http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx

synopsis:
2004 a “Republican year” versus 2008 a “Democrat year” had different demographics. Mostly we are talking about race here. 2012 registered voters closely resemble 2008 and not 2004. Conclusion? Gunna be a Democrat year!

except.

a little noted line a the bottom.
electorate 2004: even numbers of Dem leaners versus R leaners. 2008: Dem leaners 12 points greater than R. 2012: R leads Dem by 3 points.

Thats a 15 point shift!
Even in my most wildly optimistic moments I would not have expected that. Phenomenal. This is going to be one for the history books

just kidding. truth is, our president has shown the same kind of leadership in this crisis as he has in every other. What kind of leadership is that, you ask? Well, the fact that I know you are going to ask should be a hint.

The truly sad thing is, I feel certain that most Republicans are, in some small portion of their hearts, hoping Obama will stand up and lead on this–even if it makes it harder for Romney to win.  We care more about the future of our country, even in minor ways, than we do about “winning” the partisan bickering.

–Bill Clinton

We have heard this criticism before.  Yes, I think this is nothing more than craven political talking points. But, lets be honest, Bill Clinton was president in a time of great prosperity.  His economic policies were heavily influenced by Newt Gingrich, but they succeeded.  Economic policies, I am not talking about the rest of it.

The American people know this about Bill Clinton, and they want that kind of success again.  So how does Romney take this criticism, and turn it to his favor?

Mitt Romney needs to publicly ask Bill Clinton to consult with team Romney and go over the numbers that Clinton finds problematic.  Ask Bill Clinton what loopholes he would close, what is politically possible with the Democrats.

There are two possible outcomes, both good for Romney:

1) Clinton laughs in his face.  Which only shows that Romney is willing and open to take risks in order to work with the Democrats for the good of the people.  Romney is going to work with Democrats as president–they will still have power in the Senate, and the American people expect our president to work with the other party–Obama is dismal at this, show them Romney is ready.

2) Clinton plays the elder statesman, accepts the invitation and gives advice to Romney.  This would be huge for Romney, especially if he can find some nugget in Clinton’s advice, add it to his economic plans, put Clinton’s name on it and show the American people what can be done for the good of the country with cooperation.

The second scenario may be far-fetched, but it is within the realm of possibility.  Clinton is an opportunist, and a smart one.  Even if his advice is useless, surely there is something Romney can agree with him about.

Either way, Romney diffuses Clinton’s support for Obama.  Win-win.

Obama favors central planning and government control of industry

Romney favors venture capitalism and creative destruction

When Obama attacks Romney for the actions of Bain capital, the press gets that.  What Obama’s narrative says is that creative destruction has cost the US manufacturing worker his livelihood.  The Obama narrative does not blame the geopolitical realities of cost, supply and demand; instead, Obama places the blame on the leaders of industry, who could, in his view, be controlled by central planners.

When the Romney campaign attacks Obama over grandiose statements like “With government intervention, this plant will be open for another hundred years”, what Romney is saying is that crony capitalism is ignorant and impotent against the realities of cost, supply and demand; Romney’s campaign reveals the fundamental flaw in central planning:  Intended consequences and wishful thinking do not change the world into something it is not.

No amount of “hope” is going to create a practical electric car.  The practical electric car will come, not from central planning, but from innovation.  In all likelihood, the critical breakthroughs will come from innovators funded by venture capitalism, not central planners.

When Obama gave his speech about the plant being open for another hundred years, what people heard was:  ”I and my plans will stand up for this plant, and you will benefit [from central planning]“.  But the plant closed, all the same, not because Obama made a heroic effort to save that plant, or any other particular plant–no such effort was ever made–the plant closed because of the realities of cost, supply and demand.  Realities to which Obama was and is willfully ignorant.

Nobody denies that central planning is a powerful tool.  The Soviets put men in space–few nations have done that.  What we as Americans understand, but apparently Maddow does not, is that central planning is a tool that must be used carefully and skillfully, or preferably, not at all.  Central planning rarely produces the best results.  Good results sometimes, terrible results other times, but in the ongoing contest between central planners and individual innovators, central planners have proven wanting.

What the Janesville GM plant closing proves is that central planning, in the hands of Barack Obama, is again a failure.  He believed that central planning would save that plant, but he was wrong.  Just like he was wrong about how to create jobs, fix the economy, reform healthcare…  Just as he has been wrong about too many things.

The question is not:  ”did the plant close before Obama was president?”  (it was still producing cars in 2009).  The real question is:  ”was Obama wrong when he said [central planning] government would save the plant”.  The government did not hold back in 2008, it did intervene, and yet the plant closed anyway.  YOU CAN BET that if the plant had been saved, Obama would be touting that.

That plant closure is a failure of central planning.  We look at our economy, see it sputtering and dysfunctional, yet we cannot easily see what has happened, event by event, that makes for such a weak economy.  Solyndra is a signpost.  The Janesville GM plant is a signpost.  Neither of these by themselves explains the failure of central planning, but together, these and a thousand other Obama central planning missteps do explain what we see.

One of your neighbors plants a dozen palm trees right next to the highway.  There is no shoulder on the road, and he plants on public lands.

A couple years later, a car runs into one of the highway palms, and the driver is killed.

In reaction to this tragic death, a progressive suggests that every tree in your yard should be chain-sawed.  After all, these are the same kind of non-native palms that claimed the life of someone on the highway.

Does this make any sense at all?  Obviously not, and I understand that this is a convoluted argument.  This story has all of the same elements of the gun-control story, though.  Broken laws, tragic death, and then demands that everyone should lose their rights, as a result of the irresponsible actions of a few.

