From Andy, who writes on Karen’s Lonely Conservative:
November 3, 2012 | By Andy H
As yet another sign of the wobbly wheel challenged Canadian made Obama bus disaster, Gigi Georges – former Hillary aide and New York State Democrat Party executive director – has given her endorsement to Mitt Romney.
For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.
There are a couple of ways to take this endorsement. First it could be a truly heartfelt choice for what Gigi thinks is best for our nation. Another reason could be that Obama has been really bad for the Clintons. He played the race card on them during the primary and took from Hillary what was thought by many to be an easy path to another Clinton White House (sans oval office oral amusements). More importantly, he has annihilated any future chance for a possible Hillary presidency with the Benghazi scandal.
However, with my ever optimistic viewpoint, I choose the former reason for this endorsement and welcome Gigi into the land of reality and renewed national pride.
While your Editor, like Andy, does not know why Miss Georges chose to endorse Governor Romney, his last gave me the idea to check into a rabid pro-Hillary Clinton site, Hillary is 44, which was supposed to mean that Mrs Clinton would be our 44th President. The site, started in April of 2007, makes no bones about not liking Republicans. From the site’s About page:
We started this website because we believe Senator Hillary Clinton will be an excellent 44th President of the United States. Senator Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President because she is not only the best candidate running, but she is also the one candidate that will without doubt beat the Republicans and restore sanity to the White House.
For the next year, we will bring you news and commentary of the 2008 race for president. Our focus will be on Senator Clinton and the Democrats. Once Senator Clinton wins the nomination we will turn our focus to the Republican nominee.
Although we feel that Senator Clinton will be the nominee (we thought that way back in March 2006) the race, as always in a democracy, will be an exciting one. We will have lots to say especially with regards to the media and blog coverage of the campaign. We will keep an especially sharp eye on “progressives” or Democrats who repeat Republican talking points to undermine Hillary or any of our candidates.
Hillary Is 44 is certainly one of the most rabidly pro-Clinton sites out there, but this year, they are supporting Mitt Romney:
Our clever title today comes via Foxiladi14. We have been busy making phone calls to get behind the scenes information and fortunately our information confirms a lot of the optimistic reports as to a Romney victory on Tuesday.
Our comments section has been superb and we are borrowing from there today. Those who are voting not based on skin color but on content of character there is this stark difference – “uniter, no red states, no blue states” Obama says vote for “revenge” but from Romney: Vote for love of country, not revenge:
I’d point out that the Administrator of Hillary Is 44 absolutely loathes Barack Obama, and I believe that she voted for John McCain in 2008. I doubt that many of Mrs Clinton’s supporters in 2008 voted for Mr McCain, but when I see how President Obama has trashed his Secretary of State, I have to wonder just how many of Mrs Clinton’s more vociferous supporters will, if not vote for Mr Romney, just stay home?
Allahpundit found something humorour on the “revenge” comment:
POSTED AT 2:31 PM ON NOVEMBER 3, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Obama says something about revenge, Romney hammers him on it, ergo it’s Romney who’s made revenge his message. Of all the golden Orwellian moments Team O has given us this year, this one will be hard to beat:
The Romney campaign’s message today is revenge, ours is the President’s plan for the middle class.I’ll take that contrast any day.
— Jim Messina (@Messina2012) November 3, 2012
Uhhh, it was President Obama who said that voting was the best revenge, not Governor Romney. But, in the Newspeak world of Barack Obama, where all opposition is criminal, and raaaaacist to boot, why of course it’s Mr Romney focused on revenge!
William Teach wrote:
November 3, 2012 – 3:33 pm
After the historic beatdown the GOP laid on the Nancy Pelosi led House, she was predicting that the Democrats would retake the House. Not going to happen by a long shot
(Washington Post) The Fix now projects that the 2012 race for the House is likely to be close to a draw, and there is even a fair chance that Republicans will add to their biggest majority in six decades on Tuesday.
