Justice Scalia, RIP

I can’t even.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing, whose elegant and acidic opinions inspired a movement of legal thinkers and ignited liberal critics, died Feb. 13 on a ranch near Marfa, Tex. He was 79.

The cause of death was not immediately known.

Naturally, there’s a lot of talk about what happens next.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement:


Let’s hope he means it.

Here’s my spiel.

Democrats are responsible for some of the most shameless obstruction of judicial nominees. Honestly, this is the Supreme Court we’re talking about here, so if the Senate GOP needs to obstruct a SCOTUS nominee of lame duck Obama, I am all for it… but they do have the votes to let the process move forward and simply vote down Obama nominees until he either nominates an acceptable nominee (unlikely) or is no longer in office.

“Gender Equality” In The United States

It’s amazing how so much that is just plain dumb can spread like wildfire on Facebook. The latest absurdity being presented as some objective assessment of just how evil the United States is comes from (believe it or not) The Huffington Post, in a piece titled “The U.N. Sent 3 Foreign Women To The U.S. To Assess Gender Equality. They Were Horrified.”

I know! The United Nations! The same outfit that puts the worst human rights violators on their Human Right Council, has three of their own judging America on “gender equality.”

Maybe they were addressing the fact that it America, a man can be named Woman of the Year? That, at least, truly was horrifying. But, no… that wasn’t it.

While it’s easy to just dismiss the premise of the article on its stupidity alone, let’s actually address the key points made by these arbiters of gender equality.

According to the article, the U.N. women (or womyn?)  found the United States “lagging far behind international human rights standards in a number of areas,” including the gender pay gap. That’s right, the first issue mentioned in the article is the gender pay gap, which literally, doesn’t even exist. Let’s start with the fact that there’s this thing called the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It makes paying women less money based on their sex illegal. If that wasn’t an existing law, the U.N. Womyn would maybe have a point on this issue… except that the gender pay gap still doesn’t exist. There are plenty of studies and sources that back this up, including from the Department of Labor, as Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation explains:

In fact, a 2009 Labor Department study found that, when we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about 5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears

The next big gripe was paid maternity leave. The United States has no government mandated paid maternity leave. Well, isn’t that interesting… Other developed countries have this, but not us? Why not? We must hate women! Chinese gendercide ain’t nothing compared to paid maternity leave! But, there’s just one problem… these policies in other countries, while they sound just so super-duper-awesome, don’t exactly work to the advantage of women in the work place:

In Chile, a law requires employers to provide working mothers with child care. One result? Women are paid less.

In Spain, a policy to give parents of young children the right to work part-time has led to a decline in full-time, stable jobs available to all women — even those who are not mothers.

Elsewhere in Europe, generous maternity leaves have meant that women are much less likely than men to become managers or achieve other high-powered positions at work.

Wow, we want that shit in the United States? That’s like saying “We want a gender pay gap!” Did I mention that this information came from the New York Times? Just thought I’d mention that. Anyway, there’s more. According to the analysis, these policies “can end up discouraging employers from hiring women in the first place, because they fear women will leave for long periods or use expensive benefits.”

You think?

Perhaps my favorite part of The Huffington Post piece was the following:

The most telling moment of the trip, the women told reporters on Friday, was when they visited an abortion clinic in Alabama and experienced the hostile political climate around women’s reproductive rights.

“We were harassed. There were two vigilante men waiting to insult us,” said Frances Raday, the delegate from the U.K. The men repeatedly shouted, “You’re murdering children!” at them as soon as they neared the clinic, even though Raday said they are clearly past childbearing age.

“It’s a kind of terrorism,” added Eleonora Zielinska, the delegate from Poland. “To us, it was shocking.”

Oh really? Freedom of speech is kind of terrorism? These are the brainiacs the United-Freakin-Nations sent to assess just how anti-women the United States is? Access to abortion, which kills more women than not having paid maternity leave ever has or ever will, is apparently more important to women’s rights then that outmoded First Amendment.

I could keep going, but let’s face it… these women were never going to say anything positive about America in the first place. America wasn’t about to get a fair assessment, and that’s really the point I’m trying to make here. It just a bunch of b.s. left-wing talking points being bundled together to shit on America because it’s a lot easier to shit on America with crap than facts.

As for any American, particularly American woman, who shared this article with a nod and a warm fuzzy feeling because you thought “yes, finally, someone said what I’ve known for so long!”, I encourage you to visit some Muslim country where girls can’t go to school, or are subject to FGM (look it up), or what about countries that practice gendercide? How does that compare to not getting paid to not do your job? A little perspective and a little research would be good for you.

Obama’s Approval Rating: Lower Than Nixon’s During Watergate

Am I surprised? Not really, Obama overall has done far worse than Nixon, and frankly, the fact Obama’s approval ratings, as dismal as they might be, are as high as they are, is shocking to me.

The latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll, released Nov. 6, shows President Obama’s job approval rating at 42%. The poll shows 51% disapprove of the president’s performance. That is a slight increase from the 39% approval rating in a Gallup poll released earlier this week, but it indicates Americans are growing increasingly concerned with the scandals surrounding President Obama.

The low approval numbers have largely been attributed to the Healthcare.gov fiasco, and President Obama’s insistence on doubling down on unequivocal statements he made to the American people promising they could keep their current health insurance if they liked it when he was selling Obamacare to the nation.


To put the numbers in historical context, compare Obama’s approval rating to that of former-President Richard Nixon. In June of 1972, when the Watergate story first broke, Nixon had an approval rating in the high 50s, and six months later it was even higher, rising to 67% in Jan. of 1973. Nixon denied any knowledge of the scandal, a strategy President Obama has employed each time a new scandal has arisen. Nixon was seen as “above the fray” and blameless by his supporters, much like Obama seems to be now.

Seriously, do any of our liberal readers here truly approve of the job this guy is doing?

Change in Our Health Plans… We Won’t Forget

“If you like your plan, you can keep it,” Obama said, oh, so many times. You know, it never ceases to amaze me how someone so deceitful can get away with it so many time, and yet so many (including, I’m sure, the liberals who read this blog) just make excuses for him, as if turning a blind eye makes it any better.

So, there have been a few numbers thrown out there regarding how many people are not going to be able to keep the insurance plans they liked. One analysis (via the liberal news outlet McClatchy) suggests the number is as high as 52 million.

It seems like this is the moment where the liberal media is less able to spin the truth. Because, let’s face it, no matter what the spin, if you lose your insurance because of Obamacare, that’s a very real way Obama has not only lied to you, but also negatively impacted your life in a direct, measurable way.

A few weeks ago, my health insurance provider released their Obamacare-approved plans—Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum—and the cheapest one they have is not only $2000+/year more than my current plan, but the coverage is worse. An even higher deductible and higher out-of-pocket maximum. So, it’s not even like I lost my current plan and got something better. I lost my current plan and got royally screwed.

There are many others who are having similar experiences. So, it’s hardly a shock that Obama’s approval ratings are sliding. The reality of Obamacare just isn’t the same bundle of wonderful that was pitched to the public. Granted, many of us knew Obamacare was going to be a disaster, but we didn’t vote for Obama anyway.

I’m hopeful that those who voted for Obama, and, let’s be honest, the Democratic Party, will remember this betrayal of trust next November and again in 2016. Even though people forget a lot of things by the time they vote (see 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Worst President in History for a rather thorough list of things Obama voters forgot about when they voted) but it will hard to forget the higher premiums they’ll be paying because of Obama’s crowning achievement.

Election Eve Projections

Battleground Watch: Romney 331, Obama 207

Ali A. Akbar: Romney 285, Obama 253

Karl Rove: Romney 285, Obama 253

Joe Trippi: Obama 303, Romney 235

James Pethokoukis: Romney 301, Obama 237

Michael Barone: Romney 315, Obama 223

Baseball Crank: Romney 271, Obama 267

UPDATE: In anticipation of lots of Election Day coverage off the blog, I’ve added my Twitter feed and Ali Akbar’s to the sidebar.

UPDATE , by Mark Noonan:  Well, here we are – on the eve.  Yes, I’ve had the jitters – but one must keep things in perspective.  Prayer calms the soul.  Try it, if you’re feeling nervous.

Obama’s rally today was half empty – the sure sign that the bloom is completely off the rose and this is not 2008.  Only a 2008 type turnout (or a completely unexpected collapse in GOP voting) can really pull it off for Obama.  Obama’s team and their lapdog media are playing a gigantic mind game with us – touting their early vote and their ground game not so much in confidence that they have it in the bag but in hopes that it will depress us and lower our turnout.  The truth of the matter is that the Democrat early voting totals have collapsed from 2008 – Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Michigan genuinely are in play…and even if they do wind up falling to Obama it will be by tiny margins…and that drop in vote will translate all across the nation, ensuring that Obama loses every 2008 State he won by 10-12 percentage points or less – that, by itself, gets Romney to 266 electoral votes, which is the bottom I see for him tomorrow:  he won’t get less than that (yes, Obama will lose Ohio).  This means that all Romney need do is win one of NH, PA, MI, MN, IA, WI, CO and NV.   Romney is leading in CO, tied in PA, WI and IA and within the margin of error (with Obama under 50%) in the rest.

But, still, there is that chance that Obama wins.  So be it.  If the American people want four more years of Obama, then God bless us all and we’ll just have to endure it.  It will be real bad next year no matter who wins – but if Obama wins then it will not only be much worse but much more extended in time.  And we’ll get to look forward to utterly crushing the Democrats in the 2014 mid-terms (always deadly for the party in power in the 2nd term of a President – see 2006 for confirmation).  And then as 2016 we’ll get to choose between Ryan, Sandoval, Rubio, Santorum, Jindal, Haley, West, Perry…while Democrats get to choose between Hillary, Biden and Cuomo.  I’m telling you, nothing but fun for us in there (and this leaves aside the fact that Benghazi is already a cancer eating at the Obama Presidency…if he “wins” tomorrow then he loses).

