Archive for Election

The Next Election We Must Win

Caroline Glick lays all it out for you:

Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.

Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.”

Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.

Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.

Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”

Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president and director of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Coincidence? Indyk was back in Israel recently and gave a speech:

[Israel] can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”

As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.

And then there’s The Speech:

When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.

Obama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.

It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.

Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.

It’s Netanyahu or Bennett. There can be no other.

Comments

Cause and Effect

Cause:

Twice as many Israelis say that US President Barack Obama’s administration is interfering in the election as those who say it is not, according to a Panels Research poll taken for The Jerusalem Post and its Hebrew sister publication, Maariv Sof Hashavua.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said the Obama administration is interfering, 31% said it is not interfering, and 8% did not know.

A majority of respondents, 56%, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is correct in principle in his desire to address Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat, while 36% said he is not right, and 8% had no opinion.

Effect:

The projected right-wing bloc is stable at 42 seats, according to an elections poll published Friday – whereas the left continues to reach new lows.

More of the public supports a right-wing government than other possibilities, the poll also revealed. While 38.9% of respondents stated that they would prefer a right-wing government with Likud at its head, only 25% want a center-left government headed by Labor. Just 19% would prefer a joint Likud-Labor government, and 17% abstained from choosing.

Continuing our Thirstradamus streak, we saw this coming. Obama sicced (sic) his Organizing für Amerika dogs on Netanyahu, and the Israeli public, regardless of their feelings for Bibi, recoiled in disgust. Like we said.

It’s not for us to tell Israelis how to vote, but theirs is our favorite world leader. (I used to like the blond Ukraine chick with the braids, but she’s history.) He’s steadfast against terror, a passionate advocate for Zionism, and a very moving speaker. I only wish he were more of all. But it’s enough that Obama can’t stand him. For that alone he deserves a Nobel Prize.

Comments (1)

See, We Told You So

Obama sent Organizing für Amerika to pull a Zero Dark Thirty on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When we found out, we said the coup attempt would work against the liberal fascists.

Ahem:

The chances of Labor-Hatnua forming Israel’s next government in the 20th Knesset are looking less and less likely, as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party continues to gain in polls.

If elections were held today, according to the TNS survey for Walla! News, Likud would be the largest party in the Knesset with 26 seats. It appears the fallout from the “Bottle-gate” Netanyahu scandal has been relatively minimal.

Labor-Hatnua, on the other hand, seems to be suffering from the V15 controversy, and has dropped down to 23 mandates – their worst polling in weeks.

In the past week, Labor has tried desperately to distance itself from the V15 campaign, who has been accused of funding the left-wing party with illegal foreign money.

The poll also asked respondents whom they preferred as prime minister. While 52.1% said they believed the incumbent, Netanyahu, was suitable for the job, 38.5% answered that they “were not at all interested” in seeing him continue the post.

30.8% of respondents found Labor Chairman Yitzhak Herzog suitable for the job of prime minister.

During the SOTU, Obama boasted about winning his last two elections. Shame to finish his disgraceful career in humiliating defeat. The shame being he didn’t lose earlier.

I hope it’s not too early to say “Mazel Tov, Bibi!”

Comments

In Other Words

Yesterday, we congratulated the WSJ’s Bret Stevens for his description of the current president as a “peevish and callow potentate”. That’s a lot classier than our usual fare of “doofus” and “a-hole”.

But sometimes an a-hole is just an a-hole:

President Obama was shocked and irritated by Mitt Romney’s concession call in the 2012 presidential election — and claimed Romney insinuated that Obama won only by getting out the black vote, according to a new book by presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.

Obama was “unsmiling during the call, and slightly irritated when it was over,” Axelrod writes.

The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss, Axelrod wrote.

“‘You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee,’ in other words, black people,'” Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. “That’s what he thinks this was all about.”

Romney conceded his defeat, and Obama was irritated? [Bleep] him.

