Story Of Obama

Another Ad Rebuttal

http://www.dickmorris.com/the-truth-about-obamas-positive-ad/

 

Romney To Win Undecideds
By DICK MORRIS

In a survey of 6,000 likely voters, including a special sample of 1,500 swing voters, taken May 5-11, I probed how Obama's attacks on Romney were likely to play in the general election.

As the economy declines and his chances for victory fade, President Obama is resorting to a virtually wall-to-wall negative campaign in a desperate effort to win reelection. It is vital that the Republicans answer these charges as they surface --one by one -- but what rebuttals will work?

Bain Capital

Obama's first broadcast negative ad attacks Romney for cutting jobs at Bain. The polling shows Romney can survive the hit by saying that "sometimes he succeeded in helping companies, and sometimes he failed." The key is to cite the Wall Street Journal study showing that 22 percent of the companies he helped went broke but 78 percent did fine. When Romney says, "780 is a good batting average in any league!" it rebuts the accusation effectively.

On the other hand, arguments about the need for a high return for investors, Obama's lack of experience at creating jobs or a defense of the economics of outsourcing do not work well.

Outsourcing

Early in the campaign, Obama released a negative ad aimed at criticizing Romney for outsourcing jobs to other countries while at Bain Capital. But when Republicans point out that General Motors, a federally owned company, outsources 160,000 of its 220,000 jobs worldwide, it blunts the criticism and turns it back on Obama.

Medicare, sure to be a key controversy in the election, would have been a big win for Obama were it not for his own Medicare cuts and Romney's repositioning on the issue.

The $500 billion cut the president imposed on Medicare turns off most of the voters who are suspicious of Republican cuts to the program. And when swing voters learn that Romney supports keeping the current Medicare system as an alternative to vouchers if the elderly opt for it, the proposal blunts the president's accusations that the GOP wants to slash the program.

But a key finding is that the GOP can avoid the false choice between slashing benefits and raising taxes on Medicare by focusing on expanding the number of doctors to avoid rationing and allowing lower costs through greater efficiency rather than by restricting coverage. By 52-25, swing voters embrace this option.

Oil-company Profits

From the start of the campaign, Obama has linked Romney to high oil-company profits. This attack is likely to be effective, since most swing voters blame oil companies -- rather than global markets -- for high gasoline prices and support repealing their tax breaks. But when you take the issue beyond mere class warfare and envy, it loses its sting.

The key is for Romney to explain that higher oil-company taxes will "only cut the money they have available for exploration and drilling" and to warn that doing so will "not cut, and might raise, gasoline prices." Swing voters break even on agreeing or disagreeing with this line of argument by 47-46.

To survive this issue, Romney needs to get beyond class warfare and evil oil companies and discuss the pragmatic impact of raising their taxes.

Buffett Rule

Swing voters agree with Obama's proposal that millionaires pay 30 percent of their income in taxes. But when told that Obama himself only pays 20 percent in taxes, it blunts the issue. The second rebuttal is to tell voters that the bill would garner only $70 billion to remedy a $3.7 trillion deficit. After learning this, most swing voters see the president's position as more motivated by getting votes than by cutting the deficit.

There is nothing in Obama's arsenal of negatives that Romney need fear as long as he rebuts each of the charges using the talking points polling suggests.

 

Rebuttal To Obama’s Negative Outsourcing Jobs Ad

http://www.dickmorris.com/rebuttal-to-obamas-negative-outsourcing-jobs-ad/

 

Gallup Poll: Pro-Choice Support Hits All-Time Low
By Henry J. Reske

The number of Americans identifying themselves as pro-choice has hit a record low of 41 percent while those identifying as pro-life now stands at 50 percent, according to a new Gallup poll.

The previous low for the pro-choice label was 42 percent recorded in May 2009, when Gallup also reported 51 percent identifying as pro-life. Gallup has been polling on the question since 1995, when 56 percent said they were pro-choice and 33 percent pro-life. The gap has narrowed over the years to a point where they are relatively close in polls.

The poll result was welcomed by anti-abortion supporters. "There is a growing uneasiness across America regarding the poorly regulated abortion industry and the presence of an abortion mandate and an abortion-inducing drug mandate in the healthcare law. Americans value life, and this poll reflects that," Kristi Hamrick of Americans United for Life told Newsmax.

"Americans are even more pro-life than the growing gulf illustrates in the Gallup poll," she added.

