Michele Bachmann Predicts Republican Victory in California Presidential Vote

I'm still not convinced, but Obama's losing his base even in the Golden State, so we'll see.

At LAT: "Bachmann predicts a GOP win in California in 2012."

Obama Approval Dips in Latest New York Times Poll

See: "Support for Obama Slips; Unease on 2012 Candidates":

President Obama’s support is eroding among elements of his base, and a yearlong effort to recapture the political center has failed to attract independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, leaving him vulnerable at a moment when pessimism over the country’s direction is greater than at any other time since he took office.

The president’s effort to seize the initiative on the economy was well received by the public, and clear majorities support crucial pieces of his new job-creation program. But despite Mr. Obama’s campaign to sell the plan to Congress and voters, more than half of those questioned said they feared the economy was already in or was headed for a double-dip recession, and nearly three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

Republicans appear more energized than Democrats at the outset of the 2012 presidential campaign, but have not coalesced around a candidate. Even as the party’s nominating contest seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a majority of their respective supporters say they have reservations about their candidate. Half of Republicans who plan to vote in a primary say they would like more choices.

Yeah, a larger field of candidates would be good, but what can you do? I'm frankly surprised at the shape of the GOP field as it is. Seems like we'd have more heavyweights, and having Sarah Palin in the race would have been nice. But the main thing is that, clearly, whoever wins the nomination is going to pound Obama and the Democrats. Victory's going to be sweet!! I can't wait to remind Markos Moulitsas about how he failed to "crush" our spirits, the idiot.

“Any Republican who gets the nomination, whether it’s my first choice or not, is going to be better than what we’ve got now,” said Allen Hulshizer, 77, a Republican and retired structural engineer from Glenside, Pa. “By the time you get down to the final selections, any one of the top contenders will certainly be better than Obama.”

Ford Drive One 'Press Conference' Commercial Rips Auto Bailouts

At Hot Air, "Wow: Ford ad blasts bailouts — and perhaps more."

The statement that America is about taking risks and enduring failure rather than expecting government to bail everyone out sounds more like a big thumb in the eye of the Obama administration, whose latest jobs bill keeps extending unemployment benefits, and which continues to propose spending billions on subsidies for businesses that can’t succeed on their own — like Solyndra.

No doubt. It also backhands Obama on his dismissal of American exceptionalism.

Tareq Salahi Files for Divorce From Wife Michaele

Not only are the Salahis getting divorced, but Tareq's banned from Journey concerts. Man, talk about insult to injury. That's harsh: "TAREQ SALAHI - BANNED from Journey Concerts."

I blogged the party crashing story in 2009, and was picked up at WND, "White House 'gatecrashers' tied to terror sympathizer."

Frustrated Democrats Support Primary Challenge Against Obama

At The Hill, "Some frustrated Democrats want to see Obama primary challenge."

Hey, let's see it. Recall the 1992 analogy again, where Pat Buchanan won 38 percent in New Hampshire, a harbinger to G.H.W. Bush's loss in the general election.

New York-9 and the Democratic Coalition

I love this story, from Sean Trende, at RealClearPolitics (via Memeorandum).

It's a political science-y essay, with charts and graphs. And here's a clue: "Obama has had problems with working-class whites in particular."

After New York Race, G.O.P. Sees Ripple in Jewish Vote

Now get this, at New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Not since Jimmy Carter in 1980 has a Democrat running for president failed to win a lopsided majority of the Jewish vote. This has been true during times of peace or war, and even when there has been deep acrimony between the White House and the Israeli government.

Republicans see a chance to change that in 2012, with President Obama locked in a tense relationship with Israel’s leaders and criticized by many American Jews as being too tough on a close and favored ally. Tuesday’s Republican upset in New York’s Congressional election, they say, is a sign of bad things to come for Mr. Obama.

Sensing trouble, the Obama campaign and Democratic Party leaders have mobilized to solidify the president’s standing with Jewish voters. The Democratic National Committee has established a Jewish outreach program. The campaign is singling out Jewish groups, donors and other supporters with calls and e-mails to counter the Republican narrative that Mr. Obama is hostile to Israel.

More at the link.

And from the editors, who aren't please by developments, natch: "Israel and New York’s Ninth District."

Attack Watch

Or, at Michelle Malkin's, "Attaaaaack Waaaaaatch."

Plus: "Obama Campaign: AttackWatch Gains Over 100,000 Sign-Ups In Less Than 24 Hours."

Yeah, that oughta help. Not!

BONUS: "Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of the Internet."

U.S. Poverty Rates Hit 50-Year high

Obama promised change, and boy did he deliver. Change we haven't seen in nearly fifty years.

