Obama’s team is split over how to rally a fragmented base.

MICHAEL BARONE ARCHIVE    |    LATEST    |    LOG IN OCTOBER 10, 2011 12:00 A.M. Unruly Coalition Obama’s team is split over how to rally a fragmented base. Pres. Barack Obama obviously is scrambling in his attempt to win reelection. He has proclaimed himself the underdog and has given up his pretense of being a pragmatic centrist compromiser in favor of harsh class-warfare rhetoric. But it’s worth taking note of what he has squandered. In 2008, Obama won 53 percent of the popular vote. That may not sound like a landslide, but it’s more than any other Democratic presidential nominee in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. Higher than Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland, higher than Harry Truman and John Kennedy, higher than Jimmy Carter and (but don’t bring up the subject with him) Bill Clinton. Why have so few Democratic nominees won 53 percent or more, as ten different Republican nominees have? The historical reason is that the Democratic party has been an unruly coalition of disparate groups — big-city Catholics and southern whites for the century after the Civil War — which usually has been hard to hold together. Obama’s 2008 coalition included two-thirds of young voters and Latinos, majorities of those earning more than $200,000 and those earning less than $50,000, non-college whites in the upper Midwest, and 95 percent of blacks nationwide. Some obvious tensions there. Now his strategists feel obliged to pick which groups he’ll concentrate on to get back up to 50 percent. What’s interesting is that his demographic strategists and his issue strategists seem to be eyeing different groups. The demographic targeters, in their quest for 270 electoral votes, have decided to concentrate on traditionally Republican states that Obama carried in 2008, according to a report in the New York Times. They note that some of these states — e.g., Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina — have above-average percentages of college-educated voters, who trended strongly toward Obama. They add that those three states have more electoral votes (37) than Florida (29) and twice as many as Ohio (18), which were both target states in each of the past three presidential elections. But Ohio and Florida have lower percentages of college-educated residents, and the movement toward Obama compared with past Democrats was relatively minimal. This may be smart targeting. For years, Democrats have been seeking to regain the majorities they won from blue-collar whites in the days of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. But they are a declining percentage of the electorate, and it’s been a long time since they have given Democrats any majority at all for president. Statewide polling since June has shown Obama with majority disapproval in Florida (43 percent approves; 53 percent disapproves) and in Ohio (44–52). That supports the view that his chances are tenuous in those states. But unfortunately for these strategists, recent polls don’t show Obama doing much better in Virginia (45–50), North Carolina (45–51), or Colorado (46–50). The Obamaites point to Sen. Michael Bennet’s 2010 victory in Colorado as a model to follow. But Bennet won by only 48 to 46 percent, and the Democratic governor won with just 51 percent against split opposition. And Republicans carried the state’s popular vote for the House. There’s also an enormous gulf between the so-called Colorado strategy and Obama’s stance on issues. It’s not clear that lambasting Republicans for not raising taxes on millionaires and corporate jets is going to win votes or rally the enthusiasm of currently disappointed college-educated and young voters. They may actually have looked past the campaign rally cries of “pass this bill” to notice that the president’s jobs bill doesn’t have 50 votes in the Democratic-majority Senate and, indeed, has hardly any Democratic co-sponsors. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been employing parliamentary legerdemain to prevent a vote on Obama’s bill. It’s not so clear, either, that bashing millionaires and corporate-jet owners is going to rekindle the enthusiasm of young voters and Latinos discouraged after months of joblessness. They may remember that spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the 2009 stimulus package didn’t do much good. At the moment, the only states where polls since June show Obama with job approval as high as 50 or 51 percent are those where he got 60-plus percent in 2008, plus New Jersey, where he got 57 percent. Those are enough to get him up to 200 electoral votes, 70 short of a majority. But they’re not enough to reassemble the 53 percent coalition that hoped he would bring change for the better. That coalition, historically unusual, seems now to be part of history itself. — Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, aFox News Channel contributor, and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. © 2011 the Washington Examiner.

1979 Shock News : Antarctic Oceans Release More Heat Than All Burned Oil

Posted on October 9, 2011 by Steven Goddard

http://news.google.com/newspaper

Al Gore kicked out of the Global Warming Club

Al Gore kicked out of the Global Warming Club

October 9, 2011 by Don Surber

As the world turns away from the hysterics of the global warming crowd, the True Believers are looking for a scapegoat for their turn in fortunes. To blame Michael Mann or Phil Jones would be to admit that Climategate proved once and for all the fallacy of their “science” — that it was based on the manipulation of data and outright forgery.

Looking for dead weight in this sinking ship,Myles Allen of the Guardian has decided to toss Al Gore overboard: “Al Gore is doing a disservice to science by overplaying the link between climate change and weather. To claim that we are causing meteorological events that would not have occurred without human influence is just plain wrong.”

