The Presidential Planner

Lets fix something that aint broke so we can spend a bunch of taxpayer money, fix some roads or something that will create some new jobs

Obama is averaging more than a fund raiser a week….this is change as 2 of his predecessors had a total of 11 at this point in their terms.
The Bernie friend who just drown in a pool down there reportedly made 7 or 8 billion…perhaps they’ll donate this to the dnc and the President can stay in town, play more basketball and quit using so much jet fuel.

Not much serious work getting done….now is there?

“He also has a Cap and Trade plan that will cost the consumers electric rates to double,which is not mentioned.”
Johnny L | Oct 27, 2009 8:46:54 AM
Why not say it will make electricity rates increase by a factor of ten? Or a hundred fold? As long as you’re fabricating a scary number out of thin air, go for the Big Lie.

“Through the project administration, officials hope to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs and ultimately reduce U.S. electricity consumption by 4 percent by 2030.”
Why not say it will create or save 3 or 4 million jobs and ultimately reduce U.S. electicity consumption by 96 percent by 2030. As long as you’re fabricating a rosy number out of thin air, go for the Big Lie.

“He also has a Cap and Trade plan …
Johnny L | Oct 27, 2009 8:46:54 AM
***
Welcome to the 21st century!
I’m pleased we’re moving forward. Some of us do think about the future and see the fallacy in being short-sighted.
Today, Obama will announce smart grid plans while Biden is in Delaware talking about the reopening of a plant which will manufacture plugin hybrid cars AND the Senate hears testimony related to the climate bill. Onward!
As for cap and trade, btw, per CNN, 60% of Americans support a “cap and trade” proposal to cut pollution, according to a new national poll (37% oppose, 3% have no opinion.) And, of course, there’s a generational divide– 68% 50 and under support it. It’s the people over 50 who are divided.

What a shocker!
Obama is going to give a speech, attend a fundraiser and spend our money.

26 fundraisers
24 rounds of golf
Who occupies the Oval Office?
Ballerina Rahm that’s who.

Who occupies the Oval Office?
Ballerina Rahm that’s who.
kyle | Oct 27, 2009 11:00:30 AM
Seriously? You’re trying to set up Rahm as this administration’s Cheney? Good luck with that. And good luck getting Americans up in arms about Obama liking to golf on Sundays. After Bush’s record 1,000+ days on vacation, most of America doesn’t have a problem with Obama taking Sun afternoon off.

Something is happening.
Can’t you feel it?
OK Independents.
You put Obama in the White House
you can take him out.
Send him a message in VA and NJ.

This is a clear referendum …
Posted by: Obamatopia | Oct 27, 2009 10:36:05 AM
I’m sure you’d like to think so. Unfortunately for you and your ilk the internals of the new Washington Post poll in Virginia suggest that Obama isn’t an important factor at all:
70% of likely voters say Obama is “not a factor” in ther choice. Only 15% say opposition to Obama is a factor, while 14%, say support for him is a factor.
71% percent say it makes “no difference” if the governor is from the same political party as the president.
Obama’s approval rating in Virginia is 54%, in line with most national polls.

Because the first statement is based on research that is publicly available, peer reviewed, and public knowledge to anyone versed in the background
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 27, 2009 11:13:59 AM
“Recovery Act funding… officials hope to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs” all based on research? Maybe the 4% by 2030 is based on research but anything to do with the Recovery Act and jobs is suspect.
Have you been to the “mouse-over map” on the Recovery web site lately? Let’s take CA for example: $1.1 billion awarded, $157 million received and 2260 jobs created. And you want me to believe that this award will create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs?

Tin soldiers and Kerry’s coming,Obama is on his own,this morning I hear the crying:eight dead on the road.Twenty-two servicemen sacrificed on the altar of Obama indecision over the last 72 hours.This is reality,not a campaign. Now perhaps people can see how woefully unprepared for leadership this mediocrity is.

Eight more American soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile Obama is busy campaigning.

“Only 15% say opposition to Obama is a factor…”
“Only?” Think about it: that’s a huge and ominous number.

According to a CNN reporter, Charlie Crist is saying he was unaware President Obama is in Florida.

According to a CNN reporter, Charlie Crist is saying he was unaware President Obama is in Florida.
Posted by: MayBee
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Must be having a left wing Charlie Gibson moment huh?

jhw539, you don’t have a problem with Pres. Obama playing golf every weekend, taking trips overseas, 24 fundraisers so far in 9 month (Bush has 6 in 12 month) trying to be out of the WH as often as possible, making GOOG use of Airforce One with his family (because he likes the plane) your a hypocrite.

