OK, Are You Really Gonna Believe THIS Poll?!

The Columbus Dispatch newspaper released their latest poll of Ohio voters and it is not good for Mitt Romney.
According to this poll, conducted from September 19 to September 29 shows the Worthless Leader, President Obama, with a 51% to 42% advantage over the Republican candidate.
OK, on the surface so far, so good. It is very possible after all.
But here is something to look at very carefully in this poll.
It seems like a long period of time to conduct a poll, doesn't it?
Why yes it does, especially when you are conducting it by. . .snail mail!
And it is a random computer that picks alleged voters. Thus, strike two on why this poll is especially suspect.
In the linked article, it states that 43% of Democrats returned the poll forms while only 35% of Republicans did so. Then there are 20% that declined to state or are independent.
How can this be a serious poll?
How many people got this poll and did NOT respond? How many just threw it away? Where is any kind of real breakdown other than people who took the time to respond?
In most polls today, they are conducted by phone. But one of the complaints is who are the pollsters calling. Land-lines, cell phones? Land-lines only? Cell phones only?
But a mail in poll, that just seems a little much this late in the game. And there does not seem to be a screening process other than getting 1,662 people to respond.
The screening process is very important because it is how to tell who is seriously paying attention and who is actually going to vote in this election.
And most serious polling at this late stage is of at the very least registered voters but mostly likely voters.
It is why the numbers are really all over the place everywhere.
No question, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is probably ahead at this point. I am thinking about four to five percent. And I look at the Real Clear Politics national average and the Worthless Leader, President Obama is up by 4.1%. And that is the margin of error.
Color me not all that impressed.
And even less impressed by this latest Ohio poll.
However, this poll unlike many others shows independent voters split, 43-43 for either candidate.
Most polls in counting independents show strong leads for Mr. Romney and solid Republican support.
Thus again, how is this poll so seemingly wrong?
And another thing to add to the deep suspicions of these pro-Obama polls.
The significant drop in Democrat registration not only in Ohio, but all the so-called swing states. And interesting little blurb here at Powerline blog points this inconsistency out. If the Worthless Leader all that, why are Democrats more than Republicans dropping off the voter rolls?
And yet, according to a poll conducted by snail mail, with registered Democrats dropping 490,000 off the rolls, and decline to state voters putting the candidates even, the Worthless Leader is up nine points?! It is because it is unfrickinbelievable!

Hey Obama Fence Sitters, "WAKE THE F--- UP, AMERICA!"

Do you not love the way our political discourse has become so, what is the word, oh yeah, ghetto? What with this wonderful web-ad with an actor that I actually like-as and actor-Samuel L. Jackson?
I mean, really, is this meant to be a real way to gain back those that were fooled by the Worthless Leader, President Obama?
Is it a good thing to use a clearly tween girl to shill for the Worthless Leader, President Obama? And is it really a good thing that she is the one that ends the linked web ad with these stirring words:

WAKE THE F--- UP!

Not only is it not an ad that one would ever see on television, not even basic cable/satellite, but it is the use of the young girl that is most disturbing.
Somethings to get out of the way.
One, again, I think that Samuel L. Jackson is one of the great actors in Hollywood today. And yes, I know that he is a huge supporter of the Worthless Leader, President Obama. And if the ad was just him, it would actually be funny.
Two, before the race card is thrown out there in the usual cheap manner that the Obamawhores do nowadays, I don't care that Mr. Jackson is black or not. It could have been any White or non-Black actor. Actually, I think that George Lopez could have pulled it off pretty well. Ghetto is ghetto. It is low-brow. It is not particularly stirring but disturbing to see what politics have become in these United States.
What bothers me is the little girl being used and actually doing what the left always seems to decry.
Lowering the bar and ratcheting up the noise.
In this case with that ever second baddest of words.
The F--- word.
This Christmas season, you should watch A Christmas Story, one of the greatest Christmas movies ever.
In the movie, Ralphie and family are coming back from the annual getting of the Christmas tree. A tire on the car blows out. The dad is changing it when the mom suggests to Ralphie to go out and help his dad for the first time. As it progresses, Ralphie is holding a hub-cap upside down with four nuts and bolts as the dad bumps into him and it goes flying in the air. Ralphie utters the f-word. But here how the narrator puts it. "Only he did not say fudge. He said the mother of all bad words" and so on. When dad got back in the car and told mom what he said, she shrieked. When they got home, he got a beating and a mouthful of soap.
I could only think of my older brothers and sisters getting the same soap treatment because they did. And are all alive to talk about it.
The point being that bad language was not encouraged the way that it is now.
The one-time seven words you can not say on televison are creeping their way in slowly but surely.
FTR, I am NOT a prude.
Get me watching a game, oh like the Stanley Cup finals last year, and I can drop f-bombs like a hydrogen bomb. But that is in the privacy of my own home.
Another thing is that I always try not to swear in front of my stepson. When Mrs. RVFTLC and I met, he was just entering high school. And I just think that if parents don't want their kids cussing a storm, we should not set a bad example.
But really, if you watched the ad, did it not bother you that a very little girls ends up excoriating her family, her grandparents and her neighbors' to WAKE THE F--- UP! ?
It does me.
It is teaching a youngster that when all else fails in any discussion, go for the guttural and just say or do something outrageous. It is teaching a youngster that it is OK to show disrespect for your parents, your grandparents and your neighbors. That it is cool to swear when you are trying to save the United States from, in this case, the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Mitt Romney. I mean come on. The dude is Snidely Whiplash without the top-hat and handle-bar moustache. Then, then it is cool to scream WAKE THE F--- UP!
So, we wonder why young people today show with ease no fear in adults and authority. Maybe running a cheesy web-ad like this, with a little girl reduced to screaming at all, well you already know what she is screaming.
Psst, a little secret.
Children are not adults. Especially at certain ages, they are cute and all that, but when they are not guided by parents into knowing what is right and what is wrong, we end up with kids like this.
I am not saying that if she is genuinely concerned about issues that she should not speak with her parents or whoever. But realize that there is a right way and a wrong way. Reducing to swearing and yelling, it is the wrong way.
One other thing is that this is NOT an approved ad from Team Worthless Leader. It is an ad by a leftist Super PAC, the Jewish Council for Education & Research. It is nothing more than a shill front for Team Worthless Leader. And this is not the first time they have put out some controversial web-ads.
And trust me dear readers, this "organization" does not speak for all Jews.
This is another chapter in lowering the level of political debate in the United States. It will not get any coverage in Obamawhore media land. And surprisingly it is not getting as much coverage here in the blogosphere as it should.
But next time your liberal or middle-of-the-road friend laments about the political discourse, maybe you ought to steer them here or have them watch the ad and explain why that is OK.

Are We Really Going To Let Polls End This Election Before It Even Begins?

