While the entire segment[s] regarding this topic of President Trump calling Don Lemon “stupid” was excellent… Prager’s response to this caller was an excellent way to respond to such attacks. NOT TO mention it backfired on Don Lemon and those who make similar arguments, in one sense, PROVING the Presidents point. Not to mention Lemon reacted to the media bait the “Don” likes to throw in the water like chum for the ravenous sharks.
Here is an excellent dealing with the obvious backfire by the WASHINGTON EXAMINER:
Over the weekend, liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow said there was “definitely” a “racial underpinning” to Trump’s latest insults.
The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted Friday, “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Trump thinks African-Americans are dumb.”
Former CBS newsman Dan Rather called Trump’s remark, which he made on Twitter, a “disgrace” and “racist.”
Trump is, however, well known for taking aim at just about anyone who criticizes him in public, and there’s no evidence he considers race or gender before he fires back. Here are seven examples of when Trump insulted the intelligence of white, conservative men:
….James Comey…. Rick Perry…. Mitt Romney…. Jeb Bush…. George Will…. Glenn Beck….
Karl Rove’s answer was good… and he shouldn’t have to apologize. At all. The original file of this video you could BARELY hear Rove, I edited the audio so he is head. My WMD Page is a great example of how empty the Left’s claims are on Iraq, as well as my response to a local writer.
For months now, we’ve been waiting to hear how much Obamacare will drive up the cost of health insurance for people who purchase coverage on their own. Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchanges. HHS’ press release is full of happy talk about how premiums will be “lower than originally expected.” But the reality is starkly different.
Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.
[….]
As you can see from the map above, many 27-year-olds will face steep increases in the underlying cost of individually-purchased insurance under Obamacare. For the states where we have data—the 36 reported by HHS, plus nine others that we had compiled for our map that HHS didn’t report—rates will go up for men by an average of 97 percent; for women, 55 percent. (In the few cases where HHS reported on states that our map includes, we went with HHS’ numbers.)
Worst off was Nebraska, where the difference between the cheapest plan under the old system and under Obamacare was 279 percent for men, and 227 percent for women: more than triple the old rate. Faring best was Colorado, where rates will decline for both 27-year-old men and women by 36 percent. The only other state to see a rate decline in this analysis was New Hampshire: 8 percent for both men and women.
[….]
40-year-olds, surprisingly, will face a similar picture. The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.
For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.
Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today. This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of an exchange participant is, in most states, below the age of 40.
In both the 27-year-old and 40-year-old comparisons, we adjusted the pre-ACA rates to take into account people who would be charged more for insurance, or denied coverage altogether, due to a pre-existing condition, using the same methodology we’ve used in the past.
[….]
For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.
The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.
Maybe the above and below is why Obama called out Fox News recently… Fox News is the only network covering the ill affects the “Affordable” Care Act has on the Middle-Class and Poor people.
President Obama will likely get the attention of some people over at Fox News after he called out the network by name during his campaign-style speech promoting the Affordable Care Act in Maryland Thursday morning. The president gave some advice to his supporters on what to do when their friends and family members come to them and say how they just saw someone on Fox News saying how “horrible Obamacare is.
“We need you to spread the word,” Obama told the cheering crowd. “But, you don’t have to take my word for it. If you talked to somebody who said, ‘I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said it’s ‘horrible,’ and you can say, you know what, don’t take my word for it.”….
During a Thursday speech pitching a health care plan that seems to grow even more unpopular every time he pitches it, President Obama tore into Fox News by all-but accusing them of lying about the increased costs of health care under ObamaCare:
Continuing…
The president is lying though omission there. The argument that health care costs aren’t as high as the worst nightmare scenarios predicted does not mean costs are going down, even though that is what Obama is trying to hustle people into believing. The fact is, is that while pushing his health care plan, Obama promised premiums would go down for a family of four by at least $2400 per year. The reality, however, is that costs will increase by almost two times that amount.
For example, while Obama pointed to a reduction in premiums in New York state, state officials in Ohio say the average premium proposal for individual coverage next year is up 88 percent from this year’s average price as reported by the Society of Actuaries. In Maryland, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield proposed a 25 percent increase in premiums next year, after first seeking a 50 percent increase. Final rates haven’t been determined in either state.
The higher rates, supporters say, buy a health insurance system that guarantees access to coverage for everyone and improves benefits, such as requiring insurers to cover older children and outlawing lifetime spending limits on claims.
Obama did a good job injecting a little energy into the 100th time he’s given a speech that has already failed 99 times. But attacking Fox News by name is just another example of the smallness of a man who seems to delight in making his office smaller in the eyes of the country and his country smaller in the eyes of the world.
Of course, she has the right to express her opinion. And there’s no evidence that Anderson improperly influenced her husband, Shulman, who was a George W. Bush appointee.