This is a clear referendum on the Obama Socialist revolution in a state that went strongly blue this decade (two Dem Senators and a healthy Obama win in 08), and Slick Barry is failing badly.
Posted by: Obamatopia | Oct 27, 2009 10:36:05 AM
I’m sure you’d like to think so. Unfortunately for you and your ilk the internals of the new Washington Post poll in Virginia suggest that Obama isn’t an important factor at all:
Posted by: Alyson | Oct 27, 2009 11:14:38 AM
_________________________________
I love that phrase: “you and your ilk” It’s very Joy Behar! Makes us sound very dastardly!
A couple of things. I think what’s going on in VA does say something about the “Obama socialist revolution” in that 1) the majority of Americans don’t want it and 2) independents are making up their minds about Obama. So in that sense it is a referendum on Obama the president, his administration, and his ideology.
Also, I’m not sure quoting a WaPo poll is paricularly helpful. Kind of like liberals pushing back on a Rasmussen (or a Fox) poll. Libs (and I’m not saying you are a lib so don’t go there) can quote WaPo all they want but conservatives will never buy into it.

8 more Americans die in roadside bombings..The IED’s were identified as Iranian made.. lets reach out again to Iran Obama….they seem to like you
8?..is that how may holes of golf Obama played yesterday?

As a side note, Bush headlined 66 fundraisers in 2002 (2001 was an uninteresting election year, while this year there are three hot races). Included in that were record breaking hauls like the Republican National Committee’s Presidential Gala at the Washington Convention Center on May 14, 2002 that raised over $30 million, and a July 15, 2002 fundraiser in Birmingham for Alabama gubernatorial candidate Bob Riley that raised just over $4 million.
There was actually a bit of a scandal about how Bush would deliver an “official policy speech” so he could bill the taxpayers for Airforce 1 time before scurrying to a hotel to do a fundraiser, although by the fall the Republican Party had acknowledged the purely political nature of the trips (a legitimate job of the President, who is leader of his party) and agreed to cover the bulk of the costs.

U.S. Grant: “In war, anything is better than indecision. We must decide. If I am wrong, we shall soon find it out and can do the other thing. But not to decide…may ruin everything.”
Unfortunately, I know exactly how those guys over there are feeling right now. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

“Recovery Act funding… officials hope to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs” all based on research? Maybe the 4% by 2030 is based on research but anything to do with the Recovery Act and jobs is suspect. ”
Visualize Whirled Peas | Oct 27, 2009 11:35:09 AM
This has to do with funding Smart Grid development. The only thing the Recovery Act is doing is setting the number of billions going into it. The potential of Smart Grid technologies has been heavily researched by a great many utilities looking at rolling them out.

“Because the first statement is based on research that is publicly available, peer reviewed, and public knowledge to anyone versed in the background.”
The number can neither be proved nor disproved, and thus fails a fundamental test of the scientific method.
Fascist Hyena | Oct 27, 2009 12:35:39 PM
Nonsense. The savings potential of various Smart Grid technologies have been tested by numerous field tests and the extrapolations to full roll out are not exotic math by any means. The 4% reduction in US energy usage is conservative and, true to the scientific method, can and will be measured as utilities continue the smart grid rollout.

The potential of Smart Grid technologies has been heavily researched by a great many utilities looking at rolling them out.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 27, 2009 1:59:41 PM
And the “hope to create or save hundreds of thousands of jobs” part – has that been heavily researched as well? What will the net loss or gain be in jobs after perhaps old technologies are phased out and older workers are let go in favor of younger, cheaper employees?
I’m just saying if you want to discuss Big Lies, you have to also talk about this “tag line” attached to anything related to the Recovery Act. And if $157 million creates only 2200+ jobs, how will $3.4 billion create hundreds of thousands of jobs? No one knows. It’s all hopeful guesswork.
And how many more billions will be pumped into this effort to save that 4% by 2030? I’m sure it won’t be just the $3.4 billion. That’s just the seed money.

“We are trying on every front to increase the role of government”.
Barney Frank
Barney doesn’t even try to hide where the Democrats are taking this country.
At least he’s being honest.
Unlike Obama who does the opposite of what he says.

