movie "The Reading Room!"
Southern Republicans have had contact with black Americans, I/we grew up with them even though they were separate and segregated. Northern Republicans had little contact with black Americans and their lack of connection , for whatever reason, set the party's course of action. It has failed and the vacuum was filled by the destructive backwardness of Liberal philosophy..
Now a black president has failed not only the nation but also, more importantly, his own people. This chasm presents an opportunity for Conservatives, for Republicans. Sen. Rand is correct in his thinking and is reaching out to them in a sincere and meaningful way.
If Republicans capture the Senate, they can break the log jam Reid's manipulation has created and they can make great strides in re-floating our ship of state. If Obama, out of pique, out of ideological stubbornness, out of anger chooses to veto their efforts it will not go unnoticed in 2016.
If , on the other hand, Republicans fail to move forward, fight among themselves, can't get beyond their social policy differences and blow this opportunity then they will have shot themselves in their feet and will pay the consequences, as they should.
Come Tuesday the ball could be in their court. Republicans can either rim it or shoot a three pointer. Time will tell.
===
Obama is never wrong. He always has someone to blame.
For five years Netanyahu has served as Obama's convenient pinata. Now matters have gotten even nastier .
Israel's prime-minister is no" 'chickens... coward." In fact, Netanyahu is too smart a politician to allow Obama to pin the tail on him for our president's own failures and miscalculations.
As a result of Obama's disastrous foreign policy initiatives, America has few reliable friends in the Middle East except for Israel. Egypt distrusts Obama, Turkey's Erdogan, Obama's avowedly closest friend, has deserted him and NATO, The Saudis no longer consider America influential and Iran plays America and Obama like a fiddle. (See 2 and 2a below.)
The rise of ISIS has proven Obama's proclamation, about there no longer are Islamist radicals, to be false and, in fact, ISIS has proven a worthy enemy and more than capable of manipulating the social media to their advantage. All Obama seems capable of is reacting even to "Obola."
Domestically speaking, Harry Reid serves as Obama's effective lackey bottling legislation so as not to allow embarrassing votes prior to Tuesday's election.
Here again, Obama blames Republicans for everything under the sun including wars on women, America's ethnic and racial voters and you name it.
After the election we will learn what Obama has in store for us as his remaining two years take us further down the wrong path when it comes to health care, increased taxes and deficits, energy dependence and immigration. Pelosi was right when she said we will learn after the fact. Meanwhile, Hillary tried to sell us on believing what difference does it matter , how poor she was because of all those homes and business does no create jobs. Atty. Gen. Holder would not know the truth if it hit him side his head! (See 2b below.)
You should remember this when you go to vote Tuesday and ask whether we want to elect those who support this nonsense.
===
Republicans must eventually learn how to respond to these ten Liberal myths. (3 below.)
Until they do they should pull the Democrat lever for these 10 reasons! (See 3a below.)
===
Is there a doctor in the house? (See 4 below.)
===
The biggest war seems to be raging within the White House and some Cabinet Members.
If Kerry and Hagel want to retrieve any vestige of what is left of their integrity they should both resign. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are "Baby Boomers" getting ready to retire. Others have been retired for some time. We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We have worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and grown old together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill, and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.In school we studied English, history, math, and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don't know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn't fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the Star Spangled Banner, America, and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America .Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the "Hope and Change" which in reality was nothing but "Hype and Lies."You youngsters have tasted socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don't like it after all. You make a lot of noise, but most are all too interested in their careers or "Climbing the Social Ladder" to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the "Great Lie" in 2008 are now having buyer's remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn't have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the 'Kool-Aid.' Now you're paying the price and complaining about it. No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, higher health insurance premiums and less freedom.This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of Liberty and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.Well, don't worry youngsters, the Grey-Haired Brigade is here, and in 2014 we are going to take back our nation. We may drive a little slower than you would like but we get where we're going, and in 2014 we're going to the polls by the millions.This land does not belong to the man in the White House nor to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Eric Holder. It belongs to "We the People" and "We the People" plan to reclaim our land and our freedom. We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and passing it along to our grandchildren. So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the "Grey-Haired Brigade."Footnote: This is spot on. I am another Gray-Haired Geezer signing on.I will circulate this to other Gray-Haired Geezers all over this once great county. Get out and VOTE! It is the only power we have.Can you feel the ground shaking??? It's not an earthquake,it is a STAMPEDE!
