Take a look at the picture above. It’s from a long time ago. A very long time ago. A time nearly 100 million years ago when the oceans covered portions of North America. Pay extra attention to the coast line that runs through modern day Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and the Carolinas.
The Deep South had a shoreline that curled through the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, and there, in the shallow waters just offshore, were immense populations of floating, single-celled creatures who drifted about, trapped sunshine, captured carbon, then died and sank to the sea bottom. Those creatures became long stretches of nutritious chalk. (I love chalk.) When sea levels dropped and North America took on its modern shape, those ancient beaches — so alkaline, porous and rich with organic material — became a “black belt” of rich soil, running right through the South.
…
And because this stretch was so rich and fertile, when cotton farmers moved here in the 19th century, this stretch produced the most cotton per acre. Harvests of 4,000-plus bales were common here. Notice that the most productive plantations mirror the ancient coastline.
Then came slavery.
McClain, quoting from Booker T. Washington’s autobiography, Up From Slavery, points out: “The part of the country possessing this thick, dark and naturally rich soil was, of course, the part of the South where the slaves were most profitable, and consequently they were taken there in the largest numbers.” After the Civil War, a lot of former slaves stayed on this land, and while many migrated North, their families are still there.
I have to admit that I tuned into the debate late; I was watching the football game and only was able to play catch up. Additionally, I admit to being a member of the “Ryan is going to kick his ass” club after the Romney-Obama debate last week.
That said. Here Goes.
Biden won.
The take away from the Presidential debate was that Obama didn’t call out Romney on perceived lies and that he didn’t exert himself in regards to the moderator. Further, I get the feeling that folks didn’t think that Obama “spoke to them.”
Biden delivered on all accounts. Joe was aggressive, he called bullshit when he saw it [right or wrong] and he drove the conversation. Further, it is clear, starkly clear, that Biden has two advantages over Ryan:
He is incredibly more comfortable in the rough and tumble debate format than Ryan.
His foreign policy experience dwarfs Ryan’s.
Obama was criticized for letting Romney control the conversation, for “lying” and for being less than aggressive. Biden rang the bell on all counts.
I think people will resonate with that.
With that said, Biden looked like a fool; he was openly laughing and smirking the entire time. He played the part of the ass. It turned me off, but the rest of the folks? We’ll see.
Going into Wednesday last week Romney had experienced a series of perceived setbacks. The video of Romney talking to high dollar donors about the 47% certainly played into Obama’s attempt to characterize him as a member of the rich white guy club. This only contributed to the continued bad press Romney was generating for his critique of the White House during the Libya crisis.
Romney was having a hard time of it.
People said his only hope was the debate. However, there was little belief that Romney would even win the debate much less win it by enough to influence polls:
The overwhelming odds on favorite was Obama heading into the debate. While I favored Romney, he has better ideas and isn’t hampered by Obama’s habit of “aaahhhhing” everything, I thought the win wouldn’t matter. Further, I was sure that the polls would suggest Obama won regardless of what I thought.
I was wrong:
It wasn’t just “not close” it was historical. Never before has a debate been so lopsided as this one. From the opening bell to the final round Romney completely dominated Obama. There wasn’t even one time where Obama even looked like he might rally and make a showing of it. The night was completely and wholly Romney’s.
Obama’s fate was sealed when he issued this advise to the moderator:
You might wanna switch topics Jim.
Even Obama knew this was a disaster.
However, what NO ONE could have anticipated was the impact this debate would have on the race. As I mentioned, Romney came into last week’s contest behind, way behind. And today…? Today’s he’s not only closed the gap, he’s leading:
Romney has moved ahead of Obama.
This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has the ability to be objective. Obama has been an abject failure. His policies haven’t led to prosperity, they’ve led to a suppressed recovery. His policies overseas are failing, or worse, are undefined to the point that success or failure can’t be determined.
Last week we saw what happens when a life long community organizer goes up against a successful CEO.
I have to admit, I’ve had times in my career when I’ve had to try and explain away something horrible. So I resonate with the feeling.
But this is just painful:
The only thing that would have increased the “richness” quotient would have been for Gore to blame Global Warming for the Presidents ass kicking last night.
The elections of 2010 continue to have consequences. One of the biggest of those is the passage of voter ID laws across the nation. In general, I have no issue with the concept of having to prove you are who you say you are. In fact, it’s my belief that if you make rules limiting the age, the residence or the number of times an individual can vote, it should be a requirement to validate proof of identification.