In fact, right now, The Fix projects that Republicans have 228 seats either solidly in their favor or leaning toward them, while Democrats have 184. Another 23 seats are tossups.
If Republicans can win 14 of those 23 tossup races, they would keep their majority exactly as it is. If they win more than that, they would actually gain seats.
Part of this is due to redistricting. Hey, elections have consequences. In my area, the 13th district had been in the hands of Dems and Brad Miller for a long time, but it is sure to go GOP, per the article.
I’d point out here that even if the Democrats win every toss-up race, as long as the Republicans win their solid and leaning seats, they’ll retain the majority.
Absotively, posilutely right!
Jim Lynch of bRight & Early has mostly given up blogging, but he did have one post up on Hallowe’en:
Sure, it’s only anecdotal evidence, but here in the part of central Florida that I call home I have noticed a big shift in one election indicator that is very much different from 2008 – yard signs.
In the areas I travel I have noticed a huge gap in the number of yard signs. In 2008 there were much fewer yard signs for either candidate and they were distributed fairly evenly between Obama and McCain. That’s not the case this year. In the weeks since the conventions I’ve noticed a huge imbalance, so big that it was noticeable. I have seen dozens and dozens of Romney/Ryan signs but I have only seen two Obama yard signs. Two — total.
Does it mean anything? I don’t know. Is it scientific? About as scientific as the poll I’m about to ask you to participate in (that would be “No” for those of you who missed it). Over in the right side bar is a poll asking what anecdotal evidence you’ve seen in your area.
Regardless, we have less than a week before election day. Get out there and vote.
Anecdotally, I have seen a lot more Romney signs around here than there were McCain signs in 2008. Barack Hussein Obama carried Carbon County in 2008 by a relatively small margin, 13,464 to 12,957, and for such a small county, we had a lot of third party votes, 629. John McCain carried 10 out of Pennsylvania’s then 19 congressional districts; had Pennsylvania been using the Maine/Nebraska method, Mr Obama would have won 11 electoral votes to 10 for Mr McCain in 2008. The state legislature considered changing Pennsylvania to the Maine/Nebraska system for 2012 and the future — something Wagonwheel said was a more democratic system, and with which I agree — but failed to do so.1
And last, from Hube:
Despite a 0.1% rise in the national unemployment figures today, here’s how the Boston Herald reports the news:
The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent in October as the nation added 171,000 jobs.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics report also revised the number of jobs created in September to add another 34,000, increasing the number to 148,000. The August jobs number was revised upward to show 192,000 jobs created.
The October employment report solidified the picture of the U.S. job market that’s emerged this year: Companies are hiring steadily, but cautiously. And unemployment remains high.
“It seems to me if the folks who are working for Gov. Romney were hoping the story this weekend would be the deteriorating U.S. economy and the declining jobs situation, then they’ve got to be disappointed this morning about that,” said Michael Goodman, public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. “I don’t think anybody looks at the employment situation in the United States and says, ‘we’re out of the woods,’ but certainly this data and the data over the last couple of years suggests we’ve been slowly and steadily moving in the right direction. … We’re adding jobs; people are returning to the work force. This is a stronger report than I expected. It’s very encouraging.”
Yeah, Mitt Romney is gonna be “disappointed” by today’s report because after last month’s unemployment figures dropped to under 8.0% for the first time in Boss Obama’s term … now have gone up again?? YEESH. And the number rising again is “stronger than expected” and “very encouraging”??
They are “very encouraging” to the Obaministae because the “big number” is below 8.0. But the economy is still in the toilet, and Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t have any flaming idea what to do about it.
- In 2000, George Bush carried 228 congressional districts, and carried 30 states. If every state had used the Maine/Nebraska system, Mr Bush would have won the election 288 to 250, and we’d never have gone through the Florida recount mess. In 2004, President Bush carried 255 congressional districts and 31 states, and would have won the election 317 to 221. ↩