• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

The Dishonest Obama, the cold, friendless fish, IS NOT A LIKEABLE PERSON OR PRESIDENT

ONLY THE MAINSTREAM LEFTY PRESS AND THE NEW YORKER STUFFS WORSHIP OBAMASMILE OVER COMPETENCE, KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITY TO WORK WITH PEOPLE.

And now a few words from the Lefties at the New Yorker how Bama is going to win for another incompetent term guaranteeing  America sinks into financial chaos;

Obama’s Stumble: And Now for the Good News

Posted by       at the New Yorker

“About a month ago, I argued that it was time for President Obama’s supporters to get worried: his reëlection campaign was facing some big challenges. Since then, questioning Obama’s prospects has turned into a group sport, and so, naturally, I’m trying to look on the upside. After Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, in April, Romney had a good two months: nobody could dispute that. But he’s no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton—the last two challengers to defeat an incumbent. If the Obama campaign can settle on a consistent message, and if it gets a bit of luck with the economy, Romney should be eminently beatable.

Let’s start with the bad news: Karl Rove is smirking. A few weeks ago, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, he outlined a “3-2-1” strategy that could see Romney to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College. In addition to holding on to all the states that John McCain carried in 2008, the challenger needs to win back three traditional G.O.P. states: Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Then he needs to win two big states that are always tossups: Florida and Ohio. Finally, he needs to nab one other Obama-leaning state—such as Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada. Pointing to Obama’s low approval ratings and a general tightening of the race in the opinion polls, Rove wrote, “The odds now narrowly favor a Romney win.”

At the time, that seemed like G.O.P. bravado. But last night, the Republican Svengali figure was on Fox News gloating over the fact that Obama’s lead has now narrowed even in states he would expect to win, such as Oregon and Wisconsin. Romney’s “looking good in Colorado; Iowa’s up for grabs; the latest poll in Michigan is one point,” Rove said. “There are lots of places this race could go.”

That’s true enough, but reducing the race to a “3-2-1” sound bite makes Romney’s task appear misleadingly easy. Take the “3” part. It looks like Indiana will revert to the G.O.P. column. However, even after Obama’s shift on gay marriage, which was widely expected to hurt him in the South, he is still leading in Virginia by three or four percentage points, according to recent polls. Romney has a narrow lead in North Carolina, which I’ve suspected all along that he’d end up winning, but it’s too close to call. Then there’s Ohio, where Obama is still just ahead, and Florida, which appears to be tied. For the Rove strategy to succeed, Romney has to run the tables in these four states.

That’s possible. At this stage, though, it seems unlikely. Ultimately, everything depends on what happens at the national level: swing states almost always follow the overall trend. And the national polling data still offers some encouragement for Obama. Despite the poor jobs figures, which, together with Santorum dropping out, are what gave new life to the Romney campaign, Obama’s approval rating has held remarkably steady during the past couple of months. At the end of March, when the economy still seemed to be on the up, the Real Clear Politics poll average, which combines all the major surveys, put the President’s approval rating at 47.3 per cent and his disapproval rating at 47.6 per cent. Today, Obama’s approval rating is 48.3, and the disapproval rating is 47.8. Allowing for a bit of statistical noise, there hasn’t been any change in either figure since March.

Although there are no hard-and-fast rules, history suggests that an approval rating in the high forties puts an incumbent President in no-man’s land. It’s not high enough to assure his reëlection or low enough to assure his defeat. In May of their reëlection years, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, the last two Presidents to be defeated, had approval ratings of forty-one per cent and forty per cent in the Gallup poll. Obama’s approval rating in the same poll last month averaged forty-seven per cent—the same figure George W. Bush had at this stage in May, 2004, shortly before he easily defeated John Kerry. (In recent days, his approval rating in the Gallup tracker ticked up to fifty per cent. Today it is forty-nine per cent.) That’s the good news for Obama. However, in May, 1976, Gerald Ford also had an approval rating of forty-seven per cent in the Gallup poll, and he ended up losing to Jimmy Carter.

The message I take from these numbers is that Obama is still handily placed. Despite the efforts of the Republican attack machine to depict him as some sort of anti-American radical, most voters seems to like him personally. He scores highly for character, for understanding the concerns of ordinary Americans, and for representing their values. Lower gas prices are helping his cause, and so are the killings of senior Al Qaeda targets, Osama bin Laden included, which he will doubtless invoke again on Thursday, when he visits Ground Zero.

Deprived of their standard argument that the Democratic candidate is a wuss when it comes to national security, the Romney campaign and its allied Super PACs are seeking to portray Obama as an incompetent economic manager. This depiction clearly has some traction. Obama didn’t help himself the other day by speaking loosely about job creation in the private sector, which recently has been far from “fine.” But while the Romney campaign is successfully exploiting concerns about Obama’s stewardship of the economy, it is far from making the sale for its own candidate.

Romney is still Romney—a compromise candidate with a lot of baggage whom few Americans have great enthusiasm for. While his approval ratings have risen since March, they are still below Obama’s in most polls. Even on the economy, which is his trump card, he has yet to establish a consistent lead over the President. For example, the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll asked people whom they trusted more to do a better job handling the economy: forty-seven per cent said Romney and forty-six per cent said Obama. Asked whom they trusted more to create jobs, forty-seven per cent of respondents said Obama and forty-four per cent said Romney.

In short, the economic argument remains to be won. If Obama could somehow neutralize Romney’s strength in this arena, his advantages in other areas—the gender gap, the G.O.P.’s alienation of many Hispanics, his appeal to independents—could see him scrape through despite a weak economy. And if the economy were to pick up in the coming months, he would be virtually home free.

For this strategy to work, though, the Obama campaign needs to step up its game and settle on a clear and consistent message. Simply attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital and as governor of Massachusetts isn’t enough. The key to success is to wage a campaign not just against Mitt, who is something of a cipher, but against the entire Republican Party, which is widely (and correctly) seen as an extremist organization. How to do this will be the subject of my next post.”

Comment:   Cassidy ‘reports’ in his New Yorker essay:     “Romney is still Romney—a compromise candidate with a lot of baggage whom few Americans have great enthusiasm for.”

One thing is true.   Romney still will be Romney.    Compared to racist, Marxist, petulant, friendless, angry and revengeful, duplicitous, devious, devisive,  deceitful, dishonest and antiAmerican Barack Hussein Obama, I wonder what Romney  baggage Mr. Cassidy might be counting on…..his Mormonism?

Romney is winsome, likeable, friendly,  and unlike Hussein-Obama, doesn’t seem to know how to carry a grudge.   He clearly and honestly loves his country.    He gets along with others, and even works with his political opponents to work out compromises, a rather obvious occurence an traditional American governor must overcome in Marxist Massachusetts.

Governor Romney even believes in free enterprise and in the democratic process…..both an anethema to the black part of Barack Hussein Obama, the color he chose to gain advancements and  entitlements  in the Liberal American University  System of Racist Duplicity.

 

One Response

  1. honestly, when will this disgusting political polarization and hatred end? just honestly talk about issues. what’s with the name-calling? Give it a rest. The American people aren’t stupid.

Leave a comment