As the general election approaches, President Obama and Democrats must have a sense that they have seen this political movie once before. The plot and characters have changed, but the ending may again spell disaster for the party whose emblem is a domestic ass.
The reason for the deja vu is that today's political landscape resembles 1980. President Jimmy Carter was grappling with the fallout from the prolonged Iranian hostage crisis and skyrocketing gasoline prices. Inflation was stuck in double-digits. His poll numbers were eroding faster than the value of the dollar.
Against this backdrop, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan beat the odds by unseating an incumbent president. It was a historic victory as Reagan won in a landslide that buried Democrats. Riding Reagan's coattails the Republicans gained control of the Senate for the first time in 28 years.
Today's political scene eerily brings to mind 1980. Incumbent Barrack Obama has watched gasoline prices double under his watch. Iran's nuclear ambitions represent a challenge that has exposed Obama's weak foreign policy credentials. After years of dormancy, inflation inched up in last month's government report.
When Obama was inaugurated, the average price of gasoline was $1.84 a gallon. Today that same gallon costs about $3.65. Despite spineless economic sanctions favored by the president, a defiant Iran has ramped up its nuclear program. In February, the Consumer Price Index rose an unexpected 0.4 percent, the largest increase in 10 months.
Unfortunately for Obama, worse days may lie ahead. Gasoline prices usually spike during the summer vacation season and may surpass $5 a gallon. Fuel increases will fatten inflation. Gas prices could reach the stratosphere if Israel attacks Iran, whose leaders are already threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for Mideast crude.
President Obama has made it abundantly clear these issues will take a backseat to his reelection. Therefore, expect more posturing rather than substance as Obama tries to sway public opinion in his favor on gas prices and Iran.
Obama has tipped his hand on how he will deal with the oil problem. The president believes the solution to rising prices is not more oil, but less. He has dumped billions of taxpayer dollars into alternative fuel programs that have done nothing to ease the pain at the pump. Instead, taxpayer funds often have gone to political cronies and failed enterprises.
A duplicitous Obama parachuted into Cushing, Oklahoma, recently to take credit for a pipeline project he has twice rejected. The pipeline spanning parts of Oklahoma to the Texas coast is the southernmost leg of the ill-fated Keystone Pipeline project. In his photo-op, the president bragged that he helped cut red tape to authorize the pipeline.
The only problem is the president's boast is fraudulent. This leg of the pipeline did not require presidential approval since it did not transverse international boundaries. The Cushing project was green lighted through the normal regulatory process. Obama denied a permit for the one part he controlled.
The Cushing charade came only 48 hours after a defensive Obama claimed no president can impact the cost of a gallon of gas. After polls showed Americans blamed the president for the pump shock, Obama reversed course to highlight how a president can boost oil supply.
Likely, his next move will be to drag greedy oil company executives to the White House to publicly berate them. He has already attacked the oil industry for its profits. In recent remarks, the president called on Congress to scrap tax incentives for oil firms. He didn't explain how this will help lower prices.
This is a page out of the Carter playbook. The ex-president slapped a Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax on the industry as his response to rising oil prices. Enacted in 1980, the tax failed to arrest prices and was lifted eight years later by Reagan. Expect Obama to resurrect the tax soon after oil companies release first quarter profits.
There are also similarities between the approaches of both Carter and Obama on Iran. During the Iranian hostage affair, Carter vacillated between diplomacy and a military rescue operation. When the crisis dragged on 444 days without a resolution, Americans became impatient with the president, who appeared weak and indecisive.
Obama didn't learn from Carter's bungling. After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election victory in 2009, protests erupted in the streets of the Iranian capital. As the demonstrations spread, Iranian opposition leaders begged President Obama to lend his support. He demurred, letting the air out of the nascent movement and emboldening Iranian leadership to continue to pursue their nuclear program.
Although Obama has started sounding tough on Iran's nuclear policy, he cannot afford to order military operations without incurring the wrath of his liberal base. As a matter of fact, the British Sunday Times reported that Obama pleaded with Israel to delay bombing Iran's nuclear facilities under after the election.
Sensing America's weakened resolve, some U.S. allies are bailing out of the Obama-led effort for more sanctions. The U.S. State Department has exempted eleven nations from implementing tougher sanctions planned by the president. The action was a face-saving maneuver to spare the president from embarrassment after Japan and ten European nations signaled they could not support the new sanctions.