At LAT, "U.S. poverty totals hit a 50-year high":

Census Bureau's grim statistics show recession's lingering effects, as young adults move back home and 1 million more Americans go without health insurance.

Reporting from Washington — In a grim portrait of a nation in economic turmoil, the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million — the most in at least half a century — as 1 million more Americans went without health insurance and household incomes fell sharply.

The poverty rate for all Americans rose in 2010 for the third consecutive year, matching the 15.1% figure in 1993 and pushing many more young adults to double up or return to their parents' home to avoid joining the ranks of the poor.

Taken together, the annual income and poverty snapshot released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau underscored how the recession is casting a long shadow well after its official end in June 2009.

Continue reading.

Democrat Hopes Collapse Following Turner Win in New York Special Election

I've used the 1992 comparison previously. George H.W. Bush was defeated for reelection just 22 months after having record approval ratings of near 90 percent. With last night's breathtaking GOP win in NY-9, the left's utter freak out over 2012 has now hit gale force.

There's lots of stuff on this. See Caitlin Huey-Burns, at RealClearPolitics, "GOP Scores Major Upset in NY-9." Also David Seifman at New York Post, "Disaster looms for O in 2012" (via Memeorandum), and Peter Wehner at Commentary, "Panic, Then Rage Ahead for Democrats."

And at Politico, "Dems schvitzing over NY-9 results," and "Twin defeats spark Democratic fears."

BONUS: From Andrew Breitbart, "After Turner Earthquake in Weiner District, Democrats’ Civil War Against Obama Begins."

NASA Aerial Video of 9/11

Via Israel Matzav:

d

Paul Simon Sings 'Sounds of Silence' at New York 9/11 Ceremony

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

President Bush Reads Lincoln Letter at 9/11 Memorial Service in New York

Via Althouse, who publishes the text of Lincoln's letter:

September 11 Memorial Ceremony in New York

Bloomberg took heat for excluding clergy and firemen, but I'm sad I wasn't able to attend.

At New York Times, "Bush and Obama: Side by Side at Ground Zero":

For the first time on Sunday, President Obama and former President George W. Bush stood together at the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, listening as family members read the names of lost love ones and bowing their heads in silence to mark the moment the planes hit.

In May, Mr. Bush declined Mr. Obama’s invitation to join him at ground zero after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But on this morning, they stood shoulder to shoulder — commanders in chief whose terms in office are bookends for exploring how the United States has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, particularly in its response to terrorism.

The tableau was striking: the president who spent years hunting Bin Laden next to the one who finally got him. The president defined by his response to Sept. 11 standing alongside the one who has tried to take America beyond the lingering, complicated legacy of that day.

Mr. Obama read from Psalm 46: “God is our refuge and strength,” which an aide said he chose because it spoke of perseverance. Mr. Bush, the wartime leader, read a letter from Abraham Lincoln to a widow who was believed to have lost five sons in the Civil War.

More at that link above, and at Memeorandum.

And at Althouse, "President Bush, reading Lincoln's letter at the 9/11 ceremony in NYC."

Myth and Reality After 9/11

From Victor Davis Hanson, at National Review:

Why did radical Islamic terrorists kill almost 3,000 Americans a decade ago?

Few still believe the old myth that U.S. foreign policy or support for Israel logically earned us Osama bin Laden’s wrath. After all, the U.S. throughout the 1990s had saved Islamic peoples from Bosnia and Kosovo to Somalia and Kuwait. Russia and China, in contrast, had oppressed or killed tens of thousands of their own Muslims without much fear of provoking al-Qaeda.

Moreover, thousands of Arabs have been killed recently, but by their own Libyan and Syrian governments, not Israeli Defense Forces. Al-Qaeda still issues death threats to Americans even though its original pretexts for going to war — such as U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia — have long been irrelevant.

On this ten-year anniversary of 9/11, no one has yet refuted the general truth that bin Laden tried to hijack popular Arab discontent over endemic poverty and self-induced misery. In cynical Hitlerian fashion, al-Qaeda’s propagandists sought to blame the mess of the Arab Middle East on Jews and foreigners, rather than seeking to address homegrown corrupt kleptocracies, inefficient statism, indigenous tribalism, gender apartheid, and religious fundamentalism and intolerance ...

More at that link.

Democrats Openly Alarmed About Obama's Reelection Prospects

Well, they should be.

At NYT, "Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Re-election." (Via Memeorandum.)

Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing to two leading candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who have executive experience and messages built around job creation.

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

More at that top link, but clearly, the Dems are going to be crushed.

And like Bill Whittle said, it's not going to matter who the GOP nominee is. Obambi's toast.

How Many Jobs Have Obama's Policies Destroyed?

This ad ran ahead of Obama's jobs speech:

And see Power Line, "WANT MORE JOBS? THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT IS ENERGY":

Everyone knows that Obama’s jobs program is a joke; but let’s assume that you actually do want to help create a million or more jobs, while simultaneously increasing government revenues by many billions of dollars. How would you do it? It’s actually easy: just stop the irrational antagonism to energy development that is America’s most glaring public policy failure.

Lot of interesting charts at the post (via Memeorandum).

Obama Proposes 'American Jobs Act' (VIDEO)

The main story's at New York Times, "Obama Exhorts Congress on Jobs Plan":

WASHINGTON — Faced with a stalling economy, a hostile Congress and a disenchanted public, President Obama challenged lawmakers in a blunt address Thursday evening to enact a sweeping package of tax cuts and new spending designed to revive the stagnant job market.

Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama ticked off a list of measures he said would put money in people’s pockets, encourage companies to begin hiring again, and jolt an American economy at risk of relapsing into recession. And he all but ordered Congress to pass the legislation.

“You should pass this jobs plan right away,” the president declared.

With Republicans already lining up to condemn the plan, Mr. Obama said, “The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.”

Though Mr. Obama’s proposals were widely expected — an extension and expansion of the cut in payroll taxes; new spending on schools and public works projects; and an overhaul of unemployment insurance — the overall package was considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Obama to Congress: Americans want action now on jobs." The text is available via Memorandum.

All the "pass this jobs bill" agitation is Obama begging the Congress to act. What's interesting is how this sounds like just one more big porkulus, despite Obambi's denials and claims that "everything in this bill is paid for." Amazingly, he still announces that we need higher taxes!!

Jennifer Rubin has more, "Obama: Pay it now, pay for it later":

What was remarkable was the whiff of desperation conveyed by Obama, and the utter lack of interest by the Republicans. The speaker of the House looked bored. The Republicans neither booed nor applauded. No one thinks this grab bag, a mini son of the Stimulus Plan, is going to work. But Republicans must be relieved: Obama said nothing that would either win over independents or exert any pressure on them to pass it.

And back over to LAT, "Republicans' reaction to Obama speech is lukewarm -- and that's a start," and "Economists give Obama's jobs plan mixed reviews.

Added: See what I mean? From Associated Press, "FACT CHECK: Obama's jobs plan paid for? Seems not."

Wall Street Journal Not Thrilled With Romney's Jobs Plan

See, "Mitt Romney's 59 Economic Flavors." After the praise, some criticism:

On taxes, Mr. Romney would immediately cut the top corporate income-tax rate to 25% from 35%. His advisers say there's already a bipartisan consensus that the U.S. rate hurts American companies, and they're right. Even Mr. Obama agrees.

But on other taxes, Mr. Romney shrinks from a fight. He says he favors tax reform with lower individual tax rates but only "in the long run." His advisers say that means in the first two years of his Presidency, but then why not sketch out more details?

The answer may lie in his proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax—but only for those who earn less than $200,000 a year. This eviscerates most of the tax cut's economic impact and also suggests that he's afraid of Mr. Obama's class warfare rhetoric. He even picked Mr. Obama's trademark income threshold for the capital gains cut-off.

If Mr. Romney thinks this will let him dodge a class warfare debate, he's fooling himself. Democrats will hit him anyway for opposing Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on higher incomes, dividends and capital gains in 2013. Perhaps Mr. Romney feels that his wealth and background make him especially vulnerable to the class charge, but if he won't openly make the economic case for lower tax rates he'll never get Congress to go along.

On spending, Mr. Romney joins the GOP's "cut, cap and balance" parade, setting a cap on spending over time at 20% of GDP. What Mr. Romney doesn't do is provide even a general map for how to get there, beyond cutting spending on nonsecurity domestic programs by 5% upon taking office.

That does sound a bit timid.

RTWT.

Awaiting Obama's Jobs Speech: The 'Invisible Americans'

From the letters to the editor, at New York Times:

To the Editor:

Re “The Fatal Distraction,” by Paul Krugman (column, Sept. 5):

I am a small-business owner and will never receive money from big giveaway programs to state and local governments. My profits are not at record levels: whom are you talking to?

I am the foundation of the American Dream. I put my house on the line and worry about making the payroll. There is no support from banks or government. I do not have defined benefits or job security because of seniority.

Certainly, our educational system needs help and support to compete in this global economy, but so does my small business. We have no union, no lobbyists in Congress and no time to rally. We go to work every day. Truly, we are the invisible Americans.

BRENDA BEDRICK
East Greenwich, R.I., Sept. 5, 2011