July 22-23, 2012
Jul 22 01:54 McCarthy, Michele Bachmann vs. McCain, Muslim Brotherhood Jul 22 05:57 Censorship only a fascist could appreciate Jul 22 09:04 Jim Graves attacks Michele Bachmann Jul 22 10:02 Romney Democrats? Jul 23 00:42 SurveyUSA poll: Minnesota is battleground state Jul 23 03:14 Clinton messaging vs. Obama messaging Jul 23 04:18 Obamanomics: truly historic? Jul 23 10:55 Is Bill Nelson finished in Florida?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
McCarthy, Michele Bachmann vs. McCain, Muslim Brotherhood
As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can't wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.
Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin's family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Ms. Abedin's father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute's Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 'with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.'
It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the 'Islamic extremism' that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix 'would be a mistake of historic proportions.'
Considering this administration's drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it's perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It's certainly worth noting this information :
MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League's Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden . Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.
It's impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.
At minimum, there's justification to look into Ms. Abedin's connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:
McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as 'part of a nefarious conspiracy.'
To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department's dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin's tenure as a top adviser to the State Department's boss.
Sen. McCain's temper might've clouded his judgment. That wouldn't be the first time that's happened. There's much more to Ms. Abedin's family:
And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin's mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.
Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, 'which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,' according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.
One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it's true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it's equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn't have the cajones to say.
Here's a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin's organization believes:
D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah
Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.
International Islamic Committee for Women and Children
The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:
'Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)
Apparently, Huma Abedin's mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren't the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.
Rep. Bachmann's statements have a substantive basis. The group's request that the five departments' IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain's diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , National Security , Terrorism , Andrew McCarthy , Blind Sheikh , Hillary Clinton , Huma Abedin , Muslim Brotherhood , John McCain , Investigation , Inspector General , Progressives
Posted Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:54 AM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 22-Jul-12 03:52 PM
McCains temper tantrums are like Richard Lugars temper tantrums. Fortunately Lugar is nearly gone. Bachmann is one of the few that realize Islam is a political system and not a religion it wants others to believe. Islam abhors liberty and free will, it more effectively reflects the values of marxism, fascism, nazism, and socialism. To question any part of it brings a death sentence or gulag.
Comment 2 by Kevin Slator at 23-Jul-12 09:28 AM
Maybe I missed this, but I'm not seeing any connection between Huma Abedin and the MWL, as distinguished from any connection her parents may have or have had.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Jul-12 09:57 AM
Kevin, you aren't going to argue that someone who was raised by two radical parents isn't worthy of extra scrutiny for a security clearance, are you?
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 23-Jul-12 10:02 AM
That is the point Bachmann is making in asking for an investigation. The ties are unknown but the close ties through family can not be ignored. There are too many in government with the appearance of close ties to the Muslim brotherhood.
Comment 5 by John N at 23-Jul-12 07:41 PM
I think it is ignorant to blindly question someone on this without some type of proof. What some of you are saying is that we blindly follow in our parents footsteps and this applies to everyone.
My parents blindly follow Christianity and know nothing of science. After 12 years of Catholic school, I know that religion is a tool to control the population and that science is better solution to many of the problems we face in life than religious teachings of those in power decreed by some guy 2000+ years ago.
So let's not bash people for who they are unless there's definitive proof. I remember Catholics being taunted in the 60s and 70s and this happens over and over again when ignorant people like Bachmann are rallying up even more ignorant people that will follow her because they don't know any better.
Comment 6 by sue l at 23-Jul-12 10:17 PM
To John n: it might be a good idea for you to study a little history in regard to science before criticizing Christianity. A Catholic monk discovered the "big bang" theory before any secular scientist, Mendel; father of genetics. Or lemaitre or Roger bacon or Nicklaus Copernicus or magnus or Nicole irremediable etc. From astronomy to physics to biology to chemistry to mathematics from the Jesuits ....it goes on and on. Christians have contributed more to science than secularists. Your argument collapses with the facts. God is Truth..
Comment 7 by Jeff Baumann at 24-Jul-12 02:06 AM
Compare these two statements.
Michelle Bachmann suggested looking into the activities of Huma Abedin, which might pose a problem for the United States government. John McCain resisted and rejected such suggestions.
Mike McQueary suggested looking into the activities of Jerry Sandusky, which might pose a problem for Penn State University. Graham Spanier resisted and rejected such suggestions.
Any questions?
Comment 8 by Bob J. at 24-Jul-12 09:28 AM
John N writes: "So let's not bash people for who they are unless there's definitive proof."
