Author: webuiltitblog

In the aftermath of the first Presidential debate Mr. Romney has received the expected bounce in the polls.  Last night, Rasmussen, who I believe has been the most accurate of all the pollsters in recent election cycles, published the following results in his latest poll:  Florida – Romney up 49% – 47%; Ohio – Obama up 50% – 49%; Virginia – Romney up 49% – 48%.  If you’re a Romney supporter that’s good news as he was trailing or statistically even in each of those states before the debate.  If you’re an Obama supporter you can say “well, after my guy’s poor showing Romney’s only even, and he has to win all three states to have a realistic chance.”  Plus, Obama figures to come back strong and determined in the next debate. So, there’s something for each side to hang their hat on.  Historically, a bounce was to be expected.  The questions is, is it temporary, or the start of a momentum switch to Mr. Romney?  No one knows for sure. Time will tell.  Stay tuned.

Voter viewing was surprisingly high, around 80 million not counting those who followed it by computer.   Pretty good for a populace that is supposedly turned off and distracted.  I have said all along that I don’t mind so much which candidate people vote for as long as it is an informed vote, not one cast out of predisposition, ignorance or indifference.

As I said a couple of days ago, most observers and analysts on both sides thought that Mr. Romney won the debate.  Some Dems, however, felt compelled to make excuses for Mr. Obama. Some of them strained credulity and insulted voters’ intelligence.  For example, Al Gore stated that Mr. Obama’s performance was adversely affected by Denver’s thin air.  (He stated that Mr. Obama had only arrived in Denver at 2:00 pm that afternoon, which, according to Mr. Gore, did not afford him enough time to acclimate himself to the altitude.  Mr. Romney, on the other hand, had been in Denver for three days prior to the debate.) Another Dem commentator, Michael Eric Dyson, a Georgetown University Sociology Professor, theorized that Mr. Obama could not speak vigorously and frankly lest he “come off as an angry black man.”  I don’t think either statement will have much credence with mainstream voters.  Gore sounded foolish and Dyson is known to be a far left activist who was just using the “race card” as an excuse. In any event, these excuses and others like them made the Dems seem petty and sore losers.  They would be better served to accept defeat and try to do better next time.

Romney suporters should temper their exuberance by remembering that it was only the first of three debates, and Mr. Romney needed a win a lot more to sustain his candidacy.  Mission accomplished.  He now has to withstand an expected vigorous Dem counterattack to maintain his momentum and then continue to press his advantage in the ensuing debates.

Can you see the future?  I can.  I’m not saying that I can tell whether the stock market will go up or down or who will win the World Series.  That would be a neat trick and, of course, very lucrative.

But, what I can do is see the future of the US if Barack Obama gets re-elected.  What’s more, so could you if you have an open mind and use some common sense.  All you have to do is look at the economies of the socialist countries of Western Europe.  Greece would be the best example, but Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, and the UK would also do.  They all have one thing in common – socialist economies of varying degrees abounding with entitlements.  Greece is virtually bankrupt.  It just doesn’t know it yet.  It has had to be bailed out several times by its lenders, the major banks in Europe and the US.  Its economy is in a shambles.  Unemployment is high; productivity is low; people cannot retire and live decently; there is considerable political and social unrest.  Naturally, every group blames others for the problems rather than themselves.  The reality is the problems have been years in the making, are extremely complex and not so easily solved.  The other Western European countries, except for Germany, are following along the same path, but they are just not there yet.

In the past four years Mr. Obama has demonstrated, by both word and deed, that his economic policies are consistent with those of the aforementioned Western Europe nations.  All of his actions have served to discourage business, redistribute wealth, expand entitlements, expand the role of government as opposed to free enterprise and initiative, and increase the national debt.

Americans must look at Greece’s situation and realize that could be us in a short time if we keep on the current economic course.  Some voters say “We don’t know where Mr. Romney stands on certain issues.”  “He’s not specific enough.”  That’s a fair point, however, I say look at Western Europe and you see empirical evidence of where four more years of Obamanomics will take us.  Unless, you are a far left liberal or a Romney hater, the only logical conclusion is to reverse that old expression and take the”devil you don’t know over the devil you do.”