“In other words, black people.” No, those are your words, not Romney’s. Bogus accusations of racism may be worse than racism itself. Racism is universally condemned; accusations, founded or not, stain uniformly and eternally.

But let’s look at the evidence.

Ohio:

According to Secretary of State Jon Husted’s website, President Obama won the popular vote in Ohio with 50.67% of the vote over Mitt Romney in second place at 47.69%, a Democratic victory margin of 2.98%.

President Obama still wins Ohio by over 166,000 votes.

What about Cleveland?

Cuyahoga Country — Obama 420,953; Romney 184,475

Obama won Ohio, a key swing state, in Cleveland alone. So Romney was right.

What about Wisconsin?

When all ballots were counted, Obama won 52.83% of the vote to Romney’s 45.89%, a 6.94% margin of victory.

Popular vote 1,620,985 — 1,407,966

That’s not as close, but Wisconsin was still considered a swing state, not least because Paul Ryan, the Republican VP candidate, hails from there.

And Milwaukee?

Milwaukee County — Obama 332,438; Romney 154,924

Hey, that’s not enough to account for the victory! You lie, Romney!

Oh wait.

Dane County — Obama 216,071; Romney 83,644

That’s Madison, as moonbat a community as there is. So, between Milwaukee and Madison, left-wing bastions, Obama more than made up for Romney’s strength in much of the rest of the state.

Elections have results: Obama won. But he won exactly the way Romney said he did: by getting out the vote in his strongholds.

Elections also have consequences (as Aggie reminds us): this peevish, callow potentate—doofus, a-hole, whatever—is still our president.

Comments

The Courage of Our Convictions

A couple of days ago, I told you that Elizabeth Warren would not only run for the Democrat nomination, she would beat Hillary Clinton like the proverbial red-headed stepchild.

Others don’t have the BTL’s ‘nads:

Indeed, even as Elizabeth Warren denies she’s running for president, Team Clinton continues to be anxious about whether she jumps into the race, forcing Clinton to take positions to the left of the political sweet spot. She’s focused on the wrong Democrat. For all the hype, Warren is unlikely to run and won’t be the Democrat pushing Clinton to the left. It will be Obama himself.

This writer’s point is that Obama is driving the party to the left in order to herd Hillary that way.

I had a different take.

Also, Obama’s antics lately are all about positioning the party to Crockagawea’s liking. Goodness knows, there’s no love lost with the Clintons, and the 0/32nds Cherokee has always been his squaw.

Did I really write that adolescent twaddle? Good for me.

Let me elaborate. Warren won’t be running? Why on earth not? Seriously, unless she just doesn’t want to run, every factor points toward her running (deer). This is her time: as Obama made clear, even the most shallow, improbable, lie-based biography is a winning platform on which to run. She’s been senator for barely two years, but she’s already our senior senator—she’s supposed to languish in the Senate for another four or eight years? It’s just as far beneath her as it was beneath Barack Obama. Her supporters will feel betrayed? Hardly. They are urging her most ardently to run. We can and will replace her with another robotic liberal (as we replaced Kerry with Markey). She can’t beat Hillary? You wait and see. She will beat her like Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson. Like Ali beat Liston. Like Krystal beat Alexis.

Remind me if I prove to be wrong. You can be sure I’ll remind you if I prove to be right.

Comments

What a Difference Two Days Make!

Obama, January 25th: “We have a profound interest, as I believe every country does, in promoting a core principle, which is: Large countries don’t bully smaller countries.”

Obama today:

A top appointee in President Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign is now working to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming March election.

Jeremy Bird was the national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign, and he’s now working for an Israel-based group, dubbed V15, an anti-Netanyahu group that is backed by a U.S. -U.K. group titled “One Voice.”

“We are working with OneVoice,” confirmed Lynda Tran, who co-founded Bird’s campaign firm, 270 Strategies.

There’s little or no chance that Bird would work against Netanyahu if Obama didn’t want Netanyahu defeated in the March election.

