Ouch: Dem Pollsters Say Obama Should Drop out

If you thought things were going really bad for Obama, you were right. But, apparently it’s a lot worse. Even Democratic pollsters aren’t able to hide the truth in the numbers. They see that Obama’s candidacy is in horrid shape.

President Obama should abandon his run for a second term and turn over the reins of the Democratic Party to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two one-time Democratic pollsters wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, which appeared online Sunday.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen argued that just as Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson decided not to pursue additional runs though they could have, Obama should do the same.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Caddell and Schoen wrote.

Caddell, who worked as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter, and Schoen, who was a pollster for President Bill Clinton, argue that Obama will inevitably have to run a negative campaign in order to win reelection, the negative consequences of which will make it difficult for him to govern effectively.

See you next November, Barry!

Newt Leads In New Poll

As much as I’d like to believe that my endorsement of Newt Gingrich has be so influential that his poll numbers have dramatically improved because of it, the truth of the matter is that more GOP primary voters are seeing what I’m seeing, that Newt Gingrich is the candidate they want to see go head-to-head with Obama.

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP’s national polling.  He’s at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney.  The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.

Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4.  Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image- his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney’s favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.

Gingrich’s lead caps an amazing comeback he’s made over the last 5 months.  In June his favorability nationally with Republican voters plummeted all the way to 36/49. Now he’s at 68/23, representing a 58 point improvement in his spread since then. As recently as August Gingrich was mired in single digits at 7%, and even in September he was at just 10%.  He’s climbed 18 points in less than 2 months.

Go Newt!

The Lynching Continues-Racism in The Media

Herman Cain was featured on a Holly Bailey hit piece the other day about the video in which Cain pokes fun regarding Anita Hill.

Herman Cain is defending himself from sexual harassment allegations, but that didn’t stop him from joking about Anita Hill, the college professor who made similar allegations against Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination hearings 20 years ago.

A Fox News camera captured Cain laughing about Hill during a campaign stop in Kalamazoo, Mich., Thursday, when a supporter brought up the professor’s name.

“You hear the latest news today? Anita Hill is going to come …” a man told Cain, the conclusion of his statement muffled by the crowd.

“Is she going to endorse me?” Cain joked, as he and the crowd laughed heartily.

Of course,

Cain insisted Friday he wasn’t trying to insult Hill.

“We walked into this room and … one of my supporters said, ‘Anita Hill was trying to contact you’ and my response was, ‘Is she going to endorse me?'” Cain told New York Post columnist Fred Dicker, per Politico. “He said it in a humorous way. I gave a humorous response.”

Even if Cain was trying to insult Anita Hill, the whole Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas thing was a joke to begin with-the first of many attempts to lynch powerful black people who dared strayed away from the white limousine liberal massas‘ plantation. Again… unproven allegations meant to lynch another –gasp!– conservative–gasp gasp– BLACK MAN. Yep.. no underlying racism, there…

But why am I particularly calling out Bailey’s piece as yet another media lynching of Cain?

Look at the accompanying picture they decided to post to go along with the story:

Will you take a look at that.. Herman Cain (with his wide-brimmed fedora) posing with two women, who just happen to be attractive..maybe even a little ghetto… My but if that doesn’t fit the stereotype of a black pimp, eh? No agenda on the part of photographers there, I mean, given that he probably posed for pictures with countless others that day.  No direct linkage of the photo with the story.  No thought as to the possibility that they could have posted a solo picture of Cain.  But again-no agenda there on the part of Holly Bailey or Yahoo News– nothing to see here–move along, now.

White Limousine Liberal massas and their charges in the media have often utilized racist, stereotypical images as a means of attaching an un-written narrative of dullard, Uncle-Tom-ish or downright gangsta personae to their other-than-white objects of conservative disdain.

Lest we forget…

or…

or…

or..

Or this one of former RNC Chair Michael Steele

Or the ubiquitous…

There is one thing of which I am now more convinced than ever– liberals are absolute masters at projection, and these examples literally scream proof of that assertion.  Whenever disagreement with their ideas rears its ugly head, one can be sure that liberals will reflexively spit out a veritable machine-gun patter of epithets, which will inevitably contain the word, “RACIST;” at which point one can be assured that they are not, in fact, looking out a window, but rather in a mirror.

 

Newt On The Rise

The other day I broke my tradition of not publicly endorsing a candidate in GOP presidential primary by endorsing Newt Gingrich, today I’m happy to report that polls show that while Newt had a rough start with his campaign, he’s starting to gain traction.

After stumbling badly out of the gate, Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign is showing surprising signs of life — rising in the polls and even attracting rising support from evangelical voters who have long been cool to the former House speaker.

“I definitely think it ends up Newt versus [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney at some point after the caucuses and primaries are under way,” said Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, a Republican who has endorsed the Georgian in her state’s key January caucuses.

“Newt will become the major challenger to Romney,” said Polk County, Iowa, GOP Chairman Daryl Kearney. “All national polls now have Newt with a solid hold on third place.”

He cited a new North Carolina poll that placed Mr. Gingrich second to Mr. Romney ahead of former businessman Herman Cain.

Coupling a string of strong debate performance with rising doubts among the party faithful about the viability of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mr. Cain, Mr. Gingrich could become the race’s new magnet for Republicans looking for an alternative to Mr. Romney.

I admit that I originally wrote off Newt as being “yesterday’s news.” But things changed quickly as his performances in the debates showed me that he was the candidate I wanted to see go head-to-head with Obama.