Odd. That doesn't seem to stop you from bashing your own parents.
And since you haven't offered any 'definitive proof' that there's no God and instead offer your own opinion as fact, the rest of your post is, shall we say, hypocritical. From a purely analytical standpoint, of course.
Censorship only a fascist could appreciate
What you're about to read is BS only a fascist could appreciate. This article isn't just bizarre. It's disgusting. Here's the article's intro:
If you thought college was a place for young people to speak out, challenges one another's deeply-held beliefs and grow intellectually, chances are you've never been to Indiana University Southeast.
The school, located just 10 miles north of Louisville, Ky., is the latest college to see its speech code come under fire from a group that advocates freedom of speech on campuses. One stipulation in the code requires that students may only "express opinions" within a free speech zone, which is antithetical to what a college should stand for, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy organization which defends the free speech and due process rights of college students.
In the Sixties and early Seventies, college campuses were hubs where debates happened, theories were challenged and the First Amendment was cherished. What's happening on today's campuses is a disgrace. Students get lower grades because they refuse to say what their professor wants them to say. FIRE has dealt with that before.
The fascists/progressives can't even provide a coherent excuse for their censorship policies:
'[The guidelines] were intended to provide some guidance on the issue so that those wishing to gather and express an opinion could do so without endangering people or property," the school told FoxNews.com in a statement. "The guidelines also were intended to protect the rights of all students to have unfettered access to educational activities on campus (in other words, the exercise of free speech rights should not result in blocking access to buildings or disrupting classes or campus events)."
That's BS. If the little dainties can't handle hearing an opinion that challenges their worldview, they're destined for failure. The fascists/progressives don't care about that, though. They're obsessed with indoctrinating as many students as possible. Exposing them to opinions that contradict the fascists' worldview might destroy the fascist movement and they certainly can't have that.
This paragraph is proof that a little paranoia goes a long way:
"We have to regulate other groups who come from off campus. Some come and preach a lot of hate. We just can't have them wandering around campus with bullhorns over here," Joseph Wert, associate professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Indiana University Southwest, told FoxNews.com.
Wert didn't specify which groups "from off campus" enter IUS's campus for the purpose preaching hate. Based on how progressive media villifies conservatives and the TEA Party, I'm betting that Prof. Wert is talking about conservatives and TEA Party activists.
The thing is that I've never watched a report of conservatives or TEA Party activists stomping across college campus. I've never watched a report of them preaching hate or using bullhorns, either.
I'm betting Prof. Wert is lying through his teeth to justify (rationalize?) the university's unjustifiable policy of censorship. Unfortunately, IUS isn't the only campus to practice censorship:
It's not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits "any act of ridicule...or embarrassment," and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to "transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive."
"This gives the university carte blanche to censor any electronic communication of which it disapproves," Shibley noted. "You're teaching [college students] that they're not equipped to live in a free society."
It isn't free speech if colleges are the sole arbiters of what students can and can't say. That's censorship, which is the first step towards full-blown fascism.
Tags: First Amendment , Indiana University Southwest , Joseph Wert , Censorship , Progressives , Fascists , Conservatives , TEA Party , FIRE
Posted Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:57 AM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 22-Jul-12 05:58 PM
Evidently the aging boomer university professership is too fragile to handle free speech. And this is the same professership that as students managed to have sit ins, close down the universities, and burn classrooms. Poor, poor, babies. Such pitiful creatures.
Comment 2 by Crimson Tide at 23-Jul-12 09:06 PM
The modern university has become so out of touch with the average citizen that it is pathetic. Until political leaders and taxpayers demand accountability, very little will change.
Jim Graves attacks Michele Bachmann
First, I've met Jim Graves. He's friendly enough but he isn't the substantive candidate that's needed to defeat Michele Bachmann. His latest statement on Michele's Muslim Brotherhood flap isn't substantive or accurate. Here's the text of his statement :
Michele Bachmann just won't stop.
Even after fellow Republicans have condemned her ruthless attacks, accurately comparing her to Sen. Joe McCarthy, she's taking her dangerous witch-hunt to a new level.
She outrageously insists that people like Huma Abedin and Rep. Keith Ellison are part of a scheme to overthrow the government and institute Sharia law.
The evidence? Sixteen pages of Rep. Bachmann's conjectures and wild conspiracy theories.
This isn't the first time Rep. Bachmann has used these vicious and intolerant tactics to build her celebrity by appealing to the radical fringe. But let's make it the last.
