CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Emails confirm Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod tried to intimidate Gallup

David Axelrod and the Obama campaign have some explaing to do.

The Daily Caller's Matthew Boyle reports that emails between senior officials at The Gallup Organization, show senior Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod attempted to intimidate the polling firm when its poll results found Mitt Romney leading President Obama.

According to Boyle,  after Gallup declined to change its polling methodology, Obama’s Department of Justice hit it with an unrelated lawsuit:

"Since Gallup first roused Axelrod’s ire, Obama’s Justice Department revived old allegations against the firm that, according to now former Gallup employee Michael Lindley, the polling company violated the False Claims Act by over-charging the federal government for its services."

Boyle explains that "Michael Lindley was a field organizer in Council Bluffs, Iowa, for then-Sen. Obama’s 2008 run for president before joining Gallup, a fact omitted from the DOJ’s legal filings and from most press accounts."

In a very Nixonian abuse of power the Obama/Holder Justice Department announced it was joining the lawsuit on August 22, 2012. The announcement also indicated that the Justice Department plans to assert additional claims related to Gallup’s subcontract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). During most of the two weeks before the announcement, Gallup's tracking poll showed Romney leading Obama 47 to 45 percent.

Contrast team Obama's treatment of Gallup to that of Nate Silver. As Buzz Feed Politics reports, team Obama was more appreciative of silvers work and rewarded him.

"Obama's polling analysts, Issenberg writes, wanted to test their internal polls against Silver's model. And so — in an unusual step for the closely-held campaign, and for the analyst, who was then running his own website, FiveThirtyEight.com — the Obama campaign offered Silver access to thousands of its own internal polls, on the condition Silver sign a confidentiality agreement, which he did. (Silver, who now writes a widely-read blog for the New York Times declined to comment on the arrangement.)"

You really must go to the Daily Caller and read some of what is in the emails. Here is a teaser:

"In response to that email, a third senior Gallup official said he thought Axelrod’s pressure “sounds a little like a Godfather situation.”

“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”

In a second email chain titled “slanderous link about Gallup methodology,” another senior Gallup official noted that a Washington Examiner story on Axelrod’s anti-Gallup tweet was “on [the] Drudge [Report] right now,” before writing that the episode was “[s]o politically motivated, it’s laughable.”

“As they say in b-ball: he’s trying to work the refs,” that official wrote to other senior Gallup staffers. “What a joke. Axel’s had a bad week. He got in the middle of the Ann Romney thing. Then said the country is going in the wrong direction. (Oops!) Now he’s swinging at us….”"

The Axelrod vs. Gallup story is more evidence that Obama is losing and the campaign is desperate. The Good news is that Gallup did not cave in to the attempted "intimidation" and now the story is public. Does the Axelrod vs.Gallup story explain why we have seen so many skewed polls during this campaign?

The main stream media should Demand that Axelrod and Gibbs tell the truth about what happened. As Boyle writes, the emails contradict what Axelrod’s fellow Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs told the Washington Times’ Kerry Picket this week about the campaign’s dealings with Gallup:

Picket reported that Gibbs said he was unaware of any communications between the Obama campaign and Gallup.

Was Gibbs lying to Picket? Was he misinformed? The emails suggest its one or the other.

GAO confirms Obama changed welfare to work rules in another extra-legal power grab

In another blow to the so-called fact-checking propaganda wing of the Democrat Party, the  Government Accountability Office (GAO), said yesterday that the Obama regime must give Congress the chance to block President Obama's scheme that lets states change, some say "gut," the Clinton-era welfare to work rules Obama long opposed:

"In July, the Obama administration offered states more latitude in how they can run cash-assistance programs that replaced the welfare system after the 1996 overhaul passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Bill Clinton. … 'It must be submitted to Congress and the comptroller general before taking effect,' wrote Lynn H. Gibson, GAO's general counsel, in a letter to the lawmakers on Tuesday."

The GAO finding comes just in time for impeached former President Clinton gives the keynote speech tonight at the Charlotte "we all belong to the government" Democrat National Convention.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the GAO's rebuke of the Obama scheme resulted from a request by Republicans, Sen.  Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, in which they asked the GAO to determine whether the administration's changes were the equivalent of a rule change that would require congressional approval. Hatch praised the GAO findings Tuesday, saying that they were further proof that the administration could not change the program without Congress's consent:

"This analysis is unequivocal that any changes must be submitted to Congress," he said. "Circumventing Congress, as this White House has done, is a flagrant abuse of our system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers."