Oh the hand wringing!
I mean, have you seen all the slew of polls that show the Worthless Leader, President Obama, leading all over the place? Now, he is up 50-44 in the Gallup daily tracking poll! It is all over. Hell, let's not even bother with those debates because the polls, the polls are telling all we need to know.
Except that today is September 27, 2012. It is not November 6, 2012 which is election day.
And that is why we who want to see the Worthless Leader defeated and Willard Mitt Romney become the 45th president of the United States should be jolted into getting serious, but definitely not anyway near panicking, about getting him over the finish line.
Let's look at Rasmussen for some comfort. Today is not much different as they keep showing the race tied. today 46-46 each. One reason I like Rasmussen is that for one, the sample is not as large as Gallup. And of course it is all about likely voters. No "registered", no "adults". People that are going to vote.
But this post is not really about process as much as it is perception.
Yes, when all is said and done, the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is leading at this point over the GOP standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. But it is still within the general accepted margins of error. And there has not been one debate yet.
A lot of history I totally forgot about the 1980 presidential race between Jimmah Carter and Ronald Reagan was presented this week in The Spectator by Jeffrey Lord.
Yes, I knew that the Gallup tracking poll had it a close race, often with President Jimmah in the lead, almost to the end.
But I did not realize all the state polls that were, well way wrong.
I was but 16 years old then, still in high school but realizing, I was not going to maintain the family tradition of being Democrats. I came out of the closet and said that I am going to be a Republican when I was able to vote two years later. But I always followed politics. And, thank you Jimmah Carter for making me realize that I was a Republican.
But back on point.
Mr. Lord looks at how The New York Times in nine articles looked at so-called crucial states-we now call them swing states. Only two, California and New Jersey looked to be in Mr. Reagan's corner. The remaining seven, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, New York and Texas were all essentially put in the Carter corner.
On October 8, 1980, The Times had an article and accompanying poll that assumed a tight race in Texas. It had President Jimmah leading Mr. Reagan, 40% to 39% with third-party spoiler John Anderson trailing at three percent.
The result?
Mr. Reagan won Texas by 13 points and began transforming the once Democrat stronghold into a solid Republican state.
Next on The Times hit parade was Pennsylvania, where Mr. Reagan was leading President Jimmah by two percent. There were "danger signs" that President Jimmah was gaining and that the undecideds were going toward the Democrat incumbent.
Again, the result?
Pennsylvania went with Mr Reagan by seven points.
See the pattern here?
On October 13, 1980, The Times went on to Illinois. Yes, that Illinois. The home state of Mr. Reagan and the semi-home state of the Worthless Leader, President Obama. Again, President Jimmah was closing the gap and only trailing Mr. Reagan by a mere one percent, 34% to 33%.
I know that you already know the answer to the perpetual question, but once again what was the result?
A decent Reagan win by roughly eight points.
And next came Ohio.
And President Jimmah was trailing here too, 36% to 34%. The labor unions were coming home to Carter. Er, labor union leadership. But certainly not the rank-and-file.
The end result?
Glad you asked for Mr. Reagan won Ohio by 10 points.  A blowout compared to recent results from the Buckeye State.
Oh The Times tried to put Florida in the crucial state category. But natch, this was their weakest attempt and in the end Mr. Reagan won by a staggering 17 points.
Now a state that yes, for once, that really was a swing or crucial state was New York. Of course Mr. Reagan was losing New York City, and here is an interesting blurb Mr. Lord lifted from The Times article about their own backyard:

 Reagan was "being hindered by doubts within his own party."

Does that sound familiar to you? Do you not read of hand wringers within the GOP, off the record of course, giving their two-cent doubts on Mr. Romney? Of course.
Well, Mr. Reagan offset his bad showing in New York City, save for the one GOP stronghold of Staten Island, and ended up winning, yes winning, New York state by two points.
Then there is Michigan.
The signs of decline, especially in Detroit, were just beginning at this time. And while The Times reported on Mr. Reagan gaining the endorsement of civil rights leader, the Dr. Rev. Ralph Abernathy, of course the negative? Well, backlash from I guess the "real" Black leaders.
No matter.
Mr. Reagan went on to win Michigan by six points.
Supposedly all those states were close and yet every single one was won in the end by Mr. Reagan.
But read on the piece by Mr. Lord.
Because it is very important to show how entrenched the bias was even 30 years ago.
In 1984, the last true presidential landslide, Ronald Reagan won 49 states. He barely lost in Minnesota, home state of the Democrat presidential nominee.
In that year, a Washington Post poll showed President Reagan's lead in California was only in single-digits.
Nancy Reagan was panicked. Why, I do not know. But she persisted and got campaign manager Ed Rollins to spend money for a couple of polls to essentially calm Mrs. Reagan down. But because of that, there were more phone banks (I know, I worked on them.) and some concern.
It turned out unnecessary of course as Mr. Reagan won California by a nice 16 point margin.
But here is what happened in Mr. Lord's words:

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."
Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Nice.
The editor of one of the United States' leading newspapers admits he was trying to prop up the failure that was the Walter Mondale '84 campaign.
I am not really surprised. But now some one like a Ben Bradllee can just say that all he wants on any of the Obamawhore media outlets and go unchallenged.
Oh, one other thing about Mr. Reagan in 1980.
His quest for the GOP nomination was not as smooth sailing as one would believe today.
Mr. Reagan had as his campaign manager John Sears. He managed Mr. Reagan's near upset over President Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination in 1976. But he made some bad moves and ran up against some of Mr. Reagan's longtime confidants such as Edwin Meese, Michael Deaver, an damn if he was not one of my favs, Lynn Nofziger.
And of course, up against Nancy Reagan.
On the day Mr. Reagan won the New Hampsire primary, Mr. Sears was given the door and replaced by William Casey.
As I noted, because Mr. Reagan won two substantive landslides, history does not even note that the first did not seem to be in the making. Poll after poll was showing a close race.
Another tidbit in Mr. Lord's article is that in the final Times poll before the election, it was assured that a correct turnout model was being used.
Funny but I think that is being touted today.
The reason I do not think that this polling business is all that is another election in which, while a win, overstated the win.
In 1996, then President Clinton faced GOP senator, Bob Dole, for the presidency. Poll after poll here showed a seemingly insurmountable lead. Some polls had President Clinton up as much as 20 points.
But then as in 1992, the spoiler was Ross Perot. And it bears looking at that chart. Because if you take Mr. Perot out of the equation in the early days once the nominee was decided, it would have been a much closer race. And in fact it was for even with Mr. Perot, Mr. Dole only lost by nine points. And gained five percent of GOP voters back in the fold from the 1992 disaster. And President Clinton only had 49% of the vote.
As I like to always point out, polls are but a snapshot in time and in that polling period. Sometimes, the samples are good and sometimes, well they just plain suck. And sometimes, as in this election, there is an assumption that, despite the general negative feeling in the United States, that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is going to have the same if not stronger turnout than 2008. The problem is that everything points the other way. The GOP is all in with Mr. Romney. Independents are consistently for Mr. Romney by varying numbers. But never, ever are the in favor of the current occupant of the White House.
Like in 1980, there is a great desire to end this era. To start fresh. And while many have reservations about Mr. Romney, the trend is going his way.
And these polls, these polls be damned!

So, Why ARE People Leaving The Once Golden State?

It is very depressing to know that the place I call home, California, is descending into Greece of the United States Left Coast.
And, because of the overwhelming power of the California Democrats, there seems to be no relief in sight.
But at least this study by the Manhattan Institute gives some insight as to a real serious part of the problem.
In a nutshell, the very people that we need are leaving because of high taxes, over regulation and a deteriorating overall quality of life.
California's population that is leaving is moving to surrounding states, by and large. According to the report, Texas, Nevada and Arizona are the leading places where those that leave move to. Then there is Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Utah. And two Southern states, Georgia and South Carolina, are a pretty big draw for fleeing Californians.
There is a lot a data to digest.
One aspect of this is that the migration to other states began in 1990. That is partially due to the restructuring of the military and closing down bases and research facilities. A lot of those people decided to pull up stakes.
What is replacing those that leave?
Sorry but it is illegal aliens.
Now most are coming to attempt a better life than they have it where ever they are from. But they are not the job producers.
So, for individuals, what are the reasons to move from this state?
Here is directly from the report:

I: Jobs
A closer look at movement to and from the top three destination states for Californians— Texas, Nevada, and Arizona—shows the impact of the 2008–09 recession on migration in general. People simply did not move as much because there were fewer jobs to attract them. But even with the recession impelling people to stay put, Texas had a relatively strong pull on Californians. Texas’s net inflow from California between 2009 and 2010 was 14,963. That’s small compared with the population of either state but is impressive in the context of a major economic downturn. According to the IRS data, the next biggest beneficiary in that period for net migration from California was Oregon, at 5,708 net gain, followed by the state of Washington, at 4,741. Arizona and Nevada, the two most popular destination states at the start of the decade, netted only 3,653 between them from California in the decade’s last year. This is consistent with our hypothesis that these states are destinations for retiring Californians, as the economic crisis put retirement plans on hold for many who suffered losses in real estate or the stock market.

There is more, but again this is a highlight. It behooves you to read the whole study.

2. Taxes
Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. Even Oregon, with income-tax rate like those of California, has a more business-friendly tax code. On the other side of the migration ledger, the states that are still net senders of people to California range from near the middle of the tax scale to the very top. As a general rule, Californians have tended to flee high taxes for low ones.

As you read on, this is somewhat harder to quantify as this being a separate reason. But it must be for some people.

3. Other Costs
Employers may be especially sensitive to California’s tax bite because the state’s other business expenses are so high. One 2005 study, by the Los Angeles–based Milken Institute, ranked California fourth-highest in the nation on a broad cost-of doing-business index. (The Milken Institute’s last survey of this type, in 2007, used slightly different methodology but put California almost as high, at sixth.) Among other factors, California’s 2005 electricity-cost index was 168.0, on a scale in which 100 was the U.S. average. Industrial rents were 36.8 percent above the national average, and office rents were 36.3 percent higher. The state’s tax-burden index was not as outsize—111.1—but combined with the other factors, it helped push the state to an overall cost index of 124.2.