Sign up here to demand that Michele Bachmann end her McCarthy-style attacks and wild conspiracies.
First, Graves crossed the line when he said that Michele thinks "Huma Abedin and Rep. Keith Ellison are part of a scheme to overthrow the government and institute Sharia law." That's an outright lie. She's never made that type of statement.
What Michele did, along with Reps. Tom Rooney, Lynn Westmoreland, Trent Franks and Louie Gohmert, was send "letters to the Inspectors General of the State Department, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence asking for investigations into the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in these agencies."
Since sending out those letters, Michele's said on radio that she's worried about the influence the Muslim Brotherhood might have on US foreign policy. In this Examiner article , I quoted Andrew McCarthy's article to show how substantive and accurate Michele's information is. Here's one of the things Mr. McCarthy said:
Ms. Abedin's father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute's Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 'with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.' It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood.
That's significant because of MWL's connections with terrorist families:
MWL promotes Wahhabism , the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League's Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa , a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden .
Is Mr. Graves suggesting that we shouldn't investigate a person whose father had ties to bin Laden's family? I wouldn't presume that this automatically proves that Ms. Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood plant but I'd expect the government to investigate Ms. Abedin thoroughly. In fact, according to Mr. McCarthy, that connection alone might disqualify Ms. Abedin from getting a security clearance:
No criminal behavior need be shown to deny a security clearance; access to classified information is not a right, and reasonable fear of 'divided loyalties' is more than sufficient for a clearance to be denied.
That's been the policy for security clearances for at least 25 years.
Mr. Graves titled this statement "Witch Hunt", supposedly to add dramatic effect where it doesn't exist. Mr. Graves, if Michele is on a witch hunt, how is it that there's this much substance to her claims? It isn't just Ms. Abedin's late father who had ties to radical Islam:
Dr. Abedin has led the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), an Islamist organization that hews to the positions of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Brotherhood's leading sharia jurist. Like Brotherhood entities, the IICWC defends such practices as female genital mutilation and child marriage, which find support in Islamic law and scripture.
Huma Abedin's father had connections with the bin Laden family. Her mother is a important part of an organization whose ideology would fit right in with the pre-9/11 Taliban in Afghanistan. Why would anyone think that she'd be worth investigating before giving a security clearance?
Seriously, if this is the witch hunt that Mr. Graves argues it is, why is Michele finding so many disturbing facts about a woman with a high level security clearance?
If this is the best attack Mr. Graves can muster against Michele, he'd best start writing his concession speech because that statement is crap that a lowly blogger like myself will blast to smithereens.
One last thing that's worth noting. Andrew McCarthy isn't some wet-behind-the-ears apprentice when it comes to terrorism. Mr. McCarthy was the lead prosecutor who convicted the Blind Sheikh of masterminding the first attack on the World Trade Center.
If Mr. Graves wants to attack Michele, he'll have to prove Mr. McCarthy wrong. Frankly, I don't see that happening.
The Sixth District needs a representative who isn't an apprentice, someone who won't need on-the-job-training in national security matters. That disqualifies Mr. Graves.
Tags: Security Clearances , Huma Abedin , Muslim Brotherhood , Taliban , Jim Graves , Witch Hunt , DFL , Michele Bachmann , Andrew McCarthy , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, July 22, 2012 9:04 AM
Comment 1 by John N at 23-Jul-12 07:44 PM
I don't see how anyone can trust what Bachmann has to say anymore. Were you not there during the early stages of Republican presidential nomination process? Who is following this idiot. I don't see how any other candidates could be worse. At least anyone replacing Bachmann will not have a big ego (yet).
Romney Democrats?
Most of President Obama's campaign has focused on turnout of his base. It's apparent that the President's campaign sees this as a base election. If that's their strategy, then Salena Zito's column should frighten them:
More than 1,400 people packed a 4,000-square-foot warehouse - but it wasn't the numbers, it was the event's organic nature.
This was not a stacked rally, to which the usual GOP suspects bring a friend, or a ticketed event, for which you go to a local elected official to pick up a pass reserved for people who clap on cue.
This was the real deal and the crowd, with nearly as many Democrats as Republicans, let Romney know they loved him and his message.
Bill Brasco of nearby Jeanette isn't just a Democrat. He is an elected Democrat, serving as the local school board president for more than 42 years, the second-longest-serving board president in state history.
'Been a Democrat since I turned 21 and proud of it,' he said, adding that he will not vote for Obama in November. 'I just do not like the direction this country is going under the president,' he explained.
