Sandy and the presidential election

From Fox News, a surprising metric from exit polls. They write:

Many analysts felt that the arrival of Hurricane Sandy gave the president a boost last week by allowing him to display leadership in front of the American people, as well as taking away valuable campaigning days from Gov. Romney.

###

Chris Christie’s bear hug didn’t help either.

President Obama in his acceptance speech:

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,”

Read the full transcript

Looks like “dirty weather” is here to stay because the public just can’t see past this monstrous fabrication. “Tabloid climatology” may be a new career path for many.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Sandy and the presidential election

  1. GeoLurking says:

    What can you say. Stupid is as Stupid Does.

    Welcome to Venezuela.

  2. CJ says:

    We need to face the facts, it’s not 47% as Romney indicated, it’s over 50%. We’re finished…

  3. SamG says:

    Yep…that’s representative democracy for you.

    Populist candidates beget stupid voters.

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Wow. Maybe He can change the climate…

    /sarc

  5. temp says:

    All meaningless junk. The election was set long before the vote. The only question now is what numbers will they use for obama’s 2016 reelection victory.

  6. aharris says:

    How far have we fallen that what people see in a mere four days completely erases the evidence of four long years? We’re close to the Ministry of Truth territory here.

  7. Harold Ambler says:

    Sandy and its political aftermath = a living nightmare.

    In retrospect, it wouldn’t have hurt for Romney to take fewer punches to the chin during the third debate and to have landed a few haymakers himself. In particular, it is unfathomable that he did not demand an hour-by-hour accounting regarding Benghazi.

    For instance, Romney might have asked the President:

    1. “Would you have gone to bed rather than the Situation Room if the consulate had been in Britain rather than Libya?”

    2. “At what time — or on what date date — did you first speak to a general about Benghazi?”

    3. “At what time — or on what date — did you first speak to Hillary Clinton about the Benghazi attack? Did you speak to her before going to bed on the night of the attack?”

    4. “Did you personally brief and/or speak with Ambassador Rice prior to her circuit of the Sunday morning television programs during which she falsely attributed the attack to a spontaneous response to a video rather than an act of carefully planned terrorism?”

    5. “Are you comfortable with the decision to leave Washington for a campaign stop in Las Vegas less than 24 hours after our ambassador was slain?”

    I am surprised that candidates don’t try to ask more questions of each other generally, but I am particularly perplexed in this case.

    I even think it would have been worth bringing in notes in this case.

    Still cannot believe that the supposedly unimportant issue of climate change may have handed Obama a second term at the last minute. Cannot believe it. Can’t.

  8. mycroft..shared winning of nobel peace prize, EU resident, says:

    If we ever need the next batch FOIA,its now. Obama will try to continue the lie.The warmist around the planet must have given a massive sigh of relief when the results came in.Skeptics a groan of dismay…but we will battle on throwing the fake science and blantant propaganda back in their faces…And mother natures on our side

  9. Michael says:

    And Romney couldn’t run a coherent campaign with policies so thin on details that opponents could say anything they like about what he was going to do as President.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    People are naturally caring towards victims of natural events. Such solidarity is natural. If anything gave Obama a boost, it was nature, including human nature.

  11. Dalcio Dacol says:

    [snip - off topic]

  12. Olavi says:

    Do you really believe, that selfish multimillionaire like Romney is, would be better to USA as nation? Better for average person? While he thinks that all the money should be in rich people’s pokets. Only one thing in Obamas policy is bothering me. His belief in AGW.

  13. Sam the First says:

    I’m sure Sandy did have a big effect, given that Romney had aired an intention to privatise FEMA not long before. And trying to educate these people is a terrible uphill battle.

    A very old friend in the US – an Obama activist – posted some inane video from YouTube on my FB page a couple of days ago, purporting to show Romney was crazy to say that Sandy had nothing to do with global warming. I have no time for Romney as a man, but I countered with several links so that my friend could educate himself (and his friends) regarding this fallacy; two of the links were from here.

    He promptly removed me from his page, and this is someone I’ve known since 1970. The AGW thesis is so closely allied with their core beliefs, they utterly refuse to educate themselves in Scientific realities. Fingers in ears and ‘lalalalalalallaa’ seems to be the usual response – I despair.

  14. Before Gallup stopped polling due to the storm, its likely voter screen produced a five point lead for Romney, down from six. When it resumed polling (Nov 1-4), Romney’s LV lead fell to one point, while the survey found Obama ahead by three points among registered voters. In the actual election, Obama won by two points.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx

    So there probably was a significant drop off in support for Romney during the days of Sandy & her immediate aftermath. To what extent this was due to the storm & consequent coverage of course is hard to say, but it was real. Rove said that among women in CO, for instance, viewing Obama on the shore decided them for him, or made them switch. A female voter I saw interviewed in NH exit polling also gave his response as a reason, too, among others. No doubt men too were swayed.

    What added effect the disgruntled prospective Veep candidate Christie’s ursine embrace may have had, who knows?

    Romney’s support was already softening, however, possibly related to the later debates & further off-putting to moderates remarks by MO & IN US Senate candidates Akin & Mourdock. Not to mention media minimizing & covering up Benghazi.

    Romney had to swim upstream, but the race was winnable. As it stands now, a switch from Obama to Romney of about 144,000 voted in four states (with FL) would have changed the result (depending upon recounts). But that close would have been a nightmare like 2000, only on paranoia inducing drugs.

  15. Jeremy says:

    The way that 30 million were persuaded to vote early and that the incumbent administration was able to rally 10’s of thousands of volunteers to go round knocking on doors and making sure the politically correct people voted is but a small step on the path towards Obama’s version of CHAVEZISM.

    Despite the dismal economic track record or perhaps BECAUSE of the dismal economic track record – OBAMUNISM – big government protecting the little people against evil capitalism – is here to say.

    Americans can say good bye to freedom and prosperity….

  16. Mark Hladik says:

    Hope everyone enjoyed the last election ever to be held in the United States.

  17. garymount says:

    I’ll make this short, I’ve started studying Mandarin. And I’m not kidding.

  18. DGH says:

    C’mon It would take Michael Mannematics to tease out a correlation between Obama’s victory and Hurricane Sandy.

    Obama’s win was decisive. He won both the popular vote and the electoral college. The Dems will pick up 8 seats in the House and they will increase their control in the Senate.

    A mandate? No. A clear signal? Clear as a bell. I only hope the Republican leaders aren’t tone deaf.

  19. Doug says:

    The American people spoke. They elected a person who is misguided on global warming, but that is no reason not to respect democracy. If you know of a better system, I’d like to hear about it.

    Railing against our constitutional government in action just damages the credibility of this fine site.

  20. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    “that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet” Wow. Paint an impossibly gloomy picture, why dontcha. Give yourself a out in the process.

  21. G. Karst says:

    As soon as Sandy turned and hit the coast, I turned to the wife and said “Forget the polls, it will be 4 more years of Obama”.

    But that is all water under the bridge. The important question for this forum is: What effect will another Obama term have on Climate dictated policy? Can skepticism survive 4 more years of institutional propaganda and government bias? Some prognostication please. GK

  22. Dennis says:

    No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public – H.L. Menken.

  23. temp says:

    Dalcio Dacol says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:40 am

    Please put down the propaganda and step away…

  24. Bad Apple says:

    Roy: There’s only two of us now.
    Pris: Then we’re stupid and we’ll die.

    This exchange from Blade Runner sums it up for me. It no longer matters who or what is right, it only matters how badly outnumbered you are.

  25. Vince Causey says:

    I was listening to CNN cover the election last night, and up popped a slot asking whether hurricane Sandy has brought climate change back into politics. Opposite the anchor was sitting former EPA head C Todd Whitman (I think). The anchor showed a short clip of Romney’s rally when a heckler started shouting out “What about the climate?” completely interrupting Romney’s speech. Unsurprisingly, Romney supporters started shouting back: “USA, USA.”

    Then the anchor asked something absolutely extraordinary. She asked why Romney supporters started heckling the guy who was shouting “climate change.” She was aghast that they were heckling the heckler! “Doesn’t that show their disdain for climate change?” she quipped.

    Is this what counts for an objective opinion these days? Suppose a heckler broke into Obama’s rally and started shouting for his birth certificate. Would the anchor express disdain that the supporters jumped on his case?

    Just for the record, Whitman replied that they weren’t shouting him down because they were against his views on climate change – they just wanted to listen to Romney.

  26. G. Karst says:

    Btw: Are not hurricanes still classified as an “Act of God”… just asking? GK

  27. Monty says:

    As I said in an earlier post, it’s ironic if Sandy did just tip the balance. Maybe the Republicans will come to their senses and start being grown up about AGW. It’s clear that the debate is changing. You wouldn’t want to be seen as irrelevant now, would you?

