I've had this feeling for a few weeks but..................

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

now I'm certain.

Romney will be our next president.

It's hard to list all the reasons I feel this way since Obama has provided so MUCH fodder to create this very long list.

But today he publicly slit his own throat. He will not, cannot recover from the F&F disaster he's created by claiming executive privilege.

Now it's just a matter of how big will Romney's win be.

If the election were today I would say you are right and Romney wins by about 4 percent........but we still have a whole summer to go through before the election and things can, do, and will change. Maybe it will be worse for Obama getting re-elected maybe it will be better, only time will tell .

President Obama 2.1

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

President Obama 221 Governor Romney 170

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

And the President is leading in most of the battleground states. Still a long way to November, but to state that Governor Romney is leading at this point is just wishful thinking on your part.

If you look at multiple polls of likely, not registered, voters you will understand where my 4% number came from.

 

[Old Rocks]

This crazy use of "executive priveledge" may just sink obama.....reminds me of Nixon.

And Presidents Jackson, Eisenhower, Nixon, George W. Bush, ect.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

 

[Old Rocks]

If the election were today I would say you are right and Romney wins by about 4 percent........but we still have a whole summer to go through before the election and things can, do, and will change. Maybe it will be worse for Obama getting re-elected maybe it will be better, only time will tell .

President Obama 2.1

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

President Obama 221 Governor Romney 170

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

And the President is leading in most of the battleground states. Still a long way to November, but to state that Governor Romney is leading at this point is just wishful thinking on your part.

If you look at multiple polls of likely, not registered, voters you will understand where my 4% number came from.

Really? Link?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This crazy use of "executive priveledge" may just sink obama.....reminds me of Nixon.

And Presidents Jackson, Eisenhower, Nixon, George W. Bush, ect.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

Say what you want and spin how you want, in the end it looks like Obama is hiding something and it looks like Holder and others lied to congress. If the president had nothing to do with any of this then he can't claim executive priveledge on the documents as the executive was not involved in them .

So either he was involved and lied or he is covering for Holder in a way that goes against how Executive Priveledge is supposed to be used.

Like I said this whole thing is just bad for Obama right now.....also like I said it doesn't matter much until september/november.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

President Obama 2.1

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

President Obama 221 Governor Romney 170

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

And the President is leading in most of the battleground states. Still a long way to November, but to state that Governor Romney is leading at this point is just wishful thinking on your part.

If you look at multiple polls of likely, not registered, voters you will understand where my 4% number came from.

Really? Link?

Considering my opinion that the polls, right now, don't tell us jack about november why would I go back through and look for a link to a half a dozen polls? Just use google "2012 presidential election likely voter polling"

 

[naturegirl]

now I'm certain.

Romney will be our next president.

It's hard to list all the reasons I feel this way since Obama has provided so MUCH fodder to create this very long list.

But today he publicly slit his own throat. He will not, cannot recover from the F&F disaster he's created by claiming executive privilege.

Now it's just a matter of how big will Romney's win be.

If the election were today I would say you are right and Romney wins by about 4 percent........but we still have a whole summer to go through before the election and things can, do, and will change. Maybe it will be worse for Obama getting re-elected maybe it will be better, only time will tell .

President Obama 2.1

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

President Obama 221 Governor Romney 170

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

And the President is leading in most of the battleground states. Still a long way to November, but to state that Governor Romney is leading at this point is just wishful thinking on your part.

Not so fast, look what 2004 looked like after the election.

 

[Katzndogz]

The numbers just aren't there for obama. Because he is what he is, and does what he does, the difficulties that have come up so far will continue to come up. The house of cards is coming down. Democrats still believe that Arizona and North Carolina are swing states. Democrat politicans are running from obama as fast as they can. Many won't attend the DNC convention to avoid being connected to him.

It is so highly unlikely that the treason coming from the white house is going to suddenly stop. obama isn't going to wake up in the morning and decide to be a good president. He's going to continue doing what he has been doing all along.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the election were today I would say you are right and Romney wins by about 4 percent........but we still have a whole summer to go through before the election and things can, do, and will change. Maybe it will be worse for Obama getting re-elected maybe it will be better, only time will tell .

