Gallup's Analysis of Obama Approval Rating in Jewish Community is Dishonest

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle yesterday when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communication equipment. Due to the clouds and haze the pilot could not determine his position or course to steer to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign and held it in the helicopter's window. The sign said "WHERE AM I ?" in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign said, "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map and determine the course to steer to SEATAC (Seattle/Tacoma) airport and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded, "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer."

That story was written about Microsoft, but could have been written about Gallup's recent report on Obama's approval rating in the Jewish community. They provided information that was technically accurate, but totally useless.

The Headline of their story was:

Jewish Support for Obama Down, but Not Disproportionately Current 13-point gap between Jewish and national support is about average

That headline is absolutely true, but its the wrong comparison.

Assuming  the overall Jewish American approval numbers are correct, Jews gave President Barack Obama a 54% job approval rating in September, down from 68% in May,  and drastically below the 83% at the beginning of 2009, but its the comparison to the general population that is disingenuous.

There is little sign that President Obama is suffering disproportionately in support among Jews; 54% approved of his job performance from Aug. 1-Sept. 15, 13 percentage points higher than his overall 41% approval rating during that time, and similar to the average 14-point gap seen throughout Obama's term.

There's the problem, Jews can't be compared with total US Voters, because they don't vote that way.  Jews are far more liberal-Democratic than the average voter.  According to Gallup US Party affiliation as of May 2011 44% of American voters are Democrats.

The latest Gallup figure I could find for Jewish party affiliation (Sept 2009) shows that American Jews are almost 50% more likely to be Democrats than the average American.

Why is this important? Because Obama's approval rating has not fallen off with Democrats as fast it has for Republicans.  Using numbers from May 2011 and August 2011 Gallup reports the Democrat approval fall off is less the total US figures. Total US fell by 20% while total Democrats fell by fell by 12%

A more reasonable national baseline to compare the Jewish vote to would be 
to create a weighted average figure based on the general population approvals but weighted by the party affiliation of Jewish voters(66% Dem, 27% GOP and 7% independents)

That weighted average comes to 63.7% approval in May and 54.9% in August a drop of  almost 9% or a -13% difference in President Obama's approval rating

At the same time Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters dropped from 68% to 54% a drop of 14 percentage points or -16% difference.

Based on this more realistic comparison President Obama's job approval is falling faster than the national average.  While the president enjoyed a higher approval rating this May in the Jewish community than the national average (based on Jewish party affiliation), his approval today is slightly lower than the national average.

That's where Gallup gets it wrong. By comparing the drop in Obama's approval in the Jewish community to that of the overall voter, it does a disservice to it readership and creates a dishonest story.

The old proverb says there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Friday's Gallup look at Obama Approval Rating amongst Jewish voters has  proven that proverb to be very true.

Barack Obama Vs. The American People (Obama's 2012 Strategy)

This weekend President Obama and his campaign team went on television and made it clear he will not be running against Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican Candidates, no those candidates are too formidable in his mind. The president will also refuse to run on his record and to be honest who can blame him.  No based on what he said in his weekly address and supported by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the Sunday News shows, the enemy in this upcoming 2012 presidential campaign will be the Republicans in Congress and the American people.

Its an interesting yet disingenuous message that we have heard many times before. Grass-roots Americans in the form of the tea party  are forcing members of the Congressional Tea party caucus to take stands and stick to them which they do solely for political reasons. Even worse according to the presidential team, those positions are bad for the American people, and are the reason nothing gets done in Washington DC.



What positions are they talking about? Specifically the President is talking about some of those evil Tea Party positions such as, obey the constitution, do not add any more taxes until you can bring spending in line, and of course cut spending and reform entitlements lest the country go bankrupt. I would suggest that by taking those stands and sticking to them, despite all of the pressure to give in the tea party caucus is putting country in front of party and in front of their political careers.

The claim that it is the Tea Party caucus that has been holding up progress on legislation is also troubling.  The President has been running the country since January 2009. From inauguration day till January of this year when the GOP took over the house, Obama was working with two houses of Congress from his party. For most of that time, there were 60 Democrats in the  Senate making it filibuster proof! Isn't it reasonable to ask why was nothing done the first 75% of his term so far?

The answer to that question is the President and his party were pushing through programs that had nothing to do with Jobs, but had everything to do with putting political agenda in front of country, a trillion dollar stimulus program which included every type of pork possible, targeted to reelect Democrats.  Instead of having the stimulus dollars hit ASAP which would be most helpful to the economy, a large chunk of the money hit in early 2010, so it could be used as re-election pork. Instead of using the construction programs in the stimulus bill to help everybody, he directed the funds via executive toward his political supporters the unions, only 14% of construction shops are union. Costs for construction jobs were estimated at 20% higher because the president was helping is ideological base.