2)
Obama Belittles Israel
The latest snubs and sneers won’t help U.S. interests in the Mideast.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence minister Moshe Yaalon in August 2014. AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The Obama Administration is disappointed, insulted, unhappy and even downright angry with the government of Israel. This isn’t news, and hasn’t been almost from the time President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both came to office in 2009. But the feud is increasingly bitter and out in the open, thanks to a series of Administration leaks and snubs.
The latest eruption began last week, after a visit to Washington by Moshe Yaalon. The Israeli Defense Minister met with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and agreed that Israel would buy a second squadron of F-35 jets in a $2.75 billion deal. That’s good news for defense contractor Lockheed Martin , which has struggled to persuade foreign customers like Canada to stick with the troubled fighter.
The visit was also supposed to be an opportunity for Mr. Yaalon to make personal amends to John Kerry for remarks earlier this year when he called the Secretary of State “obsessive and messianic” and lamented that U.S. policy toward Iran was “showing weakness.” The remarks were made in private, and Mr. Yaalon publicly apologized.
Instead, Mr. Yaalon was denied a private meeting with Mr. Kerry, as he was with Vice President Joe Biden . (He did meet with U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who apparently didn’t get the memo that the Israeli was under quarantine.) For bad measure, Administration officials leaked the story of the snubs to an Israeli newspaper as Mr. Yaalon was returning to Israel—guaranteeing his public embarrassment.
Then on Tuesday Jeffrey Goldberg—the Administration’s media spokesman on Israel—reported a conversation with a senior Administration source who described Mr. Netanyahu, a former elite commando who was wounded in a 1972 hostage rescue operation, as a “chicken—.”
Another official quoted by Mr. Goldberg called Mr. Netanyahu a “coward” on the Iranian nuclear issue, presumably because Israel has done what the Administration asked and not bombed Iran’s nuclear installations, especially before the 2012 election. On Wednesday Press Secretary Josh Earnest tried to disavow the comments, but the damage was done.
This public show of condescension makes no sense for an Administration facing multiple Mideast crises and struggling to keep the friends it has. It makes even less sense if Mr. Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran next month. The White House has leaked that it intends to bypass Congress to conclude a deal, but it cannot unilaterally overturn sanctions passed by Congress. Broadcasting its dislike for the Jewish state won’t instill confidence in Congress and the public that such a deal won’t mortally threaten Israel.
The broader problem for the Administration is that its perceptions of the Middle East increasingly differ from Israel’s, not to mention those of a growing list of disillusioned allies in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Mr. Obama likes to say that he prefers to listen rather than lecture, so the disarray in the region should be an occasion to rethink some of his assumptions, such as his faith that force-feeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace would solve other regional problems.
But that’s not how this President rolls. Israel will draw its own conclusions about what it needs to do to survive in a tough neighborhood. The Administration’s main accomplishment is to have needlessly unsettled another alliance in another fit of pique.
2a) Why Obama Hates Netanyahu
Posted By Daniel Greenfield
Obama’s foreign policy was supposed to reboot America’s relationship with the rest of the world. Old allies would become people we occasionally talked to. Old enemies would become new allies. Goodbye Queen, hello Vladimir. Trade the Anglosphere for Latin America’s Marxist dictatorships. Replace allied governments in the Middle East with Islamists and call it a day for the Caliphate.
Very little of that went according to plan.
Obama is still stuck with Europe. The Middle East and Latin American leftists still hate America. The Arab Spring imploded. Japan, South Korea and India have conservative governments.
And then there’s Israel.
The original plan was to sideline Israel by focusing on the Muslim world. Instead of directly hammering Israel, the administration would transform the region around it. The American-Israeli relationship would implode not through conflict, but because the Muslim Brotherhood countries would take its place.
That didn’t work out too well. Instead of gracefully pivoting away, Obama loudly snubbed Netanyahu. A photo of him poking his finger in Netanyahu’s chest captured the atmosphere. Netanyahu delivered a speech that Congress cheered. And Obama came to see him as a domestic political opponent.
The torrent of anti-Israel leaks from the administration is a treatment usually reserved for political opponents. The snide remarks by White House spokesmen and the anonymous personal attacks on Netanyahu in the media echo domestic hate campaigns out of the White House like Operation Rushbo.
Netanyahu wasn’t just the leader of a country that the left hated. He had become an honorary Republican.