President Obama 2.1

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

President Obama 221 Governor Romney 170

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map

And the President is leading in most of the battleground states. Still a long way to November, but to state that Governor Romney is leading at this point is just wishful thinking on your part.

Not so fast, look what 2004 looked like after the election.

I see from that map that Michigan had gone democrat. Considering that Michigan has the largest muslim population of any other state, how likely is it that Michgan will remain democrat after obama came out of the closet with regard to same sex marriage rights?

 

[swizzlee]

In a nutshell, you are correct.

I've yet to see a single positive indicator since this "campaign" started. And that includes Bernecke's forecast yesterday that GDP will continue to be in the 2.0 range and unemployment in the 8.0 range for the rest of the year.

Two of the most critical elements in this race and yet ignored by the Dems.

Where is the common sense?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In a nutshell, you are correct.

I've yet to see a single positive indicator since this "campaign" started. And that includes Bernecke's forecast yesterday that GDP will continue to be in the 2.0 range and unemployment in the 8.0 range for the rest of the year.

Two of the most critical elements in this race and yet ignored by the Dems.

Where is the common sense?

In the 18th, 19th, and some of the 20th century.

 

[swizzlee]

DAMN! You nailed it!

3 points for YOU!

:-D

 

[bitterlyclingin]

now I'm certain.

Romney will be our next president.

It's hard to list all the reasons I feel this way since Obama has provided so MUCH fodder to create this very long list.

But today he publicly slit his own throat. He will not, cannot recover from the F&F disaster he's created by claiming executive privilege.

Now it's just a matter of how big will Romney's win be.

[Barack Obama is a serial liar: David Maraniss book detailing Mr Obama's youth and other life experiences makes Mr Obama's autobiographical sketch "Dreams Of My Father's" look as factual as a book of the Brother's Grimm's fairy tales. His Attorney general, Eric Holder is cut from the same cloth. Together these two conspired and colluded, as part of Mr Obama's promised "Fundamental Transformation Of America", to strip Americans of at least part, or possibly all of their Second Amendment Rights. What has been a more fundamental part of America and needs transformation more, from the French Indian Wars, to the American Revolution, to the NRA Headquarters located a stones throw from US RT 66 in Fairfax, Virginia, than the ownership of firearms, anathema to someone plotting to impose a rigid tyrranical regime on a previously free people?]

"The fatal flaw in DoJ's explanation was this: if the Mexican authorities had not been brought into the operation, nor even the BATF's own agents authorized to operate in Mexico, then the proffered DoJ justification made utterly no sense, for the simple reason that once those walked guns hit the south side of that border, there was absolutely no process in place to track them to their supposed targets. Therefore, DoJ was patently misrepresenting its motive. Why?

For those who keep a constant wary eye on the left's never-ending war on our 2nd-Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the increasingly fishy smell emanating from Washington led to connecting the dots back to the year-earlier revelations in the liberal media that weapons being used in Mexican crimes were traceable back to American sources more than 90% of the time. That false meme had spread quickly through the major liberal media, along with calls for stricter gun control laws in this country by...guess who! How about our president, our secretary of state, our attorney general, and other notable Democrats, for starters?

Herewe had an operation mounted by the executive branch of the United States, an operation which had as its stated goal -- after being outed, that is -- the targeting of Mexican drug lords on sovereign Mexican soil. Yet this was done without the knowledge of anyone in the Mexican government. Quite clearly, a secret and subversive operation had been conceived and implemented against our sister nation to the south -- subversive because, again, quite clearly, the American government was subverting the sovereign authority of Mexico without that nation's knowledge. If the goal was, as stated later by DoJ, to track guns into Mexico to the purchasing sources in the cartels, then was there not some diplomatic requirement to notify the Mexican government that we were arming their most violent criminal elements? And what was the need for keeping our own BATF agents in Mexico -- the only American agents with Mexican presence to conduct such surveillance and tracking operations on Mexican soil -- equally in the dark?