  28. President Obama said in his acceptance speech, ““We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt,”

    ? Was the speech written by Lewis Carroll?

    – MJM

  29. arthur4563 says:

    Since nobody asked, I’ll be glad to give my opinion of why the GOP has lost the last two Presidential elections. Both in 2008 and this year, their nominating system produced a Presidential nominee who did not have the wholehearted support of their own party – neither
    McCain nor Romney had more than a quarter of the party’s support. And the reason this came about was because the GOP fielded almost a dozen prospective candidates, all of whom were conservatives except for one guy – in this case Romney – and the overwhelming conservative majority was split 10 or more ways, allowing a guy with less than 30% support from GOP party members to win a lot of winner-take-all primaries and get the nomination. The winner-take-all system is allowing this ridiculous situation to occur and those types of primaries should be banned. The GOP paid the price for using a non-democratic method of choosing their candidate. From my perspective, Gingrich was the only talent the GOP had in the primary field and was clearly the only one who could energize his party and make clear and forceful arguments that resonated. You have to convince the voters why your ideas are better and Gingrich was the only convincing speaker the GOP had. But there were so many candidates that he was often provided little opportunity to be heard during the debates.

  30. Juan Slayton says:

    Hooray! California Proposition 39 passed, so now our bankrupt state has more money (to spend on clean energy).

  31. Juan Slayton says:

    Ok, it swallowed my ‘/sark’

  32. pyromancer76 says:

    Yes, H Sandy interrupted Romney’s momentum, but did it affect Florida’s vote or Colorado’s? Did it cause 3 mill fewer “Republican” voters to turn out for Mitt than for McCain? (This one astonishes me.) Was the immediate problem H Sandy or did the administration-controlled press give Obama a photo-op and then refuse to follow-up with investigation into his heartlessness and “his” (fed gov) agencies’ pitiful inadequacies in helping people destroyed by the disaster.

    As to C Christy. Egotists rule in his book. He saw an advantage and he took it. Why Romney made him keynote speaker at the Rep Conv is beyond me — and omitted Palin and Huckabee.
    Big tent?

    I am a former Democrat (classical liberal) who has great difficulty with “conservative’s” moralism and holier-than-thou attitude — toward women and abortion (strictly limit it, but leave women choice over their own bodies and lives); toward immigrants, most of whom come here to work and work hard they do (we are a nation of immigrants; and yes, they might desire too much of a government handout, but they are good people); toward homosexuals having a dignified place and partnership rights (not defined as “marraige” is my preference); toward those who are not “Christians” but believe in Western Civilization as something that freedom-loving people (human beings, not a god) have fought for across the generations. Most of these are areas that Obama went small and ugly about, but he spoke to “individuals” with needs and desires.

    Big question: will AGW “agencies”and grant funding slowly be defunded? Will H Sandy be seen as a circumstance of weather? The nation seems very narrowly divided.

  33. Gary Pearse says:

    Ya know, Republicans serious about getting into the Whitehouse are going to have to stop pandering to their own nut fringe. Go for good government, business-like economic policies and the like that are a strength and forget the antidiluvian stuff. Hey, horrors of horrors, maybe a safety net health care system is a good idea (certainly repubs lose votes over it). The cost and violence in America re the war on drugs even has a sensible solution (that the fringe won’t like). Buy the Afghan heroin crop by outbidding the Taliban and offer to pay them $1.00 per stick of asparagus in the future. Same with the Columbians. Legalize marijuana and collect a marijuana tax – even let your own farmers profit. Give addicts a free shot. This will remove the incentive for organized crime, starve out the Taliban, and chop law enforcement budgets by hundreds of billions – hey you will make a profit on it. The fringe will vote for you anyway – what’s their choice. I hope I haven’t awakened too many angry beasts.

  34. Vince Causey says:

    Did Hurricane Sandy help Obama? Of course. Was it decisive? I don’t think so. Romney was already hamstrung by having flip-flopped from moderate to right wing (to win the primaries) to moderate again. Too much right wing evangelical baggage, and endorsing people like Mourdock didn’t help his campaign either.

    Going forward, Obama’s mention of a warming planet (after having maintained a Trappist like silence on the subject) is an ominous sign. He doesn’t control the house, of course, but does control the EPA, and the legal challenges have already been made (and lost). The next few years will be interesting, but the Chinese saying “may you live in interesting times” was meant as a curse not a blessing. We shall see.

  35. stephen richards says:

    Olavi says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Do you really believe, that selfish multimillionaire like Romney is, would be better to USA as nation? Better for average person? While he thinks that all the money should be in rich people’s pokets. Only one thing in Obamas policy is bothering me. His belief in AGW.

    You obviously know nothing about Romney. If you said the oppposite of what you say here you would be nearer the truth but not near enough. Romney gave his inheritance to charity, all of it. He has donated $30 million over the years. Biden and Obama. Last year Biden gave $215. Obama $00000.

    Get the facts. Engage the brain before opening the mouth the result will always be better.

  36. page488 says:

    I drove through the projects last night —– big block party. Obama money for all!

    I am just sick.

  37. SamG says:

    Had Romney discussed substantive issues rather than fluff, he would have decimated Obama. The empirical evidence for rebuking his presidency was within his grasp. But it just goes to show that the commission on presidential debates and the establishment, eschew any contentious issues like debt, war, civil liberties and and the imminent crash of America, caused by central economic planners and the two centre left political factions. Romney just looks like another creepy backward conservative, while Obama gets to make another of his ridiculous sentimental Americana speeches and peddle all that progressive shit about blacks Hispanics and gays. The fact that he got away with that rhetoric a second time beggars belief. Are people really that stupid?
    I’m not saying Romney’s any better but at least be half as gullible.

    In honour of Obama’s re-election, here’s Doug Casey on what to expect in the coming years ;-)

  38. beesaman says:

    It will be fascinating to watch Obama and the Democrats (socialists) trying to negotiate with people they can’t stand, the Republicans (capitalists). Well he’s not been able to do it over the last four years. Get ready for more EPA like laws being brought in undemocratically…

  39. Alan the Brit says:

    Mark Hladik says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Hope everyone enjoyed the last election ever to be held in the United States.

    Well, certainly the last open & free election for a while. We have General Elections every 5 years max, sometimes the incumbent Prime Minister will take a snap election in 4 years if the signs are right, it’s a gamble but can increase majority rule, but you usually need a war in the South Atlantic for that. However, in the last 15 years it hasn’t really mattered who we voted for, we are simply exchanging one bunch of half-wits for another, we live in the PDREU or UESR I don’t mind which term is used, they’re the same post-democratic bureaucratic leviathons, accountable to nobody, like your EPA! Enjoy it while it lasts chaps & chapesses!

  40. Keith AB says:

    pyromancer76 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:18 am (Edit)

    ” . . toward immigrants, most of whom come here to work and work hard they do (we are a nation of immigrants; and yes, they might desire too much of a government handout, but they are good people) . . ”

    —————————————————————-

    Hi, please forgive me asking this but I am genuinely trying to understand this stance on illegal immigration.

    If I, as a white western middle aged professional civil engineer, have to apply for a visa before I can even visit America on holiday and jump through the most amazing number of hoops to apply for a work permit or a green card with very little chance of success, why should someone who walks in over the Southern border be given the right to settle? If you really do believe that America is a nation of immigrants and that is her strength why have immigration controls at all?

    If I was to fly into Mexico and then walk across the Rio Grande into Texas without being caught would it then be OK for me to settle in the USA. I ask as serious guy who would love to move to the states, so much so that I would do so tomorrow if at all possible. It just seems strange that all liberals would allow unrestricted illegal immigration from the South yet support strict immigration controls on those coming from the old world.

    Would liberals support unrestricted immigration from anywhere in the world because that is really what this tolerance and acceptance of illegal economic migrants is. Would that be in the best interests of the USA.

  41. dp says:

    Big Government – the gift that keeps on giving. In this case, a gift for people who are bad at math.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-may-levy-carbon-tax-to-cut-the-u-s-deficit-hsbc-says.html

  42. Gail Combs says:

    Olavi says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Do you really believe, that selfish multimillionaire like Romney is, would be better to USA as nation?
    _______________________
    As far as I am concerned Romney is Obamalite. He was marketed as a ‘Venture Capitalist’ but he was not. He was a ‘Corporate Raider’.