Now only to a true believer would there be no link between weather and climate. Myles Allen is not quite there, but he seems to recognize the problem 20 years of linking odd weather to global warming has turned into a farce. If everything proved global warming, then nothing really does.

His dump on Al Gore is refreshing: “When Al Gore said last week that scientists now have ‘clear proof that climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and devastating floods, storms and droughts that displaced millions of people this year,’ my heart sank. Having suggested the idea of “event attribution” back in 2003, and co-authored a study published earlier this year on the origins of the UK floods in autumn 2000, I suspect I may be one of the scientists being talked about.”

Yes, how dare Al Gore quote him.

The problem is not Al Gore. The problem is this ridiculous theory that mankind through its modern conveniences is creating too much carbon dioxide and this will eventually turn the world into a ball of fire. It’s rather Old Testament, conjuring up images of the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. The problem is you cannot prove it. As Allen Myles lamented: “This illustrates an important point: human influence on climate is making some events more likely, and some less likely, and it is a challenging scientific question to work out which are which.”

So the science is not there yet. And without the science, we really have no logical reason to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which by the way is measured by whom? Is anyone double-checking the measurements? Measure twice, cut once.

And so Al Gore gets tossed overboard. Yesterday’s hero. More proof that like recycling, this is a fad — a fancy way for certain kids to feel superior to their parents.

Meanwhile, the London Daily Mail reported: “Britain is just weeks away from being in the grip of temperatures as low as -20C, forecasters have predicted. Parts of Britain already saw snow this week, with two inches falling in the Cairngorms in Scotland.  The rest of Britain is being warned to brace itself for wintry conditions and falling snow from the beginning of November.”

So I can see why these “scientists” who have never spoken out for 20 years against using weather to burnish the global warming claims now wish to divorce themselves from that.

Environmentalists: Where's the 'Guy We Thought We BOUGHT er... Electing President?’

Environmentalists: Where's the 'Guy We Thought We Were Electing President?’

By Erick Hamme

October 10, 2011

Subscribe to Erick Hamme's posts

    

Environmental activists opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline protest near the State Department in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Oct. 7, 2011. (Photo from the tarsandsaction.org website)

(CNSNews.com) At a Washington, D.C, rally protesting the Keystone XL pipeline project on Friday, environmentalists expressed disappointment and disillusionment with President Barack Obama.

“We need—somehow—to find that guy we thought we were electing president.  And we have to figure out, where they are holding him, and release him,” said environmental activist Bill McKibben.  At that point, the crowd broke into cries of “Free Obama.”

McKibben, an author and scholar who founded an international grassroots campaign against climate change,  has emerged as the leader of the ongoing pipeline protests. In his speech at the Washington rally, he quoted Obama’s campaign promise to “end the tyranny of oil” and to “have the most transparent government the world has ever seen.”

McKibben told CNSNews that the Keystone pipeline – which, when finished, would bring crude oil from Alberta, Canada to Texas oil refineries – “is the biggest decision the president faces this fall and it’s entirely on him. Congress isn’t in the way.  And we will find out whether he meant it when he said we need to fight global warming and have a transparent government.”

The U.S. State Department has been considering TransCanada’s request to extend the pipeline for three years, and it faces a year-end deadline to decide whether the project is in the U.S. national interest. The State Department in August found that the project would have "no significant impact on the environment,” but opponents disagree.

And no matter what the State Department recommends, activists insist that the final decision ultimately is up to the president.

“If you tell people that you’re going to do something and you have a chance to do it and then you don’t—people aren’t going to trust you in the same way anymore, right?  That’s just how it works. There’s a sense of fraught anticipation.  We’ll see what he does. It’s on him,” McKibben said.

The Keystone XL project does have the support of another Obama constituency – labor unions. As CNSNews.com reported, union leaders say the pipeline project would create tens of thousands of jobs for union workers and pump billions of dollars into the U.S. economy without spending any federal money.

At Friday's hearing, union representatives and oil industry officials urged the State Department to approve the pipeline extension.

When asked by CNSNews.com whether it was fair to say that environmentalists are growing disillusioned with Obama, Maura Cowley of the Energy Action Coalition  replied, “Absolutely.”

“President Obama said, ‘Let’s be the generation that ends the tyranny of oil in this country’ and ‘let’s clean up Washington,’ and his policies are doing neither of those things, and frankly his base is watching—we represent 200,000 young voters.

“We don’t think he’s pushing and being the leader that we elected,” Cowley said. “We just have to take a step back and ask ourselves, ‘Is the president of the United States doing all that he can do to usher in a clean energy society?’ And right now the answer is no.”