Yes, there is a substantive price to live in California. As I see it, if you own a car here, cost, registration and annual renewal taxes, and gasoline add to the cost much more than other states.
The study does hold out hope that somehow, the politicians and the people can stop this decline.
Regrettably, I am doubtful.
One of the reasons that Republicans are finding it difficult to fight against the Democrats is because many of those leaving the once Golden State are, Republicans. It is harder to gain more in a party that has ran on being the strict parent. The Dems, they are the cool parents. They are the ones to promise the moon. The Republicans try to say that there is a cost to those promises.
But, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats in creating this mess. From former Gov. Pete Wilson, to Gray Davis, to Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger to the retread Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown. All at one point ended up raising taxes or trying to. None made the kind of tough choices that are desperately needed to get out from under.
And we are all losing.
What we need is for someone to tell the truth. To stand up to the state employee unions. To those that feed off of the state government teat. To stop this train wreck from continuing. To not just try to raise taxes but cut government. Merge departments. Get rid of redundancy. Eliminate unnecessary boards. Get a part-time state legislature.
I offer a bit in the last paragraph, but again, it is truth.
We do not need to raise taxes as much as we need to realize our state government is too big, too burdensome and a real danger to business large and small. As well as farmers and ranchers.
I hope that people read this study because it is the truth. It is a starting point to discuss a real way to reform that helps all people and stems the tide of domestic migration away from California.

These Are Some Things That Mitt Romney Should Be Saying

OK, maybe not all at once. And what I am starting with should be what he says at the first debate with the Worthless Leader, President Obama.

"Hello, I am Mitt Romney. I am the Republican party nominee for president of the United States.
One of the very things that the opposition loves to point out is that I am a rich man.
Well, they are right.
I am a rich man. Yes, I have earned all of that money that has made me be able to give a comfortable life for my wife and the next First Lady of the United States, Ann, and my five children.
It is true that we have never been poor or even having to struggle to pay our bills. Nor has my opponent.
But in traveling this great nation in this campaign, I have seen and heard the countless struggles that many poor people have. That many who were once employed in good paying jobs are no longer. That the safety net is precipitously close to collapse. That we are a more divided nation than ever in most of our lifetimes.
It is one of the reasons that I am running for president.
Yes, although I do not like to talk about it, some of what I have been able to do because of money that I earned is help many people that had nowhere else to turn. I will not mention any one case in particular. So as a businessman, a group of us started a unique business that was able to provide people with capital who had great business ideas. Thus, Bain Capital helped with getting some well known companies off the ground, such as Sports Authority and Staples. But because sometimes even the best models do not pan out, we had some failures as well.
It is that experience that I believe make me the candidate for president that can solve the problems that I highlighted. "

OK, for one, embrace that you are a wealthy man, Mr. Romney. There is not a thing wrong with that sir for you earned that money. You are not some gangster or gunrunner or something like that.
The debate is the perfect setting for you to get that out to the audience. More people will watch the debates than did both the conventions.
And please, do not try to pretend to be something you are or never have been.
Mr. Romney, you have lived a comfortable life and again, there is nothing wrong with that. You have been a great provider for your family.
But, you have been exposed to people who are not of means. You have been exposed to people that have struggled. It is because you have the financial means in many cases that you have been able to help struggling people. It is a big part of why you are running for president in the first place.
In other words, take those personal experiences and make them writ large. Point out that you have seen the kind of bad things this economy hath wrought and explain that you do understand. That you want to give these people the ability to change their lives. Not thought some black hole of a government program but making the economy so strong that employers will come begging for them.
Mr. Romney, tell the truth. That we are so much more divided than ever. That you are not a divider but one that does want to make this one nation, under God. That while there are always political differences, they should not be poisonous as they are now.
And discuss exactly what Bain Capital is all about.
That it can and has had some amazing successes. That you and some others came together with a different way to help get businesses going. That while the two that you like to tout, Sports Authority and Staples, are large and employ over 100,000 people combined, there are many others that you have not heard of. In other words, introduce Americans to the lesser known companies that Bain Capital helped get off the ground and how they are doing today.
But he must be fair and candid and admit that there have been some failures. For it is the real world. And sometimes in that real world, things do not work out.
Mitt Romney is one of the most qualified people to run for president in my lifetime. Mr. Romney has much more experience than does the Worthless Leader, President Obama. In government and the private sector. Mr. Romney has done something as a businessman that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, has never done.
Create a job.
No, check that.
Thousands and thousands of jobs.
He has run a business and a state.
There is not one reason to run away from any of that.
Don't run from your earned wealth. Don't run away from being able to get people jobs through that earned wealth. Don't run away from the fact that you have been able to help many people in personal ways. It shows your compassion and humanity. Don't run away from Bain Capital and the successes and failures. And let us know that there are successes we have never heard of. The small businesses that we know are the backbone of the American economy.
Mitt, can I call you Mitt? It is time to play smash mouth politics. No more around the edges. Take to the offense. Put the Team Worthless Leader on defense.
Because they are the problem. You, Mitt, are the solution. But you have to explain that solution in a way that will connect with a lot of people. Tell the campaign consultant types that this is how I want to get my story out to the American people.
I think that a lot will embrace that more than the consultants think or know.
Mitt. it is time to say some things why you will make a better president than the current occupant of the White House.
Glad I can help.

So, Do You Think Television Is Out Of Touch With Much Of America?

Well, duh?!
Of course it is my friends.
I should know since I do live in the Belly of the Beast not just on the Left Coast but within the walls of the so-called entertainment industry.
Tomorrow night, allegedly millions of Americans will be glued to their television sets watching the Emmy awards, the television equivalent to the movie Academy Awards.
Of course this is but an occasion for your humble blogger to go even deeper in the Right View From The Left Coast Bunker.
But reason for this post is an actually interesting little Emmy guide in the Left Angeles Times today. In a way, it pretty much makes the case that these awards, possibly even more so than movies, show an absolute disconnect between the overwhelming majority of American and their television viewing habits and those shows that are even nominated for the Emmys.
Many  of the shows and or genres nominated are on the cable movie networks such as HBO, Showtime and the like.
Nothing wrong with that because some of those shows are very good. Some are marginal. And some suck.
Kind of like regular television, right?
But what really got me thinking was this question asked in the Times article:

What does this tell us about Emmy voters? Isn't there a disconnect between their taste and most Americans'?

The short answer is yes! The long answer is HELL YES!
The person that did answer in the affirmative is one Paul Jankowski, author of a book called "How to Speak American: Building Brands in the New Heartland."
What Mr. Jankowski points out that in the Heartland, better known to the coastals as Flyover Country, people are more likely to watch shows like NCIS or American Idol or reality shows. And this quote kind of says it all:

"The reason the Emmys don't really resonate is that they're not voted on by the people who really watch the shows."

True that.
But the other side of that coin is actually valid.
Gary Carr, senior vice president and executive director of national broadcast at the media agency TargetCast makes a good point. In a way:

"It's not ratings size at all. It's not a popularity contest."