Itdoesn't require much in the way of deductive powers to conclude that the fish-wrap smell seeping out of Washington probably had to do with Eric Holder's Department of Justice being used to tightly wrap something rotting from the head down. And what could that be? Early proponents of the theory suggesting that if the DoJ's rationale smelled fishy, then perhaps the true reason for F&F was to create justification for more gun control legislation here in this country were looked at as crackpot conspiracists. Even now, most of those Republican members of Congress pursuing this scandal refuse to cite the true purpose of F&F, still referring to it as a bungled federal program. There are exceptions: Florida congressman John Mica speaking on one of the Sunday talk shows this weekend, made clear his opinion that F&F was a sinister and cynical attempt by the Obama administration to undermine the 2nd Amendment. I watched him say it, but Google has no link. Imagine that.

Forthose who haven't really followed the Fast and Furious scandal, here's a five-step summary of how the operation was supposed to work:
1.Allow guns to flow freely to criminal elements in Mexico, where they are naturally used in the extremely violent and deadly criminal activities of the drug cartels.
2.When sufficient guns of American origin have been used in such criminal activities, enlist the willing services of the liberal media to announce the discovery thereof to the world.
3.Enlist multiple prominent Democrats to untruthfully proclaim that 90% of the guns used in Mexican crimes originate in the U.S.
4.Use steps one through three to substantiate the liberal fallacy that private gun ownership leads to increased gun violence by gun owners.
5.With the compliance of a thoroughly duped American public, enact increasingly restrictive gun ownership policies through federal agencies, bypassing Congress and the Supreme Court.

When looked at this way, doesn't Obama's statement to a group of gun control advocates in March 2011 that he was taking steps to further gun control restrictions, but "under the radar," now seem less cryptic than it did at the time? For those who still don't believe Fast & Furious was an end-run on the 2nd Amendment by a liberal, gun-averse administration, here are five questions to consider:"

Articles: Fast and Furious Falling Apart

[The LeftMedia is going to have to crank their Obama cover up operations almost to light speed. We shall see how they do. Close your eyes and imagine Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz and guests Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV) Jim Clyburn (D-SC) screaming "Evil Republican Witch Hunt" at the tops of their lungs from the TV tube. Gonna take more than a total tonguewashing introduction before a speech from the head of the AP to clean him up after this one.
Maybe a little help from Obewan Kenobe would be just the ticket they need. "Nothing to see here! Move along now!"]

"Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.""

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

[Mr Mirengoff is a retired DC Attorney, previously affiliated with a prominent DC Law Firm, victim of political correctness for, although Jewish himself, questioning the need for a Native Indian Invocation at a memorial service for dead Christian victims of the Tucson Gabby Giffords shooting. He has more than just a little familiarity with inside the beltway machinations.]

"Even with his fawning press, [Presdient Obama] will pay a price for this one. He knows this, meaning that the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. They have to show either that Holder knew what was going on with Fast and Furious and approved it, or that he directly committed perjury in his Congressional testimony, or both. I just can’t see any other explanation for such a risky move.

Wasn’t the Washington Post just covering big time the 40th anniversary of Watergate? I wonder how much coverage this one will get.

UPDATE: Some have speculated that Obama’s intervention means that the president himself has something to hide."

Those Fast and Furious documents must be dynamite | Power Line

[The philosophical gulf between an American businessman or patriot and any Bolshevik, including our current president, is indeed, extreme.]

"The politics of Fast and Furious

Here’s how Politico writers Jake Sherman and Reid Epstein reported the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt: “The Fast and Furious investigation has finally handed House Republicans a prize they’ve long sought: a legal smackdown of the Obama administration.”

Can anyone imagine this lead sentence if the House had found the Attorney General in a Republican administration, Alberto Gonzalez for example, in contempt? I can’t. Instead, Politico would no doubt be focusing on the obstruction (real or imagined) that led to the contempt vote, and very possibly touting the House’s action as a victory for truth, justice, and the American way.

But it gets worse. Sherman and Epstein, no doubt using White House talking points, attempt to spin the contempt vote as a victory for Obama. On what basis? Because “House Republicans’ hot pursuit of Holder doesn’t exactly line up with Mitt Romney’s message, which he wants to keep focused on the economy.” Moreover, “Obama’s campaign wants to tie Romney to what he considers an extreme Republican majority.”

Let’s take these talking points one at a time. First, it is a fallacy to suppose that the House’s decision to hold Eric Holder in contempt will somehow detract from Mitt Romney’s efforts to focus his message on the economy. Romney’s message will focus on whatever the candidate wants to focus on. He need not talk about Fast and Furious at all, unless asked. If asked, he can answer quickly and move on, if his campaign decides that’s the best way to proceed.

Meanwhile, if voters learn that the administration is trying to conceal information about a criminally stupid gun walking program that resulted in the deaths of an American agent, among others, they may or may not deem this significant. If they do, Obama will be hurt. If they don’t, it won’t affect their view of Romney.

If anything, though, the bad economy will make Americans more inclined to be angry about Fast and Furious and the administration’s attempt to cover up the scandal. If American were happier about the economic situation, they would be more willing to cut the president some slack on issues that have little impact on their daily well-being. Since they are unhappy, they may well tend to view Fast and Furious as a manifestation of the administration’s incompetence and dishonesty.

As for the effort to tie Romney to “an extreme Republican majority” by virtue of the contempt vote, Team Obama must first demonstrate to the public that the House has done something inappropriate. But it cannot accomplish this in a vacuum. As cooperative as the MSM, including Politico, is, the story must be presented with a little context. And the context — a horrible program that resulted in deaths — is one that Team Obama cannot afford to have aired.

In sum, Romney can (and no doubt will) stay focused on the economy, while House Republicans pursue their legal options against Holder. And Obama can score no political points because the facts already known about Fast and Furious are too embarrassing.

Any day Romney spends talking about something other than the economy may be a wasted day for the Republican candidate. But any day Team Obama spends talking about issues related to Fast and Furious is a losing day for the president."

The politics of Fast and Furious | Power Line

Just a reminder, Obama controls the "Kill List" and the drones. Keep that in mind.

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Wednesday Night War Porn…

 

[Katzndogz]

One of obama's more serious problems is he doesn't have the money to run a national campaign. He's treating campaign contributions as if they were coming out of the treasury and a lot of them are. His press conferences have turned into campaign speeches. The problem is, many people have already started tuning him out at the press conferences.

This alone is one of his biggest hurdles. He can't manage money. Last time he ran a flawless campaign but he didn't have to do much except stand there and be black. This time it's different. He's different. He's used to lavish spending. It's out of control. Because it's out of control he has to continually ask for more cash from the same people he asked last time. The very people who can see that he wasted what they gave him last time.

Romney Reaps Donations From Backers of Primary Opponents - Bloomberg

Obama took in $39.1 million in May and spent $44.6 million, while Romney spent $15.6 million.

Romeny is already proving that he's a better manager than obama.

 

[swizzlee]

In my lifetime I can't say that I always paid close attention to how each president ran his office but there was always the sense that our presidents followed a fairly routine pattern -

they rarely spoke in the first person singular
they rarely, if ever, personally attacked another individual
they never, in my memory, publically insulted members of the USSC
they remained aloof and uninvolved with the trivialities of each day

IOW, there were a set of principles, policies, and procedures that all president's followed, and that includes the infamous Jimmy Carter.

It's clear Obama has ignored these standards [along with many others] and as a result, he has consistently stepped in piles of doo-doo of his own making.

Smart presidents surround themselves with smart advisors and assistants.

Obama has surrounded himself with Valerie Jarrett.

We hang all kinds of tags on our presidents but Obama is the only one I feel comfortable labeling INCOMPETENT.

IMO, Romney doesn't have to do much of anything except stand there and wait. Other than pure partisans, there is no one who has real knowledge of Romney and his background who has ever called him incompetent.

I find it unsurprising that the greater share of the $$ are going to Romney.

And I won't be surprised as I watch the poll numbers go increasingly in Romney's favor.

 

[hjmick]

One thing I never do?

Play election prognosticator.

 

[swizzlee]

And, my good man......................

you are entirely within your rights to play or not play whatever you want.

It's still a free country.