Spread the word. Let’s make it backfire. Is Israel going to let itself be bullied by a “large country”?

Comments (1)

She Had Me at Shalom

If I had to name a trinity of political pundits and commentators, I wouldn’t hesitate: Mark Steyn, James Taranto (Best of the Web Today), and Caroline Glick.

Only one can run for Knesset:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has requested that veteran journalist Caroline Glick be appointed to the #11 spot on the Likud list, Likud sources stated Saturday night.

Glick is a veteran journalist who founded the satirical television series Latma, is the deputy managing editor for the Jerusalem Post, and the senior fellow in a Washington-based think tank, the Center for Security Policy.

She has previously not spared criticism of the prime minister, and penned a particularly acid piece in response to the 2011 Gilad Shalit deal in the Post and on Channel 2’s mako website at the time claiming he had made the deal “at the price of Jewish blood.”

Israeli politics is not my strong suit, but it would seem to me that if Netanyahu needed to placate his base, he could not have picked a better candidate. Glick is not for turning; if Bibi goes wobbly, she’ll let him have it. As someone who has openly lobbied for one Israel, from the river to the sea, she will project a loud and proud voice in the government. And as an American by birth, she can argue for Israeli foreign policy to an American Jewish audience as well as anyone.

Can’t wait!

Comments

Good News On ObamaCare!!!

Half of the Senators who voted for this dog won’t be in the Senate come January.

On Dec. 24, 2009, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed President Obama’s healthcare law with a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority, triggering a massive backlash that propelled Republicans to control of the House the following year. On the Senate side, going into this year’s midterm elections, 25 senators who voted for Obamacare were already out or not going be part of the new Senate being sworn in next month. After Democratic losses on Nov. 4 and Saturday’s defeat of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the number has risen to 30. In other words, half of the Senators who voted for Obamacare will not be part of the new Senate.

The following is an updated breakdown of senators who voted for Obamacare and will not be part of the next Senate.

Lost and replaced by a Republican:

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Arlen Specter, D-Penn.

Left Senate and replaced by a Republican:

Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V.

Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

See ‘Ya, wouldn’t wanna be ‘Ya!

– Aggie

Comments

Interesting Midterm Demographic Stuff

Did the Republicans sweep merely because of midterm demographics?

Happily, no.

A congealing conventional wisdom surrounding the 2014 elections is that Democrats had a long night because of an unfavorable Senate map and because Democratic constituencies failed to show up. One storyline growing out of this is that once Democrats can enjoy a “presidential electorate” rather than a “midterm electorate,” their fortunes will turn, and Democrats will run well.

This isn’t entirely correct. The major factors driving the different results between 2012 and 2014 were not demographic. The major difference was that in 2012 Barack Obama was a moderately popular president. In 2014, he is an unpopular president. If this does not change between now and 2016, demographic shifts alone will not save the Democratic nominee.

He proceeds to become wonky, but it’s interesting. The gist of the approach is to compare the known differences in voter demographics between 2010 and 2012, and then apply to the differences between 2012 and 2014. I’ll give you a bit of the argument:

We can illustrate this best by borrowing a page from Harry Enten, and seeing what would have happened if the 2014 electorate had instead more closely resembled the 2012 electorate. That is to say, let’s keep whites voting 60-38 for Republicans, Hispanics voting 62-36 for Democrats, and so forth, as they all did in 2014, but alter their shares of the electorate to resemble 2012 (72 percent white, 10 percent Hispanic, and so forth) rather than 2014 (75 percent white, 8 percent Hispanic, and so forth). This allows us to isolate the effects of demographic change between 2012 and 2014.

The results are underwhelming: If the 2014 electorate had resembled the 2012 electorate in terms of race, the Republican vote share would shrink by just 1.97 percentage points. In other words, in a 2012 electorate, Republicans would have won the popular vote for the House by 4.5 points, rather than 6.5 points. That’s not nothing, as they say, but it still only explains a relatively small share of the difference between the 2012 and 2014 results. Put differently, if Obama had put up the same vote shares among racial groups in 2012 as Democrats ultimately did in 2014, he’d have lost.