Now to be fair, his comment is based on the Emmys being based on artistic merit. But in the end, it is a popularity contest because it is what Emmy voters believe are the best shows that are nominated.
In other words, it is elite code to suggest most Americans do not like high-brow entertainment.
Hmm, not true.
One of the highest rated shows nominated is the PBS show Downton Abbey, which averages about 5,400,000 viewers per showing. That is probably more than many a program on NBC nowadays. And as more people know about the show, and yes many in the Heartland, if will gain in popularity.
Confession time, dear readers.
I just will no longer, nor have recently, watch any show on PBS nor listen to anything on NPR. For me it is now principle based on not watching any network that depends on government subsidy to remain on the airwaves. Mrs. RVFTLC, a huge Downton fan, has it coming on Netflix and I will watch it then.
But what I believe is that what we are seeing on television today is urban sensibilities being foisted on the rest of the populace.
Tell me something.
Is there any positive show about suburban life, where most of us live, on any television network today? Is there any show that highlights a relatively known suburb in a positive light?
OK, I suppose that the very closest is of all shows The Simpsons. Sure, there is a lot of mocking about Homer Simpson, but he turns out to be a fairly decent dad, loyal to wife Marge and their three perpetually still children, Bart, Lisa and Maggie.
Oh yeah, it is a cartoon.
But look at such shows as Modern Family. Now there is a new one called The New Normal. These two shows look at the actual normal middle-class families as weird and or dysfunctional. And the male homosexual couples as the totally normal ones. And that is another bit of urban promoting of gays and lesbians as the true role models and the straights, well we know that they are just so screwed up, right?!
OK, I won't pick on the homosexuals for it is not the point.
There is another show called Suburgatory.
I think that the title says it all.
It is basically about how just awful it is to have to live in those sterile suburbs where, dammit, everyone is the same, thinks the same, dresses the same. You know, eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll conformity.
Yet the lack of self-awareness on those that mock to middle-class suburban lifestyle is that they too are in lockstep. They all agree on the issues, live in the same elite neighborhoods, dress the same. Except they are supposed to be the more educated. The more worldly-wise that the rest of us Yay-Hoos.
Hey, what about the recently ended show Desperate Housewifes? Was this nothing more than five-years of suburbia-bashing?
Also note that almost every television show takes place in the following cities:
Los Angeles
New York City
Again to be fair, there are shows that take place in Miami, Las Vegas, Seattle.
Oh yeah, none of these towns are in Flyover Country, huh?
The reality is that those who conceptualize, write and produce much of what we see on television in the United States are pretty much of one leftist, urban mindset. They really do not realize nor care about the rest of the nation. The Heartland.
Hence, many of those in the middle of the United States are drawn to such shows as the NCIS and NCIS Los Angeles, Hawai'i Five-O, and a slew of crime dramas. Because they are about the only shows that make an effort to show such seemingly outdated concepts and good and evil. And that there are those that care about the underdog in pragmatic ways. Not in some ideological concept.
And the Emmys are becoming more and more an elitist festival rather than a good cross-section of what is on all of television and realizing that gee, there is a potentially really big audience out there.

Uh, Sorry Folks But Mitt is Right About That 47%

One thing that I love about the left has been this "99%" vs. the "1%". Some kind of weird number thing.
So, the Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, was "caught" speaking truth to power once again to a group of supporters at a Florida fundraiser back in May.
The reason I quote mark caught is because the left is making his comments seem nefarious because he does not exactly say what he said while campaigning.
So, what was the pure eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll that Mr. Romney said when asked a question during this fundraiser? Here it is:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…
“And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”

Now the above is spot on generally. And keep in mind, he is by his own admission in this press conference, speaking off the cuff.
But one has to divide the election numbers part of the comment, the point of government dependency and that he will not change a lot of those minds.
So, here is the election and the numbers area.
OK, I think that the numbers are a little off, but the reality is that Mr. Romney is correct. Under the three-plus years of the Worthless Leader, President Obama, dependency on government has increased. And especially with the federal government.
Mr. Romney is correct that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, starts off with big numbers and still a lot of support. But where he is wrong is to say that it starts off as high as 47%. Like I have written time after time about candidate and party support, the number that the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is probably at is between 40-45%. For the sake of arguement, say it is at 43%.
Essentially, that is the Democrat party base.
But where the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is steadily losing group is among independents. On pretty much issue after issue. So that number, 43% is the starting point.
For Mr. Romney, his number is probably at 35-40% to start. Again for the sake of arguement, lets make it 37%.
Those numbers make it a total of 80% probably locked it to said party and or candidate. Leaving that number I keep writing about at 20%.
Thus when Mr. Romney starts off giving the Worthless Leader, President Obama, 47%, he is being kind.
Maybe Mr. Romney should have said that the president will probably not get more than 47% of the vote.
Now, this is important.
Mr. Romney did come off way too flippant in this part of the comment:

And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Even some of those that benefit from the government trough are begining to realize that it is unsustainable. And he should never, ever rule out ANY potential vote. I mean, I know what he is saying in general, but it comes off badly. Even at a GOP fundraiser with donors looking for the red meat.
Keep in mind that this comment came on May 17. So the numbers and all have changed and the reality is that this is a close race.
So what about those that are becoming and or are dependent on government? Is Mr. Romney wrong on that.
Once again in general, not at all.
Since the Worthless Leader, President Obama, became the current occupant of  the White House, here are some numbers.
Poverty is at the highest number of people in over 40 years. Which means that this would be at the apex of President Lyndon Lynchin' Baines Johnson's so-called War on Poverty.
In 2011, according to the 2010 census, 49,100,000 live in what is considered poverty. And it is a record.
As of 2011, 45,000,000 Americans received SNAP assistance or what we remember it being called Food Stamps. In 2007, the number was 31,500,000. That is an increase of 70%. Seventy frickin percent!
None of this counts in the costs of implmenting the dreaded so-called health care "reform", aka Obamacare. Nor have I mentioned anything about government subsidized housing or a slew of federal programs.
And I have not mentioned some that yes, do benefit the middle class.
But fundamentally, all of these goodies are designed to make people believe that the federal government is there for them. And yes, creates what can only be classified as dependency.
So, how can Mr. Romney change the majority of these people's minds that his solutions for the ills facing the United States is better than what we are currently dealing with?
Again, he is correct that he will not be able to change most of those people. But some of those people realize that they are in a cycle that they are not happy to be in and those are the people that Mr. Romney needs to address.
There are persuadable people that have become so victimized by the Obamaconomy and do not like where they are and willing to listen. These are the people that want to get back to work. These are the people that will do something for the assistance that they are receiving from the federal government.
Which is why he needs to expand that 5-10% number of persuadables he mentioned in the comment to 10-20%.
Because that is the magic number.
Some of those people are very much really wondering can they be voting for the guy that will keep extending unemployment benefits rather than create an enviornment in which businesses will start up
or expand.
Some of those people will think can they vote for the guy that wants the government to determine their future or the guy that wants to let them make their own decisions.
But the overall comment is correct.
So, what really surprises me is that he said it.
For all the talk that Mr. Romney is not really all that conservative and that he is overly cautious, that sure does not sound like a liberal and someone cautious. It sounds like someone who gets the problems facing the United States today and states the obvious.
And while many think that this was terrible and disdainful of a large swath of Americans, remember that then presidential candidate Sen. Messiah Barack had this to say about the rural voters of Pennsylvania:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yes, if the economy was peachy-keen in those Pennsylvania small towns, why the people would give up their guns, welcome the half-Black, half Norweigen, gay man in the wheelchair that likes to wear dresses and then give up on God for the government would be the new God.
And also, one is truly spot on, Mr. Romney, while then Sen. Messiah Barack was stereotyping.
And, give Mr. Romney credit for when he had a press conference in Costa Mesa, California last night, he did not back down from the comments.
What Mr. Romney needs to do now is turn this into part of what he will do differently as president. He needs to make this part of the stump speech.
Mitt Romney needs to stand up for those of us who choose not to be dependent on government but try to live our own lives and respect others doing the same.
While this is not the way that I think he wanted this talk to come out, he shoud welcome it and embrace it.

All This America Hate Over A Movie?!

Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Does anyone really think that the spasm of anti-American protests raging in the Middle East is over an unknown movie, The Innocence of Muslims?
Well, damn, I guess we are all wrong since the Minister of Propaganda White House Press Secretary, Art Carney, er, JAY Carney says sure, it is all over a movie.
No, no, not at all according to the propagandist press drone. It is not about United States policy in the Middle East whatsoever. No, no, no. It is just over a movie that no one knew about until it went on an anti-Islamic website. Nothing more to see here.
So here at Mediate, we get the word from Mr. Carney and I suppose we should all just chill out about it right? Here is the money quote from Mr. Carney:

This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.

Ok Art, er I mean JAY! Explain why the German embassy in Karthoum, the Sudan, was torched this past Friday in another Islamic Day of Rage, also known as the Friday prayers? Was it because some German may have produced the movie? Support the movie? I do not know. Guess I ain't one of them there edumacated folks like you all are in the White House.
Lets try this one.
How can it not be against American foreign policy in the Middle East when Islamothugs shouted this in Tunis, Tunisia:

Obama! Obama! We are all Osamas!