    The difference is a real venture capitalist risks his OWN WEALTH when he funds start-ups or failing businesses. A ‘Corporate Raider’ borrows printed on the spot funny fiat money as bank loans using the corporate assets as collateral. He uses assets in a corporation HE DOES NOT OWN to borrow the freshly printed $$$ and grab controlling ownership. In other words the banks and the raider make out big time by acquiring real concrete assets (Real Wealth) they did not own by trading it for worthless paper. See link and link and http://www.leveragedloan.com/consolidated-container-readies-370m-term-loan-backing-lbo-by-bain/ Rebuttal of sorts: http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-bain-bailout-not-quite.html

    Unfortunately we were never given a real choice as usual. I only voted for Romney because a President NOT SEEKING re-election is a heck of a lot more dangerous. He has nothing to loose by screwing the American people and everything to gain by pleasing the power-brokers who are in a position to reward him well in the future.

  43. the overwhelming conservative majority was split 10 or more ways, allowing a guy with less than 30% support from GOP party members to win a lot of winner-take-all primaries and get the nomination.

    So why doesn’t the party institute instant-runoff voting in its primaries (where possible), so the ideological majority can converge on a single candidate?

  44. Gene says:

    Obama won the same way Chicago politicians have won for years. Handing out money. Sandy was just another opportunity. He’s been handing out checks to the tune of trillions a year for four years. He hasn’t even attempted to pass a budget as that might have put some cap on the slush funds. The worst part is that he still controls the Senate and will soon own the Supremes with two near retirement. Not much hope for change.

  45. Snotrocket says:

    Jimmy Haigh November 7, 2012 at 6:25 am says:
    Wow. Maybe He can change the climate…/sarc

    The thing is, I’ve heard in the last few days that members of the UK Parliament figure that we will have to change the climate. Which sentiment raises the rather awkward question: what if it were possible for scientists to change the climate – and they got it wrong?

  46. LKMiller says:

    Who is John Galt?

  47. Josualdo says:

    garymount says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:47 am
    I’ll make this short, I’ve started studying Mandarin. And I’m not kidding.
    —–
    You have chosen… Wisely.

  48. Downdraft says:

    In politics, the truth does not matter.
    If you tell the same lie often enough, it becomes fact in the minds of many. He who lies most often and persistently wins.
    Throw enough lies against the wall and some will stick.
    If you are going to lie, really lie, tell it from the floor of the Senate or House so you are protected from legal issues.
    Never answer a question, because anything you say can and will be used against you. If you do get forced to answer a question, lie. Your opponent then will have to accept your lie or spend all his time refuting it.
    The aid of the media is essential. To gain that aid, lie to them, often and repeatedly, especially about your opponent. They will eventually accept what you say as truth rather than spend all their time refuting it.

    The most effective lie is to say that your opponent is lying. Say it loudly and often. Remember, facts don’t matter so there is no need to be specific. The lie about lying will spread and take hold. Then all future statements made by your opponent will be assumed to be lies.

  49. Ron C. says:

    Sandy was not decisive, if you were watching Nate Silver’s analyses. He was projecting 303 electoral votes for Obama even before the storm. His final projection on Nov. 5 was 313, and if Obama’s lead in Florida holds, the number will exceed that.
    For a good analysis of why the election went as it did, see here:

    http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/11/07/why-2012-election-was-a-message-election/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

  50. Josualdo says:

    G. Karst says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:54 am
    (…) The important question for this forum is: What effect will another Obama term have on Climate dictated policy? Can skepticism survive 4 more years of institutional propaganda and government bias? Some prognostication please. GK

    —-
    I’ll tell you one word. Just one word: EPA. Hm… not a word.

  51. Andrew30 says:

    Once the number of voters that derive all or part of their income from taxation outnumber the number of voters that are the subject of taxation the destination is inevitable.

    People that derive income from taxation and return some of that taxation derived income to the government in fact pay no tax; they simply return an amount that will be given to them next year.

    Socialism requires, and seeks to create, people that are dependant on income from taxation. It took 10 Trillion dollars to create the necessary dependants, the die is cast.

    The United States will follow California on their voyage to the Mediterranean coast.

    When will John Galt stand up?

  52. Goode 'nuff says:

    Since Smokey has come back to play in the sand box, I’m not going to sling sand.

    I early voted, Virgil wasn’t on the ballot in Dogpatch, Arkansas.

    I couldn’t vote for Romney because of inability or unwillingness to explain his tax plan. His China bashing would have shackled our economy in this globalised world while weakening the dollar. Great for that energy policy, huh? That’s why the energy sector is not terribly profitable here in the states, not lack of resources.

    Wound up not voting for anybody. One libertarian in a lesser race and a handful of other things on the ballot.

  53. Gary says:

    Sandy hit blue states. I want to see how much it influenced the toss-up states before concluding it had an effect. The most important influence on the election was press malfeasance and collusion that suppresses information and “fact-checks” falsely. It’s a very hard to battle opponents coming from all sides.

  54. commieBob says:

    {joke}
    Since Hurricane Sandy was an act of God, does that mean God intended Obama to win?
    {/joke}
    I’m as dismayed as everyone else here. It doesn’t really matter who won last night. We’re in deep doo-doo. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

  55. DaveF says:

    President Rubio 2016?

  56. Gail Combs says:

    Doug says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:53 am

    The American people spoke. They elected a person who is misguided on global warming, but that is no reason not to respect democracy. If you know of a better system, I’d like to hear about it.

    Railing against our constitutional government in action just damages the credibility of this fine site.
    ____________________________
    It is not railing against our constitutional government, it is railing against our media that lies through their teeth to influence the man on the street on behave of the moneyed interests. Most people rely on the supposed unbiased journalists to bring them the truth. The cover-up of the skeptic side of the Global warming debate is just one of many many cover-ups by the media. For another example take the food safety scare used to stampede the public into accepting a law turning over control of US agriculture to the World TRADE Organization. ( the language is right there in the law see: SEC. 404. <> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS. )
    SEE: USDA and food safety. That’s a joke, right? and link and link and link

    Do you really think most people would condone what is happening in the US government if they knew the truth? If they knew who was actually controlling our government through $$$$?

    Most of what we ‘know’ is propaganda and lies.

    Out of all the elected US government reps in 100 years only a very few have addressed the core problem in the USA. President Andrew Johnson highlighted that problem in his State of the Union Address but you will not see any recent president do so, instead they address a trumped up strawmen like “global Warming!

    State of the Union Address: Andrew Johnson (December 9, 1868

    …It may be safely assumed as an axiom in the government of states that the greatest wrongs inflicted upon a people are caused by unjust and arbitrary legislation, or by the unrelenting decrees of despotic rulers, and that the timely revocation of injurious and oppressive measures is the greatest good that can be conferred upon a nation. The legislator or ruler who has the wisdom and magnanimity to retrace his steps when convinced of error will sooner or later be rewarded with the respect and gratitude of an intelligent and patriotic people.

    Our own history, although embracing a period less than a century, affords abundant proof that most, if not all, of our domestic troubles are directly traceable to violations of the organic law
    and excessive legislation….

    At the beginning of the rebellion the bank-note circulation of the country amounted to not much more than $200,000,000; now the circulation of national-bank notes and those known as “legal-tenders” is nearly seven hundred millions. While it is urged by some that this amount should be increased, others contend that a decided reduction is absolutely essential to the best interests of the country.….
    …Government, as early as may be consistent with the principles of sound political economy, to take such measures as will enable the holders of its notes and those of the national banks to convert them, without loss, into specie or its equivalent. A reduction of our paper circulating medium need not necessarily follow. This, however, would depend upon the law of demand and supply, though it should be borne in mind that by making legal-tender and bank notes convertible into coin or its equivalent their present specie value in the hands of their holders would be enhanced 100 per cent.

    Legislation for the accomplishment of a result so desirable is demanded by the highest public considerations. The Constitution contemplates that the circulating medium of the country shall be uniform in quality and value. At the time of the formation of that instrument the country had just emerged from the War of the Revolution, and was suffering from the effects of a redundant and worthless paper currency….

    …If depreciated paper is to be continued as the permanent currency of the country, and all our coin is to become a mere article of traffic and speculation to the enhancement in price of all that is indispensable to the comfort of the people, it would be wise economy to abolish our mints, thus saving the nation the care and expense incident to such establishments, and let our precious metals be exported in bullion. The time has come, however, when the Government and national banks should be required to take the most efficient steps and make all necessary arrangements for a resumption of specie payments…..

