Karl Rove

Don Lemon Proved Trump’s Point

Published by Papa Giorgio

While the entire segment[s] regarding this topic of President Trump calling Don Lemon “stupid” was excellent… Prager’s response to this caller was an excellent way to respond to such attacks. NOT TO mention it backfired on Don Lemon and those who make similar arguments, in one sense, PROVING the Presidents point. Not to mention Lemon reacted to the media bait the “Don” likes to throw in the water like chum for the ravenous sharks.

Here is an excellent dealing with the obvious backfire by the WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

Over the weekend, liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow said there was “definitely” a “racial underpinning” to Trump’s latest insults.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted Friday, “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Trump thinks African-Americans are dumb.”

Former CBS newsman Dan Rather called Trump’s remark, which he made on Twitter, a “disgrace” and “racist.”

Trump is, however, well known for taking aim at just about anyone who criticizes him in public, and there’s no evidence he considers race or gender before he fires back. Here are seven examples of when Trump insulted the intelligence of white, conservative men:

….James Comey…. Rick Perry…. Mitt Romney…. Jeb Bush…. George Will…. Glenn Beck….

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Don Lemon’s defense? You are only racist if you call people of color stupid, not when you call white people stupid. (And another thought, would Democrats disagree with Trump’s assessment of these Republicans?)

The WaPo story can be found HERE  (I have noticed if you google this article you often times get the unlock version):

Premiums Skyrocket Under Obama-Care ~ Neil Cavuto Ends the Post

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Forbes magazine article:

For months now, we’ve been waiting to hear how much Obamacare will drive up the cost of health insurance for people who purchase coverage on their own. Last night, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services finally began to provide some data on how Americans will fare on Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchanges. HHS’ press release is full of happy talk about how premiums will be “lower than originally expected.” But the reality is starkly different.

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

[….]

As you can see from the map above, many 27-year-olds will face steep increases in the underlying cost of individually-purchased insurance under Obamacare. For the states where we have data—the 36 reported by HHS, plus nine others that we had compiled for our map that HHS didn’t report—rates will go up for men by an average of 97 percent; for women, 55 percent. (In the few cases where HHS reported on states that our map includes, we went with HHS’ numbers.)

Worst off was Nebraska, where the difference between the cheapest plan under the old system and under Obamacare was 279 percent for men, and 227 percent for women: more than triple the old rate. Faring best was Colorado, where rates will decline for both 27-year-old men and women by 36 percent. The only other state to see a rate decline in this analysis was New Hampshire: 8 percent for both men and women.

[….]

40-year-olds, surprisingly, will face a similar picture. The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.

For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.

Remember that here, we aren’t conducting an exact comparison. Instead we’re comparing the lowest-cost bronze plan offered to the average participant in the exchanges, to the cheapest plan offered to 40-year-olds today. This approach artificially flatters Obamacare, because the median age of an exchange participant is, in most states, below the age of 40.

In both the 27-year-old and 40-year-old comparisons, we adjusted the pre-ACA rates to take into account people who would be charged more for insurance, or denied coverage altogether, due to a pre-existing condition, using the same methodology we’ve used in the past.

[….]

For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.

The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.

…read more…


 

Maybe the above and below is why Obama called out Fox News recently… Fox News is the only network covering the ill affects the “Affordable” Care Act has on the Middle-Class and Poor people.

President Obama will likely get the attention of some people over at Fox News after he called out the network by name during his campaign-style speech promoting the Affordable Care Act in Maryland Thursday morning. The president gave some advice to his supporters on what to do when their friends and family members come to them and say how they just saw someone on Fox News saying how “horrible Obamacare is.

“We need you to spread the word,” Obama told the cheering crowd. “But, you don’t have to take my word for it. If you talked to somebody who said, ‘I don’t know, I was watching Fox News and they said it’s ‘horrible,’ and you can say, you know what, don’t take my word for it.”….

(Media’ite)

 

Breitbart mentions the following:

During a Thursday speech pitching a health care plan that seems to grow even more unpopular every time he pitches it, President Obama tore into Fox News by all-but accusing them of lying about the increased costs of health care under ObamaCare:

 Continuing…

The president is lying though omission there. The argument that health care costs aren’t as high as the worst nightmare scenarios predicted does not mean costs are going down, even though that is what Obama is trying to hustle people into believing. The fact is, is that while pushing his health care plan, Obama promised premiums would go down for a family of four by at least $2400 per year. The reality, however, is that costs will increase by almost two times that amount.

For example, while Obama pointed to a reduction in premiums in New York state, state officials in Ohio say the average premium proposal for individual coverage next year is up 88 percent from this year’s average price as reported by the Society of Actuaries. In Maryland, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield proposed a 25 percent increase in premiums next year, after first seeking a 50 percent increase. Final rates haven’t been determined in either state.                                