But suffice to say, as more and more information flows, we at Twitchy Team greet every new twist and turn in the IRS scandalabra with our #shockedfaces on.
Update:
We changed the headline of this article. The original version’s headline was “Tweets by former IRS chief’s wife reveal liberal political views.” We decided that this underplayed the radicalism of Anderson’s views….
Robert Costa appeared on the Kudlow Report last night to discuss National Review’s latest scoop on Lois Lerner, “Why She Took the Fifth” by Eliana Johnson.
“Even inside the IRS in Cincinnati, there are people who work there who tell National Review that the questions were very much invasive, that they were really intrusive on these conservative groups — they went over the top,” Costa said. “And now for Lois Lerner just to shrug it off is making a lot of people in Washington raise their eyebrows.”
In one tweet she mentioned being at a teach-in by Larry Lessig:
I found this interesting. When I did a BING search on the commissar’s wife, BING showed me some “related” links… BING was on the money!
Asking about wives is only important if you are Republican. Notice the “Obama Star” in the masthead. Click graphic to see original site. I like topic number four, “Transparency,” exactly!
On Friday, reports broke that Former IRS chief Doug Shulman’s wife works with a liberal lobbying group, Public Campaign, where she is the senior program advisor. Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”
The goal of Public Campaign is to target political groups like the conservative non-profits at issue in the IRS scandal. The Campaign says it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”
[….]
Public Campaign gets its cash from labor unions like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On.
Former Internal Revenue Service commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, a frequent White House guest during the period when the IRS was targeting conservative nonprofits, is married to the senior program advisor for Public Campaign, an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”
[….]
Shulman’s wife Susan L. Anderson is the senior program advisor for the Washington-based nonprofit organization Public Campaign, which claims that it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”
Public Campaign receives “major funding” from the pro-Obamacare alliance Health Care for America NOW!, which is comprised of the labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the progressive activist organization Move On, among others.
“Together we are building a network of national and state-based efforts to create a powerful national force for federal and state campaign reform,” according to Public Campaign’s website.
Public Campaign also receives funding from the liberal Ford Foundation, the Common Cause Education Fund, and Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation, among other foundations and private donors.
Karl Rove slams Dennis Kucinich and the still wacko view that “Bush lied and people died” conspiracy theory. See my WMD “page” that grew from a debate with a professor of history at Michigan U: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/wmd/
(Florida) Democrats sampled at 37%/ Republicans sampled at 30%/Independents sampled at 29%
(Ohio) Democrats sampled at 37%/Republicans sampled at 29%/Independents sampled at 30%
(Virginia) Democrats sampled at 35%/Republicans sampled at 27%/Independents sampled at 35%
Hot Air shows how this poll and the mixing of 2008 stats (enthusiasm levels) do not jive. Dick Morris as well does a bang-up job on discussing this poll as well, “Why The NY Times Poll Is Wrong.”
—————————–
Another aspect is the voting blocks. Obama has all his blocks down. A great video to make the point is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTihf2_GGM&feature=share&list=UUKCXRhi-1Z4eCnsNJujlbmQ). I think many are finally — hopefully — realizing in the inner cities (even Michigan was tied up in the polls) that the monopolies of union control over education and liberal policies in inner-cities that have been in place for 40/50 years are to no avail. That they merely create a victim class that are rendered powerless, except as pawns for political purposes.
….Here’s the deal. The Times is weighting the raw survey data to reflect the ratio of Democrats to Republicans who voted in 2008. True, if we get the same massive turnout among minorities and young people that propelled Obama to victory in 2008, he will win this election and carry these states. But we won’t. All the polling shows that the electorate is now much more Republican and that GOP voters are much more motivated to turn out than their Democratic counterparts.
If we weight the Times results for the average turnout of the past four elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, we find Romney winning all three states. Republican pollster (the best of them all) John McLaughlin and I used exit polls from the past four elections to figure out how many Democrats and Republicans actually voted and then we averaged them together. Here are the real numbers:
FLORIDA
NY Times results: Obama +1
Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +7
Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
Times overstates Dem vote by 8 points
Correct poll result: Romney +7
OHIO
NY Times results: Obama +5
Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Dems +2
Times overstates Dem vote by 6 points
Correct poll result: Romney +1
VIRGINIA
NY Times results: Obama +2
Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
Times overstates Dem vote by 9 points
Correct poll result: Romney +7
And even these results don’t tell the full story. The Gallup Poll finds that the 2012 election will actually have more Republicans and fewer Democrats voting than any of the past four elections. In 2008, the electorate had 12 points more Democrats and Republicans….
Misleading Stats ~ You Have To Dig To Find the Real Stats!