    Specie payments having been resumed by the Government and banks, all notes or bills of paper issued by either of a less denomination than $20 should by law be excluded from circulation, so that the people may have the benefit and convenience of a gold and silver currency which in all their business transactions will be uniform in value at home and abroad. Every man of property or industry, every man who desires to preserve what he honestly possesses or to obtain what he can honestly earn, has a direct interest in maintaining a safe circulating medium–such a medium as shall be real and substantial, not liable to vibrate with opinions, not subject to be blown up or blown down by the breath of speculation, but to be made stable and secure. A disordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social system and encourages propensities destructive of its happiness; it wars against industry, frugality, and economy, and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. It has been asserted by one of our profound and most gifted statesmen that–Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s fields by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation–these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well-disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way countenanced by government. It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war, of expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited under bolts and bars, while the people are left to endure all the inconvenience, sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use of depreciated and worthless paper.….

  57. Before I make my comment, note that I’m not a supporter of either party. I voted for Gary Johnson. I am not a Barrack Obama supporter. That said, my two cents.

    “We need to face the facts, it’s not 47% as Romney indicated, it’s over 50%. We’re finished…

    You got the first part right. You and the GOP need to face facts. Many, probably a good 80% of those 47% don’t enjoy the fact they are getting assistance from the Government. They are taking assistance because they can’t find a job, or a combination of two part time jobs, that can pay at least some of the bills, keep a roof over their heads, and feed their families. By adopting this insulting 47% rhetoric, you insult a good chunk of the population who are honestly struggling and make them less likely to vote for you.

    But, you might say, the GOP offered better solutions to create more jobs!

    You offered solutions, but they weren’t believable. This country, and this party, have spent the last 30 plus years supporting free trade agreements that make it much much easier to export jobs overseas. Hell, part of the reason people still praise Nixon is that he helped open up the Chinese market, which resulted in many many businesses to move to China. How many times have we heard about businesses picking up and going to another country, and then have any number of the Conservatives explain that it’s a part of doing business. Why are Levi’s 501 jeans not made in America anymore? And Wall-Mart is great, except for many it is a reminder that they have no choice but to shop at the cheap store featuring mostly Chinese imports products that used to be made here in America, because they don’t have a good enough job or two jobs that pays enough to be able to afford to shop elsewhere. Now, one can’t blame the GOP exclusively for this of course, the Dems have their hand to play in this as well, but you guys chose a guy who for a good period of his professional life operated a business that actively shipped jobs overseas. So don’t blame 50 + percent of the country for not trusting your party when it comes to job creation.

    This is a problem of reality overriding the preferred message. Earning more income from capital gains does not translate into bringing better, higher paying jobs back to this country, no matter who is in the oval office.

    arthur4563 said this:

    Since nobody asked, I’ll be glad to give my opinion of why the GOP has lost the last two Presidential elections. Both in 2008 and this year, their nominating system produced a Presidential nominee who did not have the wholehearted support of their own party – neither
    McCain nor Romney had more than a quarter of the party’s support. And the reason this came about was because the GOP fielded almost a dozen prospective candidates, all of whom were conservatives except for one guy – in this case Romney – and the overwhelming conservative majority was split 10 or more ways, allowing a guy with less than 30% support from GOP party members to win a lot of winner-take-all primaries and get the nomination. The winner-take-all system is allowing this ridiculous situation to occur and those types of primaries should be banned. The GOP paid the price for using a non-democratic method of choosing their candidate. From my perspective, Gingrich was the only talent the GOP had…

    You do realize Gingrich, during the primaries, was so great a candidate, he (along with a couple of others) managed the fun feat of not being properly registered to get on the ballot in his home state during the primaries. That’s called incompetence. The reason Romney won the primaries is that he is a very very good executive. The good ones don’t make stupid mistakes like Gingrich did. He seemed to be the only one who was doing this, running for office, because of a higher calling and not simply to stroke his ego or prove he was the ONE “True Conservative” , i.e. the most bad ass social conservative on the planet.

    Here’s the deal as I see it. Did hurricane sandy make a difference in this race. It’s hard to say for sure. Mitts momentum did seem to be slowing before the storm hit. The storm quite possibly helped tip hurricane vulnerable states such as Virginia and possibly Florida in Obama’s favor. But go to the west. New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado were likely affected negatively due to the schizophrenic nature of Arizona and its “True Conservative” solutions to the immigration issue. As a group, Mitt only got, what, 29% of the Hispanic vote? And I’m already seeing several well known and well respected Conservative talking head berating those Latinos who didn’t vote for Obama as either illegals, complicit with law-breakers, or just stupid when it comes to their own best self interest.

    That’s no way to win elections, or plant a seed that will contribute to positive electoral outcomes in the future.

  58. ericgrimsrud says:

    Whether Hurricane Sandy was caused, intensified, or not affected by AGW, it served a useful purpose, It reminded us of Mother Nature’s power relative you our own. Along with the other time-honored thought that “Science, and not Economics or Politics, is the field that seems to best understand the forces of Mother Nature” probably had some affect on the more thoughtful Americans among us.

  59. MarkW says:

    Dalcio Dacol says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:40 am

    If the only way to not “alienate” a group of voters is to promise them more free stuff then the other guy is doing, then the election is lost no matter who wins.

  60. MarkW says:

    Olavi says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:42 am

    Not believing that the money of the rich should be stolen so that others can spend it, is the equivalent of thinking the rich should have all the money?

  61. MarkW says:

    Mark Hladik says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:46 am

    I wouldn’t go that far. It may however be the last free and fair election.

  62. MarkW says:

    Doug says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:53 am

    You have no problem with one group of people voting to steal the earnings of another group?

  63. MarkW says:

    Monty says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:08 am

    So it’s more important to be relevant, than it is to be right?

  64. Jaye Bass says:

    [snip - original and this comment both off topic -mod]

  65. MarkW says:

    beesaman says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:32 am

    For the last 4 years Obama has refused to negotiate with anyone to his right. What makes you think he’ll start now?

  66. MarkW says:

    Roger Knights says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:11 am

    So why doesn’t the party institute instant-runoff voting in its primaries (where possible), so the ideological majority can converge on a single candidate?

    For the same reason they refuse to adopt anything like this for the general election. They want to make sure that only the establisment candidate has a chance.

  67. temp says:

    MarkW says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:19 am

    “You have no problem with one group of people voting to steal the earnings of another group?”

    Thats what “democracy” is all about… anyone supporting democracy is railing against the US constitution.

  68. MarkW says:

    Michael J Alexander says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Do you really believe that America is better off when we force our consumers to buy over priced and poorly made goods, just because they were made by some union stooge?
    You are wrong for two reasons.
    First, when American consumers save money of foreign goods, that money doesn’t just evaporate. It sits in the consumers pocket until he can spend it on something else. As a result jobs lost in one sector are countered by jobs gained in another. Overall, everyone is better off.
    Secondly, when you restrict access of American companies to second rate, over priced goods, you make the output of those companies less successful in international markets. For every job saved, two or more are lost in other industries.

    Free trade is what made this country great economically. The kind of protectionism you advocate has been the ruin of many once proud countries.

    RE: capital gains. Are you really going to try and argue that restricting investment will have no impact on the number of jubs that are created.

    RE: Gingrich. Even the DA of VA admitted that VA’s rules were written to ensure that only the candidate who was supported by the establishment could get on the ballot. You are blaming Gingrich for not being able to navigate rules that were written expressly to keep him out.
    The reason why Romney won the nomination was because he outspent his opponents by 5 to 1 or more. Everytime he didn’t, he lost. He also had the support of all the party insiders who greased the wheels for him, changed the rules where necessary, sometimes after voting had taken place.

  69. mfo says:

    When Obama became president the US National debt was $9.986 trillion. As of November 1, 2012, the official debt of the United States government was $16.2 trillion ($16,221,685,381,838).This amounts to:
    $51,616 for every person living in the U.S.
    $136,682 for every household in the U.S.
    That’s an increase of well over 50% in just four years. The present debt ceiling, the amount Congress allows the government, is $ 16.394 trillion. The debt is rising by about $ 3.8 billion each day.

    Bloomberg has Obama’s ear and these are some of Bloomberg’s proposals:
    “A $20-per-ton carbon price—collected as a tax or by auctioning carbon allowances……immediate reductions in short-lived potent greenhouse gases such as methane and some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) can slow the rate of warming in the near term……regulations to address air pollution from oil and gas drilling will help, building on and extending the rules the EPA finalized earlier this year…..continue to accelerate the shift to renewable energy sources and increased energy efficiency through a host of measures….use existing EPA Clean Air Act authority to its fullest extent possible……….setting carbon-pollution emission standards for stationary sources, including new and existing power plants.”