The higher rates, supporters say, buy a health insurance system that guarantees access to coverage for everyone and improves benefits, such as requiring insurers to cover older children and outlawing lifetime spending limits on claims.

Obama did a good job injecting a little energy into the 100th time he’s given a speech that has already failed 99 times. But attacking Fox News by name is just another example of the smallness of a man who seems to delight in making his office smaller in the eyes of the country and his country smaller in the eyes of the world.

Cavuto Responds:

IRS Chief’s Wife Tweeted Hatred of the GOP, Karl Rove, the Tea Party

Published by Papa Giorgio

More BIG News ~ Now We Know… Former IRS Chief’s Wife Is a Committed #Occupy Loon & Tea Party Basher

Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman’s wife Susan Anderson is a committed #Occupy loon.

She also hates the Tea Party – just like her husband!

Twitchy put together a few of Susan Anderson’s more memorable tweets from the past year.

Via TWITCHY:

We already knew that former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman’s wife, Susan L. Anderson, worked for a liberal activist group, Public Campaign.

And we briefly mentioned that at one point she had some kind of connection to the Occupy Wall Street movement:

[….]

We didn’t know until now, however, that she also worked for Obama For America (see tweet above).

Nor did we know that she talked smack about Karl Rove’s group, American Crossroads….

She also paints the GOP — like many lefties — as racist:

Twitchy goes on to say:

Of course, she has the right to express her opinion. And there’s no evidence that Anderson improperly influenced her husband, Shulman, who was a George W. Bush appointee.

But suffice to say, as more and more information flows, we at Twitchy Team greet every new twist and turn in the IRS scandalabra with our #shockedfaces on.

Update:

We changed the headline of this article. The original version’s headline was “Tweets by former IRS chief’s wife reveal liberal political views.” We decided that this underplayed the radicalism of Anderson’s views….

Tweets by former IRS chief’s wife reveal radical leftist political views

From NRO:

Robert Costa appeared on the Kudlow Report last night to discuss National Review’s latest scoop on Lois Lerner, “Why She Took the Fifth” by Eliana Johnson.

“Even inside the IRS in Cincinnati, there are people who work there who tell National Review that the questions were very much invasive, that they were really intrusive on these conservative groups — they went over the top,” Costa said. “And now for Lois Lerner just to shrug it off is making a lot of people in Washington raise their eyebrows.”

In one tweet she mentioned being at a teach-in by Larry Lessig:

BREITBART has video of Larry Lessig:

I found this interesting. When I did a BING search on the commissar’s wife, BING showed me some “related” links… BING was on the money!

Asking about wives is only important if you are Republican. Notice the “Obama Star” in the masthead. Click graphic to see original site. I like topic number four, “Transparency,” exactly!

Via BREITBART:

On Friday, reports broke that Former IRS chief Doug Shulman’s wife works with a liberal lobbying group, Public Campaign, where she is the senior program advisor. Public Campaign is an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”

The goal of Public Campaign is to target political groups like the conservative non-profits at issue in the IRS scandal. The Campaign says it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

[….]

Public Campaign gets its cash from labor unions like AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and Move On.

…and the DAILY CALLER:

Former Internal Revenue Service commissioner Douglas H. Shulman, a frequent White House guest during the period when the IRS was targeting conservative nonprofits, is married to the senior program advisor for Public Campaign, an “organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.”

[….]

Shulman’s wife Susan L. Anderson is the senior program advisor for the Washington-based nonprofit organization Public Campaign, which claims that it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

Public Campaign receives “major funding” from the pro-Obamacare alliance Health Care for America NOW!, which is comprised of the labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the progressive activist organization Move On, among others.

“Together we are building a network of national and state-based efforts to create a powerful national force for federal and state campaign reform,” according to Public Campaign’s website.

Public Campaign also receives funding from the liberal Ford Foundation, the Common Cause Education Fund, and Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation, among other foundations and private donors.

Public Campaign’s ninth-floor 1133 19th Street NW office in Washington, D.C. is located on the same floor as the liberal groups Common Cause and Center for Progressive Leadership.

Calls to Shulman’s residence and Anderson’s extension at Public Campaign were not returned.

(See also PJ-MEDIA)

Rove to Senior Obama Advisor Claiming IRS Scandal Wasn’t Political: `Baloney!`

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Gateway Pundit:

** Nearly 500 conservative groups targeted
** At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
** Constitutional groups targeted
** Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
** At least two pro-life groups targeted
** A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
** Conservative activists and businesses were targeted
** At least 88 IRS agents were involved in the targeting scandal

Via Lonely Conservative:

** IRS even targeted donors to conservative groups

Karl Rove and Dick morris Dissect the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Poll (Florida, Ohio, Virginia)

Published by Papa Giorgio

CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll:

  • (Florida) Democrats sampled at 37%/ Republicans sampled at 30%/Independents sampled at 29%
  • (Ohio) Democrats sampled at 37%/Republicans sampled at 29%/Independents sampled at 30%
  • (Virginia) Democrats sampled at 35%/Republicans sampled at 27%/Independents sampled at 35%

Hot Air shows how this poll and the mixing of 2008 stats (enthusiasm levels) do not jive. Dick Morris as well does a bang-up job on discussing this poll as well, “Why The NY Times Poll Is Wrong.”