Prior to last night’s debate, virtually all analysts, and even his own supporters, agreed that it was critical that Mr. Romney win or, at least, give a strong performance.  He was losing in most polls, including in the battleground states.  In addition, donors were getting nervous, and some of the other GOP candidates running for election were reportedly having misgivings about his perceived weakness at the top of the ticket impacting their own candidacy.

Following the debate most observers, even many Democrat-leaning analysts, agreed that Mr. Romney had won.  A CNN poll taken right after the debate ended found that 67% of the respondents thought Mr. Romney had won versus 25% for President Obama.  Fox News polled a Focus Group of uncommitted voters who had watched the debate in isolation with a Fox analyst.  Following the debate, over 80% of them said, based on Mr. Romney’s performance they would now vote for him.  His campaign contributions should increase dramatically.  He needs it as he is currently being outspent in the battleground states by 2:1.  Mr. Romney may have saved his candidacy, at least temporarily.

Mr. Romney was forceful without being disrespectful and was on top of the facts.  President Obama seemed distracted and, in general, not at his best.  I expect he will do better next time.  Often, in Presidential debates how something is said is more important than what is said as “facts” cannot be verified on the spot and can later be “spun” more than one way anyhow.  I think Mr. Romney’s presentation was better.

1.  He explained his tax plan in sufficient detail to allay fears among middle class voters, clearly and succinctly explaining that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.  This was a major concern going in.  He explained he would lower tax rates across the board, which are the same rates small business pay.  This would encourage them to hire more workers, thus reducing unemployment.  More people working equals more tax revenue. He would “pay” for this by reducing some deductions and exemptions, wasteful government programs and transferring some Federal programs to the states where he feels they belong anyway. President Obama pushed him hard on this issue, but could not rattle him on this, and ultimately, had no answer.

2.  President Obama and Mr. Romney also discussed Obamacare, which Mr. Romney wants to replace.  They clashed on the relative merits of Obamacare versus Romney’s plan, particularly with respect to pre-existing conditions and Medicare.  Mr. Romney scored points by citing the $716 billion taken from the Medicare Fund to help pay for Obamacare as well Obamacare’s use of a board of unelected bureaucrats without medical training with authority to decide medical issues.

3.  Regarding Governance, the difference between the two became obvious.  In summary, the Dems want government to do more, what Mr. Romney labeled “trickle down government.”  The GOP prefers more individual self-reliance and free enterprise.  President Obama and Mr. Romney clashed on the relative advantages and disadvantages of those philosophies. Mr. Obama had no good answer as to how to repay the $16 trillion debt.

The GOP is hopeful that last night was a turning point; the Dems view it a bump in the road.  In any event, it is premature for the Romneys to begin selecting furniture for the White House.  Last night’s “win” should yield a temporary bounce in the polls, but it may not necessarily translate into a permanent one.  Moreover, regardless of what the national polls may say, it will be the nine battleground states that really count and, within that group, Florida and Ohio, in particular. The election could very well be decided in those two states.  They are the largest of the group, and no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio. In addition, there are three debates left for the Dems to come back.  But, at least Mr. Romney can now begin to build some momentum.

The mainstream media has been exhibiting a pervasive and continuous bias in favor of President Obama throughout the current election cycle.  There have been many examples of this.  The latest example is the terrorist attack on the US embassy in Libya, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the US ambassador.  Stop for a minute and digest the level of this atrocity.  We are not talking about killing an armed combatant or even a tourist; we are talking about assassinating an ambassador with diplomatic immunity who is supposed to be under the protection of the Libyan government.  When was the last time you heard of a foreign ambassador being assassinated?  How about never?  Can you imagine the furor if the Iranian or Syrian ambassador to the US had been assassinated on US soil?

The mainstream media has been treating this event as an unfortunate accident.  “Oh, it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-muslim video.”  “Oh you have to excuse Libya.  The government doesn’t really have control over the country.”   To that, I say bull____ !  As we say in NY, if you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.