So what does that mean? That the Worthless Leader, President Obama, is responsible for this movie? Did he produce it? Financially back it?
In other words don't believe any other reason than the official government line courtesy of Mr. Carney.
Oh, and if you don't believe it, better believe it when the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, says so. Mrs. Rice took to the Sunday news talk-show circuit to continue the administration line that it is all about the movie and nothing more.
Now let me be clear.
This movie had a minimal at best stoking of the fires in the Middle East especially. Because the reality is that there is a lot more out there on the internet and all over the place decidedly anti-Islamic. No it is not just the movie but how it is played up to stoke up the Islamonazis and their attempt to further gain influence in such nations as Egypt and Libya. The movie has a role of catalyst, but if it was not this particular movie, it would be something else.
And while the facts regarding Libya and the reality that the raid on the Benghazi counselor compound was planned keep slapping the administration in the face, they still are going with the theory that it was just part of the hate against this movie. Mrs. Rice did that too this morning according to Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com. Here is what she said on This Week:

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

Even the way that they are trying to explain things just sounds on the fly. It is that they have absolutely no clue as to how this Islamonazis work.
You do know what al-Queda means in English? It means "The Base" for it is the umbrella of most if not all of the anti-Western world, Islamonazi terrorists. It is a decentralized group. Thus, they can stir up trouble, get their allies worked up and we have the attack on the counselor compound and the murder of four Americans including the United States ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. And who is to say that the storming of the embassy in Cairo was not a diversion so the Libya attack could take place? Again it is decentralized. They do not have a traditional chain of command. But what they do, or did have, is the ability to coordinate. And lets face it, there are enough people in any given Islamic-majority nation that does hate the United States and all that it stands for including who ever the sitting president is at any given time.
Like conspiracy theorists, these people think that it does not matter who the president is and what party controls congress. All one and the same to them. They represent the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll that is the United States.
No they are not impressed that there is a more sympathetic leader in the White House in the Worthless Leader, President Obama. They can care less that his daddy was Islamic. They can care less that the current occupant in the White House has an Islamic-sounding middle name. In fact, the reality is that to the fanatics, Barack Hussein Obama is probably a heretic for he is a Christian.
And that is the problem.
The current political leadership thinks that this faux-outrage is not against our nation or leadership.
But it is.
And until they get their blinders off and realize that these people have to be defeated, not dealt with like some college seminar class, then we will continue to see this kind of violence escalate, not subside. In fact, in the Islamic world our president and the United States government is more hated now than when George W. Bush was the president.
No, this is not all over a movie. It is about bringing the United States down by any means necessary. Period.

Mitt Romney IS Right And The Dear Leader Is Now The Worthless Leader

That's right, I wrote it all in the headline! And I will proceed to explain that Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is spot on regarding American impotence in the Middle East and how the Dear Leader, President Obama, is now to going to be referred to here, correctly, as the Worthless Leader, President Obama.
Mr. Romney has been condemned by the usual suspects for actually speaking the truth to power when he made his remarks regarding, at the time, the pressing issue of the Islamist thugs  storming the United States embassy gates in Cairo, taking down the American flag and replacing it with a black, Islamic flag.
Oh, the usual suspects and in no particular order.
The Worthless Leader, President Obama, the sycophant Obamawhore propaganda news media, the Democrats, beltway Republicans, the foreign policy "establishment" and that is pretty much it.
But back to the comments.
What Mr. Romney was referring to is this statement put out by the United States embassy in Cairo:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Ok, maybe there is no direct apology in that statement, but it certainly shreds the First Amendment to the constitution.
Oh yeah, were are these people when Jesus Christ is defamed in so-called "art" as being on the crucifix and then in a jar of urine and the "art" work is named "Piss Christ"? Yup, the crickets have been chirping on that one for many a moon.
But it certainly is the tone of appeasement. That really, we are on your side.
And supposedly, this tirade by these radical Islamics is regarding a movie that I nor the overwhelming number of Americans had never heard of, The Innocence of Muslims. And this was actually shown in a movie house with less than 10 people, yes you read that right, 10 people in attendance. And yet in a world away, this D-movie riles the Islamonazis.
Allegedly.
This is the statement that Mr. Romney released this past Tuesday, when at that point, the situation in Egypt was on the front pages:

“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Spot on. Mr. Romney.
It took a long time for the Worthless Leader, President Obama's, administration to walk back from that disgusting statement from the embassy in Cairo. And when the statement was released, no one knew the full extent of the savagery that took place in Benghazi.

Now, this is what Mr. Romney said prior to taking questions from Obamawhore attack dogs reporters yesterday morning:

Good morning. Americans woke up this morning with tragic news and felt heavy hearts as they considered that individuals who have served in our diplomatic core were brutally murdered across the world.
This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting, it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom, and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the All Mighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
Four diplomats lost their life, including the U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya – and of course with these words I extend my condolences to the grieving loved ones who have been left behind as a result of these who have lost their lives in the service of our Nation, and I know that the people across America are grateful for their service, and we mourn their sacrifice.
America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
Possibly the Administration was wrong to standby a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions.
Its never too early for the United States Government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values. The White House distanced itself last night from the statement saying it wasn’t cleared by Washington. That reflects the mixed signals they are sending to the world. The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed.
In the face of this violence, America cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to insure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests.
Over the last several years we’ve stood witness to an Arab Spring that presents an opportunity for a more peaceful and prosperous region, but also poses the potential for peril if the forces of extremism and violence are allowed to control the course of events.
We must strive to insure that the Arab Spring does not become an Arab Winter. With that I’m happy to take any questions you may have.

Once again, spot on and no cowardice. Understand that Mr. Romney stood up for the constitution and what it means for us as Americans. It protects people that want to make a D-movie condemning Islam and Mohammad as well as "art" depicting a crucified Jesus in a jar of urine. And he did try to put something positive about the so-called "Arab Spring". However , he also stated what many of us believe is already there, an Arab Winter.
But to read the Obamawhore attack dogs media, why it was horrible that Mr. Romney would somehow play politics with this situation. Never mind that their Lord and Savior did exactly the same thing when he was running for president in 2008.
Note to the uninitiated.
It is perfectly OK for a Democrat to do what then Sen. Messiah Barack did in blasting then-President George W. Bush. If a Republican does anything like that, well he is a disaster. And un-patriotic. And blah, blah, blah.
And if any of these reports are accurate, that our brave embassy marine guards guns were unloaded window-dressing, that the State Department had credible evidence that something bad was going to happen, then Worthless Leader, President Obama, man up and take what comes your way. Because your sir are the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States of America.
So, why is the former Dear Leader, now Worthless Leader, President Obama, deemed worthless by your humble blogger?
Because he chose to attend a fundraiser, what else is new, in Las Vegas, he dared to make this obscene comparison:

'The sacrifices that our troops and our diplomats make are obviously very different from the challenges that we face here domestically but, like them, you guys are Americans who sense that we can do better than we’re doing….I’m just really proud of you.'

Really? You are comparing coddled campaign workers to soldiers and diplomats who actually gave and will give their lives so said campaign workers can continued to be entranced by your "Hope"  and "Change" skulduggery?
No sir, I will write that I am not proud of my president making such a statement.
You know who got in trouble for making a similar comment?
Why it was Mitt Romney in 2008 when he made the grievous attempt to compare his son's serving his presidential campaign then as serving in the armed forces. He was wrong to make such a comparison and was rightly rebuked.
But the difference is that Mr. Romney was a candidate in the Republican primaries in 2008. The above comment came from the president of the United States.
I am sorry, but a president can not compare a political campaign to those serving in harms' way. Period.
Hence, he is now the Worthless Leader, President Obama.
This has been a bad week for our nation. We do need leadership. We need new leadership. One that is not afraid to speak for America and not passively. One that does not shirk from the responsibility of governing. One that will not send our best and brightest to be sitting ducks and get killed when they may not have had to.
Mitt Romney is right and the now Worthless Leader, President Obama, is wrong.

 

 

Are We Heading For Another Version Of The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis?

To see this event in Egypt as well as the murder of a State Department official in Libya, one has to wonder how great the so-called "Arab spring" has turned out. One has to ask if we are not seeing Iran 1979 redux.
The alleged reason for the storming of the United States embassy in Cairo is in reaction to an alleged movie that among other things depict the Islamic prophet, Mohammad, as a  child molester, womanizer and ruthless killer.
Well, sorry but I do believe that Mohammad saw nothing wrong with taking a nine-year old girl as a wife. According to Western tradition, having more than one wife at a time would satisfy the womanizing. And really, did not Islam spread by the sword?
OK, I am not justifying a film that I admit I have no idea about. Just making a point.
To those Islamics offended, welcome to being a Christian in 2012 America. We are told that we have to accept as "art" Jesus Christ on the cross in a jar of urine. Or feces spread on the Virgin Mary. And while we are appalled, we do not run around storming museums or art galleries that may show such wondrous "art".
Yet in Cairo, that wellspring of the the so-called "Arab spring", we saw 2,000 Islamics protesting in front of the United States embassy. So far, so good. But then, some scaled the very high walls. And went to the flag pole, removed Old Glory and hoisted this black flag with these words:

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger"

And here is a photo of the criminals at work.