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law
Pennsylvania is just one of those states that have enacted such laws. In fact, the law is set to go into effect in time for this election cycle in November, just 5 weeks away. The law, and especially the timing, has drawn the ire of liberals all over the country.
The law requires:
That people show either a state driver’s license, government employee ID or a state non-driver ID card in order to vote on November 6.
Again, by itself, the law is perfectly reasonable in my mind and, in fact, should have been enacted long long ago.
Judge Rules To Halt Law
However, while the requirement to display valid ID is a good one, the judge has ruled that the law imposed significant hurdles in obtaining the proper ID before election time and was unreasonable in its timeline.
In short, the law stands but won’t take effect for the upcoming election.
I agree with the judge on this one. The idea of the law is that we protect the sanctity of the voting process. Given that we have been faced with lax laws regarding this for decades, one more election isn’t going to result in a result incongruous with past elections. However, if the law was passed in order to affect the outcome of THIS election, then I have an issue with an unstated voter restriction for the very specific purpose of electing a specific candidate.
Crunch time is right around the corner. Soon September will give way to October and then it’s only one month until the election. I don’t think we can call it over, but the polls are certainly pointing to the end of the horse race.
Are The Polls Correct
This, of course, is the $20,000 question. With all of the polling coming in right now the question that’s burning up the inter-tubes is this:
Are the polls telling the right story or are they just pulling for Obama?
I tend to believe two things:
Journalists are, by nature, liberal.
We all allow bias into our belief systems.
There is no grand conspiracy.
Okay, so that’s three, but still. I do think that people who conduct polls are human, that as humans they are subject to their tribalism and yet still they try to remain objective. I simply don’t believe that these pollsters are in cahoots with one another in order to bring about an Obama 2nd term.
Is Rasmussen Right
Of all the major polling outfits, only Rasmussen has Romney ahead or even close. Every other poll is showing Obama up slightly or even by 7. So, is Rasmussen overly partisan or do they have a secret?
A professor at Fordham University went back and checked. Of the 23 polls conducted only two were wight on the money; Pew and – you guessed it – Rasmussen. Whatever those folks are doing over there, agree or not, they did a heck of a job last time around.
And even more than that, the 3 polls that over estimated the republican ticket were still in the top 7.
Instead of arguing that Rasmussen is too far off on the Romney side I’d make the argument that the other polls are further off on the Obama side.
I’ve been away for awhile. Life has been busy and I thought it was a good time to step away from the files of the Tarheel. However, during that time I have been paying attention and it’s hard to ignore the fact that since the conventions, the terror attacks in Libya and Romney’s comments regarding the 47%, Obama has been surging in the polls. And I’ve thought about Romney’s comments.
Why The Negative Reaction
I listened to the words Romney used that night at his fundraiser. And I remember I cringed. I was disappointed that Romney had been taped like this and his views “revealed.” And as I watched the reaction on the news and in the media, my fears were confirmed – disaster.
Since then I’ve thought about it. And I’ve come to this conclusion:
Romney was RIGHT!
There are, absolutely positively ARE, people who make a living identifying the handouts and the give-aways provided by the government and will vote to keep those benefits coming. Some of these folks, to be sure, are aware that this is a gravy train and are just going to ride it for as long as they can. And then there are others that really, honestly feel that they are entitled to these benefits from their government. They feel that they are entitled to food and to a home and to clothing and to medical care. That by simply breathing, these things are owed to them.
And these people will vote for Obama.
The reason for this reaction from the left? Because it’s TRUE!
Who Isn’t The 47 Percent
Romney isn’t stupid. And his number is correct; 47% of America doesn’t pay a federal income tax. And further, if asked, he would know and admit that of that 47% some folks are retired seniors living on social security. Some are veterans who’ve served their country. Of course he knew that. And of course he knows that he isn’t referring to that demographic.
When you hear a conservative remark with disdain that group of people who don’t pay taxes and live off the government, the image isn’t one of a tired old warrior resting after years of service. Nor is it one of grandma rocking to the tunes of the Grand ol Opre while knitting her most recent baby blanket.
No, the image is that of the individual who claims unemployment while not looking for a job. The image of that person is one of the single mother with more than 3 kids, never having been married and not even looking to make life for her family better. The image is that of the moocher.
Romney isn’t talking about the soldier or grandma.