While the economy remains uppermost in voters' minds, oil prices and Iran are gaining traction among the electorate. If both issues continue to fester, they could expose Obama's Achilles heel on domestic oil and foreign policy.
It may not be 1980, but the Democrat Party might get its domestic ass kicked once again.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Why A Woman Will Never Be President
Unless there is an sea change in attitudes, a woman will never occupy the Oval Office in the White House. The media, popular culture and self-appointed feminists have conspired to make every woman presidential candidate appear dumb, weak and nutty.
If that appraisal sounds too harsh, consider the most recent example of Michele Bachmann, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman who campaigned in the Republican presidential primaries.
Rolling Stone magazine called her a "political psychopath." Liberal radio host Mike Malloy labeled her a "phony ass broad." MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked her as the "Mata Hari of Minnesota." Pseudo television comedian Bill Maher defamed her as "mentally retarded."
And that is just a small sampling of the hate-filled speech directed at Ms. Bachmann. The most demeaning diatribes are so off color they cannot be repeated here.
Of course, even the most disgusting vitriol uttered against the congresswoman pales in comparison to the vicious vile that has been heaped on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Maher, in particular, saved some of his filthiest characterizations for the former Alaska governor. On television, the born-again atheist has used such crude epithets as "dumb twat" and the c-word that rhymes with runt. Late night talk show host David Letterman referenced Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" and joked that the ex-governor's daughter had been "knocked up" by a New York Yankee baseball player.
Even feminists attacked Ms. Palin. Writer Rebecca Traister opined, "she's the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much." Another feminist labeled Palin a "conservative a**hole."
During the 2008 campaign, not a single feminist defended Palin over the disparaging caricatures of her intelligence, the media preoccupation with her looks or the verbal savaging of her daughters.
This misanthrope disease not only afflicts Republican woman. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, MSNBC's Matthews theorized that Hillary Clinton was the front runner only because "her husband messed around." Another television reporter commented on Chelsea's Clinton's "pimped out" look. Conservative radio host Mark Levin ridiculed Ms. Clinton's appearance suggesting an appropriate title would be "Her Thighness."
How long will women put up with this treatment? Females of every political persuasion ought to be outraged. Yet the recent verbal flogging of Ms. Bachmann was greeted with stony silence. Although a few conservative women objected, her male presidential contenders never rose to defend her against these sleazy attacks.
Feminists and liberal women have a sorry record on this issue, too. They shrug at the cheap chauvinist remarks as long as the target is Republicans. Their silence emboldens others to continue to debase women. In the end, it also makes their defense of feminist-endorsed candidates appear hypocritical.
Off color jokes, sexual references, stereotyping and misogynistic speech about women have no place in politics, even if you disagree with their views. The male-dominated media, movies, music and television industries all gleefully reinforce this notion that women are empty headed dolts whose only redeeming quality is their form.
Ms. Bachmann is the 26th woman to run for the presidency. The first was Victoria Woodhull in 1872 under the Equal Rights Party banner. All faced long odds because they are handicapped by the media's inordinate focus on their appearance, their intellect and their emotional state.
In this war on women, the real losers are all females, not just the targets of the politically motivated invective. Young women today are being negatively influenced by all the verbal trashing of female candidates. The vilification contaminates the environment for females struggling for jobs, promotions, educations or support for their decision to just be a mom.
No one is suggesting that criticism of women candidates should be off limits. However, there is no question there is a double-standard when it comes to females in politics. The focus of news coverage should be the candidates' political views, character and experience, not hair styles.
Women and men must band together on this issue and demand change. Silence is not golden when character assassinations are rooted in nothing more than gender. This is a battle worth fighting. Not just for women, but for the country.
If that appraisal sounds too harsh, consider the most recent example of Michele Bachmann, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman who campaigned in the Republican presidential primaries.
Rolling Stone magazine called her a "political psychopath." Liberal radio host Mike Malloy labeled her a "phony ass broad." MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked her as the "Mata Hari of Minnesota." Pseudo television comedian Bill Maher defamed her as "mentally retarded."
And that is just a small sampling of the hate-filled speech directed at Ms. Bachmann. The most demeaning diatribes are so off color they cannot be repeated here.
Of course, even the most disgusting vitriol uttered against the congresswoman pales in comparison to the vicious vile that has been heaped on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Maher, in particular, saved some of his filthiest characterizations for the former Alaska governor. On television, the born-again atheist has used such crude epithets as "dumb twat" and the c-word that rhymes with runt. Late night talk show host David Letterman referenced Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" and joked that the ex-governor's daughter had been "knocked up" by a New York Yankee baseball player.