When Obama met with him, Netanyahu firmly but politely challenged him on policy. He has kept on doing so ever since, including during his most recent visit. At a time when most leaders had gotten the message about shunning Romney, Netanyahu was happy to give him a favorable reception. Netanyahu clearly wanted Romney to win and Obama clearly wished he could pull a Clinton and replace Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s economic policies were working in exactly the same way that Obama’s weren’t.
The two men hate each other not only on a personal level, but also on a political level.
Netanyahu had successfully pushed through a modernization and privatization agenda that on this side of the ocean is associated with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. It’s likely what Romney would have done which is one more reason the two men got along so well. Obama’s visible loathing for Romney is of a piece with his hatred for Netanyahu.
He doesn’t just hate them. He hates what they stand for. That’s why Harper and Netanyahu get along so well. It’s part of why Obama and Netanyahu get along so badly.
But the bigger part of the conflict is neither personal nor political. Obama wanted to sideline Israel; instead he’s stuck dealing with it. Hillary’s lack of foreign policy ambition allowed the Jewish State to come through fairly well in Obama’s first term. For Hillary, being Secretary of State was just a stepping stone to the White House by making her rerun candidacy seem fresh. Her relationship with Israel was bad, but her first job was not to make any waves.
John Kerry ambitiously jumped into multiple foreign policy arenas. His bid for a deal between Israel and the PLO was a predictable disaster. And he took Obama along for the ride. It’s unknown if Obama blames Kerry for the mess that ensued when his proposals collapsed into war, but there’s little doubt that he now hates Netanyahu more than ever.
The war dragged Obama deep into the confusing political waters of the region. His attempt to back the Turkish and Qatari empowerment of Hamas in the negotiations ended with Egypt and the Saudis scoring a win. It was hardly Netanyahu’s fault that Obama once again chose to side with a state sponsor of terror, but it’s safer to blame Netanyahu for the humiliation than the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
And then there’s Iran. Netanyahu remains the loudest voice against an Obama agreement to let Iran go nuclear. No matter how many talking heads defend the deal, he blows away all their hot air.
When Obama met with him, Netanyahu firmly but politely challenged him on policy. He has kept on doing so ever since, including during his most recent visit. At a time when most leaders had gotten the message about shunning Romney, Netanyahu was happy to give him a favorable reception. Netanyahu clearly wanted Romney to win and Obama clearly wished he could pull a Clinton and replace Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s economic policies were working in exactly the same way that Obama’s weren’t.
The two men hate each other not only on a personal level, but also on a political level.
Netanyahu had successfully pushed through a modernization and privatization agenda that on this side of the ocean is associated with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. It’s likely what Romney would have done which is one more reason the two men got along so well. Obama’s visible loathing for Romney is of a piece with his hatred for Netanyahu.
He doesn’t just hate them. He hates what they stand for. That’s why Harper and Netanyahu get along so well. It’s part of why Obama and Netanyahu get along so badly.
But the bigger part of the conflict is neither personal nor political. Obama wanted to sideline Israel; instead he’s stuck dealing with it. Hillary’s lack of foreign policy ambition allowed the Jewish State to come through fairly well in Obama’s first term. For Hillary, being Secretary of State was just a stepping stone to the White House by making her rerun candidacy seem fresh. Her relationship with Israel was bad, but her first job was not to make any waves.
John Kerry ambitiously jumped into multiple foreign policy arenas. His bid for a deal between Israel and the PLO was a predictable disaster. And he took Obama along for the ride. It’s unknown if Obama blames Kerry for the mess that ensued when his proposals collapsed into war, but there’s little doubt that he now hates Netanyahu more than ever.
The war dragged Obama deep into the confusing political waters of the region. His attempt to back the Turkish and Qatari empowerment of Hamas in the negotiations ended with Egypt and the Saudis scoring a win. It was hardly Netanyahu’s fault that Obama once again chose to side with a state sponsor of terror, but it’s safer to blame Netanyahu for the humiliation than the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
And then there’s Iran. Netanyahu remains the loudest voice against an Obama agreement to let Iran go nuclear. No matter how many talking heads defend the deal, he blows away all their hot air.
Not only did Obama fail to sideline Israel, but he’s stuck dealing with Netanyahu. And no matter how much he may view Netanyahu as an Israeli Romney, he can’t quite openly treat him like Romney because there are plenty of Jewish Democrats who still haven’t realized his true feelings for Israel.