And what did our valiant United States security do?
No doubt on orders, they simply fired warning shots in the air. And what did the Egyptian army do to stop it? One can see, nothing. And it is not like the embassy was not aware of this aggression. The staff was cleared out before the mob took to the walls to vent against a movie.
Now, when a mob is scaling the embassy walls, I don't know, I would order the marines inside, and they are inside the sovereign territory of the United States, to shoot to kill. Allowing such a transgression on American soil should never and not be tolerated.
But in reading this on the website of the embassy in Cairo, it is any wonder that the ambassador, Anne Patterson, did not invite them in after taking the guns from the marines and handing it to them.
This is beyond sycophantic. It is appeasement in the worst form.
Hey Islamics that do not like any push back on your religion, too bad.
As I noted above, we Christians have to put up with this kind of stuff every single day in the United States. And they way that we try to affect change is peaceable, not in mob rule.
And in this incident in Libya, not only did the mob kill a State Department officer, but looted and burned the consulate in Benghazi.
Can it be that these event were coordinated? And is there not the irony of these events taking place on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D. C.? And is this a precursor of things to come that may be more in line of the Iranian "students" seizing the United States embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979?
Honestly, it is too early to say. But it does not help when, once again, the United States comes off as, well sympathetic to those committing real violence. This is exactly what led to the what came to be known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Appeasement.
We must understand that we can not appease these thugs. We must stand our ground and stand on our principles that the United States constitution guantees two things. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
It is a great tension, but one that has suited us well for over 230 years.
And it can not and must never be dictated to by thugs and weak-kneed so-called diplomats.
Otherwise, we can have an Iranian Hostage Crisis on multiple fronts. And that would not be a good thing.

Uh, Why Is Sen. Feinstein Afraid To Debate Her GOP Opponent, Elizabeth Emken?

Yeah, I do not get why Sen. DiFi is afraid to debate her very little known Republican opponent, Elizabeth Emken.
But here is our illustrious senior senator in action.
While an actual reporter, from a San Francisco television station no less, asks what I think are reasonable and legitimate questions about why Sen. DiFi, as she is affectionately known here, won't even consider debating Mrs. Emken.
So, here is KGO television's Mark Matthews and what he was asking Sen. DiFi:

Matthews: I got to ask you about Elizabeth Emken. She wants to debate you. The L.A. Times came out and said you ought to debate her.
Feinstein: I’m running my own campaign.
Matthews: Is there anything more you can add to that?
Feinstein: I did a large event in Modesto, did three or four meetings, I’ve been to Southern California’s and that’s what I’ll continue to do.
Matthews: Wouldn’t it be better for the voters to hear both sides?
Feinstein: Thank you very much.

Yup, that is all she wrote. Thank you very much and Sen. DiFi walks out. At the Democrat National Convention no less.
And here is the funny thing.
Of all newspapers in California, the Left Angeles Times is asking the same thing.
Granted, this is an editorial from July 17, 2012. But the point is that the Times wrote what is the obvious:

Nothing screams "entrenched incumbent" more than a refusal to debate an opponent.

Exactly.
Maybe it is because they are not all that certain that they have this election in the bag.
There is this poll that the Emken campaign is touting that seems to indicate she is closing a gap. However, there are 20% of voters according to this poll that are undecided. That seems awfully high at this point in the election. Especially when you look at the presidential number.
OK, say the 20% is because no one knows who Mrs. Emken is. That is possible. And she roughly maxes out at 34%. What I mean by that is that if one looks at the Republican registration in California, about 31%, then she is over that. So, if the 20% is true, or even close, then she may have a shot. And if the poll is right about Sen. DiFi, that she only has the allegiance of 46% of those polled, then maybe she really is in more trouble and is not willing to give Mrs. Emken the time of day.
But here is the thing.
Even a Republican that has no chance of winning can get at least 35% of the vote in a senate campaign. So at best for Sen. DiFi, Mrs. Emken is almost at her ceiling.
Or is she?
Is there something in internal polling that Sen.DiFi is worried about? Is it that Mrs. Emken is gaining ground? Is Sen. DiFi losing ground?
No one really knows for sure.
But it would do Sen. DiFi some good to actually debate Mrs. Emken at least once. Because all Mrs. Emken has to do is repeat this from the Left Angeles Times:

Nothing screams "entrenched incumbent" more than a refusal to debate an opponent.

This Is NOT Time To Panic On The GOP Side

OMG! Did you see the latest polls since the Democrat National Convention?
Why, why, the Dear Leader, President Obama, he, he has gotten a. . .bounce and is now ahead of GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
It is September, 10th! What do we do! Election Day is 56 days away! OMG! We are gonna lose folks!
A wee bit of satire in the previous three graphs. But there are those who are panicking that this is over and because the Dear Leader, President Obama, make that former President Clinton, had a great convention, and there is a bounce why it is insurmountable because, well because the voters minds are totally made up.
Uh, not really folks.
The occasional primer is good here.
In the United States, there are roughly 40% of the voting public that will vote for a Democrat no matter what. These are the hardcore partisans. And they are spread out across this Great Land.
As there are 40% that will vote for a Democrat no matter what, there are about the same number that will vote for a Republican no matter what. Again, these are the hardcore partisans and also spread all across the Great Land.
So, what about the 20% left?
They are the ones these campaigns are going after. And in this election, about 10% are iffy this late in the game. Maybe even higher than that.
So why the panic?
Well, here is some of the latest polling over at Real Clear Politics. Yes, all show the Dear Leader, President Obama, ahead of Mr. Romney. When you cumulate and average it out, it is by a rip-roaring 2.9%, essentially within the margin of error.
And guess what?
Four years ago today, one GOP nominee, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain was ahead in the RCP average. And the margin? A mere 2.2%.  Again, within the margin of error. Sen. "F--- You" McCain's lead from his post convention bounce was already evaporating.
Which why I do not get the hand-wringing from some on our side,
I would also point to this from the Team Romney in-house pollster, Neil Newhouse. I think that he is correct.
So why did the Dear Leader, President Obama, get a bit more of a boost from his convention over Mr. Romney?
Four words. Well, two for the masses.
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, aka, Bill Clinton.
No doubt that it was the former president's speech at the DNC confab in Charlotte last Wednesday night that brought the house down. In fact, many have commented how weak and underwhelming the Dear Leader, President Obama's speech was in comparison.
So, now that the abysmal job numbers from August have been released showing a minimal decrease of unemployment from 8.3% to 8.1%, it is the reason that not even the Obamawhore media can cover-up.
That over 400,000 people who have been unemployed have simply given up looking for work.
No matter how anyone spins it, it is really lousy.
And that along with the dismal economy, the massive deficit and debt the federal movement is running up, states and cities on the financial brink, it is a recipe for electoral disaster.
Which leads to this.
Why isn't Mitt Romney up say about 20% over the Dear Leader?
I refer you to the seventh paragraph about the electorate.
Even in two landslides for Ronald Reagan, the Democrat candidates manged 41% of the popular vote.
So yes, it is close, but not anywhere near time to push the panic buttons.
There are still three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. There is still time for events to change the course of the election for a while.
One thing that the Republican candidate has this time around that they did not in 2008.
A boatload of cash.
And in way that is what should help tremendously. Most analysts believe that the Democrats are running in the red or close to it. And that means either they get a lot of help from the outside groups or they will not be able to keep up in October and up to election day. Also, the enthusiasm is stronger on the GOP side than the Democrat side. That is not deniable, yet the Obamawhore media is doing all it can to make that a meme.
Bottom line is this.
Stop reading too much in these post-convention polls. By the end of this week, it will be back to a horse race and that makes it advantage Romney.