And he’s right. The folks he’s invoking are going to vote for Obama.
Who Is Left
Romney isn’t admitting anything controversial. There isn’t a single person that’s going to disagree with the fact that the chronic dependent of government isn’t going to vote for more government. So, who is Romney going after? He’s going after the middle. The independent voter who isn’t trapped by the siren song of the check and is capable of thoughtful independent decision making.
He’s going after that 10% in the middle. He’s acknowledging that he’s got 45 in the bag for him, he’s got 45% against him and he needs to resonate with those not yet committed. And for whatever reason, people think that because Romney said this in a private meeting with large dollar donors that this is somehow a sin.
What Should Romney Do Now
Sing it from every rooftop and street corner that’ll have him. Romney needs to create an image of a strong candidate that has the conviction of his beliefs. Make the left challenge him, make the democrats attack his position. And then hammer ’em. We DO have a moocher class. We KNOW they’ll vote for anyone who enables their life. And any reasonable person wants to REDUCE the number of that population.
I’ll have that debate any day. Let someone tell me that we wanna increase those on food stamps and I’ll call ’em a fool. We wanna increase the number of folks receiving Section 8? I’ll take them to task for creating a dependency lifestyle without creating an incentive to strive for a life of dignity where an individual is capable of caring for themselves.
Bring me the democrat that makes the argument we want more people receiving these entitlements and I’ll show you a winning argument.
Sing it Romney; Sing it to everyone who’ll hear ya!
In 1948 the Chicago Tribune printed a headline announcing that Dewey had defeated Truman. History shows, of course, that Truman was victorious. I resonate with this feeling as we enter the final stretches of the 2012 election. And to rely even more on historical anecdote, I’ll cal upon the old Nixon rag, “I can’t believe he won. No one I know voted for him.”
This is where I find myself now. I’m surrounded by everyone that thinks Obama will win. But I know only a few people who will vote for him.
Will Obama Win The Election
Everyone I know feels that Obama is going to win the election this fall. This includes the folks I talk to that are Obama supporters as well as those who are Romney supporters. Obama is going to win.
But.
Very few people I know are going to vote for Obama. And this includes a significant number of people who voted for the President last election.
Who Will Win The States
Obviously the election will come down to individual states and who will win the electoral votes. And that’s where it gets interesting. National polls showing such and such ahead are fun but in the end, not very useful. A more accurate view of who is going to win comes down to who wins each state.
A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.
The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.
“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.
Based on the individual state economies, Obama loses to Romney. Obama isn’t able to overcome the unemployment levels that have dominated the experience of voters in states all over the nation.
Will Obama win? I continue to think so. However, “no one I know is going to vote for him.”
I’ve listened to the Mother Jones video several times now – I just listened to it again – and I don’t hear a controversy. I don’t hear anything inflammatory. I don’t hear one word said in malice or with the intent to hurt anyone. And I certainly don’t hear anything not true.
Nearly Half of Americans Don’t Pay Federal Income Tax
In the Mother Jones video Romney makes the claim that 47% of Americans don’t pay a federal income tax. He’s right, or at least he was right when he made the claim. In 2011 that number was only 46%, but in 2010 the percentage of Americans not paying the tax was 47%. Just like Romney said.
According to the CBO, in aggregate, the poorest 60% of us don’t pay a federal income tax. Worse, the top quintile, the wealthiest 20%, pay more than 94% of federal incomes taxes according to the most recent numbers in 2009.
Like it or not, the campaign season is a time for candidates to differentiate themselves from their opponent. Further, each candidate who is not the incumbent – in this case Romney – is going to posture himself as Presidential. It might seem that each candidate is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.
Mitt Romney Responds To Obama Administration
Mitt Romney’s Response To The Obama Administration
On Tuesday, September 11, two separate American embassies were attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 American’s including the American Ambassador to Libya. Mitt Romney, attempting to demonstrate a difference between himself and Obama, used the developing situation as a foil.
At around 10:00 PM EDT Romney issues a statement:
I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
The response that Romney was referring to?
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
Was Romney right? Is this response appropriate or not?
The answer – It depends.
The Embassy Attack Timeline
It all depends on the timeline of events. For example, I was off-line most of yesterday afternoon and only this morning woke up to the news of the attack. Upon hearing of the Egyptian embassy release I had two thoughts:
When protestors are attacking your location, you don’t issue statements that legitimatize those attacking you.