Both men are stuck together. Egypt hates Obama more than it did before he overthrew its original government. Iraq and Syria are war zones. The Saudis are actively undermining Obama’s policies. Israel is still America’s best ally in the region and that interdependency frustrates him even more.
Obama wanted to destroy the American-Israeli relationship. Instead he’s entangled in it. He blames Netanyahu for the situation even though the mess is mostly of his own making.
Despite the myths about the vast powers of the lobby, Israel has never been at the heart of American foreign policy. And under Obama, it’s been on the outskirts in every sense of the word. Israel is back to being a major concern of American foreign policy mostly because of Obama’s massive failures in every other part of the region and Kerry’s belief that he could somehow succeed where everyone else failed.
Netanyahu’s presence reminds Obama of his own failures.
If everything had gone according to plan, America would be experiencing a new age of amity with the Muslim world. Instead he’s stuck bombing Iraq and reaffirming the special relationship with Israel almost as if he were on Bush’s fourth term.
It’s not the way that the international flavor of Hope and Change was supposed to taste.
Obama hates Israel. He hates Netanyahu. And their continuing presence in Washington D.C. reminds him of his inability to transform American foreign policy. Their very existence humiliates him.
He knows that directly lashing out at Israel would alienate the Jewish supporters he still needs. Despite his effort to displace pro-Israel voices with J Street, the Jewish community is still pro-Israel. And so he resorts to passive aggressive behavior like snubbing the Israeli Defense Minister or anonymous officials in the administration taunting Netanyahu as a “coward” and “chickens__t” in the media.
It takes a courageous administration to anonymously call the leader of a tiny country a coward. It’s childish behavior, but this is an administration of children overseen by a man whose response to his opponent’s accurate reading of the world situation was to taunt him about the “1980s” and “horses and bayonets.”
While Obama’s people anonymously taunt Netanyahu as a coward, it’s their boss who acts like a coward, stabbing Israel in the back, slandering its leader anonymously through the media and then trying to sell himself to Jewish donors as the Jewish State’s best friend in the White House.
2b) Sessions: 'The World Has Turned Upside Down'
2d) Democrats Play the ‘Romney’ Card
Ms. Nunn has also tied Mr. Perdue’s wealth to her populist pitching against income inequality and for a higher minimum wage. “You made in a single day of working at Dollar General what it took one of your employees working at minimum wage a whole year to make,” she charged at one debate.But the Democrats’ Romney redux is proving powerful, because the GOP still lacks an effective answer. In Georgia’s open Senate race, Democrat Michelle Nunn has crafted most of her campaign around accusations that her Republican opponent, businessman David Perdue, has spent a lifetime closing down U.S. factories and moving jobs overseas. One Nunn ad featured a 2005 deposition in which Mr. Perdue—who has run such companies as Reebok and Dollar General —appeared to acknowledge that he “spent most of [his] career” outsourcing.
Obama wanted to destroy the American-Israeli relationship. Instead he’s entangled in it. He blames Netanyahu for the situation even though the mess is mostly of his own making.
Despite the myths about the vast powers of the lobby, Israel has never been at the heart of American foreign policy. And under Obama, it’s been on the outskirts in every sense of the word. Israel is back to being a major concern of American foreign policy mostly because of Obama’s massive failures in every other part of the region and Kerry’s belief that he could somehow succeed where everyone else failed.
Netanyahu’s presence reminds Obama of his own failures.
If everything had gone according to plan, America would be experiencing a new age of amity with the Muslim world. Instead he’s stuck bombing Iraq and reaffirming the special relationship with Israel almost as if he were on Bush’s fourth term.
It’s not the way that the international flavor of Hope and Change was supposed to taste.
Obama hates Israel. He hates Netanyahu. And their continuing presence in Washington D.C. reminds him of his inability to transform American foreign policy. Their very existence humiliates him.
He knows that directly lashing out at Israel would alienate the Jewish supporters he still needs. Despite his effort to displace pro-Israel voices with J Street, the Jewish community is still pro-Israel. And so he resorts to passive aggressive behavior like snubbing the Israeli Defense Minister or anonymous officials in the administration taunting Netanyahu as a “coward” and “chickens__t” in the media.
It takes a courageous administration to anonymously call the leader of a tiny country a coward. It’s childish behavior, but this is an administration of children overseen by a man whose response to his opponent’s accurate reading of the world situation was to taunt him about the “1980s” and “horses and bayonets.”