Perhaps the difference is not so much differences in the racial makeup of the electorate, but rather differences in the age makeup of the electorate? The 2014 electorate was, in fact, quite a bit older than the 2012 electorate. This isn’t necessarily surprising, given that the elderly population is actually set to grow substantially in the next decade. Regardless, if we reduce the 65+ share of the electorate from 2014’s 22 percent to 2012’s 16 percent, increase the 18-24 year old share from 7 percent (2014) to 11 percent (2012), and adjust everything in between accordingly, the Republican advantage contracts by … 1.94 points.

Now you might look at this and say, “Well, that’s a total of four points!” The problem with this approach is that there is a substantial double count going on. Democrats do better among young voters in large part because that demographic is less white; younger whites don’t vote that differently from older whites. So this isn’t a cumulative exercise.

That last section is fascinating. Did you know this: The problem with this approach is that there is a substantial double count going on. Democrats do better among young voters in large part because that demographic is less white; younger whites don’t vote that differently from older whites.

Now, I thought that younger whites definitely voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. I did when I was young and virtually all of the young people that I know today do too. But apparently I exist in a liberal bubble, and this doesn’t generalize to the rest of the nation.

In any case, if Obama continues to suck, we have a hope for 2016. Let’s raise our coffee cups to that.

– Aggie

Comments

Now Dems Want To Vote On Keystone XL

Mary Landrieu fights to save her seat.

It seems the voters have already done themselves some good.

For the first time in the six-year fight over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, both houses of Congress will hold a vote on the proposed project, giving each side in a Louisiana Senate election a chance to boost its candidate.

But not so fast:

A large showing of Democratic support for the pipeline could complicate the administration’s decision-making process, given the party’s dismal showing at the polls last week. Environmentalist allies of the president are solidly against the project and have been doggedly lobbying the administration against approving it.

But Republicans successfully used the president’s environmental and climate agenda as key lines of attack against Democrats in several contested midterm races. Those results strengthen the arguments of those who believe that it would be a political mistake for the administration to deny permits for the unbuilt sections of the pipeline, and congressional approval of the project could put the administration on the defensive if it were inclined to halt the project.

You know what I love most about this? It again highlights Obama’s idiocy. Love it.

Acknowledging the importance of energy to Louisiana’s economy, Landrieu and Cassidy have championed completion of the pipeline, which would transport oil from the tar sands of Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast. The GOP-controlled House voted several times in recent years to support the pipeline, while the Senate, in deference to the administration’s review, has resisted holding a vote on the matter despite strong objections from several moderate Democratic senators from rural or energy-rich states.

You have to ask: At this point, what difference does it make? (Don’t you just love that question?)

For six years, the pipeline has been under review by the State Department, which has jurisdiction because the project crosses international borders. Democrats such as Landrieu from energy-producing states have joined Republicans in calling for its approval.

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) voiced strong support for the plan on Wednesday, saying that “it would be a tremendous windfall for all of us. It’s something we can count on. And I can’t for the life of me understand why we haven’t to date been able to move this piece of legislation forward.”

Joe, let me help you out here. You haven’t been able to move this piece of legislation forward because your Senate leader, Harry Reid, refused to permit a vote. Does that ring a bell, Joe?

Meanwhile, Landrieu is tense:

Party leaders agreed suggesting that it [the pipeline] could be voted on next year in the new Congress.

Landrieu had other ideas.

“I don’t think we necessarily need to wait until January,” she said Wednesday in a floor speech that lasted almost three hours. Landrieu made no attempt to hide her motive. “I’m going to do everything in my power here and at home on the campaign trail, where I’m still in a runoff, as you know, to get this project moving forward,” she said.

She blathered on for three hours!!! She must really want to keep her job.