Support Newt today!

More Striking Differences Between the Occupy Anywhere for Anything Crowd and the TEA Party Rallies … Bumped

The Occupy Anywhere Crowd are continuing their mooch errrr… march (yeah that’s it) in Richmond.

Another difference between the OAAC and the TEA Partiers, the TEA Partiers have to PAY for their rallies while the moochers do not.

For example: Which group has shown it is capable of rioting and destruction of public/private property?   The TEA Party has to put up an insurance bond to pay for property damage (not to mention all the other fees) while the anarchists do not.

But why take my word when a source will do.  Here is the link (unlike most leftist drones).

Feel free to add any new story here of the OAAC…. have at it.

Update….

Another day, another string of stories about the latest violence or destruction at the hands of Obama’s children – the Occupy Anywhere for Whatever crowd.

Police Link Molotov Cocktail To Occupiers, Reports More Explosive Devices Being Made Inside Camp…

Protesters Threaten Citizen Journalist, “We’ll Put You In A Ditch And Leave You”…

Occupiers Desecrate American Flag…

Protester Arrested For Smashing Window of Police Car With a Hammer…

News Crew Attacked By Protester, “You Nazi F**king Americans”…

Nancy Pelosi has a statement she wants to make about violent rhetoric:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late 70s in San Francisco, this kind of rhetoric. … It created a climate in which violence took place. … I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not a balanced as the person making the statements may assume.”

Oh wait.  I’ve made a mistake here.  That wasn’t Nancy Pelosi talking about the occupiers.  That is what she had to say about TEA PARTIERS …..  Sorry.  My bad.  I went back to my notes .. and here’s what she actually had to say about Obama’s children:

“God bless them .. for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Certainly puts their (the liberals) views in perspective doesn’t it?

My 2012 GOP Primary Endorsement

I have been blogging since March of 2003. My political activism led me to launch Blogs For Bush in November of that year, and it was a very successful blog.

I enjoyed blogging then. As a conservative new to political blogging, it was nice not to deal with a contentious primary. I am not a big fan of primaries, as too often egos and ambition result in Republicans fighting like they are on stage with Democrats.

In 2008, we had a primary, and I made no endorsements. I had my preferences, but I felt that it was better to remain publicly neutral in the primary for the sake of my readership.

Now, here we are, with another presidential election on horizon. I promised myself early on I would once again refrain from making a public primary endorsement. This was partly because I felt neutrality was best for my readers, and because I have been genuinely open minded about the slate of candidates.

But, things have changed. I have watch several debates, and each time one candidate stands out among the rest. One candidate has consistently demonstrated an ability to keep his on the correct target. Only one candidate has shown an incredible depth of knowledge and experience that is genuine and  honest, and unmatched.

This will likely be my last presidential primary as an active political blogger, and even though I previously promised to remain neutral, I feel that there’s just too much at stake in this election to not throw my public support behind the candidate I feel should face Obama in 2012, and who has the best chance of winning.

That candidate is Newt Gingrich.

those who doubt Newt’s chances of winning the nomination, his campaign sent an email out to supporters earlier today, informing them that “A poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers this week has Newt surging ahead of Mitt Romney by three points.” Newt’s momentum in other early early primary states as well. Clearly, Republican voters are giving Newt a serious look. His performance in tonight’s debate was another impressive performance by a man who not only has a wealth of knowledge on all the issues, but he’s smart enough to not to be played by the media.

Primaries bring out the worst in Republicans, and not just the candidates, but the voters. Newt Gingrich has not only impressed me with his intellect and command of the issues, but also with his ability to stay above the fray. In this election, he’s consistently been the epitome of class and intellect. He’s the man I want to see face Obama next year.

Visit Newt’s website. Follow his campaign on Twitter. Join him on Facebook. Donate to his campaign. We can win if we unite.

Newt Gingrich and Matt Margolis, CPAC 2009

Cheapening The Institution Of Marriage

I really have no idea who Kim Kardashian is or why so many find who she is and what she does even remotely important.

Nevertheless, the reaction to her 72-day marriage has proponents of gay marriage using her as an example of how heterosexual on their own “cheapen the institution” of marriage more than legal gay marriage does.

So, can someone tell me, how this doesn’t cheapen the institution:

Conan O’Brien hosted his shows under a different moon this week, one hanging in the Beacon Theater. For his weeklong filming stint in New York, O’Brien packed his shows full of surprises culminating in an on-air wedding of his costume designer Scott Cronick and his partner David Gorshein, which the late show host officiated.

As the homosexual community pretends to be the new gatekeepers of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I want to know how having your wedding on late night television, officiated by a media personality respected the sanctity of marriage.

This is hardly the only thing that bugs me. As homosexuals claim the higher ground on respecting the institution, I must ask how planning mass gay weddings doesn’t cheapen the institution.

The issue of who/what cheapens the institution of marriage is certainly up for discussion, and I would argue that short marriages, show weddings, etc. etc, are symptoms of the actual problem, which in my opinion is a cultural thing which likely comes from Hollywood. But, that’s a bigger topic for another time.

If homosexuals want to claim they do more to respect the institution of marriage than their heterosexual counterparts, the least they could do is take the institution seriously, and not treat gay marriage like a contest they’ve won, and find all sorts of ways to flaunt it, like the only reason they are getting married is to rub it in the faces of gay marriage opponents.