While Obama’s people anonymously taunt Netanyahu as a coward, it’s their boss who acts like a coward, stabbing Israel in the back, slandering its leader anonymously through the media and then trying to sell himself to Jewish donors as the Jewish State’s best friend in the White House.
2b) Sessions: 'The World Has Turned Upside Down'
Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.
"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election. "In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans. "Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined. "Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.
"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow. "A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?
"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.
"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.
"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life. "The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."
2d) Democrats Play the ‘Romney’ Card
When will Republicans get better at pushing back against bogus claims that they ignore ordinary people?
The 2014 midterms already deserve to be remembered as the moment when most of the Democratic Party’s campaign playbook met a shredder. Except for one tactic: The GOP is getting Romneyed.
That’s the unifying theme in several Senate, House and gubernatorial races in which Republicans are struggling to seal the deal in an otherwise favorable political environment. Democrats are painting their Republican opponents as vulture capitalists and outsourcers, wealthy suits oblivious to the plight of average Americans. It’s a bogus claim, but it is working.
It’s about the only thing that is for national Democrats. Republicans have done a lot right this year, from picking impressive candidates, to tamping down party disunity, to avoiding foot-in-mouth moments. Perhaps their biggest achievement has been to shut down some of the left’s more enduring campaign strategies.
Democrats for years have successfully fielded “moderate” Senate candidates to pick up GOP seats; Republicans this year did an impressive job tying those moderates’ liberal records to Mr. Obama. Democrats for years successfully pummeled Republicans with the “war on women” theme; the GOP this year ran candidates who had effective responses and largely neutralized the attack. Democrats have for years warned voters that “shady” billionaires like the Koch Brothers were “buying” elections for Republicans; the GOP this year just snorted and pointed to PAC-master Tom Steyer.
Ms. Nunn has also tied Mr. Perdue’s wealth to her populist pitching against income inequality and for a higher minimum wage. “You made in a single day of working at Dollar General what it took one of your employees working at minimum wage a whole year to make,” she charged at one debate.But the Democrats’ Romney redux is proving powerful, because the GOP still lacks an effective answer. In Georgia’s open Senate race, Democrat Michelle Nunn has crafted most of her campaign around accusations that her Republican opponent, businessman David Perdue, has spent a lifetime closing down U.S. factories and moving jobs overseas. One Nunn ad featured a 2005 deposition in which Mr. Perdue—who has run such companies as Reebok and Dollar General —appeared to acknowledge that he “spent most of [his] career” outsourcing.
The attack has undercut Mr. Perdue’s own campaign theme that he is a job creator, as he’s stumbled from one unconvincing response to another. He tried to parse the difference between “sourcing” and “outsourcing”; he said he was “proud” of his past work; he blamed the opposition for bringing the subject up; he suggested voters didn’t really understand the issue; he talked about iPhones.
Recently, Mr. Perdue has been pointing out that government regulations and taxes are a reason too many companies don’t choose America, and that he wants the Senate job precisely so that he can create a jobs boom here. That’s more like it, but it comes only after a month of Ms. Nunn keeping him on defense. One Democrat who noticed was New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. She has of late been hurling similar outsourcing accusations against Republican Scott Brown .
In Illinois, Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is saddled in his re-election bid with one of the worst economies in the country, and accusations of political corruption. Yet he’s kept the race tight against businessman Bruce Rauner with a merciless ad campaign that has highlighted the Republican’s $140,000 membership in a wine club, and claimed that Mr. Rauner’s companies “laid off millions while he made millions.”
While Mr. Rauner has correctly emphasized the need in Illinois for policies that allow companies to thrive there and in the U.S., he’s also been dragged into a debate over what precisely his companies did, and at one point dropped the line that “not every job should be in America.” That may be blindingly obvious, but it hasn’t stopped the left from seizing on it as the rallying phrase against his candidacy.
This Romneyfication could cost Republicans seats on Tuesday, but what ought to worry them more is the cost going forward. Democrats have been playing the populist card since the 2008 financial crisis—using it to shake down banks, to push for higher taxes on upper-income earners and more regulations, and to beat up business and Republican candidates. This resonates with economically anxious voters. A Pew poll four years ago showed Democrats with an 11-point lead over Republicans as the party “more concerned with needs of people like me.” Pew asked that question again in October, and Democrats now hold a 21-point advantage.