Even feminists attacked Ms. Palin. Writer Rebecca Traister opined, "she's the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much." Another feminist labeled Palin a "conservative a**hole."
During the 2008 campaign, not a single feminist defended Palin over the disparaging caricatures of her intelligence, the media preoccupation with her looks or the verbal savaging of her daughters.
This misanthrope disease not only afflicts Republican woman. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, MSNBC's Matthews theorized that Hillary Clinton was the front runner only because "her husband messed around." Another television reporter commented on Chelsea's Clinton's "pimped out" look. Conservative radio host Mark Levin ridiculed Ms. Clinton's appearance suggesting an appropriate title would be "Her Thighness."
How long will women put up with this treatment? Females of every political persuasion ought to be outraged. Yet the recent verbal flogging of Ms. Bachmann was greeted with stony silence. Although a few conservative women objected, her male presidential contenders never rose to defend her against these sleazy attacks.
Feminists and liberal women have a sorry record on this issue, too. They shrug at the cheap chauvinist remarks as long as the target is Republicans. Their silence emboldens others to continue to debase women. In the end, it also makes their defense of feminist-endorsed candidates appear hypocritical.
Off color jokes, sexual references, stereotyping and misogynistic speech about women have no place in politics, even if you disagree with their views. The male-dominated media, movies, music and television industries all gleefully reinforce this notion that women are empty headed dolts whose only redeeming quality is their form.
Ms. Bachmann is the 26th woman to run for the presidency. The first was Victoria Woodhull in 1872 under the Equal Rights Party banner. All faced long odds because they are handicapped by the media's inordinate focus on their appearance, their intellect and their emotional state.
In this war on women, the real losers are all females, not just the targets of the politically motivated invective. Young women today are being negatively influenced by all the verbal trashing of female candidates. The vilification contaminates the environment for females struggling for jobs, promotions, educations or support for their decision to just be a mom.
No one is suggesting that criticism of women candidates should be off limits. However, there is no question there is a double-standard when it comes to females in politics. The focus of news coverage should be the candidates' political views, character and experience, not hair styles.
Women and men must band together on this issue and demand change. Silence is not golden when character assassinations are rooted in nothing more than gender. This is a battle worth fighting. Not just for women, but for the country.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Department of Education Earns Failing Grade
Of all the cabinet-level agencies sponging off American taxpayers, none are as lumbering, bureaucratic or as redundant as the Department of Education. The department should be abolished, its 5,000 employees furloughed and its $68.1 billion budget returned to taxpayers.
With a stroke of his pen, President Jimmy Carter signed a law in 1980 creating the department. Prior to then, the agency was a part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Carter championed the idea of upgrading education to cabinet level status.
Like many of President Carter's ideas, it was poorly conceived.
States already had their own Departments of Education. Yet Carter and Congressional Democrats insisted on another layer of government to establish policy for federal assistance to education. Among the other duties envisioned for the agency was the collection of education data and enforcement of civil rights.
As with most Washington bureaucracies, the department strayed far afield from its mission. Soon the department was immersed in school curriculum, standards and student achievement. From its humble beginnings, the agency with the smallest staff of the 15 cabinet departments now has the third largest budget.
Unfettered by congressional oversight, the department continues to embellish its mission. The agency proclaims its new role is "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
If that sounds like government gibberish, that's because it is.
Student achievement falls woefully short of the government's pomposity. Academic performance has sunk to new lows in the 98,000 public schools and the nation's young people lag far behind their global classmates.
In the most recent international testing, 15-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th in math among their peers from 34 countries. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development administered the testing and released the results in December, 2010.
U.S. teens fared only slightly better in science and reading, finishing near the middle of the pack. American students ranked 17th in science and 14th in reading. Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, were among the leaders, easily outdistancing U.S. students.
More taxpayer money won't guarantee U.S. students will catch up.
In the last ten years, federal spending on education has nearly doubled. Taxpayers doled out $46.2 billion to the department a decade ago. In President Obama's recent budget, he requested $77.4 billion. All that cash trickles down to the state and local level with lots of strings attached.
The non-partisan Government Accountability Office reported that 13,400 federally funded full-time employees were needed by state education agencies just to implement Washington-mandated programs. All those bureaucrats do not teach a single student.