The timeline of this event was as follows:

9/11- Four Americans, including Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador, were assassinated in Benghazi.

9/12 – President Obama released a tepid statement condemning the attack.  Then, rather than deal with matters directly by  meeting face-to-face with world leaders who happened to be in NY for meetings at the UN, flew to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

9/16 – Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, issued a statement calling the attack spontaneous.  Does anyone think she acted on her own initiative?  Again, there’s that bridge.

9/16 – The same day, a top Libyan official contradicted her calling the attack pre-planned.

9/19 – Matthew Olsen, Director of National Counterterrorism Center, confirmed it was a terrorist attack

As I said, the Obama Admnistration tried to portray the attack as a spontaneous “demonstration” in response to a video that portrayed Mohammed in a negative light.  But, the facts and subsequent events do not support this and, in fact, make that analysis seem naive and ridiculous.  Firstly, the “demonstrators” used AK-47s and other heavy weapons that terrorists would use as opposed to demonstrators, who would have used bottles and rocks.   Secondly, there have been worldwide demonstrations at other US embassies since then indicating some coordination. Thirdly, the attack came on the anniversary of 9/11.  Despite what President Obama would have us believe, it appears that Al Quaeda is enjoying a resurgence.

The mainstream press’ underreporting and mischaracterization of this incident has been outrageous.  Pat Caddell, Democratic Pollster, has opined that any other president would have been crucified.  He drew a comparison to President Bush’s “Katrina moment,” when President Bush was crucified by the press. These incidents should have been touted as examples of Mr. Obama’s failed Middle East policy of appeasement.

Does anyone remember Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s?  How did that turn out?  Did Mr. Obama study history at Harvard?

Also, the press has not reported, in depth, on the US’s lack of preparedness, particularly in view of the anniversary of 9/11.  Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, should bear some culpability here, but she has largely escaped criticism along with Mr. Obama.  It should be noted that the Washington Post, instead of running stories on this, ran a front page story on Mitt Romney’s high school hazing incident.  I guess the powers that be at the Post considered that to be more newsworthy.  So much for their credibility and objectivity.

I always thought that the voters were too smart to be fooled by the bias coverage of the press. Based upon the polls I have seen, however, it seems that they may not be.  Many of them may be too distracted by their personal lives or just don’t care enough.  I hope I am wrong about this, but we will see on November 6.

Romney supporters are hoping he will win all three Presidential debates decisively, pass President Obama in the polls and ride that wave of momentum to the White House on November 6.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  History says no.  Read on to see why.

The three debates between President Obama and Mr. Romney are October 3 on domestic policy, October 16 in a town hall format and October 22 on foreign policy.  In addition, there will be one debate between Vice President Biden and Mr. Ryan on October 11 on foreign and domestic policy.  There is great anticipation surrounding these debates, particularly among Romney supporters.  They view the debates as a chance, perhaps the last chance, for their candidate to explain his policies to the voters clearly and specifically and to convince them to vote for him over President Obama.  Most political analysts on both sides have been saying that, barring an unforeseen event (e.g. the financial crisis of 2008 or another terrorist attack), the election will be decided by the debates and the turnout on Election Day.  The turnout part of the analysis is obvious; everyone would acknowledge that a high turnout would favor the Democrats.  History shows, however, that the debates, while a factor, have not been as major a factor in deciding elections as we might think.  We tend to remember famous sound bites or instances from these debates and, in hindsight, ascribe more significance to them than was the case at the time.

A few examples:

1.  The Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 was the first televised debate.   Many people remember or have heard that Kennedy “won” the debate because he was personable and charming on television whereas Nixon appeared to be”shifty,” “sweating,” “pale,” and had a 5 o’clock shadow.  Also, he was not feeling well and his general appearance was hurt by the fact that he did not use professional make-up like Kennedy.  It is important to note, however, that in 1960 many people listened to the debate on the radio, because they did not have a television.  Interestingly, it was reported that the majority of the radio listeners thought Nixon had actually won the debate.  Although this debate helped Kennedy because it enhanced his exposure to the country, it is debatable whether or not it was decisive.  It should be remembered that the race was tight before the debate and remained tight to the end.