After the ill-fated stimulus was passed, in stead of working on jobs the President again put party needs in front of the country as the Democrats pushed first for cap and trade and then  for Obamacare. When cap and trade didn't pass, the EPA took up the baton and is trying to implement job-killing regulation on its own.

The job killing Obamacare program and the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank financial regulation bill followed.  Both of these efforts were passed to sate the progressive ideological base. Both of these efforts hurt rather than helped the economy.  So who exactly is putting party in front of Country?

Lets talk a bit about the War Effort.  Again in response to demands by his political base, President Obama executed a surge in Afghanistan which was smaller than his Generals recommended.  A year later, he announced a pull out from Afghanistan that was larger and faster than his Generals recommended. Once again this President is put his progressive politics in before the needs of the American people.

Twice before Congress rejected the Dream Act based on the will of the people. The reason for the rejection  is that the people believe that the first step must be to secure our borders. That would be the best thing for the country.  But because the President's support in the Latin community is softening, his Homeland Security Dept., is executing the amnesty program anyway.

In his two and a half years as President of the United States, Barack Obama constantly chose an agenda which placed the ideology of his progressive base in front of country.  He helped to push through major legislation which not only went against the will of the people, but the needs of the country, an improved economy and the SHMOTUS, VP Biden's favorite three letter word J-O-B-S. When he couldn't even get the support of a congress controlled by his own party, programs were implemented by executive fiat. It seems to me that it is the President and his progressive followers who are putting party and ideology in front of country. His latest political strategy, casting a grass roots effort of the American people as evil is just one more example of the progressive cynicism, they are dividing the country just to support their political agenda.

Today's Debt Ceiling Votes --Some Unanswered Questions

Like most political junkies, I have spent most of this week closely following the debt ceiling debate. With the help with some contacts on the hill I gained a good insight into what happened and why it happened.  Despite all the knowledge gained there are still so many questions remaining. Here are just a few, and if anyone has the answers please contact me via email or as a comment and let me know.

• Why is the GOP accused of not wanting to negotiate because it insists on no taxes in the debt ceiling plan, but the President is given a free pass for holding on to his demand that there should be taxes?

• Why all the hatred against the Tea Party?  Bill O' Reilly, when you are done filming the gig on Rizzoli & Isles please answer this question, why are you busting the chops of tea party supported members of congress for keeping their campaign promises?  I always thought that keeping campaign promises was a good thing.

•  Why are the TV talking heads, the POTUS, and the Democratic politicians claiming that we will default should there be no deal by August 2? That is a lie. The US will still be paying its interest after that date, therefore there will be no default.

• If this is such a serious issue (and it is) why isn't anyone complaining that the President is planning to spend August 3rd in Illinois  raising cash for his re-election campaign?

• Why do the Democrats get away with saying that the House was wasting is time passing the Boehner plan because it wouldn't pass in the Senate, but no one says the Senate is wasting its time passing the Reid plan which will never pass the house?

• Why is the President allowed to make a speech about bi-partisanship this morning, then go back home and urge his twitter followers to spam the GOP members of congress? 

• To my friends in the tea party, why the circular firing squad? There is nothing wrong with urging congressional Republicans to stand their ground, but calling for the ouster of John Boehner the other day was probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  Well until today when one tea party group Tea Party Founding Fathers said they are going to challenge Allen West.  Allen West?  What are you guys freaking crazy?  He is the essence of an honorable public servant, and may one day be President of the United States. Lets all have some decaff and realize we are all on the same side and we are all working to get the same result.

I will continue to think about these questions, please think about it also.

The Balanced Budget Amendment Text in Boehner 2.0

Having just gotten off the phone with some house staffers I can confirm the following:

A balanced budget amendment has been added to the Boehner bill.  After this morning's caucus meeting, GOP leadership is confident that the bill now has enough support to pass.

The details of the BBA provision are:

• In order for the second debt ceiling rise to happen in 6 months a BBA must be passed by both Houses and sent to the states.

• The original house version of the BBA which requires a 2/3 majority for a balanced budget to be waived in time of crisis is not part of the language.

Now there is no reason to object to the bill, it is a short term so the cuts are not as big as we would like to see, but as promised the cuts cover the amount the debt ceiling is raised, plus it sets a spending cap and requires a BBA.

For those who say that the inclusion of a BBA is an indication that the GOP is unwilling to compromise...Horse Poop!  The Democrats originally complained they didn't have enough time to consider a BBA, this bill gives them six months to have a nice discussion.

Another complaint of the Democrats was the 2/3rds majority needed for the balanced budget to be waived. Here is another compromise. This provision leaves it open to be negotiated between the two houses.

The choice is clear, pass Boehner plan and the conservative wing of the party will most likely win the battle and  gain an advantageous position to win the war (2012 Election) giving us a the opportunity to exorcise Obamacare,  and make the necessary  changes needed to save our country.  Reject the Boehner plan, we may very well lose the battle and the war.