Brasco, 75, was one of many Democrats giving Romney more than a dozen standing ovations at the Westmoreland County rally. 'I could not have been more impressed,' he said. 'I particularly liked when he talked about his five-point plan to get the economy roaring.'
If I had to bet on this race, I'd bet that older Democrats represent the best opportunities for Mitt to flip from D to R this election. I'm betting that buyer's remorse isn't just something independents experience. I'm betting that Joe Lieberman Democrats don't find President Obama appealing.
Who inspired whom more was difficult to determine: Did Romney feed on the crowd's electricity, or did it feed on his?
It doesn't matter. What matters is that weeks of Obama's attacks on Romney's time at Bain Capital and demands for the release of Romney's taxes have not dissuaded the GOP base or soured swing Democrats or independents against Romney.
The effect, remarkably, has been the reverse.
The attacks on Romney as a businessman are ridiculous, said Mark Lisovich, who lives here. The 51-year-old father of five, including a wounded Navy combat corpsman, is another Democrat who voted for Obama but now supports Romney.
'Without private-equity firms like Bain, I wouldn't have a job,' he said of the small business he works for that received start-up money from investors. 'And what will the tax thing prove? That Romney is rich?'
Lisovich was optimistic that things would improve when he voted for Obama in 2008; now he knows better, he said. 'Romney has the right vision for the country, and he understands that businesses small and large are what make America great.'
President Obama spent $100,000,000 attempting to make Mitt unpalatable. That failed. Now he's stuck with Plan B. The bad news for President Obama is that he's never had a Plan B. The good news for America is that President Obama hasn't had a Plan B.
This election might get ugly if Democrats a) feel either unenthusiastic about President Obama or b) abandon him for Mitt. Option A is bad news for President Obama. Option B is his worst nightmare.
Ronald Reagan once said that "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job."
It's just a hunch but I wouldn't be surprised if most people would agree with him if Mitt Romney borrowed Reagan's famous line.
Tags: Rally , Mitt Romney , Pennsylvania , Reagan Democrats , Venture Capitalists , Republicans , President Obama , Buyers Remorse , Negative Ads , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:02 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 23-Jul-12 03:06 PM
That's not surprising, since Romney is nobody's conservative, either socially or fiscally. And we may as well admit it. I detest 0bama but Romney isn't much better by virtue of his record.
That said, Romney can, and probably will, win election by plucking off enough disaffected Democrats from Chairman Zero to make up for conservatives who know what he really is.
In any event, it'll be at least 2016, and if Romney wins it'll be 2020, before the conservative base gets to try again. Hopefully it won't be too late.
SurveyUSA poll: Minnesota is battleground state
This evening, KSTP dropped a bombshell when they reported the results of the poll they commissioned SurveyUSA to do. Here's the opening bombshell :
Asked of 552 likely voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question: 4.3%
If the election for President were today, would you vote for ... (choices rotated) Republican Mitt Romney? Democrat Barack Obama? Or one of the other candidates?
40% Mitt Romney (R)
46% Barack Obama (D)
7% Other
7% Undecided
Ben Golnik tweeted this important information :
Romney leads with Indies, 38 to 34. Partisan makeup for poll: 38% DFL; 32% GOP; 28% Indy
I'm certain Ben's information is accurate. That means this race is significantly tighter than the horserace figure indicates. Factor in the MOE and the partisan makeup of the sample with the horserace figure and you've pretty much got a toss-up presidential race.
Two other significant statistics from the poll were positive news for conservatives and thoughtful independents and Democrats:
Asked of 552 likely voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question: 4.3%
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?
52% Vote For
37% Vote Against
5% Not Vote
6% Not Sure
The amendment is actually more popular now than it was in April. That can't make the DFL happy. This polling certainly must make the DFL, especially Mark Ritchie and Joe Mansky, upset:
Asked of 552 likely voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question: 4.1%
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot would require voters to show photo I.D.'s in order to vote on Election Day. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?
65% Vote For
28% Vote Against
2% Not Vote
4% Not Sure
The DFL's only hope of Photo ID becoming law is by preventing it from being on the ballot. If it's on the ballot, it'll be in Minnesota's Constitution.
Tags: President Obama , Minnesota , Polling , Battleground State , Democrats , Marriage Amendment , Photo ID , DFL , Mitt Romney , SurveyUSA , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, July 23, 2012 12:42 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Jul-12 04:51 PM
Obama is definitely on the defensive. In 2008 he was on the offense against somebody with limited resources.