2.  The Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 became famous for two of Mr. Reagan’s lines: “There you go again” and “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Mr. Reagan was very personable, at ease and entertaining.  Mr. Carter was stiff and on the defensive.  Mr. Reagan won the election going away, but was it because of the debate?  The debate performance was a contributing factor, but Stuart Spencer, Mr. Reagan’s political strategist in 1980 recollects that the momentum was already swinging Mr. Reagan’s way for two weeks prior to the debate.  The debate continued and, perhaps, accelerated it.  Also, he admits that had Iran released its hostages before the election instead of afterwards, the election results might have been different despite the debate results.  Incidentally, Stuart says Mr. Reagan won by pounding away repeatedly at a simple message: cut taxes, strong defense, fight communism, and make Americans feel good about themselves again.  Substitute “terrorrism” for “communism” and add the economy and jobs, and there’s the message Mr. Romney should be using.

3.  One of the biggest “gotcha” moments in debate history occurred during the vice presidential debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.  Dan Quayle, a handsome, personable man with not much between the ears, was trying to compare himself to John Kennedy.  Mr. Bentsen interrupted him and said: “I served with Jack Kennedy.  I knew Jack Kennedy.  Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.  Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”  Hilarious,  but it had no effect on the election, which was won by Bush-Quayle.

The foregoing does not auger well for Mr. Romney.  A decisive win is highly unlikely.  Most likely, the result of the debates will be inconclusive, and few people will be swayed by them.  Each side will claim his man “won,” and the other person misconstrued the facts and mislead the listeners.  In fact, many, if not most, of the very undecided voters Mr. Romney is counting on reaching will probably not even pay attention (as has been their habit all along).  Don’t forget, we are in an age of short attention spans and multiple distractions.

The analysts will line up along party lines. The voters who bother to watch will be “rooting” for their guy.  Thus, they will perceive he did better than the other guy.  They will hear what they want to hear and what reinforces their opinions.  They will tune out or discount opposing views.  In the end, unless someone commits an historic gaffe, which, given the format, the degree of preparation and the experience of the particpants is unlikely, no significant change in the polls will occur. In order to win the election, Mr. Romney will need more than a strong showing at the debates, although it would be a good start.

It is well known that President Obama has the strong support of young people.  (A recent Associated Press-GfK  Poll found that 61%% of registered voters aged 18-29 favored Mr. Obama vs 30% for Mr. Romney.)  The question is why?  I understand that they may think he is hip and cool and he brings an excitement that is attractive to young people.  Additionally, young people are generally predisposed to be more liberal.  But, if a young voter were to look beyond the razzle dazzle to the substance inside to ascertain who is better for me and my future, he or she would be hard-pressed to justify his support of Mr. Obama.

Consider the following:

1.  The level of unemployed youth remains stubbornly high – 17% vs 8% for the population as a whole.  The most recent rate for African American youths was 29%.  If you can’t get a decent job, you can’t start your life, e.g. start a career, get married, raise a family, etc.

2.  In four years under Mr. Obama’s watch the US debt has jumped to $16 trillion.  That number is the 500 lb. gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about, but it will have to be paid back someday.  Seniors and middle aged people won’t be around to worry about paying it back.  Guess who will be?  That’s right – today’s young people and unborn generations.  That debt will be a tremendous drag on the US economy for their entire lives, and, if the government decides to print more money, it could lead to double-digit inflation like we had in the 1970s.

3.  In addition to running up our debt and bankrupting several States, Mr. Obama’s entitlement policies have jeopardized the social security fund.  Independent projections indicate that young people will have to work longer (well past the current retirement age of 65), and will receive much less benefits than the current generation.  So, saving for your retirement will be virtually all your responsibility.