The president had another “Joe the plumber” moment.  He got off his teleprompter, and revealed the depth of his lack of understanding of main street USA.  Or did he?  Adam Gopnik (link below) in The New Yorker defends the President, claiming:

“What President Obama was saying was perfectly clear: the “that” in his statement refers to the bridges and roads and ‘this unbelievable American system.’”

Gopnik claims that conservatives are distorting what the President said.  See, this great orator, this brilliant scholar, what he said, well, we conservatives are all too stupid to understand.  I think it is pretty clear what the President said, and I study language.  But, we love our country, and we love to give our President the benefit of the doubt, so lets look closely at this, shall we?

Here is the extended Obama quote:  ”Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.”

If this were written by a fourth grader, I might be willing to believe “that” referred to “roads and bridges”.  English is a complicated language, and those who are not masters of the language are prone to misspeak.  The President is no such amateur.  Normal linguistic structure would indicate “that” refers to “business”.

It is possible “that” was intended to refer to “roads and bridges” and the President misspoke.  However, there is a “that” in the next sentence–”somebody else made that happen”.  Somebody else made roads and bridges happen?  Nope.  Sorry.  It only fits with “business”.  It almost works with “this unbelievable American system”, but you would not say “Somebody else” made this unbelievable American system, you would say:  _Many_people_ were involved in the creation of this American system.  The more you think about it, the less believable it is that the President meant anything other than “You didn’t build that [business]“.

Really.  We heard what he said.  He said it.  We know why he wants to claim he didn’t say it, but he said it.  Even his stalwart supporters think it was a dumb thing to say.  So they are left trying to deny it.  Their denials are more lies and doublespeak.  We cannot let ourselves get used to lies and doublespeak as the norm.  We need to call it what it is.

Next week, I will discuss the reasons why “that” cannot be inferred to have meant “the internet”.

link to The New Yorker   http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/07/barack-mitt-and-adam-smith.html

for those of you unable or averse to following the link:

“The Food Stamp Program, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, posts signs ‘Please Do Not Feed the Animals’.  The stated reason for this policy is that the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves”

Yep.

Wait a sec!  The Americans didn’t attack Pearl Harbor, any more than the Japanese bombed Hiroshima or the New Yorkers flew jet liners into the Twin Towers.

Most people would consider referring to important historical events in such a historically ignorant fashion a faux pas of the worst kind.  I am sure that the international consternation over our President’s  misstatement will pass quickly.

Misstatement?  He just painted the victims of the most infamous crimes in the history of mankind as the perpetrators. I know it’s okay, because he is a Democrat, and while Republicans are to be considered fools until proven brilliant, Democrats are heroes until proven incompetent.

I think we made a whole lot of progress toward finding the truth today, but then, I always knew he was an incompetent.

Polish death camps?  I am not Polish.  But I apologize to the people of a country whose greatest historical challenge is being sandwiched between Germany and Russia.  The Polish have had a hard-won fight for freedom.  They deserve better.

Remember that next time you hear about France’s Blitzkrieg Attack, or the Chinese destruction of Nanking.

Here is my analogy:
you have an aquarium:  15 gallons.  You need to keep it warm for your
tropical fish:  80F in a house that can be as cold as 65F, so you buy an
aquarium heater, maybe 20 watts.  Problem solved.

You put in a pool:  15000 gallons.  You need to keep it warm, 70F is good
enough, and the outside temperature varies from 50-90F, so you put
your aquarium heater in the pool.  Is the aquarium heater going to change
the temperature of the pool at all?  Certainly not.  Wind, sunshine, rain,
air temperature, even a bunch of kids swimming in the pool are going to
overwhelm any effort the 20 watt heater can make.

Here is the kicker:
The aquarium heater might make a _measurable_difference_.  Take enough
measurements over a long enough period of time, and you might notice that
the average temperature of the pool went from 70.35 degrees one year
to 70.39 degrees the next.  so the aquarium heater actually works.

But you can not extrapolate that eight aquarium heaters left on in your pool
for fifty years would move the temperature of the pool from 70.35 degrees
to 86.35 degrees, which is what the global warming folks are trying to tell
us.  Other factors simply overwhelm the tiny effect, and it is not cumulative.

There are plenty of things to worry about in this world:
Nuclear proliferation, Meteoroid strikes, Financial market failure, Antibiotic
resistant diseases.
Not carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is consumed by plants.  More carbon
dioxide=more plants.  in fifty years, we could be past the peak of carbon
based power.  Surely in one hundred fifty.  Worse case scenario in one hundred years:
The ocean rises by ten inches, We get more rain, and the Canadians can grow rice.
That’s not so bad.  Humans are adaptable.
After we switch over to whatever the next power source is, the carbon
dioxide levels may fall, and we may find that we miss our very green earth.

The mid-evil warm period was the last time we had a peak of temperature
on the earth.  Historically, it is supposed to have been about 1.5 to 2 Celsius
degrees warmer than it is right now.  There is some dispute about that, but
the Vikings had farms on Greenland, so you tell me.  Anyhow, the mid evil
warm period was the heyday of written history.  It resulted in the renaissance.
I don’t think that is so bad.

If I tell you that killing an unborn child the day before he is delivered is morally the same as killing the same newborn infant two days later, you would probably agree with that.  You should, because really they are morally equal.

So when a panel of progressive ethicists says exactly that, then lets stand up and applaud.  For once a finding we can all agree on!

What we probably do not agree on is what this means.

To me, it means that, since it is morally wrong to kill an infant, it is equally morally wrong to kill an unborn infant two days earlier.  This seems intuitively obvious to me.

This progressive think-tank has done more to answer the question:  “what is wrong with having an abortion” than all the arguments about when the fetus has fingers or toes or whatever combined.