CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Majority say Obama admin knowingly lied about Benghazi terrorist attacks

 

A new Fox News Poll finds that 51 percent think that Obama administration "knowingly lied" about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya "to help the President Obama during his re-election campaign" against Mitt Romney. 

The poll also found that 54 percent think that President Obama's administration "tried to deceive" the American people about the events surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks. 

Worse for the Democrats, 50 percent think their preferred 2016 presidential nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "tried to deceive" the American people about the State Department’s role in the events surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attacks. 

The poll has more bad news for the Democrats. Their phony scandals defense isn't working:

• Most the respondents, 71 percent, consider the IRS targeting of conservative and tea party groups for extra scrutiny serious;
• Most the respondents, 78 percent, consider the Benghazi scandal serious;
• Two-thirds of  the respondents, 67 percent, approve of Congress establishing a special committee to investigate Obama's decisions and activities surrounding the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans; and
• Most the respondents, 79 percent, also consider the National Security Agency's collection the phone and Internet records of millions of Americans to be serious.

The Fox News poll of registered voters was conducted May 10, 12-13, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percent. 

This poll is just the latest evidence that Obama continues to lose the trust of the American people. 

In November 2013 a CNN/ORC poll found that 53 percent of Americans believe that President Obama is "not honest and trustworthy." Then there was the 2013 lie of the year -- Obama's oft repeated "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

Obama Administration actions decrease opportunity to get ahead

More bad polling for President Obama and the Democrats.

A  recent National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll finds that Americans don't believe that Obama's administration is able to make a positive difference in their lives.  By a margin of 46 percent to 25 percent, respondents say the actions of the Obama administration "decrease opportunity" for people to get ahead.

On a number of key issues Obama claims to focus on, respondents said America is on the wrong track:

• Reducing poverty
• Improving access to healthcare and reducing costs
• Growing the economy and creating jobs
• Keeping a college education affordable
• Making it easier to start and run a business
• Improving the quality of K-12 education

The new poll shows that Americans reject President Obama's bigger government approach to everything. Seventy percent believe the country needs "major changes." But only 19 percent say that change should be led by the federal government -- 42 percent say the change should be led by "average Americans."

According to the poll, people still believe average Americans can affect their neighborhood (90 percent), and the country (71 percent). By a margin of 74 percent to 18 percent, people say “average Americans” have been more responsible for major social changes than government leadership.

Worse for the President and his Obamacrats, the contrary, the poll respondents cut across the usual partisan divides. The poll was evenly split between Republicans (23 percent) and Democrats (25 percent) and included plenty of Independents (47 percent). Almost half (47 percent) identified themselves as middle class. And was it evenly split among males (49 percent) and females (51 percent).

Daniel Garza, Executive Director of The LIBRE Initiative, gets it:

"Is there a more serious indictment of the agenda of this White House than the clear belief by so many Americans that this administration is reducing opportunity rather than expanding it? People are right to be wary of big government and its power to stifle opportunity. Americans are looking more and more to individuals and community groups as the drivers of change and social Welfare. While our faith in each other is one of the things that makes America great, we should be deeply concerned that big government policies increasingly stand in the way of individual well-being, success and prosperity.

[. . .]

It's far past time for a change in direction - one that limits spending, balances our Budget, reduces excess Regulation, and promotes economic opportunity. Average Americans are calling for it - and they will ultimately be the ones who insist on it." 

Poll results such as this and organizations such as The LIBRE Initiative offer hope that Obama's ever bigger, more intrusive and stifling government can and will be turned back. 

The 2014 midterm election is starting to feel more and more like 2010.

Veracity in West Virginia 2

I have not followed the race for West Virginia's Second Congressional District until yesterday. I became interested in the race when I was provided documents revealing that one of the seven Republican candidates, Ken Reed, has an issue with his veracity. The documents clearly establish that Reed was less than forthcoming in a sworn statement he made.

The Facts

Ken Reed is a pharmacist. Unfortunately, in 2003, Reed submitted an Application for a new pharmacy permit to the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy. In the Application Reed "swore or affirmed" that no disciplinary action had ever been taken against his "Pharmacy Registration." That is apparently not true.

In 1999, the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs found that Reed violated "Section 5(a)(10)of the Pharmacy Act by virtue of the disciplinary action taken against his West Virginia pharmacy license by the West Virginia Board of Pharmacy [see Adjudication and Order]."

That finding clearly shows that what Reed swore to in his 2003 application was not truthful.

The Issue

I do not support any of the seven candidates in this Republican primary race. My purpose in reporting this issue is to make sure the issue is known before next week's primary election. The documents are out there. If Reed should win the May 13 primary, the documents may be used against him. So existence of the documents, and the veracity issue the documents raise, should be known to the Republican primary voters before they choose their candidate.

Perhaps the voters of the second Congressional District of West Virginia don't care about this. Perhaps they don't think veracity is important. Nevertheless, they deserve to know before they choose their candidate.

After all the order of Pennsylvania Board of Pharmacy quoted above was not harsh. The discipline was based upon Reed having made a "number of dispensing errors" on one day. According to the findings of fact, the errors occurred as he "a sixth straight 12-hour day because the pharmacist-in-charge was on vacation." The errors were quickly rectified and no patient was harmed. All of which makes one wonder why Reed would not admit to the discipline in his 2003 Application.