Emily Sarri, the executive director of the Maryland Student Climate Coalition and a former Obama campaigner said, “He (Obama) is taking us for granted.  I know so many environmentalists who got their organizing training on the Obama campaign.  They we’re so excited that his campaign was all about community organizing.  They were so thrilled when he got elected—that he acknowledged climate change and promised to do something about it—and he’s completely disappointed us three years later.  There’s absolutely nothing happening.

“If he doesn’t do anything, he’s just intensifying the inevitable, and he’s not going to have our support in 2012.”

Caroline Selle, who heads the Student Environmental Action Coalition at St. Mary’s College, agreed that Obama is  losing support: “A lot of people who were willing to campaign for him are leaving, and I think were leaving by the thousands.  He’s losing his grassroots support, which is why he got elected the first time around—so I think he should be scared.”

H CAIN SAYS: OWS BLAME YOURSELF

Occupy Wall Street: Blame yourself

---

Posted: October 09, 2011
7:05 pm Eastern
© 2011 

I'm not surprised I got a question like this from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. Given the mindset of Mr. O'Donnell and most of his colleagues, it's to be expected that he would cite my statement – that Occupy Wall Street protesters have only themselves to blame if they are unemployed or lacking wealth – and ask if I wanted to apologize for saying so.

Not a chance.

In fact, I would add this: Anyone who abandons these protests and tries taking my advice is almost certain to end up better off. That's because it's empowering to you when you stop blaming other people for your situation, and start taking responsibility for yourself.

When Herman Cain speaks, people listen. When he debates, he wins! Get his new release, "This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House" – now at the WND Superstore!

Another name the OWS protesters use for themselves is the 99 percent. This is in contrast to the 1 percent of the population whose greater wealth they resent. Their premise is that the 1 percent has been exploiting them, and now the 99 percent is fighting back.

Well …

No one has to tell me about the challenges involved with pursuing success when you are born without a lot of advantages, or to a family without a lot of money. That is thestoryof my life. I achieved success in business because I worked hard, studied hard, set goals, honed my strategy, weathered setbacks and kept at it no matter what. Sometimes those setbacks occurred because, at least it seemed to me, someone didn't treat me fairly. But I quickly learned that this, too, is part of life. Complaining about it won't help you. Devising strategies to overcome it will.

Pursuing a strategy for personal success is very much like the work a CEO does. A good CEO has to recognize the rightopportunitiesand develop strategies to take advantage of them. There are always problems along the way, of course, so a good CEO has to identify the right problems and work on them effectively so as to overcome them and claim the desiredreward.

In my book, "CEO of Self," I explain that each individual has to run his or her own life in much the same way. One of the most important things an individual must master is the understanding of how one accesses opportunity. Even in a poor economy made worse by absurd government economic policies, this is still America and there are still many opportunities. There should be far more, but there are many.

(Column continues below)

The person whose strategy is to wave a protest sign and complain about the success of others is not going to be successful at accessing that opportunity. Even at the times in my life when I struggled, I did not embrace the delusion that I lacked what I wanted because someone else had too much. I recognized that a person with wealth was the very person who could offer me an opportunity.

But I learned as I progressed in my career that you're not going to get an opportunity just because you need it, or think you're entitled to it. You're going to get an opportunity because there's something you can offer that person of wealth, or that big capitalist corporation, that makes it a mutually beneficial arrangement for both parties. Maybe there's a skill or knowledge you can offer that person or organization, which will make them more profitable, and make their investment in you a wise one for them. But before you can even try to access opportunity in this way – which is to say, the right way – you have to understand how and why people earn wealth.

The people protesting on Wall Street this week give no indication that they understand this. They don't understand thatinvestorsand corporations have to put capital at risk, work hard, make good decisions and bring products and services to market that people consider worth their money to buy. They don't understand that you don't earn until you first effectively serve.

When I say they should blame themselves for their status, they may not realize it, but I'm really putting the power in their hands. You can wave signs and make demands, but there's no reason anyone will want to give you an opportunity if that's all you do – especially when the message you send to those whocouldgive you an opportunity is that you resent them.

If you haven't succeeded to the extent that you've hoped, take the blame. And as you do, take responsibility for your own life. And understand that by setting the right goals, doing the right things, developing the right habits and focusing on the right problems, you have it within your power to achieve more than you've ever imagined.

But if you insist on blaming others, then you put the power of your life intheirhands. What can you do then? Carry a sign? Hope the government will make things better for you?

Good luck with that. I tried to help you by encouraging you to blame yourself. The best thing you can ever do for yourself is to take that advice.

Read more:Occupy Wall Street: Blame yourselfhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=353921#ixzz1aPhIsAGI