I don’t think that will happen.  I trust my fellow Americans – I trust the fact that Democrats I know are nervous and “confident” that Obama will win it narrowly while Republicans are thinking it may even come out as a landslide.  I am encouraged by Latina Americans I know personally who are voting for Romney…talk about Obama’s demographic collapsing in front of his eyes.  It could be a landslide – it could be a big win; we’ll have to see.

God bless you all (yes even you liberals out there) and good luck to all of us tomorrow.


Really? Sabato Says Obama Wins Handily

Yup, the same guy who predicted John Kerry would win in 2004, and said that Bush needed a miracle to win reelection, is saying that Obama wins in handily.

His key arguments for the 11th hour shifts in the battleground states are as follows

  • Hurricane Sandy provided him with a boost.
  • The last jobs report, by not being horrible, was good for him.

Let’s consider these arguments.

I can’t buy the argument that the jobs report, which had the unemployment go up, thus pointing it higher today than it was when Obama took office, was a net positive for Obama. A mixed jobs report isn’t likely to change any minds either way, in my opinion, and hardly changes the fundamentals: There are fewer people employed today than when Obama took office, people are making less money, and more people are on food stamps.

Now, the bigger point: Hurricane Sandy. While one could make the case that Romney’s momentum was halted for a few days, I find it harder to suggest a shift in momentum in Obama’s favor. Even after the first days when Obama benefited from positive coverage, the aftermath of Sandy’s wrath has once again exposed the flaws in the federal government’s disaster response… after Obama said everything was going well.

So, both of these arguments don’t provide a strong case for an 11th hour shift in Obama’s favor. Michael Barone argues that if you look at the fundamentals, there is potential for a Romney landslide. I don’t think it will be a landslide, but I think Romney can win decisively. A recent poll , and it took a D+11 poll for CNN to achieve a tie between Obama and Mitt, and Mitt was winning independents by 22 points. The candidate the wins independents wins. Plain and simple.

Polls show a tied race in the battleground, Pennsylvania in play, and plenty of evidence to suggest that the results of tomorrow’s election will largely be decided on the ground game and voter ethusiasm. Fred Barnes makes the case for this better than I can. Romney is attacting huge crowds, bigger than Obama, and taking all factors into the equation, makes me very confident Mitt Romney will win tomorrow.

Updated Electoral Prediction

My updated map makes some assumptions based on my confidence on select states, based on polling and anecdotal evidence.

FL, NC, VA are good for Romney.

As is OH and CO. Based on what the 2012 battleground state slate is, these states get him to 275 electoral votes and the win.

In gray are swing states that I’m not ready to call but are all, in my view, bonus states to win. If Mitt wins by only one state, you can bet your life that the results will be contested. So, he needs to win MI, or PA, or either MN or WI plus IA or NH to give Obama no opportunity to contest the results.

And while I still think PA is a long shot, as I just reported, Bill Clinton is making an 11th hour push there, and as Obama’s best surrogate, that suggests Obama’s internal polling shows a race within the MOE.


Rove’s Electoral Prediction

Love him or hate, you can’t argue that Rove knows his stuff. So, what does he say about how this Tuesday will turn out?

It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney.

He maintains a small but persistent polling edge. As of yesterday afternoon, there had been 31 national surveys in the previous seven days. Mr. Romney led in 19, President Obama in seven, and five were tied. Mr. Romney averaged 48.4%; Mr. Obama, 47.2%. The GOP challenger was at or above 50% in 10 polls, Mr. Obama in none

Being under 50 percent is a bad place for an incumbent to be in. The bottom line is Obama is in a weak position with just two and half weekdays left before Election Day.

Some will say, “But what about Ohio?” or “National polls are irrelevant,” or “Look at the early voting!” Well, let’s look.

Adrian Gray, who oversaw the Bush 2004 voter-contact operation and is now a policy analyst for a New York investment firm, makes the point that as of Tuesday, 530,813 Ohio Democrats had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot. That’s down 181,275 from four years ago. But 448,357 Ohio Republicans had voted early or had requested or cast an absentee ballot, up 75,858 from the last presidential election.

That 257,133-vote swing almost wipes out Mr. Obama’s 2008 Ohio victory margin of 262,224. Since most observers expect Republicans to win Election Day turnout, these early vote numbers point toward a Romney victory in Ohio. They are also evidence that Scott Jennings, my former White House colleague and now Romney Ohio campaign director, was accurate when he told me that the Buckeye GOP effort is larger than the massive Bush 2004 get-out-the-vote operation.

By no means am I suggesting Romney supporters take victory for granted. We’ll need a massive effort to counter Obama’s ground game.  But, how are things looking from a combination of statistical and anecdotal evidence?

My prediction: Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America’s 45th president. Let’s call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.

Donate now to give Mitt as much help as possible for a massive ground game. We can win this.