This race is to replace seven-term Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, who is seeking the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Democrat Jay Rockefeller.

Move Connecticut Right

In Connecticut, in order to win the Lieutenant Governor nomination, a candidate has to make it out of the party convention with at least 15% of the vote. Then, the candidate has to win a primary. 

Currently, there are three candidates in contention for the Lieutenant Governor nomination heading into the convention, which will take place on May 17: Penny Bacchiochi, Heather ​Somers and David Walker. By rights, Bacchiochi should be the winner of the convention, and Walker should fail to make the cut. But conventions are, of course, somewhat unpredictable, and if Bacchiochi doesn't win the Republican nomination, it could have big consequences for the state GOP's prospects this November.

Bacchiochi is pretty conservative for Connecticut. She is a fiscal and limited government conservative, who has served in the state legislature for six terms. Every year since 2007, she has offered and voted for budgets that do not increase taxes. She serves in House Republican leadership. She beat an incumbent Democrat her first time running for her seat, becoming the first Republican and the first woman to represent her district in decades. Her district leans Democratic, so Bacchiochi knows how to win in environments that are not inherently friendly to Republicans (relevant in a statewide race in Connecticut). She has deep Connecticut roots, is a graduate of the University of Connecticut, owns and runs a business. She also has six sons, and is married to a Nigerian immigrant.

Bacchiochi has been endorsed by the Connecticut College Republicans and 26​-​year-old New Britain mayor Erin Stewart, which suggests she may be able to appeal ​to younger voters ​better than other Republicans. She has a record number of endorsements from fellow state legislators​, demonstrating her appeal across the conservative coalition​. She is also endorsed by the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen​ for her strong support of the Second Amendment​. She has support across the state, which is important given the occasional regional divides in Connecticut GOP politics. She ​has​, as of mid-April, raised more campaign funds than the other Republican Lieutenant Governor candidates, ​-- banking  $100,000, with more still flowing in​. Also, for some delegates, it matters that she is a she ​ ​-- fair or not, Connecticut Republicans seem to have fared better when there is a woman on the Governor-Lieutenant Governor ticket​, and the last Republican governor was a woman​.

Walker, the other candidate who has been attracting a lot of attention in this race, has his base in Fairfield County (where he now lives, having bought former Rep. Chris Shays' house in 2009). He has held a number of federal government appointments in Washington, D.C., including in the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations. He has also been involved with the No Labels movement and was the CEO of the Comeback America Initiative. In principle, this sounds impressive, but there are a few aspects of Walker's record that are giving Connecticut Republicans significant pause and should, all things being equal, present a challenge for Walker during the convention.

First, Walker deregistered as a Republican​ before joining the Clinton administration​, supposedly in order to serve in the federal government roles he worked in​.​ ​However, ​many question whether this was ​​really necessary​,​ ​​​​​or if  the ​disaffiliation was more a reflection of ​Walker's personal philosophical shifts than any job requirement​. That​ ​might explain his involvement with No Labels and claims that he ​did not re-register as a Republican until quite recently. Some Walker foes are claiming he is still not registered as a Republican, ​which I have not been able to confirm, but which if true would be troubling for a number of delegates.

Second, his involvement with No Labels rubs a number of conservatives and the party faithful the wrong way.

Third, the Comeback America Initiative that he founded and ran as CEO advocated for letting all​ the Bush/Obama tax cuts expire, raising the capital gains tax rate, instituting the Buffett Rule, keeping the estate tax on the books, temporary tax increases and more federal health care spending.

Fourth, Walker has been attacking his female opponents fairly relentlessly, suggesting they are unqualified for office and have no experience when in one case, the qualifications and experience mentioned above clearly apply, and in the other, the candidate also has experience in Connecticut government and in business. This not only smacks of sexism that some Republicans fear could give Democrats room to attack Walker using the "War on Women" line quite effectively should he be nominated​. ​This also underlines that his experience in government is Washington, D.C., Beltway-based, as opposed to Connecticut-based. Since the job he's running for is ​based in Hartford and ​all about Connecticut government, that may be a challenge for him. In short, there are questions about whether, if nominated, Walker could appeal across the state, attract the votes of ​conservatives in the state (as distinct from the votes of Democrats and Independents, which any GOP candidate will need to get a share of in order to win), and whether he would be particularly susceptible to the Democrats' attacks while offering Republicans little to get excited about.

Somers, the third candidate, seems to be regarded as a better choice than Walker by delegates, but her experience is at the very local level, which may not suit the Lieutenant Governor's role as well as Bacchiochi's experience does. There are also some questions about fiscal decisions in her town under her tenure as mayor (she appears to have raised property taxes and run budget deficits)​.

The bottom line here is that Bacchiochi looks like the strongest choice for the Republican Lieutenant Governor nomination. A far far stronger choice than Walker, about whom much ​Beltway ​buzz has focused. Convention delegates should compare and contrast these two candidates before the convention. There's a good reason to believe that Bacchiochi, the most conservative candidate in this race and can win in November. While Bacchiochi is not as conservative as candidates RedState supports in actual red states, she would move Connecticut government in a positive direction while potentially expanding the party's appeal and presenting a fresh face that differs from what many people inside and outside the state tend to think of when they imagine a "Republican."