Knowing that protestors had already murdered 4 embassy staff in Libya, the Egyptian staff may simply have been acting to save their lives.
It’s clear that there is confusion surrounding the events of the situation in Egypt and that such confusion colored the context of the Cairo statement. For example, if we believe that the embassy in Cairo released their statement long before the attack on the embassy, their message is better phrased. However, if their statement is released AFTER the attacks on the Cairo embassy, their statements are grossly irresponsible.
And I think both Romney and Obama were confused by the timing of the statement.
The Politics of Cairo and Libya Attacks
It’s no secret that Romney has little if any foreign relations experience. Obama is going to, he has to, use this in his critique of the governor. However, most candidates for the office of President have that exact same knock against them. This would include our sitting President Barack Obama when he was a contender just 4 years ago. That being said, Romney is anxious to demonstrate that he has a firm grasp on matters foreign. Enter the Mideastern violence.
To further complicate matters, Romney and Obama are not only working to manage the chaotic real time events overseas, but they are also keeping an eye on the “campaign ball.” I feel that had both Romney and Obama been less concerned with that campaign and more concerned with providing leadership, remaining calm in a very charged circumstance and gathered all facts, neither the administration or the Romney camp issued their remarks. See, at 11:00 PM, the Obama administration distanced itself from the Cairo embassy remarks. In fact, they mentioned that they do not represent the United States. Here, Obama is making the same mistake Romney makes; they are confused by the timing of the statement. Seen in the calm of day, the statement issued by Cairo are completely appropriate. Further, adding that the statements don’t reflect the United States government only adds to the confusion coming from the United States. If an embassy doesn’t represent the government, what is its role?
When the administration issued it’s statement on Cairo at 11:00 pm, I suspect that Romney felt more confident that the Cairo statement was issued AFTER the violence and not many hours before. This mistake, now seen to be true, leads to his remarks that the administration is, in essence, apologizing. I feel relatively confident that Romney was acting on facts as he thought they were and not twisting the timeline to his political favor. However, the light of day indeed showed his statements to be inaccurate.
Mitt Romney Remarks on Libya and Cairo
Notice Romney standing before a blue background framed by the American flags. Clearly an attempt to appear Presidential. Romney takes the tone of the gentle leader. He’s reporting to America and is trying to show he’s present and managing the situation.
He speaks to the following:
Issues condolences
Issues statement on American’s stance on values
Critiques the Obama administration on the handling of the events
Embraces the Arab Spring and the potential it has
Takes questions
My thoughts on his statements:
He completes the reassuring leader role very well.
At 3:25 he’s asked a question surrounding his statement from the night before. I think he knows the facts now but doesn’t own up to the fact. This is where he’s clearly weak and wrong.
He doubles down on the mistake by referring to Cairo’s statement as an apology.
When pushed further on this point, Romney acknowledges that the administration had the exact same reaction that he did. In this, he’s right. Both Obama and Romney were confused at the timing of Cairo’s statements and Tweets.
At 4:50 Romney is pushed to explain that if both he and Obama took the exact same reaction, what did the White House do wrong. Here is where Romney gathers steam. He’s right when he claims that Cairo is part of Obama’s administration. He’s right to say that a leader has to take responsibility for his administration. It’s in this understand of “how things work” that Obama’s critic are correct in leveling the claim that Obama has no leadership experience. That this is apparent to a 2nd level manager and not to the President of the United States is frightening.
Again he mentions apology. He slips and is weak by doing that.
When asked if it’s appropriate to engage in politics when the events are ongoing. His answer is powerful.
He correctly brushes off the trap of hypothetical nonsense.
He’s asked to define his foreign policy. And does so very well. The first “branch” as he calls it is to have “Confidence in our cause.” I think that he hits a home run with this one. Obama’s critics, e among them, distrust the President greatly. We don’t believe that Obama appreciates the things that makes America great. We think that he resents the abuses America has perpetuated around the world. And if Romney can verbalize the feeling we have, put brackets around this mistrust, he’ll make significant inroads.
Romney made some mistakes, however, those mistakes were made by both Obama and Romney. But his morning press interview went very well.
One last thing, Obama has a reputation for being a strong speaker. I’ve never felt that. I think he delivers a strong speech and can move audiences but his ability to speak succinctly in an ad hoc situation is horrible. Notice that Romney never pauses, hhmms or haws or takes time to struggle with his next words. He’s confident and clear in what he’s trying to say.