I Do Not Want To Love A President As Much As I Do Want To Respect A President

Now that the conventions are over, the real campaign finally begins in Presidential Death March 2012.
But a little snippet of our Dear Leader, President Obama, is illustrative of a very fundamental difference between most conservatives and most liberals.
Liberals want to be loved.
Conservatives want to be respected.
Now, it is not to say that a little of both is a bad thing. Actually it is what I think most people do believe even if is not the reality.
So in the snippet, a member of the assembled audience listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, shouts "We love you, Obama!" to which he shouts back, "I love you back. But let me tell you the fourth thing -- you’ll love me even more. (Laughter.)"
Now I know one thinks that it is innocuous from both.
But not really.
For the liberal it is all about self-worth. And an insatiable need to be loved. And they do not understand when somebody or people do not love and or like somebody.
A few of my Facebook friends were writing about this during the just concluded Democrat National Convention. Feel the love. See the love. Sense the love. And so on.
Who cares? Is it that important to be loved by all?
No, not in the least.
One of the aspects of this self-love fest is in foreign policy.
One of the constant complaints about foreign affairs is that when a Republican is president, the world does not love us.
When a liberal is, the world loves us.
However, that is a total fallacy.
See, what the liberal is talking about are governments that do not like or even love us. Many of these governments have sycophantic people that either back up that position or in real hardcore dictatorships back the government out of fear for their lives.
So, it is true that maybe the last Republican president, George W. Bush, faced protests and visceral personal hate from said protesters and even governments. But what about the average person in these nations? Do they hate us? No, not at all. They love the United States and what it stands for if they had a chance, they would come here in a nano-second.
And yes, in the days even before Barack Obama became president, the world loved him. Of course these are people who would agree with his point of view in the first place. And they are on the left. And they need to emote. And they did.
Maybe Mr. Bush 43 was not loved, but he was respected. Because unlike the leader seeking self-gratification, Mr. Bush did have a set of beliefs that he stuck to. One did not have to like them, but they had to be respected.
That is what people should be looking for first and foremost in any kind of leader.
Respect.
And what I have seen in the past three-plus years is a love-fest in regards to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and little if any respect.
Or let me speak personally here.
If you read this blog and totally disagree with it, fine. I have no problem with that. I hope that you would at the very least respect the point of view I present. And really, one does not have to do that. And again I have no problem with that. I do have only one problem and that is if one chooses to be nasty and hateful. I do not tolerate that. Nor do I respect that. The fact is that I know I am not liked and or loved by everybody. And I just do not seek that.
But many liberal people I know just do not understand that whole concept. To them it is all love and nothing else.
But that is a two-way street.
The one that truly seeks to be loved by all must love all as well.
And then reality smacks them in the face. And they crawl into a corner and sulk. Thus they seek no respect and get none. Nor are they all that loved in the end.
But as far as a president goes, I expect that person to be respected at home and abroad. I don't need to love that person at all. Thus I can write that as time goes on, I have developed a certain respect for the former president, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. And I even kind of sort of like the guy in a weird way.
No, when I hear people say they love any president, and that president shouts back that you'll love me more because of, laundry list here, there is a narcissism about that I find disturbing. And it is a marked difference between a conservative and a liberal.
Love vs. respect. What do you seek?

What An Amazing Democrat Party Convention

All I can say is what an amazing week that it has been for the Democrat party in Charlotte, North Carolina this week.
A truncated Democrat National Convention from four to three days.
A shrillness that I can not believe they think will win over some Republicans and many independents.
A speech from a former president that many wished was running again.
An exercise in letting the world know that the three issues they are running on is unfettered baby-killing (abortion), God-hating (trying to omit any reference to God in the party platform) and Jew-hating (omitting the capital of Israel, Jerusalem. ALL of it.)
Where many people speaking were absurd. No, not bordering, totally absurd.
Let's start from the last sentence and work our way back words.
Last night, before the Dear Leader, President Obama, made his meh nomination acceptance speech, there were two speakers that were beyond over the top.
Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), who is a true hero for standing up to those that kept Jim Crow laws, written by and enacted and enforced by Democrats,  to the point of true human suffering, made the absurd assertion that if Republicans are elected and if Mitt Romney is elected president, why those days will come roaring back. Part of the reason Rep. Lewis makes the assertion? Because of the move by many states to have voters show photo ID when they vote.
OK, I get that for many on the left, they present this as "voter suppression" for so many that do not have access to government-issued photo IDs are minorities and elderly folks. Which is also absurd considering how many instances in every day life one is asked for their photo ID.
For Rep. Lewis to make the ridiculous claim that voter ID requirements would bring back all that which made the United States bad to itself is absolutely ridiculous. And that is totally shrill.
But for comedy relief, because we need some, here is the former governor of Michigan, Jennifer Bottoms Up Granholm.
What other explanation can there be for such a, well bizarre "speech" on the last day of the DNC confab than she took a visit to a bar along the way?
Besides a lot misinformation and downright lies, Mrs. Granholm just went off half-cocked. Check that. She was fully cocked and just bizarre. I get that her job is to pump the crowd up for the big speech from the Dear Leader, President Obama, but there is getting the crowd excited and looking like an aging rock star that has gone on way, way too long.
And let us not forget that she was the warm-up for our illustrious Vice-President, Dimwit Joe Biden.
So, what is this about baby-killing, God-hating and Jew-hating?
Well, speaker after speaker, after speaker from day one to the Dear Leader, President Obama's acceptance speech made clear that the Democrat party, circa 2012 is all about abortion. It is A-OK from conception to the ninth month if the mom wants because, well it is her body and she has the right to do what she wants with it. And also, we the taxpayers can pay for it too, thanks to Obamacare.
Well, at least many unborn will not have to deal with paying for the mess that the president and the Democrat party has put this nation through with their so-called "new" ideas.
And what is the God-hating?
A little line in the 2012 Democrat party platform omitted any reference to God. The same line did have a God-reference in 2008.
And the Jew-hating?
Again, in the 2012 Democrat party platform failed to even mention that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem. All of it. Not just West Jerusalem as it was pre-1967 borders. East, West, North and South.
While there is really nothing one can do about being even marginally pro-life in this Democrat party, at least they could modify the platform to  bring God back in and recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
But this is the Democrat party.
And of course they could not even deal with this in responsible manner.
The convention chair was the one time gang-banger and current mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villar*.
If you thought those speeches were something else, watching this makes one realize that if they can not even get this straightened out right, how in the hell can they run anything?!
Mr. Villar did not realize the first time he brought the question to the delegates to amend the party platform that the "voice vote" was a resounding no. OK, there is a second call of the vote, and at least the yeas were louder. But the nays were just as if not louder. Keep in mind that this is supposed to be a 2/3 vote. And it is being done by voice vote. So, Mr. Villar tried it again and it is clear that there is no way there are 2/3 of the delegates voted for the amendments. Yet Mr. Villar pulled the "in the opinion of the chair" crap and deemed it passed and the platform was amended.
Just so the rest of the nation knows, this is how well Mr. Villar has ran Los Angeles into the ground.
So, what about that former president, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?
No doubt about it, he is the best thing that the modern Democrat party has going for it. After all, he ran twice and won both times. Yes, against a divided Republican party and some dude named Ross Perot. But he did serve eight years. And he can say he had some successes including the all important welfare reform that he ran on and got because the Republicans controlled congress for six of his eight years.
But come on. Most of those whooping it up wished that he was able to run again. Not the current occupant of the White House, President Obama.
That is really sad. I get the feeling that when Mr. Clinton goes off to the glory, the Dems will dig up his body and plant it in the middle of the convention hall to remind Dems what a successful Democrat was like.
And why a truncated three-day affair? And what about the big stadium speech a la Denver 2008?
Well, the dirty secret is that the Democrat party is broke. A lot of events had to be scaled back. And the stadium speech at the Bank of America stadium? Well, the potential of bad weather seems to be the story. Most observers believe that there were not enough people to fill the 74,000-seat home of the NFL's Carolina Panthers. And one thing Team Dear Leader hates it is bad optics. And empty seats, that is a really bad optic.
This whole train wreck is not good news for the Dear Leader, President Obama.Yes, Gallup gave a bump to 52% for the prez. But lets face it. It is on the back of Mr. Clinton's much better sidewinder speech Wednesday night.
Reality set in today with the latest unemployment figures. It is a stark reminder to many of us the fact this president has not done a very good job. This is just one facet of it. The list is long and multi-post worthy.
Bottom line is that the 2012 Democrat National Convention was a train-wreck that may be so much fodder to Team Romney that by next week at this time, we will be back to an even race or even a Romney lead.
Sad for the world's oldest political party to be in this state.

*-Villar. Antonio Villar when he married merged his wife's last name, Raigoza and his, Villar. Villaraigoza. But since he could not keep himself loyal to the wife, they are now divorced and he should be referred to as Villar. He is here.