—————————–

Another aspect is the voting blocks. Obama has all his blocks down. A great video to make the point is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTihf2_GGM&feature=share&list=UUKCXRhi-1Z4eCnsNJujlbmQ). I think many are finally — hopefully — realizing in the inner cities (even Michigan was tied up in the polls) that the monopolies of union control over education and liberal policies in inner-cities that have been in place for 40/50 years are to no avail. That they merely create a victim class that are rendered powerless, except as pawns for political purposes.

More: the Jewish vote is down (http://tinyurl.com/98ok3yo), the black vote (http://tinyurl.com/9uwyxmf), women (http://tinyurl.com/c62xfa8), young (http://tinyurl.com/925xenw)… they are all down for the Dems. It doesn’t mean they will vote for Romney. It may mean they won’t vote at all. But Republicans are more jazzed about this vote than Dems (http://tinyurl.com/9joxzgj).

 

Dick Morris is right for once!:

….Here’s the deal. The Times is weighting the raw survey data to reflect the ratio of Democrats to Republicans who voted in 2008.  True, if we get the same massive turnout among minorities and young people that propelled Obama to victory in 2008, he will win this election and carry these states. But we won’t. All the polling shows that the electorate is now much more Republican and that GOP voters are much more motivated to turn out than their Democratic counterparts.

If we weight the Times results for the average turnout of the past four elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, we find Romney winning all three states. Republican pollster (the best of them all) John McLaughlin and I used exit polls from the past four elections to figure out how many Democrats and Republicans actually voted and then we averaged them together. Here are the real numbers:

FLORIDA

  • NY Times results: Obama +1
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +7
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 8 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

OHIO

  • NY Times results: Obama +5
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Dems +2
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 6 points

Correct poll result: Romney +1

VIRGINIA

  • NY Times results: Obama +2
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 9 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

And even these results don’t tell the full story. The Gallup Poll finds that the 2012 election will actually have more Republicans and fewer Democrats voting than any of the past four elections. In 2008, the electorate had 12 points more Democrats and Republicans….

…read more…

Polls Lie ~ Sorta: You Have To Dig To Find Poll Information (Are Republicans Really Down 10% In Ohio?)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Misleading Stats ~ You Have To Dig To Find the Real Stats!

A good example of this is the recent poll my boss came in and disparagingly said “Romney’s down 10% in Ohio.” I waited till I got home and found out that the poll sampled Democrats at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close however, Obama is not leading by 10% — which is why it is categorized as a swing state.

See also:

★ More Fuzzy Math from the Polls: http://tinyurl.com/9df4a99
★ Karl Rove Explains the 1980 Polls Regarding the Carter/Reagan Race (3-weeks before the Election, Carter was at 47%, Reagan at 39% ~ Reagan won 44-states): http://tinyurl.com/925t9uh


More Fuzzy Math from the Polls

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via Breitbart:

A Marist Poll on Thursday found President Barack Obama with an astounding eight-point lead over Mitt Romney in Iowa, even as the RealClearPolitics average had the state tied and a Rasmussen Reports poll on Thursday found Romney leading by three points. 

Marist says the breakdown of likely voters in its poll Iowa is 36% Democrat, 31% Republican, and 33% independent. Democrats only had a one-point advantage in 2008, when enthusiasm for Obama was at its peak. 

But when among those 33% who are independent are broken down even further, 12% leaned Democrat and 10% leaned Republican, giving Democrats a two-point advantage among independents Marist polled. This means Democrats actually have a seven-point advantage in the poll. 

In 2008, Democrats only had a one-point advantage over Republicans on election night in Iowa. Democrats made up 34% of Iowans who voted in the presidential election in 2008. Republicans made up 33%. Independents made up 33%. …

[…]

The Marist poll found forty-nine percent of Iowans thought the country was headed in the wrong direction while 43% thought the country was headed in the right direction. This means Obama is in trouble if Democrats don’t give him a seven-point advantage over Republicans at the polls in November, which seems highly unlikely.

 

Karl Rove Explains the 1980 Polls Regarding the Carter/Reagan Race

Published by Papa Giorgio

From video description:

I was thinking it was only a 4% lead that Carter had… in fact, three weeks BEFORE the election Carter rose to 47% and Reagan dropped to 39%! (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) Remember, Reagan took 44-States, he blew Carter out of the water! Then doc Rove shows the lopsided polls in regards to Democrats and Republicans. WOW!