A good example of this is the recent poll my boss came in and disparagingly said “Romney’s down 10% in Ohio.” I waited till I got home and found out that the poll sampled Democrats at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close however, Obama is not leading by 10% — which is why it is categorized as a swing state.
★ Karl Rove Explains the 1980 Polls Regarding the Carter/Reagan Race (3-weeks before the Election, Carter was at 47%, Reagan at 39% ~ Reagan won 44-states): http://tinyurl.com/925t9uh
A Marist Poll on Thursday found President Barack Obama with an astounding eight-point lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, even as the RealClearPolitics average had the state tied and a Rasmussen Reports poll on Thursday found Romney leading by three points.
Marist says the breakdown of likely voters in its poll Iowa is 36% Democrat, 31% Republican, and 33% independent. Democrats only had a one-point advantage in 2008, when enthusiasm for Obama was at its peak.
But when among those 33% who are independent are broken down even further, 12% leaned Democrat and 10% leaned Republican, giving Democrats a two-point advantage among independents Marist polled. This means Democrats actually have a seven-point advantage in the poll.
In 2008, Democrats only had a one-point advantage over Republicans on election night in Iowa. Democrats made up 34% of Iowans who voted in the presidential election in 2008. Republicans made up 33%. Independents made up 33%. …
[…]
The Marist poll found forty-nine percent of Iowans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction while 43% thought the country was headed in the right direction. This means Obama is in trouble if Democrats don’t give him a seven-point advantage over Republicans at the polls in November, which seems highly unlikely.
I was thinking it was only a 4% lead that Carter had… in fact, three weeks BEFORE the election Carter rose to 47% and Reagan dropped to 39%! (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) Remember, Reagan took 44-States, he blew Carter out of the water! Then doc Rove shows the lopsided polls in regards to Democrats and Republicans. WOW!
I recently post on my FaceBook my “states in the red category” prediction in November (*not* the map above). One friend wrote that:
“I wish I could share your optimism”
Which is true, I am going big, granted. But the following is my small “booster” for the conservative at heart — even if it is fleeting:
I will give you some indicators… but mind you… I am going BIG and will most likely be wrong. But I am confident that we will win:
★ Flashback: Gallup Had Carter Up 4 Points Over Ronald Reagan in September 1980 http://tinyurl.com/9xwbr64
Alert!
I was thinking it was only a 4% lead that Carter had… in fact, three weeks BEFORE the election Carter rose to 47% and Reagan dropped to 39%! Remember, Reagan took 44-States, he blew Carter out of the water! Then doc Rove shows the lopsided polls in regards to Democrats and Republicans. WOW!
(Click above graphic to enlarge: h/t to Gay Patriot)
Some people see that “God” and “Jerusalem” (the Jewish vote) being re-added (wrongly I might add) is a BIG deal. So the black vote and the Jewish vote will change a bit. Others see the emphasis on abortion at the DNC this year (See for instance: http://tinyurl.com/8w7olch). It was pushed incessantly, and because of Akin, others have heard Obama’s voting record on infanticide. So the women vote will change. Still others note the odd line-up of speakers:
A man who was accused by 15-women of either unwanted sexual advances or rape, Bill Clinton (yeah, Republican war on women); A women who in one breath will say “keep government out of my bedroom,” but then in the next want government to pay for her contraception via acts in the bedroom… who also wants government to pay for sex-change operations, Sandra Fluke (radical genderist); A women caught lying about her ancestry and stories from it, Elizabeth Warren (Obama also falsely tied himself to Native-American ancestry); A racist involved deeply in what would be the White Pride movement if he were white… and has close ties to the Chicano version of the KKK, who’s mom founded both movements in her town (chapters of, so-to-speak), Julian Castro (for some reason Democrats think you cannot be racist if a minority, see: http://tinyurl.com/99ua58z).
So moderates and independents are going to vote a bit more for the RR2. These are just a few reasons to be optimistic… but maybe not as much as me.
The Magic Is Gone:
UPDATED:
A recent PEW POLL puts Romney (yes, Romney) up by 4-points. The Dem/Repub/Indie split was 39/29/30, respectively.
The most recent WaPo/ABC POLL has Obama up by 1-point Dem/Repub/Indie split is 35/26/33, respectively.
A poll from a month or so ago by CBS/NYT had Obama up and Democrats polled at 9% more. My boss came in one day and said Romney was down 10-points in Ohio… the Democrats were sampled at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close in swing-states, it IS close, and swaying to Romney.
So when Romney and the Left is surprised by it… you know why… they trust the Legacy Media.