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-05/a-climate-change-to-do-list-for-the-next-president#p1

    The US has had four consecutive years of $ 1 trillion deficits. The real hockey stick is the projected rise in US debt under current policies:

  70. Phil. says:

    Keith AB says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:47 am
    If I was to fly into Mexico and then walk across the Rio Grande into Texas without being caught would it then be OK for me to settle in the USA. I ask as serious guy who would love to move to the states, so much so that I would do so tomorrow if at all possible. It just seems strange that all liberals would allow unrestricted illegal immigration from the South yet support strict immigration controls on those coming from the old world.

    You seem to have a mistaken idea of what the democrat immigration policy is. Under Obama the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants has reached a record high, an additional 600 miles of fencing has been installed on the Mexican border, unmanned drones are used to patrol the border. He also supports penalties on employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers.

  71. Phil. says:

    Gary says:
    November 7, 2012 at 8:53 am
    Sandy hit blue states. I want to see how much it influenced the toss-up states before concluding it had an effect.

    The effect Sandy had on the election was to severely depress turnout in the states most effected (NJ, NY) which both apparently had record low turnouts for a presidential elections. Those states vote Democrat in any case. I had been told that Fox barely covered Sandy, preferring to cover Benghazi. I had no way to verify that since like many others in the effected areas I was without power for the week. Gov Christie a governor of a blue state with an election upcoming next year was smart enough to cooperate with the federal government which was helping his constituents

  72. temp says:

    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:15 am

    “Under Obama the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants has reached a record high,”

    This is a pure propaganda lie. Just one of many posts about it.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-illegal-alien-deportations-have-not-skyrocketed-under-obama

    “an additional 600 miles of fencing has been installed on the Mexican border,”

    Which obama has opposed with every breath.

    “unmanned drones are used to patrol the border.” Was done before obama.

    “He also supports penalties on employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers.” Not really its talk at best. He has on the other hand gone after states who have passed laws doing this and has demanded that the laws be removed.

  73. Keith AB says:

    Thanks Phil and I do understand what you say, but is he right or wrong in doing what he does? The liberal/left argues for an amnesty and incorporation for all illegals on humanitarian grounds. My query , if that is the stance, is why have any immigration controls at all?

  74. Spector says:

    About the only way I can see Sandy being a serious factor in the election would be the possible impression created by some claims that Governor Romney was on the record for saying that he wanted to disband FEMA and perhaps get the federal government out of the disaster relief business. Those living under the threat of extreme weather events would be strongly opposed to anyone they thought to be in favor of reducing federal assistance for them in these cases.

  75. Phil. says:

    temp says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:15 am

    “Under Obama the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants has reached a record high,”

    This is a pure propaganda lie. Just one of many posts about it.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-illegal-alien-deportations-have-not-skyrocketed-under-obama

    Since your own link shows that my statement is true I take it you will be retracting your false accusation?

  76. Mark… I’m working. Will respond in a while.

  77. Mark, you wrote:

    RE: Gingrich. Even the DA of VA admitted that VA’s rules were written to ensure that only the candidate who was supported by the establishment could get on the ballot. You are blaming Gingrich for not being able to navigate rules that were written expressly to keep him out.
    The reason why Romney won the nomination was because he outspent his opponents by 5 to 1 or more. Everytime he didn’t, he lost. He also had the support of all the party insiders who greased the wheels for him, changed the rules where necessary, sometimes after voting had taken place.

    The process to get on the ballot in Virginia certainly was not a cake walk, but the “establishment” angle falls flat when you acknowledge that another candidate also was on that ballot… Ron Paul. Please don’t try and say he’s also an “establishment” candidate. He was their biggest threat.

  78. aharris says:

    On immigration, I will say this: My husband is 1/8th Native American, and he often tells people that his ancestors can tell you what happens when you allow unchecked immigration without demanding that the immigrants both assimilate into your culture and respect your laws.

  79. DirkH says:

    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “I had been told that Fox barely covered Sandy, preferring to cover Benghazi. I had no way to verify that since like many others in the effected areas I was without power for the week.”

    I’m sitting in Germany, I have power and I like to watch Fox News over their website. Whoever told you that was a liar.

  80. thelastdemocrat says:

    A great thing about this blog site is that regular readers are respectful of each other, even though the leading consensus across regular readers/commenters may be limited to not much more than the skeptical view of the anthropotomoc global warming scam.

    I have views that I know are probably in the minority. These largely concern God, abortion, and a few other issues. When I have brought up these topics, people who have felt driven to make comments have made comments showing opposition, I but and the issues have been treated respectfully. The comment chatter has not decended to name-calling and so on. This is very rare, and is very special.

    Bronco Bama’s close cnnections with Goldman Sachs, etc., are very concerning when the issue of carbon tax, etc., come up. I have been active with th edemocratic party to some degree all my life, but these recent years have been very concerning, and I beleive, frankly, the party has been co-opted by socialists/marxists. Am I correct? Maybe, maybe not.
    I believe I have figured this out, and others have, too. My final post before the election was centerd on the idea that we American democrats largely have not yet figured this out, and we will keep beleaguring the nation with AGW, Solyndra scams, an opn border, etc., until we American democrats wake up and tell the socialists to go form their own party, and get out of ours.

    http://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/lesson-not-yet-learned-four-more-years-needed/

    Now, back to the science.

  81. Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:

    Michael J Alexander says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:06 am

    But go to the west. New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado were likely affected negatively due to the schizophrenic nature of Arizona and its “True Conservative” solutions to the immigration issue.

    One other issue that undoubtedly helped Obama get Colorado was the Marijuana legalization ballot initiative which mobilized all the extreme progressive students and young voters to get to the polls.

    Things were pretty nasty in some respects, lots of vandalism and theft of campaign signs for example, with stolen signs for Romney being stolen at 5:1 to Obama signs. The anti-free speech progressives were out in force.

    The one thing that made me think it might go the other way, is this year I noticed almost a total lack of bumper stickers on cars for either candidate. Generally the Liberals are driven to advertise their preference much more than conservatives (except the ultra extreme right).
    I attributed it to lack of “buzz” or drive to go to the poles. Obviously it was something else, perhaps a desire to not make their cars targets for getting keyed or otherwise vandalized.

    Larry

  82. John A says:

    GeoLurking says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:24 am

    What can you say. Stupid is as Stupid Does.

    Welcome to Venezuela.

    CJ says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:25 am

    We need to face the facts, it’s not 47% as Romney indicated, it’s over 50%. We’re finished…

    SamG says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:25 am

    Yep…that’s representative democracy for you.

    Populist candidates beget stupid voters.

    temp says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:26 am

    All meaningless junk. The election was set long before the vote. The only question now is what numbers will they use for obama’s 2016 reelection victory.

    aharris says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:28 am

    How far have we fallen that what people see in a mere four days completely erases the evidence of four long years? We’re close to the Ministry of Truth territory here.

    Jeremy says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:45 am

    The way that 30 million were persuaded to vote early and that the incumbent administration was able to rally 10′s of thousands of volunteers to go round knocking on doors and making sure the politically correct people voted is but a small step on the path towards Obama’s version of CHAVEZISM.

    Despite the dismal economic track record or perhaps BECAUSE of the dismal economic track record – OBAMUNISM – big government protecting the little people against evil capitalism – is here to say.

    Americans can say good bye to freedom and prosperity….

    Mark Hladik says:

    November 7, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Hope everyone enjoyed the last election ever to be held in the United States.

    While I do have a quarrel with President Obama regarding climate policy and a few other things, but unlike the geniuses listed above, I don’t believe that Obama is a socialist, or a communist or a Muslim or a foreign-born imposter or any of the other nutty things believed by crackpots.

    Its the Fox News pathetic proposition: if the voters vote for Conservatives they are standing tall for America, if not then America is crumbling into a socialist desert. Crap.

    Its nonsense. Its gifting some desperately deluded people some easy propaganda that this site is filled with right-wing creationist nut-jobs.

    Democracy was supreme in this election when the Republicans held the House of Representatives as much as the Democrats holding the Senate and the Presidency.

    I expect a lot of politics when Congress returns. Climate policy is much less likely to have a significant effect because the hot air has drained out of the global warming balloon.

    Meanwhile Mitt Romney, unlike some of his supporters, had the grace to commend Obama on his re-election, wish him and his family well and pray that the President succeeds. It is just as important a part of a strong democracy that the loser concedes gracefully. That’s what Romney did.

  83. Spector says:

    RE: Spector (November 7, 2012 at 11:10 am)
    Here is one example of such a claim, fair or foul, made just before the election:

    Hurricane Sandy: What Romney Says He’d Do to FEMA
    abc NEWS – UNIVISION
    By JORDAN FABIAN (@Jordanfabian) Oct. 29, 2012
    “… With Sandy bearing down on the East Coast, supporters of President Barack Obama are saying that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would gut FEMA, leaving it incapable of handling a massive hurricane or tornado.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/romney-cut-fema-president/story?id=17589353

  84. eworrall1 says:

    Sometimes the puppy needs its nose rubbed in it, before it learns not to poo on the mat.