You will surely recall how quickly the Democrats' now disgraced fact-checking propaganda wing jumped to Obama;'s defense when Romney said the Obama rule change would gut the work to welfare reform rules. Now we know that Romney was right to go after the Obama power grab dressed up as an ordinary "information memorandum."

Watch Romney's "Right Choice" ad taking Obama to task for trying to quietly gut the welfare to work welfare reform rules:

Transcript of the "Right Choice" ad:

"In 1996, President Clinton signed bipartisan legislation to reform welfare by requiring work. Sixteen years later, President Obama quietly gutted this landmark law. Mitt Romney will restore the bipartisan reforms to welfare and move our country in the right direction."

This is what Democrats believe?

I was a nonplussed last night when I saw the video played at the opening of the Democrats' national convention, which actually states, "Government is the only thing we all belong to."

That is such a foreign concept. To me Saying you belong to the government is like saying you are a subject of some monarch, or worse enslaved.

You can't say it any better than Mitt Romney did:

"We don't belong to government, the government belongs to us."

It is not surprising to me that the Obama campaign is already trying to distance itself from the ill-conceived tag line by claiming it was neither an OFA nor a DNC video.

What is surprising is that Democrats actually do believe we all belong to the government. Watch the accompanying  video put together by the good folks at Revealing Politics after Caleb Bonham and Kelly Maher interviewed convention-goers about the we belong to the government tag line.

 

I know the Democrats are big supporters of ever more and ever bigger government, but really "we all belong to the government." That's just not my America.

What else should we expect from the party that brought us "you didn't build that" and the Charlotte convention motto "we make it possible?"

 

Our 'irresponsible' and 'unpatriotic' $16 trillion national debt

Today, the national debt is $16,015,769,788,215.80 (as of 8/31/12 -- US Department of the Treasury, TreasuryDirect.gov, accessed 9/4/12). It was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when Obama became president. That is an increase of more than a five and one-half trillion dollars (50 percent) during in the forty-two months of the Obama presidency.

In honor of this momentous occasion, the Republican National Committee in conjunction with Romney for President released a new video titled,  "$16 Trillion." You can watch the "$16 Trillion." video here.

$16 trillion is more than the value of all the goods and services produced in the United States last year. ("Gross Domestic Product," Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA.gov, accessed 9/4/12.)  $16 trillion is also 25 percent of the world's gross domestic product.

It gets worse. According to Duquesne University Economics Professor Antony Davies, the debt and unfunded obligations of the federal government total $64.09 trillion. An amount greater than the "economic output of the entire planet." That's right, the entire planet.

If current trends continue, the U.S. will become operationally bankrupt in 2037 and will be actually bankrupt in 2047.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took President Obama to task for the 50 percent increase in the national debt during his presidency:

"The past four years Barack Obama hasn't offered any serious solutions to get our spending under control and instead he has run 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. President Obama's budget got zero votes in Congress and we can only expect more of the same inaction in a second term."

On July 3, 2008, Presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." Obama was referring to the $3.764 trillion that had been added to the national debt during the seven and one-half years Bush had been president. Obama of course got his facts wrong when he falsely claimed President Bush increased the national debt by $4 trillion "by his lonesome." When Speaker Pelosi took over Congress on January 3, 2007, the national debt was $8.7 trillion. So the Democrats must get some of the credit for one of the four trillion dollars candidate Obama tried to blame on Bush.

Despite his promises to cut the deficit in half by the end of his "first" term, Obama has racked up the largest deficits in U.S. history:

• FY2009: The federal budget deficit was $1.413 trillion, the highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2011: The federal budget deficit was $1.299 trillion, the second highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2010: The federal budget deficit was $1.294 trillion, the third highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit for fiscal year 2012 (which ends on September 30), will total $1.1 trillion, Obama’s fourth straight trillion dollar deficit. ("An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022," Congressional Budget Office, 8/22/12)

You shouldn't be shocked by Obama's failure to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. He did warn us there would be "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

It could have been even worse. According to the Washington Post's fact checker, every year President Obama has wanted to spend more money than Congress would allow.

 

Can the U.S. avoid bankruptcy?

The Congress doesn't cut spending and balance the budget because they can't. Not even if they remove every department and employee including the military.