The vote is will happen early this afternoon. I urge you to call your Rep and ask for the passage of  the Boehner plan.


Full Text of the Amendment to the Boehner Bill below as posted by the House Rules Committee.

AMENDMENT TO S. 627
AS MODIFIED BY THE AMENDMENTS IN HOUSE
REPORT 112-184

In section 301, in the matter proposed to be inserted as section 3101A(a)(2)(A) of title 31, United States Code, strike ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘is greater than $1,600,000,000,000 and the Archivist of the United States has submitted to the States for their ratification a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States pursuant to a joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States’ ’’.

◊

House Working To Repeal Ban of Incandescent Light Bulb

In 2007 Congress passed and President Bush signed a bill banning the incandescent light bulb.The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less energy by 2014 and they  must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

As a result Americans will have to use those compact florescent bulbs (CFL), the ones that contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great. 

Additionally most incandescent bulbs are manufactured the United States, the CFLs are made in China, so this change throw more people onto the unemployment line. Although this may be balanced out by the new jobs in the eye glasses industry, because the CFL bulbs take are slow generate their maximum light output and even then the light they throw off is horrible and is insufficient to read by

Present House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich. was a co-sponsor of the incandescent light ban, and because of that his ascension to the Chairmanship was strongly opposed by conservatives. But he calmed everyone down by promising hearing on reminding the ban as soon as he took office.

Upton has come under increased pressure in recent weeks, sources say, after failing to follow up on a promise he made after assuming the committee chairmanship that he would hold hearings on reversing the ban. After months of paralysis - and with the ban just six months from going into effect on January 1 - outrage was building among his own Republican committee colleagues and conservative activists, including a national petition campaign, FreeOurLight.org, sponsored by the influential Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"Freedom Action's Free Our Light campaign has demonstrated that there is widespread public opposition to the light bulb ban," says Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action at CEI. "We're pleased that Chairman Upton has seen the light and congratulate him on his decision. We look forward to the House passing the bill to repeal the ban and its eventual enactment later this year."

So Upton scheduled hearing but stacked the deck.

After Upton scheduled hearings this week featuring rent-seeking corporate fat cats that stood to benefit from the ban, anger boiled over and the chairman agreed not only to cancel the hearings but to bring up a bill repealing the ban. The View's source says that the bill will likely be brought up under "suspension," which means no amendments will be allowed and passage requires a two-thirds majority.

E&E News reporter Katie Howell is also reporting that Upton "he is working with Texas Republicans Joe Barton and Mike Burgess on language repealing the light bulb standards."  

"We're very close to seeing an agreement emerge and happen," Upton told reporters at a conservative blogger briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Upton's original bill was supported by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Bush, it was not an outright ban, nor was it a stand alone bill.  Instead the bill was the typical progressive sneak  a small part in the the larger 2007 energy law it didn't specifically ban the incandescent bulb, it eventually phased out bulbs that use more than 40 watts.

This would have effectively banned Edison's invention which is the choice of 85 percent of American bulb purchases.

The ban has been mostly covered up by the green mainstream media, and consumers were only just learning of the ban as bulbs have begun disappearing from shelves. In the meantime, bulb manufacturers had already eliminated hundreds of incandescent plants in the United States (the last plant closed in Winchester, Va. last year) in preparation for the ban - off-shoring the jobs to China where the more expensive, replacement compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) could be manufactured.

The ban had been supported by big corporations like General Electric and Philips who saw a an opportunity to use government to monopolize a new, more expensive market while transferring jobs to China to earn higher margins. And I am sure that GE Chairman Jeff Immelt's long term support of progressive politics had nothing to do with the fact that we are being forced to switch to a more expensive product with a bigger profit margin. Its just a strange coincidence.

Republicans - led by Texas Rep. Joe Barton together with fellow Texan Michael Burgess and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. - introduced bulb restoration legislation immediately upon the GOP taking over the House this year. Republicans overwhelmingly support bringing back the bulb, while global-warming-obsessed Democrats say making bulbs illegal is crucial to saving the planet. Ironically, saving the earth has meant destroying union plant jobs.

"We don't think the consumer needs to pay $4 a light bulb, and we don't think the federal government should tell people what kind of lighting to use in their homes," Rep. Barton told Fox News this week.

On the bright side (no pun intended) Upton is now guaranteeing that the House will get to vote on a bill to repeal the ban. While the liberal media will probably continue to ignore the story, hopefully the word will spread on the internet and Congress will realize that voting against the Edison's light bulb will be hazardous for their reelection health.

Ron Paul Congressional Hypocrite

Congressman Ron Paul is bad for America on so many levels. There were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

On top of all that, Congressman Paul is a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

For example in last year's 111th Congress, Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 17  earmarks totaling almost $24 Million dollars

During the 2009 Fiscal Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling almost $81  million dollars. That's almost $105 million in earmarks over two years. Can you imagine if he wasn't a fiscal conservative?


In 2009 Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
If you cannot see video below click here

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone elses district.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. The problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good fiscal script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.

Trump's Done; Can We Concentrate on REAL Candidates Now ?

Attention Donald Trump your 15 minutes as a presidential candidate are officially over. Public Policy Polling (PPP) most recent survey of likely Republican primary voters has shown your numbers fall off a cliff. In April, PPP reported that Trump was leading all GOP challengers topping  Huckabee by a 26-17.  Today's results have Huckabee in the lead with 19% , Romney at 18%, Gingrich at 13%, Palin 12%, and  Trump tied with Ron Paul at 8%.

The main reason is that Trump was a one-issue candidate, and with the President's release of his long form birth certificate the number of birthers have fallen significantly (thank God). Additionally Trump's support amongst birthers has fallen also.

Beyond the overall support numbers, Trump is simply not like by Republicans. As he got more exposure, voters decided that they were not happy with a cussing, birther whose GOP credentials are at best suspect. Only 34% of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of Trump to 53% who view him in a negative light. A 53% negative is hard to overcome.


Keeping in mind that it is still much too early in the campaign to start following polls seriously, there does seem to be an interesting trend emerging. Romney and Huckabee may be starting Gingrich and Palin. Of course out of the four only Gingrich has declared (actually he as declared that he is going to declare tomorrow).

The survey points out that it is still anyone's game:

 We also looked at a fair number of alternate Republican universes in which various candidates don't actually end up making the race. With Trump out Romney leads Huckabee 21-20 with Gingrich at 15% and Palin at 14%. With Trump and Huckabee out Romney is tops at 24% to 20% for Gingrich, 17% for Palin, and 12% for Paul. With Trump and Palin out Huckabee has the advantage with 24% to Romney's 22%, and Gingrich's 20%. And with none of Trump, Huckabee, and Palin running Romney gets 28% to 26% for Gingrich 12% for Paul, and 11% for Bachmann.

Now that (hopefully) Trump will be gone, all we need is for Ron Paul to go and the GOP concentrate on the REAL candidates.

Obama To Global Warming Moonbats "Just Wait Till My Second Term"

Lets face it, if there is anything more frightening than the words "President Obama" for the future of the United States, its the words "Second Term of President Obama." Free of the political constraints of having to run for reelection, and not really caring about the rest of his party (he didn't during the health care debate), Obama would be able to shove down the throat of Americans (via executive fiat) unpopular programs such as amnesty for illegal aliens. He will also be able to double down on economy-killing programs he has already started such as giving unions special advantages over the rest of the country and the EPA's regulation of the gas we all exhale: CO2.

According to an article in PoliticoPro the President is already telling global warming moonbats that his second term will have a stronger on the climate change hoax.

"We've had some setbacks, and some things haven't happened as fast as people wanted them to happen," Obama said at a recent New York fundraiser. "I know. I know the conversations you guys have. ‘Oh, you didn't get the public option - and, gosh, I wish that energy bill had passed.' I understand the frustrations. I feel them too."

Apparently David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel (yes still helping)  spent much time last week in private meetings trying to convince eighty major environmental sugar-daddies that a second Obama term would be different.

Attendees told POLITICO that the former White House officials heard a number of complaints about last year's climate bill loss but responded by pointing to the president's commitment to their issues via EPA climate rules and tens of billions in spending on renewable energy through the 2009 stimulus package.

"We had a back and forth about getting to first base versus swinging for the fences," said Betsy Taylor, co-founder and board president of 1Sky, one of the environmental groups pushing for federal policies to curb greenhouse gases.

...Obama's team probably is going to have to wait on many other top green priorities.

EPA's most anticipated new climate regulations for power plants and other major industrial sources are due in final form next spring. But with congressional Republicans making the rules a centerpiece of their legislative attack strategy, sources within and outside the administration expect that EPA's efforts will ultimately get punted beyond November 2012.

The President is even telling our kids that the second term will be different.

Earlier this month, Obama dropped in unannounced on a group of youth activists meeting with senior aides in the White House. During a nearly 30-minute exchange, the president cited the challenges of moving comprehensive energy legislation in Congress, given hurdles from the Republican-led House.

"The implication there was it would be pretty hard to do anything massive in the next 18 months," said Courtney Hight, executive director of the Energy Action Coalition and a former White House Council on Environmental Quality staffer.

 Electing Barack Obama to a second term would mean higher energy costs, new job-killing environmental regulation, and a continuance of his policy of preventing drilling for energy in US territory,  but don't believe me, believe Obama and his campaign.