    Obama has won, the wreckage of the American economy will be his legacy.

  85. temp says:

    John A says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Ignorance is fun for you isn’t it? Do you have any idea what socialism is? Clearly from your post you have no idea.

    “Its the Fox News pathetic proposition: if the voters vote for Conservatives they are standing tall for America, if not then America is crumbling into a socialist desert. Crap.”

    Funny how you don’t mention the CNN, ABC, EVERYONE else. Thats says your racists, 100x every other evil in the world.

    “Its nonsense. Its gifting some desperately deluded people some easy propaganda that this site is filled with right-wing creationist nut-jobs.”

    Creationists are overwhelming leftwing… and they believe in AGW…. so not sure how your coming to this point…

    “Democracy was supreme” Democracy is evil plain and simple.

    ” It is just as important a part of a strong democracy that the loser concedes gracefully. That’s what Romney did.”

    Once again democracy is evil and Romney is a leftwing tool so its not a surprise he gets along well with obama. Hitler and stalin were good buddies when it served the goals they wanted to reach. In fact most socialists get along great when they are busy trying wipe out the far less socialists elements in the local area.

  86. thelastdemocrat says:

    John A: here is a simple way to look at life for the next four years: govt from the bottom-up is American: individual liberty, with negative rights protected up to the point where you infringe on another’s rights, and where govt is necessary where private industry fails, and private industry is needed where govt fails; top-down / socialism: the govt continues to encroach on all aspects of our lives in various ways, mostly taxation upon most to fund their views, and regulation of what we can and cannot do, and “positive” rights: I am entitled to a “livable wage” job, I am entitled to a college education for free, I am entitled to a single-dwelling home.
    I am not the face of FoxNews; I am the Last Democrat. The rest have gone socialist, but don’t know it.

  87. thelastdemocrat says:

    aharris: good one.

  88. Phil. says:

    DirkH says:
    November 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “I had been told that Fox barely covered Sandy, preferring to cover Benghazi. I had no way to verify that since like many others in the effected areas I was without power for the week.”

    I’m sitting in Germany, I have power and I like to watch Fox News over their website. Whoever told you that was a liar.

    Perhaps you see a different version of FoxNews?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-penniman/fox-news-curious-black-ou_b_2065004.html

  89. MarkW says:

    temp says:
    November 7, 2012 at 9:29 am

    I would think that someone who knows something about the constitution would know that the US is not a democracy.
    Regardless, I find it interesting that you refuse to condemn those who vote for a living.

  90. MarkW says:

    Michael J Alexander says:
    November 7, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Ron Paul had the advantage of thousands of dedicated college students who were willing to work for free. Everyone else had to hire staff, and nobody else had the money to do that. Romney didn’t need to since he had the use of the state Republican party workers to round up the signatures that he needed.

  91. MarkW says:

    John A says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    If a man advocates for socialism or worse all his life, then when in office pushes one socialist scheme after another. Why wouldn’t it be fair to label him a socialist?

  92. temp says:

    MarkW says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Your quoting wrong post… you want John A

    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    “Perhaps you see a different version of FoxNews?”

    Since you clearly don’t watch foxnews how would you know? Add in the huffing glue post is really whining that foxnews isn’t covering the “global warming” angle of of Sandy not thats its not covering Sandy.

    Since other networks have done everything possible to blackout Benghazi its not surprising that fox’s coverage seems “extreme” by leftwing standard. Also foxnews covered alot of the stuff the other networks didn’t want to… like the complete failure of FEMA, government, bloomburg, etc.

    Lets not also forget that Benghazi major news… sandy not so major. Watching leftwingers dumpstar dive for food isn’t exactly breaking news to most people. Maybe if they had been rightwing terrorists who have 2 weeks+ of food and water they would be dumpster diving and crying a river.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/037822_liberal_media_preppers_survivalists.html

    But hey no need to let the truth get in the way of your propaganda…

  93. Phil. says:

    temp says:
    November 7, 2012 at 6:26 am
    All meaningless junk. The election was set long before the vote The only question now is what numbers will they use for obama’s 2016 reelection victory.

    So you think that the 22nd amendment will be repealed within the next 4 years?

  94. Gail Combs says:

    eworrall1 says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Sometimes the puppy needs its nose rubbed in it, before it learns not to poo on the mat.

    Obama has won, the wreckage of the American economy will be his legacy.
    ___________________________________
    I do not think it really matters who won, Romney or Obama, all it does is determine the speed at which US globalization will take place. Both the Republicans and the Democrats support globalization of the USA. Bush senior started the push for the WTO and NAFTA. Clinton finished it. Bush Jr. agreed to the transatlantic economic integration plan with the EU.

    Pascal Lamy a transplanted bureaucrat from the EU, now head of the WTO is already giving lots of talks about Global governance,

    “Global governance requires localising global issues”

    …Yet, with the world becoming ever more interconnected and challenges become truly global, governance remains to a large extent local. The discrepancy between the reality of today’s interdependence, the challenges resulting from it, and the capacity of governments to agree politically on how to deal with them is striking.

    For the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. In the absence of a truly global government, global governance results from the action of sovereign States. It is inter-national. Between nations. In other words, global governance is the globalization of local governance.

    But it does not suffice to establish informal groupings or specialized international organizations, each of them being “Member driven”, to ensure a coherent and efficient approach to address the global problems of our time. In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations.
    I see four main challenges for global governance today.

    The first one is leadership, i.e. the capacity to embody a vision and inspire action, in order to create momentum. Who is the leader? Should it be a superpower? A group of national leaders? Selected by whom? Or should it be an international organization?

    The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources, to solve the problems in the international sphere, to bring about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people. The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results. The ensuing viscosity of international decision-making puts into question the efficiency of the international system.

    The third one is coherence, for the international system is based on specialization. Each international organization focuses on a limited number of issues. The World Trade Organisation deals with trade, the International Labour Organisation with labour issues, the World Meteorological Organisation with meteorology and so the list continues. It is a fact: the UN is not really overarching, assuming this was the initial intention.

    The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!….

    The International corporations want global governance for the simple reason that dealing with lots of local laws and politicians is a pain in the rump. The Socialist/Progressive/Fabian/Communist or what ever the current politically correct term is, also want globalization to promote their brand of ‘Social Justice’ ‘Sustainability’ ‘Environmentalism’ or what ever the latest cause du jour is. The only one left out of this unholy mating is the poor individualists who gets trampled and taxed. Worse most of the regular Joes do not even have a clue as to what is really going on. So they vote democrat or vote republican but the piecemeal sale of our country continues under the guise of ‘harmonization’ and the like as more and more control of our country is turned over to international bureaucrats.

    Think I am a wing nut? Try something real close to home -food. FDA: International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Guidance Documents

    FDA: Harmonization and Multilateral Relations

    FDA’s role in harmonization and multilateral relations is to coordinate and collaborate on activities with various international organizations and governments on international standards and harmonization of regulatory requirements.

    Recognizing the considerable synergy between its domestic policy and its international policy priorities, FDA is sharpening and focusing its planning for enhanced alignment of FDA and international standards….

    If you want to know why the food borne disease rate jumped to double the rate after WTO was signed you do not have to look any further than the revamping of the US food safety system to align with that of international standards. The International HACCP Alliance was developed on March 25, 1994, to provide a uniform program to assure safer meat and poultry products John Munsell after attending the government’s informational meetings on implementing HACCP identifed flaws in USDA’s HACCP food-safety system His saga is here: Jolley: Five Minutes With John Munsell & A Trip To The Woodshed With The USDA (I have discussed quality issues with Big John and that just scratches the surface.)

  95. Gail Combs says:

    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    DirkH says:
    November 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “I had been told that Fox barely covered Sandy, preferring to cover Benghazi. I had no way to verify that since like many others in the effected areas I was without power for the week.”

    I’m sitting in Germany, I have power and I like to watch Fox News over their website. Whoever told you that was a liar.

    Perhaps you see a different version of FoxNews?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-penniman/fox-news-curious-black-ou_b_2065004.html

    _________________________________
    You BELIEVE Huff and Puff??? (snicker)

    I generally take most media with a large grain of salt esp. things like Huff and Puff and Fox news.