So says Hal Mason in the shocking accompanying video titled, "United States Budget Dilemma."

President Obama, in his proposed Fiscal Year 2013 budget, would spend $3.8 trillion. But the federal government will only collect $2.5 trillion in taxes, resulting in a deficit of $1.3 trillion. That $1.3 trillion is an amount larger than Congress appropriates to operate the federal budget.

The problem is easily stated; spending on mandatory programs and interest is greater than taxes collected. According to Mason, in order to balance the budget, Congress would have to raise taxes 50 percent or eliminate the federal government.

You can watch the "United States Budget Dilemma" video here.

Congress has failed to adequately address the problem by continuing raise the debt limit and borrow more and more until we now have a $16 Trillion national debt. $16 Trillion exceeds 100 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and is 25 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Worse the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't even passed a budget in over three years.

Back in February 2011, I wrote "Just How broke are we?" about Duquesne University Economics Professor Antony Davies' analysis about the debt and unfunded obligations of the federal government totaling more than $64 Trillion. I asked Professor Davies about Molson's video. He said the figures in the video match his calculations, which are straightforward. Professor Davies agrees, mandatory spending currently exceeds federal tax revenues, so shutting down the entirety of what most people think of as "the government" will still not balance the budget.

Professor Davies also explained that if current trends continue the U.S. will become operationally bankrupt in 2037 and will be actually bankrupt in 2047. And that ignores  the potential effects of ObamaCare.

Bankruptcy occurs when the annual interest on the debt equals federal revenue. At this
point, it becomes mathematically impossible for the government to avoid default.

Operational bankruptcy occurs when the annual interest on the debt equals federal
revenue less discretionary spending. At this point, it becomes impossible for the
government to fund anything other than mandatory spending (which includes welfare,
Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, veterans services, and interest on the debt). Under
the Antideficiency Act, Federal agencies must cease operations (except in emergencies)
when they lack funding.

There is no easy answer to our budget dilemma. We must reform entitlements. As the Greek experience shows, any viable solution will be painful for everyone.

Obama doesn't care; finally tours storm damage

President Obama finally arrived in Louisiana to inspect the damage done by Hurricane Isaac six days after the storm made landfall and three days after Mitt Romney inspected hurricane damage with Governor Bobby Jindal.

Romney got there three days earlier because he cared enough to skip a campaign rally in Virginia in order to inspect the damage done by Isaac. If Romney had not made the extra effort to visit Louisiana, does anyone seriously think Obama would have bothered to show up at all.

Obama was too busy flying all over the country fundraising and campaigning to visit the storm damage. At least he was until Romney made his inspection trip. I know the White House claims Obama made the decision to visit Louisiana before Mitt Romney's announcement that he would be going to the state Friday to see damage from Hurricane Isaac. Frankly I just don't believe it. Do you? After all Obama announced that he would tour Hurricane Isaac damage in Louisiana only after Romney did. 

Obama has done this before. Last summer Obama ignored a request from five congressmen to tour flood damage in Sioux City, Iowa. Instead, Obama campaigned on other side of Iowa.

Sioux City Councilman Keith Radig calls Obama a fair weathered friend.

"You could kind of describe Obama as a fair weathered friend — he’s one that’s only there when he needs something from you. But when we needed his leadership, he was nowhere to be found."

Just another example of Obama's infamous leading from behind. This time three days behind Romney.

Happy 'National Empty Chair Day'

In honor of Labor Day, and as Democrats gather for their national convention, Conservatives have declared today "National Empty Chair Day."

Yes, it's play on Clint Eastwood's infamous speech to an empty chair representing an absent President Obama during the Republican National Convention. Conservatives are going after Obama’s record using the hashtag #emptychairday.

According to Politico by Monday morning, the #emptychairday hashtag began trending on Monday morning as users tweeted pictures of empty chairs. In addition to My RedState colleague Ben Howe's fine empty chair effort,  seen above, you can see more examples at Legal Insurrection and Hot Air. 

Keeping in step with the empty chair, some might say empty suit theme, the Republican National Committee released a new video titled, "We've Heard It All Before." The new video takes Obama to task for recycling the same tired rhetoric and failed promises that he campaigned on four years ago.

You can watch the "We've Heard It All Before"video here.

As RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said, "The only question he [Obama] refuses to answer is 'are you better off?'" As we said earlier, while the Obama Campaign is having a tough time answering that question, last October, Obama admitted that Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. You can watch Obama's admission here.