I’m just saying if you want to discuss Big Lies, you have to also talk about this “tag line” attached to anything related to the Recovery Act. And if $157 million creates only 2200+ jobs, how will $3.4 billion create hundreds of thousands of jobs? No one knows. It’s all hopeful guesswork.
______________________________________
“The winning companies have secured an additional $4.7 billion in private money to match their government grants, creating $8.1 billion in total investment in the smart grid.”
Just a small fact left out of the discussion so far.
Private industry and government working together for a better future.

Lieberman says he’ll filibuster Reid plan…
Mich. Democrat: Pelosi ‘not happy with me’ over trying to pull govmnt funded abortion from bill…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and the gifts just keep on coming…..Golf anyone?

That election is just a sideshow for the activists; it is really a meaningless minor race.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 27, 2009 2:04:46 PM
I’m saddened that you see the Founding Father’s efforts as an “activist sideshow” because that is what the “neo-con hard liners trying to purify the rightist ideology” are fighting for.
Visualize Whirled Peas | Oct 27, 2009 2:27:50 PM
Oh please, you know that the Founding Fathers did not make any efforts about political parties AND they clearly intended a single House seat alone to hold little power. They clearly sought to temper the mob mentality that true democracy falls prey to by mitigating the power of the only, at that time, position determined by popular vote. That’s how our government was set up.

Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 27, 2009 3:04:55 PM
Ah yes the old “right wing misses slavery and being the only property owners” mantra! Guess it’s time to move on because THAT is such a reasonable assessment of today’s conservatives and where you usually end up with all your assessments. No wonder you’re so respected here…

Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 27, 2009 3:49:20 PM
There are over 30 million registered Republicans. You quoted 3 people who may or may not be registered Republicans. You see where I’m going with this…

I love that phrase: “you and your ilk” It’s very Joy Behar! Makes us sound very dastardly!
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Oct 27, 2009 1:13:04 PM
***
Yes, without actually namecalling, lol. Language can be fun like that :>) I like dastardly too.
I actually think in Virginia, it has more to do with the candidates, and not much to do with Obama, and I’m not saying that from a less partisan place than I typically argue here. Even if you took a few percentage points off what the WaPo poll says, the thing is that Obama’s approval rating in Virginia is close to the percentage of the vote he got in that state– and Virginia is a swing state. They’ve had two Dem governors and now they’re swinging back toward Republican for the governorship. Dems are going to suffer some losses– that’s how these things work. But I don’t know that it says anything about 2010 or 2012 yet. It’s a little early to pull out those tea leaves and declare some sort of referendum. I’ll even throw this in, to show ya that I’m being serious rather than highly partisan– there’s no doubt there’s a conservative independent movement that’s gaining momentum and lighting a fire under people. Having been in on this type of thing from the progressive side, I’m not sure it’s quite as big as some people in it think it is yet, and it’s unclear what it’ll mean for the Republican party. It has to hold, and find its way. Personally, I see it more as something that could create an ideal Ron Paul or Ross Perot real contender moment for the right candidate(s) and be a referendum on both parties rather than a big GOP comeback. I’m not saying that the candidate would necessarily be Ron Paul or Ross Perot– but something fresh and not the same old, same old.

yes the right wing would prefer the age when only white male property owners could vote. Their words and actions say it loud and clear.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 27, 2009 3:49:20 PM
***
Wow. That post made my stomach churn. Scary.

I’m not saying that from a less partisan place than I typically argue here.
***
ha! I was actually trying not to be a total partisan, and now I’m wondering if that’s some sort of Freudian slip.
Ah well.

“But we all know that’s what you want everyone to read: R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N”
News to me.
Then again you’re a right winger claiming the GOP nominee for VA governor is somehow not a registered Republican and therefore does not represent the views of Republicans.
Good luck with that.

Then again you’re a right winger claiming the GOP nominee for VA governor is somehow not a registered Republican and therefore does not represent the views of Republicans.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 27, 2009 4:55:07 PM
Not sure why I’m trying to explain myself here, but I said 3 people who may or may not be Republicans – kind of a generic statement – but if you can have fun with it, I’m glad I could entertain you for a few minutes. And I’m pleased you could advance the dialog here in such a well-informed and gifted manner. You’re truly an asset to the human race. A real Martin Luther King…

GOP = KKK
It’s all Ryan and the Left have in their arsenal anymore.