    The journalists in my husband’s family (5th generation) say the only news media you can believe is the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Gerbil and that was twenty years ago. Otherwise they only things they get right is the sports scores (broken knee caps make an impression)

  96. Mark said:

    Ron Paul had the advantage of thousands of dedicated college students who were willing to work for free. Everyone else had to hire staff, and nobody else had the money to do that. Romney didn’t need to since he had the use of the state Republican party workers to round up the signatures that he needed.

    Are you saying that Gingrich couldn’t have done something similar. This is his home state after all. You would think if he was a viable candidate, he would certainly have had the resources and have addressed this before it became a problem. Again, if you can’t take care of things in your own home state, even if it’s hard (God forbid) then you have no business trying to run for national office.

  97. Billy says:

    John A says:
    November 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    ———————————————
    I find it amusing that enviro activist commenters and blogs keep referring to “creationist nut jobs”.
    I have never seen any mention of creationism here.
    I see that warmists and environmentalists universally consider themselves and/or the government to be the protectors of the species. They consider it to be their duty to prevent any and all evolution and maintain the planet in a static state.

    Just sayin’.

  98. temp says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    I think generally though it was better for obama to win. He for push far to hard and far to fast to make his socialists dreams reality. People will quickly be woken to the facts reality doesn’t fit into socialism nor does socialism fit into reality. Thus as with all socialism the end will be more of the same… more taxes, more government, more oppression. However if done to quickly the peasants tend to revolt and fight back. Romney would take a far slower approach then obama will and because of that a small chance exists that people will revolt and reality will be restored.

  99. Jeef says:

    Romney was dead in the water from the outset over his proposed top end tax cuts. Sandy was a storm in a teacup, and I’m amazed the race was so tight. Even a slightly more populist shift from Romney would have won him the prize, but he does not understand life on the breadline.

  100. An Inquirer says:

    Olavi: . . . . Either you participate in or you have become a victim of chararcter assassination. Romney is a very generous individual — giving over 50% of his income either in taxes or charity. He has provided good wages and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. True, he could not save every job in the troubled companies that he took over, but his success record is phenomenal. The ugliness and lies of the character assissination undertaken by the Obama campaign will have long lasting negative consequences. How can you expect the other side to be eager to work with you when you are nasty?

  101. Billy says:

    “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,”
    —————
    Suddenly Obama can pay off debt and control the climate! Why didn’t he do it before? Did he make Sandy turn in to New York for the campaign photo opps?
    Why is he pushing to restore power and gasoline which are the cause of the storm? FEMA could issue solar panels and bikes for a green city.
    /sarc

  102. Spector says:

    I wonder if this sounds familiar:

    Wendell Willkie 1940 presidential election
    “Uploaded by bj615 on Jul 6, 2007″
    70 likes, 10 dislikes, 22605 Views; 2:46 min
    “Wendell Willkie is speaking in this 1940 spot against Roosevelt as the Republican nomination.”

    ——–

    President Hoover, (1929-1933) like President Bush was widely portrayed as causing the Great Depression by allowing ‘Big Business’ to run wild. Thus, no Republican was elected president for twenty years, (1952) even though unemployment remained quite high until World War II. I note that some economic scholars have taken the controversial position that some of President Roosevelt’s well-meaning policies may have unintentionally prolonged the problem.

    Of course, there are those now, who are saying that our current recession was really caused by insufficient discovery of new sources of *cheap* energy and that is why our economy is root-bound and not growing. By that rational, our former and current president may only be culpable to the extent that they have not recognized peak cheap energy as a fact of life.

  103. Jeremy says:

    Mark A. says “I don’t believe that Obama is a socialist”

    Agreed. It would be extremely naive to underestimate him as being a mere socialist, as America is about to find out.

  104. Theo Goodwin says:

    Keith AB says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I know quite a few people in your situation. Most are from Europe but some from South America. The problem that all of them share is that they want to emigrate legally. They own businesses that they would like to move to the US. They would be great contributors to US productivity and culture. None of them get a break. Some of them own quite a bit in the US and visit within the legal restrictions. The US immigration system is insane.

    The poor from Central America via Mexico are desired because powerful Democrats believe that they can get them to vote for Democrats and powerful Republicans believe that the cheap labor is needed. Of course the labor is cheap only for the first generation because the second generation is as American as any other American.

  105. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    Sandy certainly came at the right time for Obama but in the end Romney had acquired too much of a patina of being perceived to be saying whatever people wanted to hear. Nevertheless, he put up a good showing in my opinion and much can be learned from his efforts. Obama-style government is going to lead the US down the slippery slope of Greek style economics (with China as the banker in this case). An alternative must be found in four years time.

  106. D. Patterson says:

    Jeef says:
    November 7, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    Romney was dead in the water from the outset over his proposed top end tax cuts. Sandy was a storm in a teacup, and I’m amazed the race was so tight. Even a slightly more populist shift from Romney would have won him the prize, but he does not understand life on the breadline.

    Regardless of how anyone feels about Romney as a candidate or about his campaign, don’t assume that he was actually defeated in the election. Evidence is mounting which indicates the number of votes Romney was supposeed to have lost by in the critical battleground states is greatly smaller than the number of pro-Romney votes that have not been and will not be counted in this election and the number of fraudulent votes given to Obama.

    In Ohio for example, Romney supposedly lost by only 100,763 out of a total of 5,243,841 votes or slightly less than 2% of the vote. What the MSM chose not to report when they projected Obama the winner of the election was how there are 205,422 provisional ballots which are not scheduled to be counted until November 17th-18th at the earliest, if at all. Supposedly, those provisional ballots may be expected to be ballots for Romney by a large percentage. Supposedly the Democrat poll workers are taking Republican ballots which did not make a selection for a contest where there was no Republican candidate to oppose the Democrat candidate and putting those ballots in the pile of provisional ballots. Also, ballots with a write-in candidate are in some states automatically put into the pile of provisional ballots to be counted much later or not at all. A county recorder was arrested in Ohio on charges of changing ballots to votes for Democrats. More than 30,000 votes were to be examined for evidence of vote fraud. A nespaper reported in September that one in five voter registrations in Ohio were invalid due to death, change of address, or illegal registrations. It was also reported how some of the Ohio counties have more voter registrations than there are voting age population in the county. Despite the efforts of the Ohio Secretary of State to obtain Federal approval to remove the illegitimate voter registrations from the voter rolls, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has ignored all such requests.

    Then there is the Obama Administration’s failure to comply with the laws requiring military voters overseas be given the opportunity to vote in the election. The ballots were conveniently misrouted and/or destroyed before they could be delivered to the members of the military. Then hundreds of thousands of ballots which were completed and sent back to the United States to be counted were diverted into a warehouse in Bahrain for a month, so the ballots would arrive just a few hours too late to be counted. These hundreds of thousands of ballots grossly favored Romney, and it has been reported they would have given Romney the votes necessary to win the election.

    Then there are the thousands of vote fraud incidents being reported., ranging from Republican poll workers being violently thrown out of Philadelphia polling places despite court orders putting them there, assault by pistol and badge, busloads of fraudulent non-English speaking voters beeing pushedd by Republican poll officials with impunity, Republican voters denied the right to vote because Democrat identity thives stole their identities to vote for Obama, tweets bragging on the Obama campaign website about how they voted four and five times, and on and on and on the reports are pouring in.

    In Florida, the margin of defeat was only 46,039 votes out of a total of 8,212,681 or less than half of one percent of the total vote. The missing military votes and disqualification of illegitimate votes would easily have won Florida’s electorla votes for Romney.

    In Las Vegas, Nevada, illegal immigrants working for the unions were ordered by the unions to illegally register to vote and weree given sample ballots filled out for Obama and other Democrats. They were told they could expect to lose their jobs if they didn’t cooperate.

    The extent of criminality being carelessly perpetrated in this election begs the question how the opposition candidate can get a fair election and how a scientist can expect to get a fair hearing of scientific evidence in opposition to the Climate Change policies?

  107. MarkW says:

    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Obama’s ignored the rest of the constitution, why shouldn’t he ignore the 22nd as well.

  108. MarkW says:

    Michael J Alexander says:
    November 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    No, Gingrich did not have the kind of message that would drive thousands of college students to give up their summer vacations and work for free.
    Neither did Romney, but that didn’t matter since the RNC was willing to provide all the paid staffers that Romney needed.

    Like I said, they wrote the rules to ensure that only govt approved candidates could get on the ballot, and it worked.

  109. MarkW says:

    Jeef says:
    November 7, 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Romney never proposed any top end tax cuts. He proposed a reduction in rates, to be compensated for by an elimination tax deductions.
    The claim that Romney wanted to decrease taxes paid by the wealthy was just one more of the many lies told by Obama and his syncophants.

