novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

I predict the three broadcast networks will call the election for Barack Obama at 9:00 am Eastern Time on November 4 and go to special reports on the incoming Obama Administration and reruns of Michelle Obama’s appearances on The View and the Food Network for the rest of the day. MSNBC and CNN will hold off until 5:00 pm to make the call, until at least half of the exit polls have been tabulated.

In 2004, you will recall, all the major media outlets suggested a John Kerry victory before the polls had closed on the east coast, partly because of highly skewed exit poll data. This time around I think they will be much more definitive.

A friend recently opined that “polls are not designed to reflect public opinion but rather to influence it.” What an astute observation.

This is the year the liberal intelligentsia have decided to pull out all the stops, to go all in. They are unabashedly using every means at their disposal to influence the election to ensure Barack Obama is elected president – and their means are formidable.

A frank column by Howard Kurtz today notes the phenomenon:

Barack Obama has a problem: He’s going to sweep so many Democrats into Congress that he will “face high expectations,” as the New York Times put it, to deliver on his promises.

Obama will attempt to fashion a “new New Deal,” most likely with Larry Summers as his Treasury secretary, New York magazine says.

“John McCain’s defeat will be a lonely one,” Newsweek reports, but Sarah Palin could revive the Republican Party for 2012.

So much for the formality of next week’s election. Many pundits and publications seem so certain of a big Democratic win that they’re exploring the intricacies of an Obama administration and whether the party will have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate.

“If the mainstream media are wrong about Obama and the voters pull a Truman, that is going to be the end of whatever shred of credibility they have left,” says Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.

A promising notion, that. (If you think it sufficiently inspiring, consider sending some money to these guys so they can run these ads.)

In addition to just flat ass lying, one of the means pollsters and media analysts use to further their desired outcome is to juice the sample and/or neglect to report the sample. Underlying data are not always easy to find. In the recent RCP Virginia reports, for example, only the VCU and SurveyUSA demographics are accessible without paying a fee. Both of those reveal samplings significantly higher in self-reported Democrats than Republicans, and thus a presumed runaway victory by Obama in this state.

Yes, it could be that Virginia is turning blue by a large margin. It is also possible, however, that the pollsters are calculating many more Democrats in the results on the assumption that Democrats have been wildly successful in voter registration, will have a stronger get out the vote effort on November 4, and Republican lack of enthusiasm will depress the GOP turnout. Lots of assumptions can underly the strong projected vote for Obama.

And there is the flat ass lying factor, as well.

We should have learned the lesson in 2004 when the mainstream media was proven so incredibly off base about the result in Ohio, and in 2000 when they declared Al Gore the victor in Florida before the polls had closed in the western panhandle: The media are prone to rig the game. They sponsor many of the polls. And most of the “independent” pollsters are in the tank for Barack Obama such that we have a classic “ends justify the means” scenario.

They will all do anything to get Barack Obama elected. Do not believe the polls.

UPDATE: ABC columnist “embarrassed to admit what I do for a living.”

UPDATE II: In Pennsylvania, Michael Barone discerns an ironic element in Obama’s appeal.

Buy the sign here.

Lawyers Making Laws

My previous post was inaccurate: There was this one little piece of real news today.

In a just-discovered 2001 radio interview, Barack Obama states clearly he believes redistribution of wealth is something that needs to be accomplished in this country.

If you don’t have time to listen, here is a transcript:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

It’s a statement that should frighten the hell out of everyone who is trying to put their kid through college or save for retirement, because what Barack Obama is saying is that the U.S. government should take the money you have been saving and give it to other people who did not work for it.

But oh my, isn’t the message – “we should take money from those who earned and and give it to people who did not” – delivered in mellifluous tones!

Thanks for holding down the fort in my absence, guys. Good work here, good posts.

We just got home about midnight. A brief perusal of the Web tells me not much is happening in the world right now so I’ll just post some photos from the trip. If any news of import arises you can be sure I’ll be all over it.

In case you have ever wondered where all the seagulls go when they are not swarming and screeching over our parking lots, the answer is: They go to this beach in Naples, Florida and chill.
seagulls on naples beach

They just sit here for hours, not doing much, watching all the people walk up and down the beach, probably wondering “Why do they just walk along not in pursuit of any baitfish with nary a stop to dig coquinas out of the sand with their teeth?”

Just as we wonder, “Why do thousands of seagulls all just sit there on the beach?”

This struck me as interesting and provocative, I don’t know why. Bridesmaids in the surf – sort of has a ring to it.
wedding on naples beach

continue reading…

It appears, that House Democrats have also joined Obama in measuring curtains. The tax onslaught is beginning :

House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at The New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Mr. Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.

Under Ms. Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation.

The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.

“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ms. Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”

Read Story at InvestmentNews

While Social Security is a safety net, 401Ks have been the primary vehicle for middle class retirement savings, and now the Democrats appear to believe that too is something that must be nationalized. A college professor deciding for us that not paying taxes on 401K contributions is a “federal subsidy”, and must be stopped ? Preposterous !

If the tax break goes away, so does employer matching of employee contributions. A very bad deal for middle class working families, and just one more example of how the Democrats want to “look out for” the middle class.

A premonition if I ever saw one, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most Presidential candidate can point to a long list of accomplishments. Carter, Bush and Clinton point to running a state well. Other Presidents point to introduction of legislation that helped do this or that. Try as I might, Obama seems to have been invisible. He hasn’t done anything. There isn’t anything with his name attached as the author of any bills. There aren’t even any proposed legislation with his name on it.

The guy talks a lot, but in two years in congress, he has shown absolutely no leadership in getting anything onto the floor. No leadership in proposing anything that even did NOT make sense. He is a do nothing sort of guy.

He did line his pockets with money … he seems to know how to do that … but no positive (or even negative) initiatives. He follows? Is that what we want for a President?

The only person I can find that has any positive to say about his record is in this article, and even then, it isn’t on anything in two years he has as a senator. The author falls all over himself at how wonderful Obama was back in the state legislature. Nothing for the last two years? “What have you done for me lately?”

The guy is a lightweight, and the world knows it. His running mate knows it. Obama has never put forward any initiative in the senate. He should not be trusted as a president.



Imagine if you will :

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, behind closed doors, mapping out their vision for a new America.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, and Dodd, behind closed doors, trying to find ways to further increase Fannie and Freddie’s underwriting of sub-prime mortgages, with more federal subsidies, and less oversight.

Obama and Education Secretary Ayers, behind closed doors, drafting the next No Child Left Behind Act.

Obama, Reid, and Clinton, behind closed doors, working out a plan to ramrod a Clinton SCOTUS appointment through the Senate.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg, Boxer, and Feinstein, behind closed doors, brainstorming new ways to test, and ultimately challenge the Heller decision.

If Obama prevails, all of this is within the realm of possibility. Some of this, very likely.