In its review, the GAO found the education department precipitated 41 percent of the administration burden at the state level. States are forced to add staff with no responsibility other than feeding the federal government's insatiable appetite for reports and data.
The situation has worsened with the implementation of President George W. Bush's education initiative known as No Child Left Behind. The education policy was drafted by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and passed into law in 2001.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush's brainchild has boosted paperwork for state and local governments by 6,680,334 hours at an estimated annual cost of $141 million dollars.
Who picks up the tab for all those millions of dollars? You do.
State governments provide 46.9 percent of the money for public education. Local school districts furnish 44 percent. The feds kick in 9.1 percent. Total taxpayer spending on public schools stands at an all-time high of well over $500 billion.
The Cato Institute, a Washington think-tank, reported that per pupil expenditures in constant dollars increased 25 percent from 1995 to 2005. On average, it now costs $11,800 to educate one pupil in a public school for one year. Even that figure is likely understated.
The institute studied major metropolitan school districts and discovered that the per pupil spending on average was 44 percent higher than local educators reported. Slipshod record keeping, mathematical errors and lack of competent accounting staff were the main causes of the discrepancy.
If there was a direct correlation between money and student performance, Washington, D.C. public schools would be a shining example to follow. The district spends $22,400 per pupil, nearly double the national average. However, its achievement test scores rank the district near the bottom.
The inconvenient truth is that money alone won't improve education.
Instead of massive increases in funding, policymakers need to implement reforms designed to improve resource allocation. Any effort should include curtailing the blizzard of red tape generated by the Department of Education and elimination of the agency's 11 regional offices and 13 field locations.
Local school districts should decide what works best to improve education. They are directly accountable to parents and voters in the district. No such accountability exists for the superfluous Washington elitists who oversee education.
It's time to turn out the lights, send the bureaucrats packing and lock the doors at the Department of Education. Taxpayers would be better off. More importantly, students would be, too.
With a stroke of his pen, President Jimmy Carter signed a law in 1980 creating the department. Prior to then, the agency was a part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Carter championed the idea of upgrading education to cabinet level status.
Like many of President Carter's ideas, it was poorly conceived.
States already had their own Departments of Education. Yet Carter and Congressional Democrats insisted on another layer of government to establish policy for federal assistance to education. Among the other duties envisioned for the agency was the collection of education data and enforcement of civil rights.
As with most Washington bureaucracies, the department strayed far afield from its mission. Soon the department was immersed in school curriculum, standards and student achievement. From its humble beginnings, the agency with the smallest staff of the 15 cabinet departments now has the third largest budget.
Unfettered by congressional oversight, the department continues to embellish its mission. The agency proclaims its new role is "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access."
If that sounds like government gibberish, that's because it is.
Student achievement falls woefully short of the government's pomposity. Academic performance has sunk to new lows in the 98,000 public schools and the nation's young people lag far behind their global classmates.
In the most recent international testing, 15-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th in math among their peers from 34 countries. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development administered the testing and released the results in December, 2010.
U.S. teens fared only slightly better in science and reading, finishing near the middle of the pack. American students ranked 17th in science and 14th in reading. Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, were among the leaders, easily outdistancing U.S. students.
More taxpayer money won't guarantee U.S. students will catch up.
In the last ten years, federal spending on education has nearly doubled. Taxpayers doled out $46.2 billion to the department a decade ago. In President Obama's recent budget, he requested $77.4 billion. All that cash trickles down to the state and local level with lots of strings attached.
The non-partisan Government Accountability Office reported that 13,400 federally funded full-time employees were needed by state education agencies just to implement Washington-mandated programs. All those bureaucrats do not teach a single student.
In its review, the GAO found the education department precipitated 41 percent of the administration burden at the state level. States are forced to add staff with no responsibility other than feeding the federal government's insatiable appetite for reports and data.
The situation has worsened with the implementation of President George W. Bush's education initiative known as No Child Left Behind. The education policy was drafted by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and passed into law in 2001.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, Bush's brainchild has boosted paperwork for state and local governments by 6,680,334 hours at an estimated annual cost of $141 million dollars.
Who picks up the tab for all those millions of dollars? You do.
State governments provide 46.9 percent of the money for public education. Local school districts furnish 44 percent. The feds kick in 9.1 percent. Total taxpayer spending on public schools stands at an all-time high of well over $500 billion.
The Cato Institute, a Washington think-tank, reported that per pupil expenditures in constant dollars increased 25 percent from 1995 to 2005. On average, it now costs $11,800 to educate one pupil in a public school for one year. Even that figure is likely understated.