"During the healthcare debates we saw that 7 in 10 Americans — pro-life and pro-choice — did not want to see their tax monies going to subsidize abortion, and we've seen tremendous support for common sense limits on abortion, such as limiting abortion after 20 weeks because of the health risks to women of a late-term procedure and requirements to involve loving adults in the abortion decisions of young girls.

"We also know that when it comes to voting, those motivated to protect life vote 2 to 1 compared to those who want unfettered, unregulated abortion," Hamrick added.

"Americans share AUL's belief that everyone should be welcomed in life and protected in law."

Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today, the pollsters reported. “It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.”

Gallup, which polled 1,024 adults from May 3 through 6, has found that since 2001 Republicans have consistently reported being pro-life while independents have been closely divided on the issue since 2009.

“Democrats' views on abortion have changed the least over the past 12 years, with roughly 60 percent calling themselves pro-choice and about a third pro-life,” Gallup found.

In reporting the numbers, Gallup noted that abortion has factored into a number of significant news stories in the past year including congressional efforts to end funding for Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer group’s suspension of funding for the group. Additionally, the Obama administration’s attempt to mandate contraceptive coverage in health plans for religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and colleges also touched on abortion.

“Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear,” Gallup said.

“However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not.”

Gallup polling has found that Americans views on the legality of abortion has held steady in the last decade.

“Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views, established in 1975, asks Americans if abortion should be legal in all circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances,” Gallup wrote.

“Since 2001, at least half of Americans have consistently chosen the middle position, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, and the 52 percent saying this today is similar to the 50 percent in May 2011. The 25 percent currently wanting abortion to be legal in all cases and the 20 percent in favor of making it illegal in all cases are similar to last year’s findings.”

Gallup now plans to explore Americans' views on abortion in greater depth later this year, polling on such things as gender, age, and other demographic variables.

 

So if you are in the "middle position", are you pro or anti abortion?

 

I imagine it would take a more elaborate questionnaire to answer that. Many groups are against abortion except in case of danger to the mother, incest, rape etc, and other polls have looked into these numbers. I'm one of those who qualify their answer in that way too.

 

Excellent Video Documentary

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7y2KsU_dhwI?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7y2KsU_dhwI?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

 

I was trying to reconcile this,

"The previous low for the pro-choice label was 42 percent recorded in May 2009, when Gallup also reported 51 percent identifying as pro-life. Gallup has been polling on the question since 1995, when 56 percent said they were pro-choice and 33 percent pro-life. The gap has narrowed over the years to a point where they are relatively close in polls."

with this,

“Since 2001, at least half of Americans have consistently chosen the middle position, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, and the 52 percent saying this today is similar to the 50 percent in May 2011. The 25 percent currently wanting abortion to be legal in all cases and the 20 percent in favor of making it illegal in all cases are similar to last year’s findings.”

 

Figures don't lie: Democrats do
by Ann Coulter

It's been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: "Federal spending under Obama at historic lows ... It's clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we've had in 60 years." There's even a chart!

I'll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on ...

This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It's "science"! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed "the big myth" about Obama's spending: "This chart -- the truth -- very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly." And the truth was, the "growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents."

Note that Schultz also said that the "part of the chart representing President Obama's term includes a stimulus package, too." As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.

Schultz's guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: "And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president."

Everybody's keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: "Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama."

In response, three writers from "The Daily Show" said, "We'll never top that line," and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation's premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: "Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future." (I'm reviewing it soon, but you should start without me.)

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama's entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That's not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in ... Bush's column. (And if we attribute all of Bush's spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn't spend much either.)

Nutting's "analysis" is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama's spending. And he's testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama "is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill."

Nutting acts as if it's the height of magnanimity to "attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush ..."

On what possible theory would that be Bush's spending? Hey -- we just found out that Obamacare's going to cost triple the estimate. Let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting's "and not to Bush" line is just a sleight of hand. He's hoping you won't notice that he said "$140 billion" and not "$825 billion," and will be fooled into thinking that he's counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama's spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn't come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch's Nutting says that's Bush's spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn't need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president -- such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush's spending

Frustrated that he can't shift all of Obama's spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House's numbers, the White House's estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting's counting Obama's nine-month spending binge as Bush's spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won't they do?

 

The Election Gamble