The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. ~ Weekly Standard
“Romney currently leads Obama 52 percent to 45 percent among voters who say they have already cast their ballots,” Gallup reported. “However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51 percent to 46 percent lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling.” ~ Gallup
Very early on, before this campaign started in earnest, live or die, I publicly cast my lot with Gallup and Rasmussen. As a poll addict going back to 2000, these are the outlets that have always played it straight. It’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with credibility and not wanting to kid myself. So when an outlet like Gallup tells me Romney is up seven-points, 52-45%, among those who have already voted, that’s very big news.
Just as Gallup did with their bombshell survey showing that 2012 is looking like a year where Republicans will enjoy a record three-point turnout advantage over Democrats (a ten-point shift from 2008), for whatever reason, they buried the lede with this latest bombshell, as well. When you consider the fact that the CorruptMedia’s been talking for weeks about how Obama’s crushing Romney in early voting, you would think Gallup proving that Narrative a big fat phony lie would be news. Instead, though, they bury this explosive news at the bottom of a piece headlined: “In U.S., 15% of Registered Voters Have Already Cast Ballots“.
Sounds like a nothing story, right?
Except waaaaay at the bottom we learn this:
Thus far, early voters do not seem to be swaying the election toward either candidate.
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
When Gallup says early voters don’t seem to be swaying the election, presumably what they means is that because Romney is ahead by five points nationally, an early voting advantage of seven-points isn’t going to “sway the election.”
Romney’s early voting lead in Gallup may not jive with the CorruptMedia narrative, but it does with actual early vote totals that have been released and show Romney’s early vote totals either beating Obama in swing states such as Colorado and Florida or chipping away at the President’s advantage in the others. For example, here’s what we know about Ohio’s early voting numbers, thus far:
But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
The Ohio poll (Cincinnati Enquirer/Ohio News Organization Poll) that has the 49% vs. the 49% close race, is a great example of what I have been talking about here-and-there about the disparity of proper representation of Party affiliates in these polls. For instance, in the poll used by many to show the tie, here is the breakdown:
★ The party breakdown of the randomly selected respondents: 47 percent Democrats, 44 percent Republicans, 10 percent independents.
We know that Independents are tracking more with the Republicans this year, about 54 percent (R/R) to 40 percent (O/B). And of course the difference is obvious in Democrat/Republican, as shown above. If there were a more even sampling between all three… Romney would be up, and by a few percentage points!
Likewise, the Minnesota poll that shows a statistical dead-heat is broke down thusly:
★ The poll comes as more Minnesotans identify as Republicans, which could add to Romney’s support. A month ago, the poll’s sample was 41 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican and 31 percent independent or other. In this survey, 38 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 29 percent independent or other.
NOW, the important part for my California readers. Yes, this state will go blue… but it is a duty for all Republicans to vote. Why? Because I believe that we will win this election, but a larger popular vote win will give R/R a moral high road for their agenda. The wider the gap the better.
[….]
Okay, the Gravis Marketing Poll (Ohio) which has Obama up 1 in Ohio ~ 50 Obama, 49 Romney… Dems are sampled 8% more (also remember Independents are going for Romney in larger numbers). Here is how the poll breaks down:
⚑ Democrat – 40 ⚑ Republican – 32 ⚑ Independent or in another party – 28
[….]
PPP’s newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47, up from a 49-48 margin a week ago. How does this newest poll break down?
Rasmussen has Romney at 49% and Obama at 47% — nation wide average. I can never find the in-depth breakdown… I think you have to be a paying member to do so. At any rate, here is one of their articles in part:
———————————————-
The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.
Romney has now led for 11 straight days with margins of four to six points most of that time.
In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.
Nationally, Romney remains at the 50% level of support in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll….
The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided.
New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47
The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent [Romney] to 45 percent [Obama].
While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, “reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory,” says pollster Ed Goeas.
Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate. His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. “Republicans are now certain to hold the House,” Goeas said, “regardless of how the presidential race turns out.”
The poll’s election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote. The race “remains very close in the surface,” Goeas said, “but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.”
The projected outcome by the Battleground Poll is close to that of the Gallup Poll. Last week, Gallup said Romney leads Obama 49 percent to 46 percent in its model of the electorate’s composition on November 6.
The Battleground Poll is conducted by Goeas of the Tarrance Group and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. Goeas is a Republican, Lake a Democrat. The survey is affiliated with Politico and George Washington University.
Taken last week, the poll found that only 37 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the right direction. For an incumbent president to win reelection, that number normally must exceed 40 percent. “Everyone but the core Democratic constituencies holds the strongly held feeling that the country is off on the wrong track,” Goeas said.
For the first time this year, Romney has a majority favorable image. His favorability rating is 52 percent, Obama’s is 51 percent. According to the poll, Romney is viewed favorably by a majority of independents (59 percent), seniors (57), married voters (61), moms (56), college graduates (54), middle class voters (56), and middle class families (61).