In summary, if I am a 21 year old college graduate about to look for my first job and maybe vote in my first Presidential election I have a lot to think about.  Do I vote for the candidate who provides the sizzle (Obama) or the steak (Romney)?  Remember, I’m not picking someone to invite to my frat house for a party; I’m picking a President who will hold my future and those of my family in his hands.

Most analysts agree that Mr. Romney must win most of the “battle-ground” states – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Colorado –  to win the election.  The two most crucial of these are probably Florida and Ohio – Florida because it has 29 electoral votes, the largest of the group, and Ohio, because no Republican has ever won the Presidency without carrying the state.  At the present time, most polls show Mr. Romney trailing in both states, in some cases outside the margin of error.

So, it would seem that barring a major comeback in the debates or a major Obama gaffe, the race is over.  Right?  Well, not so fast.

What most people don’t realize is that the polls are not as scientific as one might think.  The subjectivity enters the picture as pollsters have to adjust the raw numbers  to account accurately for the undercounting of men, minorities and young people.  Pollsters know that women are more likely to answer the phone than men.  Minorities and young people are two demographic groups that are harder to reach, particularly since many of them use cell phones rather than landlines.  Therefore, they use a formula to adjust those numbers upward.  On a net basis, this increases Mr. Obama’s polling numbers.  The question is, is the adjustment accurate or exaggerated?

Pollsters have been using the last Presidential election as a guide, which is standard procedure.  But, 2008 was a record turnout for both young people and African Americans, which is highly unlikely to be repeated.  Hence, Mr. Obama’s support is probably being overstated by enough to make it apprear that he is winning in Florida and Ohio whereas, in reality, both states are “toss-ups.”  It will all hinge on the debates and then the turnout.  The main point, however, is that the race is not the foregone conclusion that most pollsters and the liberal-leaning media would have you believe.

It is uncertain whether this is an accidential miscalculation or a deliberate conspiracy to mislead and discourage Romney supporters.  I guess one would have to consult his or her inner Oliver Stone.  All one can do is remember the Truman-Dewey election and show up on Election Day.

President Obama continues to enjoy the support of a majority of Jewish voters, based on his liberal policies and perceived support of the State of Israel.  However, although Mr. Obama says all the right things to have the Jewish voters believe he is a strong supporter, many of his actions over the last four years have not been consistent with what he has said.  These inconsistencies lead me to question the depth of his commitment to Israel.  Yet a majority of Jews continue to support him by rote simply because he is a liberal Democrat.  My message is look at the facts and re-evaluate your thinking before it is too late!

For example:

1.  He has criticized those who have denied that the Holocaust occurred, but he favors talks and, in general, a mild diplomatic approach with Ahmadinejad, who not only continues to deny that the Holocaust occurred but also promises to destroy Israel and is building a nuclear arsenal to do just that.

2.  Mr.  Obama claims to be committed to a strong and secure Israel, but then he said he favors a return to the pre-1967 borders as a precondition to meaningful peace talks.  He claims to be an ally and a friend of Israel’s, but then he offends Mr. Netanyahu with the above declaration and compounds it by refusing to meet with him in NY.

3.  Let’s not forget the infamous Jerusalem flip-flop, which was the subject one of my previous blogs.

4.  Most importantly, Mr. Obama seems reluctant to take a strong position with Iran on its nuclear weapons development or with other Middle East leaders at the present time.  My impression is that he is hoping not to stir up any controvery until after the election.  It’s not clear what kind of dialogue he has been having with Israel on the Iran matter, but if Israel should feel it has to act independently to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities before the election it is not clear how much and what types of support Mr. Obama will authorize.  The Israelis don’t want to act unilaterally, but according to a recent Wall Street Journal article Mr. Obama’s message to Israel seems to be more like “you’re on your own, pal”, rather than ” we have your back.”  Make no mistake about it, this tepid and inconsistent support of Israel has also emboldened Iran to continue to defy us.  This is one situation where Mr. Obama’s lack of experience has been a major factor.