Here he has to defend a bigger, have less resources, and literally everywhere he is less popular than in 2008.
Minnesota in play shows just how much trouble he is in.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Clinton messaging vs. Obama messaging
Stan Greenberg's commentary essentially admits that Obama's policies have failed :
The discussion always begins with discussion of their experience with job losses for themselves and their families and how that has left them struggling to pay for groceries. Most have jobs now, but speak about their lower wages and benefits. Because wages are down, there has been a dramatic rise in discussion of very basic pocketbook issues. And this does not seem like some passing phase.
This has not been a pocketbook-level recovery for ordinary Americans. This is especially true for non-college-educated voters, who have been uniquely hit by this economy. They, their families, and people they know are on food stamps, on unemployment, and on disability.
There's no denying the fact that people think President Bush's policies sent the economy into a tailspin. Similarly, there's no question that the American people aren't worrying about who's to blame as much as they care about who's going to fix the mess they're in.
People don't want to hear blame game. They want to hear which candidate has a plan to rejuvenate the US economy. That's why President Obama's statement in Roanoke hurts him so badly. Telling people that their hard work isn't as important as government goes against people's instincts.
President Clinton used to talk about how "people who work hard and play by the rules" should be able to succeed. The unmistakable focus was on people, not government. President Obama's focus is on funding government.
People don't care about funding the beast. They care about making life better for their families, whether they're white collar workers, miners, oil rig operators, truck drivers or service industry workers.
President Obama's economic focus is on the industries the environmentalists want. It isn't about creating opportunity where people are currently at. People want to succeed right where they are doing the things they want to do.
They aren't interested in the ideological checklist President Obama operates from. That's what makes messaging difficult for Democrats.
Tags: President Obama , Unemployment , Disability , Green Jobs , Blame Game , Bill Clinton , It's the Economy Stupid , Stan Greenberg , Democrats , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, July 23, 2012 3:14 AM
No comments.
Obamanomics: truly historic?
Early in his administration, President Obama frequently talked about taking unprecedented or historic steps to turn the economy around. Based on this article , President Obama might be right about 'accomplishing' something historic:
Analysts now expect revenue to grow at just 1 percent to 1.5 percent pace in the third quarter. The forecast for the fourth quarter is 3.9 percent, though Colas says "I doubt any analyst could defend this point of view unless they expect a rapidly weakening dollar...or a truly epic round of liquidity-pumping operations from the world's central banks."
A GDP of almost 4% in Q4 is only possible if a) people start thinking that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama and b) repeal of the ACA is imminent.
If it's a nailbiter of a race, expect the economy to slug along at 1 or 2% growth. Companies have indicated, quite clearly in fact, that they'll keep their money parked until Obama isn't president. They've sent the signal that they won't expand until they know their taxes won't skyrocket. Likewise, they've sent the signal that they won't lift a finger because they're worried about the ACA's regulations.
Otherwise, it's possible we'll have a second recession in a presidential term.
Treading water isn't what the American people are looking for. They want prosperity. Forget that. They're demanding prosperity. Each day, they're seeing that President Obama will only deliver "the new normal."
Tags: President Obama , Obamanomics , Recession , Unemployment , Regulations , ACA , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Repeal , Tax Cuts , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, July 23, 2012 4:18 AM
No comments.
Is Bill Nelson finished in Florida?
I'm usually not a big fan of the RCP polling averages because too many junk polls get included in their averages. That said, it's occasionally a good indicator of the state of specific races.
One of those races is the U.S. Senate race in Florida between Republican Connie Mack and Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson . In a rare instance of a trio of recent polls from highly qualified pollsters that sampled likely voters give us a strong indication of the state of the race.
SurveyUSA puts the race at Mack 48%, Nelson 42%. Mason-Dixon puts the race at Nelson 47%, Mack 42%. Finally, Rasmussen has it at Mack with 46%, Nelson at 37%. Each of these polls were within the past 2 weeks and sampled likely voters.
At this point, I wouldn't count this as a GOP gain but I'd certainly put it in the leans GOP gain column. If a former astronaut like Bill Nelson is having difficulty winning re-election in Florida, think what that says for President Obama's chances of winning Florida again.
At this point, Sen. Nelson is in trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if President Obama is, too.
Tags: President Obama , Bill Nelson , Florida , Democrats , Connie Mack , Polling , Likely Voters , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, July 23, 2012 10:55 AM
No comments.