  110. MarkW says:

    Spector says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    First off, it’s pretty much all economists who recognize that FDR’s policies created the Depression. Heck, even FDR’s economists recognized and stated as much.
    Anyone who thinks Hoover “let businesses run wild” has no knowledge of history. Hoover took a run of the mill recession, and made it worse by dramatically increasing taxes.

  111. beng says:

    ***
    Phil. says:
    November 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    huffingtonpost.com/nick-penniman/fox-news-curious-black-ou_b_2065004.html
    ****

    The huff-and-puffington post? ROFLMFAO!

  112. temp says:

    D. Patterson says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:48 am

    Voting fraud even during the last election was off the chart. Recently some of the people that did it in 2008 have been jailed. However of course even when proven that an election result was only because of voting fraud such was the case with al franken when they proved that illegal votes were what won it for him the election was not reversed.

    Romney like mccain has no interest in fighting voter fraud… they are after all center left/leftwingers who generally don’t care about it. They also generally approve of obama. Its also why they love having the illegals come in. An easily controlled slave labor force thats can be cattle carred to get to vote for democrats.

  113. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Tuesday: Obama wins reelection.

    Wednesday: As reported on local TV news, American Suzuki Motor Corporation files for Chap. 11 bankruptcy protection. Reasons cited for ending auto sales were low sales, tough regulations, and high production costs.

    Except the story was originally reported by the AP on Monday.

    Did it “just happen” that a US automaker going bankrupt due to an unfavorable business climate in the US wasn’t important enough to make the national TV news on Monday,

    Or was it suppressed?

    The linked AP piece also cited “unfavorable foreign exchange rates”. As the Treasury’s qualitative easing continues, the worth of the US dollar internationally keeps dropping. It would have been inconvenient to the Obama campaign to have this be given national recognition before the voting.

  114. more soylent green! says:

    I’m not going to blame the loss (or credit Obama’s victory) on Sandy as it was just the last thing and had Romney played his hand better, he could have won.

    Once again, we see the victory of imagery and presentation over reality and facts. The facts are, first responders are not federal employees, FEMA only has a few thousand employees and FEMA doesn’t work any better under Obama than it did under Bush. People in the afflicted areas lack food, water, gas, electricity, etc., for days and many still are. Presidents don’t have anything to really do when these disasters strike except be to sign executive orders and make a few phone calls.

    Sandy did give Obama one last chance to look and act presidential. It took the news away from the campaign, away from the economy and off Obama’s dismal record.

    Them’s the breaks. If Romney had done things better earlier, than the bounce from Sandy wouldn’t have mattered.

  115. more soylent green! says:

    MarkW says:
    November 8, 2012 at 6:04 am
    Spector says:
    November 7, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    First off, it’s pretty much all economists who recognize that FDR’s policies created the Depression. Heck, even FDR’s economists recognized and stated as much.
    Anyone who thinks Hoover “let businesses run wild” has no knowledge of history. Hoover took a run of the mill recession, and made it worse by dramatically increasing taxes.

    Harding was president when the post WWI recession of 1920-1921 hit. What did Harding do about it? Harding implemented austerity — cut spending, raised interest rates, reduced debt and balanced the budget.

    When the next recession hit, Hoover tried to do something about. Government intervention turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression. Everything he did just made it worse. Enter FDR, who likewise made things worse every time he tried to do something to fix the economy.

    Anybody who looks at the Great Depression objectively can readily conclude that government policy created the bubble that led to the 1929 recession. Likewise, with the 2008 recession.

  116. temp says:

    more soylent green! says:
    November 8, 2012 at 9:48 am

    “Anybody who looks at the Great Depression objectively can readily conclude that government policy created the bubble that led to the 1929 recession. Likewise, with the 2008 recession.”

    Not sure if you typed thats correctly, what you had was the government messing around with the economy. Normal economies have ups and downs its just reality nothing goes up forever. If they had simply cut spending, taxes and so forth again the economy would have stabilized and returned to “normal”.

    As you correctly point out though they did not do this they instead choose to go for the central planning “fix” and assume that they are smarter then everyone else… which the government never is. Obama is in every way taking the FDR approach and it has and will keep failing.

  117. Jim G says:

    Republicans need to learn that elections are about being young, pretty, energetic and saying as little as possible of any substance and being likeable. Obama is an empty suit, has been from day one and still is. Old man cannot beat young man in the popularity contest that elections have become. Marco Rubio would have beat Obama. Period. Qualified? Not yet but so what. He’s prettier and has the right instincts. This may sound stupid but so are 50% or more of the voters. I liked Mitt and if he had been 20 years younger he would have won in spite of the media being in the bag for Obama. All the monday morning claptrap about demographics is BS. Young, good looking, good speaker, a little sexy for the 67% of single women who voted for Obama and you win. It’s all about marketing, not politics. Bush was better looking than Gore or Kerry and came across as “nicer” till the media bashed him for 8 years and he did not fight back, because he was nicer. Nice is not necessarily a good thing in politics. Looking nice is, however, important.

  118. David Middleton says:

    Anthony’s post inspired to compose this graphical illustration of how “an ill wind blew and the fat man sang”…

    Election Day 2012: An ill wind blew and the fat man sang!

    Acting like the president for four days out of the last four years turned the tide… And a good Envirostatist never lets a “serious crisis to go to waste”…

    America’s Choice 2012

    Climate change is back on the table
    By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney November 7, 2012

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Climate change is once again a hot topic in the Untied States.

    Hurricane Sandy brought the issue back into the spotlight just days before the presidential election. Pundits were quick to note the irony of a massive superstorm striking after three presidential debates that didn’t mention climate change once.

    After the storm, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg evoked the issue again, pointing to climate change specifically in an unexpected, last-minute endorsement of President Obama.

    And if there was any lingering doubt about the issue being back in the limelight, the president dispelled it Tuesday night by mentioning global warming in his acceptance speech alongside other priorities like budget and tax reform.

    “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” he said.

    [...]

    CNN Money

    Never minding the fact that extra-tropical cyclone Sandy was anything but unprecedented; nor was it the new normal, the storm and President Obama’s appearance of competence were apparently enough to sway about 3% of the electorate. So, no doubt, Mr. Obama and his merry band of Envirostatists will be repeating this page from their playbook…

     

  119. Mac the Knife says:

    While I am in deep mourning for the profoundly poor choices made by 51% of the US electorate and the nearly unrecoverable damage they are doing to our nation, I refuse to yield to their barackward socialist agenda. On Nov 7th, I attended at political activist meeting for targeted resistance to the socialists 2nd term agenda and to begin preparations for the new elections cycle. No quits! No way!!!

    To all of the folks who state ‘It’s over!’, I can assure you it is, if you are so craven that you lay down and refuse to fight! That is exactly the response our socialist democrat opponents desire… to become yet another subservient bum, grasping for their handouts.

    To all others who share the philosophical touch stones of a constitutionally limited federal government, fiscal discipline, and free markets, heed these words: “Nil Desperandum – Invictus Maneo! Never Despair – I Remain Unvanquished!” We need all of you to get engaged in the grass roots preparations for the next elections and the resistance to ‘four more years’ of ineptitude in national economics and international relations! Start now! It is the only way to real victory. You must get engaged…. or our nation will continue it’s barackward slide.

    MtK

  120. Mac the Knife says:

    D. Patterson says:
    November 8, 2012 at 5:48 am

    Thanks DP!
    No Quits!,
    MtK

  121. Jim G says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    Mac, I’m with you but think we need to look at our “market” when we float a candidate out there. Unfortunately, all the idiots get to vote so we need to maitain our constitutional goal while pandering to the market in today’s TV ad society. The dems have it figured out. Changing our philosophy is not the answer and that is what many of the talking heads are selling right now.

  122. Spector says:

    RE: MarkW: (November 8, 2012 at 6:04 am)

    “Anyone who thinks Hoover “let businesses run wild” has no knowledge of history.

    That may well be true as a matter of fact; however the many voters were convinced that it was all President Hoovers fault, just as many voters are now convinced that current recession was caused by President Bush and the policies of the Republican Party. In the 1930’s, many of the unemployed were reduced to living in clusters of tents commonly called “Hoovervilles.” This impression was so strong that it took twenty years before another Republican President was elected. History may repeat itself unless a more convincing cause for the recession can be found.

    Bushvilles: The new Hoovervilles
    “Uploaded by MarcinCalifornia on Mar 9, 2009″
    45 likes, 6 dislikes; 10,199 Views, 3:02 min
    “The new tent cities popping up all over the country. This segment covers the tent city, now being called Bushvilles, in Sacramento, California.

Comments are closed.