The institute studied major metropolitan school districts and discovered that the per pupil spending on average was 44 percent higher than local educators reported. Slipshod record keeping, mathematical errors and lack of competent accounting staff were the main causes of the discrepancy.
If there was a direct correlation between money and student performance, Washington, D.C. public schools would be a shining example to follow. The district spends $22,400 per pupil, nearly double the national average. However, its achievement test scores rank the district near the bottom.
The inconvenient truth is that money alone won't improve education.
Instead of massive increases in funding, policymakers need to implement reforms designed to improve resource allocation. Any effort should include curtailing the blizzard of red tape generated by the Department of Education and elimination of the agency's 11 regional offices and 13 field locations.
Local school districts should decide what works best to improve education. They are directly accountable to parents and voters in the district. No such accountability exists for the superfluous Washington elitists who oversee education.
It's time to turn out the lights, send the bureaucrats packing and lock the doors at the Department of Education. Taxpayers would be better off. More importantly, students would be, too.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
RX for GOP: Take One Chill Pill Daily
Republicans need to chill.
Too many of the GOP faithful are turning into nervous ninnies. Sources of their angst are almost too numerous to list. It includes worrying about too many debates, too much candidate sniping, too much talk of social issues, too long a primary season and on-and-on ad nausea.
The latest malady is a contagion known as candidate fatigue. The Republican hang-wringers are tormented because they imagine voters have become jaded by the process and its participants. They pine for a fresh face to perk-up party enthusiasm.
Such unhealthy behavior plays into the Democrats' hands. GOP partisans have taken a bite of the forbidden fruit on the media's Tree of Wisdom. They should know better than to be seduced by the mainstream media's moronic misinformation.
Many have developed amnesia over the Democrat opponent on the ballot: Barrack Hussein Obama. The beleaguered president has more baggage than a fully loaded Southwest Airlines flight. And he is faced with a yawning enthusiasm gap of his own among key constituencies.
African-Americans and young people have been hardest hit by the president's inability to steer the nation's economic ship out of troubled waters. Both groups are worse off economically today than they were at the end of President Bush's second term.
Consider that unemployment among African-Americans stood at 15.8 percent at the end of last year. That is the highest jobless rate among this ethnic group since 1984. Black males have suffered even more. A shocking 17.1 percent of African-American males were unemployed at year-end 2011.
Those percentages offer a stark contrast to the unemployment rate of 8.3 percent for the nation as a whole in January.
Young people have fared somewhat better than blacks, but they lag the overall population. Latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment among 20-to-24-year olds sits at 13.3 percent. The 18-to-19-year old jobless rate rests uncomfortably at 20.5 percent.
President Obama cannot secure a second term without winning large majorities among both young people and African-Americans. Most pundits have forgotten that John McCain won the majority of voters over the age of 35. Voters under the age of 30 went for Obama by a margin of 68-to-32 percent.
Obama's historic candidacy had near unanimous support from blacks, garnering 95 percent of their votes. Yet the president has begun an urgent appeal to this loyal base in recent weeks because of flagging interest in his reelection. Sounds like someone has punched the panic button.
Obama not only is banking on huge majorities from both factions, but his reelection will likely pivot on their turnout.
About 131 million people voted in 2008, an increase of five million from the 2004 presidential election. The surge included two million more African-American voters and 3.4 million additional voters under 30. Voting among all other ethnicities and demographic groups either declined or remained the same as 2004.
Turnout among voters under the age of 30 was 49 percent, the highest in decades. Many were first-time voters. A full 43 percent had never voted in a previous presidential election, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
Any falloff in either turnout or vote margin in those critical groups spells disaster for Obama's reelection chances. Obama would have never claimed the office had not those two constituencies pushed him over the top in swing states, such as Ohio and Florida.
That's why a recent poll is causing migraine headaches for Democrats. Research indicates that 44 percent of voters under 30 disapprove of how the president has handled youth unemployment. A minority of 33 percent approve of Obama's policies, FOX News reports.
In the latest Rasmussen Poll, the president's approval ratings among all registered voters remain in negative territory. Fifty-three percent of voters disapprove of Obama's job performance. Those results induce ulcers among Democrats.
Republicans forget the paper-thin margin of victory for Obama in the last election. It was anything but the "sweeping mandate" reported in the media. McCain won more states, 30-to-20. The population of counties won by Obama was 127 million, compared to 143 million for McCain.
As these numbers suggest, Obama has much more to fret about than Republicans as the novelty of a black president wears off. Yet the anxiety level continues to spike among GOP diehards every time the mainstream media spews bilge about how unattractive and unelectable its candidates are.
Republicans need to switch off their televisions and chunk their newspapers. The Lame Stream Media is in the tank for Obama. Its "news" coverage might as well be orchestrated by the Obama Reelection Campaign.
Chilly media coverage of GOP candidates is par for the course, but it will be Barrack Hussein Obama who is left out in the cold on election night.
Too many of the GOP faithful are turning into nervous ninnies. Sources of their angst are almost too numerous to list. It includes worrying about too many debates, too much candidate sniping, too much talk of social issues, too long a primary season and on-and-on ad nausea.
The latest malady is a contagion known as candidate fatigue. The Republican hang-wringers are tormented because they imagine voters have become jaded by the process and its participants. They pine for a fresh face to perk-up party enthusiasm.
Such unhealthy behavior plays into the Democrats' hands. GOP partisans have taken a bite of the forbidden fruit on the media's Tree of Wisdom. They should know better than to be seduced by the mainstream media's moronic misinformation.
Many have developed amnesia over the Democrat opponent on the ballot: Barrack Hussein Obama. The beleaguered president has more baggage than a fully loaded Southwest Airlines flight. And he is faced with a yawning enthusiasm gap of his own among key constituencies.
African-Americans and young people have been hardest hit by the president's inability to steer the nation's economic ship out of troubled waters. Both groups are worse off economically today than they were at the end of President Bush's second term.
Consider that unemployment among African-Americans stood at 15.8 percent at the end of last year. That is the highest jobless rate among this ethnic group since 1984. Black males have suffered even more. A shocking 17.1 percent of African-American males were unemployed at year-end 2011.
Those percentages offer a stark contrast to the unemployment rate of 8.3 percent for the nation as a whole in January.
Young people have fared somewhat better than blacks, but they lag the overall population. Latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unemployment among 20-to-24-year olds sits at 13.3 percent. The 18-to-19-year old jobless rate rests uncomfortably at 20.5 percent.
President Obama cannot secure a second term without winning large majorities among both young people and African-Americans. Most pundits have forgotten that John McCain won the majority of voters over the age of 35. Voters under the age of 30 went for Obama by a margin of 68-to-32 percent.
Obama's historic candidacy had near unanimous support from blacks, garnering 95 percent of their votes. Yet the president has begun an urgent appeal to this loyal base in recent weeks because of flagging interest in his reelection. Sounds like someone has punched the panic button.
Obama not only is banking on huge majorities from both factions, but his reelection will likely pivot on their turnout.
About 131 million people voted in 2008, an increase of five million from the 2004 presidential election. The surge included two million more African-American voters and 3.4 million additional voters under 30. Voting among all other ethnicities and demographic groups either declined or remained the same as 2004.
Turnout among voters under the age of 30 was 49 percent, the highest in decades. Many were first-time voters. A full 43 percent had never voted in a previous presidential election, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
Any falloff in either turnout or vote margin in those critical groups spells disaster for Obama's reelection chances. Obama would have never claimed the office had not those two constituencies pushed him over the top in swing states, such as Ohio and Florida.
That's why a recent poll is causing migraine headaches for Democrats. Research indicates that 44 percent of voters under 30 disapprove of how the president has handled youth unemployment. A minority of 33 percent approve of Obama's policies, FOX News reports.
In the latest Rasmussen Poll, the president's approval ratings among all registered voters remain in negative territory. Fifty-three percent of voters disapprove of Obama's job performance. Those results induce ulcers among Democrats.
Republicans forget the paper-thin margin of victory for Obama in the last election. It was anything but the "sweeping mandate" reported in the media. McCain won more states, 30-to-20. The population of counties won by Obama was 127 million, compared to 143 million for McCain.
As these numbers suggest, Obama has much more to fret about than Republicans as the novelty of a black president wears off. Yet the anxiety level continues to spike among GOP diehards every time the mainstream media spews bilge about how unattractive and unelectable its candidates are.
Republicans need to switch off their televisions and chunk their newspapers. The Lame Stream Media is in the tank for Obama. Its "news" coverage might as well be orchestrated by the Obama Reelection Campaign.
Chilly media coverage of GOP candidates is par for the course, but it will be Barrack Hussein Obama who is left out in the cold on election night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)