We may not know if it’s Hillary or Elizabeth in 2016, but we do know that both will be happy to lead with some variation on the anti-business, soak-the-rich, my-opponent-loves-corporate-inversions theme. Some Republican candidates are using the midterms to test policy ideas designed to telegraph the party’s interest in growth and opportunity for all. But the party as a whole has yet to get its head around this problem, and that should be the most pressing requirement for a Republican presidential nominee.
To be, or not to be, Romneyed. That’s the question. The GOP needs a better answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)- The Top 10 Liberal Superstitions
Why I urge voters to pull for Democrats!The 2014 campaign brings a fresh focus on candidates with fervently held, evidence-free beliefs.
A hallmark of progressive politics is the ability to hold fervent beliefs, in defiance of evidence, that explain how the world works—and why liberal solutions must be adopted. Such political superstitions take on a new prominence during campaign seasons as Democratic candidates trot out applause lines to rally their progressive base and as the electorate considers their voting records. Here’s a Top 10 list of liberal superstitions on prominent display during the midterm election campaign:
1. Spending more money improves education. The U.S. spent $12,608 per student in 2010—more than double the figure, in inflation-adjusted dollars, spent in 1970—and spending on public elementary and secondary schools has surpassed $600 billion. How’s that working out? Adjusted state SAT scores have declined on average 3% since the 1970s, as the Cato Institute’s Andrew Coulson found in a March report.
No better news in the international rankings: The Program for International Student Assessment reports that in 2012 American 15-year-olds placed in the middle of the pack, alongside peers from Slovakia—which shells out half as much money as the U.S. per student.
Someone might mention this to North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, who is knocking State House Speaker Thom Tillis for cutting $500 million from schools. Per-pupil K-12 spending has increased every year since Mr. Tillis became speaker in 2011, and most of what Ms. Hagan is selling as “cuts” came from community colleges and universities, not the local middle school. Mr. Coulson’s Cato study notes that North Carolina has about doubled per-pupil education spending since 1972, which has done precisely nothing for the state’s adjusted SAT scores.
2. Government spending stimulates the economy. Case in point is the $830 billion 2009 stimulus bill, touted by the Obama administration as necessary for keeping unemployment below 8%. Result: four years of average unemployment above 8%. Federal outlays soared in 2009 to $3.5 trillion—a big enough bump to do the Keynesian trick of boosting aggregate demand—but all we got was this lousy 2% growth and a new costume for Army Corps of Engineers mascot Bobber the Water Safety Dog. Every Senate Democrat voted for the blowout, including the 11 now up for re-election who were in Congress when it passed.
3. Republican candidates always have a big spending advantage over Democrats. Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor recently to deride the Koch brothers as “radical billionaires” who are “attempting to buy our democracy.” Yet the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has raked in $127 million this cycle, about $30 million more than the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Democrats have aired more TV ads than Republicans in several battleground states, according to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. Meanwhile, Mr. Reid’s Senate Majority PAC has raised more than $50 million. As this newspaper has reported, between 2005 and 2011, labor unions—linchpins of the Democratic Party—spent $4.4 billion on politics, far outstripping any conservative rival.
4. Raising the minimum wage helps the poor. The president wants to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25, with the tagline “Let’s give America a raise.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the hike would cost 500,000 jobs, one blow to the low-wage earners it claims to help. Employment aside, only 18% of the earnings benefits of a $10.10 hike would flow to people living below the poverty line, according to analysis from University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark. Nearly 30% of the benefits would go to families three times above the poverty line or higher, in part because half of America’s poor families have no wage earners. Minimum-wage increases help some poor families—at the expense of other poor families.
You won’t hear that from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who in September lived on $79 for a week to show his public-relations solidarity with minimum-wage earners. Keep in mind: Only 4.7% of minimum-wage earners are adults working full-timetrying to support a family, and nearly all would be eligible for the earned-income tax credit and other welfare programs.
5. Global warming is causing increasingly violent weather. Tell that to Floridians, who are enjoying the ninth consecutive season without a hurricane landfall. The Atlantic hurricane season in 2013 was the least active in 30 years. Oh, and global temperatures have not increased for 15 years.
Still, something must be done! On Monday, the Hill reported that an internal memo circulating among five environmental groups detailed plans for spending to support candidates “who want to act” to combat climate change. “We are on track to spend more than $85 million overall including more than $40 million in just six Senate races,” the memo said. The beneficiaries include Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.), who got $12.1 million, and Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) with $7.2 million.
6. Genetically modified food is dangerous. Farmers have been breeding crop seeds for 10,000 years, but the agricultural innovation known as genetic modification makes liberals shudder. Not a single documented illness has resulted from the trillions of meals containing “genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs, that humans have consumed since the mid-1990s. The technology has been declared safe by every regulatory agency from the Food and Drug Administration to the European Commission.
But insisting on labeling food containing GMOs has turned into a liberal cause. The California Democratic Party platform in 2012 added a demand for GMO labeling; more recently the Oregon Democratic Party climbed aboard. In May 2013, self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced a farm-bill amendment that would allow states to require GMO labeling for food; co-sponsors of the amendment, which failed, included Sens. Mark Begich (D., Ala.) and Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.).
7. Voter ID laws suppress minority turnout. More than 30 states have voter-ID laws, which the left decries as an attempt to disenfranchise minorities who don’t have identification and can’t pay for it. Yet of the 17 states with the strictest requirements, 16 offer free IDs. The Government Accountability Office this month released an analysis of 10 voter-ID studies: Five showed the laws had no statistically significant effect on turnout, four suggested a decrease in turnout (generally among all ethnic groups, though percentages varied), and one found an increase in turnout with voter ID laws in place.
The Democratic Senate candidate in Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, has nonetheless been running radio ads in urban areas claiming that “Mitch McConnell and the Republicans are trying to take away our right to vote,” based on a 2007 voter-ID amendment the minority leader introduced.
8. ObamaCare is gaining popularity. President Obama said in a speech earlier this month that fewer Republicans were running against ObamaCare because “it’s working pretty well in the real world.” Yet the law’s approval rating hovers around 40%, and 27% of people told Gallup this month that the law was hurting them, up from 19% in January, while only 16% reported it was helpful.
Don’t even ask doctors about it: 46% of physicians gave the Affordable Care Act a “D” or “F”, according to a recent survey by the Physicians Foundation, and less than 4% of respondents gave it an “A.” Yet some Democrats are die-hards: 36% of their House candidates have voiced support for ObamaCare on the campaign trail, according to a recent analysis by the Brookings Institution.
9. The Keystone XL pipeline would increase oil spills. Let’s check out what President Obama’s State Department had to say: In 2013 pipelines with a diameter larger than 12 inches spilled 910,000 gallons. Railroad tankers spilled 1.5 million gallons. Yet pipelines carry 25 times the oil that tankers do, as environmental analyst Terry Anderson has noted in these pages. Blocking Keystone and forcing more oil to be shipped by rail guarantees more harm to the environment. But on the campaign trail emotion often overrules the facts, and so we have Rick Weiland, the Democratic Senate candidate in South Dakota, adamantly opposing Keystone (“If I lose because of this issue, so be it,” he told the Nation magazine last week). Colorado Sen. Mark Udall is running for re-election after having voted against Keystone in the energy committee in June.
10. Women are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared with men. The mother of all liberal superstitions, this figure comes from shoddy math that divides the average earnings of all women working full-time by the average earnings of all full-time men, without considering career field, education or personal choices. When those factors are included, the wage gap disappears. A 2009 report commissioned by the Labor Department that analyzed more than 50 papers on the topic found that the so-called pay gap “may be almost entirely” the result of choices both men and women make.
Yet here’s Colorado’s Sen. Udall: “It is simply unacceptable for businesses to pay women less than men doing the same work,” citing his support for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which might be better titled the Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act. One irony: The Washington Free Beacon did a little number crunching and discovered that women in Sen. Udall’s office earn 86 cents on the dollar compared with men. Whoops.
Ms. Bachelder is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries."The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits"… Albert Einstein
4)
Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges
Over 214,000 doctors won't participate in the new plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA,) analysis of a new survey by Medical Group Management Association shows. That number of 214,524, estimated by American Action Forum, is through May 2014, but appears to be growing due to plans that force doctors to take on burdensome costs. It's also about a quarter of the total number of 893,851 active professional physicians reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In January, an estimated 70% of California's physicians were not participating in Covered California plans.
Here are some of the reasons why:
1. Reimbursements under Obamacare are at bottom-dollar - they are even lower than Medicare reimbursements, which are already significantly below market rates. "It is estimated that where private plans pay $1.00 for a service, Medicare pays $0.80, and ACA exchange plans are now paying about $0.60," a study by the think-tank American Action Forum finds. "For example, Covered California plans are setting their plan fee schedules in line with that of Medi-Cal-California's Medicaid Program-which means exchange plans are cutting provider reimbursement by up to 40 percent."
2. Doctors are expected to take on more patients to make up for the lost revenue, but that's not happening, because primary care doctors already have more patients than they can handle. "Furthermore, physicians are worried that exchange plan patients will be sicker than the average patient because they may have been without insurance for extended periods of time, and therefore will require more of the PCPs time at lower pay," says the study.
The study also points to two reasons that doctors might not get paid at all:
3. An MGMA study indicates that 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill.
4. HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: the insurer covers the first 30 - but, it's up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. This is the number one reason providers are opting to not participate in the exchange plans. Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled.
So, Obamacare is asking doctors to take on sicker patients for less money, with the risk of not getting paid at all? No wonder doctors are running from these plans!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Hagel Criticized Obama's Syria Strategy in Private Memo to Rice
(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Landov)
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week sent a blunt memo to National Security Advisor Susan Rice criticizing the administration's strategy in Syria.
According to The New York Times, Hagel personally wrote a two-page detailed analysis in which he asserted that the policy outlined by President Barack Obama was in danger of failing because it does not outline how the United States will manage its approach to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
One senior official told CNNthat he was "expressing concern about overall Syria strategy" and that the main message of the memo was "we need to have a sharper view of what to do about the Assad regime."
The official did not give further details about Hagel's views but did not disagree with the idea that the U.S. has much to lose in its war against the Islamic State (ISIS) if it fails to address that element of the strategy.
Hagel has so far refrained from making his concerns public. The official told CNN that Hagel continues to support the Pentagon's plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels.
Earlier this month, Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a joint editorial that Obama's current strategy will not be capable of eradicating ISIS unless Assad is overthrown.
"Mr. Assad all but created Islamic State through his slaughter of nearly 200,000 Syrians, and he has knowingly allowed the group to grow and operate with impunity inside the country when it suits his purposes. Until we confront this reality, we can continue to degrade Islamic State in Syria, but Mr. Assad's barbarism will continue to empower it," they wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
According to The New York Times, Hagel personally wrote a two-page detailed analysis in which he asserted that the policy outlined by President Barack Obama was in danger of failing because it does not outline how the United States will manage its approach to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
One senior official told CNNthat he was "expressing concern about overall Syria strategy" and that the main message of the memo was "we need to have a sharper view of what to do about the Assad regime."
The official did not give further details about Hagel's views but did not disagree with the idea that the U.S. has much to lose in its war against the Islamic State (ISIS) if it fails to address that element of the strategy.
Hagel has so far refrained from making his concerns public. The official told CNN that Hagel continues to support the Pentagon's plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels.
Earlier this month, Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a joint editorial that Obama's current strategy will not be capable of eradicating ISIS unless Assad is overthrown.
"Mr. Assad all but created Islamic State through his slaughter of nearly 200,000 Syrians, and he has knowingly allowed the group to grow and operate with impunity inside the country when it suits his purposes. Until we confront this reality, we can continue to degrade Islamic State in Syria, but Mr. Assad's barbarism will continue to empower it," they wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
McCain and Graham also said that it's implausible to arm and train 5,000 Syrians to fight against ISIS while at the same time neglecting to protect them from Assad's airstrikes.
"Our efforts to buildup a viable Free Syrian Army to liberate Syria from the evils of the Islamic State and Mr. Assad will surely fail if the Syrian ruler is not dealt with. To expect Mr. Assad to sit on the sidelines as the Free Syrian Army gains capacity would be a colossal mistake and doom efforts to stop Syria from sinking further into the abyss," they said.
McCain has subsequently gone further, warning that the airstrikes against ISIS were enabling Assad, who has "intensified his strikes against the Free Syrian Army."
From the start, Obama's strategy in Syria received criticism from Republicans for its lack of specificity. Democrats also signaled their concern that it was not detailed enough to get a clear view of whether it would be sufficient to meet the administration's goal of "degrading and destroying" the militant group.
The most recent criticism came this week from Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter who characterized the American-led airstrikes against ISIS as "largely window dressing."
"I don't think we have a comprehensive approach, a comprehensive strategy," Vitter told Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