In conclusion, Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy has been an abject failure.  He wants to be everbody’s friend with the result that he is nobody’s.  I believe he has been downplaying his true feelings for political reasons.  If he should win re-election,  he will have no further reason to hold back.  In that case, Jews and Israel beware. Four more years of Mr. Obama in the White House with Iran having nuclear capability and the backing of China and Russia may mean the destruction of the State of Israel.

Less than six weeks to go before the most pivotal election in recent memory and the country’s lack of leadership in the Legislative and Executive Branches is on full display for all the world to see.  The current Congress has displayed a lack of leadership throughout its entire term.  The majority and minority leaders, the Whips, the Speaker of the House, the committee chairpersons and other leaders have been unable to control the fringe elements in their respective parties.  As a result, they have been unable to eliminate squabbling and forge coalitions to pass significant legislation.  This Congress has only passed 173 laws, roughly half of a typical Congress’ output.  In addition, it adjourned earlier than any other Congress since 1960, leaving unresolved significant bills dealing with the expiration of the “Bush tax cuts,” forestalling the Post Office’s insolvency, a Farm Bill, and other matters.  They plan to take up these matters after the election.  Good luck with that.  At that point, it will be a “lame duck” Congress as some current members will have lost re-election.  It should be interesting to see how that plays out.

In fact the leadersip is so low profile and inept that few people can even name them.  For the record they are:  Harry Reid – Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell – Minority Leader, Jon Kyl – Minority Whip, John Boehner – Speaker of the House, Eric Cantor – Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy – Majority Whip, Nancy Pelosi – Minority Leader, Steny Hoyer – Minority Whip.  They are a far cry from the lions of yesteryear on both sides of the aisle, such as Sam Rayburn,  Everett Dirksen, Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, Lyndon Johnson, and Newt Gingrich, who knew how to compromise with their counterparts and accomplish things.

President Obama was right to criticize Congress for adjourning early so that its members could concentrate on their respective re-election campaigns, however, he is guilty of the exact same thing!  What hypocrisy!  First, he told Mr. Netanyahu he could not meet with him while he was in NY for the UN meetings because he was too busy campaigning.  Now it seems he has no plans to meet with any of the world leaders.  He is letting a perfect opportunity go by because he is too busy campaigning.  In view of all the crises in the world right now – Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt to name a few, one would think Mr. Obama could somehow find the time. It should be noted that former presidents Clinton and Bush 43 did find the time to interrupt their campaigning and meet with world leaders under similar circumstances.

Mr. Obama does, however, have enough time to yuk it up with David Letterman, Jay Z , the “View” women, and his other entertainment pals.  After nearly four years in office he has not learned that Americans do not want a celebrity President; they want a competent President.

Are the voters paying attention to the important issues of the Presidential campaign?  Do they realize what is at stake in this election?  Do they care?

As the campaign heads into the home stretch, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that a sizeable portion of the voters are not paying attention to the campaign.  Instead, I believe they are distracted by issues in their own lives, or they are turned off by politics, in general, and they are planning to vote according to their political preconceptions rather than through careful analysis of the issues.

Despite President Obama’s poor record over the last four years, Mr. Romney is polling behind in all of the key battleground states – Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin to name the big ones.  Various polls show him down 5% in Florida despite 8.8% unemployment and one of the worst housing markets of any state in the country.   He’s down in Ohio even though the state has had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country during the last four years, although it has been improving.  He’s down eight points in Michigan, the state in which he was born and his father, George, served two terms as Governor.  He’s down 14 points in Wisconsin, Paul Ryan’s home state, and eight points in Virginia.  He has to win virtually all of these states, depending on other combinations of smaller states that are in play, and he is ahead in none of them.

Most perplexing of all, in a recent poll a plurality of voters identified Obama as more qualified to solve the country’s economic woes than Romney.  That result was a real “head scratcher.” Anyone who thinks that really hasn’t been paying attention.

All these polls indicate that Romney has a lot of work to do.  Somehow, he has to change his strategy to get his points across to the voters.  He needs to be clear, specific and forceful.  There are still over 6 weeks to go until election day, which history shows is enough time.  But to  quote that famous baseball philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It gets late early.”