GOP = KKK
It’s all Ryan and the Left have in their arsenal anymore.
Posted by: Libs, and the Lying Liars Who Elect Them | Oct 27, 2009 5:26:16 PM
Dems = Socialists/Fascists/Communists/Rich Trial Lawyers
Oh wait, that one is true…

“Are you one of those sleazy Republicans who wishes to take advantage of and stoke people’s anger while claiming to remain above the fray?”
Dems = Socialists/Fascists/Communists/Rich Trial Lawyers
Oh wait, that one is true…
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Oct 27, 2009 5:35:49 PM
Looks like you answered my question.

Cover your eyes if you favor the “robust public option”:
“Clyburn told the assembled members at the meeting that the leadership does not have the votes to pass the robust public option, according to a House progressive familiar with the meeting. That sparked aggressive pushback from liberals, who argued that leadership — and the White House — should be working harder to win over the remaining votes the bill needs.
“The document shows that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 56. That means of 256 House Dems, only 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.”
Let’s have a show of hands: even if it passed the House, how many think it would make it through the Senate?

“(State polls are less reliable, and more expensive, than national ones.)”
ROFLMAO!
A qualifier in case his hero gets it wrong.

RCP average Obama approval among voters: 49.0%.
Every person who follows polling techniques and results knows that state polls are historically less reliable than national ones. It’s simply a fact, and facts are often difficult for simpletons to grasp, let alone accept.
Does anyone care to make a case against using leaners near election day?

“RCP average Obama approval among voters: 49.0%.A”
ROFLMAO!
Of course the Real Clear Politics current poll compilation average has 7 polls from the last two weeks. Fasicts wants to concentrate on polls that he likes.
Actual RCP average has Obama approval at 51.7
RCP average of their poll complilation
“Every person who follows polling techniques and results knows that state polls are historically less reliable than national ones”
Than why did Scott Rasmussen conduct state polls than aggregate that into a national poll for the 2004 race?
Ya know if every person following polling knows this.

“Bill Maher describes himself as a libertarian, and so do a bunch of the tea partiers. Somehow I don’t see Ryan C as part of the tea party ilk.”
I’m not sure if Maher even truly understands libertarian philosophy.

“Suffolk U. Poll has Corzine up 42-33.”
A first time poll in this race for Suffolk that does not come close to other polling. So the next step is taking a look under the hood.
They have an MOE of 5 with a sample size of 400. They also asked about all 12 candidates on the ballots which I am not sure if it affected the results (instead of Corzine, Christie, Daggett, Other)
I am guessing its an outlier.
“OK, RC, go ahead and make your case. And be sure to tell us why “near election” is OK, but “after Labor Day” isn’t.”
While post Labor day is when people start to make their decisions and you seem support solidifying behind candidates (def vote for numbers etc) pushing leaners two months out will give you skewed results.
The reason they are leaners is because they are still undecided but may have a basic preference for one candidate or the other.
Two weeks before an election you can push leaners because the decision is fast approaching and the one they make is likely one they stick with barring some event that shakes up the race)
Pushing leaners two months before election is not quite as stupid as using likely voter models for Presidential approval 3 years before the next election but its close.

“Me neither. But I’m certain a lot of the tea partiers don’t either. LOL.”
“Keep the Government’s Hands off My Medicare!” was one of my favorites.

“Of course the Real Clear Politics current poll compilation average has 7 polls from the last two weeks. Fasicts wants to concentrate on polls that he likes.”
Exactly. Now his favorites are down to just two: Fox and Rasmussen. And in one more day, Fox will drop off the list, leaving Rasmussen as the only “voter” poll. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Fascist Hyena starts dividing Rasmussen by 1 and calling it “The RCP average.”

Very nice try at analysis, Ryan. I’m going to give you an “E” for “Effort” on that one. Unfortunately, for your overall grade I’m going to have to give you a “P” for “Puerile.” Your contention about voter behavior over time is unsupported by a single source or fact.
And you seem to think that “likely voter” in a poll taken today means “likely to vote in the 2012 election.” It means no such thing, and for that error you received a serious black mark on your report.

“Than [sic] why did Scott Rasmussen conduct state polls than [sic] aggregate that into a national poll for the 2004 race?”
Perhaps because in so doing he was able to rely on a sample size fifty times that of the average state sample. (Think it through, Ryan, unless it pains you to do so.) And that, in turn, may account for why he was the only pollster to predict each candidate’s total within one-half of a percentage point.