This exchange between Chuck Schumer and Landrieu is priceless:

Before her remarks, Landrieu was spotted riding the escalator alone up from the Senate trains that carry lawmakers between their offices and the Capitol, toward a row of elevators. She was stone-faced and declined to answer questions from reporters. Once she reached the top level and stepped off, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of his party’s top campaign strategists, walked over.

Smiling, he asked Landrieu to step aside for a private conversation. She shook her head and moved briskly toward the elevator. As she did, she pointed to her phone, saying she had a call. Schumer paused for a moment as she moved away. His smile dropped, and he turned to follow her. “Mary, Mary,” he said, a few steps behind, asking her to speak with him. When she kept moving and ducked into an elevator, he hustled and jumped in to join her as the doors closed.

You know, I’ll just bet she’s furious with the elitist, coastal Left wing of her party. But… she voted with them time after time. I hope that the voters in Louisiana think long and hard before returning her to Washington.

– Aggie

Comments

Why the Long Faces?

Untitled

You all look sadder than Lena Dunham looking at an empty fridge.

What’s the matter?

After years of tension between President Obama and his former Senate colleagues, trust between Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue had eroded. A fight between the White House and Senate Democrats over a relatively small sum of money had mushroomed into a major confrontation.

At a March 4 Oval Office meeting, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and other Senate leaders pleaded with Obama to transfer millions in party funds and to also help raise money for an outside group. “We were never going to get on the same page,” said David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff. “We were beating our heads against the wall.”

“The president’s approval rating is barely 40 percent,” Krone said. “What else more is there to say? .?.?. He wasn’t going to play well in North Carolina or Iowa or New Hampshire. I’m sorry. It doesn’t mean that the message was bad, but sometimes the messenger isn’t good.”

You mean he isn’t “light-skinned” with “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”?

That’s gotta suck.

Still, Obama’s their leader, and they’ll back him:

“It doesn’t make sense that we have to fight so hard against our own government and our own administration and our president to try to find a balance,” Manchin told MSNBC.

“It was President Obama dragging candidates down across the country,” one Senate Democratic aide said. “It was a tough map to start with, and his numbers were especially bad in these states, making it that much harder to overcome.”

“It’s an inescapable fact that this election was more about Obama and frustration with his presidency than any other factor,” said one prominent Democratic strategist. “You can blame, in some cases, bad strategy, bad candidacy, bad ads — but the one ring that unites them all was anger and frustration toward Obama’s policies.”

“President Obama needs to care more about the economic issues that everyday Americans care about than the fringe positions that House Republicans and Ted Cruz care about,” the liberal Progressive Change Campaign Committee argued.

Bet these racist bastard Democrats wouldn’t say these things if Obama were white (all white, that is). The party hasn’t changed from the 1950s.

Comments (1)

Wrong Nate

“I knew Nate Silver. Nate Silver was a friend of mine…

Nate Cohn, you are no Nate Silver.”

Polls show that the Republicans have an advantage in the fight for control of the Senate. They lead in enough states to win control, and they have additional opportunities in North Carolina and New Hampshire to make up for potential upsets. As Election Day nears, Democratic hopes increasingly hinge on the possibility that the polls will simply prove wrong.

But that possibility is not far-fetched. The polls have generally underestimated Democrats in recent years, and there are reasons to think it could happen again.

Oh well. We all get it wrong sometimes.

Care to try again?

The Republicans are looking forward to having a good week. They are favored to win the Senate, and they could pick up enough House seats to finish with their largest margin since 1928.

But perhaps more important to the party’s long-term prospects than Tuesday’s results is what unfolds in the presidential battleground states. If the night ends with tight races in Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia, as the polls suggest, then the results will not be as great for Republicans as many analysts will surely proclaim.

So, if I change my name to Nate, and write Democratic propaganda, can I get a job at the New York Times?

Former Timesman, Nate Silver, got the hell out off that rag, and saw the Republican tsunami coming. He also called out the biased polling (see below). This other Nate don’t know nuttin’.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »