<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Cap and Trade</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/cap-and-trade/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[follow-the-pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frontrunners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin's Santorum endorsement is a good primer. [Santorum] didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn't written any "Contracts with the Earth." Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement. Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values - not just in word, but in deed. Personally, I think Santorum's big government votes under Bush ought to be given more weight. Republicans tend to be much less fiscally conservative when they hold power or act on behalf of parochial concerns, so candidates who resist that temptation have more credibility than those who don't. Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years. That said, it is a respectable case, especially when compared to the contortions others must go through to justify supporting their preferred candidate. It's also a reminder of why Santorum is going to continue to collect a lot of votes from conservatives uncomfortable with the frontrunners' records. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fallout On Obama’s Killing Of Keystone Jobs Continues As “Repulsed” Laborers’ Union Quits Alliance</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/21/fallout-on-obamas-killing-of-keystone-jobs-continues-as-repulsed-laborers-union-quits-alliance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/21/fallout-on-obamas-killing-of-keystone-jobs-continues-as-repulsed-laborers-union-quits-alliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afl-cio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keystone xl pipeline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark ayers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north-america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transport]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/21/fallout-on-obamas-killing-of-keystone-jobs-continues-as-repulsed-laborers-union-quits-alliance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The fallout over Barack Obama&#8217;s decision to kill 20,000 (mostly) union jobs on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project continues as the Laborers International Union of North America left the BlueGreen Alliance Friday afternoon. Founded in 2006, the BlueGreen Alliance is a political pairing of left-wing unions and environmental groups whose mission (so to speak) is to ensure that America&#8217;s conversion to a green economy results in union jobs as jobs in industries like coal are destroyed. Included among its  stated goals are passage of cap and trade legislation, as well as the Employee Free Choice Act (aka card-check unionization ). According to the  Laborers&#8217; union press release announcing the union&#8217;s departure from the BlueGreen Alliance on Friday afternoon, at least Laborers&#8217; president Terry O&#8217;Sullivan seems to be understanding the Devil&#8217;s pact union bosses have made by sacrificing their members&#8217; jobs in exchange for an economically-unrealistic &#8220;green&#8221; economy: &#8220; AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently said there was a divide in the labor movement over this project ,&#8221; LIUNA General President Terry O&#8217;Sullivan said. &#8220; That is an understatement. That divide is as deep and wide as the Grand Canyon. We&#8217;re repulsed by some of our supposed brothers and sisters lining up with job killers like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to destroy the lives of working men and women .&#8221; [Emphasis added.] Specifically, O&#8217;Sullivan was referencing the CWA, SEIU, UAW, Transport Workers Union, United Steelworkers Union and Amalgamated Transit Union who had sold their souls (and union jobs) to the environmentalists and praised Obama&#8217;s decision to side with the green activists by killing the pipeline, as well as destroying the hopes of unemployed union members. O&#8217;Sullivan said Keystone is only the beginning of what will likely be a protracted struggle over major projects to build and strengthen America&#8217;s energy infrastructure. &#8220;LIUNA plans to unite with the support of the strong and proud unions of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department to fight for good jobs that build America and strengthen our energy resources,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We will not stand idly by, nor will the Building Trades.&#8221; [snip] &#8220;Their real target wasn&#8217;t the pipeline, but the oil sands. They missed that target – the oil sands will be developed whether Keystone XL is built or not – but hit tens of thousands of working men and women,&#8221; O&#8217;Sullivan said. &#8220; It is impossible for LIUNA to stand side-by-side with these groups . Construction workers are struggling with 16 percent unemployment and 1.3 million of them are jobless. The Keystone XL was not just a pipeline to them, it was a lifeline .&#8221; [Emphasis added.] While another BlueGreen Alliance member, the United Association of Plumbers &#038; Pipefitters, whose members would have also seen work on the Keystone pipeline project has curiously stayed silent so far, the IBEW issued its own release on its website, which stated : While we are deeply disappointed with the U. S. State Department’s decision not to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline, we are more concerned that a vital project that would create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, generate $585 million in state and local taxes plus another $5 billion in property taxes and strengthen North America’s energy independence, has been ensnared in the political deadlock in Washington. On Wednesday, in addition to the Laborers&#8217; scorching comdemnation of Obama&#8217;s decision, Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO&#8217;s Building &#038; Construction Trade Division (an umbrella group of 16 AFL-CIO construction trade unions) stated : With a national unemployment rate in construction at 16% nationally, it is beyond disappointing that President Obama placed a higher priority on politics rather than our nation&#8217;s number one challenge: jobs. Environmental activists who are not saddled with the economic and psychological scars that accompany long-term unemployment will applaud the fact that they successfully induced the White House to block this project. Meanwhile, thousands of proud Americans throughout the heartland will once again be faced with the terrifying prospect of losing their homes and their livelihoods as they struggle to find work. As was noted in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama&#8217;s plan replace jobs destroyed with his &#8220;green agenda&#8221; was faulty at best. In fact, the Sierra Club&#8217;s &#8220;Beyond Coal&#8221; campaign has already destroyed up to 1.24 million jobs in 36 states—with more surely to come. For the sake of jobs (union and union-free), let us hope that more union bosses—and, if not them, their members —wake up from their delusion that Barack Obama is actually interested in creating jobs, as opposed to his agenda to &#8220;transform America.&#8221; __________________ “Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor, 1918 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/21/fallout-on-obamas-killing-of-keystone-jobs-continues-as-repulsed-laborers-union-quits-alliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The High Price Economy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/20/the-high-price-economy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/20/the-high-price-economy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/20/the-high-price-economy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ What is to blame for Americans ' economic woes? Why, Americans ' selfish desires, according to a school of thought that appears to be currently dominant in the White House. An excellent example of this line of thinking is former presidential economic advisor Robert Reich ' s recent article in the Financial Times , in which he claims America ' s " insatiable consumers " have destroyed the economy and the " hubs of our communities " with their relentless pursuit of " great deals. " The " lure of the bargain, " suggests Reich, is a destructive force. Well that ' s rich -- Berkeley professor Reich, clearly a member of the 1 percent, attacking the 99. While Reich consider low prices a great evil, he ignores what they actually mean. Low prices indicate that a good or service has become more abundant -- that is, more available . This availability of goods and services is the very definition prosperity. The pursuit of low prices, which so offends Reich, is just the pursuit of prosperity -- the pursuit of happiness that the Declaration of Independence called " unalienable. " Reich blames Americans ' desire for lower prices, prosperity, and happiness for sending jobs " elsewhere. " But he ignores the fact that those lower prices mean we have more money available to buy other, costlier goods and services here in America. So rather than make snow globes and t-shirts, Americans develop advanced technology, manufacture airplanes and cars, and provide the world ' s best financial, health, and education services. They use iPads that put enormous competitive pressures on laptop manufacturers and publishers to provide more creative services to people who want them. It is enough to make on wonder whether Reich has ever read Schumpeter, who in 1942 pointed out: " The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort. " ( Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy , p. 67) Trade freed Americans from the sweatshop and now it is freeing them from the factory floor. It will do the same for Asians and Africans. Yet Reich would end trade with poor countries, since their environmental and working conditions " offend common decency. " Does Reich truly believe these workers ' usual alternative, subsistence farming, can gain them a " decent " standard of living? Does he really believe he knows better than the poor in developing countries what is best for them? Not allowing those workers to decide for themselves would keep them in poverty. Meanwhile, middle-class Americans are made worse off by higher prices. Reich isn ' t the only Obama ally who wants higher prices. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants more subsidies to raise housing prices -- even after those policies created a housing bubble that led to the current financial crisis. Commerce Secretary John Bryson has championed the cause of higher energy prices since the 1970s, telling Justice Stephen Breyer during a 2010 panel discussion that " energy prices are going to have to go up. " Breyer responded by saying , " We better get away from oil. That'll help us. … Raise the price of oil! Raise it through the roof, and then people will look for substitutes. " It ' s easy for rich liberals to ask for higher taxes and higher prices, but these policies dramatically damage Americans ' standard of living. President Obama ' s cap and trade bill would have cost each American family $1,761 per year, according to the White House ' s own figures . While that bill failed, Obama ' s anti-drilling, anti-pipeline, anti-energy agenda is already forcing Americans to spend more on gas as a percentage of their income last year than at any point in the last three decades. Higher prices can and do kill the American dream. Reich wants to " protect jobs and wages " with " democratic institutions that shape and constrain markets " -- the very same institutions he claims are controlled by corporations. The reality is that large corporations do benefit from government meddling in markets. Regulations increase costs that large companies can absorb but that can drive small companies out of business. Low prices mean abundance and prosperity. High prices mean scarcity and privation. The dynamic capitalism that works to drive prices ever lower has helped make America the most prosperous nation on Earth. The high price economy the Obama administration and its supporters want will benefit no one -- except, ironically, some of the 1 percent. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/20/the-high-price-economy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Che Guevara Democrat Party</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/18/the-che-guevara-democrat-party/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/18/the-che-guevara-democrat-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/18/the-che-guevara-democrat-party/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Those who contribute to, vote for, or otherwise support today's Democrat party need to catch up to the curve. These are not your father's Democrats. George McGovern would be a moderate in this party. This is the party that rejected Hillary Clinton because she was not left enough. Instead it literally took a Marxist street agitator from the Chicago political machine and put him in the White House. Barack Obama was actually teaching the social manipulation methods of openly communist revolutionary Saul Alinsky to other Marxist revolutionaries for the radical communist front group ACORN. His weird name reflects his personal rejection of American culture. This is the person today's Democrat party wanted for President. But it is not just him. The leader of the House Democrats is former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, ultraleft San Francisco Democrat totem. She is virtually as far left as Obama, and her public statements make Sarah Palin seem like a Ph.D. in economics. She keeps telling us that unemployment insurance payments are the best way to restore booming economic growth and prosperity. When the American people rebuked Pelosi's ultraleft leadership as House Speaker, turning to the Republicans for the greatest House turnover since the New Deal, House Democrats responded with their own rebuke of the people. They voted Pelosi right back in as their leader, effectively saying to the American people that they were too stupid to know what they are doing, and that Pelosi's ultraleft San Francisco values best represent the Democrat party's ideals. The Democrats also elected as DNC Chairman the unreasoned and far left screamer and name caller Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also makes Sarah Palin look like a rocket scientist. She touts as her achievements in the Florida legislature the Florida Residential Swimming Pools Safety Act, and state regulation of dry cleaning prices. She compiled during her career there the widely noted most liberal-left voting record of any state legislator. The Democrat party considered that the perfect qualification for party chairman. If you think that increased government spending, deficits, and debt are the key to economic growth and prosperity, then this is the party for you. That is explicitly its economic policy, as crazy as that sounds. Democrats call it Keynesian economics. If you don't agree that increased government spending, deficits, and debt promote economic growth, then you shouldn't be voting for, contributing to, and supporting Democrats, and you shouldn't let your friends do so either. Obama's Hugo Chavez Strategy Our esteemed El Presidente greeted us in the new year with recess appointments of Richard Cordray as chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three new members of the increasingly rogue National Labor Relations Board. There was just one problem. The Congress was not in recess. These appointments were consequently illegal, and in direct violation of the explicit text of the Constitution. As Stanford Law School Professor Michael McConnell explained in the Wall Street Journal on January 10, "It is hard to imagine a plausible constitutional basis for the appointments. The President has the power to make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess." McConnell further explained, "Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 [of the Constitution] requires the concurrence of the other house to any adjournment of more than three days. The Senate did not request, and the House did not agree to, any such adjournment." The White House issued a supposed legal opinion to justify its action, claiming that the President refuses to take seriously the idea that the Senate was not in its Christmas recess after December 17. But somehow the Senate did manage to pass the President's payroll tax holiday extension on December 23. The "legal opinion" is consequently nothing more than the taunt, "So sue us." Actually, the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet another regulatory bureaucracy enacted in the President's notorious Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, is transparently and undeniably unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Free Enterprise Fund case. That case involved the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board established by the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation . The Court found that regulatory bureaucracy unconstitutional because it was an executive agency outside the direct control of the President. While the President made appointments to the Board, it was an independent agency reporting to another independent agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Moreover, the Board in that case determined its own budget financed by the fees it set itself on the regulated enterprises. A rogue institution outside direct public accountability and control. But that didn't stop the President and the Democrat Congress from adopting the exact same framework for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Dodd-Frank. That too is an independent body reporting to another independent body, the Federal Reserve, and even it has only limited and marginal oversight authority. Moreover, the Bureau sets its own budget as well, with fees it itself determines to assess on financial institutions, for the glory of being regulated by fools. The response of the Obama Administration is catch us if you can. The first time Cordray's Bureau tries to enforce a regulation or fine against a bank, the action will be declared null and void because of Cordray's illegal appointment, with the entire agency struck down as unconstitutional. But it is part of President Obama's reelection strategy for him to pose as hamstrung into taking extraordinary actions to counter recalcitrant Republicans seeking to protect Wall Street and big shot bankers from the loving Democrats just trying to protect the little guy. Most of what President Obama does and says, in fact, is calculated deception, based on fooling the little guy into supporting Democrat authoritarianism, or worse, in a second term, with calculation as to what that little guy doesn't and won't know, and what a party controlled media won't tell him. So President Obama doesn't care about what the law says. By the time the legal system catches up with him, he will be reelected, he figures. And maybe by then he will have appointed more fellow Marxists to the Supreme Court, who don't care about what the law says either. As McConnell added in the Journal regarding Obama's illegal appointments: This is not the first time this administration has asserted unilateral executive power beyond past presidential practice and the seeming letter of the Constitution. Its slender justification for going to war in Libya without a congressional declaration persuaded almost no one, and its evading of the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution -- over the legal objection of Justice Department lawyers -- was even more brazen. McConnell explained, "Indeed, the Obama Administration has admitted to a strategy of government by executive order when it cannot prevail through proper legislative channels." For example, instead of seeking legislative changes to the No Child Left Behind education law passed under President Bush, it has used waiver authority to implement Obama policies that were never legislatively enacted. When even a Democrat supermajority Congress refused to pass cap and trade legislation, the President used the EPA to implement it instead, telling us ominously "there is more than one way to skin a cat." And when the Democrat supermajority Congress also refused to pass "card check" legislation, which would abolish secret ballot elections for workers to decide whether they wanted a union, the President's National Labor Relations Board announced it would impose the policy by regulation. And now the President is making illegal appointments to that Board. And your friends and neighbors are considering whether to give this authoritarian a second term? Imagine what that would be like, with Obama never having to stand for election again. Would there even be another election? Che's Tax Policy Talk about calculated deception. President Obama has spent the past year telling the American people that the rich don't pay any taxes, leaving the middle class and working people to pay it all, when more nearly the opposite is true. Even before President Obama was elected, official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income. By contrast, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%! Again, this was before the comprehensive, across the board, tax rate increases for every major federal tax central to President Obama's economic plan, which Obama has already enacted into current law to go into effect next year. He justified those soaring rate increases by saying they were necessary to ensure that the rich paid their fair share of taxes. But given the truth above, just what would be their "fair share?" The same tax policies are found in Democrat-run states. In California, the top 1% of income earners pay 48% of all state income taxes. The top 1% of income earners in New York pay 41% of all state income taxes. The top 1% of income earners in New Jersey pay 46% of all state income taxes. Moreover, in 2007, again before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes. I n other words, they paid negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. The middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of all federal income taxes. This is the result of Reagan Republican supply-side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, continued through Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, and further played out with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the poor and what liberals call the working class. Moreover, they almost abolished federal income taxes on the actual middle class (the middle 20%). The origins of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people, can be found in Ronald Reagan's famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare. As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets. In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for the middle class all the way down to 15%. That act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody. Newt Gingrich's Contract With America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. Again, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%. Consequently, primarily as a result of Reagan Republican tax policies, even before President Obama was elected America actually had the most progressive tax policies in the world. When President Reagan was elected, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 1% was 17.6%. After a quarter century of rate cuts, that share had more than doubled by 2007, as indicated above. That is because with the lower tax rates, incomes boomed along with the economy, and high income taxpayers had the incentives to pull their money out of tax shelters and invest it in the real economy, fueling the boom while increasing their reported income. That is why Jack Kemp always used to say, if you want to soak the rich, cut tax rates. In an article last week in the Wall Street Journal, Art Laffer showed that Kemp's strategy has long been the most effective way to raise taxes paid by the rich. From 1921 to 1928, the top marginal income tax rate was slashed from 73% to 25%. Federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners nearly doubled as a percent of GDP, from 0.6% to 1.1%. As a result of the Kennedy tax cuts adopted in 1964, the top income tax rate was slashed from 91% to 70%. Federal income taxes paid by the top 1% rose by 50% as a percent of GDP, from 1.3% to 1.9%. Laffer adds in the Journal , "Since 1978, the top earned income tax rate fell to 35% from 50%, the top capital gains tax rate fell to 15% from 39.9%, and the highest dividend tax rate fell to 15% from 70%." Meanwhile, federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners as a percent of GDP more than doubled from 1.5% in 1978 to 3.3% in 2007, while the bottom 95% saw their tax payments fall from 5.4% of GDP in 1978 to 3.2% in 2007. Laffer asks why Obama sycophant Mr. Buffett would want to reverse those numbers. He could ask as well why would Mr. Obama. The answer is neither wants to do so. Buffett is just playing for good publicity. Obama is just playing the voters to get reelected. I would be tempted to call President Obama a liar. But I am not in such a generous mood. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/18/the-che-guevara-democrat-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2011: The Year the Wheels Fell Off</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/2011-the-year-the-wheels-fell-off/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/2011-the-year-the-wheels-fell-off/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MendesIdalia899</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chicago]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[italian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/2011-the-year-the-wheels-fell-off/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The coming year will not give us a break from the steady stream of political knavery, green graft and governmental stupidity that 2011 delivered, though it will surely provide a flood of politically-induced comedy. JANUARY: An enterprising BBC reporter -- seeking to prove the practicality of electric cars -- drove from London to Edinburgh. The journey took four days -- longer than a horse-drawn stage would have taken for the trip 150 years ago -- including nine stops of up to ten hours. (In its first crisis summit of the year, EU leaders declared they would impose Germanic controls on its members' sovereign debts and toasted each other with large portions of Rémy Martin Louis XIII cognac. Meanwhile, in the first Republican presidential debate, both television viewers cheered when twelve contenders, apparently chosen at random, actually showed up.) FEBRUARY: Chicago chose as its new mayor former White House chief of staff Rahm Effing Emanuel, who immediately ordered a voter registration drive in the city's cemeteries. Shortly after that, the "Arab spring training season" began in Egypt. After Secretary of State Hillary said that the Mubarak regime was stable, the Cairo Clubbers traded their top grenade thrower to the Port Said Molotovs for two machine-gunners and a future draft pick. (In an urgent crisis summit, Eurozone leaders sought to solve Greece's insolvency by imposing budget rationalization written by Italian PM Silvio Burlesqueoni. Eurozone leaders toasted each other's wisdom with a tiny sip of Dom Perignon 1975 champagne. Burlesqueoni requisitioned the rest of the bottle for what he called a "bunga-bunga" party, which term had to be translated for the media by Bill Clinton.) MARCH: In January, Obama had proclaimed France our best and strongest ally. Because the French never forgive a favor, Sarkozy dragged Obama into his war for glory in Libya. Barry called it a "kinetic military action" and cute little Sarah called it a "squirmish." My blazingly brilliant pal, Andy McCarthy, said that henceforth we should call acts of terrorism "kinetic Islam." Barry told Congress to stuff its War Powers Resolution because bombing Libya wasn't a hostile act. Meanwhile, Hillary called Syria's Bashar Assad a "reformer." Obama's hostility was reserved for Israel, and only increased when Israeli PM Netanyahu schooled him in front of the television cameras. Despite comments from both governments, it was clear that Obama's anger, in this instance, emanated only from the fact that Bibi pulled it off without a teleprompter. Forget APRIL and go to MAY, when we were treated to the news that the best of the best --"DevGroup," formerly known as SEAL Team 6 -- killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan where the Paks had hidden him for about five years. On the day the White House revealed that a large porn stash was found in bin Laden's house, we also learned that the Real Wives of bin Laden weren't cooperating with interrogators, which two events are not logically connected. The Navy named a new ship for migrant labor activist Cesar Chavez, best remembered for his role in pushing the 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens. According to one highly inebriated source, if Obama is re-elected the next three Navy ships (if any are built) will be named for Barney Frank, Jane Fonda. and Eric Holder. Before May ended former Illinois gov Rod Blagojevich testified in his corruption retrial that he was a "f****** jerk," a fact of which the court could have taken judicial notice. After Disney Corp. surrendered its attempt to trademark "SEAL Team 6" for toys, video games and such, no court could find that Mickey Mouse was a f****** jerk without additional evidence. JUNE: Enterprising Aussies found a new "cap and trade" scheme in an attempt to qualify for the Guinness Book of World Records for the "most corrupt carbon market." Figuring that a camel produces 45 kilograms of carbon (in the form of methane) each year, the "kill a camel for carbon credits" plan quickly took shape. The conversion of camels to food may yet prove profitable because Aussies will eat anything as long as there's enough beer to wash it down. Meanwhile, New York Cong. Anthony Weiner (D-of course. Why did you even ask?) became the first known "Twitticide" when he sent a picture of his aroused equipment out via the social networking site. As a NY Post headline said, "Erections have Consequences." TSA thugs forced a 95-year old woman to remove her adult diaper, apparently confusing its plastic liner for explosives. (In another crisis summit, the Eurozone leaders resolved to bail out Greece with Italian-minted euros, and tried to give the bill to the International Monetary Fund. They toasted their latest success by drinking large glasses of Stolichnaya vodka. Television networks announced that the Republican debate series would replace both "Survivor" and "Real Housewives of Frostbite Falls" but not "Jersey Shore." A splinter group of Iowa Republicans, seeking enhance their cash killing from selling tickets to the January caucuses, tried to get Snooki to declare her candidacy. The effort was stopped when a secret poll revealed she would get more votes than Ron Paul.) At about that time, we heard that Jack Daniels may be driven north out of its native Tennessee by tax-hikers. "Michigan Sipping Whiskey" may be coming soon to a liquor store near you. The Pentagon -- convinced that ignorance is strength -- declared that the Fort Hood Massacre, accomplished by crazed Muslim Nidal Hassan, was "workplace violence." Because ignorance is a less effective defense than drunkenness, the city of Sunland Park, New Mexico denied the validity of several large contracts signed by Mayor Martin Resendiz who claimed he had been drunk when he signed them. (Seizing the opportunity in Resendiz's statement, Eurozone leaders announced that their predecessors had been drunk when they signed the Maastricht Treaty. When they made that announcement, the Eurozoners were observed to be imbibing a large glass of something called the "Merkozy cocktail." Laboratory analysis later revealed that the drink was a mix of Kool Aid, vodka and LSD.) Physicists at the CERN research center in Switzerland sent a stream of neutrinos to Italy where it was determined that the neutrinos had exceeded the speed of light and arrived before they left, apparently disproving Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. The EU reacted angrily because in Europe nothing is allowed to go faster than anything else for fear that it might work harder. The EU enacted a special neutrino speed tax which Italy couldn't pay because the entire Italian treasury had been spent on new Maseratis for the Ministry of Defense. The Italian parliament tried to determine who was driving the Maseratis and failed because none of the MoD staff had reported to work since Mussolini was executed. JULY: Niko Alm competed successfully with Muslim women for the right to self-decorate while being photographed for official government ID's. Proclaiming himself a "Pastafarian" -- a previously obscure religion that worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Mr. Alm succeeded in having his Austrian drivers' license photo taken with a colander on his head. Rep. Ron Paul said he was not running for re-election to congress so that he could concentrate on his presidential bid. It was unclear, even after the first 638 Republican candidate debates, whether Paul wanted to run as a Republican or a Pastafarian. AUGUST: The proudest symbol of Barry's green jobs campaign -- Solyndra -- filed for bankruptcy, leaving us stuck with the $535 million loan guarantee by the Energy Department. Fisker -- an electric car company -- got a huge loan from the Energy Department and promptly spent it on a production facility in Norway. Tesla, yet another green grifter company closely tied to Obama, also got a multi-hundred million dollar loan, which will be repaid as soon as hell freezes over or liberals admit these rent seekers are doing less than duck hunters to preserve the earth. Meanwhile, Congress and Obama agreed to raise the debt ceiling and play Russian roulette with an empty pistol. They created a congressional Supercommittee tasked to reduce our debt by great green globs by Thanksgiving. The bill included a "trigger mechanism" to impose "sequestration," making automatic massive and painful cuts to defense and domestic spending, but not to entitlements. Judging congressional achievement appropriately, Standard and Poor's declared the Obama downgrade, a first for America's credit rating. The biochemical causation of this congressional knavery was confirmed by the dating service Chemistry.com, which reported that Washington, D.C. was among the top ten cities in which "high-estrogen" men could be found. These men -- according to Dr. Helen Fisher of Chemistry.com -- are "sensitive men who are concerned about the state of the world." You know: girlie-men. Meanwhile, TSA inaugurated a new airport security measure, which requires any woman over the age of 60 to be held upside down and shaken to dislodge any hidden weapons or costume jewelry. SEPTEMBER: Republican debates became so boring that television networks considered hiring fake moderators such as Donald Trump. The problem can best be solved, without Trump, by ensuring that future debates are moderated, seriatim, by John Madden, the Kardashian sisters, and Liam Neeson accompanied by the rest of the stars of the "A-Team" movie appearing in character. I pity the fools… Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen called the Chevy Volt -- Obama's favorite automobile -- a car for idiots. The Volt is the worst and most heavily government-subsidized car since the previous worst car of all time, the East German Trabant, which the Volt matches in performance and reliability. Don't get matches close to it, because the Volt's batteries are prone to catching fire. GM reported that it had sold 6,000 Volts so far, which means that, all told, the subsidy amounts to about $250,000 per car, a Great Green bargain. (Actually, a large part of those sales were to the government, which only multiplies the subsidy by making us pay for the cars twice.) In October, we all mourned the death of Apple genius Steve Jobs. Shortly after he left us, the world's BlackBerry service was disrupted for several days which coincided with Apple's announcement of the new "iHaunt" app for the iPhone. Meanwhile, Libyan rebels found Muammar Qaddafi-Gaddafi-Khadaffy cowering in a sewer. Khadafi was reportedly killed in a crossfire (between the guy on his right and the guy on his left.) This event was mourned only by editors who will no longer be able to make their reporters' lives miserable by randomly imposing different spellings of Moammar's name. The aforementioned N.Y. Post celebrated by publishing the best headline page in decades. Seems the guy who may have killed Krudaffy with his own gun was wearing a particular baseball cap. Which headline and subhead were too good to not reprint in full: "KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN: Gunman had more hits than A-Rod."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/30/2011-the-year-the-wheels-fell-off/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RedState Interview with Jon Huntsman</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Terror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beauty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Former Utah Governor and current Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman took the time on Friday to sit down with me and answer some questions on his views. You can hear the entire audio of the interview by clicking below, or I have generated a rough transcript which you can find below the fold. I will admit to being impressed by Governor Huntsman, who I had largely written off earlier in the campaign. As a matter of presentation, he seems to come off better on audio than video for some reason. In any event, he answered my questions candidly and with a bare minimum of politician-speak. He refused an opportunity to backtrack on some of the earlier comments attributed to his campaign, but I think most readers will find that his positions are more conservative than they would expect. For instance, Huntsman is a strong and unequivocal pro-lifer. He stated in this interview that he would veto any budget that included any funding for Planned Parenthood, even if it was otherwise a budget he would have preferred (this was one of the most interesting exchanges in the interview, in which Huntsman seemed to thoughtfully consider the implications of the policy he favored in Utah). He favors a flat tax, but his proposal makes more political sense than most because it seeks to accomplish a truly flat tax level in incremental steps. Huntsman speaks with some authority on this, having successfully shepherded through a flat tax in Utah. Although he favored civil unions in Utah, he favors every provision of DOMA and stated unequivocally that he would order his Solicitor General to defend its constitutionality. Although he (like Romney and Gingrich) has expressed belief in global warming, he categorically rejected cap-and-trade imposed by EPA fiat (and opposed it altogether while other countries are not signed on). He has been a strong defender of school vouchers and other conservative policies. He flat out rejected the premise that he or his campaign had ever made the strategic decision to run to Mitt Romney&#8217;s left. Unfortunately, the Governor was driving through Nebraska and our call was disconnected before I could ask him about his decision to hire John Weaver, and his refusal (to this point) to walk back many of Weaver&#8217;s inciendary comments early in the campaign. In all, I was somewhat disappointed that Huntsman did not walk back the &#8220;call me crazy&#8221; tweet and that he held fast to &#8220;no litmus test&#8221; when it came to judges, but in a sense one has to respect his refusal to pander. Huntsman favors an interesting finreg proposal in which apparently banks that have a net worth above a certain percentage of GDP would essentially be required to purchase &#8220;too big to fail&#8221; insurance, if I am understanding his policy correctly .  This is one of many areas where Huntsman exhibited that if nothing else he is willing to bring a thoughtful and interesting perspective to the race. Click the link below to listen or read below the fold. Download audio here Q: Governor Huntsman, thank you for taking the time to sit down with RedState. A: Hey, delighted to do so, thank you for giving me the time. Q: Well, I know that you are very busy and that you’ve got a full schedule, here, and I have a lot that I’d like to cover with you if possible, so I’d like to just kind of get down to brass tacks and start things off by giving you, I don’t know, maybe 30 or 60 seconds to kind of introduce yourself to RedState readers. As you might know, they tend to be on the fiscal and socially conservative side – and maybe tell these folks something that they may not know about you or your candidacy at this point. A: Well, listen, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am in this race because what we are passing down to the next generation is not the America that I grew up in. Uh, we have watched our values, we are saddled with debt, our position in the world has been compromised, and I say I’m not going to stand around and allow the United States of America, the greatest nation that ever was, to be passed down to the next generation – I’m raising seven kids. I’ve got two boys in the military. You know, I’ll be darned if I’m going to stand around and watch the United States continue to crumble while we’ve got a great next generation coming up that wants to maintain our nation’s values and protect its goodness and to get back on, back on our feet economically. So I’m putting forward some ideas that, uh, that I implemented and worked on as Governor, a twice-elected governor of Utah, where we took a good state and made it number one in job creation in the country. I, uh, put forward a flat tax. People said it couldn’t get done, that it was all pie in the sky. We got it done, it took us two years to do it but we got a flat tax in that state. We delivered the best environment for business anywhere in the country. Uh, we embarked on healthcare reform without a mandate, and got that done. I delivered education reform by signing the second voucher bill in the entire country. Uh, we balanced our books – I tripled the rainy day fund, and delivered the largest tax cut in the history of the state. Uh, and so, we did a lot of great things that really prove that free market economics is what is needed in order to allow a State – or, at the Federal level, a nation – to compete. And, uh, I’m very, very concerned, about really two things that drive me in this race. Two deficits. One is an economic deficit – the 15 trillion dollars in debt that will shipwreck the next generation. It will literally make it impossible for us to be able to compete in a highly competitive world, because at 70% to GDP or 80% to GDP, you just don’t grow anymore. And I’m fearful of what lies around the bend, as I look at Japan and I look at Greece and Italy; I don’t want to go there. We’re too good as people to allow that to happen to us. And I say the other deficit is a trust deficit that’s very real, and I think equally corrosive in this country. Because Americans no longer trust their institutions of power. They don’t trust Congress. Congress has an 8% approval rating. We all know that Congress needs term limits, but nobody wants to talk about it, and I want to lead the charge in having a national conversation in getting term limits. We all know that we’ve got to shut closed the revolving door that’s got members of Congress to file right out, become lobbyists overnight, that is complete nonsense and it adds to the cynicism that we all feel in this nation. Uh, we need to get those folks on Capitol Hill, if they’re going to get paid, to balance the budget for heaven’s sake. They’re just a few simple requirements.   So I say there’s no trust toward Congress, there’s no trust toward our current tax code. Why? Because there’s loopholes and deductions for everybody and it keeps the lobbyists going crazy on Capitol Hill, going more and more, just corrupting our tax code, and we need to [garbled] crony capitalism, which is already out of control. And I say we can fix this. We can fix it with the kind of tax reform that I have put forward. Which draws a lot from what I did as Governor, is calling for the elimination of all loopholes and deductions on the individual side; all of them. Lowers the rate, broadens the base, and simplifies. And on the business side, it’s calling for the total elimination of corporate welfare. No more deductions, no more subsidies, no more loopholes, all of it gone. And I think that does two things for us in this economy. It levels the playing field for entrepreneurs and the creative class who think that the decks are already stacked against them. And number two, it really drains the swamp in a sense on Capitol Hill, because if there’s nothing to lobby for in terms of additional carve-outs and subsidies, there’s nothing to lobby for. And I think that is a very powerful disinfectant as it relates to really cleaning up the system. And I say there’s no trust left in our wars abroad. You know, we’ve been at it for ten years, the war on terror. We still have a very real war to fight. That’s against terrorists, and we need to fight it vigorously in every corner of the world. But we do not need 100,000 troops in Afghanistan nation building when this nation needs so desperately to get on its feet. And we will not be able to project the values of goodness, liberty, democracy, human rights, free markets, until we fix our core. And we’re a long way from being able to get that core fixed and it must be our focus before we start gallivanting around the rest of the world. And I say on Wall Street, there’s no trust there either, with banks that are too big to fail. There’s this implied subsidy on behalf of the taxpayers, because if one of these big banks fails, it takes everybody down. And we can’t afford to let that happen. So as President, I want to right-size these banks, I want to get them back to the size they were in the 1990s, as opposed to the size they are today. Which is, you know, the six top banks have assets that are worth about 2/3 rd s of our entire GDP. 9.4 trillion dollars. I say that’s a recipe for disaster, longer term. So, Leon, we’re focused laser-like on the economic deficit, and the trust deficit. I think they go hand in hand, and both of them must be looked at and worked on aggressively. Q: Now Governor, you’ve already mentioned one of the first things that I wanted to ask you about. You’re one of the few people in the country who’s had success implementing a flat tax. I know in a number of states, like Tennessee where I live, they have already a flat tax of zero on, as far as income tax. But you’re one of the few people that’s taken a tax that was a progressive tax and ratcheted back into a flat tax. Do you think that that sort of program would work nationally, and is that something you would push for as President? A: Well, the step that I’m looking for, which are three, uh, three levels. Uh, 8, 14, and 23. That, I think, is a logical first step. I want to phase out loopholes and deductions, which would then allow us to raise that revenue, reinvest it in the tax code, and lower the rate in these particular areas, depending on your income. I think that’s a first step. And ultimately from that, I think you could go to a true flat tax. I think you have to do it in phases, I don’t know that you do in one fell swoop to a flat tax, but I think you get there by taking a step first. Part of the problem I have with my good friend Rick Perry’s flat tax – he’s talking about a flat tax, and I’ve talked to him about this, is that he makes it optional. And I say that’s not going to get us anywhere, because if you’re already gaming the loopholes and deductions in the current system, which most people are, then they’re going to keep gaming it. And it doesn’t move us anywhere in terms of moving from point A to point B in tax reform. I want to move from point A to point B. And I think the most realistic and doable step, uh, and I think the endorsement by the Wall Street Journal would echo this as well, when they came out and endorsed our tax reform plan, would be to move first to this level of reform, see it play out in the marketplace, see what it does, in terms of beginning to fire our engines of growth and breathing new life and confidence into the marketplace, and then see where we might grow from there. Q. Does your tax plan include um, allowances for the fact that – one of the things that’s a frequent criticism of flat tax plans is, um, kind of I guess a regressive nature on purchases like food and grocery – things that lower income folks need to subsist. Is there any sort of allowance for that within your tax structure. A. No, there isn’t currently. It goes to three levels immediately. You know, in negotiation, as I had when we were facing our flat tax in the State of Utah. Uh, there may be something that could be negotiated in terms of a phased-in period, for people who have the lowest income levels. But I want to get it to where it’s really a flat tax. I want to get people invested in the tax code. I wanna get, I want to broaden the base, uh, of people invested in the tax code. We need to expand our economic performance and expand our revenue base to pay down the bills and get our debt-to-GDP ratio in a healthy, uh, in a healthy area. So I think that today, that isn’t the case. But, you know, in a negotiation with Congress, I can see how that part, for the lowest of low income, uh, might be possible. Q. One of the things that people may not know about you is that you are actually a very strong pro-lifer, is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. Now you.. A. I have been pro-life my entire career – I have two little adopted girls. One from China, one from India, who remind me every day about the beauty of life. And, uh, these little girls come from a culture where, uh, they were both abandoned – one at birth and the other at two months of age, where their mothers could have chosen otherwise. But their mothers for whatever reason chose life. And I’ll never be able to thank the mothers; I’ll never meet them. Uh, but I think about them all the time and so does my wife. And they were a couple mothers, no doubt, in a hardship position and you know, poorest of poor, in these very [under]developed countries, um, and they chose life. And they gave us life. And we now live with the life that they left for this world and these two little girls are going to go on and change the world in their own way and that, for me, is once again an example of the power of life, and how central life is to our existence here. If you believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is the philosophy which I tend to filter everything through when I make a decision as Governor, when I served as Governor, it’s a very powerful thing in our lives. As Governor I also signed legislation that drove home that point. Uh, including banning second-trimester abortions, uh, including legislation on suffering of the fetus. Uh, including developing a trigger mechanism if Roe v. Wade ever were to be overturned. Q. What I’d like to do, if I can, is go through, I guess kind of like a lightning round of questions. I think they can fairly be answered “yes” or “no,” on where you stand on various life issues, just to kind of introduce people to where you stand on a number of things. For instance, as President, would you sign an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy? A.  Uh, I would go right to where Ronald Reagan was, where we would not fund abortions anywhere in this world. Q. Okay. Uh, you of course support the Hyde Amendment, is that correct, in keeping with that? A. That’s correct. Q. Would you support, either by legislation or executive order, a policy stating that all hospitals receiving medical funds must allow medical personnel who object to abortion on conscience grounds to opt out of that procedure? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you support efforts to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood? A. I do, but I have to be consistent with legislation in my own state, where there was some health aspects non-abortion health related aspects of Planned Parenthood that I supported. Q. But would you agree, I guess though, that money is the ultimate fungible asset in the world – I mean, if you’re giving money to Planned Parenthood for other things, can’t that same money that they would otherwise from their budget there be diverted to the provision of abortion? A. I would, I would agree with that. Q. So notwithstanding that… well, let me just put the question in a different way. Would you veto any Federal budget that contained funding for Planned Parenthood? A. Uh, yes I would. Q. Okay. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars, as far as the size of the budget and so on and so forth? A. Say that one more time? You broke up a little. Q. Sure, sure. Even if that budget was satisfactory to you in other particulars – in other words, it didn’t contain any.. A. Okay, yes. That’s right. Q. One of the things that has frustrated pro-lifers for a long time is that Democrat nominees for President have long been able to publicly promise that they will nominate any Supreme Court judge (sic) that would not uphold Roe v. Wade, whereas Republican nominees have I guess kind of spoken in terms of code, like, “I would nominate judges like Roberts, Scalia, or Alito,” or worse, “I would have no litmus test in terms of the judges I would support.” Can you say that you would only nominate Supreme Court judges – justices – who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? A.  Uh, when I interviewed for judgeships when I was Governor I did not impose a litmus test. Q. Okay. Would you continue that policy as President? A.  Uh, I would continue that. I would seek out pro-life candidates first and foremost, but I would not, you pretty much know who those people would be, but I would not expressly impose a litmus test. Q. Okay. You, of course, have a great amount of expertise, maybe more than anybody in the field, in issues of China. And I don’t know if you’ve seen the news report today of Christian Bale, the actor – of course, he plays Batman – was roughed up by some Chinese guards attempting to go and visit Chen Guangcheng. Have you seen the news reports about that? A. Uh, I have, uh, not directly, but just as it flashed on the screen. I know Chen Guangcheng, I know of his case very well. Q. What, if anything, and let me break this up into two questions. What, if anything should be done by the United States to encourage China to change its “one child” policy? A. Well, uh, I probably did more than anybody. Uh, because my daughter Gracie was known by 1.3 billion people in China. Everybody heard her story. They knew that we had adopted her and given her life. Uh, they knew that she got to seek a great educational opportunity – a young, pretty, brilliant girl who was, I mean, it was all the time in China. I dare to say that our one act of adopting a girl, as United States Ambassador to China, in many minds – and this would be impossible to quantify – but I tell you, may have had more of an impact in that country, one thing, than all the speeches combined of U.S. government officials over the years. Q. Okay. One thing that many people may not know is that India, where your other daughter was adopted from, certain parts of India are contemplating adopting a two child policy. What if anything can or should the United States do about that? A. Well, I would just offer the same thing, and that is highlighting the beauty and the value of life. And there’s nothing more powerful than leading by example. And when you can lead by example by showing the kind of life that these little girls live when they are allowed into this world, I think that’s a very powerful manifestation all by itself. Q. You as Governor were broadly supportive of gay marriage, is that correct? A. I was supportive of civil unions. Q. Okay. Do you support the Defense of Marriage Act on the federal level? A. Yes, I am for the Defense of Marriage Act, I think that it’s an important safeguard for states if they choose to go in a direction that is different from another state that chooses gay marriage. Q. Would you order your Solicitor General to defend the constitutionality of every provision of the Defense of Marriage Act if you were elected President. A. Sure. Q. Would you veto any legislative attempt to overturn any portion of the Defense of Marriage Act? A. Uh, I’m not sure. I’d have to look at that. Q. Okay. Um, as we wrap up here, I think that a lot of folks as the primary electorate has kind of moved from candidate to candidate trying to see who it is that they are going to support, I think many people are kind of coming around at least to take a second look at your candidacy and I want to ask you about a few things that happened kind of towards the beginning, um, and see if you have anything different to say maybe, I guess, given all the things that have gone on since. Do you think that you misjudged how the primary electorate would receive your taking a job in the Obama administration as ambassador to China? A. Uh, you know, I didn’t really give it any thought, because, serving my country first and foremost, is always part of who I am and always will be part of who I am. And if asked to step up and serve your country during a time of need, during a time of war and economic hardship, uh, that’s all that matters. And, uh, if for whatever reason people want to hold that against me, that’s okay. Uh, I’m gonna stand true to who I am and putting my country first and foremost. And I would be a horrible example for my two sons in the Navy if I didn’t choose to do that. Q. Okay, um, you would agree of course that you can also serve your country as serving as the Governor of Utah, correct? A. Of course. Q. And in fact, numerous state governors have been I guess in the forefront of the legal fight here at home against Obamacare and against its implementation. Do you have any regret at all that you haven’t been able to stay in your post as Governor and to help with that fight?   A. I was asked to serve my country. Ah, I have no regrets about serving in a position for which I was very well qualified, uh, at a very sensitive time in the relationship, uh, and I don’t second guess that at all. Q. Okay. As we’ve talked here today, and as I’ve talked with people who I know on your campaign, you know, I’m impressed with the extent to which your views and mine – and I’m a very strong social conservative – line up on so many issues. And I guess the question that I have is that, um, why haven’t you done more to sell yourself to social conservatives? A. I think that because I crossed a partisan line, many of them glossed right over me at the beginning, and they wanted other candidates, and now they’re coming around as you say for a legitimate first look, maybe a second look in some cases, uh, and I think that’s very good news for us as we stare down the weeks ahead. But I think that probably had to do, uh, that was probably more of a cause of it that anything else as I reflect on it. Because I am who I am and I’m also not one who’s going to sign pledges; I don’t believe in pledges. Everyone else was running to sign pledges, so, running to pander to various groups, uh, during the straw poll time in Iowa and Florida. I wouldn’t do that. And some people may have held that against me at the time, and now they’re coming back and they’re saying, “Maybe he’s genuine and actually authentic, and he wasn’t willing to sign those pledges and everyone else did.” They spiked, they left, they’ve come down again. And, uh, I’m sort of thinking this slow, steady, substantive rise, it looks like may be durable longer-term. Q. Would you agree that you governed well to Mitt Romney’s right, when you were the governor of Utah? A. Say that one more time? Q. Would you agree that you governed well to Mitt Romney’s right? A. Oh, there’s no question about that. Uh, I didn’t raise taxes, I didn’t deliver health care reform with a mandate. I was always pro-life. Uh, we delivered school choice legislation, I think, uh, we battled, we delivered the largest tax cut in the history of the state – I mean, in every single area, I think you would find that you know, that we were most likely to his right. Q. I guess one of the things that causes a lot of people consternation is that we, as the GOP primary electorate were introduced to your campaign, we were told, especially by folks in the media, that you were making a deliberate strategic decision to run to Mitt Romney’s left. Has that at any time been accurate? A. No. That was – that was never a strategic decision. I think that’s concocted by some and I think they’re looking now that maybe – looking at it, and, uh, concluding for themselves that they may have misinterpreted who I am as an individual because I crossed a partisan line. And now they’re coming back around and probably trying to, uh, explain the reason why they didn’t give us a good look in the beginning. And that may be one interpretation, but that was never, uh, that was never an explicit policy on our part to run to Mitt Romney’s left. Q. You had a tweet, I guess at the beginning of your campaign that said something to the effect of, that you believed the scientists on global warming, you know, “call me crazy,” I’m sure you probably remember the one I’m talking about. Would you retract that tweet if you had the opportunity now? A. Uh, no, I wouldn’t redo anything that I’ve done. I, you know, I’ve made decisions at the time based on issues that were playing out and, uh, I don’t play the woulda, shoulda, coulda game. Uh, I make decisions based on discussions, or policy issues that were being deliberated at the time, and made a decision based on that. And so, I’ll let history decide whether that was a good thing to do, but it was from my heart. It was from who I am, and therefore I don’t regret it. Q. With respect to how you would govern as President, in respect to global warming, would you permit your EPA to implement a cap-and-trade policy without authorization from Congress? A. Uh, absolutely not. I’m not going to unilaterally disarm this country. Uh, cap and trade policies were derived from the Clean Air Act where they were actually based on free market principles in the 1970s. That’s what attracted some of us to the idea, that’s what attracted a lot of CEOs and a lot of experts to the idea. But it became, morphed into a tax [garbled]. But it wasn’t [garbled] unilaterally disarm this country or in any way hobble our economic prospects by putting in place a cap and trade program. While other countries are not willing to [garbled] the question [connection lost]   ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/19/redstate-interview-with-jon-huntsman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Politics and Policy of Cap and Trade, 2008-2010 [Truman North]</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/18/the-politics-and-policy-of-cap-and-trade-2008-2010-truman-north/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/18/the-politics-and-policy-of-cap-and-trade-2008-2010-truman-north/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change-swindle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climategate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discussing-2009]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failed-effort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-climategate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[longish-article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[our-current]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-the-intractability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/18/the-politics-and-policy-of-cap-and-trade-2008-2010-truman-north/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In light of our current consternation over the intractability and bloody-mindedness of Congressional Democrats, and the added evidence of a Great Climate Change Swindle coming from the Climategate II email set, here&#8217;s a longish article discussing 2009&#8242;s failed effort to&#8230; See original here: The Politics and Policy of Cap and Trade, 2008-2010 [Truman North] ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/18/the-politics-and-policy-of-cap-and-trade-2008-2010-truman-north/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitt versus Newt</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/mitt-versus-newt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/mitt-versus-newt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[current]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[view]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/mitt-versus-newt/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ People have talked for months, perhaps years, about Mitt Romney's inconsistencies, about how they feel uncertain as to what position Romney would hold on a particular issue. The story is getting old and tired, but allow me to summarize: for Romneycare, then against the very similar Obamacare; pro-choice, then anti-abortion; pro-gay marriage, then favoring a constitutional definition of marriage. There are other criticisms of Romney out there: too cautious, too plastic, too "moderate." But somehow I remain about as confident in Mitt Romney's predictability as in Newt Gingrich's, which is to say not as confident as I'd like but more than confident enough to support him in the general election. Mr. Gingrich is a good speaker and debater, if prone to occasionally engaging his mouth before his brain. (To be sure, he seems quite focused on rhetorical self-discipline of late.) He's a tremendous self-promoter; yes, all politicians must be, but Mr. Gingrich is particularly adept. And he certainly plays a conservative on TV. But Mr. Gingrich has had at least as many and at least as large changes on policy views as Mitt Romney has. He was for an individual health care mandate before being against it (while blaming his view on the Heritage Foundation, which does indeed have some responsibility here). He was for some version of cap and trade before he was against it. (Cap and trade would be even more damaging to our nation than Obamacare is.) He was, apparently for profit, for Freddie Mac before he was against it. And I still don't really understand his positions on U.S. involvement in Libya. Despite all this, and despite not being able to entirely disagree with Jon Stewart's assertion that Newt has a certain "dickishness," I can't say that I prefer Romney to Gingrich by enough to commit to him. I can say that the argument that Gingrich is somehow the true conservative while Romney is the faux-conservative rings hollow. One of the most common questions you'll hear these days in political discussions among Republicans is whether they're more focused on electability or on principle. (I'm focused on the former, whereas I was focused on the latter in 2008.) The common wisdom throughout this cycle has been that electability is Romney's strong suit and Gingrich's Achilles' heel. However, even this question is now a head-scratcher. In a CBS News poll released Tuesday, "31 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers said Gingrich had the best chance among the current GOP field to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. Twenty-nine percent said Romney had the best chance." Given that Iowa's likely caucus-goers are much more conservative than the general population, one must somewhat discount their view on who is most electable in terms of its being representative of the broader electorate. A pair of recent national polls by Rasmussen Reports shows Gingrich ahead of President Obama by two points, but Obama ahead of Romney by two points. It was the first poll by a major polling company during this entire cycle that showed Gingrich beating Obama, and it was the worst showing for Romney versus Obama in several weeks (among the polls included in the RealClearPolitics average ). However, a poll taken of voters in the very important state of Florida during the same time frame by the liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling showed Romney one point behind Obama, but Gingrich six points behind. Dick Morris has taken on the issue , to suggest that if your focus is conservatism, you probably are for Newt, whereas if your focus is on the economy and jobs, you probably are for Mitt, saying of Romney that "this guy really understands jobs... He would probably be the best president we ever had when it comes to the economy." He also notes that a conservative Congress would keep Romney in line if he were to drift leftward. But "Gingrich on the other hand is a reliable social conservative and a very creative one." Morris says that while Newt can get too creative for his own good, Gingrich would be "the most intelligent president we've had since John Kennedy." Morris's point is that the choice of candidate "really depends less on the candidates than on you. Is your chief priority in this thing turning the economy around and bringing us back to a really good, healthy long-term posture of economic growth? Or is your priority undoing the left-wing radical social-engineering agenda of the Obama presidency?" My kingdom for a candidate who is truly credible on both, but my chief priority is giving Jimmy Carter II the same amount of time in office as Jimmy Carter I. For voters like for me whose motivation is nothing more and nothing less than making sure Barack Obama is not re-elected, Morris offers this: "Clearly Romney would have a better chance of winning than Gingrich would. The very things that make him difficult as a sell in the primary, the Romneycare, abortion, and that stuff, make him more acceptable in a general election.… But I believe that with Obama messing up as he's doing.… Gingrich also could beat Obama, so I don't think that it's an automatic vote for Romney simply because he would have the better chance." And here is the crux of the matter. If you believe that Morris is right that Romney and Gingrich may both be electable, but that Romney's chances are measurably better, is it really worth increasing your risk of a second Obama presidency in order to get a president who is, in my view, only slightly more conservative? I think not, but I will keep listening to the debates and the candidates' other public statements to see if perhaps my perception of the electability of either man changes substantially. A couple other points on electability: The strength of voters' desire for a less polarized relationship between Congress and the White House, i.e. the "can't we all just get along" crowd, could be a major factor. Voters, especially independents and moderate Republicans, who are old enough to remember the Clinton/Gingrich years, the government shutdown, the intense partisanship (which continues unabated today) may lean toward Romney's more cooperative persona. Hard-core conservatives who are itching for a fight they can win may side with Gingrich. Furthermore, one has to wonder whether a Gingrich nomination would bring Bill Clinton into the race, not just in people's minds, but also in terms of letting Clinton hit the campaign trail for Democrats regaling crowds with his personal stories about Gingrich. It is a remarkable thing to say, but our current president and, sadly, even our prior president, make the Clinton years look like a paradigm of good government and fiscal discipline, blue dresses notwithstanding. Clinton will work hard to make sure that he, rather than Gingrich, gets the credit; it would be an incredible ongoing debate to watch. I doubt Republicans want to run even a little bit against Bill Clinton but a Gingrich nomination would make that scenario likely. Hard-core conservatives may be a majority in many GOP primaries and caucuses but are a distinct minority in a general election. If Gingrich wins the nomination on their strength, they will have to stick with their man as he moves slightly to the center prior to November 2012. Romney is probably acceptable to moderates as he is… which is why conservatives are so hesitant to support him. Again, we will have to decide whether we want the more conservative candidate or the more electable candidate. I wonder what William F. Buckley would say about this match-up. When the nominee is chosen, even if whomever of the two (I do believe this is now a two-man race) I end up supporting doesn't win, I will gladly support the other. Both are good men despite their much-discussed flaws, both far better for our nation than our current president, and both deserving of the support of all Americans whose motivation is to return our nation at least slightly back down the path of limited government and liberty. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/mitt-versus-newt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Fallacy of the Master Debater</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-debater/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-debater/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ebliversidge</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fairness Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cool]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fairness doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-debater/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Newt Gingrich: Master Debater. Such seems to be the impression driving the Gingrich boomlet in the Republican presidential contest -- as if, by virtue of his supposed debating ability, Gingrich will be the man most likely to defeat Barack Obama next fall. It's a myth, on multiple levels, as we shall see. Yet the power of the Gingrich surge does show, again, a lesson taught well by neo-Nazi David Duke when Duke was ascendant in Louisiana politics two decades ago: When considering a candidate for office, almost right up until they enter the polling booth and sometimes even in the booth itself, most voters rely more on what they see and hear themselves in real time than on facts, history, logic, or learned experience. If a speaker/debater "connects" with them, a lot of voters will actively siphon out all evidence against the speaker, in effect by adopting the "hear no evil" posture of one of the three infamous monkeys. Until powerfully disabused of what they consider a "first-hand" impression (first-hand because they "experienced" it by watching it on TV), many citizens will become the polling equivalent of jury nullifiers, becoming ever more obstinate in their positions. In this case, the position most dear to them is that they want to see somebody stick it to Barack Obama, face to face, and pummel him (politically speaking) into oblivion. With Duke's appeal to working-class white Democrats for nearly three solid years, what mattered was how well he parried the attacks from the hated media while making a case for low taxes and welfare reform -- and it didn't matter what they saw reported about his continuing Nazi or Klan ties because they didn't see it for themselves when he spoke on camera like a more approachable, blow-dried heir to Barry Goldwater. It was only in the last three weeks of his campaign for governor, when TV ads helped push through the message that a Duke governorship would cause businesses (and jobs) to flee Louisiana in droves, that all of the other accumulated evidence against Duke could finally be processed, and result in his landslide defeat. Something similar is happening with Gingrich and the image of the Master Debater. People see Gingrich handle himself well in eight-way debates (an easy task when no other candidate has even bothered criticizing you all year because you seemed so irrelevant), and they imagine that he's the one to take the fight to Obama. Suddenly it doesn't matter that he has always been not only anti-conservative on cap-and-trade, but has lied about what his position was. Suddenly it doesn't matter that he said the profiteers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be criminally investigated even though he was one of the profiteers -- and that he, again, apparently has been prevaricating about what he did for Freddie. Suddenly it doesn't matter that he has always been wrong on a health-care mandate, wrong on ethanol for all the years he's been paid to be wrong on ethanol, wrong on entitlements and on Paul Ryan's budget, wrong on amnesty for illegal immigrants, wrong as wrong could be on ethical issues and behavior aplenty, wrong on the TARP bailouts, wrong on liberal candidate Dede Scozzafava, wrong in the past on the Fairness Doctrine, wrong on leadership, weak at actual negotiating (actually, " melting ") against Bill Clinton, weak at actually running a government, and about as personally trustworthy as Joe Isuzu : He's gonna pummel Obama, yesiree, and then all will be well! Perish the thought. First, Gingrich isn't all that good one on one. Clinton made mincemeat of him. Michele Bachmann rocked him on his heels with the mildest of assaults on amnesty. And his own former wife (number two) says he loses his cool when tweaked about personal things like his ample and undisciplined girth. Yeah, he's great on his feet -- until he implodes, at which time he drags everybody on his side down with him. But that's not the important part. The important thing is this: Even if Gingrich's debating invincibility weren't an utter myth, the notion that debates next fall will be tremendously important is a myth, and a much bigger one. The deal is this: General-election presidential debates rarely make a big difference. What makes a bigger difference is unpaid (establishment) media (Gingrich will get crushed), organization (Gingrich will get crushed), paid media (Obama's $800 million campaign will crush him), and the voters' sense of whether they would mind seeing and hearing the candidate on their TV screens for the next four years (not bloody likely, based on the Gingrich persona's long-established propensity to wear out its welcome and become grating after a few months). But let's consider this subject completely apart from Gingrich. The key question is, will strong debate performances make a decisive difference in next fall's campaign? Easy answer: No. Only one general-election presidential debate truly appeared to be decisive -- and, for that matter, only one primary-season debate had a similar effect, too. Both were won by Ronald Reagan, who was unique. In Nashua, N.H., in 1980, he waxed Poppy Bush and won a landslide because of it. Against Jimmy Carter that fall, he entered the lone debate one week before Election Day in a dead heat in the polls and ended up winning by a landslide. But that was Reagan. People liked him, in heartfelt ways, and had been liking him for 45 years. They couldn't help liking him. And they trusted, at a deep level, that he meant what he said, because he spent 25 years saying the same things -- rather than mandating-or-non-mandating, cap-and-trading or non-cap-trading, as political winds and personal financial payoffs shifted. But other than Reagan, nobody has ever swung large voting blocs -- not just in the Gallup polls, but in the voting booths -- on the strength of debate performances. Sure, John F. Kennedy arguably gained a small margin over Dick Nixon among those who watched their debate rather than listened on the radio, but all that accomplished was getting him close enough to lose if it weren't for his ability to steal the election in Illinois and Texas. Sure, G.W. Bush gained an ever-so-slight edge over Al Gore when he coolly let Gore come off as overbearing and mendacious in the last of their debates -- but again, only at the margins, and not enough to avoid a five-week Florida recounting nightmare. Bush v. Kerry? Nothing decisive. Obama v. McCain? Nothing decisive. Reagan v. Mondale? Some great lines, but Reagan led by landslide margins regardless. Clinton v. elder Bush? Well, Bush did look at his watch, but that election was decided by the timings (plural) of Ross Perot's entrances into and exits from the race. Clinton v. Dole? No difference. And while Gerald Ford certainly hurt himself by claiming Eastern Europe wasn't Soviet-dominated, he was trying to recover from a 32-point deficit anyway: The debate hardly told the tale. All of those other factors -- TV ads, grassroots organizing, wedge issues, the economy, and especially a candidate's long-term likeability -- make a much bigger difference in campaigns than do debate performances. Nobody is going to slay Obama face to face: He's too cool. He may be bested on points, but he won't show his distress. He may lose at the margins, but nobody -- especially nobody with a history of extravagant and self-defeating utterances, such as Gingrich -- will destroy him in a glorious duel. If he is to be beaten, the defeat will spring from the public's ultimate wisdom in overcoming an $800 million campaign, not from a manufactured gladiator ring. The key thing is, can a candidate against Obama, throughout the long course of a campaign, build and carry out the right narrative against him? Experience shows that Newt Gingrich cannot. The truth is that Bob Dole didn't so much lose the 1996 race to Bill Clinton -- an outcome almost unimaginable even 13 months earlier -- as that Newt Gingrich lost it. From behind the scenes ( in terms of public attention -- remember that only a tiny percentage of the public had even heard of Gingrich the day before the 1994 congressional elections) Newt Gingrich could help others in 435 House races frame a narrative against 40 years of Democratic rule; but once he was in charge of things, front and center, all he did was step all over his team's narrative again and again. Framed by the Gingrich image of Republican meanness, Dole never had a chance. And then Gingrich did it to Republicans yet again in 1998, so badly that he resigned in embarrassment. And, as was shown by his recent-year stumbles in dealing with Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Scozzafava, ethanol, cap and trade, and the Ryan budget, Gingrich has not matured one bit. A leopard can't change its spots. A grand wizard Kluxer under his sheets (à la David Duke) can't hide his wizardry. And no debate can help Newt alter his lizardry. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/07/the-fallacy-of-the-master-debater/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Opportunity Wasted?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/04/an-opportunity-wasted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/04/an-opportunity-wasted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colonel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nelson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/04/an-opportunity-wasted/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ TAMPA -- You just can't have a Marco Rubio in every election cycle. That's too bad for conservatives. Florida's Republican junior U.S. Senator, Rubio is the articulate conservative who came from obscurity to defeat Florida's sitting governor and a no-name Democrat for the Senate seat in 2010. When Rubio entered the race in the spring of 2009 the political "experts" and the Republican establishment first yawned, then said he had no chance. The entire Republican establishment went kissy-kissy all over the rudderless political wind-sock, Charlie Crist, who didn't even remain a Republican until Election Day. Rubio won by 20 points. He's in the U.S. Senate while Crist is a now pitch-man for a large personal injury law firm. At least Crist finally found his métier. Hardly oriented yet to the Senate office buildings, rookie Rubio is on every Republican's short list for the VP spot on next year's ticket. Though he may also be on the even shorter list of people who've said they don't want to be vice president and really mean it. Rubio is smart enough, informed on all the issues enough, clear enough in his conservative view of the world, and forceful enough in his willingness to engage in the name of those convictions, that he has a real prospect of being at the top of a Republican ticket one day if that party decides to remain conservative. He just doesn't have the genes of a second banana and likely doesn't want to spend the next eight years handing guests their coats after state dinners, going to the funerals of foreign humbugs, and inquiring after the president's health. This cycle conservatives have a real opportunity to replace a liberal Senate Democrat who has voted with Barack O'Barnum more than 90 percent of the time, including supporting such leftist hustles as cap and trade, Obamacare, and the debt stimulus package of 2009. This would be one Bill Nelson, 69, seeking his third Senate term. The Florida left-stream media insist on referring to Nelson as a "moderate," but this says more about the Florida media than about this transparently liberal Senator who holds countless left-wing positions, and has voted for a host of liberal measures, that a majority of Florida voters just don't fancy. Nelson, who served in the U.S. House and the Florida Legislature, as well as doing a hitch as Florida's Insurance Commissioner, before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 2000, has been in public office since slightly after the Crimean War. Polls have varied so far, but most show about a third of Florida voters have a favorable opinion of Nelson, about a third unfavorable, another third have no opinion of Nelson or have never heard of him. He's clearly not made much of an impression for a guy who has been in office since before a fair fraction of Florida voters were even born. Nelson's nickname isn't "Lucky," but it should be. He's held office far more because of what Republicans haven't done, than what he, Nelson, has. What the Republicans haven't done is put up a strong candidate against Nelson. In 2000 Nelson ran against former Congressman Bill McCollum, a smart, decent, conservative, and able man, but one of the few politicians in Florida as charisma-challenged as Nelson. In 2006 Nelson matched up against the politically radioactive Katherine Harris, the former Florida Secretary of State Democrats still accuse of stealing the 2000 Florida presidential vote for George W. Bush, and who put together a short but undistinguished career in the U.S. House before trying to jump to the Senate. Will Bill Nelson get another batting practice fastball to swing at in 2012? Will he once again not have to pay the price for his liberal career? Events to this point are not encouraging for conservatives. With the exception of Craig Miller, an Orlando area restaurateur, the gang of five (recently expanded from four) seeking the Republican nomination have spent as much or more time calling their Republican opponents one or more species of a no-account than they have talking down Nelson. The Republican race more and more has the appearance of a circular firing squad. Realizing that conservative is the preferred flavor among the Republican base this cycle, the candidates are competing mightily with each other for the mantle of the real and true conservative in the race. Former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner has garnered some support from state and national conservative groups and figures. But opponent George LeMieux, appointed by Crist to serve the final 16 months of Mel Martinez's Senate term, has dug up campaign literature from previous races where Hasner claimed to be a moderate. Hasner retorts that LeMieux has some esplainin' to do for his career as liberal governor Crist's campaign manager and chief of staff. While LeMieux was Crist's major domo Crist held just about every position known to man on every issue, including some quite liberal stuff like attempting to put Florida under a carbon cap and trade regime and whooping up O'Barnum's trillion dollar stimulus slush fund. Plant City tree farmer and retired Army Reserve and National Guard Colonel Mike McCalister has joined in the chorus against "political insiders" who've caused the mess we're in and who can't get us out of it. Fort Myers Congressman Connie Mack IV, son of former U.S. Senator Connie Mack III (grandson of Philadelphia Athletics owner and manager for life, Connie Mack), recently jumped into the race, after saying earlier in the year that he wouldn't run because he wanted to spend more time with his family. Mack's change of heart almost certainly is not because his family has become less attractive over the last few months, but because Florida Republicans have found the Senate field and the campaign to this point unedifying and uninspiring. Though it's not clear what Mack -- who has had some snarky things to say about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law, who takes global warming more seriously than he should, and who supported Crist in the 2010 Senate race -- brings to the table that the Republican base wants to hear. Most of these candidates have been campaigning for months. In center-right Florida, where voters self-identify themselves as conservative over liberal by two to one, there should be some interest in these folks. Not yet. Most polls show Nelson winning against all of them. Invariably "none of the above" is the most favorite candidate in polls of the Republican pack. If one of these doesn't separate himself from the field and make a solid case for himself, Florida may well be represented in the U.S. Senate for six more years by a mediocre politician well to the left of the state's electorate. And the conservative cause will have failed where it should prosper. In 2010 Marco Rubio electrified Republican voters. There's a year left before the election, but so far this cycle there has been a power outage on the Republican side.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/04/an-opportunity-wasted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