“And you seem to think that “likely voter” in a poll taken today means “likely to vote in the 2012 election.”"
That’s the point.
Why use likely voter models for Presidential approval 3 years out from the next election.
Could it be it conveniently drops young voters?
What is Rasmussen’s likely voter model?

“Very nice try at analysis, Ryan. I’m going to give you an “E” for “Effort” on that one. Unfortunately, for your overall grade I’m going to have to give you a “P” for “Puerile.” Your contention about voter behavior over time is unsupported by a single source or fact.”
Really?
Rasmussen himself on his first post Labor Day poll
“However, it’s worth noting that other indicators suggest that Christie’s lead might be a bit softer than the eight-point advantage indicates. Results before leaners are included show Christie up by just four points. Among those who are certain how they will vote, Christie leads by six.”
Sometimes its just too easy….

“Really not much point in shooting the messenger. My technique never varies, and it speaks for itself. You might want to contemplate why the results are as they are in lieu of making personal insults about the person presenting facts that you find unpleasant.”
ROFLMAO!
Fascist HATES being called out for his dishonesty.

“Like your insistence that Obama’s 52.93% election win is closer to Rasmussen’s 52% than to CNN and McClatchy’s 53%.”
False. I simply insisted, and continue to insist, that the Fordham University study found that Rasmussen was the most accurate in the 2008 election. It found precisely that.

“At Rasmussen Reports, we interview 1,000 Likely Voters every single night. Our daily tracking poll is based upon three-days worth of interviews–3,000 Likely Voters. Our weekly survey, however, is based upon interviews with 7,000 Likely Voters spread equally over each night of the week. This reduces the random variation that can come from smaller sample sizes and polling on different days of the week.”
And again: nothing in the quoted statement refutes anything I have said.

“Like your insistence that Obama’s 52.93% election win is closer to Rasmussen’s 52% than to CNN and McClatchy’s 53%.”
False. I simply insisted, and continue to insist, that the Fordham University study found that Rasmussen was the most accurate in the 2008 election. It found precisely that.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 27, 2009 9:52:48 PM
LOL, you even lie about a lie.
The Fordham professor’s November 5th study was merely an “Initial Report” and found that TWO pollsters were tied for the top spot. More importantly, his findings were all based on an incorrect “estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.” Every finding in that report was invalidated once the OFFICIAL results came in showing Obama had won by a 7.28-point margin.
It’s glaringly apparent that what the Fordham professor found was completely unfounded.

…Let’s have a show of hands: even if it passed the House, how many think it would make it through the Senate?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 27, 2009 6:04:08 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The house will end up passing a bill with a Public Option. However, the Senate will go to 1 or 2 filibusters and cloture votes.
I’ve been hoping for this end result for several months now. Even though everyone out there seems to think a filibuster is a bad result, I believe that the Democrats will be in a much better position for 2010 and beyond if they force the Republicans to filibuster this to death (if they have the votes) on the Senate floor. The President and the Democrats should not be afraid of or avoid the prospect of ‘death by filibuster’. It is an honorable death.
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual ‘traditional filibuster’ if he or she so chooses. Reid should force the Republicans to do a ‘traditional filibuster’ to get the full benefit of this.
This legislative process, ultimately leading to a filibuster, will allow all of the truths and fallacies to be fully vetted and separated out before the upcoming elections. Both the Republicans and the Democrats will have been forced to show their hands, who they are, and what they stand for. The people will then vote accordingly in November and on. How it will go who knows anymore? It really depends on the pain threshold of the various voting public.
If Congress goes Republican, then the poor, disadvantaged, and middle class will have to endure many more years of declining or loss of health care until a larger portion of the country is frustrated and angry to the point that the politicians are voted out and forced to pass it.
With this strategy, however, the Democrats (at least the liberal ones) cannot be accused of not fighting as hard as they could for the poor, disadvantaged, and middle class. This is what Reid is doing and what all the Democrats and the President should support and do as well.
All aboard the train to filibuster!

Posted by: Alyson | Oct 28, 2009 1:18:06 AM
The other day, I compiled a list of ten polls that asked about a public option. All but one showed support for a PO. The September NBC/WSJ poll was the outlier with 46% in favor and 48% opposed. But now with the October positive flip to 48% – 42%, all ten polls show at least a plurality in favor. Yes, even Rasmussen.
And it is strange how minor wording changes can make a big difference in results.