Romney leads in North Carolina as Democrat convention begins

As the delegates to the Democrat Convention gather in Charlotte, North Carolina, they are greeted with a discouraging headline in the Charlotte Observer, "As DNC begins, Romney Gains in N.C." 

The headline is a reference to the new Elon University/Charlotte Observer Poll shows the GOP presidential candidate leading President Barack Obama 47 percent to 43 percent among likely voters in North Carolina.

The poll found the women vote almost evenly split on their support 45 percent for Obama 44 percent Romney. So much for the gender gap.

The respondents said Romney would do a better job of handling the economy 52 percent to 39 percent and more said that Romney more closely shares their values 48 percent to 45 percent.

The economy/jobs is the most important issue for likely North Carolina voters.

The poll was conducted August 25-30, 2012, and has a margin of error of 3 percent. 

In 2008, Obama became the first Democrat to carry North Carolina since 1976. Trying for a repeat, the Obama campaign Obama campaign has maintained a big presence in North Carolina and chose Charlotte for the Democrats' convention.

Back in April, Romney visited Charlotte and gave a "prebuttal" to the Democrat's convention. Standing in front of the Bank of America stadium where President Obama will formally accept the Democrats' nomination Romney reminded us that "President Obama 'has failed by the measurements he set.'" Romney went after Obama over the so-called stimulus, unemployment, debt, cutting Medicare to pay for ObamaCare, Social Security, foreclosures, home values, gas prices and tuition.

In conjunction with his Obama convention 'prebuttal,' the Romney campaign released a video highlighting how the Obama Presidency has failed when evaluated by the measures of progress established by Obama. Four years ago at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, then-candidate Barack Obama said that Democrats measure progress by whether people can find a job and provide for themselves and their families. In North Carolina, it is not easy for people to find a job and provide for themselves and their families:

You can watch the "President Obama's Measure of Progress" video here.

It all comes back to Ronald Reagan's famous question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" And even Obama admits that we are not better off than we were four years ago. A question which the Obama Campaign is having a tough time answering, even though last October, Obama admitted that Americans are not better off than they were four years ago. You can watch Obama's admission here.

Obama's concession invites a constant comparison to President Carter's failed presidency using the devastating, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" question posed by then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan at the end of his debate with Jimmy Carter on October 28, 1980:

"Next Tuesday is Election Day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

You can watch a video Reagan's devastating question here. The more people are exposed to Reagan's "are you better off" question to Carter, the more the belief that Obama will also be a one-term president is reinforced.

Republicans outnumber Democrats by a record 4.3 percent

Rasmussen reports that the number of Americans who consider themselves Republicans jumped nearly three points in August to 37.6 percent -- the largest number of Republicans ever recorded by Rasmussen.

The number of Democrats slipped to 33.3 percent giving Republicans a 4.3 percent advantage. According to Rasmussen, that's the largest advantage ever held by Republicans and the largest for either party since April 2010.

The number of voters not affiliated with either major political party fell to 29.2 percent -- the smallest number of unaffiliated voters since 2009.

The biggest partisan gap advantage Rasmussen ever measured for Democrats was 10.1 percent in May 2008:

"Between November 2004 and 2006, the Democratic advantage in partisan identification grew by 4.5 percentage points. That foreshadowed the Democrats' big gains in the 2006 midterm elections. The gap grew by another 1.5 percentage points between November 2006 and November 2008 leading up to President Obama's election."

The Democrats' advantage was short lived. It started declining the month Obama was inaugurated. It then declined through 2009, but fell dramatically as the ObamaCare debate reached its peak and the Senate Democrats voted for it in the dead of night.

A majority, 51 percent still want ObamaCare repealed and believe it will increase the deficit and the cost of health care:

• As they have from the beginning, most voters (53%) believe the health care law will increase the federal deficit.
• Fifty-two percent (52%) think the cost of health care will go up as a result of the new law.
• A plurality (48%) also thinks the quality of care will get worse under the new law.

Democrats failed to listen to America and passed ObamaCare in true partisan fashion -- without a single Republican vote. Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed in such a strictly partisan fashion.

The Democrats have been paying the price ever since. Republicans became governors of New Jersey and Virginia in November 2009. Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in January 2010. Then in the general election the Democrats took a thumpin as the Republicans retook control of the House. And now a record number of Americans call themselves Republicans.