My First Encounter With HAVING To Pay 10c For A Paper Bag

My fair hometown of Pasadena, California has a ban on stores providing plastic bags to its customers.
This was a simple city ordinance passed last year that officially took effect this past July.
One of the effects of this legislation is that stores now charge 10c for a paper bag.
Wait, I thought that the city of Pasadena wants to ban plastic bags?! I get that. But why are retailers charging 10c for paper bags?
Well, I have not had to personally encounter this indignity first hand until today.
That is because Mrs. RVFTLC always has a trunk full of reusable bags for all of our shopping needs. On those occasions when we shop together, she dutifully gets what she thinks that she will need for where ever we are. Not that she does not hear me rail against this over reacting, feel-good ordinance that is in a word stupid.
But today, as Mrs. RVFTLC is away visiting our son until next week, I decdided to use my gift card at Barnes & Noble to get a book that I have been wanting for a while. The gift card was a gift from my son. A great kid, yet very misguided politically.
So, since the Barnes & Noble is nearby the RVFTLC bunker, I figured I would ride my bike to the store. In reality it would be faster than walking and really faster than driving. That is a whole nuther post.
I rode down, looking like a great environmentalist. Except not wearing a turd helmet. I have a skateboarder helmet. There is another post. After dutifully locking up the bike and helmet, I went in and looked around. I knew the book that I wanted. But I looked around and tried finding the book. After walking by it  a few times, I finally looked in the right direction and my conspiracy theory of buring conservative books went out the window. So I picked up Dennis Prager's latest epic, "Still The Best Hope" and proceeded to the check register.
Of course I was oblivious but I did notice the gal in front of me not taking her books she purchased in a bag.
Then it dawned on me.
I should have heeded the words of my great friend and brother about the plastic bag ban.
And when the gal behind the counter asked if I wanted a bag, I realized that I would. And that will be 10c. I did not argue at all. It is not these people to take anything out on. They are doing their job. But I did ask the all important question.
Who gets the 10c that you (the company) are charging?
She answered the same way every clerk has done before. She did not know. But she did humorously add that she did not really care to find out as it was her last week at that establishment. I proceeded to raise my hand and said "Say no more! And good luck!"
I took my very large paper tote bag, much larger than I needed, and went on my way running a couple of errands on the way home.
With bag in hand.
Now that was so much humiliating as it was infuriating.
We always reuse plastic bag in RVFTLC manor. We do have two dogs and they poop a lot. There is also trash cans in our bathrooms that we often use the plastic bag as a liner. In other words, we don't just bring the bag home and throw it away. We are doing our job in recycling out bags.
But the hysteria and this push to make our fair burg a "green" city is what is driving such trivial and anti-business measure.
It used to be going to the market and the box boy or girl would ask "paper or plastic?" offering a choice to the consumer. Now in my town, it is "have your reusable bag or its gonna cost you 10c a bag".
And the environazis figure that people will tire of paying the 10c bag charge and be good little citizens and make sure to have their damn reusable bags. Or that there are enough that will not care because it is more convenient to fork over a little extra to not have to keep the reusable bags around.
See, these people do not live in the real world.
A lot of people have to fit shopping in to their schedules. For whatever reason. And sometimes, they do not have the time or are actually washing the reusable bags. In other words, they are living their lives. For some of these people, yeah it is more inconvenient to take the time to make sure that they have their precious, life-saving reusable bag.
But at a level it is our fault as those that do not like this government over reach and slapping yet another impediment on business that this has happened. We did not attend the city council meetings. We did not voice our objections in a loud enough manner. We let it happen.
It is what these folks hope from us. Little opposition. If there is, call them out as some whack job because they do not care about the environment.
I do believe in conservation but not environmentalism. There is a real difference, folks.
But no matter.
I just better remember to take my back pack with me everywhere in town just in case I don't have a reusable bag.

So, Last Year's Jerry Lewisless MDA Telethon Was Really A Big Bust?

Why folks, yes indeed it was a bust!
Last Labor Day weekend was the first time in in over 50 years that Jerry Lewis was not the host and thus the face of the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the annual telethon.
I wrote about the curiousness of the whole event of it becoming a Jerry Lewisless telethon in 2011.
So, without Mr. Lewis, the MDA claimed that it raised more money and in only a six-hour show vs the 21-hour Sunday through Monday staple for many years.
Oh, well that turns out to be, to put it kindly, a boat boat of BS.
According to Showbiz 411, via the Drudge Report, the MDA only saw $31,000,000 of the $61,000,000 that was pledged last year.
Of course that does bring up the way the the show seemed to imply that they actually raised the movable totals on the infamous tote-board. But that is another issue. For the fact is that they always see less actual donations than what is pledged on the day of the telethon. Usually, the actual money vs pledge runs well north of 50%.
Oh, did I note that money vs. pledge last year was only half?
What is even more disturbing is that the MDA is now running in a sea of red-ink in its day-to-day operations.
And to top all of this soap opera off, the dude that fired Mr. Lewis, Gerald C. Weinberg and his minions are, surprise, no longer working for the MDA.
Something tells me that Mr. Weinberg had a really, really big ego. As does Mr. Lewis. But Mr. Weinberg thought it was time for a change. Maybe it was. But as I noted in my post of last year, no doubt at a serious level, the way the 21-hour beg-a-thon was becoming very stale. Unknown acts, Norm Crosby being dug up every year since the death of long-time sidekick Ed McMahon. You get the point. But the face of the MDA was dumped. And a lot of bad things happened to the MDA and the worst part is that it may never recover.
As one that believes in groups like this and the good that it does, it is beyond sad. It is pathetic. There had to be a better way for a transition from Mr. Lewis to another permanent host until he or she dies and or there is a cure.
I agree with the writer of the Showbiz 411 article, Roger Friedman. Mr. Lewis is not feeling vindicated but sad. He put his whole life for "his kids". Was it exploitative? To a point, sure. But would MDA have raised the kind of money that they did over the years? If last year is any indication, no, not at all.
Oh, in case you are interested to see this year's train wreck of a "telethon", better not blink your eyes. For if six-hours was way too much, this year it is going to be a whole three hours.
Yup, the MDA in dumping Jerry Lewis proved that it is not the same show and that they claims of raising more money than the year before was a lie. Which means it was a bust.

The 2012 Election Is THIS Close

No really, it is very close and when you compare it to four years ago today, it is an ominous sign for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Look at this link at Real Clear Politics and tell me that this is not close?
It is all the current polls averaged out and the Dear Leader, President Obama, is essentially tied with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. All that separates them is a measly 0.5 percent. And that is the margin of error so yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, could really be ahead about 3.5%. Or Mitt Romney could be ahead by the same 3.5%.
And compared to 2008, then Sen. Messiah Barack was ahead of then GOP nominee Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by a 4.5% margin. Essentially a full percent north of the margin of error.
Both elections at this time had about eight percent of voters that were undecided.
I guess that is what the two candidates are essentially fighting over.
Eight percent of the national electorate.
Here is something else interesting.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, had an average of support last election on this day of 48.8% of those polled. This time around it has dropped to 46.4. Or to put it another way of rounding, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has gone from 49% to 46%, a three-percent drop.
On the other hand, four years ago on this day, Sen. "F--- You" McCain had 44.3% of those polled. Mr. Romney now has 45.9% of those polled. That is about a two-point improvement and has drawn the two men even at this point.
So, why is this not a blowout one way or the other?
If you believe that things are better in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then he should be far ahead, right?
If you believe that things are worse in the United States and attribute that to the Dear Leader, President Obama, then Mitt Romney should be far ahead, right?
So, what gives?
One theory that I have is probably controversial, but I believe true.
Because the Leftywhore media has deemed any and all opposition to the Dear Leader, President Obama as raaaaacist, there is probably about a three to five percent of people that will not answer the basic poll question, who would you vote for as president.
To expand on that, I do not think that was nearly as much the case in 2008.
The majority of people, yes myself included, wanted the president to succeed. There was a real excitement of the possibility of the first Black president. Sen. Messiah Barack just seemed different. He did not come off to a lot of people as someone really annoying like so many other Black politicians. Many people believed that he could bring people together and do great things.
But really, that is no longer the case.
And now that he is on the verge of losing this election, for the reason that I stated above, that things are worse, he is flailing like a over aged boxer not realizing that his career is over.
And it is not pretty.
But people that are not raaaaacist are being accused of it at a blistering pace.
Even though polling is like an election itself, private, still there is something of feeling stigmatized even with a simple question.
Having said that, I do believe that the polls are essentially the margin of error and it is really as close as it gets.
That is why no one can or should take anything for granted. Especially Republicans.